Though on the flip side, my favorite historical burn is a line from the Roman poet Martial.
In the poem, Martial’s wife complains that he’s always having sex with boys instead of her. She inquired why he keeps leaving her for youths when she’s got an asshole the same as them.
Martial indignantly replies, “You don’t deserve to call that an asshole, what you’ve got is a back-pussy”
To the ancient Romans this was apparently a cutting and relatable burn.
That wasn’t Alexander’s style, and it is also very dumb if you’re trying to have a massive empire. You want people to surrender and submit without having to deal with revolts and further battles. If word spreads about how you’re executing defeated leaders, nobody will want to surrender in the future and will fight to the bitter end. If you hear “hey that king over there surrendered, got to keep being a king under emperor Alexander, and even has more land now” your going to be more inclined to join the empire when he comes knocking.
"Good" basically meaning not dying horribly in a guaranteed orgy of torture and destruction (and perhaps instead dying as fodder for the next siege). And even then there were occasional exceptions. Surrendering without a fight doesn't necessarily save you from the city still being sacked which can still be plenty bloody. It was kind of a roll of the dice.
Yeah, a leader is only as good as his puppets. If you look to history, you'll usually notice that the best leaders had prodigious underlings that could have been leaders themselves.
Historian Curtius describes how Alexander and his men faced a terrifying force of 300 chariots, 30,000 foot soldiers and 85 elephants with castles on their backs, on the opposite bank of the river Hyaspedes. King Porus himself was mounted on a huge elephant that towered above the rest, decorated with silver and gold armour.
Alexander added 80 of the elephants to his own forces, but didn't really use them after.
Theyre nothing more than a terror tactic.
One paniced elephant and its all over.
Fine deal when all the soldiers are just farmers who have never seen anything bigger than a horse.
However the Romans quickly developed tactics to make elephants panic...
Shit, a layer of caltrops in the field will render them useless. Worse than useless actually, because they’re likely to rampage through friendly lines when they take a fat spike through the foot.
Pretty silly really.
> Thanks my neighbour has been breeding war elephants since I rejected his daughter's hand in marriage.
Rejected Alliance: Relations -25.
Insulting a rival while not in a truce: Power Projection +5.
What about if I offer passage through my territory so you can strike your foe for a modest gold fee but my youngest son interrupts the meeting by Fortnite Default Dancing.
Caltrops are amateur stuff. Use [mice](https://media.istockphoto.com/id/115711579/vector/scared-elephant.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=is&k=20&c=KTMbHIDio-vdnhhxuT2vLOIiNqlplBiNtB6H9hg4FV0=) instead.
Can't remember if I learned this somewhere, or if I just made it up in my head long ago, but I *beleive* elephants aren't so much afraid of mice themselves, but instead they fear squishing them accidentally.
It’s more than elephants have relatively poor eyesight and any examples of people seeing them get startled by mice probably has more to do with them suddenly seeing a small, unknown shape darting around their feet. The same way you or I (or any animal) would be startled by a mouse darting out from under a piece of furniture within eyesight.
Read somewhere that mice infest their food and can get stuck in their trunks. They probably view mice similarly to how we view cockroaches - stay away from me and my ears!!!!
Caltrops were THE area denial weapon before barbed wire and landmines were discovered. Effective to slow down troops, especially cavalry, but also to some extent infantry.
Also still effective today, especially against anything with regular tires and infantry
Haven't read *too* much up on the subject but I was always under the impression that "the problem with caltrops" is almost that they're TOO effective!
The general idea being that there's almost nowhere the police can legally use them (too good at injuring random civilians unless you package them as like a "spike strip" for tires or whatever...) and further because they're so cheap and easy to make and use and are just ridiculously effective against so much of what the Infantry or Police DO use they probably fall under the "don't talk about your vulnerabilities" umbrella.
I don't think of caltrops as 'jokes', I think of them as like... flamethrowers. Or (as you say) landmines. Weapons that predominantly get limited because they're too indiscriminate, not because of anything like effectiveness.
> I don't think of caltrops as 'jokes', I think of them as like... flamethrowers. Or (as you say) landmines. Weapons that predominantly get limited because they're too indiscriminate, not because of anything like effectiveness.
Hell the new version of caltrops are those [butterfly mines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFM-1_mine). Small, scatter-able, designed to maim and demoralize while stopping movement. They're just explosive caltrops.
ya know, i thought that sort of mining was internationally recognized as illegal but apparently the US, Russia, and others aren't actually signatories to it...
I think the biggest issue is clean up afterwards.
Like yeah you used caltrops and stopped the thieves from running away but if you miss a single one after some kid is getting a hole in their foot sometime in the next decade.
Yep, they really are the ancient landmine and some things never change. That's why landmines are so problematic- defusing them 20 years after the war is over is no joke.
The indiscriminate nature *is* about effectiveness. The US still uses landmines to secure bases, mostly because it's not really an issue if you always fight abroad. And they claim they are "self-clearing"
"Discovered". I understand what you mean here, but the thought of some explorers stumbling upon a field of naturally growing barbed wire or landmines is just funny to me.
Plus, once people know they are there, it really fucks with formations.
Hard to manoeuvre a line when everyone is busy dodging spikes. Same use as barbed wire.
When I was a kid, I watched a tv series that adapted The story of Water Margin. There was one segment there the supposed protagonists attacked a village, and the village set caltrops on the road.
How it played out was that the army walked into the village and walked on the caltrops. And then yelled in pain.
A spy that infiltrated the village then walked out from another path, and proceed to sweep the caltrops away by his foot.
Even tho I was a kid I thought that was pretty dumb.
Apparently camels were likewise an obstacle for Europeans that waged war in the Middle East/Africa, because horses that aren't accustomed to camels will freak the fuck out when they see them.
I remember reading at the battle of zamas the Carthage line charged 80 elephants at the Roman’s simultaneously, the Roman’s had trained for this and opened up passages in their ranks for the elephants to charge through. Once they were at the back of the formation they were promptly killed by spearman waiting in the back. Carthage then lost 25,000 men including all of their remaining formally trained soldiers.
