I'm embarking on writing an army list for Armati covering the Carthaginians in Spain against Scipio 211-206 BC.
So it's Livy, Polybius and Diodorus for starters (and I have Emery's 'Carthaginian Mercenaries: Soldiers of Fortune, Allied Conscripts, and Multi-Ethnic Armies in Antiquity')?
But...ever the lazy scholar...no doubt this road has been travelled by the membership many times so if anyone can shed any light on the composition and troop types of the Carthaginian forces that Scipio faced I'd be most grateful.
There's this (http://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/equus/warmas/online/Quesada%20et%20al%202015%20Acc%20Retaguardia%20Baecula%20COMPLETO.pdf) on Baecula in the light of the recent archaeological excavations. In Spanish, though.
Also this (http://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/equus/warmas/online/Quesada%202013%20Fragor%20Hannibalis.pdf) and this (http://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/equus/warmas/online/Instituciones%20militares%20de%20Cartago.pdf) by the same author.
This one (http://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/equus/warmas/online/Quesada%20HWI%20Torun%20BNO%20.pdf) is in English, though, and touches on the idea that the Spanish adopted the oval shield from Carthage, which in turn asks the question, who in the Carthaginian army was using it, and when did they start. We may have discussed this here before, or it may have been on ancmed.
I'm reading this at the moment
https://www.academia.edu/26292605/Ante_bella_punica_Western_Mediterranean_Military_Development_350-264_BC
Ante bella punica:
Western Mediterranean Military Development 350-264 BC
By Alastair Richard Lumsden
I do wonder whether the Carthaginians moved to a more 'Roman' or 'Western' mode of fighting under Hannibal's father who saw it in action on Sicily in the 1st Punic War.
But they might even have moved earlier
But evidence would be nice :-[
There is some evidence that the Carthaginians were using legionary style formations (basically imitation legions) by 207-206 BC and may have begun doing so earlier. In 212-211 BC they were still using allied Spanish tribes but by the time of Ilipa in 206 BC it looks as if most if not all of their Spanish were mercenaries in Carthaginian service and probably trained in Roman-style fighting (the Celtiberians they were using show clear signs of such training and organisation).
Thanks for the links and thoughts.
I'm currently working on a Dertosa scenario (earlier battle but there is a little bit of info on wiki to get rough troop types and proportions) which we will try out this week.
I'll report back.
Can't do a full Dertosa report as Roy wants me to do one for Slingshot.
But the game went well (for the Carthaginians) who bested the Romans.
Main this is the Carthaginian list based on details on the wiki entry for the battle
Carthage, Battle of Dertosa 215 BC H4 L4 BP2 Init 5
Core
1 COH Libyans K 7[1]1 1 Spears 12
2 FT Libyans K 6[1]1 1 Spears 8/16
1 HC Libyan/Punic K 4[0]0 1 Various 10
2 LC Numidians 2[0]0 1 Javelins 7/14
2 SI Balearics 3[1]2 2 Slings 2/4
1 SI African 3[1]2 2 Javelins 2
Bonus
6 FT Libyans K 6[1]1 1 Spears 8/48
4 LHI Spanish K 5[1]2 1 Javelins and swords 9/36
4 LI Spanish Tribals/Ligurians 4[1]2 1 Javelins and swords 7/28
2 WB Ligurians K 5[1]2 1 Various 6/12
4 SI Spanish 3[1]2 2 Javelins 2/8
2 SI Spanish 2[1]1 2 Slings 2/4
2 HC Spanish K 4[0]0 1 Various 10/20
2 LC Numidian 2[0]0 1 Javelins 7/14
1 EL Elephants K 4[3]1 1 Various 10
And that paper you recommended Jim is excellent; answered lots of queries.
