Hannibal's Biological Warfare

[livius drusus]

Hannibal Barca, he of elephants and Alps fame, worked for the king of Bithynia during its war against Pergamum. Hannibal was 60 by then, close to his final defeat and suicide, but he was still a great warrior and came up with a brilliant idea to win a sea battle with what can only be described as biological warfare.

Picture this: ships of Bithynia and Pergamum are duking it out on the high seas. The oarsmen and many of the other marines are bareass naked. Pergamum catapults some vases into the Bithynian ships which of course burst on contact. Inside the vases are snakes. Venomous ones. Lots of them. Now you have a ship full of naked dudes draped in venomous (and likely very angry) snakes.

Guess who won that battle?

[Gurdur]

heh heh. Talk about fear of castration.

I've long wanted to do a post on animals used in classical warfare --- the sheer multitude is surprising.

[livius drusus]

I find it a fascinating subject, and very much under-reported, I think. Hannibal's elephants get the most press, and most of those poor bastards died in the Alps.

Now's your chance, Gurd. I'd absolutely love to read your post on the topic.

[Gurdur]

Period: 250 BC to 250 AD

That wardogs were commonly used on many different sides is well-known.
"Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war !"
---Shakespeare

African Bush Elephants (slightly smaller than African Steppe Elephants) were often used, notably by Hannibal, but also by the Seleucids etc.

Indian Elephants were used, notably in India.
There is only one recorded battle in history where one side used African (Bush) elephants and the other used Indian elephants in the same battle.

Incendiary pigs were also used, notably against elephants.

Incendiary foxes have been used (see the story of Samson and the Philistines in the Bible --- I assume this one is a more or less correct version of what then actually happened; this one certainly sounds plausible).

Dead animals of all kinds, as well as dead humans, were routinely tossed over battlements in sieges.

Horse, buffalo, oxen, donkeys, camels and mules were of course routinely used, as were pigeons for messages.

Cheetahs were used, but only on imperial hunts (i.e. not in war) in Persia.

I'll add more as I think of them.

[livius drusus]

I've read about wardogs, of course, but I'd never heard about the Indian v. African elephants battle or the incendiary animals. Incendiary pigs and foxes sound totally bizarre to me. Do you know why the pigs were used against elephants? What was the advantage?

[Ymir's blood]

Asimov, in his History of the World, stated that elephants made poor warriors. Unlike horses, elephants are pretty smart and less likely to make mad charges against dangerous looking opponents. That's the only place I've seen it mentioned though.

[livius drusus]

I heard that Hannibal gave the elephants liquor to angry up the blood. It was on the Discovery Channel, though, and they're notoriously full of shit.

[Gurdur]

I've read about wardogs, of course, but I'd never heard about the Indian v. African elephants battle or the incendiary animals. Incendiary pigs and foxes sound totally bizarre to me. Do you know why the pigs were used against elephants? What was the advantage?

The *cough* DON'T BLAME ME; I DON'T APPROVE OF IT EITHER usual way of using incendiary pigs or foxes was to:

1) cover the pigs in oil and tar, or tie a brand to the foxs' tails

2) aim them in the enemy's direction

3) shove them off and light them along the way

With the supposition that a mass of burning bacon or foxes would completely shatter and disorganise enemy formations.

According to the Bible, it worked for Samson against the Philistines with foxes; interestingly, Jack Vance uses the same device in one of his SF novels.

Burning piggies were especially used against elephants because the shrieking of the swine upsets elephants greatly and causes them to immediately shy off and run amok; the burning is only to encourage the pig to shriek in that particular case.
Yes, there are several recorded instances of this in classical warfare history.

DON'T BLAME ME; I DON'T APPROVE OF IT EITHER

I will look up the details of the Indian vs. African elephant battle and reproduce them here later.

[Clutch Munny]

I accidently created an incendiary gopher once. Just about burned down the whole farm.

[Gurdur]

Blame Clutch Munny, not me.

[livius drusus]

With the supposition that a mass of burning bacon or foxes would completely shatter and disorganise enemy formations.

Pardon my fogginess, but would this be because a burning fox would do damange by biting, clawing, general viciousness, and/or because it's just disconcerting as hell?

Burning piggies were especially used against elephants because the shrieking of the swine upsets elephants greatly and causes them to immediately shy off and run amok; the burning is only to encourage the pig to shriek in that particular case.

The horror... Don't worry, though. I know it's all Clutch's fault.

I will look up the details of the Indian vs. African elephant battle and reproduce them here later.

Please do. I would very much like to hear more about it.

[livius drusus]

I accidently created an incendiary gopher once. Just about burned down the whole farm.

What have I told you about lighting your farts around haystacks?

[Gurdur]

Pardon my fogginess, but would this be because a burning fox would do damange by biting, clawing, general viciousness, and/or because it's just disconcerting as hell?
Disconcerting.
Burning piggywiggies are not noted for fighting, biting, clawing, scratching or likewise.
But having a huge burning pig or even a burning fox run in your direction is disconcerting (literally; see below) as hell.

Many, many classical military formations depend for their effectiveness on:
1) morale
2) formation, formation, formation.

For example, a phalanx that does not stay in very tight formation is simply an unorganised group of men with very long spears and those spears are completely useless in really close hand-to-hand meleé; if a phalanx did not keep formation, legionaire swordsmen or cavalry could move in extremely quickly and chop the lot of them up easily.

Any warband at all also depends on personal loyalty to the leader and to one's companions; as soon as everyone starts running around in a mess, morale goes down very quickly and people start expressing more fear than bravado about the nearby enemy, which is a really bad idea if the enemy are moving in for the kill.
Thus, anything that breaks formation (whether bacon, or the uneven ground, or boulders tossed by onagers) is a BAD THING which really stuffs up both ability to fight and willingness to fight.
In battle, fear and panic are extremely infectious.

So after the bacon rushes in (and around), the enemy troops would move in for the kill on the disorganized side.

[Crumb]

So after the bacon rushes in (and around), the enemy troops would move in for the kill on the disorganized side.

Especially if the enemy troops are Jewish.

[Sauron]

So after the bacon rushes in (and around), the enemy troops would move in for the kill on the disorganized side.

Especially if the enemy troops are Jewish.

Interesting idea.

