Carthage should rely on overseas trade to supply its armies

[Destraex]

Carthage should only have access to a few troop types until it establishes trade or manages expeditions to factions such as iberia, gaul and greece, baellaric isles. Then it should be made to actually have to ship troops back to carthage with the risk they will be intercepted before forming an army.

The troop types should be colourful and rich. Late carthaginian armies should have no carthaginians in them AT ALL as is historic. Apart from the commanders that is.

Cathage should NOT be able to grab mercenaries from thin air in its own cities.

Carthage should be the ultimate mercenary army. Rich, powerful, colourful and sometimes turning on its masters

This would hugely differentiate this rich trading faction

[Petroniu]

True, Carthage's reliance on mercenaries must be emulated in the game. How, that is yet to be seen...

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Carthage should only have access to a few troop types until it establishes trade or manages expeditions to factions such as iberia, gaul and greece, baellaric isles. Then it should be made to actually have to ship troops back to carthage with the risk they will be intercepted before forming an army.

The troop types should be colourful and rich. Late carthaginian armies should have no carthaginians in them AT ALL as is historic. Apart from the commanders that is.

Cathage should NOT be able to grab mercenaries from thin air in its own cities.

Carthage should be the ultimate mercenary army. Rich, powerful, colourful and sometimes turning on its masters

This would hugely differentiate this rich trading faction

Specially the late Carthagian Army had a lot Carthagians inside. If needed they could fight well. For example Karthago holds 2 years of besiege of the Romans with no Weapons and Ships because they give them the Romans for the promise of peace. After they romans break their promise an startet war again they were able to craft alle the weapons and ships again and mobilized the hole city to fight.

You think first at mecenarys because the Carthagian society was were multietnological. Only a small Group of Aristocrats tryed to stay pure carthagian. Would you call Lybo-Carthagians or Ibero-Carthagians Mecenarys when they fight for the country of their parants?

What is of the roman allies which counts the half of the roman army in this timeframe? Are they mercenarys too? Large contigents of the Numidians were also Allies of the Carthagians and not mercanarys.

[Destraex]

The difference is that the Roman auxilliary forces were usually permanent regular Roman army forces paid by rome. The only difference between them and the legions was that they were not citizens until they had completed their service.

The carthaginians on the other hand generally gathered an army entirely of mercenaries from all over the place for a specific campaign and then disbanded them after wards.

The carthaginian navy on the other hand was ALL citizens.

P.S. It is true that early Carthaginian armies that fought the greeks did have a lot more carthaginian units. But generally the actual carthaginian population was too small to make up a large part of the army.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

The difference is that the Roman auxilliary forces were usually permanent regular Roman army forces paid by rome. The only difference between them and the legions was that they were not citizens until they had completed their service.

The carthaginians on the other hand generally gathered an army entirely of mercenaries from all over the place for a specific campaign and then disbanded them after wards.

The carthaginian navy on the other hand was ALL citizens.

P.S. It is true that early Carthaginian armies that fought the greeks did have a lot more carthaginian units. But generally the actual carthaginian population was too small to make up a large part of the army.

In this times there was no permanent regular Roman Army forces in Italy. They had a levy system and raised them as they were needed. So they were disbanded too after the campaigns.

The only difference is that the Carthagians raised their Soldiers in cultural different areas. If they raise Iberians near Carthago Nova woulnd be that the same like the Allies of Rome?

In fact we know really few things about population number of carthagians or if there was a difference. Carthagians had a lot more cultural tolerance than Rome and they hadnd the rigid marriage system than the roman nobles.

Why we talk about Carthagian Mercenarys? Because of Polybios and he had all the reasons to find differences between Rome and Carthago.

[Destraex]

In this times there was no permanent regular Roman Army forces in Italy. They had a levy system and raised them as they were needed. So they were disbanded too after the campaigns.

The only difference is that the Carthagians raised their Soldiers in cultural different areas. If they raise Iberians near Carthago Nova woulnd be that the same like the Allies of Rome?