At the moment I'm reading this :-)
https://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/equus/warmas/online/Quesada%20HWI%20Torun%20BNO%20.pdf
FQS is usually informative although it is worth bearing in mind that he has an agenda to disprove the common (in Spain) fallacy that Spanish were always guerilla-style fighters and never fought proper battles if they could help it, and he centres his disproof on the Second Punic War in which the Spanish are often depicted as fighting like regulars. He does not seem to consider that maybe the Carthaginians trained them to regularity (as did Sertorius over a century later), a point perhaps worth bearing in mind as one absorbs his articles.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 28, 2018, 07:02:57 PM
FQS is usually informative although it is worth bearing in mind that he has an agenda to disprove the common (in Spain) fallacy that Spanish were always guerilla-style fighters and never fought proper battles if they could help it, and he centres his disproof on the Second Punic War in which the Spanish are often depicted as fighting like regulars. He does not seem to consider that maybe the Carthaginians trained them to regularity (as did Sertorius over a century later), a point perhaps worth bearing in mind as one absorbs his articles.
The Carthaginians had been using Iberians since at least the Battle of Himera in 480BC and they'd been in Syracusian service for a long time before the Punic Wars.
Absolutely correct. What they seem to have done is drop moneybags in front of tribes and bring them along. However, in the Second Punic War Polybius and Livy give the impression they increasingly switched to employing directly contingents which they enlisted and trained themselves (cf. |Livy's 'justa legio' encountered by Silanus in 207 BC, the Celtiberian force in Africa in 203 BC - each of these were legion-sized contingents and fought like Romans, exhibiting considerable staying-power). Even Hasdrubal's new recruits at Ilipa held their own for hours against Scipio's (admittedly less numerous) veterans.
This suggests to me that from about 211 BC the Carthaginians were supplementing their hired tribal contingents with mercenaries trained, equipped and officered by themselves. The battle examples FQS quotes, especially of Spanish fighting like Romans, come from this phase of the war (he does quote one major Roman battle against Spanish tribes, but seems not to notice the contrast between the performance of indigenous-tradition Spanish in this battle and those enlisted and trained by the Carthaginians in other engagements).
So it looks as if in the later part of the Second Punic War the Carthaginians were still using Iberians but were using them differently, or trying to. (One can see two likely reasons for recruiting them directly into the Carthaginian army and 'regularising' them: 1) improve battlefield performance against legions; 2) diminish the tendency of Spanish tribes to take French leave when it suits them.)
Keeping this in mind may highlight the significance of a few points and finds in FQS' article. (Or it may not - up to you, the gentle reader.)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 29, 2018, 07:11:31 AM
Absolutely correct. What they seem to have done is drop moneybags in front of tribes and bring them along.
I was impressed by the archaeological evidence which showed a change in equipment from about 250BC onwards. The dates are vague but the changes were there in the vase paintings etc from at least the time of Hastrubal in Spain, predating Hannibal. Given that it will take time for changes to be reflected in art I'm still intrigued by the idea that it was Hamilcar Barca who was the mover behind it
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 29, 2018, 07:11:31 AMThis suggests to me that from about 211 BC the Carthaginians were supplementing their hired tribal contingents with mercenaries trained, equipped and officered by themselves.
I suspect they were doing that a lot earlier, but the problem was that Hannibal took all the competent Spanish mercenaries off to Italy, or sent them to Africa, leaving the Spanish generals with only African regulars.
Quote from: Jim Webster on June 29, 2018, 08:16:31 AM
Given that it will take time for changes to be reflected in art I'm still intrigued by the idea that it was Hamilcar Barca who was the mover behind it
I would not be surprised. Given his general astuteness, I would not be surprised if he accelerated the process of representation by commissioning some vases featuring the new equipment as presents for Spanish chieftains - or maybe that is my imagination running away with me.
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 29, 2018, 08:45:39 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 29, 2018, 07:11:31 AMThis suggests to me that from about 211 BC the Carthaginians were supplementing their hired tribal contingents with mercenaries trained, equipped and officered by themselves.
I suspect they were doing that a lot earlier, but the problem was that Hannibal took all the competent Spanish mercenaries off to Italy, or sent them to Africa, leaving the Spanish generals with only African regulars.
