Jump to content

Talk:War elephant: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
Contraption: new section
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit
Line 285: Line 285:
:'''..., calls its bishop Gaja, meaning elephant in Sanskrit. As consequence, the bishop is still called elephant in many other languages: in Arabic (al-fil) and derived from it, in Spanish (alfil), in Russian (Слон), Bengali (hati), and many others: see [[Chess piece#Piece_names]].'''
:'''..., calls its bishop Gaja, meaning elephant in Sanskrit. As consequence, the bishop is still called elephant in many other languages: in Arabic (al-fil) and derived from it, in Spanish (alfil), in Russian (Слон), Bengali (hati), and many others: see [[Chess piece#Piece_names]].'''
The final link points to a list with "elephant" for 20 languages, if I count right. — [[User:MFH|MFH]]:[[User talk:MFH|Talk]] 03:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The final link points to a list with "elephant" for 20 languages, if I count right. — [[User:MFH|MFH]]:[[User talk:MFH|Talk]] 03:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

== Contraption ==

List of mechanical contraptions related to the "War elephant" has yet to be collected.

12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [[Special:Contributions/43.242.178.254|43.242.178.254]] ([[User talk:43.242.178.254|talk]]) 12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:17, 21 April 2023

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleWar elephant is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 8, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 14, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 10, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
October 14, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
WikiProject iconSpoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

older entries

It should perhaps be noted that there is no empirical proof that the elephant can move at a greater speed than 22 km/h, which nicely fits its biomechanically predicted top speed. But then, who knows what happens in the heat of battle? ;o)

MWAK--217.122.44.226 06:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

African

I have been told that African elephants cannot be tamed. In this it was exclusively the North African Forest elephant that was used by the Egyptians and Carthaginians. Could someone who knows zoology add a comment?

I saw a documentary showing African elephants tamed in black & white and in the 1990s. They called Asian mahouts to teach taming skills to the African locals. -- Error 01:54, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Forest elephants were domesticated at Congo Free State untill 1930s by the belgian rullers.--Menah the Great 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this picture actually a war elephant? I made some comments on its image page. Securiger 01:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you, it looks like a person on an elephant getting attacked, not the elephant attacking the others.say1988 22:27, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
The original came from here (wayback version) which indicates the elephant was carrying a Sikh nobleman who was trying to escape from a military siege using elephants, but was waylaid and murdered. I think it's legitimate to use it in the article as an example of a "commander's mount", but it isn't a combat war elephant and certainly isn't an example of an attack using one. The closest reference we have to the incident is part of a sentence in Gulab Singh of Jammu and Kashmir. --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The incident is the killing of Jawahar Singh, the Vizier of the Punjab by his own troops during a parade in September 1845. I doubt if it counts as illustrating a war elephant.Catsmeat (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page disagrees with Battle of Gaugamela to which it links. It states that the number of elephants in the battle was fifteen, while the linked page has the number as fifty. Howard C. Shaw III--68.213.34.248 19:05, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I was sorry to see that the link to War pigeon was removed, as it was inspired by War elephant. But all's fare in wiki-love and war-fauna. --Zigger 18:13, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)


Is it appropriate to mention the usage of war elephants in certain video games, such as Civilization (computer game)? --NeuronExMachina 03:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


The coment about the chess rook being based off a tower on an elephant, contradicts the rook page and there was a discussion about it in talk.say1988 22:27, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Confusion about war elephants in use by Carthage and Egypt

It is my understanding that the Egyptians at Raphia had smaller elephants than the Asian ones used by Antiochus. I also believe that Hannibal's personal elephant was Asian (named the Syrian). Thus it appears that the Egyptians and Carthaginian elephants were smaller than the Asian ones. In which case, they could not have been using the African Savannah elephant, which is larger. I would like someone who knows better to clarify this.

