Carthage Thread (Historical Discussion and Info)

[Biggus Splenus]

Magnar wanted me to create a thread for this, so it doesn't get lost. It's open to addition, criticism and improvement

Carthage's actual unit roster from their own regions should only contain Libyan, Liby-Phoenician, and Citizen troops. The actual difference between Liby-Phoenician troops and Libyan troops is... uncertain, but it's extremely highly probable that there was no difference at all; they lived on the same land, fought the same foes, were practically the same people, so were likely armed and fought in the same manner; I don't think it's necessary to differentiate between them, even though contemporary authors (like Polybius) did, but this might just have been from their ethnical (therefore, their racial appearance) difference, and nothing more (more Phoenician in appearance, rather than native North African, although both seemed to dress the same anyway).

When citizens did fight, they apparently fought with great valor and zeal, but as you've pointed out, this was very rarely and usually in home defense only. There was a sacred band unit comprised of citizens, but this disappeared before the beginning of the 3rd C BCE (after been destroyed 3 times); might be exciting to include these guys as a future tech, like, "re-militarisation of the citizens"... or something like that Other citizens, such as the nobility willing to fight in the wars, would likely have formed a type of bodyguard cavalry unit for the general, any other citizen cavalry corps is unlikely (again, apart from the sacred band, which used chariots most the time... but by the time the chariot went out of fashion in Carthage, the Sacred Band was destroyed, so if they continued to serve, they would likely have owned Elephant corps, or a professional cavalry corps... if). Citizens also served as officers and generals, and most notably, their commitment was mostly occupied with the national navy.

The reason why Carthage didn't have the usual Levy of adequately armed citizens that formed Roman and Hellenic armies, is because their farmland wasn't owned by independent farmers, but it was covered with very large agricultural estates, owned by the nobles, and worked by harshly treated Libyan slaves. Perhaps a juicy piece of info for you Magnar

If citizens fought, they would have been served as classical-style hoplites with argive shields (though depicted with slightly shorter spears than Greek ones, about the height of the user, and also larger aspis shields); as is the same for the Libyan and Liby-Phoenician levy of their land (that actually fought as heavies). Light troops (Libyans, citizens would never serve as lights, and probably not even in emergencies, because Carthage stock piled weapons and armour in the state arsenal, and would equip the levy with that) would have fought in the native style, with wicker and hide shields, javelins, and probably a melee weapon (like a short sword). Archers and slingers are unlikely, but seems as the Numidians fought in these styles (sometimes... rarely, and not at the beginning of our period), I suppose it's possible too (though I wouldn't recommend a unit for it anyway...).

It's hard to say exactly what the citizen cavalry would have fought like... I'd suggest the native, classical Greeko-Italian style, shielded, a spear (not long xyston, but relatively long spear, like the Roman equites' style), a sword, heavily armoured, and perhaps a couple javelins(?). I DON'T recommend horse armour in any form. Same style for the Libyan and Liby-Phoenician units I suppose, though I doubt either would be able to serve in a cavalry corps...

Numidian's and North Africans (as you put it, or the Moors and Gaetuli) were strictly Allied troops, and not Levied from Carthage's own lands, and this should be represented properly.

Hope that helped Magnar

[Balbor]

I've only really got Europa Barbarorum's info to go on. I did get ask to help them on with EBII as a modeller although RL events prevented me for doing so I did get first hand experience of how they work.

@Magnar Do you intend to use EB's Carthage unit list as a starting reference point? Although I would like to see chariots for the very early part of the campaign.

[Magnar]

haven't decided yet balbor. Once i finish the celtic overhaul and a few mod general mod changes ill start reading up on carthage and then formulate a unit list. EB is essentially a fall back for me. I suspect though that carthage will have a limited roster and rely more on their auxillia units instead.

[Biggus Splenus]

EB definitely is a good resource of information, but you shouldn't rely on it too much for their unit designs, because you don't know how they came to that decision, and exactly what sources were used and how they contrasted the design. There's a few big problems I have with EB's design on Carthage though.

[Balbor]

From what I understand about the EB team, historians who have access to resurch not available to most people work with the mod team. A major problem with Carthage is that must of the available information is writen but their enemies. Some of the reforms made by Xanthippus could of be simply as a solution to very short term people, such as training the citizens to fight in phalanx formation. Because the Carthagians already knew how to fight as Greeks did, and because Xanthippus was from Macedonia I would assue he tought them to fight as the successor states did. Once the first Punic war was over Carthage probably went back to using non citizens in its armies although could of trained these to use the pike phalanx formations instead

As early Carthagian armies used chariots, can then be upgraded to a different unit like others?

[Magnar]

@balbor, it is possible. Ive done it with celtic. But when did cathage use chariots up to?

[Biggus Splenus]

Last mention of Carthaginian chariots is before the 3rd C BCE. After their war with Pyrrhus of Epirus, they began to use Elephants (after encountering his own) as replacements. There's no mention of chariots fighting Pyrrhus, so it's uncertain if they were abandoned after the last Sicilian War and totally replaced with cavalry, or if they actually did exist during and before the war with Pyrrhus, but just weren't mentioned or called upon.

