Under the Polybian Roman system of Legions Rome's veterans, the Triarii, were armed with a scutum, gladius and hasta. These were Rome's best soldiers and the most experienced. They fought as a phalanx and considered a defensive line. I think Hannibal's Veterans were armed in this way and did not fight with a pila followed up by the gladius as per Patrick Waterson's excellent article. I think this would have put them at a disadvantage as they were not used to fighting this way. They would have adopted Roman armour, shields and gladius but fought as Triarii with their spears. This is how they were trained and Rome's best also fought this way. Just my thoughts on the article...
John
I suspect preferences may depend on what you think they were armed with before being re-armed. If you think they had a thureos and logche, as some do, then re-arming them with long spears may make less sense. I await expert input from Duncan and other knowledgeable persons with interest.
Yes I agree, someone more knowledgeable. I was thinking of the Polybian Legion while the sources wrote during the time of the cohort Legion if that makes a difference...
John
Well, the African veterans armed with thrusting spears was what I went for in AMPW, and I have come across no real new evidence since that would make me change my mind. Still, there is no direct evidence, so many things remain possible.
Thank you...
John
One question though.
If they were rearmed from captured Roman kit after the early victories ... would there be enough dead triarii kit ?
Doesn't have to be triarii kit. All three Roman "heavy" types use the same shields, the mailshirts would be worn by both principes and triarii by and large (being based on wealth) and they could keep their own spears. Re-arming with Roman gladii is probably a red herring because the Romans are not supposed to have adopted the Spanish sword till after the Second Punic War, so Romans probably had a mix of Greek-style swords and Italo-Celtic La Tene types (https://www.res-bellica.com/en/la-tene-b-a-roman-legionarys-sword/); the Carthaginians are more likely to have carried a genuine gladius hispaniensis than the Romans at this point.
Asked and answered
Perhaps also worth considering the degree to which the Libyans and Spanish who departed Spain under Hannibal were still likely to have been using the same kit by the time of Cannae anyway, regardless of battlefield loot. There is specific reference to Hannibal getting replacement clothing off the Celtic tribes during the march to Italy.
Shields are designed to take damage, and replacements are not likely to be easily knocked up within the camp whilst marching hither and thither, only perhaps whilst in winter quarters; chances are that quite a few in the Carthaginian army were sporting Celtic and Italic replacements from an early stage in the campaign.
I have never been convinced by the arguments that a professional warrior would struggle to transition from an aspis style to a scutum or thureos style, and equally between a thrusting spear and a pilum or javelin (after all, the latter is precisely what we are supposed to believe the triarii did after years of service in the hastati and principes...) I strongly suspect that Polybius' description of the visual distinctions between troop types at Cannae is a literary trope, and that the Spaniards, for example, may not have been sporting too many nice white tunics with crimson borders. And of course, by Zama, the "veterans" are likely a pretty heterogenous mix of nationalities that have served and somehow survived a decade and a half under Hannibal in Italy - Libyans, Spaniards, Celts, Bruttians, etc, etc, yet possibly displaying a degree of visual homogeneity if they have mostly adopted body armour and scutum.
So if we exclude pila, and we assume similarity in other equipment, does that just leave smaller combat movement units?
Quote from: Mark G on September 29, 2024, 07:49:10 PMSo if we exclude pila, and we assume similarity in other equipment, does that just leave smaller combat movement units?
When you look at some of the Veterans, if you assume Italians and Spanish were numbered among them, it would mean the Veterans were used to a more flexible style of warfare.
I suspect we're venturing into the "Western Mediterranean Way of War" area again. It could be that 'line relief' (whatever it was and how it was done) might be more 'Italian' than 'Roman'.
[It has struck me that given the amount of training some legions got, 'line relief' couldn't be that complicated, or alternatively, some Romans couldn't do it either]
I've always felt that treating Hannibal's Veterans as legionaries made sense. I also wondered, when looking at Mago's campaign in Liguria, whether the generality of Spanish and Ligurian infantry recruited for his campaign were effectively legionaries, just far less well armoured.
Indeed when you consider that Seleucid and Ptolemaic forces adopted 'Roman Infantry' after brief experience (Antiochus IV had Roman Infantry at Daphne in 166BC which is 23 years after the battle of Magnesia. so if they were just formed for the parade it gives us a maximum period)
By the start of the Second Punic war, the Carthaginians had been opposed to Roman legions for 46 years, (264BC to 218BC).
