DGT123 | 08 Nov 2016 7:21 a.m. PST |
Good day all, I am new to this period and was curious if the Carthaginians used Pike in their Phalanx? I have read yes and no. Can anyone please help? Thank you David |
GarrisonMiniatures | 08 Nov 2016 8:04 a.m. PST |
No, they generally used a spear. There was a sort of Wargames myth due to the Connolly book that Carthaginians used pikes and armoured cavalry horses – just not true. |
Who asked this joker | 08 Nov 2016 8:20 a.m. PST |
No. No. No. No. Just say 'no' to Carthaginian Pikes. Hannibal says "No!" Nein! Sie hatten Pike nicht! |
DGT123 | 08 Nov 2016 8:22 a.m. PST |
So they did not have armoured Cav?! Thank you! Appreciate the info! |
Who asked this joker | 08 Nov 2016 8:26 a.m. PST |
They probably did not have catafracts. Little in the way of horse armor. They did have some fine cavalry both heavy and light…the latter in the form of Numidians and Spanish. |
wminsing | 08 Nov 2016 8:26 a.m. PST |
Yep, this is a wargamer-ism based on some badly interpreted sources. No real evidence of Carthaginian Pike. -Will |
wminsing | 08 Nov 2016 8:28 a.m. PST |
As a total aside, in Rome Total War II, Carthage DOES get pike as a late-tier option; but in that game it is possible to put Rome to the sword and for Carthage to become the the preeminent power in the Western Med. So the pike represents some hypothetical military reforms in Carthage, ala the Marian reforms in historical Rome. -Will |
thorr666 | 08 Nov 2016 9:15 a.m. PST |
Give them machine guns, then your opponent will have a stroke and you'll win every time |
DGT123 | 08 Nov 2016 9:27 a.m. PST |
Thanks all. So to highjack my own thread, did the Carthaginian elephants use Howdahs or not? Seen it both ways with vendors. Thank you David |
GurKhan | 08 Nov 2016 10:05 a.m. PST |
The latest major contribution to the elephant-tower discussion is Philip Rance's 2009 paper, which is I think fairly conclusive in showing that they did use towers – see link |
Edzard | 08 Nov 2016 10:46 a.m. PST |
Wasn't Hannibal taught by a hellenic guru? I have read that might have been a reason he could have introduced pikes into his troops. |
wminsing | 08 Nov 2016 11:17 a.m. PST |
Was Hannibal aware of pikes and how they could be used? Almost certainly. Did he actually introduce pike to the Carthaginian military? No hard evidence for it. -Will |
Jerboa | 08 Nov 2016 11:35 a.m. PST |
There is no hard evidence for the main weapon used by the Carthaginians, period. Given the Macedonian influence over the whole Mediterranean, including the successor states, having a strong state able to rely on large mercenary forces ignore pikes and be armed in shorts spears only, is plain unlikely. |
Winston Smith | 08 Nov 2016 11:57 a.m. PST |
As I seem to remember the arguments pro and con from years ago, the only battle where "troops armed in the Macedonian manner" appeared was Zama. Unfortunately, they were in the second line and on the unimportant flank. Not troops on whom the battle plan relied. It could also be that "armed in the Macedonian manner" meant peltasts. |
wminsing | 08 Nov 2016 11:57 a.m. PST |
There is plenty of hard evidence for how the Libyan mercenaries the Carthaginians relied on were armed. The idea that they used the sarissa is based on bad translations. The sole real evidence is mention of a 5,000 man contingent fighting at Zama 'in the Macedonian style' but that 1) might not even mean pikes and 2) would likely have been called out since it was an exception. -Will |
Jerboa | 08 Nov 2016 12:16 p.m. PST |
I have another interpretation on how Carthaginian core units were armed, besides the most likely use of pikes – in my opinion – at least during the first Punic War and maybe after. When a point is dug out that does tell nothing about the shaft length. So it is left for each investigator how to interpret the missing parts. Most of what we do know is based on Roman writings. Ancient armies did adopt effective weaponry and tactics they came across, including the Romans. Same with Hannibal's forces in Italy: there we can be sure that at least after lake Trasimene the core Carthaginian force was armed and fought just like the Romans. Therefore as late as Zama the Punic forces would be armed and fight much as the Roman heavy infantry. This would also explain why the Roman writers did not address how the Carthaginians' main forces looked or fought. Anyway scholar level evidence is altogether missing either way, so do your army lists as you feel it is better. |
Who asked this joker | 08 Nov 2016 12:45 p.m. PST |
If anyone has ever read the Penguin Classics version of Polybius, they will note that "pikeman" exists with regards to Carthaginian forces. The description of the battle of Trebia suggests that Hannibal deployed 8000 "pikemen" and "slingers" to cover his advancing army. This of course sounds like light infantry tactics. More importantly, Romans are said to have "spearmen" yet the author used the same Greek word. We already know that Romans had no pikemen. So the translator conveniently translated it to spear for the Romans. A more modern translation of Hannibals forces.
