Elephants at Gaugamela?

[kurnigandy1]

Does it strike anyone fascinating that fifteen elephants disappeared off the battlefield at Gaugamela? Ptolemy informed us that the Persian prisoners revealed their existence, and Aristobulus confirmed it through Darius’ dispositions. Perhaps this is Arrian’s idea of a sick joke. The facts surrounding Gaugamela are confusing enough, disappearing pachyderms is ludicrous. I would love to hear explanations.

[agesilaos]

The Persian army had stood in the field the day prior to the battle this would have dehydrated the elephants to such an extent that they would have been useless the next day at least that's the theory proposed in 'War Elephants' which I read recently, have to check the author and edit him in.

[marcus]

The Persian army had stood in the field the day prior to the battle this would have dehydrated the elephants to such an extent that they would have been useless the next day at least that's the theory proposed in 'War Elephants' which I read recently, have to check the author and edit him in.

I have to admit that it isn't something that's ever occurred to me. This explanation sounds very reasonable.

More of a worry to me is the lack of scythed chariots in the gameplay of Gaugamela in "Rome: Total War" (the Alexander expansion pack, that is)!

ATB

[Paralus]

What we (supposedly) have is the Persian order of battle that fell into Macedonian hands after the battle. It reads a little like a list of "peoples" and includes men from Coele-Syria - an area under Alexander's control one might think. Whilst it might tell us of peoples it cannot be taken as having backed the numbers the Macedonian sources relate.

Given the army remained in battle array throughout the afternoon and night, as Agesilaos observes, it is possible that the elephants (if present) were not "co-operative" the next day. More to the point they will have had to be taken to be fed and watered. Elephants consume huge amounts of both and it is highly likely that they will have become somewhat truculent if forced to stand in battle line for the better part of a day. Just as unlikely is that the area about Darius – with his Guards and chariots – became cluttered up with resting pachyderms and their tonnage of supplies. More likely they were retired to feed and not bothered with by the time of battle?

It is as well to note that the two best attested battles involving elephant “corps” (Paraetecene and Gabiene), though highly descriptive in most senses, gloss over the elephant participation. At Paraetecene although there are some 179 elephants little is heard of them. Indeed Diodorus fails to mention them after the battle actually begins. That both armies then fronted for Gabiene with the same number of elephants each indicates there was no elephant battle.

This may have been the case at Gaugamela. Darius’ strategy was defensive. His only real attacking gambits revolved around his cavalry wings – where he’d the distinct advantage – and in the use of scythe-chariots. Both of these were aimed squarely at the Macedonian’s strike force: the heavy cavalry of the Macedonian king and his Companion Cavalry.

With 100 of these chariots on the left and a loaded cavalry wing, Darius meant to check Alexander’s drift to the right, pin him to the “prepared ground” and drive his scythes into the Macedonian king and his companions. This will have disrupted his whole attack had it worked. Fifteen elephants – in the Persian centre – were not going to be overly effective. Indeed, it is more likely that the chariots of this sector helped in opening the gap in the Macedonian phalanx.

Either the elephants weren’t there or they weren’t bothered with come crunch time. If they did take part in the battle they are conspicuous by their inaction.

[kurnigandy1]

We learn from Aristobulus where Darius [presumably] placed the elephants (Ar. 3.11.6). The Persian captives revealed to Alexander that the Indians (from this side of the Indus) had fifteen elephants with them (Ar. 3.8.6).

Zero warrants exist for any possible explanation as to their actions due to a complete lack of evidence. I do have to admit also that the idea of the elephants being famished is a new one on me, and a bit absurd. If I were writing a book on war-elephants I don’t think I would have included Gaugamela- better stories do exist.

There is however evidence to support a claim that the elephants were victims of misidentification.

[Paralus]

If I were writing a book on war-elephants I don’t think I would have included Gaugamela- better stories do exist.

Bingo lad!

[amyntoros]

I have little talent for analyzing battles and am sometimes famously confused by threads on the subject, but doesn't Arrian 3.15.6 imply that the elephants were deployed at some point during the battle?

Up to a hundred of Alexander's troops were lost, with over a thousand horses from wounds and distress in the pursuit, of which about half belonged to the Companions. The barbarian corpses were said to number some three hundred thousand, but far more were made prisoner than killed, and the elephants and all the chariots which had not been cut down in the battle were also captured.

Best regards,

[marcus]

Up to a hundred of Alexander's troops were lost, with over a thousand horses from wounds and distress in the pursuit, of which about half belonged to the Companions. The barbarian corpses were said to number some three hundred thousand, but far more were made prisoner than killed, and the elephants and all the chariots which had not been cut down in the battle were also captured.

It rather depends on how you read that sentence. I have to confess that, although I had not considered the elephants at all before "Kurnigandy 1" raised the issue, I know that I have previously read that sentence to be: "and [the elephants], and [all the chariots which had not been cut down in the battle], were also captured." My brackets, of course, to show the two distinct phrases as I read them.

My Greek is sorely lacking - can anyone say whether the Greek is any clearer?

