Hannibal's Cavalry

[Sarcasm]

Great post! You seem very passionate about this subject, and made me realize how little I know of this. You have encouraged me to pick up a book on horses that has been forgotten in the attic for ages and that I had never had the will to read. Also, as stupid as this sounds, I have never paid much attention to the quality of the horses as factor equal to that of the rider to form an effective cavalry arm.

I have read your post, but I´ll require some time to absorb and confirm all of this information, but on a first look I noticed this phrase:

Through most of history the land now encompassing Spain and Portugal was a single region divided only by names of sub-regions. Even after the creation of the kingdom of Portugal in the early 12th century, they were often reunited as one under various kings.

Both countries were only reunited on one ocasion, for 60 years, in the late 16th and 17th century, and even then Portugal remained a Duchy with enough autonomy to pursue its own wars in Brasil, Africa and India (although Portuguese troops and ships did serve in every European theater of war, including The Invencible Armada).

[[cF]HanBaal]

Great post! You seem very passionate about this subject, and made me realize how little I know of this. You have encouraged me to pick up a book on horses that has been forgotten in the attic for ages and that I had never had the will to read. Also, as stupid as this sounds, I have never paid much attention to the quality of the horses as factor equal to that of the rider to form an effective cavalry arm.

You're welcome and thx for the nice words

I have read your post, but I´ll require some time to absorb and confirm all of this information, but on a first look I noticed this phrase:

Both countries were only reunited on one ocasion, for 60 years, in the late 16th and 17th century, and even then Portugal remained a Duchy with enough autonomy to persue its own wars in Brasil, Africa and India (although Portuguese troops and ships did serve in every European theater of war, including The Invencible Armada)

1580 to 1640..the succession problems that led to 3 the 'peacefully apointed' spanish leaders....yeah I noticed that mistake too and I also got 'mad' (you know, I'm a northern portuguese myself ). However, I did not want to overwrite the quote or digress on something that was offtopic. But now that you mentioned it as well as the Invincible Armada, I want to say that it would have kept the "Invincible" status if those stubborn spanish had let the portuguese captains organize it and lead it, or at least part of it. I mean, that expedition was so badly organized that only when many of the ships were lining their cannons to fire, they suddenly found out that many of those cannons were inoperational and even more of them didn't even have the right ammo!! Somehow they must have thought the english would simply run away when confronted with the sheer size of the Armada. Perhaps in the end it was all for the best. I don't forget easily who sent us allied troops *longbowmen for the most* when Spain, with french knights as reinforcements, invaded Portugal in the 14th century. That mythic invincible series of battles where in the decisive one "a force of 7,000 Portuguese annihilated and scattered a Castilian army of 32,000 in little more than thirty minutes of combat". Somehow it reminds me of Helm's Deep when the Elf reinforcements arrived in a most crucial time..also carrying long bowmen

[Sarcasm]

1580 to 1640..the succession problems that led to 3 the 'peacefully apointed' spanish leaders....yeah I noticed that mistake too and I also got 'mad' (you know, I'm a northern portuguese myself ).

Não pode! Estou impressionado, sim senhor.....

Somehow they must have thought the english would simply run away when confronted with the sheer size of the Armada. Perhaps in the end it was all for the best. I don't forget easily who sent us allied troops *longbowmen for the most* when Spain, with french knights as reinforcements, invaded Portugal in the 14th century. That mythic invincible series of battles where in the decisive one "a force of 7,000 Portuguese annihilated and scattered a Castilian army of 32,000 in little more than thirty minutes of combat". Somehow it reminds me of Helm's Deep when the Elf reinforcements arrived in a most crucial time..also carrying long bowmen

I like to think that those 500 longbowmen weren´t that important to the battle... funny you mention that.....I recenty found a chronicle of a French knight which participated in the battle and he mentions (horse-lovers cover your ears) how their cavalry valourously charged the Portuguese line broke it, got surrounded and their horses killed by unhonourable peasants with polearms and how the screams of the wounded and dying horses broke his heart, while at the same time his comrades in shinning armour were stabbed with daggers and short-swords while defenseless on the ground. He also curses their Spanish allies who "made a fine sight on horse" but prefered to throw their spears or brake them to use them dismounted rather than charge, and left them there to die. It´s a moving story actually. I´ll see if I can find the link for you.

Found only some excerpts that I had copied:

"I must not omit to notice the manner in which the Spaniards generally act in war. It is true they make a handsome figure on horseback, spur off to advantage, and fight well at the first onset; but as soon as they have thrown two or three darts, and given a stroke with their spears, without disconcerting the enemy, they take alarm, turn their horses' heads, and save themselves by flight as well as they can: this game they played at Aljubarota; for they found their enemies obstinate, and as fresh as if they had not had an engagement, which astonished them much; and their surprise was increased by not hearing anything of the van battalion. "

BTW: Found a link about Lusitanos that differ slightly from your post, I wanna know what you think:

http://www.interagro.com.br/hist1.htm

[[cF]HanBaal]

eheh nice Aljubarrota's testemony there Sarcasm, though I'm not surprised at all for seeing a french bragging about himself and diminishing his enemies and even his allies... even if he got totally trashed lol

(...jk frenchies around here :P)


----

BTW: Found a link about Lusitanos that differ slightly from your post, I wanna know what you think

Yup, I read it and the differences it mentions are indeed minimal as I thought before. From what I gathered it says that different (recent) applications between the Lusitanos and the Spanish breeds lead to some differences, being these "aplications" some differences in what bullfights concerns where it said the Portuguese kept choosing to 'bullfight" on horse, while the spanish abandoned these practice as the most usual, 'bullfighting' preferably on foot. Thus, the portuguese favoured more muscular horses, with more 'accelerating/braking' potential ... while the spanish favoured more 'jumping', light ones, since their applications became more 'light', for confortable riding and this happens, according to the site, from the beginings of the XVIIIth century and on.

