A summary of carthaginian infantry development?

[Erpingham]

Alas, in finding an Osprey illustration on a thread on carthaginian cavalry, I found myself plunging into a rabbit hole of the various reconstructions f carthaginian infantry.  I'm aware we have discussed this several times in the past, often at length (Patrick was involved).  As I understand it, there are

*a Middle Eastern infantry phase (as in Phoenician/Cypriot silverware)
* a hoplite phase (possibly with short spears)
*a Hellenistic phase with either hoplites with longer spears, or heavy thureopheroi with two logkhe (or longche) beloved of followers of the Western Mediterranean Way of War
*a Roman-imitating phase with Roman kit but two logke (or maybe long spears again)

All of these occur in the reconstructions, not necessarily with a clear chronology and clearly with most illustrators copying each other.

My query is, what is the current evidence based consensus on this stuff?  Just briefly - though I find the Carthaginians interesting, I don't intend to study deeply or assemble an army.  Many thanks.

[Duncan Head]

I am  not sure whether there is in fact a consensus. However, Pen and Sword have a Carthaginian book out at the end of September: perhaps it would make more sense to review the evidence then.

[Cantabrigian]

Weren't they mostly mercenaries?  In which case wouldn't it depends what was available?

[Duncan Head]

The question appears to be about the citizen infantry, and perhaps the "Libyans" or "Africans" who are so prominent in the account of Hannibal's war. These were long-service troops who would be equipped with what their commanders wanted, not "what was available".

[Erpingham]

Duncan is correct - its the African heavy infantry contingents that have caught my eye.  Most of the mercenary types I assumed they are equipped in native styles, as this is how they are reconstructed.  We might debate Hannibal's Italian veterans (re-equipped Roman style?) but the evolution of the native infantry is what I am interested in.

[Jim Webster]

Duncan is correct - its the African heavy infantry contingents that have caught my eye.  Most of the mercenary types I assumed they are equipped in native styles, as this is how they are reconstructed.  We might debate Hannibal's Italian veterans (re-equipped Roman style?) but the evolution of the native infantry is what I am interested in.

Yes, I'm here for the evolution of the Native infantry as well.
We tend to accept 'Africans' or Libyans as Native infantry, but at what point can we accept Spanish troops as Native infantry as well? They'd been using Iberians since the 5th century, so one might expect some influences moving in both directions

[Duncan Head]

They'd been using Iberians since the 5th century, so one might expect some influences moving in both directions

Quesada Sanz is inclined to think that the Carthaginians introduced the oval shield to Spain, as I think we have noted somewhere on this Forum before.

[RichT]

'Native' is a bit tricky in a Carthaginian context too. As I understand it (which may be not at all), Carthaginian citizens served in the army in the 4th C (and before), probably as standard close order heavy infantry with large (round) shield, armour and spear ('hoplites'). 'Libyans' or 'Africans' (natives of the region of Africa over which Carthage ruled) also provided infantry (mercenary or subject - in practice there is no real difference) and may, in the 4th C, have been similarly equipped (to the Carthaginians), and may, from the 3rd C, have been equipped more like Hellenistic thureophoroi (and precisely how that was, and how they fought, is another of the many "we aren't really sure"s). These would have been the ones adopting Roman equipment in Italy (which if they were already thureophoroi just meant getting better individual items of kit, rather than re-training to fight in a whole new way).

I don't know if that's the consensus but it's what I've gleaned over the years. The forthcoming book from P&S will doubtless be of great interest.

[Jim Webster]

I don't know if that's the consensus but it's what I've gleaned over the years. The forthcoming book from P&S will doubtless be of great interest.

Can we book Duncan now to review that book please 

[Erpingham]

Given their service in Sicily, perhaps the Carthaginian heavy infantry will appear in one of Richard's books (The Phalanx in Italy, perhaps?)

[nikgaukroger]

Quesada Sanz is inclined to think that the Carthaginians introduced the oval shield to Spain, as I think we have noted somewhere on this Forum before.

And a translation of his book on Iberian troops is due out at the end of October - https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Weapons-Warriors-and-Battles-of-Ancient-Iberia-Hardback/p/9786

[Duncan Head]

I don't know if that's the consensus but it's what I've gleaned over the years. The forthcoming book from P&S will doubtless be of great interest.

Can we book Duncan now to review that book please 

I would have to recuse myself from that one, I fear.

[DBS]

I have to say that I have never really bought the idea that to professional warriors, such as Hannibal's core troops, different shield types or spears versus javelins or pila, would have made a great deal of difference.  These were troops who after all had successfully besieged Saguntum before heading off to Italy, so one suspects that they were probably expected to have a degree of proficiency with more than one weapon.  After all, but I bow to Rich Taylor's expertise here, "different way of fighting" is never raised as a major objection in interpretations that some of Alexander's phalangites were able to adopt a lighter role, or the endless debate as to how the hypaspists were armed before they became incontrovertibly sarissa-armed Argyraspides.  One even wonders whether their famous refurbishment by the northern Celts during the march from the Rhone to the Po was just clothing, or included shields, etc, if some, even a few, needed replacement.  Yes, maybe they were already carrying scuta or thureoi, but would they be seriously discomforted if not?  Later legionaries were expected to have a percentage trained in using slings as a secondary weapon, Germanic recruits to the auxilia probably had a way of fighting that they had been taught since childhood before they enlisted and were trained in a different manner, etc.

[Justin Swanton]

I have to say that I have never really bought the idea that to professional warriors, such as Hannibal's core troops, different shield types or spears versus javelins or pila, would have made a great deal of difference.  These were troops who after all had successfully besieged Saguntum before heading off to Italy, so one suspects that they were probably expected to have a degree of proficiency with more than one weapon.  After all, but I bow to Rich Taylor's expertise here, "different way of fighting" is never raised as a major objection in interpretations that some of Alexander's phalangites were able to adopt a lighter role, or the endless debate as to how the hypaspists were armed before they became incontrovertibly sarissa-armed Argyraspides.  One even wonders whether their famous refurbishment by the northern Celts during the march from the Rhone to the Po was just clothing, or included shields, etc, if some, even a few, needed replacement.  Yes, maybe they were already carrying scuta or thureoi, but would they be seriously discomforted if not?  Later legionaries were expected to have a percentage trained in using slings as a secondary weapon, Germanic recruits to the auxilia probably had a way of fighting that they had been taught since childhood before they enlisted and were trained in a different manner, etc.

Ambidexterity seems to have been something that belonged only to really professional armies, or the best units of professional armies. One thinks of the earlier Republican legion, where every troop type was armed in a specific way and fought in a specific way: leves were only skirmishers, rorarii were only line-thickeners. But the later velites could probably fulfil both roles, skirmishing and fighting hand-to-hand at a pinch (they had a shield and sword unlike the earlier leves). And the late Republican legionary combined all modes of armament and combat in a single man.

Re the hypaspists, I suspect they were initially armed as hoplites since their role - at the right wing of the line - was to outflank the enemy infantry as they did at Issus and probably Gaugamela. To outflank meant wheeling by subunit and phalangites precisely couldn't do that with their pikes lowered. Hoplites could, as Spartans habitually did. Once the Macedonians had eliminated all opponents with heavy infantry capable of confronting the pike phalanx, there wasn't any further need for outflankers and the hypaspists reverted to becoming pikemen.

I don't know if the Poeni infantry were quite at the level of legionaries or hypaspists. They seem to have been armed as hoplites throughout Carthage's history. 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.

[Erpingham]

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.