Onward and Upward - Carthaginian reenacting

[Dan Z]

Ah ha! Thanks for reminding me of Manning Imperial.

Add "pilos helmet from Manning Imperial" to the list of off the shelf possibilities. They also make a nice Phyrgian helm. Looking at their website they also offer the modified Corinthian type helmet and a Montifortino helmet.

As for armor...I think we nailed it down to: they definitely might have possibly worn any type of armor common to this period or even none at all. I'm inclined to agree the troops had no armor at first, but that the officers might have had armor. There is no evidence for anything specific - although there was something mentioned in a poem about scale armor...that could be some sort of composite type or a complete scale cuirass. Basically no matter what armor you wear someone will say you are spot on and some one else wil say you are dead wrong, because in the absence of proof it pretty much all comes down to opinion. The safest and most sure thing to wear would be Roman mail and just say it was a little something you picked up in Italy.

Ruben: I already threw out the idea about cheekpieces, but on the original coin I was looking at the hair is pretty much worn away. If I was clinging to the cheekpiece idea though I would point out that the hair could be an embossed design on the cheekpieces - there are two bits curving up, two curving down, and one going straight forward which makes for a nice symmetrical pattern. The peak of the helmet looks to be embossed. The point is moot though.

I mentioned the wear patterns were different because wear patterns interest me - how a thing is worn down is a hint as to how it was used and handled. You can't tell anything from it of course except that over 2000 years ago those two coins were used and handled differently - the wear on those coins are in a sense all that we have left of all the people who caused that wear. It's...interesting.

[MeinPanzer]

I think you may have misunderstood my point here !The Sidon tombstones, and Alexandrian ones too depict a troop type called thureophoroi or mercenary ( the type is usually synonymous).

Well, if I properly understand what you are implying- that because Phoenicians in Phoenicia employed a type of soldier, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the Carthaginians employed such soldiers- then I think that logically that is not correct.

First of all, what do you qualify as a thureophoros? Here I think you are referring to the thureophoros in the sense of the general Greek misthophoroi of the Hellenistic period, who were the mercenary infantryman par excellence in the Greek east. However, do you consider a Galatian mercenary a thureophoros? An Iberian mercenary? A Samnite mercenary?

If you are indeed referring just to the Greek misthophoroi, then no, the fact that we know of their use in the east and the way they were equipped cannot logically be carried over to the western Mediterranean. These troops were primarily used east of Greece. The best-paying, most available, and most immediate employment lay in the realm of the Hellenistic kings. In addition to that, it most likely would have been too much work for both the employed to travel on a long, arduous, and downright dangerous journey across the Mediterranean, and for the employer to arrange for such travel when such abundant sources of mercenaries existed around them as the northwest African tribes, the Spanish tribes, the Celtic tribes, and the Italians. Certainly, for these Greek soldiers there was no shortage of employment close by in the Hellenistic kingdoms.

They come from a variety of places - Anatolia (Bithinyans,Lycians,Pisidians) Greece (Aechea,Crete - this is the source for cretan red tunics, by the way) etc.

Your source for the Cretan red tunic wouldn't happen to be the Sidonian stele of Diodotos the Cretan, would it? If so, are you aware of the stele of Chalkokedes the Cretan, c. 200 BC from Demetrias in Macedonia? He is a mercenary archer who wears a white tunic with a dark blue cloak. So, if we include this evidence, white is as likely as red.

The point is, wherever they come from in the Hellenistic world, and regardless of whether state or privately supplied, or whether they are Macedonian, Seleucid or Ptolemaic, they are all alike in appearance -namely, thureos (usually plain white), bronze hellenistic helmet (often peaked thraco-Attic types-as seen on coin), tunic (usually red), booted and armed with spear or longche, sword and (probably) javelins. We know that Carthage traded with the "mother country" on a big scale, so no surprise that Carthaginian troops should be similarly equipped, and possibly even some of them recruited there.

As I said before, no it would not be reasonable to assume so. These soldiers you are describing (the evidence for which is incredibly skewed by the Sidon stele) are distinctly eastern Greek, and they are not to be found in any numbers, if at all, west of Italy. This is because they had ready local employment around the eastern Mediterranean and wouldn't have needed to bother heading west.

( as an aside, we also hear - Polybius - of a troop type called Thorakitai or 'breastplate wearers' in the Achean and Seleucid armies,who are sometimes described as "armed in the Roman fashion".

