Carthaginian Pikemen?

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

I was kinda curious about EB's "Elite African Pikemen" that are pictured above...I've been trying to find out if Carthage did in fact use the Sarissa, but Polybius doesn't seem to mention it.

However I have found a couple of fairly reliable websites that do mention Carthage using Phalangites in some form.

I was wondering if an EB member could clear this up, I'm very curious...

Thanks...

[jerby]

well, the 2handed pike-animation isn't finished yet, i guess.
but you can see their(pretty large) shield is strapped on their arm (i can see a hand).

so their probably sarrissa wielding, but i dont have any source,, maybe google

[Krusader]

There were indeed pikemen in the Carthaginian army. These above where the elite though, you can kind of say the "Argyraspids/Silver Shields of the Carthaginian infantry". According to 'Warfare in the Classical World' by John Warry, Carthage had these spearmen in their armies, as they had faced the Greek colonies on Sicily in many wars and adopted the phalanx formation and equipment.

I can't remember where I read it, but the Pikemen that was with Hannibal had been equipped with sarissas, due to contact with the Ptolemaioi, and perhaps other Diadochi. And Carthaginians seem to have gone on pilgrimage to Tyre and Phoenicia, as when Alexander the Great sacked Tyre and enslaved it's population, he allowed Carthaginian pilgrims to leave Tyre safely. So they could have seen Alexander's phalanx in action, as well as the armies of the Diadochi.

Maybe another EB member can explain this more thouroghly. So far this is from what I remember by reading, not specific sources.

[conon394]

Krusader

None of that is positive evidence for a Macedonian style phalanx.
Perhaps most critically, when Polybius (a Greek with first hand experience with Macedonia troops, Greek hoplites, and Roman/Italian troops) describes Zama he does not use any of the technical terms that are associated with the Macedonian style phalanxs when noting the Carthaginians

[Mr Frost]

Krusader

None of that is positive evidence for a Macedonian style phalanx.
Perhaps most critically, when Polybius (a Greek with first hand experience with Macedonia troops, Greek hoplites, and Roman/Italian troops) describes Zama he does not use any of the technical terms that are associated with the Macedonian style phalanxs when noting the Carthaginians

Mabey they had changed by the battle of Zama , or were capable of fighting in several different styles like a Hypasist ?

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

There were indeed pikemen in the Carthaginian army. These above where the elite though, you can kind of say the "Argyraspids/Silver Shields of the Carthaginian infantry". According to 'Warfare in the Classical World' by John Warry, Carthage had these spearmen in their armies, as they had faced the Greek colonies on Sicily in many wars and adopted the phalanx formation and equipment.

I own "Warfare in the Classical World" as well and I do not see the reference you mention. Especially because the Sicilian Greeks (Syracuse, namely) did not use Phalangites...they stuck to the classical Greek phalanx. However, I believe that somewhere between Pyrrhus' campaigns aganist Carthage (in Sicily) and the the First Punic War the Punic army did adopt phalangites in some form.

It makes perfect sense, because during this time Carthage began to include other Hellenistic elements in her armies....Hetarioi-like cavalry and the combined arms tactics of the Sucessors, for example.

It's also worth mentioning that the Libyans (who made up most of Carthage's phalanx troops) were trained as Pikemen by both the Ptolemies and the city-state of Cyrene. It is not out of the question that Libyans in the service of Carthage also wielded the Sarissa (or something similar) in battle.

Perhaps most critically, when Polybius (a Greek with first hand experience with Macedonia troops, Greek hoplites, and Roman/Italian troops) describes Zama he does not use any of the technical terms that are associated with the Macedonian style phalanxs when noting the Carthaginians

True, but Polybius is rather vague for being a military man. He refers to both Macedonian and Carthaginian troops as "Hoplites". However it is interesting that in book 18 when he talks about the "Advantages and disadvantages of the Phalanx" he mentions Hannibal and the Carthaginians right alongside the armies of Pyrrhus and the Macedonians (who both used pikemen).

[conon394]

Xanthippus of Sparta

Good points…

I certainly won’t disagree that hoplite and phalanx are used rather indiscriminately by even the most careful and experienced Greek historians (like Polybius or Arrian, who also often used hoplite when he was clearly referring to Macedonian style infantry).
Given the lack of a definite statement about the nature of the troops in question and the lack of archaeological evidence I suppose you can argue the point either way.