Ultimately though, they were one and the same for all this centuries and I dunno how much these "selective" recent differences have changed them and how true they are, since I believe (not sure) there still are horses in the spanish bullfights.

I'm not an expert on horses though and now I'm interested to know how relevant are the differences today, between a Pure Lusitano and a Pure Spanish. I'll try to get more informed.

[Red Harvest]

Did the frenchman eat his horse after it was killed? Another French joke...forgive me. Around here folks are real touchy about horse meat, so I couldn't resist. (Can't say that I have a strong opinion one way or another, but I've felt close to some pigs and cattle that I've later eaten--and they were quite tasty. Would seem a waste to eat a trained animal though.)

[Angadil]

I believe (not sure) there still are horses in the spanish bullfights.

I'm not an expert on horses though and now I'm interested to know how relevant are the differences today, between a Pure Lusitano and a Pure Spanish. I'll try to get more informed.

Yes there are. And the folks doing it use both Lusitanos and PRE. I think they choose their horses based on an individual basis, rather than breed. They look for horses which are good for that particular role and they seem to find them in both breeds... which I don't think is any major surprise.

[Sarcasm]

What the author of the article I posted (in Portuguese....which usually spaniards don´t understand or care to understand) is that the Iberian horses from antiquity are still very much alive nowadays, and that the introduction of relatively small ammounts of foreign breeds into a very large indegenous population (estimated at half a million horses) did very little to change the race in a significant way.

He mentions that Spanish bullfights at one point ceased to be made on horseback, around in the 18th century, only to return later, while Portuguese bullfighters kept refinining a type of horse that was ideal to the sport, which the Spanish didn´t have for a century. This horse had great muscular strength, was capable of progressively increase and decrease its speed, and also of sudden accelaration and braking.

With the advent of WWI, horses in general went into decline and only a few isolated Lusitano herds surbvived, which could probably contribute to its separation from the Spanish breeds.

However he states that they are the same horse, the Iberic horse. It has variants all over Portugal and Spain, which differ only in use and as a consequence in morphology.

And that´s probably why the Lusitanos appeared, to my ignorant eyes, to have great differences with the other breeds.

Indeed the Iberian horse, in its various forms, is the best in the world.

On a side note to all the americans of the forum, mustangs and a lot other breeds, are directly or indirectly, descendents of the horses Hannibal took with him across the Alps.

[Angadil]

What the author of the article I posted (in Portuguese....which usually spaniards don´t understand or care to understand) is that the Iberian horses from antiquity are still very much alive nowadays, and that the introduction of relatively small ammounts of foreign breeds into a very large indegenous population (estimated at half a million horses) did very little to change the race in a significant way.

And what sort of proof did he present to back up such a bold statement?

This particular Spaniard understands or cares to understand enough Portuguese to correctly identify attempts to pass speculation as fact, label them as utter bullshit... and not contribute to their spread. Mind you, the fellow who wrote that article could actually be right and I do not have anything against speculation (with some basis) as long as it is clearly announced as such and not as established facts.

And that is not the only example in that article. You didn't find anything funny with claims of Iberia being the first place in the world where mounted warfare happened?

Want to really know if "Iberian horses from antiquity are still much alive today"? (metaphorically speaking, I suppose. Otherwise, I think you can confidently answer "no") Get yourself some horse remains from the period. Extract DNA and compare that with DNA samples from current Iberian horses and from those breeds suspected to have contributed genetic material to Iberian horses along history. That will tell you... to some extent. Even if genetic contributions from outside had been limited, selective breeding, population bottlenecks and other related phenomena can just be enough to produce substantial differences between an initial population and its descendants. After all, all horses, Lusitanos and PREs included, come from a shaggy, short and rather unglamorous pony.

[Sarcasm]

Well this subject is way over my head, I know next to nothing about horse breeds and such. I just basically translated what the Brazilian guy said...I know not in what he bases himself.

I suppose that DNA would be the definite answer to this question...

You take horses seriously!

[Angadil]

You take horses seriously!

Well, I do like horses, but I don't think I take them *that* seriously. I guess I came out a bit terse (sorry) but it wasn't really about horses...

What I take somewhat more seriously is intellectual honesty. It does annoy me when folks try to present what is speculation as proven fact. Mind you, speculation per se is not wrong. We can all engage in it and have tons of fun (sometimes even productive fun) going a bit wild when thinking about our pet topics. But then, we all have the duty to be honest about it and if we go public, label clearly what is speculation and do not try to pass it as something tried, tested and found true.

[Sarcasm]

Hope you´re talking about the author....

[Hakonarson]

The Sacred Band of Astarte was a cavalry unit that wore iron armor and carried a 3.5m lance. They fought in the Greco-steppe manner with a two handed lance. Their horses were barded with iron lamellar. Their horses were a mix of the african (arabian) breed and the andalusian (iberian) breed. They were on a par with Hetairoi or Granpavar (elite) cataphracts, but were trained from birth as property of the temple. A predecessor of the Mamluk, essentially, but from the second and third sons of noble families.

The Iberian heavy cavalry was what hannibal had with him at Cannae. They were (obviously) far superior to the Roman cavalry of the time, made more so by their status as a western sort of very heavy cavalry (think cataphractarii) with barded horses and high quality mail or scale armor. Their only handicap was the smaller spear and shield they carried.

You'll see quite a unique and proper Carthage, I assure you.

Please tell me you are joking about this??

Seriously - yu cannot possibly believe that Spanish horses were armoured, or that Carthaginian cavalry used a 2-handed kontos, or that there were no Gallic cavalry at Carhae?

"Sacred Band of Astarte" - pure fantasy.