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 30, 2024, 06:47:53 AMWhen you look at some of the Veterans, if you assume Italians and Spanish were numbered among them, it would mean the Veterans were used to a more flexible style of warfare.
And even the Libyans had served in Spain vs assorted local opponents before trekking over the Alps, so may also have been reasonably effective at fighting in flexible manner. As I say, these are effectively professional troops, not city state militia who know how to do just one thing. A good comparison might be Alexander's phalangites - yes, best known for fighting in close formation in pitched battles, but with attested effective performance in lighter roles as well whilst on campaign.
I would not even rule out pila - the concept of a heavy throwing spear was not unique to the Romans (Iberians and other Italians had similar weapons) and any competent warrior could doubtless use one effectively if he or his general thought it advantageous to do so. The question might be whether Hannibal or not reckoned that, despite his three huge victories in the first three years in Italy, the pila outperformed the weapons his lads carried?
I still think that the incident in Plutarch, Marcellus 12, where some Punic infantry use thrusting-spears at a date after the Cannae "re-equipment in Roman armour", is best explained by the Africans retaining their original weapons.
I suspect they did, point is that the pilum was not necessarily a battle winning wonder weapon (as some rules tend to favour) if Mr Barca felt no great compulsion to adopt it. Is that the same incident when there is the faint suggestion that Marcellus' troops have long spears, or is my memory playing tricks...?
Yes, long spears that were specifically for shipboard fighting - reminiscent of Ajax's 22-cubit xyston mega naumachon in Iliad XV....
Quote from: DBS on September 30, 2024, 02:19:53 PMpoint is that the pilum was not necessarily a battle winning wonder weapon (as some rules tend to favour) if Mr Barca felt no great compulsion to adopt it.
As not a specialist in this period, I assume we don't know why from our sources the great re-armament happened, just that it did? Was it a change to a more decisive attack weapon, adoption of better armour, change in tactical doctrine, all three? Or was it just a general upgrade because kit had worn out or broken (spears and shields were fairly disposable) and suddenly, there was a pile of quality kit (albeit pre-worn) available?
Quote from: Erpingham on September 30, 2024, 03:25:30 PMQuote from: DBS on September 30, 2024, 02:19:53 PMpoint is that the pilum was not necessarily a battle winning wonder weapon (as some rules tend to favour) if Mr Barca felt no great compulsion to adopt it.
As not a specialist in this period, I assume we don't know why from our sources the great re-armament happened, just that it did? Was it a change to a more decisive attack weapon, adoption of better armour, change in tactical doctrine, all three? Or was it just a general upgrade because kit had worn out or broken (spears and shields were fairly disposable) and suddenly, there was a pile of quality kit (albeit pre-worn) available?
It is very probable that African infantry wore linen/fabric cuirasses. Technically at least 40% of legionaries wore mail, so there is an obvious reason to re-equip with the armour.
I think the change is reported as using captured Roman equipment, rather than just as changing to Roman tactics.
From memory, the implication was that the training was consequential to the re equipping, not the primary motivation of itself with some men picking up more suitable weapons as that happened.
But as ever with these sources, the true fact can be obscured by literary style and expectations of ancient readers, so it could just as easily be using the equipment to emphasis the change overall even though the real effect was tactical
Polybius:
"The armour of the Libyans was Roman, for Hannibal had armed them with a selection of the spoils taken in previous battles."
"ἦν δ᾽ ὁ καθοπλισμὸς τῶν μὲν Λιβύων Ῥωμαϊκός, οὓς πάντας Ἀννίβας τοῖς ἐκ τῆς προγεγενημένης μάχης σκύλοις ἐκλέξας κατακεκοσμήκει"
What the Shuckburgh translation renders as "armour" is kathoplismos, "armament" or "equipment" - not just body-armour.
Livy's version:
"The Africans might have passed for an array of Romans, equipped as they were with arms captured partly at the Trebia but mostly at Lake Trasumennus."
"Afros Romanam crederes aciem: ita armati erant armis et ad Trebiam, ceterum magna ex parte ad Trasumennum captis."
In this version the Africans were armati with armis: also quite generic, "arms" or "military equipment" - but according to Livy, a thorough enough re-equipment to be taken for Romans at a distance.
I seem to recall that this was a part of Patrick's thesis from many years ago whereby the re-equipment was more than just changing kit but also fighting in more Roman a fashion.
If the scutum was as curved as we think it, then it would be more resistant perhaps to pila strikes than a celtic theuros or an argive style shield, having a narrower area of vulnerability to penetrating strikes (in theory) on account of the strong and curved surface area.