What I do think is that most people make a logical mistake in assuming a progression of infantry: hoplite phalanx - supplanted by the spurious ‘Iphikrates hoplite’– supplanted by Macedonian system – in turn defeated by legions. If you do make that assumption, you almost have to assume Hannibal was deploying a Macedonian system, because the other phalanx was hopelessly outdated. I don’t see that the Macedonian system necessarily is either better than the older Greek system or that either of them are inferior to the legion. The key really was in my opinion professionalism. A good, but overlooked example is the performance of the 1000 strong body of Athenian ‘select’ hoplites in the 4th and 3rd centuries. The Athenian select hoplites not only performed well against the Gauls, but in the period from 307 BC to Ipsus, they formed one of Demetrius’ key infantry units defeating Macedonian style troops on several occasions.

It's also worth mentioning that the Libyans (who made up most of Carthage's phalanx troops) were trained as Pikemen by both the Ptolemies and the city-state of Cyrene. It is not out of the question that Libyans in the service of Carthage also wielded the Sarissa (or something similar) in battle.

Can you cite a source for that? The Ptolemies were none to eager to train non-Macedonians or non-Greeks in their military techniques. Only desperation before Raphia drove them to train a native phalanx, which they subsequently regretted. The Ptolemies would not even loan Carthage money during the Punic wars, because they were afraid of damaging their relation with Rome, why would they train Carthy soldiers? Seeing as Carthage was a potential rival in North Africa. As for Cyrene, essentially as I noted above I don’t think one need assume all Greeks adopted the Macedonia system.

[Krusader]

@Xanthipus:

My bad. Should have checked that paragraph for errors. What I meant was that the phalanx formation and equipment came into Carthaginian armies through wars with Syracuse, not the phalangite equipment like the sarissa.

I will get Urnamma to answer this question as soon as he pops on MSN. He knows most about this kind of info.

[CBR]

And a phalanx system will always have the disadvantage of using one line only. Polybius mentions how a Macedonian soldier cant operate on his own compared to a Roman soldier but also how a phalanx doesnt have any reserves and therefore is weak when holes appear in the line because of fighting/terrain.

Hannibal was a great general but he didnt have the same flexible organisation as the Romans. Even at Zama where he used three lines, each line was a seperate part of the army.

So Hoplites or Phalangites, Pyrrhus or Hannibal, spear or pike, they were using the same inflexible Phalanx system.


CBR

[Greek_fire19]

So....we're 8 posts (9 now) in on a topic entitled 'carthaginian pikemen?' and it's ALREADY a legion vs phalanx argument?

Geez guys, I thought this one had finally been done to death.

[CBR]

Hm no not really. Its more a question of what phalanx is. When Polybius talks of the weaknesses of a phalanx it doesnt have to be sarissa armed phalanx. And AFAIK there is not much evidence for Carthaginian pikes so I find it important to try and understand what Polybius means when he talks of both Hannibal, Pyrrhus and Macedonian armies.


CBR

[hoom]

I've been finding this to be a very interesting conundrum too.

There seems primarily to be a big lack of info in general.

It seems clear that they fought as hoplites of some type during the Sicilian wars.

The Carthaginians must have been well aware of the Macedonian phalanx with Carthaginian traders all over the Mediterranean including at Tyre during the seige (not that the phalanx would ever have formed at that battle...).

Certainly they had direct military contact with the Macedonian phalanx in Pyrrus' Sicilian expedition during which he kicked ass.
I would presume that indicates that the Carthies weren't using the Macedonian phalanx at that time (or they were doing it poorly at best).

Its hard to see how or why Carthage would have not taken up the Macedonian style when taking up other Greek/Macedonian unit types/styles.

Hannibal at least certainly must have understood the Macedonian phalanx since he was well aware of the exploits of Alexander & Pyrrus.
I would also assume he & other Carthies would have been following the progress of the Diadochi.

Polybius' early mention & writing off of Hannibal in that 'why the Roman style is better than the phalanx' bit seems to be pretty strong evidence for a Carthaginian Pike phalanx.
Its obvious that he expected the first criticism of the piece to be along the lines of "But Hannibal used a pike phalanx & he kicked our asses many times with it" so he tried to brush that off with 'but Hannibal was a superb & inventive general so that doesn't count & anyway he requipped his troops asap with better Roman gear'

What detail of the battles I've been able to find/read seem rather contradictory.

