What Animals Did The Romans Use in Warfare?

The triumphal return of Dionysos from India, circa 125-150 AD. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (UK).

In Raiders of the Lost Ark, when Belloc predicts that Indy won't destroy the Ark of the Covenant 'because he's an archaeologist', it takes a strong will not to blurt out that Belloc's confidence might be somewhat misplaced, especially considering that Indy had, only moments earlier, destroyed an entire Egyptian tomb full of snakes and statues in an attempt to escape.

But it's only a movie, right? We can suspend belief for a little while in the pursuit of entertainment, particularly when the entertainment in question is so much fun.

In the opening scene of Ridley Scott's bewildering 2000 movie Gladiator, however, I can bite my metaphorical tongue for only a few moments before blurting out, "What the HELL is going on?!"

Why is everything on fire? Where did they get all the oil from? Why are they using siege weapons in a forest? Why are there trenches everywhere? What the FUCK is the cavalry doing charging about in a FOREST?

I mean, I get it. It's meant to be spectacular, and things like burning arrows, which were hardly ever used in any form of ancient warfare, are cinematically appealing. But for someone who makes a living writing about Roman history, the opening scene of the movie - and the rest of it, to be honest - is torturously silly. Anyone who has ever ridden a horse through a forest knows that ponies and branches don't mix, particularly when angry Germans who, for some reason, are dressed as cavemen are trying to bash your brains in. Cavalry works better on open plains where their speed and manoeuvrability - the advantages of cavalry over infantry - can be employed successfully.

Maximus Maximus Maximus (or whatever his name is) also has a 'war dog' which runs around biting the cavemen. One can only wonder if Scott didn't include fire-launching armoured elephants in the battle scene because he couldn't find any in Surrey, where the scene was filmed. That's not to say that Surrey is a place where the elephant has never trod before because, 2,000 years ago, during the time of the real Romans, both Julius Caesar and, later, the invading army of Claudius, both stomped about England's stockbroker belt on the big grey beasts. Well, not Caesar himself, but you get the idea.

Ridley Scott might have absolutely no idea about how the Roman army fought (and 'in the middle of a burning forest' is not the ideal place the Romans would have chosen for a scrap), but it does raise the question of what animals the Romans actually used in warfare. Horses, obviously, and elephants, of course. But what about dogs? There's also the idea that they would set fire to feral pigs and launch them, squealing and smoking, into ranks of enemy elephants to scare the bejesus out of them. What's the truth?

The Roman use of war elephants was heavily influenced by their encounters with other cultures, particularly the Carthaginians. The most famous example of this cultural exchange occurred during the Punic Wars when Hannibal famously crossed the Alps with his army, which included war elephants. Although Hannibal's elephants did not play a decisive role in the outcome of the war, mostly because the Romans scurried behind city walls, locked the doors and waited until he went away, their presence left a lasting impression on the Romans. The Romans, ever pragmatic, recognised the psychological impact of these massive creatures and began to incorporate them into their own military strategies.

The Romans first used elephants in battle during the Pyrrhic War (280–275 BC), where they faced Pyrrhus of Epirus, who had brought elephants from his campaigns in the east.

"Italy saw elephants for the first time in the war with King Pyrrhus, and called them Lucanian oxen because they were seen in Lucania; but Rome first saw them at a date five years later, in a triumph, and also a very large number that were captured from the Carthaginians in Sicily by the victory of the pontiff Lucius Metellus . There were 142 of them, or by some accounts 140, and they had been brought over on rafts that Metellus constructed by laying decks on rows of casks lashed together"

(Pliny, Natural History 8, 16)

The Romans quickly adapted, and by the time of the invasion of Britain under Emperor Claudius in 43 AD, elephants were part of the Roman military arsenal. Claudius reportedly brought elephants to Britain to intimidate the native tribes, a tactic that underscored the psychological warfare aspect of these animals.

Elephants were primarily used to break enemy lines and cause chaos among opposing forces. Their sheer size and strength made them formidable opponents, capable of trampling infantry and creating gaps in enemy formations. However, their use was not without risks. Elephants could be unpredictable, and if panicked, they could turn on their own forces. This dual-edged nature of war elephants is well-documented in primary sources such as Polyaenus's Stratagems, which recounts instances where elephants, once turned, caused as much damage to their own side as to the enemy.

The psychological impact of elephants cannot be overstated. Primary sources such as Pliny the Elder's Natural History describe the terror that elephants instilled in enemy soldiers. Pliny writes, "The very sight of these beasts, their trumpeting, and the ground shaking beneath their feet, is enough to make even the bravest of men falter" (Pliny, Natural History, 8.1). This psychological advantage was a key reason for their continued use, despite the logistical challenges.