In fact we know really few things about population number of carthagians or if there was a difference. Carthagians had a lot more cultural tolerance than Rome and they hadnd the rigid marriage system than the roman nobles.

Why we talk about Carthagian Mercenarys? Because of Polybios and he had all the reasons to find differences between Rome and Carthago.

You would rather guess than use the sources we have?
Please do not count native libyans as carthaginians. They rebelled or joined any rebellion going at the first chance they got. If you take them out then you are left with almost no actual carthaginians. I do concede though that "some" carthaginian armies had a fair amount (not even half) of libyan spearmen.

As for you point about the Romans at this time I can concede. I was so focused on the imperial era I had forgotten early roman armies were and I stress "citizens" with allied auxilliaries. However the vast difference still remains. Cathaginian mercs are still the majority of a carthaginian army!

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

You would rather guess than use the sources we have?
Please do not count native libyans as carthaginians. They rebelled or joined any rebellion going at the first chance they got. If you take them out then you are left with almost no actual carthaginians. I do concede though that "some" carthaginian armies had a fair amount (not even half) of libyan spearmen.

As for you point about the Romans at this time I can concede. I was so focused on the imperial era I had forgotten early roman armies were and I stress "citizens" with allied auxilliaries. However the vast difference still remains. Cathaginian mercs are still the majority of a carthaginian army!

I did not mean lybians in general. What i tryed to say was that the carthagians were cultural multiethnological. As they were colonists in a foreign country first, they had to mixed themself with different cultures like the lybians in North Africa or the Iberians in Iberia. Maybe there was a elite who was pure Phoenician but we have no sources for that. The most had to integrat other cultures, otherwise they were not able to survive. There was clearly a mix between this cultures and a lot of this "Lybo-Carthagians" had reasons to fight for Carthago.

You be also right with the Lybian rebellions, but Rome had them to in Italy with the Samnites shortly before the Punic Wars. I allways ask me why they havent fight for Hannibal. All dead?

Its just my opinion, but i think there were a lot of parallels between Romans and Carthagians in the organisation of the state, but the cultural behaviors must be really big for the romans writers. Its a shame that we have only fracments of Punic textes.

[Maleventum]

Carthago Nova, Becula etc must be considered a Punic cities not Iberian cities , the citizens were of punic origins so we can consider them as Carthaginians, the "Carthagianians citizens served in the navy (is relatively simple to train a man as soldier, very difficult as a sailor) , but the use of mercenaries was very common along the Mediterranean world , also the Syracusans used mercenaries (Campanians, Lucanians, Greeks, Iberians, Gauls etc. ) against Carthage

[krisslanza]

Unless Carthage gets a massive income boost to compensate, you'd be basically asking to permanently cripple that faction - especially if the AI plays it, I don't think I've EVER seen the AI use mercenary units.

[Petroniu]

If they are going to create AI personalities for each faction, then you'd might see in R2TW.

[krisslanza]

If they are going to create AI personalities for each faction, then you'd might see in R2TW.

True. But I still feel this idea is kind of... shaky. It'd probably work for a human, but for the AI... well, I guess it would depend on just how much they fix the AI. At least going off prior TWs, you'd basically just have Carthage get crushed by all its neighbors...

[Anna_Gein]

Basically you are asking for an AoR system.
The best would be different political control per province like EB's system.

About the use of mercenaries by Carthage we should first clear up what can we call a mercenary.
Is a soldier provide by an allied tribe a mercenary ?
The Rebellion factor isn't enough or you would really consider every Italian fighting in the Roman armies before the Social war a mercenary.

A good example is the Cretan bowmen. From what I have read they would only serve in a army their City had a agreement with.
I think the term of mercenary had a wider sense during the antic era.

By the time the Carthaginian infantry gave a good account of themselves in land battle. Even at Zama they hold against the Roman infantry and were defeat by the return of the Numidian calvary serving Scipio.

[Bethencourt]

Basically you are asking for an AoR system.
The best would be different political control per province like EB's system.

