Three Elephants or 250 soldiers

[Trigger Warning]

Unless they can batter down castle walls I'd take the men. 

[Lord Fauntleroy]

Men, easily. Much more versatile than three elephants. Easier to control. Easier to replace. Harder to kill in entirety.

[Garbad]

14 hours ago, Stag_legion said:

This is all myth. Elephants were exotic weapons, but they were never that effective on the battlefield (An army never won a battle solely because of the addition of elephants, in fact there are more examples of the army with elephants losing to the ones without one!). 250 armed soldiers vs three elephants would definitely win. Hannibal didn't use elephants in his great victories in Italy, he used them in battle of Zama, and in that battle he lost, thanks in a small part because his own elephants went crazy and trampled his own troops, but much much more so because his troops were green and roman troops were veterans and with significantly more cavalry (which make the real difference).

This is true, but remember at that point the romans had 80 years of practice and familiarity with elephant warfare.  They were trained to deal with it.  They had proper equipment and tactics.  Now go back to the first time they saw elephants in Italy...things were quite different.  At Heraclea, the roman army was equally matched against the greek army...and then they sent in a mere 20 elephants...and routed 42,000 men.  Horses and men, none could withstand the strange beasts.

I'd wager a westerosi army is a lot more like the latter -- untrained, ill equipped, and just plain not anticipating an elephant charge.  It could have a major impact.

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

I'm sure she can get 250 men easily once she gets to Westeros.  Better to bring an equivalent weight of something that is not available in abundance where you are going.

If you are going to the forest to build a log cabin, you bring tools, not logs.

 

[jarl the climber]

Heres the liabilities that Elephants seem to have:

They can be hard to control, they are not native to Westeros and may not do well there. Some of them might die or get sick in transport. 

The advantages that they have is that the Westerosi armies are not used to facing them in battle, They will scare the horses. So they do have a great shock value. I suppose they do have some value as far as you can put towers on them and post archers on them to shoot down onto the enemy as they are charging. 

I tend to agree that elephants are somewhat overrated, that once the enemy learns how to fight them their value diminishes. I think the Golden Company can maybe get a victory or two out of them but after the Westerosi will adjust. The GC only has a couple of dozen so after a 2 or 3 battles most of them will be dead. Still do 250 men, no matter how good guarantee a victory or two early on which might convince some lords to side with Aegon who might have way more than 250 men? I'd take the elephants but the advantage they give isn't going to last. 

[Ser Creighton]

22 hours ago, Victarion Chainbreaker said:

For Dany's army? Drogon swooping down, incinerating everything in sight, crushing fully armored mounts and riders in his massive jaws, and creating a field of fire encircling the enemy would certainly make the opposing horses nervous. But to really scare them you'd need 3 elephants.

Elephants are super scary.

 

How would like to see elephants charging at you like this? On their bikes, cause bikers are scary too, and in their sailor outfits, cause navel power... they can shoot water out of their trunks, and look he has a french baguette. When those get stale they are really hard, what if he hits you with it?

[Trigger Warning]

[hiemal]

The men. Although the Westerosi do not have elephants, they are familiar with the concept- even if the majority think mammoths are extinct I think most of them at least know what they are and have probably heard of elephants, since trade with Essos is brisk and enduring.

Not to mention that an elephant that dies at sea, or worse yet goes berserk and has to be put down, is worth nothing but its meat and hide.

[Makk]

I don't think 3 elephants would really be enough. I guess it would depend on the entire composition of forces. If you had 10,000 medium infantry against another 10,000 medium infantry in a set piece battle, it may be worth sacrificing 250 of those soldier for 3 elephants.

But when you consider that Dany is likely to have a very mobile force made up of Dothraki horseman and Unsullied, those 3 elephants don't really seem to fit in. Plus there are all the logistics of getting those elephants across the sea and then getting them to a battle. Too much risk of losing one or more on the way. Not to mention the drawback of not being able to give battle or cross unfavourable terrain. Plus she will likely have at least one dragon which just seems superior in inspiring terror in the opposition.

 

[devilish]

Elephants were already obsolete during Republican Rome. In a medieval time concept they will be butchered

[Universal Sword Donor]

250 soldiers or 3 elephants? Well if we're talking Westeros here and I don't have to transports the elephants, I'd be sorely tempted to take the elephants. No one would know how to defend against them, though I imagine that advantage would not last long. IIRC a roman commander just drilled his men to open a hole in the line to let the elephant go through then just stab them as they passed. Those guys didn't carry pikes either, so if a commander could do the same or anything remotely close it would kill the elephants real quick, even with armor I'm assuming they'd have.

