Quick question about Carthaginian arms.

[Nota']

I am currently in a RP called YATS, and Carthage has been accused of supplying arms to Messanian pirates, which was countered by the argument that the arms were supplied by private companies. That was then countered by someone saying the arms had been stamped with the sign of the Carthagian empire.

My question is, where there any state armouries that would provide swords that would be stamped with this sign? I was under the impression that Carthage was very capitalist and thus would not have state armouries for the few troops they did provide themselves (not mercs)

Thanks in advance for answers.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

I am currently in a RP called YATS

No idea what any of that means. Haha..

My question is, where there any state armouries that would provide swords that would be stamped with this sign? I was under the impression that Carthage was very capitalist and thus would not have state armouries for the few troops they did provide themselves (not mercs)

Thanks in advance for answers.

Carthage did indeed have a state armory, as directly evidenced during the Third Punic War when arms and armor were taken out of storage and handed over to the Romans in an attempt to appease their purposely unreasonable demands. Truth was, the Romans did not plan upon allowing the survival of the city in any capacity. War broke out, and new arms and armor were forged (and the women of the city cut their hair to make catapult ropes) to fight the Roman siege of the city in 149 B.C.

The Carthaginians probably had a state armory for some time, to equip their citizen levy they had to occasionly field in an emergency.

You're thinking of "capitalist" in a modern sense. Which had no meaning in the ancient world, this was a completely different universe.

Even today, there are plenty of practicing capitalist countries that have state-run or de facto state-run military industries. MAS (Manufacture d'armes de Saint-Étienne) makes rifles and small arms for the French, having done so since the 17th century. Saab, before they made cars, was the state-run Swedish aircraft company. DENEL is South Africa's top arms company, directly run by their government. Even in the US, Springfield Armory made most of the US military's small arms until the 1960's. And so on...

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Carthage would have had state arms after the mercenary war from Hamilcar Barca's reforms. However they may have been different arms in the Spanish colonies because they were practically an autonomous region under the military governor who was Hasdrubal the Fair and later Hannibal Barca. Although Hamilcar Barca was also the sole ruler of Spain he tried to make it closer to Carthage while still being a practical dictator.
The Carthaginians would have armouries to supply their levies and their elite Sacred Band, however most regulars were not Carthaginians so in the case of African, Greek, Gallic and Phoenician mercenaries they probably had to supply their own weapons. Also most of the equipment was from private companies or in the case of the first punic war then it was old Greek weapons. However the Spanish regulars were given their weapons by state armouries.

[Nota']

Thanks both of you.
+repped

[conon394]

You're thinking of "capitalist" in a modern sense. Which had no meaning in the ancient world, this was a completely different universe.

Depends really on which side of the embedded economy debate to agree with... According to Demosthenes a bank was a risk taking entity that made money by investing other people’s money – a very modern capitalist description.


In any case I disagree on the direction the answers so far.


That Cartage maintained stockpiles of weapons (particularly things artillery or ships) is one thing. That is fairly typical and well attested across the Classical World. But that it would use state shops to produce the equipment is an unwarranted assumption. Why not just offer a contract and accept the best bid – that is certainly what would have happened in Athens the best well attested comparable economy. Marks are certainly attested for state property in some cases, and well as tokens to indicate what was issued to an individual but I see no reason Carthage would provide somebody with it state equipment. Why not just buy a consignment of weapons from the market and deliver them? And even if so why not file off the stamp? The Carthys were not dumb.

The Carthaginians would have armouries to supply their levies and their elite Sacred Band

Carthage would have had state arms after the mercenary war from Hamilcar Barca's reforms

Would they why? Rome did not, nor Athens, or Rhodes, or Thebes, or even Persia.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Depends really on which side of the embedded economy debate to agree with... According to Demosthenes a bank was a risk taking entity that made money by investing other people’s money – a very modern capitalist description.

That's very basic though...the concept of banks.

A quick look at some mid to late Roman history will tell you the ancients didn't have a firm grasp of economic theory like we have today. Inflation, devaluing currency, etc.

That Cartage maintained stockpiles of weapons (particularly things artillery or ships) is one thing. That is fairly typical and well attested across the Classical World. But that it would use state shops to produce the equipment is an unwarranted assumption. Why not just offer a contract and accept the best bid – that is certainly what would have happened in Athens the best well attested comparable economy.

All of the following is from Appian's History of Rome.

....and call to mind the great fleets you once possessed and the spoils you captured and proudly brought into your harbor, and gorged your dockyards and arsenals.

This essentially says that the wealth coming into the city went to the dockywards and arsenals, to create ships and weapons/armor.

It also shows that Carthage had a city-run arsenal of some kind.

