提問：戰(zhàn)象的效果如何？

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.

當(dāng)你討論戰(zhàn)象時，如果你說的是羅馬和迦太基，你要明白，這就像討論北極冰原上戰(zhàn)馬的作用。大象是叢林和森林戰(zhàn)爭的王者，在相當(dāng)長的一段時間里，大象是印度（10世紀(jì)以前，當(dāng)時森林更多）和東南亞地區(qū)的主要戰(zhàn)爭手段。這些地區(qū)在戰(zhàn)爭中使用的大象與西方使用的有很大不同。
比如，10世紀(jì)以前的印度戰(zhàn)象都身披重甲，由軍隊的主力訓(xùn)練，用大聲響訓(xùn)練它們讓它們不會因此而受到驚嚇，還會裝備武器，比如把劍綁在象牙上，并在將要投入作戰(zhàn)的地方修建保障設(shè)施。在月護(hù)王【孔雀王朝開國君主】時期，他們沿著河道修建了倉庫，讓大象無論去哪里都能得到食物。
印度著名哲學(xué)家和國王顧問Chanakya把大象作為皇家軍隊最重要的組成部分。如果它僅是突擊部隊，那么他們就不會把戰(zhàn)象說得那么重要。關(guān)鍵的是，要明白，由于炎熱和疾病，馬匹在這個地區(qū)的叢林和森林中基本上沒什么用。重裝騎兵只存在于平原，之外的地方它就只能當(dāng)步兵用了。大象不僅在戰(zhàn)斗中很重要，在運(yùn)送補(bǔ)給和過河時也很重要。對于每一頭戰(zhàn)象來說，通常至少有一頭其他大象來提供支持。

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世紀(jì)后，入侵的土耳其人似乎明白了，在森林中戰(zhàn)斗就是自殺，因此他們拒絕在那里作戰(zhàn)，堅持在城市和平原上作戰(zhàn)，在這些地方他們能夠打敗大象。在東南亞地區(qū)，他們使用戰(zhàn)象的方式很獨(dú)特。他們在大象身上安裝了巨大的弩炮，在攻城時作為城池破壞者。
總而言之，把漢尼拔那兩頭勉強(qiáng)翻過阿爾卑斯山的大象作為我們了解大象在戰(zhàn)場上有多少作用的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是不公平的。在伊普蘇斯戰(zhàn)役之類的地方有很多大象參與戰(zhàn)斗，這些大象沒有盔甲，沒有武器，訓(xùn)練糟糕，馴象人差勁，還在不適合大象戰(zhàn)斗的地形上作戰(zhàn)。在理解大象在戰(zhàn)爭中的作用時，別以歐洲為中心。

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.

騎兵在叢林戰(zhàn)爭中沒有用是重點(diǎn)。如果象兵是你唯一的騎兵，那它就是最好的騎兵。

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

作為一名生物學(xué)家，我認(rèn)為這與文化和生物學(xué)有關(guān)。在東南亞，人們使用亞洲象作為馱獸是很頻繁的，時間也長得多，而且我認(rèn)為它們的脾氣也要好得多。而非洲象則更難訓(xùn)，更警惕人類，更多的是作為食物來源而非作為馱獸，它們與人類一起進(jìn)化，因此進(jìn)化出了對我們類人猿的恐懼。
非洲象也是熱帶草原的物種（或者說大多數(shù)是，還有少數(shù)亞種是叢林象），所以它們不是森林生物。它們可以適應(yīng)開闊地形，但是很難訓(xùn)練和使用，除了作為突擊部隊或恐嚇部隊。
這可能也是非洲象在受到攻擊時更容易受到驚嚇的原因（因為它們是和人類一起進(jìn)化的），因此在戰(zhàn)斗中用處不大。我很想知道，如果猛犸象幸存下來并被使用，會發(fā)生什么：由于它們比其他大象更不害怕人類，因為人類到達(dá)北方的時間要晚得多，它們更大，耳朵更小因此聽力更差，所以也會是一種很不一樣的戰(zhàn)爭巨獸。

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.

