Republican? Confused? Wondering who to vote for in the 2000 presidential primary? Choosing a candidate is like trying to pick the one dessert, vacation, or Clinton scandal that you like above all others. Every candidate has something unique and valuable to offer the party. Imagine if we could combine the best attributes of each into one super candidate. What would this candidate look like?

Besides his manners, piano-playing skills, and flannel shirt attire, Lamar Alexander ‘s best quality may be his smile. Whether he is on offense, defense or the sidelines, his lips are never far from a healthy, confident smile. This may seem simplistic, but the GOP needs a happy face. Republicans haven’t smiled much since the ’96 election.

Nor have they won many debates since the inspiring idealist, Newt Gingrich stepped down from the podium. Gary Bauer may be one of the least known of the morality candidates, but pit him against the most articulate democratic opponent, and he methodically demonstrates the advantages of conservatism. He even seems to enjoy the process. Someone will have to go mano-a-mano with either Gore or Bradley. Jack Kemp stumbled in the debate against Gore, as Quayle did before him. Gary Bauer possesses the fighting spirit, debating skills, and sense rightness that would win presidential debates.

Pat Buchanan has put the likes of liberal Michael Kinsley in his place for years on national television with confident ease. In both speech and writing, he presents a seasoned understanding of international affairs. He’s not lacking in well thought-out solutions, either. With his let’s-mind-our-own-business views on foreign policy (called isolationism by opponents), he could convince the world that Americans really are a peace-loving, non-violent people who prefer not to attack sovereign nations with whom they disagree on internal policy.

Looks, lineage, Latin, and Lone Star. George W. Bush may not have clear-cut policies, nor may he need any. “I just like the man,” women say, when asked about Bush’s appeal. Men look into his face and see the elder George standing up to an evil Iraqi dictator. His handsome, gentlemanly appearance might sway some voters once behind the private curtain of the voting booth.

If a tree danced the Macarena in a distant forest, would anyone notice? Ever heard Charlie Brown’s teacher deliver a lecture? Ever heard Al Gore speak Spanish? No one has, but it’s funny to hear him try. George W. knows when to trill his r’s and when to leave his h’s silent. This hombre knows a few Spanish slang words. The linguist vote aside, Señor Bush lives and works with voters of Mexican heritage, and he retains a coveted Hispanic following that buttresses his campaign. Republicans need the Hispanic vote to win Texas, and they need Texas in the General Election. All these characteristics transform him into the Ricky Martin figure that Republicans need to bring more voters under the big tent.

The Doles are back this year. This time around they’re younger, wiser, and more effeminate. Elizabeth Dole is no Margaret Thatcher, but she holds fast to core conservative values during a time when women voters are leaning Democratic. A strong female candidate would attract voters who might not otherwise cast a Republican ballot.

Cha-Ching! No, that’s not the name of another Chinese Clinton-Gore campaign contributor, it’s the sound of Steve Forbes not having to pander for cash. Besides the ability to self-finance his campaign, he has solid business experience and has previously run for president. He has also brought some prescient ideas to the forefront of politics. Forbes dared suggest that we should reform social security back when it was unpopular to do so. He’s also the father of the flat tax.

Bobby Gawthrop is a 35-year-old who wants to be the first Generation X president. He’s 12 years younger than John Kasich and obsessed with social security reform, national debt reduction, and the environment, all issues that will affect his generation, not the current. “My candidacy is not ideologically based; it is generationally based,” is the essence of his platform. Republicans need his youth to attract the MTV vote.

When it’s all over, someone is going to have to sort through the Clinton era bookkeeping practices, and who better than the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, John Kasic. With his budgetary expertise, he’s the best chance the GOP has for finding hidden spending and tax increases. Mr. Kasich has now dropped out of the race. Unfortunately, he will not be able to oversee many more budgets, even from Capitol Hill, as he will also retire from Congress.

Republican politicians have shied away from confronting the countries’ moral decay. If you cast a stone at Alan Keyes, duck. He may cast it right back. If necessary, he could make the grass feel guilty for having the same hue as the dollar bill. Republicans need his moral convictions.

Who can question the patriotism of a man who spent 6 years in a North Vietnamese prison? John McCain’s military record is the greatest asset to his candidacy. Under a McCain administration, there would be no Chinese spy/technology transfer scandals, no invasions of non-threatening sovereign nations, no pharmacy bombings, and no questions about whether his foreign policy is influenced by this month’s domestic scandal. His military record speaks for him.

Links to Dan Quayle appear under two topics on the Yahoo search engine: Candidates and Humor. The media has stalked him from the campaign trail to middle schools. On paper, Quayle’s platform balances both the social and economic sides. He invented the term “family values” and wants a “tax cut for every American.” He has experience and a message, but lacks delivery. Dan Quayle’s superhuman determination benefits any candidate.

We now have a composite candidate who is happy, eloquent, foreign policy-minded, good-looking, bilingual, female, wealthy, young, budget-oriented, moral, patriotic, and determined. This perfect Republican candidate would be a definite winner in 2000. If anyone spots this person, please contact the Republican National Committee immediately. See you at the precinct.

We don’t need another Gulf War, but a solution based on strength and principle.

Do you have Saddam trouble? I do about once or so a year. When I feel the symptoms, I think back on Ronald Reagan’s great statement about our national character: “Americans are slow to anger.” Today, it still takes a long time for a large democracy like the U.S. with all its freedom and diversity to be pushed into a fight. Our seven-year cat and mouse game with Saddam is putting Reagan’s notion to a thorough test.

For the first time since the cold war, our very civilization is threatened. What if you awoke one morning to find half of Georgia wiped out by a biological weapons attack? Or, what if you didn’t wake up one morning? All it takes is one Iraqi terrorist with a canister of anthrax and an attitude. Fortunately, only the attitude has reached U.S. soil.

