Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 71 of 71

Thread: [UNITS] The Republic of Carthage

  1. #61
    Maetharin's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    1,476

    Default Re: [PREVIEW] Carthaginian Roster

    Macedonian organisation IMO doesn´t mean troops armed with the Sarissa, I think the macedonian organisation just was the most advanced one in the Hellenic world and easily applied to a Hoplite Phalanx
    Would Xanthippus even have had the time to actually train Carthage´s citizens in the use of the Sarissa?

    Remember, they were a militia force that had not been called to fight for a very long time.
    Most of Carthage´s armies at that time were mostly made up from Lybians and mercenaries armed in their native style.
    Just as the Ptolemaic system of Kleruchoi had fallen in disprepair before and after Raphia, this would most likely have happened with Carthage too.

    Just organising them would have been a daunting task.
    They would have had to learn to fight in their own units, to follow certain commands, their officers would have to be trained too aso.
    To reequip them with the quantity of Sarissa and train them in their use would again take a long time.

    On accord of the twelve thousand spears, is there a source mentioned in this thread?
    Is it Fabius Pictor? Does anyone else mention them?

    Best regards
    "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse!"

    Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius

    "I concur!"

    ​Me

  2. #62

    Default Re: [PREVIEW] Carthaginian Roster

    I have no source, you'd need to ask on the thread for sources.

    EDIT:

    The thread is near a decade old, so that looks like a lost cause.
    Last edited by Causeless; July 20, 2016 at 07:22 PM.
    modificateurs sans frontières

    Developer for Ancient Empires
    (scripter, developed tools for music modding, tools to import custom battle maps into campaign)

    Lead developer of Attila Citizenship Population Mod
    (joint 1st place for Gameplay Mods in 2016 Modding Awards)

    Assisted with RMV2 Converter
    (2nd place for Warscape Engine Resources in 2016 Modding Awards)

  3. #63

    Default Re: [PREVIEW] Carthaginian Roster

    Xanthippus is recorded as having trained the Carthaginian infantry in Macedonian drill. It is never stated that he gave them the sarissa or re-armed them in any way, and through the third century there are depictions of (probable) Carthaginians with hoplons, though in a Numidian context. By the Third Punic War they are described as using thureos shields.

    Polybius on Xanthippus and what he did for Carthage:
    "He expressed his opinion to his friends that the Carthaginians had owed their defeat, not to the superiority of the Romans, but to the unskilfulness of their own commanders...The way in which he got them into order when he had led them outside the town; the skill with which he manœuvred the separate detachments, and passed the word of command down the ranks in due conformity to the rules of tactics, at once impressed every one with the contrast to the blundering of their former generals. The multitude expressed their approbation by loud cheers, and were for engaging the enemy without delay, convinced that no harm could happen to them as long as Xanthippus was their leader."

    Xanthippus was a mercenary general experienced in Hellenistic warfare. That doesn't imply just pike phalanx, and nothing is stated about him reorganizing them into any specific formation. It's a matter of discipline and his criticisms of the generals.

    Xanthippus, if you notice, was a Spartan, and Sparta did not adopt the Macedonian phalanx until much after his lifetime (220's). He was also a mercenary with experience throughout the Hellenistic world, perhaps. But...it hardly speaks to a Macedonian style phalanx.

    Diodorus tells us even less, only saying that:
    "Xanthippus, the Spartan, kept advising the generals to advance against the enemy. He did this, he said, not so that by urging and spurring them on he might himself remain out of danger, but that they might know that he was confident of their ready victory if they would do so. As for himself, he added, he would lead the attack and would display his valor at the foremost point of danger."

    The light infantry (Africans, but given how they are always described performing light infantry roles, there's little doubt as to what they were) are described as 'pikemen' in certain translations of Polybius, mainly older ones. But the term used in the Greek is longchephoroi - which isn't a phalangite. It is a term used for shorter spears/javelins in this time period (later, it would have some connection to lancer cavalry - in imperial times). And that a number of the supporters of a Macedonian style phalanx for Carthage point to this shows that they haven't really reviewed the source material.

