War elephants?

[DamoDega]

Also, what purpose will the elephants serve? It seems like they are a afraid of fire and where I originally thought they were aegons answer for the dragons... It seems like they will be just dragon fodder.

The thing is that it was an interessing (and still one sided fly+fire= elephant grilled steak) match if at least the elephant had the size/weight/strenght advantage... you know, imagine a tiger vs a bull

But in asoiaf they don't have that... Dany's dragons are almost puppies for dragons standards and are already said to be bigger than elephants

The thing is, if they have time to grow up Martin's dragons are just too huge for any living organism when have seen

At best elephant's role can be being moving platform with balistas mounted on theyr backs, and the army fight dragons kinda like if it's whaling... just x10 times more dangerous :D

I wonder if we will see mounted crossbows. It will be interesting to see the capacity in which they are used in. Also do we have any sizes on the elephants? Are they supposed to be the African or Asian breed? From what I read he didn't give them a height but the African ones are taller. The asian size would prob be more suited for westeros warfare.

As size

African Bush Elephant > Asian Elephant > African Forest Elephant / North African Elephant (extinct)

If we talk about our history

Asian and North African subspecies were the ones used, so asian was actually the biggest type of war elephant... and btw some asian specimen can get huge too, just google "beast of Bardia"

But honestly ASOIAF have Giants riding mammoths, so if GRRM want them to use African Bush Elephants i say no problem bro :D

[joluoto2]

I just hope the GC have enough grass to feed those elephants.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

Unless more than a few of these elephants show up, I'm more inclined to believe that they are a parallel to Hannibal not making it through the Alps with much in the way of elephants than to the Battle of Zama. I love a good Hannibal reference, though. Can one be a fangirl of a real person who lived more than 2000 years ago? If so, I am. Well, it's a little of that and a little of falling in love with a guy doing his voice in a documentary, LOL

[German]

Your examples of elephant warfare aren't medieval.

My bad. Neither are yours.

Everything about elephants at Zama: :bs:

As for pike vs. elephant, there's a reason that the Greco-Bactrians abandoned the phalanx.

Are you shitting me? Should I give you a link to actually read about Zama before you spout your :bs: because there is no better example of 80 highly expensive military units making absolutely no impact on a battle and in fact going so far as to damage your own lines.

Indeed and it wasn't elephants.

He only defeated Celts and Iberians using elephants because he didn't have any significant number of elephants when he was fighting the Romans.

Because they are so high maintenance that they were ineffective in a major foreign invasion, also they all died on the alps. He defeated the Celts because their idea of an strategy was to do a massed wild charge while wearing loincloths.

Challenge accepted.

Ipsus, Heraclea, Asculum, Bagrades, Utica, Bagradas River.

Ipsus- Ill admit this is a good example of Elephants being used however Selucus had about 500 elephants Aegon has 20.

Heraclea- You're really going to use Pyrrhus as an example of a successful battle if Aegon loses as many men in a battle a Pyrrhus lost at Heraclea he wont have an army left. Also nowhere in this battle were elephants used to any effect they were kind of just there. Mostly it was the Phalanx that held the Romans

Asculum- The Romans countered the elephants for most of the battle by going on hills and forests when the Romans finally entered favorable on the second day of fighting the elephants did have a major effect however once again Phyrrus lost most of his officers and 3,000 men in the battle

Utica- The elephants were effective when released on an enemies rear however when the Mercenaries countered Hanno the next day the elephants made no impact

Bagradas- I had t look up this battle because I had never heard of it and in the entire article I found no mention of elephants being used. In fact it appears as though the Numidian light cavalry won the battle.

Also many of those successes can be attributed to a lack of good Archers as Mongols later easily countered War Elephants using archer volleys. If as you say Westeros is filled with amazing longbow men then the Elephants shouldn't be a problem.

Actually, Rome used elephants on many occasions. They used them extensively against the Antigonids, deploying twenty-odd at Pydna IIRC. They also used them in Iberia and Gaul. There was even a Roman elephant in Britain at one point. At Thapsus during Caesar's Civil War the Optimates (a Roman faction) had dozens of elephants.

Right the one in Britian was brought to negotiations with British Cheifs to try and intimidate them.