Given their potency, biological weapons are cheaper and easier to manufacture and hide than nuclear weapons. Any third world country possesses the tools to create a biological weapon. Since the end of the Gulf War, UN weapons inspectors in Iraq have discovered a full biological weapons program, production facilities, bombs, munitions, and delivery systems. The hard part is the delivery. Weapons of mass destruction must be either launched or hand delivered. Airmail or Pony Express, no terrorist has sent us a package from Saddam yet.

I believe that the probability of a biological weapons attack on the U.S. is likely. I am perplexed as to why we have not prepared adequate defenses. It seems logical to think that the same terrorists who enjoy blowing up buses full of Israeli children (and themselves in some cases) would have no problem releasing a tiny virus on the soil of their most powerful enemy, “The Great Satan.” Unlike past attacks, we might be powerless to retaliate. We will not even know for certain who our enemy is unless he tells us.

So Saddam can destroy the world as we know it now. It wasn’t so bad when only the Soviets could destroy the world. They were a large government with an ideology. Despite the evils of communism, we felt that even a one party government might have trouble justifying an offensive nuclear strike. What scares folks about Saddam is that he doesn’t seem to have any goals outside the sport of killing, destroying, and plundering.

The Clinton Administration’s strategy has been to negotiate, placate, and vaccinate. His every move has been reactive. The Commander in Chief of our military has not taken a proactive leadership role as George Bush did in the 1990 Gulf crisis. Bush declared: “This shall not stand.” Bill Clinton has yet to organize a coalition, draw a line in the sand, or set a clear policy of dealing with Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Americans should demand that the president march to the frontlines of this issue.

Every U.S. president longs to be remembered in history for his great accomplishments. Since Bill Clinton has had a relatively weak foreign policy record (Bosnia excepted), he should see the current Saddam trouble as an opportunity to advance not only the causes of the American people, but those of his party. Can anyone imagine the political accolades that would be bestowed on the president who resolves the Iraqi problem?

Sure, in today’s complicated world the John Wayne approach does not always work. When the Duke killed a villain, by golly, he was dead, and that was the end of the movie. Cowboys have always had a shrewd aversion to diplomacy. Nowadays, the whole posse at the UN is consulted including intransigent China, Russia, and France.

Prediction: Saddam will act up again, U.S. officials will declare for the umpteenth time that “We will not rule out military action,” and that our fleet will be ordered to the trouble spot to “send a message.” Soon a “diplomatic solution” will be reached. The tough talk then stops as our fleet sails to friendly seas. Safe from harm, Saddam acts up again. The cycle repeats itself.

So why not simply leave Saddam alone and forget about him? The world becomes a more dangerous place each time we let Saddam off the hook. If we allow him to frolic with biological weapons, then other dictators will know that they can do the same with impunity. Be assured that Kadafy and Assad are watching carefully as they stir their own deadly brews. Given all of the post Cold War military cutbacks, can the U.S. take on 2, 3, or more Saddams with chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons? Military officials have testified before congress that the U.S. is not adequately prepared to fight a conventional battle on more than one front.

Like a big budget action movie, we appear headed for the inevitable sequel to the Gulf War. The CNN footage may not be as glorious in The Return of Saddam. Besides weapons of mass destruction, what will the Iraqi army fight with next time? They will have deeper trenches, more clever SAM traps, smarter defenses to our smart bombs, possibly new allies, and after years of UN sanctions, stronger resolve.

Of course, our boys will no doubt have a few surprises of their own. They may test the new F-22 fighter, remote controlled attack aircraft, bombs that dig deep into underground bunkers, and other high tech weaponry that might have been saved for a rainy day.

Americans are “slow to anger” because they dislike war. No war should result from emotion. The phrase is just a Reaganesque way of saying that Americans exhaust every possible option to avoid violence. We don’t need another Gulf War, but a solution based on strength and principle. The real danger of Saddam trouble is in doing nothing.

Go to any Internet search engine and type “F-22” in the search field. You will no doubt return lots of hits about the nearly successful attempt by the House of Representatives to cut the F-22 advanced jet fighter program into extinction. Many members of the House assailed the high tech fighter program due to its rising cost. For a while, it looked as if the world’s greatest fighter aircraft would never fly. Today, thanks to an overwhelming expression of support from both military and civilian proponents, a congressional agreement was reached to extend funding of the F-22. However, production of the plane has been postponed until April 2001 and opponents still lurk. Going forward, those with an interest in future technologies that can make the world a safer place should be concerned when a program like the F-22 is threatened. I remember the excitement I felt upon first reading of this promising new Advanced Tactical Fighter that would replace the F-15. I still marvel at an aircraft that cruises at supersonic speeds without using afterburners, detects virtually any enemy first while itself avoiding detection through stealth, and outmaneuvers any foes via a new technology called thrust vectoring. I followed the progress of the F-22 with enthusiasm throughout years of both praise and criticism.

From early on, there were serious doubts about stealth technology, the aircraft’s role, and as mentioned, cost. The success of the F-117 in Panama and the Gulf War eventually squelched doubts about stealth technology. As the Soviet Union collapsed and the U.S. military downsized, opponents of the F-22 characterized the aircraft strictly as a cold war fighter designed to achieve air superiority in a large-scale air war with the Soviets. Today, some critics still maintain that the F-22 is no longer needed for that reason. The charge that the F-22 is a huge financial gamble persists and is the most serious. Yet, the money kept rolling in, as the F-22 continued to demonstrate its potential to one day dominate the air over any battlefield.

Another argument for discontinuing the F-22 is that if Americans could simply be patient until the year 2010, they would see production of the Joint Strike Fighter. Congressmen hoping to substitute the JSF for the F-22 in order to cut spending must stop looking at this as an either/or proposition. These two aircraft have been designed for two different roles with different manufacturing processes. A good way of the understanding the differences in the F-22 and the JSF is in comparing the F-15 to the F-16, respectively. When I think of the F-15, the words advanced, superior, and expensive come to mind (to date, a F-15 has never been shot down). When I think of the F-16, I think versatile, low-cost, foreign sales. At this moment in history, we need both products on the battlefield, the F-15 to completely dominate the air, and the F-16 to do a little of everything well. In the same way, future air operations will call for the presence of both a superfighter like the F-22 and a workhorse like the JSF.