Hope that helped

[Mahgnus]

To further the discussion here about historical info I pose these questions

What/who did the Carthaginians consider to be a citizen.

Most "citizens" of Carthage were primarily in the navy along with the few professional soldiers that help make up Carthage's officer core and cavalry. Also like most nations of the period citizens would be asked to muster if there was serious crisis on hand which would form the levy units. So naturally I would start by asking myself, "well, what did Carthage require to be a citizen?" Unlike Rome, I have found any solid info currently that states what Carthage considered to be a citizen. I was wondering if somone might know off hand or might be able to shed some light in this area.

So far units that I can for sure through evidence fight historical recounts of citizen units are as follows:

Varies navy units (currently we are only working with land units)

levied citizen militia (such as one used in the 1st and 3rd Punic Wars along with the Mercenary Wars) typical poorly equipped levied units

The obvious easy one, The Sacred Band which I didn't know was utterly destroyed twice first time being in sicily at 311BC and the second time at in 310BC in Tunis. I can only imagine that this destroyed the Carthaginian wealthy class due to that fact that the SB was made up of primarly young nobles and men from very wealthy families. After its second destruction it appears to haven fallen out of history and have been replaced with just citizen levies during the late Punic wars. 311BC also marked the last time a Carthaginian army left the main land http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Carthage (not the best source but EB also confirms this, I don't know what their sources are)

Next units are the Carthaginian Citizen Cavalry which I found in EB and seems to have been equipped as medium shock cavalry (shield less) with Xystons and Linothorax types of armor. There are a few mentions of Citizen armed cav (pobyiuos iirc)

Last unit I've currently found is the Royal Cavalry/Noble Cavalry or the so called " Sacred Band Cav" Any way there seems to be more evidence about these units more than others and I would assume its was due to the status and wealth of the men that were apart of these types of units. With imported types or armor and heavy lances and just about any equipment they wanted they must have been a solid force for the generals of the time.

Now obviously Carthage's armies were mostly "mercenaries" which I personally feel they weren't in the traditional since but more akin to the Roman allies and Auxiliary units from client states. Altho this is just my opinion I find it very hard to field vast (effective) armies without working knowlege of your soldiers and especially communication through the units. As a soldier myself I understand how paramount communication is to a unit, and if communication is limited, or nonexistent it would very unlikely lead to any success. Which makes me beleive such "mercenaries" were more likely professional solders from Carthage's colonies and distant territories.

So far i've uncovered the reforms of Xamthippus of Sparta after the first Punic war which he reformed the Carthagian army to the combined arms model of the Macedonian army. Which played to the Carthagian strengths of it's maneuverable units. Do you happen to know much about this area or any other period of large change/reforms to the Carthagian army? (edit I found more Info on this period)question still valid though

Also we will be focusing on a second reform period just before the 3rd Punic war post Iberian campaigns and heavy Roman contact.

[Mahgnus]

Last mention of Carthaginian chariots is before the 3rd C BCE. After their war with Pyrrhus of Epirus, they began to use Elephants (after encountering his own) as replacements. There's no mention of chariots fighting Pyrrhus, so it's uncertain if they were abandoned after the last Sicilian War and totally replaced with cavalry, or if they actually did exist during and before the war with Pyrrhus, but just weren't mentioned or called upon.

Hope that helped

I also found information about said topic of chariots

2,000 heavy chariots were recruited to oppose the invasion of Agathocles of Syracuse (Appian, The Foreign Wars: The Punic Wars, 80)

also

The Libyans provided the bulk of the heavy, four horse war chariots for Carthage, used before the Second Punic War (Warry, John. Warfare in the Classical World. pp. 98-99. one of my fav books of all time)

ill make sure they are added into the Carthage pack

[Mahgnus]

The issue I'm having currently is the recount of Polybios and Livy. Polybios a Roman admirer, wrote a detailed history of the war using eye witness account and privileged state information, 50 years after the event. Critical parts of his work are available to us by Livy. the patriotic and biased historian of Rome, which wrote 200 years after Hannibal, adapting and shortening Polybios into Latin.

These are some of Poly's notes. (Chapter and verse are given for a source)

III.49 During his march to the Alps, those damaaged equipment in Hannibals army were supplied with Keltic (celtic) replacements.

III.56 Hannibal entered Italy with 12K African and 8K Spanish inf and 6k Cav.

III.72 Hannibal drew up his heavy infantry in a single line at the batttle of Trebbia (Now this is where issue starts.

The modern translation by Scott Kilvert incorrectly introduces the "phalanx" here. That by Paton which has the advantage of a parallel Greek text; shows that the word does not appear and was added by the Penguin translator. Poly said, the line contained the Spanish and Kelt, as well as the Africans. It also contained gaps for the light troops to retire through. There is no indication that the Africans or any part of the unit were armed as a "Phalanx"

III.83 For the battle of Trasimene, the African infantry occupied a hill.

This position would have been better assigned to sword or open order troops, as a true "phalanx" tend to break up and get spaced out with moving in rough terrain.

