Carthaginians and liby-phoenicians

[Zarax]

I don't know how to put this question properly but I'll try:
What was the relationship between punics and lybians/lybi-phoenicians in Carthage?

Were the natives and mixed children just kept as part of the army (basically a "soldier caste") or was their role broader in the punic society?
Also, did this change with time, meaning that they become increasingly more important as the empire expanded?

Just let me know if I was unclear, I would really like to know more about it...

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I'm no expert, but I recall that the Liby-Phoenicians were basically an entire bastard race that was looked down on by the Phoenicians(Carthaginians) but were used extensively for military service.

I don't think the Carthaginians lasted too long from the beginning of extensive use of Liby-Phoenicians in the military until they were destroyed by the Romans.

[HamilcarBarca]

Carthaginians are those Phoenician peoples that inhabit the city-state of Carthage.

Liby-Phoenicians are those Phoenician peoples that inhabit the other Punic cities and towns of North Africa, and which are subject to the authority of Carthage, such as Utica, Lepcis, Hadrumentum and so forth.

Libyans are the indigenous peoples of modern Tunisia, of Libyco-Berber stock, who were conquered by Carthage in the period c. 600-400 BC, and who thereafter formed an oppressed "serf" like class who worked the agricultural land in Punic controlled North Africa.

Interestingly, Liby-Phoenicians are only mentioned in the ancient sources as providing cavalry to Punic armies, although it is generally assumed that they would have provided oarsmen & sailors for Punic fleets also.

Libyans were commonly conscripted as both heavy and light infantry by Carthage for service in her foreign wars.

H.

[Foot]

Carthaginians are those Phoenician peoples that inhabit the city-state of Carthage.

Liby-Phoenicians are those Phoenician peoples that inhabit the other Punic cities and towns of North Africa, and which are subject to the authority of Carthage, such as Utica, Lepcis, Hadrumentum and so forth.

Libyans are the indigenous peoples of modern Tunisia, of Libyco-Berber stock, who were conquered by Carthage in the period c. 600-400 BC, and who thereafter formed an oppressed "serf" like class who worked the agricultural land in Punic controlled North Africa.

H.

Um, no. Liby-Phoenicians are the results of intermarriage between Phoenician settlers and the native Libyan population. They were used to establish new colonies as well as play a major part in the military of Qart-Hadast. They did not have the citizen votes of Phoenicians, but were treated better than the Libyans.

Foot

[Zarax]

Trying to explain better the subject:
Would it have been possible with time that the liby-phoenicians could become an integral part of the punic society or were they relegated to the army more or less like better treated ptolemaic machimoi?

I'm asking this as I'm trying to picture a what-if scenario where Carthage wasn't destroyed and actually expanded along its trade routes, in a thalassocratic version of successor kingdoms.
My hypothesis is that due to low interest and relatively low numbers of "pure" phoenicians the mixed caste would become increasingly more important, both in the army and administration.
After all EB already portraits mixed family members from many ethnicities but interestingly no liby-phoenicians.

[HamilcarBarca]

From: The History of Rome, by Theodor Mommsen

The most precise description of this important class [i.e. Liby-Phoenicians] occurs in the Carthaginian treaty (Polyb. vii. 9), where in contrast to the Uticenses on the one hand, and to the Libyan subjects on the other, they are called --ol Karchedonion uparchoi osoi tois autois nomois chrontai--. Elsewhere they are spoken of as cities allied (--summachides poleis--, Diod. xx. 10) or tributary (Liv. xxxiv. 62; Justin, xxii. 7, 3). Their -conubium- with the Carthaginians is mentioned by Diodorus, xx. 55; the -commercium- is implied in the "like laws."

