提问：战象的效果如何？
正文翻译
I’m sure we’re all aware of War Elephants - The heavily armoured Elephants which were ridden by archers and spearman into war, pretty much fulfilling the role of a tank in ancient warfare. However, were they actually that practical?
我相信大家都知道战象——装备重甲的大象，搭载着弓箭手和长矛手参加战争，基本相当于古代战争中的坦克。不过，它们真的实用吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I’m sure we’re all aware of War Elephants - The heavily armoured Elephants which were ridden by archers and spearman into war, pretty much fulfilling the role of a tank in ancient warfare. However, were they actually that practical?
我相信大家都知道战象——装备重甲的大象，搭载着弓箭手和长矛手参加战争，基本相当于古代战争中的坦克。不过，它们真的实用吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Don’t get me wrong, They definitely would have destroyed enemy morale. If a giant angry elephant coated in metal came running towards you at full speed, you’d probably be shitting yourself. But if a dedicated and experienced group of enemies managed to flank the Elephant, they could probably kill or seriously injure it. It would also be an absolute logistical nightmare to keep multiple Elephants in good shape over the course of a military campaign
别误会，它们肯定能摧毁敌人的士气。如果一头覆盖着金属装甲的愤怒大象全速向你重来，你可能会被吓尿。但是，如果一群有献身精神、经验丰富的敌人设法从侧面攻击大象，他们可能会杀死或严重伤害大象。在军事行动中，想要维持多头大象的状态也是后勤的噩梦。
别误会，它们肯定能摧毁敌人的士气。如果一头覆盖着金属装甲的愤怒大象全速向你重来，你可能会被吓尿。但是，如果一群有献身精神、经验丰富的敌人设法从侧面攻击大象，他们可能会杀死或严重伤害大象。在军事行动中，想要维持多头大象的状态也是后勤的噩梦。
So the question remains. How effective were they? Were they like the formidable Tigers of WWII, or the imposing but unreliable land ships of WWI? Let me know what you think.
所以，问题依然存在，那就是它们的效果如何？它们是像二战中可怕的虎式坦克，还是像一战中高大但不可靠的“陆地战舰”？请分享你们的想法。
所以，问题依然存在，那就是它们的效果如何？它们是像二战中可怕的虎式坦克，还是像一战中高大但不可靠的“陆地战舰”？请分享你们的想法。
评论翻译
Mizral
If you are talking about war elephants in battle and discuss Rome and Carthage, understand that it's like discussing the efficacy of war horses in the artic tundra. Elephants are champions of jungle and forest warfare and were the primary instruments of war for quite a while in areas such as India (pre 10th century when it was more forested) and south East Asia. Elephants used at war in these regions differed greatly from elephants used further west.
For example elephants in India pre 10th century were heavily armoured, trained with the main body of the army, trained with loud noises so they didn't get spooked, were provided weapons themselves such as swords strapped to their tusks, and had support infrastructure built where they were expected to be used. During the reign of Chandragupta Maurya they had storehouses built along river pathways that were designed to keep the elephants fed properly no matter where they travelled for example.
Chanakya, a famous Indian philosopher and advisor of kings, placed elephants as the most important part of the Royal Army as did several of his contemporaries. If they were merely shock troops it's doubtful someone like they would say they were so important. The key is understanding that horses are basically useless in jungle and heavy forests in this region due to the heat and diseases. Basically heavy cavalry only existed on the plains beyond that it was infantry only. Elephants were completely dominant not only in combat but we're also critical in moving supplies and crossing rivers. For every war elephant there was usually at least one other elephant used in a supporting role for the army.
当你讨论战象时，如果你说的是罗马和迦太基，你要明白，这就像讨论北极冰原上战马的作用。大象是丛林和森林战争的王者，在相当长的一段时间里，大象是印度（10世纪以前，当时森林更多）和东南亚地区的主要战争手段。这些地区在战争中使用的大象与西方使用的有很大不同。
比如，10世纪以前的印度战象都身披重甲，由军队的主力训练，用大声响训练它们让它们不会因此而受到惊吓，还会装备武器，比如把剑绑在象牙上，并在将要投入作战的地方修建保障设施。在月护王【孔雀王朝开国君主】时期，他们沿着河道修建了仓库，让大象无论去哪里都能得到食物。
印度著名哲学家和国王顾问Chanakya把大象作为皇家军队最重要的组成部分。如果它仅是突击部队，那么他们就不会把战象说得那么重要。关键的是，要明白，由于炎热和疾病，马匹在这个地区的丛林和森林中基本上没什么用。重装骑兵只存在于平原，之外的地方它就只能当步兵用了。大象不仅在战斗中很重要，在运送补给和过河时也很重要。对于每一头战象来说，通常至少有一头其他大象来提供支持。
If you are talking about war elephants in battle and discuss Rome and Carthage, understand that it's like discussing the efficacy of war horses in the artic tundra. Elephants are champions of jungle and forest warfare and were the primary instruments of war for quite a while in areas such as India (pre 10th century when it was more forested) and south East Asia. Elephants used at war in these regions differed greatly from elephants used further west.
For example elephants in India pre 10th century were heavily armoured, trained with the main body of the army, trained with loud noises so they didn't get spooked, were provided weapons themselves such as swords strapped to their tusks, and had support infrastructure built where they were expected to be used. During the reign of Chandragupta Maurya they had storehouses built along river pathways that were designed to keep the elephants fed properly no matter where they travelled for example.
Chanakya, a famous Indian philosopher and advisor of kings, placed elephants as the most important part of the Royal Army as did several of his contemporaries. If they were merely shock troops it's doubtful someone like they would say they were so important. The key is understanding that horses are basically useless in jungle and heavy forests in this region due to the heat and diseases. Basically heavy cavalry only existed on the plains beyond that it was infantry only. Elephants were completely dominant not only in combat but we're also critical in moving supplies and crossing rivers. For every war elephant there was usually at least one other elephant used in a supporting role for the army.