Didius Julianos- Tried to use elephants to make his army look more intimidating. It didn't work

By the Roman Imperial Period almost no elephants were still in use around the Mediterranean. Before that most some Republican Generals made use of them however they were never widely adopted and only used in rare individual cases.

[mediterraneo]

How many elephants did the Golden company have? Three?

Three would be good fore some ruse, not for anything relevant in a thousands men battle.
Expecially after the first occasion the beasts are used, in which they would have a disproportionate effect if none of their opponents had seen them before.
But after that, even against poorly trained infantries as the ones from Westeros, three are not enough to make a difference per se.
Even at Rafia, Anthiocos when praised his few, very few elephants, that turned a battle seemingly lost against an enemy that didn't know of the animal's existence as a species, he had sixteen, not three.
Westerosi armies are very aware of the existence of big animals. Including dragons. Would they be as surprised as the galatians of meeting them?

I bet the elephants will have a role in a ruse to take Storm's End.
But 3 war elephants, even if they were more similar to indian elephants than to north african (extinguished) small elephants, would not make a difference.
If they were Oliphants from the Lord of the Rings' film, maybe, but animals similars to the one on Earth...

They probably wouldn't be decisive, per se, in conquering the Iron Throne.

[Universal Sword Donor]

Because they are so high maintenance that they were ineffective in a major foreign invasion, also they all died on the alps. He defeated the Celts because their idea of an strategy was to do a massed wild charge while wearing loincloths.

Ipsus- Ill admit this is a good example of Elephants being used however Selucus had about 500 elephants Aegon has 20.

Heraclea- You're really going to use Pyrrhus as an example of a successful battle if Aegon loses as many men in a battle a Pyrrhus lost at Heraclea he wont have an army left. Also nowhere in this battle were elephants used to any effect they were kind of just there. Mostly it was the Phalanx that held the Romans

Asculum- The Romans countered the elephants for most of the battle by going on hills and forests when the Romans finally entered favorable on the second day of fighting the elephants did have a major effect however once again Phyrrus lost most of his officers and 3,000 men in the battle

Utica- The elephants were effective when released on an enemies rear however when the Mercenaries countered Hanno the next day the elephants made no impact

Bagradas- I had t look up this battle because I had never heard of it and in the entire article I found no mention of elephants being used. In fact it appears as though the Numidian light cavalry won the battle.

Both battles at Bagradas involved Carthaginian elephants and a decisive Carthaginian win.

Heraclea - the elephants broke the Roman cavalry, even if only by "standing around". Horses not trained to be around elephants get scared. Kind of one of the benefits of having war elephants. You can't just piss on the result because you don't like it.

[German]

Both battles at Bagradas involved Carthaginian elephants and a decisive Carthaginian win.

Heraclea - the elephants broke the Roman cavalry, even if only by "standing around". Horses not trained to be around elephants get scared. Kind of one of the benefits of having war elephants. You can't just piss on the result because you don't like it.

Genuinely interested now do you maybe have a link to an article of Bagradas that includes elephants.

If you do your research it appears that while at Heraclea 20 elephants did scare off the Roman cav a wounded elephant panicked and turned on the Epirote army causing the other elephants to panic as well this stopped them from pursuing and truly defeating the Romans. I didn't say that in ideal situations the Elephant couldn't be effective only that it they are almost to unreliable to truly be worth it.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

How many elephants did the Golden company have? Three?

Twenty in total. The three actually mentioned are just the minority that has already arrived at the base camp. They are missing 5,000 men as well, all somewhere in the Stormlands.

[Universal Sword Donor]

Genuinely interested now do you maybe have a link to an article of Bagradas that includes elephants.

If you do your research it appears that while at Heraclea 20 elephants did scare off the Roman cav a wounded elephant panicked and turned on the Epirote army causing the other elephants to panic as well this stopped them from pursuing and truly defeating the Romans. I didn't say that in ideal situations the Elephant couldn't be effective only that it they are almost to unreliable to truly be worth it.

Literally just google Battle of Bagradas.

[German]

I just did in the 239 BC battle they don't seem to have done anything special at all. In the 49 BC its the same thing.

[Hand to King Davos]

I feel they will be used in a decisive action by (f)Aegon once, then the threat of them will be used to stop battles before they start, but I feel their second major use will end in failure.