For example, the Diadochi normally used light troops to screen & skirmish while the phalanx formed up and yet at Cannae Hannibal used his Heavy Africans (who would have been the phalank if there was one) in combination with the light troops to screen while the Celts & Spanish formed behind them.
I guess if the Africans did the Alexander style javelin throwing peltast/pike bearing phalangite double act this would make sense, with the Africans initially deploying in peltast mode then reforming on the flank of the main line with their pikes.

But then, Hannibal only had relatively few of those troops and given that the Macedonian phalanx was weak on the flank (presumably this was reasonably well known back then?) it would seem silly to split an already small contingent, providing much more flank exposure, so this seems like it indicates a non-phalanx.

At Zama the Romans seemed to be in trouble head to head with the veterans until the cavalry came back & flanked them.
This seems fairly unlikely unless they were a pike phalanx.

Obviously Hannibal had plenty of sword or short spear troops in the form of Spanish & Celtic troops and it seems to me that they would have been likely to be the primary targets of rearmament with captured Roman gear while the Africans were seemingly equipped by Carthage.

Looking forward to read more on this from people who have actually read a significant amount on the topic/knowledge of the current academic progress.

[pezhetairoi]

As I understand it (reading Adrian Goldsworthy's The Punic Wars) the flanking movement carried out by our good friend Hannibal the Cannaebal at Cannae was carried out by 'spear-armed Africans' of superior discipline, who wheeled neatly to catch the entrapped Romans. Of course, this is no confirmation of whether the Africans were Libyan-Spearmen sort of melee spearmen, or phalanx units, but I think it is telling that the Romans all avoided engaging the Africans, instead engaging the gaulish spear-and-spatha-armed gaesatae and spanish falcata-armed melee infantry in the bulging centre. Maybe this says something about the natural repulsion of a line of pointy sticks to any melee infantry with only a very short weapon, especially when there's easier prey to be had that have only equally short weapons? o_o

[CBR]

For example, the Diadochi normally used light troops to screen & skirmish while the phalanx formed up and yet at Cannae Hannibal used his Heavy Africans (who would have been the phalank if there was one) in combination with the light troops to screen while the Celts & Spanish formed behind them.

Hm you thinking about Polybius' description? AFAIK he use the word "Lonchophoroi" which is best translated into javelinmen. And that also fits the picture as one would use light troops to cover the army while forming up.

At Zama the Romans seemed to be in trouble head to head with the veterans until the cavalry came back & flanked them.
This seems fairly unlikely unless they were a pike phalanx.

The final phase at Zama was Hannibal's veterans versus all three elements of Scipio's army: Hastati who had done most of the fighting, Principes who might have done a bit and then the fresh Triarii. I dont see why Hannibal's veterans couldnt be equal to the Roman army and doesnt matter what type of arms they used: Roman style, spears or pikes.

It was normal practice for a pike phalanx to be positioned in the center but at Trebbia it was the Gauls. Now of course Hannibal loved to use a weak center but a pike phalanx is not the best unit to deal with flanking attacks so why take the risk?

We cant be sure how much of the Roman equipment they used as the words used by the sources could mean both arms and armour or just one of them.


CBR

[CBR]

...but I think it is telling that the Romans all avoided engaging the Africans, instead engaging the gaulish spear-and-spatha-armed gaesatae and spanish falcata-armed melee infantry in the bulging centre. Maybe this says something about the natural repulsion of a line of pointy sticks to any melee infantry with only a very short weapon, especially when there's easier prey to be had that have only equally short weapons? o_o

Well you could take a look at the illustration of the battle formation in Goldsworthy's book and then you will notice the Africans were behind the line so Romans couldnt engage them at all

They were basically hidden from view and perhaps formed in a column ready for the soldiers to do 90 degree turn and march inwards to hit advancing/pursuing Romans in the flank. A maneuver that could be done by any well trained unit regardless of equipment.


CBR

[conon394]

And a phalanx system will always have the disadvantage of using one line only. Polybius mentions how a Macedonian soldier cant operate on his own compared to a Roman soldier but also how a phalanx doesnt have any reserves and therefore is weak when holes appear in the line because of fighting/terrain.
Hannibal was a great general but he didnt have the same flexible organisation as the Romans. Even at Zama where he used three lines, each line was a seperate part of the army.
So Hoplites or Phalangites, Pyrrhus or Hannibal, spear or pike, they were using the same inflexible Phalanx system.

