I'm wondering if I might have come across the point at which point the Carthaginians stared putting some emphasis on Cavalry
The figures are from Dio Sic (All bar the last are from armies in Sicily)
409BC 200000 infantry 4000 cavalry
396BC 300000 infantry 4000 cavalry 400 chariots
345BC 50000 infantry no cavalry 300 chariots "2000 extra teams" Dio Sic 16 67
341BC 70000 infantry 'cavalry' 'chariots' "extra teams of horses amounting to not less than ten thousand" Dio Sic 16 77
311BC 40,000 infantry 5000 cavalry
310BC 40000 infantry 1000 cavalry 2000 chariots (This was in Africa facing Agathocles, a somewhat hastily raised army)
Whilst it's obvious that the early figures for infantry are 'inflated' (but might include the crews of the fleet transporting the army to Sicily) the cavalry figures remain steady.
The anomaly is the two entries for the campaign which led up to the Battle of Crimissus. We see figures for 'extra teams of horses"
Has anybody got a decent Greek translation of what this term is?
2000 extra teams seems a lot for 300 chariots, as for 10,000 teams! Especially when the largest number of Chariots we have is 2000 and that's not far from Carthage
I'm wondering if they were cavalry horses
But even without this, it looks as if the 3rd Sicilian war (the one against Agathocles) is the one where the Carthaginian army started showing a comparatively high proportion of cavalry.
I'm wondering whether we can link the first appearance of Numidian cavalry in any numbers to Crimissus (which fits in with the date on the army list 8) )
Let us see what we can do ...
What we have for the 341 BC listing is:
hippeis de kai harmata kai sunōridas ouk elattous tōn muriōn
My reading of this is:
cavalry (hippeis) and (de kai) chariots (harmata) and (kai) two-horse teams (sunōridas, which could just mean 'team' generally but usually signifies a pair) not less than (ouk elattous) ten thousand (tōn muriōn, literally 'a myriad')
This I would interpret as the cavalry plus the chariots equals at least ten thousand in total, but whether this is the total number of horses or of cavalry plus chariots plus horse teams (which could add up to the same amount) is unclear.
I think you would be justified in interpreting this as either:
1) More chariots than usual, or
2) More cavalry than usual.
In effect, Diodorus has the Carthaginian army consisting of 70,000 infantry and not less than 10,000 mounted troops.
Going back to XVI.67, we have:
harmata de triakosia, sunōridas de huper tas diskhilias
which we can recognise as 300 chariots, more than 2,000 'sunōridas' - and here the 'sunoridas', which do not match up with the chariots, seem at a loose end and there is no mention of cavalry. Care to guess that Diodorus might have put 'sunōridas' where he meant 'hippeis'? That would give 300 chariots and 2,000 cavalry (or maybe even 4,000 cavalry if he was counting in pairs).
Returning to XVI.77, we come to guesswork time.
My guess is that the Carthaginians would not have undertaken an order of magnitude increase in chariot strength as of 341 BC: the armies for which we have figures fielded chariots in the hundred, and I suspect that in an era where the popularity of the chariot was on the wane Carthage would not undertake sudden mass production and field thousands of them, at least not without a very good reason.
Assuming the number of chariots was along the lines of previous armies, say a maximum of 500 and probably less than that, and allowing two or four horses for each chariot, and assuming Diodorus was counting horses rather than men (not necessarily a tenable assumption), we are left with a likely maximum of 2,000 chariot horses and hence at least 8,000 cavalry, which would be double the number known for any previous Carthaginian army.
I emphasise this is guesswork, but to me a doubling of cavalry numbers seems a more likely proposition than a tenfold increase in the number of chariots between 396 and 341 BC. The problem area is the sunōridas, which a) imply two-horse teams whereas received opinion is that the Carthaginians were using four-horse chariots and b) may be wrongly used in the context of the 345 BC expedition, hippeis being intended instead. This would give us a probable twofold increase in cavalry numbers as of 341 BC and hence perhaps an indication that Numidians were arriving on horseback - or at least with mounts.
That at least is my conjecture. Of course, it could be that the Carthaginians in 345 BC stocked up on horse teams on the basis that not all of them would survive the crossing, but even so, as you observe, 2,000 pairs for 300 chariots seems a little excessive.
A final thought: Numidians may have taken more than one horse apiece. Could Diodorus' sunōridas mean not chariot teams but rather Numidians, each with a pair of horses? This might solve all our problems ...
with regard pairs of Horses
Livy XXIII 29
[5] His cavalry he placed before the wings, attaching the Numidians to the Carthaginian infantry, and the rest to the Africans. Nor were all the Numidians placed in the right wing, but such as taking two horses each into the field are accustomed frequently to leap full armed, when the battle is at the hottest, from a tired horse upon a fresh one, after the manner of vaulters: such was their own agility, and so docile their breed of horses.