Polyaenus recounts an occasion when Julius Caesar used their shock and awe potential against the Britons:

"When Caesar's passage over a large river in Britain was disputed by the British king Cassivellaunus, at the head of a strong body of cavalry and a great number of chariots, he ordered an elephant, an animal till then unknown to the Britons, to enter the river first, mailed in scales of iron, with a tower on its back, on which archers and slingers were stationed. If the Britons were terrified at so extraordinary a spectacle, what shall I say of their horses? Amongst the Greeks, the horses fly at the sight of an unarmed elephant; but armoured, and with a tower on its back, from which missiles and stones are continually hurled, it is a sight too formidable to be borne. The Britons accordingly with their cavalry and chariots abandoned themselves to flight, leaving the Romans to pass the river unmolested, after the enemy had been routed by the appearance of a single beast."

(Strategems 8.23.5)

Horses were the backbone of the Roman military, particularly in the form of cavalry units. The Roman cavalry, or equites, played a crucial role in reconnaissance, skirmishing, and pursuing fleeing enemies. The mobility and speed of horses allowed the Romans to execute flanking manoeuvres and respond quickly to changing battlefield conditions.

The Romans also employed chariots, although their use was more limited compared to other cultures such as the Britons. Chariots were primarily used for ceremonial purposes and in races, but there are accounts of their use in battle, particularly during the early Republic. The Romans, however, preferred the flexibility and versatility of cavalry units, which could be deployed in a variety of tactical situations.

Contrary to modern depictions in media, where Roman cavalry horses are often portrayed as large, powerful chargers akin to medieval warhorses, archaeological and epigraphical evidence suggests that Roman cavalry horses were much smaller, often comparable in size to modern ponies. Excavations of Roman cavalry forts, such as those at Hadrian's Wall, have revealed horse remains that indicate an average height of around 12 to 14 hands (48 to 56 inches) at the shoulder. These horses were likely similar to the modern-day Exmoor or Dartmoor ponies, known for their hardiness and endurance.

The smaller size of Roman cavalry horses was not a disadvantage; rather, it was a reflection of the practicalities of ancient warfare. Smaller horses were easier to transport, required less fodder, and were more agile on the battlefield. They were well-suited to the hit-and-run tactics employed by Roman cavalry, which relied on speed and manoeuvrability rather than brute force.

The Romans were known for their military innovations, and their use of horses was no exception. One of the key developments was the introduction of the contus, a long spear used by cavalry units. This weapon allowed Roman cavalry to engage enemy forces from a distance, reducing the risk of close combat. Additionally, the Romans developed specialised cavalry units, such as the cataphractarii, heavily armoured horsemen who were used to break through enemy lines.

Roman cavalry tactics were highly adaptable, depending on the terrain and the nature of the enemy. In open terrain, cavalry units would often be used to outflank the enemy, attacking from the rear or the sides to create confusion and disrupt formations.

The use of horses in Roman warfare was not without its challenges. Horses required extensive training and care, and their effectiveness on the battlefield depended on the skill of the rider. The Romans addressed these challenges by establishing dedicated cavalry training programs and breeding programmes to produce strong, reliable warhorses.

Roman cavalry training was rigorous, focusing on both the rider and the horse. Riders were trained in a variety of weapons, including the contus and javelins, while horses were trained to respond to commands and remain calm in the chaos of battle. The Romans also placed a strong emphasis on the bond between rider and horse, recognising that a well-coordinated team was essential for success on the battlefield.

Breeding programmes were also an important aspect of Roman cavalry. The Romans imported horses from across their empire, including Spain, Gaul, and North Africa, to ensure a diverse and robust gene pool. These horses were bred for specific traits, such as speed, endurance, and temperament, to meet the demands of cavalry warfare.

The use of dogs in warfare dates back to ancient times, and the Romans were no exception. While there is less evidence of dogs being used in direct combat by the Romans compared to other cultures, there are accounts that suggest their use in specific tactical situations. Polyaenus, in his Stratagems, recounts how Alyattes of Lydia used dogs against the Cimmerians, setting a precedent for the use of dogs in warfare:

"The Cimmerians, a people of great bodily size, made war on Alyattes. He marched against them, and ordered his men to take into battle with them a number of large fierce dogs. When the dogs were released, they fell on the barbarians, as they would on a herd of wild beasts. They injured many of them, so as to disable them from action, and put the others to flight."

(Strategems 7.2)

The Romans, however, employed dogs for more mundane purposes, particularly in guarding camps and fortifications. Dogs were also used for tracking and reconnaissance, taking advantage of their keen sense of smell and hearing. In some cases, dogs may have been used to intimidate enemy forces, much like elephants, although this is less well documented.