当你讨论战象时，如果你说的是罗马和迦太基，你要明白，这就像讨论北极冰原上战马的作用。大象是丛林和森林战争的王者，在相当长的一段时间里，大象是印度（10世纪以前，当时森林更多）和东南亚地区的主要战争手段。这些地区在战争中使用的大象与西方使用的有很大不同。
比如，10世纪以前的印度战象都身披重甲，由军队的主力训练，用大声响训练它们让它们不会因此而受到惊吓，还会装备武器，比如把剑绑在象牙上，并在将要投入作战的地方修建保障设施。在月护王【孔雀王朝开国君主】时期，他们沿着河道修建了仓库，让大象无论去哪里都能得到食物。
印度著名哲学家和国王顾问Chanakya把大象作为皇家军队最重要的组成部分。如果它仅是突击部队，那么他们就不会把战象说得那么重要。关键的是，要明白，由于炎热和疾病，马匹在这个地区的丛林和森林中基本上没什么用。重装骑兵只存在于平原，之外的地方它就只能当步兵用了。大象不仅在战斗中很重要，在运送补给和过河时也很重要。对于每一头战象来说，通常至少有一头其他大象来提供支持。
After the 10th century, the invading Turks seemed to understand that fighting in the forest was suicide so they simply refused to take up battle there and stuck to the cities and plains where they were able to defeat elephants. During this time and later places in SE Asia such as the Khmer in modern day Cambodia used war elephants in ways that haven't been seen since. They mounted massive ballista to elephants which were used during seiges as castle busters.
In summary it's not fair to look at Hannibal's two elephants that barely made it through the alps as some sort of guide for us to understand how great elephants were in battle. And in places like Ipsus which had a great many elephants involved in battle, those elephants had no armour, no weapons, bad training, bad mahouts etc.. and were fighting on terrain not suitable for elephants. We need to take a non-euro centric viewpoint when understanding the efficacy of elephants in war.
10世纪后，入侵的土耳其人似乎明白了，在森林中战斗就是自杀，因此他们拒绝在那里作战，坚持在城市和平原上作战，在这些地方他们能够打败大象。在东南亚地区，他们使用战象的方式很独特。他们在大象身上安装了巨大的弩炮，在攻城时作为城池破坏者。
总而言之，把汉尼拔那两头勉强翻过阿尔卑斯山的大象作为我们了解大象在战场上有多少作用的标准是不公平的。在伊普苏斯战役之类的地方有很多大象参与战斗，这些大象没有盔甲，没有武器，训练糟糕，驯象人差劲，还在不适合大象战斗的地形上作战。在理解大象在战争中的作用时，别以欧洲为中心。
In summary it's not fair to look at Hannibal's two elephants that barely made it through the alps as some sort of guide for us to understand how great elephants were in battle. And in places like Ipsus which had a great many elephants involved in battle, those elephants had no armour, no weapons, bad training, bad mahouts etc.. and were fighting on terrain not suitable for elephants. We need to take a non-euro centric viewpoint when understanding the efficacy of elephants in war.
10世纪后，入侵的土耳其人似乎明白了，在森林中战斗就是自杀，因此他们拒绝在那里作战，坚持在城市和平原上作战，在这些地方他们能够打败大象。在东南亚地区，他们使用战象的方式很独特。他们在大象身上安装了巨大的弩炮，在攻城时作为城池破坏者。
总而言之，把汉尼拔那两头勉强翻过阿尔卑斯山的大象作为我们了解大象在战场上有多少作用的标准是不公平的。在伊普苏斯战役之类的地方有很多大象参与战斗，这些大象没有盔甲，没有武器，训练糟糕，驯象人差劲，还在不适合大象战斗的地形上作战。在理解大象在战争中的作用时，别以欧洲为中心。
PM_me_your_cocktail
The uselessness of horse cavalry in jungle warfare is a huge point. If elephant cavalry is the only cavalry in your situation, that makes it the best cavalry.
骑兵在丛林战争中没有用是重点。如果象兵是你唯一的骑兵，那它就是最好的骑兵。
The uselessness of horse cavalry in jungle warfare is a huge point. If elephant cavalry is the only cavalry in your situation, that makes it the best cavalry.
骑兵在丛林战争中没有用是重点。如果象兵是你唯一的骑兵，那它就是最好的骑兵。
AshFraxinusEps
FYI as a biologist I can say that's also more cultural and biological. Asian Elephants were used far more often and for longer by people as beasts of burden in SE Asia as well as I think they have a far better tempermant. Whereas African ones are more flighty, more-man wary and hard to train, and more a food source than a beast of burden, and evolved alongside man so evolved fear of us apes
African Elephants are also Savannah species (or the main ones are. There are subspecies and some of the subspecies are more jungle) so they aren't so much forest creatures. They'd be fine with open terrain but harder to train and use as anything except a shock/fear troop. Also probably the reason why African ones spooked easier when attacked (as they evolved alongside man) and were therefore less useful in battle. Makes me wonder what could have happened if Mammoths survived and were used though: as they'd have feared man far far less than the others as man arrived North far later than they did in SE Asia, and were I think bigger, even smaller ears so worse hearing so would have also been a very different war-beast
作为一名生物学家，我认为这与文化和生物学有关。在东南亚，人们使用亚洲象作为驮兽是很频繁的，时间也长得多，而且我认为它们的脾气也要好得多。而非洲象则更难训，更警惕人类，更多的是作为食物来源而非作为驮兽，它们与人类一起进化，因此进化出了对我们类人猿的恐惧。
非洲象也是热带草原的物种（或者说大多数是，还有少数亚种是丛林象），所以它们不是森林生物。它们可以适应开阔地形，但是很难训练和使用，除了作为突击部队或恐吓部队。
这可能也是非洲象在受到攻击时更容易受到惊吓的原因（因为它们是和人类一起进化的），因此在战斗中用处不大。我很想知道，如果猛犸象幸存下来并被使用，会发生什么：由于它们比其他大象更不害怕人类，因为人类到达北方的时间要晚得多，它们更大，耳朵更小因此听力更差，所以也会是一种很不一样的战争巨兽。
FYI as a biologist I can say that's also more cultural and biological. Asian Elephants were used far more often and for longer by people as beasts of burden in SE Asia as well as I think they have a far better tempermant. Whereas African ones are more flighty, more-man wary and hard to train, and more a food source than a beast of burden, and evolved alongside man so evolved fear of us apes