Carthaginian sacred bands were:

1/ Always infantry
2/ never heard of after about 300BC.
3/ not partiularly great.

you cannot suggest all this and still say that Carthage will be "proper"??!!

What are your sources?

To the person who asjed the original question - there was little native Carthaginian ("Poeni") Cavalry - the Carthaginians used mercenaries except in dire emergencies.

such Carthaginian cavalry as did exist was much like other "heavy" cavalry of the Western Med in that era - the rider armoured on the torso only and wearing a helmet, carrying a shield and armed with a sword and a thusting spear of moderate length - maybe as long as 2m.

Apart from regional differences in equipment types this remained the "standard" western Mediteranean heavy cavalry for the next 500 years - until Roman cavalry started using composite bows en masse after contact with the Huns.

By far and away hte best source material for this era is

"Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars" - by Duncan Head, published by WRG, and still available in print.

It gives references to the original texts for battle descriptions, and most of het black and whiet line drawings are sourced from contemporary art, statues, carvings, etc.

[Urnamma]

Please tell me you are joking about this??

Nope.

Seriously - you cannot possibly believe that Spanish horses were armoured, or that Carthaginian cavalry used a 2-handed kontos, or that there were no Gallic cavalry at Carhae?

There were no Gallic cavalry at Carrhae. There were Gallic cavalry at Cannae, several thousand.

Carthaginian cavalry did indeed use two handed lances, as did hellenic cavalry of the period. The Carthaginians loved to copy from the Greeks.

1/ Always infantry

Nope. The Sacred Band dedicated to Baal was infantry.

2/ never heard of after about 300BC.

Never heard of in translated Greek and Roman sources. Several mentions go on of Carthaginian soldiers armed and fighting in the same way, they simply don't mention the Sacred Band again. Perhaps they did not tempt fate with such a name again, or perhaps the Greek and Roman sources didn't think they were sacred.

3/ not partiularly great.

According to whom?

you cannot suggest all this and still say that Carthage will be "proper"??!!

Of course I can. You're a ball of arrogance, aren't you.

What are your sources?

Polybius, Livy, Fabius Pictor, Archaeology in Tunisia, my Master's Thesis research on the religion of Ishtar, my status as a Near Eastern Historian, about a hundred journal articles and an equal number of books. I'm pretty well read on Carthage, as it is an extension of my field.

To the person who asjed the original question - there was little native Carthaginian ("Poeni") Cavalry - the Carthaginians used mercenaries except in dire emergencies.

I agree with you. Astarte's Sacred Band only numbered 2,000 at most. The citizen cavalry never numbered much above 5,000. The balance of Carthage's army was made up of mercenaries or African levies.

Poeni (or Puni) is their latin name. They called themselves PNM. (Ponim).

By far and away hte best source material for this era is

"Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars" - by Duncan Head, published by WRG, and still available in print.

It gives references to the original texts for battle descriptions, and most of het black and whiet line drawings are sourced from contemporary art, statues, carvings, etc.

It's a damn good book. I own a copy. It's a bit outdated though, and doesn't contain nearly enough information. At best, it glosses over several important things. By the way, we call this a secondary source. It's not as good as a primary source, like most of the inscriptions, papyri, tablets, etc that I've studied.

[Red Harvest]

My references also show images of armoured hispanic cavalry based on pottery and such.

I didn't know that the Duncan Head book was still available in print. I couldn't find one, even used at a decent price in the US, so I placed an order for a used copy from Australia.

[Hakonarson]

There were no Gallic cavalry at Carrhae. There were Gallic cavalry at Cannae, several thousand.

There were a few thousand Gallic cavalry at Carrhae - sent by Caesar - many of them accompanied Crassus's son's ill-fated counter attack, and htey are specifically mentioned in Plutarch's "life" of Crassus as throwing themselves upon the cataphracts with great bravery, but ultimately being too lightly armed and armoured.

But of course I did mean Cannae, and since you note that there were several thousand of them at that battle why did you say that there were Iberian cavalry there without mentioning the Gauls?

Carthaginian cavalry did indeed use two handed lances, as did hellenic cavalry of the period. The Carthaginians loved to copy from the Greeks.

So much so that they did not use Hoplites, or Thureophoroi, or thorakitai, or Peltasts, or pikemen?

I know that Hellenistic heavy cavalry used the kontos, but then when Phyruss went back from Italy he reintroduced the shield and javelin/short spear, which was how Macedonians were equipped when they fought the Romans in the early 2nd century BC.

I'd be delighted if you can come up with actual concrete evidence of them having used the kontos! Seriously - I would like to know exactly what the references are and I shall pass them on to Duncan Head, who is thinking of revising AMPW.

I've just built a Carthaginian army in plastic figures for the local national wargaming convention at Easter - can you hurry please!!

Nope. The Sacred Band dedicated to Baal was infantry.

I dont' care who they were dedicated to - they are the only ones ever mentioned AFAIK - again chapter and verse would be much appreciated.

I'm not challenging you on this - honestly if you have such information then it represents a major advance in "accepted" knowledge of the Carthaginian armed forces of the era and needs to be disseminated!!

Never heard of in translated Greek and Roman sources. Several mentions go on of Carthaginian soldiers armed and fighting in the same way, they simply don't mention the Sacred Band again. Perhaps they did not tempt fate with such a name again, or perhaps the Greek and Roman sources didn't think they were sacred.

The Carthaginian infantry used after the dropping of the "Sacred Band" name were clearly not the Sacred Band then!!

Fighting the same way? Even the "Sacred Band" of 310 is not mentioned as fighting the same way as that in 341 - what makes you say that those 100 years later were?