Romans fighting the Jews should have simply loaded their catapults with...Jimmy Dean sausage.

"Look out! Incoming pork! Scatter! Don't let it touch you!"

[Dragoon]

Interesting topic.

Far, by far the animal most commonly used in war is the horse. Be it the light little horses that pulled the ancient Egyptian chariots to the swift little Egyptians of the Saracens to the big Percheron war horses of the Knights. From light horse cavalry to dragoons. Still very effectively used by the Russians during WW II because they were highly mobile, swift, deadly and cheap.

Perhaps the next most common war animal is the mule. They did everything and mostly well. They carried light artillery pieces in packs, pulled supply wagons, carried ammunition in packs and mounted cavalry (one job they were notably inferior to the horse at).

Next must come the camel which I saw still mounting police in Egypt.

Although donkeys have already mentioned, the wild onagers pulled many a chariot across Asian steppes.

[Dragoon]

I was going to add in the previous post that I can see where WAR PIGS would be highly effective against cavalry.

A great many horses are absolutely terrified by the very smell of pigs. Both of my horses have been around pigs many, many times, but everytime a pig is raised for 4-H, they are scared and jumpy and act just crazy until it is gone. I assume pigs were once a deadly enemy of horses in evolutionary times. My guess is that here in North America they shared some common environmental elements and their behavior is a strong instinctual reaction.

A squealing pig running at a line of cavalry could very easily cause the horses to panic and loose their formation, if not their momentum. If it could be made to flame, so much the better, but I can't see what would keep it from returning to its origin.

[Dragoon]

Interesting idea.

Romans fighting the Jews should have simply loaded their catapults with...Jimmy Dean sausage.

"Look out! Incoming pork! Scatter! Don't let it touch you!"

Actually, one of the sparks that set off the Sepoy Revolt in India was the introduction of the new rifled Enfield muskets that used a bullet that was lubricated with - you guessed it - lard. When the Muslim native troops bit off the bullet end of the paper cartridges so they could pour the powder down the rifle, they tasted pork and that was a BIG no-no.

Another spark was the claim that some of the Enfield bullets were lubricated with tallow from - you guessed it - cows and that greatly offended the Hindus.

Sometimes a Imperial Power just can't get anything right. :(

[Sauron]

Interesting idea.

Romans fighting the Jews should have simply loaded their catapults with...Jimmy Dean sausage.

"Look out! Incoming pork! Scatter! Don't let it touch you!"

Actually, one of the sparks that set off the Sepoy Revolt in India was the introduction of the new rifled Enfield muskets that used a bullet that was lubricated with - you guessed it - lard. When the Muslim native troops bit off the bullet end of the paper cartridges so they could pour the powder down the rifle, they tasted pork and that was a BIG no-no.

Another spark was the claim that some of the Enfield bullets were lubricated with tallow from - you guessed it - cows and that greatly offended the Hindus.

Sometimes a Imperial Power just can't get anything right. :(


What?

WHAT?

You mean my idea isn't original?

DAMN YOU. DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL.... :whup:

:giggle:

[JoeP]

Next must come the camel which I saw still mounting police in Egypt.
:eek: Really?

[JoeP]

The whole idea of incendiary pigs is new to me, although it's entirely consistent with throwing infected corpses and captured soldiers' heads at the enemy. I was going to ask what it really meant but subsequent posts have made it clear. I even see they are included in games like Rome: Total War and World of Warcraft. Mmm, crispy.

There is only one conclusion: we need a burning version of :pigfly:.
:fire: :combust: :onfire:

[Gurdur]

Actually, one of the sparks that set off the Sepoy Revolt in India was the introduction of the new rifled Enfield muskets that used a bullet that was lubricated with - you guessed it - lard. When the Muslim native troops bit off the bullet end of the paper cartridges so they could pour the powder down the rifle, they tasted pork and that was a BIG no-no.
Another spark was the claim that some of the Enfield bullets were lubricated with tallow from - you guessed it - cows and that greatly offended the Hindus.
Sometimes a Imperial Power just can't get anything right. :(
A fair amount of that turned out to be false later on; the British actually did try to avoid using pig lard (because of Moslem sensibilities), but the rumours were unstoppable.

[Gurdur]

Far, by far the animal most commonly used in war is the horse.
Which leads into fascinating excursions into the psychology of power, and the fact that the reliance on horses, often for psychology more than any real military value, has changed entire economies and histories -- the large warcharger horse is almost singlehandedly responsible for the rise of feudalism as an economic system.

Next must come the camel which I saw still mounting police in Egypt.
This sentence is indeed a classic.

BTW, camels get a really good look in the film Khartoum, which is a very, very good film indeed; and horses get a good look in the film Waterloo, which was brilliant, and used arial cinematography to show Ney's Charge, one of the most stunning scenes in the movie.

[JoeP]

Were any police harmed during the making of Khartoum?

[Gurdur]

Were any police harmed during the making of Khartoum?
It was army rather than police, but the scenes involving Kitchener's Camel Corps or of course the Mahdi's army ..... well, some of the soldiers and most of the Mahdiists were ...mounted......
_______

Oddly, in the making of Waterloo, they used the Russian Red Army cavalry divisions. Best-trained and cheap.

[Gurdur]

Getting away from classical times to modern times, the USA army's use of dolphins in many applications is well-known, but less known is the use by the Morocco army use of monkeys (as mine detectors).

[livius drusus]

For example, a phalanx that does not stay in very tight formation is simply an unorganised group of men with very long spears and those spears are completely useless in really close hand-to-hand meleé; if a phalanx did not keep formation, legionaire swordsmen or cavalry could move in extremely quickly and chop the lot of them up easily.

That makes a great deal of sense, of course. I think I have a default picture in my head of classical warfare as Roman infantry with short swords and long shields who could protect themselves from nasty things been thrown at them by using those shields in tight formation.

I didn't consider the spear or how a smallish animal could right in there between their legs and break everyone apart.

In battle, fear and panic are extremely infectious.


Right. That brings us back around to the snakes, which even if they never bit a sole were sure to generate terror in the close, naked confines of a ship.

[Gurdur]

Especially anywhere near to the 'nads.

