1

Student # 149035246
AR7354
March 10, 2015
Bestiary of Battle: Animals and Warfare in the Roman World
I. Introduction
Mankind has always excelled at manipulating natural resources for violent use metals
become weapons, the landscape becomes a battle plan, and animals become instruments of war. The
Romans were not the first or the last to employ animals in the arena of human violence, but owing to
the vastness of the Roman sphere of influence, the diversity of conditions led to the interaction with
and incorporation of numerous war animals. Unfortunately, direct archaeological evidence is often
lacking, as the remains of animals killed in warfare, like human remains, are rare discoveries.
Literary and artistic sources are often the only means of interpreting the use of certain species in the
Roman military. These sources are at least indicative of the Roman understanding of animals in
warfare, and can reveal much about the thought processes involved in procuring, training and
deploying certain species. The purpose of this paper is to examine the literary, artistic and (where
available) archaeological evidence to construct an overview of Romes understanding and use of
three animals in war: dogs, camels, and elephants. It should be noted that the horse is not featured in
this paper, owing to the ubiquity of cavalry in the ancient world and the diverse forms it took
throughout the Empire; this paper does not allow for an in-depth discussion of the warhorse.
Nevertheless, the three species selected for the following study provide an overview of ancient
attitudes towards the use of living creatures to further the art of war.

II. Dogs: hunters and fighters

The dog is well represented in ancient poetry and prose, primarily in the role of hunter or
watch-dog. Ancient sources detail desirable traits and particular breeds, often with instructions on

proper selection and training (Xenophon, Cyr. 3-4, 7; Varro, R.R. 2.9; Pliny, Nat. 8.142; Columella
7.12-13; Arrian, Cyn. 2; Oppian, C. 1.368-588). The hound was most often a hunter, but there is
evidence that it was occasionally used as a war animal. The Molossian breed is frequently referenced
as a superior hunter, skilled and highly spirited (Plautus, Capt. 86; Lucretius 5.1063; Horace, Ep. 6.5;
Sat. 2.6.114; Seneca the Younger, Phaed. 33; Lucan 4.440; Martial 12.1.1; Statius, Ach. 1.747; Silv.
2.6.19; Theb. 3.203; Claudian, De Cons. Stil. 2.215; 3.293). The range of authors emphasizes the
lasting esteem in which the Molossian was held in antiquity. The breed originated in Epirus and was
used as a fighter and hunter by the Greeks (Aristotle, Hist. Anim. 9; Homan 1999, p. 1). The
Molossian is generally cited as the ancestor of various modern breeds known as molossers, such as
mastiffs or bulldogs (De Prisco & Johnson 1990, p. 136), and therefore thought to have been of a
sturdier build than the swift coursing hounds often depicted in ancient art (see Figs. 1-2).

Fig. 1 (left) The Jennings Dog: Roman marble copy of a

Hellenistic bronze. Depicts a seated hound, generally
supposed to be of the Molossian breed. Original find
location unknown. Photo courtesy of the British
Museum.

Fig. 2 (above) Roman Republican coin (74 BC)

depicting Diana (obverse) and a hunting hound
(reverse). Note the long and lean build of the hound
typical of other representations. Reproduced from
RCV (2000) p. 330.

3
Fig. 3 (left) Roman late 2nd-early 3rd
century AD. Mosaic from Tunisia of a
dog hunting a wild boar. Photo
courtesy of the Bardo Museum, Tunis.

Fig. 4 (right) The famous Beware

of dog mosaic in the House of the
Tragic Poet in Pompeii, dated to 79
AD. Photo courtesy of the National
Archaeological Museum of Naples.