Carthaginian chariots had four horse teams, but it seems that Numidian light horse did work in two horse teams
Nicely spotted, Jim.
I am inclined to work on the assumption that in XVI.67 and XVI.77 Diodorus' use of sunōridas is referring to Numidian horse pairs and hence Numidian cavalry and not replacement chariot teams (his previous uses of the term - both of them - occur in a distinctly chariot context, which muddies the water a little). Assuming he is using the term in the sense of 'pair' in XVI.67 and VI.77, we can tentatively start the appearance of Numidian cavalry in 345 BC as opposed to 341 BC - if the extra four years matter.
Livy's quote also indicates that not all Numidians had two pairs of horses, so those which had would presumably be distinguished in some way, and sunōridas - pairs - is probably the best way Diodorus found of doing so. It would also explain why he groups the sunōridas with the other mounted.
Fingers crossed, we may have the solution. :)
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 28, 2017, 05:32:53 PMCarthaginian chariots had four horse teams, but it seems that Numidian light horse did work in two horse teams
There are scattered references to Hellenistic-era cavalry with two horses each - Livy 35.28.5 of the Tarantines is one of the best known, "
et quos Tarentinos uocabant equites binos secum trahentes equos". And the Suda, entry iota.546 (http://www.stoa.org/sol-bin/search.pl?db=REAL&search_method=QUERY&login=guest&enlogin=guest&user_list=LIST&page_num=1&searchstr=iota,546&field=adlerhw_gr&num_per_page=1):
QuoteOf cavalry one kind is simply so called, cavalrymen and the units mounted on horses; the other [is] aphippoi. And aphippoi [are] those who ride on two horses without saddles tied together; they leap from one to the other, when need summons.
(However the online Suda has a link to entry alpha.4621, which says that aphippoi means "without horses"; and I am sure that i have seen the two-horse word rendered as "amphippoi", which would seem more convincing.)
But it does always seem to be just these odd asides, nobody discusses the concept or the troops in any detail.
Well sourced, Duncan.
I agree that 'amphippoi' is probably what went in originally before the Suda copyists ended up with 'aphippoi'.
One wonders whether the Numidians learned the idea from the Tarentines or vice versa, or whether both arrived at it independently. Tactically they seem to have been very similar, relying on close-range missile work and rapid movements.
Deviating slightly from the purpose of the thread, I could not help noticing in the Suda entry that 'akrobolistai' (sic - should be akrobalistai) is translated as 'far-slingers', whereas it is in fact users of the crossbow (http://uk.ask.com/youtube?q=arcuballista&v=0RIPKMZbDZU) (cf. Latin arcubalista). Note the likely similarity of use to the gastrophetes.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2017, 08:20:50 AM
Deviating slightly from the purpose of the thread, I could not help noticing in the Suda entry that 'akrobolistai' (sic - should be akrobalistai) is translated as 'far-slingers', whereas it is in fact users of the crossbow (http://uk.ask.com/youtube?q=arcuballista&v=0RIPKMZbDZU) (cf. Latin arcubalista). Note the likely similarity of use to the gastrophetes.
I think you're quite wrong here. Patrick; not had your morning coffee yet? Akrobolistai surely has nothing to do with arcubalista; the first element of the former is from Greek akros, "high" or "far", so "far-thrower" or "-shooter", and the LSJ entry (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=akrobolistai&la=greek#lexicon) suggests the word goes back to Herodotos, far too early for any crossbow connection. And although it seems ultimately to be from ballein with an alpha, the -o- spelling is common in the longer compounds.
The latter word couples the originally Greek "ballista" with the Latin arcus, "bow" (one wonders if there were ever objections from linguistic purists, like those who considered "television" an unacceptable barbarism because it combined Latin and Greek roots) - it's a completely different derivation, and probably originates much later than the Hellenistic tactical manual tradition from which the Suda entry derives. (And now I think of it, I've only seen "arcuballista" in Latin writers anyway; do the Greeks use it?)
Morning coffee?? I'd suggest that something stronger is needed before a tryst when Duncan might be in the lists and always enter late in the day so night can part the combatants if it prove necessary.:-))
Roy
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 01, 2017, 09:14:11 AM
And although it seems ultimately to be from ballein with an alpha, the -o- spelling is common in the longer compounds.
Using a different ablaut grade in derivation wouldn't be remarkable, cf e.g. the epithet
Philopator from
philos and
pater.
I believe arcuballista is first used in Latin by Vegetius, so pretty late, and not in Greek at all.
Akrobolistai of course in Asclepiodotus et al are missile-using cavalry.
Thank you, gentlemen, I shall assume it is a faux ami, then.
