Elite Carthiginians

[Ganos Paran]

Hello EB Team,
I was just wondering about what the Carthaginians used as their elite and assault infantry, since they seemed to be historically unwilling to send their own citizenry out to conquer in large numbers during our time period (though I do from time to time, it may be be a bit a-historical, but I rather like seeing the Sacred Band anchoring my armies ). I'm curious since the Carthaginians seemed to both engage in and pursue many sieges and assaults especially in Sicily and Iberia, but I can't seem to find much on their actual elite assault teams. I was wondering since Hellenistic armies seemed to develop highly specialized assault groups and spent quite a lot of time and money on arming and armoring heavy infantry for this specific purpose, but the Carthaginians don't seem to have any counterpart to these (the Libyan swordsmen being the closest thing, but they appear a bit into the campaign and seem to be line infantry as well as being not quite as heavy or even designed for assaults)

So what did the Carthaginians use for assaults (if they had any specialized groups for this purpose), and if they didn't have any such groups, why, and how did they prosecute assaults?

Thanks, both for all your work on this amazing mod, and for your responses
Ganos

[wermez]

Elite Africans .

[Oktarnash]

Perhaps getting Iberian and celtic Mercenaries is the way to go. You can get the Caetrata Luventus ones with the full iron javelins, or if you own Massena, you can get Solduroi mercenaries in the provinces around.

[wermez]

I just relaised that lybian swordsmen have armor upgrades. Silver one adds chainmail to half of them. In battle they are truly fascinating.
By the way, thracian colonists have armor upgrades with chainmail too.

[Ganos Paran]

Thanks for your responses, guys , and I do use most of the same units to spearhead my own assaults and maintain my lines, but I wasn't talking so much about the game as I was talking about in history (not really looking for any specific ingame unit (though I will probably use some more of those that have been mentioned)).

I ask, because while those specific units work well inside the game, and can really speed the capture of a city, in history most groups have heavy elite soldiers specifically chosen to lead attacks and assaults (usually nobles or picked troops). My question is about the fact that the Carthaginians don't have them in game and historically they don't use their own citizens in battle. They have access to the same heavy military technology as the Greeks and other peoples (more even in the case that they faced way more peoples at once (Romans and Greeks to Iberians and Numidians) and seem willing to adopt new technologies (chainmail)), so what did they use? Did they arm groups of natives to form assault corps, specially train experienced troops, or have elite groups of Libyans or Liby-phonecians for this role?

[Trarco]

Thanks for your responses, guys , and I do use most of the same units to spearhead my own assaults and maintain my lines, but I wasn't talking so much about the game as I was talking about in history (not really looking for any specific ingame unit (though I will probably use some more of those that have been mentioned)).

I ask, because while those specific units work well inside the game, and can really speed the capture of a city, in history most groups have heavy elite soldiers specifically chosen to lead attacks and assaults (usually nobles or picked troops). My question is about the fact that the Carthaginians don't have them in game and historically they don't use their own citizens in battle. They have access to the same heavy military technology as the Greeks and other peoples (more even in the case that they faced way more peoples at once (Romans and Greeks to Iberians and Numidians) and seem willing to adopt new technologies (chainmail)), so what did they use? Did they arm groups of natives to form assault corps, specially train experienced troops, or have elite groups of Libyans or Liby-phonecians for this role?

As always sorry for my bad english, well it's not too bad but probably I will make some linguistic errors.

It may sound obvious, but when we speak about Carthage, it is important to remember the lack of Carthaginian sources or Pro-Punic sources. This is one of the reasons we haven't got a deep knowledge of the Carthaginian military system. When the written sources speak about it, they use Roman or Greek terms that are ambiguous and probably they don't reflect all the Punic nature of the institution. Additionally, the Carthaginian coins and epigraphy (one of the direct sources we have) only show terms like "general" or "people of the camp", that aren't enough to get a complete vision of the Carthaginian army.

Having said that, modern historiography is synonym of revisionism, and although the evidences are poor, it can be said that Carthage always kept the use of their citizens in battle. In the time frame of EB2 they fought during the First Punic War, the Second Punic War, after the Second Punic War against Numidians in a big battle and of course, during the Third Punic War. Some historians want to defend the presence of Carthaginian citizens in the Hannibal's army but in my opinion that is an exaggeration. At that time, the citizens only fought in Africa. However the generals and main officers were always Carthaginians. In summary, although Carthaginians didn't reject the use of citizens as soldiers, we can't know if the Sacred Band (something close to an elite group of citizen-soldiers) still existed in the time frame of the First Punic War.

