Talk:Military of Carthage/Archive 1

Archive 1

2006 comment

Saw this article flagged as a stub that needs working on. Have read quite widely in this area, and will be making several edits and revisions to the content today - PocklingtonDan 15:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've fleshed this out quite a bit. Am I good to remove the stub flag now?? - PocklingtonDan 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Added references too - PocklingtonDan 16:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Good start

Quite a good start, but some issues to solve. Will comment more later. Wandalstouring 21:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm sure there's more than a few issues in there that need sorting out, go ahead and edit it - it was intended as an initial fleshing out rather than as anything authorative, I've got it on my watchlist and will be returning to add more content and cites over the next week, but I will respect any work done to the article in the meantime :-) - PocklingtonDan 21:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

get some French sources (most material on Carthage is in this language because the Tunisians use it for their publications). Also try not to focus too strong on authors about the Punic war, this would be like writing about the US military and only taking a look at the Marines. Polybius mentions the composition of Carthage citizen army somewhere in his scripts. Wandalstouring 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed a Latin quote from Vergil, as this is the Free English Encyclopedia, not the Free Latin encyclopedia. If anybody can find a good translation, feel free to replace it, but quoting random, untranslated Latin added nothing to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.78.203 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

The content of this article is of dubious origin, essential claims are unsourced and questionable. Wandalstouring 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

I started working on the article's clean up. Kyriakos 11:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up a bunch of mechanics/usage errors and hanging sentences in the first quarter of the article. BigDix56 14:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Source for this name

Can anyone provide an English source mentioning the military of Carthage? As far as I'm concerned all serious literature refers to them as Punic because there were at least three cities with the name of Carthage. One in Sardinia, one in Spain and one in the Maghreb. The one in Spain and in the Maghreb did have their own military for some time. Wandalstouring 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Help

If you guys need help righting the section about the army I have a book about the Punic Wars which gives a great desription of the soldiers of the Punic armed forces as well as the weapons. So if you needs help just contact me. Kyriakos 01:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweeping statements for over 700 hundred years of History

In revamping this article you are making extremely large, sweeping statements as if the military in Carthage had stayed the same for its 700 year history. One of the most dubious is that Carthage had a professional military for that entire period. Gentlemen, we are talking here of a commerce-based pre-industrial trading society with no economic reason for having standing armies outside some precise periods of war, such as those with Greece, and later on with Rome. You need to qualify this article with years or general periods to give some credibility to what you are saying. In addition, you need to take the Carthaginian "Navy" into account. --AlainV 04:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's set the record straight. I did not appreciate the idea of this article, but neither did I the nonsense it contained. I use a postdoctoral lecture qualification (Ameling Walter, Karthago: Studien zu Militär Staat und Gesellschaft) for these statements, but you can also take Livy(empty houses of soldiers) and Aristotle (rings for campaigns). Both explicitly state the importance of professional military in Carthage and if you follow Livy's account it only disappeared after the Second Punic War.

Professional soldier and economy are not mutually exclusive if you keep in mind that according to Polybius members of punic aristocracy were privateers and it is generally believed from interpreting the treaties with Rome that the Punics of Carthage were pirates, what ment less capturing ships in open seas, but enslaving inhabitants of coastal settlements.

The commerce-based trading society(citing Whittaker?) is as much unsourced as the Gibraltar naval blockade. To say the least we have absolutely no account of the trading business of Carthaginian aristocrats besides one comedy (Poenulus) that refers to a simple merchant and it is surely not sufficient for any theories about Carthage's nobility.

