[Research] Research Database

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Gallic Factions - By Marshall of France

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Introduction:

The term ‘Celt’ can be applied to those indo European tribes that migrated into Europe by around 3000 bc. We can for better reasons name them as tribal societies that were connected with a common language. Their art/warfare was similar with each other. A sophisticated civilization that was misunderstood by their Roman/Greek counterparts and much of this comes from the La Tene Culture. They were wealthy people and that commonly used to attract raids from the Germanic tribes. Defining them as Celts would be an understatement as each tribal society would have had their own set of customs/warfare tactics. Apart from the Roman and Greek writers that aimed to portray them as barbaric, one of the things that can be said was they had a pre feudal hierarchal system, a religious system, and an militaristic outlook. Indeed, this research will use Gauls and Britons or other historical names rather than ‘Celt’ but at times however, when discussing the overhaul history/group it will be needed.

The conflict between the Romans and the Celts had gone way overboard, over 3 and a half centuries. Starting from the victorious General Benarus sacking Rome in 390bc, despite having no long term effect in the future, it had an long term effect on the Romans which Polybius states

‘humiliation the Romans developed a fear and loathing of the Celts ‘ which would lead a long term loathing for the Celts. This would then not only lead to widespread genocides of entire Gaulic tribes by the Romans, it would indeed create impeccable hosility from the Britons/Gauls. Then from Caesar’s expansion into Gaul/Germania and, till the last expansion into Britain, it endured a lot of conflict/diplomacy/deaths/war/battles and victories/defeat.


These were brutal times between these two civilizations. One thing that the Roman authors like Polybius tend to ignore is that the Gauls were once a capable threat to the Romans and were they oldest adversaries. The idea that ‘frontiers suggest cultural backwardness’ is necessarily the idea of the Roman point of view.

As an people:




In the 4th Century BC, the writer Ephorus named the Gauls, Persians, Sycthians, and liybans as the four greatest of race of ‘barbarians’. The Gauls as a whole of the Celtic race possessed many qualities, their technical skills were something to be admired, indeed, their wealth attracted many enemies such as the Romans and the Germans. Their artistry in metalwork were some of the finest ever seen. They invented the mail coat which would soon be adopted by their enemies and created the plow. They were more like an building people which involved smithing/or building objects, using materials such as wood/stone/other materials.

However, they were also capable of doing fine metal/artwork, fine gold work with finesse subletley. Examples include enammlled brooches, utensils and weapons that were surpassed in quality, indeed the Roman helmet itself developed from the Gaulic La Tene helmet. The Romans adapted many formations from these people.



Displaying was an natural love feature for the Gauls. Displaying was to them to be showing of their wealth and beauty into scoeity, very much like the feudal society of Europe as of this time. They ha d colourful clothing, collars and armlets of gold/silver which celebrated their tribes/or had family rites/or maybe bedecking their chiefs. Gaulish Sheild design would have had some of the finest shield designs ever seen for an civilization normally seen as Barbarians. One of the things that the Gauls inherited was the displaying of boasting, strength and prowess, and bragging. Bellowing war cries and insults to their enemies was particularly common. Quicker to laugh, and ferocious in combat.




As conforming to their combat, Livy emphasises the difference  between Gaul and Roman thus; ‘one was remarkable for his stature, resplendent in multi‐coloured 

clothing and painted armour inlaid with gold; the other had a moderate physique for a soldier, and 

was nothing special to look at, with armour that was suitable rather than ornate. He did not sing out 

war‐cries, or dance about with useless brandishing of weapons, but his breast swelled with courage 

and silent anger; all his ferocity was held back for the critical moment of the duel.

This goes to show that the Gauls indeed were very multi-coloured on the battlefield, not so all greenlike or whatnot. Indeed, this is what separated the professional Roman soldiers that had been trained extensively as an army, where the Gaulish tribes managed to raise large armies, but only in the late stages did they really begin to become more professionalized, as Caeaser’s troops invaded Gaul.



As compared to this, the cult of blood hunting was common in Celtic society, and the tales of loyalty is something which seems to have been bonded in the Celtic tribes. Indeed, if you read many historical fiction novels set in the Roman Era, you’ll find that most authors tend to display a Celtic village and its warriors being bonded to the loyalty of their clans/however we musn’t ignore the fact that by the time of the Roman Conquest of Gaul, it is no doubt that the Romans would have gathered many Gaulish tribes in their belt, and some tribes were more than willing to serve under the Romans, or help the Romans in a conflict with an rival tribe. Caser recognised the fact that Gaul was divided and he used it to his advantage, if however, a General were like Vercingtox to arise and unite the tribes, then this would be a threat towards the Romans. So while there was loyalty, there was appalling treachery among the Gaulish Tribes. Indeed, it was only the unity of the Germanic tribes under Arminius that conflicted the worst defeat on Rome and managed to dissuade the Romans from expanding further into Germania. Though some of them do intend to display the young Celtics as all out going for war when it wasn’t. Some trained into wars, while others were farmers or so. The idea that it was really all an ‘’ warlike’’ society however, is false. It was a mixture of both. The Romans were like a warlike and civilian society themselves, but were more ruthless. When we compare this to the Celtic tribes, they were themselves capable of commiting dark acts against helpless victims , but they too were contradictory like the Romans.

                                                           

34 Livy, V, 49 in A. de Sèlincourt, Livy (Harmondsworth: Pelican Books, 1960), p.379 

35 Appian discusses this in H. White, Appian’s Roman History I (London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1912), p.99 

36 P. Bidwell, Roman Forts in Britain (London: B.T. Batsford, 1997), p.44 

37 S. Allen, Lords of Battle – The World of the Celtic Warrior (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2007), p.3 

38 Diodorus Siculus V, 29 in C.H. Oldfather (ed), Diodorus Siculus (London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1939), p.173 14 





 

Organzaiton:

Tacitus also stated ‘the Romans disregard the clamour and 

empty threats of the natives. Only let them keep their close order, and once they had discharged 

their javelins, carry on felling and slaughtering the enemy with their shield bosses and swords.’42 

These observations are confirmed by the Roman military theorist Vegetius who states ‘a small force 

which is highly trained in the conflicts of war is more apt to victory: a raw and untrained horde is 

always exposed to slaughter.’43 Yet these views must be counted as opinion, further reading shows 

how both Romans and Greeks noted the Gallic and Ancient British ability to fight tactically. Polybius 

describes how the Celts had posted the Alpine tribe of the Gaesate to face the rear, the direction 

from which they expected Paullus to attack, and behind them the Insubres; on their front, to meet 

the attack of Atilius’ legions, they had stationed the Taurisci and the Boii. The Celtic order of battle 

                                                            

39 Livy VII, 9 in B. Radice, Livy – Rome and Italy (Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics,1982), p.107‐109 

40 Dio Cassius, Epitome, LX11, 8, in E. Cary (ed), Dio’s Roman History (London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1968), 

p.95‐96 

41 Dio Cassius, Epitome, LXII, 12 in E. Cary (ed), Dio’s Roman History (London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1968), 

p.103 

42 Tacitus, Annals, XIV, 36 in C. H. Moore, Tacitus Annals (London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1966), p.167 

43 Vegetius I, 1 in N. Milner (ed), Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 

2001), p.3 

Helmets:



Arms/Armour:



Weapons:







Warfare tactics:


The Gauls primarily were swordsmen, this is also seen by the Britannic, Iberian tribes which all seem to have been pretty much swordsmen based armies equipped with cavalry on the flanks. This would very much resemble a pre ‘medieval’ formation before it fully got to use during the medieval era. If they were led by the right General, then they had better chances

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

• Professionally trained, and had more logistical/organized formations.
• Divide and Rule policy – they manipulated the Gaulish tribes against each other and successfully cooperated them into their empire.
• Years of experience at war with the Celts had hardened the Roman psyche, so the common trait of the ferecoious charge of the Celts would have had little effect against professional soliders that had been in the army for 25 years or so. Unlike the Gaulish Celtics, they had already formed an professional army which was capable of defeating their enemies. The Gauls however, were disbanded tribes and while fighting in formation and compact masses, did not adopt a fully professional style of army. It was only in times of Ceaser’s Gallic Wars that they began to adopt them in the threat of the in surging Roman expanding monster.
• No Formal military adopted by the Celtic tribes, it was all to do with the Hierchal system,

The Gallic’s army main core would have been the infantry. The infantry made the mass of Gallic Armies. There would have been before the start of the battle insults, cursing an shouting, abuses hurled at the enemy before they charged with their ferocious charges. Some cases would have been tossing their standards, music playing from the war horns and banging rhythmically on their shields.



Against the Romans, they simply did not have the manpower and influence to make rather large numbers fight for them. The Gauls didn't have influence or political stance to make large numbers fight for them, and while some of the Gauls may have had millitary training especially with tribes such as the Boii, the Arveni, or the Audei. But to make another point to balance these two arguments, the Celtic warriors were an disciplined force, and to be fair to the Romans, even their units were mostly consisting of local levies and natives which would take years to drill them into professional training as soldiers. Most of the other tribes would have not stood much of a chance against a fully trained professional army such as the Romans, the Celts may have had some military style, but they were a minority when compared to the Romans. It was only in confederations that they were truly capable under a leader like Vercetingox and some sort of form of an professional army began to truly form for a short time. Think of the Samurai of Japan in the feudal era, most troops were based on an herichal system and when they were called for war, they came in their numbers.



One of the things that the Gauls later began to adapt, and one which CA got right, was during the Gallic Wars you began to see an gradual emergence of Gaulish tactics and warfare being influenced and change to combat the Roman style of war. Their traditional long shields with the spine and umbo in favor of more rounded shields, or having domes in the middle to combat the Romans style of warfare. They experimented with spear heads and bayonets to pierce mail, but all this was for nothing, even though they were forced to adapt to situations whereas the Romans for hundreds of years had been adapting to their enemies quite a lot.


Once these warriors discharged from their shouting and attacked the enemy, they would throw their javelins upon to the enemyand break up as indiviual soliders to break up the opposing ranks. If the first assault failed, then you would get repeated assaults upon the enemy until they broke or the Gauls having to retreat if they were not able to.


The Gauls of course fought in close order and behind an shield wall, this is made in reference by( livy - History of Rome 1.0). There is evidence of an Gaulish Testudo, where in an battle the Gaulish spearmen or swordsmen, raised their shields above their heads and began locking them. ( Liviy, decribing the Gallic testudo at the battle of Alla).


Sources for other use:



- "When the Gallic horsemen were engaged, the servants remained behind the ranks and proved useful in the following way. Should a horseman or his horse fall, the slave brought him a horse to mount; if the rider was killed, the slave mounted the horse in his master's place; if both rider and horse were killed, there was a mounted man ready. When a rider was wounded, one slave brought back to camp the wounded man, while the other took his vacant place in the ranks. - Pausanias


- "By quickly adopting their usual phalanx the Germans were able to withstand the sword thrusts..." Caesar's Gallic Wars 1:52


- "The Gauls' mode of besieging is the same as that of the Belgae: when after having drawn a large number of men around the whole of the fortifications, stones have begun to be cast against the wall on all sides, and the wall has been stripped of its defenders, then, forming a testudo, they advance to the gates and undermine the wall: which was easily effected on this occasion; for while so large a number were casting stones and darts, no one was able to maintain his position upon the wall." - Caesar's Gallic War book ll


- "The Helvetii, having followed with all their wagons, collected their baggage into one place: they themselves, after having repulsed our cavalry and formed a phalanx, advanced up to our front line in veryclose order." - Caesar Gallic Wars XXIV


- "The Gauls concealed in the woods had already formed up in battle order" - Caesar Gallic Wars 2:19


- "The Nervii, led in a compact mass by their commander Boduagnatus" - Caesar Gallic Wars 2:23


- "Indutiomarus proceeded to raise and drill troops" - Caesar Gallic Wars 5:55


- "The Gauls re-formed in the market place and other open spaces in wedge-shaped masses" - Caesar Gallic Wars 7:28


- "The Gauls advanced to the attack with shields locked together above their heads, fresh troops continually relieving them when they were tired." - Caesar Gallic Wars 7:85


- "The Germans' line of battle is drawn up in a wedge-like formation- Tacitus



However these tactics were soon to be countered by the Romans which had rank file system that if the first line couldn't break through, it could depend on the other systems it had in place. However one of the thing that the Gauls themselves noticed, especially active tribes such as the Boii, Insurgubes, the Italian Gauls , Taursicii of the Apline regions noticed the great wealth that the Romans possessed in their hands, surely bringing to this point that a victory against Rome would give them greater wealth. Alas, that was not to be. Note, there were plenty of experienced gaulish warriors at this time.



Units:

In terms of units, there is the tribe of the Gaesatea, when they attacked the Romans, first attacked with javelins and then threw all their clothes, attacking the Roman infantry, attacking in huge numbers. Invited south, they were a wandering free people, and had participated in the great invasion period of the Italian peninsula.They had tall spearmen, decked with golden bracelets and torcs, twany manes stiffened in line, attacking in senseless rage against the enemy, Polybius or Diodorucs never indeed understood their actions for going naked in battle, but evidence suggests that these were tribes young men, who hired themselves to anyone as mercenaries and were known to be legendary warriors. These warriors wore a ' Monterfernio' helmet with massive cheek guards secured by thongs, through rings underneath the rear guard neck, and a horsechair crest. The torc is electrum, plated belt and bracelet are bronze. Weapons are large thrusting spear, two javelins and an sword. The Latter hangs from an extra loop on the belt, engaging with a metal loop on the back surface of the scabbard. The shield is painted wth circular patterns or so. These troops will be ready to recruit especially in the regions of the Swiss Alpines, and around the Italian Peninsula.


Slingers:

Some Celtic slingers would have had pebbles in their bag, cobble sized and water smoothed stones of uniform, gathered from beaches and rivers. Young men that had not yet learned how to master the sword, could join the assault infantry, or becoming slingers in order to show their skils in the hope that they would be promoted. This was also common for the Germanic tribes such as the Suebi, so we would call these slingers and Javelin-men as ' Gaulish blooded youths'.



Cavarly:

By 52 bc, the late Gallic Cavarlyman that would have served with Vercingtox at Alesia, would have been an ferocious warrior. In this example here, he wears the Agen helmet as was found at the battle site of Alesia, wearing the helmet and holding his shield on his side. Note that some of these shields may have been rectangular or rounded. This particular cavalrymen wears an striped wollen jerkin, over a checker pattern long sleeved smock, and wearing a cloak. Gallic cavarly would have been able to dismount and charge and this was recorded for Alesia as well. They had a different tribal tradition according to their gods as well.



A Gaulic heavy cavalry armoured unit would also be an mid level tier to keep the cavalry of the Gaulish tribes level. It is no doubt that during the Gallic Wars and with the Germanic tribes there would have been units of armoured better equipped horsemen. Note that since the Celts were fine metal makers, there was an abundance of materials ready for the Gaulish tribes to already have some of these units in their ranks. The Gauls had more iron and skilled smiths at the time. It should also note that the best Gaulish cavalry came from the tribes that were masters of the horse, and where horses inhabited that region. Gallic Cavarly were well renowned and were constantly used as mercaernies by Hannibal and other Greek/Macedonian generals. The Romans admitted freely that Iberian and Gallic cavarly were some of the best that they met, regarding them to be excellent swordsmen. This was just in accordance to their point of view.