III.87 After the battle of Trasimene, Hannibal rearmed his African troops with captured Roman equipment, selecting the best weapons available.

Most, probably, Hannibal replaced dmged equipment, like shields with undmged sources but essentially similar roman equipment. This is the only text, b/c it singles out the Africans. That could presumably be used to support the ideas that the troops adopted a new style of fighting. This argument suggests a uncharacteristic lack of forethought, as Hannibal could easily have armed his men in this manner before setting out. It fails to show how the men were trained, mid campaign, to use the new weapons. It does against the organization of the rest of Poly's account. and Finally it still doesn't indicate that a phalanx combat system was being replaced.

III.114 At the battle of Cannae, the African troops are described as equipped with Roman armor and weapons.

X

V.11 The battle of Zama, Hannibal's army is in 3 divisons, much like the Romans. Light armed first, new Carthaginian recruits second, and the last line his seasoned vets.

XV.13 These vets "mercenaries", from the Italian campaigns, hold spears prior to the final conflict. They seem to have been armed similarly to the roman Triarii.

XV.14 Hannibal's army is said to be equally matched to the Roman army in weapons.

Poly is the earliest historian to discuss the differences between a phalanx and the legion formations. He does this in the context of the 2nd Macedonians war, which followed shortly after the the 2nd Punic War, Chapter XVIII, Section 28. The discussion implies that the two systems were only confronting each other for the first time till now.Had Hannibal been using a true Macedonian phalanx. Poly would have certainly have compared the rival systems in his history for 218BC rather than waiting till 200BC

Polybious says that when the two systems first met, the Roman consistently won. If the Carthaginians used a Sarrisa pahalanx system at the Trebbia, Trasimene or Canne. Poly would have made this assertion.

Hannibl's army is described using Greek technical terms but this isnt evidence that was a phalanx. A look at the original text reveals that Poly used Greek terms to describe the Roman army as well. In fact Polybios never describes Hannibal's army as a phalanx until the battle of Zama. At this point he also calls the Roman army a Phalanx (dense compacted men)The reason for this change of description must lie in the way that the battle was waged, rather than any change in the martial hardware. Notice that the Carthaginian army is still being described in comparable terms to the Roman army.

Again, Polybios says the Carthaginians system was shown to be no better than Rome's when a general of equal brilliance to Hannibal was pitted against him. The "system" which is not described, may well have been the distinction between mercenaries and citizen troops. Finally Polybios implies that the Punic arms were inferior to the Roman ones, not different. The Africans could have been armed and organized in the similar way to the Roman Legions of the period.

The confusion starts like this. The issue is the complicated when these author consider another Carthaginian unit. Connolly refers to "the pikemen" in Ploybios account of Hannibal's army. Mistakenly, but understandably, he equates this unit to the sarissa bearers in the Macedonian army. He then maintains that these "pikemen" are the African Infantry

It is in my opinnion the "pikmen" are light armed troops from the jobs they are given, while the Africans are not; they carry captured Roman arms at Cannae. It can be shown that the pikemen and African infantry are different units entirely, and that there is no connection between these "pikemen" and the African Infantry.

[Mahgnus]

To continue on slightly with this information which might contradict my last post slightly. One of the main periods I'm focusing on is post 1st Punic war in where the Spartan General Xanthippos reformed the Carthaginian army.


A Macedonian type phalanx, in an excellent work by Johny Shumate. The Carthaginian phalanx of the same type had much ofthe same appearance, because the Carthaginians had adopted a great part of the Greek military equipment (copyright: Johny Shumate)

Since the Archaic Εra (7^th-6^th cent. BC), Sparta used to employ mercenaries, specifically Cretan archers (Dorian relatives of the Spartans). Since the time of the Peloponnesian war, and mostly during the Hegemony of Sparta over Greece (after 404 BC), this city-state became a significant employer of Greek mercenaries, due to its limited number of hoplites. However, mostly the Spartans (Lacedaemonians) themselves were sending units of their army, under the leadership of experienced Spartan ‘warlords’, to serve as mercenaries other states, because of the financial problems of their city which became more and more pressing. Despite the loss of its power after 368 BC, Sparta became a great supplier of mercenaries, not only of its own Spartans but of other Greeks also. Gythium (the main Spartan/Laconian seaport) and other seaports of the Tainaron Peninsula (Laconia) became during the 4th-3rd centuries BC, the largest mercenary recruitment centers in Greece. The Lacedaemonian/Spartan mercenary troops consisted mainly of “neodamodeis” (freed helots), other Greeks (mostly Peloponnesians), and secondly by ‘perioikoi’ (free Laconian and Messenian subjects of Sparta). The only real Spartans in these expeditions were the leader of the expedition and a number of unit commanders or military advisors. The expeditions of the mercenaries were performed under license of the official Spartan state. The mercenary forces used to depart in ships, from the Tainaron Peninsula.



