Carthaginian Issues

[Urnamma]

Feel free to discuss any issues regarding the carthaginians here.

To reply to Lone-Gunman: I think that the length is too large for a naval pike, but yours is an interesting theory. Take all of it together though. Pikes (mentioned), shoulder strap (for two handed use), 4000 number mentioned (4096), etc. All of that suggests to me that they were probably used as pikemen.

Take a look at EB's carthage unit tree though. You'll notice they get pikemen relatively late, and they're intended only to supplement the existing troops. By far the most common are Libyan Thureophoroi and the Libyan/Liby-Phoenician 'underhand' phalanx troops.

[SomeJedi]

Vindfarna made a big post which nobody commented on, this is the problem with these online debates. I don't think any body should post in the thread unless they know what they are talking about. Her post was bumped by a series of useless posts.

Here is the one I'm talking about

Dear Peeps,
Let me provide a quick sketch of what can be said about the armament of carthage's African troops in the R:TW period.
My earlier statements remain true; there are no references in classical sources to Carthaginian troops using the pike; none, of any sort whatsoever. Wherever the armament of African troops is mentioned, they are specified as being longchophoroi (as in Polybios3.73.7; 3.91.2) Consider also Appian, Punike 94 where he makes the standard Carthaginian weaponry longche or saunion, xiphos and thureos.) In fact by the 3rd Punic war the only shafted weapons listed as having been surrendered by the Carthaginians are described as belôn kai akontiôn (Appian, Punike 80, Polybios 36. 6. 7) When the Carthaginians started to rearm they apparently produced only more missiles and light spears (Appian, Punike 94)
Hannibal's Africans were re-equipped in Italy with Roman gear (Polybios 3.87.3 and Livy 22.46.4) and it is difficult to see how they could have been pikemen if they adopted the Roman scutum; in fact, Hannibal's army had already been at least partially re-equipped with Gallic weaponry (Polybios 3.49.11-12) and one wonders how the Gauls had replaced Macedonian-style pikes. According to Plutarch's Life of Marcellus the weapon used by the Carthaginians was the lancea; one is mentioned as causing Marcellus' death at 29. 8, while the Carthaginians were also using spears, not pikes in the fighting at Nola described at 12.2; in fact, Plutarch informs us how Marcellus equipped his troops with spears for naval fighting which outreached the short Carthaginian weapons. On a more general, ethnographic point, Strabo 17.3.7 observes that the Africans generally were armed with a small round shield and spears.
So fact there are a number of shafted weapons attributed to African troops serving in Carthage's armies, and never a mention of the pike or sarissa.
So far as Xanthippos is concerned: the sources (eg., Polybios 1.32 sqq) state only that having been heard to voice outspoken criticisms, Xanthippos was summoned to explain himself. He made no condemnation of the Carthaginian army itself but of its deployment and use by its generals. There is no mention of any reorganisation or re-equipment, merely of Xanthippos' having taken the army through some basic drill. Additionally, there is no reference to any peculiarly "Macedonian" unit nomenclature in the Carthaginian army either here or elsewhere…
In fact, the first suggestion that the Carthaginian forces used the pike may be laid at the door of Peter Connolly in his Greece and Rome at War; even in the 1998 revised edition, on pp148, 169-70, 187 he follows the mistranslation of longchophoroi as "pikemen" and assumes that the classical sources did indicate Carthaginian use of the pike. Which is just plain wrong
This background – one in which there is not a single classical source for the use of the pike, although there are references to their use of other weapons – makes Urnamme's quotes essential to the case for the Punic pike. However as Simetrical points out, these cannot be located via the information he provides. Of these quotes the first (in French) is apparently buried in unpublished archival material and as a consequence is effectively inaccessible; as it cannot be checked, its significance is minimised. The quote concerning an armoury inventory should be a different matter; one need only provide a citation of author and work in which the information is contained. I'm still waiting for that…

Love'n'Kisses,

V

Can someone follow this up?

I wanted to take out the 'dear peeps', but thought I should leave the orginal post intact. I apologize in advance.