[livius drusus]

Far, by far the animal most commonly used in war is the horse. Be it the light little horses that pulled the ancient Egyptian chariots to the swift little Egyptians of the Saracens to the big Percheron war horses of the Knights. From light horse cavalry to dragoons. Still very effectively used by the Russians during WW II because they were highly mobile, swift, deadly and cheap.

I'm still puzzled that the Romans used cavalry to any advantage at all given how small their horses were and the lack of stirrups. I understand cavalry was not exactly a Roman strong suit, but it played a significant role nonetheless and I have a hard time envisioning being able to actually fight on horseback without someplace to push off of. They must have had some seriously toned thighs.

Perhaps the next most common war animal is the mule. They did everything and mostly well. They carried light artillery pieces in packs, pulled supply wagons, carried ammunition in packs and mounted cavalry (one job they were notably inferior to the horse at).

Isn't it true that mules can carry extraordinarily heavy loads? That would make them invaluable in war, I would think. Also, I read in McCullough's Grass Crown but have no idea if it's true that Lucius Cornelius Sulla rode a mule instead of a horse during the Numidian war. :)

A great many horses are absolutely terrified by the very smell of pigs. Both of my horses have been around pigs many, many times, but everytime a pig is raised for 4-H, they are scared and jumpy and act just crazy until it is gone. I assume pigs were once a deadly enemy of horses in evolutionary times. My guess is that here in North America they shared some common environmental elements and their behavior is a strong instinctual reaction.

That's fascinating. I had no idea. It's hard to imagine what it is exactly that so freaks out a horse about the smell of pigs. Then again, the smell of bacon really agitates me too, but that's just because I don't like it. ;) I wonder if this aversion is shared by horses elsewhere in the world.

[Gurdur]

I don't know about aversion to pigs per se, but I do know horses, unless well-trained, hate being anywhere around camels, and also the trumpeting of elephants badly scares untrained horses.

[JoeP]

In battle, fear and panic are extremely infectious.


Right. That brings us back around to the snakes, which even if they never bit a sole were sure to generate terror in the close, naked confines of a ship.
Or a heel.

[Dingfod]

Or a heel.Especially for someone like Achilles.


My foot, Joe, that's so pedestrian. I noticed the sole reference, but had the goodness in my soul not to go there.

[JoeP]

Admonishment accepted. I feel such a heel. I'm hoping it belongs to Legs.

[Gurdur]

Admonishment accepted.
More bastinado (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bastinado) than admonishment.

[Dragoon]

I'm still puzzled that the Romans used cavalry to any advantage at all given how small their horses were and the lack of stirrups. I understand cavalry was not exactly a Roman strong suit, but it played a significant role nonetheless and I have a hard time envisioning being able to actually fight on horseback without someplace to push off of. They must have had some seriously toned thighs.
Actually, the only time a well condition horseman has need for stirrups is if he is using a lance. As far as I know, the Roman cavalry consisted of bowmen, javelin throwers and swordsmen that used the galdius. I'm sure Gurdur knows a lot more about it than me.

The really usefulness of cavalry is getting where men are needed quickly and inducing terror, causing disorganization of a line of battle (as Gurdur has already noted). Consider how terrifying it was to foot soldiers to have half a ton of pounding hoof and bone, with a mounted guy high up there wielding a big shiny, sharp sword hell bent on cutting you in two, coming right at you at 30 MPH. Or consider how terrifying it would be if a swift moving body of archers got behind your ranks and started pouring in arrows while cutting off any possible retreat.

With regard to the size of the Roman horses, I'm sure they weren't as big as a Percheron, but they were bigger than Arabs and well able to mount relatively lightly armed horsemen. As a matter of fact, I've read where the so-called Trojan war was actually a horse-stealing raid by Achaean pirates to take the extraordinary large war horses that were being bred in that part of Anatolia. By Roman times, they had even bred "gated" horses so I'm sure the horses they used were quite up to the task, size wise.

The biggest problem with cavalry in ancient times as today, is they are expensive. In Ancient Greece, only the wealthy could afford to equip themselves for "mans favorite sport" with horses. The fact they went to battle mounted on horses allowed them to be the first Hippies - a rather high class in society. Look at how many famous Greeks had Hipp in their names - Philip (Philhippus, lover of horses) of Macedonia, Hipparcus, etc, etc, etc.

Fast forwarding to WW I, I have read where a full half of all train transport of war material was used to convey horses and horse feed. Except in the Mid East and for guarding prisoners, they were hardly used at all, but for romantic reasons, the commanders sure tried to use them. I guess my point is, the Romans didn't use huge amounts of them because they were expensive and unnecessary to the tactics then in use.


Isn't it true that mules can carry extraordinarily heavy loads? That would make them invaluable in war, I would think. Also, I read in McCullough's Grass Crown but have no idea if it's true that Lucius Cornelius Sulla rode a mule instead of a horse during the Numidian war. :).
Indeed they can. They are very tough and healthy and smart. Unlike a horse, which will work itself to death for you, a mule knows when to quit. There is an old saying "a horse will never let you down" and that means that when it comes to life of death in extreme situations, a mule will quit on you, but a horse will not.

A large mule makes an excellent riding animal and I know several people who prefer to ride them for their excellent natures and easy pace. They go nowhere nearly as fast as a horse, but they are extremely shurefooted and comfortable. If Lucius was an old man, didn't need to ride fast or a not so good rider, it would only make sense for him to ride a mule.

You know, General Grant was a true horse lover and a most excellent rider, but he got himself hurt riding a fiery, expensive gift horse. As a commander, perhaps it would have been more responsible of him to have ridden a mule.


That's fascinating. I had no idea. It's hard to imagine what it is exactly that so freaks out a horse about the smell of pigs. Then again, the smell of bacon really agitates me too, but that's just because I don't like it. ;) I wonder if this aversion is shared by horses elsewhere in the world.
Baaaaacon :homdrool: Oh, how I love BLT's, but I have to limit myself to just a couple a year. I can't eat the stuff, but I love it.

It's funny, but not all the horses out at my stables react as insanely as mine do. To answer your question, I don't know, but I suspect they do. I also suspect that perhaps the taboo that people of the Levant and Arabia have for pigs might be due, in part anyway, to the effect they had on their horses which they relied on for war in that chronically war scourged part of the world (Dragoon's crackpot theory No. 857).