Are we reasonably happy with sunōridas in Diodorus XVI.67 and 77 designating Numidian horse-pairs?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2017, 09:38:09 PMAre we reasonably happy with sunōridas in Diodorus XVI.67 and 77 designating Numidian horse-pairs?
Not especially. I suppose it's possible, but since our only mention of two-horse Numidians is almost a century and a half after the
sunoridas listing, it seems to be a bit of a stretch.
it's difficult to think of any other use for two horse pairs. arguing that the Carthaginians moved to two horse chariots is probably a bigger jump
It could be that the Carthaginians supplied all their horsemen with a horse and a spare but for some reason Dio Sic only really mentions it at this point.
Typically it's the last time Dio Sic has to cover major Sicilian campaigns, as much of the third Sicilian war takes place in Africa, and then from book 21 and after we're largely left with fragments.
The mentions of chariots and spare horses reminds me of Plato's description of the army of Atlantis where there is similar confusion about the spares.
Regards
David f Brown
Quote from: evilgong on March 01, 2017, 11:00:01 PM
The mentions of chariots and spare horses reminds me of Plato's description of the army of Atlantis where there is similar confusion about the spares.
Regards
David f Brown
As to the population, each of the lots in the plain had to find a leader for the men who were fit for military service, and the size of a lot was a square of ten stadia each way, and the total number of all the lots was sixty thousand. And of the inhabitants of the mountains and of the rest of the country there was also a vast multitude, which was distributed among the lots and had leaders assigned to them according to their districts and villages. The leader was required to furnish for the war the sixth portion of a war-chariot, so as to make up a total of ten thousand chariots; also two horses and riders for them, and a pair of chariot-horses without a seat, accompanied by a horseman who could fight on foot carrying a small shield, and having a charioteer who stood behind the man-at-arms to guide the two horses; also, he was bound to furnish two heavy armed soldiers, two slingers, three stone-shooters and three javelin-men, who were light-armed, and four sailors to make up the complement of twelve hundred ships.
http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/topics/atlantis/critias_page7.html
Quote
Are we reasonably happy with sunōridas in Diodorus XVI.67 and 77 designating Numidian horse-pairs?
Not especially here either - from a brief look at examples, συνωρίς (sunoris) seems always at least associated with chariots, if not simply 'two horse chariot', with plenty of examples.
A nice case here:
Dionysius of Halicarnassus 7.73:
"It now remains for me to give a brief account of the games which the Romans performed after the procession. The first was a race of four-horse chariots [tethrippon], two-horse chariots [sunoridon], and of unyoked horses [azeukton], as has been the custom among the Greeks, both anciently at Olympia and down to the present. In the chariot races two very ancient customs continue to be observed by the Romans down to my time in the same manner as they were first instituted. The first relates to the chariots drawn by three horses [tripola ton harmaton], a custom now fallen into disuse among the Greeks, though it was an ancient institution of heroic times which Homer represents the Greeks as using in battle. For running beside two horses yoked together [hippois ezeugmenois] in the same manner as in the case of a two-horse chariot [zeugnutai sunoris] was a third horse attached by a trace; this trace-horse the ancients called parêoros or "outrunner," because he was "hitched beside" and not yoked to the others."
There is also the papyrus that the Perseus version of Diod. 16.67 footnotes to from sunoridas/"spare teams of horses":
QuoteThe charioteer receipts of P. Petrie, 2.25, dated in the 21st year of Ptolemy Philadelphus (265/4 B.C.), show that it was customary for chariots to be accompanied by spare horses, trained to work in pairs.
This raises a lot of questions (Ptolemaic
charioteers? Are these military, or just racers, or what?) and Diodorus' numbers are very high for spares (but is the answer just that the numbers are wrong?) but does give some suport to the chariot link.
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 02, 2017, 09:31:35 AM
There is also the papyrus that the Perseus version of Diod. 16.67 footnotes to from sunoridas/"spare teams of horses":
QuoteThe charioteer receipts of P. Petrie, 2.25, dated in the 21st year of Ptolemy Philadelphus (265/4 B.C.), show that it was customary for chariots to be accompanied by spare horses, trained to work in pairs.
This raises a lot of questions (Ptolemaic charioteers? Are these military, or just racers, or what?) and Diodorus' numbers are very high for spares (but is the answer just that the numbers are wrong?) but does give some support to the chariot link.
Diodorus uses
sunōridas four times in the extant portion of his work: we have seen XVI.67 and XVI.77; Richard has covered the XIII.75 reference, albeit I am dubious about the translation of
sunōridas as 'chariots' rather than 'pairs', but in XIII.82 the mention seems to be pairs of white horses apart from or other than chariots if I read the
khōris in XIII.82.7 correctly (a second opinion would be appreciated).