還有很重要的一點(diǎn)值得注意，在地中海使用的大象很可能是一種滅絕了的物種，它比我們今天看到的非洲象和亞洲象都小得多。漢尼拔的大象沒有10英尺高、6噸重，而是接近8英尺高、2-4噸重的大象。

jakart3
South East Asian elephant are the smallest of the species

東南亞象是大象里最小的

Okelidokeli_8565
Not true, African forest elephant is.

才不是，非洲森林象才最小

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.

猛犸象可能確實(shí)害怕人類。如果不是害怕人類，那么害怕的肯定是他們使用的火焰。猛犸象與我們的祖先一起生存了數(shù)千年，可能很快就學(xué)到，人類在那段時期是一種威脅。只有在冰河世紀(jì)末氣候變化和人類數(shù)量增長的壓力下，猛犸象才滅絕了。
另一個因素是，亞洲象雖然可能與老虎生活在同一地區(qū)，但總體上，它們要面對的捕食者更少。非洲的許多捕食動物敏感、暴躁，非常具有進(jìn)攻性，因為它們需要對付太多不同種類的大型捕食者。大象必須時刻警惕獅子或鬣狗，因為它們會成群結(jié)隊。亞洲的捕食者大多不會靠近亞洲象，至少老虎通常不會成群結(jié)隊的捕獵。

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.

“還會裝備武器，比如把劍綁在象牙上”
哇哦，用劍的大象，那場面一定很壯觀。如果重數(shù)噸、是你兩倍高的巨獸不足以嚇到你，等到它們攻擊的時候呢。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

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.

搜索印度莫臥兒王朝時期的大象盔甲，你會發(fā)現(xiàn)大象的全身甲，還有綁在象牙上的劍。

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.

我可不想和鼻子上綁著刀的大象戰(zhàn)斗！
如果它們有盔甲，它們也可以直接往敵人身上踩。它們通常不會踩人，但我不知道通過訓(xùn)練能不能做到。

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.

印度的馴象人會訓(xùn)練大象成群結(jié)隊地踩踏敵人，有時他們會把大象串在一起，然后從敵人身邊跑過去，用鏈子拴住敵人，然后轉(zhuǎn)身把他們踩成肉沫。

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.

“如果它僅是突擊部隊，那么他們就不會把戰(zhàn)象說得那么重要”
這不就相當(dāng)于說“如果坦克只是用于突破防線，那么他們就不會把坦克說得那么重要”嗎？在我的印象里，長矛戰(zhàn)在歐洲軍事史上占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位，因此突擊部隊是所有攻擊行動的基石。

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.

我認(rèn)為印度哲學(xué)家Chanakya其他人的觀點(diǎn)是，大象在所有軍事對抗中都很有用，而不僅僅是用于對敵人的進(jìn)攻行動。大象能作為可移動的防御前哨，用于防御堡壘和補(bǔ)給線，而不僅僅是作為進(jìn)攻部隊。投擲部隊可以坐在柵欄上，用弓和弩在進(jìn)攻和防御中發(fā)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.

在戰(zhàn)場上，印度戰(zhàn)象使用的時間更長，而且比迦太基、羅馬使用北非象(北非象相對較小，只有2.5米高)更堅決。
不過，在印度，大象作為一種馱獸也極其重要。大象既能拖著巨大的重物，還能在必要時充當(dāng)輕型起重機(jī)（能用鼻子吊起半噸重的東西），還能為后面的人開辟臨時道路，抵御捕食者，抵抗大多數(shù)疾病。
大象是中部、南部印度帝國戰(zhàn)爭機(jī)器的核心特征。部分原因在于它在戰(zhàn)場上的作用（許多偉大的印度指揮官依賴他們的象騎兵），等到火藥出現(xiàn)，它們的主要作用就成了運(yùn)輸工具和建筑工具。

Wody_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.