A word to JoeP and Gurdur: Clean up your act or I'll clean it up for you!! :whup:

:D

[JoeP]

You utter bast(in)ado

[Gurdur]

Actually, the only time a well condition horseman has need for stirrups is if he is using a lance.
Actually, thanks for the compliment later on, but I was under the impression that while the lance is definitely the one major place problem, horsemen who could effectively use bows, swords or javelins with power, and that without stirrups (AFAIK, IIRC, it wasn't until the 7th century that stirrups were introduced into Wstern Europe), needed to be very good horsemen indeed, which was why such troops were limited to either the rich (as in the Roman equites prior to the Marian reform), or to horse-dependent cultures (the Scythians, the Mongolians, and partly the Goths, for example).
As far as I know, the Roman cavalry consisted of bowmen, javelin throwers and swordsmen that used the galdius. I'm sure Gurdur knows a lot more about it than me.
Again, thanks for the probably undeserved compliment, but I was under the impression that the equites depended on the light lance to a degree. I will check this one out pronto, though.
As for bowmen, either mounted or infantry, this is the one area where the Romans always sucked badly and never really developed enough.
The really usefulness of cavalry is getting where men are needed quickly and inducing terror,
Indeed, indeed; the Scythian bow- and lance-using horsemen completely dumbfounded Alexander The Great and caused him to retreat.
with a mounted guy high up there wielding a big shiny, sharp sword hell
And this is especially where we get into psychology and social structures -- why the mounted man became boss in society.
Fast forwarding to WW I, I have read where a full half of all train transport of war material was used to convey horses and horse feed.
Even at the start of WW2 and up to 1940, more artillery in the German army -- supposedly the technical best -- was horse-drawn than vehicle-drawn or powered.
A word to JoeP and Gurdur: Clean up your act or I'll clean it up for you!! :whup: :D
No offence, but lady cop has a monopoly on my fear at the moment.

[Dragoon]

You utter bast(in)ado
Huh?? Do you mean bastinado? That's the striking of the feet with a rod as a rather cruel form of torture - is that what you mean?

If so, perhaps you are disturbed or otherwise tortured by the way I have written about this topic. Certainly man's eager participation in war is not a pleasant aspect of our human species. Perhaps my writing style is a bit (OK, a lot) "tortured" and you'd like to "beat feet" out of here. Consider this though, we are "created in the image and likeness of (the ancient Hebrew) God," so we're bound to be pretty evil and violent - like, it's just part of our image. :slice:

[Dingfod]

No, JoeP has just failed to toe the line and needs to watch his step so that he doesn't stick his foot in his mouth again.

[Gurdur]

Well, I got some info, not the necessary, but a starter.

From here (lots of details): (http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/elephant-war.htm)

The Asian elephant was used in battle as early as 1100 B.C., but it was not until 326 B.C., at the Battle of Hydaspes, that the first European commander encountered elephants in battle. Alexander the Great defeated an army commanded by Poros at Hydaspes, in modern Pundjab, and of the 200 Indian war elephants deployed there Alexander captured 80 animals which he later incorporated into his own army. In the course of his campaigns, Alexander was able to gather as many as 200 elephants in his army. King Pyrrhus of Epirus defeated the Romans at the battle of Heraclea (280 B.C.), on the Gulf of Tarent, primarly because of the 26 Indian elephants in his command.

And even more details here (http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/elephants.html), which include Incendiary Camels.
:stunned: :stunned: :stunned:

[Dragoon]

... ... ...Incendiary Camels.
:stunned: :stunned: :stunned:

Incendiary Camels!?!

What won't the evil mind of man think up next?!!?

Smoking Camels to give the enemy lung cancer! :eek:

Now, I call that a Lucky Strike!!

How evil can our species get anway?!? :fuming:

[Dragoon]

Incendiary Camels, I just love it!!

:roflmao:

Here's an old geezer outside of Giza getting ready to "burn up the desert" on Lucky Strike, his favorite camel.

[livius drusus]

Well, I got some info, not the necessary, but a starter.

Fascinating links, Gurd. About the African elephants, I was under the impression that they are generally speaking far less tameable than Asian elephants. Do you know if African Forest elephants were are ornery as their Plains brothers?

And even more details here (http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/elephants.html), which include Incendiary Camels.
:stunned: :stunned: :stunned:

Jee-zus. Is there nothing they won't set on fire?! I can see how it would work like a charm, though.

[Dragoon]

Actually, a very interesting article. Thanks Gurdur.

I know it was all fake, but the battle scenes in the Return of the King showing the armature on the War Mastodons (or whatever they were) and the cavalry charge in the Two Towers was well done (IMHO). As a one time cavalry re-enactor and polo player, I can tell you that I felt the scenes pretty much reminded me of the way I felt when charging down a field at full gallop.

Love to continue, but I have to get going now. :wave:

[Dragoon]

I just can't let it go. I have to add this:

I've had my ass burnt on more than one occasion, but never my camel. Oooh, that would HURT!! :hysteric:

[JoeP]

Next: incendiary beavers. What the dam-busters had to use before there were planes.

[JoeP]

You utter bast(in)ado
Huh?? Do you mean bastinado? That's the striking of the feet with a rod as a rather cruel form of torture - is that what you mean?

If so, perhaps you are disturbed or otherwise tortured by the way I have written about this topic. Certainly man's eager participation in war is not a pleasant aspect of our human species. Perhaps my writing style is a bit (OK, a lot) "tortured" and you'd like to "beat feet" out of here. Consider this though, we are "created in the image and likeness of (the ancient Hebrew) God," so we're bound to be pretty evil and violent - like, it's just part of our image. :slice:
Toe the line, Dragoon. Go back and read Gurdur's post (aside: liv: do I have to quote other people's posts as well when I demand that someone reads them?). I was caught out by dreaded-intervening-post syndrome - my post was directed at him. He threatened me, practically kicking me in the soles, and I was so beaten down I felt like hot-footing it out of this thread.

[Dingfod]

Next: incendiary beavers. What the dam-busters had to use before there were planes.Incendiary beavers are not particularly effective on concrete or earthen dams, but wooden ones were toast.

[Dragoon]

OK JoeP, I see now, sorry.

I just realized something profound. What we've been discussing here is history's very first "Flame War." Yes, since animals were the first agents of rapid communications, it only stands to reason that they would be used that way.