Cuirass (breast plate) of trilobe type of the Punic army. It is a typical oscan breast plate, thus it possibly belonged to an Oscan (Italian) mercenary of Carthage. The Carthaginian army consisted largely of mercenaries, because the limited in numbers Carthaginians and Liby-Phoenicians had to man their fleet.
The tradition of successful Spartan military leaders abroad, had already started from the middle of the 5th century BC with the Spartan general Kleandridas. Kleandridas became the military leader of the Panhellenic colony Thourii in Southern Italy and managed to defeat several times (by using unique stratagems) the hostile indigenous Italian peoples (Lucani, Brutii and others). Similarly the leadership of the Spartan general Gylippos, the military leader of the Syracusan defense against the Athenian invaders in Sicily, is very well known. Gylippos’ military leadership was one of the main factors, possibly the most important, for the destruction of the Athenian army in the Sicilian Campaign (414-3 BC). Another famous Spartan general overseas was Clearchos (commander of the famous Ten Thousand mercenaries of Cyrus the Younger) who used to command his soldiers “with the sword in one hand and the bacterium in the other” (Xenophon).
Agesilaos’ mercenary action is also well known. Especially the campaign of this very old-aged but tireless Spartan king in Egypt (362 BC), resulted in enormous financial gains for Sparta. Other mercenary campaigns of Spartan kings or princes followed soon after: Archidamos’ expeditions in Southern Italy, Leonidas II’ in Hellenistic Asia (service in the army of Seleucus), Acrotatos’ in Southern Italy again, and finally Cleonymos’ expedition. Cleonymos landed at Taras (modern Taranto in southern Italy) with 5,000 Spartans and other Greek mercenaries. Many historians believe that the peace treaty of 303 BC between Rome and Taras (a Spartan colony) was due to the presence of Cleonymos and his soldiers in Southern Italy, and the awe of the Romans for the redoubtable Spartans. Even in this period of decline for Sparta, the reputation of its army was enough to make submissive, some opponents like Rome which was already the greatest Italian power and not accustomed to retreat. General Cleonymos was possibly the first Spartan who fought the Romans.

Hoplites in a dense-order phalanx formation, while marching against the enemy. The Greek hoplites were the most prized mercenaries throughout the Mediterranean and the Middle East (Reenactment by the Australian Historical Association Sydney Ancients).
But most of all, we must note the military action of the forgotten Spartan general Xanthippos. Xanthippos was the reformer of the army of Carthage and largely responsible for its successful resistance for 14 years to the Roman invasion, during the First Punic War (264-241 BC). In 256 BC, after the Punic defeat in the sea battle of Ecnomos (in the Sicilian coast) by the Romans, and the subsequent Roman invasion of Africa, the Carthaginians sent some of their officers to Greece in order to recruit mercenaries. One of them returned with a considerable force of Greek mercenaries. Xanthippos was one of them. Most probably he belonged to the class of the “hypomeiones” Spartans. This is an indication that he was sent in Carthage by the Spartan state, because the state used to send to overseas expeditions Spartans arising from this class. Some years earlier, Rome had conquered the Spartan colony of Taras, after the departure of Pyrrhus of Epirus from Magna Graecia, and it is possible that Sparta reacted to this conquest by sending the much experienced mercenary commander Xanthippos to help Carthage. The Lacedaemonians had done the same about 160 years earlier, by sending Gylippos to help Syracuse against the Athenian invaders.

Modern archaeological representationof a part of the city of Carthage, with its circular military harbor (Kothon) in the foreground.
-
When Xanthippos arrived in Carthage and noticed the obsolete tactics used by the Punic generals, he blamed them openly about it. But his reaction led him to the court martial. Xanthippos’ reaction is strong evidence that he was not a simple mercenary officer, but rather a military advisor sent by the Spartan state to help the Carthaginians against Rome.
However, Xanthippos’ criticism on the obsolete Punic warfare, and the arguments that he used in his trial, won for him the favor of the real rulers of Carthage, the Council of the One Hundred who eventually appointed him general of the army. In the winter of 256/5 BC, Xanthippos reformed the Carthaginian army on Greek models, bringing the Punic phalanx and cavalry to a high level of organization, discipline and fighting spirit. He taught the Carthaginians even the proper use of elephants on the battlefield – a weapon that the Spartans never used. It is probable that Xanthippos had experience on the use of war elephants, because he was in Sparta during the attack of Pyrrhus’ army against it in 272 BC. However he was a professional mercenary, so he probably have served in Hellenistic armies of the East (masters of elephant warfare). Xanthippos was also a master of ​​tactics: under his command, the Punic army crushed the Romans in the Battle of Tunis (255 BC).


However, after his great carrier in Carthage, Xanthippos was forced to leave the city fearing for his life, because of the envy of the native generals. The ancient report that the Punic generals tried to drown him or that they did it (Zonaras, Appian) is not considered valid and it rather belongs to the permanent effort of the Romans to discredit the Carthaginians. In 245 BC, Ptolemy III of Egypt appointed governor of a province of his kingdom, a mercenary by the name Xanthippos and it is strongly considered (if not generally considered) that he was the Spartan military reformer. Most probably, after leaving Carthage, Xanthippos found immediately a richer employer in Egypt, very close to Punic Libya (always with the license of the Spartan state). However Xanthippos’ military reforms were adopted permanently in Carthage after his flight, and gave much greater results. The skillful Carthaginian general Hamilcar adopted Xanthippos’ military reforms and teachings and transmitted them to his son Hannibal, one of the greatest generals in World History. Thirty nine years later, Hannibal brought the Romans to the brink of disaster…

So if anyone has some opinions on this please feel free to share.