ATB

[Paralus]

It would be difficult for elephants to be "cut down" in the battle if they were not in the battle. The more I think on it the far more likely it is that elephants took no part. Later, in the Indian campaign, these beasts are cause for much comment - particularly their performance at Hydaspes where their "novelty" (for want of a better word) is plain in the battle descriptions. That there is a complete lack of comment on them at Gaugamela - ostensibly the Macedonian's first encounter with the tank of the Hellenistic world - would indicate to me that they took no part. For whatever reason.

The rest of that quote is pure pap: "up to one hundred of Alexander's troops" lost is written without the hint of an embarrassed blush. The fierce engagement on the Macedonian right will have accounted for this number and, likely, many more. Arrian describes the Macedonian cavalry as suffering severely under this flanking assault. Then there is the Macedonian left - rooted to the spot - to consider as well as the fierce battle that developed when the Persians fought to escape envelopment. Here Coenus, leading the aesthetairoi, was wounded along with Hephaestion and others.

Thee hundred thousand Persian dead simply shows up the absolute fiction of the Persian numbers. If the battle lasted for three hours Alexander's men were killing some 1,666 Persians per minute.

I wasn't aware that the Macedonians possessed theatre nukes....

[Phoebus]

Well, assuming a 32x8 formation for the Pezhetairoi, the phalanx alone had a frontage of over 1100 men... not including the Hypaspists. In that sense, and assuming the phalanx was occupied along its entire front, it would be a shame for them to not be able to kill one man per minute, right?

That would leave only a measly 500 or so victims/minute for the mighty Hypaspists, the fearsome Agrianians, and the cavalry to account for. And then we have to take into account the exponentially higher victim/minute tolls that would occur when the Persians took to flight, trampling each other and being trampled by their foes...

OK, OK, I'm really kidding here...

[Paralus]

Well, assuming a 32x8 formation for the Pezhetairoi...

Oooh, that's interesting. You're of the opinion the Macedonian phalanx was eight deep in pyknosis ('closed up' 3' per man)?

[agesilaos]

To defend Kistler, for that is the author, his book is a survey of all the mentions of elephants in warfare so he could hardly leave Gaugamela out; and, far from being absurd the state that hungry de-hydrated pachyderms would be in can be adduced from more modern instances, they are delicate animals not 'tanks'.

Paralus, what about Polybios' description of Raphia, that does include the details of the elephant battle. Maybe Diodoros just omitted it in his precis, he includes the actions of elephants at the Nile and Megalopolis, maybe he just got bored, neither battle description is full nor as informative as his original (one hopes), Polybios is not being summarised, of course.

[marcus]

It would be difficult for elephants to be "cut down" in the battle if they were not in the battle. The more I think on it the far more likely it is that elephants took no part.

Exactly - they were captured, but had taken no part in the battle. The Macedonians also captured the chariots that had not been cut down in battle.

ATB

[Paralus]

and, far from being absurd the state that hungry de-hydrated pachyderms would be in can be adduced from more modern instances, they are delicate animals not 'tanks'.

Yes it's hardly likely they stood in "battle order" all afternoon, night and following morning.

Paralus, what about Polybios' description of Raphia, that does include the details of the elephant battle. Maybe Diodoros just omitted it in his precis, he includes the actions of elephants at the Nile and Megalopolis, maybe he just got bored, neither battle description is full nor as informative as his original (one hopes), Polybios is not being summarised, of course.

Polybios' description of the elephants at Raphia is quite good. It also follows what we know of the tactics that the Diadochoi used. Generally elephants seemed to have been used as Darius attempted to use his scythe-chariots at Gaugamela: to destroy or seriously disrupt the major attack weapon (Alexander and the Companion Cavalry). Antiochus does just this with his Indian elephants when he forces Ptolemy's elephants onto his left cavalry and elite "guard". This allows Antiochos to seriously "disrupt" the left of the Ptolemaic phalanx.

Generally what we hear of are elephants loaded onto the wings - generally more on the wing delivering the main attack. Cavalry then attack around the elephant battle on the flanks (Gabiene and Raphia demostrate exactly that). Even if elephants are placed in front of the phalanx we rarely hear of their actions. They are more likely just as dangerous to their own side placed here than the enemy's.

Diodorus seems to have had little interest in elephant batttles. Megalopolis gets about as short a mention as do the pachyderms at Gabiene. At Paraetecene they seemingly didn't fight at all (both sides front up at Gabiene with exactly the same numbers) and if they did it in no way interested Diodorus. Shame: his descriptions, for Diodorus, are quite good otherwise.

That's what you get when you rely on a sometimes capricious editorialiser (who may not have been working from Hieronymus directly in any case)

[Phoebus]

Well, assuming a 32x8 formation for the Pezhetairoi...

Oooh, that's interesting. You're of the opinion the Macedonian phalanx was eight deep in pyknosis ('closed up' 3' per man)?

To be fair, I was simply trying my best to make a ludicrous proposition sound as plausible as possible...

Regarding the phalanx depth, in all seriousness, I'm not well-read enough to offer a qualified opinion on the matter. I had always assumed that Alexander's Macedonians could shift from a 16x16 to a 32x8 as needed... but again, that's merely an assumption on my part.