In all seriousness though, our wars have caused suffering to not only our own species, but to countless millions of our animal servants that died of wounds, starvation, disease and overwork.

Setting animals on fire were perhaps of military necessity, but the animals sure weren't in on the decisions. An account of how the Confederate horses were secretly and quietly bayonetted to death by Kit Carson's men before a Western Theater battle sickened me, even though, as a Union man, I am glad they won that battle. I am glad there is finally a memorial statue dedicated to the animals that were made to suffer so greatly during the American Civil War.

BTW, the saber shown mounted on the saddle is Hollywood bullshit. The trooper wore ALL his arms on his person - including the saber which had its own belt and shoulder strap.
Civil War Horse (http://www.nsl.org/warhorse.htm)

[Dingfod]

Except for the Colt Dragoon. And, perhaps his carbine.

[livius drusus]

In all seriousness though, our wars have caused suffering to not only our own species, but to countless millions of our animal servants that died of wounds, starvation, disease and overwork.

Very true, that. Obviously this includes "civilian" animals who are the first to suffer hardships and die on the home front so that the humans can survive.

When I was a girl and my parents would drag me to museums against my whiny will, I would find myself riveted by the gigantic tapestries on the walls of castles depicting intricate war scenes and inevitably featuring horses, twisted and bleeding on the ground, intenstines falling out of giant gashes, eyes wide and mouths open in a final scream. Those dying horses moved me far more than the dying people, I suppose because their sole volition was to serve their masters.
I am glad there is finally a memorial statue dedicated to the animals that were made to suffer so greatly during the American Civil War.

That's a beautiful statue, suprisingly realistic despite the sabre, I think. The horse really looks as starved and ridden half into the ground as the ones he's honoring must have looked.

[Dragoon]

Except for the Colt Dragoon. And, perhaps his carbine.

Sorry, but you're wrong there. The Dragoon models were never made in that great a number and were not issued during the CW. By then they were completely obsolete. Saddle holsters were carried on a General's horse in parades and such like and even then they probably held his liquor or or toilet paper or something like that.

The two models of revolver that were most commonly issued were the 1860 Colt Army .44 and the really superb, technically advanced and superior 1858 Remington New Model Army, with the Colt being the most common sidearm because of Colt's marketing skills - nothing more. The revolver was worn on the right side (opposite the saber) in a holster on the sword belt with the butt end facing forward.

The carbine was worn hanging from a wide leather sling, crossing from left to right on the right (same side as the revolver). The carbine attached to the sling by a neat little steel latching device from where the modern carabinier (sp?) derives from. All carbines of that era had a steel ring about in the middle and on the left side of the piece and that's where the sling's carbine hook attached.

The barrel of the carbine went through a little leather device on the side of the saddle, called a thimble, to keep it from swinging. If the trooper should become unhorsed and if the horse should run away, the thimble would break away and he would still have all his arms on his person.

If you would like to see pictures of my neet-oh equipment, I'd be glad to post them.

[Dingfod]

I know I was wrong about the Colt Dragoon, you already set me straight on that before. Also, I didn't really mean to derail. But, if Hannibal had carbines or even Colt Dragoons he'd have kicked some Roman ass.

[Ymir's blood]

Supposedly in the Great War, sheep were driven through mine fields to clear them. However that really isn't any crueler than making someone go 'over the top.'

[Gurdur]

Here we go, finally.
In the battle of Raphia the Seleucids fielded 102 Indian elephants against 73 African elephants, fielded by the Ptolemys. Although Antiochus III (of the Seleucids) lost the battle, his Indian elephants defeated the smaller African ones, thus proving their superiority, in the greatest elephant battle of the western world (west of India, that is).

Info given to me on another board. IMHO, the poster is wrong about the "superiority"; the loss of the battle had to do with other factors, and I personally would prefer the African elephants.

[John Carter]

That seems rather dodgy. I could be wrong, but aren't African elephants generally larger than Asian elephants?

[Gurdur]

That seems rather dodgy. I could be wrong, but aren't African elephants generally larger than Asian elephants?
It's dodgy in all sorts of ways, but I will look up the info as soon as I can myself on that battle.
In any case, the African Bush elephants used there (now extinct) may have been very slightly smaller than well-fed Indian ones, though I doubt it.
Let me get back to you on this one, OK ?

[Godless Dave]

I assume pigs were once a deadly enemy of horses in evolutionary times. My guess is that here in North America they shared some common environmental elements and their behavior is a strong instinctual reaction.

Not sure about your second sentence, as horses have only been in North America for 500 years. Not sure when pigs got here.

Wild boars can be pretty fearsome; it wouldn't surprise me if they went after foals sometimes.

[John Carter]

I assume pigs were once a deadly enemy of horses in evolutionary times. My guess is that here in North America they shared some common environmental elements and their behavior is a strong instinctual reaction.

Not sure about your second sentence, as horses have only been in North America for 500 years. Not sure when pigs got here.

Wild boars can be pretty fearsome; it wouldn't surprise me if they went after foals sometimes.

Horses were reintroduced to North America about 500 years ago. They actually evolved there, then went extinct on this continent.

[JoeP]

When I was a girl and my parents would drag me to museums against my whiny will,
You were a whiny girl? I can NOT believe it.
:control:
^
|
+-- livius's ideal parents

[livius drusus]

I could be wrong, but aren't African elephants generally larger than Asian elephants?

Assuming African brush elephants are the same animal as African forest elephants, the link (http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/elephant-war.htm) Gurd posted earlier indicates that they were in fact smaller than Asian elephants. Not much, but enough to be noticeable, I think.


Details of the Asian Elephant

* Shoulder height: 2,5 to 3 m
* Body length: 5,5 to 6,5 m
* Weight: up to 5 t
* Typical features:
1. Noticeable bulges on the forehead
2. Front and hind legs of nearly equal length
3. Five hooves on each front foot, four on each hind foot
4. Medium-sized ears, with the upper and inner edges folded over
5. Only one finger on the tip of the trunk
6. Females carry underdeveloped tusks or none at all. Many males are without tusks as well. Male Ceylon elephants are generally tusk-less.
7. Pale gray skin, changing to reddish pink flesh along the trunk, throat, chest and belly.


