Roster for India

[Caligula Caesar]

I'm very close to having the heights map loading. I think I'll leave the rest to you from there, as it is much easier from then on, and I have done enough for the day.

[Caligula Caesar]

I've committed the working map (with only the heights map in place)... hope you don't mind

[Quinn Inuit]

You rock! Thank you! That's a huge step forward.

[Caligula Caesar]

It's a pleasure

The things you need to look out for now (if you get errors) are the normal descr_strat errors, and misplaced cities (if it tells you it is trying to put two settlements in Hibernia, that's the bug) and misplaced ports (don't trust map_regions - it is mostly right with the coastlines, but not always).

[Quinn Inuit]

O.K., I'll watch for it. I learned about map_regions and coastlines the hard way last year, so I know what you mean.

[Sardaukar One]

on elephants, that the calf stays with its mother does not mean that the mother can't get pregnant in the meantime. by your logic all human siblings should be separated by at least 18 years in age since a human child stays with his/her mother for about 18 years !

It does make a difference if the current calf is still relying on its mothers milk. I never said that an elephant calf stayed with it mother for ten years. Only that that it can stay with its mother for upto ten years.
As I understand it, the calf tends to stay with its mother longer than three years.

c'mon is that correct ? do you see the gap in your argument ? in the wild animals tend to reproduce as quickly as they can, and not wait till the previous offspring is all grown up and self sufficient.
no need to take my word for it, there are literally 100's of websites, many of them quite reliable that details these things. all you need to do is use google.

A lot of animals wait till their offspring are self sufficient. Lions don't mate till their cubs are old enough to survive on their own. Typically when they don't need milk anymore.
Aren't elephants very unique for the wild in that they give birth to just one calf?
They are very intelligent and are they not solely reliant on their mother and the herd for guidance etc?
Unlike many animals who are born with a boat load of natural instincts right off the bat. The calf needs a lot of nurturing.

Animals don't get to raise families in a house or get to go shopping if they forgot the evening meal.

please show me where I've said that. mauryans were a power based in eastern India, near the source of elephants, as were the nanda empire which was contemporary to alexander.
even in their weaker periods they would have had no problems getting war-elephants.

Originally Posted by Boom S
Carados, but that is the very point, western India had far too small a number of wild elephants to support a sizable corps of the larger sized ones. just compare the size of the elephant corps of the gangaridai/vanga and that of puru/porus.
they would have had to make do with smaller ones.

I thought they controlled most of India at this time.

you are yourself saying chandragupta couldn't have given seleucus many females and in the very next line you say he should have bred a lot of elephants ?
how so ? I didn't know that male elephants could give birth !
is this some new insight into elephant physiology ?

Using your numbers for elephant birth rate, I doubt Chandragupta gave Seleucus any females. If he had done so, Seleucus would have surely been able to have a good shot at creating a successful breeding program.
If females were given to Seleucus, probaly just a few and old ones at that.

pyrrhus could breed them yes but in what numbers. climate plays a very important part on a very sensitive animal's life cycle. how do you know he did not maintain his elephant corps with breeding ?
his use of female elephants do point out that he wasn't receiving war-elephants from asia.

Justin states that Ceraunus gave Pyrrhus 50 elephants. Another source, whose name escapes me right now, states that Pyrrhus took 25 elephants to Italy. Pyrrhus might not have taken all his elephants with him. But these elephants almost certainly did not come from Seleucus.
The only way anyone in Europe was going to get more elephants was if they captured some in battle.
These elephants were essentially a one time source only.

kautilya(another name for chanakya, also known as vishnugpta) mentions club as you can see in the quoted text. later sources also mention chains etc.
we were not discussing the mughals were we ? I meant this period only. mauryan and subsequent era.
if it was not effective it is difficult to explain why the practice continued for 2000 years into mughal era and was adopted by a people who were more accustomed to cavalry tactics and didn't have any baggage of tradition to continue the practice.
elephants are known to use simple tools in the wild, they use crude sticks to beat up other animals. with ample training this could well have been effective as a battle move. the elephant trunk is remarkably dexterous and is used much as we use our hands. it can for example pick up a small coin from a smooth surface.
fighting with weapons however certainly takes a lot of training and I don't think it would have been very common. perhaps only a few of the more experienced elephants could manage this trick.

