Carthaginian archery, elephants and chariots

[Wandalstouring]

Summary:
archery units in Punic settlemets with an execution square replace the cheapest skirmisher
standard elephant recruitment replaced in Carthage (part of the sacred band tech tree) with Asian elephant imports and chariots with very strong long range missiles (gastraphetes)
very light chariots recruitable in the Sahara region and as mercenaries

Suggestions how I can mod that?

Reasoning:
Polybius mentions for the end of the Mercenary war that the captured insurgents were excecuted by the cities youth(ephebes) with archery (probably the use of the execution square. So I would suggest creating an archery unit in Carthage and other very Punic settlements with skill improvements linked to the execution square. Looking at this class divided society, I would replace the poorest missile unit with archers, because Carthage very likely recruited the cannon-fodder from among its subjects.

The other unit I'd like to be able to recruit are the chariots. I know the Carthaginians switched to elephants, but maybe someone is old fashioned. considering that elephants are a replacement for chariots(trained nobility and such) I'd replace the elephant without an archer and give the riders of the elephants good armour in Carthage. Because of Carthage being special, I'd make their chariots and elephants part of the sacred band tech tree and rather expensive. The elephants would be depending on imports from the east in order to recruit (so we do have a Suru as Hannibal had among his). In other settlemets I'd keep the normal tech tree for elephants in other settlements. I think that would fit nicely with Carthage's nobility who were rich and liked to display it.

Well, Carthage lost some wars and got destroyed in the end, so it's more a what if question, but if I was one their nobles and had my chariot, I'd use a powerful weapon with lots of ammunition. Well, I don't suggest mounting scorpions or onagers on the chariots, but gastraphetes. From what we know, they have about twice the energy of normal bows. It would be the weapon to show off because it's mechanical, complicated and expensive and the chariots are expensive, at least in Carthage.

Further south in the desert we might add a local version of fast and light chariots with little armour, but a shield and just an archer (more of a skirmish unit with lots of ammunition and very good endurance). One of the reasons chariots were used, at least in the Sahara, seems to have been that the horses were rather small for riding, but had a very good endurance (that small horses have) and little shock value. In contrast the special chariot force of Carthage would be trained according to the old Near Eastern standards such as the manual of Kikkuli and thus be outstanding mounts (for lots of money) with a great shock value, but much less than an elephant.

[Maurits]

I guess that you're talking about RTR6 Platinum? If so, it would be best to move this thread to the appropriate subforum. I could do so if you'd want me to.

[Wandalstouring]

I wouldn't mind Platinum, but I thought about RTR VII because in this game you start with 3 chariot groups.

[Maurits]

Aha, sure. Then it should stay here.

As far as I know, the chariots currently in game already have a good ranged attack, and are serving as a missile platform. It seems that chariots became rather obsolete and were replaced by heavy cavalry units. That's why we have three of them available at game start, but no recruitment option. For this reason, I'd argue against the introduction of another chariot unit for Carthage, especially since these are very difficult to create and code in. As a matter of fact, the Celtic chariot is higher on my wish-list.

In our dev forums, there have been pretty big discussions about the origin of Carthaginian elephants and especially ''Surus''. The outcome was that it was very likely a one-off, or had nothing to do with its origin, and the Carthagianians got their elephants from the African plains.

[Wandalstouring]

Summary:

Widespread recruting of light chariots manned by an archer and a charioteer with a shield, gets replaced by armoured missile cavalry and elephants without a howdah, including Carthage (Numidian noble cavalry would be on my mind, but this would be a second version of Lybian and Punic cavalry armed with unspecified missiles).
In Carthage the missile cavalry are a second version of sacred band cavalry armed with bows.
Heavy chariots with slow, but strong mechanized bows and good close combat for breaking enemy lines are a sacred band unit and thus can only be recruited in the capital (Carthage) and are few compared to light chariots. They get replaced by elephants with a howdah (these are select elephants, stronger than the ones without a howdah, but weaker than the Indian elephants).

Problem:

How do I mod and test this?