對士氣的影響是它們最大的優(yōu)勢。如果敵人不熟悉它們，比如第一次布匿戰(zhàn)爭中的羅馬。然而，一旦羅馬人學(xué)會了對付它們的方法，它們就變得很容易對付，例如大西庇阿在扎馬戰(zhàn)役中，或凱撒在塔普蘇斯戰(zhàn)役中。如果預(yù)計敵人會帶著大象，通常都會采取應(yīng)對措施，向部隊通報如何對付大象，并調(diào)整隊形和戰(zhàn)術(shù)。一旦敵人知道如何對付大象，它們就會變得無效。當(dāng)然，也有大象起決定性作用的例子，例如在菲拉斯戰(zhàn)役、第一次布匿戰(zhàn)爭和皮德納戰(zhàn)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.

關(guān)于羅馬人對付大象是否“輕松”，學(xué)術(shù)界存在著爭論。即使在扎馬戰(zhàn)役中，大象和它們的騎手也沒有時間接受恰當(dāng)?shù)挠?xùn)練。這是《羅馬傳記》里承認(rèn)的。
如果它們沒有用，羅馬人就不會在幾個世紀(jì)后將它們加入到雇傭兵隊伍中。

Wody_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.

我不會用“無用”這個詞，它們當(dāng)然有用，但它們不僅要看環(huán)境，還有風(fēng)險。我不否認(rèn)大象是一種非常強(qiáng)大的工具，但它們也很浪費(fèi)資源。這么說吧，如果它們非常有用，那它們就會更普遍。在適當(dāng)?shù)那闆r下，它們是戰(zhàn)場上的工具，但很少成為軍隊的支柱。我不否認(rèn)這有爭議，但如果我們看看扎馬戰(zhàn)役，特別是塔普蘇斯戰(zhàn)役，大象對自家部隊造成的傷害要大于對敵人造成的傷害。

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.

我的歷史老師曾經(jīng)說過，雖然大象被用來震懾敵軍，但它們最好的用途之一可能是作為移動指揮中心。由于比馬和周圍的人都高，將領(lǐng)能更好的了解戰(zhàn)爭的進(jìn)展。他們的軍隊也更容易看到將領(lǐng)發(fā)出的旗幟信號。

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.

再多的應(yīng)對措施也無法讓騎兵向大象發(fā)起沖鋒，這意味著你的輕步兵擁有了移動堡壘，可以用來對付敵人重裝部隊的側(cè)翼。
迦太基人和羅馬人都沒有特別好的大象，也沒有優(yōu)秀的大象軍團(tuán)。要了解大象戰(zhàn)爭，還是要看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?

如果我沒記錯的話，羅馬人不是把瀝青淋在豬身上，點(diǎn)燃瀝青，讓尖叫的豬沖向大象，讓大象發(fā)狂，然后踩死自己人嗎？

Wody_S
In one of the battles against Phyrrus, yes. The efficiency of this method is debated however.

在塔普蘇斯戰(zhàn)役中，是的。然而，這種方法的作用還存在爭議。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Vprbite
My thought would be that you couldn't exactly guarantee where a flaming pig would run.

我的想法是，你無法保證燃燒的豬會跑到哪里。

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.

即使經(jīng)過現(xiàn)代訓(xùn)練，蘇聯(lián)人也無法讓反坦克犬起效，然后放棄了這個想法。豬肯定不會起作用。

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?