If the Acragas procession in Diodorus XIII.82 has chariots and separate pairs of horses as opposed to pairs of horses pulling chariots, it may indicate a Hellenic parade tradition without the horse pairs necessarily being associated with the chariots. It does raise the question of whether such horse pairs would be useful for anything except looking pretty in a parade or a race, but Tarentines and Numidians found tactical uses for a pair of horses.
One wonders if Caesar's (or Hirtius')
African War account of the Thapsus campaign is touching upon the two-horse configuration when he distinguished 'bridled' (frenati) Numidian cavalry from 'unbridled' sine freni). His opponents (in
African War 59 and 61) put the 'bridled' cavalry in the line of battle and the 'unbridled' were detached to operate with swarms of Numidian light infantry. This may of course just distinguish between cavalry with discipline (and bridles) but one is left wondering if he meant cavalry accustomed to riding one horse as opposed to switching between two.
Either way, we are left with the essential question: if Diodorus was aware of the Numidian proclivity for single riders using paired horses, how would he have described them?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 02, 2017, 10:43:13 AM
One wonders if Caesar's (or Hirtius') African War account of the Thapsus campaign is touching upon the two-horse configuration when he distinguished 'bridled' (frenati) Numidian cavalry from 'unbridled' sine freni). His opponents (in African War 59 and 61) put the 'bridled' cavalry in the line of battle and the 'unbridled' were detached to operate with swarms of Numidian light infantry. This may of course just distinguish between cavalry with discipline (and bridles) but one is left wondering if he meant cavalry accustomed to riding one horse as opposed to switching between two.
The frenati are not necessarily Numidian. I've always thought it obvious that phrase is to distinguish traditional Numidian light cavalry, famous for not using proper bridles but just a rope round the jaw, from "conventional" Italian or Gallic or whatever cavalry such as Scipio's Roman forces are likely to have included, or indeed Juba's own Gallic and Spanish bodyguard.
Not sure this helps or not :-[
Back to Dio Sic Bk 19, 106
In Sicily,where Agathocles was constantly increasing in power and collecting stronger forces, the Carthaginians, since they heard that the dynast was organizing the cities of the island for his own ends and that with his armed forces he surpassed their own soldiers, decided to wage the war with more energy. Accordingly they at once made ready one hundred and thirty triremes, chose as general Hamilcar, one of their most distinguished men, gave him two thousand citizen soldiers among whom were many of the nobles, ten thousand men from Libya, a thousand mercenaries and two hundred zeugippae from Etruria, a thousand Baliaric slingers, and also a large sum of money and the proper provision of missiles, food, and the other things necessary for war
The footnote for Zeugippae states
If the text is sound, we must suppose the otherwise unknown zeugippae to be horsemen who had each an extra horse, like the ἄμφιπποι of chap. 29.2; but perhaps we should read ζευγίτας, heavy armed infantry.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/19F*.html
One thing that strikes me is that 200 elite cavalry is worth having, but 200 heavy infantry seems a trifle limited
Jim
Again, a stray reference with little context. Do we believe in mercenary Etruscan two-horse-men when we've no evidence of the type existing in Etruria? And even if the interpretation of these guys is correct, it's just one more example of a two-horse phenomenon we already know to exist; it doesn't really help us with the sunoridas.
Quote
I am dubious about the translation of sunoridas as 'chariots' rather than 'pairs', but in XIII.82 the mention seems to be pairs of white horses apart from or other than chariots if I read the khoris in XIII.82.7 correctly (a second opinion would be appreciated).
My second opinion is you are wrong about this (and the Loeb translator is right). Literal translation: "he was led into the city in a chariot; also in the procession, aside from the others, were three hundred pairs of white horses, all of the Akragantians". So yes you are right that 'sunorides' is 'pairs', not explicitly 'chariots', but then from other examples 'pairs'
means 'chariots'.
In the case of the Numidians, granted Diod might have used 'pairs' to describe a set of two riding horses; but it's not how the word is usually used. He could have said 'with two horses', for example.
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 02, 2017, 09:31:35 AM
There is also the papyrus that the Perseus version of Diod. 16.67 footnotes to from sunoridas/"spare teams of horses":
QuoteThe charioteer receipts of P. Petrie, 2.25, dated in the 21st year of Ptolemy Philadelphus (265/4 B.C.), show that it was customary for chariots to be accompanied by spare horses, trained to work in pairs.
This raises a lot of questions (Ptolemaic charioteers? Are these military, or just racers, or what?) and Diodorus' numbers are very high for spares (but is the answer just that the numbers are wrong?) but does give some suport to the chariot link.
The papyrus in question seems to be here https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TZxsAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA71-IA1&lpg=PA71-IA1&dq=charioteer+Petrie+papyrus&source=bl&ots=dfGsj-Dgpn&sig=DzPS2hBEHhmsixwDRWoZnWdZDwQ&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=charioteer%20Petrie%20papyrus&f=false though this put it in the 21st year of a different Ptolemy.