Hannibal waited for the right moment to strike, and as soon as he saw that the Romans had crossed the Trebia, throwing out eight thousand spearmen and slingers to cover his advance, he led out his whole army. From Polybius 3:72 link So we do indeed know how Carthaginians were armed at least in the roughest sense. Not only that, those places where Hannibal had "pikemen" really should have been spearmen. Likely, they were not long spears either. They may have even been heavy or light throwing spears. They are marines first after all. |
olicana | 08 Nov 2016 12:49 p.m. PST |
No pikes. Definitely hoplite types, latterly equipped as per Triarii, or possibly Principes, with mail armour and scutum. I've read about captured armour but not about the use of gladius and pilum, but who knows for sure. Elephants: I believe that images on coins say not, and they were small elephants, possibly unable to support a tower (though how heavy is a wicker and hide thing anyway?). However, elephants always look best with a tower, and I've never known a gamer complain about poetic lience when it comes to elephants. These have a few extra bits, especially padding at the howdah base (look up modern photos showing padding required). Some of mine also sport war paint and head protection. I went towers, and no one will convince me they are not 'wargamey good'.
|
wminsing | 08 Nov 2016 1:19 p.m. PST |
Same with Hannibal's forces in Italy: there we can be sure that at least after lake Trasimene the core Carthaginian force was armed and fought just like the Romans. No; they certainly were armed like the Romans but there is NO evidence that they adopted Roman tactical systems. When a point is dug out that does tell nothing about the shaft length. So it is left for each investigator how to interpret the missing parts. This isn't about points; no other examples of Carthaginian military gear indicates the sarissa was in use, such as smaller shields or other related gear. All indications is that they were hoplite-style spearmen, not Macedonian-style pike. That is one reason why they would be eager and able to adapt Roman military gear. -Will |
Jerboa | 08 Nov 2016 1:39 p.m. PST |
Polybius Book 3 – 86 He also re-armed the Africans in the Roman fashion with select weapons, being, as he now was, in possession of a very large quantity of captured arms. Stress weapons. |
Jerboa | 08 Nov 2016 1:44 p.m. PST |
Polybius Book 3 – 114 The Africans were armed in the Roman fashion, Hannibal having equipped them with the choicest of the arms captured in the previous battles. This is only the core troops, not Iberians and Gauls. But latter even a large part of these were equipped and retrained in the Roman fashion: no time to look now for the exact quote, will do that latter if I can. |
olicana | 08 Nov 2016 1:57 p.m. PST |
Hi Jerboa, I'm still not convinced that pilum and gladius would be used. These weapons take training time. Why would he equip his veteran hoplites with them when the Roman veterans (triarii) were still equipped hoplite fashion? Armour obviously yes, pilum question mark. 'Select' weapons might just mean replacing broken African thrusting spears with Italian ones. In fact, doesn't 'selecting' weapons infer just that. I'm sure that if the Carthaginians went 'Roman' in everything, Livy and Polybius would be sure to make a very big point of it because it would be politically valuable to do so – Roman being best, of course. |
Winston Smith | 08 Nov 2016 2:01 p.m. PST |
The problem is that there were mainly kinds of pointy sticks in use. The writers were not always consistent or accurate. Translators into English, often poets, even less so. Sometimes only a wargamer really gives a damn if it's a pike or a javelin. The translator often doesn't know the difference, nor does he or she really care. They would be genuinely puzzled why after 2000+ years it would make a difference to anybody. This is why wargamers have to sophistically wonder what "armed in the Macedonian matter" means. Does it mean we give them all the special rules that our set of Ancients Rules give to Macedonians? If "armed in the Roman fashion", do we have to give them the special Roman rules, or just make them Heavy Infantry? |
Who asked this joker | 08 Nov 2016 2:35 p.m. PST |
My guess is that the Carthaginian veterans were armed with gladius and spear…probably not unlike the Triari. They also probably wore Roman armor if available. That's just a no-brainer. I suspect they retained their helmets but did use the larger Roman Scutum. I doubt Hannibal took the time to retrain his troops in the triplex formation. Armies typically don't take on different tactical systems in mid war in a foreign land. That's just inviting disaster. My suggestions for equipment are sensible as they would require very little in the way of training to use or get used to. |
Jerboa | 08 Nov 2016 2:40 p.m. PST |
Heavy Infantry. Why? because that's what the sources do tell us. And that's where we are standing now, classifying infantry mainly as either heavy or light. But pikes are significantly different from other line (heavy)infantry, as the same Polybius has recorded. |
Jerboa | 08 Nov 2016 2:50 p.m. PST |
olicana Your 28mm – like Red Bat's – are so impressive they leave me speechless (I even bough his rules). I play mostly 15 mils, so your photos drive me close to tears. But I like games at a higher level, without having to bother with javelin stocks. Plus generally have a bit less room! Anyway as a wargamer must recognize it is VERY well done. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 08 Nov 2016 2:59 p.m. PST |