Could well be, given that no tribal leaders are mentioned as part of Hannibal's army. Re-equipping them Roman style would have started at some point after Cannae, once Hannibal's adoption of Roman ways had been shown to be effective. I suspect Hasdrubal Barca of making an early (215 BC) start on this and Hasdrubal Gisgo a late one.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 29, 2018, 07:11:31 AM
French leave
I learn so much from you guys, even beyond ancient warfare ;D
So...to the thorny question of Carthaginian shields.
By 215 BCE are the Libyan heavy infantry in Spain carrying a thureos?
Quote from: rodge on July 06, 2018, 10:41:04 AM
So...to the thorny question of Carthaginian shields.
By 215 BCE are the Libyan heavy infantry in Spain carrying a thureos?
Nobody knows.
My current guess would be yes, probably, if only because of the spined oval shields on Barcid warship coins (https://www.cngcoins.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=9); the harder question is, are they still carrying thrusting-spears or have they already started throwing things? Here (http://www.battlefieldofbaecula.es/baecula-cartagines-carthaginian) is on idea from a site about the Baecula battlefield archaeology.
Thanks. I'll go with the thureos. Off to search for suitable 15mm thureophoroi...
Quote from: rodge on July 06, 2018, 10:41:04 AM
So...to the thorny question of Carthaginian shields.
By 215 BCE are the Libyan heavy infantry in Spain carrying a thureos?
My gut feeling would be yes.
Libyan heavy infantry in Italy at Cannae were virtually indistinguishable from Romans in 216BC
They'd acquired new kit as a result of Trebia (218 BC) and Lake Trasimene (217 BC)
Now the fighting techniques used with a circular double grip shield or a hoplon seem to have been very different to those used with a thureos and you cannot imagine Hannibal re-equipping and retraining his successful veteran infantry in the middle of a campaign.
So I would assume that Hannibal's African infantry were carrying Thureos in Spain when they left
Would Libyan heavy infantry arriving in Spain from Africa have thureos?
Given that the Spanish had been 'depicting' the shields on vase paintings from the 'middle' of the century onwards.
Hamilcar arrived with his forces in about 237BC, so it could well have been that the thureos/Scutum was the accepted shield in the Carthaginian army by then
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 06, 2018, 01:04:18 PM
Quote from: rodge on July 06, 2018, 10:41:04 AM
So...to the thorny question of Carthaginian shields.
By 215 BCE are the Libyan heavy infantry in Spain carrying a thureos?
My gut feeling would be yes.
Libyan heavy infantry in Italy at Cannae were virtually indistinguishable from Romans in 216BC
They'd acquired new kit as a result of Trebia (218 BC) and Lake Trasimene (217 BC)
Now the fighting techniques used with a circular double grip shield or a hoplon seem to have been very different to those used with a thureos and you cannot imagine Hannibal re-equipping and retraining his successful veteran infantry in the middle of a campaign.
So I would assume that Hannibal's African infantry were carrying Thureos in Spain when they left
Would Libyan heavy infantry arriving in Spain from Africa have thureos?
Given that the Spanish had been 'depicting' the shields on vase paintings from the 'middle' of the century onwards.
Hamilcar arrived with his forces in about 237BC, so it could well have been that the thureos/Scutum was the accepted shield in the Carthaginian army by then
Thureos/Scutum would be very easy to source locally which might have been more important than esoteric arguments around tactical use.
Trying to keep out of this but curiosity getting the better of me. Is the Carthaginian heavy infantry sequence hoplite with aspis - hoplite with thureos - imitation legionary with scutum? Or am I misunderstanding?
Also, Duncan's reconstruction showed thureos and doru. When did the two-logche armed Carthaginian arise? Or was this just a theory in the WMWW debate which isn't actually securely evidenced?
Sorry if these questions are a bit noddy but I'm struggling to follow the sequence being plotted.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 06, 2018, 05:19:57 PM
Trying to keep out of this but curiosity getting the better of me. Is the Carthaginian heavy infantry sequence hoplite with aspis - hoplite with thureos - imitation legionary with scutum? Or am I misunderstanding?
