Hi, I’m the History Guy. I have a degree in history,
and I love history. And if you love history too, this is the channel for you.
Hannibal crossed the Alps with his elephants to attack the Romans. It is one of the most
well remembered pieces of ancient history, so striking to the imagination that it might
well be the only thing you remember from your high school world history class. But
while the story of Hannibal crossing the Alps with the elephants is pretty well remembered,
the mystery, the forgotten part, is really the elephants themselves, because we don't actually
know very much about them at all. We don't even know what kind of elephants they were.
Elephants have been trained and used in warfare since at least 400 BC. Starting most likely in
India, and spreading to Persia, where Alexander's army first met them at the Battle of Gaugamela
in 331 BC, and five years later at the Battle of Hydaspes. Their value was largely in intimidation,
using their great size, and even smell to route troops. But they could be terrible in battle,
rending with their tusks, stomping men with their giant feet, and throwing men with their
trunks. But they were difficult to control, and are not naturally aggressive. They often
had to be prodded into battle, sometimes with hot irons, or even plied with alcohol,
and the riders were usually armed with a hammer and a spike that could be driven into the base
of the animal skull and kill it, in case they lost control, and the elephant attacked their
own troops. In North Africa, war elephants were used by the Ptolemaic Kingdoms of Egypt,
and the Numidians. While the use of war elephants in the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage
are most famous, Romans actually first faced war elephants in the Pyrrhic Wars, as early as 280 BC.
The Punic Wars, fought between Rome, and Carthage,
were the result of the two empires' competition to dominate the Mediterranean. The First Punic War,
fought between 264, and 221 BC, resulted in a loss for the Carthaginians. The Carthaginian war
elephants did prove effective in the First Punic War when the terrain was suitable,
notably at the Battle of Tunis in 255 BC, but were not enough to turn the
war in Carthage's favor. The loss established Rome as the naval power in the Mediterranean.
But it was the desire to make good their losses, and the need to gain treasure to pay the debts
from the loss in the First Punic War, that compelled Carthage to pursue the conquest of
Iberia. It was the success of that conquest that compelled the Romans to fabricate another reason
for war in 218 BC, over the Carthaginian conquest of a Roman allied Greek city on the Iberian coast.
With their fleet controlling the Mediterranean, and confident that the Alps provided a barrier
to invasion through Iberia, Rome fully expected the second Punic War to be fought in Carthage.
But Hannibal had a surprise for them, leading a large army, including dozens of war elephants,
across the Alps to attack Rome from the north. Which brings us to the first mystery,
where did Hannibal get his elephants? While elephants at one time roamed almost all the earth,
by Hannibal's time there were only the two species we have today remaining,
the African elephant, and the Indian, or Asiatic elephant. The natural habitat of
African elephants was closer to Carthage, which is on the Mediterranean coast in modern-day Tunisia,
but was still a long way away south of the Sahara Desert. And even if they could be imported,
perhaps up the Nile Valley, African elephants are notoriously difficult to domesticate and control,
making them less useful in war. Indian elephants on the other hand are much easier to domesticate,
and where the animals used against Alexander, while there was some international trade in
Indian elephants, there was no ready population in North Africa, and it begs the question of
how Carthage could acquire them in large numbers. One possible answer offered by
many is the North African elephant. The argument is that there was some breed of elephant, either
a subspecies of the African bush elephant, or a separate species that lived north of the Sahara.
Depictions on Carthaginian coins suggest that they were smaller than other African elephants,
perhaps eight and a half feet at the shoulder, but had the unmistakable shape of African elephants.
Given their use in war, some historians speculate that they may have been easier to domesticate than
African bush elephants. As no example survives today, and there are no modern wild elephant
populations in North Africa, the speculation is that the species went extinct due to overhunting,
for use in war, use in the Roman arenas, and for their ivory. And the increasing errata fication of
North Africa around 100 AD. While the existence of such a species would answer some questions,
the description is actually problematic, not only are there no surviving North African elephants,
there aren't even any known remains that could be tested. Literally the entire
species is predicated upon a few vague ancient historian accounts that might not be reliable,
and a couple of Carthaginian coins. Animal taxonomists note that if there
was a population of elephants in North Africa in Hannibal's time, they would
almost certainly had to have been imported there by humans, as even in Hannibal's time,
North Africa was too arid to produce enough forage to support a population of wild elephants.