That the old Phoenician colonies were included among the Liby-phoenicians, is shown by the designation of Hippo as a Liby-phoenician city (Liv. xxv. 40); on the other hand as to the settlements founded from Carthage, for instance, it is said in the Periplus of Hanno: "the Carthaginians resolved that Hanno should sail beyond the Pillars of Hercules and found cities of Liby-phoenicians." In substance the word "Liby-phoenicians" was used by the Carthaginians not as a national designation, but as a category of state-law. This view is quite consistent with the fact that grammatically the name denotes Phoenicians mingled with Libyans (Liv. xxi. 22, an addition to the text of Polybius); in reality, at least in the institution of very exposed colonies, Libyans were frequently associated with Phoenicians (Diod. xiii. 79; Cic. pro Scauro, 42). The analogy in name and legal position between the Latins of Rome and the Liby-phoenicians of Carthage is unmistakable.

[Caligula]

Since this is a thread about carthage and what not, I found this video and it seems interesting (To me at least anyways). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqthewMUkXg

[johnhughthom]

As an example of the perils of looking for proof in Wikipedia, the page on Carthage describes Liby-Phoenicians as "Punics-proper."

[Tanit]

Ok, thats a bit of an awkward wording HB but your basically on the mark, more or less.

Liby-Phoenicians are described as communities of mixed Phoenician and Libyan descent. This does not mean that every member is a bastard offspring as is often suggested but rather that in these communiteies the social boundaries between the two races have essentially been lowered and no distinction is made between the two. It is a mark of the Carthaginian disdain, or rather menial view, for Libyans who were their agricultural and military workforce that we have this modern perception of them as bastards.

Not all Phoenician colonies under Carthage's protection consisted of these mixed populations, obviously as many were on other land masses, but this is rather a common distinction for the towns of North Africa. Nevertheless the Phoenician roots of these settlements are emphasized in the laws of Carthage where the Liby-Phoenicians were, in essence, citizens without vote. They maintained rights almost equal to that of Carthage and many operated as independant allied cities like so many of the colonies under Punic protection. They were required to provide military forces for Carthage, but indeed no where near the same numbers as the pure, native, Libyan stock.

In fact the Liby-Phoenicians would likely have been more common in the army than Carthaginian citizens so in a sense they were already more militarily important.


This allows me to get onto my favourite rant about the Carthaginian military and its misconception. Yes Carthage used a lot of mercenaries, but no more than most of the eastern states did. In fact in a sense their army much resembled the Persian one with very limited heavy infantry, lots of light infantry, cavalry and a body of mercenaries expected to act as heavy infantry. In Polybios most of Carthage's army is referred to as Mercenaries and even the Libyans are at first adressed under this line until the mercenary war where it is distinguished that they are under the dominion of Carthage. And in fact so were the majority of the troops that Polybios terms 'mercenaries'. These being Numidians and Spaniards and Balearics. Carthage even controlled a substantial number of Greek towns early in the war who would have lent troops. The only clear mercenaries to be seen are the Celts, Greeks, and Ligurians. And when Hannibal marched in the second Punic war, not a single soldier was a mercenary most likely. His army consisted of levied soldiers from Libya, the Numidian states Carthage controlled, Liby-Phoenician towns, their Spanish provinces, and later allied or conquered Gallic and Italian troops. Now I shouldn't say none as Hannibal was reputed to have a unit of Gaesatae, but the thought of the Punic army as largely mercenary was quite absurd, it was rather largely levies.

[HamilcarBarca]

Hannibal was reputed to have a unit of Gaesatae

That's interesting! Where is there a reference to that in the sources?

H.

[Tanit]

I haven't found it personally yet, you'd have to PM Urnamma, the FC for Carthage. I would assume Livy though as I have read Polybios and found no such reference, Livy was much more detailed about the second Punic war, but has the disadvantage of being a later source. Fragments from other sources could have provided the reference as well, such as Diodorus or Cassius Dio via Zonaras and other later or fragmentary sources.

[king hannibal]

don't think it was livy I'm reading it at the min he says that the Hannibal guals were bare clothed from head to torso but wore trusses although I could have missed it there's a person that modding in hannibal army appearing you could ask him as he's got a unit of gaesatae in the army