Although, probably I won't resolve your doubts, I have some opinions about this matter I can share with you.

First of all, although Carthage had a hellenistic army (i.e combination of citizen soldiers with mercenaries and exotic weapons, originally chariots and then elephants) like, for example, Macedonia or other eastern kingdoms, they didn't have similar interests. The more modern consensus states that Carthage was never an imperialistic state, at least until the second half of the third century BC. This means that outside of the core of Africa, Carthage didn't rule over "provinces", instead the Punic city developed an epikrateia (especially in Sardinia and Sicily), or in other words, Carthage had several allies around the Mediterranean and it pacted with each one of them separately. In these pacts, Carthage was the hegemonic member of the party. In summary, Carthage didn't have the traditional imperialistic interests of other Mediterranean states like Rome or the hellenistic kingdoms. This is an important difference, most of its allies would have accepted the situation, Carthage had just to maintain some garrisons in key areas (for example some mercenaries in Sardinia). During most part of its history, when the Carthaginian epikrateia was in danger, Carthage sent an army formed by (originally, citizens) allies and mercenaries who fought during some battles to put an end to the short war. This will change during the First Punic War.

Secondly, most of the efforts to maintain the epikrateia were focused on the sea. Fighting against piracy or reinforcing the administrative trade were one of the main goals. The role of the citizens was very important here and most of them served in the navy. It should be taken into account that serving in the navy was much more prestigious in the Carthaginian world than in other parts of the Mediterranean.

About the war, Carthage punished its defeated generals heavily, unlike in Rome, being general wasn't always desirable. Of course it was something prestigious (sometimes even some families occupied the charges during generations) but it was much more risky. In spite of this fact, the main military positions always belonged to Carthaginians, and unlike in other areas of the Mediterranean (Sicily, for example) the mercenary captains never got an important position in the army (Xanthippus is the exception that proves the rule). In my opinion, all these limitations like the military career risky, the citizens that only fight in Africa, and in general terms a unique political environment don't allow a direct comparison with other Mediterranean states like Rome, or a comparison of the armies by extension.

And Finally, since you want to speak about the soldiers, I can say that there is no evidence of trained groups of natives to form assault corps, on the contrary, each people, that fought together with Carthage, kept its original way to fight. Additionally, Carthage already had experience in conquering cities, the destruction of Himera is a good example. Other episodes I could name would be the siege of Arse. Here Carthaginians used sophisticated siege weapons. According to Polybius, the original Hannibal's army in Iberia was formed by 11.850 Africans, 300 Ligurians, 500 balearic slingers, 450 Liby-Phoenician (cavalry) together with 300 Ilergetes, 1.800 Numidians and at least 40 elephants. Something similar to this (together with Iberians) would have participated in the siege. The slingers were useful during the first stages of the sieges, and the line infantry played an important role when the siege weapons broke the walls or when the time facilitated the attack. The written sources clearly state that during the Hannibal's campaign against the peoples of the river Duero the cities were taken by assault, and finally, in Italy, longer sieges and garrisons played an important role. In summary, Carthaginians had enough means to conquer or destroy a city with the combination of the different elements of its army.

About the elite groups of Libyans or Liby-phonecians, Carthage always prefered to sacrifice or lose their mercenaries, that most of the times fought in the first line, so in a sense, the Africans tended to be reserved.

What about if we finish with the Carthaginian siege of Arse?

[Ganos Paran]

Thanks a lot for your response Trarco (and your English is great, way better than my Spanish or any other language ),
What exactly do you mean by the term epikrateia, like in terms of a hegemony where did Carthage lie (it doesn't seem to be like Athens and the Delian League, or a proper confederation since the other members don't seem to have much representation, but members also don't seem overly inclined to rebel or fight against Carthage) (and now I've derailed my own thread...)?