[Biggus Splenus]

What/who did the Carthaginians consider to be a citizen.

Most "citizens" of Carthage were primarily in the navy along with the few professional soldiers that help make up Carthage's officer core and cavalry. Also like most nations of the period citizens would be asked to muster if there was serious crisis on hand which would form the levy units. So naturally I would start by asking myself, "well, what did Carthage require to be a citizen?" Unlike Rome, I have found any solid info currently that states what Carthage considered to be a citizen. I was wondering if somone might know off hand or might be able to shed some light in this area.

I'd guess Carthage's citizens would just be the men and woman of native birth, recorded in a census, like the Romans did. I don't think land ownership would be relevant seems as levied troops were apparently equipped by the state. Carthage clearly had a very organised political and social system, so I think this sounds right.
Also:

Also like most nations of the period citizens would be asked to muster if there was serious crisis on hand which would form the levy units.

levied citizen militia (such as one used in the 1st and 3rd Punic Wars along with the Mercenary Wars) typical poorly equipped levied units

The Carthaginian citizen levy were not considered poor by contemporaries, apparently fighting rather courageously, even against the odds. They certainly wouldn't be poorly equipped either. As I said before, the state MUST have equipped the citizen levy, because when Rome finally conquered Carthage, 100,000 heavy infantry panoplies were confiscated from the state arsenal (or was it 200,000?). I'd suggest this would consist of a shield, spear, sword, helmet, greaves, and maybe some cuirasses. Pretty much all units in this time were "levies" too

The obvious easy one, The Sacred Band which I didn't know was utterly destroyed twice first time being in sicily at 311BC and the second time at in 310BC in Tunis. I can only imagine that this destroyed the Carthaginian wealthy class due to that fact that the SB was made up of primarly young nobles and men from very wealthy families. After its second destruction it appears to haven fallen out of history and have been replaced with just citizen levies during the late Punic wars. 311BC also marked the last time a Carthaginian army left the main land http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Carthage (not the best source but EB also confirms this, I don't know what their sources are)

I said this before:

There was a sacred band unit comprised of citizens, but this disappeared before the beginning of the 3rd C BCE (after been destroyed 3 times); might be exciting to include these guys as a future tech, like, "re-militarisation of the citizens"... or something like that

About the wealth of the citizens I said this:

The reason why Carthage didn't have the usual Levy of adequately armed citizens that formed Roman and Hellenic armies, is because their farmland wasn't owned by independent farmers, but it was covered with very large agricultural estates, owned by the nobles, and worked by harshly treated Libyan slaves. Perhaps a juicy piece of info for you Magnar

Next:

Next units are the Carthaginian Citizen Cavalry which I found in EB and seems to have been equipped as medium shock cavalry (shield less) with Xystons and Linothorax types of armor. There are a few mentions of Citizen armed cav (pobyiuos iirc)

Last unit I've currently found is the Royal Cavalry/Noble Cavalry or the so called " Sacred Band Cav" Any way there seems to be more evidence about these units more than others and I would assume its was due to the status and wealth of the men that were apart of these types of units. With imported types or armor and heavy lances and just about any equipment they wanted they must have been a solid force for the generals of the time.

EB's depiction of Carthaginian citizen cavalry armed in the Makedonian matter is completely un-supported, and I find it very unlikely. This is what I said before:

It's hard to say exactly what the citizen cavalry would have fought like... I'd suggest the native, classical Greeko-Italian style, shielded, a spear (not long xyston, but relatively long spear, like the Roman equites' style), a sword, heavily armoured, and perhaps a couple javelins(?). I DON'T recommend horse armour in any form. Same style for the Libyan and Liby-Phoenician units I suppose, though I doubt either would be able to serve in a cavalry corps...

Which I find far more likely. Carthaginian horse of our period would be much more Greek than Makedonian, mainly because of their constant wars with the Sicilians Greeks, which also would have adopted Italian influence. Also, I doubt that a Carthaginian citizen cavalry corps would exist outside the role of an "elite" (in status, not effectiveness specifically) battlefield bodyguard for the general. Also again, Libyans did serve as cavalry I was wrong about before.

Now obviously Carthage's armies were mostly "mercenaries" which I personally feel they weren't in the traditional since but more akin to the Roman allies and Auxiliary units from client states. Altho this is just my opinion I find it very hard to field vast (effective) armies without working knowlege of your soldiers and especially communication through the units. As a soldier myself I understand how paramount communication is to a unit, and if communication is limited, or nonexistent it would very unlikely lead to any success. Which makes me beleive such "mercenaries" were more likely professional solders from Carthage's colonies and distant territories.