Also, Duncan's reconstruction showed thureos and doru. When did the two-logche armed Carthaginian arise? Or was this just a theory in the WMWW debate which isn't actually securely evidenced?
Sorry if these questions are a bit noddy but I'm struggling to follow the sequence being plotted.
one of the questions I've been pondering is what, exactly, is an imitation legionary?
It cannot be somebody with a mail shirt? because according to some of our sources they didn't all have them. Also come the civil wars I cannot imagine there was the time or the stockpiles to provide everybody with them
It cannot have been somebody just with a thureos/scutum because all sorts of people used them
Somebody who was primarily a swordsman with a couple of javelins?, which could be of varying weights. (I've just defined some Spanish infantry here, and perhaps 4rd century celts because the very long swords are 3rd century onwards (?)
Somebody who practiced line relief? Which cannot have been very difficult, because when we first hear about it, it's supposed to be carried out by short service city militia
you've asked some damned good questions and I'd love to give you the damned good answers they deserve :-[
I've often wondered if the first Thureophoroi were 'imitation legionaries' popular because they were more flexible that pikes but pikes still rolled over things in pitched battles.
I note that Pyrrhus was in Italy and on his way back about the same time that Thureophoroi were appearing in Greece.
But there again, Plutarch describes the Achaeans as carrying "light, thin bucklers, too narrow to cover the body."
So sometimes the Thureos was less like the scutum than at other times
I suspect if we could go back and see what was actually happening, we'd discover we were asking entirely the wrong questions 8)
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 06, 2018, 05:48:05 PM
one of the questions I've been pondering is what, exactly, is an imitation legionary?
It is supposed to be someone who is part of an imitation legion. :)
This implies Roman-style kit and Roman-style tactics, the latter implying Roman-style organisation. The copy might not be exact - it might perhaps substitute pilum-armed legionaries for triarii - but the essential idea was to fight fire with fire, or rather legions with legions. Mithridates VI came late to the party but seems to have made a wholesale commitment to the concept after Sulla thrashed the essentially Hellenistic Pontic armies in Greece.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 06, 2018, 05:19:57 PM
Also, Duncan's reconstruction showed thureos and doru. When did the two-logche armed Carthaginian arise?
If we knew that ...
What we do know is that he was active in 218 BC, when Hannibal fought the Romans at the Battle of the Trebia. There were, according to Polybius (who can be considered reliable, or as reliable as we are going to get), 8,000 of them. Backtracking from that point is less easy. We can surmise their presence at the siege of Saguntum a couple of years earlier, and more tenuously assume they were around when Hannibal took over after Hamilcar's death; it is in fact possible that they had coexisted with the doru-bearing heavy infantry since the First Punic War.
My own thinking, for what it is worth, is that Hamilcar would have found logkhe-using types much more useful than doru-bearing types for his hit-and-run campaigns in Sicily during the First Punic War, so if they did not already exist that would be the time when someone had motive and opportunity to invent them (or borrow them from the wider Hellenistic world; given that Xanthippus was in charge of Carthage's army in 255 BC we have a potential lender).
If this thinking is accurate, Hamilcar would have taken a mix of doru-bearing heavy infantry and logkhe-using peltast types to Spain. Both types would probably have been using the thureos; if they had not adopted it prior to the First Punic War (e.g. during their alliance with the Romans agauinst Pyrrhus) they would almost certainly have done so during that conflict.
I wonder if Hamilcar didn't switch to a 'imitation legionary' in Sicily. Certainly by the time of the Mercenaries war and after he probably had a pretty free hand to organise armies as he wanted
Mamertines?
Roy
Quote from: aligern on July 06, 2018, 11:14:52 PM
Mamertines?
