Historians, help me with cannon elephants [Archive]

Myrddraal

08-28-2006, 23:11

So, I know for a fact that there are historical sources which say culverins were mounted on elephants. However, I thought they were a glitch in history, soon to be made obsolete by the vulnerability to opposing cannon fire.

Have CA got it right?

I'm by no means a historian, I base my knowledge entirely on wikipedia. Can a real historian help me?

The elephant mahouts, and riders in the elephant carriages carried bows and arrows to attack on coming cavalry and infantry and also carried long spears for close quarters combat. The archery evolved into more advanced weapons, and several Khmer and Indian kings have utilized giant crossbow platforms (similar to the Ballista) to fire long armor piercing shafts to kill other enemy War Elephants and chariots/cavalry. The late 1500s also saw the use of culverin on elephants, but the onset of gunpowder made the large and relatively slow war elephants obsolete.

kambiz

08-28-2006, 23:52

There were mounted cannons on Camels ,Especially during "Safavid" reign and after that which called "Zanborak".But I haven't heard anything about "cannon elephants"~:confused: .Sounds interesting.

-Kambiz

TB666

08-29-2006, 00:04

So, I know for a fact that there are historical sources which say culverins were mounted on elephants. However, I thought they were a glitch in history, soon to be made obsolete by the vulnerability to opposing cannon fire.

Well your source seems to agree with you.
It was a attempt to make elephants useful in battle even tho their time was up.
It was like cavalry units in WWI and II.

So did this unit exist, yes it did so I guess CA did get it right.

sharrukin

08-29-2006, 06:40

They got Flaming Pigs right as well! They are mentioned once in use against Pyrrhus.

What about Blind Royal Knights?
It happened!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_I,_Count_of_Luxemburg

Ringeck

08-29-2006, 08:31

Let me spell out a word:

R.E.P.R.E.S.E.N.T.A.T.I.V.I.T.Y.

In 2052, with the release of Iraq:Total War, Creative Assemblys Bob Xziropoplof-Chiang-Smith proudly intones:
"We'll have all kinds of units! From U.S. Marine Mechanized Infantrymen to the more exotic and exciting ones - like U.S. Presidents intoning "Mission completed" to temporarily raise U.S. Morale, and Comical Alis, who can dispel american units for the Iraqis! Also, we've got some great buildings - the Americans can build Abu Graibs, a building that produces the well-documented National Guard Female Dominatrix Torturer!"

;-)

Mikhal

08-29-2006, 09:19

I have actually got a memory reading about culverin elephants in some war history books though i really don't remember much of it.

It wouldn't surprise me as there were a lot of wierd experimental weapons during the medieval period and it would sound pretty reasonable that those asian warlords that have been relieng on thier huge elephants forces for a long time would try to modernize them.

In 2052, with the release of Iraq:Total War, Creative Assemblys Bob Xziropoplof-Chiang-Smith proudly intones:
"We'll have all kinds of units! From U.S. Marine Mechanized Infantrymen to the more exotic and exciting ones - like U.S. Presidents intoning "Mission completed" to temporarily raise U.S. Morale, and Comical Alis, who can dispel american units for the Iraqis! Also, we've got some great buildings - the Americans can build Abu Graibs, a building that produces the well-documented National Guard Female Dominatrix Torturer!"

so how many presidents would there be in one president card? and do you mean Mr. Chemical Ali?

Ringeck

08-29-2006, 09:37

Again, R.E.P.R.E.S.E.N.T.A.T.I.V.I.T.Y.

so how many presidents would there be in one president card? and do you mean Mr. Chemical Ali?

I don't know? Like the Woodstock: Total War: Shaggy-Haired Hippy Invasion Priest Units, perhaps? 10-15 or so? The sources only speak of one President holding speeches, but it could easily have been more, right? Right? And I don't know much about chemical Ali, but Wikipedia 2050 (A property of the CocaPepsi Craft Foods Corporation) says the following about Comical Alis:
Due to the lack of good digital preservation techniques after it turned out silicon was less heat-resistant than expected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony), there is no consensus among historians what number of Comical Alis the Iraqi government had at its disposal. The number of surviving newspaper clippings seem to imply, though, that at least five seperate Comical Alis were deployed in the defense of Iraq, causing, by methods unknown, a number of U.S. armoured colummns to disappear during the final push on Baghdad. Source: The sources on the first Iraq war: source problems caused by the Digital Disk Crash of 2022, Dr. Hung Petravoplask Pettersen, Buryat National Knowiversity, PanArctic Coalition Press; ISBN 3, 2049 :laugh4:

TB666

08-29-2006, 09:48

They got Flaming Pigs right as well! They are mentioned once in use against Pyrrhus.

What about Blind Royal Knights?
It happened!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_I,_Count_of_Luxemburg
Except with the elephant cannon it sounds like it was used more then once and from the dicussions at the .com it got the same result, did exist and was once quite a few times.