I did not talk about changes of equipment and tactics, but Carthage is mentioned in one breath with Crete and Sparta. That is about society. The switch to increased reliance on hired troops in the 6th century BC for the oversea campaigns has not yet received attention, but once again read Polybius and you will find out that the largest group of them came from Punic controlled Lybia in Africa. Wandalstouring 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the archeological record? --AlainV 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What from the archeological record should I add? Metal smelting, naval build-up, structures? Remember that quite a lot of the record is not safe information and gets frequently reclassified. Wandalstouring 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What I'm refering to is the archeological evidence of an extensive punic commercial "empire" centered mostly in Carthage. Decorative products, small vials containing perfumes and other goods from Carthage have been identified in Hellenic city-states of the period around the Mediterranean sea, in numbers and patterns which suggest that they have been acquired by trade between greek colonists and Carthaginians and not by acts of war or piracy. As to the relative safety of the archeological record, and its frequent reclassification I would like to point out tthat ancient texts are by no means absolutely safe and that they are far from exempt from reclassification. One proof of that is the book "Carthage et les Grecs c. 580-480 av, J.-C.: Textes et histoire" (1998) by Véronique Krings, where she casts a new look and in a sense reclassifies many of the greek texts that deal with the relation between the greek city-states and Carthage. The book is an outgrowth of the doctoral thesis she presented at the university of Liège/Leuwen. --AlainV 03:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Finding pottery and a commercial empire are two different things. for example in the 5th century BC Lacedaemonian pottery was distributed throughout the Mediterranean, but that doesn't make Sparta a commercial empire. Wandalstouring 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sparta was the epitome of a militaristic city-state, are we talking of utilitarian pottery that would have been the output of the cities subjugated by Sparta or or the luxury goods (tiny glass figurine heads, perfume in delicate amounts) such as those that were produced within Carthage? --AlainV 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See, the Spartan called themselves Lacedaemonians (with a uniform lambda on their shoelds) and the pottery is definetly from Lacedaemonia, although probably it was not made by the full citizens. However that pottery was produced and widely exported does not exclude a militaristic state.

The political constitution of Sparta, Crete (both very militaristic societies, the Cretans were also pirates and had an established slave trade) and Carthage are grouped together in our ancient sources (Aristotle, Politica). Livy mentions us that Carthage had till after the Second Punic War an extensive housing of professional military personnel within the city! We know of common meals in military age structered groups that are also indicators for militarized societies were such habits were widespread and that could not be found in any other Phoenician city.(Ameling, 169)

One problem with Carthaginian trade is that we have not a single source on Carthaginian nobility in the trading business(Ameling, 169) trader except Poenulus who is a small merchant(Ameling, 170). Our only knowledge of the profits of Carthage's nobility that equalled the richest part of its population is from their agricultural exploitation(Ameling, 169)

For more information on the rule of merchants of Carthage see here a recently found inscription from Carthage.[1] Translations from Punic are quite difficult, however, it seems that among the rich people there are no traders listed, but merchants are listed among the poor people. This doesn't mean Carthage had no trade fleet because it only had small merchants and rich producers. But we have definetly information about Punic pirates(Polybius) from the treatise between Rome and Carthage and explicitly from the First Punic War. However we do know that members of the nobility sacrificed abroad, but we do not know what they sold. However, we do know that the profit margin in slave trade exceeded all other business. problem was you needed enough money to pay some professionals for that business. But that is getting pretty much off topic now.

