Re: carthage...sucks?
There has always been doubt whether or not the Carthaginian military is (was) weaker than the Roman ones as they fight. Though there has been no doubt that Rome won the wars (could anybody doubt that?), the dispute over the true strength of the Carthaginian military forces versus the Roman one is a never-ending issue. Indeed, most people believe, quite blindly in fact, that Roman legionaries were the super tactic that won over every single foe they ever met.
The truth is different.
Though I must credit the Romans for such a powerful propaganda that still possess a very, very strong effect on modern minds (just look at Hollywood...) the Roman warfare tactics were not invincible. They (the tactics evolved overtime) were excellent tactics by any means; very flexible and are (were) especially effective against less flexible enemies - in other words, the phalanx tactics as a whole.
The belief - or what I'd rather call the myth - of the Carthaginian military being weak and ineffective comes mainly from 19th century scholars who considered the Roman republic/empire as a godly model of a nation-state. They discredited the Carthaginian military force as ineffective because these scholars viewed mercenaries - what made up most of the Carthaginian armies - as inferior to "idealistic middle-class volunteers of the nation." However, it is clear that the mercenary army of Carthage is actually an effective fighting force. The records are, in fact, surprisingly clean. Only one major rebellion has occured in the entire history: the so-called "Slave War" between the unpaid mercenaries (who fought devotedly for Carthage under Hasdrubal Barca, father of Hannibal, in Sicily for decades - with no pay except war loot) who tried to demand their wages and the bankrupt Carthage that could not (or, as some say, the Carthaginian senate would not) pay them. The result was a bitter fighting, perfect for a Roman writer to record it just as an event in a rival nation and for later scholars to intrepet it all they want. No other major rebellions by the mercenary armies had been recorded - certainly a surprisingly loyal army as the men were not fighting for their homes or nations, and even their pay was often lacking, don't you think?
Also, the Carthaginian cavalry - or more specifically the Numidian cavalry, the Iberian cavalry, and a few Carthaginian elite units (and by elite I mean true elites) are far superior to the Roman (Italian) cavalry. The debate over the horses and their skills are endless, but can be summarized as that the Iberian (Spanish) horse was - and is, even if their genetics has changed - famous as a powerful warhorse indeed, and that the Numidian (African) horse was nimble and swift, perfect for hit-and-run tactics. Carthage seems to bred a mix of these two horse species as a balanced and powerful horse used across the Carthaginian empire. Indeed, Hannibal's cavalry were rightly feared as they were the vital part - Hannibal's hammer - against the Romans in battle. And Zama, a great Roman victory, was known for the Numidians supporting Rome's army in battle, and not as well known that the supremely powerful Carthaginian cavalry unit: the fearsome Sacred Band (cavalry), was not present in that battle.
However, the infantry was certainly what was recognized by historians and those who didn't know as much as what Rome was superior. Indeed, there is no point of arguing against that. However, the African units - the Libyan spearmen and the Phoenicians of Libyan descend (outside the city of Carthage) served in the Carthaginian army as phalanx units - were considered an equal to their legionary foes. Of course, the inherent weakness of the phalanx against the more flexible legions applies here, but, if we're talking about quality of men, of gear, of motivation, and such - these men were the equals of Roman citizens. The "foreign" elements in the Carthaginian army (that made up the majority of it) had varying skills and motivation overall. The Greeks and Macedonians were considered "elite" or at least "skilled," and the Macedonian mercenaries were the last to break at Zama. The Iberians, though skilled fighters (the Romans copied MUCH from the Scutarii warriors of the Iberian tribes - these men fight basically like any legionary would fight: with large shield, short sword, and javelin), were not as motivated to serve their Carthaginian masters as they would protect their own homelands. The Gauls, too, suffer from the same lack of motivation, as has been demonstrated clearly at the battle of Cannae, where Hannibal cleverly used them in the middle, with motives that are disputed (as ever...), but I believe he used them there because they were more expendable than others and that it is harder to run from the center than from the flank.
It is also notable that the Phoenician militias (of the CITY of Carthage), that only was used in emergency, when went into battle were very well armed, but rather ineffective. The mercenaries were superior in battle than the poorly trained militia drafted in desperation. These men were the citizens of the city of Carthage (represented, I believe, as the Poeni infantry in vanilla), and was loyal and desperately brave to protect their city - unfortunately, they break and run when things got bad, as in Zama.
Otherwise, there are smaller mercenary elements in the Carthaginian military also: the Balearic slingers, for example, were considered as the best "ranged force" in the Western Mediterranean.
In other words, the original Rome: Total War portrayal of the Carthaginian army is inaccurate, especially when it comes to the cavalry and the mercenaries. The game seems to suggest that Carthage will have to nationalize their army to be of any good.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks