A summary of carthaginian infantry development?

[DBS]

They seem to have been armed as hoplites throughout Carthage's history.

But were they?  I don't know but I'm interested to find out.  My wargamer knowledge (as discussed by Andreas in another context recently) told me they were always hoplites.  However, dual-purpose spears and long shields seems to be a popular interpretation by the time of the 2nd Punic War these days.

No, we do not know.

1) There is no mention of Hannibal deploying citizen infantry in either Spain or Italy.  The chaps he takes to Italy all seem to be allies/subjects/mercenaries, and possibly more professional than Roman legionaries of that time.  Certainly by the time one gets to Cannae they probably have as much experience and professionalism as anyone in the Mediterranean.

2) The citizens at Krimisos are described in terms that sound as if they are relatively equivalent to "hoplites" - heavy armour, heavy shield, close order formation - but that was over a century earlier and ended very badly for them.  The disaster is highlighted as a disaster precisely because the Carthaginian citizenry itself has suffered mass casualties rather than allied/subject/mercenary troops.  It is a leap of faith to assume that citizen troops sent out during the "hoplite" era set the pattern for citizen troops mobilised long after the hoplite has faded from fashion elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Ditto for the citizens of the Spanish colonies that had to face Scipio.  By any measure, none of these class as professionals or long-term soldiery.

3) Ah, Xanthippus the Spartan reformed the army to beat Regulus, must have had hoplites!  And the Carthaginian army had a phalanx in the battle!  Problem is that "phalanx" just means close-order infantry.  (And "hoplite" can simply mean a close formation infantryman.)  And some of that phalanx, the bit that suffered the heaviest casualties, was specifically mercenaries.  So do we have to assume mercenary hoplites at a time when there is not much evidence for them anywhere else...?

Even if citizen infantry are "hoplites" - perhaps "hoplite-light" ha, ha - does that mean that Libyan infantry are?

Roman line relief is irrelevant to Hannibal's veterans - it is never suggested anywhere in the sources that rearming them with Roman kit suddenly means that they adopted the quincunx formation.  Decent body armour, captured shields to replace those rather battered after a few years in the field, possibly swords, spears, or pila, all valuable items after equipment attrition since they left Spain or better than the kit with which most of them set out.  Not much difference between the pilum and some of the Iberian heavy javelins.  Maybe they did practise line relief - but there is absolutely no evidence of that.  Furthermore, the veterans are assumed to have been a very motley bunch ethnically by the time of Zama, yet seem to have fought as an homogenous force, so it clearly was not difficult for Libyans, Spaniards, Bruttians, possibly even Gauls, to fight in the same manner.  At what point does one deem them to have become "professional" - clearly they were sixteen years after some of them entered Italy, but when?

Also, one might note that a Roman, when he got a bit long in the tooth, was expected to transition seamlessly from fighting in the principes with pila and a sword, to fighting in the triarii with a spear.  Does not seem to have bothered them.  And they were not professionals, just called up when needed.

I stand to be corrected by Duncan!

[Duncan Head]

They seem to have been armed as hoplites throughout Carthage's history.

It is a bit unlikely that they were armed as hoplites when Carthage was founded in 814 BC, since the hoplite hadn't been invented yet.

There seems to be no good evidence for their being armed as hoplites before the 4th century; and even that depends partly on an interpretation of whether the "huge shields", "aspidas te megalas", they carried at the Krimisos were simply unusually large Argive aspides, or whether the adjective indicates that they were of a different type altogether, larger than the Greek style. If so, it seems possible that it was the demonstration of the superiority of Greek arms at Krimisos that led to the Carthaginian adoption of the hoplite; there are representations of soldiers with hoplite shields in Punic art, but I don't think any of them can be firmly dated before the 340s.

(You could, at that point, tell Greek from Carthaginian shields at a distance; we know this from the Carthaginian admiral Hanno who "decorated his triremes with purple battle-flags and Greek shields", pretending he had captured the shields from the Corinthians. But that could, I suppose, be simply a question of shield designs.)

Only Hannibal equipped his Carthaginian foot as legionaries in Italy; if you adopt your opponent's arms you adopt his tactics which leads to the question of Carthaginian line relief, something we won't go into here. Certainly back in North Africa Hannibal's troops showed no inkling of Roman tactics: the citizen infantry who had been trained at Carthage and joined Hannibal only a few days before Zama had no clue about line relief, even though the Carthaginian infantry were deployed in multiple lines (why Hannibal deployed his infantry in multiple lines is another topic entirely). I suspect the citizen infantry were armed and trained in the good old way as hoplites.