R.E.P.R.E.S.E.N.T.A.T.I.V.I.T.Y.
CA disagrees.
In the "making of Total war" he(couldn't remember who it was) said that they love finding odd things in history and add it into the game.

Ringeck

08-29-2006, 09:59

CA disagrees..

Whatever CA might be (and I am not a CA-basher) they are not very proficient historians.

In the "making of Total war" he(couldn't remember who it was) said that they love finding odd things in history and add it into the game.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. That's pretty much an admission that they don't want to represent history, they want to represent ye goode olde Hollywood history. That's OK. That's also why I'll be buying my M2TW cheap from china (legit) after all that crap has been modded out of the game, as I did with RTW.

Except with the elephant cannon it sounds like it was used more then once and from the dicussions at the .com it got the same result, did exist and was once quite a few times.

They scrugded up the very few sources indicating its use (most of them well outside the M2:TW time period, but who cares) and used this to legitimize the decicion, along with a lot of whining about "it should be like that". It still means there's going to be scores of Warhammer Fantasy Battle - style units in M2TW. That's also OK, if that's the kind of game they want to make. See above.

caravel

08-29-2006, 10:07

Fantasy units. Just because someone at some stage stuck a cannon on an elephant for the hell of it, CA seems to think we need entire units full of them. Examples being wardogs, flaming pigs, screeching women, and those funny druid blokes. ~:rolleyes:

The Blind King of Bohemia

08-29-2006, 12:16

Tamur

08-29-2006, 14:50

I think the issue is that one can train hundreds of these things if one wishes, while a more historical view would limit this to perhaps fifty elephants total over this timeline.

Perhaps the recruitment pools and strict regional restraints will take care of this?

Saying of which, how does one implement an elephant recruitment pool? ~:)

danfda

08-29-2006, 14:54

the well-documented National Guard Female Dominatrix Torturer!"

Hmm, where can I get one of these...?

professorspatula

08-29-2006, 15:34

so how many presidents would there be in one president card? and do you mean Mr. Chemical Ali?

No, he means Comical Ali like he said, or Baghdad Bob as the Americans know him as. The information minister provided the comedy for the war with his fictious accounts of the unfolding events of the war, which always seemed to favour the Iraqis, despite the fact everything around him was crashing down and Saddam's fall was inevitable. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comical_ali

Recent reports from his spokespeople claiming he is being paid in gold bullion to appear in Panto in the United Kingdom this Christmas have so far been denied by British sources.

drone

08-29-2006, 15:55

Just because some bright spark in history tried some flaming pigs or cannons on elephants doesn't mean a faction should be able to spam them. If they absolutely need to have them in the game, they should make these units mercs, or only buildable with special ancillaries. Making them common to the battlefield reduces their special appeal.

TB666

08-29-2006, 16:20

Well with the new recruitment system you can prevent them getting spammed and make them rare.

Silver Rusher

08-29-2006, 16:31

Well your source seems to agree with you.
It was a attempt to make elephants useful in battle even tho their time was up.
It was like cavalry units in WWI and II.

So did this unit exist, yes it did so I guess CA did get it right.
Not really. The game ends a long time before they came into use. Not only that, but they were used in India, which isn't on the M2TW map. It would be like saying they got Chinese Firelancers right because they existed if they put them in BI.

Orda Khan

08-29-2006, 16:33

Drone has a point, if we must have them at all...ie mercenaries. Unfortunately without modding this rubbish out of the game, are we going to find the same as RTW? Every time I met a Germanic army its numbers were dominated by stupid screeching women. Needless to say that ended my first and only vanilla RTW campaign. Why on earth does CA think they have to dig out this sort of thing to appeal. Are ordinary units really that bad that?

........Orda

TB666

08-29-2006, 16:35

Not really. The game ends a long time before they came into use. Not only that, but they were used in India, which isn't on the M2TW map. It would be like saying they got Chinese Firelancers right because they existed if they put them in BI.
Well Myrddral's source says late 1500's which is within the game and BKB pointed out that Tamerlane used a similar unit and he is in the game as well.

Silver Rusher

08-29-2006, 17:02

Well Myrddral's source says late 1500's which is within the game and BKB pointed out that Tamerlane used a similar unit and he is in the game as well.
Fair call about Tamerlane (the ones we saw were Ottomans mind you) but the game only goes up to 1533, and I wouldn't call that late 1500s.

TB666

08-29-2006, 17:06

Fair call about Tamerlane (the ones we saw were Ottomans mind you) but the game only goes up to 1533, and I wouldn't call that late 1500s.
Except isn't it according to international view actually the late 1400 century ??
(I'm swedish and our system is much better)

Silver Rusher

08-29-2006, 17:08

That would be 15th century, not 1500s.

TB666

08-29-2006, 17:12

That would be 15th century, not 1500s.
Ah, your system is confusing sometimes :oops:
Still if Tamerlane used a primitive sort then that would still put this unit within the timeframe.
Of course why the turks have them is beyond me but I guess CA thought they should have them.

