Elephants and the battle at Zama

[PMBardunias]

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.

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.

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.

[Eleatic Guest]

Could you give ancient sources supporting your assumption of "lateral movement"?

[PMBardunias]

Could you give ancient sources supporting your assumption of "lateral movement"?

Sure, I think Polybios paints a fairly clear picture:

"But the first ranks of those who were stationed opposite the elephants, pushed back when they encountered them and trodden under foot by the strength of the animals, fell in heaps in the mêlée, while the formation of the main body, owing to the depths of the ranks behind, remained for a time unbroken… "

There was no question of elephants smashing deep into the roman ranks, it is clearly the front ranks who bore the brunt of the battle.

Importantly it goes on:

those who had managed to force a passage through the elephants and collect in the rear of those beasts, encountered the Carthaginian phalanx quite fresh and in good order and were cut to pieces.

Those who "managed" to pass between elephants who are well spaced apart. Were the elephants moving only ahead, or stationary, and not laterally, getting past them would be no problem.

Compare this with Arrian's description of Porus' deployment and it is clear why the Romans cannot simply pass the elephants:

"In the van he stationed his elephants at intervals of about 100 feet, on a broad front, to form a screen of the whole body of the infantry and to spread terror among the cavalry of Alexander. He did not expect that any enemy unit would venture to force a way through the gaps in the line of elephants, either on foot or on horseback; terror would make the horses uncontrollable, and infantry units would be even less likely to make an attempt, as they would then be met and checked by his own infantry and then destroyed by the elephants turning and trampling them down."

Were they to try to engage even the elephant screen, who surely stood-off and threw things- they would be hit by laterally moving elephants.

Again Arrian:

"…The monster elephants plunged this way and that among the lines of infantry, dealing destruction in the solid mass of the Macedonian phalanx."

This I would like to see in the original Greek because I'm sure there are nuances in the word choice, but whatever is being translated as "this way and that" would seem to me to be lateral and surely not "forward and back". If a Greek speaker reads this and can find the original, I'd be interested in how it actually reads.

Just to be sure you are not misunderstanding my view, I am not proposing a caracole of elephants, simply that they attack the front ranks of a phalanx, moving along it back and forth rather than fighting deep within it. An elephant will Not crash into a rank of formed men any more than a horse, but he will fight in a way that a warhorse cannot.