Many Celtic cavalrymen often fought without wearing armour or helmets. Now this does not apply to all tribes, but it would have been an common occurrence. Most of the Gallic Calvary that fought in Ceaser's side would have well been better equipped, and were some of the finest allies that he would have. Instead we can call these units as ' Unarmoured Gallic cavalry', these people would be poor for their service in the tribe and during the life and death struggle between the Gauls and the Romans, it would not have been common to see these Gallic Cavarlymen to wander around with stolen Roman helmets.



The Cimbrian cavalry unit - In fall of the Roman Republic, Plutarch describes the Cimibrian cavarly at Verllace, as wearing helmets like the 'gape jawed heads of beasts heightened with tall feather plums, two javelins, a large heavy sword and and as wearing iron breast plates. A unit like this would be welcome in the game.



Another unit that I would like to add is Batavian Cavarly, there are several accounts of them fighting like heroics, and the Batavians being a Germanic tribe, would have had some pretty good cavalry, most commonly, they would have been used as mercaneis. The tribe of the Sequani recruited Germanic mercenaries.



Elite Noble Infantry:

In this pic, the nobleman helmet's of the Port Type dating from the last phase of the La Tene Culture, over a long sleeved smock, with braiding at the helms, and cuffs, he wears a mail corselet, slit at the hips to make an easy mounted seat. Now, they could be better equipped swordsmen or cavarly during the Gallic Wars.



Tribes such as the Boii, who fought against the Romans for a very long time than any other Gallic tribe, should have access to naked warriors, as they were well known for having them. Gallic chariots must be in many tribes, and for the Boii as well. Units such as Celtic Axemen and Swordsmen must be available to the Boii and be made as special mercaneris as well for other tribes. Only the Boii will have an advantage over the other Gallic tribes with these three unit types, and when recruited as mercenaeries, they will not be that good compared to their native counterparts. However they will be effective as light infantry capable of routing or destroying other light infantry unit types. The Nervii need wolf warriors in their custom roster list.



The galatians need three types of units: Sythced Chariots, normal chariots, and Galation Catakori. The reason behind this is that the Galations used Sctyhian chariots and chariots against the Selecuids, and there is meantion of the Galations sending their troops, around five thousand to aid the Romans against the Selecuids, serving as cataphracts. This is an common influence, and their cavarly would have been influnced by other Selecuid or Pontic cavarlymen. Their Legionnaires must be a mix of Romanized, Ptolemic influences. But we must have this sort



Ptolemic style Legionnaires ( Before the Romans)

Romanized Galation style Legionnaires( Romanized training)



Galation Cataphracts

Reasoning: I can't remember where I read it, but as many as five hundred or so either served against the Selecuids or fought with them. Nevertheless, the Galations would have had considerable influences from both Roman and Selecuid style cataphracts. They need a strong heavy cavarly unit anyway, and should be considered an elite unit that if it were to be produced, would be like the Compainian cavarly of Macedon.

Galation normal style legionnaires:

Reasoning: These units should be the poor version of the legionnaires at the start - they are an attempt to have some sort of infantry style, but not such a good attempt. They are disciplined warriors, and can be truly capable of turning the battle side, but they are more an attacking force than an defending force. Their strength is delivering a good capable charge. But they are also bad because they are unwieldy, like phalanxes, and are unable to manvoure much, they have more armour making them more heavy, since it is an mix of Galation and other Eastern influences. Nevertheless these units will be your mainstay for a while, unreliable but dependable.

Galation Ptolmeic style Legionnaires.

Reasoning: These units would be when the Ptolemies trained the Galations in their own style of Romanized infantry. They are not as well capable and can only be relied on keeping the battle line - they are there to hold the line. Using them anywhere else will not be useful.

Galation Romanized Style Legionnaires:

Reasoning: These units should be the elite of the Galation Legionnaires, since they were trained themselves by the Romans, and having aided the Romans in defeating the Pontic army during the Mithadehric wars, these units should be the proper elite of the Galation style legionnaires.


Tylis need more access to Thracian bowmen, chariots, and more Celtic swordsmen in this region. Thracian mercanary cavarly, especially skirshmer ones will be a good choice. Gallic-Thracian infantry, or cavarly, or archers would be a nice addition to the unit roster of Tylis.



Extra info worth meantioning:



These posts were made by Ambigtos and Daelin 4, but I think they deserve a good meantion:

Originally Posted by daelin4:

In terms of tech tree I think that the end-game Gallic/ German tech trees could resemble early medieval technology and styles. The social culture of the Germans and Gauls look an awful like that of a prototypical medieval society, with similar structures and organizations. Oppidia, which were large hill forts of varying degrees of protection, would have naturally evolved into the early medieval castles.



Excellent observation! Their society and the way they raised their armies do remind me a lot of how armies were fielded in feudal times. And the oppida were operated like early castle forts that dotted the country sides. Even the Gallic weapons ( i.e long swords with double fullers, etc etc ) seem to have been a pre-cursor to the later designs that would eventually take shape. Medieval and Migration/Viking period smiths seem to have picked up right where the La Tene smiths left off. Afterall, it was the Gallic weapon that seems to have survived the test of time, rather than the Roman one. It evolved into the spatha and was the prototype for later periods ( migration/Viking, Medieval ).



So really, the Gallic tech ( especially in weapons ), should in theory be able to advance quite well, since they were quite ahead of their time. They had the tech and ability to advance in other areas as well, but we must remember that they chose to live a more laid back lifestyle in that regard. They were like the country and suburban folk versus city folk. But since we have the ability to control them and change history, there really shouldn't be a reason why they couldn't advance like anyone else. There is no reason they would remain stagnant. Even without our control, the oppida likely would have evolved like Daelin said, and their close proximity and trade with Rome would have kept them progressing

[Sebidee]

Carthage - By Moacyr

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Armies of Carthage

---

Punic Breastplate

During the 6th and 5th centuries, most military commands were held by kings, but later the generalship was apparently dissociated from civil office. Even in the time of the kings, military authority appears to have been conferred upon the kings only for specific campaigns or in emergencies. The generals are said to have been regarded as potential overthrowers of the legal government, but in fact there is no record of any army commander's having attempted a coup d'état. Thus, unlike a Roman consul, the Suffetes did not take part in military affairs and the Carthaginians appointed professional generals, who were separate from the civil government.
The Phoenician populations were always small, and since these communities depended on trade to survive, it was decided to exempt citizens from military service under normal circumstances, and to use the wealth of the community to hire mercenary armies. For this they were criticized by 19th and early 20th century scholars, who valued the military service of the modern nation state (conscript armies of citizens loyal to the state), and for this reason compared the Carthaginian army unfavorably with the native army of the Romans. In fact, the Carthaginian military seems to have been no worse than the Roman, and proved disloyal only at the end of the First Punic War, when the Carthaginians could not pay rewards they had promised.
Up to the 6th century, the armies of Carthage were apparently citizen levies similar to those of all city-states of the early classical period. But Carthage was too small to provide for the defense of widely scattered settlements, and it turned increasingly to mercenaries, officered by Carthaginians, with citizen contingents appearing only occasionally.By the 3rd century BC, citizens were exempt from military service (to manage Punic trading interests and industries). Given the limited Carthaginian population (even though the city probably did eventually have a population in the low 100,000s), the decision seems to have made sense. If they had fought the Romans with their own population, they probably would have succumbed earlier than they did, and their mercenary military came close to defeating the Romans. Carthage was served quite well by its officer corp despite very exacting Punic standards. They usually crucified generals who lost and were reluctant reinforce winning generals, lest too many troops feed tyrannical ambitions.
Being traders, the Carthaginians naturally were skilled seamen and had a particularly potent navy of about 200 ships. This was of course necessary to maintain contact with their overseas settlements.
Since the Carthaginians needed money for their armies and navy, they were apparently severe in their exactions of money from the native populations they controlled, especially among the Libyans (the Berber natives of North Africa). As merchants, they had a bad reputation among the Greeks. There are numerous references to them in the Odyssey, uniformly hostile.
Libyans were considered particularly suitable for light infantry, the inhabitants of the later Numidia and Mauretania for light cavalry; Iberians and Celtiberians from Spain were used in both capacities. In the 4th century the Carthaginians also hired Gauls, Campanians, and even Greeks. The disadvantages of mercenary armies were more than outweighed by the fact that Carthage could never have stood the losses incurred in a whole series of wars in Sicily and elsewhere. Very little is known about the manning of the Carthaginian fleet; technically, it was not overwhelmingly superior to those of the Greeks, but it was larger and had the benefit of experienced sailors from Carthage's maritime settlements.
The Carthaginian Army during the First Punic War

The Carthaginian army was composed primarily of mercenary troops. Africa, Spain and Gaul were their recruiting grounds, an inexhaustible treasury of warriors as long as the money lasted which they received as pay.
The Berbers were a splendid cavalry; they rode without saddle or bridle, a weapon in each hand; on foot they were merely a horde or savages with elephant-hide shields, long spears, and bear-skins floating from their shoulders. The troops of Spain were the best infantry that the Carthaginians possessed; they wore a white uniform with purple facings; they fought with pointed swords. The Gauls were brave troops but were badly armed; they were naked to the waist; their cutlasses were made of soft iron and had to be straightened after every blow. The Balearic Islands supplied a regiment of slingers whose balls of hardened clay whizzed through the air like bullets, broke armour, and shot men dead.
We read much of the Sacred Legion in the Sicilian wars. It was composed of young nobles, who wore dazzling white shields and breast-plates which were works of art; who even in the camp never drank except from goblets of silver and of gold. But this corps had apparently become extinct, and the Carthaginians only officered their troops, who they looked upon as ammunition, and to whom their orders were delivered through interpreters. The various regiments of the Carthaginian army had therefore nothing in common with one another or with those by whom they were led. They rushed to battle in confusion, "with sounds, discordant as their various tribes," and with no higher feeling than the hope of plunder or the excitement which the act of fighting arouses in the brave soldier.
The Carthaginian Army in Spain

The Carthaginian armies in Spain, though hardly uniform in composition, shared certain common features. They were generally composed of both African and Spanish contingents. The African professional troops were considered far more valuable than the Iberian tribal levies.
The heavy infantry spearmen of Libya formed the backbone. They were armed with pikes or long spears, and probably fought in a formation similar to the Macedonian phalanx. The Libyan infantry proved to be a match for Rome's legionaries throughout the Second Punic War. These spearmen were augmented by Balearic slingers, renowned as the finest missile troops in the world at the time, along with Numidian archers and javelinmen.
It was, however, the mounted arm of the Carthaginian army that was decidedly superior to its Roman counterpart. The javelin-armed Numidians were far and away the finest light cavalry in the western world. Those superb horsemen provided Carthage the margin of victory time and again. Heavy cavalry, in the form of Libyan-Phoenician horsemen, though few in numbers, provided shock action to complement the fire of the Numidians.
A key element of the Carthaginian army was its elephants. Hannibal took elephants across the Alps, but most died on the journey or after the battle of the Trebbia.
What did they look like?

Jonathan Lim:
The Infantry: The Carthaginians originally had a force of spearmen, in a hoplite fashion. These were superceded by..well, other spearmen...but these were armed with Roman chainmail.
African Spearmen: These were armed with a spear. They had red tunics, wore Roman chainmail, and had a bronze helmet with a black stripe across the brow. Their shields were round hoplite shields painted "shining white".
The now-famous emblem of the Carthaginians, the horizontal crescent above a circle, in regimental colours.
Sacred Band: These were the elite spearmen of Hannibal's army. They wore a white linen cuirass, with a sunburst, presumably the symbol of the Sacred Band, an red on the shoulder flaps. This looked rather like the Macedonian Star. The tunic was yellow. The pteruges had red rectangles along the botton edge. The cuirass also had a red belt, and red piping along the edges. The Sacred band also carried a large hoplite shield painted red.
Spanish: These were mercenary troops in Hannibal's pay. Allow me to quote from Polybios: "The shields used by the Spaniards and Celts were very similar to one another, but their swords were quite different. The point of the Spanish sword was no less effective for wounding than the edge...the troops were drawn up in alternate companies, the Celts naked, the Spanish with their short linen tunics bordered with purple - their national dress - so their line presented a strange and terrifying appearance." (Penguin Translation 1979 p271) There we have it. The only uniform army I know of that is confirmed by an ancient writer - and one of the few mentions of uniform colours in ANY ancient source. The Spanish wore white tunics with a ten centimetre purple border along the lower edge, along the sleeves, and along the tunic neck, which was not rounded but pointed,. like a bathrobe. They wore a bronze helmet. Their most famous weapon was the FALCATA, a short, scimitar like sword with a hand guard extending around the hand. This was made of famously high-grade steel (ancestors of Toledo??) that could allegedly cut through armour with great ease. The Imperial Roman sword was heavily based on the Falcata, although it was straight not curved.
Celts/Celtiberians: These were, like the Spanish, in mercenary pay. From the preceding passage we can deduce that, like the Gaesati, they fought naked (though this may mean "naked to the waist") or maybe in the traditional Celtic clothes we all know about. Colours the Celts liked were red, blue, green, especially in checkers or stripes. They were un-uniform in clothing, so be creative. Oh, yes, and Celts at this time probably still wore woad tattoos in battle! Balaeric Slingers: These were your basic skirmisher, armed merely with a spear and a bronze helmet.
The Cavalry:
Sacred Band: They're everywhere aren't they! The Sacred Band also fought on horseback as rather good cavalry. They dressed much like the foot soldiers, except they had a white cloak with light blue and yellow stars dyed on it. These were tiny and shaped like asterisks.
Numidians: These happy-go-lucky light horse were incredibly fast and efficient, knowing every light horse trick in the book. They wore brown clothes, had brown hair and brown ponies....even their shields were covered in brown cow hide. Very boring to look at, but they're good at their business.
Celts: Expect these to be higher class than the Celtic foot, with chain mail tunics with the celtic chainmail short cape going down to the shoulders only and done up with a golden brooch. They would have more iron helmets than the normal chaps.
Otherwise much the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Norwood "Armies & Enemies of the Macedonian & Punic Wars" by Duncan Head is the best place to find info on the Carthaginian army. I think Essex Miniatures also produce a painting guide available with each starter pack's list for a minimal fee. My understanding is that Libyan light infantry wore red leather tunics, African spearmen and Poeni spearmen resembled other Hellenistic types with bronze helmet and decorated/painted cuirass (possibly white). Poeni spearmen are commonly depicted with red or crimson tunics in line with references in ancient sources. In later years the Poeni spearmen only rarely left the city-area and so may well have been able to retain this uniformity. On a campaign, however, tunic colours would vary depending on textile availability. The one question I have not seen dealt with satisfactorily regarding Carthaginians is skin colour. The Carthaginians were of Phoenician origin, but by the time of the Punic Wars they had been in Africa a long time and so with inter-marriage I assume that there would be very little difference in appearance between Libyans, Numidians and Carthaginian citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timo Sillgren
Trying to answer the skin-colour question: Carthaginian armies were mostly mercenaries. Mercenaries came from all over the Western Mediterranean, but many were from Carthage's African subjects, usually called Libyans. Libyans and Libyphoenicians (first this later term meant Punic settlers in Libya, then it came to mean half-breeds or Libyans who have adopted Punic culture) had darker skin like Numidians. Larger (Punic) citizen forces would be used only in emergencies, at maximum 10000 mobilized against rebel mercenaries. In the 4th century Carthagianian armies had an elite citizen force called the Sacred Band (strength 2000-2500), these were destroyed a couple of times, and are not heard of after 310. Citizen troops were not used abroad after 311. Other Punic cities would occasionally provide citizen infantry. Punic citizen infantry was used as javelin-throwing light infantry, only Sacred Band had been armoured. Light infantry would thus be more likely to be light-skinned (unless Numidians), but African heavy infantry could well be 50% darker-skinned Libyans. By the way, I feel that colour tan is perfect for Libyans, Numidians and Egyptians. Cavalry was naturally for upper-class Punic citizens, who had large estates worked by a host of Libyan workers. Hannibal however had very little Carthaginian cavalry in his command, he relied on Numidian, Spanish and Celtic cavalry. About half of his whole force in Italy consisted of Celt