They definitely weren't mercenaries most the time. In the 1st Punic War they did use a large number from Iberia, but the various African troops where allies. I doubt they were professional soldiers, but perhaps the usual temporary levy from allied lands, payed with a sum of valuables and money at the end of the war (instead of regular wage). The communication problem is why Carthaginian citizens usually served as officers.

So far i've uncovered the reforms of Xamthippus of Sparta after the first Punic war which he reformed the Carthagian army to the combined arms model of the Macedonian army. Which played to the Carthagian strengths of it's maneuverable units. Do you happen to know much about this area or any other period of large change/reforms to the Carthagian army? (edit I found more Info on this period)question still valid though

There's actually no evidence of the Carthaginian army being reformed on the Makedonian model, and considering that Xamthippus was Spartan, and that state hadn't adopted the Makedonian model at this time, I think it's very unlikely. He apparently did do some type of reform, but I think he might have just raised the standards of the army, and incorporated more modern drills and command structures, perhaps along with more homogeneity with arms and organisation. It's completely uncertain what he actually done, and all we can do is speculate.

Also we will be focusing on a second reform period just before the 3rd Punic war post Iberian campaigns and heavy Roman contact.

Don't you mean before the 2nd Punic War?

[Biggus Splenus]

To continue on the unlikely-hood of the adoption of the Makedonian phalanx, I think it looks even less likely when you consider the Carthaginian's future campaigns, the landscape they fought on, and their great success. The Barcids campaigned in Iberia, where a Makedonian phalanx would have been practically useless. When Hannibals troops where supplemented with Celtic arms, then Roman, suggests further that these men MUST have used similar equipment, because marching your troops over such a gigantic distance (with your goal as getting to Rome ASAP), while simultaneously retraining your men to use completely different arms and tactics, just seems highly improbable to me.

The modern translation by Scott Kilvert incorrectly introduces the "phalanx" here. That by Paton which has the advantage of a parallel Greek text; shows that the word does not appear and was added by the Penguin translator. Poly said, the line contained the Spanish and Kelt, as well as the Africans. It also contained gaps for the light troops to retire through. There is no indication that the Africans or any part of the unit were armed as a "Phalanx"

Just have to remember that a "phalanx" to contemporaries was any close-order formation, but you're right to point this out

This position would have been better assigned to sword or open order troops, as a true "phalanx" tend to break up and get spaced out with moving in rough terrain.

You can't be certain about this though. Classical style hoplite would perform well on a hill, fighting defensively (which they must have done, considering they occupied it). Hoplite commonly occupied hills, we hear of it plenty of times in the Persian Wars.

Hannibl's army is described using Greek technical terms but this isnt evidence that was a phalanx.

If it was written by a Greek, they will always describe the army in their native terms. The Romans did this too.

[Mahgnus]

also more information on the Macedonian model

Reforms of Xanthippus

Main article: Xanthippus of Carthage

Further information: First Punic War
During the First Punic War with the Roman Republic for domination over Sicily, in 256 BC the Roman Consul Marcus Atilius Regulus defeated the Carthaginian navy at the Battle of Cape Ecnomus and landed a Roman army on Carthaginian territory in Africa. Regulus than inflected a crushing defeat upon the Carthaginian army at the Battle of Adys near Carthage. Though Carthage was inclined towards a peace deal, Regulus demanded too harsh of terms, causing Carthage to continue the war.
The Carthaginians replaced the defeated general Hamilcar with new leadership in 255 BC by recruiting the Spartan mercenary captain Xanthippus, who was charged with retraining and restructuring the Carthaginian army. Xanthippus adopted the combined arms model of the Macedonian army developed during the time of Phillip II. Xanthippus split his cavalry between his two wings, with mercenary infantry on screening the cavalry, and a hastily-raised citizen phalanx in the center screened by a line of elephants in front of the spearmen. Previously, Carthaginian generals have placed the elephants behind the central phalanx
Xanthippus also realized the mistakes the Carthaginians were making by avoiding open ground battles against the Roman, instead seeking only uneven terrain. This was done out of fears about the Romans' superior infantry. Such a strategy, however, restricted Carthage's strongest elements: its cavalry and elephants. The uneven terrain also distrupted the phalanx and favored the more flexible legion. By seeking battles on open plains, Xanthippus was able to make the fullest use of Carthage's strengths where Roman formations broke under attack from the elephant and cavalry charges.
Under the leadership of Xanthippus, the reformed Carthaginian army completely defeated the Romans at the Battle of Tunis.


notes from another source

"Romans, Carthaginians, and a Spartan; bloody sand in North Africa."