Arguments:

Let's first take a look at the chariot of Carthage's nobility. Following our tech tree they would qualify as sacred band. They very likely contain one archer and one charioteer with a shield. This way the noblemen can do war with pretty good protection and lots of ammunition. Switching to close quarter combat needs someone stepping down from the chariot or using long polearms. As far as I know, we have no idea how that worked in North Africa, but we can make a reasonable guess.
In the Near East where part of Carthage's chariot tradition has its roots, the chariot was exchanged for a pair of riders, an archer and a spearman (see Late Assyrian artworks). The other root for Carthage's chariots is very likely the native Lybian chariot that in turn is more Egyptian and rather not Near Eastern. That also fits nicely with the rather small mounts used for these the further south you trace their use. These chariots were light, had small hardy and enduring horses and an archer and his charioteer with a shield. Additional weapons can be long and pointy. I have to look at the Sahara murals for more details. The sources mention a lot of chariots for Carthage, but I would argue that they could be of differing types, light wheel archers of the Lybian type and heavy shock troops of Near Eastern type.

The introduction of war elephants offers a weapon that replaces the heavy Near Eastern deisgns used as formation breakers. Because Carthage is usually mentioned as a big assembly point for war elephants, I would suggest that there were elephants in Carthage who were suitable as a chariot replacement for a rich nobleman. Instead of a charioteer the nobleman gets a mahout and sits on a much higher and safer position. Because these animals are part of a conspicious display, they are very likely chosen and trained animals that don't easily panic. (some literature on elephants in warfare points out that training makes for elephants as much difference as for horses, untrained or little trained animals panic) So these special elephants with the howdah (for which we have only a Sosylos fragment and an interpretation of Polybius?) are a small and special force. More widespread seem to have been elephants with just one rider depicted on silver shekels. I guess because the North Arican elephant is rather small, there were few local specimen big enough for a howdah or they were possibly imports(but that's mostly based on the Suru discussion and the name has also interpretations that don't have a geographic connection).
The much cheaper, weaker, and less trained alternative would be elephants with just a mahout and no howdah or archer. These animals can be quickly recruited from work animals compared to the trained howdah types, but are likely to panic under too much battle stress. The mahout is well-payed, has great responisbility and a dangerous job (read Hannibal's crossing of the Rhone). So I suggest to turn in North Africa (including Egypt) elephants with a howdah into specially selected big animals that can be trained only in the respective capitals while simple elephants with a just one rider are more widespread in North Africa and available for less cost in less time.
The elephant with just a mahout is no equivalent replacement for a chariot, but rather a replacement for the function of the chariot as a line breaker and anti-cavalry defence.
Cavalry defence brings me to the modus operandi of chariots. If they are meant to deter cavalry and protect the formation of infantry, they must form a tin wooden line with little gaps in between that's able to stop cavalry. On the other hand if they are meant to break a formation they must take a broad front. Movement allows the chariots to escape precise missile attacks (very old principle still in use).In order to work properly the chariots need something similar to the cantabrian circle, but with little space in between and must operate in this fashion in front of infantry. I think that's a real challenge to enact. However, this task can be done with light and heavy chariots and while light chariots are widespread and numerous, the heavy versions are likely limited to few nobles (who then switch to more impressive war elephants with howdahs).

Considering the Hellenistic and Indian influence, it's amazing that the sources on Alexander's battles also mention Indian elephants and Indian chariots combined. Well, it's no bad idea because elephants can be quite fast and dangerous and being in a chariot next to them is much safer than on foot. We have no source mentioning such a use in the Hellenistic armies west of India, although this might be an option in North Africa for example in the regions where chariots remained in use (because horses were too small as mounts). For the Hellenistic armies we rather have the combination of elephants in front and light missile infantry behind. that gives more missile power for less money and replaces nobility with commoners (on foot and on elephants without a howdah, most likely the norm).
Especially this use of elephants has the capability to replace not only the combination of elephants and light chariots, but also the combination of light and heavy chariots manned by the nobility.
So where does the nobility go? In Carthage on elephants with a howdah, good choice. from a top these you can use bows, javelins and possibly even quite strong bows, such as gastraphetes (I only know a depiction from the Mediaval Cham dynasty in South East Asia showing an elephant with a very powerful crossbow and I have no source specifying what kind of missiles were used fromn atop North African elephants).
The other choice pointed out is in the cavalry. But, if they were missile troops in the chariot, the tech tree for Assyria shows, that this weapon is continued on horseback, so we need a noble missile cavalry for Carthage the moment the chariots disappear from the battlefield.

