I don't think anyone doubted the story. The details might be questionable, but the basics that he tried to fight with elephants is highly likely. We have plenty of sources for War Elephants in his time, so the idea that he didn't have them would be the larger surprise if someone could prove that.
but the basics that he tried to fight with elephants is highly likely. We have plenty of sources for War Elephants in his time, so the idea that he didn't have them would be the larger surprise if someone could prove that.
Just to add to your point: Many many cultures have used elephants in their armies, so the only real bone of contention (oh god I do love my puns) would have been that Hannibal was using them on the European continent.
It's more like, the surviving written histories and the archaeological record are each giving us only a part of the real truth. It's as if they're both grasping in the dark at two different parts of the same elephant.
Comments
score yet another win for the stories of antiquity being more right than wrong.
I don't think anyone doubted the story. The details might be questionable, but the basics that he tried to fight with elephants is highly likely. We have plenty of sources for War Elephants in his time, so the idea that he didn't have them would be the larger surprise if someone could prove that.
Just to add to your point: Many many cultures have used elephants in their armies, so the only real bone of contention (oh god I do love my puns) would have been that Hannibal was using them on the European continent.
It's more like, the surviving written histories and the archaeological record are each giving us only a part of the real truth. It's as if they're both grasping in the dark at two different parts of the same elephant.
I think it would be more accurate to say "based upon true events".