Silver Rusher

08-29-2006, 17:19

Well it's as others have said. Generals often come up with ideas for defeating the enemy which work at the time, such as flaming pigs for example, but allowing players to train entire armies of them is just peculiar. Maybe if you have a war elephant unit and a culverin unit you could possibly combine them on the battlefield when deploying. That would be a reasonable compromise.

Furious Mental

08-29-2006, 17:37

There might be a silver lining to it in so far as to at least make the behaviour of these reasonable they would have to be facing the enemy in order to fire. The possibility to give a unit such an attribute would be good for modders who want to include gun toting horsemen in later periods.

SpencerH

08-29-2006, 18:10

It is a complete fantasy to believe that cannons were successfully fired from elephants or camels (someones got to be kidding here about camels especially). An asian elephant could carry a small culverin to battle (based on 10,000lb elephant weight and carrying capacity of 25%), a very large camel (load capacity amounts to 200 to 240 kg (http://www.fao.org/docrep/x1700t/x1700t05.htm could maybe carry two robinets (it has to be two to balance the load) (weights of english cannon in the 1600's http://www.portsdown.demon.co.uk/ord.htm), sure but stand still while it was fired? Pull the other one!

SaberHRE

08-29-2006, 18:15

This is nothing new. :book:

CA has a tendency to paying special attention to "exotic" units. But i guess its not THAT bad. You can always mod it(a perhaps change the elephant into a moving Hussite wagon!:dizzy2: :idea2: :laugh4:)

mfberg

08-29-2006, 18:37

It is a complete fantasy to believe that cannons were successfully fired from elephants or camels (someones got to be kidding here about camels especially).

The size of the cannon is not the size you are thinking. A small cannon like swivel gun, one quarter to one pound shot size would be light enough to mount on the back of an elephant with no problems.

Check this photo out. http://www.camelphotos.com/pic/army_camels5.jpg

70 KB Camel Gun Mounted on Saddle. The earliest type was the 'hand gonne' developed in the fifteenth century, but was not a great influence in battle. It was a small cannon with a touch-hole for ignition and had an effective range of only about thirty to fourty yards.

Of course the important line is - not of great influence in battle - imagine the difficulty of loading a small gun on the back of a camel, then add the confusion of combat to that. Just because a unit was made does not mean it was effective.

mfberg

SpencerH

08-29-2006, 18:54

Great photo!

Well that's proof that people are stupid enough to try anything (although I wouldnt call it a cannon). I'd love to have seen what the camel did when it was fired. I'm having visions of Yosemite Sam trying to get his camel to whoa! in the Bugs Bunny cartoon.

At least with an elephant it's possible to envision a very small gun turned sideways or maybe backwards away from the face and ears before firing. I cant imagine what an elephant would do in response to the smoke, blast, and flames from the muzzle of even a small black powder cannon.

Furious Mental

08-29-2006, 19:05

This sort of light cannon carrying cavalry was a regular feature of Central and South Asian armies for centuries, and that would tend to suggest that in that particular locale they were not simply a useless novelty. So personally I actually wouldn't say this evidences that "people are stupid enough to try anything".

SpencerH

08-29-2006, 19:29

Whether something is used or not for centuries is not evidence of the intelligence of those using it. What is mounted on that camel is a gun ie a muzzle loading firearm but by no definition could it be considered "a cannon" unless one would consider a large caliber rifle such as the Sharps model 1874 "a cannon".

tutankamon

08-29-2006, 20:01

Que??

Afro Thunder

08-30-2006, 04:09

Am I the only one here who is getting somewhat annoyed at how whenever we get new screens or other news, someone has to say some smart-mouth comment on how CA will include completely outrageous units? *Glares at the guy who made the Iraq: Total War comment*

NeoSpartan

08-30-2006, 06:02

All the more reason for me to wait for Medieval 2 Barbarorum or Medieval 2 Total Realism.:2thumbsup:

Ringeck

08-30-2006, 07:30

Well, considering that elephant bombards and turkish monster siege gun (s) have been touted, and lamented, since we heard of them half a year ago, It's hardly new, is it? The point of the Iraq:Total War joke is the following:
While something might be mentioned a few times in the sources this doesn't mean it was common, and including it as a rank-and-file unit is therefore rather silly
...some people need all the explanation. I thought the Wikipedia 2050 link should have done the trick.

All the more reason for me to wait for Medieval 2 Barbarorum or Medieval 2 Total Realism.:2thumbsup:

Amen, brother!

Myrddraal

08-30-2006, 09:41

Still, I am less dissapointed than I would be have been had there been no historical references. At least CA aren't making it up as they go along.