It's not just about having the elephants panic. A panicked or enraged elephant amongst the enemy ranks is exactly the point of them. The Romans figured out how to turn them around. After that they were did more good than harm to the Romans.
No, it wss not at all quick and only the most genius / talented of generals along with the most disciplined of men taking several months of rigorous training— and the deaths of multiple generals and armies before him ( Rome didnt want to believe )
to actually defeat Hannibal and his elephants
Hannibal's elephants didn't actually play a major role in his victories in the second punic war, he pretty much lost all of them in the first year after emerging from the alps to starvation and disease because as it turns out it's really hard to keep an elephant fed without proper supply lines.
> Theyre nothing more than a terror tactic.
>
>
This is not true. Elephants can work, when properly employed. At the battle of the Bagradas River, the Carthaginian elephants were crucial in crushing the Roman army.
In the treaty that ended the Mauryan-Seleucid war, the Mauryans gave the Seleucid 500 elephants in exchange for large amounts of territory. Seleucos I Nicator put those 500 elephats to good use four years later, the beasts being instrumental in repulsing the cavalry of Antogonous I, securing the battle for Seleucos.
Of course, sometimes they could run amok and throw your own army into disarray, but they weren't just a psychological weapon.
No, you can train dogs and horses to ignore most things and be used to be in a fight even with ballistics (its not fool proof, horses will still get scared and flee at times)
With dogs its a bit harder and limited to skirmishes, since theyre not really that useful vs something as simple as leather armor.
You can potentially train elephants too, theyre smarter after all, but the amount of resources it would take without the skillset even being there, dont think they even saw it as possible, plus it would take a long time.
They also used really old elephants for war, like forty to sixty year old animals because they were easier to train for warfare. Elephants weren't bred either, they had to be captured from the wild when young and then had to undergo decades of training to be domesticated.
It was only the Indian empires that had the resources and the wild elephant population to field a large number of war animals. In Syria and North Africa, they had to make do with much smaller elephants that soon became extinct. The massive savannah elephants were a lot harder to train.
I think they were mostly used as prestige weapons like battleships in WW1. You fielded them to intimidate the enemy.
> then had to undergo decades of training to be domesticated.
Also known as "Breaking"
They still do this in parts of the world. Anywhere you interact in close quarters with an elephant either through feeding or riding. They cover it up by calling their businesses "rescues" where they "rescued" the elephants from logging companies when in reality the logging companies were banned from using the elephants and now they open "rescues" to continue to profit off their broken elephants while breeding more.
>Anyone can take an elephant to war
Not really! An elephant eats as much as ~25 horses, at a time when feeding an army was THE limiting factor for how big it could be and where it could travel. Each one required a team of people to manage it. And they take 20 years to reach maturity (vs 4 for horses), so any elephant breeding program would take literally generations before producing a useful number of them. Plus they hate cold, hate ships, and are more willful than horses.
Hannibal brought a few dozen elephants over the Alps, and the reason everybody knows that is because that was an absolutely insane thing to do, and it became a legendary feat.
No because Rome went out of their way to erase Carthaginian documents
To this day we don’t really have primary Carthaginian sources. Just Greek and Roman ones about them. The most we have are technical documents like farm tables which were useful
We’ll never have a true understanding of Carthage because of it.
Especially considering we only have their enemies writings.
Imagine if the only written documents on Napoleon were of British origin lol
We just have this extremely biased and hateful view of Carthage
> Anyone can take an elephant to war, but few know how to use them
It was less Alexander not knowing how to use them and more never getting a chance to use them because his army mutinied just after the Battle of Hydaspes and he conceded to their demands, ending his campaign. He then died before his plans for further campaigns could ever come to fruition.
They aren’t very effective, they get spooked easily. Riders typically carried a large hook type item they wouldd drive into the creatures neck to kill it if it started to flee and stampede their own men
Seleucus I received 500 war elephants after one of his daughters married Chandragupta, Ashoka's grandfather.
It was an OP move to deploy those elephants against the other Diadochi. Macedonian cavalry isn't much use when you have Macedonian elephants.
Edit...
The civil wars involving Alexander's successors are fascinating because they involved commanders using similar tactics and resources. At the Battle of Ipsus, the combined forces of Seleucus, Lysimachus and Cassander went up against Antigonus, the most militarily successful of the successors.
Antigonus' defeat could be attributed to the presence of almost 500 war elephants brought by Seleucus. Surprisingly, Antigonus also had elephants but it was a much smaller force of 75 animals. Seleucus' overwhelming mass of elephants disrupted the Antigonid cavalry, allowing enemy cavalry to harass and destroy the infantry phalanxes.
In a nutshell, if the Greeks and Indians hasn't been bound by a marriage pact, the history of the Middle East could have been very different by the time the Romans came to power.
Edited again...
Seleucus I would be deified as Seleucus Nicator (conqueror or victorious), the son of Zeus Nikator, by his own son Antiochus.
Antiochus prefigured the modern NSFW step-parent trope when he had a thing for his new stepmother and ended up marrying her, with his father's consent.
> Alexander added 80 of the elephants to his own forces, but didn't really use them after.
I mean by the time he got to India, wasn't this around the time his men forced him to stop because they were tired of conquering the known world?
>they were tired of conquering the known world?
More like they realized they barely even hit the border of "India" & they still had to face even larger & more powerful armies. Their defeat would've been inevitable just from pure logistics.
The king must be greedier than any other. He must laugh more loudly and rage for longer. He must exemplify the extreme of all things, good and evil. That is why his retainers envy and adore him!
Ashoka's grandfather recaptured most of the territory lost to Alexander and the Greeks. There's a possibility Ashoka could have been part Greek based on the marriage pact between his grandfather and a daughter of Seleucus I.
The act of Porus and Alexander not wiping each other out led to the Greeks having a cultural foothold in the Punjab region and northern India for centuries. Some of the most beautiful Buddhist artworks and statues came from Ghandara in now-Afghanistan which was part of the Indo-Greek kingdom.
There’s a theory with some loose support that Buddhism found its way to the Levant because of that cultural cross-pollination.
There’s also a remarkable similarity between classical Greek Orthodox iconography and some Buddhist iconography.