Also if Carthage used strong siege works/artillery and then assaults by mostly natives/mercenaries (keeping the Africans back) to take cities would they have had better trained/armed groups for this, or just rely on their works and then numbers to win? (also since they did use lots of specialist troops from around the Mediterranean for other roles, was there anyone particularly well suited to or known for sieges)

Thanks a bunch, all of you for the info/advice, and I understand the issues a lack of concrete sources can have, so thanks for the help/work in your responses

[Ganos Paran]

Also were the Libyan Swordsmen just an extension of native traditions or were they a break from the tradition of maintaining fighting styles? They just seem so much more solid and better trained than any regional counterparts. (sorry for the double post can't edit)

[Trarco]

What exactly do you mean by the term epikrateia, like in terms of a hegemony where did Carthage lie (it doesn't seem to be like Athens and the Delian League, or a proper confederation since the other members don't seem to have much representation, but members also don't seem overly inclined to rebel or fight against Carthage) (and now I've derailed my own thread...)?

In fact some historians have compared the confederation of Carthage with the Delian League, others use the term Carthaginian "commonwealth", etc. As always, lack of written Punic sources is a problem but the relatively well known treaties between Rome and Carthage reveal that the members of the "league of Carthage" had different status. For example, in one of the treaties, Utica was named specifically but other peoples were included in a generic group of "allies". So, we have a Carthage able to speak on behalf of all its allies and among them there are members more prestigious like Utica or Tyre (some historians prefer to understand that "Tyre" was a mention to the western Punic community, after all, they called themselves "Tyrians". Others suggest that Tyre could have been Gader). And about the loyalty, it depends on the situation, some Libyan communities tended to be rebellious (for example during the Agathocles' invasion), and some Punic cities like Utica or Hadrumetum abandoned Carthage during the Third Punic War (other less important cities remained loyal).


EB2 team will try to represent all these matters with the new Carthaginian governments and colonies, but probably it won't be soon.

Also if Carthage used strong siege works/artillery and then assaults by mostly natives/mercenaries (keeping the Africans back) to take cities would they have had better trained/armed groups for this, or just rely on their works and then numbers to win? (also since they did use lots of specialist troops from around the Mediterranean for other roles, was there anyone particularly well suited to or known for sieges)

Thanks a bunch, all of you for the info/advice, and I understand the issues a lack of concrete sources can have, so thanks for the help/work in your responses

About the "reserved Africans" I was just referred to pitched battles, the battles in Africa during the second Punic War are a good example. But this is not a rule, for example in the battle of Ilipia (Second Punic War, Iberia) the African line infantry was placed in the centre and the Iberians in the flanks, so the Carthaginian army only had a line in that case. So, I was referring a general way of thinking (that is also present in other Mediterranean states) in which preserving the citizens and allies' lives in battle is always desirable.

Traditionally, it is said that Iberians were good to take the settlements but in my opinion there is no direct evidences of this. Well, the Iberian panoply allowed to fight as line infantry or in skirmish order (basically, they were able to fight like thureophoroi did). Maybe the possibility to fight as irregular infantrymen would be related with this traditional vision, but again in my opinion all the line infantry could attack a city. When someone conquered a city, the battles were more savage, the inhabitants tended to fight for their lives and a general couldn't develop a formation as ordered as in a pitched battle. In some cases, the city was conquered house to house, so I think that the line infantry (and even lighter troops) were able to participate in these type of massacres.

I am going to choose the case of Arse again because it is relatively well known (at least if it is compared with other cases in which they just say "the city was taken" with no more details). Maybe we could select some facts of this siege in order to get a better vision of this type of battles:

- The siege lasted around eight months.
- First, Carthaginians plundered the crops of the city.
- The first attempt of attack was focused in three different parts of the city at the same time. They didn't get their objectives.
- After that, they used battering rams.
- Part of the wall is destroyed and a battle was started. Livy uses the term "acies", so it suggests a fight between line infantry. Again the Carthaginians had to retreat back.
- After that, Carthaginians initiated a new attack, this time with a siege tower and artillery. Carthaginians were able to defeat some of the defenders and Hannibal sent 500 Africans with picks to destroy the wall. This allowed the conquer of a part of the city. This is the closest thing I know related with a "Carthaginian assault troop", in other passage, Livy also mentioned agile Libyans able to scale a wall with iron nails. So, in EB2 you could use a combination of Libyans for this purpose.
- Finally, the acropolis was taken.
- In conclusion, in my opinion this siege resulted in several waves of attacks, with (maybe) a small group of specialized Libyans that facilitated the participation of the rest of the army. The siege weapons played an important role.