Roman gladius originated in Spain so Hannibal and his troops would not only be familiar with it, many probably already used something similar. So no real change, just swapping new weapons to replace old or better quality to replace inferior. Armour is armour, tactics don't depend on type – so again an armour upgrade doesn't mean a tactical change. I'm not inclined to think that picking up new javelins/spears, possibly of more than one type, would result in new formations – if they had the pick of weapons, could have hoplite type spears, light infantry javelins, whatever… if his Africans were spearmen, they would pick the spears anyway. Meanwhile, Spanish troops of the period often used a heavy throwing spear, so they would be the logical ones to replenish their weapon stores with pila… The idea that Carthaginians either changed their tactics or even their weapon types after picking up Roman equipment simply doesn't make sense. They simply had access to more weapons that they already used, and besides – since when did the winners of battles adopt the tactics of the losers? |
wminsing | 08 Nov 2016 3:09 p.m. PST |
But latter even a large part of these were equipped and retrained in the Roman fashion: no time to look now for the exact quote, will do that latter if I can. But this is the same sort of problem as we have the Macedonians; does 'in the fashion' mean they had adapted Roman fighting techniques or their entire tactical system? Does it mean that the they ended up using the Roman gear and fought like Triari, or that they adopted the three-tier system and everything that went along with it? The sources don't say, but if they truly became a copy of the Roman Army it is hard to think that would not have been called out by Polybius or Livy. Polybius espcially seems like he would have familar enough with the material to say 'The Carthaginans fought like the Successors' or 'the Carthaginans copied the Roman system' and he says neither. So I'm still skeptical. -Will |
Jerboa | 08 Nov 2016 3:56 p.m. PST |
Polybius 72 He next dispatched about six thousand javelineers on foot … The Carthaginians, …, threw forward as a covering force his pikemen and slingers about eight thousand in number and led out his army. First, sources do not seem to mix javelins and pikes. Second, I agree that the original word may be translated both as spear or pikes. Third, on 73 we see the translator use pike-men. Fourth, I find no definite evidence either in Polybius or Livius that before Cannae the Punic infantry used either pikes or spears. What is likely is that with captured equipment the Africans formed a steady heavy line that defeated the 'triplex' Roman organization, consistently. Sources seem to recognize the superiority of the short Hispanic (not Spanish) sword over the Celtic long sword when fighting in close-quarters with large shields. These facts must have influenced the evolution from the Roman velite plus 3 line organization towards the Late Republic and Early Empire homogeneous heavy infantry line using the gladius hispaniensis as the main weapon. Finally, all considered I cannot see how late Punic tactics would remain the same as in the begging of the Punic Wars, as if only the Romans had the right to evolve over the centuries. Simplistic Carthaginian = spearmen does not convince me. But I do respect other interpretations. |
olicana | 08 Nov 2016 3:59 p.m. PST |
Meanwhile, Spanish troops of the period often used a heavy throwing spear, so they would be the logical ones to replenish their weapon stores with pila… Yep, solliferum replaced by pilum I can live with, it makes perfect sense. Roman gladius originated in Spain so Hannibal and his troops would not only be familiar with it, many probably already used something similar. So no real change, just swapping new weapons to replace old or better quality to replace inferior. When I referred to gladius (Hispanicus) and pilum fighting I was thinking more in the way they were used than the weapons themselves. Spanish Scutarii, though equipped in a similar fashion to legionaries don't seem to have fought in the same 'meat grinder' fashion. A case of regulars Vs irregulars I guess. |
ether drake | 08 Nov 2016 8:52 p.m. PST |
Pike work normally requires two hands and consequently lighter shield. Thus the pelte rather than the aspis or scutum. A recent discussion we had on TMP looked at the use of oval scuta by Barcid forces in Spain based on coin evidence. TMP link
Also, stele with scutum and falcata/kopis:
This also squares with recent archaeology-based studies by Fernando Quesada-Sanz that the Barcids popularised the scuta, falcata and the consequent javelins + 'sword and board' style of battle amongst the Iberians. PDF link Besides the paucity of evidence for the pike others have mentioned, the specific evidence above leads me to shy away from the Carthaginian pike thesis due to the shield equipment. For those saying that Hannibal was steeped in the Hellenistic way of war, he certainly was, but his tactics and troop types in the field didn't directly copy the Hellenistic field tactics. Combined arms, but not in the same combination. There was no use of an infantry block to anchor the enemy in the manner of the pike phalanx. Instead the Gauls and Spanish, armed with javelin, scuta and sword were the mainstays. The Libyans usually seemed to be deployed on the flanks to facilitate double envelopment (used in more battles than just Cannae). Hellenistic armies seemed to favour a strong centre of pike with the medium troops on the flanks. If Libyans were armed with pike on the flanks they may have to do more wheeling than is customary for the pike phalanx. Cavalry was lightly armed compared to the Hellenistic types and willing to fight on foot. They generally engaged infantry from the rear instead of through shock charges. |