I know they existed - there were 12,000 foot and 4,000 mounted at Bagradas, 10,000 mobilised against the Mercenaries in 240 - althopugh both these forces included some mercenaries as well as citizens.

they defended Carthage against the Romans at the end of the 2nd and during the 3rd Punic Wars. There were also "Poeni" at Ibera and "Carthaginians" at Ilipia may have been levies of Carthaginian citizens in Spain.

According to whom?

They are very ordinary according to their battle record!

Certainly they could fight bravely - as did pretty mcuh everyone else - but they were normally defeated!!

2500 citizen infantry fought in Sicily in 341BC - "distinguished by their valour, reputatoin and wealth" and also "by the brilliance of their armour and the slow pace and strict discipline of their advance" - they were wiped out!

The Sacred Band was defeated in Tunis in 310BC, and never heard of again in Latin and Greek sources at least - as you say.

Of course I can. You're a ball of arrogance, aren't you.

I bow to your superior wisdom - I guess I must be! ;)

You are proposing to overthrow "conventional" wisdom about the Carthaginian military, so I'm asking you for your sources and expressing disbelief. As an academic you shoud be quite comfortable with that.

Polybius, Livy, Fabius Pictor, Archaeology in Tunisia, my Master's Thesis research on the religion of Ishtar, my status as a Near Eastern Historian, about a hundred journal articles and an equal number of books. I'm pretty well read on Carthage, as it is an extension of my field.

Letters after your name are an indication of past study, but do not guarantee accuracy - as you should well know.

I would love to see your research - I have Polybios and Livy on my shelves - not Pictor tho - never heard of him.

It's a damn good book. I own a copy. It's a bit outdated though, and doesn't contain nearly enough information. At best, it glosses over several important things. By the way, we call this a secondary source. It's not as good as a primary source, like most of the inscriptions, papyri, tablets, etc that I've studied.

Of course it misses things out - for heaven's sake it covers 200 years of history and a couple of dozen cultures in 192 pages (incl bibliography) - it can only be a once-over.

But it is a very good once over!

Red - it is still available through Essex Minitures for 14 Pounds - http://www.essexminiatures.co.uk/armyenemy.html

[khelvan]

Please tell me you are joking about this??
...
you cannot suggest all this and still say that Carthage will be "proper"??!!

I suspect that he would have been more willing to approach the question academically if these hadn't been included in your original reply.

If you wanted an academic response, devoid of emotion, it would have been best to begin the conversation as such.

[Sarcasm]

Nevertheless, he makes valid points.

I too would like to be proven wrong on the sacred band issue. Honestly.

[Angadil]

Hope you´re talking about the author....

Yes

[Hakonarson]

Yes I did express a bit much surprise in my initial post - my apologies - I've calmed down a bit now!!

If you want to discuss troop representation with Duncan Head, in particular, and others of similar ilk they hang out at a Yahoogroups list called Tabulae_Novae_Exercituum - http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/...ae_Exercituum/

This list is nominally for discussion of new army list ideas for the DBM & DBMM series of figure gaming rules, but has no problems at all discussing "general" military history of the ancient era, concentrating mainly on troop types, their behaviour, equipment and presentation in any wargames - other rules are occasinoaly discussed.

It's a fairly rarified list - moderate activity (10-50 posts/day) of mostly quite serious discussion of original sources, secondary interpretations, etc - I read much more than I post!! :)

[Urnamma]

There were a few thousand Gallic cavalry at Carrhae - sent by Caesar - many of them accompanied Crassus's son's ill-fated counter attack, and htey are specifically mentioned in Plutarch's "life" of Crassus as throwing themselves upon the cataphracts with great bravery, but ultimately being too lightly armed and armoured.

Gallic auxiliary cavalry, equipped as Roman cavalry, possibly. I'd have to check, but anyway.

But of course I did mean Cannae, and since you note that there were several thousand of them at that battle why did you say that there were Iberian cavalry there without mentioning the Gauls?

Because I was talking about the Iberian cavalry. They were Hannibal's elite.

So much so that they did not use Hoplites, or Thureophoroi, or thorakitai, or Peltasts, or pikemen?

Libyans (after Xanthippus) were equipped to fight as Thureophoroi and light hoplites, and Liby-Phoenicians provided a heavy phalanx. This is standard knowledge. Look in Polybius, or any archaeological journal.

I know that Hellenistic heavy cavalry used the kontos, but then when Phyruss went back from Italy he reintroduced the shield and javelin/short spear, which was how Macedonians were equipped when they fought the Romans in the early 2nd century BC.

Ok, we need to stop here for a moment. I'm sorry, but very little DBA 'standard knowledge' stuff is anywhere near reality. The Xystophoroi, Prodromoi, and Hippotaxeis were all used. The old style cavalry (heavily armored with large lances) were still used extensively. Don't believe what wargaming circles tell you...

Read the journal called 'The ancient history Bulletin'. There are several other good ones. Just stop and think for a moment, ok. Why would you get rid of a heavily armored lancer and replace him with a light cavalryman when your enemies are still using better cavalry? The answer is that you wouldn't. Light and heavy cavalry are part of the battle line.

'd be delighted if you can come up with actual concrete evidence of them having used the kontos! Seriously - I would like to know exactly what the references are and I shall pass them on to Duncan Head, who is thinking of revising AMPW.

There is a big problem here. Firstly, the American Journal of Ancient History has the published findiings. There are some French journals that have more in depth coverage.

I've just built a Carthaginian army in plastic figures for the local national wargaming convention at Easter - can you hurry please!!

I don't mean any disrespect, but serious historians think of the wargaming 'historian' community as a gigantic joke. I say this because, though Duncan Head's book you mentioned is a good book, it is by no means as serious as many, many others. Peter Connolly wrote a much better volume (though I think he is a bit Romanophilic).

Even the Osprey's 'Armies of the Carthaginian Wars' will validate my claims.