African Elephants are also Savannah species (or the main ones are. There are subspecies and some of the subspecies are more jungle) so they aren't so much forest creatures. They'd be fine with open terrain but harder to train and use as anything except a shock/fear troop. Also probably the reason why African ones spooked easier when attacked (as they evolved alongside man) and were therefore less useful in battle. Makes me wonder what could have happened if Mammoths survived and were used though: as they'd have feared man far far less than the others as man arrived North far later than they did in SE Asia, and were I think bigger, even smaller ears so worse hearing so would have also been a very different war-beast
作为一名生物学家，我认为这与文化和生物学有关。在东南亚，人们使用亚洲象作为驮兽是很频繁的，时间也长得多，而且我认为它们的脾气也要好得多。而非洲象则更难训，更警惕人类，更多的是作为食物来源而非作为驮兽，它们与人类一起进化，因此进化出了对我们类人猿的恐惧。
非洲象也是热带草原的物种（或者说大多数是，还有少数亚种是丛林象），所以它们不是森林生物。它们可以适应开阔地形，但是很难训练和使用，除了作为突击部队或恐吓部队。
这可能也是非洲象在受到攻击时更容易受到惊吓的原因（因为它们是和人类一起进化的），因此在战斗中用处不大。我很想知道，如果猛犸象幸存下来并被使用，会发生什么：由于它们比其他大象更不害怕人类，因为人类到达北方的时间要晚得多，它们更大，耳朵更小因此听力更差，所以也会是一种很不一样的战争巨兽。
Sean951
It's also important up note that the elephants used in the Mediterranean are most likely from an extinct species that's far smaller than both African and Asian species we see today. Hannibal didn't have a 10' tall African bush elephant weighting 6 tons, he had elephants closer to 8' tall and weighing 2-4 tons.
还有很重要的一点值得注意，在地中海使用的大象很可能是一种灭绝了的物种，它比我们今天看到的非洲象和亚洲象都小得多。汉尼拔的大象没有10英尺高、6吨重，而是接近8英尺高、2-4吨重的大象。
It's also important up note that the elephants used in the Mediterranean are most likely from an extinct species that's far smaller than both African and Asian species we see today. Hannibal didn't have a 10' tall African bush elephant weighting 6 tons, he had elephants closer to 8' tall and weighing 2-4 tons.
还有很重要的一点值得注意，在地中海使用的大象很可能是一种灭绝了的物种，它比我们今天看到的非洲象和亚洲象都小得多。汉尼拔的大象没有10英尺高、6吨重，而是接近8英尺高、2-4吨重的大象。
jakart3
South East Asian elephant are the smallest of the species
东南亚象是大象里最小的
South East Asian elephant are the smallest of the species
东南亚象是大象里最小的
Okelidokeli_8565
Not true, African forest elephant is.
才不是，非洲森林象才最小
Not true, African forest elephant is.
才不是，非洲森林象才最小
dinoman9877
Mammoths likely did fear humans. If not humans themselves, then certainly the fire they wielded. Mammoths survived for thousands of years with our ancestors and other human species, and probably would have learned pretty quickly that humans were a threat during that time. It was only the pressures of the change in climate at the end of the last ice age and the growing human population that mammoths went beyond the brink and became extinct.
Another factor is that Asian elephants may live in the same areas as tigers, but overall have relatively fewer predators to deal with. Many prey animals in Africa are known for being especially nervous and flighty, to downright aggressive, simply because there are so many different species of large predator to deal with. Elephants have to be constantly alx for lions or hyenas which could mob the herd with numbers and kill a calf. Most predators in Asia won’t approach Asian elephants, and tigers at least don’t generally hunt in groups.
猛犸象可能确实害怕人类。如果不是害怕人类，那么害怕的肯定是他们使用的火焰。猛犸象与我们的祖先一起生存了数千年，可能很快就学到，人类在那段时期是一种威胁。只有在冰河世纪末气候变化和人类数量增长的压力下，猛犸象才灭绝了。
另一个因素是，亚洲象虽然可能与老虎生活在同一地区，但总体上，它们要面对的捕食者更少。非洲的许多捕食动物敏感、暴躁，非常具有进攻性，因为它们需要对付太多不同种类的大型捕食者。大象必须时刻警惕狮子或鬣狗，因为它们会成群结队。亚洲的捕食者大多不会靠近亚洲象，至少老虎通常不会成群结队的捕猎。
Mammoths likely did fear humans. If not humans themselves, then certainly the fire they wielded. Mammoths survived for thousands of years with our ancestors and other human species, and probably would have learned pretty quickly that humans were a threat during that time. It was only the pressures of the change in climate at the end of the last ice age and the growing human population that mammoths went beyond the brink and became extinct.
Another factor is that Asian elephants may live in the same areas as tigers, but overall have relatively fewer predators to deal with. Many prey animals in Africa are known for being especially nervous and flighty, to downright aggressive, simply because there are so many different species of large predator to deal with. Elephants have to be constantly alx for lions or hyenas which could mob the herd with numbers and kill a calf. Most predators in Asia won’t approach Asian elephants, and tigers at least don’t generally hunt in groups.
猛犸象可能确实害怕人类。如果不是害怕人类，那么害怕的肯定是他们使用的火焰。猛犸象与我们的祖先一起生存了数千年，可能很快就学到，人类在那段时期是一种威胁。只有在冰河世纪末气候变化和人类数量增长的压力下，猛犸象才灭绝了。
另一个因素是，亚洲象虽然可能与老虎生活在同一地区，但总体上，它们要面对的捕食者更少。非洲的许多捕食动物敏感、暴躁，非常具有进攻性，因为它们需要对付太多不同种类的大型捕食者。大象必须时刻警惕狮子或鬣狗，因为它们会成群结队。亚洲的捕食者大多不会靠近亚洲象，至少老虎通常不会成群结队的捕猎。
GranGurbo
were provided weapons themselves such as swords strapped to their tusks
Holy crap. Sword-wielding elephants. That must've been quite a sight. If the Multi-tonne, twice your height beast wasn't enough to spook you, wait until it parries and ripostes.