[Urnamma]

Logchophoroi can indeed mean pikemen, as it often did during the late Roman period (when are the later writers... err... writing?) Lonchos (Lancea in Latin) just means lance, which is a long spear. The use of the word Sarissa relating to cavalry has been used to describe the Kontos as well, we hasten to add.

I can think of about fifteen different occasions (not the least of which being Justin), in which the Logchos is used two handed, and is in excess of 4.5 meters. Note also that Sarissophoroi cavalry are often interchangeably called Logchophoroi.

Here was my original reply to that post

[swabian]

i like the 'dear peeps'

[Vann7]

Sorry for my english.. here is my 2 cents..

I dont know much of history ..But is not possible to answer all the military questions of the past by just reading a book or relying in arqueologist..alone.. Combat experts that have tested the weapons and the enviroments where the battles happened in discussion can be the key to really understand better the tactics used by civilizationss in the past.

There is a simple question ,but that nobody answered in the previous thread that could have the answer to the controversy at hand.

For example..
If Carthage never used Pikes in land combats ,How Could Hannibal pin down in the center a twice bigger army for hours without losing their formation ? in the battle of CAnnae. without them being sorrounded instead .. (hence they where half of the ROme army)

The saying by historians about the battle is that it was around ~75k romans vs ~35k mercenaries. That hannibal not only defeated the romans but crushed them.. because ROme lost 2/3 of their infantery. while Hannibal lost a few thousands.The powerfull Cavalry of hannibal alone about ~7k? is not enough to hold more than 70k roman soldiers *in the same place.* The saying is that Hannibal sorrounded the enemy from all sides with a far smaller army ..againts nothing less that the best infantery of ROme. even if the infantery of Hannibal was really good using swords and shields ,the is no way for them too sustain for too much time a battle if they were using all its infantery at the same time.. (to completely sorround them) while the majority of the Romans where stuck without action in the center. At best Carthage infantery will be completely exhausted after the first hour of non-stop close melee combat.

If people just imagine themselves for a moment facing a wall of hundreds of Pikements ,all of them using very long spears and you are using just gladius ( a short sword) and a shield .. LOL and you are in a very tight formation ,where you have no enough space to answer back with any missile.. where you find your sword useless ..Hannibal just knew this.. he used this tactic againts them. Is not that Pikemens are untouchable .you could defeat them easily with a more dynamic light or heavy infantery .. but for that to happen you need a space .

Its worth to notice that Hannibal was a military genuis ,even his powerfull enemies admited this ,.Is a fact that he used merceranies from diferent countries of the world ..each one came from countries that used diferent tactics in battles .So its not dificult to imagine that he also learned something from them or from the battles that fought his country in the past.and combined the best tactics of other nations to defeat the most feared army in the world at that time for years. I find hard to believe that he was aware of pikemens style of battle and how extremely effective they can be when used wisely.but that he refused to used them .. why not? If he went as far as to cross the alps with elephants , why not equip their best infantery men with Pikes? Contrary to Rome ,carthage was more open to copy or imitate others nations tactics. So why not use some special unit of pikemens if he had knowledge of that option? even more being a big fan of Alexander. Not doing that will be foolish for him ,because facing romans in a frontal atack with similar tactics ,and similar weapons ,against an infantery that were famous for its high dicipline was suicide , more for being outnumbered greatly by the Romans .Hannibal was famous for its creativity from Elephants ,Lybians ,Africans and iberians mercenaries,to GAuls.. he hired everyone with experience that could fight.

Is a FAct that Long SPears are extremely usefull *to keep at distance* the enemy ..the longer the better,because you can hit the enemy in the face ,and they cant hit you back.. the only other weapons that can do that are missiles but only if you run away later when the enemy chase you. Triariis had also spears , so unless Hannibal infantery had far longer spears that romans ,the chances to keep them encircled for hours is next to none.

So unless someone can show evidence that is technically possible to Do what hannibal did *to encircle* for hours in the same place a 1)twice bigger AND 2)*superior infantery * like that of ROME ,but without using Very long spears . then i dont think is neccesary to look for any more historical quotes from any source ,because it cant be done in any other way.. is that simple. unless of course the BAttle of Cannae never happened and historians have been lying to us all this time.