I don't really think that entirely true CBR. You are sort of comparing apples to oranges. Under the Diadochi the Macedonian system had certainly become very inflexible, but it did not have to be. Alexander operated in a manor that required his army to be very flexible (as did Philip). The Athenian victory a Tamya showed that experienced Hoplites could fight their way out a camp and deploy into line while engaging the enemy. As early as the siege of Syracuse the Athenians used what amounted to a 2 line hoplite formation. Epaminodas and Thebes certainly used a flexible set of tactics and reserved cavalry. I don't know that phalanx has to imply a single line...



hoom

Its hard to see how or why Carthage would have not taken up the Macedonian style when taking up other Greek/Macedonian unit types/styles.

Why, the Macedonian style infantry had both advantages and disadvantages just as Hoplites and Legions did. Considering it was the Roman legions that had repeatedly defeated the armies of Carthage in the First Punic war, it seems more likely they would copy Rome rather than Macedonia.

[paullus]

The whole discussion of Polybius' writings on the Carthaginians got me interested, so I'll throw in what I can tell you. I doubt he saw the Carthaginians as using a phalanx, since he has no qualms about referring to Macedonian or other diadochi armies as phalanxes, yet as far as I can recall in my readings of Polybius he never uses "phalanx" in speaking of the Carthaginian army. I could be wrong on this, but I think the only time he mentions a phalanx in his narration of the second Punic War is in his description of the ROMAN formation at Trebia (3.73).

As far as what he does say about troop types: The logxophoroi were probably similar to thureophoroi or even hypaspists, since they seem to be capable of close combat and skirmishing, and are often used as support for the slingers or for making quick advances over adverse terrain. In support of their status as capable medium infantry, they played an important role as part of the flanking force at Trebia. More importantly, the logxh seems to have been a lance, and at least in earlier times (at least up to Xenophon) often meant traditional hoplites.

When Polybius talks about the Africans and Libyans, he usually just calls them heavy-armored, which is also what he usually calls the legion troops. Actually he calls them the barea twn hoplwn. Now, some might want to say that these "heavies" are actually just Polybius trying to be diverse, but in 10.25 he specifically treats the phalanx and barea as separate elements in the battle line. It makes sense that the Africans and Libyans would operate in a more versatile formation than the phalanx, since they do carry out manuevers that would likely have gotten a phalanx outflanked and decimated.

Anyway, just felt like hopping in to toss in my cent.

Edit: I should mention before someone calls me on this that Polybius does call phalangites barea twn hoplwn on a few occasions, but--and I could be wrong--it is usually when they are out of the phalanx, such as assaulting a city or fording a river. I don't know that that really has much impact on your discussion of Carthaginian troop types.

[CBR]

Tamya? Not familiar with it and not getting any hits when searching for it.

I know at Syracuse the Athenians once deployed 1/3? of their army to protect their camp against enemy cavalry. Or you thinking of some other action? Yes the Greeks starting showing some more advanced stuff later on but I still dont consider it anyway near the Roman system. Legions had units in all three lines which made local control very easy for when it was needed to use reserves.

Reserves could be considered to be more uhm lets call it grand tactical than tactical. And its my understanding that most Greek battles were fought using one line only.

But Alexander's army would have been more flexible than later armies but the later armies is also what Polybius is talking about anyway. At Gaugamela he did indeed use a reserve phalanx but AFAIK that was to to protect the rear incase of Persian cavalry turned the flank. At Issus he used the Greek mercs in a reserve. Its still not like the integrated system of reserves the Romans used and what Polybius also mentions as being the problem of the Phalanx system.


CBR

[hoom]

Hmm never heard of logxophoroi but thats not surprising.
I'm not claiming more than very limited knowledge of anything on this time period.
I certainly haven't read anything relevant thats not a translation to English, mostly summaries by much later authors.
I'm here to find out more from people who have that knowledge

Logxophoroi sounds rather interesting, are there any descriptions of them?
Could they be some kind of unique Punic type?

Dunno about this Diadochi phalanx being inflexible bit.
I thought they came up with the articulated phalanx & used double lines as well as all the stuff that Alexander did like wedges, refused flanks etc?

Regarding Cannae, I've seen several diagram depictions that indicate the heavy africans on the left & right out front while the celts & spanish formed up behind, then withdrawing behind to the accepted flank blocks.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if they were all based on the same mistaken translation/interpretation.