Others suggest that Carthage used Indian elephants acquired by trade,
and possibly bred in Ptolemaic Egypt. Hannibal's own war elephant was named Surus,
where some think means “the Syrian '' suggesting that it was descended
from the war elephants used by the Assyrians, Asiatic elephants from their westernmost range.
Whether he used African, or Asiatic elephants, or some mix of the two,
crossing the Alps is difficult for tropical animals. By most accounts,
several died in the crossing. Hannibal's elephants actually only participated in one battle with the
Romans during the campaign, at the Battle of the river Trebia, in December of 218 BC.
There they helped to rout the Roman cavalry and secure a Carthaginian victory. Most died of the
cold the following winter, and they did not fight in the later battles of the campaign.
While he was able, with the help of Gallic allies who also opposed Rome, to ravage Italy,
and threaten Rome herself, Rome responded by taking an army across the Mediterranean,
and attacking Carthage, eventually compelling Hannibal to return to defend his home. There
he was defeated, and once again Carthage was crippled with harsh surrender terms.
But it was in the final famous battle of the war, the Battle of Zama, in 202 BC,
that Hannibal's elephants, battle accounts say as many as 80 were used played, another
famous role. This time being outsmarted by Roman tactics, with the Romans moving quickly aside,
forcing the elephants down corridors between their columns, where they could be killed by javelins.
Or did they? Because the Battle of Zama represents perhaps the most intriguing problem with our
understanding of Hannibal's elephants, and that is that we have almost no reliable information
at all, regarding Hannibal's elephants. As Professor Yozan Mosig of the University of
Nebraska at Kearney notes, “it is highly improbable that Carthage could deploy 80
war elephants at Zama. If they had that many war elephants available, then surely they would
have deployed them during one of the many other battles during the Roman invasion of Carthage,
where they are conspicuous for their absence from battle histories.” And the description of how
the elephants were defeated doesn't really make sense, they were trained animals who had riders,
who would have steered them away from these Roman corridors. So why have we heard so much
about the Roman defeat of Hannibal's elephants at Zama? Well one possible reason is because all
remaining histories of the Battle of Zama are written by Roman historians, notably Polybius,
who had every reason to exaggerate the Roman victory at Zama. No Carthaginian accounts of the
battle survive. And the improbable description of how the elephants were defeated, raises the
very real possibility that there were in fact, no elephants at the Battle of Zama. And in fact,
some historians even argue that the entire Battle of Zama itself might have been a hoax,
created by the Romans to burnish the reputation of their army.
One telling story is Polybius account of how Hannibal had to cross the river Rhone on his
way to cross the Alps, because Polybius tells a complex story about how the Carthaginians
had to build special barges, and cover them with dirt to confuse the elephants into thinking they
were on land, presumably because they were so afraid of water. But in fact elephants are not
afraid of water, they are very good swimmers and rather easily coaxed to cross rivers,
which is something that a Carthaginian would have known, but a Roman historian who knew virtually
nothing about these animals, would not. And therein lies the rub, because all of our existing
descriptions of Hannibal's elephants come from Roman historians, who very likely, never once,
saw an elephant. And that is a telling lesson about our understanding of ancient, and modern
history. The fact that historians will regularly, and confidently tell you that Hannibal was using
a species of elephants, that animal taxonomists have yet to agree even existed, belies the fact
that all history comes from my point of view, and is potentially flawed. And all good students
of history must always be willing to question everything that we think we know, about history.
I’m the History Guy. I hope you enjoyed this episode of my series, 5 minutes of history,
short snippets of forgotten history 5 to 10 minutes long, and if you did enjoy then
please go ahead and put that thumbs up button that's on your left. If you have any questions,
or comments, feel free to write those in the comment section, and I will be happy to respond.
And if you'd like 5 minutes more of forgotten history, all you need to do is subscribe.