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.
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.
Weren't they mostly mercenaries? In which case wouldn't it depends what was available?
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".
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.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 14, 2022, 10:49:49 PM
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
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 15, 2022, 07:26:34 AMThey'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.
'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 (https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Carthage-at-War-Hardback/p/15332) will doubtless be of great interest.
Quote from: RichT on August 15, 2022, 11:54:34 AM
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 (https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Carthage-at-War-Hardback/p/15332) will doubtless be of great interest.
Can we book Duncan now to review that book please :)
Given their service in Sicily, perhaps the Carthaginian heavy infantry will appear in one of Richard's books (The Phalanx in Italy, perhaps?) :)
Quote from: Duncan Head on August 15, 2022, 11:08:16 AM
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
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 15, 2022, 05:32:35 PM
Quote from: RichT on August 15, 2022, 11:54:34 AM
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 (https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Carthage-at-War-Hardback/p/15332) 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.
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.
Quote from: DBS on August 23, 2022, 02:12:22 PM
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.
QuoteThey 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 23, 2022, 03:49:23 PM
QuoteThey seem to have been armed as hoplites throughout Carthage's history.
But were they? I don't know but I'm interested to find out. My wargamer knowledge (as discussed by Andreas in another context recently) told me they were always hoplites. However, dual-purpose spears and long shields seems to be a popular interpretation by the time of the 2nd Punic War these days.
No, we do not know.
1) There is no mention of Hannibal deploying citizen infantry in either Spain or Italy. The chaps he takes to Italy all seem to be allies/subjects/mercenaries, and possibly more professional than Roman legionaries of that time. Certainly by the time one gets to Cannae they probably have as much experience and professionalism as anyone in the Mediterranean.
2) The citizens at Krimisos are described in terms that sound as if they are relatively equivalent to "hoplites" - heavy armour, heavy shield, close order formation - but that was over a century earlier and ended very badly for them. The disaster is highlighted as a disaster precisely because the Carthaginian citizenry itself has suffered mass casualties rather than allied/subject/mercenary troops. It is a leap of faith to assume that citizen troops sent out during the "hoplite" era set the pattern for citizen troops mobilised long after the hoplite has faded from fashion elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Ditto for the citizens of the Spanish colonies that had to face Scipio. By any measure, none of these class as professionals or long-term soldiery.
3) Ah, Xanthippus the Spartan reformed the army to beat Regulus, must have had hoplites! And the Carthaginian army had a phalanx in the battle! Problem is that "phalanx" just means close-order infantry. (And "hoplite" can simply mean a close formation infantryman.) And some of that phalanx, the bit that suffered the heaviest casualties, was specifically mercenaries. So do we have to assume mercenary hoplites at a time when there is not much evidence for them anywhere else...?
Even if citizen infantry are "hoplites" - perhaps "hoplite-light" ha, ha - does that mean that Libyan infantry are?
Roman line relief is irrelevant to Hannibal's veterans - it is never suggested anywhere in the sources that rearming them with Roman kit suddenly means that they adopted the quincunx formation. Decent body armour, captured shields to replace those rather battered after a few years in the field, possibly swords, spears, or pila, all valuable items after equipment attrition since they left Spain or better than the kit with which most of them set out. Not much difference between the pilum and some of the Iberian heavy javelins.
Maybe they did practise line relief - but there is absolutely no evidence of that. Furthermore, the veterans are assumed to have been a very motley bunch ethnically by the time of Zama, yet seem to have fought as an homogenous force, so it clearly was not difficult for Libyans, Spaniards, Bruttians, possibly even Gauls, to fight in the same manner. At what point does one deem them to have become "professional" - clearly they were sixteen years after some of them entered Italy, but when?
Also, one might note that a Roman, when he got a bit long in the tooth, was expected to transition seamlessly from fighting in the principes with pila and a sword, to fighting in the triarii with a spear. Does not seem to have bothered them. And they were not professionals, just called up when needed.
I stand to be corrected by Duncan!
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 23, 2022, 03:38:08 PMThey seem to have been armed as hoplites throughout Carthage's history.
It is a bit unlikely that they were armed as hoplites when Carthage was founded in 814 BC, since the hoplite hadn't been invented yet.
There seems to be no good evidence for their being armed as hoplites before the 4th century; and even that depends partly on an interpretation of whether the "huge shields", "aspidas te megalas", they carried at the Krimisos were simply unusually large Argive aspides, or whether the adjective indicates that they were of a different type altogether, larger than the Greek style. If so, it seems possible that it was the demonstration of the superiority of Greek arms at Krimisos that led to the Carthaginian adoption of the hoplite; there are representations of soldiers with hoplite shield (https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a3dc8019d80cede39af809a86ee2e3a0)s in Punic art, but I don't think any of them can be firmly dated before the 340s.
(You could, at that point, tell Greek from Carthaginian shields at a distance; we know this from the Carthaginian admiral Hanno who "decorated his triremes with purple battle-flags and Greek shields", pretending he had captured the shields from the Corinthians. But that could, I suppose, be simply a question of shield designs.)