It is important to note that the presence of larger hounds need not imply a function other than
hunting, as they are represented hunting larger game such as lions, wolves or boars (see Fig. 3).
However, the capabilities of a large hunting dog could easily be converted to use in warfare, in the

same way the Romans raised dogs for the purpose of guarding the home (Pliny, Nat. 8.40; Oppian C.
1.368-588; see Fig. 4).
While we cannot be certain the Romans ever used war-hounds in the Republican or Imperial
period, it is likely some of their contemporaries did. Strabo, listing the exports of the Morini territory
in Britain, mentions hunting dogs which are also used for the purpose of war
(Strabo 4.5.2). Dogs are certainly prevalent on Celtic coinage, suggesting a cultural significance and
a connection with the warrior-elite system (see Figs. 5a-d). Celtic breeds are noted for their ferocity
(Grattius, Cyn. 155-6) and Plinys discussion of dogs extols the loyalty of Gallic hounds to their
masters (Pliny, Nat. 8.40). Some scholars maintain that the Romans began exporting fighting dogs
from Britain (pugnaces Britanniae) following the Claudian conquest, and a procurator cynegii was

appointed for the task of selecting the best animals for transport (Fleig & Charlton 1996; Homan
1999). Dogs are certainly represented in the
archaeology of Romano-British settlements, most
notably in Winchester, where burials of adult dogs
(many with healed injuries to the limbs and skull)
pits containing neonatal puppies suggest a controlled
population or selective breeding (Maltby et. al. 2010,
246-47), corresponding to ancient practices (Grattius,
Cyn. 279-300).

Figs. 5a-d Four Iron Age British silver

coins depicting dogs.
(a) Coin reverse of the Trinovantes,
issued
by
Cunobelin,
from
Camulodunum. Coin Index, C (2010)
CCI-30327.
(b) Coin reverse related to Cunobelin
type of the Trinovantes. CCI-940881.
(c) Coin reverse (obverse depicts
Roman-style portrait) of the Atrebates,
issued by Epaticcus. CCI-30396.
(d) Coin obverse of the Cantii, issued
by Dubnovellaunos. CCI-890026.

and

pp.

Even if the Romano-British were selectively breeding dogs, this is not indicative of Romans
employing them exclusively in warfare. However, it is worth noting that there is evidence for a
variety of breeds that appear to have performed different functions. The typical hunting hound is well
documented in the literary and artistic record, and the Romano-British hound-and-hare brooch style
depicts the ideal hunter: long and lean, with ears consistently pronounced (see Figs. 6-7).

Fig. 6 Roman period copper-alloy knife handle

terminal/pommel of a dog from Lincolnshire.
Note the pronounced ears and thin tapering snout.
From Collins, R. (2010) NCL-864495.

Fig. 7 Silver Roman hound-and-hare brooch

from Halton, 1st- to 3rd-century AD. Note the
pronounced ears and lean build. From
McIntosh, F. (2007) LVPL-035186.

There are also representations of animals that do not conform to the standard hunting dog figure:
there are small lap-dogs, possibly pets, and larger, sturdier dogs, resembling the modern mastiff with
smaller ears and blunter snouts. These larger

Fig. 8 Roman copper alloy handle from Kent

decorated with the figurine of a dog, possibly a
wax spatula dating 100-250 AD. Note the
rounded ears and blunted snout. From Sumnall,
K (2008) LON-B49F72.

Fig. 9 Cast copper alloy pin head from

Oxfordshire in the shape of a standing dog
(43-300 AD). Note the incised collar and the
stockier build of the animal. From Reavill, P
(2009) HESH-091D87.

hounds are often depicted with thick, sometimes studded collars, suggesting a need to control the
animal (see Figs. 8-9).

These may be guard dogs or animals used by herdsmen, and are not necessarily indicative of fighting
dogs. As already mentioned, heavier breeds were known to be used as hunters for larger game
(Xenophon, Cyr. 10; Pliny, Nat. 8.40). However, the images indicate the presence of a larger breed in
Britain, possibly the same animals mentioned by Strabo, or a breed similar to the Molossian, brought
in with the Romans. They may not have been used for war, but they were certainly capable of
combat, and may have originally been bred for such a purpose.