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

History

Establishment under Mago

In 550 BC, Mago I of Carthage became king of Carthage and sought to establish Carthage as the dominant military power in the western Mediterranean. Though still economically dependent on its mother city of Tyre, Carthage was growing in stature. Under Mago, Carthage allied with the Etruscans of northern Italy against the Greek city-states in southern Italy, an alliance that would last until Rome expelled its Etruscan kings.
Mago also set about a series of military reforms designed to strengthen Carthaginian power, including copying the army of Timoleon, Tyrant of Syracuse.[2] The core of Carthage's military was the Greek-style phalanxformed by citizen hoplite spearmen who had been conscripted into service.
During the 4th century BC, the maximum number of troops Carthage was able to conscript into service can be estimated from the capacity of the barracks located in the three rings of walls that protected the city, offering accommodation to 24,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry, and 300 elephants. In addition to the conscripted forces, large contingents of mercenaries and auxiliaries would be employed. Appian mentions that in total 40,000 infantry, 1,000 cavalry, and 2,000 heavy chariots were recruited to oppose the invasion of Agathocles of Syracuse.[3]
Growth of Mercenary Forces

After the Punic defeats during the Sicilian Wars of the 5th and 4th centuries BC, in which large numbers of Carthaginian citizens had been killed, the Carthaginian Senate set about enlisting mercenary forces in order to replenish the ranks of the Carthaginian army, an extraordinary technique that Carthage had employed since the late 6th century BC. Beginning with the reign of King Hanno the Navigator in 480 BC, Carthage regularly began employing Iberian infantry and Balearic slingers to support Carthaginian spearmen in Sicily, a practice that would continue until the destruction of Carthage in 146 BC.
Punic recruiters toured all corners of the Mediterranean, attracting mercenaries and fugitive slaves. Gauls, Ligurians, Numidians, Libyans, Greeks, and especially Iberians were extensively recruited by Carthage. Troops were recruited both by simple monetary contracts and through partnerships established through treaties with other states and tribes.
Reforms of Xanthippus

Main article: Xanthippus of Carthage
Further information: First Punic War
In 256 BC, during the First Punic War with the Roman Republic for domination over Sicily, the Roman ConsulMarcus Atilius Regulus defeated the Carthaginian navy at the Battle of Cape Ecnomus and landed a Roman army on Carthaginian territory in Africa. Regulus then inflicted a crushing defeat on the Carthaginian army at the Battle of Adys near Carthage. Though Carthage was inclined towards a peace deal, the terms that Regulus demanded were too harsh, 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 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 that the Carthaginians were making by avoiding open ground battles against the Romans, instead seeking only uneven terrain. This was done out of fear of the Romans' superior infantry. Such a strategy, however, restricted Carthage's strongest elements: its cavalry and elephants. The uneven terrain also disrupted 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.
Hamilcar Barca

In 247 BC, after eighteen years of fighting in the First Punic War, the Carthaginian Senate appointed Hamilcar Barca to assume command of Carthage's land and naval forces in the struggle against the Roman Republic. Though Carthage dominated the sea following its victory in the Battle of Drepanum in 249 BC, Rome controlled Sicily. Until this point, Carthage had been led by the landed aristocracy and they preferred to expand into Africa instead of pursuing an aggressive policy against Rome in Sicily. Hanno "The Great"[4] had been in charge of operations in Africa since 248 BC and had conquered considerable territory by 241 BC.[5]
Carthage at this time was feeling the strain of the prolonged conflict. In addition to maintaining a fleet and soldiers in Sicily, they were also fighting the Libyans and Numidians in Africa.[6] As a result, Hamilcar was given a fairly small army and the Carthaginian fleet was gradually withdrawn so that, by 242 BC, Carthage had no ships to speak of in Sicily.[7]
Structure

Infantry

Sacred Band


The Sacred Band of Carthage is the name used by Greek historians to refer to an infantry unit of Carthaginian foot citizens that served in Carthaginian armies during the fourth century BC. The presence of Carthaginian citizens fighting as infantry in these armies is unusual as Carthaginian citizens usually only served as officers or cavalry in the Carthaginian armed forces and the bulk of Carthaginian armies were usually made up of mercenaries, infantry from allied communities (who might be Punic colonists) and subject levies.
Trained from an early age to be tough phalanx spearmen, these men were from wealthy Carthaginian families, and as such had extremely good equipment. They were trained from birth to be great warriors and they were able to afford high quality armor and weapons. They fought as a traditional phalanx organized in the Hellenic style.
The "Sacred Band" consisted of a small heavy infantry unit of 2000-3000 men, who were "inferior to none among them as to birth, wealth, or reputation" and distinguished by "the splendour of their arms, and the slowness and order of their march"
At the Battle of the Krimissus in Sicily in 341 BC, the "Sacred Band" fought as a well organized phalanx.[1] It was utterly destroyed. Two thousand citizen troops (perhaps a similar unit), are recorded as being in Sicily in 311 BC, the last time that citizens troops are recorded as being overseas. By 310 BC, the Sacred Band appears to have been reformed, only to be destroyed in battle against Agathocles at Tunis.
After its destruction in 310 BC, the "Sacred Band" disappears from historical record. When Carthaginian citizen infantry turn up in the historical sources during later wars, their numbers are significantly higher implying a levy of all available citizens due to crisis. Larger citizen forces turned out at the Battle of Bagradas during the First Punic War, the Mercenary War, and the Third Punic War, but the "Sacred Band" is not mentioned in any of the surviving accounts we have of these wars.


The Sacred Band was an elite unit of the Carthaginian army. Since its formation in the 4th century BC, the unit consisted exclusively of the sons of the noble Carthaginian citizens. The unit usually did not fight outside of Africa.[8] As a unit of heavy spearmen, the unit was placed in the center of the army formation immediately behind the row of elephants and protected by auxiliary wings of mercenaries and cavalry.
The presence of Carthaginian citizens fighting as infantry in the army is unusual as Carthaginian citizens usually served only as officers or cavalry, while the bulk of Carthage's infantry units were generally made up of mercenaries, auxiliaries from allied communities (who might be Punic colonists), and conscripts from subject territories.
With their elite status, members of the Sacred Band received the best equipment in the Carthaginian army. Their weapons and training were similar to those of the Greek hoplites: heavy spear, sword, hoplon shield, and bronze greaves, helmet, and breastplate. The hoplites also fought in a phalanx formation. However, despite their elite status, the unit numbered only around 2,500 soldiers according to Diodorus[9]
Carthaginian military tradition

Carthaginian hoplite (Sacred Band, end of the 4th century BC)

According to the historian A. Heuss:
"The central problem concerning Carthaginian political institutions is their relation to military aspects." ("Das zentrale Problem des karthagischen Staatslebens ist sein Verhältnis zum Militärwesen.")[10]
Carthage was founded by nobles from the Phoenician city of Tyre and from Cyprus. From the start it was a complete and independent city on a spot with favorable access to important resources, such as clay and sea salt. Carthage in North Africa then became the cradle and center of the Punic state that spread across the Mediterranean. Carthage's military traditions showed its Phoenician roots and reflected native Libyan and Greek influences.
It has traditionally been argued that Carthage was a peaceful city of merchants or a brutal colonial power and both theories were rather dependent on modern perceptions.[11]Almost all approaches towards Carthage have in common the fact that they do not look at Carthaginian policy-making as such, but rather its structure in a fundamental contrast to that of Rome.[12] However, the polis Carthage was over the course of several centuries the dominant power in the Western Mediterranean and could establish its symmachyover large territories which were also deeply influenced by the Punic culture. It played a very important role in the urbanization of Northern Africa, where the Punic language was to persist until the 5th century AD.[13]
The idea that mercantile business and warlike spirit are contradictory dates to the Age of Enlightenment[14] and is generally not shared by ancient sources such as Virgil, who writes in Aeneid 1,444f. on Carthage: for this reason shall the people be glorious in war and acquire food easily for centuries (sic nam fore bello / egregiam et facilem victu per saecula gentem). Livy already points out that Carthage did house a body of professional soldiers until sometime after the Second Punic War. Other sources can be interpreted to refer to a high degree of military professionalism in the small Punic population whose constitution Aristotle groups along with those of Sparta and Crete. So there is an ongoing debate among historians about the extent of Carthage's military spirit.[14] It should be pointed out that the sources on the Punic forces are rare and not easily accessible because they are almost exclusively written by their opponents in war.[15] An inscription discovered in Carthage seems to confirm the doubts raised by the lack of sources concerning members of the nobility in the trading business. The translation (which is, like all translations from the Punic, disputed in details) only mentions in the existing parts merchants among the people with little money, while owners of producing facilities are mentioned among those with more money. [1]
Similar doubts were raised earlier because our only source on a Punic trader is the play Poenulus and the Carthaginian presented there is a rather humble merchant. An important part of the Punic culture seems to have consisted in their devotion to the gods, and their well-known units, called Sacred Bands by our Greek sources are regarded as the elite troops of their time. These consisted of infantry troops and cavalry units. The latter were formed by young nobles of the city devoting their life to military training.
Mercenaries in the forces of Carthage

Balearic slingers.
Ancient authors, such as Polybius, tend to stress Carthage's reliance on foreign mercenaries.[16] However, the term 'mercenary' is misleading when applied to the African and Iberian recruits, i.e. from areas controlled by Carthage. They were comparable to Roman Auxilia though Carthage did also employ mercenaries in the true sense as well.[17]These units were mostly deployed in the expeditionary armies overseas, while in Africa Punic militias formed the backbone of the troops.
Units were generally segregated by ethnicity, which was also a criterion for the respective specialisation. While within a unit communication in the native tongue was possible, between units Greek and Punic helped to establish communication. According to Polybius, this enabled the insurgents during the Mercenary War, which is also the only recorded large mutiny of Carthage's troops, to communicate with each other on higher levels.
The reported causes for this conflict were that following the First Punic War against Rome, payment of the mercenaries was delayed for over a year. When finally arrangements for payment were made, the mistrust between the mercenaries and their employer helped to kindle the war. The native African Libyans, the largest contingent of the 'mercenaries', objected to being paid last while their comrades had been shipped home. Fear had spread that this might be a Carthaginian trap to exterminate them without payment and save their silver, after having crippled their army of the specialized supportive arms units. The conditions for the payment were rejected, although their former commander, Gisco, had provided them with his own person and 500 other nobles as hostages to reassure them of Carthage's sincere and honest intentions. The mercenaries and supporting native insurgents began attacking Carthaginian targets and urging the Libyan natives to rise. According to our sources, the war was conducted in a particularly brutal fashion and ended, after three years, with the total destruction of the mercenary and insurgent forces.
It would be difficult to say precisely what a typical make-up of a Carthaginian army would be, but in the Punic wars, they are reported to have included Iberians, Celts (Gauls),Balearic slingers, Italians (e.g.Ligures), native Sicilian tribesmen, Numidian cavalry, Libyans and Lybophoenicians (also called Africans), Greeks, and naturally Punics from Carthage and its external settlements.
Formation and structure

The Greek sources referred to the commander of Punic forces as a strategos or boetarch. The former could at the same time also be a military governor and is known to have had the authority to sign treaties. In areas of conflict, we often find dual command and not all of these strategoi seem to be concerned with governing provinces. It seems that Carthage's nobles could afford, and were legally allowed, to sustain their own armies. Furthermore, we tend to find evidence that many individuals from the leading families of Carthage served in the military forces.
Notably the hired units were deployed with their own command structure. As Carthage sent out specific recruiters who bargained contracts with each soldier/corps of soldiers, it is possible that these also served as officers responsible for the integration of their units into the army. Polybius noted for the mercenary war that the mercenaries were told to ask their commanding officers for payment, which frustrated them to such an extent that they elected new ones. In the army, payment was done per unit with subordinates responsible for the further distribution.
We have no written records of Carthage's military activities from the Punics, only from Greek and Roman writers and these are limited to a few wars.
The Libyans supplied both heavy and light infantry and formed the most disciplined units of the army. The heavy infantry fought in close formation, armed with long spears and round shields, wearing helmets and linen cuirasses. The light Libyan infantry carried javelins and a small shield, the same as Iberian light infantry. The Iberian infantry wore purple bordered white tunics and leather headgear. The Iberian heavy infantry fought in a dense phalanx, armed with solid metal javelins called "angon", long body shields and short Slashing swords called 'falcata".[18] Campanian, Sardinian and Gallic infantry fought in their native gear,[19] but were often equipped by Carthage. Polybius seems to suggest that Hannibal's heavy Libyan infantry was equipped with the sarissa (pike), thus forming a Macedonian style phalanx. Although this account is disputed by many experts, and Polybius himself is not clear in his descriptions of the great general's battles, he mentions Hannibal when he makes his famed comparison between the Roman maniple and the Macedonian phalanx.[20]
The Libyans, Carthaginian citizens and the Libyo-Phoenicians provided disciplined, well trained cavalry equipped with thrusting spears and round shields. Numidia provided superb light cavalry, highly skilled in skirmishing tactics, armed with bundles of javelins, a small round shield and riding without bridle or saddle. Iberians and Gauls also provided cavalry that relied on the all out charge. The Libyans provided the bulk of the heavy, four horse war chariots for Carthage, used before the Second Punic War.[21] Allied cities of the Punic hegemony also contributed contingents for the army. The carthaginian officer corps held overall command of the army, although many units may have fought under their chieftains.
Carthaginian forces also employed war-elephants, both within Africa and during overseas operations, including campaigns in Iberia and most famously Hannibal's invasion of Italy. These beasts were the now-extinct North African elephant (Loxodonta [africana] pharaoensis), probably a subspecies of the African forest elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis), which is smaller than the African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana) and the Indian elephants (elephas maximus) used by the Seleucids. In battle, the elephants functioned as a psychological weapon, frightening the opposing men and horses into flight or creating gaps in the enemy line that could be exploited by Carthaginian cavalry and infantry.[22] Modern scholars have disputed whether or not Carthaginian elephants were furnished with turrets in combat; despite frequent assertions to the contrary, the evidence indicates that African forest elephants could and did carry turrets in certain military contexts.[23]
Carthaginian navy

The prow of a Punic ship
Polybius wrote in the sixth book of his History that the Carthaginians were, "more exercised in maritime affairs than any other people."[24] Their navy included some 300 to 350 warships that continuously patrolled the expanse of the Mediterranean. The Romans, unable to defeat them through conventional maritime tactics, developed the Corvus, or thecrow, a spiked boarding bridge that could be impaled onto an enemy ship so that the Romans could send over marines to capture or sink the Carthaginian vessels.
Recruitment

The sailors and marines of the fleets were recruited from the lower classes of Carthage itself, meaning that the navy was manned in the majority by actual Carthaginian citizens, this is in contrast to the largely mercenary army. The navy offered a stable profession and financial security for its sailors. This helped to contribute to the city's political stability, since the unemployed, debt-ridden poor in other cities were frequently inclined to support revolutionary leaders in the hope of improving their own lot.[25]

[Sebidee]

Carthage Continued

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Army of Carthage during Hannibal's time

---

The Carthaginian army at the time of the Second Punic War is largely unknown, in-fact even less is known about it than the Roman army of the same period. Most historians agree in regards to its structure and organisation that 'it is impossible to say', though we are in a position to list the peoples who fought for and made up Carthage's army.

