Question about Cannae

[Duncan Head]

Given also Hannibal and Polybius spoke Greek, I would expect peltast to be a word they used with a specific meaning.

Ah, but which specific meaning?

I therefore doubt Spanish classify as peltasts, unless the acted and equipped as a Greek expected peltasts to act and equip

Livy, of course, explicitly equates caetrati, the Latin term that originally means Spanish light infantry, with peltasts, and the caetra with the pelte. More seriously - because we all know what sort of peltast he was using the label for! - Spanish caetrati fight, as far as I can see, in much the same way as classical Greek peltasts.

I suspect the overwhelming majority of the longchophoroi of being Libyan partly because the word longche is not typically used for Spanish weapons, but is characteristic of descriptions of North African armament; but there may have been some Spanish caetrati among them.

[Richard]

My dear Patrick, whether on the forum or in your Slingshot, pieces, you leave me as ever much enlightened! 

Your explanation of Cannae does make an awful lot of sense and either approach would work. Your notes about "meros" make sense too. I'm not quite sure about Latin deserters or recruits filling the Africans' ranks but it would work if the common language is Greek.

Thanks again!

[Mark G]

My point was, if these two Greek speakers defined the Spanish as not peltasts initially, they are highly unlikely to redefine them later when the demand for new troops was for front line men to take on legionaries, and the new equipment source was captured Roman.

Therefore, it is extremely difficult to see Hannibal rearming them as peltasts, and even less likely that they would be classifiable as such when they arrived yet this not be recognised for months of service, and then accepted without comment.

So you are stretching a lot to swap them in categories just to make the numbers fit.

[Duncan Head]

Nobody's talking about redefining them or re-arming them as peltasts, surely. (In fact introducing the word peltast is a red herring, slap whoever did it on the wrist.) The point is that the original inscription quoted by Polybios simply says so many Africans and so many Spanish; it doesn't divide them into heavy and light. So when we get 8,000 light infantry mentioned later on, we don't know how they fit in to the "African or Spanish" categories.

[Patrick Waterson]

My dear Patrick, whether on the forum or in your Slingshot, pieces, you leave me as ever much enlightened! 

Your explanation of Cannae does make an awful lot of sense and either approach would work. Your notes about "meros" make sense too. I'm not quite sure about Latin deserters or recruits filling the Africans' ranks but it would work if the common language is Greek.

Thanks again!

Always glad to be of service, my dear Richard!

Punic military commands were apparently given in Greek (cf. Polybius' (I.32) narrative of Xanthippus taking over command prior to Bagradas in the First Punic War and being able to give orders correctly straight away, unlike his predecessors).  So yes, good point: Greek-speakers, whether as a first or second language, of southern Italy would fit in nicely.

[Patrick Waterson]

(In fact introducing the word peltast is a red herring, slap whoever did it on the wrist.)

Polybius does indeed use 'logkhophorous', not 'peltastoi'.

[Patrick Waterson]

There is one more aspect of Cannae to consider.

"The ten thousand Romans who were captured had not, as I said, been engaged in the actual battle; and the reason was this. Lucius Aemilius left ten thousand infantry in his camp that, in case Hannibal should disregard the safety of his own camp, and take his whole army on to the field, they might seize the opportunity, while the battle was going on, of forcing their way in and capturing the enemy's baggage; or if, on the other hand, Hannibal should, in view of this contingency, leave a guard in his camp, the number of the enemy in the field might thereby be diminished. These men were captured in the following circumstances. Hannibal, as a matter of fact, did leave a sufficient guard in his camp; and as soon as the battle began, the Romans, according to their instructions, assaulted and tried to take those thus left by Hannibal. At first they held their own: but just as they were beginning to waver, Hannibal, who was by this time gaining a victory all along the line, came to their relief, and routing the Romans, shut them up in their own camp; killed two thousand of them; and took all the rest prisoners." - Polybius III.117.7-11

The number and composition of this 'sufficient guard' is not stated.  The Roman contingent of 10,000 would most probably have consisted of the army's 8,000 or so extraordinarii plus about 2,000 velites of the previous night's camp guard (they could perhaps have snatched a little sleep while the armies were deploying); this kind of unusual action would be exactly what extraordinarii would be called upon to perform.  In order to hold off these numbers my estimate is that the Carthaginian camp guard would have to amount to at least 2,000, which would either have to be either skimmed from the 40,000 infantry given by Polybius or would be over and above their total.  If Hannibal had been receiving a trickle of Italian defectors, the numbers left over after filling any gaps among his Libyans might amount to 2,000, but this is pure conjecture.  One might also, or instead, conjecture that he had trained the personnel of his commissariat to fight in defence of the camp, which would allow him to put every soldier in the field and still leave the camp in a state of defence.

Also conjectural, but with a firmer candidate in hand, is the question of which troops Hannibal extracted from the battlefield to perform the relief: his Gauls, Spanish, Libyans and cavalry were fully committed.  The only substantial body of troops which he would have had to hand would be the lighter troops which had opened the action by skirmishing, namely his longkhophoroi and slingers.  These look right both in numbers and availability to be committed under his leadership to relieving the camp while the battle was still raging.

This hopefully addresses the final OB enigma of the battle.

[Richard]

Hats are taken off to you, Mr W.

[Patrick Waterson]

You are too kind, Mr G.

[Duncan Head]

Punic military commands were apparently given in Greek (cf. Polybius' (I.32) narrative of Xanthippus taking over command prior to Bagradas in the First Punic War and being able to give orders correctly straight away, unlike his predecessors).  So yes, good point: Greek-speakers, whether as a first or second language, of southern Italy would fit in nicely.