III. Camels: pack-animals and military mounts

One of the earlier instances of camels in combat was the alliance against Assyria in 853 BC,
when the Arabian king fielded a thousand camels against the Assyrian army (Bunnens 2006, pp. 9091). In 547 BC, Cyrus of Persia used camels to frighten the Lydian cavalry at Thymbra (Herodotus
1.80). The Romans were familiar with the camel as
a pack-animal from their early contacts with
Persians and other eastern groups, shown in literary
and artistic sources (Tacitus, Ann. 15.12; Pliny, Nat.
8.26; Strabo 17.45; see Fig. 10). Use of the camel
was not restricted to the eastern parts of the Roman
Fig. 10 Roman lead figurine of a camel
carrying a pack, possibly from Egypt (1 st
cen. BC). Photo courtesy of the British
Museum.

world, as is evidenced by remains in Roman period

sites throughout Europe (Vukovi-Bogdanovi &

Blai 2014, p. 281: cites finds in Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, Austria, Switzerland, Ukraine, France,
Germany, England, Slovenia, Hungary and Bulgaria). Remains found in Serbia suggest that camels
were in regular use there by the end of the third century AD (ibid., p. 284).
Roman sources do not mention large numbers of camels in war until Ammianus Marcellinus
(all previous mentions having been restricted to small mercenary detachments, cf. Livy 37.40.13),
and the army does not appear to have employed camels in the cavalry until the second century AD,
when the cohors dromedarii of Egypt and Syria begin to appear in texts and inscriptions. This seems
to correspond with an increase in Syrian use of dromedary riders, possibly the result of conflict with
Saracens (Ammianus Marcellinus 14.4; 28.6; see Fig. 11).

A papyrus in Thebes dated to 156 AD names one Cronius Barbasatis as a camel-rider, attached to the
cohors I Augusta Praetoria Lusitanorum equitata (BGU 696). An Arabian unit, the ala I Ulpia
dromedariorum, was stationed in Syria in 157 AD (Holder, 2003 p. 140). The cohors XX
Palmyrenorum at Dura-Europos (attested from 208 to 256/7 AD: Dura Final Report 5.1, pp. 308-64,
nos. 100-101) included a group of camel-riders, with four of them named in the Dura papyrus (P.
Dura 82.1.4). Another possible camel corps is the cohors II Hemesenorum equitata in Tahoun el
Masek (AE 1952, p. 239) and an inscription from Bostra in Arabia mentions dromedarii (CIL 3.93).
Though still secondary to equestrian forces, camels became a regular addition to legionary garrisons.
Zooarchaeological evidence is lacking for Roman war camels, but the Serbian remains offer
some insight on the animals potential role in the military system. Bones were found in the
amphitheater of Viminiacum, a first-century AD military base (housing the legio VII Claudia) and
the provincial capital of Moesia Superior (Nikoli & Bogdanovi 2012).
The first cervical verterbra has a puncture on the ventral side, thought to
have been made by a spear (see Fig. 12). Further marks and the
preservation of associated short bones and ribs suggest that the camel was
butchered for meat (Vukovi-Bogdanovi & Blai 2014, p. 290).
Romans were known to use camels in the amphitheater as well (Cassius

Fig. 11 Limestone relief

(100-150 AD) from
west or central Syria
depicting horse and
dromedary riders. This
corresponds with the
appearance of dromedary forces in the
Roman army. Photo
reproduced from Colledge (1977) pl. 22.

Dio 40.7.3; Suetonius, Nero 3), which may account for the find location. However, because the bones

can be dated to a period when dromedarii were employed in the Roman army (the amphitheater was
built in the second century), it is not implausible that the puncture mark is the result of an arrowhead, due to the sites military association (Vukovi-Bogdanovi & Blai 2014, p. 291). All
associated bones were determined to belong to adult animals, suggesting these individuals were
butchered, being too old to continue serving as pack or riding animals (ibid., p. 292).
A further point of interest is the distribution of species in the Serbian find-groups. The
Romans knew two different sub-types of camel: two-humped Bactrians and one-humped Arabians
(Pliny, Nat. 8.26; see Figs. 13-14). While they were used for similar purposes, Vukovi-Bogdanovi
and Blai (2014) stress the importance of taxonomy and morphometric analysis in distinguishing
the Bactrians from the dromedaries in the archaeological record. Owing to different methods of
adaptation to temperature conditions, postcranial bones present noticeable variation between camels
(Vukovi-Bogdanovi & Blai 2014, p. 285). However, the process of identification is complicated
by the appearance of possible hybrids, hybridization having been practiced from the first century AD
into modernity (ibid., p. 286; Uerpmann 1999; cf. Pigirea & Henrotayb 2012).