The Joint Strike Fighter program makes sense militarily and economically. Besides making improvements in stealth and maneuverability over today’s aircraft, the JSF’s multi-service design makes it a strike aircraft that will serve just about everyone except the Coast Guard. The U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marines and U.S. allies all want it. The numerous contracts for the plane as well as the large numbers of aircraft planned for production make it more affordable. This is to say nothing of the lower cost onboard systems that are not as advanced as those of the F-22. There will be “a high degree of commonality between service variants and a single production line,” says Boeing, a leading competitor for the JSF contract. Ironically, one of Boeing’s customer needs for the Air Force is “complementing the F-22A.” The JSF is the multirole fighter that will replace the F-16.

The theme of the F-22 Air Dominance Fighter is it’s “first look, first shot, first kill” ability. The key words are Air and Dominance. The aircraft’s purpose is to establish absolute control of the skies over any battlefield. Gen. Richard E. Hawley, Commander, Air Combat Command, affirms the need for U.S. expeditionary forces to establish “a sanctuary free from enemy aerial attack as they disembark at ports and airfields.” He further wonders how dominant we will be if aircraft like the AWACS or JSTARS come under attack. Future air battles may not be as one-sided for the U.S. as in the Gulf and Kosovo Wars.

If the U.S. does not follow-through on the F-22 investment, we will not have the world’s dominant fighter during the year’s leading up to 2010. This leaves a gap of up to ten years without a superior fighter to compete with the Su 37, the Russian answer to the F-22. The gap will have to be overcome by increasing the number of F-15’s, upgrading the F-15 (how do you upgrade a non-stealth airframe to stealth?), or relying on other upgraded aircraft like the Navy’s F-18E/F Super Hornet, an aircraft designed to protect fleets. Keep in mind that the F-15 will be almost 40 years old when the JSF arrives. If the U.S. goes to battle with the best product, pilot risk will be greatly reduced. Also, a small number of F-22’s will do the job of many F-15’s.

There is a reason that Europe’s upcoming superfighter was called the “EF 2000”. The Eurofighter was supposed to be in service by the year 2000. While its production has been under way for a year now, delivery has been delayed until 2002. The Eurofighter is expected to outperform the F-15, but will not approach the effectiveness of the F-22. The Europeans are reported to be already selling the Eurofighter to anyone interested. Other aircraft such as the MiG-29, SU-27, and Mirage 2000 can compete well with the F-15. The U.S. will be in the odd position of deploying an advanced fighter (the F-15), which will overwhelm neither enemy nor ally. If the U.S. wants, it can deliver F-22’s by about time the Eurofighter appears. While the U.S. may overcome the technological edge of other aircraft by seizing the numerical advantage, there’s just something that seems wrong about the Air Force not flying the best.

Instead of threats from SAM’s, or BVR missiles, the F-22 was almost shot down by friendly fire from the very institution that spawned its existence, the United States House of Representatives. I was in the Cobb Galleria Center on the night of November 8, 1994 where Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich announced to a crowd of ecstatic supporters that his party would now control congress for the first time in 40 years. News anchors were in tears. Democrats were scrambling for cover. The world was shocked. This was a night that both dreams and nightmares came true. As Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Gingrich’s new conservative Congress would bring a “revolution” by implementing their Contract with America. The man I saw around town and in my favorite Mexican restaurant and in my local barbershop was now one of the most powerful in the world. The 8000 Georgians employed by Lockheed Martin’s Aeronautical Systems Division in Marietta, Georgia could take comfort in Newt’s position during an era of defense cut-backs and base-closings.

Mr. Gingrich went on to implement the Contract with America and in short, became a casualty of his own ideals and combative personality. He easily won re-election in 1998, but casting aside his pride and accepting the blame for Republican losses nationwide, he resigned from Congress. This left Bob Livingston of Louisiana as the next in line for Speaker of the House, but soon he also stepped down after admitting to misconduct uncovered by Clinton sympathizers after the Lewinsky and other scandals surfaced. This meant that a mild-mannered moderate Republican from Illinois named Dennis Hastert would become Speaker. Commenting on the F-22 program, Hastert says “We need to concentrate on those things that work.” Back in Georgia, moderate Republican, Johnny Isakson won Newt Gingrich’s seat in Georgia’s 6th congressional district. Isakson is currently the most junior member of the delegation. He assured me that he would do everything in his power to continue the F-22 program.

Recall that Georgia is also the home state of Senator Sam Nunn, former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In his last three Senate elections, the popular lawmaker carried at least 80% of the vote. Mr. Nunn was considered an authority on national defense matters. Members of both parties recognized him as one of the most objective and informed on defense matters. He is said to have been approached by the Clinton Administration to replace Les Aspen as Secretary of Defense after the Somalia fiasco. Mr. Nunn retired from Congress in 1997. This left no dominant political figure to protect the military industry and bases located in the state of Georgia. Ideological enemies of Gingrich and Republicans eager to prove themselves bipartisan sharpened their knives to carve up some Georgia pork.

The idea of a cut was kept off the radar screen by the House Appropriations Committee and when announced, caught F-22 supporters off guard. This stealthy political tactic prevented debate and built quick momentum to fight off the many able F-22 proponents among the civilian, political, and military sectors. The sudden move to cut the program seemed unusual coming so soon after the Kosovo victory, where air superiority, high altitude bombing, and stealth were the key tenets. If the F-22 could have been deployed against Yugoslavia, it might have given the program a needed PR boost. Imagine the headline “F-22 Performs Magnificently Over Kosovo” juxtaposing the headline “F-22 Program Slashed by Congress.”