“还会装备武器，比如把剑绑在象牙上”
哇哦，用剑的大象，那场面一定很壮观。如果重数吨、是你两倍高的巨兽不足以吓到你，等到它们攻击的时候呢。
were provided weapons themselves such as swords strapped to their tusks
Holy crap. Sword-wielding elephants. That must've been quite a sight. If the Multi-tonne, twice your height beast wasn't enough to spook you, wait until it parries and ripostes.
“还会装备武器，比如把剑绑在象牙上”
哇哦，用剑的大象，那场面一定很壮观。如果重数吨、是你两倍高的巨兽不足以吓到你，等到它们攻击的时候呢。
NotTheAbhi
Search of elephant armour during the Mughal times in india. You would find full armour plate for elephants along with the swords they placed on the tusks.
搜索印度莫卧儿王朝时期的大象盔甲，你会发现大象的全身甲，还有绑在象牙上的剑。
Search of elephant armour during the Mughal times in india. You would find full armour plate for elephants along with the swords they placed on the tusks.
搜索印度莫卧儿王朝时期的大象盔甲，你会发现大象的全身甲，还有绑在象牙上的剑。
jbergens
I would not like to battle with an elephant with a blade tied to its trunk!
If they had armor they could also had just stomped on enemies. They normally don't step on people but I don't know what they can be trained to do.
我可不想和鼻子上绑着刀的大象战斗！
如果它们有盔甲，它们也可以直接往敌人身上踩。它们通常不会踩人，但我不知道通过训练能不能做到。
I would not like to battle with an elephant with a blade tied to its trunk!
If they had armor they could also had just stomped on enemies. They normally don't step on people but I don't know what they can be trained to do.
我可不想和鼻子上绑着刀的大象战斗！
如果它们有盔甲，它们也可以直接往敌人身上踩。它们通常不会踩人，但我不知道通过训练能不能做到。
Mizral
Indian mahouts would train their elephants to stomp enemies as groups of elephants, sometimes they would chain them together and run past enemies having them all caught up in the chains and then turn and stomp them to bits.
印度的驯象人会训练大象成群结队地踩踏敌人，有时他们会把大象串在一起，然后从敌人身边跑过去，用链子拴住敌人，然后转身把他们踩成肉沫。
Indian mahouts would train their elephants to stomp enemies as groups of elephants, sometimes they would chain them together and run past enemies having them all caught up in the chains and then turn and stomp them to bits.
印度的驯象人会训练大象成群结队地踩踏敌人，有时他们会把大象串在一起，然后从敌人身边跑过去，用链子拴住敌人，然后转身把他们踩成肉沫。
scolfin
If they were merely shock troops it's doubtful someone like they would say they were so important.
Isn't that a bit like saying "if tanks were only for breaching lines it's doubtful they would have been considered so important in the World Wars?" My impression was that shock troops were the cornerstone of any offensive action in the pike-based combat that dominated most of European military history.
“如果它仅是突击部队，那么他们就不会把战象说得那么重要”
这不就相当于说“如果坦克只是用于突破防线，那么他们就不会把坦克说得那么重要”吗？在我的印象里，长矛战在欧洲军事史上占据主导地位，因此突击部队是所有攻击行动的基石。
If they were merely shock troops it's doubtful someone like they would say they were so important.
Isn't that a bit like saying "if tanks were only for breaching lines it's doubtful they would have been considered so important in the World Wars?" My impression was that shock troops were the cornerstone of any offensive action in the pike-based combat that dominated most of European military history.
“如果它仅是突击部队，那么他们就不会把战象说得那么重要”
这不就相当于说“如果坦克只是用于突破防线，那么他们就不会把坦克说得那么重要”吗？在我的印象里，长矛战在欧洲军事史上占据主导地位，因此突击部队是所有攻击行动的基石。
Mizral
The point I think Chanakya and others were trying to make I believe was more to do with the fact that elephants were useful in all military encounters, not just offensive actions against the enemy. Elephants could be used as defensive outposts that were mobile and were used to defend forts and supply lines, not just as offense troops. Missile troops could sit on palisades and rain fire down with bows and later, crossbows in both offensive and defensive encounters.
我认为印度哲学家Chanakya其他人的观点是，大象在所有军事对抗中都很有用，而不仅仅是用于对敌人的进攻行动。大象能作为可移动的防御前哨，用于防御堡垒和补给线，而不仅仅是作为进攻部队。投掷部队可以坐在栅栏上，用弓和弩在进攻和防御中发射。
The point I think Chanakya and others were trying to make I believe was more to do with the fact that elephants were useful in all military encounters, not just offensive actions against the enemy. Elephants could be used as defensive outposts that were mobile and were used to defend forts and supply lines, not just as offense troops. Missile troops could sit on palisades and rain fire down with bows and later, crossbows in both offensive and defensive encounters.
我认为印度哲学家Chanakya其他人的观点是，大象在所有军事对抗中都很有用，而不仅仅是用于对敌人的进攻行动。大象能作为可移动的防御前哨，用于防御堡垒和补给线，而不仅仅是作为进攻部队。投掷部队可以坐在栅栏上，用弓和弩在进攻和防御中发射。
fiendishrabbit
On the battlefield the Indian war elephant remained in service for a lot longer, and was a lot more decisive than the carthaginian/roman use of the north african elephant (which was relatively small, just 2.5m tall).
However, in India, elephants were extremely important as a beast of burden. An elephant can both pull gargantuan loads, act as a light crane when necessary (able to hoist half a ton with its trunk), create improvised roads for others to follow, fend off predators and is resistant to most diseases.
Elephant was a core feature of the warmachine of most central and south indian empires. Partially for it's role on the battlefield (many great indian commanders relied on their elephantcavalry), but once gunpowder came along mainly for it's use as transport and as a construction tool.