Which passage refers to them as armed in the Roman fashion? I know of the one Polybian mention of thorakitai in the Seleucid army (crossing the Elburz range), but I am not familiar with his mention of thorakitai being armed in the Roman fashion. Unless you are referring to the reformed troops armed in the Roman fashion in the Daphnae parade, in which case those are a separate body from the thorakitai referred to earlier.

These too appear on tomb paintings as thureophroi with the addition of mail body armour.

We have one painted stele showing a soldier with mail armour- Salmas of Adada. Out of the dozens of painted stelae found, he is the only one that wears mail.

We may surmise that Carthage did not have these, since otherwise it would have been pointless to adopt "the choicest Roman arms" after Trebia/Trasimene).

Well, the Hellenistic kingdoms didn't adopt these sorts of "imitation legionaries" until after contact with the Romans, either. These troops appeared in the Greek east for the exact same reasons as the Carthaginians adopted Roman arms- because of a need to combat the heavy, mobile, and versatile troops of the Roman army.

I see your point about the "Athena" coins, but am still inclined to think that they are meant to be 'classical corinthian'. As I said earlier, given the limitations of the medium, you may well be right, but in any event the carthaginian coin clearly depicts a 'debased corinthian' in use by a Carthaginian officer, probably Hannibal. Again, as said before a helmet sourced from one of Carthage's main trade routes/allies.

Yeah, I think you're right with this.

[Dan Z]

If we accept that the locally raised Carthaginian troops (the native Carthaginian officers and mercenaries and the Liby-phoenician troops) were equipped in a Hellenistic manner prior to being requipped with Roman equipment then I don't think it is unreasonable to claim that Carthage, whose written language and religion were eastern and who had strong ties with their eastern Motherland, would equip them in the manner of an eastern Hellenistic army. To support this there is the one tombstone Paul mentioned of a Numidian mercenary with a Carthaginian name that depicts a thureos shield, a sword with a Greek style hilt, two spears, and a peaked helmet that looks like a Pilos type - basically a thureophoroi type soldier. There is a picture of it on page 150 of Greece and Rome at War.

It is also not unreasonable that Carthage might have hired soldiers from the east to come serve as officers for their locally raised troops - they could afford to make it worth someone's while to move to Carthage and it is just human nature that someone would want to jump at the chance for adventure/more money/more power/more experience or what have you.

The distance is not as much of a factor as you might think. Hannibal sent Spanish mercenaries back to Carthage to boost the local defense (and to make sure they stayed loyal, no doubt) and Spain is at least as far from Carthage as Carthage is from Greece. According to Connolly, Polybius quoted figures from a bronze tablet placed by Hannibal that stated Hannibal sent 13,850 Spanish infantry, 1,200 cavalry, and 850 Balearic slingers back to Carthage before he set out to cross the Alps. If Carthage had the hulls to move 15,900 troops from Spain to Carthage then they certainly could have imported a few eastern mercenaries if they wanted to do so.

Polybius apparently also states the Liby-phoenicians were organized into speirai...interesting.

The native Carthaginian officers most likely would have worn whatever they wanted because they could afford to, Carthaginian mercenaries most likely would have worn whatever they could afford, and the Liby-phoenicians most likely would have worn what they were given.

[MeinPanzer]

If we accept that the locally raised Carthaginian troops (the native Carthaginian officers and mercenaries and the Liby-phoenician troops) were equipped in a Hellenistic manner prior to being requipped with Roman equipment then I don't think it is unreasonable to claim that Carthage, whose written language and religion were eastern and who had strong ties with their eastern Motherland, would equip them in the manner of an eastern Hellenistic army.

First of all, the Carthaginians having an "eastern" language and religion tells us nothing about their military forces. Secondly, as I said in my last post, just having a connection with Phoenicia doesn't ensure that they employed eastern Greek mercenaries or that they equipped their troops just as the eastern Greek mercenaries were equipped. If linguistic, religious, and mercantile connections were signs of military interconnectedness, one would expect the Bosporan Greeks to have troops identically equipped as the mainland Greeks. They didn't.

To support this there is the one tombstone Paul mentioned of a Numidian mercenary with a Carthaginian name that depicts a thureos shield, a sword with a Greek style hilt, two spears, and a peaked helmet that looks like a Pilos type - basically a thureophoroi type soldier. There is a picture of it on page 150 of Greece and Rome at War.