Roy
Absolutely, but then you're into the territory of Ante bella punica:Western Mediterranean Military Development 350-264 BC, By Alastair Richard Lumsden
And he rather follows Quesada (who is perhaps summed up with 15. MILITARY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE 'LATE IBERIAN' CULTURE (c. 237-c. 195 BC): MEDITERRANEAN INFLUENCES IN THE FAR WEST VIA THE CARTHAGINIAN MILITARY )
But in Sicily so many cities had been settled by mercenaries, officially and unofficially, and these mercenaries had become citizens and their their descendants relocated to other cities, how Greek were even 'native' Sicilian forces
So whilst we often see Pyrrhus taking back to Greece ideas he'd picked up in Italy, they might equally have been ideas he'd picked up when campaigning alongside the Sicilians
South Italians do appear to be shown using an aspis and a pair of javelins/ light spears and of course hoplites are shown with aspis and javelins. I suspect that Southern Italy could provide mercenary troops that used a pair of longche and that using a thureos came naturally too. As Ian said earlier,na thureos is rather less expensive to make than an aspis and such economies would appeal to a city of Levantine merchants. When you are equipping 20,000 men a small saving becomes a large one.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on July 07, 2018, 10:57:01 AM
South Italians do appear to be shown using an aspis and a pair of javelins/ light spears and of course hoplites are shown with aspis and javelins. I suspect that Southern Italy could provide mercenary troops that used a pair of longche and that using a thureos came naturally too. As Ian said earlier,na thureos is rather less expensive to make than an aspis and such economies would appeal to a city of Levantine merchants. When you are equipping 20,000 men a small saving becomes a large one.
Roy
I wasn't aware that a thureos was less expensive to make than an aspis but that would explain why hoplites disappeared from Hellenistic armies. In the case of the Carthaginians in Spain it seems likely they would source what they needed locally which would be the same shield as being used by the Spaniards; the troops are mainly being used for 'police actions' etc so their exact equipment possibly doesn't matter that much. However, as is so often the case with ancient history once again this is a supposition we have no real proof either way.
As a side issue when I started ancient wargaming thureophoroi didn't exist!
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 07, 2018, 01:54:34 PM
As a side issue when I started ancient wargaming thureophoroi didn't exist!
When I started wargaming, Carthaginians had big round shields with unscrewable bronze bosses and wore red leather tunics.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 07, 2018, 02:00:15 PM
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 07, 2018, 01:54:34 PM
As a side issue when I started ancient wargaming thureophoroi didn't exist!
When I started wargaming, Carthaginians had big round shields with unscrewable bronze bosses and wore red leather tunics.
Some of their heavy infantry wore a sort of feathered fascinator, at least according to Minifigs.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 07, 2018, 02:00:15 PM
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on July 07, 2018, 01:54:34 PM
As a side issue when I started ancient wargaming thureophoroi didn't exist!
When I started wargaming, Carthaginians had big round shields with unscrewable bronze bosses and wore red leather tunics.
when I started wargaming Carthaginians were 'modern' not 'ancient' :-[
I must call attention to Ian having ascribed originality to Minifigs. The range with the African infantry with fascinator was based pretty accurately and consistently on Our own Phil Barker's then ground breaking Armies and Enemies of Ancient Rome
Roy
Quote from: aligern on July 07, 2018, 07:36:28 PM
I must call attention to Ian having ascribed originality to Minifigs. The range with the African infantry with fascinator was based pretty accurately and consistently on Our own Phil Barker's then ground breaking Armies and Enemies of Ancient Rome
Roy
Unfortunately, Phil's book lacks references to sources, so it needs an expert eye to identify where the reconstructions are sourced from. As we were talking shields, for example, we can guess that PB gave the infantry large round shields based on considerable numbers of Carthaginian seals which show hoplite kit. They are shown with the typical aspis type arm and hand carry, though are desribed as made of hide with pointed bosses (the screw-in bosses aren't from PB incidentally - I think they came from a very old Guardroom debate or similar). What was the source for these?