If you are sincerely desirous of peace why do you need any arms? Bring all your weapons and engines of war, both public and private, and deliver them to us."

-Lucius Marcius Censorinus, Roman Ambassador (Appian, 80).

This suggests that there were plenty of privately owned weapons in the city as well as state-owned ones.

All the sacred places, the temples, and every other unoccupied space, were turned into workshops, where men and women worked together day and night without pause, taking their food by turns on a fixed schedule. Each day they made 100 shields, 300 swords, 1,000 missiles for catapults, 500 darts and javelins, and as many catapults as they could. For strings to bend them the women cut off their hair for want of other fibers.

-Appian, 93.

This is what I was refering to in an earlier post. In this emergency of 149 B.C., we see the Carthaginian populace mobilized to make weaponry.

To sum it up, Carthage did indeed have a city arsenal to complement its large barracks, port, and horse and elephant stables. It's unclear that if in earlier times weapons were actually forged there (my guess is that there were both public and private factories), but it is for certain that during the Third Punic War the Carthaginians were not following any sort of profit model when their survival was at risk.

[Hmmm]

This essentially says that the wealth coming into the city went to the dockywards and arsenals, to create ships and weapons/armor.

It also shows that Carthage had a city-run arsenal of some kind.

I would not go so far as to claim that. Judging from your quote, all this shows clearly is that there were arsenals in Carthage, not that they were necessarily state-run. (Though admittedly, perhaps this is because you have not shown the quote in full. I.e. the context in the rest of the text might be such that the quote actually suggests specifically state-run armouries.)

This suggests that there were plenty of privately owned weapons in the city as well as state-owned ones.

There were certainly enough state-owned weapons to make them worth mentioning. On the other hand, this might refer to larger weapons, such as ballistas and similar, where it is far more likely that they would be owned by the state. Notice how the quote does indeed mention "engines of war".

-Appian, 93.

This is what I was refering to in an earlier post. In this emergency of 149 B.C., we see the Carthaginian populace mobilized to make weaponry.

To sum it up, Carthage did indeed have a city arsenal to complement its large barracks, port, and horse and elephant stables. It's unclear that if in earlier times weapons were actually forged there (my guess is that there were both public and private factories), but it is for certain that during the Third Punic War the Carthaginians were not following any sort of profit model when their survival was at risk.

Yes, the last part is certainly true. But whether the Carthaginian state enrolled its citizens to forge weapons during the Third Punic War is not really representative of Carthages whole history: PW3 was, after all, a very dire situation for Carthage. Does it necessarily suggest that Carthage had actual state-run armouries throughout its history?


Also: I am not actually disputing whether Carthage had state-run weapons, I'm just pointing out that your quotes, as provided, were quite open to interpretation.

[Hanny]

I am currently in a RP called YATS, and Carthage has been accused of supplying arms to Messanian pirates, which was countered by the argument that the arms were supplied by private companies. That was then countered by someone saying the arms had been stamped with the sign of the Carthagian empire.

Ok. What time period is this?.

My question is, where there any state armouries that would provide swords that would be stamped with this sign? I was under the impression that Carthage was very capitalist and thus would not have state armouries for the few troops they did provide themselves (not mercs)

Thanks in advance for answers.

You mean like Macedonian state weaposn bearing MAK on them or Roman Pila with the name of the General providing them at his expense.

No, Carthage did not stamp it weapons in that way.

Carthages swords were unique in shape, the Romans and Greeks were straight, the Carthages were from the spanish falactea and of a shape unlike others, crude copies wer made outside Spain, but because the ores of Spain made it a very strong steel component, these swords were unlike any others, due to the metalic make up of them, to get the same properties would require pattern folding which again means the sword looks differnt as it has lots of fine lines to its end finish.

Carthage in Spain had 2000 master weaposmiths makeing weapons, when Scipio took it during PW2, he made them state slaves turning out the new gladius from the spanish ores.

Carthage was producing thise superior wepaons for its own use in the 1PW, but they had not been exported across the Med for others to use in significant numbers.

If its a sword of unique design and superior ores went into producing it, like the stabdard side arm of Carthage, then yes it can only be blamed on carthage in your example.

[Nota']

The time period is Camillian era for the roman army, the specific date is 483 AUC / 270 BC, so just before the first punic war.
Capatalist was a bad word, but what I meant was I doubted the state would run foundories and such, but would rather buy in weapons from private companies if need be.

[Hanny]

The time period is Camillian era for the roman army, the specific date is 483 AUC / 270 BC, so just before the first punic war.
Capatalist was a bad word, but what I meant was I doubted the state would run foundories and such, but would rather buy in weapons from private companies if need be.