Fig. 12 Ventral view of the first cervical

Fig. 13
Trajanic coin
AD) from
vertebra
discovered
in (114Viminacium
Bostra,
Arabia,
showing
a
Bactrian
amphitheatre, with puncture-mark. Reproduced
camel. & Bogdanovi (2012), p. 284.
from Nikoli

Fig. 14 Terracotta dromedary from Roman Egypt

(1st-3rd cen. AD).

10

The dimensions of the atlas from Viminiacium fit with those of Bactrian camels, while the
proportions correspond to the dromedary. The morphologically mixed nature of the remains suggest
a hybrid: Camelus dromedarius x Camelus bactrianus (Vukovi-Bogdanovi & Blai 2014, p. 287).
Modern-era hybrids, such as seventeenth-century Central Asian pack-animals, were able to carry
twice the weight of a dromedarys capacity. This fits with the characteristics of the Bactrian camel
known in antiquity (Ammianus Marcellinus 23.6), but these camels only had one hump. They were
also better adapted to cold climates and muddy terrain, which would make them ideal for use in
European territories (Potts 2004). The animals from Viminiacium were probably bred in regions
where both types of camel coexisted (e.g. Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Iran), but their precise
origin is unknown (Vukovi-Bogdanovi & Blai 2014, p. 293). Nevertheless, it is likely that
Romans were importing a specialized breed for both military and trade purposes.

11

The literary sources provide some idea of how and why the camel was used in ancient
warfare. Plinys description emphasizes the animals speed and endurance, as well as the dangerous
sexual frenzy peculiar to the species. This necessitates a peculiar mode of castrating them, and the
females, even, when required for the purposes of warit renders them more courageous, by the
destruction of all sexual feelings (Pliny, Nat. 8.26). Battle
accounts do not stress ferocity or courage, but neither do they
underrate the dangers of facing dromedarii. At the battle of
Nisibis (217 AD), the army of Artabanus V included armored
camel-riders equipped with long spears, which allowed for
downward thrusts against infantry and cavalry alike, as well as
minimized the dangers of close combat (Herodian 4.14.315.2). Range, then, was one of the advantages of fighting from
camel-back (e.g. Antiochus Arab archers with four-cubit long
swords: Livy 37.40.13). In addition to this, the sight or scent
of camels drove the opposing cavalry horses into a panic

Fig. 15 An example of a Roman

caltrop, made of four spikes joined at
the base. When thrown on the ground,
one spike will always project upwards
(Southern & Dixon, 1996 p. 166.
Photo courtesy of Westflisches
Museum fr Archologie, Herne,
Germany.

(Xenophon, Cyr. 7.1.27), often resulting in the complete

exposure of the infantry.
There were measures that could be taken against camels, however. Caltrops are the bestknown example of ancient anti-cavalry technology (see Fig. 15), effective against horses and camels
alike (Vegetius 3.24; Jarymowycz 2008, p. 21), and used in both open battle and siege warfare
(Herodian 4.15.2-3; Procopius 7.24.15; cf. 3rd-century AD examples from Caerleon: Nash-Williams
1932, pp. 27-8 fig. 22). Camels were more vulnerable to caltrops owing to their tender foot pads,
with the result that they often threw their riders and were permanently lamed (Herodian 4.15.3).
Vegetius also refers to the camel as soft-footed, and therefore ill-suited to war (Vegetius 3.23). The

12

animals utility only became truly relevant in a particular environment, facing other armies similarly
equipped.
IV. Elephants: chargers and tramplers

Fig. 16 (above) Coin of Alexander the

Great, commemorating his victory over
Porus. Minted in Babylon (322 BC).
From Scullard (1974), pl. XIII, fig. a.