So could you please tell how you get the idea of a big non-military trade republic from some glass found here and there? Look, for example people will be able to find Microsoft windows and Mc Donalds all over the world what absolutely doesn't contradict that the US has the biggest professional army in the world and is most frequently involved in wars. As long as you provide no clue why sophisticated glass production contradicts a militarized ruling class this discussion is rather pointless. Wandalstouring 13:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Krings book has from page 303-316 an article on Punic and Phoenician armies and from 290-303 some information on the on the government structure. Could you use this to expand the article. One point that you should view critically is that this book is no research on primary sources, but an overview and so some points like the Punic presence on the Iberian peninsula are mentioned without any refernce to the disputes. In the economy section on Sardinia there is no mention that the coastal settlements that show the strongest Punic influence are relatively underdeveloped compared to the richer hinterland, so it is hotly disputed to what extend Carthage ruled the native or had culturally influenced them in a mutual alliance. However, I'm looking forward to your contributions. Wandalstouring 17:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What is at stake here is not the exclusion of trade for war or vice versa but the fact that the "Myth" of the commercial nature of the Punic empire is the prevalent one in current historiography, even if the sources for that "myth" turn out to be less numerous than one would like. If you go against the many scholarly books and paper encyclopedia articles that repeat that myth then it's up to you to state extremely clearly within the article, and not just on this talk page the sources and the logic which support that attack to the "Myth" of the punic commercial empire and to sum up the logic of their attack and their concrete foundations. Taking out mentions of this commercial empire and the connected "myth" of a huge commercial fleet and a huge navy will look, to the uninitiated, like an act of vandalism, given the absence of justification. Further more, time limits have to be set. Do the coments by Livy and Ploybius and others apply to the whole of the 700 years of Carthage? I don't think so, which means that the period on which that there is something known through them. --AlainV 00:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Now this argumentation gets rather arbitrary. This is an article about the Punic military forces and not the merchants from Carthage. Somehow it absolutely doesn't matter whether Carthage had trade or not. I hope you can read the topic. I don't know what books you cite, but there are lots of books on Carthage and you have to track down what they say exactly and who copied from whom (scientific publications). Look, I did read the complete account on the Punic economy in Krispus book today. Please show me where it talks about any commerce based empire. It does say something about specialization of different regions(something also known from the Polynesians). A well-known pattern for the Punic symmachy is that metallurgy was concentrated on certain places, the most important Carthage. You could use this as an argument for a centralized structure, but that's it. Naturally you can quote Mommsen who writes about such empire stuff as you mentioned, but please quote his theories in detail. I do try to present the latest results of research.

I really don't understand what your problem is. Try to contribute and quote Krispus on the Punic military if there is anything contradicting the article or stay afk. Wandalstouring 00:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Military spirit and all that

The whole "military spirit" thing is based on a single author who seems to be "revising" the prevalent theory. The result is a case of undue weight / recentism, so common on Wikipedia, as any recent, relatively marginal theory tends to be propagated as "the latest achievement of scholarship". Aristotle's comparison to Sparta and Crete is irrelevant here, because it is not about "militarism" at all, it's about very specific particularities of political government, and the text shows that clearly. Ancient authors generally do not depict the Carthaginians as anything similar to the Spartans, but rather as extremely avaricious, (politically plutocratic), cunning, treacherous, good seamen, but no good warriors. I don't see the big deal about their ruling class trading or not (I'd add that they were engaged in agriculture as well, writing treatises and all), and this is miles away from talking about a "militarized nobility" (which still wouldn't have had much impact, numerically, for the Cartaginian army) or a "warrior class". Even if we ignore the above highly significant "ethnopsychological" data from the Graeco-Romans, the facts are:

1. No matter how one tries to downplay that, 3rd century Carthage was different from Rome in that it didn't have enough of this "militarized" warrior class to avoid using a huge number of foreign mercenaries ...

Please source it. Actually we have no clou to what extend there were warriors and levies and mercenaries. However Sparta was also heavily reliant on mercenaries back than, although they were so proud of their warrior tradition.

Polybius, Book 6, 52.

The former (the Romans - editor's note) bestow their whole attention upon this department (upon military service on land - editor's note): whereas the Carthaginians wholly neglect their infantry, though they do take some slight interest in the cavalry. The reason of this is that they employ foreign mercenaries, the Romans native and citizen levies. It is in this point that the latter polity is preferable to the former. They have their hopes of freedom ever resting on the courage of mercenary troops: the Romans on the valour of their own citizens and the aid of their allies.

Of course, he might be wrong, but he is still one of our major sources.--91.148.159.4 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why I suggest not to stick too close to primary sources, but to read modern authors on the subject.Wandalstouring 18:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

But what other sources can modern authors rely on? Sure, archeology can change some things, but... --91.148.159.4 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

2. ...and the communication, control and coordination of these highly mixed forces seem to have often been more than its "professional" generals could handle; the morale was obviously poor, and rebellions were common.