One of the most intriguing aspects of Roman military history is the myth of "incendiary pigs." According to legend, the Romans used pigs coated in flammable substances and set them alight to create chaos among enemy forces, particularly those using war elephants. There is certainly some accounts of earlier people using 'burning swine' to disrupt enemy elephant lines:

"At the siege of Megara, Antigonus brought his elephants into the attack; but the Megarians daubed some swine with pitch, set fire to it, and let them loose among the elephants. The pigs grunted and shrieked under the torture of the fire, and sprang forwards as hard as they could among the elephants, who broke their ranks in confusion and fright, and ran off in different directions. From this time onwards, Antigonus ordered the Indians, when they trained up their elephants, to bring up swine among them; so that the elephants might thus become accustomed to the sight of them, and to their noise."

(Strategems 4,6.3)

Pliny the Elder's Natural History also mentions that the squealing of pigs had the potential to cause panic among elephants:

"Nevertheless they are scared by the smallest squeal of a pig; and when wounded and frightened they always give ground, doing as much damage to their own side as to the enemy. "

(Natural History, 8.27)

He also mentions that one technique the infantry would use against elephants was, perhaps, a little surprising:

" Experiences in our battles with Pyrrhus made it clear that it is very easy to lop off an elephant's trunk."

(Natural History, 8.18)

The historical accuracy of the incendiary pig myth is a subject of debate among scholars. While the accounts of Polyaenus and Pliny provide compelling narratives, there is limited archaeological evidence to support the widespread use of pigs in this manner. It is possible that the myth of incendiary pigs arose from a combination of anecdotal accounts and the Romans' penchant for psychological warfare.

The use of pigs in warfare, if it occurred at all, was likely a rare and situational tactic. The logistical challenges of transporting and maintaining pigs, combined with the difficulty of controlling them in a combat situation, would have made their use impractical in most scenarios. Like the impracticality of Ridley Scott's woodland battle, lugging around thousands of gallons of oil and herds of maddened pigs was impractical where a much better solution could be found in robust training and a sharp sword.

The use of animals in Roman warfare was a testament to the empire's ingenuity and adaptability. From the towering elephants that struck fear into the hearts of enemy soldiers to the swift horses that carried cavalry units into battle, animals played a crucial role in shaping the outcomes of Roman military campaigns. The Romans' ability to adopt and adapt the use of animals from other cultures, such as the Carthaginians, underscores their pragmatic approach to warfare.

By the time of Claudius, the use of elephants in war had all but been phased out. Their advantages on the battlefield weren’t worth the hassle of carting them about the Empire. At the Battle of Thapsus in 46 BC, the final significant deployment of war elephants in the Mediterranean occurred when sixty elephants were employed against the Roman forces. In response, Julius Caesar equipped his fifth legion, the Alaudae, with axes and directed his soldiers to target the elephants’ legs. This tactical manoeuvre enabled the legion to successfully withstand the charge, ultimately leading to the adoption of the elephant as its emblem.

The psychological impact of animals in warfare cannot be overstated. Whether it was the sight of a charging elephant or the sound of thundering hooves, animals had the power to unnerve and disrupt enemy forces. However, the use of animals in warfare was not without its challenges. The logistical difficulties of transporting and maintaining animals, particularly elephants and pigs, cast doubt on how much they were actually used in battle. Elephants, as Caesar found, could drive off the enemy without actually doing much, and cavalry could smash an enemy's flank to pieces in minutes, but dogs and pigs would require a lot of behind-the-scenes work to achieve minimal battlefield results. There were simply more effective ways of bashing Germans dressed as cavemen.

You wouldn't bet against burning rocket rhinos appearing in the next Gladiator movie, though.

References and Further reading

Pliny the Elder. (1855). Natural History (J. Bostock & H. T. Riley, Trans.). Taylor and Francis.

Polyaenus. (1793). Stratagems of War (R. Shepherd, Trans.). E. Harding.

Tacitus. (1942). The Annals of Imperial Rome (M. Grant, Trans.). Penguin Classics.

Cassius Dio. (1914). Roman History (E. Cary, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Hyland, A. (1990). Equus: The Horse in the Roman World. Yale University Press.

Goldsworthy, A. (2003). The Complete Roman Army. Thames & Hudson.

Sekunda, N. (1996). Roman Military Forces: 300 BC–AD 500. Osprey Publishing.

Keppie, L. (1998). The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire. University of Oklahoma Press.

Thanks for reading! If you’re stuck for a gift for a lost loved one, or for someone you hate, or if you have a table with a wonky leg that would benefit from the support of 341 pages of Roman History, my new book “The Compendium of Roman History” is available on Amazon or direct from IngramSpark. Please check it out by clicking the link below!