Hannibal used the barbary elephant, a small subspecies of savannah elephant from North Africa, now extinct. Egiptians use sometimes syrian (asian) elephants, and sometimes african elephants from Nubia. There are many ancient pictures of african war elephants with its characteristic big ears, like this.
(Excuse me, I'm not a native english speaker)--Menah the Great 16:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was at Villa Giulia and remember a bit about the explanation about the plate. It was a memorial about the war against Pyrrhus. It was significant for Romans because of something. --Error 01:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


All 3 were probably used by the Carthaginians my children. The osprey book "Armies of the Carthaginian Wars" states that the majority was Numidian bred North African war elephants, but the presence of massive, bush elephants from the Sudan cannot be denied.They were a minority as they were hard to tame, but Cqarthage had an active trans-Sasharan trade which provided the occasional tamed elephant. This prersence is proven in the book, and it is said that whilst forest were 2-man and 1-man, the bush elephants were 4 man with howdahs carrying an officer, a sarrissaman, and an archer, with a Mahout on the neck.The Asiatic elephant "most likely" existed as an even smaller minority. It is not proven, but Carthage and Ptolomaic Egypt (Egypt used lots of Asiatics and africans) had a thriving military trade deal from c.300BC to 241BC.60.228.53.39 06:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to use Osprey Books as cited sources? They're intended for a wargamer audience, not scholarship, and so are inconsistant in quality. I don't know of any comparisons by the ancients between the elephants of North African and West Asian powers other than the afformentioned one about the Ptolemeic and Selucid elephants confronting each other in battle. I'd prefer to hear -where- the Osprey title you referred to obtained 'proof' of Punic use of Savanna elephants--is it a statue or a record by a roman historian? The existence of cross-sahara trade doesn't seem convincing to me. On a related note, the claim that Carthaginian war elephants in the Punic wars were heavily armoured and carried 3-man howdahs is one that I'm not familiar with, and would preferably like another source for than a limited-print journal. Wilhelm Ritter 06:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osprey refers to sources. please cite them. Wandalstouring 10:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timur

I thought Timur was the heir of a Mongol. Did he use Turks in his armies?

Usability

Zoological books say that war elephants were easily startled, so probably were mostly significant as ceremonial or psychological weapon.

Use in modern times?

I've heard of elephants being used for logistics purposes by Angolan insurgents during the 70's. I think the U.S. Special Forces are trained to use them, along with other pack animals. Does anyone have a source for this? 66.133.180.21 05:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first seems anecdotally possible, although I've only found references to hunting them for ivory in order to finance military operations. The second seems highly unlikely to be taught as a generic skill. This rumor probably derives from this special forces manual which actually says they should not be used as they are an endangered species. On review, this seems citable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard rumours of Vietnamese troops using elephants to haul heavy weapons and supplies and so they were therefore targeted by US forces during the Vietnam war. Can anyone shed any light on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.151.3 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just Antiquity!!

Can someone please write about elephants ion the medieval period, early modern and modern periods.

The medieval period was just as glorious with elephants.....just not in europe/africa.

And more is needed on asia.60.228.53.39 06:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that the elephants occasionally had parts of their tusks sawn off and replaced with blades. Is this true? I got the information from a second-hand source, who claims to have seen the above-mentioned information on a recent television show.

Yes its true. I read it the book "The Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Warfare". I forgot the author and publisher, but if someone wants to add this to the article, I can easily do so for the contributer.It is Indian and medieval.

This is just one interesting tidbit of later elephant warfare, which is why we mustn't ignore such later history. Im suprised this article was featured.60.228.53.39 06:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A genuine war elephant

Have been disappointed by some of the images of claimed "war elephants"...some of these are actually mounts for commanders. This image is better [1] and the description of its use as opposed to ordinary mounts is given here Elephant in battle

Elephants as a platform for Archers, and Mounted crossbow weapons!

This part isn't ven mentioned in the tactical use section of the article!

I am going to add a few lines explaining how Wae Elephants were used to carry archers closer to enemy lines and since they're at a height, they can fire their arrows with a lot more accuracy and power at the enemy horses and infantry. The Khmer along with several Indian kingdoms used to mount giant crossbows (similar to Roman Ballistas) on the Elephants to help fight other Elephants and Chariots. Darkness1089

Female troops?