Dagwood | 09 Nov 2016 12:57 a.m. PST |
@ Jerboa, No time to look it up at the moment, but doesn't the Penguin translator have those "pikemen" throwing their "pikes" a few lines later ? Obviously should be javelins. Also, it's no good arguing from a translation, you have to go back to the original. |
GurKhan | 09 Nov 2016 2:23 a.m. PST |
Polybius Book 3 – 86 He also re-armed the Africans in the Roman fashion with select weapons, being, as he now was, in possession of a very large quantity of captured arms.Stress weapons. Shame the Greek doesn't actually say "weapons". |
Who asked this joker | 09 Nov 2016 5:45 a.m. PST |
but doesn't the Penguin translator have those "pikemen" throwing their "pikes" a few lines later ? I believe so. Shame the Greek doesn't actually say "weapons". Nope. He uses the word for "spear" though it is still debatable what kind. |
wminsing | 09 Nov 2016 8:55 a.m. PST |
Simplistic Carthaginian = spearmen does not convince me. Well that's not what most of us are saying either. The Libyans appear* to have fought with the spear primarily, but it's clear the Iberians and Celts were different. So the Carthaginian (or at least Barcid) style of war was clearly a combined arms affair; but one of those arms was probably not pike. Using the Penguin translation is problematic because the original Greek text the author uses the SAME word for both Roman and Carthaginian descriptions; it's later translators that introduced the difference. *I say appear because what little evidence we have indicates that Carthaginian troops tended to use the scutum, as ether drake points out. This shield type doesn't really work with a sarissa. I think the preponderance of evidence is against Carthaginian Pike. But I also respect other interpretations. -Will |
ether drake | 10 Nov 2016 2:06 a.m. PST |
If your concern is of the general tactics employed then this article by Zhmodikov, "Roman Republican Heavy Infantrymen in Battle (IV-II Centuries B.C.)", offers some clues and food for thought, although not a definitive answer on Libyan arms of the time. link While Zhmodikov focuses on how Republican Roman infantry fought, he also considers how they and their leaders died at the hands of their enemies. What emerges is a picture of battles that take hours and the most of the engagement is in the form of missile (javelin) exchanges rather than melee (which wouldn't be able to go on for hours due to the fatigue involved). This leads to the question whether Libyans armed with spears could engage in othismos (cf. the controversial hoplite push and poke) of some other formed spear combat for hours with Roman infantry that were armed with missiles. On the other hand, Hannibal often seemed to keep the Libyans in reserve. Perhaps they played a role similar to the triarii (who do not appear to be armed with missiles, only spears). The longer initial engagements may have been undertaken by the Iberians, Gauls and African/Balearic skirmishers. |
Jerboa | 11 Nov 2016 3:34 p.m. PST |
Good information. Zhmodikov's article does clarify that Roman infantry fought with the sword as a the main weapon, not spears. Source references on the Punic War in Italy mention that the African infantry after Trebia e Trasimenus were indistinguishable from their Roman opponents. This seems to support the conclusion the Punic main line was of heavy infantry wearing large shields – captured clypeus, not scutum – and fighting with swords. Getting back to the original question, there is little doubt about how the Carthaginian allies were armed: Polybius describes both the Iberian and the Celts, as using similar large shields (thureus) with different swords, the Hispanic using the better suited variant. No major doubts also about what the Balearic and Numidian were. Now the problem is precisely how the original Punic infantry fought. The answer is: it is now known. But there are intriguing points: 1. Non revised translations use the word pikes, not surprisingly because in context, by that time, the most obvious meaning for that word was long spears sarissa like. My comm: I do not trust in wargamers inspired translations, sorry. 2. Alexander was contemporarily considered almost universally the greatest general of all times, as we see on Zama's descriptions in Livius and Polybius IICR. 3. While the ally shields were described with surprising accuracy, there is no mention about the original African infantry wearing shields. My comm: maybe because these were absent or oblivious. 4. You do not use light infantry as reserve, by default. The Punic infantry was used in Zama as an elite reserve to be preserved until the decisive moment ensued. 5. 'Macedonian type' infantry had an Universal and precise meaning at the time. You do not need to explain what is essentially obvious to all. Each one to draw its own conclusions, I'm not trying to convince anyone, also because I do not claim to have a convincing answer. |