If it looks like a falcata its a Carthaginian import in your scenario, only carthage would be the exporter, if it looks like a xiphos then you can argue its generic, use google images to see the difference, its vast, including the distinctive hand grip design. Greek sword image are also easly found, they are straight, unlike the Falcata and cannot be mistaken for a falcata.

Armies and eniemies of the Greek and Macedonian wars D head has discriptions and images of all the weapons if you can find a copy.

[Hmmm]

If it looks like a falcata its a Carthaginian import in your scenario, only carthage would be the exporter, if it looks like a xiphos then you can argue its generic, use google images to see the difference, its vast, including the distinctive hand grip design. Greek sword image are also easly found, they are straight, unlike the Falcata and cannot be mistaken for a falcata.

Actually, the Falcata and the Greek Kopis are very similar in design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopis

Are you really going to argue that the two are so vastly different that they can not be mistaken for one another? Fact of the matter is that neither the Romans nor the Greeks were restricted to using a single shape for their swords.

As for brandbll, I assume that Conon, by asking "Really which ones", was asking Hanny to elaborate on, or provide a source for, statements such as "Carthage was producing these superior weapons for its own use in PW1". That is perfectly legitimate.

[conon394]

You mean like Macedonian state weaposn bearing MAK on them or Roman Pila with the name of the General providing them at his expense.

Yet that remains internal use.

Romans and Greeks were straight,

Sorry Hanny except for maybe the short Spartan sword that is more or less silly and untrue. I don't see any reason to say more than see Snodgrass Arms and Armour of the Greeks it more or less a standard that is still a core reference.

the Carthages were from the spanish falactea and of a shape unlike others, crude copies wer made outside Spain, but because the ores of Spain made it a very strong steel component, these swords were unlike any others, due to the metalic make up of them, to get the same properties would require pattern folding which again means the sword looks differnt as it has lots of fine lines to its end finish.

Going a bit overboard here are you not?

Carthage in Spain had 2000 master weaposmiths makeing weapons, when Scipio took it during PW2, he made them state slaves turning out the new gladius from the spanish ores.

New Carthage had a large arms industry no doubt, but so did Athens - Scipio captured the city and of course used the infrastructure. That every worker was a master smith is hyperbole.

these swords were unlike any others, due to the metalic make up of them, to get the same properties would require pattern folding which again means the sword looks differnt as it has lots of fine lines to its end finish.

You are making stuff up here

Carthage was producing thise superior wepaons for its own use in the 1PW

Really which ones?

[Hanny]

Yet that remains internal use.

Soory, dont debate with people who know nothing what they are posting.

[brandbll]

Yet that remains internal use.

Sorry Hanny except for maybe the short Spartan sword that is more or less silly and untrue. I don't see any reason to say more than see Snodgrass Arms and Armour of the Greeks it more or less a standard that is still a core reference.

Going a bit overboard here are you not?

New Carthage had a large arms industry no doubt, but so did Athens - Scipio captured the city and of course used the infrastructure. That every worker was a master smith is hyperbole.

You are making stuff up here

Really which ones?

Countering someone's argument works best when you actually try to prove them wrong instead of merely delivering one liners like " Really which ones?" and "You are making stuff up here." Please, this is the history forum, not the political mudpit. If Hanny is wrong then tell us why. Not to rub it in his face, but so that people can gain the historical information they have come to this thread to get.

[conon394]

If it looks like a falcatae its a Carthaginian import in your scenario

No its not they were used all over and made all over.

[conon394]

Countering someone's argument works best when you actually try to prove them wrong instead of merely delivering one liners like " Really which ones?" and "You are making stuff up here." Please, this is the history forum, not the political mudpit. If Hanny is wrong then tell us why. Not to rub it in his face, but so that people can gain the historical information they have come to this thread to get.

But I did and have done in the past on this particular issue with Hanny. I appreciate your argument but neither I nor hanny are noobs here and neither of us are likely to have our feeling hurt.

But in case of point I did provide a source Snodgrass (see pg 97ff.) for the problems with hanny arguments about Greek Swords.

[Hanny]

Actually, the Falcata and the Greek Kopis are very similar in design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopis

Are you really going to argue that the two are so vastly different that they can not be mistaken for one another? Fact of the matter is that neither the Romans nor the Greeks were restricted to using a single shape for their swords.

As for brandbll, I assume that Conon, by asking "Really which ones", was asking Hanny to elaborate on, or provide a source for, statements such as "Carthage was producing these superior weapons for its own use in PW1". That is perfectly legitimate.

From your link.
The ancient Greeks did often use curved blades in warfare, as proved by ancient Greek art and literature; however, they rather preferred the straight, more martially versatile xiphos. The Greek hoplites favored straight swords for infantry, but the downward curve of the kopis made it especially suited to mounted warfare against infantry. Xenophon recommended using the curved makhaira for cavalry in On Horsemanship 12:11.