在战场上，印度战象使用的时间更长，而且比迦太基、罗马使用北非象(北非象相对较小，只有2.5米高)更坚决。
不过，在印度，大象作为一种驮兽也极其重要。大象既能拖着巨大的重物，还能在必要时充当轻型起重机（能用鼻子吊起半吨重的东西），还能为后面的人开辟临时道路，抵御捕食者，抵抗大多数疾病。
大象是中部、南部印度帝国战争机器的核心特征。部分原因在于它在战场上的作用（许多伟大的印度指挥官依赖他们的象骑兵），等到火药出现，它们的主要作用就成了运输工具和建筑工具。
On the battlefield the Indian war elephant remained in service for a lot longer, and was a lot more decisive than the carthaginian/roman use of the north african elephant (which was relatively small, just 2.5m tall).
However, in India, elephants were extremely important as a beast of burden. An elephant can both pull gargantuan loads, act as a light crane when necessary (able to hoist half a ton with its trunk), create improvised roads for others to follow, fend off predators and is resistant to most diseases.
Elephant was a core feature of the warmachine of most central and south indian empires. Partially for it's role on the battlefield (many great indian commanders relied on their elephantcavalry), but once gunpowder came along mainly for it's use as transport and as a construction tool.
在战场上，印度战象使用的时间更长，而且比迦太基、罗马使用北非象(北非象相对较小，只有2.5米高)更坚决。
不过，在印度，大象作为一种驮兽也极其重要。大象既能拖着巨大的重物，还能在必要时充当轻型起重机（能用鼻子吊起半吨重的东西），还能为后面的人开辟临时道路，抵御捕食者，抵抗大多数疾病。
大象是中部、南部印度帝国战争机器的核心特征。部分原因在于它在战场上的作用（许多伟大的印度指挥官依赖他们的象骑兵），等到火药出现，它们的主要作用就成了运输工具和建筑工具。
Woody_S
The effect on morale was their biggest strength. Also if the enemy was unfamiliar with them, like Rome in the first punic war. However, once the Romans learned their way with them they dealt with them quite easily, as for example Scipio at Zama or Caesar at Thapsus. If it was expected that the enemy brought elephants, it was common to take countermeasures, briefing the troops on how to deal with them and adapting formations and tactics. Once the enemy knew how to counter them they tended to be inefficient. However, there were of course instances were elephants were decisive, for example in Phyrrus campaigns, the first punic war or the battle of Pydna.
对士气的影响是它们最大的优势。如果敌人不熟悉它们，比如第一次布匿战争中的罗马。然而，一旦罗马人学会了对付它们的方法，它们就变得很容易对付，例如大西庇阿在扎马战役中，或凯撒在塔普苏斯战役中。如果预计敌人会带着大象，通常都会采取应对措施，向部队通报如何对付大象，并调整队形和战术。一旦敌人知道如何对付大象，它们就会变得无效。当然，也有大象起决定性作用的例子，例如在菲拉斯战役、第一次布匿战争和皮德纳战役。
The effect on morale was their biggest strength. Also if the enemy was unfamiliar with them, like Rome in the first punic war. However, once the Romans learned their way with them they dealt with them quite easily, as for example Scipio at Zama or Caesar at Thapsus. If it was expected that the enemy brought elephants, it was common to take countermeasures, briefing the troops on how to deal with them and adapting formations and tactics. Once the enemy knew how to counter them they tended to be inefficient. However, there were of course instances were elephants were decisive, for example in Phyrrus campaigns, the first punic war or the battle of Pydna.
对士气的影响是它们最大的优势。如果敌人不熟悉它们，比如第一次布匿战争中的罗马。然而，一旦罗马人学会了对付它们的方法，它们就变得很容易对付，例如大西庇阿在扎马战役中，或凯撒在塔普苏斯战役中。如果预计敌人会带着大象，通常都会采取应对措施，向部队通报如何对付大象，并调整队形和战术。一旦敌人知道如何对付大象，它们就会变得无效。当然，也有大象起决定性作用的例子，例如在菲拉斯战役、第一次布匿战争和皮德纳战役。
TarienCole
There's scholarly debate about whether the Romans ever dealt with elephants "easily." And even at Zama, the elephants and their riders hadn't had the time to be properly trained. And that's the admission of the Roman Hagiography.
If they were useless, the Romans wouldn't have added them to their mercenary contingents in the region for centuries after.
关于罗马人对付大象是否“轻松”，学术界存在着争论。即使在扎马战役中，大象和它们的骑手也没有时间接受恰当的训练。这是《罗马传记》里承认的。
如果它们没有用，罗马人就不会在几个世纪后将它们加入到雇佣兵队伍中。
There's scholarly debate about whether the Romans ever dealt with elephants "easily." And even at Zama, the elephants and their riders hadn't had the time to be properly trained. And that's the admission of the Roman Hagiography.
If they were useless, the Romans wouldn't have added them to their mercenary contingents in the region for centuries after.
关于罗马人对付大象是否“轻松”，学术界存在着争论。即使在扎马战役中，大象和它们的骑手也没有时间接受恰当的训练。这是《罗马传记》里承认的。
如果它们没有用，罗马人就不会在几个世纪后将它们加入到雇佣兵队伍中。
Woody_S
I refrained from the word useless. They had their use, but it was not just very situational, but also risky. I am not denying that elephants can be a very powerful tool, but they could also be a waste of ressources. Lets just say, if they were tremendously effective they would have been more common. They were a tool on the battlefield under right circumstances, but they were rarely a dominating aspect of an army. I am not denying that it is debatable, but if we look at Zama or specifically Thapsus, the elephants did more harm to the army fielding them than to the enemy.
我不会用“无用”这个词，它们当然有用，但它们不仅要看环境，还有风险。我不否认大象是一种非常强大的工具，但它们也很浪费资源。这么说吧，如果它们非常有用，那它们就会更普遍。在适当的情况下，它们是战场上的工具，但很少成为军队的支柱。我不否认这有争议，但如果我们看看扎马战役，特别是塔普苏斯战役，大象对自家部队造成的伤害要大于对敌人造成的伤害。
I refrained from the word useless. They had their use, but it was not just very situational, but also risky. I am not denying that elephants can be a very powerful tool, but they could also be a waste of ressources. Lets just say, if they were tremendously effective they would have been more common. They were a tool on the battlefield under right circumstances, but they were rarely a dominating aspect of an army. I am not denying that it is debatable, but if we look at Zama or specifically Thapsus, the elephants did more harm to the army fielding them than to the enemy.