Our most reliable source on the armies of Carthage comes from Polybius, and even then that proves to be a tricky case. At a time when the Greeks were facing life under Roman rule, Polybius considered himself to be writing pragmatic history for mainly a Greek audience. Polybius' analysis of Carthage's constitution and military system is brief, and as a result they were intended purely as a contrast to what he regarded as a far superior Roman system.

Carthaginians entirely neglect their infantry, though they do pay some slight attention to their cavalry. The reason for this is that the troops they employ are foreign and mercenary, whereas those of the Romans are native of the soil and citizens... The Carthaginians depend for the maintenance of their freedom on the courage of a mercenary force but the Romans on their own valour and on the aid of their allies... Italians in general naturally excel Phoenicians and Africans in bodily strength and personal courage. (6.52.3-10)

His observations on Carthage's military institutions show's little respect for the Carthaginian army, and contains obvious bias in favour of the Roman system.

Nevertheless, Polybius does seem to be correct in his description for Carthaginian institutions. The Carthaginians themselves rarely took the field – only on occasions when the city itself was threatened would a citizen militia be assembled, and they largely relied upon allies and mercenaries led by Carthaginian officers to fight their wars. Carthaginians were thus found in positions of authority rather than the ranks, the bulk of their armies being made up of subject or allied levies and foreign mercenaries. (Daly, pp.83) Lower-ranking officers most likely shared the nationality of the men, made clear by Polybius as he records mercenary officers at Lilybaeum attempting to betray the town to the Romans during the first Punic War (Poly. 1.43)


With such a wide range of foreign troops serving in Carthaginian armies, such as Libyans, Numidians, Iberians and Celts, Moors, and Gaetulians, there appears to be no attempt made to standardise these troops into a uniformed fighting force. They appear to have been equipped and to have fought according to the customs of their respective nations. Balearians fought as infantry skirmishers armed with slings, while Numidian cavalry were armed with javelins and fought as skirmishers rather than shock cavalry (Daly, pp.83)


As it would have been impractical to deploy troops together who did not understand each other and their combat styles, or lacked similar weapons, they must have been organised on the basis of nationality.


After the Truceless War of 241-237 BC, Hamilcar Barca and his successors in Spain likely made changes to reform the army in order to prevent such revolts from happening again and the command structure perhaps changed to reflect this, removing elements of leadership from the nations under their command, though it is clear from Polybius that the Celtic elements in Hannibal's army had their own officers. (Polyb. 8.30.4)


I will analyse Hannibal's army in terms of nationality, starting with Africans soon! For this, I have used the sources Hannibal's Army by Ian Stephenson, The Armies of the Carthaginian Wars 265-146 BC by Terrence Wise and Cannae by Gregory Daly.


Numidian Cavarlyman


AFRICANS


Hannibal's army contained many Africans from the Carthaginians themselves, to Libyans, Liby-Phoenicians, Numidians, Moors and Gaetulians. The first I shall look at are the Libyans.

The Libyans were the native subjects of Carthage and supplied the core of the Carthaginian army. They had served in Carthaginian armies from a very early date. During the sixth century, Carthage had stopped relying on a citizen levy and began to hire mercenaries and employ allied troops, many whom would have been Libyan.


The earliest Libyans to fight for Carthage were mercenaries, as those who fought at Himera in 480 BC were. After this defeat, Carthage began to acquire African territory, and the Libyans obliged to supply Carthage with troops once they had been conquered. The term, Libyan – was used to refer to lighter-skinned Northern Africans, though it is clear when Polybius mentions Libyans he does not refer to either the Numidians and Moors, but rather to the native subjects of Carthage. Libyans were of Berber stock with a possible Negro admixture who had their own language – though Punic would have been common among the elite (Daly, pp.85)


Libyans were known for their power and endurance, and were traditionally skirmishers armed with javelins, small daggers and small round shields– however, by Hannibal's day – they were line infantry, and were equipped accordingly. Evidence suggests they were armed by the Carthaginian state rather than themselves, if the report that 200,000 Carthaginian cuirasses were surrendered to Rome during the Third Punic War is historical, as that number far-exceeded the number of citizen combatants, and including women and children, the population of Carthage at that time probably did not exceed 400,000 people.


The Libyans once fought as Hoplites much in the fashion of their Carthaginian masters, wearing bronze helmets of Hellenistic style, iron breastplates and using large white shields, spears and swords, but whether they were armed and fought as hoplites in Hannibal's army is open to debate.
At the battle of Crimisus River, (fought in 341 BC according to Daly – 339 BC according to Ian Stephenson) the Carthaginians fielded a force of 10,000 heavy infantry, comprising citizen troops in the form of the 2500 strong Sacred Band, and the rest were predominately Libyan in makeup and fought in the fashion of hoplites.

During the First Punic War and Zama, they are described by Polybius as a phalanx, which perhaps suggests they had once fielded classical style hoplite, but had joined the trend and reequipped by the First Punic War in the fashion of Macedonian phalangites. (Stephenson, pp.87) The nature of their equipment however, is much disputed. Considering the developments in warfare throughout the Mediterranean world since the mid-fourth century, it is foolish to assume that Carthaginian and Libyan infantry were armed and fought the same way in 216 BC as they did in 341 (Daly, pp.87) Also, the term phalanx could also be used to simply describe a large body of men fighting en masse.



Carthaginian Citizen, Sacred Band





For the Libyans who fought for Hannibal, according to both Polybius and Livy (Polyb. 3.87.3, 114.1; Liv. 22.46.4) they were armed with the best Roman equipment looted from the battles of the Trebia and Trasimene. What exactly were they armed with – defensive items like shields, helmets and greaves, or did they also receive offensive weapons such as pila or gladii?

Livy mentions an episode where Libyans are mistaken for Roman soldiers at close range, which suggests they wore the panoply of scutums, greaves and helmets and even their tunics to pass themselves off as Roman.


As for being equipped with pila or gladii, this would suggest they were swordsmen, since it was highly unlikely Hannibal would take the risk to retrain his men during campaign, though Bagnell seems to think there would be no trouble retraining experienced soldiers. Daly seems to think they were almost certainly swordsmen, his hypothesis supported by the fact that at Lake Trasimene both Polybius and Livy report that the Carthaginians attacked from higher ground, charging downhill at numerous points to attack the Romans. It would have been much more difficult to do so with spears and armed as a phalanx, one trip possibly sending entire sections into disarray, (Daly, pp.90) and considering the style of Hannibal's tactics, I'm inclined to agree. It is highly likely also, that the Libyans adopted Spanish equipment having fought for the Barcids in Spain since 237 BC, much like the Romans adopted Spanish equipment from mercenaries serving in the First Punic War. Being efficient equipment, it would be strange if the Carthaginians did not equip the Libyans with it. This equipment consisted of large oval or oblong shields, short cut-and-thrust swords and throwing spears.



Spanish soldier revealing how the Libyans were also similarly equipped


Liby-Phoenicians


Though there is no record of Liby-Phoenicians serving in Hannibal's army in Italy, it is likely that some went to Italy with him. The man Hannibal sent to Sicily to command the Numidians, Muttines, was a Liby-Phoenician which possibly reveals the scope for promotion of Liby-Phoenicians in the Carthaginian army.

Hannibal had a force of 450 Liby-Phoenician and Libyan cavalry stationed in Spain according to Polybius, (3.33.15) while Livy states they were all Liby-Phoenician (21.22.3).

Liby-Phoenicians could have been Phoenicians living in colonies, or Libyans who had adopted Phoenician culture. Livy says they are half Punic and half African, but this is too simplistic.

They are primarily thought to have served as heavy cavalry – but some believe they may have served as line infantry, mixed in with the Libyans, forming a Macedonian phalanx, organised into speirai (Connolly, p.148) though it is more probable they were heavy cavalry armed in the Hellenistic fashion, wearing mail coats or plated cuirass, armed with a lance and shield.

A figurine of a bareheaded cavalryman wearing a Hellenistic muscled plate cuirass carrying two light spears/javelins and a round shield with a rounded boss and raised rim has been identified by Duncan Head as a Liby-Phoenician cavalryman. (Daly, pp.91) If this is true, they would have also carried a curved slashing sword for use once their missiles had been cast.

Numidians


Probably the most famous of Hannibal's army (aside from elephants) are these light cavalry warriors of Berber stock. In the ancient world however they were generally victims of stereotyping – though their endurance was often remarked, so too were their cowardice and other vices. According to Polybius, Libyans and Numidians had a tendency to flee for days if defeated in battle (Polyb. 1.47.7), and Livy remarks on them being untrustworthy, and their undisciplined violent appetites – marking them as worse than other barbarians. (Liv. 25.41.4, 28.44.5, 29.23.4, 30.12.18).


The Numidians practiced a form of nomadic pastoralism rather than a settled form of agriculture – but again, this could be too simplistic a statement. They were not a single nation, but consisted of two main kingdoms – the Massaesyli in the west and the Massyli in the east, but there were also many small tribes with their own chieftains and domains.


They appear to have served in an allied capacity as opposed to being mercenaries. When they were led by their own princes or chieftains they were certainly allies – examples being Naravas, Tychaeus, Massinisa and Syphax. Appian names many chieftains who fought at Zama (App, Pun. 33,44).


There is a chance that the Numidians who served Hannibal did so out of loyalty to him, and not their own kings in Numidia, having served the Barcids for many years in Spain – the bond between commander and men being strengthened through marriage ties. In the Mercenaries War, the Numidian Prince Naravas had been betrothed to Hamilcar's daughter – which would have certainly secured his men under the Barcid banner. (Daly, pp.93)


The Numidians fought in small groups as we learn from Livy when he mentions them operating in turmae (Liv.25.17.3, 27.26.8) and darted back and forth hurling their javelins and using their speed and agility. They rode small hardy ponies, Barbary horses common in North Africa before the Arab invasions. From Trajan's Column we can see depicted Numidians riding small mounts, and from a passage from Livy we can see him praising their horsemanship but mocking their appearance (Liv. 35.11.6-11). They rode barebacked, without bit nor bridle for control, using only a neck strap to steer.






They were armed lightly, wearing tunics fastened at the shoulder, carrying light and round boss-less leather shields, slightly convex with a narrow rim, though some of course, did not carry shields. Their basic weapon was the javelin, of which they carried several and fought as mounted peltasts. Appian (Pun. 11) tells us they were trained day and night to hurl showers of javelins from horseback, an image reinforced by Caesar, Virgil, Livy and Arrian (Stephenson, pp.73) The javelins, called longchai had both round and square cross-sectional heads, and carried knives or short-swords with a blade approximately 60cm in length.

The Moors


The Moors, known also as the Mauri, lived in the lands west of the Numidians, and were of the same racial stock as the Libyans and Numidians. Polybius seems to have regarded them as another group of Numidians. King Baga ruled over all the Moorish tribes during the Second Punic War – forming a single nation. This nation seems to not have had any formal relationship with Carthage and there is no mention made of any alliance between the two.


At the battle of Zama, part of Hannibal's first line was made up of Moors, and Polybius classifies them as mercenaries (Polyb. 15.11.1). The best idea of how they were armed comes from Livy, when he mentions Hiero of Syracuse sent a force of archers to aid Rome, well adapted to cope with Moors and Balearians and any other tribes that fought with missiles (Liv. 22.37.8)They were then light-armed skirmishers. Polybius mentions longchophoroi, spearmen who made up the greater number of Hannibal's light-armed troops, of which the Moors most likely made up part of its number. The skirmishers were certainly of mixed nationality, unlike the rest of Hannibal's army, and they are never identified as separate racial groups by Polybius. Daly believes that most of the spearmen were Moors, and were mercenaries rather than allied troops (Daly, pp.108-9)


We have established that the skirmishers in Hannibal's army were of mixed nationality, so how were they equipped? Polybius describes the skirmishers as psiloi at one point, which suggests they were light-clad troops such as javelinmen, archers and slingers, armed with only missiles and unsuited for close combat. Livy states about the light-armed contingent in Hasdrubal's army in 209 - troops that are accustomed to skirmishing and, while avoiding the real battle by hurling long-range missiles, are protected by distance, but prove unsteady in the face of hand-to-hand combat (Liv. 27.18.14)


Moorish infantry were armed with javelins and a round boss-less leather shield, and probably carried swords or daggers for close combat once their javelins had been used. It is also thought that they may have been equipped with a stabbing spear rather than throwing spears alone (Daly, pp.110) but there must have been quite a diverse range of weapons, being highly unlikely Hannibal would have issued them standardised equipment (Daly. pp.111).

The Gaetulians


To the south of the Numidians and Moors lived the Gaetulians. They were of Libyco-Berber stock, who were separated into three main tribal groups by Pliny – who was no doubt simplifying things. The Autoteles lived in the west, the Baniurae in the east and the Nesimi lived in the desert south of the Atlas Mountains. We only have one mention of them being in Hannibal's army, and that comes from Livy – referring to an advance party sent on to Casilinum in 216, led by an officer named Isalcas. (23.18)


Though we have no numbers in regards to the strength of this national grouping in the Carthaginian army, the fact that Hannibal may well have expected them to storm the town if they could might reveal they had some numbers. Daly seems to think that Polybius simply mistook them for Numidians, and suggests that because their cavalry went without bridles and they were armed and fought like Numidians, Polybius classed them as such.




THE SPANIARDS:


The Spaniards formed an integral part of Carthaginian armies, coming from the Iberian peninsula. According to Polybius, Hannibal had 8,000 Spanish infantry when he descended the Alps, and most modern historians believe that out of the 6000 cavalry that made it, 2000 of that number were Spanish cavalry.


The majority of Spaniards in Carthaginian armies would have come from areas directly under Carthaginian control, namely from the southern half of the peninsular – though it did include Lusitanians and Celtiberians who were people of Celtic origin who inhabited the northern half. Despite lacking political unity, the Spanish appear to have had a common language and culture.