The Carthaginian infantry used after the dropping of the "Sacred Band" name were clearly not the Sacred Band then!!

Fighting the same way? Even the "Sacred Band" of 310 is not mentioned as fighting the same way as that in 341 - what makes you say that those 100 years later were?

I know they existed - there were 12,000 foot and 4,000 mounted at Bagradas, 10,000 mobilised against the Mercenaries in 240 - althopugh both these forces included some mercenaries as well as citizens.

they defended Carthage against the Romans at the end of the 2nd and during the 3rd Punic Wars. There were also "Poeni" at Ibera and "Carthaginians" at Ilipia may have been levies of Carthaginian citizens in Spain.

1. If Delta Force starts calling itself Beta Force, will it be the same elite unit?

2 & 3. The 'Sacred Band' of the mid 200's AD fought as a heavy phalanx. Read up on the Mammertine wars... once again, only books of serious academic historians.

4. Citizens do not equal Sacred Band. Carthaginian citizens outside of elite units did not fight very often.

They are very ordinary according to their battle record!

Certainly they could fight bravely - as did pretty mcuh everyone else - but they were normally defeated!!

2500 citizen infantry fought in Sicily in 341BC - "distinguished by their valour, reputatoin and wealth" and also "by the brilliance of their armour and the slow pace and strict discipline of their advance" - they were wiped out!

The Sacred Band was defeated in Tunis in 310BC, and never heard of again in Latin and Greek sources at least - as you say.

Have you ever read anything about them from a Punic author? History is written by the victors, as you well know.

You are proposing to overthrow "conventional" wisdom about the Carthaginian military, so I'm asking you for your sources and expressing disbelief. As an academic you shoud be quite comfortable with that.

I'm not seeking to overthrow conventional academic wisdom, but conventional wargamer wisdom. Therefore, I can safely hide behind just about every credible historian who has written about the Punic Wars, and other Near Eastern historians who research Carthage.

Letters after your name are an indication of past study, but do not guarantee accuracy - as you should well know.

I would love to see your research - I have Polybios and Livy on my shelves - not Pictor tho - never heard of him.

I hate to sound like an ass, but can you read Greek, Latin, Punic? Do you have access to academic journals. I've already named a few. And to get a proper understanding of Polybius, you must read the Greek. Search for the archaeological findings. I'm not going to go to the library, get the journals in question, scan them, and post them here. I'll give you the opportunity to do that though. I've already named both that have said information, as well as a few others:

Journal of Near Eastern Studies.
Bryn Mawr Classical Review.

I don't mean to come off like an ass, or insult your hobby. But I do this for a living! I read this stuff, have busted my ass digging in the Tunisian desert. I've never been into DBA because they are simply not thorough enough with their research methods, and there is very little professional peer review and commentary going on. A hobbyist with no archaeological, academic, or linguistic (Greek, Latin, Punic, Celtic, what have you), is not something I'd consider a source worth taking information from, much less quoting in a journal article, research paper, dissertation, what have you.

[Hakonarson]

Perhaps you should take a bit more note of het "wargaming" community then - the likes of Nick Secunda, Nigel Tallis, Duncan Head, Ian Heath, etc are apparently well respected authors - I've seen their works in bibliographies of authors like Peter Connelly!

I'm certainly not in their league, and I do not read Latin or Greek, but there are many wargamers who do - Phil Barker of WRG's rules fame is one for example - having had an English Public School education including Classical latin and having been bought up on many of these works. He also has had access to the University of Manchester Library until recently via his wife, and buys history texts "by the cubic metre"!

Being a "respected author" doesn't stop people for making major mistakes - eg Peter Connelly's putting Macedonians at Zama just because Polybios (or was it Livy?) does so - despite the fact that Rome and Macedonia were not at war, the romans controlled the seas and Carthaginian coast, and the original source was a rabid-Romanophil ensuring that posterity had ample justification for the later Roman declaration of war upon Macedonia.

Wargamers are well aware of "main stram" historians - the Delbruk's etc - their works get massive amounts of discussion. Many wargamers are PhD's already.

Perhaps it is the "serious" historians who are missing out by treating the works of enthusiasts with such disdain?

Except of course I see you use Osprey as sources.........

Now I don't know you - I don't know anything about what you've written - but I do know that you claim authority in the era/area - and I would like you toshow me why you deserve such authority.

Claiming knowledge of "hundreds of articles", and un-named authors is a cheap smoke screen unless you are willing to identify them so others can look them up!

What's the problem with the American Journal of Ancient History? Or various other professional jouranls? Many wargamers subscribe to them - I have myself a few years ago - AJAH and JRS but there was a lot of "noise" for the amount of military info I could get out of them so I stopped.

Wargamers are picky too - suggest something in my wargaming circle and you'll be pilloried unless your sources and logic are impecable. And if they are good then you'll get people to discuss it. claim that it must be so because the ruels say so, or such and such a modern author says so and you'll be asked for THEIR sources - which is why Head is goo - he links back to the original sources directly in the text - saves a lot of time.

So again - please let me know your sources, because I am actually very interested in them!

Edit - I wrote the above at the end of hte working day, and didn't have Livy to hand.

You ask why the Greeks would change from the Xyston to a shield/spear combinatoin - my take is that:

1/ a shield helps an individual stay alive, and the greeks had not previously had the skills to use a shield and weapon at the same time on horseback - so using a shield was a very good thing for individuals - a soldier's main concern is usually staying alive!

2/ there was no great loss of effectiveness in the swap. I believe here in the west we are firmly mythologised by the Middle Ages into thinking that lances were the greatest of cavalry weapons, despite centuries of people using all sorts of other weapons on horseback.