The commentary seems to assume that they are carts rather than chariots.
Good detective work Peter, although the fragment seems to refer to five 5-horse and three 3-horse chariots, but no spare two-horse accompanying teams.
I have a feeling it may sadly be a different fragment to the one referred to, as otherwise the stated content would require a huge leap of imagination on the part of the Perseus note-maker.
Quote from: RichT on March 02, 2017, 02:40:00 PM
Quote
I am dubious about the translation of sunoridas as 'chariots' rather than 'pairs', but in XIII.82 the mention seems to be pairs of white horses apart from or other than chariots if I read the khoris in XIII.82.7 correctly (a second opinion would be appreciated).
My second opinion is you are wrong about this (and the Loeb translator is right). Literal translation: "he was led into the city in a chariot; also in the procession, aside from the others, were three hundred pairs of white horses, all of the Akragantians". So yes you are right that 'sunorides' is 'pairs', not explicitly 'chariots', but then from other examples 'pairs' means 'chariots'.
OK, thanks, Richard. I am not wholly sure what you mean by 'pairs means chariots'; my impression was that this is a translator's assumption rather than a recognised meaning. The other point that arises is that if
sunōridas actually does mean 'chariots' then it will have a hard time also meaning
spare pairs of horses.
Quote
In the case of the Numidians, granted Diod might have used 'pairs' to describe a set of two riding horses; but it's not how the word is usually used. He could have said 'with two horses', for example.
Perhaps
amphippoi or even, given that for change-in-mid-action they need to be taken around together,
zeugippae.
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 02, 2017, 01:39:00 PM
Again, a stray reference with little context. Do we believe in mercenary Etruscan two-horse-men when we've no evidence of the type existing in Etruria? And even if the interpretation of these guys is correct, it's just one more example of a two-horse phenomenon we already know to exist; it doesn't really help us with the sunoridas.
It might at least serve to dissociate two-horse combinations from chariots - unless we think the Etruscans were still using chariots in Agathocles' time.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 02, 2017, 07:02:07 PM
Good detective work Peter, although the fragment seems to refer to five 5-horse and three 3-horse chariots, but no spare two-horse accompanying teams.
I have a feeling it may sadly be a different fragment to the one referred to, as otherwise the stated content would require a huge leap of imagination on the part of the Perseus note-maker.
I've seen bigger leaps :)
There are several big coincidences if it is the wrong text. This group of texts is numbered 25 in vol 2 of Petrie and is about 'charioteers'. The horses are in 5s or 3s which could well be taken to be 4 plus spare or 2 plus spare. The regnal year is the same.
The mismatches are that there is no reference to horses in pairs and the king is different. I suspect the note-maker may have nodded.
Quote from: Swampster on March 02, 2017, 08:40:52 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 02, 2017, 07:02:07 PM
Good detective work Peter, although the fragment seems to refer to five 5-horse and three 3-horse chariots, but no spare two-horse accompanying teams.
I have a feeling it may sadly be a different fragment to the one referred to, as otherwise the stated content would require a huge leap of imagination on the part of the Perseus note-maker.
I've seen bigger leaps :)
There are several big coincidences if it is the wrong text. This group of texts is numbered 25 in vol 2 of Petrie and is about 'charioteers'. The horses are in 5s or 3s which could well be taken to be 4 plus spare or 2 plus spare. The regnal year is the same.
The mismatches are that there is no reference to horses in pairs and the king is different. I suspect the note-maker may have nodded.
The absence of any other text with content closer to that described by the Perseus note-maker is also noteworthy. On balance, I think you have to be right (reference fits, content broadly fits) and the note-maker was having an off day. So - this would leave us with no 'customary' trained horse-pairs accompanying chariots, and hence a wider scope of potential meanings for
sunōridas; I gather from lexicon perusal that the underlying meaning is a pair or couple of something, preferably something with a rideable back and four feet. :)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 02, 2017, 07:02:07 PM
Good detective work Peter, although the fragment seems to refer to five 5-horse and three 3-horse chariots, but no spare two-horse accompanying teams.
Look at the Greek text of the papyrus at the top of the page, and on line 7 you will see the word
sunoridas! Lines 6-7 are surely something like:
Quote.. for (the) vehicles (harmata) that accompanied him, five of five horses, and (the) sunoridas, three of three horses ...
Which suggests that the Perseus note is correct about the wagons being accompanied by additional teams, but not "trained to work in pairs".. And suggests that sunoridas doesn't always mean "pairs".
given that agricultural terms, technically in the same language, can mean slightly different things in different English speaking countries today, I have no problem with sunoridas meaning something a little different to a Greek speaking clerk in Egypt, a Greek historian in Sicily and a Greek in Greece, especially if you're talking about people writing a century or more apart.