The Iberians:


Before the Punic Wars, Carthage had already employed Iberians in their armies. There is mention of them being led by an officer named Hamilcar in Sicily in 480 BC by Herodotus, while they were described to be among the best fighting material to be found in the Western Mediterranean by Alcibiades according to Thucydides. This indicates that they must have served in a purely mercenary role before Hamilcar Barca extended Punic control into the Iberian peninsular shortly after the First Punic War. This role had changed by the Second Punic War however, and Daly asserts they were indeed allied levies by this time(Daly, pp.95)


Iberian levies came from a number of Spanish tribes and old Phoenician colonies – Polybius tells us the Spanish troops that were sent to Africa came from the Thersitae, Mastiani, Iberian Oretes and Olcades tribes (Polyb. 3.33). The old Phoenician colonies that supplied troops were Gades, Malaca, Sexi and Abdera, while the Blasto-Phoenicians from the lower coastal area of Andalusia also supplied Carthaginian forces with men (Daly, pp.96) These had close links to Carthage.


Accordingly, the levy seemed an unpopular way to recruit troops, though some must have been generally willing to serve in Carthaginian armies. In 218, the Oretani and Carpetani were close to revolting because of the demands Hannibal had put on them. They had seized and retained Hannibal's recruiting officers and Hannibal had to act quickly to repress this revolt, swiftly taking them by surprise which made them abandon all thought of resistance (Livy. 21.11)


Following the sack of Saguntum, Hannibal maintained Spanish loyalty by granting them a leave of absence so they could be with their families before setting out for Italy in the Spring. He sent troops to both act as hostages and a garrison to Africa in 218, and he also released thousands of troops before crossing the Pyrenees.


Daly believes that the Iberian troops were, as a rule, loyal to Hannibal and it was of an extremely personal nature (Daly, pp96). Hannibal was possibly given a title the equivalent ofstrategos autokrator as Hasdrubal the Handsome had according to Diodorus (25.12) and it should be noted that Scipio had also been given a title – that of king - by the Spanish after his victories against the Carthaginians in which he asked them to call him by the term his own troops used – that of imperator. This giving of titles reveals that Iberian nobles recognised leaders such as Hannibal were more powerful than themselves (Daly, pp97)


The Iberians who fought for Carthage included skirmishers, line infantry and cavalry. The skirmishers also known as caetrati carried small round shields that were 0.3 m – 0.6 m (1-2 feet) in diameter made from hide with a central boss. They were most likely javelinmen who also carried falcata-type swords as sidearms. They wore caps made from sinew.


Iberian line infantry are thought to be have contained 'maniples' of about 100 men according to Connolly (Connolly, p187) and they are described by Polybius as having been deployed inspeirai which is the same term he uses as maniple. The size and strength of these maniples is not clear, having been anything between 100 to 500 men (Daly, pp97) They were most likely formed into groups from individual settlements, their size according to how many men the tribe could supply which would have made for maniples of irregular sizes. They were organised by political units so that they fought alongside friends and relatives, forming a tight bond.


How then, were the Iberian line infantry equipped? According to Polybius:


The shields of the Spaniards and Celts were very similar, but their swords were entirely different, those of the Spaniards thrusting with as deadly effect as they cut... the Spaniards in short tunics bordered with purple, their national dress. (Polyb. 3.114.2-4)


The large oval shields they carried gave them their name – scutarii. The shields were flat rather than curved, and with the central handgrip parallel to the shield's long axis (Daly. Pp 97) They carried two basic types of swords, one in which the Roman gladius hispaniensis was modeled, perhaps 60 cm long with a point and two cutting edges, and the elegant, curved sword called the espada falcata commonly found among the tribes of the south of Spain. The falcata was sharpened on the the back edge near the point in order to enable it to thrust and cut, with a smaller blade of between 35-52 cm long. They most likely carried another weapon for a backup, like a knife which was also worn on the sword scabbard which was connected to the left hip suspended by a baldric. Some of the scabbards were highly decorated


espada falcata

Daly believes they used heavy javelins and similar tactics to the Romans. There are several types of javelins known throughout Spain. A distinct type was a slim javelin called the saunion, which was about 1.6-2 metres long and was made entirely from iron, with a small barbed head and a pointed butt. Their throwing spears with iron heads of about 25 cm long are thought to have served as models for the Roman pilum. The most well known javelin was called the falarica:


The missile used by the Saguntines was the falarica, a javelin with a shaft smooth and round up to the head, which, as in the pilum, was an iron point of square section. The shaft was wrapped in tow and then smeared with pitch; the iron head was three feet long and capable of penetrating armour and body alike. Even if it only stuck in the shield and did not reach the body it was a most formidable weapon, for when it was discharged with the tow set on fire the flame was fanned to a fiercer heat by its passage through the air, and it forced the soldier to throw away his shield and left him defenseless against the sword thrusts which followed. (Livy 21.8)


Apparently they wore no armour, wearing only their belted tunics Polybius described as their national uniform, but some may have worn pectorales looted from the Roman dead. The tunics themselves may have been stiff enough to withstand cuts but this seems unlikely according to Daly (p.99) Sinew caps were popular throughout Spain at the time, some simple and unadorned, others may have had hoods covering the nape of the neck with horsehair crests.


Iberian Cavalry:

In all there was about 2000 Spanish cavalry in Hannibal's army, who were most likely both noblemen and allied troops. They were actually armed like their infantry for the most part, wearing white tunics trimmed with crimson, with sinew caps, though it is probable that Celtic balcksmiths produced Montefortinos for his army, and that they made use of the ones from the Roman dead. These helmets were conical, with cheek plates and a small neck guard and were decorated by horsehair plumes and feathers. They were equipped with a falcata sword which would have been perfect for slashing from a horse. Along with this infantry equipment, they also carried small round, central hand-grip shields much like the caetra and two javelins or spears with buttspikes.


Iberian Infantry - alongside skirmishers




These cavalry used horses to fight as platforms, and sometimes they rode into battle carrying an extra man who would dismount and fight on foot. At Cannae we see the Spanish and Celtic cavalry engage the Roman citizen cavalry with many men dismounting to fight on foot (Polyb. 3.115) however, the combat would have been begun by lots of grappling on horses as opposed to charging into the enemy which would have been mutually catastrophic, leading to a collapsed scrimmage of horses and men growing bigger as succeeding ranks collided with the leading ones. This would have led to numerous friendly-fire deaths being crushed or trampled by their own horses, or accidentally impaled by their comrades spears and javelins. The fighting would have been between small groups and individuals then as they allowed gaps to appear in the formation to penetrate lines (Daly, p.181)

Some however did appear to fight as shock cavalry, wearing scale cuirasses and carrying larger oval or round shields and a single long thrusting spear which they would have released just before impact to stop them from being thrown from the saddle because of their lack of stirrups, much like Alexander's shock cavalry.


Iberian cavalry wearing a Montefortino type helmet

The Celtiberians:


Diodorus remarked that the Celtiberes were a fusion of two peoples and that the combination of Celts and Iberes took place only after a series of long and bloody wars. The culture emerged from a 'proto-Celtic' substratum. When the Celtic-speaking people came to the peninsular has been a subject of much debate. One theory is that there were in fact two waves of Celtic settlers. The first arrived from the north of the Pyrenees in about 1000 BC, while another came a few centuries later in around the sixth century. Another theory is that they arrived in one single wave sometime around the eighth century. They regarded strangers as being under divine protection and were known for their hospitality as well as their military ferocity. Their homeland was in the north-eastern part of Iberia, from the southern flank of the Ebro valley to the Eastern Meseta, but their culture did expand into other areas of the country. They practised pastoralism – taking their flocks and herds to upland mountain pastures before the heat came, returning in autumn.


Because they did not fall into the area of Punic control, it is most likely that they served as mercenaries rather than allies, and were used by both Carthage and Rome during the Second Punic War in this capacity. There is little mention of them in Hannibal's army which suggests their may have been few of them, but we know they were raiding the north of Italy in 218 BC (Liv. 21.57), while Appian claims some fought at Cannae (App., Hann. 20)


They wore linen and mail cuirasses with leather straps hanging down to protect the abdomen. Some wore leather cuirasses reinforced with discs of metal. They wore helmets made from brass or copper with crimson plumes, most probably of Monterfortino type, though Wise admits we know next to nothing on this subject, and reckons simple metal or leather bascinets were used by the common soldier, the metal helmets of Celtic design by chieftains. A score of reliefs reveal that some wore greaves and short boots. (Wise, p.18) They used both the falcataand the straight swords like the gladius hispaniensis, and javelins, along with large oval and oblong shields of the scutum design. Diodorus says they wore black cloaks made from goat hair, but also says along with scutum type shields, they carried circular wicker shields as large as an aspis.

If there were any Celtiberian cavalry in the armies, Daly believes they probably wore mail shirts, and were armed with javelins, slashing swords and small round shields.







Celt-Iberian war trumpet, similar to the carnyx

Lusitanians

Like the Celtiberians, the Lusitanians served as mercenaries in Carthaginian armies. Though we only have one reference to them in Hannibal's army operating on rough terrain, which suggests that they were likely light armed skirmishers (Livy 21.57). The Lusitanians were certainly known to fight in this style.

They were armed with the caetra – Diodoros presents it as dexterous as they whirled the shield round to parry blows (Head, p.148) and also carried javelins – notably the barbed ironsaunion, and both the gladius hispaniensis and the falcata. Some may have carried bronze-headed spears as bronze weapons were still in use in the west of Spain. They wore sinew helmets and linen cuirasses that may have been hard enough to be protective, but both Head and Daly dismiss this idea, though Head believes some may have worn quilted linen cuirasses. Some had adopted the use of triple-crested Celtiberian helmets, greaves and iron mail shirts. According to Head, confusingly, their heavy weapons and armour suggest that some Lusitaniancaetrati were close equivalents to other peoples' scutarri (Head, p.148)

If any Lusitanian cavalry served in the army, they favoured mail, and carried the round cavalry shield with a long spear used to thrust over or under arm. The spearhead was long and slender, up to 55cm in length, with long buttspikes


The Celts





The Celts made up an important part of Hannibal's army – resupplying Hannibal's weary and battered force after the heavy toll through the Alps had reduced it. Hannibal's Celtic troops were from the two largest tribal federations in Cisalpine Gaul, the Insubres in the north and the Boii from the south. The Insubres were bigger than the Boii and controlled several other tribes, notably the Ligurian Laevi. They often appear to have suffered the brunt of Roman attacks in Hannibal's battles - and they were also depicted as drunk and unreliable - particularly stereotypical images of the barbarian compared to the civilized Romans. Instead of fighting for Hasdrubal Barca at the Metarus in 207 BC, a large number were slaughtered after the battle whilst drunk in their beds in camp.

The nature of their alliance with Hannibal is far from clear, but he did appear to have some sort of alliance with them which may have involved a sort of levy, but according to Daly it should be borne in mind that diplomacy was the best way to recruit mercenaries in the Hellenistic era, and that the first Celtic elements in Hannibal's army were likely mercenaries. Polybius mentions that at Tarentum in 212 BC, they were led by their own leaders as opposed to Carthaginian officers (Polyb. 8.30)

Celtic society was dominated by individual nobles with their own retainers and warbands. The chieftain's status would be based on ties of obligation and patronage, or of charisma, while status among the retainers was determined by relations with their leaders and their own skill as warriors which would earn them honour and prestige (Daly, p.102).

The nobles and their retainers mainly fought as cavalrymen, while amongst the infantry they would have fought closely packed, besides friends and family, the bravest and best equipped leading the charge in battle. Polybius refers to them deploying as speirai, which likely refers to irregularly sized tribal units who Connolly suggests were about 250-strong. (Connolly, p.187)

The Celts were generally taller than the Mediterranean peoples, and were muscled, fair-skinned and fair-haired. Men were prone to wearing long moustaches sometimes backed up by short beards. The hair was smeared with lime which bleached it and made it stiff and spiky, which they combed back to stick out like an animal's mane.

According to Polybius' account of the Battle of Telamon between the Roman Republic and the Insubres and Boii in 225 BC, the Gauls employed Celtic mercenaries from Transalpine Gaul – the Gaesatae – who fought naked. These warriors would have worn gold or bronze torcs and armlets like the majority of Celtic warriors. Fighting nude was a common method of battle among early Celts, but the majority of Celts in Hannibal's army would not have fought naked. The Insubres at Telamon and in Hannibal's army were described as fighting stripped to the waist, wearing trousers and cloaks. This clothing would have been usually made of wool and been brightly coloured. The trousers were often woven into striped or checked patterns. Both loose and tight trousers may have been worn which were tied at the ankles as well as wearing shoes. The heavy Celtic cloak, the sagnum, would have been made from wool and were usually dyed then fastened with a brooch on the right shoulder. Some of theses cloaks were hooded. They also wore short tunics with long sleeves.

The majority of warriors were armed with sword, shield and one or two throwing spears. The long slashing sword was common in the 3rd century, and despite the misconception that it was a slashing weapon, it also had a prominent point to thrust, though slashing would have been a more natural use of the long blade. These swords were 75-90cm long, and were of seemingly high quality despite Polybius mentioning them bending in battle and becoming useless, which Daly thinks spread from camp rumours to reassure nervous troops, or had been confused with the Celtic ritual of bending weapons for burial with their dead owners. Perhaps the quality of the swords varied.



Celtic Swordsman


Celtic infantry were also armed with throwing spears or javelins. These spears were up to 8 foot long, and the spearheads varied in size and shape; most were long and broad with curving sides between the broadest point and the tip. Diodorus describes one gruesome type of spearhead with a notched blade:

breaks throughout the entire length so that the blow not only cuts but also tears the flesh, and the recovery of the spear rips open the wound (Hist. 5.30)

From our archeological discoveries, the great variety of spearheads suggests a degree of specialisation in the use of the spear in the hunt and warfare. In fact, Celtic spears were well known in the ancient world and there were four terms to denote these weapons; lancea, mataris, saunion and gaesum.

The Celts are said to have invented mail armour in the 4th century BC, and Celtic nobles wore mail armour of interlocking iron rings over a padded undershirt. Bronze and iron helmets were more common than mail, and were worn by nobles and those ordinary infantry warriors who could afford one. The most common type of helmet was the Montefortino style, though other, more elaborate helmets were also worn. Celtic helmets were sometimes adorned by metal birds with flapping wings, or other animals like the boar.

Celtic shields were described by Diodoros as being decorated by bronze, and this is certainly true of ceremonial shields. Battle shields however, had painted decoration. They were oval shaped, though some had been squared-off at the ends and some had nearly straight sides. They were made from oak or linden planks covered by leather, doubled over the rim as they lacked metal reinforcement on the edges. They were much like Roman shields, but were flat instead of convex. The shields varied in length, but most were about a metre high and 55cm wide. They had spindle-shaped bosses with iron or bronze boss plates hollowed out to accommodate the handgrip running horizontally across the spine. The thickest part of the shield was at its centre, being about 13mm thick, while the edges were only 6mm. This provided strength and flexibility.

Celtic skirmishers were not common in Celtic armies, though some are mentioned in the army at Telamon in 225 BC. Most were javelinmen, armed with daggers instead of swords, and used a light shield. Archers and slingers were used in small numbers by the 1st century BC, so there may have been some numbers in Hannibal's army armed with these ranged weapons.

Celtic musicians usually carried horns, the most distinctive being the carnyx which had bronze heads with open mouths shaped like animals most commonly being a boar.