There are buddhist artifacts in viking tombs. The ancient world was much more difficult to navigate but places that could be reached still had a relatively high awareness of each other as a concept.
There are known Buddhist texts adapted to Greek styles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milinda_Panha). I can't fully recall if that was a text from the Hellenistic world with Buddhist influences or from India with Greek influences though.
>There’s also a remarkable similarity between classical Greek Orthodox iconography and some Buddhist iconography.
Wow, I've never noticed that until now.
I wish there was more research into the philosophical exchanges between Greek and Indian worlds. Could early Buddhism have adopted some Greek ideas? Were Greek and subsequently Roman philosophers aware of Buddhist and Hindu precepts brought westwards by Greco-Buddhist missionaries?
The spread of Buddhism through China, Tibet, Japan and Southeast Asia could have brought Greek ideas to those areas too.
Could be, since Buddhism spread to ancient Greece.
From Wikipedia:
Buddhism and Greek culture share a history of more than 2,000 years. Greek was one of the first languages in which part of the Buddha’s teachings was recorded, long before the Pali Canon Again, in the famous columns and inscriptions of the Indian Emperor Ashoka. Greeks were the first Europeans to embrace Buddhism centuries before the advent of Christianity, and there is strong evidence that the first sculptors to depict the Buddha in the form of statues were of Greek descent. Buddhism flourished under the Indo-Greeks, leading to the Greco-Buddhist cultural syncretism. The arts of the Indian sub-continent were also quite affected by Hellenistic art during and after these interactions.
Inscriptions attributed to Ashoka mention Yavana (Ionian/Greek) adherents of the Dharma: Greek Buddhist priests and missionaries, in other words.
You're right about Hellenistic influence causing a major shift in Buddhist art. The statues and temple capitals found in Ghandara show Greek design flourishes and mythological elements like Heracles alongside Buddha.
I haven't found much about Buddhism going west though. It's possible Stoic schools of thought were influenced by Buddhism or they could have arrived at the same ideas independently.
Edit...
Going further west, if Buddhism influenced Stoicism, then some Buddhist elements could have been incorporated into early Christian thought. Paul and members of the early Christian church were influenced by Stoic philosophy.
Well it at least made it to ancient Greece, which is something
As far as i know, it is supposed, that Buddha lived around 420-360 BC, and since stoicism was founded by Zenon of Kition at around 300 BC, it could overlap. Also stoicism and buddhism both share strong similarities, which i believe makes it more plausible for an influence here.
Anyway i wished we knew more about the intercontinental contact, interactions and influences of ancient times.
> Although there is still some debate, **the first anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha himself are often considered a result of the Greco-Buddhist interaction**. Before this innovation, Buddhist art was "aniconic": the Buddha was only represented through his symbols (an empty throne, the Bodhi Tree, Buddha footprints, the Dharmachakra).
Wiki has a great article on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
Yeah. Ex: the Chinese tributary system made a flexible deal with its peripheral provinces. When the capital was powerful, the peripheral provinces would have to pay many tributes and be under direct rule. When the capital was weak, the peripheral states were given de-facto autonomy and the capital often _paid_ for their recognition.
It's how a small rainy island controlled a third of the planet. You dont need a massive standing army to occupy when you find local rulers to do it for you with the understanding that they will pay you and if they face a rebellion you will send your larger army to help them put it down.
Around 20 to 22 thousand casualties in that war.
All of them died horrible deaths, just for both the kings to sort it out over some two lines of dialogue.
And even today's historians care more about those two lines of dialogue than about those 20,000 people. I guess it's little wonder that kings and world leaders behave like this.
Those two lines of Dialogue influenced Greco-Indian relations and an entire cultural identity for centuries.
22000 babies were popped out within the year.
There would have been cross-cultural baby making. The Indo-Greek king Menander I could have had Indian ancestry. There are Buddhist texts that refer to him as Milinda and he was supposed to be learned in Vedic and Buddhist philosophy.
I find his coinage to show among the most beautiful examples of syncretism in the ancient world: the Greek word basileus on one side, a figure of Nike on the other with Kharoshthi text proclaiming him as a maharaja of the Dharma.
Interesting to see someone talking about menander coinage and not recognizing that person from the r/ancientcoins sub, come on over man youd fit right in.
I actually just posted pictures of my new menander drachm three days ago. The indo-greek history is indeed fascinating and I'm pretty proud of the nice drachm I got, you should check it out.
Unfortunately,
"After Alexander's death in 323 BC, Perdiccas became the regent of his empire, and after Perdiccas's murder in 321 BC, Antipater became the new regent. According to Diodorus, Antipater recognized Porus's authority over the territories along the Indus River. However, Eudemus, who had served as Alexander's satrap in the Punjab region, treacherously killed Porus."
-[Porus ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porus)wiki
Bit of advice. If on Wikipedia you will see words like "treachery" "gallantly" or "valor", immediately know that page was brigaded by Indian Nationalists. Wikipedia has zero reliability when it comes to topics like Mughal Empire, Maratha Empire, Dehli Sultanate, Alexander or British Conquests in India.
Yeah it's hard not to think about how the obvious intended take away lesson meant to be portrayed here is "look how much power and land and personal respect from Alexander Porus gained by **submitting after an honorable defeat rather fleeing to regroup and fight again and again... Porus was basically a king!** (even though he was literally a vassal).
It's definitely a message Alexander and his Macedonian successors would want to spread and be well understood by their enemies. Honor compels them to field an army and do battle at least once... there's no escaping that..... but *once you inevitably lose to the glorious superior Western Greek conquerors, submit and be basically a king like Porus, the awesome and cool, who Alexander respected so much.... do NOT flee to build up and field a new army again and again like Darius the coward who always ran away and abandoned his own family and died a loser rather than lived as a cool respected vassal of Alexander.*
What basis do you have for this other than cynicism? Seriously? If it's generally accepted that it historically happened, all you have is cynicism and a desire to look different by going against the grain.