Who says that except for the rebelling mercenaries who were no longer under Carthage's leadership?

I'm not sure what you mean by saying they were no longer under its leadership. As for other cases, I remember at least one general who was crucified, not after trial, but just by the survivors of his own army in Sardinia (1:24:6). Reading the history of the First Punic War, the Carthaginian forces are often easily put to flight on land (1:19:9-11, 15:13). They also lose most naval battles, from the very first one, just because boarding and hand-to-hand fight is made possible - despite their reported skill as seamen.--91.148.159.4 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The boarding issue is quite simple: 40 marines on a Carthaginian vessel face 120 on a Roman vessel. There might be new results in a few years, because the Carthaginian navy utilized strange ships at the end of the First Punic War, but so far the opion is that they were very much outnumbered. Ameling points out that Rome possibly had more people under their controll who could man a larger navy with heavier warships and thus the choice was that Carthage's triremes were equal in numbers, but inferior to Rome's quinquiremes or in quinquiremes they could never achieve equal numbers. Wandalstouring 18:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't quite get this part. Are you saying the Carthaginians only had triremes, while the Romans had quinqueremes? If yes, how do we know that? --91.148.159.4 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Especially in view of the large territorial and financial resources, most conflicts and especially the Punic Wars show us the Carthaginian military as rather ineffective, and the army leadership, with the glorious exception of Hamilcar Barca and Hannibal Barca, as often fatally incompetent (their excessive self-confidence, especially at sea, their own elephants causing more harm than good, etc). Compare also the vague reports that the office of a general was bought - with or without quotation marks.

Xanthippus said their problem was the leadership, not the soldiers. There exist differing opinions.

I'm glad we agree on this one. Thanks for pointing this out: he says "that the Carthaginians owed their defeat not to the Romans but to themselves, through the inexperience of their generals" (1:32:2). Note that these supposedly Spartan-like people need an actual Spartan to teach them warfare.--91.148.159.4 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A Spartan who left Sparta. We don't know whether he would be noted in any history book if he had stayed in Sparta. Wandalstouring 18:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

4. For its 5 centuries of history before the Punic wars, Carthage hadn't been able to get rid of (i.e. to decisively conquer) the barbarian kingdoms in its own hinterland, which eventually led to a major Numidian force fighting alongside the Romans at Zama.

Nice research. Well US doesn't get rid of the Iraqi insurgents. Did they ever want to conquer these lands or were they better off with semi-independent neighbours?

Good point, but I think they wouldn't want to have such semi-independent neighbours so close to themselves. The comparison with the Romans is obvious - when Hannibal turned up, there were just scattered polises in Italy and his benefits from them were much smaller than Scipio's benefits from the Numidians. You may point out now that the Spartans didn't succeed in that either, but unlike the Carthaginians, they never even started building an actual empire in the first place.--91.148.159.4 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but as far as I know they intermarried with important houses such as the Barcid and the Gisgo in Carthage, so their existence and support may be a political issue. Wandalstouring 18:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

5. At the beginning of the Punic Wars, Carthage had already been trying to conquer Sicily for more than two centuries. Despite the fact that it had been dealing with numerous city-states with a much smaller territory, it had never succeeded at getting beyond the western half of the island. It took Rome about fifty years, with the locals alone never presenting much of a challenge.

Are you sure they ever wanted to conquer Sicily? Could you please list other states that were able to man their navy and supply an army operating several days at sea away from home? Athens was not able to do so, nor Syracuse.