Even when lances were adopted (the Kontos) by later Romans, etc., most cavalry still used shorter spears of bows - the Goths that sacked Rome probably used short spears, but still apparently charged at a gallop - the horse was as much of a weapon as the lance vs a man on foot.

I've got to go cook tea now, but I shall return later with hte evidence from Livy that supports the Greeks being javelin armed by the time of the Roman invasion of Macedonia.

[Hakonarson]

Livy XXXI.35 - the Romans in Greece in 200BC, Penguin translation ed. Bettey Radice, pg 55.

...The King's forces (ie the Macedonians) took it for granted that the type of fighting would be what they were used to, that is, that hte cavalry would advance and retreat alternately, discharging their weapons and retiring; and that the speed of the Illyrians would be effective in quick dashes and sudden charges....."

Which sounds a lot more like cavalry armed with javelins than Xystophoroi.

In addition the Amelius Paulus monument clearly shows cavalry that can only be in hte Macedonian army that are armed with javelins and shields.

In addition there are a number of possible triggers for shields beign adoted by the Greems - the appearance of Tarentine mercenaries in the last 10 yrs of hte 4th century BC - leading to a troop type called "Tarentines" even when they were not from that city (javelin and shield cavalry), Phyruss's encounters with shielded Italian cavalry both for and against him when in Italy in the 270's, and the near contemporaneous explosion of hte Galatians into Greece in 279-ish.

So there's monumental evidence, literary evidence (albeit I only know of Livy), and circumstantial evidence for Greek cavalry adopting shields.

Of course I do hasten to add that I am not suggestign by any means that ALL greek and macedonian cavalry did so - I don't have enough informatoin to even begin making that claim, and clearly many Helenistic cavalry from Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt did not make the change until very late - basically when they were conquered and/or absorbed by Rome.

As for the Gauls at Carrhae - AFAIK the regularisation of Auxilia didn't occur until the time of Augustus, so in 53BC they were still using their native equipment and probably organisatoin.

[Urnamma]

Perhaps you should take a bit more note of het "wargaming" community then - the likes of Nick Secunda, Nigel Tallis, Duncan Head, Ian Heath, etc are apparently well respected authors - I've seen their works in bibliographies of authors like Peter Connelly!

Nick Secunda in particular uses a lot of shoddy evidence to justify his claims of 'imitation legionaries'. When their works are good, people take notice. But how many of those books are in said bibliographies... maybe 10% at most. That's not a ratio of accuracy that I would hold myself to.

I'm certainly not in their league, and I do not read Latin or Greek, but there are many wargamers who do - Phil Barker of WRG's rules fame is one for example - having had an English Public School education including Classical latin and having been bought up on many of these works. He also has had access to the University of Manchester Library until recently via his wife, and buys history texts "by the cubic metre"!

Yes, and most professors of Classics or History have three times that amount of education. No disrespect to Mr Barker, I'm sure he's a very intelligent man. DBA and other wargames are very fun, I'm not saying they aren't. But remember, it's a game researched primarily by non-professionals, most of which have only a rudimentery grasp of archaeology.

Wargamers are well aware of "main stram" historians - the Delbruk's etc - their works get massive amounts of discussion. Many wargamers are PhD's already.

Like I said, wargaming is a fun hobby (a bit expensive for me right now, but fun).

Perhaps it is the "serious" historians who are missing out by treating the works of enthusiasts with such disdain?

Except of course I see you use Osprey as sources.........

I don't use osprey as a source, I was using it as a reference. Some osprey books are well researched and very interesting. Others are, quite simply, pure drek. Especially the use of bright colors in the art.

Now I don't know you - I don't know anything about what you've written - but I do know that you claim authority in the era/area - and I would like you toshow me why you deserve such authority.

Claiming knowledge of "hundreds of articles", and un-named authors is a cheap smoke screen unless you are willing to identify them so others can look them up!

What's the problem with the American Journal of Ancient History? Or various other professional jouranls? Many wargamers subscribe to them - I have myself a few years ago - AJAH and JRS but there was a lot of "noise" for the amount of military info I could get out of them so I stopped.

I listed the journals that my article and the articles of others on said subject were printed in! Those are great journals.

Wargamers are picky too - suggest something in my wargaming circle and you'll be pilloried unless your sources and logic are impecable. And if they are good then you'll get people to discuss it. claim that it must be so because the ruels say so, or such and such a modern author says so and you'll be asked for THEIR sources - which is why Head is goo - he links back to the original sources directly in the text - saves a lot of time.

Well, I tell ya what. You go ahead and send me a PM, and perhaps we can discuss this over MSN messenger, or through email. I'd much prefer that, and you sound like someone who honestly wants to learn about it. Would that be ok for you?

[Sarcasm]

That way the rest of us will miss out on this VERY interesting debate....I bet there are a few lurkers here that are following this, just like me.

I humbly ask that you maintain the discussion here.

[Hakonarson]

Indeed.

Simply listing the journals is not adequate - and never has been - pelase give the volume numbers, and authors' names and article titles would be useful too!!

Your "classics professors" with "three times that education" are probably not military men - there are any number of "classic" balls up made by historians (including classicists) interpreting military history when they have no knowledge of things military themselves - being a classics professor is no guarantee of having a good knowledge of practical military possibilities!!

Ospreys do indeed come in many flavours of competance - just like academic texts!

Personally I greatly prefer the opinions of people who look at problems from several angles - including such non-classical aspects as crowd dynamics, psychology, practical metallurgy and horsemanship..... among others!

So again - please provide references - mentions of the journals is not sufficient - you'd not be able to get away with it in a thesis or even an undergraduate essay, so I see no reason why you should think it's OK here.

A simple bibliography would be fine - even just pointers to an article on each of the three areas I found so odd - horse armour for Iberian and Carthaginian Cavalry, and use of het Xyston by Carthaginian cavalry.