Also were the Libyan Swordsmen just an extension of native traditions or were they a break from the tradition of maintaining fighting styles? They just seem so much more solid and better trained than any regional counterparts. (sorry for the double post can't edit)

Fighting, more or less, in close order was an old way to fight in the Ancient Mediterranean, so these Libyans of EB2 could keep their traditional way to fight. However the panoply (Montefortino helmet, gladius, heavy javelin/pilum and thureos) is something new in the area. This panoply was common in the western Mediterranean during and after the Second Punic War. The peoples involved in this war had similar ways to fight, this is why, they were able (and wanted) to adopt the best weapons of their enemies/allies, in the case of the Iberians the thureos and the bronze helmet, in the case of the Carthaginians and Libyans the thureos and the gladius, and finally in the case of the Romans the gladius. There are some evidences of the use of this kind of panoply among the Carthaginians, the stele from El Hoffra is a good example.

[Ganos Paran]

Thanks again for your responses Trarco,
Sorry for repeatedly asking you questions...
What was the power structure between these confederates, were they tribute bearing vassals or military allies, what freedoms did greater partners like Utica have that lessers did not, and what was the home city-settler relationship? Also how did this relationship shift and vary depending on time/place (Ex. variations in Iberia versus Africa) (I understand that there are probably no clear sources on this I'm just rather interested in Carthage and its history, but don't really have access to real sources on the area/period)

Also would Ilipa have been a general case or more of a reaction to the long stalemate and the knowledge they had (or were tricked into believing) on the Roman formation?

Finally, are the Libyan Swordsmen representative of a heavy elite force, or a more standard development of strong general purpose line infantry, also are they supposed to use heavy javelins/pilum, because in game they just use standard light ones?

[Trarco]

Thanks again for your responses Trarco,
Sorry for repeatedly asking you questions...
What was the power structure between these confederates, were they tribute bearing vassals or military allies, what freedoms did greater partners like Utica have that lessers did not, and what was the home city-settler relationship? Also how did this relationship shift and vary depending on time/place (Ex. variations in Iberia versus Africa) (I understand that there are probably no clear sources on this I'm just rather interested in Carthage and its history, but don't really have access to real sources on the area/period)

The elements and details of the confederation are too obscure, the written sources only mention some information, for example, the allies contributed with troops (specially for the African phalanx) but there was also some kind of taxation system because the Libyan cities payed a tax in the form of agricultural products. Also, Livy says (XXXIV, 62, 3): "They call this district Emporia; it is the coast of the lesser Syrtis and a fertile spot; one of its cities is Leptis, and this paid to the Carthaginians a tribute of one talent per day".

We don't know the freedoms of the most important partners but some historians think that the citizens of these important communities (like in the case of the Liby-Phoenicians) could get married with Carthaginians. Apart from that, the first silver coins of the Punic cities of Iberia appeared at the time of the coming of the Barcids, so this fact suggests some kind of advantages for the most important cities of the area (not all the cities had the right to mint coins).

The relationships depended on the circumstances, originally the partners looked for the Carthage's protection and Carthage had enough power to guarantee it. But in time of crisis some allies didn't collaborate, for example Utica in the Third Punic War or Gader during the last episodes of the Second Punic War. Both cities had ties of friendship with Carthage though. However minor cities supported Carthage during the Third Punic War (they sent supplies) and in the Second Punic War, when Rome had already conquered Carthago Nova and the Roman victory was evident, a few Punic cities resisted until death, so it depends on the city and its inhabitants.

Also would Ilipa have been a general case or more of a reaction to the long stalemate and the knowledge they had (or were tricked into believing) on the Roman formation?

It seems that the Carthaginians didn't realize the Roman infantry was in the flanks, so maybe with time, the Africans would have moved to the flanks and the allies/mercenaries would have occupied the centre of the line. In this way the African phalanx would have fought against the Roman veterans.

Finally, are the Libyan Swordsmen representative of a heavy elite force, or a more standard development of strong general purpose line infantry, also are they supposed to use heavy javelins/pilum, because in game they just use standard light ones?

In my mind they aren't a heavy elite force but a component of the African phalanx that has adopted a more modern panoply. In my future campaigns, I will combine this unit with the Liby-Phoenicians in order to have a core of veterans. And this phalanx will be supported by mercenaries/allies (the proportion would depend on the area).

Hmmm, about the pilum vs dart, I don't know, because the concept was already made when I joined the team. I would suggest a pilum but the dart is not inaccurate at all. Probably, the dart was chosen in order to represent something similar to a lighter thureophoroi and also in order to keep the same weapon that is used by the early Libyan hoplite.