How is it known that he is a mercenary and not a Carthaginian levy?

And I asked previously of Paul, what is a thureophoros? If we just count mercenaries who were equipped with thureos, head protection, sword, and spear/javelins, that includes just about every kind of regular infantry to fight in the Hellenistic period, from Iberian soldiers to Gauls to Italians to Greeks to Germans to Anatolians to Bactrians. I don't disagree that the Carthaginians had a strong Hellenistic influence, but this was most likely due to diffusion of Hellenistic-style equipment throughout the Mediterranean indirectly rather than through a direct link between Phoenicia proper and Carthage.

It is also not unreasonable that Carthage might have hired soldiers from the east to come serve as officers for their locally raised troops - they could afford to make it worth someone's while to move to Carthage and it is just human nature that someone would want to jump at the chance for adventure/more money/more power/more experience or what have you.

There is certainly evidence for them recruiting high officers from as far afield as Greece, but that's a different matter entirely from hiring mercenaries.

The distance is not as much of a factor as you might think. Hannibal sent Spanish mercenaries back to Carthage to boost the local defense (and to make sure they stayed loyal, no doubt) and Spain is at least as far from Carthage as Carthage is from Greece.

You have to remember that Greece was the westernmost source of these mercenaries; during and after Alexander's reign, the huge majority of these Greek mercenaries, many of them exiles and other just disgruntled and poor, headed eastwards, where the highest paying employers were. So, if they actually wanted to recruit troops in any amount, they would have had to head farther east than just Greece. But why would they want to anyway when they had abundant and immediate sources of mercenaries all around them?

According to Connolly, Polybius quoted figures from a bronze tablet placed by Hannibal that stated Hannibal sent 13,850 Spanish infantry, 1,200 cavalry, and 850 Balearic slingers back to Carthage before he set out to cross the Alps. If Carthage had the hulls to move 15,900 troops from Spain to Carthage then they certainly could have imported a few eastern mercenaries if they wanted to do so.

This example isn't really relevant because this was clearly a situation of necessity. Such a trip would be undertaken because it was necessary to protect Carthage during his campaign. I don't think a journey such as this would be undertaken lightly for a matter such as recruiting soldiers.

The native Carthaginian officers most likely would have worn whatever they wanted because they could afford to, Carthaginian mercenaries most likely would have worn whatever they could afford, and the Liby-phoenicians most likely would have worn what they were given.

By Carthaginian mercenaries, you are referring to the Spanish, Celtic, etc. troops hired by the Carthaginians, right?

[Dan Diffendale]

Likewise, I am with you on the 'de-based corinthian' helmets (also called "Etrusco-Corinthian" because of their popularity there).
The latter makes the point that a popular etruscan helmet would certainly be in use in Carthage, given their strong trade/alliance ties.

It's worth noting that only one has been found in Etruria (Vulci, now in the British Museum), and that provenance is not beyond doubt.

Besides that, there are only three of this type that come from other than Southern Italy: one from Friuli in northern Italy, one from Krsko in Slovenia, and one, questionably from Athens.

http://web-facstaff.sas.upenn.edu/~dpd/ ... apcor.html

[MeinPanzer]

Likewise, I am with you on the 'de-based corinthian' helmets (also called "Etrusco-Corinthian" because of their popularity there).
The latter makes the point that a popular etruscan helmet would certainly be in use in Carthage, given their strong trade/alliance ties.

It's worth noting that only one has been found in Etruria (Vulci, now in the British Museum), and that provenance is not beyond doubt.

Besides that, there are only three of this type that come from other than Southern Italy: one from Friuli in northern Italy, one from Krsko in Slovenia, and one, questionably from Athens.

http://web-facstaff.sas.upenn.edu/~dpd/ ... apcor.html

There are others from iconographic sources. Off the top of my head, there is one on the Pergamene weapons reliefs.

[Dan Z]

I think some of the difficulty stems from how one defines a mercenary. As I see it, the Carthaginian army proper was composed of its native Carthaginian officers and the Liby-phoenician soldiers. Everyone else was a mercenary - a soldier for hire who was responsible for providing his own equipment and who was under no real obligation to serve other than the promise of getting paid.