120-122 - Celtic Infantry, 123 Celtic Skirmisher, 124-5 Celtic Nobles, a-j Variety of Celtic helmets
Celtic Cavalry




Celtic Cavalryman alongside infantry


The first Celtic elements in Hannibal's army were thought to be mercenary cavalry noblemen picked up on his descent from the Alps. By the time of Cannae, he had about 4000 Celtic cavalry who operated on the left flank by the Aufidus River against the Roman citizen cavalry.

The Celtic cavalry were mostly well armoured being made up of dominantly nobles and their retainers, wearing mail armour with possibly overhanging shoulder defences and helmets. They carried round shields, but sometimes oval ones too. They were equipped with a long thrusting spear and the traditional Celtic sword. They sat on four-horned saddles that offered added security, and they also used short prick spurs to urge on their mounts.

Though they operated as heavy cavalry, Daly believes that their strong warrior ethos led them to not fight as a single, centrally co-ordinated unit (Daly, p.105) certain individuals acting independently as revealed by the Insubres Ducarius at the Battle of Lake Trasimene who sought out the Roman consul Flaminius for revenge after the Consul had, a few years before, campaigned in Insubres territory.

For almost three hours the fighting went on; everywhere a desperate struggle was kept up, but it raged with greater fierceness round the consul. He was followed by the pick of his army, and wherever he saw his men hard pressed and in difficulties he at once went to their help. Distinguished by his armour he was the object of the enemy's fiercest attacks, which his comrades did their utmost to repel, until an Insubrian horseman who knew the consul by sight - his name was Ducarius - cried out to his countrymen, "Here is the man who slew our legions and laid waste our city and our lands! I will offer him in sacrifice to the shades of my foully murdered countrymen." Digging spurs into his horse he charged into the dense masses of the enemy, and slew an armour-bearer who threw himself in the way as he galloped up lance in rest, and then plunged his lance into the consul (Livy 22.6)


The Ligurians:


The Ligures once inhabited the rich plains of north-west Italy and south-eastern France, and spoke an Indo-European language that was related to both Celtic and Italic having absorbed the earlier inhabitants of these regions. The Celts however coveted their land and pushed them out to mainly modern Liguria, Piedmont and the northern Appennines. Livy mentions several tribes who supplied Carthage and Hannibal in particular with troops against Rome, namely the Ingauni, Ilvates, Celeiates and Cerdicates (Liv. 31.2, 10.2, 32.29)

They were a generally poor people who practiced hunting, herding and forestry, but also took to raiding and piracy. However, some places like the port town of Genoa were quite prosperous. The people were a short and slightly built and their harsh mountain life gave them a reputation as warlike, proud and tough, with more endurance than the Celts. They wore their dark hair fairly short, and sported short beards.

They wore round necked, long-sleeved tunics with slits at the side made of mostly wool, and went about with bare legs and feet, though some wore Gallic-syle leather shoes. They used furs which were also exported in exchange for richer foreign textures that the chiefs would make use of. Lightly armoured, they also carried shields similar in design to Celtic ones, and swords of medium length, though some did also use Celtic swords of longer length, usually hung from belts but occasionally baldrics. Their main weapon were 4 feet long javelins with three-wedged iron heads, of which they would have carried a bundle. The chiefs made use of Celtic or Etruscan helmets.

Ligurians were not known for their cavalry, and were primarily skirmishers and infantry who 'could fight doggedly hand-to-hand when necessary' (Head, p.158)

The Ligurians who were said to have aided Hannibal were possibly mercenaries according to Head (p.158) and also made up a small part of Hasdrubal's army in 218 (Polyb. 3.33) whilst certainly serving as mercenaries at the Battle of Zama making up part of Hannibal's first line. In the treaty between Hannibal and Phillip V of Macedon, the Ligurians were stated as allies of Carthage:

That King Philip and the Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks who are their allies shall protect the Carthaginians, the supreme lords, and Hannibal their general, and those with him, and all under the dominion of Carthage who live under the same laws; likewise the people of Utica and all cities and peoples that are subject to Carthage, and our soldiers and allies and cities and peoples in Italy, Gaul, and Liguria, with whom we are in alliance or with whomsoever in this country we may hereafter enter into alliance. (Polyb. 7.9)

The Balearian Slingers:

The Balearians were among the most famous of mercenaries of the ancient world, and specialised in the use of the sling. Hannibal did not make use of many of them, and Head estimates that he took under 1000 of them into Italy, though there is no evidence of this estimate. We hear from both Polybius and Livy that Hannibal sent 870 slingers to Africa and left 500 in Spain (Polyb. 3.33. Liv. 21.21. 22.2. Daly believes that 1000 is too low a number, and thinks it was substantially higher, but not as many as Dodge's estimate of around 2000.

Those working for Carthage were mercenaries, although Serge Lancel believes their islands were under Punic control, but it seems that Carthaginian power did not extend further than the coast of these islands, their limit of power trading ports and held no power over the natives. We don't know how they were paid by Hannibal's time, but they had at one point in the past been initially hired with wine and women as they did not use money.

The slingers were deadly, supposedly capable of shooting stones that weighed up to a mina (436g) with great accuracy. Strabo tells us that the slings were made from black tufted rushes, hair or sinew, and that they carried a variety of slings of various sizes designed for short, medium and long ranges. These were wrapped around the head and belt while the one in use was carried.

Apparently they did not use lead shots, preferring stone ammunition which was both easier to come by and was cheaper to get a hold of. How they carried the stones is still not known for certain, though we have seen a Balearic slinger on Trajan's column carrying his ammunition in his cloak, which may be the reality during the Second Punic War, though they may also have carried bags of some sort.

Daly believes it was possible that they carried small shields that were strapped to the forearm so it left the hands free to operate the sling.





War-Elephants:


The Carthaginians are thought to have first come across war elephants when they fought Pyrrhos in Siciliy in 278 BC. By 262 BC, the Carthaginians had ther own elephant corp, using primarily an extinct type of forest elephant from northern Africa called the Loxodonta africana cyclotis which stood only 7-8ft at the shoulder, much shorter than their African and Indian cousins.


It is believed that Egypt played a role in helping Carthage, providing the first mahouts and even Indian elephants (like Hannibal's Syrus 'the Syrian'). Mahouts included Negroes, Moors and may have included some Indians. According to Appian, Carthage had an elephant stable that could house up to 300 of them, though the largest employed by Carthage was in Sicily in around 252 BC when they used 140. Zama was the last battle Carthage employed elephants, and there Hannibal used a force 80 strong to try and damage Scipio's infantry.


There has been a debate raging on just exactly how the Carthaginian war-elephant was equipped. The age old view that they used large towers following the Indian pattern and indeed, many artists particularly during the renaissance period depicts Carthaginian elephants as carrying towers and men fighting from them has been more recently doubted after the suggestion that the Loxodonta africana cyclotis had been the actual elephant they used. Could the Loxodonta africana cyclotis actually carry such a burden as a tower and crew? It has been suggested it couldn't carry an armed contingent of men and the tower, which is perhaps backed up by Polybius and Livy's silence on the matter, but then that argument could be made for the use of a tower too. The best evidence we have on Carthaginian elephants not using towers is on the Barcid coinage, but then we also have coins from Campania struck during the Hannibalic war which have towers.


However, despite the smaller sized elephant, Stephenson believes the evidence points towards that Carthaginian elephants actually did use towers. He believes they employed smaller towers than the Selucids which took the form of crenellated towers with a single hoplite shield on the left and right sides of the tower. The tower may have been decorated to look like stone. The elephant had one mahout who sat at the front, while the tower is thought to have been capable of carrying two men to fight on both sides of the elephant armed with javelins and possibly sarissas. They weren't heavily armoured to reduce the weight, though they may have had helmets of some sort. The mahout appears to have been unarmoured.


Hamilcar Barca made great use of his elephants during the Mercenary War, while Hannibal used war-elephants in both Spain and Italy. On his march through the Alps they scared the Celts so much that they did not launch attacks on areas which had elephants. Hannibal put them to good use in the Battle of the Trebia, though it is believed he lost most of the initial 37 he brought across with him during the winter of 217. Only one is said to have survived, which Hannibal rode through the Arnus marshes. This was supposedly an Indian elephant named Syrus. He did use elephants again however, as the only reinforcements he received from Carthage in 215 came with a small contingent of elephants. He also used 80 at Zama, but they were apparently young and not very well trained and were spooked easily, causing more chaos than good. Hasdrubal Barca also made use of war-elephants, but again, they did more harm than good when employed on the battlefield. To counter the unpredictable nature of elephants, the mahouts used hammers to drive in nails into the elephant skull, but this may have been quite a tricky task indeed.



It is Hannibal and his elephants which are probably the most famous of Carthaginian history. If you ask the general public who Hannibal was, they'd either respond with - the cannibal, or the elephants and the Alps, and it is certainly an enduring image for the ages.




There is also the story Polybius and Livy tell of how Hannibal got them across the Rhone River:

They built a number of very solid rafts and lashing two of these together fixed them very firmly into the bank of the river, their united width being about fifty feet. To these they attached others on the farther side, prolonging the bridge out into the stream. They secured the side of it which faced the current by cables attached to the trees that grew on the bank, so that the whole structure might remain in place and not be shifted by the current. When they had made the whole bridge or pier of rafts about two hundred feet long they attached to the end of it two particularly compact ones, very firmly fastened to each other, but so connected with the rest that the lashings could easily be cut. They attached to these several towing-lines by which boats were to tow them, not allowing them to be carried down stream, but holding them up against the current, and thus were to convey the elephants which would be in them across. After this they piled up a quantity of earth on all the line of rafts, until the whole was on the same level and of the same appearance as the path on shore leading to the crossing.The animals were always accustomed to obey their mahouts up to the water, but would never enter it on any account, and they now drove them along over the earth with two females in front, whom they obediently followed. As soon as they set foot on the last rafts the ropes which held these fast to the others were cut, and the boats pulling taut, the towing-lines rapidly tugged away from the pile of earth the elephants and the rafts on which they stood. Hereupon the animals becoming very alarmed at first turned round and ran about in all directions, but as they were shut in on all sides by the stream they finally grew afraid and were compelled to keep quiet. In this manner, by continuing to attach two rafts to the end of the structure, they managed to get most of them over on these, but some were so frightened that they threw themselves into the river when half-way across. The mahouts of these were all drowned, but the elephants were saved, for owing to the power and length of their trunks they kept them above the water and breathed through them, at the same time spouting out any water that got into their mouths and so held out, most of them passing through the water on their feet. (Polyb. 3.46)


The Italians:

The years proceeding the First Punic War Rome spent bringing southern Italy under its control. After the Battle of Cannae, Hannibal spent the next few years marching about much of southern Italy, mainly in the regions of Apulia, Campania, Bruttium, southern Lucania, and eastern and western Magna Graecia trying to ferment rebellion against Rome. This was arguably his main strategy – to use Rome's own resources against her. Many regions joined Hannibal either through force or by choice – the most famous being the largest cities after Rome of Taras and Capua. The majority who fought for him however, were Bruttians, while the larger powers concentrated on extending their own hegemony. Indeed, Hannibal's own treaties with these powers seem to have been in exchange for complete independence, whereby they did not have to supply Hannibal with men. However, Southern Italy did supply Hannibal's army with fresh troops. Samnites, Lucanians, Apulians, Bruttians and Italian Greeks did fight in Hannibal's army. Through the years and the gradual loss of his veterans brought from Africa and Spain – Hannibal would come to rely much on these people, and it is reckoned that of his army of roughly 40,000 troops, the majority were Italians by 208 BC while the Lucanians alone provided Carthage with an army 20,000 strong led by the Carthaginian Hanno. It is likely Samnites provided Hannibal with heavy cavalry and were known to have to an excellent cavalry force.

They would have been armed most likely in a Roman fashion, equipped with Celtic style shields, Montefortino helmets, their body armour determined by wealth and status, and consisted of mail armour worn over padded undershirts, muscled cuirasses, and pectorales. For weapons they would have used double-edged Spanish style swords and pila. Samnites, Lucanians and Apulians upon reaching manhood were distinguished by broad bronze belts that were always worn. It is important to note the Greek influence on Southern Italy however, and some Greek armour may well have been worn, and it wouldn't have been uncommon to find soldiers wearing Attic and Etrusco-Corinthian helmets.

They are thought to have stopped fighting in phalanx by this time, and fought in lines and maniples instead, adopted from the Romans, though sadly we have no evidence on this account. When Hannibal returned to Africa in 203 BC, he brought some of his veterans with him, and the majority were Bruttians who formed the third and final line at Zama. These troops stood firm while the others crumbled, and were steady and reliable soldiers who fought to the death.


Conclusion:

As you can see from the list above, hardly any of Carthage's armies were made of ethnic Carthaginian troops. Instead, the national groups make it appear an unwieldy and diverse organisation. It was made up of many cultures, languages, combat styles, whose distinct national groupings had different reasons for fighting for Carthage. Polybius himself is fairly damning of it, particularly in regards to the mercenaries and allies whose loyalty was dubious compared to the Romans.

Hannibal's remarkable leadership appears to have dismissed these handicaps into the background, and they were remarkably effective under his command. Allowing them to fight in their diverse national styles, the armies of Carthage also built up an army with a high proportion of cavalry to infantry. Under Hannibal's leadership, they were a devastatingly efficient fighting force, one which had strong personal ties to him, particularly the original army that crossed the Alps which was made up of experienced Libyans, Numidians and Iberians. Indeed, they had chosen Hannibal in Spain to take command of the army after Hasdrubal the Elder's death, and their experience, skill and devotion to Hannibal gave Carthage the initiative in the Second Punic War while the rest put up a long brave fight against the emerging power of Rome.



Bibliography


Ancient Sources:

Polybius and Livy (Penguin classics)

Modern Sources:

Connolly, P. (1998) Greece and Rome at War

Cunliffe, B. (1997) The Ancient Celts

Daly, G. (2002) Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War

Head, D. (1982) Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars 359-146 BC

Stephenson, I. (2008) Hannibal's Army

Wise, T. (1982) Armies of the Carthaginian Wars 265-146 BC

[Sebidee]

Pontus - by Rex Imperator

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Kingdom of Pontus


Much like Pergammon, Bithynia and Cappadocia Pontus was one of the middling Helleno-Asiatic kingdoms that was able to extend its position in Asia-Minor thanks to the collapse of the Lysimachid Kingdom and the inability of the Seleucids to exert their dominance in the northern part of Asia-Minor.

The kings of Pontus were descended from the Persian Satraps of the area and claimed descent from the Achaemenid Persian kings as well as from Alexander the Great through marriage ties to the Seleucid kings (who weren't related to Alexander but that didn't seem to bother the Mithratidae). Equally fond of Asian and Greek customs the kings of Pontus gradually extended their realm by careful conquest, savvy diplomacy and patronage of both eastern and Hellenic customs.

There is little information on Pontic armies before Mithradates VI so the Pontic roster will be based mostly, if not entirely, on his campaigns. Fortunately there is a good amount of his evidence as Mithradates the VI (The Great) was the king who brought Pontus to its greatest extent and fought three wars against Rome including two of her greatest generals, Sulla Felix and Pompey Magnus.

Pontic armies in Mithradates time were quite diverse and also evolved over time. During his early campaigns Mithradates’ troops would have been quite similar to those of any of the Asian kingdoms of the Hellenistic period. The core of his early armies were the bronze shields, most probably hired from among the Greek populations of the Pontic realm and Black Sea, and armed as traditional Macedonian phalangites, as the Greek population of Pontus was relatively small it is probable that it was supplement by Asian contingents as well primarily from the Leucosyri people one of the most populous tribes of Pontus, much as the Ptolemies had to rely on Egyptian phalangites.