我不会用“无用”这个词，它们当然有用，但它们不仅要看环境，还有风险。我不否认大象是一种非常强大的工具，但它们也很浪费资源。这么说吧，如果它们非常有用，那它们就会更普遍。在适当的情况下，它们是战场上的工具，但很少成为军队的支柱。我不否认这有争议，但如果我们看看扎马战役，特别是塔普苏斯战役，大象对自家部队造成的伤害要大于对敌人造成的伤害。
cthulhubert
Something my history teacher said once was that while elephants were used for shock and awe, probably one of their best uses was as a mobile command center. Being higher up than horses and men around them, leaders had a better view of the flow of action, and it was easier for their armies to see flag signals they might make.
我的历史老师曾经说过，虽然大象被用来震慑敌军，但它们最好的用途之一可能是作为移动指挥中心。由于比马和周围的人都高，将领能更好的了解战争的进展。他们的军队也更容易看到将领发出的旗帜信号。
Something my history teacher said once was that while elephants were used for shock and awe, probably one of their best uses was as a mobile command center. Being higher up than horses and men around them, leaders had a better view of the flow of action, and it was easier for their armies to see flag signals they might make.
我的历史老师曾经说过，虽然大象被用来震慑敌军，但它们最好的用途之一可能是作为移动指挥中心。由于比马和周围的人都高，将领能更好的了解战争的进展。他们的军队也更容易看到将领发出的旗帜信号。
Kamenev_Drang
Eh, not really. No amount of countermeasures will make cavalry charge home against elephants, which means your light infantry effectively have mobile fortresses with which to operate against the flanks of the enemy's heavy troops.
Neither the Carthagnians nor the Romans had particularly good elephants nor particularly sophisticated elephant corps. To understand elephant warfare, you need to look at the Diadoachi.
再多的应对措施也无法让骑兵向大象发起冲锋，这意味着你的轻步兵拥有了移动堡垒，可以用来对付敌人重装部队的侧翼。
迦太基人和罗马人都没有特别好的大象，也没有优秀的大象军团。要了解大象战争，还是要看Diadoachi
Eh, not really. No amount of countermeasures will make cavalry charge home against elephants, which means your light infantry effectively have mobile fortresses with which to operate against the flanks of the enemy's heavy troops.
Neither the Carthagnians nor the Romans had particularly good elephants nor particularly sophisticated elephant corps. To understand elephant warfare, you need to look at the Diadoachi.
再多的应对措施也无法让骑兵向大象发起冲锋，这意味着你的轻步兵拥有了移动堡垒，可以用来对付敌人重装部队的侧翼。
迦太基人和罗马人都没有特别好的大象，也没有优秀的大象军团。要了解大象战争，还是要看Diadoachi
mbattagl
If memory serves didn't the Romans or a different auxiliary tie pitch to pigs, light the pitch, and then throw the shrieking pigs in the direction of the elephants to get them to freak out and trample their own guys?
如果我没记错的话，罗马人不是把沥青淋在猪身上，点燃沥青，让尖叫的猪冲向大象，让大象发狂，然后踩死自己人吗？
If memory serves didn't the Romans or a different auxiliary tie pitch to pigs, light the pitch, and then throw the shrieking pigs in the direction of the elephants to get them to freak out and trample their own guys?
如果我没记错的话，罗马人不是把沥青淋在猪身上，点燃沥青，让尖叫的猪冲向大象，让大象发狂，然后踩死自己人吗？
Woody_S
In one of the battles against Phyrrus, yes. The efficiency of this method is debated however.
在塔普苏斯战役中，是的。然而，这种方法的作用还存在争议。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
In one of the battles against Phyrrus, yes. The efficiency of this method is debated however.
在塔普苏斯战役中，是的。然而，这种方法的作用还存在争议。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Vprbite
My thought would be that you couldn't exactly guarantee where a flaming pig would run.
我的想法是，你无法保证燃烧的猪会跑到哪里。
My thought would be that you couldn't exactly guarantee where a flaming pig would run.
我的想法是，你无法保证燃烧的猪会跑到哪里。
Fausterion18
Even with modern training the Soviets couldn't get anti-tank dogs to work and abandoned the idea. Pigs definitely wouldn't have worked.
即使经过现代训练，苏联人也无法让反坦克犬起效，然后放弃了这个想法。猪肯定不会起作用。
Even with modern training the Soviets couldn't get anti-tank dogs to work and abandoned the idea. Pigs definitely wouldn't have worked.
即使经过现代训练，苏联人也无法让反坦克犬起效，然后放弃了这个想法。猪肯定不会起作用。
LogicalSciences
I'll add this opinion of mine in here, which already mirrors a lot of what you and others have stated: I would argue that by far the most clear, convincing proof of how effective they were was that basically no-one used them. If they were effective then their use would've increased, spread, etc.I would argue that the amount of resources needed just for the upkeep, let alone transport to the battlefield and maintenance at barracks would've probably been huge in proportion to what resources and logistics capabilities they had at the time. I'm not that familiar with the subject but I assume that elephants' own hauling capabilities don't even nearly cover their own resource needs for even a pretty short time period. Unless you are in a very favorable environment to that animal allowing it to be relatively self-sufficient using the surrounding resources.
Furthermore with the conditions troops operated in back then I'd assume that elephants would cause lots of friendly losses too. Elephants can be difficult in general, and even more so when they panic. I guess in some instances a large amount of elephants just set to go nuts in the general direction of the enemy would do some damage or clear a path, but they don't seem to be very controllable precision weapons and can backfire?