13

The elephant as a beast of war is first

attested in India and Persia by Ctesias, a fifthcentury BC Greek who wrote of his time in
Persia (elephants as demolishers of walls:
Ctesias, Ind. 3; Indian kings go to war with
Fig. 19 Silver shekel issued in Carthaginian
Spain around 230 BC (from the Mogente Hoard
in Valencia). The head on the obverse is thought
to represent Hamilcar in the guise of the Punic
god Melqart, while the reverse pictures a war
elephant with a driver or mahout carrying a
goad. Picture courtesy of the British Museum.

103,000

elephants:

Aelian

17.29).

The

Hellenistic world saw their use in engagements

under Alexander the Great (see Fig. 16), the
Ptolemies

and

Seleucids

(Aous,

Raphia,

Magnesia; see Fig. 17), Pyrrhus (Heraclea, Asculum; see Fig. 18) and, most famously, Carthage
(Ilipa, Zama; see Fig. 19). The battles mentioned above featured elephants in a way that often
determined the conflicts outcome (Scullard 1974; Colledge 1977; Bugh 2006, pp. 277-78). It was
not until the second century BC that elephants were introduced to Rome, after which they were used
in the Macedonian Wars (the battle of Pydna, 168 BC: Plutarch, Aem.; Livy 44) and the Civil Wars
(Suetonius, Caes.; Appian, BC 1.80; Caesar, Bell.
Afr. 86; Bell. Civ. 2.40). The first significant
encounter between Romans and elephants took
Fig. 17 (below) Bronze coin of Antiochus
III (210 BC) depicting an elephant with a
rider. From SC (2002) no. 1272.

Fig. 18 (above) Painted dish from Capena in

Campania, depicting an elephant with a tower.
Dated to 3rd cen. BC and thought to represent one
of Pyrrhus elephants. From Scullard (1974) pl.
VII fig. a.

14

place during Pyrrhus attempted invasion. The king of Epirus brought with him twenty elephants,
some of which were loaned to him from Ptolemy II. These animals were most notably involved in
the battle of Heraclea in 280 BC, in which the Romans, terrified of the huge beasts, were routed
(Dionysius of Halicarnassus 19.9-12; Plutarch, Pyrrh. 16-18). The next year, Pyrrhus fielded his
elephants at Asculum. However, having learned from the previous experience, the Romans came
prepared, and though they were still defeated by Pyrrhus, the casualties taken by the Epirot forces
were too great for the king to sustain the campaign (Plutarch, Pyrrh. 21.5-10).
The ancient sources repeatedly emphasize elephants ability to throw the enemy into panic
and confusion (e.g. Gallic retreat prompted by elephants at the river Aous in 275 BC: Lucian, Zeux.
8-11). Horses were affected by elephants in the same way as they were frightened by camels, often
bolting with their riders at the first sight or scent (Plutarch, Pyrrh. 17.3). In 203 BC, Mago Barcas
elephants nullified the effect of a superior Roman cavalry:
Terrified by their roar and odor and by the sight of them the horses made the
assistance of the cavalry useless. And although, so long as they were in the thick of
the fight, where they could make use of the lance and, at close quarters, of the sword,
the Roman horsemen were the stronger, still when they were carried to a distance by
frightened horses, the Numidians were the more successful in hurling javelins from a
longer range. (Livy 30.18.7)
The ancient sources suggest elephants had a similar impact on men (cf. Polybius 1.39). At Zama in
202 BC, Hannibal positioned his eighty elephants in the front ranks to intimidate the Romans, whom
he had never faced with such a large number before (Livy 30.33.4). The spectacle was often
sufficiently unnerving to the opposing army, the elephants made conspicuous by their size and headarmor and crests and towers placed upon their backs, and, in addition to the driver, four soldiers
riding in each tower (ibid. 37.40.8). Caesar, after his defeat of Metellus Scipios forces at Thapsus
in 46 BC, arranged sixty-four captured elephants with their ornaments, trappings, and castles in
front of the city of Thapsus, hoping the sight would encourage the besieged defenders to surrender
(Caesar, Bell. Afr. 86.1).