    Other anecdotes that suggest against a sarissa:
    1. Hannibal is explicitly described as re-equipping his men with Roman equipment. That could mean many things, but makes most sense if we are talking about a force that fought in a similar fashion/order as the Romans.
    2. The heavy African infantry at Cannae are described as fighting on the flanks. The bulk of his force was made up of Iberians who most definitely were not fighting as pikemen. The African infantry in this battle were described as pulling off maneuvers that would be difficult for a pike phalanx - mainly wheeling around to attack the Romans on their flanks.
    3. At Trasimene Hannibal used his forces to attack down hill on the Romans during an ambush.

    The Iberians adopted the oval shield right around the time of the Barcid conquest of Spain. The source of it is debated, but it is not questioned how they fought for the Carthaginians and that they made up the bulk of Hannibal's forces.

    It's my own hunch that Hannibal was the first Carthaginian to adopt oval shields and then some of his men took up scutums in Italy. It makes the most sense and meshes the most with how Hannibal fought that war and the totality of the evidence.

    True, but Polybius is rather vague for being a military man. He refers to both Macedonian and Carthaginian troops as "Hoplites". However it is interesting that in book 18 when he talks about the "Advantages and disadvantages of the Phalanx" he mentions Hannibal and the Carthaginians right alongside the armies of Pyrrhus and the Macedonians (who both used pikemen).
    Polybius is specifically saying that Hannibal was not an example of legion versus phalanx. His victories occurred because of his generalship. Polybius is actually very specific in every circumstance he describes a Macedonian style phalanx. He explicitly tells us that they were armed in the Macedonian manner. There isn't ambiguity over it. This is the one only quote/source that seriously suggests a Macedonian phalanx. Yet at no point in all of his pages writing about the Carthaginians does Polybius ever refer to them as fighting in the Macedonian manner. Neither does Livy.

    Carthaginian troops fighting in Spain, Carthago Nova, are specifically said during an assault on their positions not to have used their spears because the space was too confined. It was fighting with swords. This is the closest we get to any direct statement as to how Carthaginian forces were equipped in a normal context and it refers to spears.

    Phalanx itself is an ambiguous term that Greek writters apply variously to Romans as well as their enemies - even the Iberians and Gauls at times.

    It's entirely possible that Polybius in his reference to Hannibal is merely talking about a Greek style formation - a phalanx, but not a Macedonian phalanx. Plutarch (with Polybius as his source) talks about the Achaean phalanx when they fought with the thureos, but to denigrate the quality of it (they had neither overlapping shields nor level spears).

    Have you ever heard of hoplites organizing themselves exactly in the Macedonian manner without Macedonian equipment?


    Well, the terms being referenced there aren't exclusive to the Macedonians, so...yes. The Greek writers also used terms for foreign military organization to relay it to the readers. They are looking for functional equivalents. But the terms used as examples there, wherever they are referenced in terms of Carthage (i'm not sure which author may have used them), aren't anything specific to Macedonian phalanxes. Phylae is a Greek term that was in use long before the Macedonians. So I would kindly suggest that I don't think the guy writing there really knows what he's talking about with those terms and the characterization of what Xanthippus did (we get very little) is greatly overstated.

    Then there is the secondary literature.
    It is not the standard position that Hannibal had his men fighting in a Macedonian manner.

    The only piece of evidence that was even remotely suggesting a Macedonian style phalanx, when I reviewed it, was the one part in Polybius referred to when talkin gabout the phalanx. I would have been fine going with a Carthaginian pike phalanx. I had no horse in the race at the time and I put a lot of time into reading up on it.

    It's not a position I took up in contrast to the majority of the secondary literature, either. Outside the modding world and one historian I can recall (and his main source of evidence was Xanthippus and the African 'pikemen' already referenced - a mistranslation, and it doesn't speak well for that historian that he doesn't or didn't even bother to look at the Greek) I don't think the literature is on the side with a Macedonian style phalanx.