Timeline
•

264 Outbreak of First Punic War
•

262 Romans Besiege and take Agrigentum
•

260 Roman Naval Victory at Mylae (firstuse of 'corvus')
•

259 Corsica is captured
•

256 Roman Naval Victory at Ecnomus
•

256 Roman Landing on Promontory
•

Senate recalls Consul Manlius Vulso
•

Regulus conducts operations of raiding in area

•

Carthage recalls Hamilcar Barca from Sicily
•

Hamilcar arrives with additional 500cavalry, 5,000 soldiers
•

Carthage force sets out to relieve Adys
•


Regulus marches toward Carthage, besiegesAdys

•

Regulus night attack at Adys on Carthaginian relief force and routs them

•


Negotiations fail
•

Onset of Winter Regulus returns to Aspis for Winter

•

Carthaginian recruiters return withXanthippos

•

Xanthippos observations and drilling of mercenary and Carthaginian soldiers
•

X. likely had tactical knowledge of using Elephants (Due to Pyrrhius attempted invasion of Sparta

•


255 Spring (May?) both armies march out of winter quarters with intent to do battle
•

Carthaginians make camp at least one time before meeting Romans

•

Command of Carthaginian forces is turned over to Xanthippos

•

X. deploys elephants to front, and cavalry out in large turning from wings of elephants,with phalanx behind the elephants

•

Regulus adjusts foot to tighter formation,rather than an expanded formation.(Deploying to an expanded formationrequires enormous discipline and training)
•

C. cavalry quickly defeats Roman cavalry(outnumbering them 8 - 1) and subsequently encircles the Roman foot from rear as well.

•

Romans rout, likely over 10,000 are killed,Regulus is captured.
Key Points
•

It is unlikely that Regulus had received an additional reinforcement that nearly equaled the size of his army (another 15,000 foot soldiers) without also being reinforced by another Consul.
•



Logistic of moving so many troops, unencumbered by Carthaginian Naval Fleet also seems unlikely. Also Polybius tells that once the news reached Rome of the disaster, they immediately fitting out their fleet to execute a rescue attempt of the survivors - leading one to believe that it was not, and had not been prepared or recently returned from delivering a reinforcement force of 10-15,000


I apologize for the format issue

[Mahgnus]

To continue on the unlikely-hood of the adoption of the Makedonian phalanx, I think it looks even less likely when you consider the Carthaginian's future campaigns, the landscape they fought on, and their great success. The Barcids campaigned in Iberia, where a Makedonian phalanx would have been practically useless. When Hannibals troops where supplemented with Celtic arms, then Roman, suggests further that these men MUST have used similar equipment, because marching your troops over such a gigantic distance (with your goal as getting to Rome ASAP), while simultaneously retraining your men to use completely different arms and tactics, just seems highly improbable to me.

Very valid points, I personally agree with you in this. However, the post before and the one above that has me skeptical to say the least.

You can't be certain about this though. Classical style hoplite would perform well on a hill, fighting defensively (which they must have done, considering they occupied it). Hoplite commonly occupied hills, we hear of it plenty of times in the Persian Wars.

Very true but I was referring to more of a Phalangite in this instance

If it was written by a Greek, they will always describe the army in their native terms. The Romans did this too.

I agree with this but he also describes the Romans as being in a phalanx in the same work. Which made me think of that that conclusion.

[Mahgnus]

Also this

Xanthippus (Gr. Ξάνθιππος) was a Greek (possibly Spartan) mercenary general hired by the Carthaginians to aid in their war against the Romans during the First Punic War. He trained Carthaginian soldiers and led them into the battle of Tunis, where Carthaginian forces routed the Roman expeditionary force and captured the Roman consul Marcus Atilius Regulus in 255 BC.

Xanthippus is credited with the Carthaginian formation, cavalry split between the two wings, mercenary infantry on their right, with a hastily raised phalanx of civilians in the centre and a line of elephants in front of the infantry, which defeated the Romans formed in their normal formation, with the outnumbered cavalry on the wings and legionary infantry in the centre. He also realised the mistakes the Carthaginians were making by avoiding open ground (because of the Romans' superior infantry) which restricted the Carthaginian cavalry and elephants (the strongest parts of their armies).
Diodorus gives an account of Xanthippus' death. After the battle of Tunis, Xanthippus stopped in the city of Lilybaeum which was besieged by the Romans. He inspired courage and led an attack defeating the Romans. Jealous of Xanthippus' success, the city betrayed him by giving him a leaky ship and he supposedly sank in the Adriatic Sea on his voyage home. For Lazenby this story is completely implausible. There is a report of a Xanthippus being made governor of a newly acquired province by Ptolemy Euergetes of Egypt in 245 BC.(The First Punic War, J F Lazenby, p106)

[Biggus Splenus]

It's clear that the Spartan deployed the army like the Hellenistic Kingdoms done, but I just want to stress how unlikely a Makedonian style phalanx would have been. If we also take into consideration that Rome fought with Pyrrhus under 30 years before this (accredited as being one of the greatest generals of his time), and every battle they fought this Makedonian-style army, they inflicted very heavy casualties, close to their own. Then we look at the Battle of Tunis, where the Romans lost 12,000 and the Carthaginians just 800, and then we assume Xanthippus wasn't as competent as Pyhhrus (which I believe he wasn't), then this just doesn't make sense. Whatever Xanthippus done, worked very well, but what did he do?

[Mahgnus]

[QUOTE=Splenyi;13415584]

Which I find far more likely. Carthaginian horse of our period would be much more Greek than Makedonian, mainly because of their constant wars with the Sicilians Greeks, which also would have adopted Italian influence. Also, I doubt that a Carthaginian citizen cavalry corps would exist outside the role of an "elite" (in status, not effectiveness specifically) battlefield bodyguard for the general. Also again, Libyans did serve as cavalry I was wrong about before.