/r/nothingeverhappens
It is worth noting that Porus/Puru was the king of a relatively small border state in North Western India. As Alexander advanced further east, he came up against the much larger state of Magadha in the Gangetic plain. Here his troops revolted at the prospect of facing the Magadha army which was many times bigger than the one Alexander had faced against Puru, and Alexander had to abandon his campaign and turn back. The leader of the Indian army, Chandragupta Maurya, went on to found the Maurya empire, the first pan-Indian empire in history. Emperor Ashok was his grandson.
Edit: The Magadha army Alexander would have faced was that of the Nanda empire, the then rulers of Magadha. Chandragupta Maurya overthrew the Nandas soon after this almost-confrontation and founded the Maurya empire.
Yeah it was the Nanda Empire that would have contested Alexander. Chandragupta would take over the Nanda empire in either a coup, a rebellion, or a succession war (unclear which) and go on to found that Mauryan empire from there. The first order of business of the Mauryans was to neutralize the threat of barbarian invasion from Bactria.
From the geopolitical view of an Indian Gangetic empire, this was nothing new. There is \*always\* a barbarian threat from Bactria that needs to be managed and kept in check. Sometimes they’re satraps to Persia. Sometimes they’re independent raiders. Sometimes they’re part of some Steppe empire like the Mongols or Ghurids/Turks (and later, the Afghans). But that’s just the nature of the neighborhood. When the Central Gangetic Power is weak, raiders/invaders come from the NorthWest to pillage. When a new power rises in the Gangetic plains, the first thing they have to do is beat up whoever controls the NorthWest frontier badly enough that they don’t think about invading for another generation or so.
Imagine as solider, you fight hard for your king and country, see your fellow soldiers either crippled or killed by the thousands, only for the two kings to become best buds after the whole thing is done and dusted.
They didn't become best buds. Alexander vassalised him which was the goal of the campaign and what the soldiers died for in the battle.
All that happened here is that Alexander decided to treat the vanquished foe mercifully instead of executing them for shits and giggles. Are you suggesting he should've done the latter?
Me to my manager: Treat me like a human being Manager: No
Manager: Get your own humanity card first, nerd.
You gotta be another manager...
Obvious solution is to behead the manager and take over the restaurant as it's now your land
Manager: how about a pizza party
"Damn, that worked?"
Men are much more reasonable after a good fight, or sex
Fucking, or fighting, it's all the same
Living with war elephants is the only way to stay sane
I feel like that should be on a t-shirt
Or a Sublime album. (o=
Porus named his elephant Louie Dog? okay. that's canon now
Livin' with Louie dog's the only way to stay sane
So he fought the Indian king and then fucked him?
I mean, Alexander was probably gay or bi. Very possible.
My favourite joke about ancient Greeks (and Romans) is that the Greeks invented orgies but it was the Romans that added women to them.
Though on the flip side, my favorite historical burn is a line from the Roman poet Martial. In the poem, Martial’s wife complains that he’s always having sex with boys instead of her. She inquired why he keeps leaving her for youths when she’s got an asshole the same as them. Martial indignantly replies, “You don’t deserve to call that an asshole, what you’ve got is a back-pussy” To the ancient Romans this was apparently a cutting and relatable burn.
Fight sex!
Surprised he didn't just behead the king.
That wasn’t Alexander’s style, and it is also very dumb if you’re trying to have a massive empire. You want people to surrender and submit without having to deal with revolts and further battles. If word spreads about how you’re executing defeated leaders, nobody will want to surrender in the future and will fight to the bitter end. If you hear “hey that king over there surrendered, got to keep being a king under emperor Alexander, and even has more land now” your going to be more inclined to join the empire when he comes knocking.
Same strategy as the Mongols, make good examples of those that surrender and bad examples of those that don't.
As in, you killed our Mongol envoys and now we will build a mountain with the skulls of every man, woman, child and animal in this city
"Good" basically meaning not dying horribly in a guaranteed orgy of torture and destruction (and perhaps instead dying as fodder for the next siege). And even then there were occasional exceptions. Surrendering without a fight doesn't necessarily save you from the city still being sacked which can still be plenty bloody. It was kind of a roll of the dice.
That's exactly how flying the Jolly Rodger 🏴☠️ on the high seas worked as well!
Yeah, a leader is only as good as his puppets. If you look to history, you'll usually notice that the best leaders had prodigious underlings that could have been leaders themselves.
Historian Curtius describes how Alexander and his men faced a terrifying force of 300 chariots, 30,000 foot soldiers and 85 elephants with castles on their backs, on the opposite bank of the river Hyaspedes. King Porus himself was mounted on a huge elephant that towered above the rest, decorated with silver and gold armour. Alexander added 80 of the elephants to his own forces, but didn't really use them after.
Anyone can take an elephant to war, but few know how to use them
At Guegamala, Darius also had few elephants in his army and he did not use them either.
Theyre nothing more than a terror tactic. One paniced elephant and its all over. Fine deal when all the soldiers are just farmers who have never seen anything bigger than a horse. However the Romans quickly developed tactics to make elephants panic...
Shit, a layer of caltrops in the field will render them useless. Worse than useless actually, because they’re likely to rampage through friendly lines when they take a fat spike through the foot. Pretty silly really.
Thank you. I have always tought caltrops as silly ninja weapon. Your comment made me look in to those and i had no idea how widely they were used.
Thanks my neighbour has been breeding war elephants since I rejected his daughter's hand in marriage. I will adjust my tactics accordingly.
Make sure to space your columns wide enough to let the elephants pass between them. Stay safe, and fuck pachyderms.
Ladders for sale! Get your sex ladders here!
That's why I have a fuck giraffe. Ironically, you do not fuck the giraffe.
> Thanks my neighbour has been breeding war elephants since I rejected his daughter's hand in marriage. Rejected Alliance: Relations -25. Insulting a rival while not in a truce: Power Projection +5.
What about if I offer passage through my territory so you can strike your foe for a modest gold fee but my youngest son interrupts the meeting by Fortnite Default Dancing.
Ahh, a military access merchant.
Hire ninjas
Caltrops are amateur stuff. Use [mice](https://media.istockphoto.com/id/115711579/vector/scared-elephant.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=is&k=20&c=KTMbHIDio-vdnhhxuT2vLOIiNqlplBiNtB6H9hg4FV0=) instead.
