4 ms·
both are easily neutralized by a peer competitor. This is what I was thinking the whole time. Rome was surrounded by peer competitors, and OP says their most e
by padobson 6y ago
both are easily neutralized by a peer competitor.
This is what I was thinking the whole time. Rome was surrounded by peer competitors, and OP says their most effective use of elephants was against non-peer competitors like Spain or Gaul.
So why would competitors continue to use elephants? Not because Roma was susceptible, but because THEIR boarder competitors were susceptible.
Elephants were not worth it to defeat well-trained troops, but were more than worth it to defeat smaller, less disciplined armies/militias.
My guess is that Rome's peers were often using elephants to keep smaller competitors in check, and only used them against Rome because they happen to have them anyway.
- dddddaviddddd 6y ago> So why would competitors continue to use elephants? Not specifically for Rome's competitors, but elephants were kept also for prestige reasons in other regions, as described in this follow-up article: https://acoup.blog/2019/08/09/collections-war-elephants-part-iii-elephant-memories/ https://acoup.blog/2019/08/09/collections-war-elephants-part...
- mcguire 6y agoIIRC, horses. Cavalry can't be used around elephants unless the horses are specifically trained to be around elephants. Rome itself of the Republican/early Imperial era didn't use cavalry, although some of their allies did. As a hypothesis, those using elephants may have been fighting entities that used cavalry.
- setr 6y agoPerhaps not coincidentally the same can be said of chemical warfare -- not so great in large scale war, but fairly effective against poor, untrained militia and enforcing order through fear on civilian populations
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]