This is when the politics behind the F-22 went off the radar screen, dipped, then took an abrupt left turn. In a bizarre turn of irony, the Clinton Administration, traditionally no friend of the military industrial complex, announced its support for the F-22 program. Whenever feasible, the Whitehouse likes to appear to the right of Republicans. Such a convoluted polarization underscores just how little differences are left between the two parties. Partisan politics may not be a bad idea in some cases.

Okay, more irony. Defense Secretary William Cohen was one of the first to speak out against cutting the program. In a letter to Congress, he stated that he “could not accept an FY 2000 defense bill that fails to fund the F-22 fighter program.” He went on to say that “This decision, if enacted, would for all practical purposes kill the F-22 program, the cornerstone of our nation’s global air power in the 21st century.” Recall that the Clinton Administration both astonished and silenced opponents by choosing Cohen, a former Republican Senator from Maine to replace outgoing Secretary of Defense, William Perry. Cohen’s Senate confirmation vote was a resounding 99-0. The result is a Republican working inside a Democratic Whitehouse opposing Republicans.

The original Advanced Tactical Fighter bid included three contractors: Lockheed (now Lockheed Martin), General Dynamics, and Boeing. Lockheed was team leader and the work was split roughly three ways. Later, Lockheed bought General Dynamics, which made Boeing a 1/3rd partner. Besides its stake in the F-22, Boeing is also a major player in both the F-18E/F Super Hornet and the JSF programs. Boeing has gradually returned to the fighter aircraft manufacturer arena where Lockheed has had a long and successful history. The two are natural competitors. Publicly, cooperation between the two companies is reported to be good. However, one source close to Lockheed Martin tells me “once in a while you hear something said negatively about Boeing’s effort.” Another believes that Boeing may be doing a little corporate foot-dragging due to the either/or discussions between the F-22 and JSF. Indeed, Boeing says that “Other allies have voiced interest in the JSF program and Boeing believes there will be a substantial international market for the low-cost, high-performance strike aircraft.” Could Boeing be filibustering on the F-22, hoping that the JSF will sell better?

The concern about soaring spending projections is valid. There’s nothing wrong with cutting or canceling a program that is not meeting expectations or is out of control financially. In the late 1980’s, Congress proposed terminating the F-22 program, but 10 years and $20 billion later is somewhat late for a fiscal epiphany. High-tech fighter planes have traditionally cost much more than estimates, yet Lockheed Martin maintains that they can stay under their cap of $72 million, even agreeing to absorb some costs if overruns occur. Has Congress finally discovered fiscal responsibility during the “budget surplus” era?

Amazingly, during the time the proposed cuts were announced, the mainstream media kept relatively silent about the whole F-22 issue, opting instead to travail over next year’s New York Senate race and the Kennedy family’s woes. Considering the importance of such a project, we’ve heard very little debate about it, at least in public. Why aren’t more defense-conscious congressmen forcing this issue into the front lines? And where has the public been?

The F-22 program has been grudgingly extended once again. It’s too early for a eulogy and too late for abortion. The country is too far past the drawing board and to close to production to give up. Due to the cut-backs and precipitation in morale that have occurred under the current Administration, I believe that the next ten years will be a crucial and trying time for our military. The F-22 must be allowed to defend the citizens of the U.S. in the future. Besides saving the lives of American military personnel, the U.S. has a chance to establish a “peace through strength” doctrine with conventional weapons. This is one big chance that the U.S. has to make a quantum leap in air warfare. If the U.S. wants to remain a superpower, build the F-22. If not, don’t. I have one thing to say to Congress: find a way.

Find out more about the F-22 here:
F-22 Raptor Team Website

The purpose of this work is to determine all of the military uses of the elephant, highlight its effects on the Greek and Roman mind, and offer theories to explain uncertainties about elephants. This information has been presented largely from the ancient sources’ point of view. This method increases the reader’s understanding of the impact that the elephant had upon the men of antiquity.

Two species of elephants were in existence during the Greek and Roman period: the Indian and African. Both species have survived to the present day. The back of the Indian elephant is convex. The cows have very small tusks or none at all. The highest point of its body is the top of its head and the forehead is slightly indented. The African elephant is distinguished by its large triangular ears and concave back. The African is divided into two subspecies: the Bush elephant and the Forest elephant. The major difference in the two subspecies is in the size. The average adult Bush is over eight feet at the shoulder, and the Forest is under that figure.1
The African elephants were taken from North and East Africa. The Ptolemies of Egypt exploited this group particularly. Elephants were widespread in Syria, but the myth of a Syrian elephant as distinct from the Indian and African must be dismissed. There is no evidence of such a difference.2

A variety of methods were employed in antiquity to trap elephants, such as pits, falling spears, bamboo ring traps, trunk snares, ham-stringing, fire, poisoned arrows, and the corral.3 Arrian records a method of hunting Indian elephants from which he quotes Megasthenes: “They choose a place that is level and open to the sun’s heat and dig a ditch in a circle wide enough for a great army to encamp within it. They dig a ditch and heap the dirt up on either side as a wall. They make shelters for themselves dug out of the wall on the outside of the ditch and place small windows in them; through these, the light comes in and they watch the animals entering. Then they leave three or four of their tamest females within the enclosure and leave only one entrance by the ditch, making a bridge over it; and here they heap much earth and grass so that the animals cannot distinguish the bridge, and so suspect any trick. The hunters then hide in the shelters dug under the ditch. And when the elephants approach the ditch and hear the trumpeting of the females and perceive them by their scent, they rush to the walled enclosure. When the hunters see that the wild elephants have entered, some smartly remove the bridge…”4


A more aggressive method of hunting was used by the Ethiopians to neutralize the African elephant. Diodorus provides an account: “The elephant fighter seizes the elephant’s tail with his hands and plants his feet against its left flank; he has hanging from his shoulders an axe, light enough so that the blow may be struck with one hand and yet very sharp, and grasping this in his right hand, he ham-strings the elephant’s right leg, raining blows upon it and maintaining the position of his own body with his left hand. The ham-strung beast often collapses on the spot causing the death of the Ethiopian with his own; sometimes squeezing the man against a rock or tree it crushes him with its weight until it kills him.”5