EDIT: BTW, I am not speaking about a Roman pilum, but about a heavier javelin that was also used in other areas like in Italy or Iberia. But as I said, in my opinion the darts can work perfectly, in fact I have just seen the stele of El Hoffra and the javelins look like light.

[QuintusSertorius]

I think the critical point on the Libyan Swordsmen is that they were not "imitation legionaries". It wasn't even Roman influence that spurred their development.

[Oktarnash]

If I don't play nearly enough of this mod, it is because. I have spent at least half my Free time reading classical history. Damm you humanity, why do you have to be so interesting.

[Oktarnash]

Loved reading your stuff Trarco.
Is lack of Carthaginian sources or Pro-Punic sources simply a consequence of the destruction of Carthage , or also a general passage of time?
Since it is very clear, that some knowledge will always be lost through time, I wondered if the Romans or remaining allied cities, bothered with preserving Carthaginian records.

[Trarco]

Loved reading your stuff Trarco.
Is lack of Carthaginian sources or Pro-Punic sources simply a consequence of the destruction of Carthage , or also a general passage of time?
Since it is very clear, that some knowledge will always be lost through time, I wondered if the Romans or remaining allied cities, bothered with preserving Carthaginian records.

I'm glad you like it


It is a combination of all the problems you mention. And yes, Rome and the neighbouring peoples preserved some of the Carthaginian records. For example, the written sources speak about some "libri punici" that were saved during the destruction of Carthage (although many of them were burnt during the fire of the city) and Pliny wrote that several Carthaginian writings were given to the Numidian monarchs. We also know that after the Third Punic War the Mago's agricultural manual was translated into Latin.

[betto]

Loved reading your stuff Trarco.
Is lack of Carthaginian sources or Pro-Punic sources simply a consequence of the destruction of Carthage , or also a general passage of time?
Since it is very clear, that some knowledge will always be lost through time, I wondered if the Romans or remaining allied cities, bothered with preserving Carthaginian records.

not imitation but adaptation with the local tech and resources...

[Ganos Paran]

Trarco thanks for you detailed responses,
Did Carthage not make efforts to incorporate captured territory into the "state", just leaving them as vassals or tributary states, but unincorporated?

How did the Carthaginian holdings in Iberia differ in terms of control and assimilation from those in Africa/the older confederates, also how did they view their conquerors?

Quintus, what is the impact of Carthage's independent development of heavy swordsmen? Would this preclude them having heavier javelins? (I'm neither trying to be sarcastic (though everything on the internet seems to come off like that) or disputing the unit concept, I'm nowhere near qualified enough for that, but I am curious since they are surrounded by peoples with heavy or super heavy javelins, and their entire panoply is made of equipment from around their area so why avoid this single effective piece?).

[Trarco]

Trarco thanks for you detailed responses,
Did Carthage not make efforts to incorporate captured territory into the "state", just leaving them as vassals or tributary states, but unincorporated?

How did the Carthaginian holdings in Iberia differ in terms of control and assimilation from those in Africa/the older confederates, also how did they view their conquerors?

The description of the reformed Carthaginian governments cover these matters, but in summary, after 237 BC Carthage started to adopt a more imperialistic nature. In Iberia the Barcids developed a kind of province. It seems it was divided into smaller territories. In this whole territory, there were Iberian allied peoples, old Punic cities and new founded cities which reinforced the control of the territory.

Firstly, southern Iberians fought against Carthage (it seems that they got some Celtic mercenaries, probably Celtiberians or Celtici from the Baeturia), after that, they accepted the Carthaginian policies because of a combination of local marriages but also because of the fact that Carthaginians took hostages among the local aristocracy. They also had an assembly in Carthago Nova in which participated both Iberians and Carthaginians.

Quintus, what is the impact of Carthage's independent development of heavy swordsmen? Would this preclude them having heavier javelins? (I'm neither trying to be sarcastic (though everything on the internet seems to come off like that) or disputing the unit concept, I'm nowhere near qualified enough for that, but I am curious since they are surrounded by peoples with heavy or super heavy javelins, and their entire panoply is made of equipment from around their area so why avoid this single effective piece?).

As he said they didn't want to create a unit of "imitation legionaries" and the javelins avoid to create a false perception of this unit.

[Roma_Victrix]

Elite Africans African Americans, such as W. E. B. Du Bois.

I fixed that for you! You're welcome.

Liby-Phoenicians. Nuff said.