The alternative interpretation is that the ribbed oval thureoi/scuta carried on warships on pre-Hannibalic coins from Gades indicate that the oval shield had replaced the round one before the invasion of Italy. If so we don't know when or who by, but Hamilcar Barca's mobile guerilla campaigns in Sicily in the last years of the First Roman War would be a tempting possibility.

If that is what happened, any change might have affected only the Barcid army overseas, not the domestic militia. It's all a bit speculative - but so is the idea that they stayed as hoplites. I shall be interested to see what the forthcoming Pen & Sword book makes of it.

I see I am crossing with David. but I don't think we disagree fundamentally.

[Justin Swanton]

They seem to have been armed as hoplites throughout Carthage's history.

But were they?  I don't know but I'm interested to find out.  My wargamer knowledge (as discussed by Andreas in another context recently) told me they were always hoplites.  However, dual-purpose spears and long shields seems to be a popular interpretation by the time of the 2nd Punic War these days.

True. I can't find any reference anywhere that Hannibal's Africans were armed specifically as hoplites, just something one always assumes. Does anyone have any input on the subject?

Edit: just seen Duncan's post.

[Justin Swanton]

@ Duncan and David: Very good, so it's up in the air. Given that Carthage hired all manner of troop types as mercenaries it can be argued that their domestic soldiery would have experimented with the panoplies of those mercenaries. Plus the fact that armies tend to imitate successful neighbours. But it seems clear that whatever the Africans were outfitted with before Cannae they were still easily distinguishable from Romans since Polybius emphasises the fact that they wore Roman kit: "The armour of the Libyans was Roman, for Hannibal had armed them with a selection of the spoils taken in previous battles." - Histories:  3.114

[Duncan Head]

But it seems clear that whatever the Africans were outfitted with before Cannae they were still easily distinguishable from Romans since Polybius emphasises the fact that they wore Roman kit: "The armour of the Libyans was Roman, for Hannibal had armed them with a selection of the spoils taken in previous battles." - Histories:  3.114

That may just indicate better equipment of the same basic type, of course, nowhere does he say that the armour of the Africans before Cannae was not Roman!

I suspect they marched into Italy with oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour. But it is no more than a suspicion.

[Justin Swanton]

But it seems clear that whatever the Africans were outfitted with before Cannae they were still easily distinguishable from Romans since Polybius emphasises the fact that they wore Roman kit: "The armour of the Libyans was Roman, for Hannibal had armed them with a selection of the spoils taken in previous battles." - Histories:  3.114

That may just indicate better equipment of the same basic type, of course, nowhere does he say that the armour of the Africans before Cannae was not Roman!

I suspect they marched into Italy with oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour. But it is no more than a suspicion.

I'll settle for don't know.   All we really know about them pre-Cannae is that they were no better at stopping Roman infantry at the Trebia than the Gauls were, which implies they had inferior armament, though whether inferior in size or type is up for debate. I'm guessing Hannibal tried using them to close the egress at Trasimere, with no better success. By Zama they were on a par with veteran legionaries, perhaps even a little better since Polybius implies they were winning the final stage of the infantry battle before the return of the Roman cavalry: "Being nearly equal in numbers, spirit, courage, and arms, the battle was for a long time undecided, the men in their obstinate valour falling dead without giving way a step; until at last the divisions of Massanissa and Laelius, returning from the pursuit, arrived providentially in the very nick of time." - Histories: 15.14

[LawrenceG]

2022

I suspect they marched into Italy with oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour. But it is no more than a suspicion.

2023

Duncan Head said he suspected they marched into Italy with oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour.

2024

Duncan head said they marched into Italy with oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour.

2025

It's a well-known fact that Carthaginian infantry had oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour.

2026

All new figure designs for Carthaginian infantry have oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour.

[Duncan Head]

I'm not sure my views - at least outside of print - have quite that much influence. Once again, let's see what the forthcoming Pen & Sword book has to say.

[Erpingham]

I'm not sure my views - at least outside of print - have quite that much influence.

I don't know Duncan - I spotted information being added to the wikipedia Cataphract page using you as the authority just the other day 

[Erpingham]

Returning to this, I note that Duncan has now read the Pen and Sword book mentioned* but it doesn't answer the equipment and organisation questions.  So all seems as in the air as ever. Disappointing.

*Joshua R Hall, Carthage at War: Punic Armies c. 814-146 BC