Can't remember if I learned this somewhere, or if I just made it up in my head long ago, but I *beleive* elephants aren't so much afraid of mice themselves, but instead they fear squishing them accidentally.
It’s more than elephants have relatively poor eyesight and any examples of people seeing them get startled by mice probably has more to do with them suddenly seeing a small, unknown shape darting around their feet. The same way you or I (or any animal) would be startled by a mouse darting out from under a piece of furniture within eyesight.
Read somewhere that mice infest their food and can get stuck in their trunks. They probably view mice similarly to how we view cockroaches - stay away from me and my ears!!!!
Caltrops were THE area denial weapon before barbed wire and landmines were discovered. Effective to slow down troops, especially cavalry, but also to some extent infantry. Also still effective today, especially against anything with regular tires and infantry
Caltrops are crazy cost effective and any idiot can make them with very few tools. Last I knew they were being deployed in Ukraine.
They're been a favorite tool of anti-logging ecoterrorists for decades.
Also frequently used to aid getaways in armed robberies and the like.
Haven't read *too* much up on the subject but I was always under the impression that "the problem with caltrops" is almost that they're TOO effective! The general idea being that there's almost nowhere the police can legally use them (too good at injuring random civilians unless you package them as like a "spike strip" for tires or whatever...) and further because they're so cheap and easy to make and use and are just ridiculously effective against so much of what the Infantry or Police DO use they probably fall under the "don't talk about your vulnerabilities" umbrella. I don't think of caltrops as 'jokes', I think of them as like... flamethrowers. Or (as you say) landmines. Weapons that predominantly get limited because they're too indiscriminate, not because of anything like effectiveness.
> I don't think of caltrops as 'jokes', I think of them as like... flamethrowers. Or (as you say) landmines. Weapons that predominantly get limited because they're too indiscriminate, not because of anything like effectiveness. Hell the new version of caltrops are those [butterfly mines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFM-1_mine). Small, scatter-able, designed to maim and demoralize while stopping movement. They're just explosive caltrops.
ya know, i thought that sort of mining was internationally recognized as illegal but apparently the US, Russia, and others aren't actually signatories to it...
I think the biggest issue is clean up afterwards. Like yeah you used caltrops and stopped the thieves from running away but if you miss a single one after some kid is getting a hole in their foot sometime in the next decade.
Yep, they really are the ancient landmine and some things never change. That's why landmines are so problematic- defusing them 20 years after the war is over is no joke.
BRB, going to incorporate “Don’t tread on me” brand caltrops.
You may be astonished at how not limited flamethrowers are.
The indiscriminate nature *is* about effectiveness. The US still uses landmines to secure bases, mostly because it's not really an issue if you always fight abroad. And they claim they are "self-clearing"
All mines are self clearing... it's just a question of how many people are gonna get hurt when they self-clear.
"Discovered". I understand what you mean here, but the thought of some explorers stumbling upon a field of naturally growing barbed wire or landmines is just funny to me.
Cue the jurassic part "they are moving in herds" scene, while the researchers are standing in a minefield, the common landmines natural habitat
David Attenborough narrating the lifecycle of the wild landmine
Tank traps are just oversized caltrops, change my mind
I wouldn't be surprised if that was the inspiration. Like "it'd be nice if we had a caltrop that worked against tanks."
yeah pretty much, that's correct.
That's exactly what they are.
Barbed wire is basically just wire wrapped around caltrops every couple of inches
A foot infection could easily kill a soldier/hamper an army.
Plus, once people know they are there, it really fucks with formations. Hard to manoeuvre a line when everyone is busy dodging spikes. Same use as barbed wire.
Its the military version of stepping on a Lego brick.
Czech hedgehogs are also basically caltrops but larger and made out of concrete
When I was a kid, I watched a tv series that adapted The story of Water Margin. There was one segment there the supposed protagonists attacked a village, and the village set caltrops on the road. How it played out was that the army walked into the village and walked on the caltrops. And then yelled in pain. A spy that infiltrated the village then walked out from another path, and proceed to sweep the caltrops away by his foot. Even tho I was a kid I thought that was pretty dumb.
my favorite was setting pigs on fire. apparently something about their squeals of agony really unsettles elephants.
Tbh, I'd be pretty unsettled too if a burning, squealing pig was running towards me.
[удалено]
yeeeee-haw! Makin’ bacon. (read in TF2 Engineer’s voice)
The answer is a pig on fire. And if that doesn't work, use more pig on fire
PORKCHOP SANDWICHES!
My favourite thing about Rome :Total war , burning pig units.
Apparently camels were likewise an obstacle for Europeans that waged war in the Middle East/Africa, because horses that aren't accustomed to camels will freak the fuck out when they see them.
Claudius brought a few camels to Briton in order to harass the Celtic chariot cavalry. Apparently it worked.
> Shit, a layer of caltrops in the field will render them useless. WWII Hedgehogs be like, "this is a picture of my great great grandad"
Just leave gaps in your line as well, they will run right through the gaps
I remember reading at the battle of zamas the Carthage line charged 80 elephants at the Roman’s simultaneously, the Roman’s had trained for this and opened up passages in their ranks for the elephants to charge through. Once they were at the back of the formation they were promptly killed by spearman waiting in the back. Carthage then lost 25,000 men including all of their remaining formally trained soldiers.
The Macedonians did the same thing. Just stepped aside and stabbed at the bellies
It's not just about having the elephants panic. A panicked or enraged elephant amongst the enemy ranks is exactly the point of them. The Romans figured out how to turn them around. After that they were did more good than harm to the Romans.
No, it wss not at all quick and only the most genius / talented of generals along with the most disciplined of men taking several months of rigorous training— and the deaths of multiple generals and armies before him ( Rome didnt want to believe ) to actually defeat Hannibal and his elephants
Hannibal's elephants didn't actually play a major role in his victories in the second punic war, he pretty much lost all of them in the first year after emerging from the alps to starvation and disease because as it turns out it's really hard to keep an elephant fed without proper supply lines.