Hannibal's African troops seem to have consisted of Numidian mercenaries, the Liby-phoenicians, and Carthaginians. I don't think all Carthaginians would have been officers which would put them more in the mercenary category, i.e. - men who had to provide their own equipment and who were fighting for the promise of pay...and probably so they could help stick it to the Romans.

[MeinPanzer]

I think some of the difficulty stems from how one defines a mercenary. As I see it, the Carthaginian army proper was composed of its native Carthaginian officers and the Liby-phoenician soldiers. Everyone else was a mercenary - a soldier for hire who was responsible for providing his own equipment and who was under no real obligation to serve other than the promise of getting paid.

Hannibal's African troops seem to have consisted of Numidian mercenaries, the Liby-phoenicians, and Carthaginians. I don't think all Carthaginians would have been officers which would put them more in the mercenary category, i.e. - men who had to provide their own equipment and who were fighting for the promise of pay...and probably so they could help stick it to the Romans.

We don't know whether these soldiers were responsible for their own equipment or not, so we can't use that to judge (and, as I said previously, we don't even know if real mercenaries, called so by ancient authors, provided their own equipment or not). I would think, though, that Carthaginian troops would be regular troops and not mercenaries. Carthage had a body of citizen militia which was surely made up of the local Phoenician citizens.

[zugislander]

Dan,

Thanks for the update.

There is a company called Valentine Armories that is currently relocating the The US. They are selling off everything in the Calgary location. The last time I checked they had a couple of Phrygian helms available. So if you go that way you might try them as well.

Cordially,

Michael

[hoplite14gr]

@Dan Z

A very good interpretation of the "Tanit symbols" on shields.
In my opinion the "cresent ones" might have been more likely.

The symbol of Melkarth might be another option.

As for the "horse-palm tree" coins I am not so sure.
The horse meant wealth (equestrian class probably)
I am more inclined tothink that they would probably be Carthagenian officers with either palm tree or horse but thats just an opinion.

By the way , it there any surviving Carthagenian pottery showing warriors?

Kind regards

[Paullus Scipio]

Wow ! As expected, lots of different opinions on this thorny subject and the precious little 'hard evidence' available.
Still, I think a "best guess" picture is emerging (ducks to avoid "incoming"!)
To Ruben ; It is a great pleasure to debate such a subject with someone so obviously knowledgable as yourself, and your views are always interesting given your detailed familiarity with the sources. However, in broadening debate we are in danger of losing sight of our original question, namely, what might Hannibal's African/Libyan troops have looked like? We have no direct evidence, and so are reduced to deduction based on similar evidence, and "inherent military probability."
( As an aside, this is not just because of Carthage's obliteration, we have no direct evidence for the appearance of Roman legionaries at this time either, the closest being Polybius' descriptions and early reliefs both dating from at least 50 years after the end of the 2nd Punic war - that might make for another interesting thread ! ).
I don't think we can better Dan Z's summary of what they probably looked like, posted above.
If I may be allowed to generalise for a moment, I should like to put forward something of an "overview".
The 'heavy' infantry of the "Mediterranean World" at this time show a remarkable uniformity of equipment known to be use, from Spain in the West to the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms in the East(I am excluding for the purposes of discussion, those armed "in the Makedonian manner"). Roughly speaking, they are generally equipped with throwing weapons (spanish saunions, Italian pila, Greek longche), head protection/helmet of some sort, large oval/oblong shield (latin scutum, greek thureos). Body armour is generally not worn, save by the richer soldiers who wear pectorales ( spanish and Italian) or similar. Mail, that wonderful invention of the iron-working celts, is worn only by the very richest - for example, Celtic chiefs and nobles, and the wealthiest of Romans who were assessed at over 10,000 assidui had to provide an iron mail shirt.
I'll respond to the detailed matters raised above in a separate post.

[MeinPanzer]

However, in broadening debate we are in danger of losing sight of our original question, namely, what might Hannibal's African/Libyan troops have looked like? We have no direct evidence, and so are reduced to deduction based on similar evidence, and "inherent military probability."

I agree, and I think it's best to leave that line of debate for some other thread or time.

( As an aside, this is not just because of Carthage's obliteration, we have no direct evidence for the appearance of Roman legionaries at this time either, the closest being Polybius' descriptions and early reliefs both dating from at least 50 years after the end of the 2nd Punic war - that might make for another interesting thread ! ).