From the latest podcast the dev mentioned the cannon, and the fact that there was only one in history. Hopefully that means it will be extreemely rare (if not unique)

Callatian

08-30-2006, 10:16

As I was discussing MTW2 with the SEGA guy I asked if I can't play all factions but he said its impossible... I told him that it takes me 1 min to change the file but I could not convince him :(

The point is that the big cannon was taken from skimrish ...

PS. Btw he was surpriesd as well to see the elephants ... but thats because the big guys were in the bussnis center and the small ones on the floor. I knew more about the game than they did ;)

Duke John

08-30-2006, 10:42

Wonderfull photo! :medievalcheers:

What is mounted on that camel is a gun ie a muzzle loading firearm but by no definition could it be considered "a cannon" unless one would consider a large caliber rifle such as the Sharps model 1874 "a cannon".
Definitions change. I read somewhere that in the middle ages artillery included all missile weapons (handgunners, cannons, archers, crossbowmen, etc.). I believe that handguns were also called cannons. So when a medieval description says something about cannon being mounted on elephants or camels then it doesn't say anything about the size or callibre.

Ringeck

08-30-2006, 11:07

Definitions is not something that fits well in the ancient and medieval (and early modern) period - a lot of the things we call older equipment is the creation of historians rather than what people actually called it.

Husar

08-30-2006, 12:21

Well, in my opinion, the Total War series is about playing history the way you want, that's why it is a game and not a movie. The rest is up to how well the recruitment pools and the recruiting AI work. Maybe those units will indeed be very rare, we don't know, noone of us has played a full campaign, right?
The game simply leaves you a lot of freedom, so you can go and fight your enemies with a usual medieval army or play the crazed commander who went nuts and swarms the enemy with screeching women. One could also say if the ratio of normal units:"fantasy units" was kept from RTW, we can now expect a whole lot of nice units which we never saw on screens. The screenshots are mostly to get new players to the series I'd guess while some of the older players will never stop complaining anyway as long as they won't get exactly the same as in MTW it seems.:inquisitive:

SpencerH

08-30-2006, 14:25

Wonderfull photo! :medievalcheers:

Definitions change. I read somewhere that in the middle ages artillery included all missile weapons (handgunners, cannons, archers, crossbowmen, etc.). I believe that handguns were also called cannons. So when a medieval description says something about cannon being mounted on elephants or camels then it doesn't say anything about the size or callibre.

I agree that definitions change but the thread topic is "cannon elephants". If we are to discuss the level of reality/fantasy of such a unit and it's implications for MTW2 we have to define it first. Clearly, camels were equipped with (what appears to be) something like a .5 cal gun. We can guess that an elephant might have been equipped with a 1" swivel gun but the use of "cannon" in the context of this thread is deceptive.

Myrddraal

08-30-2006, 15:22

So when a medieval description says something about cannon being mounted on elephants or camels then it doesn't say anything about the size or callibre.

The historical sources I've seen (wikipedia :wink:) make a definite reference to 'culverin', which is cannon as we see them, not handguns.

mfberg

08-30-2006, 17:38

culverin n. An early, crudely made musket. A long heavy cannon used in the 16th and 17th centuries. (Answer.com reference)

Culverin were usually the smaller caliber, longer bore cannon. If the unit description says they were firing 8 lb. shot then we can pretty safely label them fantasy, if they fire 1/4 lb. shot (the size for a swivel gun) then it may be appropriate. I want to see the elephants carrying these start out normal, but have to make fright/amok checks every time it fires.

mfberg

The Wizard

08-30-2006, 18:18

Tamerlane did use early cannon mounted on elephants, probably for a higher trajectory with the elephant being stationary, certainly not moving anyway. Tamerlane also used launchers to release greek fire from elephants and that occured on several occasions. This would probably be alot better historical accurate wise

True -- but again: representativity. Just because old Timur experimented wildly with things that would never be anywhere near as effective as an army of horse archers and heavy horse, should people be able to run around with hordes of horrendously overpowered cannon elephants -- or war dogs?

Furious Mental

08-30-2006, 19:08

I suspect that once artillery becomes widespread the effectiveness of elephants will plummet, so they may not be of much consequence.

TB666

08-30-2006, 19:39

horrendously overpowered cannon elephants
Except they aren't overpowered(that we know of atleast).
Burebista said they weren't very accurate and I can imagine them having a high chance of going amok and by the looks of the artillery you can only fire from the front and maybe even explosion.
And not to mention that the range will probably not be long either so you can blow them away with your bigger cannons before they get in range.

The Blind King of Bohemia

08-30-2006, 20:05

True -- but again: representativity. Just because old Timur experimented wildly with things that would never be anywhere near as effective as an army of horse archers and heavy horse, should people be able to run around with hordes of horrendously overpowered cannon elephants -- or war dogs?

I'm only saying what i know. That Timurlane used artillery and naptha launchers mounted on elephants during siege warfare. I don't think they will be an uber missle unit, at least i hope not, just handy in siege warfare and they should not be moving whilst firing. Maybe if it is smaller artillery pieces not heavy cannon that would be alright i suppose.