15

Livys reference to turrets or towers, where the mahout (driver) sat, corresponds to known
practices in both the ancient and modern era, though there is some question concerning the overall
effectiveness of the practice (Scullard 1974; Charles 2008). There are numerous representations of
turreted elephants in Roman art (see Figs. 20-21) and several references to riders in towers in the
ancient sources (Scipios elephants with towers/castles on their backs: Caesar, Bell. Afr. 30.2; 41.2;
86.1; , parapets, or , bare-backed: Aelian, NA 13.10). The tower allowed
men to send down projectiles on the enemy as the elephant charged past, but the main danger was
still the crushing power of the elephant itself: They tread under foot whole companies, and crush the
men in their armour (Pliny, Nat. 8.9.9; see Fig. 22).

Fig. 20 (left) Roman terracotta vase from

Pompeii depicting a turreted war elephant with
rider, dating 3rd-2nd cen. BC, the period of the
Punic Wars. Photo courtesy of the Museo
Archeologico Nazionale, Naples.

Fig. 21 (right) Small

bronze coin dating to
around 217 BC, from
Capua, one of Hannibals
allies. Depicts an elephant
carrying a castle or
tower on its back.

16

Fig. 22 Terracotta statuette from

Myrina (Asia Minor). Depicts an
elephant attacking a soldier, possibly
a Galatian, to commemorate the
Elephant Victory of Antiochus I at
Aous in 275 BC. From Scullard
(1974), pl. VII. fig. b.

As an animal of war, elephants, though massive and powerful, proved to be rather unreliable.
While capable of inflicting heavy damage to the enemy, they were liable to cause equal or greater
harm to their own side. Ancient sources provide repeated accounts of war-elephants breaking and
running amok through their own ranks, throwing entire armies into chaos and changing outcomes of
battles (cf. Plutarch, Pyrrh. 25.4.5). Appian describes the elephants at Raphia (217 BC) growing
excited and unmanageable, throwing the entirety of the Macedonian phalanx into disorder
(Appian, Syr. 35). Livy writes that the elephants in Hasdrubals army at Ilipa (206 BC), being
frightened by the Roman cavalry, shifted their position from the wings to the center of the formation,
weakening the Carthaginian line and forcing it to retreat (Livy 28.15.7-9). Hannibals elephants at
Zama took such fright at the sound of Roman trumpeters and war-cries that they stripped the entirety
of the left wings cavalry support in their panic, and only a few elephants were eventually forced into
the Roman lines (ibid. 30.33.12-13). Pliny observes that the elephant will never do any mischief
except when provoked (Pliny, Nat. 8.7), perhaps explaining why so many animals turned on their
own ranks when wounded by the enemy they were not naturally aggressive creatures.

17

In addition to the relative uncertainty of an elephants behavior in battle, experience soon

taught soldiers how to react accordingly against them (Vegetius 3.23). The terror elephants inspired
in their opponents soon lost its edge, and the Romans began to devise methods of combating the
animals. Soon after Pyrrhus brought his elephants to fight the Romans, they devised several methods
of effectively combating them. When the Romans observed elephants taking fright at certain sounds,
such as the grunting of pigs, they seized upon this as a means of throwing the enemy elephants into
panic (Aelian, NA 1.38; cf. Pliny, Nat. 8.9). At the battle of Asculum the Romans and their allies
came equipped with three-hundred wagons constructed especially for countering the nineteen
elephants in Pyrrhus ranks, mounted with special poles that would release projectiles as soon as
they came near the elephants (Dionysius of Halicarnassus 20.1.6-7). Seventy years later at Zama,
Scipio Africanus formed his men in widely spaced maniples so that there should be an interval
where the enemys elephants might be driven through without breaking up the ranks (Livy 30.33.13; cf. Polybius 15.12-13). The Romans managed to drive the elephants back from their lines and into
the Carthaginian army, forcing the right wing, including the cavalry, to flee, throwing the rest of the
army into panic (Livy 30.33.14-16). Livy describes the Roman soldiers at Magnesia in 190 BC
avoiding the charging animals of Antiochus and attacking them from the sides with spears, or
hamstringing them with swords, accustomed already by the wars in Africa (Livy 37.42.5).
These innovations minimized the damage caused by elephants against infantry, and the
psychological effect on soldiers was probably reduced by the success of these tactics. The only
remaining problem the Romans faced was the effect elephants had on the warhorse. But this too was
quickly dealt with as generals like Julius Caesar drew from their knowledge and experience to
prepare accordingly. Caesars fear of Metellus Scipio and Jubas elephants prior to the battle of
Thapsus prompted him to send for elephants from Italy. Cassius Dio explains Caesars reasoning:
He did not count on the [elephants], to be sure, for any considerable military achievement, but
desired that the horses, by becoming accustomed to the sight and sound of them, should learn to have