I do hope your horse armour references are more than Connelly uses - that broad chest strap has no place being called armour.......

[Urnamma]

1/ a shield helps an individual stay alive, and the greeks had not previously had the skills to use a shield and weapon at the same time on horseback - so using a shield was a very good thing for individuals - a soldier's main concern is usually staying alive!

A spear that is 1.5 meters longer than the spear of your enemy helps you stay alive too.

In addition the Amelius Paulus monument clearly shows cavalry that can only be in hte Macedonian army that are armed with javelins and shields.

Shoddy reasoning. It shows that some macedonian cavalry were armed with javelin and shield. Perhaps it's showing the Macedonian light cavalry? We have no way of knowing that, and what's more, temple inscriptions at Pergamon, Antioch, Alexandria, several mosaics, archaeological finds in the Fayuum and in Mesopotamia, among many other things clearly show that many Greek cavalry retained the strength and organization of a heavy cavalry arm.

Of course I do hasten to add that I am not suggestign by any means that ALL greek and macedonian cavalry did so - I don't have enough informatoin to even begin making that claim, and clearly many Helenistic cavalry from Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt did not make the change until very late - basically when they were conquered and/or absorbed by Rome.

Once again, you're essentially saying that most cavalry became light cavalry. Perhaps they added more light cavalry, but the medium and heavy cavalry arms were certainly still around. See above.

Your "classics professors" with "three times that education" are probably not military men - there are any number of "classic" balls up made by historians (including classicists) interpreting military history when they have no knowledge of things military themselves - being a classics professor is no guarantee of having a good knowledge of practical military possibilities!!

Playing with plastic figures gives no authority in matters of arms either.

Personally I greatly prefer the opinions of people who look at problems from several angles - including such non-classical aspects as crowd dynamics, psychology, practical metallurgy and horsemanship..... among others!

So again - please provide references - mentions of the journals is not sufficient - you'd not be able to get away with it in a thesis or even an undergraduate essay, so I see no reason why you should think it's OK here.

I see it as 'ok' here because I am not being paid/don't have to do this. I volunteer my time to do this. I 'have' to write papers/publish articles. I'll post some stuff when I have the time, but work comes first, as you well know.

A simple bibliography would be fine - even just pointers to an article on each of the three areas I found so odd - horse armour for Iberian and Carthaginian Cavalry, and use of het Xyston by Carthaginian cavalry.

Long shafts of both oak and cornel wood have been found in discovered storerooms in both ancient Gadir and Utica. This would not be conclusive evidence... if it hadn't been found among a bevy of other cavalry equipment. (REVUE AFRICAINE... 2002 I think)

Iberian horse armor is well attested. If you're a fan of Osprey, look at their sources for the chain armored cavalry horse.

Carthaginian is known through trade records with the Ptolemies, that clearly display the words armor and barding in Greek. No hard evidence has been found. But, as I like to say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Hakonarson]

Certainly killing the other guy first helps you stay alive, but any spear is automatically outranged by any missile weapon, you can generally only kill 1 enemy at a time while more than 1 may be atacking you, and your own spear/lance/whatever generally only faces the front - a shield is a massive improvement in survival equipment for battle!

I did quite specifically note that Pergamene, Seleucid and Ptolemaic cavalry retained the Xyston - my "shoddy reasoning"??

I don't claim any expertise in the era because I play with platic figures. I also play computer games, and with metal fighures!! ;)

In fact I dont CLAIM any particular expertise at all, and you trying to turn this into a personality clash is a cheap shot!

Any knowledge which I HAVE is from 30-odd years as an amteur historian, several yards of bookspace devoted to Penguin, Loeb and other translations in my library, several more yards covered in secondary sources, a 1st degree majoring in history including classics, early 20th cent (ww1 & 2), Engineering, Business Admin, Stats and Math, and including long hours perusing the classics and history sectinos of the university library for over a decade, , and a decade & a half of various forms of re-enactment, including steel , jousting (I don't actually joust but I did my army training with the guy who runs it here & help out a lot) & others.

I know these don't mean much to you - but they weer all damned good fun at het time as well as educational!

I asked Duncan Head about the Iberian & Carthaginian horse armour & weaponry.

I reporduce my question and his reply below so you can corerct any mispreceptions I may have picked up.

I shall look up your references as far as I can, or ask others to do so on my behalf.

Certainly absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - but it is not evidence of presence either - an absence of evidence is nothing more than that - an abssence of evidence. It allows the _possibility_ of whatever is being discussed, but it is NOT an argument for its actual existance!

Hakonarson wrote:
> I'm having a bit of a discussion with a chap about how Carthaginian
> and Iberian cavalry should be depicted in Rome Total War - he's thrown
> me a massive curve ball by claiming that horse armour was common for
> both, and that Carthaginian cavalry also commonly used the Xyston in
> the Macedonian manner - ie shield less, 2 handed - in
> DB* they would be Kn(F).

I think the horse-armour is a fantasy. There's no new academic line that I'm aware of, though one could well follow arguments similar to Luke's on Republican-Roman-cavalry-as-KN(I) to argue for a slightly greater reliance on thrusting-spears, at least among the Iberians, than we've stressed before - but as part of a tactical range that includes javelin-throwing, classic DBM Cv.

AFAIK there are two lines of argument that have led to horse-armour.
One is the Connolly illustrations you mention, which show Carthaginian cavalry in Hellenistic-style frontal horse-armour. The pieces Connolly illustrates are copied from those on the Pergamon reliefs. First, these post-date the second Punic War: the reliefs are mid-second century, and the general theory is that horse-armour was not much used in the Hellenistic world before Antiochos III introduced cataphract-armour around 200BC. Second, there's no evidence at all for this armour even in the Hellenistic world except in Asia.