So, the elephant page says only males were war elephants but the war elephant page say either one. Anyone *know* which it is? (Also posted to elephant talk.) Nklatt 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to page xi of John Kistler's book War Elephants (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006), it's only males. I'll change the war elephant page. CarolinianJeff 11:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only heard of male elephants being used in combat, but Polybius mentions females among the elephants Hannibal had when crossing the Rhone. the argument was that thisway the males were easier to control because they followed a female that waseasier to control. Pyrrhus possibly had some female elephants with calves in battle(the females would defend the calf at all cost), I think there are some coins and possiblyLivy mentions the story (have to look for sources).Wandalstouring 13:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That same John Kistler book also confirms that Pyrrhus had females, although accepts that males were the norm.

According to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant#Domestication_and_use

females where never used for war because they would run away. -Daniel T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.98.235 (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listy sections

Okay. One of the reasons it fell out of featured article status was listy sections. Here is one such list.



In literature

In film

In games


I think it is good idea to just remove the section, since it is possibly one of the reasons the article lost FA status.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 21:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually surprised that section wasn't there. In any article where that is possible i see something like that.--Andy mci 17:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, such stuff gets removed from any article. If this is notable, write an article about it, if not it isn't information we need or do you consider tolist every book/video/game where a freaking war elephant jumps out of the bushes.Same would be likelisting Donald Duck, Scrooge McDuck and all other Disney ducks in the article on ducks. Wandalstouring 17:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannons mounted on elephants?

In Medieval 2: Total War, the Timiruds have an elephant unit with cannons on their backs

Can anyone confirm the realism of this? Or is this fake? I hate to be horrible about this but hahahahahhaa, is the only way I can think to respond. 170.65.188.1 04:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TehNomad 21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I didn't see this comment before I added the contradiction stuff. Someone made an article about the Medieval 2 elephants, and that article states that they didn't exist and it was a "snafu" by someone at Creative Assembly (the company that made the game). This article does mention that elephants fitted with culverins did exist. Hence the contradiction.  :) --DarthBinky 04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The article for cannon elephants states in no uncertain terms that elephants with cannons mounted on their backs did not exist; this article states that they did. I have a feeling that this article is the correct one, but thought I'd point it out so someone more knowledgeable than I can fix it. Cheers --DarthBinky 04:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the crossbow article is an photograph of an ancient relief showing an elephant with a heavy arcuballista on his back. Not quite a cannon, but a similar concept and comparable to a very light cannon. Wandalstouring 14:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While an elephant might be able to actually hold a light cannon on it's back, I don't think it's going to be able to handle the recoil, much less remain calm when a cannon is fired off it's back. I'm afraid I don't have a source for this, but I think common sense says no mention of cannon elephants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.40.46 (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Indians actually did use War Elephants with small breech-loading culverins mounted on their backs. The cannon was strictly used for short-range anti-personnel work since it was loaded only with grapeshot and fired with a small charge that wasn't loud enough to scare the elephant but sufficient enough to propel the shot. --Arima (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Species

The Forest elephant page says that 'war elephant' is a species. This article is about the.. unit... or profession. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What?

Is Pyrrhic victory really the correct discription of the battle of Hydaspes? I think not "A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor" Alexander lost as most ten percent of his army mostly infantry now I'm not saying thats not steep loses but thats no crippling, lets look at the citation used:

"But this last combat with Porus took off the edge of the Macedonians' courage, and stayed their further progress into India. For having found it hard enough to defeat an enemy who brought but twenty thousand foot and two thousand horse into the field, they thought they had reason to oppose Alexander's design of leading them on to pass the Ganges, too, which they were told was thirty-two furlongs broad and a fathom deep, and the banks on the further side covered with multitudes of enemies."

Note it refers to the subsequent mutiny not actually the battle, though in fairness it directly relates the mutiny to the battle, what must however be remembered is the Macedonian mutinied multiple times during Alexanders campaign they had left home ten years ago they had fought god knows how many battles in total, they had defeated Persia the whole point of leaving Macedonia they were now running around the middle of no where getting trappled on by elephants, they were annoyed.

Even if we claim that Alexander was stop solely by this battle it's not exactly a devastating lose to the victor they had won the campaign against Porus they just turned around and went home afterwards with their army mostly intact (well at least until Gedrosia) how does that constitute devasating. Even if we look at it solely from Alexander's view point he wasn't exactly crushed by it if you look at other events he had way further to go on the despair scale.