At least one part of the puzzle has been "solved," so to speak. Duncan Head sent me a description of one of the Entella tablets from Sicily, an inscribed proxeny decree for a visiting Roman, which stated that an image of a helmet with three feathers, just as Polybius describes. I tracked down a book with images of them and, lo and behold, one of the decrees contained a perfect image of a triple-crested Montefortino helmet:



The tablets date from between 254 and 241 BC, and it was customary for proxeny decrees to contain images of items related to the guest, and not the host, so this is definitely linked to the Romans. It's neat to note that the two side feathers had separate crestholders, unlike most hypothetical reconstructions which show all three feathers coming out of a single hole in the "knob" of the Montefortino.

I don't think we can better Dan Z's summary of what they probably looked like, posted above.
If I may be allowed to generalise for a moment, I should like to put forward something of an "overview".
The 'heavy' infantry of the "Mediterranean World" at this time show a remarkable uniformity of equipment known to be use, from Spain in the West to the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms in the East(I am excluding for the purposes of discussion, those armed "in the Makedonian manner"). Roughly speaking, they are generally equipped with throwing weapons (spanish saunions, Italian pila, Greek longche), head protection/helmet of some sort, large oval/oblong shield (latin scutum, greek thureos). Body armour is generally not worn, save by the richer soldiers who wear pectorales ( spanish and Italian) or similar. Mail, that wonderful invention of the iron-working celts, is worn only by the very richest - for example, Celtic chiefs and nobles, and the wealthiest of Romans who were assessed at over 10,000 assidui had to provide an iron mail shirt.
I'll respond to the detailed matters raised above in a separate post.

Yes, the proliferation of the thureos after the early 3rd C. BC throughout just about the entire known world west of India is remarkable. It is perhaps the only item that the inhabitants of the known world shared at that time, from Iberians to Carthaginians to Celts to Italians to Germans to Greeks from as far afield as the Crimea, Bactria, and Cyrene. At some point I would like to work on a truly comprehensive survey of the thureos from its earliest beginnings until its evolution into the scutum and other common shield types in the 1st-2nd centuries AD, following its spread and its morphology, but that would truly be a gargantuan task.

[Paullus Scipio]

[]

Mein panzer wrote:-
"Well, if I properly understand what you are implying- that because Phoenicians in Phoenicia employed a type of soldier, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the Carthaginians employed such soldiers- then I think that logically that is not correct."

As you will know, Sidon at this time lay within the seleucid empire, and the mercenaries/thureophroi on the tombstones will have been troops of the garrison in Seleucid employ. We are here merely concerned with the appearance/equipment of "mercenaries", and whether that appearance extended west to include carthaginian mercenaries. On the strength of the tomb of Abd-Asart (for thureos), the spanish coins (hellenistic helmets),cultural trade/conact/alliances (Carthage to Phoenicia and Italy/Etruria ), Poybius (for longche armed) etc, I would argue that this is very likely to be correct. Incidently, one further point for carthaginian use of Hellenistic helmets is the finding of several Statuettes in the Balearic Isles. The figures are naked and armed with caetra, and a missing weapon ( spear/longche - one found intact had a spear/longche 6-7 ft long ). They wear only two types of helmet, a cheekless 'montefortino' type - which resembles the one on Abd-Asart's tomb, and variations of the classical 'Thracian', often cheekless, some with horsehair crests, others with side feathers. Because the statuettes are otherwise naked, they are often described as being of a Balearic war-god. Clearly Thracian helmet types were used as far west as Spain and the Balearics. How would they become known there ? Via Carthage, of course !


Mein panzer wrote:-
"If you are indeed referring just to the Greek misthophoroi, then no, the fact that we know of their use in the east and the way they were equipped cannot logically be carried over to the western Mediterranean. These troops were primarily used east of Greece. '