我说说我的看法，之前也有人说过了，我认为，迄今为止，它们的作用最清楚、最令人信服的证据是：基本没人用它们。如果它们有用，那么它们的使用就会增加、会传播出去。我认为，单单是喂养它们的资源量就成问题，更不用说运输到战场和在军营里维护，这与他们当时拥有的资源和后勤能力有很大关系。我对这个问题不太熟悉，但我认为大象的拖运能力甚至无法满足它们自己的资源需求。除非你处在一个对动物非常有利的环境，可以让它们利用周围的资源自给自足。
此外，考虑到当时军队的作战条件，我认为大象也会给友军造成很大损失。大象通常很难驾驭，尤其是当它们恐慌的时候。在某些情况下，大量的大象朝着敌人的方向狂奔造成一些伤害或开辟一条道路，但它们似乎不是非常可控，可能会适得其反。
I'll add this opinion of mine in here, which already mirrors a lot of what you and others have stated: I would argue that by far the most clear, convincing proof of how effective they were was that basically no-one used them. If they were effective then their use would've increased, spread, etc.I would argue that the amount of resources needed just for the upkeep, let alone transport to the battlefield and maintenance at barracks would've probably been huge in proportion to what resources and logistics capabilities they had at the time. I'm not that familiar with the subject but I assume that elephants' own hauling capabilities don't even nearly cover their own resource needs for even a pretty short time period. Unless you are in a very favorable environment to that animal allowing it to be relatively self-sufficient using the surrounding resources.
Furthermore with the conditions troops operated in back then I'd assume that elephants would cause lots of friendly losses too. Elephants can be difficult in general, and even more so when they panic. I guess in some instances a large amount of elephants just set to go nuts in the general direction of the enemy would do some damage or clear a path, but they don't seem to be very controllable precision weapons and can backfire?
我说说我的看法，之前也有人说过了，我认为，迄今为止，它们的作用最清楚、最令人信服的证据是：基本没人用它们。如果它们有用，那么它们的使用就会增加、会传播出去。我认为，单单是喂养它们的资源量就成问题，更不用说运输到战场和在军营里维护，这与他们当时拥有的资源和后勤能力有很大关系。我对这个问题不太熟悉，但我认为大象的拖运能力甚至无法满足它们自己的资源需求。除非你处在一个对动物非常有利的环境，可以让它们利用周围的资源自给自足。
此外，考虑到当时军队的作战条件，我认为大象也会给友军造成很大损失。大象通常很难驾驭，尤其是当它们恐慌的时候。在某些情况下，大量的大象朝着敌人的方向狂奔造成一些伤害或开辟一条道路，但它们似乎不是非常可控，可能会适得其反。
PM_me_your_cocktail
The Romans, after Zama and a string of other victories against war elephants, came to view them as an outdated gimmick weapon. That dismissive view thus crept into lots of scholarship based on Roman records. And the responses in this thread mostly suffer from the same issue; almost all of them reference the Roman experience. But the use of war elephants had a much longer tradition in India, hinting that if the cost of acquiring the elephants isn't too high they may have enough situational usefulness (terror device, breaking up infantry lines, tearing down fortifications, providing an elevated view and missile platform) to be worth pursuing as a powerful tool.
在扎马战役和一系列对抗战象的胜利后，罗马人开始将战象视为过时的花哨武器。这种轻蔑的看法潜入了许多基于罗马记录的学术研究中。而本帖里的回复都有相同的问题：几乎都参考了罗马的经验。在印度，战象的使用传统要长得多，这意味着，如果获得战象的成本不太高，它们在一定的情况下很有作用（恐吓、摧毁步兵防线、拆除防御工事、提供高视野和投掷平台），是一种强大的工具，值得追求。
The Romans, after Zama and a string of other victories against war elephants, came to view them as an outdated gimmick weapon. That dismissive view thus crept into lots of scholarship based on Roman records. And the responses in this thread mostly suffer from the same issue; almost all of them reference the Roman experience. But the use of war elephants had a much longer tradition in India, hinting that if the cost of acquiring the elephants isn't too high they may have enough situational usefulness (terror device, breaking up infantry lines, tearing down fortifications, providing an elevated view and missile platform) to be worth pursuing as a powerful tool.
在扎马战役和一系列对抗战象的胜利后，罗马人开始将战象视为过时的花哨武器。这种轻蔑的看法潜入了许多基于罗马记录的学术研究中。而本帖里的回复都有相同的问题：几乎都参考了罗马的经验。在印度，战象的使用传统要长得多，这意味着，如果获得战象的成本不太高，它们在一定的情况下很有作用（恐吓、摧毁步兵防线、拆除防御工事、提供高视野和投掷平台），是一种强大的工具，值得追求。
eva01beast
War elephants were a big deal in South and Southeast Asia, where jungle warfare was pretty common. They were relevant till the advent of gunpowder. They provided archers with elevation, they could charge at small groups and most importantly, they could carry heavy loads.
Outside of that part of the world, the really weren't effective.
But I feel like most of the answers here are way too Eurocentric. There was a world outside of Rome too, you know.
战象在南亚和东南亚很重要，那里的丛林战争相当普遍。在火药发明之前它们一直都受到重视。它们为弓箭手提供了高度，可以小团体冲锋，最重要的是，它们可以携带重物。
在世界其他地方，它们真的没多少用。
但我觉得帖子里的回答太欧洲中心了。你知道的，罗马之外还有世界。
War elephants were a big deal in South and Southeast Asia, where jungle warfare was pretty common. They were relevant till the advent of gunpowder. They provided archers with elevation, they could charge at small groups and most importantly, they could carry heavy loads.
Outside of that part of the world, the really weren't effective.
But I feel like most of the answers here are way too Eurocentric. There was a world outside of Rome too, you know.
战象在南亚和东南亚很重要，那里的丛林战争相当普遍。在火药发明之前它们一直都受到重视。它们为弓箭手提供了高度，可以小团体冲锋，最重要的是，它们可以携带重物。
在世界其他地方，它们真的没多少用。
但我觉得帖子里的回答太欧洲中心了。你知道的，罗马之外还有世界。
sirhobbles
pretty much fulfilling the role of a tank in ancient warfare
Ive heard this quoted a lot but from my understanding they couldnt be much further from a tank. They were quite vulnerable to enemy light weapons, were unpredictable and didnt realy do much to enemy combatants.