About the use of mercenaries by Carthage we should first clear up what can we call a mercenary.
Is a soldier provide by an allied tribe a mercenary ?
The Rebellion factor isn't enough or you would really consider every Italian fighting in the Roman armies before the Social war a mercenary.

A good example is the Cretan bowmen. From what I have read they would only serve in a army their City had a agreement with.
I think the term of mercenary had a wider sense during the antic era.

By the time the Carthaginian infantry gave a good account of themselves in land battle. Even at Zama they hold against the Roman infantry and were defeat by the return of the Numidian calvary serving Scipio.

I agree very much with this point of view.

bethencourt. There armies most of the time were more than 50% mercenaries and sometimes 90% or more.
Carthaginian armies relied on mercenaries. Without them they would not be able to field an army.
This needs to be reflected in rome2.

Their use of mercenaries was extensive, you are right and the game reflecting this would be nice. But Carthaginians were far from being nulity in what land combat is about. The mercenary rebellion was just after first Punic war and because the lac of payement. And the Carthaginians finally defeated the mercenaries with their own forces.

In game, the mercenary matter was solved in previous versions very poorly in what the mercenary risk is about. Only if you hired too many of them you could go into bankrupcy, but then nothing happened. Also the use of them could be eternal, and this was not the case. The mercenaries in Carthage rebelled because they were licensed without the final payement of all the ammount that Carthage owed them. So going into bankrupcy could lead to a mercenary rebellion. But why not a more complex solution. Why isnt there an account to solve when they are licensed and if you havent got the money they rise up against you? this rather than a random risk of rebellion.

[Destraex]

Basically you are asking for an AoR system.
The best would be different political control per province like EB's system.
I agree with this in part, as long as the mercenaries are still paid for. In fact I would love it if their was some system of down payment with final payment later. As you can see below, Carthage got its mercenaries in many ways and just as commonly with money and no alliance.
Especially when you consider Rome got all of its manpower for free by alliance,there should be a huge difference in the way the two factions work.
In Rome1 iirc you got an army as big and varied as you would like without reliance on other neighbors or mercs

About the use of mercenaries by Carthage we should first clear up what can we call a mercenary.
Is a soldier provide by an allied tribe a mercenary ?
Yes if they are paid and would not otherwise join. This still goes to my general idea that carthage needed mercenaries or overseas allies to fill its ranks.

The Rebellion factor isn't enough or you would really consider every Italian fighting in the Roman armies before the Social war a mercenary.
Rebellion is not a huge factor. I agree, however they did happen over pay and for various other reasons. A good example being a gaulish band of thousands that seemed to betray first he carthaginians then the romans and did the rounds again and again. Why nobody just killed them I do not know.

A good example is the Cretan bowmen. From what I have read they would only serve in a army their City had a agreement with.
I think the term of mercenary had a wider sense during the antic era.

A few quotes from my osprey book. My point of Carthage being reliant on mercenaries where ever they come from still stands from a gaming point of view.

Most states or cities Carthage was friendly with only allowed Carthage to visit and hire for pay troops they needed. I am not sure if any gave troops for free as allies do. It is true though that mercenary could mean a few things
"By and large two types of mercenary recruiting were (and still are) common. It was carried out by recruiting officersor directly through the diplomatic channels and interstate treaties that included clauses allowing citizens to serve as soldiers for an agreed wage for the contracting parties the last was a tried and tested method, as a state or ruler that needed mercenaries would procure them through a friendly power that controlled the source and supply. This arrangement can be seen in operation when Carthage recruited Numidians from friendly princes. Those on the coast came under the influence of Carthage and it is known that the princes of numidia were allies of the carthaginians at one time or another, and presumably their famed horsemen were, in theory at least, allies rather than mercenaries. In the war with the renegade mercenaries the Carthaginians were greatly helped by a friendly Numidian prince, Navaras, who offered to defect with his followers, and eventually fought for them with 2000 horsemen.