I wouldn't want Timurlane running around with dogs either but also not cavalry dominated armies as a good portion of his forces were mercenaries and did fight as infantry.

SpencerH

08-30-2006, 20:54

I'm only saying what i know. That Timurlane used artillery and naptha launchers mounted on elephants during siege warfare.

Do you have a reference for this?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-31-2006, 00:25

You know I'm fairly sick of all this. A cannon mounted on an elephant isn't going to be that useful anyway, nor will rockets. Any kind of slow artillery in a battle is usually toast fairly early on.

As to wardogs, great for breaking shieldwalls. Look at some of the modern german and celtic breeds and tell me those aren't really warhounds. That said the dogs are never more than a niussese to a good general. So they are in-effective anyway. The pigs are the same, they only really cause havoc with elephants.

None of these units have a truely earth shattering effect on gameplay. You try them, see how ther work and then you use something cheaper and better.

DisruptorX

08-31-2006, 00:33

That said the dogs are never more than a niussese to a good general. .

Actually, I've found it very hard to counter them, aside from trying to lead them into my heavy units, because you cannot target the dogs! You can only target their handlers, so units that are in combat with the dogs often "don't know it", and only individuals will fight back.

The Wizard

08-31-2006, 00:47

Which is horrendously unrealistic. Ever seen a drilled and experienced cohort being decimated by a horde of mutts?

I can only hope that CA makes this what it's supposed to be: an elephant carrying a platform upon which is mounted a "cannon" which by today's standards would be a large carbine. I do not want to see what comes first to my mind: an elephant with two siege cannons strapped to his sides. Neither do I want to see something akin to RTW's war dogs as to the balancing of this unit.

phred

08-31-2006, 00:52

Do you have a reference for this?

This is from "Osman's Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire" by Caroline Finkel

"Schiltberger wrote that Tamerlane had thirty-two trained elephants from the backs of which he is reported to have launched the legendary liquid incendiary agent known as 'Greek fire' at the Ottoman army"

The Schiltberger reference is

Johannes Schiltberger. "The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, a Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427."

The battle in question is the Battle of Ankara July 20, 1402.
It's not proof positive but at least its a contemporary reference.

Furious Mental

08-31-2006, 11:42

Elephants were definitely used as platforms from which vessels of naptha were launched. I know this because I have seen very clear contemporary depictions of it.

Afro Thunder

08-31-2006, 13:19

Which is horrendously unrealistic. Ever seen a drilled and experienced cohort being decimated by a horde of mutts?

To be honest, no I haven't seen a legionary cohort get destroyed by war dogs. It's usually the other way around. I just tell them to hold still when they get attacked and eventually they kill all the dogs on their own.

econ21

08-31-2006, 16:09

Dogs do butcher warbands though. I quickly gave up using them as Romans because they were so hideously effective (it's the way they respawn after the battle that is the real kicker).

Personally, they are a number 1 target for my archers if the AI deploys them. They have few handlers and low morale. If that fails, I find they don't like heavy cavalry but then in RTW that's a counter to almost everything.

lars573

08-31-2006, 16:13

You all seem to be over looking one important fact. The cannon elephants (and more than likely elephant units period) will be available to the Timurids, and not very likely anyone else. Save as mercs.

edyzmedieval

08-31-2006, 16:31

Ok, so we know that something very similar to it happened.

But from where could they get Elephant Rocketeers and other crackajack?

SpencerH

09-01-2006, 14:31

This is from "Osman's Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire" by Caroline Finkel

"Schiltberger wrote that Tamerlane had thirty-two trained elephants from the backs of which he is reported to have launched the legendary liquid incendiary agent known as 'Greek fire' at the Ottoman army"

The Schiltberger reference is

Johannes Schiltberger. "The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, a Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427."

The battle in question is the Battle of Ankara July 20, 1402.
It's not proof positive but at least its a contemporary reference.

Thanks for the reference, it sent me on a search for more info.

Unfortunately, the text of Schiltberger's book does not appear to be available online. So I have to accept the comment by Finkel "as is".

The next best reference, and the only one online from Project Gutenberg (etext) and other sites (scanned), is Gibbons "The History of the Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire". Gibbon's main source is Timurs secretary (Sherefeddin) but there are only a 5 references to elephants by Gibbon.

"and the elephants, destroyers of men!"

"and one hundred and twenty elephants, whose tusks are said to have been armed with sharp and poisoned daggers. Against these monsters, or rather against the imagination of his troops, he condescended to use some extraordinary precautions of fire and a ditch, of iron spikes and a rampart of bucklers; but the event taught the Moguls to smile at their own fears; and as soon as these unwieldy animals were routed, the inferior species (the men of India) disappeared from the field."

"why wilt thou seek to provoke the elephants? Alas! they will trample thee under their feet." In this case the "elephant" refers to the Ottomans not to actual the animals per se.

"Timour's front was covered with a line of Indian elephants, whose turrets were filled with archers and Greek fire:"

"The conqueror of Hindostan ostentatiously showed a line of elephants, the trophies, rather than the instruments, of victory; the use of the Greek fire was familiar to the Moguls and Ottomans; but had they borrowed from Europe the recent invention of gunpowder and cannon, the artificial thunder, in the hands of either nation, must have turned the fortune of the day. [43]

[Footnote 43: The Greek fire, on Timour's side, is attested by Sherefeddin, (l. v. c. 47;) but Voltaire's strange suspicion, that some cannon, inscribed with strange characters, must have been sent by that monarch to Delhi, is refuted by the universal silence of contemporaries.]"

So there’s not much to go on. Clearly, the Timurids used greek fire in conjunction with elephants since that is attested to by two contemporary sources. How it was used is unclear though. Small catapults (ballistae) are plausible IMO but it may also have been thrown by hand once the elephants were engaged with the enemy (after all an elephant that is half-crazed while fighting isnt gonna get too much crazier seeing fireballs exploding nearby).

There is no reference to cannon of any sort mounted on elephants. Indeed, from the last comment and footnote (which refers to the battle of Ankara and what appears to be an absence of cannon on either side), I think there is some question whether the Timurids had or used such weapons at all.

"Cannon" may have been mounted on elephants at a later date (after all we have the camel example) but they would have been useless. If CA were looking for a spectacular unit then "greek-fire elephants" would have been a better choice.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-01-2006, 16:41

Myrddraal

09-01-2006, 16:56

Really interesting research SpencerH, thanks :thumbsup:

The Blind Samurai

09-02-2006, 18:33

Watchman

09-02-2006, 22:47

Well, there's a pretty solid reason why an actual artillery piece (as in a real cannon and not an overgrown arquebus or swivel-gun) would never work on the back of an elephant, or any other beast of burden, even if you could train the animal to not go bonkers at the infernal noise.

Recoil.

Seriously. Those things had *no* compensation save for the weight of the gun and its frame. None. El zippo nada. Obviously you're going to hit the weight limit of how large a piece even an elephant can carry in the first place, nevermind now the ammo and gunpowder for the damn thing, and even large heavy guns on massive frames kicked like a dozen cast-iron mules and tended to move noticeably from their original position as a result. You fire a real cannon atop an elephant, and a fairly immediate result will be the heffalump suddenly being relieved of a considerable burden when the gun, its carriage and most likely large parts of the fighting-platform or -tower as well as several hapless cannoneers crash on the ground near its tail...

Muskets on elephant-back worked, though. The Timurids were eventually chased out of Central Asia by the Uzbeks and carved themselves an empire in northern India under the name Moghuls (a name pretty obviously derived from "Mongol" - recall that old Timur had claimed, AFAIK not wholly unjustly, dynastic descent from Genghis himself), and at some point some clever fellow put an armoured arquebusieur onto the fighting-platform apparently with fairly satisficatory results. I wouldn't put it past someone to have tried light swivel-guns or very large arquebuses akin to the big nonportable lugs Europeans sometimes employed in siege defenses up there too, but that may not have worked as well. I can't claim to know too well how those war elephant howdahs were built, but the railings probably weren't quite the sturdiest recoil-absorbers around.

The Blind Samurai

09-02-2006, 23:25

ohh well thanks for the history lesson

The Wizard

09-03-2006, 01:21

Nice work, SpencerH.

However, I think you might have made a mistake.

So there’s not much to go on. Clearly, the Timurids used greek fire in conjunction with elephants since that is attested to by two contemporary sources. How it was used is unclear though. Small catapults (ballistae) are plausible IMO but it may also have been thrown by hand once the elephants were engaged with the enemy (after all an elephant that is half-crazed while fighting isnt gonna get too much crazier seeing fireballs exploding nearby).

That may all be fine and swell -- but in the text, Gibbon seems to be continually referring to the elephants of the Indian Muslims arrayed against Timur, not to any elephants Timur might have been using himself. The tale of the knives on the tusks, plus the mounted turrets with arrows and naphta, I have heard before. Both seem to have been fairly normal practice in Indian military circles.

But cannonry? Gibbon mentions it nowhere. Apparently its mentioned as an experiment in Central Asia (what, after all, are elephants doing on the wide open steppes?). Otherwise I don't see all that much support for the idea. An oddity, indeed, now elevated to regular army unit. :no:

SpencerH

09-03-2006, 16:19

Nice work, SpencerH.

However, I think you might have made a mistake.

That may all be fine and swell -- but in the text, Gibbon seems to be continually referring to the elephants of the Indian Muslims arrayed against Timur, not to any elephants Timur might have been using himself. The tale of the knives on the tusks, plus the mounted turrets with arrows and naphta, I have heard before. Both seem to have been fairly normal practice in Indian military circles.