18

no further fear of those belonging to the enemy (Cassius Dio 43.4.1; cf. Xenophon, Eq. 6.13-15).
This worked considerably better than the earlier method of Perseus following Pydna, as he did not
have access to actual elephants and instead built dummy animals, hoping to inure his horses to the
sight (Kistler 2007, p. 147).
The Romans may have indeed learned how to counter and employ the use of elephants, but it
is still worth noting that Scipio Africanus, when entering peace negotiations with Carthage, leveled
terms against them, including a ban on ownership and maintenance of war-elephants. By the time
Caesar faced Africanus descendant and his Numidian elephants at Thapsus, Romans and their allies
were the only groups in the Mediterranean to possess the animals for warfare, and none of Romes
major rival powers fielded elephants against them. This may explain why the practice began to
decline in the Roman sphere by the end of the second century BC (ibid., p. 134). The unwieldy and
hazardous nature of the elephant and the prohibitions on Romes potential rivals owning the animals
rendered the creature more trouble than it was worth. Fighting elephants were still seen in the Roman
Empire, but they were mostly restricted to the arena, where indiscriminate destruction was much
sought-after (Pliny, Nat. 8.7.7).
V. Conclusion
The three species discussed in this paper all appear to constitute temporary (or at least
intermittent) aspects of warfare in antiquity. Dogs were known to go to war in certain societies, and
the Romans could have adopted this practice from time to time. Organized units of camel-riders only
came about when Romes focus turned to the East in the later Empire. Elephants were initially used
against Republican armies, prompting the Romans to adopt the use of the animals, which died out in
the late Republic. Unlike horses, these animals were not consistently or ubiquitously used throughout
the Roman world. This is understandable when one considers the conditions under which certain
species might be used effectively in war, often used where cavalry either fell short or was
impractical. The lack of archaeological evidence makes a detailed study of these animals as military

19

entities difficult, but the abundance of representative and literary evidence can act as a guide to
ancient sensibilities how the animals were seen as instruments of violence, and how man was able
to direct a dumb beasts natural instincts into the realm of human conflict.

Bibliography
Collections
AE = L'Anne pigraphique. 1952.
BGU = gyptische Urkunden aus den kniglichen Museen zu Berlin herausgegeben von der

20

Generalverwaltung: Griechische Urkunden (Berlin).

CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin.
RCV = Roman Coins and their values. 2000. Sear, D. R. London.
SC = Seleucid Coins: A Comprehensive Catalogue, Pt. 1. 2002. Houghton, A. & Lorber, C.
Image Sources
Coin Index, C (2010) CCI-30327: A IRON AGE COIN Web page available at: https://finds.org.uk/
database/artefacts/record/id/299809
---. CCI-30396: A IRON AGE COIN Web page available at: https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/
record/id/318136
---. CCI-890026: A IRON AGE COIN Web page available at: https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/
record/id/311343
---. CCI-940881: A IRON AGE COIN Web page available at: https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/
record/id/304308
Collins, R (2010) NCL-864495: A ROMAN KNIFE Web page available at: https://finds.org.uk/
database/artefacts/record/id/410888
McIntosh, F (2007) LVPL-035186: A ROMAN BROOCH Web page available at: https://finds.org.uk/
database/artefacts/record/id/201902
Reavill, P (2009) HESH-091D87: A ROMAN PIN Web page available at: https://finds.org.uk/
database/artefacts/record/id/253806
Sumnall, K (2008) LON-B49F72: A ROMAN KNIFE Web page available at: https://finds.org.uk/
database/artefacts/record/id/205919
Primary Sources/Translations
Appian. 1899. The Foreign Wars. (H. White, Trans.) New York.
Cassius Dio. 1916. Roman History, Vol. IV: Books 41-45. (E. Cary, Trans.) Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus. 1950. Roman Antiquities, Vol. VII: Books 11-20. (E. Cary, Trans.)
Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Herodian. 1969. History of the Empire, Vol. I: Books 1-4. (C.R. Whittaker, Trans.) Cambridge:
Harvard UP.
Julius Caesar. 1869. The African Wars. (W.A. McDevitte and W.S. Bohn, Trans.)
Livy. 1935. Livy, Books XXXV-XXXVII. (W. Heinemann, Trans.) Cambridge: Harvard UP.