[Urnamma]

Lovxophoroi, firstly, translates into 'lance bearer'.

Secondly, we have Fabius Pictor, who tells us that the Africans were arranged in phalanx-like groups. Now, we also have Xanthippos, who re-trains the Carthaginians to fight in a phalanx formation. He puts them in Macedonian (not Greek) style Phylae, and reorganizes their command in the model of the Successor kingdoms. Carthaginian cavalry of the period is also changed significantly, as much of it becomes shock cavalry not so different from that of the Macedonian model.

Add to this two mentions of 'twelve thousand very long spears, sixteen cubits in length' as part of an armory's inventory in 245 B.C. Carthage, and we can really begin to appreciate that there is definitely a unit of native pikemen. Now, most of our Carthaginians (Liby-Phoenicians) will fight much like Hoplites, but the citizen phalanx will be ordered like it was under Xanthippos, in the Macedonian (pike) style.

[pezhetairoi]

Well you could take a look at the illustration of the battle formation in Goldsworthy's book and then you will notice the Africans were behind the line so Romans couldnt engage them at all

They were basically hidden from view and perhaps formed in a column ready for the soldiers to do 90 degree turn and march inwards to hit advancing/pursuing Romans in the flank. A maneuver that could be done by any well trained unit regardless of equipment.


CBR

Aha, but I didn't mention that while I agreed with the rough events in Goldsworthy, I didn't agree with his deployment. It just seemed a little too unorthodox for the time, I don't know. I go more with the alternative battle-orders (which form the majority of Cannae interpretations) that they were formed in one line with a bulge in the middle.

But yes, if Goldsworthy is right then it certainly makes my point fall flat on its face, doesn't it? It's certainly something to think about.

[CBR]

I go more with the alternative battle-orders (which form the majority of Cannae interpretations) that they were formed in one line with a bulge in the middle.

Well I find that it fits the way Polybius is describing the battle. It might have been unorthodox but then again Hannibal needed something special to win against the Roman army. If the African foot was part of the line I find it highly unlikely that the Roman units in front of them would have left them alone. But having them stand back in reserve ready to counter attack a disordered mass of advancing/pursuing Romans just seems a much better plan instead of risking they got engaged.

I actually havent seen anyone saying they were part of the line but the discussion is more about if the africans were in a column or line and if they marched forward to bypass the roman flank or sat back and waited for the Roman center to go forward against the losing Carthaginan center.


CBR

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

The Ptolemies were none to eager to train non-Macedonians or non-Greeks in their military techniques. Only desperation before Raphia drove them to train a native phalanx, which they subsequently regretted. The Ptolemies would not even loan Carthage money during the Punic wars, because they were afraid of damaging their relation with Rome, why would they train Carthy soldiers? Seeing as Carthage was a potential rival in North Africa. As for Cyrene, essentially as I noted above I don’t think one need assume all Greeks adopted the Macedonia system.

Everything you said here is correct, but you misunderstood me a little. The Ptolemies never trained Carthaginian soldiers, they trained Libyans. "Libya" was a very general term in ancient times...it was most commonly used to refer to all of North Africa from Egypt to Numidia. Libyans were most commonly used as Cavalrymen in the Egyptian army (I believe some were present at Raphia, actually).

Lovxophoroi, firstly, translates into 'lance bearer'.

Secondly, we have Fabius Pictor, who tells us that the Africans were arranged in phalanx-like groups. Now, we also have Xanthippos, who re-trains the Carthaginians to fight in a phalanx formation. He puts them in Macedonian (not Greek) style Phylae, and reorganizes their command in the model of the Successor kingdoms. Carthaginian cavalry of the period is also changed significantly, as much of it becomes shock cavalry not so different from that of the Macedonian model.

Add to this two mentions of 'twelve thousand very long spears, sixteen cubits in length' as part of an armory's inventory in 245 B.C. Carthage, and we can really begin to appreciate that there is definitely a unit of native pikemen. Now, most of our Carthaginians (Liby-Phoenicians) will fight much like Hoplites, but the citizen phalanx will be ordered like it was under Xanthippos, in the Macedonian (pike) style.

Very interesting Uramma...I knew when I made this thread that I could expect an excellent response from you.

I'm actually a recently added member to the Rome: Total Realism team...I was recruited to do unit descriptions and to give advice on how to improve the Pontic and Carthaginian factions for the upcomming RTR 7.0.