The kopis had fallen out of use by the end of the 5th century by Greeks, Xeephon tells us Xiphos has replaced it, so yes there are no Kopis to compare to falacta, because the former had dispaeared centuries before in commoin greek usage. You do know the kopis is the ancestor of the falacta?.

Snodgrass says they were using straight leaf waisted swords at the time of 1PW

Mastersmith in new carthage primary source is Livy.

Everyone knows spain was the W med home of steel for weapons, everyone else had pot luck to get steel from iron, spain had it on tap,http://www.realarmorofgod.com/roman-swords-info.html which was why the Galdius was called the sword of spain.


For the OP, its alos who the Mercs are, in your case italians in origin, peoples of that age fought in their traditional mode, so giving them weapons they are unfamiliar with would be no good, if the mercs are celtic they will expect to be given a type of sword they are famuliar with, yours i asume are the italian mamertines of messine.
Heres an online copy of d Head Armies and eniemies of the Macedonian and Punic wars.http://www.scribd.com/doc/29391428/A...9-BC-to-146-BC

[Hmmm]

From your link.
The ancient Greeks did often use curved blades in warfare, as proved by ancient Greek art and literature; however, they rather preferred the straight, more martially versatile xiphos. The Greek hoplites favored straight swords for infantry, but the downward curve of the kopis made it especially suited to mounted warfare against infantry. Xenophon recommended using the curved makhaira for cavalry in On Horsemanship 12:11.

That was my entire point. Whether they preferred the xiphos or not is irrelevant here, since all I did was respond to your claim that;

Carthages swords were unique in shape, the Romans and Greeks were straight, the Carthages were from the spanish falactea and of a shape unlike others

That the Romans and Greeks might have used straight swords more often than curved ones is one thing, but here you straight up claimed that they did not use curved swords - period. Especially the Greeks would hardly have been unfamiliar with the falcata (because the kopis is so similar).

The kopis had fallen out of use by the end of the 5th century by Greeks, Xeephon tells us Xiphos has replaced it, so yes there are no Kopis to compare to falacta, because the former had dispaeared centuries before in commoin greek usage. You do know the kopis is the ancestor of the falacta?.

But Xenophon also recommends its usage (from horseback), and I am fairly certain that the weapon was still, to some extent, in use by Alexander the Great - that is, in the 4th century.

[Hanny]

That was my entire point. Whether they preferred the xiphos or not is irrelevant here, since all I did was respond to your claim that;

Your point was that the kopis was in use in 270, i pointed out that your own source, says it was not, it had not been in use for a considerable period of time.

The relavent point is, when they prefered the two types, which was not 270 but well before, has nothing to say about 270 to which i made my reply. The striaght leaf sword was the weapons of choice for greeks in 270.

That the Romans and Greeks might have used straight swords more often than curved ones is one thing, but here you straight up claimed that they did not use curved swords - period. Especially the Greeks would hardly have been unfamiliar with the falcata (because the kopis is so similar).

Because they did not use them in the time period i requested, for my answer to refer to.

But Xenophon also recommends its usage (from horseback), and I am fairly certain that the weapon was still, to some extent, in use by Alexander the Great - that is, in the 4th century.

Greeks and Maceddonians used diferent weapons, while the Macedonian calavlry, were using kopis, the greek cavalry were not. Xenephon was writting for his period, not 270.

Ive given you an opourtunity to show me you know what your posting about, this is my last answer for you.
I dont debate with people who know nothing what they are posting.

[Hmmm]

Your point was that the kopis was in use in 270, i pointed out that your own source, says it was not, it had not been in use for a considerable period of time.

The relavent point is, when they prefered the two types, which was not 270 but well before, has nothing to say about 270 to which i made my reply. The striaght leaf sword was the weapons of choice for greeks in 270.

What are you talking about? Nowhere does my source say that the Greeks stopped using the kopis. It says that they preferred the xiphos - this does not mean that the kopis was not in use.

Greeks and Maceddonians used diferent weapons, while the Macedonian calavlry, were using kopis, the greek cavalry were not. Xenephon was writting for his period, not 270.

Hardly, by 270 BC the difference between their choice of weaponry would have been minor, at best. Furthermore, whether Macedonians and Greeks should be treated as different peoples is up for debate, but I chose to include "Macedonian" under "Greek", as by this time, the Macedonians were thoroughly Hellenized. When discussing Greek politics of the time, it would be difficult to look past the Epirotes or Makedones.

Ive given you an opourtunity to show me you know what your posting about, this is my last answer for you.
I dont debate with people who know nothing what they are posting.

Smug, for someone whos posts are of no greater quality than anyone elses.