All things said .. from everyone else , plus this new way to see the controversy , with real combat tactics , points that the question is not whether Carthage used /or not VEry long spears style of infantery to keep at distance the enemy, because they did , but when they began to adopt those tactics.

[swabian]

well, a xyston armed phalanx might not be as good in pinning as a sarissa armed phalanx, but it can pin though, i'd say.

[Urnamma]

The Xyston is a cavalry lance. Arming a phalanx with it would be much like arming cavalry with two handed axes.

[swabian]

no, xyston just means 'spear'. it is not necessarily denominating a cavalry weapon. but it should be clear that i meant a weapon shorter than a sarissa anyway.

[jedisponge]

Eitherway, Vann7 made a very good point. One thing that helps put pieces together is equipment and tactics. Equipment changes happen due to changes in tactics, and vice versa: the adoption of the Macedonian phalanx saw changes in equipment and tactics, changes in Roman armament saw changes in tactics (think old Etruscan style phalanxes to Manipular warfare), Iphrakates and his changes of equipment saw changes in hoplite warfare, etc etc etc. This is a notion that holds true throughout history and especially so in Ancient history, where the changes are more pronounced and easily seen. Thus if equipment is similar to others, there's a good chance of the tactics being the same as well, as in this case with the Carthiginians.

Edit: And while the xyston usually transliterates/translates into spear, it is very usually (if not always) denominated and mentioned as a cavalry weapon.

[paulus]

This discussion about the makeup of the Carthaginian army has been undertaken on several occasions in the past. In addition to Urnamma's archaeological evidence (which I find quite convincing on its own), phalanxes are mentioned in relation to Xanthippos in 1.33-4, and probably in other parts of the Xanthippos episode, but I don't think its necessary to give more examples in that instance.

Logchophoroi--3 points. One, there are by no means the only infantry mentioned. In addition to them, hoploi (hoplai? danged endings) are mentioned (heavy infantry--could be phalanx or not), as well as numerous light infantries.
Two, the logchophoroi are almost certainly NOT phalanx troops. It has been my experience that logchos has about as varied a usage as logos, and so the word itself cannot be taken to distinguish a troop type, the context is better. And the context for Carthaginian logchophoroi as found in Polybius is a light/medium infantry capable of quick movement over uneven terrain, distance combat, and hand to hand fighting. Sounds pretty similar to peltastai/thureophoroi troops to me, as opposed to either basic skirmishers or phalangites, both or which are described in other sources as logchophoroi.
Three, well, I forgot three. If I remember later, I'll edit it in.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Is this not an issue on which any modern specialists have spoken? I'm talking about big names who have worked their whole lives on some of these issues? Is there a split modern opinion (among scholars who publish on topics as close to this as we can get) on this or does it all come down on one side?

[swabian]

Eitherway, Vann7 made a very good point. One thing that helps put pieces together is equipment and tactics. Equipment changes happen due to changes in tactics, and vice versa

the whole discussion would be sensless without it. as an observer of this discussion, i was actually going by that everyone was aware of this, so why is this suddenly a 'very good point' if Vann7 mentiones it now?

[Narog]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't one of the main points in Hannibal's plan at Cannae that the center line wasn't going to pin the Romans?
The Carthaginian infantry were mainly Celts who weren't going to be able to hold the Romans. Therefore he put them in a crescent shape so they would have additional ground to retreat over, which would provide more time before the line would break.
At least that's the way I've understood it...
I read that the infantry he used to flank the romans were phalanx troops though, if they used pikes or not I don't know.

[paulus]

Well, the indication from Polybius 1.33-4 is that the Carthaginian center was made up of Celts and Spaniards, while the immediate flanks were composed of the heavily armored Libyan infantry, with the Balaeric slingers and logchophoroi further out ahead of the main formation (further implying the logchophoroi are some sort of skirmishing soldier, and cavalry out on the wings.

The heavily armored Libyans are said to be, not phalanx troops, but troops armed with Roman armor and weapons taken from the field of battle. While the aspis and doru are mentioned by Polybius in the narration of the flanking manuever in the battle itself, it is likely that he is rehearsing drill from a tactical manual, especially since he makes a comparison in 34 between Roman swords used by the Libyans and the Celtic and Spanish swords used by the other troops. I haven't played as the Carthaginians yet, but if I remember correctly, there is a reform after fighting the Romans that can get Carthaginians access to a Principe-like Liby-Phoenician soldier?

