When Xanthippus trained the Carthaginian army did he train them with sarissas before the Battle of Bagradas? In a book I am reading right now it says the Carthaginians fought with sarissas. If he did I am guessing that by the second Punic war they had reverted to heavy thrusting spears. Is this true or am I missing something? I am somewhat confused. Peter Connoly gives them sarissas but almost everyone else gives them heavy thrusting spears. Which is it...
To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no reference in the ancient sources to sarissai at Bagradas. Bear in mind that Xanthippos was a Spartan, and Sparta didn't adopt the sarissa till thirty years or so after this battle; so he would not necessarily have even known the drills, details of manufacture, etc.
I have just refreshed myself with Polybius' account and confirm Duncan's statement that there is no reference to Xanthippos training Carthaginians with Macedonian style sarissai.
Having clashed with Pyrrhus in Sicily - and from contacts with the Hellenistic states of the eastern Mediterranean - the Carthaginians would have been aware of the weapon but I am not aware of what evidence there is for them having tried to use it in any of their battles.
That being said, my favourite miniature figure manufacturer certainly makes Carthaginian pikemen, distinct from spearmen, and on that authority alone I am contemplating allowing them a body of pikemen when I eventually get around to painting them. This will require more purchases as a lot of the Carthaginian pikemen I bought before have been syphoned off to fill out the ranks of other pike phalanxes ::)
Thank you Duncan and Kim. I thought not. The book is Carthaginian Armies of the Punic Wars 264-146 BC by Gabriele Esposito. I was right to think there was something wrong. Glad to have it verified. Thanks again...
The problem arises from the old Loeb translation of Polybius, where "pikemen" was repeatedly used to translate references to Carthaginians with longche javelins. Connolly was a brilliant reconstruction expert and artist but was led astray by the Loeb, and because Greek authors also commonly use "phalanx" to mean heavy infantry battle line, the idea arose that third century Carthaginians had sarissa armed phalanxes. Livy's claim about Macedonians at Zama did not help.
Of course, the other notorious artistic error Connolly and early Ospreys, etc, made was to assume that because some Seleucid cavalry sported horse armour, Hannibal as the greatest military genius of his age must have used horse armour, hence illustrations commonly showing frontal barding.
I am a great fan of PC, whose books helped cement in me as a child a love of the period, but sadly his errors have somewhat overshadowed his reputation these days.
I like PC too his book is inspiring but it is too bad about the errors. I don't think there is a good reason for a modern historian to make this mistake though...
Quote from: Aetius on November 07, 2024, 07:38:15 AMI don't think there is a good reason for a modern historian to make this mistake though...
Connolly was, and I think largely remains, a respected scholar of ancient arms and armour. If you are a generalist, as Esposito appears to be, you may not realise that errors have been identified/doubts raised in what you think is a solid secondary source. If the idea that Esposito is producing production-line volumes in areas he isn't familiar with is correct, wider reading of sources and modern scholarship may be neglected.
By modern historian I meant someone publishing after Connolly's mistake has been discovered. This mistake should not be perpetuated. Esposito should have known better. I am now rereading Goldsworthy's the Fall of Carthage...
Here is a short bio of Esposito. Gabriele Esposito is a contract professor of Medieval, Modern and Contemporary History at the "Luigi Vanvitelli" University of Campania. He also writes military history. I guess he used Connolly's book as a reference point, not checking deeper...