The elephant was used in battle because of its immense size and great strength. When the Romans encountered the elephants of Pyrrhus “some (Romans) were killed by the men in the towers on the elephants’ backs, and others by the beasts themselves, which destroyed many with their trunks and tusks and crushed and trampled under foot many more (Zonaras VIII, 3).” Aelian recorded Ctesias as saying that he has seen “date-palms completely uprooted by elephants.”6Also, Mago’s elephants “trampled to death twenty-two sons of nobles serving in the Roman cavalry (Livy XXX, 18).” Once one of Scipio’s wounded elephants was “crushing a sutler underfoot when a veteran in Caesar’s army distracted the beast which then lifted him in the air with its trunk; whereupon the soldier kept hacking at the trunk with his sword until pain caused the beast todrop him.”7


Elephants were sometimes equipped with frightening headpieces and breastplates for defensive armor. Arrian (Jact. 2.4) states that elephants’ tusks were armed with sharp iron, while the poet Silius Italicus (IX, 581-3) refers to spears fastened to the tusks. Elephants also wore clanging bells around their necks in battle. Sometimes war-elephants carried only a mahout (the keeper/trainer of the elephant, normally imported from India). At times the elephant carried on or more armed soldiers on its back while some had towers or castles containing warriors. The towers were fastened to the elephant’s back by means of ropes or chains which passed around its body on the front, middle, and backside.8


The elephant was a serious fighting machine in antiquity. Elephants could (and often did) almost solely determine the course of battle. After Antiochas had won an elephant-victory over the terrified Gauls, he wept and called out, “Shame my men, whose salvation came through these sixteen beasts. If the novelty of their appearance had not struck the enemy with panic, where should we have been?”9Had Antiochas not possessed his sixteen elephants, he might well
have lost the battle.


These animals had tremendous potential, but were also unpredictable in battle – which is why the Romans did not use the beasts until late; and when they did use them, it was always in small numbers. Elephants sometimes had to be killed by their mahouts if they got out of hand in battle. If an elephant was wounded in battle and reversed his course, breaking his own phalanx, the mahout was forced to drive a chisel down between the beast’s ears with a mallet (Livy XXVII, 46-49). Other elephant riders carried knives bound to their right hands in order to kill the unruly beast with a blow where the head joins the neck (Ammianus XXV, 1.4).


The elephant was a weapon. There were several different uses of the elephant on the battlefield. They were useful in attacking infantry and cavalry, in acting as a defensive screen against enemy missiles and cavalry, in storming camps, and in siege warfare.


In fighting Alexander in India, Porus used elephants to attack the Macedonian infantry. This may be the reason why Alexander used such a small part of his heavy infantry in this battle. In the battle between the Carthaginians and Regulus, the Spartan commander, Xanthippus, sent forth his elephants in advance of the phalanx; Regulus did not know that open order was the way to meet them, and they ploughed through the massed legionaries with a devastating effect.10The common phalanx was like a lengthy, mobile wall of shields were literally locked together beside one another. If the wall could be broken severely, then the attackers could often rout the enemy infantry easily.


Elephants were used effectively on many occasions to rout enemy cavalry. Antiochas triumphed over the Galatians this way. Lucian writes, “…A group of four or five elephants were sent against the cavalry on either flank, the remaining eight attacked the scythed and two-horse chariots… Neither the Galatians themselves nor their horses had previously seen an elephant, and they were so confused by the unexpected sight, that while the beasts were still a long way off and they would only hear the trumpeting and see their tusks gleaming… they turned and fled in a disorderly route before they were within bowshot. Their infantry was trampled by their own frightened cavalry.”11


The Macedonian powers used their elephants almost entirely as a screen against cavalry. The classical instance is Ipsus, where the 480 elephants that Seleucus brought into action formed a screen, which prevented Demetrius, after his victorious cavalry charge, from returning to the battlefield, though his horses were trained to elephants. In the battle at Paraitakene, both Antigonus and Eumenes attempted to use elephants as screens against the enemy cavalry. A development of the screen idea was shown by Pyrrhus at Heraclea, where he used his elephants to protect the wings of his phalanx.12


The Carthaginians under the command of Hanno stormed an entrenched Roman camp successfully. The survivors fled. When the Jugurthan army engaged the Romans, Bomilcar, who had been put in command of the elephants and part of the infantry, thrust between the two Roman detachments, and while the main battle was raging, he attacked Rutilius’ camp. As long as they felt protected by their elephants, the Numidians pressed on, but when they saw the elephants entangled in the branches of some trees and separated from one another, the fled. Livy gives an account of an incident in which Hannibal’s elephants broke into a Roman camp causing much confusion until driven out by fire and how in the Third Punic War, Aemilianus stormed the Carthaginian camp at Nepheris.13 Camp storming by an elephant army seems to have been a rare phenomenon which was used successfully on some occasions.


Elephants were sometimes used in siege warfare. Aristotle writes that “an elephant, by pushing with his big tusks, can batter down a wall and will butt with his forehead at a palm until he brings it down (Hist. Animal.IX.1).” The Macedonians began using elephants to break into fortified places. Perdiccas did this in his campaign against Ptolemy and Polyperchon at the siege of Megalopolis. The Carthaginians tried to force the Roman trenches outside Panoramus with elephants. The elephant was generally not very effective at siege warfare. The usual counter-methods were to pick off the drivers and to put down caltrops which lamed the animals.14


Armies used elephants in three other minor ways: execution of prisoners, fording rivers, and in training horses. Curtis records that thirty prisoners were “trampled to death by the feet of the elephants of the Macedonian commander, Perdiccas (X, 9.18).” Also, the Carthaginians, under Hamilcar, had some of their prisoners thrown to the elephants to be trampled to death in the war with the mercenaries. When the Macedonians were fighting the Egyptians, the Macedonian army attempted to cross the Nile, but the men were up to their chins in water and found the current too strong. So Perdiccas placed elephants in the river, upstream, to break the force of the water, while he put cavalry on the downstream side of his men to help those who were being swept away. Also, the Persian army placed elephants in both sides of the Phasis River as far as they could stand behind a barrier of stockades and boats in order to help the passage of the Persians against the current.15Every wise general in the Graeco-Roman period kept at least a few elephants with the army in order to train the cavalry for future elephant battles. Untrained horses would always flee elephants in battle.