Quote from: Erpingham on July 08, 2018, 10:48:18 AM
Quote from: aligern on July 07, 2018, 07:36:28 PM
I must call attention to Ian having ascribed originality to Minifigs. The range with the African infantry with fascinator was based pretty accurately and consistently on Our own Phil Barker's then ground breaking Armies and Enemies of Ancient Rome
Roy
Unfortunately, Phil's book lacks references to sources, so it needs an expert eye to identify where the reconstructions are sourced from. As we were talking shields, for example, we can guess that PB gave the infantry large round shields based on considerable numbers of Carthaginian seals which show hoplite kit. They are shown with the typical aspis type arm and hand carry, though are desribed as made of hide with pointed bosses (the screw-in bosses aren't from PB incidentally - I think they came from a very old Guardroom debate or similar). What was the source for these?
I always felt that Garrison did a particularly nice Libyan infantryman in 25mm with the big flat round shield and spear. If memory serves he was wearing a leather mini-dress and an ostrich feather in a head band
Quote from: Erpingham on July 06, 2018, 05:19:57 PM
Trying to keep out of this but curiosity getting the better of me. Is the Carthaginian heavy infantry sequence hoplite with aspis - hoplite with thureos - imitation legionary with scutum? Or am I misunderstanding?
The sequence seems to be something like that, yes, but with some uncertainty about all the transitions. Hoplite with aspis seems to be well evidenced up to the First Roman War - probably for both citizens and Libyan levies. Then there is a blank with some depictions of thureos plus Quesada's suggestion that the Spanish adopted the oval shield from the Carthaginians. We don't know what weapons the Libyans used with this oval shield. There is an adoption of Roman arms by the Libyans at Cannae, but we don't, however much we wrangle the texts, really know how extensive that adoption was. It is conceivable that we had spear-thruting thureophoroi adopting mail and a larger scutum and keeping their spears, or spear-throwing thureophoroi adopting mail and a larger scutum and pila, or something else. We also don't know in this period if the home service army in Africa were armed the same as Barcid forces overseas, nor if Carthaginian citizens, who don't feature overseas at this period, were armed the same as Libyans. Then in the Third War we have citizen troops with longchai, or longchai and gaisa in one source, carrying a thureos that might be a scutum - I treated these as a sort of thureophoros in AMPW, but now I think that the gaison might be a pilum and the result an imitation Roman. We know much less than some seem to think we do.
QuoteAlso, Duncan's reconstruction showed thureos and doru. When did the two-logche armed Carthaginian arise? Or was this just a theory in the WMWW debate which isn't actually securely evidenced?
Patrick's suggestion that they're mentioned at Trebia refers to longchophoroi, which appears to be the word Polybios uses for Hannibal's
light infantry (but not for light infantry in other Carthaginian armies, make of that what you will). We don't know for certain that the Libyan
heavy infantry ever used longchai, though the citizens in the Third Roman War did - possibly along with gaisa, so possibly one iron-shanked pilum-like javelin and one lighter one. Or not.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 08, 2018, 10:48:18 AM
Unfortunately, Phil's book lacks references to sources, so it needs an expert eye to identify where the reconstructions are sourced from. As we were talking shields, for example, we can guess that PB gave the infantry large round shields based on considerable numbers of Carthaginian seals which show hoplite kit. They are shown with the typical aspis type arm and hand carry, though are desribed as made of hide with pointed bosses (the screw-in bosses aren't from PB incidentally - I think they came from a very old Guardroom debate or similar). What was the source for these?
I think that Phil took "pointed Carthaginian shield-bosses" from the rather earlier Amathus bowl, from Cyprus and usually identified as Phoenician - see here (https://bookandsword.com/2015/05/09/the-siege-on-the-amathus-bowl/), the two guys on the left going up the scaling-ladder. Whatever type of shield that is, it seems to have a central handgrip.
We've discussed this class of Phoenecian bowls before, I recall, as they do turn up in the Western Med.
They often seem to feature men carrying small bossed shields and short spears. Is this what the proto-Carthaginian looked like I wonder, before they went down the aspis and doru route?