Details of the African Forest Elephant

* Shoulder height: up to 2.35 m
* Typical features:
1. Flat forehead
2. Front legs noticeably longer than hind legs
3. Four hooves on each front foot, three on each hind foot
4. Small round ears
5. Two opposite fingers on the trunk
6. Females and males carry large tusks.
7. Slate blue grey skin, coloured pale brown by dirt and dust.

[Gurdur]

Okkkkaaaaaaay, here we go.
AFAIK, this wasthe one and only battle in history where African elephants faced off against Indian elephants.
The Battle of Raphia, also known as the Battle of Gaza, (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Battle-of-Raphia) was a battle of the Syrian Wars between Ptolemy IV of Egypt and Antiochus III the Great of the Seleucid kingdom. Fought on 22 June 217 BC near Gaza. Ptolemy had 70,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry, and 73 war elephants. Antiochus had 62,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry, and 103 elephants.

The kings split their elephants between the wings of their army. Each army's right wing defeated the opposing left wing and drove it from the field, leaving the Egyptian phalanx to defeat the Seleucid infantry. Ptolemy's victory kept the province of Syria for Egypt but it was only a brief respite; at the Battle of Paneas in 198 BC Antiochus defeated Ptolemy and captured Palestine and Syria.
So it looks to me on a cursory glance that the elephants and horse cavalry on each side cancelled each other out, leaving the battle to be decided by the foot-sloggers.

[Gurdur]

Much more, more detailed, information on the Battle Of Raphia, a.k.a. the Battle Of Gaza (http://fanaticus.org/dba/battles/raphia217bc.html)
.......Both parties deployed their armies with the phalanx forming the center and cavalry on both wings providing protection. On the flanks, both sides placed elephants to screen and break the formation of the charging enemy cavalry. The elephants in turn where supported by archers and peltasts.
Battle opened with Antiochus' 60 elephants on his right charging Ptolemy's 40 on the left. Ptolemy's smaller African elephants gave way, disturbing his left wing. Once the elephants were dealt with, Antiochus rode around Ptolemy's left wing and began attacking it from the flank, putting it to rout. Antiochus III then pursued the fleeing forces off the field of battle.
However, Ptolemy had not lost the battle yet. Although his left wing had been swept away, he decided to attack with his right wing. Ptolemy sent his cavalry forward to lure away the opposing Indian elephants. Once the opposing elephants were out-maneuvered, the remaining Ptolemaic elephants together with the Ptolemaic right wing moved forward and successfully pushed back Antiochus' left.
The battle now reached its climax with each right wing having defeated the opposing left wing and pursued it off the field, leaving the phalanxes alone to decide the issue......
......
.....
Polybius, in his description of the Battle of Raphia mentions that the Egyptian elephant was smaller than the Indian elephant. This has lead to a storm of controversy in historical circles, as the reverse is in fact true. In recent years, it has been shown that there is a species of elephants known as the forest elephant that was common in North Africa of Polybius' day but is now extinct. As Ptolemy was denied access to Indian elephants greater use was made of the local smaller African elephant.

During his account of the battle, Polybius gives a livid description of elephants fighting each other. They met head on with tusks interlocked. Each pushed with all its weight, trying to compel the other to give ground. Finally the stronger would force the weaker oneís trunk to one side and then gore him in the exposed flank.

[livius drusus]

When I was a girl and my parents would drag me to museums against my whiny will,
You were a whiny girl? I can NOT believe it.

Hmph. I was sheer joy as a daughter, and I have proof, too: To this day my dad still calls me Peaches and Cream.

:control:

^
|
+-- livius's ideal parents


Oh hesh you. At least use the lovely new symbols I uploaded a week or so ago. :^: :V: :larrow: :rarrow:

[Dragoon]

... ... ...
Horses were reintroduced to North America about 500 years ago. They actually evolved there, then went extinct on this continent.

Right.

It seems that horses, along with most of the mega-fauna of N.A., went extinct sometime after 11,000 years ago. The leading speculations are, over hunting (unlikely, IMHO), change in climate, change in flora, plague organisms.

Below is a artist's view of what Death Valley looked like during a period in the Pleistocene when rainfall was more abundant and the evaporation rate wasn't so high. There was a huge lake there (lake Manly) and connections with non-basin waterways as the surviving pup fish attest to. As you can see, the artist included horses, the remains of which are pretty common.

It was to see scenes like that I went to Africa and I wasn't disappointed (vast understatement). In a absurd sentimental way, I sure wish we still had the mega-fauna here in California.

Regarding African War Elephants: It has been my understanding that the only tameable African elephants were the (now extinct) ones found in North Africa. The ones I encountered on horseback in northern Tanzania were sure sour tempered critters. They didn't seem to mind when we rode close (having poor eyesight), but when the trunk went up and they caught a whiff of us humans, it was time to get out of there - fast. I sure wouldn't want to try to tame one of those most dangerous animals.

Perhaps somebody has seen otherwise, but I've never seen an African elephant in a parade or circus.

... ... ...
But, if Hannibal had carbines or even Colt Dragoons he'd have kicked some Roman ass.

Kind of fun to speculate about these things, but unless a significant portion of his men were equipped with them and they had the technology to produce ammunition and they knew how to use and care for the weapons and if they changed their tactics to take advantage of the differences between the firearm and the bows and slings and other missile weapons then in use, maybe small arms would have made some difference.

There are so many "IF's" that I tend to doubt having small arms would have made a decisive difference in any of the battles.

Now, if Hannibal’s elephants were pulling a couple dozen rifled Parrot guns and 3 inch ordnance rifles and 12 pounder Napoleons and he had trained crews with the ammunition to work them and he had an artillery officer who knew how to use them against massed troops, well, we might be speaking a language heavily influenced by North African rather than Latin.

[Gurdur]

.... couple dozen rifled Parrot guns and 3 inch ordnance rifles and 12 pounder Napoleons ....
Oooooooer.
We just so have to do a thread on the American Civil War and all the alternate histories / scenarios.
Best regards,
Gurdur, a fan of Civil War Generals II.
a language heavily influenced by North African rather than Latin.
yaaaaaar. Came close a couple of times. Cartheginian being a Semitic language, our grammar would have chnaged remarkably too.

