Elephants: Balanced or not?

[The Persian Cataphract]

I dispute fallen's argument; The main difference between training elephantry and cavalry comes down to how personalized training of a certain animal looks like and the means available to train them for war; There is a difference between leading a horse to lunge at an enemy and to simply trample over them than leading a raged elephant for assault. Now that you have trained Friesian horses (Pleasant animals they are, docile, complying but nonetheless a powerful animal) I must point out that while they share many characteristics with the Nisaean breed of antiquity (The ideal horse for heavy cavalry at the time), they cannot quite be compared to each other; The Akhal-Teke... Forget it, there is a reason why Scythians valued the "Golden Horse", and half the prize was apparent; Those who could train it, earned it. Usually elephants were either fed with fermented wine, figs or dates shortly before battle to enrage them. This is an immense difference.

Elephants are not docile animals, perhaps more apparent in today's stock of the African bush elephant, than their Indian cousins, but usually on well-furnished war-elephants we see them carrying straps or sometimes chains on various places and a central girdle holding a heavy tower of wooden planks while the pîlbân (Mahout) ushers the elephant to charge, like a battering ram. This is a lot to deal with, even for a strong elephant. Obviously more is expected from an elephant than cavalry; The latter is far more comparable to camelry. Why? Well, let us go back to horse-furnish, what is perhaps more important than a good saddle and other means of rider stability? The bridle, or perhaps more specifically the bit. This overlooked aspect in equestrian warfare is tremendously important, and more so thanks to it rather than stirrups did it truly pave way for the plated knights of Medieval ages; As horses got larger the bit had to improve. In this aspect, the Sassanians were paving much of the way in improved horse-furniture. Camels too are "manipulated" by the similar means. I would almost tip for habit rather than pure trust.

Now, there is another fundamental difference in breeding horses and elephants for war; The former would have a relatively small margin of "rejects" if the cavalry instructors were skilled, whereas the latter required an immense toll of elephants; The majority that could not be trained were usually slaughtered for consumption. We may ask ourselves the question why the elephant-driver was usually equipped with a mallet and a spike to kill a "problematic animal", as well as we may ask ourselves how the elephant-driver gave commands to the elephant. We cannot compare apples with oranges, that we are able to train horses so easily today is the result of intensive horse-breeding by our ancestors. The means of training elephants today have also improved; Enough to allow the beasts for different versions of polo, but not to the same degree. Camels, especially dromedaries have grown so dependent on humans that they are unable to live in the wild. The elephant however begs to differ.

[bovi]

Walking at a normal pace an elephant covers about 3 to 6 km/h (2 to 4 mph) but they can reach 40 km/h (24 mph) at full speed.

Just quoting regarding the speed issue. Perhaps Megalos confused mph with km/h, or has information from elsewhere.
Elephant

[Megalos]

Perhaps Megalos confused mph with km/h, or has information from elsewhere.
Elephant

Indeed this is may be true. I can't exactly remember for sure as it was written along time ago, but i'm sure I was checking out wiki for some stats.

I live in britain, which is kind of a mixing pot between metric and imperial measurement systems...sorry for the slip, i'll edit my post.


Mega

[Lysander13]

I dispute fallen's argument; The main difference between training elephantry and cavalry comes down to how personalized training of a certain animal looks like and the means available to train them for war; There is a difference between leading a horse to lunge at an enemy and to simply trample over them than leading a raged elephant for assault. Now that you have trained Friesian horses (Pleasant animals they are, docile, complying but nonetheless a powerful animal) I must point out that while they share many characteristics with the Nisaean breed of antiquity (The ideal horse for heavy cavalry at the time), they cannot quite be compared to each other; The Akhal-Teke... Forget it, there is a reason why Scythians valued the "Golden Horse", and half the prize was apparent; Those who could train it, earned it. Usually elephants were either fed with fermented wine, figs or dates shortly before battle to enrage them. This is an immense difference.

Elephants are not docile animals, perhaps more apparent in today's stock of the African bush elephant, than their Indian cousins, but usually on well-furnished war-elephants we see them carrying straps or sometimes chains on various places and a central girdle holding a heavy tower of wooden planks while the pîlbân (Mahout) ushers the elephant to charge, like a battering ram. This is a lot to deal with, even for a strong elephant. Obviously more is expected from an elephant than cavalry; The latter is far more comparable to camelry. Why? Well, let us go back to horse-furnish, what is perhaps more important than a good saddle and other means of rider stability? The bridle, or perhaps more specifically the bit. This overlooked aspect in equestrian warfare is tremendously important, and more so thanks to it rather than stirrups did it truly pave way for the plated knights of Medieval ages; As horses got larger the bit had to improve. In this aspect, the Sassanians were paving much of the way in improved horse-furniture. Camels too are "manipulated" by the similar means. I would almost tip for habit rather than pure trust.

Now, there is another fundamental difference in breeding horses and elephants for war; The former would have a relatively small margin of "rejects" if the cavalry instructors were skilled, whereas the latter required an immense toll of elephants; The majority that could not be trained were usually slaughtered for consumption. We may ask ourselves the question why the elephant-driver was usually equipped with a mallet and a spike to kill a "problematic animal", as well as we may ask ourselves how the elephant-driver gave commands to the elephant. We cannot compare apples with oranges, that we are able to train horses so easily today is the result of intensive horse-breeding by our ancestors. The means of training elephants today have also improved; Enough to allow the beasts for different versions of polo, but not to the same degree. Camels, especially dromedaries have grown so dependent on humans that they are unable to live in the wild. The elephant however begs to differ.

Ahhhh... Proffessor TPC is in the house. Ok kids, file in, in an orderly fashion and have a seat...but I must warn you...you do so at the risk of perhaps learning a thing or two.