Carthaginians, anything new?

[Erpingham]

So, just to get clear in my head

They start of in hoplite style with Aspis, Greek Style armour and long spear.  Sometime prior to second punic war, they adopt thureos.  Do they ditch long spears and go for throwing/thrusting (lonkhe) types at this point?  Armour still Greek influenced?  Hannibals early battles are fought with the Mk II types but, because he can, he re-equips them as legionary types because he now has lots of Roman gear.  They get a sturdier shield and probably access to mail armour at this point?  Do they adopt the pilum and the Roman sword?

[Duncan Head]

They start of in hoplite style with Aspis, Greek Style armour and long spear.

Perhaps not "start off". Are the huge aspides they carry at Crimisus actually large hoplite shields, or does the adjective imply they are something different? But at some stage they adopt hoplite equipment, yes.

Sometime prior to second punic war, they adopt thureos.  Do they ditch long spears and go for throwing/thrusting (lonkhe) types at this point?  Armour still Greek influenced? 

Spears unknown, though the arguments that made me think that they carried thrusting-spears even after adopting Roman armour (chiefly the "spears held in the hand" in Plut. Marcellus 12) still stand.

Hannibals early battles are fought with the Mk II types but, because he can, he re-equips them as legionary types because he now has lots of Roman gear.  They get a sturdier shield and probably access to mail armour at this point?  Do they adopt the pilum and the Roman sword?

I suspect not the pilum, but I'm not sure. Since the Romans don't adopt the "Spanish" sword until after the Second Punic War (according to that Polybius fragment) it might be truer to say that the Romans adopt the Carthaginian sword.

[DBS]

I think the idea is that the use of a 'rectangular' single grip shield demanded different techniques to the use of a round double grip shield like a hoplon

The argument being that the fact that the Africans at Cannae were identical to Romans (Polybius says "The armour of the Libyans was Roman, for Hannibal had armed them with a selection of the spoils taken in previous battles." Livy says, "You might fancy that the Africans were for the most part a body of Romans from the way they were armed, they were so completely equipped with the arms, some of which they had taken at the Trebia, but the most part at Trasumennus.") meant they had to be using 'Roman' shields (as the shield would be the most prominent thing you'd see)
There was a feeling that you wouldn't try to retrain your infantry in the middle of a campaign when they could be called upon to fight at any time.

I must admit I have always wondered about the legitimacy of this proposition.  I should have thought the use of either single or double grip shields would be largely instinctive.  For example, public order riot shields for the police and military have come in both flavours over the years, and I am not aware of this causing any great traumas to their users.  Put another way, whether you regard Hannibal's chaps as "soldiers" (trained professionals) or "warriors" (bred to the use of arms by their elders since infancy), these are blokes who are going to be carrying their shields (and weapons more generally) day in, day out.  There might be doctrinal issues - as with Greek city state hoplites - but is that so much a case of training specifically to use a shield in a prescribed manner, or rather just a question of discipline - keep close to your neighbours, shelter partly behind his shield, and give the chap on the other side room to close up behind the edge of your own?  I suspect Hannibal would have expected the core of his army to be as proficient with spear, sword and shield in close order and in loose order, just as Alexander's lads could fight in the phalanx or assault a hilltop or breach in the walls in a different manner.  Are we too influenced, say, by re-enactors who, whatever their enthusiasm, are not doing this for a living?