Then I get to the logistics. An elephant eats like 100+ kg of food a day and ten or so gallons of water. It's hard enough to feed an army outside of your home region, let alone an animal that eats like ten horses (?) and has the utility of 2-3.

[Cayrouse]

I'd choose the men four times out of five. Men can have a variety of purposes in a force; scouts, foragers,skirmishers, melee,cavalry, artillery, builders. Elephants can drag heavy loads, transport a very small number of people and lead a highly effective charge if properly trained and competently  led. Look what Mors and his boys with spades did to the Frey charge 250 men need only dig enough pits to stop three beasts which are heavier and and less manageable than horses.  In addition with snow in Kings Landing I would have to hurry up and use the elephants before winter claims them.

I  would prize the intelligence of men over the strength of beasts.

[Jeeves]

Elephants could be used to move supplies.  For moving the timber needed to build fortifications and siege engines.  They have their uses outside of battle.  

[joluoto2]

If elephants were used in battle they were usually used as mobile archery platforms.

[Tonberry]

On 1/20/2016 at 4:11 PM, Hodor's Aunt said:

You don't need rafts to cross a river with a well trained elephant. https://www.google.de/search?q=swimming+elephant&biw=1600&bih=803&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidyNf3pbnKAhXE7BQKHShFBrAQsAQILA

Even today there are indian working elephants who swim from one island to an other island through the ocean on a regular basis.

 

Well, I can't speak to everything an elephant is capable of doing. I only know that Hannibal's had to be tricked into thinking that rafts were earth and then pushed into a river. They wouldn't go in willingly. Perhaps this is a difference between still and running water. Perhaps it's a matter of training. But you could be right. If training is all they need, training only three elephants wouldn't be unreasonable.

[Trigger Warning]

The Westerosi are heavily involved in the Free Companies fighting in the disputed lands, the Golden Company has elephants and they have a significant amount of Westerosi soldiers. Seems to me that fighting elephants or the knowledge of war elephants will likely not be so alien to them as everyone seems to assume. 

And three elephants alone in a pitched battle are not near enough to have the desired effect on morale. I'd wager the average soldier would be much more terrified of a wall of steel clad knights thundering towards them than they would three elephants. Three elephants that would be the target of every archer on the field and more importantly crossbows. 

[Hodor's Aunt]

11 hours ago, Tonberry said:

 

Well, I can't speak to everything an elephant is capable of doing. I only know that Hannibal's had to be tricked into thinking that rafts were earth and then pushed into a river. They wouldn't go in willingly. Perhaps this is a difference between still and running water. Perhaps it's a matter of training. But you could be right. If training is all they need, training only three elephants wouldn't be unreasonable.

The history we know about Hannibal is second hand informations from Romans, written well after his campain. They wrote a lot about the Elephants and quite a lot of it was BS since they were the sensation of that time in Italy. So we don't even know if it is true. The problem for Daeny would be more or less the same than it was for Hannibal. Winter is comming. And Elephants don't like it cold. She should tame some Mammouth instead. 

[Ser Lepus]

If you already have a few thousand soldiers, take the elephants.

If you have to choose between the elephants and a few dozen soldiers or 250-270 soldiers and no elephants, take the soldiers.

Elephants would prove useful against cavalry, but the can't do everything on their own. And anyways, an unit of crossbowmen or archers could destroy the three elephants, shooting at their eyes or at the mahouts.

[Hodor's Aunt]

On 21.1.2016 at 8:26 AM, devilish said:

Elephants were already obsolete during Republican Rome. In a medieval time concept they will be butchered

because they got extinct in northern Africa. Elephants have been used in India and other places in Asia in wars until the English took the country. With firearms. Every mediaevel or pre modern Indian castle had special defences against elephants at its gates. And that is not because they were useless in battle, but the oppisite. Elephents were even used well after the early rifles were used in India.

[DasallmaechtigeJ]

Weaponry is also a factor that is pro elephants. Remember that war elephants usually wear armour, aside from them having thick skin and inner organs that are hard to damage because they are far away. You can basically only penetrate and kill them with a sharp and extremely stable spear or a scorpion. Without that knowledge, everyday foot soldiers with sharpened forks and the like won't be able to hurt them much, aside from the foot most likely being scared.