I see them being his ace that allows him to get a foot hold in Westeros outside of the Stormlands. But his final enemies Dany or Jon/Stannis will counter them. Dany has the obvious dragon card. Jon/Stannis on the other hand may have mammoths(larger, stronger, and Winter proof) or at the very least the all important experience of fighting mammoths. War elephants are primarily shock troops, but with Jon/Stannis the shock is gone.

I don't think we will get war elephants vs mammoths, but I cross my fingers we do.

Oh please, this would be so epic!

[Universal Sword Donor]

I just did in the 239 BC battle they don't seem to have done anything special at all. In the 49 BC its the same thing.

The 49 BC battle didn't have any elephants. I was disputing your assertion that there were no elephants at the Battle of Bagradas, of which there are 3. The first two (255, 239) used elephants and were decisive Carthaginian victories. I never said the elephants were the cause.

[Hrafntýr]

Shame- it seems that most period uses would be the classical era. It looks like the Elephants aren't going to be super effective. Thought as a previous poster said they could be a status symbol. I still could see heavy mounted crossbows. That would be huge if they were kept back. Maybe even a ballista. That would do damage to formations.

It would be very hard. I have a feeling Stannis will make it to ADOS/ end of WOW so don't expect anything crazy like that. Still it would be fun. Honestly the way Daenerys is going- she would in that scenario kill them both and become queen. I gotta admit that would be hilarious to watch fans of the three get annoyed with each other.

Such weapons (a ballista like mounted crossbow) were used in medieval South Asian elephant warfare. They can also be used as an excellent platform for archers, who would be above the action. Good, too, as a ram for taking down gates, given that none of the gates in Westeros have the anti-elephant spikes that adorned some S. Asian forts. In battle, they're pretty good for preventing a charge as well (and they no doubt make a pretty formidable charge themselves!).

I know that the history of their use in warfare in Europe/the Mediterranean makes them seem pointless, but they are a totally respectable part of warfare in South Asia, where their use was pretty normative. Some kings had elephant "cavalry" of 9000 elephants!

[Dimples]

My bad. Neither are yours.

And so...?

Are you shitting me? Should I give you a link to actually read about Zama before you spout your :bs: because there is no better example of 80 highly expensive military units making absolutely no impact on a battle and in fact going so far as to damage your own lines.

I do quite humbly suggest that you read about Zama. And then elephant behavior. And then ancient battles. For extra fun, go for Second Punic War as well. It might help.

Hell, if by some chance you value critical thinking, read about who Polybius was sponsored by.

Indeed and it wasn't elephants.

Honest question-What do you think it was?

Because they are so high maintenance that they were ineffective in a major foreign invasion, also they all died on the alps. He defeated the Celts because their idea of an strategy was to do a massed wild charge while wearing loincloths.

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of historians suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Ipsus- Ill admit this is a good example of Elephants being used however Selucus had about 500 elephants Aegon has 20.

Heraclea- You're really going to use Pyrrhus as an example of a successful battle if Aegon loses as many men in a battle a Pyrrhus lost at Heraclea he wont have an army left. Also nowhere in this battle were elephants used to any effect they were kind of just there. Mostly it was the Phalanx that held the Romans

Asculum- The Romans countered the elephants for most of the battle by going on hills and forests when the Romans finally entered favorable on the second day of fighting the elephants did have a major effect however once again Phyrrus lost most of his officers and 3,000 men in the battle

Utica- The elephants were effective when released on an enemies rear however when the Mercenaries countered Hanno the next day the elephants made no impact

Bagradas- I had t look up this battle because I had never heard of it and in the entire article I found no mention of elephants being used. In fact it appears as though the Numidian light cavalry won the battle.

In all of those battles the elephants were successful. That's what's relevant.

Well champ give me one instance where they actually worked and I'll give you 10 where they failed to make any impact in the face of a disciplined army or a clever general.

I gave you 6 battles. I'd like to see your 60 now.

Also many of those successes can be attributed to a lack of good Archers as Mongols later easily countered War Elephants using archer volleys. If as you say Westeros is filled with amazing longbow men then the Elephants shouldn't be a problem.

I never said Westeros is full of amazing archers. That doesn't mean it's not, though.