Anyways, I have came to suspect that Carthage did use Sarissa-armed troops (in some numbers), but I was having a hard time getting anyone else on the RTR team to believe me at first. In RTR 6.0, the mistake of giving all Carthaginian units 9 foot long spears (like a classical Hoplite) was made. I thought this was unfortunate because, in the game, Carthage will lose many confrontations with the Greeks or the Successor kingdoms just because they have shorter spears (Successor phalangites have 20 foot long sarissas and Greek phalanxes have 12 foot long xystons).

This is of course not historically accurate, and hurts gameplay a lot because Carthage (in RTW) is always drawn into confrontations with the Greeks and also the Ptolemies, who always attack Lepcis Magna when they get control of Siwa in eastern Libya. Instead of fighting an all out war aganist Rome when they take Sicily, they often have much of their resources directed aganist the Ptolemies, who send full stacks of troops to attack Carthaginian territory. Currently I'm trying to find a way to stop this from happening, or at least delay it...it's probably a problem EB should watch out for as well.

http://forums.rometotalrealism.com//...t=0#entry68374
..You can check out this thread if you want, it was my case for giving Carthage Phalangites. As you can see it's not very strong because I had trouble finding reliable sources. But your infomation helps me a lot in being able to prove this....

[hoom]

Urnamma, what evidence is there that Xanthippus organised the Carthies as a Macedonian phalanx?
Seems likely to me but I haven't seen anyone quote anything specific.

In RTR 6.0, the mistake of giving all Carthaginian units 9 foot long spears was made.

Yeh, I fixed that myself but now my Libys beat the Romans too easily.
I did set the Sacred band & Poeni (gave poeni the 'iphicrates' type pike 'cos they are generally referred to as a lightly trained emergency levy, curious Urnamma that you suggest them as the main phalanx unit...) to not be seagoing to prevent them being sent overseas (I still wound up using them in some numbers in Egypt though...) I also reduced numbers of all three since Carthage had limited manpower of citizens & never seems to have had the 10,000+ numbers of Libys that would be needed to properly do the Macedonian phalanx, which indicates to me that they were somewhat short on Libys too.

[Urnamma]

The evidence is indirect, but very, very strong. The way he organized the units is 100% Macedonian. The Carthaginian army started to have Dekarchs, Phylae, etc. Their army, without any mention of the sarissa in Xanthie's day, had all but adopted every organizational piece of the Macedonian phalanx. Have you ever heard of hoplites organizing themselves exactly in the Macedonian manner without Macedonian equipment?

[hoom]

Right.

Yeah it would be pretty weird to have like Legionary ripoffs using Macedonian style organisation.

So this is from Fabius Pictors' Military manual yah?
Is that available in english for free on the net anywhere? Or a really good book?

Do you think they were the Libyphoenecians? or actual citizens?
With numbers like 12000 pikes in an armoury what kind of proportion of that would be deployable?
Presumably other sites would have their own smaller armouries?

What about melee type units?

Theurophori? Thorakitai even?

[conon394]

Xanthippus of Sparta

Everything you said here is correct, but you misunderstood me a little. The Ptolemies never trained Carthaginian soldiers, they trained Libyans. "Libya" was a very general term in ancient times...it was most commonly used to refer to all of North Africa from Egypt to Numidia. Libyans were most commonly used as Cavalrymen in the Egyptian army (I believe some were present at Raphia, actually).

But the Ptolemies did not train any native Africans or Egyptians as Macedonian style troops till Raphia.

Urnamma

Secondly, we have Fabius Pictor, who tells us that the Africans were arranged in phalanx-like groups. Now, we also have Xanthippos, who re-trains the Carthaginians to fight in a phalanx formation. He puts them in Macedonian (not Greek) style Phylae, and reorganizes their command in the model of the Successor kingdoms. Carthaginian cavalry of the period is also changed significantly, as much of it becomes shock cavalry not so different from that of the Macedonian model.

Phalanx-like is pretty general; I don’t know that it needs to imply anything more than a hoplite phalanx. I think your reading a bit more into Xanthippus’ sojourn at Carthage than the evidence really supports. Sparta itself had still not-reorganized it’s army yet; I don’t know why you would assume Xanthippus necessary reorganized Carthaginians on a Macedonian model. It should be noted that his key criticism of Carthage was not the soldiers she had, but the ineptitude of the Carthaginian commanders. In your take on Polybius can you be specific as to where exactly you see clear evidence of the Macedonian system.