"When recruiting was not backed by diplomacy the usual practice was to despatch recruiting officers to localities from which mercenaries could be found or raised. Thus, as we have already discussed, the Carthaginians sent their recruiting officers far and wide, to the peninsulas of Iberia and Italy, the islands of sicily and sardinia, the lands of the celts, and so on, with large sums of money to make preliminary payments. During the First Punic War, Carthage cast its net wider and sent recruiting officers to Greece, who retruned with plenty of mercenaries and the brilliant condottiere Xanthippos, a man whoe had been brought up in the Spartan Discipline, and had a fair amount of experience'. "

"Finally there were the casual methods of recruiting mercenaries. The most obvious of these methods was that of winning over mercenaries currently in the pay of the enemy"

The last method mentioned in the book is one where mercenaries were won over at the end of a battle by default. i.e. Employer X loses and the mercs default to employer Y

By the time the Carthaginian infantry gave a good account of themselves in land battle. Even at Zama they hold against the Roman infantry and were defeat by the return of the Numidian calvary serving Scipio.

[Bethencourt]

Carthage should only have access to a few troop types until it establishes trade or manages expeditions to factions such as iberia, gaul and greece, baellaric isles. Then it should be made to actually have to ship troops back to carthage with the risk they will be intercepted before forming an army.

The troop types should be colourful and rich. Late carthaginian armies should have no carthaginians in them AT ALL as is historic. Apart from the commanders that is.

Cathage should NOT be able to grab mercenaries from thin air in its own cities.

Carthage should be the ultimate mercenary army. Rich, powerful, colourful and sometimes turning on its masters

This would hugely differentiate this rich trading faction

Well yes and no.

It is true they used mercenary troops in wider way than other republics.

From gameplay point of view. The game seems to start when Carthage has already stablished the commercial empire they had. So they should start being able to recruit troops in all the lands they controlled. This means they could recruit Carthaginians in Carthage too. They did not relay 100% in mercenary troops. So the Carthaginian factions should be able to recruit in the homeland too no need to go to Spain or Sicily to recruit. If this faction had to do this then the gameplay would be severely damaged, not so much when controlled by a human player but by the AI. But still, I would not play it if I had that recruitment system.

[Destraex]

bethencourt. There armies most of the time were more than 50% mercenaries and sometimes 90% or more.
Carthaginian armies relied on mercenaries. Without them they would not be able to field an army.
This needs to be reflected in rome2.

[Anna_Gein]

Thanks for you answer ...

Sometimes the forum feels really lonely.

[Destraex]

Anna, mercenaries the cqrthaginians used were not usually allies. They were professionals who fought for anyone and were very well paid. Put it this way, contracts were drawn up and some had to be reminded of there contracts on campaign.

[debux]

Dude, you're thinking that history and the things that happened are in black and white. One thing or the other, nothing in between. You'll soon realize that this is never true.

Carthage's army was in part built from mercs of different areas from where Carthage had some kind of bonds with. Generally Gaul, Italy, Iberia, Africa and Sicily. But didn't have a treasury (and they were also smart enough too) to support a whole standing army composed of expensive and unreliable mercenaries. As they were allied with several nations (like other phoenician or greek cities, numidian, iberian and even celtic tribes), they could levy troops from their allies, kind of in the same way Athens did the the Peloponnesian War. And they did this very often: the Lybians, known as one of the biggest and most steadfast components of the usual Carthaginian army, were usually levied from the Lybian territories depending on Carthage to protect them. It was their duty (almost as vassals did in the Middle Ages) to fight for when Carthage needed them. And many other troops, like the famous numidian cavalry, or even a good part of the iberian allies, were actually tribes that had pledged their alliance to Carthage (and weren't recruited as mercenaries), and fought for her when needed.

Do you even have a source to what you're saying? I'm backing myself up on Adrian Goldsworthy's great book "The Fall of Carthage", which has a really objective and deep analysis on the relationships between Rome and Carthage, with a huge focus on the military events (it's basically what the book is all about). I'd be interested to know where you got that info from.

[Anna_Gein]

Dude, you're thinking that history and the things that happened are in black and white. One thing or the other, nothing in between. You'll soon realize that this is never true.

This.
Don't try to force something Destraex.