Gunfreak  | 13 Sep 2014 12:43 p.m. PST |
So I have seen some vauge refrences to Libyen/african/carthegenian pikemen Did the carthagenians use pikes, I see no figures of theise, but see some refrences now and then in none gaming refrences. But in miniature world I only see them as hoplite styles.
Now I'm sure the carthagenians knew about sarissas. First punic war was some 70ish years after the death of Alexander. secoond punic war was over a 100 years after. The carthagenians fought Pyrrhus so even if they did not know about pikes through diplomacy with Egypt they would meet them in battle in Scicaly. On the other hand atleast Hanibal favord tricks, ambushes fast movments. And while the pikes were not as slow and cumbersome as some thing, they still are not as fast as other troop types. So is this fantacy? did they exist and Hanibal simply preferd faster moving troops? |
| GurKhan | 13 Sep 2014 12:50 p.m. PST |
No, they didn't. Yes, it is fantasy, ultimately based on a poor translation of a Greek source. |
| Caesar | 13 Sep 2014 1:31 p.m. PST |
You will occasionally see them pop up on a gaming table or in books (I recall the latest Osprey made me cringe when it mentioned these). |
| GarrisonMiniatures | 13 Sep 2014 1:58 p.m. PST |
Likewise, you sometimes come across comments about some of the cavalry riding armoured horses – this is also fantasy. |
Lee Brilleaux  | 13 Sep 2014 2:12 p.m. PST |
Wargamers care about very specific definitions (some of which we have invented ourselves.) General historians tend to go for 'longish spear is a pike' and – sometimes, especially if it's a translation from another European language – a lance. You can read about a phalanx of lancers. It's awkward and vaguely annoying to our eyes. Then again, Norse sagas, written in the high middle ages, refer to every pole weapon as a halberd, when they mean either a spear or an axe. |
| LEGION 1950 | 13 Sep 2014 3:25 p.m. PST |
Gunfreak, they NEVER had pike units!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mike Adams |
| grandtactical | 13 Sep 2014 3:53 p.m. PST |
For all that reading you would think you could spell Carthaginian? |
| SJDonovan | 13 Sep 2014 4:22 p.m. PST |
For all that reading you would think you could spell Carthaginian? What you meant to say was: "Considering all the reading you have done I would have imagined that you would be able to spell 'Carthaginian'". If you are going to be a smug pedant at least make the effort to be grammatically correct. |
| dBerczerk | 13 Sep 2014 5:44 p.m. PST |
Good shooting, Herr Lindemann! |
| Sobieski | 13 Sep 2014 5:49 p.m. PST |
Well said, SJDonovan. Not least as spelling is a matter of arbitrary conventions, while grammar defines thought and meaning. |
| MajorB | 14 Sep 2014 5:07 a.m. PST |
For all that reading you would think you could spell Carthaginian? I wonder if your Norwegian is as good as Gunfreak's English?
TMP link |
| John the Selucid | 14 Sep 2014 1:38 p.m. PST |
I believe from memory that Livy talks about Macedonians in the Carthaginian army at Zama. This is generally regarded as pure fiction by him to justify latter wars with Macedon, but some have used this as justification for a unit of pikemen in the Carthaginian army. |
| Swampster | 14 Sep 2014 2:09 p.m. PST |
" Behind them were the auxiliaries, Ligurians and Gauls, with an admixture of Balearics and Moors. The second line was made up of Carthaginians and Africans together with a _legion of Macedonians_. A short distance behind these were posted his Italian troops in reserve. These were mainly Bruttians who had followed him from Italy more from the compulsion of necessity than of their own free will. Like Scipio, Hannibal covered his flanks with his cavalry, the Carthaginians on the right, the Numidians on the left." While 'Macedonians' with no other description is generally taken to be pike, it could just be that these are some mercenary thureophoroi. More likely though is that Livy just added them for the reason John gives. Compare the list from Polybius which is essentially the same apart from the Macedonians. |
