War elephant\'s turrets

[Paullus Scipio]

Hi, Ruben !

As with so much of ancient history, the evidence regarding elephant towers is scant, to say the least (sigh !!! )

Certainly one cannot rule out all-wood towers - as the quote from Maccabees shows ( there is also a reference to "cuirasses" for seleucid elephants.)The Graeco-Bactrian silver plate you refer to is presumably the one in the Hermitage museum in Leningrad, utilised in part for the illustration from "Warfare in the Classical World" above ? The relief-work on the tower shows imitation 'bastions,' rather than plankwork, and is otherwise smooth, with some decoration ("maltese crosses" and "spearheads"), most likely painted.
Similarly, the "brickwork" on the ivory statuette I interpreted as painted ( there seems to be a consistent effort to imitate 'real' fortifications in the few artistic samples we have), but Duncan Head interpreted as stitching in "Macedonian and Punic wars" - which has an excellent discussion of the evidence and tower types.
Further evidence for elephant armour appears on fragmentary pieces of statuettes ( see e.g. Sekunda, "Seleucid Army" - montvert, illustration 52,53 and "Ptolemaic Army" , illustration 123 ) - The tower on the latter, incidently, is often interpreted as open wooden slatwork, like a picket fence.
One factor RATters don't seem to have considered in this discussion is a practical one - the towers all give an impression of lightness, but elephants can bear quite heavy loads ( see modern,huge, heavy howdahs for example ). Perhaps the "lightness" was more for the benefit of the humans who had to 'saddle up' the elephant - picture a kneeling elephant and half a dozen men manoeuvring the tower into place.
We simply don't know much about the structure of the towers, but I think Duncan is right to show both hide and wooden towers in use.
One last point, chains as harnesses are quite common on elephants - to this day, Thai elephants have them to drag huge logs, and show no chafing - their hides are evidently very thick and tough !!

[geala]

The bodyguard of the elephant is of course a fact but is it of much help against missiles?

Being able to move and act swiftly could be an argument. I can imagine that holding a shield would hinder the animal leader a lot. And climbing an elephant with a muscle cuirass can not be big pleasure. But a more flexible leather or linen cuirass? If I would want to save weight I would let the guys in the turret go naked.

The statuette below is taken from Snodgrass, "Arms and Armour..." ed. 1999, page 104. I cannot see exactly what the "mahout" is wearing under his chlamys (or is it a padded cape?? have to see the other side). Just a chiton or armour?


Ok, pictural evidence is against the "armour theory" but many people (I do not) seem to think of hoplites, peltasts, psiloi etc. wearing shoes normally although we have plenty pictural evidence (and practical advantages) for the contrary. Or pictural nudity which seems to be a better equation for unarmoured mahouts. There are no great advantages of going naked (except not contaminating ones wounds with dirty cloth) so I am able to accept the concept of "heroic" or "erotic" nudity and dismiss the sources. But what is the advantage of being unarmoured on the front of the elephant? In the turret perhaps you don't need it but outside of it?

For me it would be the same as molding the drivers place of a Leopard II tank out of aluminium. It is an attack against the weapons performance.

[JP Vieira]

Hello
I concur with the idea that it does not make any sense to have the man who commands the whole "thing" unarmoured...
You would invest a lot of time, money and resources only to have a archer, javeliner or any other to make a single shoot and get over with it.
Best regards
JP Vieira

[MeinPanzer]

The bodyguard of the elephant is of course a fact but is it of much help against missiles?

Sure, insofar as it keeps missile troops at bay.

Being able to move and act swiftly could be an argument. I can imagine that holding a shield would hinder the animal leader a lot. And climbing an elephant with a muscle cuirass can not be big pleasure. But a more flexible leather or linen cuirass? If I would want to save weight I would let the guys in the turret go naked.

It's possible that they wore textile cuirasses, but we don't have any evidence for it.

The statuette below is taken from Snodgrass, "Arms and Armour..." ed. 1999, page 104. I cannot see exactly what the "mahout" is wearing under his chlamys (or is it a padded cape?? have to see the other side). Just a chiton or armour?

That's the famous Myrina terracotta, and he's just wearing a chlamys and a chiton.

Ok, pictural evidence is against the "armour theory" but many people (I do not) seem to think of hoplites, peltasts, psiloi etc. wearing shoes normally although we have plenty pictural evidence (and practical advantages) for the contrary.

But we also have lots of images of soldiers wearing shoes, when we have no evidence of mahouts wearing any kind of armour (not even helmets).

Or pictural nudity which seems to be a better equation for unarmoured mahouts. There are no great advantages of going naked (except not contaminating ones wounds with dirty cloth) so I am able to accept the concept of "heroic" or "erotic" nudity and dismiss the sources. But what is the advantage of being unarmoured on the front of the elephant? In the turret perhaps you don't need it but outside of it?

What I stated before: The mahout is already afforded plenty of defence by the elephant's very large head (especially if it's an Indian elephant), and he would need to be unburdened so that he could react quickly. And, once again, I think we can dismiss the Greek artistic conventions as being the cause here because the contemporary Indian sources show unarmoured mahouts as well. Not to mention that Indian warfare in the Hellenistic period was more focused on ranged fighting than Greek warfare, making their mahouts much more at risk.

[geala]

The argument with the unimpeded movement and the very big elephant head is not bad. I got the same idea when I imagined what would happen if you are on the ground and have to look up to a big beast. From the front and the near you would not even see the mahout.

But not totally convincing as arrows and slingshots come from above in an arc, so the mahout actually must be hit from far away because every man with a distant weapon would have shoot at the elephant. Strange. Normally I thrust the pictural evidence. Perhaps they used some kind of magical yoga power to avoid the missiles.

[MeinPanzer]

The argument with the unimpeded movement and the very big elephant head is not bad. I got the same idea when I imagined what would happen if you are on the ground and have to look up to a big beast. From the front and the near you would not even see the mahout.

But not totally convincing as arrows and slingshots come from above in an arc, so the mahout actually must be hit from far away because every man with a distant weapon would have shoot at the elephant. Strange. Normally I thrust the pictural evidence. Perhaps they used some kind of magical yoga power to avoid the missiles.

The elephant's ears would also basically be giant leather screens on either side of the mahout, so he would also be afforded that protection.