They appear to have mostly served as terror weapons, especially against foes who werent too familiar witht he animals. Its large, its loud. those are the two biggest things going for it.
Elephants are animals and spears and arrows are very quickly going to cause the animal to ignore any training you managed to give it and its either going to uncontrollably attack, and elephants arent likely to be great at identifying uniforms, or they are going to run away, probably through your own guys.
They werent terribly effective as far as i can tell. That said most battles are won or lost mostly by morale and discipline so just having something big and scary that affects the nerve of the enemy might have been more effective than im giving it credit for even if they didnt realy contribute much to the disabling of enemy combatants.
“基本相当于古代战争中的坦克”
我经常听到这种说法，但据我所知，它们比坦克差太远了。它们在敌人的轻武器面前相当脆弱，难以预测，对敌方战斗人员也起不来多大作用。
它们的主要作用是恐吓，尤其是对那些不太熟悉大象的敌人。它很大，声音宏亮。这是它最重要的两点。
大象是动物，长矛和弓箭很容易导致动物无视你对它们进行的训练，它会不受控制地到处攻击，大象在识别制服方面不太可能擅长，它们会逃跑，可能会跑向自己人。
据我所知，它们并不是非常有效。大多数战斗的胜负主要取决于士气和纪律，因此，拥有一些影响敌人勇气的、大而可怕的东西才是它最有效的地方，哪怕它们对敌人战斗人员的杀伤没有这么大。
pretty much fulfilling the role of a tank in ancient warfare
Ive heard this quoted a lot but from my understanding they couldnt be much further from a tank. They were quite vulnerable to enemy light weapons, were unpredictable and didnt realy do much to enemy combatants.
They appear to have mostly served as terror weapons, especially against foes who werent too familiar witht he animals. Its large, its loud. those are the two biggest things going for it.
Elephants are animals and spears and arrows are very quickly going to cause the animal to ignore any training you managed to give it and its either going to uncontrollably attack, and elephants arent likely to be great at identifying uniforms, or they are going to run away, probably through your own guys.
They werent terribly effective as far as i can tell. That said most battles are won or lost mostly by morale and discipline so just having something big and scary that affects the nerve of the enemy might have been more effective than im giving it credit for even if they didnt realy contribute much to the disabling of enemy combatants.
“基本相当于古代战争中的坦克”
我经常听到这种说法，但据我所知，它们比坦克差太远了。它们在敌人的轻武器面前相当脆弱，难以预测，对敌方战斗人员也起不来多大作用。
它们的主要作用是恐吓，尤其是对那些不太熟悉大象的敌人。它很大，声音宏亮。这是它最重要的两点。
大象是动物，长矛和弓箭很容易导致动物无视你对它们进行的训练，它会不受控制地到处攻击，大象在识别制服方面不太可能擅长，它们会逃跑，可能会跑向自己人。
据我所知，它们并不是非常有效。大多数战斗的胜负主要取决于士气和纪律，因此，拥有一些影响敌人勇气的、大而可怕的东西才是它最有效的地方，哪怕它们对敌人战斗人员的杀伤没有这么大。
IndianLibrarian
War elephants were kind of like tanks in the First World War. They surely had many downsides, like logistics, as you mentioned, but also they were fairly difficult to control and sometimes had problems crossing extremely difficult terrain. But, on the other hand war elephants could be used in many ways, like for example, in the Indian subcontinent, kings and generals would usually ride armoured elephants, which proved to be very difficult to kill and provided better protection than a horse. Also, elephants were used as a kind of ancient tank, with armour and men riding on the back of the elephants equipped with bows and later on, guns. Elephants were also used to move artillery and other supplies, since less were required and they proved to be sturdier than carts pulled by horses or oxen. Elephants continued to be used in the Kingdom of Siam to tow artillery until about the 1920s, when they adopted heavier guns which needed trucks. So yeah, I think war elephants were pretty effective.
战象有点像第一次世界大战中的坦克。它们当然有很多缺点，比如前面提到的后勤，但它们也很难控制，在穿越极其复杂的地形时也会遇到问题。但是，另一方面，战象有很多用途，比如在印度次大陆，国王和将军通常会骑着装甲大象，这已经被证明了，很难杀，而且比马更能保护你。此外，大象被用作古代坦克，装备着盔甲，骑手拿弓箭，后来用枪。大象也被用来搬运火炮和其他物资，因为它们所需的物资更少，而且比马车或牛车更坚固。在暹罗王国，大象一直被用来拖曳火炮，直到1920年代，当时他们装备了需要卡车才能拉动的重型火炮。所以是的，我认为战象很有用。
War elephants were kind of like tanks in the First World War. They surely had many downsides, like logistics, as you mentioned, but also they were fairly difficult to control and sometimes had problems crossing extremely difficult terrain. But, on the other hand war elephants could be used in many ways, like for example, in the Indian subcontinent, kings and generals would usually ride armoured elephants, which proved to be very difficult to kill and provided better protection than a horse. Also, elephants were used as a kind of ancient tank, with armour and men riding on the back of the elephants equipped with bows and later on, guns. Elephants were also used to move artillery and other supplies, since less were required and they proved to be sturdier than carts pulled by horses or oxen. Elephants continued to be used in the Kingdom of Siam to tow artillery until about the 1920s, when they adopted heavier guns which needed trucks. So yeah, I think war elephants were pretty effective.
战象有点像第一次世界大战中的坦克。它们当然有很多缺点，比如前面提到的后勤，但它们也很难控制，在穿越极其复杂的地形时也会遇到问题。但是，另一方面，战象有很多用途，比如在印度次大陆，国王和将军通常会骑着装甲大象，这已经被证明了，很难杀，而且比马更能保护你。此外，大象被用作古代坦克，装备着盔甲，骑手拿弓箭，后来用枪。大象也被用来搬运火炮和其他物资，因为它们所需的物资更少，而且比马车或牛车更坚固。在暹罗王国，大象一直被用来拖曳火炮，直到1920年代，当时他们装备了需要卡车才能拉动的重型火炮。所以是的，我认为战象很有用。
很赞 2
收藏