The second possible line of argument is the reconstruction of an Iberian cavalryman on a mail-armoured horse in Martinez' Osprey volume "Rome's Enemies 4: Spanish Armies" - reproduced at http://www.historialago.com/leg_iber...erreros_01.htm . It is based on one vase where a horse is depicted with a cross-hatched pattern all over it, which Martinez thinks is mail. It's a dubious argument, particularly since (a) the pattern covers the legs right down to the hooves, (b) there's no mention of horse-armour in the written sources. The other recent illustrated reconstruction of Spanish troops, Cueto's "Los Mercenarios Espanoles de Hanibal", comes up with a completely different reconstruction. Even if this particular vase _does_ show mail horse-armour, which I'm fairly sure it doesn't, it is one out of literally hundreds of depictions of Iberian cavalry on vases, statuettes and coins, all the others showing unarmoured horses.

Most of the sources for Spanish cavalry also show short spears and small round shields. A few do show longer spears levelled in the charge - there are some at
http://www.ateneacoleccion.com/tiend...r.asp?caract=3 But it is not clear that these are as long as Macedonian xysta, it is not clear in any depiction that they are being used two-handed, and some coins show them being used in conjunction with the larger shields I discussed in AMPW under the figure of the scale-armoured cavalryman.

Carthaginian cavalry-weaponry we have very little solid evidence for.
There is that terracotta disc with a horseman with spear and shield, widely reproduced - can't find it on the web, but it must be out there somewhere! - but that's pre-Punic Wars, 4th-century or even earlier. Look at Appian, the duel between Hannibal and Masinissa at Zama and I think the Third Punic War narrative, and you'll find references to Carthaginian cavalry with thrown spears and shields.

Have a look at http://www.ffil.uam.es/equus/warmas/default.html - Quesada de Sanz' site on Iberian weapons. He's one of the leading archaeologists in the field, and he gives his email address; maybe he's worth asking?

Other useful sites:

http://www.historialago.com/leg_iberos.htm
http://www.maderuelo.com/historia_y_...hierro_guerrer
o.html
Maybe http://www.celtiberia.net/index.asp

cheers,
Duncan

[Urnamma]

Firstly, I'll appologize for my tone, which has become out of line. As a military historian, I deal with a lot of wargamers. As you well know, quite a few of them are misconcieved. That's no excuse for being an ass though. I'll continue our discussion with more professionalism.

I think the horse-armour is a fantasy. There's no new academic line that I'm aware of, though one could well follow arguments similar to Luke's on Republican-Roman-cavalry-as-KN(I) to argue for a slightly greater reliance on thrusting-spears, at least among the Iberians, than we've stressed before - but as part of a tactical range that includes javelin-throwing, classic DBM Cv.

Wargaming allows for a lot of abstraction. In general, cavalry is specialized to it's job. For shock cavalry to have javelins.. well, you know where this line of argumentation is going. We have the ability in EB to show the specialized units, and also make the AI rely mainly on historical cavalry types (like ιππακοντισται and ταραντινοι), but still have the heavy cavalry. You made a generalization at first, about cavalry, which I took to mean heavy cavalry. Heavy cavalry, by definition, are generally lancers. These types of cavalry certainly still existed in the Successor States. To argue against this, quite frankly, is folly.

Now, the horse armor. Connolly has a problem with the actual depiction of the horse armor. Namely, Carthaginian horse armor would have been destroyed by the Romans. Now, we've found several tablets in a temple of Astarte (account books) that detail the heavy cavalry (Sacred Band) equipment. You'll see the product of that detail in EB. I can't give you the sources for that beyond artifact numbers... The data is unpublished (part of which will be published by me. PM me an email address and I'll make sure to send you a link to the publication when it is indeed finished).

Now, as to Iberians, more vases have been found depicting horse armor in the same way as Mr. Head stated. However, the opinion is divided on this issue. Many think it is felt barding, others think it is chain. (I am of the latter school). This explains why heavy cavalry under Hannibal was so nastily effective, if it is chain.

Our Iberian cavalry will not!, I repeat will not! have two handed lances. They never have. A shorter lance and a shield is their armament.

Appian was describing other numidian cavalry, not carthaginians. I've seen the terra cotta disc in question, but as he said, it is earlier than 270 B.C.

Insofar as new data on carthies go, we have Fabius Pictor, freshly dug up (in 1998 actually) and as yet still untranslated. This is how we know Libyans fought in a Hellenized manner (with an overhand spear and thureos shield, as well as javelins). Carthaginian cavalry is not covered there, unfortunately. I did reference the finiding of the cornel and oak lance shafts, most of which were 3.5 to 4m in length.

On the carthaginian army, there is a lot of divided opinion. I have mine, and others have their own. But as I said, I think above referenced find is pretty significant. The tablet found in utica (containing temple account records) proved two things actually. The cavalry equipment of Astarte's Chosen, and that the Carthaginians used double entry book-keeping (which was confirmed at a find in Sidon for all Phoenicians). I'm proud to say I worked on the translation of that tablet (I'm writing on Ishtar worship throughout antiquity), and you will find the results published early next year.

[[cF]HanBaal]

Great discussion both of you

And I was geting worried you were not going to draw your main guns Urnamma!
Excelent last post..though not much was news to me *thx to you know who* :P

note: shouldn't we keep some of that exclusive info out of the public though, at least till our public release Matt? Only saying this looking at recent treacheries/leaks/imitations by 3rd parties of course...

[Sarcasm]

Great discussion! I´enjoying it thoroughly. When you do publish your work Unramma, don´t be shy and let this community know where to find it. Although I may not agree with you on ocasion...

So you´ve been betrayed by someone in the team? Those are the kind of things that can damage a mod entirely, not too mention your own feelings...

Only got 2 questions.....

Who was the idiot?

Where do I find him?