As well as the phalanx Mithradates would have used traditional hoplites from both his own cities and those he took from the Romans. Also, Mithradates would have had access to Anatolian heavy spearmen, from areas like Caria and Lycia who traditionally had methods of warfare similar to the Greeks. Freed slaves also made up a large portion of his traditional phalanx units, many of these mostly likely armed as Light Thureophoroi or Peltasts.

It is also very likely that he would have had bodyguard units like both the Persian and Successor kings. As Mithradates was very happy to show off his Asian heritage it does not seem unlikely that he would have had a specific bodyguard unit modeled on the Persians. Guard cavalry units were also likely, a unit much like Alexander’s companions could be probably, made up of men personally loyal to the king, Mithradates early time in exile which he spent hunting might give inspiration for this, these horsemen could be both Greek and Asian as both could hold high position at the Pontic court. Eunuchs were also common in Pontus, and though they may not have formed their own units they definitely acted as Mithradates agents and guarded the harem and royal women, it could be an interesting historically plausible unit to have a “Eunuch Guard”. Finally, a unit of Sarmatian Lancers acted as Mithradates Horse Guard in his early campaigns and many barbarians from Scythia, Galatia and the Carpathians served him so a “Nomad” or “Barbarian” Guard was likely, or at least plausible. Some type of Greek foot guard might be plausible as well like the royal Peltasts or Chaonians, but the Bronze Shields could be used in this role as a “Bronze Shield Peltasts” unit.

Most Pontic armies were made up men from all around Asia Minor; it would good to have several tribal units with their own strengths and weaknesses. Paphlagonians would have been common as light Cavalry and Infantry. Mosynoeci, were skilled at ambush but primitive with little armour. Chalybes were experts at metal work and some well armoured infantry wouldn’t go amiss. The Temple states of Pontus and the rest of Asia Minor might have provided their own troops to help Pontic kings. And the Caucasian tribes of the eastern mountains would have provided some excellent mountain troops but with little discipline. I also think we should remove the Pontic Swordsmen unit completely, replace it with and early and late version one that is more standard sword one that is more legionnaire like.

Cavalry was considered to be the best part of Pontic armies, a specific Greek cavalry unit (possibly existing Citizen Cavalry) and the Asians as well (possibly existing noble blood cavalry). Pontus specifically DOES NOT have cataphracts; they are not mentioned in any of the sources in Pontic armies and would have been to big deal for Appian not to mention them. A “Pontic Heavy Cavalry” unit would be cool similar to the unit of the same name from Rome I and could reflect the reorganization in to a more guerrilla style force.

Light infantry wise Pontus doesn’t need much but some Freedmen Peltasts should go in, maybe the Paphlagonians as well. Pontus deployed large numbers of light and low quality infantry which the Romans were able to handily defeat on numerous occasions but the existing units should reflect that well enough.

Pontus was also known to recruit large numbers of mercenaries and auxilliaries from around Asia-Minor and the Black Sea. A pirate unit would be nice, possibly a unique ship as well. I think the scythians/sarmatians would be well represented by the Nomad Guards mentioned above. Galatia might deserve a specific unit in the roster as an aux or faction mercenary. I would try to avoid to much from Armenia, the Bosporan Kingdom or Cappadocia as they should all remain independent realms rather than appear as satellites of Pontus (which they definitely aren’t at the start date of the game.)


UNITS

"HOUSEHOLD" TROOPS

-Hunters (Historically Plausible) limited throughout faction
Mithradates VI spent much of his youth in self imposed exile to keep himself safe from his conniving mother. He feigned an addiction to hunting when he was secretly going about his kingdom and learning who to trust. A picked retinue of noblemen, both Greek and Asian, went with him, the founder of the dynasty Mithrdates Ctistes also spent time in exile with a small group of friends. I don’t think it unreasonable that Mithradates would have used this as inspiration for his guard cavalry, made up of his closest friends many of whom would have gone with him into exile. Heavy cavalry on the Hellenistic model, many of them wear pelts of animals they have killed on the hunt (Leopards, Bears, Wolves, Tigers and Lions have all historically lived in Turkey and Pontus) there's a famous bust of Mithradates VI wearing a lionskin, might be a hunting trophy rather than just trying to look like Hercules.



A unique feature of them could be that they have some eastern traditions as well; they might be effective horse archers (shooting from horseback was an essential skill on the hunt) and have a mix of Greek and eatern armour. If they are horse archers their melee stats should be made to reflect that as well.

-Apple Bearers (Historically Plausible) limited throughout faction

The Achaemenids and Alexander the Great both had units of “Melophoroi” or Apple Bearers named for the apple shaped counterweight on their spears, recruited from among their Persian subjects. Armed with the standard equipment of Persian infantrymen, tower shields and spears, but with better armour. As both the Achaemenids and Alexander were Mithradates idols I don’t think it unreasonable that he look at their guard units for inspiration. It could also reflect the guard before Pontus was thoroughly hellenised near the start date of the game.

-Guard Archers (Historically Plausible) limited throughout faction
lexander the Great had a picked unit of Persian archers as an honour guard around his tent. Much like the apple bearers, Mithradates might have read about them while reading about Alexander’s campaigns and developed his own version. Elite archers, but Pontus should have access have access to few of these. It could also reflect the guard before Pontus was thoroughly hellenised near the start date of the game


- Eunuch Guards (Historically inspired) limited throughout faction
Many mentions of Eunuchs that acted as enforces and generals of Mithradates. Would have guarded the harem and royal family as well. Could be a possibility for an elite foot guard melee unit. Eastern style rather than something that looks like Royal Peltasts or silver shields. Given something like the eastern ace and a tower shield. They might really help to bring out the eastern side of Pontus.

-Nomad/Barbarian Horse Guards (Historically Attested) limited throughout army
Mithradates used Scythians, Sarmatians, Bastarnae and Galatians in his army. During the first Mithradatic war, 100 Sarmatian lancers acted as Mithradates personal guard when they defeated 7 times their number of Bithynian horsemen. Should be relatively common in Pontic armies but at the same time you shouldn’t be able to hire dozens of them. Should not be as heavily armoured as Cataphracts say.

Mithridates ascended Mount Scoroba, which lies on the boundary between Bithynia and Pontus. A hundred Sarmatian horse of his advance-guard came upon 800 of the Nicomedean cavalry and took some of them prisoners.
Appian Mithradatic Wars 3.19

PONTIC AND ASIAN TROOPS

-Pontic Archers (Historically Inspired)
As Mithradates VI was a keen student of poisons and toxicology I think an interesting unit for Pontus would be a “Poison Archer” unit. Able to deal morale damage rather than just outright kills. This was a common practice among Scythian tribes and it wouldn’t have been surprising if this had filtered into Pontus as well thanks to Pontic campaigns in Scythian regions and the Scythian mercenaries in Pontic service as well.

-Leucosyri “White Syrian” (Historically Attested)
The White Syrians were among the most populous of the peoples of Pontus and were also prominent in Cappadocia, Phrygia and Cilicia. Described variously described as being Anatolian, Hittite or Iranian. They are listed by Appian as being a part of Pontic armies. Could be depicted as an eastern style Thureophoroi Type unit, or possibly Eastern tower Shields with Akinakes swords.

Besides his former forces he had the Chalybes, Armenians, Scythians, Taurians, Achæans, Heniochi, Leucosyrians, and those who occupy the territory about the river Thermodon, called the country of the Amazons.
Appian Mith. X.69

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...=leucosyri-geo

-Mosynoeci “Turret Folk” (Historically Attested)
Another of the more common Pontic tribes, known for their tattooed bodies and their skills at ambush. Little armour but, small helmet with horsehair crest is described by Xenophon. Pretty straight forward ambush unit, could be armed with spears and shields.

They live on the flesh of wild animals and on nuts; and they also attack wayfarers, leaping down upon them from their scaffolds.
Strabo XII.3.18

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...=mosynoeci-geo

-Chalybes “Men of Steel/Tempered Iron” Pikemen (Historically Attested)
Another Pontic tribe mentioned by Appian as being in Pontic armies. Known for their skills at mining and metalworking the Chalybes were considered by the Greeks to be the first people to make steel. And Xenophon describes them as using 20 foot spears without a shield.

Besides his former forces he had the Chalybes, Armenians, Scythians, Taurians, Achæans, Heniochi, Leucosyrians, and those who occupy the territory about the river Thermodon, called the country of the Amazons.
Appian Mith X.69





-Paphlagonian Light Infantry (Historically Attested)
Paphlagonia was Hellenistic kingdom in its own right but it was continually shrinking as it was sandwiched between the expanded powers of Pontus and Bithynia. Paphlagonians made up a significant proportion of the Pontic population and would have served in Pontic armies. Herodotus describes them as having small shields and with spears of no great size.

The Paphlagonians in the army had woven helmets on their heads, and small shields and short spears, and also javelins and daggers; they wore their native shoes that reach midway to the knee.

Herodotus VII.72

-Paphlagonian Light Cavalry (Historically Attested)
Superb light horsemen, Paphlagonians were armed as traditional Persian cavalry, using a couple cornel wood spears light enough to throw but heavy enough to use at the charge.. Though effective at the charge they would have little armour and would suffer in prolonged combat with heavier cavalry.



-Pontic Legionnaires (Historically Attested)
After successive defeats to the Romans Appian states that Mithradates began to reorganize many of his troops as legionnaires and Peltasts. The Peltasts are already in game but the Pontic Swordsmen are not quite legionnaires and more properly exemplify early Pontic swordsmen before retraining. Their ranks were stiffened with Roman deserters and observers of the competing factions from the Roman civil wars so they should be quite effective, if not quite up to fighting real roman legionnaires.

he (Mithradates) selected the bravest to the number of about 70,000 foot and half that number of horse and dismissed the rest. He divided them into companies and cohorts as nearly as possible according to the Italian system, and turned them over to Pontic officers to be trained.

Appian XIII.87

-Pontic Swordsmen
Reskin to make them look less organised and gaudier. Fancier uniforms, add in some more eastern armours along with Greek, swap out celtic shields for round Greek styles. Eastern swords rather than (or as well as) kopis.



-Pontic Guerilla Cavalry (Historically Attested)
Another product of Mithradates reorganisation of the Pontic army. After defeats to the Romans the king decided a more flexible force was required. These cavalrymen were decently armoured but not so much so as to slow down their horses. Able to outrun most heavy cavalry and outfight most light cavalry these troopers would become indispensable to Mithradates on his later campaigns.

-Anatolian Armoured Spearmen (Historically Attested)
Not all Asiatic spearmen were lightly armed and armoured. Herodotus describes Carians and Lycians as armoured like hoplites and fighting in the same way. It is likely that many of the Lycian, Carian, Mysian, Lydian and other peoples of Asia Minor would have aided Mithradates in the hopes of liberating their homes from Roman domination. Basically hoplites with asian armour, mix of Greek and Asian styles. Hoplite phalanx able as well.

...advanced into Phocis, consisting of Thracian, Pontic, Scythian, Cappadocian, Bithynian, Galatian, and Phrygian troops, and others from Mithridates' newly acquired territory

Appian Mith 6.41

The Lydian armor was most similar to the Greek.

Herodotus VII.74

(The Pamphylians) were armed like the Greeks.

Herodotus VII.91

(The Carians) had scimitars and daggers, but the rest of their equipment was Greek.

Herodotus VII.93

-Temple Soldiers (Historically Plausible) limited numbers
Asia-Minor had several small temple principalities, Pontus itself had two at Zela and Commana which paid tribute to the king. Temple soldiers would have been necessary to Guard pilgrims and gather tithes from Sacred slaves. As they would be needed year round they would be more professional than most other Pontic troops. Could be spears, swords or hoplites. Would be armoured quite splendidly thanks bribes and extortion, probably a well paid position as well. The High Priest at Zela was usually a close relative or supporter of the Pontic king, and the position was awarded by the king rather than apponted internally. So the high priest would be in the kings debt.

GREEK UNITS

-Bronze Shield Swordsmen (Historically Attested/Plausible)

References are ambiguous to just how the Bronze Shields fought, it is plausible that they could swap out pikes for close combat weapons to act as an assault force.

-Greek Pikemen (Historically Plausible)

Pontic kings had access to many sources of Pikemen, from the Pontic Greek Cities and Black Sea Greeks, former Seleucid military colonies in Asia Minor, mercenaries for hire and the newly acquired cities in Asia-Minor like Ephesus, Tralles, Pergamon and many others. The bronze shields would not have made up the entire Pontic Phalanx and Greeks would most definitely have served in this capacity, not just freed slaves or Asians.

consisting of Thracian, Pontic, Scythian, Cappadocian, Bithynian, Galatian, and Phrygian troops, and others from Mithridates' newly acquired territory

Appian 6.41

-Pontic Greek Cavalry

Pontic Greeks would have had access to better horses than mainland Greeks, able to get horses from Cappdocia, Armenia, or the Black Sea region. Should be better than citizen cavalry but not able to take on elite cav.



PONTIC AUXILLIARIES AND FOREIGN TROOPS

-Freedmen Spears (Historically Attested)
Mithradates freed allot of slaves from the Romans and their supporters and formed them into units of his army. They have been described as fighting in a phalanx, some take that to mean pikes, others more traditional hoplite style. I would suggest something similar to Thureos Hoplites, big shields, spears and ability to Hoplite Phalanx. Light armour as they can’t exactly afford much and Pontus wouldn’t be giving out massive amounts of armour to every freed slave, but Phrygian style helmets. Phrygian caps were the distinctive headgear of freed slaves. Were said to have fought with grim determination at Chaeronea to avoid capture and crucifixion by the Romans.

-Freedmen Shields (Historically Attested)
See above, but wit large shields and melee or peltasts. At Orchomenos they did not fight as Phalangites but are said to have been armed like legionnaires. Possibly light melee troops with thureos and/or scutum but little armour.

-Black Sea Pirates (Historically Attested)
Light melee raiding units. Mithradates hired pirates on numerous occasions throughout his campaigns, possibly a light ship version as well. Would be a mish mash of armour types, would have been Greeks, Scythians, Anatolians, Caucasians so a mix of armours. Were able to besiege and take cities for plunder and slaves.

When Mithradates first went to war with the Romans and subdued the province of Asia (Sulla being then in difficulties respecting Greece), he thought that he should not hold the province long, and accordingly plundered it in all sorts of ways, as I have mentioned above, and sent out pirates on the sea. In the beginning they prowled around with a few small boats worrying the inhabitants like robbers. As the war lengthened they became more numerous and navigated larger ships.

Appian Mith. XIV.92
-Armenian Light cavalry (Historically Attested)
Armenia Minor was a Pontic possession for some time often had Armenian cavalry (but not Cataphracts) in its armies.

-Caucasian Mountaineers (Historically Attested)
Several tribes of Caucasians were mercenaries in Mithradates armies. Gave Pompey a hell of time, causing rockslides and throwing javelins from above. Various tribes like the Achaeans and Iberians.