[jedisponge]

the whole discussion would be sensless without it. as an observer of this discussion, i was actually going by that everyone was aware of this, so why is this suddenly a 'very good point' if Vann7 mentiones it now?

I'm just pointing it out if some people missed the other topic. It's a very good point reguardless if it was mentioned before, or now. But as I said, if someone missed the other thread it would be good to read what he said.

But it's ok, I guess that one little, and in the grand scheme of things meaningless, point I said was worth some sort of arguement.

[swabian]

Last edited by Simetrical : Today at 05:35 AM. Reason: Let's not get people ticked off again

great, now it looks like i have written something offensive, which i haven't. ah, well...

[Vann7]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't one of the main points in Hannibal's plan at Cannae that the center line wasn't going to pin the Romans?
The Carthaginian infantry were mainly Celts who weren't going to be able to hold the Romans. Therefore he put them in a crescent shape so they would have additional ground to retreat over, which would provide more time before the line would break.
At least that's the way I've understood it...
I read that the infantry he used to flank the romans were phalanx troops though, if they used pikes or not I don't know.

Well.. in a recreation of the battle of Cannae on the history channel on TV .. (Decisive battles)
THe CEnter line was used to pull ROmans deep inside their formation . placing the mayority of weaker his army at the center.. plus Hannibal was there too to motivate his army.. and in the flanks he placed his best Infantery.. (Phalanx troops).

in the end his infantery was placed like this...

CCCCCCCCCCCCC
CCCCCCCCCCCC
ppp RRRRRRRRRRRRppp
ppp RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRppp
ppp rrRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrppp
ppprrRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrppp
ppp rrrRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrppp
ppprrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrppp
ppp rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ppp
cccccccccccccccccccc
cccccccc-H-cccccccc
cccccccccccccccccc

well it was supposed to be a circle ,sorry for the drawing ,but you get the idea..

where..
H =Hannibal
c = Hannibal light infantery
p= phalanx troops (using very long spears)
C= Hannibal powerfull cavalry
R=Romans HEavy infantery
r=ROmans light infantery.. skirmishers/hastati and others..

So as you see , Rome best infantery was trapped in the center , in a very extremely tight formation with no space to do anything. THe light infantery was facing the *the majority of Hannibal infantery* and the roman heavy was mostly iddle. because they need space even to use their shields .just imagine yourself in the center of the roman infantery trying to cover with a large shield in a place that you can barely breath and everyone around you is screaming in panic and pushing you from all sides. while a rain of Missiles is over you.

It wasnt necessary for Hannibal to have heavy infantery everywhere ,because he was aware the ROmans always place their lighter infantery at the front . IS quite possible that part of the strategy at the center was to try hold without killing the lighter infantery like skirmishers and very mobile troops ,and use them as human shields to stop the advance of the HEAvier infantery behind. So hannibal knew before hand how ROmans always more or less place their troops, that was one of the biggest mistakes of the ROmans infantery ,thay they were always very predictable .RElying mostly on force ,to crush the enemy at the center ,using always the same tactics. SOmething that they changed later.

the strategy used by hannibal was very risky because he was using far fewer soldiers to encircle the Roman army from the sides ..so if their formation breaks on the sides ,they will end being sorrounded instead. a complete disaster. So in practice the only way i see ,a military expert like Hannibal to do the unthinkable an encircle a more than twice bigger/more powerfull army is with the help of some kind of pikes formation with long spears at the sides/ (longer enough to keep at a safe distance the ROmans heavier infantery).

Again ,Im not an historian , but if the battle happened in the way history says.. i dont see any other way to keep *in the same place* for hours a bigger and heavier infantery , without the help of some kind of pikemans formations.

In a side note ,im curious about how Polybios information is not slightly questioned ,when according to this site..