Quote
I am not wholly sure what you mean by 'pairs means chariots'; my impression was that this is a translator's assumption rather than a recognised meaning.
I mean that in the vast majority of cases, while sunoris can mean just 'a pair', it is clear from the context that it means 'a pair of horses with chariot'. The most obvious cases are from Pausanias in his descriptions of the Olympic events eg
Paus 5.8 "The race for two full-grown horses, was instituted at the ninety-third Festival, and the winner was Evagoras of Elis. At the ninety-ninth Festival they resolved to hold contests for chariots drawn by foals, and Sybariades of Lacedaemon won the garland with his chariot and foals. Afterwards they added races for chariots and pairs of foals, and for single foals with rider. It is said that the victors proclaimed were: for the chariot and pair, Belistiche, a woman from the seaboard of Macedonia; for the ridden race, Tlepolemus of Lycia."
Most of the 'chariots' are supplied by the translator, the Greek being just 'sunoris' (of foals or adults), but the translation isn't in doubt, unless a whole new class of Olympic multi-horse-riding events is to be discovered.
Polybius on the Daphne parade is an interesting comparison:
Pol. 31.3 (30.25) "And behind them came a hundred six-horsed, and forty four-horsed chariots; a chariot drawn by four elephants and another by two;"
More literally: "After these were 100 six-horse and 40 four-horse, then an of-elephants chariot and pair [elephanton harma kai sunoris]"
In this case both Paton and Shuckburgh translate it with two elephant chariots, a four, presumably from harma, and a two, from sunoris - I would read it as a single chariot and pair of elephants - but it matters little. Note that 'six-horse' and 'four-horse' are assumed to be chariots (what else could they be?).
This sort of usage isn't uncommon - think of a three-oar as a ship with three banks of oars (whatever that might mean!). Or in English the closest I can think of is 'chaise and four' - admittedly the chaise is mentioned, but then there are more different types of carriage than there are of chariots.
Quote from: RichT on March 03, 2017, 09:51:06 AM
This sort of usage isn't uncommon - think of a three-oar as a ship with three banks of oars (whatever that might mean!). Or in English the closest I can think of is 'chaise and four' - admittedly the chaise is mentioned, but then there are more different types of carriage than there are of chariots.
For a similar English usage, one might think of e.g. "six-pounder" and "twelve-pounder" for different kinds of guns.
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 03, 2017, 09:05:49 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 02, 2017, 07:02:07 PM
Good detective work Peter, although the fragment seems to refer to five 5-horse and three 3-horse chariots, but no spare two-horse accompanying teams.
Look at the Greek text of the papyrus at the top of the page, and on line 7 you will see the word sunoridas! Lines 6-7 are surely something like:
Quote.. for (the) vehicles (harmata) that accompanied him, five of five horses, and (the) sunoridas, three of three horses ...
Which suggests that the Perseus note is correct about the wagons being accompanied by additional teams, but not "trained to work in pairs".. And suggests that sunoridas doesn't always mean "pairs".
Very interesting, Duncan ... Richard, any thoughts on this?
Thoughts? Are we thinking it means five-horse chariots and three-horse chariots? That seems very unlikely - how would you yoke an odd number of horses? Are there any other examples of odd numbers of horses? Can't think of any.* It could be a four-horse plus spare and a two-horse plus spare, but that's pushing it really.
The commentary says 'the abbreviation [symbol] for horses was not known heretofore' so isn't certain anyway. Clearly there are eight vehicles, since there are eight drivers - I might guess that there were five harmata and three sunorides with these being two types of chariot (maybe four-horse and two-horse?) and that the symbol means '5 of 5 (delivered)', '3 of 3 (delivered)' or something like that, rather than '5 with 5 horses'. Just guessing.
* Edited to say I have thought of the Roman/Etruscan triga - two yoked plus a trace horse, but pretty uncommon.
Thanks, Richard.
Quote from: RichT on March 04, 2017, 10:39:27 AM
Are we thinking it means five-horse chariots and three-horse chariots? That seems very unlikely - how would you yoke an odd number of horses? Are there any other examples of odd numbers of horses?
Ashurnasirpal (II) of Assyria left reliefs of three-horse chariots (e.g. this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashurnasirpal_II#/media/File:Assurnasirpal_II_Hunting_Lions.jpeg), this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashurnasirpal_II#/media/File:Ashurnasirpal_II_lars20070.jpg) and this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashurnasirpal_II#/media/File:Nimrud_Palace_Reliefs_2.jpg), plus one can see more if one expands this picture (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/BM%3B_RM7_-_ANE%2C_Nimrud_Palace_Reliefs_1_Northwest_Palace_of_Ashurnasirpal_II_%28883-859_B.C%29_~_Full_Elevation_%26_Viewing_South.JPG) and looks at the top relief on the right*) and the obvious way to yoke them would be using two poles.