  4. #64

    Default Re: [PREVIEW] Carthaginian Roster

    You make a lot of very convincing arguments! I must concede as this is definitely getting beyond my (rather limited) knowledge now...
    modificateurs sans frontières

    Developer for Ancient Empires
    (scripter, developed tools for music modding, tools to import custom battle maps into campaign)

    Lead developer of Attila Citizenship Population Mod
    (joint 1st place for Gameplay Mods in 2016 Modding Awards)

    Assisted with RMV2 Converter
    (2nd place for Warscape Engine Resources in 2016 Modding Awards)

  5. #65

    Default Re: [PREVIEW] Carthaginian Roster

    Guys the first carthaginian units that you're showing have Hellenic symbol in their shields like the Vergina sun' portrait of Athena and a portrait of Phillip 2.

  6. #66

    Default Re: [UNITS] The Republic of Carthage

    Question? When will the reforms happen? I am used to reforms due to playing DEI exclusively on Rome2, but I just wonder how how long in this mod. Doesn't this mod start in ~203 BCE? Thats 75+ years after DEI. I know the mods are different of course but wouldn't these reforms take place very quickly as the accepted time frame is for the reforms is between 241 BCE and 218 BCE? (With 20 years on each side also possible)

    By the sources, it didn't sound like the mercs that Hamilcar was fighting during the Mercenary War were hoplites and the majority of the rebels were Libyans. Maybe the Carthaginian citizens could fight as hoplites, though that description is not used at Zama, but the Libyans did not likely fight as hoplites at this time. I don't know how they will fight in this mod but they look a lot like hoplites in the pictures?

    Thanks team.

  7. #67
    UMCenturion's Avatar Ducenarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    914

    Default Re: [UNITS] The Republic of Carthage

    Reforms, for now, are all through techs. So it is up to you in which direction you go with the techs.

    Mod Lead - UI/2D Art - Custom Map Editing

  8. #68

    Default Re: [UNITS] The Republic of Carthage

    Quote Originally Posted by UMCenturion View Post
    Reforms, for now, are all through techs. So it is up to you in which direction you go with the techs.
    VERY nice plan! That is such a better idea than researching to learn how to recruit a dignitary, how to farm, or how to build a trade port. That's great, can't wait to play.

    So multiple ways to research for each faction? So as the Spartans, you could research pikes or Roman techniques or keep hoplites? Or not that free? Hopefully some factions are closer than others as playing and defeating Rome in 60 turns with Carthage still training hoplites would be very weird in the 2nd Century.

    Thank you for all you do.

  9. #69

    Default Re: [UNITS] The Republic of Carthage

    The hannibalic veterans are interesting, I like the looted look, but they're also kind of confusing in battle. I don't think they should have any red scutums, surely they'd have time to give it a lash of white paint and draw some punic symbols on them. IMO they'd also look better with the curvy narrower pre-marian scutum models to differentiant them from marian legionaries.
    Last edited by JPrice94; March 17, 2018 at 12:03 PM.

  10. #70

    Default Re: [UNITS] The Republic of Carthage

    @UMCenturion or team...

    Question? When will the reforms happen? I am used to reforms due to playing DEI exclusively on Rome2, but I just wonder how how long in this mod. Doesn't this mod start in ~203 BCE? Thats 75+ years after DEI. I know the mods are different of course but wouldn't these reforms take place very quickly as the accepted time frame is for the reforms is between 241 BCE and 218 BCE? (With 20 years on each side also possible)
    Wouldn't these reforms have already taken place? Many of these reforms likely took part in Spain with Hamilcar, if not in Sicily. The Carthaginian home units could quite possibly be a later date but the Barcid armies had already changed. I would imagine the wholesale Carthaginian forces were reformed by Hannibal in short order after Zama. Just wondering if we will be fighting with hoplites for 60 turns or so after Zama?

    Thanks for the replies and great looking mod!

  11. #71

    Default Re: [UNITS] The Republic of Carthage

    Hello Guys, congrats for your awesome work.

    In game, I don't have the design of the carthaginian units of the first page. But a much basic one (for example : the sacred band with much basic hemlets). Someone can explain to me the reason ? The design has change since the initial presentation ?

    Thx again guys

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •