ELEPHANTS how they where and should be

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

sorry to say this but I did check and is reliable even becouse partially is from the descriptions of ancient resources , and African Elephant the plain one is begger than the indian one , not so domasticable tough , so the difference could be the unit go more easily on rout....

this is where tells anbout the Ptolemy , the info is correct yours interpretations where wrong here says that the Ptolemys used by far the african elephant referring to the forest....read it better befoure sayng the info isn't correct guys.....

Were does it say "by far"? I've only seen this:

The African elephants were taken from North and East Africa. The Ptolemies of Egypt exploited this group particularly.

East Africa had Forest elephants too, altough not as widespread as the African Plains elephant was in the south. So, why do you think he meant more than being thourough about a specific geographical stock of Forest elephants?

And this one just confirms what I've said before:

The Forest elephant was the African elephant of the ancient world.

Not the African Plains elephant.

But I can even add this (specially the bolded lines):

Since the publication of H. H. Scullard's The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World, his explanation of the ancient belief that the Indian elephant was larger than its African cousin, contrary to their modern counterparts, has been repeated in works within the field of classical studies (Bigwood, AJPH 114, 549; Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art, 35, e.g.) and has even been adopted by a few specialists on elephants (Chadwick, The Fate of the Elephant, 32; Wylie, "Elephants as War Machines," Elephants, Shoshani ed., 147, e.g.). According to Scullard, the ancients were acquainted primarily with the smaller African sub-species, the Forest Elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) and not the larger Bush Elephant (Loxodonta africana africana). This explanation, although ingenious, attempts to resolve the question solely from a Graeco-Roman perspective. The question can also be answered by using ancient Indian sources on the elephant and interpreted from the Indian perspectives which emerge from them.

As Scullard himself recognizes (237), Graeco-Roman knowledge of the elephant came originally from interaction with the civilizations of northwest India. The Mauryan kings who succeeded Alexander in controlling this area had a highly organized system for the maintenance of their herds of elephants. The Arthasva¤stra (2.31-32), a treatise of government probably dating to the Mauryan period, reviews the responsibilities of the king's elephant keeper, under whom worked physicians, trainers, riders, foot-chainers, stall-guards, and other attendants. Reserves were maintained for the elephants, where the animals were allowed to live in a semi-feral state while guards observed their movements and kept careful records (2.2.6-11). These elephants were then captured as needed for military or other purposes. These practices are verified by references in the extant inscriptions of the Mauryan king Asvoka. (See Minor Rock Edict II, I-K and Fifth Pillar Edict, line I.)

As the first elephants to be used in the Mediterranean were obtained from India, it is predictable that Indian methods of organization would be adopted. A position of elephantarch was established by the successors of Alexander in their respective realms (Plutarch, Demetrius 25, e.g.), and the term ÆIndovß was appropriated to refer to elephant drivers in respect to the first Indians who trained the Greek kings' elephants (Polybius 1.40.15, e.g.). The existence of elephant reserves in the African interior, corresponding to those created by the Mauryans in India, might explain the ability of the Carthaginians to assemble an elephant corps so quickly at the end of the Second Punic War (Appian, Libyca 9). Moreover, similar accounts of the capture, diseases, and habitats of elephants are found in the Arthasva¤stra, the Ma¤tan¤ga-Lî¤la¤, the Aristotelian corpus, and later Graeco-Roman treatments of these topics.

So, it seems the Carthaginians used Indian breeding methods. Did they used Indian-Asian stock elephants too?

also why delete flaming pigs if are historically cirrect????

Because:

Altogether the pig seems to have been quite an effective weapon against the elephant, although its use does not appear to have been widespread in the ancient world.

Just like fighting Druids and Screeching Women. Casual, one-time situations, not standard by any means. No justification for including them in armies. They were casual happenings. NOT a Military UNIT by any strech of the imagination...