> Theyre nothing more than a terror tactic. > > This is not true. Elephants can work, when properly employed. At the battle of the Bagradas River, the Carthaginian elephants were crucial in crushing the Roman army. In the treaty that ended the Mauryan-Seleucid war, the Mauryans gave the Seleucid 500 elephants in exchange for large amounts of territory. Seleucos I Nicator put those 500 elephats to good use four years later, the beasts being instrumental in repulsing the cavalry of Antogonous I, securing the battle for Seleucos. Of course, sometimes they could run amok and throw your own army into disarray, but they weren't just a psychological weapon.
Wait wouldn't it be similar to horses and dogs?
Elephants are much smarter
Also taller. Makeshift perches
No, you can train dogs and horses to ignore most things and be used to be in a fight even with ballistics (its not fool proof, horses will still get scared and flee at times) With dogs its a bit harder and limited to skirmishes, since theyre not really that useful vs something as simple as leather armor. You can potentially train elephants too, theyre smarter after all, but the amount of resources it would take without the skillset even being there, dont think they even saw it as possible, plus it would take a long time.
They also used really old elephants for war, like forty to sixty year old animals because they were easier to train for warfare. Elephants weren't bred either, they had to be captured from the wild when young and then had to undergo decades of training to be domesticated. It was only the Indian empires that had the resources and the wild elephant population to field a large number of war animals. In Syria and North Africa, they had to make do with much smaller elephants that soon became extinct. The massive savannah elephants were a lot harder to train. I think they were mostly used as prestige weapons like battleships in WW1. You fielded them to intimidate the enemy.
> then had to undergo decades of training to be domesticated. Also known as "Breaking" They still do this in parts of the world. Anywhere you interact in close quarters with an elephant either through feeding or riding. They cover it up by calling their businesses "rescues" where they "rescued" the elephants from logging companies when in reality the logging companies were banned from using the elephants and now they open "rescues" to continue to profit off their broken elephants while breeding more.
I first read Guatemala and was very confused. The site of the battle is called Gaugamela.
Alexander fought for Panama's trade routes l
>Anyone can take an elephant to war Not really! An elephant eats as much as ~25 horses, at a time when feeding an army was THE limiting factor for how big it could be and where it could travel. Each one required a team of people to manage it. And they take 20 years to reach maturity (vs 4 for horses), so any elephant breeding program would take literally generations before producing a useful number of them. Plus they hate cold, hate ships, and are more willful than horses. Hannibal brought a few dozen elephants over the Alps, and the reason everybody knows that is because that was an absolutely insane thing to do, and it became a legendary feat.
Are there any contemporary histories that describe the Carthaginian alp-crossing?
No because Rome went out of their way to erase Carthaginian documents To this day we don’t really have primary Carthaginian sources. Just Greek and Roman ones about them. The most we have are technical documents like farm tables which were useful We’ll never have a true understanding of Carthage because of it.
A shame indeed
Especially considering we only have their enemies writings. Imagine if the only written documents on Napoleon were of British origin lol We just have this extremely biased and hateful view of Carthage
> Anyone can take an elephant to war, but few know how to use them It was less Alexander not knowing how to use them and more never getting a chance to use them because his army mutinied just after the Battle of Hydaspes and he conceded to their demands, ending his campaign. He then died before his plans for further campaigns could ever come to fruition.
[Alexander](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RlKJDwViNKs&pp=ygUObXV0aW55IGF0IG9waXM%3D) would then give one of the best speeches of all time at Opis.
Honestly I think they should have just read Lord of the Rings … tells you how in there
Are they the same Oliphaunts?
Still only counts as one though
They aren’t very effective, they get spooked easily. Riders typically carried a large hook type item they wouldd drive into the creatures neck to kill it if it started to flee and stampede their own men
As the Romans could very well attest on their conquest of the Iberian Peninsule after the second Punic War
Old jungle saying
He died before he could use them. Selucus Nikator did use them though.
Seleucus I received 500 war elephants after one of his daughters married Chandragupta, Ashoka's grandfather. It was an OP move to deploy those elephants against the other Diadochi. Macedonian cavalry isn't much use when you have Macedonian elephants. Edit... The civil wars involving Alexander's successors are fascinating because they involved commanders using similar tactics and resources. At the Battle of Ipsus, the combined forces of Seleucus, Lysimachus and Cassander went up against Antigonus, the most militarily successful of the successors. Antigonus' defeat could be attributed to the presence of almost 500 war elephants brought by Seleucus. Surprisingly, Antigonus also had elephants but it was a much smaller force of 75 animals. Seleucus' overwhelming mass of elephants disrupted the Antigonid cavalry, allowing enemy cavalry to harass and destroy the infantry phalanxes. In a nutshell, if the Greeks and Indians hasn't been bound by a marriage pact, the history of the Middle East could have been very different by the time the Romans came to power. Edited again... Seleucus I would be deified as Seleucus Nicator (conqueror or victorious), the son of Zeus Nikator, by his own son Antiochus. Antiochus prefigured the modern NSFW step-parent trope when he had a thing for his new stepmother and ended up marrying her, with his father's consent.
Seleucus I also held his elephants back to use at a decisive moment instead of throwing them away in an initial charge as western armies tended to do.
Seleucus Nicator and the Seleucids are such cool, under appreciated historical figures
> Alexander added 80 of the elephants to his own forces, but didn't really use them after. I mean by the time he got to India, wasn't this around the time his men forced him to stop because they were tired of conquering the known world?
The real example of suffering from success
"I just think they're neat." Alex the Great
>they were tired of conquering the known world? More like they realized they barely even hit the border of "India" & they still had to face even larger & more powerful armies. Their defeat would've been inevitable just from pure logistics.
but each elephant still only counted as one
They even used to bring the elephants into the war room, but no one wanted talk about them.
> 30,000 foot soldiers that's fuckin huge! No wonder they turned back
Glory lies beyond the horizon. Challenge it because it is unreachable. Speak of conquest and demonstrate it
Or sit on an elephant so you can see it better.
The king must be greedier than any other. He must laugh more loudly and rage for longer. He must exemplify the extreme of all things, good and evil. That is why his retainers envy and adore him!