Right the one in Britian was brought to negotiations with British Cheifs to try and intimidate them.

Didius Julianos- Tried to use elephants to make his army look more intimidating. It didn't work

By the Roman Imperial Period almost no elephants were still in use around the Mediterranean. Before that most some Republican Generals made use of them however they were never widely adopted and only used in rare individual cases.

You claimed that the Romans never used elephants. They clearly did.

[German]

The 49 BC battle didn't have any elephants. I was disputing your assertion that there were no elephants at the Battle of Bagradas, of which there are 3. The first two (255, 239) used elephants and were decisive Carthaginian victories. I never said the elephants were the cause.

Okay the first time I looked I only saw the 49 BC. one. No offense meant sorry if it seemed like it.

[German]

I do quite humbly suggest that you read about Zama. And then elephant behavior. And then ancient battles. For extra fun, go for Second Punic War as well. It might help.

Hell, if by some chance you value critical thinking, read about who Polybius was sponsored by.

At the outset of the battle, Hannibal unleashed his elephants and skirmishers against the Roman troops in order to break the cohesion of their lines and exploit the breaches that could be opened.^[14] The attack was confronted by the Roman skirmishers. In addition, Scipio ordered the cavalry to blow loud horns to frighten the beasts, which partly succeeded, and several rampaging elephants turned towards the Carthaginian left wing and disordered it completely. Seizing this opportunity, Masinissa led his Numidian cavalry and charged at the Carthaginian left wing, which was also composed of Numidian cavalry, and was unknowingly lured off the field. Meanwhile, the rest of the elephants were carefully lured through the lanes and taken to the rear of the Roman army, where they were dealt with. Wikipedia

Damn now that's what I call an effective unit, Scared by the cavalry horns, destroyed their own forces. I suppose you're right they did have an impact at Zama they completely tore up Hannibals left flank.Wikipedia

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of historians suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Elephants participated in only one of the great victories of Hannibal following the crossing of the Alps: the battle of the River Trebbia, in 218 BCE. Most of the elephants died of the cold that winter, and none took part in the later battles of Lake Trasimene or Cannae. The History Herald

Was this what you were referring to or that Celts were undisciplined

In all of those battles the elephants were successful. That's what's relevant.

I gave you 6 battles. I'd like to see your 60 now.

Only one of those constituted a truly decisive elephant success in all the others they had either very marginal success or negated any positive value they had by ending up obstructing their own forces and killing their own men.

You claimed that the Romans never used elephants. They clearly did.

And never widely adopted them. The Romans were misers when it came to gaining an advantage

They adopted basic Greek formations and improved them. They took the Gallic throwing spear improved it into the Javelin.

They adopted Carthaginian war ships and improved them for their soldiers

They never bothered with transporting vast numbers elephants t battles because beyond scaring a few cheifs who had never seen an animal bigger than a horse, they weren't worth the maintenance and training costs

Anywho as I can see were both intrenched in our ideas there is no real point in debating this. Im sure the Elephants will be effective in some major battle by killing/scaring some cav however if any Westrosi general worth his salt is left alive he will destroy them next time around.

[Dimples]

At the outset of the battle, Hannibal unleashed his elephants and skirmishers against the Roman troops in order to break the cohesion of their lines and exploit the breaches that could be opened.^[14] The attack was confronted by the Roman skirmishers. In addition, Scipio ordered the cavalry to blow loud horns to frighten the beasts, which partly succeeded, and several rampaging elephants turned towards the Carthaginian left wing and disordered it completely. Seizing this opportunity, Masinissa led his Numidian cavalry and charged at the Carthaginian left wing, which was also composed of Numidian cavalry, and was unknowingly lured off the field. Meanwhile, the rest of the elephants were carefully lured through the lanes and taken to the rear of the Roman army, where they were dealt with. Wikipedia

Damn now that's what I call an effective unit, Scared by the cavalry horns, destroyed their own forces. I suppose you're right they did have an impact at Zama they completely tore up Hannibals left flank.Wikipedia

As for the elephants at Zama being BS:

1. Polybius and Livy don't know jack shit about elephant behavior, and even contradict themselves. Example: They both say that Hannibal had to make barges at the Rhone for his elephants, who were apparently very, very scared of water and couldn't swim. Elephants are actually pretty strong swimmers. In fact, in his account of the Tagus, Polybius implicitly states that Hannibal's elephants swam across the Tagus with little trouble.