Primarily, perhaps but not exclusively ! While there may not have been many greek mercenaries in Hannibal's army, earlier, in the first Punic war Carthage had employed many.Diodorus(19.106.2) tells us that a quarter of the army were Libyans ( whether levies or paid mercenaries is uncertain-those sent overseas must have been paid, if only to subsist).Polybius tells of Ligurians,Celts,Spaniards,Numidians and Greeks. These greeks included Spartans, the most famous of whom was of course, Xanthippus.I don't think your point about difficulties of travel is valid - greeks had travelled the whole mediterranean in numbers,raiding, planting colonies and as mercenaries for centuries.
Mein panzer wrote:-
"Your source for the Cretan red tunic wouldn't happen to be the Sidonian stele of Diodotos the Cretan, would it? If so, are you aware of the stele of Chalkokedes the Cretan, c. 200 BC from Demetrias in Macedonia? He is a mercenary archer who wears a white tunic with a dark blue cloak. So, if we include this evidence, white is as likely as red."
Some confusion, here, I think. It was not I who suggested red cretan tunics, but Stefanos. You asked for a source, and I merely supplied the one I think he was referring to - who, incidently, is not an archer.
Mein panzer wrote:-
" This is because they had ready local employment around the eastern Mediterranean and wouldn't have needed to bother heading west"
.
see above, Carthage did employ greek mercenaries in numbers.

Mein panzer wrote:-
"

( as an aside, we also hear - Polybius - of a troop type called Thorakitai or 'breastplate wearers' in the Achean and Seleucid armies,who are sometimes described as "armed in the Roman fashion".

Which passage refers to them as armed in the Roman fashion? I know of the one Polybian mention of thorakitai in the Seleucid army (crossing the Elburz range), but I am not familiar with his mention of thorakitai being armed in the Roman fashion. Unless you are referring to the reformed troops armed in the Roman fashion in the Daphnae parade, in which case those are a separate body from the thorakitai referred to earlier.

These too appear on tomb paintings as thureophroi with the addition of mail body armour.

We have one painted stele showing a soldier with mail armour- Salmas of Adada. Out of the dozens of painted stelae found, he is the only one that wears mail."

That is a shrewdly observed point and having given it further thought, I agree with you. The "usual" connection between troops armed in "Roman fashion" and Samas' tomb does not hold up. Mail at this point was still very rare.Thorakitai simply means 'breastplate -wearers', and need not imply mail. "Roman fashion" also does not imply mail at this time.The first depiction of uniform mail appears on the Roman late 2nd century 'Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus', after Marius reforms led to the State supplying arms to the whole army (States had been supplying armies in part at least as far back as Athens supplying ephebes and maybe earlier).It is unfortunate that illustrators/researchers have concentrated on showing mail and pectorales, giving a false impression. I believe Hastati mostly had no body armour, that it was more plentiful among the Principes, with perhaps a sprinkling of mail, and that pectorales, and some mail was prevalent among the Triarii.

Whilst on that subject, thanks for posting the three-feathered helmet ! Fantastic ! When Duncan was writing 'Macedonian and Punic wars', he and I debated as to how the legionary crests should be depicted, Duncan suggesting the one he illustrated, from Polybius' description; and I arguing for a central horsehair crest with side-feathers (on iconographic grounds - paintings,sculpture etc ) We were evidently both wrong,and also both right !!
By the way, I would be grateful if you could put me in touch with Duncan ( I tried a PM here but it seems he has "dropped out" of watching RAT ) as he and I lost touch many years ago.

[MeinPanzer]

As you will know, Sidon at this time lay within the seleucid empire, and the mercenaries/thureophroi on the tombstones will have been troops of the garrison in Seleucid employ. We are here merely concerned with the appearance/equipment of "mercenaries", and whether that appearance extended west to include carthaginian mercenaries. On the strength of the tomb of Abd-Asart (for thureos), the spanish coins (hellenistic helmets),cultural trade/conact/alliances (Carthage to Phoenicia and Italy/Etruria ), Poybius (for longche armed) etc, I would argue that this is very likely to be correct.

I think we primarily agree, but we don't really realize it. Yes, the thureos was used by both Carthaginian troops and eastern Greek mercenaries, but it was also used by just about everyone else around the Mediterranean at this time, so without a good idea of when the thureos was adopted by the Carthaginians, we can't use that information for much. The mutual use of javelins means nothing because, again, just abotu everyone everywhere at this time used javelins. Now, as for the Hellenistic helmets- yes, those were definitely adopted from a Greek source, but I think I have a more logical explanation. We know that Sicilian Greeks made use of Hellenistic equipment, and the Carthaginians had intimate contact with Sicilian Greeks. Therefore, I think it much more likely that the Carthaginians adopted such equipment from them and not from eastern Greek mercenaries who were imported.