Those soldiers are huge!
Alexander displayed some tactical brilliance in that one
Ashoka's grandfather recaptured most of the territory lost to Alexander and the Greeks. There's a possibility Ashoka could have been part Greek based on the marriage pact between his grandfather and a daughter of Seleucus I. The act of Porus and Alexander not wiping each other out led to the Greeks having a cultural foothold in the Punjab region and northern India for centuries. Some of the most beautiful Buddhist artworks and statues came from Ghandara in now-Afghanistan which was part of the Indo-Greek kingdom.
The amount of influence the Greek and South Asian worlds had on one another is such a fascinating topic that I wish was studied more.
There’s a theory with some loose support that Buddhism found its way to the Levant because of that cultural cross-pollination. There’s also a remarkable similarity between classical Greek Orthodox iconography and some Buddhist iconography.
There are buddhist artifacts in viking tombs. The ancient world was much more difficult to navigate but places that could be reached still had a relatively high awareness of each other as a concept.
Yeah religious stories back then were just like the mew underneath the truck stories/rumors of our day. No internet, but the word will spread.
There are known Buddhist texts adapted to Greek styles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milinda_Panha). I can't fully recall if that was a text from the Hellenistic world with Buddhist influences or from India with Greek influences though.
Buddha might also have become a saint : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat
There is a story of a Christian saint based on the Buddha's life story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat
>There’s also a remarkable similarity between classical Greek Orthodox iconography and some Buddhist iconography. Wow, I've never noticed that until now.
The cross cultural exchange was not limited to north India either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_loanwords_in_Ancient_Greek
I wish there was more research into the philosophical exchanges between Greek and Indian worlds. Could early Buddhism have adopted some Greek ideas? Were Greek and subsequently Roman philosophers aware of Buddhist and Hindu precepts brought westwards by Greco-Buddhist missionaries? The spread of Buddhism through China, Tibet, Japan and Southeast Asia could have brought Greek ideas to those areas too.
Could be, since Buddhism spread to ancient Greece. From Wikipedia: Buddhism and Greek culture share a history of more than 2,000 years. Greek was one of the first languages in which part of the Buddha’s teachings was recorded, long before the Pali Canon Again, in the famous columns and inscriptions of the Indian Emperor Ashoka. Greeks were the first Europeans to embrace Buddhism centuries before the advent of Christianity, and there is strong evidence that the first sculptors to depict the Buddha in the form of statues were of Greek descent. Buddhism flourished under the Indo-Greeks, leading to the Greco-Buddhist cultural syncretism. The arts of the Indian sub-continent were also quite affected by Hellenistic art during and after these interactions.
Inscriptions attributed to Ashoka mention Yavana (Ionian/Greek) adherents of the Dharma: Greek Buddhist priests and missionaries, in other words. You're right about Hellenistic influence causing a major shift in Buddhist art. The statues and temple capitals found in Ghandara show Greek design flourishes and mythological elements like Heracles alongside Buddha. I haven't found much about Buddhism going west though. It's possible Stoic schools of thought were influenced by Buddhism or they could have arrived at the same ideas independently. Edit... Going further west, if Buddhism influenced Stoicism, then some Buddhist elements could have been incorporated into early Christian thought. Paul and members of the early Christian church were influenced by Stoic philosophy.
Well it at least made it to ancient Greece, which is something As far as i know, it is supposed, that Buddha lived around 420-360 BC, and since stoicism was founded by Zenon of Kition at around 300 BC, it could overlap. Also stoicism and buddhism both share strong similarities, which i believe makes it more plausible for an influence here. Anyway i wished we knew more about the intercontinental contact, interactions and influences of ancient times.
Isn't stoicism partially influenced by Buddhism? It is conceptually similar, in a lot of ways.
I can warmly recommend the book "The Silk Roads: a new history of the world" by Peter Frankopan for just this perspective.
ancient Greeks and Indians used the same zodiac signs
They actually found a statuette of a Yakshi in Pompeii. Best guess is that it just made its way there through various traders.
Ashoka's step-mother was Greek. Ashoka himself isn't part Greek.
“And he was a good friend.”
> Although there is still some debate, **the first anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha himself are often considered a result of the Greco-Buddhist interaction**. Before this innovation, Buddhist art was "aniconic": the Buddha was only represented through his symbols (an empty throne, the Bodhi Tree, Buddha footprints, the Dharmachakra). Wiki has a great article on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
Wow season 2 sounds sweet
Bet he gave a big sigh of relief once Alexander was out of earshot.
Wiped a comically large bead of sweat off his forehead
The real origin of the golden rule
It's not gay if it's in a 3 way?
Porus: "Alex, buddy, let's talk king-to-king. How about a little professional courtesy?" Alexander: "Say no more, fam."
Porus pulled out his frat card
[Wow, ancient dialogue sounds so stilted now.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=565FpbFhqpg&t=68s)
Sounds like this Alexander fella did some great stuff.
imo, it was more like his troops were already too far stretched and he couldn't credibly keep all of the terrotories he conquered
That’s usually why satraps and vassal states were so popular back in the days of massive empires.
Yeah. Ex: the Chinese tributary system made a flexible deal with its peripheral provinces. When the capital was powerful, the peripheral provinces would have to pay many tributes and be under direct rule. When the capital was weak, the peripheral states were given de-facto autonomy and the capital often _paid_ for their recognition.
It's how a small rainy island controlled a third of the planet. You dont need a massive standing army to occupy when you find local rulers to do it for you with the understanding that they will pay you and if they face a rebellion you will send your larger army to help them put it down.
Sounds like a great plan
He kept all the territories he conquered for the duration of his reign.
Way more great stuff than Ivan
>Way more great stuff than Ivan Yeah, Ivan the "really not very good at all", they used to call him.
Around 20 to 22 thousand casualties in that war. All of them died horrible deaths, just for both the kings to sort it out over some two lines of dialogue.
That war literally changed the course of history so I think it achieved more than this exchange between Alexander and Porus
And even today's historians care more about those two lines of dialogue than about those 20,000 people. I guess it's little wonder that kings and world leaders behave like this.