Mind you, in southern Italy there are still 3 villages where they still speak a Greek dialect.

[Crumb]

This is a great thread guys. I have learned so much! :eleride:

[Dragoon]

We just so have to do a thread on the American Civil War and all the alternate histories / scenarios.
Best regards,
Gurdur, a fan of Civil War Generals II...
Hey! I'm up for it!

I'm not much into alternate histories and with regard to the American CW, I'm very glad it turned out the way it did. On the other hand, sometimes I just wish we could concentrate all the confederate-flag-in-the-pickup-truck-rear-window rednecks, the most obnoxious fundamentalists, the white supremacists, the neo-conservatives, the neo-nazis and the neo-confederates there in Texas, give it to Tom DeLay and then tell them to go to hell. :fuming:


I can dream, can't I?

[Dragoon]

:eleride:
Crumb, you come up with the best smilies! :bow:

Obviously you create them yourself - am I right? What software do you use?

Just checked your Hall of Champions. I'm impressed.

[Crumb]

:eleride:
Crumb, you come up with the best smilies! :bow:

Obviously you create them yourself - am I right? What software do you use?

Just checked your Hall of Champions. I'm impressed.

They aren't my smilies. They are the :ff:'s smilies. I just use and appreciate them. I haven't made any of my own yet. I am thinking about trying a particular one though. In case you don't know, click on the "more" link at the bottom of the smilie panel to find all the :ff: smilies.

It is liv who is responsible for collecting them, not I. Your praise should go to her.

[Gurdur]

..... It has been my understanding that the only tameable African elephants were the (now extinct) ones found in North Africa. The ones I encountered on horseback in northern Tanzania were sure sour tempered critters. They didn't seem to mind when we rode close (having poor eyesight), but when the trunk went up and they caught a whiff of us humans, it was time to get out of there - fast. I sure wouldn't want to try to tame one of those most dangerous animals...
---> Dragoon:

Out of interest, when and where were you in Tanzania, BTW ?

I grew up there; I spent the years 1-12 there, mostly in the empty dry highlands (round Kilimitinde), occasionally down near the lake (Tabora) or coast (Kilwa) and in the dry hinterlands (Iringa, Dodoma, Kongwa).
_______________________

---> everyone:

it's quite true that African elephants are usually never trained, but there have been in fact training programs and one training station that I know of.
African elephants are a slightly-less domesticable species than the Indian one, and moreover they are one that can very easily learn (from experience, e.g. poachers) caution around and anger towards humans, but even so, they can still sometimes be domesticated if you put the effort into it.

[JoeP]

When I was a girl and my parents would drag me to museums against my whiny will,
You were a whiny girl? I can NOT believe it.

Hmph. I was sheer joy as a daughter, and I have proof, too: To this day my dad still calls me Peaches and Cream.

:control:

:^:
+- livius's ideal parents


Oh hesh you. At least use the lovely new symbols I uploaded a week or so ago. :^: :V: :larrow: :rarrow:
My bad, peaches and cream (what's that in italian? pesce e crema?)

[livius drusus]

Pesche e crema (pesce is fish :giggle:), but he stuck to the English.

[JoeP]

Would you have minded being called "fishes and cream"? :innocent2:

[livius drusus]

Not everyone shares your ichthyfilia, ya know. Now, back to the topic please, sir. :P

[Dragoon]

... ... ...

It is liv who is responsible for collecting them, not I. Your praise should go to her.

Well then:
Te Livius Drusus Laudamus!

(I think I said that right.)

... When I was a girl and my parents would drag me to museums against my whiny will, I would find myself riveted by the gigantic tapestries on the walls of castles depicting intricate war scenes and inevitably featuring horses, twisted and bleeding on the ground, intenstines falling out of giant gashes, eyes wide and mouths open in a final scream. Those dying horses moved me far more than the dying people, I suppose because their sole volition was to serve their masters.

You were so lucky to have had parents who obviously thought it was important to expose their child to culture and learning. You were lucky too that they realized that you would get over your initial dislike and the experiences would likely become an important foundation of learning later on not to mention a constant source of pleasure.

Mine were exceptionally well educated, but not at all fond of museums and didn't take us to any. However my exceedingly poor grade school did take us on a couple of field trips to museums and the contrast between them and the impoverished learning environment at the school itself was startling to me. To this day I am a museum-a-holic. Matter of fact, I'm a docent at our little Natural History Museum once a week for a couple of hours.

You are right about the portrayal of dead and maimed horses causing an outpouring of sympathy and sorrow. It's the pictures of beasts, all innocent and ignorant of the foolishnesses of their human masters, that seems to stick in my mind. There's a famous (I believe) Mathew Bradey after battle photo of a dead horse on it's side with an apparent look of pathos and blame that really affected the general public.

I am so used to thinking of my ownership of my guys as a stewardship and a sacred responsibility to not let them be sick or hurt, it just kind of boggles my mind how the cruel necessities of war makes us put their innocent lives to naught.

[Dragoon]

---> Dragoon:

Out of interest, when and where were you in Tanzania, BTW ?

I grew up there; I spent the years 1-12 there, mostly in the empty dry highlands (round Kilimitinde), occasionally down near the lake (Tabora) or coast (Kilwa) and in the dry hinterlands (Iringa, Dodoma, Kongwa).
_______________________

---> everyone:

it's quite true that African elephants are usually never trained, but there have been in fact training programs and one training station that I know of.
African elephants are a slightly-less domesticable species than the Indian one, and moreover they are one that can very easily learn (from experience, e.g. poachers) caution around and anger towards humans, but even so, they can still sometimes be domesticated if you put the effort into it.

Last time I was there was almost three years ago (hard to believe, seems like last year) for that nearly disasterous trek out to Lake Natron. You no doubt know that Lake Natron is between Kilimanjaro and Lake Victoria.

I've been to northern Tanzania twice, the first time was nearly 5 years ago. In both cases we started on the west side of Mt. Maru, around from Arusha.

First time we rode north and then east until we were north of Kilimanjaro and below the (Kenyan) Amboseli N.P. just on the border with Kenya (we were probably over it much of the time out there). Man, that's where we ran into all the hostile elephants. I never saw the camp steward look so scared as when it looked like the elephants were going to take over our camp. When I saw him look scared, I got scared too. By the way, there were plenty of poachers out there.