QuoteOnly Hannibal equipped his Carthaginian foot as legionaries in Italy; if you adopt your opponent's arms you adopt his tactics which leads to the question of Carthaginian line relief, something we won't go into here. Certainly back in North Africa Hannibal's troops showed no inkling of Roman tactics: the citizen infantry who had been trained at Carthage and joined Hannibal only a few days before Zama had no clue about line relief, even though the Carthaginian infantry were deployed in multiple lines (why Hannibal deployed his infantry in multiple lines is another topic entirely). I suspect the citizen infantry were armed and trained in the good old way as hoplites.
The alternative interpretation is that the ribbed oval thureoi/scuta carried on warships on pre-Hannibalic coins from Gades indicate that the oval shield had replaced the round one before the invasion of Italy. If so we don't know when or who by, but Hamilcar Barca's mobile guerilla campaigns in Sicily in the last years of the First Roman War would be a tempting possibility.
If that is what happened, any change might have affected only the Barcid army overseas, not the domestic militia. It's all a bit speculative - but so is the idea that they stayed as hoplites. I shall be interested to see what the forthcoming Pen & Sword book makes of it.
I see I am crossing with David. but I don't think we disagree fundamentally.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 23, 2022, 03:49:23 PM
QuoteThey seem to have been armed as hoplites throughout Carthage's history.
But were they? I don't know but I'm interested to find out. My wargamer knowledge (as discussed by Andreas in another context recently) told me they were always hoplites. However, dual-purpose spears and long shields seems to be a popular interpretation by the time of the 2nd Punic War these days.
True. I can't find any reference anywhere that Hannibal's Africans were armed specifically as hoplites, just something one always assumes. Does anyone have any input on the subject?
Edit: just seen Duncan's post.
@ Duncan and David: Very good, so it's up in the air. Given that Carthage hired all manner of troop types as mercenaries it can be argued that their domestic soldiery would have experimented with the panoplies of those mercenaries. Plus the fact that armies tend to imitate successful neighbours. But it seems clear that whatever the Africans were outfitted with before Cannae they were still easily distinguishable from Romans since Polybius emphasises the fact that they wore Roman kit: "The armour of the Libyans was Roman, for Hannibal had armed them with a selection of the spoils taken in previous battles." - Histories: 3.114
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 23, 2022, 05:04:59 PMBut it seems clear that whatever the Africans were outfitted with before Cannae they were still easily distinguishable from Romans since Polybius emphasises the fact that they wore Roman kit: "The armour of the Libyans was Roman, for Hannibal had armed them with a selection of the spoils taken in previous battles." - Histories: 3.114
That may just indicate better equipment of the same basic type, of course, nowhere does he say that the armour of the Africans before Cannae was
not Roman!
I
suspect they marched into Italy with oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour. But it is no more than a suspicion.
Quote from: Duncan Head on August 23, 2022, 05:11:39 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 23, 2022, 05:04:59 PMBut it seems clear that whatever the Africans were outfitted with before Cannae they were still easily distinguishable from Romans since Polybius emphasises the fact that they wore Roman kit: "The armour of the Libyans was Roman, for Hannibal had armed them with a selection of the spoils taken in previous battles." - Histories: 3.114
That may just indicate better equipment of the same basic type, of course, nowhere does he say that the armour of the Africans before Cannae was not Roman!
I suspect they marched into Italy with oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour. But it is no more than a suspicion.
I'll settle for don't know. :) All we really know about them pre-Cannae is that they were no better at stopping Roman infantry at the Trebia than the Gauls were, which implies they had inferior armament, though whether inferior in size or type is up for debate. I'm guessing Hannibal tried using them to close the egress at Trasimere, with no better success. By Zama they were on a par with veteran legionaries, perhaps even a little better since Polybius implies they were winning the final stage of the infantry battle before the return of the Roman cavalry:
"Being nearly equal in numbers, spirit, courage, and arms, the battle was for a long time undecided, the men in their obstinate valour falling dead without giving way a step; until at last the divisions of Massanissa and Laelius, returning from the pursuit, arrived providentially in the very nick of time." - Histories: 15.14
2022
Quote from: Duncan Head on August 23, 2022, 05:11:39 PM
I suspect they marched into Italy with oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour. But it is no more than a suspicion.
2023
QuoteDuncan Head said he suspected they marched into Italy with oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour.
2024
QuoteDuncan head said they marched into Italy with oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour.
2025
QuoteIt's a well-known fact that Carthaginian infantry had oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour.
2026
All new figure designs for Carthaginian infantry have oval shields, but smaller than the Roman style - Hellenistic thyreoi - thrusting spears, and light or no body-armour.
I'm not sure my views - at least outside of print - have quite that much influence. Once again, let's see what the forthcoming Pen & Sword book has to say.
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 07, 2022, 12:13:16 PM
I'm not sure my views - at least outside of print - have quite that much influence.
I don't know Duncan - I spotted information being added to the wikipedia Cataphract page using you as the authority just the other day :)
Returning to this, I note that Duncan has now read the Pen and Sword book mentioned* but it doesn't answer the equipment and organisation questions. So all seems as in the air as ever. Disappointing.
*Joshua R Hall, Carthage at War: Punic Armies c. 814-146 BC