Language in the Punic army is an interesting snakepit. Xanthippos may have been only giving orders to the Greek-speaking mercenary part of the army:

but on his leading the army out and drawing it up in good order before the city and even beginning to manoeuvre some portions of it correctly and give the word of command in the orthodox military terms...

Because in I.67 it looks like there is very little common language at all in the army of the Mercenary Revolt:

the soldiers began to hold constant meetings, sometimes of particular nations and sometimes general. As they were neither all of the same nationality nor spoke the same language, the camp was full of confusion and tumult and what is known as τύρβη or turbulence. For the Carthaginian practice of employing hired troops of various nationalities is indeed well calculated to prevent them from combining rapidly in acts of insubordination or disrespect to their officers, but in cases of an outburst of anger or of slanderous rumours or disaffection it is most prejudicial to all efforts to convey the truth to them, to calm their passions, or to show the ignorant their error. Indeed, such forces, when once their anger is aroused against anyone, or slander spreads among them, are not content with mere human wickedness, but end by becoming like wild beasts or men deranged, as happened in the present case. Some of these troops were Iberians, some Celts, some Ligurians, and some from the Balearic islands; there were a good many Greek half-breeds, mostly deserters and slaves, but the largest portion consisted of Libyans. It was therefore impossible to assemble them and address them as a body or to do so by any other means; for how could any general be expected to know all their languages? And again to address them through several interpreters, repeating the same thing four or five times, was, if anything, more impracticable. The only means was to make demands or entreaties through their officers, as Hanno continued to attempt on the present occasion, and even these did not understand all that was told them, or at times, after seeming to agree with the general, addressed their troops in just the opposite sense either from ignorance or from malice.

And  in I.80, it looks as if the closest to a common language was Punic:

Autaritus the Gaul was the next speaker. He said that the only hope of safety for them was to abandon all reliance on the Carthaginians ...  He was much the most effective speaker in their councils, because a number of them could understand him. He had been a long time in the service and had learned Phoenician, a language which had become more or less agreeable to their ears owing to the length of the previous war. His speech therefore met with universal approbation, and he retired from the platform amid applause.

I suppose it is still possible that words of command were in Greek, but that was as far as the language went for most of the soldiers.

[Patrick Waterson]

My best guess is that tactical ("Double files!" "Prepare to charge!") and possibly procedural ("Set camp!" "Commence march!") commands would indeed be given in Greek, and to the whole army, but that would be about as far as it went.  Livy (XXX.34.1-2) notes at Zama the discordant Carthaginian war shout of many tongues and many nations contrasted with the single, harmonious and powerful Roman war cry.  Duncan's Polybian observations about language difficulties when disobedience or negotiation rather than obedience become the agenda confirms that no common lingua franca (or lingua punica?) existed among the troops for informal use.

but on his leading the army out and drawing it up in good order before the city and even beginning to manoeuvre some portions of it correctly and give the word of command in the orthodox military terms...

Another translation reads:

"This was confirmed when he had once handled the troops. The way in which he got them into order when he had led them outside the town; the skill with which he manœuvred the separate detachments, and passed the word of command down the ranks in due conformity to the rules of tactics, at once impressed every one with the contrast to the blundering of their former generals."

The relevant Greek is:

"hōs d' exagagōn pro tēs poleōs tēn dunamin en kosmō parenebale kai ti kai kinein tōn merōn en taxei kai paraggellein kata nomous ērxato, tēlikautēn epoiei diaphoran para tēn tōn proteron stratēgōn apeirian hōste meta kraugēs episēmainesthai tous pollous kai speudein hōs takhista sumbalein tois polemiois"

It seems to indicate he was handling the parts of the army swiftly and skilfully in the context of an integrated whole (cf. a military parade), but I would welcome a second opinion.  It suggests - without necessarily proving - that the military vocabulary involved was Greek rather than, say, rapidly assimilated Punic.  It is of course conceivable that he was issuing commands through interpreters, but if there is one field of human endeavour where direct and unambiguous command as opposed to interpreted intention is essential, it is tactical warfare.

The passage incidentally seems to confirm the 'meros' as a subunit of the Carthaginian 'taxis'.  On this basis I would suggest a meros of 512 men and a taxis of 1,536 as a starting-point for thinking about Carthaginian heavy infantry organisation.

[Jim Webster]

I suppose it is still possible that words of command were in Greek, but that was as far as the language went for most of the soldiers.

Didn't the Byzantines go through a phase where the words of command were still in Latin but the men would tend to be Greek speaking?

In a Carthaginian army it would be a useful compromise. Having Greek words of command would mean that new recruits basically have to learn a few phrases to get by, because in their unit they'd doubtless speak their native language.

I thought it was interesting that Autaritus the Gaul spoke Punic/Phoenician 'because of the length of the war'. A lot of Carthaginian mercenaries prior to the First Punic War were probably on 'short term contracts', recruited for the campaign. Having to learn a handful of Greek commands is probably all that can be expected of them

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

I suppose it is still possible that words of command were in Greek, but that was as far as the language went for most of the soldiers.

Didn't the Byzantines go through a phase where the words of command were still in Latin but the men would tend to be Greek speaking?

That is right, Jim: I remember seeing something to that effect more than once.  No idea where to look it up, though, except that apparently according to this page Maurice's Strategikon has the oldest known list of Latin drill commands (it lists them at the bottom of the page).

I think one could soon pick them up, although "Agmen a sex Formate" might initially raise a few eyebrows ... however it just means forming a line six deep.