I was under the impression that the trunk was a very useful asset to the elephant in battle. So why make an elephant carry a weapon with it?
I bring up the Mughals because I was pretty sure they were the ones that did do this with their elephants.
Have them carry weapons with their trunks.

yes, although it probably looked different to the seleucid type.
we do not know, but we can make educated guesstimates based on texts, archeological remains and subsequent practices. this is a point to be made not only for this case but also in general, there is considerable continuity of military practices in India from this period onwards. since the mauryans were considered a glorious example, many of their customs were emulated by later day kings and emperors.

I'm not that sure of the seleucid model either. elephants are very susceptible to heat and it seems unlikely they would stay sane for long under a complete cover of metal. unless the seleucids liked suicidal out of control elephants, I don't think they would have covered up the elephant as portrayed in game. I think RG was the first to do that.
it is based on an artist's impression of a half-broken elephant model. IMO the artist has taken an artistic license and then some.

I'm currently in the process of revamping all elephant units for FO, including african ones, wait for a bit, you will not only have text answers but pictorial ones as well ! I hope the wait will be worth it !

I have a picture of a terracotta statue from the Elephant battle. It depicts a Seleucid elephant attacking a gallic warrior. Its not armoured, but does have a tower on its back.

I could not find it in a cursory search yesterday. I'll post it here when I do.

Some of what you said about drills I find plausible but jumping trenches is something I find hard to believe.
Unless of course, its a very small trench. And its more like running or walking over it.

still in research. I think they would have because tusks can break during combat and no one appreciates toothache, certainly not 5 ton beasts ! will let you know.

I know they did this later on, but I don't know what its called that they put on the tusks.

let me ask you a question in return for all those you asked.

does you day job involve writing scripts for cheesy hollywood potboilers ? this is insanely melodramatic for a game forum !

If it did, I would buy this site and fire you all. I'd been typing right now from my Malibu estate.
Assuming you hadn't already taken my job.

[Sardaukar One]

Sorry, I read your comment wrong. When you said you thought it "hard to believe" I immediately associated that with the previous comment of taking 20 years to mature, failing to note the comma and the subsequent mention of the single calf in a lifetime.

I didn't catch it. Sorry.

That's probably the case. There weren't all that many around after a while. Something to note is that both Pyrrhus and Ptolemy Ceraunus had elephants. I think Pyrrhus had something in the order of 40 altogether (he only took so many with him to Italy I believe). Would Ceraunus give up more than half of his elephants to appease Pyrrhus? It may be that approaching some 100 elephants had survived their epic journey from India. Antigonus inherited the elephants of Ceraunus when he perished. Did they pass to Pyrrhus when he defeated Antigonus sometime later? Do we know what happened to them all after Argos?

After the first Diadoch war, Antipater took the royal army back to Europe. He did do a troop exchange where he gave Antigonus half of the elephants, which totalled 75. So Antipater took 75 elephants back to Europe with him.
These elephants were acquired under Alexander whilst he was in India. I believe Arrian said he had over 200of them. Considering the military reforms Alexander had in mind, he might well have wanted to start a breeding program in the west. If so, its hard to see how some of the Indian kings could have fobbed him off with elderly elephants and all males as Chandragupta seems to have done with Seleucus.
Consequently, its quite likely that some of the elephants taken back to Europe by Antipater in 317 BC were quite a bit younger than the ones given to Seleucus some 15 years later.

The sources quote Polyperchron, Kassander and Olympias as using elephants. The European herd might have gotten a boost of elephants after Ipsus. When Seleucus and Lysimachus divided the Antigonid kingdom, they would have also divided the military where feasible. Obviously troops who came from Syria would go with Seleucus, just as troops from Asia Minor would stay with Lysimachus. But some units, like the Hypaspists and the Antigonid elephant corps, had no such restrictions.
As Lysimachus did not have an elephant corps, he may well have wanted, and gotten, the Antigonid elephants. I'd add that Antigonus might well have gotten a influx of elephants himself from Eumenes after defeating him at Gabiene.
When Lysimachus took eastern Macedon from Demetrius in 287 BC, and the rest from Pyrrhus the following year, he seems to have taken over the Macedonian herd. And if he acquired a herd after Ipsus, which I think he must have, Lysimachus might well have had a large elephant corps.
Further proof of this after Korupedion, and after Ceraunus murdred Seleucus, he was able to give Pyrrhus at least 25 elephants and as much as 50 elephants to leave him alone. So Ceraunus must have had a fair amount of elephants. As you said, I don't think he gives up more than half his elephants.
And the elephants Ceraunus got had to be the herd Lysimachus had built up. But they almost certainly didn't come from Seleucus.

