The army had no regimental structure and the soldiers were not directly recruited by the emperor. Although its origins, like the Mughals themselves, were in the cavalry-based armies of central Asia, its essential form and structure was established by the empire's third emperor, Akbar. The Army of the Mughal Empire was the force by which the Mughal emperors established their empire in the 16th century and expanded it to its greatest extent at the beginning of the 18th century. As such generals would probably turn away elephants as a weapon without thinking about them much for that reason.Great Mughal And His Court Returning From The Great Mosque At Delhi India вЂ“ Oil Painting by American Artist Edwin Lord Weeks The simple truth is the elephant was probably part of a deep seated childhood fear of every Roman about an unstoppable enemy coming over the Seventh Hill of Rome and even if the elephant could be used more than it was, few Romans would probably feel comfortable utilizing the terror weapon of their most feared and hated enemy Hannibal Barca of Carthage. After Hannibal until the end of the Western Roman Empire, if one follows Roman Senate proceedings, Roman writings, or even Roman public graffiti, if one was trying to evoke fear in every level of Roman society the normal go to was Hannibal, his elephants at the Gates of Rome. Pathological fear of all things Hannibal. Which would make them a liability to the Roman military system.Д¤. Elephants need more food, better roads, stronger bridges, and probably could not keep a steady daily foot pace by Roman standards. Romans were not likely to take a weapon into combat that would be difficult to keep moving at their faster than average foot speed for a Classical World army. Elephant cavalry probably would have seemed like an off fit for their style of tactical combat.ДЈ. Romans had a way they fought which was very regimented and demanded certain sorts of complimentary units to fill in gaps.

Which would make them a one off weapon where some Emperor, Consul, or General might use them once or twice and then effectively have to disband the unit he'd created.Дў. Not a lot of regional elephants to work with and even if they did something with them replacements would be hard to come by. Probably came down to a few factors like.ДЎ. The Sassanid elephant corps was never on the same scale as others further east, however, and after the fall of the Sassanid empire the use of war elephants died out in the region. The elephant corps was under a special chief, known as the Zendв€’hapet, or 'Commander of the Indians,' either because the animals came from that country, or because they were managed by natives of Hindustan. The Sassanid elephant corps held primacy amongst the Sassanid cavalry forces and was recruited from India. Another example is the Battle of al-QДЃdisiyyah of 636 AD, in which a unit of thirty-three elephants was used, albeit less successfully, against the invading Arab forces. One of the most memorable engagements was the Battle of Vartanantz in 451 AD, at which the Sassanid elephants terrified the Armenians. The Parthian dynasty of Persia occasionally used war elephants in their battles against the Roman Empire but elephants were of substantial importance in the army of the subsequent Sassanid dynasty.The Sassanids employed the animals in many of their campaigns against their western enemies. However this type of elephant became scarce not to long after and then extinct some time during the Roman era - so as PEP noted they would have to get African elephants from south of the Sahara (very dangerous not fully tamable) or Indian Elephants (have to pass through Persia - mortal enemy of Rome for centuries) All in all not worth fooling with. Also there was a species of elephant that lived in North Africa north of the Sahara desert - this is the type that the Carthaginians used. A lot of Roman fighting took place in areas where elephants wouldn't have fared well anyway for climate reasons but where horses were perfectly suitable. Finally elephants and horses don't get along very well, so generally speaking you have to pick one or the other. The Romans didn't have either of those situations so it wasn't worth having them. If your society has a lot of surplus food, or is close to large jungle areas where you can essentially allow the elephants to graze in areas that don't grow food for people then their benefits may outweigh their costs. Critically they eat enormous amounts of food. Look through various historical texts and you will rarely find any situations where the presence or absence of elephants on one side or the other was important to the outcome of a battle. They simply aren't terribly useful in combat.

Empire total war elephants