Elephants were often held back behind the lines in reserve for a critical moment in battle. This was done especially if the number of elephants was small. Lucius Scipio kept his sixteen African beasts in reserve rather than have them face Antiochas/ fifty-four Indians.16 The Roman strategy of deploying only a small number of elephants on the battlefield worked quite well. The normal position of elephants was in front of the main battle-line or in front of part of it. They were not kept too close to the front line in order that they might have some room to retreat if necessary and also to allow the infantry ample time to open up the line to let them through. The non-elephant armies developed all sorts of methods of trying to cope with the onslaught of elephants. The military genius, Scipio Africanus, developed the solution to the problem of how an army should face elephants. He left lanes in his battle-line along which the elephants could be channeled to the rear and gotten out of the way.17 Scipio foiled Hannibal by using the tactic at the battle of Zama.


Armies developed anti-elephant weapons. In attack, the aim was to try to surround individual beasts, threatening them from the flank and rear. For this, special weapons might be devised, such as the scimitars and axes used by Alexander. Caesar used slingers who could aim at the mahout as well as the elephant. During the Sassanid Wars cataphracts (men armored with iron spikes which prevented the elephants from seizing them with their trunks) were used. The Romans were said to have deployed iron-pointed beams mounted on wagons against Pyrrhus. The ingenious Romans also used chariots drawn by armored horses, an arrow-firing catapult mounted on a vehicle drawn by horses or mules, and fire carts. Polyperchon used nail studded frames as moveable barriers at Megalopolis and Ptolemy laid an iron-spiked minefield at Gaza.18


The ancient sources are very clear in indicating that pigs were used to deter elephants in battle. Pliny writes “elephants are scared by the smallest squeal of a pig; and when wounded and frightened, they always give ground (VIII, 1.27).” Aelian says that “it was by these squealing pigs, they say, that the Romans turned to flight the elephants of Pyrrhus and won a glorious victory (1,38).” The most frequently told tale concerning pigs as a counter weapon to elephants may be represented by Aelian and Polyaenus: when Antigonas Gonatas was besieging Megara, the Megarians succeeded in routing the besiegers’ elephants by dousing pigs in oil and igniting them and then turning them loose against the elephants.

One might object that this is hardly a fair test of the elephant’s reaction to pigs per se; but both authors specifically state that the beasts were startled by the squeal rather than by the fire. The flames were simply a means of guaranteeing a satisfactory squeal. As a final instance of the effect of pigs on elephants in battle, it is feasible to examine Procopius’ account of events at Edessa. The city was being besieged by Chosroes, and an elephant with many soldiers on its back was driven up to the city wall and towered over it. The resourceful inhabitants thrust a squealing pig over the wall and into the face of the looming elephant. The result was panic and retreat.19 Altogether the pig seems to have been quite an effective weapon against the elephant, although its use does not appear to have been widespread in the ancient world.


An important aspect of the war-elephant was its psychological impact upon the opposing force. A certain part of every battle was fought in the minds of the armies. Elephants would always inspire confidence in an army in which they were a part, while they would have the opposite effect upon the enemy—especially if the enemy soldiers had never faced these juggernauts. The brilliant armor worn by the beasts added to the fear felt by an enemy infantryman. Diodorus states that the elephants of an Indian king were “equipped in an extremely splendid fashion with things which would strike terror in war (II,16).” Ammianus adds his view of approaching war-elephants: ”With the army, making a lofty show, slowly marched the lines of the elephants, frightful with their wrinkled bodies and loaded with armed men, a hideous spectacle, dreadful beyond every form of horror, as I have often declared. “20

Polyaenus records that “Caesar had one large elephant, which was equipped with armor and carried archers and slingers in its tower. When this unknown creature entered the river, the Britons and their horses fled and the Roman army crossed over (VIII, 23.5).” In this case the elephant was the sole reason for the advance. Clearly, the elephant had the ability to provoke fear in the enemy even if in reality the beast was an unpredictable weapon. Hannibal knew of this psychological effect as Pliny relates an account which declares that “Hannibal pitted a Roman prisoner against an elephant, and this man, having secured a promise of his freedom if he killed the animal, met it single-handed in the arena and much to the chagrin of the Carthaginians dispatched it. Hannibal realized that reports of this encounter would bring the animals into contempt, so he sent horsemen to kill the man as he was departing (VIII, I.16).” Obviously Hannibal was trying to protect the gruesome reputation of his living weapons.


W.W. Tarn states that “there is a modern belief that the elephant was the tank of antiquity” and that to compare the elephant with a tank is, in his opinion, “quite misleading.”21 Tarn, however, is entirely wrong. The elephant and tank bear in common all of the major uses I have outlined: infantry and cavalry attack, defensive screens, camp storming, and siege warfare. Megasthenes writes that “the elephant carries four persons, the driver and three bowmen (Strab. XV, 52).” The tanks of World War I and II often had a crew of one driver and several gunners. Although not nearly as heavy, elephants sometimes possessed armor. Elephants with towers that housed sharpshooters were even more like tanks.