Incidentally, I found this bowl (https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/ancient-art-antiquities/a-phoenician-silver-gilt-bowl-circa-mid-5425502-details.aspx) interesting, as it seems to show the round bossed shields but also larger rimmed bossless shields. I thought for a minute I'd identified Jim's minskirted spearmen but closer inspection shows short sleeved tunic - sorry Jim :)
Quote from: Erpingham on July 09, 2018, 11:53:02 AM
We've discussed this class of Phoenecian bowls before, I recall, as they do turn up in the Western Med.
They often seem to feature men carrying small bossed shields and short spears. Is this what the proto-Carthaginian looked like I wonder, before they went down the aspis and doru route?
Incidentally, I found this bowl (https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/ancient-art-antiquities/a-phoenician-silver-gilt-bowl-circa-mid-5425502-details.aspx) interesting, as it seems to show the round bossed shields but also larger rimmed bossless shields. I thought for a minute I'd identified Jim's minskirted spearmen but closer inspection shows short sleeved tunic - sorry Jim :)
Technically Garrison's miniskirted spearmen but close 8)
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 08, 2018, 06:45:42 PM
I think that Phil took "pointed Carthaginian shield-bosses" from the rather earlier Amathus bowl, from Cyprus and usually identified as Phoenician - see here (https://bookandsword.com/2015/05/09/the-siege-on-the-amathus-bowl/), the two guys on the left going up the scaling-ladder. Whatever type of shield that is, it seems to have a central handgrip.
When I started wargaming we called them Tyrian colonists.
Here is an image from a vase that probably represents a similar central grip, spiked shield. Here the material is perhaps a rattan-like spiral woven together?
Since we are discussing round, center-grip shields, I would be remiss if I did not post this rather confused artists portrayal of the center-grip aspis.
By the time Hannibal invaded Italy what would be the best 15mm figures to use to represent the Italian allies?
I have (painted) a lot of Essex and Chariot Republican Romans which I could use for Italian Allies if the likelihood is that Roman equipment was used by these tribes, but just wanted to see if there were any recommendations for other figures to represent Bruttians, Samnites etc
Quote from: rodge on July 17, 2018, 04:21:42 PM
By the time Hannibal invaded Italy what would be the best 15mm figures to use to represent the Italian allies?
I have (painted) a lot of Essex and Chariot Republican Romans which I could use for Italian Allies if the likelihood is that Roman equipment was used by these tribes, but just wanted to see if there were any recommendations for other figures to represent Bruttians, Samnites etc
I'd go for Scutum and more 'Italian' armour and helmets
Something like the picture but with a 'proper' shield. And doubtless some with mail and some with Montefortino helmets just to confuse the issue :-[
Cheers Jim
Any pointers as to who does them? Xyston have a very small range, not sure if Donnington pass the test of time...
Quote from: rodge on July 17, 2018, 05:06:45 PM
Cheers Jim
Any pointers as to who does them? Xyston have a very small range, not sure if Donnington pass the test of time...
that I will leave to wiser heads
Actually I should probably have left the last question to wiser heads as well :-[
Quote from: rodge on July 17, 2018, 05:06:45 PM
Cheers Jim
Any pointers as to who does them? Xyston have a very small range, not sure if Donnington pass the test of time...
For such a good looking bunch, they are pretty poorly served.
Donnington's do have a naive charm but are rather dated. Xyston's are pretty good but the way the helmet feathers are done they look a bit top heavy.
TSS/QRF do Oscans with round shields in the Cartho range and allied Italians with oval shields in the Roman range.
Old Glory's are fairly decent but come with a mix of shield types. War and Empire's only have round shields. Essex do Lucanians but not sure how much of the typical Italian features they have.
Magister Militum do one with the wicker shield and one with round.
Others do them - e.g. Tin Soldier, Minifigs
Thanks Peter, had a look at Donnington at Devizes and decided against; got some of the others, not that impressed to be honest bar Xyston but the range is limited and I agree they look very top heavy.
There is a hole in the 15mm offerings for Italian Allies ready to be filled