Antigonus Gonatas inherited the Elephants from Ceraunus when he got Macedon from the Gauls.
Pyrrhus seems to have captured some of the elephants from Gonatas a few years later.
But whatever Elephants were left in Europe seem to have been scooped up by Gonatas when Pyrrhus was killed at Argos. Gonatas got them all after this. They eventually would have died out.
They probably would have been in their 50's or 60's at this point. I think he used them a few more times, though I am not sure, but they seem to have been all gone by 250 BC. At least as a military asset.

Hmmm. Well I know little about male/female relations so I'll concede the point. I still going to point out that a mother is far more lethal than a male when offspring are involved.

There are exceptions to the rule. You ever seen a male hippo go after a baby hippo? Its not pretty and mummy can't stop the male. They try to run, but its often futile for the baby.

I'm more interested in the fact that Pyrrhus even had a mother and calf in the first place. I think most people assume that Chandragupta wouldn't have given Seleucus any females so that he can maintain a monopoly. But then how would Pyrrhus (and by extension, Ceraunus) have gotten ahold of a female?! I can think of three possibilities here:

1) Chandragupta had actually given Seleucus, intentional or otherwise, some female elephants.
2) Seleucus had acquired elephants from other kingdoms (similar to how Antiochus acquired those 20 elephants from Bactria)
3) The mother and child are actually a fabricated reality in order to make an interesting read of the situation.

I leaning towards 3. If it was true, then Pyrrhus/Ceraunus could've inadvertedly kick started a breeding program. I'm sure someone would've picked up on the idea and at least attempted it, even if Greece isn't exactly the best place to do it. It would also make sense with regards to hearing very little about them after Argos. They might've all died from old age around this point of time.

Not trying to be aggressive or rude, but none the above.
Seleucus might well have picked up some elephants from the satraps he conquered as he established control over the east 307-303 BC. I think I got the dates right. And he might have gotten some female elephants too. But its highly unlikely a Seleucid elephant ever made it to Europe for Ceraunus to give to Pyrrhus.
After Korupedion, Seleucus headed to Europre to take control of Lysimachus possessions. As we all know, Ceraunus murdered him there. And the army seems to have supported him. This suggests that Seleucus took little in the way of his own soldiers with him. Probably just a bodygaurd. Consequently, it seems unlikely he would take his elephants with him, but leave the rest of his army behind.
Considering how strapped for soldiers Antiochus I was in the aftermath of Seleucus' death, it also suggests that Seleucus was relying on a fair amount of support from the cities of Asia Minor during the Korupedion campaign. And Antiochus had no elephants. He had to call up 20 from the east. Babylon I think.
So he might not have had much choice in going short handed to Europe.

Not much is known about the Korupedion campaign. We do know that Seleucus attacked Asia Minor over the winter, probably wanting to take advantage of the weather and the confusion surrounding the murder of Agathocles, Lysimachus son. The longer Seleucus waited, the more likely support for him would fade.
So he may not have been able to wait for his elephant corps. Seleucus did have some elephants in 285 BC when he captured Demetrius. But it doesn't sound like he had many then.
Likewise, Lysimachus was caught with his shorts around his ankles and it would seem he didn't have time to bring over his own elephant corps to Asia minor. He had to stop Seleucus as quickly as he could.

My view is that Seleucus may very well have not used elephants during the Korupedion campaign. If he did, they didn't accompany him to Europe.

The European elephants, of which some ended up in the Epirote army under Pyrrhus most likely came from the elephants brought back to Europe by Antipater in 319 BC, with a very likely infusion when Lysimachus took over the Antigonid herd after Ipsus. Though the herds of Lysimachus were probably not joined with the Macedonian herd until he had taken Macedon in 287-285 BC.
It seems far more likely there were females with these elephants than with the ones Seleucus got.

Pyrrhus had Ceraunus, Antigonus and Antiochus in the way of him anyway. Only the Seleucids had access to elephants at the time. Personally, I think someone has taken artistic license and made it up.

