TPW - Faction Preview: Carthage

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Humlenerd

Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
About the Gallic cavalry: Mercenaries from Gaul were after my understanding only used by the Cartaginians during the second punic war. So... That would result in historical innaccuracy  :neutral:
 

Sahran

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
http://books.google.com/books?id=smPZ-ou74EwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Phoenicians+Glenn+Markoe&hl=en&ei=KdcPTfCXCMT58AaCs4jFDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 84-86:

The first historically verifiable reference to Carthaginian military activity occurs in 535 BC when city forces with the Etruscans meet the Greeks of Phocaea in a sea battle off Corsica. It is around this time in historical accounts concerning General Mago and his descendants that we have the first concerete documentation of Carthaginian army and its make up. Under the Magonids, who held sway from circa 550 to 400 BC, the city's armed forces were composed primarily of foreign contingents drawn from the various subject states within the Carthaginian realm. Before then, the army is thought to have been largely a citizen levy backed up by tributary allies.

Contingents included: Libyans (largest foreign contingent), Sardinians, Iberians, Liby-Phoenicians, Numidians, Mauri, and various other mercenaries including Italians, Celts, Sicilian Greeks.

While the Carthaginian army drew heavily upon native conscripts from subject territories such as Libya and Sardinia, hired mercenaries played an increasingly important role. By the battle of Himera in 480 BC, they are clearly present in substantial numbers. As ancient sources reveal, these mercenaries were often recruited from warlike peoples like the gauls and Campanians.
I don't entirely agree with the claim that the citizen "Levy" was completely anulled, but it does suggest the preponderance of non-punic soldiers. A part I forgot to quote on the bottom of page 85 and top of 86 is that native contingents were allowed to fight and equip themselves in their own fashions.


Page 196: http://books.google.com/books?id=y1ngxn_xTOIC&pg=PA197&dq=Magonids+army&hl=en&ei=pdwPTY_KNISs8AbDk7XcDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Magonids%20army&f=false

Carthaginian recruitment agents became a common fixture throughout the Near East, Italy, Greece, Gaul, Africa, where they hired individual soldiers and complete military units from princes and kings. A small number of citizenry continued to serve in the military but their numbers were insignificant - the last date for which we have evidence of Punic units participating in war outside of Africa is in 311 BC.
It's more of a broad understanding but we can deduce from this that the citizenry declined in military importance as time went on. Circa Peloponnesian war it's doubtful they were as irrelevant as by the end of the 4th century, but it does support the growing role of foreigners.

Applicable for Sicily
Page 75: http://books.google.com/books?id=InAjXetbsBkC&pg=PA75&dq=Magonid+infantry&hl=en&ei=kd4PTcTFBYH_8AaOzoGQDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Magonid%20infantry&f=false

Gelon (Of Syracuse, the early 5th century circa 480-490) had similarly put his forces in readiness, and force marched from Syracuse with no less than 50,000 infantry and over 5,000 cavalry
Naturally this is far earlier than the Peloponnesian war, but it does offer an idea of cavalry being more appealing to Syracuse than to other Greeks. Even if exaggerated, it gives an idea of the proportions of cavalry to infantry being 'better' than amongst the Greeks.

The multi-ethnic nature of the Carthaginians does seem to be fairly verifiable. I know that Herodotus gets a lot of criticism for some reason (not an expert of antiquity), but he does remark about that multi-ethnic nature of the Punic armies. From Herodotus "Histories" Volume 7 paragraph 165:
Gelon (of Syracuse) would have aided the greeks had it not been for Terillus son of Crinippus, the Tyrant of Himera (A tyrant city-state which seemed to be Pro-Carthaginian if not a Carthaginian client themselves). This man...brought against Gelon three hundred thousand Phoenicians, Libyans, Iberians, Ligyes, Elisyci, Sardinians, and Cyrnians.
Ligyes = Massalia (Marseilles)
Elisyci = between the Ligyes and Iberians

 

TheUserLooker

Recruit
Best answers
0
he multi-ethnic nature of the Carthaginians does seem to be fairly verifiable. I know that Herodotus gets a lot of criticism for some reason (not an expert of antiquity), but he does remark about that multi-ethnic nature of the Punic armies. 
It make sense. At least, it explains the good economy of Carthage and its continued economic stability as the leader of Mediterranean trade until its subjugation by the Romans. If you think well, these man of Carthage who won't be in army, will be making money with their usual jobs (as merchant, craftsman...), while subjugated peoples and not so much important in the well-being of the economic, such the celtiberians and sardinians, would be dying in the battlefield. (The egyptians, by other way, was killing their economy with the mobilized population what was moved from the camp to the pyramid's sites of construction)

But in other way, these people, don't import who much unimportant, if dying at thousands, would be making a little difference in their local economy. Not to much strong.

Remember, I'm Brazilian (so no perfect English, but I know about "unimportant peoples" like me/us) and this is not a so deep assessment.