Missile weapons in Carthage? Polybius mentions the ephebes executing prisoners of war with archery after the Mercenary War. Other sources are Balearic slingers and the excavation of Carthage that shows that Carthage had slingers and catapults (of unknown construction) that shot stones at the Romans(these were unlike the Roman stones of differing weight, so rather cheaper than the Roman weapons and less precise, but that was possibly due to the conditions). We know of the famous Balearic slingers, of Numidian archers and javelin armed Numidian riders. Another source is the sea ambush between of three Carthaginian triremes on a diplomatic a Roman quinquireme in which the Romans couldn't make a stand because they were inferior in missiles of unknown kind. A bit earlier Agathocles used the longer range of his mechanical artillery to keep the pursuing Carthaginian ships away and safely make his voyage to North Africa. We can reasonably assume that Carthage like Athens had archers on their ships because bows are the most suitable missile weapon for these weapon platforms and part of their Near Eastern tradition, as well as slings.
The problem with slings was that their use in war required lots of training for heavy projectiles and outstanding precision. Less trained slingers are numerous, cheap and inefficient. Bows and arrows are comapareably more expensive. It's guesswork on my part, but possibly they were more expensive then javelins. Javelins are a cheap weapon for discharge and the throwing strap helps with precision and power. So these can best be stored handed out in times of crisis (a widespread theory on the gymnetes in Greek combat).
The bow needs someone with lots of time to train. Either because he's a hunter who needs it or a noble who wants to show off. One possible reading of the ephebes is that this was a voluntary organization of young men, usually from afluent families (see the Neopunic and Latin Mactar inscriptions, one of them is the son of a Parthian immigrant). So we can likely make a connection between nobility and the ability to use a bow, even in combination with behind quickly moved by horses. We do lack a source on North African mounted archers in contrast to chariot archers, but we can't make an argument from the Numidian cavalry that all mounted missiles were javelins.
I would argue that the Carthaginians had the potential for the same technological development as the Assyrians and later Phoenicians under Persian influence and that they were well connected to Tyre, especially the nobility. So I would opt for a nobility unit of mounted archers as a replacement for light chariots and elephants with missile emitting howdahs as a replacement for heavy chariots. The elephants with howdahs and the heavy chariots are among chariots some kind of super unit. After the experience with Agathocles' mechanized bows in naval warfare it was possibly also employed in chariot warfare, where heavy chariots were a suitable platform. That would be rather part of conspicious display by making clear that I'm richer and far above the light chariot owners because I have a weapon to kill them and I have a vehicle that can crash infantry formation and theirs can't (like showing off with tuned cars nowadays). But mechanized bows on a platform for a nobleman shouldn't be the norm, rather the exception.
Considering the Hellenistic world, I think Alexander had a small unit of mounted soldiers who served as mounted infantry with the task of laying covering "fire" that handled powerful mechanized boltshooters(gastraphetes/oxybeles/ballistae), but I'll have to reread that.

So I suggest a light chariot that gets replaced by wealthy and armoured men (lesser nobility) on horse with missiles, including bows and a heavy chariot drawn from Carthage's nobility that gets replaced by the more impressive war elephant with a howdah due to Hellenistic influence. A new and widespread unit in North Africa would be war elephants without a howdah and just a mahout that are used in combination with light missile infantry, thus replacing the light and heavy chariots of the lesser and higher nobility with commoners.
Elephants with a howdah manned by the nobility should have an "inspiring eagle function", because these were often platforms used for commanding troops (because of the overview), but I don't think we can make elephants an option for the general's bodyguards.

Questions, counterarguments suggestions?