Add to this two mentions of 'twelve thousand very long spears, sixteen cubits in length' as part of an armory's inventory in 245 B.C. Carthage, and we can really begin to appreciate that there is definitely a unit of native pikemen. Now, most of our Carthaginians (Liby-Phoenicians) will fight much like Hoplites, but the citizen phalanx will be ordered like it was under Xanthippos, in the Macedonian (pike) style.

Very interesting, could you provide a source for this? But stored weapons do not necessarily imply citizen troops. It had become common for cites to store weapons dissemination to mercenary units as well.

Have you ever heard of hoplites organizing themselves exactly in the Macedonian manner without Macedonian equipment?

The problem is when Polybius wants to point out a Macedonian phalanx he is usually quite accurate is saying Macedonian or armed in the Macedonian fashion. Greek usage is hardly iron-clad; Arrian for example uses hoplite to describe toops that are clearly the Macedonian infantry of Alexander. I grant the case for a fairly late mercenary pike/sarrisa based infantry under the Barca’s can fit the evidence, I don’t see much to support pushing it back to the first Punic war era or implying it was of carthy citizen composition.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

But the Ptolemies did not train any native Africans or Egyptians as Macedonian style troops till Raphia

Almost...they started to recruit them just before Raphia. This site breaks down the nationalities of the troops as well as the battle itself at Raphia.

http://www.fortunecity.com/underworl.../engraphia.htm

You see that Cavalry and Infantry from both Libya and Egypt are present on it.

[Urnamma]

Xanthippus of Sparta


Phalanx-like is pretty general; I don’t know that it needs to imply anything more than a hoplite phalanx. I think your reading a bit more into Xanthippus’ sojourn at Carthage than the evidence really supports. Sparta itself had still not-reorganized it’s army yet; I don’t know why you would assume Xanthippus necessary reorganized Carthaginians on a Macedonian model. It should be noted that his key criticism of Carthage was not the soldiers she had, but the ineptitude of the Carthaginian commanders. In your take on Polybius can you be specific as to where exactly you see clear evidence of the Macedonian system.

Xanthippos was a mercenary as much as a Spartan. I'm not assuming it based on this alone, I'm making my assumption based on this added to the other evidence.

Very interesting, could you provide a source for this? But stored weapons do not necessarily imply citizen troops. It had become common for cites to store weapons dissemination to mercenary units as well.

Yes, I can provide a source. The Journal of Roman Archaeology. I forget which issue. 13, I think.

The problem is when Polybius wants to point out a Macedonian phalanx he is usually quite accurate is saying Macedonian or armed in the Macedonian fashion. Greek usage is hardly iron-clad; Arrian for example uses hoplite to describe toops that are clearly the Macedonian infantry of Alexander. I grant the case for a fairly late mercenary pike/sarrisa based infantry under the Barca’s can fit the evidence, I don’t see much to support pushing it back to the first Punic war era or implying it was of carthy citizen composition.

Remember, Arrian uses hoplite in the term's later sense (man-at-arms). To a Roman Greek, even legionaries are Hoplites. Arrian also confuses the hell out of many novices by refering to even heavy infantry as peltasts.

Our pike unit is a veteran and very late unit. 220 B.C. is about the earliest a player should have access.

[paullus]

While I find the armoury manifesto and the army reorganization rather convincing, I still find it odd that Polybius, who uses the word "phalanx" so profusely with the Greek nations, does not use it when speaking of the Carthaginians (as far as I know). Now, I do think a possible explanation for this is that the rearming of Hannibal's army in the Roman style during his campaign in Italy may have influenced Polybius not to call sarissa-armed troops a phalanx. Also, I suppose if the true Makedonian phalanx-type troops are citizens, then Hannibal would not have had them with him, which could also explain why Polybius does not refer to phalanxes.

Urnamma, how are you (EB) planning to portray the logxophoroi? While their name makes them sound like they would be the phalanx unit, the way they are used in Polybius' narrative indicates they could not have been a phalanx unit.

As I am not yet at school, where I could get access to Fabius Pictor, I was wondering if you could give us at least a paraphrase of the passage in which he says the Africans used phalanx-like formations. Does he describe them that way more than once? Is the usage such that it could just be a way of speaking of a non-phalanx formation (as Polybius does at Trebia), or does he clearly say "the African troops were organized as phalanxes"? I have not read any of his work, so this has me interested.