(*
Last time I was in the British Museum I looked for this gallery - and found the reliefs had been replaced with some from the reign of Ashurbanipal!)
As Richard points out, there are eight drivers in the Ptolemaic text and hence we may reasonably assume eight vehicles. Looking back at Diodorus, do we conclude that he is telling us that the Carthaginians fielded both heavy chariots (harmata) and an assumed type of light chariot (sunoridas), the numbers of the latter running into the thousands? This would rewrite a few Carthaginian army lists ...
In any event, whether we assume Diodorus meant a two-horse light chariot or a Numidian horse-pair, it looks as if the Perseus note-maker's idea of 'spare pairs' of chariot horses goes out of the window.
Not Carthaginian cavalry but I suspect the people who know are looking here
Back in 2012 at some point I sent an article in to Slingshot on Numidian heavy infantry
Duncan did a follow up to it pointing out a few errors etc, and whilst I have my bit, I cannot find Duncan's article anywhere. Whether it was a guard room piece I don't know.
Any chance of somebody sending me a scan or photocopy or whatever of it?
Jim
Quote from: RichT on March 04, 2017, 10:39:27 AM
Thoughts? Are we thinking it means five-horse chariots and three-horse chariots? That seems very unlikely - how would you yoke an odd number of horses? Are there any other examples of odd numbers of horses? Can't think of any. It could be a four-horse plus spare and a two-horse plus spare, but that's pushing it really.
Not ancient examples, but just Google "three horse wagon" images (because i no longer believe the papyrus is referring to "chariots") and you can see quite a few troika-style teams. And the occasional five, here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/statelibraryqueensland/8383038976) and there (http://yet.anotherbyte.net/libraryhack/pictures/view/412979).
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 04, 2017, 09:17:20 PM
Back in 2012 at some point I sent an article in to Slingshot on Numidian heavy infantry
Duncan did a follow up to it pointing out a few errors etc, and whilst I have my bit, I cannot find Duncan's article anywhere. Whether it was a guard room piece I don't know.
Your article was in issue 283, and my piece made it into the next issue: 284, in Guardroom, pp.4-5. Does that help?
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 05, 2017, 08:38:07 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 04, 2017, 09:17:20 PM
Back in 2012 at some point I sent an article in to Slingshot on Numidian heavy infantry
Duncan did a follow up to it pointing out a few errors etc, and whilst I have my bit, I cannot find Duncan's article anywhere. Whether it was a guard room piece I don't know.
Your article was in issue 283, and my piece made it into the next issue: 284, in Guardroom, pp.4-5. Does that help?
I am struggling to find some of my old slingshots and that is one of them :-[
You haven't still got it as a electronic document or a scan or something please
While we try to locate our issues 283 and 284, we may as well review the current state of play. It looks as if sunoridas is not a spare pair of chariot horses, but we are left with the following options and their concomitant implications:
1) The two-horse light chariot: if this is the case, then such a vehicle has to have been popular, at least for parades, in the 4th-3rd centuries BC in the Hellenistic world (including Sicily) and so much so that the Carthaginians initiated massed production of the vehicle in 345-341 BC.
2) A pair (or slightly more than a pair) of horses trained to stay together: if so, then the rider has to be designated by the same word as a chariot driver at least in Ptolemaic usage. These would have to be popular for the aforementioned parades, usually in conjunction with harmata (unambiguous chariots), and the meaning would also represent the two horses alternately ridden by certain Numidians in battle.
Now the plot thickens.
Looking through the Perseus word frequency (and source referencing) checker (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lang=greek&lookup=sunwri%2Fs), sunōris (singular) sunōridas (plural) appears to be usable for both applications. Some cases clearly imply chariots, others look like pairs of horses without chariots, while some are enigmatic, e.g.
For there if any man, invites another
To any banquet, eighteen others come;
Ten chariots (harmata), and fifteen pairs of horses (sunōrides),
And for all these you must provide the food,
So that 'twere better to invite nobody
- Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.1
So the question seems to be: can sunoridas cover both options? Is it used for two-horse chariots and two-horse teams? And if so, to which is Diodorus referring in XVI.67 and XVI.77?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 08, 2017, 09:28:59 AM
While we try to locate our issues 283 and 284,
Sorted, don't worry :)
Quote
So the question seems to be: can sunoridas cover both options? Is it used for two-horse chariots and two-horse teams? And if so, to which is Diodorus referring in XVI.67 and XVI.77?
