03-18-2008, 04:06 PM
Quote:On the other hand, I have to say that the image of elephants of moving the front up and down waiting for "opportunities",
Let me clarify, they are not "waiting", they are bashing the front ranks of men. The difference is that they do not move directly into the mass of men, penetrating and breaking the formation. They move from side to side along the front ranks- another reason for the spacing between elephants.
Code:
that is loose ranks, appears not overly convincing, either, as this would expose the vulnerable side of the elephants to enemy missiles.
yes, they would, but remember they are fighting their way along the front, so they are probably turned partially to the ranks for most of the time.
Quote:And the pure size...it is scarcely thinkable that the largest fighting units on the battle field would be put to uses which are far more suitable to small, light and fast-moving troops.
Who else can be a mobile tower? If the aim were pure shock penetration, you would flank the elephant with heavy troops, not missile troops who would be left behind the moment the elephant penetrates. In fact the reason that missile troops could be used with elephants against heavy troops is that the lateral movement of the beasts would make moving past them to charge the light troops difficult.
Quote:Thirdly, elephants were often put in Hellenistic times before the front line, which means they were expected to take the initiative and not wait till the battle comes to them.
Who said anything about waiting? They surely charged, the terror of the charge is their greatest weapon. If the enemy breaks ranks in the face of it, then we see all the seemingly penetrative stomping and such that the authors write of.
Overall, there are similarities to a charge of heavy cavalry. If the ranks hold formation then the charging unit must stop and attack the ranks in front as opposed to penetrating. Elephants are just better at the second phase than cavalry and they have the added element of down thrusting weapons. This is why I disagree with Glover, the deep formation was much more effective that a shallow one would have been- polybios tells us they held out longer because of it.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"