"and one hundred and twenty elephants, whose tusks are said to have been armed with sharp and poisoned daggers."

This quote is refering to the seige of Delhi. The 120 elephants in this case belong to the "Mahometan kings".

"Against these monsters, or rather against the imagination of his troops, he condescended to use some extraordinary precautions of fire and a ditch, of iron spikes and a rampart of bucklers; but the event taught the Moguls to smile at their own fears; and as soon as these unwieldy animals were routed, the inferior species (the men of India) disappeared from the field."

"He" in this case is Timur and it mentions the defenses used by the Timurids against those elephants. What may be confusing, is Gibbon's constant use of "Moguls" to describe the Timurids. Gibbon clearly accepts that the Timurids were cultural and physical descendents from the Moguls (a bastardization from Mongols) since he consistently refers to them in this fashion. "Moguls" in this case does not refer to the Islamic Mogul-Mughal empire of India which existed in Gibbon's lifetime but it's interesting to speculate that he used the term to describe the Timurids believing there was a link.

"Timour's front was covered with a line of Indian elephants, whose turrets were filled with archers and Greek fire"

This refers top the battle of Aleppo and it could be read to mean the the Syrians used elephants to face the Timurid front line. I think that's would be a misinterpretation. Timur has returned from his conquest of India where we know he faced elephants. It would seem likely to me that he has now incorporated elephants into his highly mobile (mostly) horse army.

"The Mogul army moved in three great divisions; and Timour observes with pleasure, that the ninety-two squadrons of a thousand horse most fortunately corresponded with the ninety-two names or epithets of the prophet Mahomet." - a description of the Timurid army from the seige of Delhi.

The remainder of the quote "Timour's front was covered with a line of Indian elephants, whose turrets were filled with archers and Greek fire: the rapid evolutions of his cavalry completed the dismay and disorder; "

suggests that Timur used the elephants to pin the Syrian center then used his cavalry from the flanks - pretty standard tactics.

The alternative is that the Syrian's have elephants but Timur doesnt which I find unlikely.

The final quote is clear when one realizes that Gibbon's use of "Moguls" refers to the Timurids, both the Ottomans and Timurids used 'greek fire'. Gibbon's footnote to the text is also clear.

But cannonry? Gibbon mentions it nowhere. Apparently its mentioned as an experiment in Central Asia (what, after all, are elephants doing on the wide open steppes?). Otherwise I don't see all that much support for the idea. An oddity, indeed, now elevated to regular army unit. :no:

I agree that elephant cannon were at best an oddity but we cant ignore the photo of the camel cannoneer. Any people mad enough to put a cannon (small gun) on a camel may have tried a larger gun on an elephant.

Geoffrey S

09-03-2006, 16:42

Ideally, historically extremely rare novelty units such as these cannon elephants should only be a reward for completing missions; something fun to try out, but certainly not a regular army unit. It'd be nice for this to be an option for all factions, with certain extremely rare units that were historical oddities being awarded for completing nobles missions.

Ringeck

09-05-2006, 08:13

cannon_fodder

09-06-2006, 05:50

^ Yeah, that is a really good idea.

alexrugr

09-06-2006, 10:05

Hello all members!this is my first post,sorry for writing mistakes.I can't wait when I get my hands on Mtw2.!Now lets get to the point.Lets see it from an elephant point of view:laugh4: Unlike horses/camels elephants are quite hard to train.Compared to them they have poor vision and most important unexpected chenge in behavior,they are harder to control then a horse/camel tons of body weight! Training starts shrtly after birth and continues for quite a long time(I am reffering to modern turist attraction elephants).Now imagine how hard it was to train this beasts for war purpose!In Carphage their handlers were a highly payed elite.And this was before gun powder was invented(romans used pigs with great sucsess).Modern times turist guides in India worn turists not to approach an elephants out of their line of site and surprise them with loud noise.Now imagine 15th century cannon fired from poor beasts back! I don't imagine it standing still after such a surprise.My point is that with appearence of gun powder elephants became absolete as tool of war just becouse one volley from muskets from enemy can turn them around and trumple their own troops.As a bonus unit they can be fun anyway with risk for your own troops:skull: :skull:

Myrddraal

09-06-2006, 11:48

Welcome alexrugr! I'm really not sure atm. It seems they did exist, so they can't have been completely useless (as in running away on the first shot), but they clearly became obsolete before they were even thought of.

A. Smith

09-06-2006, 12:37

First post! :D

I've been reading this thread for a while, and i believe we can trust the fact that they did in fact exist. perhaps in small numbers and only as an experiment, as the use of gunpowder by the ennemy made elephants themselves obsolete. Now, the point of the TW series is to re-write history. what if [whatever faction can build them] had gotten gunpowder much earlier then everyone else and fought against traditionnal ennemies, without gunpowder? well, these elephants would probably have been a lot more efficient and maybe they would have been used after the experiment. Thats what might happen in M2TW: if you get them early enough, they are good, but if anyone else has gunpowedr, they become obsolete.