Incidently, one further point for carthaginian use of Hellenistic helmets is the finding of several Statuettes in the Balearic Isles. The figures are naked and armed with caetra, and a missing weapon ( spear/longche - one found intact had a spear/longche 6-7 ft long ). They wear only two types of helmet, a cheekless 'montefortino' type - which resembles the one on Abd-Asart's tomb, and variations of the classical 'Thracian', often cheekless, some with horsehair crests, others with side feathers. Because the statuettes are otherwise naked, they are often described as being of a Balearic war-god. Clearly Thracian helmet types were used as far west as Spain and the Balearics. How would they become known there ? Via Carthage, of course !

I don't think I've seen these before (at least, they don't sound like other Spanish warrior statuettes I've seen before), but they sound pretty interesting. Again, I think a more logical explanation is that such equipment was adopted from the Sicilian Greeks through the Carthaginians.

Primarily, perhaps but not exclusively ! While there may not have been many greek mercenaries in Hannibal's army, earlier, in the first Punic war Carthage had employed many.Diodorus(19.106.2) tells us that a quarter of the army were Libyans ( whether levies or paid mercenaries is uncertain-those sent overseas must have been paid, if only to subsist).Polybius tells of Ligurians,Celts,Spaniards,Numidians and Greeks. These greeks included Spartans, the most famous of whom was of course, Xanthippus.I don't think your point about difficulties of travel is valid - greeks had travelled the whole mediterranean in numbers,raiding, planting colonies and as mercenaries for centuries.

Yes, I thought you would bring that up. These men were almost certainly hired with Xanthippus (kind of an ancient package deal, as occurred so often in the Hellenistic world with mercenary generals), so they are not indicative of a larger pattern of Greek mercenaries in general being hired by Carthaginians. But these are mainland Greek mercenaries, so they are not indicative of eastern Greek mercenaries as would be found around Phoenicia. In addition to this, they were most likely hoplites (especially considering the Spartans), and they were hired before the use of the thureos by Greek troops became widespread.

Some confusion, here, I think. It was not I who suggested red cretan tunics, but Stefanos. You asked for a source, and I merely supplied the one I think he was referring to - who, incidently, is not an archer.

I see, my mistake. Incidentally, Chalkokedes was not just an archer, either. He is shown with a small dagger, several javelins, a small shield, and a bow! It certainly explains why Cretans were known to be such good light troops.

see above, Carthage did employ greek mercenaries in numbers.

I disagree that one example, and a relatively early one in Hellenistic Carthaginian terms, is evidence of mass employment.

That is a shrewdly observed point and having given it further thought, I agree with you. The "usual" connection between troops armed in "Roman fashion" and Samas' tomb does not hold up. Mail at this point was still very rare.Thorakitai simply means 'breastplate -wearers', and need not imply mail. "Roman fashion" also does not imply mail at this time.The first depiction of uniform mail appears on the Roman late 2nd century 'Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus', after Marius reforms led to the State supplying arms to the whole army (States had been supplying armies in part at least as far back as Athens supplying ephebes and maybe earlier).

Well, there is the mention in 1 Maccabees of Seleucid troops in the 160s BC armed with bronze helmets and mail armour, usually thought to be the same troops "armed in the Roman fashion" as mentioned by Polybius.

Whilst on that subject, thanks for posting the three-feathered helmet ! Fantastic ! When Duncan was writing 'Macedonian and Punic wars', he and I debated as to how the legionary crests should be depicted, Duncan suggesting the one he illustrated, from Polybius' description; and I arguing for a central horsehair crest with side-feathers (on iconographic grounds - paintings,sculpture etc ) We were evidently both wrong,and also both right !!
By the way, I would be grateful if you could put me in touch with Duncan ( I tried a PM here but it seems he has "dropped out" of watching RAT ) as he and I lost touch many years ago.

Sure, check your PMs .

[geala]

They come from a variety of places - Anatolia (Bithinyans,Lycians,Pisidians) Greece (Aechea,Crete - this is the source for cretan red tunics, by the way) etc.

Your source for the Cretan red tunic wouldn't happen to be the Sidonian stele of Diodotos the Cretan, would it? If so, are you aware of the stele of Chalkokedes the Cretan, c. 200 BC from Demetrias in Macedonia? He is a mercenary archer who wears a white tunic with a dark blue cloak. So, if we include this evidence, white is as likely as red.

Do you have a coloured picture of the stele of Chalkokedes available? It sounds very interesting.