That is (or those are) indeed the questions. I think the word means 'team' or 'pair' or something of that sort, but it is so far as I can see almost always used to mean 'chariot and pair' i.e. two horse chariot (or possibly 'vehicle and pair', since there is no necessity for the vehicle to be a war chariot). But 'so far as I can tell' isn't all that far, since there are plenty of cases where it could mean either - though I haven't come across any cases where I think it's likely to mean a joined pair of horses in the Numidian style (except possibly the Diodorus passages in question, but that is in my view a fairly unlikely possibility). If Akragas alone had 300 vehicles and pairs, 2000 isn't that many for Carthage - but then if there's no sign of massed Carthaginian chariots in battle, perhaps it means something else.
TL;DR - I don't know.
For the Diodorus passages concerned I suppose we just guess which is more likely for the Carthaginians to have done at the time: produce a Ford Model T light chariot or begin enlisting the cream of mounted Numidians.
A little extra perspective might help.
Plutarch's Life of Timoleon 25.1 notes concerning the army of 341 BC:
"Meanwhile the Carthaginians put in at Lilybaeum with an army of seventy thousand men, two hundred triremes, and a thousand transports carrying engines of war, four-horse chariots (tethrippa), grain in abundance, and other requisite equipment."
Well ... no two-horse chariots, but no specific Numidians either.
"... the Crimesus came into view, and the enemy were seen crossing it, in the van their four-horse chariots (tethrippois) formidably arrayed for battle, and behind these ten thousand men-at-arms with white shields." - idem 27.2
Just as helpful as the previous mention, or rather absence thereof.
Neither Numidians nor two-horse chariots (or horse pairs) of any description are involved in Plutarch's account of the Crimesus battle. One might expect that in the Carthaginian deployment two-horse chariots, if present, would follow the four-horse chariots, but the latter are followed directly by the picked Carthaginian infantry (Sacred Band). Then again, one might expect Numidian cavalry, if present, to cross first and screen/reconnoitre, although omission of such activity might be explainable by the overconfidence or incompetence of the Carthaginian commander.
Plutarch's description seems to exclude two-horse chariots without necessarily including Numidians. Given that we appear to have an either/or situation, this perhaps nudges the balance of probability towards the Numidians, who can be assumed to be present as part of the manpower total, while lack of mention of two-horse chariots when four-horse chariots (actually four-horse teams with 'chariots' understood) are specified can be seen as an actual absence of two-horse chariots.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 09, 2017, 10:56:55 AM
For the Diodorus passages concerned I suppose we just guess which is more likely for the Carthaginians to have done at the time: produce a Ford Model T light chariot or begin enlisting the cream of mounted Numidians.
Or just had lots and lots of spare horses.
Or, if the Ptolemaic papyrus sunorides are wagons, or teams for wagons, rather than chariots, could the Carthaginian ones have been something to do with the commisariat rather than the fighting forces?
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 09, 2017, 11:11:59 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 09, 2017, 10:56:55 AM
For the Diodorus passages concerned I suppose we just guess which is more likely for the Carthaginians to have done at the time: produce a Ford Model T light chariot or begin enlisting the cream of mounted Numidians.
Or just had lots and lots of spare horses.
Or, if the Ptolemaic papyrus sunorides are wagons, or teams for wagons, rather than chariots, could the Carthaginian ones have been something to do with the commisariat rather than the fighting forces?
for a Hellenistic army to provide a commissariat at this period, to the extent of the state providing teams for several thousand wagons, is probably a bigger military development that merely hiring Numidians
Which army - Ptolemaic or Carthaginian? A mid 4th C Carthaginian army is only loosely Hellenistic, at most, but anyway they provided:
"armour and missiles of every description, numerous siege engines, and an enormous supply of food and other materials of war"
which presumably had to be carried somehow.
But I think it's an impasse. Diodorus says (16.67) 300 'vehicles' and 2000 'pairs' or (16.77) 10,000 'horses' and 'vehicles' and 'pairs', Plutarch says 'four-horsers' (no numbers). Maybe the 'four-horsers' are what Plutarch understood the 'vehicles' (harmata) to be, or maybe he includes both 'vehicles' and 'pairs'. I suspect (cover your ears Patrick) that neither Diodorus nor Plutarch were careful enough with their terminology for us ever to be really clear what they might have meant (still less what the truth was).
Quote from: RichT on March 09, 2017, 04:05:16 PM
I suspect (cover your ears Patrick) that neither Diodorus nor Plutarch were careful enough with their terminology for us ever to be really clear what they might have meant (still less what the truth was).
Sorry, did not hear that. ;)
I think Richard is right, though: we shall never be really clear on what they might have meant. This reduces us to 'guesstimating', and I think my guess would accord with Jim's: Numidians are the simplest, and to my mind most credible, option.
If army listing, one could always in theory give the Carthginian player the option of two-horse chariots or Numidians with paired horse teams and see which he takes ...