Rex_Pelasgorum

09-06-2006, 13:30

Elephants whith small cannons did exist, and they where used quite alot in the medieval battles of India.Whe cannot denie this. Just read at wikipedia , go and search battles in India, and read some accounts... or better, go and search for war elephant.

The problem in my opinion is not related to whether such units existed or not, but why the Ottoman Army has acces to them ? In the screenshot, they where fighting under the Ottoman banner. And this is tottaly ahistoricall.

Imagine a hypotheticall depiction in the game of the SIege of Constantinopole, in which ottoman culverin elephants break trough the byzantine ranks...

I also saw the map depicted in MTW2, and during those times, as farr as i know in that time, elehants where no more in North Africa or Middle East, so the only possible source for them was India...

I`m not sure whether the Timurid invasion will be depicted in the game, but i guess some Mongol Invasion will happen, maybe like the one from MTW...

SpencerH

09-06-2006, 13:48

IceTorque

09-06-2006, 20:39

alexrugr

09-06-2006, 21:25

Well,I don't deny that experiment of combining elephant with cannon was probably made(fact is lots of weapons were a prodact of experiment example german Wirblewind mobile AA platform),but still elephant+cannon, hmmm...
http://haryana-online.com/History/1st_battle_of_panipat.htm
at least this is what happens if alephants are facing cannons:sweatdrop:

chrisofthedale

09-07-2006, 04:33

A large calibre rifle when fired will leave a loud ringing sensation in the shooters ears. If ones ears are close to the muzzle when a large calibre rifle is fired, it feels like getting hit in the head with a brick, and will damage your hearing permanently, I know, because I am deaf in my right ear from a peanut who fired his SLR 7.62mm too close to my ear, during an army training exercise, and this was only blank ammo.

When I see the large muzzle of those mounted cannons sitting so close to the ele's ears I think what a joke, also did'nt the Romans use loud noises to stampede ele's ? I don't care what source say's this is accurate, I'll bet ele's were only used to transport cannons, and not as a mobile firing platform.

Oh well, whateva. If CA wants to jazz up their game with them, good on em, as it is a simple thing to remove them......... I hope.

I agree that the elephants were most likely used to TRANSPORT these cannons. If I remember correctly, elephants have VERY good hearing which (with cannons firing) would most likely deafen them. I don't see a way that an elephant could ever be prepared for noises that loud, no matter how many years it has been trained. As for camels having small cannons mounted on them, that is actually plausible as animals like horses and camels would be around smaller calibre fire and be able to withstand the amount of noise.

Watchman

09-08-2006, 22:44

I recall reading Peter the Great did some experiments with really small, around swivel-gun -sized artillery pieces, fired from horseback (he was kind of going out on a limb to maximize the firepower of his cavalry to help them deal with their scary sword-toting Swedish colleagues), but I don't think that ever came to much. Camels are probably big enough animals for the concept to be workable, but one has to wonder if any particular advantages over the standard "mounted arquebusieur" are gained - sure, the gun's a tad bigger and therefore presumably has longer range and more punch (although the Jaipurian one in the old photo mfberg linked back in page one has so short a barrel I doubt either is achieved), but conversely camels aren't as fast as horses, have notoriously shitty tempers and far as I can tell at least that sort of "camel gun" setup shown in the photo would be pretty much completely useless for shock action.

Which is saying something, given that even the bottom-of-the-barrel dragoons, horse-archers, mounted crossbowmen and similar mounted skirmisher types could usually make decent light cavalry in a pinch, or at the very least ride down routers.

Now, I don't know how much weight Indian war elephants can actually carry on their backs, but judging by the number of troops most sources describe riding in their fighting-towers (2-3 tops plus the mahout) I suspect even a two-pounder cannon would be a little much for them. A cast-iron two-pounder regimental gun - the smallest that can be considered "artillery" for any practical purposes, as anything less is functionally just a big arquebus - weighs almost half a ton IIRC, plus about the same for a frame able to support its weight and take the recoil (which is noticeable). And that's a pretty sophisticated 1700s European design; most other cultures lagged behind a bit, so unless the piece was designed for stone shot (stone being lighter than equivalent volume of iron less gunpowder was needed as propellant and thus the recoil was similarly reduced) and/or cast from bronze their caliber-to-weight ratios tended to be even worse.

Another issue would be that it would seem to me the mahout's head would kind of sit in the way of the most natural line to have the gun along, namely right over the animal's spine in a "spinal" mount. Indeed, you'd probably have to aim the cannon at least 45 degrees away from the centerline just to avoid doing something horrible to the mahout with the muzzle blast alone, and that'd certainly cause some issues with the recoil being transferred almost perpendicularly against whatever framework is built in the howdah to house it as well as the animal's stablest line of balance. Put this way; if you're going to topple over an elephant, which are you going to try pushing against - its head or butt, or its side ?