Besides the tactical and physical parallels, the early tank had the same psychological effect as the elephant. A French tank commander during World War I gives this account: “We crossed the Soissons road in columns of half sections…where we moved east and deployed. The surprised Germans received us at first with machine-gun fire. A bullet came through the left visor and wounded my driver on the shoulder. The section by this time opened fire on the enemy who ran away panic stricken.”22 One would need only overlook the advanced machinery and technology for this account to sound exactly like an ancient elephant battle.


Both W. W. Tarn and the editors of The Oxford Classical Dictionary purport that the common idea that the African elephant was smaller and weaker than the Indian elephant is a “thoughtless literary cliché” and offer “heavy weights recorded for Ptolemaic tusks” as conclusive evidence.”23 However, Diodorus, Pliny, and others all agree that the African elephant is inferior in size and strength. Furthermore, H. H. Scullard refutes the tusk theory emphasizing that there are actually two subspecies of African elephants: the common Bush elephant and the smaller Forest elephant. The Forest elephant was the African elephant of the ancient world. Many have surmised that the battle of Raphia, where Indian and African elephants met, demonstrated that the African is inferior because of its defeat there. However, the Indians outnumbered the Africans significantly and therefore it is unfair to cite the outcome of the battle as a valid test as to which elephant was the best fighting machine.


When Pyrrhus was asked by Tarentum to help fight Rome, he sent a force of 25,000 men and 20 elephants from the Greek peninsula. He was faced with the problem of transporting the beasts to Tarentum. All of the ancient sources are silent on this matter. Clearly, the elephants must have crossed the Adriatic Sea somehow. This problem has baffled scholars for centuries. The shortest distance was forty miles across. When Metellus had to transport his elephants across the Straits of Messina for display in Rome, he constructed a raft made up of large jars which were fastened in such a way that they could not break apart or clash; this framework was then covered with planks; earth and brushwood were placed on top so that the raft looked like a farmyard. On this, the elephants ferried across. This method is the most plausible one for Pyrrhus to have used since the Mediterranean would have been calm during the spring. Also, elephant eyesight is weak in bright sunlight and thus the beasts could have been more easily tricked into entering the disguised barge. Moreover, the Carthaginians were later to transport their elephants from Africa to Sicily by sea. The raft method was used to cross rivers and to travel on the Red Sea by Ptolemy.24


The only non-military uses of the elephant were in circuses, games and religious processions. Occasionally a private individual would own an elephant for a luxurious mode of transportation. Horrifying spectacles of carnage were observed by those attending the Roman games. Cicero was repulsed by elephant fights in the arena and remarked “What pleasure can a cultivated man find in seeing a noble beast run through by a hunting spear? (Ad Familiares VII,1.3).” Despite all the carnage, elephants astounded audiences by kneeling before emperors, walking tightropes, and dancing. Representing symbols of light, forty highly trained elephants escorted Julius Caesar up to the Capitol with lighted torches in their trunks for his triumph. This type of procession was used earlier in the East.25


The elephant, with its many different functions, was an important shaper of history. This animal decided the fate of many battles in the Greek and Roman world. The use of elephants in the military forced the production of counter-weapons and thus stimulated technological developments. The elephant has a place in history, a large one.

Glossary

Adriatic Sea – the sea separating the Italian and Greek peninsulas
Aelian – Roman writer in the early third century A.D.
Aemilianus – Roman emperor in A.D. 253
Ammianus – noted Roman historian (A.D. 330)
Antigonus – son of Philip of Macedon and a commander in Alexander’s Army
Antiochas – son of Seleucas, a gneral in Alexander’s army
Arrian – historian and governor of Cappadocia under Hadrian in the second century A.D.
Bush elephant – the larger subspecies of the African elephant
Caltrop – an iron ball with four projecting spikes: threeon the ground and the fourth pointing upward
Cow – the mature female elephant
Ctesias – Greek doctor in the fifth century B.C.
Curtius – rhetorician and historian in first century A.D. Rome
Demetrius – Macedonian commander in the fourth century B.C.
Diodorus – Greek historian of the first century B.C. who wrote a world history
Eumenes – king of Pergamum in the third century B.C. who wrote a world history
Forest elephant – the smaller of the subspecies of the African elephant
Hamilcar – fifth century B.C. Carthaginian general
Hanna – Carthaginian general in the third century B.C.
Jugurtha – commander of the Numidians in the second century B.C.
Livy – great Roman historian (59 B.C.-A.D. 17)
Lucian – Greek writer of the second century A.D.
Lucius Scipio – son of Scipio Africanus, was captured in the war with Antiochas
Mago – founder of the military power of Carthage (520 B.C.)
mahout – the keeper/trainer of an elephant
Megasthenes – Ionian who wrote on the topography, religion, and customs of India (300 B.C.)
Metellus – Roman commander in the third century B.C. against Carthage
Perdiccas – commander of Macedonian infantry (321 B.C.)
Phalanx – the classic order of battle for infantry
Pliny – Roman writer in the first century A.D.
Polyaenus – Macedonian rhetorician and writer in the second century A.D.
Polyperchon – commander of a brigade in Alexander’s infantry
Porus – Paurava king who fought Alexander in the third century B.C.
Procopius – Byzantine writer in the sixth century A.D.
Ptolemies – Macedonian dynasty in Egypt
Ptolemy – third century B.C. Macedonian king
Pyrrhus – king of Epirus who assisted Tarentum against the Romans (280 B.C.)
Regulus – Roman consul in 267 B.C.
Rutilius – Roman commander in the early second century B.C.
Scimitar – curved Oriental sword with an edge on the convex side
Scipio – Roman commander in the third century B.C.
Scipio Africanus – Roman general (237 – 183 B.C.) who defeated Hannibal to end the second Punic War
Seleucus – Macedonian general who obtained the satrapy of Babylonia
Silus Italicus – Roman poet in the first century A.D.
sutler – a merchant who traveled with an army and provided food and supplies

Notes

1 H.H. Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (New York: Cornell University Press, 1974), pp. 23-24.

2 Scullard, pp. 25-26, 29-30.

3 Scullard, p. 58.

4 Arrian records Megasthenes, as quoted by Scullard, p. 56

5 Diodorus in Scullard, p. 128.

6 Aelian in Scullard, p. 34.

7 Scullard, p. 197.

8 Scullard, pp. 239-240.

9 Scullard, p. 122.

10 W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments (New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1966), pp. 97-98.