我說說我的看法，之前也有人說過了，我認(rèn)為，迄今為止，它們的作用最清楚、最令人信服的證據(jù)是：基本沒人用它們。如果它們有用，那么它們的使用就會增加、會傳播出去。我認(rèn)為，單單是喂養(yǎng)它們的資源量就成問題，更不用說運(yùn)輸?shù)綉?zhàn)場和在軍營里維護(hù)，這與他們當(dāng)時擁有的資源和后勤能力有很大關(guān)系。我對這個問題不太熟悉，但我認(rèn)為大象的拖運(yùn)能力甚至無法滿足它們自己的資源需求。除非你處在一個對動物非常有利的環(huán)境，可以讓它們利用周圍的資源自給自足。
此外，考慮到當(dāng)時軍隊的作戰(zhàn)條件，我認(rèn)為大象也會給友軍造成很大損失。大象通常很難駕馭，尤其是當(dāng)它們恐慌的時候。在某些情況下，大量的大象朝著敵人的方向狂奔造成一些傷害或開辟一條道路，但它們似乎不是非?？煽?，可能會適得其反。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

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.

在扎馬戰(zhàn)役和一系列對抗戰(zhàn)象的勝利后，羅馬人開始將戰(zhàn)象視為過時的花哨武器。這種輕蔑的看法潛入了許多基于羅馬記錄的學(xué)術(shù)研究中。而本帖里的回復(fù)都有相同的問題：幾乎都參考了羅馬的經(jīng)驗。在印度，戰(zhàn)象的使用傳統(tǒng)要長得多，這意味著，如果獲得戰(zhàn)象的成本不太高，它們在一定的情況下很有作用（恐嚇、摧毀步兵防線、拆除防御工事、提供高視野和投擲平臺），是一種強(qiáng)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.

戰(zhàn)象在南亞和東南亞很重要，那里的叢林戰(zhàn)爭相當(dāng)普遍。在火藥發(fā)明之前它們一直都受到重視。它們?yōu)楣痔峁┝烁叨?，可以小團(tuán)體沖鋒，最重要的是，它們可以攜帶重物。
在世界其他地方，它們真的沒多少用。
但我覺得帖子里的回答太歐洲中心了。你知道的，羅馬之外還有世界。

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.

“基本相當(dāng)于古代戰(zhàn)爭中的坦克”
我經(jīng)常聽到這種說法，但據(jù)我所知，它們比坦克差太遠(yuǎn)了。它們在敵人的輕武器面前相當(dāng)脆弱，難以預(yù)測，對敵方戰(zhàn)斗人員也起不來多大作用。
它們的主要作用是恐嚇，尤其是對那些不太熟悉大象的敵人。它很大，聲音宏亮。這是它最重要的兩點(diǎn)。
大象是動物，長矛和弓箭很容易導(dǎo)致動物無視你對它們進(jìn)行的訓(xùn)練，它會不受控制地到處攻擊，大象在識別制服方面不太可能擅長，它們會逃跑，可能會跑向自己人。
據(jù)我所知，它們并不是非常有效。大多數(shù)戰(zhàn)斗的勝負(fù)主要取決于士氣和紀(jì)律，因此，擁有一些影響敵人勇氣的、大而可怕的東西才是它最有效的地方，哪怕它們對敵人戰(zhàn)斗人員的殺傷沒有這么大。

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.

戰(zhàn)象有點(diǎn)像第一次世界大戰(zhàn)中的坦克。它們當(dāng)然有很多缺點(diǎn)，比如前面提到的后勤，但它們也很難控制，在穿越極其復(fù)雜的地形時也會遇到問題。但是，另一方面，戰(zhàn)象有很多用途，比如在印度次大陸，國王和將軍通常會騎著裝甲大象，這已經(jīng)被證明了，很難殺，而且比馬更能保護(hù)你。此外，大象被用作古代坦克，裝備著盔甲，騎手拿弓箭，后來用槍。大象也被用來搬運(yùn)火炮和其他物資，因為它們所需的物資更少，而且比馬車或牛車更堅固。在暹羅王國，大象一直被用來拖曳火炮，直到1920年代，當(dāng)時他們裝備了需要卡車才能拉動的重型火炮。所以是的，我認(rèn)為戰(zhàn)象很有用。