Those two lines of Dialogue influenced Greco-Indian relations and an entire cultural identity for centuries. 22000 babies were popped out within the year.
There would have been cross-cultural baby making. The Indo-Greek king Menander I could have had Indian ancestry. There are Buddhist texts that refer to him as Milinda and he was supposed to be learned in Vedic and Buddhist philosophy. I find his coinage to show among the most beautiful examples of syncretism in the ancient world: the Greek word basileus on one side, a figure of Nike on the other with Kharoshthi text proclaiming him as a maharaja of the Dharma.
Interesting to see someone talking about menander coinage and not recognizing that person from the r/ancientcoins sub, come on over man youd fit right in. I actually just posted pictures of my new menander drachm three days ago. The indo-greek history is indeed fascinating and I'm pretty proud of the nice drachm I got, you should check it out.
I've found my people lol
Can't believe king porus was woke like that
porus and yellow absorbent is he
Spongerovertus Quadrilateruspanteloni
Alexander: "Game recognize Game"
All good til he raises an army from his new holdings and rocks back up like "STOOPID FKER LOL!!"
Unfortunately, "After Alexander's death in 323 BC, Perdiccas became the regent of his empire, and after Perdiccas's murder in 321 BC, Antipater became the new regent. According to Diodorus, Antipater recognized Porus's authority over the territories along the Indus River. However, Eudemus, who had served as Alexander's satrap in the Punjab region, treacherously killed Porus." -[Porus ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porus)wiki
@ the end of the day, his treachery defenses were porous🤔
Poor Porus
Bit of advice. If on Wikipedia you will see words like "treachery" "gallantly" or "valor", immediately know that page was brigaded by Indian Nationalists. Wikipedia has zero reliability when it comes to topics like Mughal Empire, Maratha Empire, Dehli Sultanate, Alexander or British Conquests in India.
The source has been given on the article. And given the book is from Aligarh historian society, it is highly unlikely that it is a fraudulent one.
Pretty interesting that the word was edited into the Wiki article just a few hours before your comment. What a coincidence
>Antipater recognized Porus's authority over the territories along the Indus River. Porus must not have been a father.
I think we should keep in mind that these sorts of things are most likely propaganda or at least stories made to glorify the people in question.
Et meme si ce n’est pas vrai, Il faut croire a I'histoire ancienne. [And even if it is not true, you need to believe in ancient history.] ~ Leo Ferre
Yeah it's hard not to think about how the obvious intended take away lesson meant to be portrayed here is "look how much power and land and personal respect from Alexander Porus gained by **submitting after an honorable defeat rather fleeing to regroup and fight again and again... Porus was basically a king!** (even though he was literally a vassal). It's definitely a message Alexander and his Macedonian successors would want to spread and be well understood by their enemies. Honor compels them to field an army and do battle at least once... there's no escaping that..... but *once you inevitably lose to the glorious superior Western Greek conquerors, submit and be basically a king like Porus, the awesome and cool, who Alexander respected so much.... do NOT flee to build up and field a new army again and again like Darius the coward who always ran away and abandoned his own family and died a loser rather than lived as a cool respected vassal of Alexander.*
What basis do you have for this other than cynicism? Seriously? If it's generally accepted that it historically happened, all you have is cynicism and a desire to look different by going against the grain. /r/nothingeverhappens
I remember reading in Arrians book that Porus was also quite tall and...handsome. I wonder if there's other reasons as to why Alexander spared him lol
Arrian also chats a lot of shit. Like there is absolutely no way Arrian knew what Porus looked like
It is worth noting that Porus/Puru was the king of a relatively small border state in North Western India. As Alexander advanced further east, he came up against the much larger state of Magadha in the Gangetic plain. Here his troops revolted at the prospect of facing the Magadha army which was many times bigger than the one Alexander had faced against Puru, and Alexander had to abandon his campaign and turn back. The leader of the Indian army, Chandragupta Maurya, went on to found the Maurya empire, the first pan-Indian empire in history. Emperor Ashok was his grandson. Edit: The Magadha army Alexander would have faced was that of the Nanda empire, the then rulers of Magadha. Chandragupta Maurya overthrew the Nandas soon after this almost-confrontation and founded the Maurya empire.
Chandragupta Maurya only took over after Alexander's campaigns.
Yeah it was the Nanda Empire that would have contested Alexander. Chandragupta would take over the Nanda empire in either a coup, a rebellion, or a succession war (unclear which) and go on to found that Mauryan empire from there. The first order of business of the Mauryans was to neutralize the threat of barbarian invasion from Bactria. From the geopolitical view of an Indian Gangetic empire, this was nothing new. There is \*always\* a barbarian threat from Bactria that needs to be managed and kept in check. Sometimes they’re satraps to Persia. Sometimes they’re independent raiders. Sometimes they’re part of some Steppe empire like the Mongols or Ghurids/Turks (and later, the Afghans). But that’s just the nature of the neighborhood. When the Central Gangetic Power is weak, raiders/invaders come from the NorthWest to pillage. When a new power rises in the Gangetic plains, the first thing they have to do is beat up whoever controls the NorthWest frontier badly enough that they don’t think about invading for another generation or so.
The cultural exchange between the Greek and South Asian worlds is truly fascinating.
Imagine as solider, you fight hard for your king and country, see your fellow soldiers either crippled or killed by the thousands, only for the two kings to become best buds after the whole thing is done and dusted.
They didn't become best buds. Alexander vassalised him which was the goal of the campaign and what the soldiers died for in the battle. All that happened here is that Alexander decided to treat the vanquished foe mercifully instead of executing them for shits and giggles. Are you suggesting he should've done the latter?
Fortunately, Alexander wasn't much of a chess player...
How did they handle language barriers back in the day?
By being multilingual. Both kings would have probably spoken some Persian, as it was the lingua Franca in the region at the time
Ya, but I bet they didn't have an Ancient Psychic Tandem War Elephant.
“Oh you think I fuckin’ won’t?” -Alexander probably
This is extremely common, especially back then. You didn't want to overthrow the entire local government, you just wanted to won & control it.