11 K. Kilburn, Lucian (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), pp. 165-7.

12 Tarn, pp. 96-97.

13 Scullard, pp. 152, 193, 163, 249.

14 Tarn, pp. 95-96.

15 Scullard, pp. 153, 79, 206.

16 Toynbee, p. 37.

17 Scullard, pp. 246-7.

18 Scullard, pp. 112, 247-8.

19 David Bright and Barbara Bowen. “Emblems, Elephants and Alexander.” Studies in Philology, ed. Jerry Mills (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1983), pp. 19, 20.

20 John C. Rolfe, Ammianus Marcellinus (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), p.47.

21 Tarn, pp. 95-6.

22 Kenneth Macksey, Tank Warfare (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1971), p. 57.

23 M. Cary, J. D. Denniston, J. Wight Duff, A. D. Nock, W. R. Ross, H. H. Scullard, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 312-313.

24 Scullard, pp. 16, 149, 152.

25 J.M.C. Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art (New York: Cornell University Press, 1973), pp. 47, 48, 23.

Bibliography

Bright, David, and Barbara Bowen. “Emblems, Elephants, and Alexander,” Studies in Philology, (1983), 14-24. Cary, M., and J. D. Denniston, and J. W. Duff, and A. D. Nock, The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968. Halle, Armin. Tanks; an illustrated history of…. Greenwich: New York Graphic Society, 1971. Kilburn, L. Lucian. Lucian. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974. Macksey, Kenneth. Tank Warfare. London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1971. Rolfe, John C. Ammianus Marcellinus, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974. Scullard, H. H. The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World, New York: Cornell University Press, 1974. Tarn, W. W. Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments, New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1966. Toynbee, Jr. M.C. Animals in Roman Life and Art, New York: Cornell University Press, 1973.

James Brady, the well-meaning, teddy bear-like, activist along with a few friends have bestowed upon every citizen the gift of a five day waiting period for handgun purchases. Truly, the bill does prevent the infinitesimal number of retail gun purchases by criminals. Notice the word “purchases.” The reason that criminals aren’t running scared is because it’s their job to operate outside of the law. Thanks to the Brady Bunch, it’s now easier to steal a firearm than purchase one.

Crime continues. For the girl being stalked by her jealous ex-boyfriend or the family threatened by the local crack dealer, the law cuts off their noses despite their faces. Anyone needing protection in such instances will themselves become criminals if they use an alternative means of purchase. Most folks will no doubt risk the penalty. As the saying goes, “I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.”

So they’ve won. But what are the celebrants saying as they wallow in the mud of victory? “Just a beginning…A foundation… Not nearly enough,” were some of their smug trumpetings. In fact, a group called Handgun Control Inc. has already unveiled a proposal that will further lampoon the second amendment. The Brady Bill II, The Return Of Brady, The Brady Bill Strikes Again, or whatever it may be called strays from the simple plot of the original production. It will be introduced by Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) this January in theaters everywhere (C-SPAN). Its provisions are entwined with the same logic as the first bill: violent crime can be defeated by applying more restrictions on the law-abiding. In reality, the goal can be achieved by restricting the unlawful (through reforming judicial, police, and community policy).

Because of such blatant misfocus, the second wave of Brady style regulation is probably doomed to fail. But observe what headaches our determined vigilante must endure if he wants to legally acquire his weapon under the new bill (emphasis on legally). The prospective gun buyer enters the local sporting goods store.
Scenario one:
“I’d like to buy this .22 caliber Ruger,” he says.
“I’m afraid the price is going to be twenty percent higher due to the new gun tax,” the clerk says, “That box of ammo is up thirty-nine percent, too.”
“Really? I’m not interested at those prices.” He leaves the store.
Scenario two:
“I’d like to buy this .22 caliber Ruger,” he says.
“May I see your license, sir?” The clerk asks. “My license?”
“No license, no pistol.”
“Well, how do I get one?”
“First you have to enroll in the new training course. I’ll warn you that it’s very rigorous and quite expensive because now we can be sued if you shoot somebody. If you pass, we do a background check and take your photograph and fingerprints. Then if you can show us proof of liability insurance, you’re approved.”
“What about my Ruger?”
“Oh, I almost forgot. You can pick it up seven days later after you ‘cool off.’”
“No thanks.”
These situations, however rare, must replay frequently in the minds of those who wish to restrict gun purchases. Surely they envision the foiled gun seeker stomping away from the store having been rendered impotent by the clever new Son Of Brady Bill. But Charles Bronson-type characters are not so easily thwarted. In real life, the disgruntled soon-to-be criminal/vigilante would most likely snitch something from his neighbor’s arsenal that very day and leave the Bradyish hassles for sportsmen.

Such solutions are hammers swatting flies. Continually increasing the size of the hammer has not been successful. The scrutiny must be placed on people, violent people, not lawful people or things. For example, the recent crackdown on drunk drivers has reduced the number of D.U.I. related deaths. This is a much more plausible idea than limiting the availability of vehicles to lawful car operators (it’s a good thing Mr. Brady wasn’t injured in an automobile accident; we might be walking to work). The criminal-focused approach has worked because it addresses the intoxicated driver, not the safe driver, car, or car manufacturer as the principle evil. A similar pragmatic, decisive method would be effective in combating gun-related crimes.

If high-ranking government officials hearken to the Bradyites and talk seriously about “taxing ammunition out of existence” (Patrick Moynihan) and “banning toy guns” and “making guns safer” (Joycelyn Elders) as solutions now, what bizarre limitations will they spout in future years? None, if voters become vigilantes at the polls.

3/1/96