21

---. 1949. Livy, Books XXVIII-XXX. (W. Heinemann, Trans.) Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Oppian. 1928. Oppian, Colluthus, and Tryphiodorus. (A.W. Mair, Trans.) Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Pliny the Elder. 1855. The Natural History. (J. Bostock, T. Riley, Trans.) Fleet Street.
Plutarch. 1920. Plutarchs Lives. (B. Perrin, Trans.) Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Polybius. 1889. Histories. (E.S. Shuckburgh, Trans.) London.
Varro. 1934. On Agriculture. (W.D. Hooper, Trans.) Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Secondary Sources
Bugh, G.R. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge UP.
Bunnens, G. 2006. Tell Ahmar II. A New Luwian Stele and the Cult of the Storm-God at Til BarsibMasuwari. Belgium.
Charles, M.B. 2008. African forest elephants and turrets in the ancient world, Phoenix 62.3/4: pp.
338-362.
Colledge, M.A.R. 1977. Parthian Art. London: P. Elek.
De Prisco, A. and J.B. Johnson. 1990. The Mini-atlas of Dog Breeds. New Jersey: T.F.H.
Publications.
Fleig, D. and W. Charlton. 1996. Fighting Dog Breeds. New Jersey: TFH Publications.
Holder, P. 2003. Auxiliary Deployment in the Reign of Hadrian, Bulletin of the Institute of
Classical Studies 46: pp. 101145.
Homan, M. 1999. A Complete History of Fighting Dogs. New York: Howell Book House.
Jarymowycz, R.J. 2008. Cavalry from Hoof to Track. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.
Kistler, J.M. 2007. War Elephants. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Maltby, M., J. Bradfield, M. Gomersall, M. Barden, Leslie Collett, and R. Hollman. 2010. Feeding a
Roman Town: Environmental Evidence from Excavations in Winchester, 1972-1985.
Winchester Museums.
Nash-Williams, V. E. 1932. The Roman Legionary Fortress at Caerleon in Monmouthshire. S.l.:
National Museum of Wales.
Nikoli, S. and I. Bogdanovi. 2012. Istraivanja viminacijumskog amfiteatra u toku 2011,
Arheologija u Srbiji: Projekti Arheolokog instituta u 2011.
Pigire, F. and D. Henrotay. 2012. Camels in the northern provinces of the Roman Empire, JAS

22

39.5: pp. 1531-1539.

Potts, D.T. 2004. Camel Hybridization and the Role of Camelus bactrianus in the Ancient Near
East, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 47.2: pp. 143-65.
Scullard, H.H. 1974. The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World. Thames and Hudson.
Southern, P. and K.R. Dixon. 1996. The Late Roman Army. New Haven: Yale UP.
Uerpmann, H.P. 1999. Camel and horse skeletons from protohistoric graves at Mleiha in the
Emirate of Sharjah (U.A.E.), Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 10.1: pp. 102-118.
Vukovi-Bogdanovi, S. and S. Blai. 2014. Camels from Roman Imperial sites in Serbia,
Anthropozoologica 49.2: pp. 281-295.
Welles, C.B., R.O. Fink, J.F. Gilliam, and W.B. Henning. 1959. The Excavations at Dura-Europos
Final Report 5: The Parchments and Papyri Part I. New Haven: Yale UP.