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/polybius.htm

The information he provided is based on second hand reference ,because he wasnt present in the second punic war ,the battle of cannae.. (he wasnt alive until some time later). that doesnt mean that the information he got is not important or that is 100% correct ,but that there is room for inacuracies here or there. In the other hand he was a witness of the third punic war.. Which leave no room for speculation or so.

[bucellarii]

My limited knowledge of the Carthaginian armed forces is primarily based on reading good secondary accounts such as J F Lazenby’s Hannibal’s War and classic primary sources such as Polybius and Livy (translations, not the Greek or Latin original!).

However I wonder if anyone can point me in the right direction with regard to sources describing the Sacred Band of Carthage. I believe that Polybius refers to such a unit with reference to fourth century Carthaginian campaigns in Sicily (not checked this fact at the time of posting). The Sacred Band is described as being destroyed during the Battle of Crimissus (340 BCE) although I think that the unit is mentioned again in operations as late as 311/310 BCE.

However I am struggling to find reference to such a force during the timeframe of the EB Mod. I believe most historians agree that Sacred Band infantry were not deployed during the third century BCE although possibly Sacred Band cavalry unit(s) may have served during this period. The original EB unit preview for Carthage suggests that there are a number of primary source references to Sacred Band cavalry during the Second Punic War. Do we know what these references are?

Thanks

[Illyrian]

"For example..
If Carthage never used Pikes in land combats ,How Could Hannibal pin down in the center a twice bigger army for hours without losing their formation ? in the battle of CAnnae. without them being sorrounded instead .. (hence they where half of the ROme army)"

I want to answer this. Professor W.W Tarn of Trinity college in Oxford, England explained in his book "Hellenistic military and Naval development" that Alexander found it extremely difficult for his pikemen to keep a line formation, and most of the time, his units could not keep it. Pyrrhus found the solution by filling the gaps with italian allies who fought like the romans.

The theory is backed up by another professor in Oxford F.E Adcock who also supported that theory. He wrote the Book "The greek and Macedonian Art of War".
I just finished reading both books, which leaves you to beleive that carthagenians didn't use the pike as EB claims regardless of what they found in their french universities, because the formation as described by polybius could not have sustained the roman advance as suggested. They probably used the greek phalanx. In the other thread someone said that i agreed with EB theory, when all i said is that EB historian might have misunderstood, so that i didn't call him a liar. I WAS being POLITE>

Don't even get me started with the macedonians as they are portrayed in EB and some other mods. THE TEAMS HAVE DONE AN AMAZING JOB WITH THE MODS ARTISTICALLY, BUT THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.....
URNAMMA SHOULD NOT GET MAD CAUSE WE DON'T AGREE WITH EB. Its human nature to agree to disagree

[jedisponge]

"For example..
If Carthage never used Pikes in land combats ,How Could Hannibal pin down in the center a twice bigger army for hours without losing their formation ? in the battle of CAnnae. without them being sorrounded instead .. (hence they where half of the ROme army)"

I want to answer this. Professor W.W Tarn of Trinity college in Oxford, England explained in his book "Hellenistic military and Naval development" that Alexander found it extremely difficult for his pikemen to keep a line formation, and most of the time, his units could not keep it. Pyrrhus found the solution by filling the gaps with italian allies who fought like the romans.

The theory is backed up by another professor in Oxford F.E Adcock who also supported that theory. He wrote the Book "The greek and Macedonian Art of War".
I just finished reading both books, which leaves you to beleive that carthagenians didn't use the pike as EB claims regardless of what they found in their french universities, because the formation as described by polybius could not have sustained the roman advance as suggested. They probably used the greek phalanx. In the other thread someone said that i agreed with EB theory, when all i said is that EB historian might have misunderstood, so that i didn't call him a liar. I WAS being POLITE>

Don't even get me started with the macedonians as they are portrayed in EB and some other mods. THE TEAMS HAVE DONE AN AMAZING JOB WITH THE MODS ARTISTICALLY, BUT THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.....
URNAMMA SHOULD NOT GET MAD CAUSE WE DON'T AGREE WITH EB. Its human nature to agree to disagree

So you're basing your arguement of the Carthiginians about a theory on Epirotes, Greeks and Macedonians? Did the books mention anything about the Carthiginians?