Well, I can't give you a quotation for their wanting to conquer Sicily, I haven't read primary sources about this recently, but I think it has to be assumed. Pretty much everyone wants to conquer everything, if they can. This applies especially to empires (not to mention militarized ones), and it was an empire of sorts Carthage had been building. Athens and Syracuse never had such large possessions as Carthage; Athens was just a larger polis that got lucky with unions a couple of times. --91.148.159.4 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Himera was the result of two tyrants who fought a battle because of a family affair. We know from the economy that the towns in Carthage's part of Sicily were rather independent, so possibly they didn't want to conquer them. I mentioned the slave trade below, it really sucks if you raid your own territory for this purpose and this business is rather profitable. Also note that the Carthaginians and Syracusians intermarried. Wandalstouring 18:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There were quite a few conflicts with Syracuse besides Himera, and Herodotus likes anecdotes. Frankly, I think even the Syracusans' threatening the Western possessions would have been a sufficient reason to destroy them at all costs, and the Carthaginians wouldn't have been in Western Sicily (and fought so many wars for it) if they didn't want it. Also, Sicily was great for agriculture, and the Carthaginians were keen on that (I'm thinking about Mago's treatise, of course). You said something about the economy of Sicily, what about it? --91.148.159.4 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

All in all, the impression is not of a "militarized" society, but rather of a society that is only marginally and rather inadequately adapted to the handling of military affairs.--91.148.159.4 18:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle does write about Punic customs and compares them to Crete and Sparta. The warrior class is mentioned in Livy as missing sometime agfter the second Punic war and any excavation report state clearly that the fortifications were well developed in their territory (the fortifications of Carthage are still not fully reconstructed. On the other hand there are sources calling them rather cowardly people who depended on other people to fight their wars. This does by no means contradict that they had some professional warriors. Wandalstouring 20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no contradiction, on the contrary. I have no doubts about the fortifications, and I guess it is likely that they maintained a (small) professional army - especially as, sticking to the Spartan parallel, this is rather the opposite of a Spartan or early Roman-style system in a polis context. A classical polis such as Sparta or early Rome relies on well-trained citizens, not on hired troops, native or foreign; the transition to professionals actually marks the decline of the system and probably contributed to the fall of the Republic. BTW, I haven't read Livy, and I'd be interested to see exactly what he says. Do you happen to know the "chapter and verse"?

You're right that Aristotle compares Carthage to Sparta and Crete, but he actually discusses the similarity between their forms of government, and mentions no warrior-like discipline. In particular, he is interested in the division of authority between a pair of "kings", a council of elders, a popular assembly, and a very powerful body of Ephors or Ephor-like officials. Some of his parallels seem a bit superficial (the "kings", for one thing). He also mentions "common meals of the clubs", similar to the Spartan phiditiai, but he gives no details, and this is a long way from militarization. BTW, I seem to recall that during one period in Babylon, private persons often united in religious "clubs" or associations, which were also devoted to business. --91.148.159.4 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Try to read Aristotle once again, he does tell about measures all three people do for military prowness and what the differences between the three of them are (note that Athen, Carthage and Utica were possibly allied sometime according to inscriptions from Athens). He says that the Carthaginians have an earring for each military campaign and compare this info with the Carthaginian trader in the play Poenulus: you get a Carthaginian who did partake in many campaigns. Please note that we don't know of so many wars, so possibly campaigns were raids, as mentioned in the treaties with Rome, to make slaves that could be sold, thus Carthaginians could be traders and raiders (adapted from Ameling who now reflects a recognized opinion on the subject and who is the only author I met so far who does work with all sources on the subject). Wandalstouring 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have this Livy statement on my list, it is at the beginning of his fragments on the third Punic war in the justification speech of the Roman consuls for moving the city offshore. Wandalstouring 17:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Livy reference, I'll try to find it. As for Aristotle, I'm always excited to learn something new, but I'm also puzzled. Are we talking about the Politics of Aistotle? Book 2 (where I can't find it)? Or maybe these are observations that he made in passing, in other compositions? --91.148.159.4 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sacred Band

Should these elites be itleast mention I mean they were the pinnacle of the Carthagian military —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)