War elephant\'s turrets

[JP Vieira]

Hello
The construction (or reconstruction) of the turret was made with two factor in mind: protection and weight saving: wood, in my opinion, would present a heavier penalty on the elephant with the consequent penalty on movement. But I assume that, by using a lighter wood, the weight problem would not be that great.
As for the chains, I know that elephants do have strong skins, but I am not totally convinced that chain would be very practical: besides the wounds that could cause on the animal, the front (around the neck) would be more choking than using another material such as leather or a strong tissue.
As for the "driver", I still feel that he needs something else (in a manner of protection) other that a helmet; perhaps not a shield but some form of body armour?
Cheers
JP Vieira

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

When you see chains on an animal in an ancient source and you always see the driver unarmoured,why necessarilly put armour on him and leather straps on the elephant?Judging with modern criteria is a good idea only when there is not enough evidence and in the case of the driver's protection,those terra cota objects and paintings are clear.As for the stripes,only one of the depictions I've seen has chains.The others are unclear and could be anything.But considering that it is much more difficult to sculpt a chain than a leather stripe,I'd bet that the artist had seen the chaind and knew what he was doing.
Khaire
Giannis

[MeinPanzer]

When you see chains on an animal in an ancient source and you always see the driver unarmoured,why necessarilly put armour on him and leather straps on the elephant?Judging with modern criteria is a good idea only when there is not enough evidence and in the case of the driver's protection,those terra cota objects and paintings are clear.As for the stripes,only one of the depictions I've seen has chains.The others are unclear and could be anything.But considering that it is much more difficult to sculpt a chain than a leather stripe,I'd bet that the artist had seen the chaind and knew what he was doing.
Khaire
Giannis

Exactly. The ancient sources are very clear on this: chains were used to secure the howdahs at least sometimes, and mahouts were not commonly protected with any kind of armour.

And Joao, how do you know that the turret was constructed with those factors in mind? If the elephant could bear the weight of a wooden turret (which an average elephant can, considering the kind of wooden structures built on their backs in medieval times), why would they go through the trouble and cost of constructing a linen- or leather-covered howdah? Constructing the latter would surely cost many, many times more and take much, much longer than the former.

[geala]

Elephants are impressive and I thought a bit about it but I'm not a specialist.

I think a formidable turret build of leather or layered linen would not have weighted so much less compared to a wooden turret. Thick leather and linen is quite heavy. But perhaps someone can give the specific weights of the materials?

Composite armour on persons in my opinion was not used because of the small weight but because it offered some kind of flexibility (I have sources where the weight of bronze muscle cuirasses and linen composite armours was estimated roughly the same). And flexibility is not necessary in the case of the turret. So a turret made of lighter wood, perhaps poplar or willow, which is also good to absorb arrows, seems to be possibly the best solution?

Btw.: is the elephant not quite small? Is it an Indian elephant or a small African wood elephant or another species?

[JP Vieira]

Hello
I agree that the wood constructed turret is perhaps the most logical solution.
The straps vs. chains I still have some doubts because a comfortable animal is a more reliable one: and elephant are very "nervous" ones...
But I still have great doubts that the "driver" should go unarmoured: it does not make sense. Why protect all elements of the "machine" (animal, soldiers on the back) and not the man who conducts it. The sculptural elements are not 100% accurate; sometimes, to demonstrate a person nationality or just that he is from a different place (the "drivers" were usually from India), he was given a different outfit....?
Best regards
JP Vieira

[geala]

I concur, JP Vieira. Perhaps it could be similar to the often recited "heroic nudity" (which is not a totally convincing concept in my eyes, but...), showing the mahout in the typical costume of a foreign country?

Elephants were very expensive and "sensitive" weapons. It would become useless without the man who leads the elephant, even dangerous for the own troops. And the animal leader would have been the natural aim for missiles (although he would have been a small aim compared to the elephant). You only have to watch Lord of the Rings part 3 to know it for sure. :roll: So I presume that they gave the poor mahouts some armour in the case of battle for the upper parts of the body which were not protected by the body of the elephant. Just a speculation.