I believe the female elephant chasing after her baby into the Epirote ranks was a big reason the Romans won the battle. I don't then see why the Romans would make such a story up? I'm sure they would rather have won the battle by roman valor. But wasn't one theme the Romans were trying to perpetuate was that they didn't need elephants to fight their battles? Here was a great reason why!

I have a picture in a book showing a plate from the era with the mother elephant and her calf. Based on this incident.

I would amend the statement to "only the Seleucids had access to more elephants."

[Caesar Augustus]

This is really fascinating to read through, I feel like I'm learning alot, even if I have little to contribute to the discussion.

[Metaluis90]

Yesterday I watched a TV Show called "Deadliest Warriors" where a budhist monk fought against a mauryan (or mauri, I don't really know, but I think that, according to the proximity, its right to assume that they were talking about indians). The mauryan lost, but they got pretty nasty weaponry!

What I can remember they had this kind of green stone (i think it was jade or I don't know, ill research a bit) which they claimed was stronger than steel, and when it was tested, this stone DESTROYED 2 cow torsos so easily that the tv hosts where astonished! this stone also has some religious meaning for them, as it was crafted by their ancestors, in addition, it could be used as a spear edge, or as a short range weapon, it has a very nasty damaging effect, as it can be used for slashing and blunting(?)

[Boom S]

that was maori from new zealand, nothing to do with mauryans.

[Metaluis90]

they are pretty sick, anyway, should be implemented as mercenaries!!!

[JaNuZ99]

they are pretty sick, anyway, should be implemented as mercenaries!!!

ExRM doesn't cover anywhere near New Zealand therefore mercenaries would be illogical to have them as mercenaries anywhere on the map.

though i saw that episode too and i thought they were pretty cool too

[Metaluis90]

DREAMING IS ALLOWED, LET ME BE!!


i was joking, in the previous post, man

yeah they were nasty bastard, oh yes they were!

[JaNuZ99]

DREAMING IS ALLOWED, LET ME BE!!


i was joking, in the previous post, man

yeah they were nasty bastard, oh yes they were!

ok well i'll let you dream, but no matter how cool thoes guys are, they will never stand up against my all mighty romans!!

VICTORY, VICTORY, VICTORY TO ROME, ALL HAIL ROME!! ... (or prepare to lose you land,liberty and woman )

[Metaluis90]

I highly doubt your romans even know about and island called "New Zealand".

[Boom S]

they were
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BoNmpvkavo

and still are
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GpTsPNwwms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cle20lQg0Qs

[JaNuZ99]

I highly doubt your romans even know about and island called "New Zealand".

i highly doubt your Maori ran an empire that spanned for thousands of years, or whose very demise would cause a period of such terror as that dubbed the "the dark ages" (when the fall of an empire leads to a period of such barbarity, danger, and a whole lot of other things, its for a reason)

[Boom S]

and did all that while wearing mini-skirts ! just iimagine what they might have done had they worn trousers !

[JaNuZ99]

and did all that while wearing mini-skirts ! just iimagine what they might have done had they worn trousers !

you'll never stop pointing that out huh? well ok, they did that in mini-skirts, but hey i take creating an empire that spans thousand of years over embarrassment of wearing mini-skrist any day.

plus don't forget that later on emperors came from the rank and file, thus they through wearing those mini-skirst rose amongst thier comrades, and with their help became rulers of the arguably the most important,prosperous and important empire in the annals of history of mankind

but lets step back and think.. what would they have done with trousers?

(i wonder if they would eventually have discovered America and taken that over too...)

[Metaluis90]

you'll never stop pointing that out huh? well ok, they did that in mini-skirts, but hey i take creating an empire that spans thousand of years over embarrassment of wearing mini-skrist any day.

plus don't forget that later on emperors came from the rank and file, thus they through wearing those mini-skirst rose amongst thier comrades, and with their help became rulers of the arguably the most important,prosperous and important empire in the annals of history of mankind

but lets step back and think.. what would they have done with trousers?

(i wonder if they would eventually have discovered America and taken that over too...)

THEY ALSO HAD THE ALL-MIGHTY PREBATTLE DANCE!!! umbalé umbalé oghoyó! TONGUE! (I'm actually insulting you)