Having the veterans fight with shorter spears would also fit with bringing in a lot of the Italic troops who left Italy with Hannibal as Samnites and others were known to use short spears in combat as well as swords. I would also suggest that it would be possible to throw a short spear a reasonable battlefield distance as one can throw a pilum, so it is possible that the "phalanx" of the African foot was closer to Richard Taylor's Greek infantry who still used throwing as well as longer thrusting spears for a greater length of time than is often theorised.
Anyway - those are my random thoughts about the shorter spear of the Libyo-Phoenician foot.
On weapon and armour replacements, I think there is good evidence for arguing that troops would retain much of the same style throughout a campaign. Armies would have had smiths in their train, spear and javelin shafts are not hard to shape and we do know that Alexander's army had much the same kit when the worn-out examples were replaced with posh new kit while in Persia.
So, the Spanish troops at Cannae retaining their national costume is not so out of bounds. Tunics can be kept clean or replaced with fresh cloth and it's likely that the soldiers had women (after all, what army ever lacked women?) - it's still quite possible that they'd be wearing different cloth but I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss the descriptions we have recieved.
Shields are not difficult to make when an army stays in one place for a time - wood needs shaping and fitting, possibly steaming to get the planks to bend but it's not a rare skill. Swords would be harder to replace but I don't recall mention of swords being worn out and each warrior or soldier in possession of a sword would know to take care of it (oiling and sharpening etc).
Not to belabour the point (too late!) but perhaps all this might indicate that Polybius picking out the kathoplismos as being something actually worthy of notice - more than just something which happened all the time. We get told that skirmishers went out ahead of the heavy foot but we don't get told exactly what they did - skirmishers were common knowledge, so again the re-equipment may be something much more significant and worthy of note.
Fascinating discussion, so thanks to everyone!
On comment about clothing is that I'm sure Livy mentions Numidians picking up local wives, and of course they'd be using Italian horses as replacements. I cannot see them shipping Numidian horses across purely as replacements.
As I have said before, Polybius specifically mentions at III.49 replacing worn out weapons and providing warm clothing and footwear at "The Island", before he even crosses the Alps, courtesy of the local tribes. So southern Gallic gear.
I still think the Spanish in their nice white tunics at Cannae are a literary trope. Put another way, Polybius probably had personally seen Spanish warriors in action, if the theory that he accompanied Scipio Aemilianus during the Numantian campaigns is correct - but those were Iberians on their home turf, not men separated from Spain by hundreds of miles and several years of hard campaigning. So not deliberate dishonesty or fabrication by Polybius, simply a strong visual impression from another time and place.
Quote from: DBS on October 15, 2024, 11:23:15 AMAs I have said before, Polybius specifically mentions at III.49 replacing worn out weapons and providing warm clothing and footwear at "The Island", before he even crosses the Alps, courtesy of the local tribes. So southern Gallic gear.
So my Gallic light cavalry figures are actually Numidians 8)
In the correct time and place. Later on I can use Italian light cavalry figures instead of or as well
Whilst tongue in cheek I think there is a serious point that stuff did wear out and nobody is going to bother shipping Numidian tunics from Africa
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 15, 2024, 02:56:42 PMnobody is going to bother shipping Numidian tunics from Africa
To take an extreme, if you go with Strabo, the Balearic slingers only wore tunics at all thanks to the civilising influence of the Phoenicians; there was a reason the islands were known in ancient times as the Gymnesiae... So they probably were not too fussed on their wardrobe options.
Much like many of the more modern Ibiza beachgoers then?
???
Quote from: Nick Harbud on October 15, 2024, 04:09:38 PMMuch like many of the more modern Ibiza beachgoers then?
???
Indeed. My late parents in law used to holiday in Mallorca in the sixties though, and said in those days the Guardia Civil were very firm on standards of beach attire as Franco had... views... tourism was to be encouraged, but tourism was no excuse for not conducting oneself with a modicum of modestly.
Quote from: DBS on October 15, 2024, 11:23:15 AMAs I have said before, Polybius specifically mentions at III.49 replacing worn out weapons and providing warm clothing and footwear at "The Island", before he even crosses the Alps, courtesy of the local tribes. So southern Gallic gear.
I'd be curious to know what Greek terms are used. I'd also wonder what weapons could have so worn out in a few months that they needed replacing? Was it all the weapons or just those which were beyond use?
"Weapons" is just hopla, as usual.