And again: is the elephant not a bit too small?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o118 ... ephant.jpg

Look how "vulnerable" the driver is!It was in his decision if and what armour he would have worn.How many cultures do we know,especially in Asia and Africa,that prefared to go completely nude in battle?And what about slingers and other types of Greek troops that were literally unarmoured?Not to mention that elephants were usually used against massive close formations,and that we do know they they were vulnerable in specialised light troops.
As for the tower,in the photo I posted,in the last list it sais: The elephant shown is typical of the period 280-200 BC.The tower consists of a padded saddle on top of which is a rawhide-covered frame
Khairete
Giannis

[JP Vieira]

Hello
The point in providing the driver with armour is, not so much to protect him, but to protect all elements that are on the elephant and around him: If the driver is killed or disabled (not able to control the elephant) then the animal becames as much as a peril to the enemy as to the friends also. It becomes also a useless weapon. So, as geala mention, why bother all the work in getting, training and maintaining such an expensive weapon, when it can be defeated by a single projectile (aimed at an unarmoured driver)?.
I still feel that the driver must be protected: it is the single most important person on top of the animal and the warranty of success of it.
Best regards
JP Vieira

[D B Campbell]

As for the tower, in the photo I posted in the last list, it says: "The elephant shown is typical of the period 280-200 BC. The tower consists of a padded saddle on top of which is a rawhide-covered frame."

Unless I'm mistaken, this was written by our very own Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff. Maybe he could be persuaded to comment?

[geala]

Hi Giannis, from what book is it? I have to buy it if it is available! hock:


I would have no great concerns to enter a battle near naked if I am among the light troops and have to/can move around the battlefield. Also the less you wear the less cloth can contaminate minor wounds.

But on an elephant you are a slow moving and very important aim, the center of battle, so I would like to have some protection for my body and head. But even if not the commander should force me to wear some armour, not for my sake but the sake of the army.

[Paullus Scipio]

Alas,Duncan, you are asking me to remember research I carried out nearly 30 years ago ! I don't have my research notes ( Salamander kept all these, as well as the original plates - wonder what became of them ? ).

From memory, the elephant was based mainly on a statuette from Napoli, and a pottery illustration from Rome.
280 b.c. is the first we hear of towers ( used by Pyrrhus, who may have invented them ).The mahout is shown un-armoured because on the three or four artistic sources I looked at, the mahout is clearly shown that way.
The tower being shown as "rawhide" over a frame is a best guess, ( could equally have been leather or similar ). The sources show something 'smooth', not planked ( except the statuette, which apparently shows 'brickwork' on the sides, but a smooth front and back.
It might seem logical for the driver to be armoured, but no illustration I can recall shows an armoured mahout.

[Paullus Scipio]

P.S. If you look ever so closely at the original illustration in "Warfare in the Classical world", you will see on the elephant's blanket a little joke by the artist, Jeff Burn, and me - the blanket has two "G.T." stripes, complete with the letters "G.T." between them.............( popular on sports cars at the time !! )

[geala]

Reading RAT is quite expensive, I have just ordered the book now.

[MeinPanzer]

I found the relevant quote I was looking for:

And upon the beast, there were strong wooden towers, which covered every one of them: and engines upon them: and upon every one thirty-two valiant men, who fought from above; and an Indian to rule the beast.

The obvious error of having 32 men in each tower has been dealt with by Bar-Kochva in his book "Judas Maccabaeus" thoroughly. It was a clear numerical error which probably emerged from a transcriptional mistake. Apparently the numbers 4 and 32 can be quite easily mixed up in Hebrew.

So, here we have a mention of wood, while we have no mentions of leather or linen.

The tower being shown as "rawhide" over a frame is a best guess, ( could equally have been leather or similar ). The sources show something 'smooth', not planked ( except the statuette, which apparently shows 'brickwork' on the sides, but a smooth front and back.

And what of the Bactrian silver phalera that shows a tower which is clearly 'planked'? The brickwork is hard to place, though. What, exactly, could have been used to replicate brickwork that wouldn't crumble from being jostled around on an elephant's back?

But on an elephant you are a slow moving and very important aim, the center of battle, so I would like to have some protection for my body and head. But even if not the commander should force me to wear some armour, not for my sake but the sake of the army.

Keep in mind that in the Successor armies, huge bodyguards of troops, light and heavy infantry and cavalry, were assigned to each elephant to ward off attackers, meaning that a mahout would have had ample additional defense in battle. Additionally, the mahouts probably would have had to be unhindered to be able to react quickly in battle. Finally, it should be noted that in Indian art, mahouts on war elephants are also shown unarmoured, so this can't really be attributed to a particular artistic convention.

We also don't even know if the guys in the howdah were even armoured, other than wearing helmets. It may have been that almost all defensive equipment was foregone in favour of lightening the load on the beast.

[hoplite14gr]

Well a description of enelphant wrecking havoc because of a wounded mahut are in Plutrach's life of Pyrros last paragraphs. No mention if the mahut had protection though. Also argives had the elevation advantage during the street fight.
Kind regards