I never got much further south or east than the Tarangire (sp?) N.P. nor did I quite get to Lake Victoria. I did eat Nile Perch out of the lake though.

Man, I loved what I saw of Tanzania and it has completely spoiled me for the rest of the world. Even my latest trip to Death Valley with the Geology Department (an outstanding trip), I kept comparing it (unfavorably) with my journey to Lake Natron. Everything in Africa is 10 times bigger than anywhere else, but still, I'm happy where I'm at here in beautiful California.

I'm an OK horse shoe-er (if I say so myself) although an amateur. Lately I wrote the safari people to see if they could put together another expedition to Lake Natron, but this time we'd do it right with me taking care of the horses' feet. Tourism is so down, they are pretty much out of business now so it looks like I'll never do that again. :( Still, I'd sure like to see Africa again.

With regard to training African Elephants. Wow, I know how dangerous it can be to train wild horses and how they can have you a bag of broken bones in an instant. I also remember how angry the elephants would get when they smelled us and how everybody had to be good riders so as to not fall off and be stepped on when galloping away. BTW, it was so much fun knowing the horses could easily outrun the elephants (kind of like playing tag - mine (Coo-gah, AKA Cougar) could outrun the zebras too and that was a hoot!), but I was constantly worried about getting trapped by a wall of thorn bushes.

That reminds me of something though. The year before, Jan, the camp steward, had pulled a baby elephant out of a deep water hole with his Land Rover. This was the same place where we went to collect water for the horses (unfit for humans, but good for the horses). I guess the little creature behaved itself well enough and then trotted off to find its lost mom - it was hoped. BTW the day Jan and I went for the water, Jan lost the bucket down the well and when he went down to get it with his toes, he couldn’t get out of the well either. I had to throw him the bucket’s rope and drag him out just like the elephant except I didn’t have to use the Land Rover.

[livius drusus]

Well then:
Te Livius Drusus Laudamus!

(I think I said that right.)

I wouldn't know if it was grammatically correct, but neither would I care. Thank you kindly. :thankee:

You were so lucky to have had parents who obviously thought it was important to expose their child to culture and learning. You were lucky too that they realized that you would get over your initial dislike and the experiences would likely become an important foundation of learning later on not to mention a constant source of pleasure.


That's absolutely true. They just patted my head, listened to me bitch about my feet being tired and showed me something beautiful. They did the same thing with opera too, which I stubbornly insisted on hating until I turned 16 and all of the sudden discovered a deep-down appreciation for.

Mine were exceptionally well educated, but not at all fond of museums and didn't take us to any. However my exceedingly poor grade school did take us on a couple of field trips to museums and the contrast between them and the impoverished learning environment at the school itself was startling to me. To this day I am a museum-a-holic. Matter of fact, I'm a docent at our little Natural History Museum once a week for a couple of hours.

I love a good museum. Hell, most of the time I love a bad museum too. You might enjoy perusing this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=145) back from the dawn of the FF.

You are right about the portrayal of dead and maimed horses causing an outpouring of sympathy and sorrow. It's the pictures of beasts, all innocent and ignorant of the foolishnesses of their human masters, that seems to stick in my mind. There's a famous (I believe) Mathew Bradey after battle photo of a dead horse on it's side with an apparent look of pathos and blame that really affected the general public.

I'd love to see it if you can find it anywhere on the web. A quick Google on Brady and horse returned far too many results.

[Gurdur]

....Man, I loved what I saw of Tanzania and it has completely spoiled me for the rest of the world.
Tell me about it, tell me about it.

I was in the poorest regions most of the time, and shared several times in semi-famines, as well as the hordes of pests, diseases and whatnot, and I'll miss it very badly indeed to my dying day.
It's even worse, since I spent in essence my entire childhood there --- and the Tanzania of my childhood no longer exists, eaten away by development etc. So I have an incurable homesickness, always present.
Everything in Africa is 10 times bigger than anywhere else,
Exactly.
Parts of Australia, notably the far West Australian Outback, approach East Africa in size of horizont, but even so, even so.
Tourism is so down, they are pretty much out of business now so it looks like I'll never do that again.
A while ago a diving company was doing tours to Kilwa --when I can afford it, I plan to find out if they're still active, and then go on one.
Kilwa is fantastic for the ruins there, let alone the bloody diving.

[JoeP]

Not everyone shares your ichthyfilia, ya know. Now, back to the topic please, sir. :P
OK.
<table border=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr bgcolor=#0000ff><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr bgcolor=#0000dd><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td>:redfish: :redfish: :redfish:</td><td>:ofish: :ofish: :ofish:</td><td>:bfish: :bfish: :bfish:</td><td>:bfish: :bfish: :bfish:</td><td>:ofish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :ofish:</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr bgcolor=#0000bb><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td>:redfish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td>:ofish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :ofish:</td><td>:bfish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :bfish:</td><td>:bfish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :bfish:</td><td>:ofish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :ofish:</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr bgcolor=#000099><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td>:redfish: :redfish: :redfish:</td><td>:ofish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :ofish:</td><td>:bfish: :bfish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td>:bfish: :bfish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :ofish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr bgcolor=#000077><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :redfish:</td><td>:ofish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :ofish:</td><td>:bfish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :bfish:</td><td>:bfish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :bfish:</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :ofish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr bgcolor=#000055><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td>:redfish: :redfish: :redfish:</td><td>:ofish: :ofish: :ofish:</td><td>:bfish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :bfish:</td><td>:bfish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :bfish:</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :ofish: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr bgcolor=#000033><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</td></tr>
</table>

[The Lone Ranger]

During World War II, the U.S. Navy actually experimented with the notion of "bat bombs." It was called "Project X-Ray." The idea was to capture a whole bunch of bats, cool them down so that they went into torpor, attach small incendiary devices, and then drop them over major Japanese cities. They figured that the bats, upon being released over Japanese cities, would immediately fly into buildings to seek shelter. A few minutes later, the devices they were carrying would go off, and pretty soon the cities would be in flames.

They actually went so far as to test the idea. Supposedly, on one of the first tests, a bunch of spooked bats flew into a few important buildings, which subsequently burned down. The project was soon abandoned.

Cheers,

Michael