Then the article goes on to say it was the elephants that were responsible for halting Alexander citing same bit of Plutarch note "twenty thousand foot and two thousand horse", its debatable but I don't really have a problem with it though, elephants trappling people is after all what the battles famous for, over simplified but not exactly wrong.

Hence I kept that section and conservatively clipped off the prior Pyrrhic victory as it isn't one.....

I wonder whether Alexander ever had any intention of going further. He never went outside the boundaries of the Persian empire, which seems to have been what he wanted. Possibly the world-conqueror thing was a later invention. PiCo (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to paragraph structure etc.

I've done a bit of general tidying up work, especially on the paragraph structures in various places - see what you think. Full details as follows.

I've tightened up the intro very slightly, and moved a couple of clauses into the main article.

On the history sections, I've done some extensive work on the paragraph structure, which had become very loose in places over time (but tried to keep the underlying sentence structures and content intact whereever possible), and tried to tidy up the odd word or two. I've broken down Antiquity into three sections, given its length, and chased down some additional references. I've added a little bit on the Siamese and Vietnamese use of elephants in the modern period (late 19th century). I've taken out the (admittedly rather nice) "war elephants as a metaphor for political forces" picture, as it didn't seem to link in, and was also a picture of an elephant-mounted hunt, rather than a war elephant per se.

On the tactics section, a little tidying around the edges, and some work on paragraph structure and references towards the end.

I've combined the 'gaming pieces' and 'surviving relics' into a single 'cultural legacy bit', and added a little on architectural legacies as well, aiming to lose the list style in the process. See what you think.

I've then added a full references section at the end.

I hope that I've avoided any pit falls on the issues raised in the discussions above, --Hchc2009 (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


1868 Expedition to Abyssinia

Elephants were used to move some artillery around. Should this be mentioned?©Geni 00:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it should be in the tactics section. Easier transport of artillery was a significant advantage during those times.Meatsgains (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The elephants' thick hide gave them considerable protection

Marked this as dubious, both because I believe this is a myth, and because the entry goes on to mention armour protection.—Pawyilee (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant#Skin An elephant's skin is generally very tough.... Although tough, an elephant's skin is very sensitive.—Pawyilee (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
considering the durability of animal skin and the thickness of an elephants hide 1 inch on back and head (Shoshani, pp. 66–67.) its possible it could provide small arms such as a gladious or arrows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolvark (talkcontribs) 08:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use during the Mughals

Other than the pictures, there needs to be a mention of the Mughal's use of elephants. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2nd century BC artillery

"The Han Dynasty of the 2nd century BC fought against Nanyue and Yue kingdoms of South East Asia (ancient proto Sino-Vietnamese) that did employ war elephants. Common tactics used to repel these elephants included massed crossbow or artillery fire." Artillery in the 2nd century BC? PiCo (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-gunpowder types of artillery include siege engines. Dimadick (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War elephant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

According to Second_French_intervention_in_Mexico#Egyptian_Auxiliary_Corps_January_1863, 13 Canon Elephants were used in Mexico. --Error (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simplification in Cultural legacy

Current:

..., calls its bishop Gaja, meaning elephant in Sanskrit; it is still called an elephant in Chinese chess. Also in Arabic – and derived from it, in Spanish – the bishop piece is called al-fil, Arabic for "elephant"; in Russian, too, the bishop piece is an elephant (Слон). In Bengali, the bishop is called hati, Bengali for "elephant".

This repeats four times "In xxx, the bishop is called elephant"... How about:

..., calls its bishop Gaja, meaning elephant in Sanskrit. As consequence, the bishop is still called elephant in many other languages: in Arabic (al-fil) and derived from it, in Spanish (alfil), in Russian (Слон), Bengali (hati), and many others: see Chess piece#Piece_names.

The final link points to a list with "elephant" for 20 languages, if I count right. — MFH:Talk 03:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contraption

List of mechanical contraptions related to the "War elephant" has yet to be collected.

12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC) 43.242.178.254 (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]