Scipio apparently scared the elephants with loud noises, shield banging, and trumpets. That kind of racket is a given for almost all ancient battles, so it stands to reason that the elephants should be trained to handle it. Even idiots wouldn't have used elephants for battle (which involves lots of noise) if they were so easily scared of loud noises.

Sidestepping away from the elephants, which is what ostensibly happened, would've only worked if war elephants with training and mahouts couldn't physically turn at all.

It's stated that some of the elephants turned around and seriously wrecked the Carthaginian lines. There's a reason the mahouts carried hammers and chisels (even Livy is aware of this).

It's absurd to think that Carthage would have had 80 trained elephants available at the time. Less than a year before, at Utica and the Great Plains, when Carthage was desperately fighting for survival, Hasdrubal Gisgo had none at all. There wasn't enough time between then and Zama to capture and/or train that many elephants. A smaller amount may have been plausible, but due to the previous reasons the number of elephants was probably 0.

It's very unlikely that they would've been untrained elephants, once again because Hasdrubal Gisgo had none, and if they weren't fit for his use, then less than a year later they still wouldn't be ready. Some may have been, say a dozen at most, but 80 is an absurd number.

Finally, Polybius' account was written quite a long time after the battle, had no witness accounts, and was written after the destruction of all Carthaginian records. Furthermore, he was under the patronage of Carthage's destroyer, who also happened to be Scipio Africanus' grandson. If any part of The Histories contains clear historical bias, Zama's probably it.

Only one of those constituted a truly decisive elephant success in all the others they had either very marginal success or negated any positive value they had by ending up obstructing their own forces and killing their own men.

Uhh...NO.

Im sure the Elephants will be effective in some major battle by killing/scaring some cav however if any Westrosi general worth his salt is left alive he will destroy them next time around.

Unfortunately, there aren't too many of them left.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of historians suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Don't worry, they are used to it by now.

Just yesterday, I read something about a fellow poster taking Braveheart to be a historically acurate depiction :bang:

[Marcus Agrippa]

And so...?

I do quite humbly suggest that you read about Zama. And then elephant behavior. And then ancient battles. For extra fun, go for Second Punic War as well. It might help.

Hell, if by some chance you value critical thinking, read about who Polybius was sponsored by.

Honest question-What do you think it was?

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of historians suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

In all of those battles the elephants were successful. That's what's relevant.

I gave you 6 battles. I'd like to see your 60 now.

I never said Westeros is full of amazing archers. That doesn't mean it's not, though.

You claimed that the Romans never used elephants. They clearly did.

The only archers that I am aware of that are elite belong to the Lannisters. They are either 2000 or 200 strong. It's ben a while but when I get the time I will get you a source.

If there is only 20 elephants then those archers have to be killed. I imagine 200 could prob take down 1 or 2 in every volley.

Such weapons (a ballista like mounted crossbow) were used in medieval South Asian elephant warfare. They can also be used as an excellent platform for archers, who would be above the action. Good, too, as a ram for taking down gates, given that none of the gates in Westeros have the anti-elephant spikes that adorned some S. Asian forts. In battle, they're pretty good for preventing a charge as well (and they no doubt make a pretty formidable charge themselves!).

I know that the history of their use in warfare in Europe/the Mediterranean makes them seem pointless, but they are a totally respectable part of warfare in South Asia, where their use was pretty normative. Some kings had elephant "cavalry" of 9000 elephants!

That had to be expensive. Still it would give them a massive advantage since westeros doesn't seem to have many ranged units. Hell I dont think we have seen a catapult yet.

Twenty in total. The three actually mentioned are just the minority that has already arrived at the base camp. They are missing 5,000 men as well, all somewhere in the Stormlands.

Oooooppss I thought when I heard about Arriana 1 from wow she said that they had 100. 20 is even less significant. Still it would be fun to see them in the show. They did show mammoths after all.

[Dimples]

The only archers that I am aware of that are elite belong to the Lannisters. They are either 2000 or 200 strong. It's ben a while but when I get the time I will get you a source.

Are you talking about the Sarsfield mounted archers?