I also believe this to be more plausible then what has been show in EB

There's actually no evidence of the Carthaginian army being reformed on the Makedonian model, and considering that Xamthippus was Spartan, and that state hadn't adopted the Makedonian model at this time, I think it's very unlikely. He apparently did do some type of reform, but I think he might have just raised the standards of the army, and incorporated more modern drills and command structures, perhaps along with more homogeneity with arms and organisation. It's completely uncertain what he actually done, and all we can do is speculate.

Well the First Punic War (264 to 241 BC) So post first Punic War is when he is stated to have arrived. and iirc it was Cleomenes III who started the Spartan reforms and he reigned as King of Sparta from 235–222 BC but he is discribed as being a mercenary general which he would have hired his services out to anyone. It is speculation that he could have been taught the the Macedonian format but not implausible. Also to mention he was confirmed to be a Sparta at the time of pyrrhus attack in 272 BC. It is also to be noted that The Battle of Tunis, also known as the Battle of Bagrades, was a decisive Carthaginian victory in which he is credited for.

Just about this time there arrived at Carthage one of the recruiting-officers they had formerly dispatched to Greece, bringing a considerable number of soldiers and among them a certain Xanthippus of Lacedaemon, a man who had been brought up in the Spartan discipline, and had had a fair amount of military experience" (Polybius, 1.32.1).

In the person of Regulus, Fortuna wanted to to give an example of both sides of fate: he was defeated and captured by Xanthippus, a Spartan leader that had been invited by the Carthaginians to support them" (Livy, 18.255.2).

"the Carthaginians, considering that their misfortunes were due to bad generalship, asked the Lacedaemonians to send them a commander. The Lacedaemonians sent them Xanthippus." (Appian, 3.2).

"... various allies came to the Carthaginians, among them Xanthippus from Sparta. This man assumed absolute authority over the Carthaginians, since the populace was eager to entrust matters to his charge and Hamilcar together with the other officials stepped aside voluntarily" (Zonaras, 11.13).

Don't you mean before the 2nd Punic War?

No, based on the info i had at the time of all these posts planned as this. first reform post 1st Punic War second refrom post 2nd Punic war before the start of the 3rd. Of course this isnt set in stone and considering our discussion im still searchin for the so called truth

[Mahgnus]

but I just want to stress how unlikely a Makedonian style phalanx would have been.

The more ive researched this topic the more I agree with you how unlikely it was they adopted the Macedonian format.

(accredited as being one of the greatest generals of his time)

agreed

and every battle they fought this Makedonian-style army, they inflicted very heavy casualties, close to their own.

Agreed but more info about Tunis




The mercenary general Xanthippus was hired by the city of Carthage following heavy-handed negotiations by Rome. He made the Romans fight on open ground, which allowed him to maximize the effect of the excellent Carthaginian cavalry and elephants.

The Roman army under Marcus Atilius Regulus was based at Tunis. Faced by the resurgent Carthaginian army Regulus was keen to gain another victory rather than risk the chance that someone else would get the glory of eventual victory. All we have from the sources is Polybios' report that Regulus had 15,000 Infantry and 500 Cavalry when he returned home.^[2]
Deployment

Xanthippus is credited with the Carthaginian deployment, with a hastily raised phalanx of civilians in the centre, mercenary infantry on their right and a line of elephants in front of the infantry, with the elite Carthaginian cavalry split between the two flanks. The Romans were formed in their normal formation, with the legionary infantry in the centre and the outnumbered cavalry on the flanks.
The Battle

The Carthaginians started the battle with an attack by the elephants. This tied up the main force of Roman infantry. The Roman cavalry, outnumbered eight to one, was quickly defeated. Only on their left did the Romans have any success, when 2,000 troops, possibly allied troops, defeated the mercenaries facing them, and chased them back past their camp. Meanwhile, in the centre the elephant attack had been withstood, but only a few isolated units of Roman infantry managed to get past them to attempt to attack the Carthaginian phalanx, and those were quickly defeated. Finally, the Carthaginian cavalry charged the already shaken Romans from both sides, destroying what cohesion was left. Only the 2,000 troops successful earlier in the battle escaped to be rescued by the Roman fleet. Regulus himself was taken prisoner. Some later Roman writers claim that his eyelids were cut off and he was trampled to death by an enraged elephant.^[3] However Polybius does not mention it and Diodorus, (a writer hostile to the Carthaginians) implies he died from natural causes.^[4] The defeat, and serious disasters in storms at sea, ended any chance that Rome would defeat Carthage in Africa, and ensured that the rest of the war was fought in Sicily and at sea.

Whatever Xanthippus done, worked very well, but what did he do?

That is the million dollar question!


edit for references

• Lost Battles, Philip Sabin p174
• Lost Battles, Philip Sabin p175
• Kistler, John M. War Elephants. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006. p.100.
• Carthage and the Carthaginians, R Bosworth Smith.

[Mahgnus]

So with all of this discussion when do you think real reforms happened in the Carthaginian army?