-Galatians (Historically Attested)
Known to have served in Pontic armies. Mithradates VI personal bodyguard, Bituitus was a Galatian. Could have a mid level Galatian infantry and/or cavalry unit.

-Scythian Horse Archers (Historically Attested)
Same as above, Mithradates other personal bodyguard (and mistress) Hypsicratea was a Scythian. Pontus had easy access and the wealth to hire them.

-Cappadocians (Historically Attested)
Mithridates invaded Cappadocia, a lot. Cappadocians are mentioned in many of Mithradates armies.

consisting of Thracian, Pontic, Scythian, Cappadocian, Bithynian, Galatian, and Phrygian troops, and others from Mithridates' newly acquired territory

Appian 6.41

-Bastarnae
Mithradates used them as assault troops

Mithridates lost twenty of his Bastarnæ, who were the first to break into the harbor.

Appian Mith, X.12

And some by Marshal of France

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here's some info which might help you
That's why Carados and I thought that what actually happened was a bunch of guys who were already fighting with sword, javelins, and shields simply got better swords, shields, and some armour, and were taught to fight in close order.


I’m not sure that I follow. You originally stated I just can't find any evidence of an actual Macedonian phalanx being deployed by Pontus in any real numbers until they conquered some of the existing Macedonian settlements in other parts of Anatolia. They probably did make good use of them for a time, though. Are you now suggesting that Pontic troops were never equipped as phalangitai? If so, you necessarily have to disregard Plutarch who explicitly uses the word σαρίσας/sarissas when describing the Pontic heavy armed at Khaironeia (Plut. Sull. 18.4). Plutarch consistently refers to σαρίσας/sarissas when detailing the ‘Macedonian’ phalanx in action (Plut. Aem. Paul 19.1, Pyrr. 21.6) and I believe this fact, combined with Plutarch’s coherent description of phalangite tactics in the same passage, is compelling. Significantly, Plutarch drew heavily on Sulla’s now lost memoirs (Plut. Sull. 17.1, 37.1) and therefore it is likely Plutarch’s account of the tactics employed by both sides at Khaironeia is derived from expert, if not impartial, eye witness testimony.


It was definitely something of a departure, but the key is that it was more of a departure in drill than in equipment. If you look at Plutarch, you'll see that Mithridates accomplishes all of this in a fairly short time span. Normally, I would imagine it would be time-consuming to train tens of thousands of men to fight in a completely different fashion (Plutarch says 120k, but I think Lucullus exaggerated).


The time span in question was not necessarily as short as you imply

However, a treaty was actually made and ratified with oaths. Mithridates was to have Cappadocia and Bithynia, Sertorius sending him a general and soldiers, while Sertorius was to receive from Mithridates three thousand talents and forty ships. Accordingly, a general was sent to Asia by Sertorius, one of the senators who had taken refuge with him, Marcus Marius.

Plut. Sert. 24.2-3

When war commenced in early 73 some of Mithridates’ land forces were under Roman command. Moreover, Marius and a number of other officers and men with him had undertaken since their arrival from Spain to reorganize the Pontic army from the ground up, on the Roman model….Marius and associates must have set to work, then, sometime in 74 at the latest

Glew, D.G, Between the Wars: Mithridates Eupator and Rome, 85-73 B.C., Chiron 11 (1981)

You appear to be arguing ex-silentio that the Pontic army either didn’t deploy the ‘Macedonian’ phalanx at all, or only did so at a very late stage in its development before being promptly reorganised again, this time on the ‘Roman’ model. However, as Caligula Caesar points out ...the lack of evidence for a certain thing happening before must be counterbalanced against the lack of evidence for anything happening before.

In truth I have no idea when the Pontic military first deployed the ‘Macedonian’ phalanx. One possibility is that the marriage of Mithridates II to the sister of Seleucos II Kallinikos c. 245 BCE (Euseb. Chron. 1 p. 118 Karst) may have resulted in Seleukid military advisors training his army on the Macedonian model, in much the same way as the Roman M. Marius did before the Third Mithridatic War. Other possible triggers for Seleukid military support include the marriage of Antiochos III to Mithridates' daughter in 222 (Polyb. 5.43.1-4). However, this is pure conjecture and definitive answers to the subject under debate are beyond our reach.

From this place they marched through the Chalybes seven stages, fifty parasangs. These were the bravest men whom they encountered on the whole march, coming cheerily to close quarters with them. They wore linen cuirasses reaching to the groin, and instead of the ordinary pteryges, a thickly-plaited fringe of cords. They were also provided with greaves and helmets, and at the girdle a short dagger, about as long as the Laconian xuele, with which they cut the throats of those they mastered, and after severing the head from the trunk they would march along carrying it, singing and dancing, when they drew within their enemy's field of view. They carried also a spear fifteen cubits long, pointed at one end.

Xen. Anab. 4.7.16

The Scydises and Paryadres mountainss, spanning North-Eastern Anatolia, were home to fiercely independent tribes such as the Tibarani, Chaldaei, Sanni, Appaitai, Heptacometai and others of uncertain ethnic origin. The most fearsome were reckoned to be the Heptacometai, also called Mossynoikoi, because of their habit of living in wooden turrets built on trees (Strab. 12.3.18). The quality of their weapons was so good that that the Greek word for sturdy iron or steel is chalyps, which was the name of one particularly famous tribe of the area, the Chalybes, later called Chaldaei (Strab. 12.3.19). The current roster includes 'Oreioi' and 'Chalybian Infantry' which on the face of it may represent something of a duplication since they both seem to depict all these peoples who live in the mountains (Strab. 12.3.18).

Now for a few general comments about the Pontic military system that may be of interest:

The Pontic Kingdom never came under the sway of Megas Alexandros and consequently the network of Graeco-Macedonian military settlements that were so important for the Ptolemaioi and the Seleukidai regimes were entirely absent in the region. Instead the kingdom was forged by Mithradates I Ktistes and his descendants out of the ethnically diverse peoples of northern Asia Minor (Diod. 20.111.4; Plut. Demtr 4.1; App. Mith. 9), the resultant political and military culture a fusion of Greek, Iranian and native Anatolian. The Kappadokian equestrian tradition of the region ensured the Pontic kings a good supply of heavy horse. However the deployment of reliable close-order infantry was more problematic. The sources are silent about the adoption and development of the ‘Macedonian phalanx’ and the first oblique literary reference is found during Diophantos’ campaign against the Skythoi king Palacus and his Roxolanoi allies (Strab. 7.3.17) during the twilight years of the second century.

It is unlikely the Greek inhabitants of the coastal cities were obliged to serve regularly in the phalanx, and indeed the first mention of a Greek in the military service of a Pontic king is during the second century reign of Pharnakes I (Griffith. G.T, The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Cambridge, 1935). Rather the Pontic kings, and in particular Mithradates VI Eupator, appear to have pursued a policy of ‘creating royal chora, with relationships in the agricultural periphery based on strong forts established in different places as the main points of royal power’. Native peasants settled around the newly created forts as ‘semi-dependent land-tillers like the Hellenistic katoikoi’ (Sergej Ju. Saprykin: The Chora in the Bosporan Kingdom 2006). These forts or strongholds (‘phrouriai’), numbering no less than seventy five (Strab. 12.3.28) ‘in all likelihood constituted the core of the administrative system of the Pontic Kingdom serving both military and economic functions’ (Hojte: The Administrative Organisation of the Pontic Kingdom 2006). It was probably from this source of manpower that the phalanx, perhaps stiffened by a limited number of Hellenistic mercenaries, filled its ranks in time of war (Strab. 10.4.10).

The Khalkaspides (‘bronze shields’) were the late crack heavy infantry (‘phalangites’) of the Pontic Kingdom, their title indicative of the distinctive shields they carried and symbolic of the philhellenism of the Pontic royal house. However little is known about the history of the regiment itself and the only explicit references to it are during the battle of Khaironeia in 86 BCE (Plut. Sulla 16.7, 19.2). Nevertheless the prominent role played by the Khalkaspides at Khaironeia indicates the unit was regularly entrusted with key responsibilities on the battlefield and that therefore it was likely to have enjoyed an enhanced level of prestige.

The sources are silent on whether native sword armed thureophoroi-style infantry were deployed in the armies of the Pontic kings before the wars with Rome. The use of Galatian mercenaries in earlier Pontic armies (Jacoby, FGrHist 740 F 14), especially after the decline of the Seleukid influence in the region precipitated by the treaty of Apameia in 188 BCE (Griffith. G.T, The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Cambridge, 1935), may have fulfilled the tactical role of thureophoroi , though the brigading together of identically equipped Kappadokians and Galatians in the Seleukid battle line at Magnesia (Liv. 37.40.10) suggests the native population of the region were already versed in mobile sword and missile tactics. In any case the Paphlagonians, Kappadokians and Phrygians are previously reported to have been equipped with ‘woven helmets on their heads, and small shields and short spears, and also javelins and daggers’ (Hdt. Hist. 7.72.1-2 and 7.73.1) and the adoption of larger thureoi (lit. doors i.e. shields) and swords need not have significantly changed their traditional fighting style.

What is certain is that the failure of the Pontic phalanx at Khaironeia and Orkhomenos led Mithridates VI Eupator to instigate a massive re-equipment and retraining of his forces prior to the third war with Rome; forging swords in the ‘Roman fashion’, welding heavy shields and drilling troops in the tactics of the ‘Roman ‘phalanx’ i.e. cohort (Plut. Lucull.7.3-4; Dio. Cass. 36.13.1). However despite initial successes the new equipment and tactics failed to deliver victory. After overrunning Phrygia and Pisidia the Pontic general Eumakhos was defeated by the Galatian tetrarch, Deiotaros (App. Mith. 75), Metrophanes was defeated by the legate Mamercus (Oros. 6.2.16) and ultimately the disastrous siege of Kyzikus resulted in Mithradates’ new model army being cut to ribbons during the retreat to Lampsakos (App. Mith. 76; Plut. Luc. 11.6; Memnon 28.4; Florus 1.40.7). However new forces were subsequently raised, also presumably equipped in the ‘Roman fashion’, and crushing defeats inflicted on the legates M. Fabius Hadrianus and C. Valerius Triarius (App. Mith 88-89; Plut. 35.1, Dio. Cass. 36.9.1). It took the arrival of Gn. Pompeius in 66 to finally rout Mithridates and effectively end the Third Mithridatic War (App. Mith. 100; Plut. Pomp 32.3-7; Dio. Cass. 36.48.1-8).

With regard to other units time is against me and I am away until next weekend. However, the use of mercenaries is well attested in the Pontic military and this is something else you might want to consider. For example:

The island of Crete seemed to be favorably disposed towards Mithridates, king of Pontus, from the beginning, and it was said that they furnished him mercenaries when he was at war with the Romans. It is believed also that they recommended to the favor of Mithridates the pirates who then infested the sea, and openly assisted them when they were pursued by Marcus Antonius

App. Sic. 6

Mithridates V. Euergetes was probably the first Pontic king to recruit mercenaries in the Aegean although it is possible small numbers of were also recruited from the Greek cities in Asia.

Dorylaos was a military expert and one of the friends of Mithridates Euergetes. He, because of his experience in military affairs, was appointed to enlist mercenaries, and often visited not only Greece and Thrace, but also the mercenaries of Crete, that is, before the Romans were yet in possession of the island and while the number of mercenary soldiers in the island, from whom the piratical bands were also wont to be recruited, was large

Strab. 10.4.10

Regards

buc


http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=215250

One of the first policies upon ascending the throne was the improvement of the army. The Pontic army was mainly based around a Phalanx core, supplemented by mercenaries mainly from Galatia and the Pontic steppe at the Northern side of the Black sea. Mithridates however, had read of how the phalanx could be flanked and crushed by more flexible forces, especially the Romans. He identified the Romans as a big threat even before he started ruling properly, so he began reforming the army so they could better face the forces of Rome. Instead of having the army based around the Phalanx, he used the relatively new model of infantry, based around the heavy peltasts. The Thoratikai were armored in chain mail, armed with short swords, and used heavy javelins before the main melee, similar to the Romans. The phalanxes were kept around, but they did not dominate the army as before, and were mainly used in their old role as the “anvil”, which held enemy forces while more maneuverable forces flanked them. Mithridates kept recruiting Galatian mercenaries to serve as medium infantry, and Sarmatians to serve as cavalry, but also looked to other sources of troops, recruiting cavalry from Cappadocia, Archers from Crete, and Skirmishers from Cilicia. However, with semi-unfriendly governments in each of these places, Mithridates’ access to troops from these areas was threatened.

Pontus’ new army would receive its first test in Taurica, when the Greek cities of the region appealed to Mithridates to protect them from Scythian aggression. In a previous Pontic attempt to conquer the Bosporan kingdom, one of the articles in the treaty that was made after the end of the war allowed the Bosporans to call on the Kingdom of Pontus if help was needed. Mithridates was now faced with a brilliant opportunity, to not only seize a rich land, but to be welcomed as a liberator whilst doing it. So in 108bc, he dispatched an army 30,000 to the Crimea with his general, Archelaus, and hoped that the reforms will have made the Pontic army into a force to be reckoned with.

Another thing, what do you think of Pontic Bronze Shields, Pontic Silver Shields, and Pontic Red shields for phalanxes? How about Pontic cataprhacts? How about have them armoured and wearing face helmets? Would the Pontic legionnaires be having more rounded red shields, looking more like an RSII Selecuid Theros bearers? Pontic royal cavarly, which would be more slightly modelled on the cataphract armor, and containing different red and green cloaks, including blue. I noticed that Pontus would benefit from two units, notice that its allies are Trapezios and its enemy, Cappodica. Pontic Throkiati, Pontic Petalsts, Most successor factions will need the heavily upgraded Thracian Rhompoi unit - they were used constantly in Macedon, Pontic, Selecuid Armies. If one thing, lets say Pontus has allies with Armenia, they would benefit from their allied Armenian horse archers/Armenian Cataphracts. Sarmantion Heavy cav, featured in Balkan mod, would be an nice addition - it would make sense considering that Mithadres fought against the Sycthians. An combined force of over 50,000 Roxolani and Scythian troops were defeated by 6000 Pontic soliders, so in sense he would have had either allied Scythian units or as mercaneries.

Some pics on the Pontians

http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/803837Sanstitre20.gif


http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/860845Sanstitre21.gif
http://bigredbat.blogspot.co.uk/2009_03_01_archive.html

Trapzeian swordsmen - these men would the elite of the Pontic Army, for swordsmen units anyway. They'd have heavily upgraded golden armor, and would be an expensive unit to use in the battlefields, they would be under certain Roman influence.

What about Cappodican nobles? They might be an good expensive mercenary unit to use.

And Veteran Golden Pikemen, which I think the Pontics could benefit from instead of being restricted, they'd be the force changers for the game.

Of course this stuff I saw in an mod, but I've made it different enough.

http://www.madaxeman.com/FoG_Lists/Pontic.php
file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Cedrus-11-Luis_Ballesteros-Pastor_The_Meeting_Between_Marius_and_Mithridates_and_the_Pontic_Policy_in_Cappadocia_225_239-libre.pdf
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=e...avalry&f=false
http://www.lietuvos.org/istorija/pamokos/sarmatai.pdf

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/223611138-Diplomats-and-Diplomacy-in-the-Roman-World-pdf.pdf

These are all suggestions, just to aid you in your research.