Unit Request: Numidian Horsemen

[Xen]

Originally posted by Costa e Silva
"In the Second Punic War, with his masterful war tactics, Hannibal wreaked havoc all over Italy under harsh conditions. No Roman commander was able to successfully match his army even though they mounted more numerous and experienced armies. In the end, Roman perseverance was the key, though. Carthage failed to supply Hannibal with needed reinforcements and Rome began to attack Carthage forcing Hannibal to return and defend it. With a smaller but experienced army, the Roman commander Scipio was able to defeat Hannibal and conquer Carthage, ending the war. Carthage was then stripped of much of its power and was never again a formidable opponent to Rome."

The site that you post here...

"With a smaller but experienced army, the Roman commander Scipio was able to defeat Hannibal and conquer Carthage, ending the war. " seems to speak volums on the fact that Roman training, and troops quality can always win the day

 

[Xen]

just to make sure you know silva, there are a hell fo alot of repsonses to previous posts on the secon page- make sure you look at them

 

[The Last Conformist]

Costa e Silva:
- Carthage was much moreadvanced than Rome... They saw romans like barbarians.

Xen:
hardley, I'd liek to see what great technologies the Carthaginians had access to, particuraley when you concider it was ROME who was doing ALL the innovateing in the war- during the Punic war the polybian era legions perfected the marching camp, and honed in on military engineereing skills, combine this with innovations liek the CORVUS, which was able to turn sea battles which the Romans were at a disadvantage at into more or less land battles, so the the ROmans could take advatge of better marines

What makes one culture more advanced than another is hardly an entirely objective question, but one considering itself superior failing to adapt to the innovations of an "inferior" one isn't exactly unparallelled. Think of the attitude to the "barbarian" Europeans of many Chinese in the 19th C, for instance.

Also, advancedness in different fields have little to do with one another. You can't reasonably deny that the Roman military machinery was superior to the Carthaginian, but that has no bearing on whether the Carthaginians might have been justified in considering the Romans inferior in, say, matters of trade.

Also, no villainization of the Punic Wars era Romans can possibly be required. They come across as perfect bastards in their own accounts anyway.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist

Also, no villainization of the Punic Wars era Romans can possibly be required. They come across as perfect bastards in their own accounts anyway. [/B]

I agree- which is why taking information from a novel is a pretty bad move- as novel are, no matter what, concerned only with entertaninment, and selling itself- it they wernt, then they wouldnt be novels

 

[Louis XXIV]

I picked the wrong day to get knocked out and be groggy for a day and a half

Originally posted by Xen
also, a note about swoards- i was searching the web for images of spanish armour, as I have seen not only depictions, but an actual suit of the stuff made from bronze before, I didnt find it, but I did learn that the Scutum was adopted from the spaimsh- but I have been confusing it with sword the spanish themselves prefered on average, the falcata

I considered making an Iberian Swordsman once. I basically used BeBro's Early Legion since I thought it looked like it fit. I gave it an Imortal's sword as well. I think the Iberians are the coolest barbarians. They invented Chain Mail, the Gladius Hispanica, I think they invented the Pilum (definately not sure about this), and the Falcata, which I think is the coolest ancient weapon. It is believed that the Falcata caused more deaths than any other weapon until the invention of gunpowder. It could easily hack of lims and heads with a single stroke. Because of this weapon, the Roman's lined their shield with metal.

Some have speculated that the Roman's adopted the Spanish weapons during the first Punic War, but it is unlikely, unless they had something similar beforehand (since it wouldn't make any sense to change your entire style of combat in the middle of a war).

also, one more note- in the Caesarian era times, yhe Spanish themselves made anEXCELLENT medium cavalry mercenary force- even Caesar had some spainards,along with numidians, and even celtic cavalry in his forces at various times in his career

The Spanish were considered especially useful for Heavy Cavalry. It was a combination of Spanish and Afrcian Cavalry that was on the left flank at the battle of Cannae (the one that broke through the Roman Horses and circled around).

 

[veezed]

Originally posted by Xen


"With a smaller but experienced army, the Roman commander Scipio was able to defeat Hannibal and conquer Carthage, ending the war. " seems to speak volums on the fact that Roman training, and troops quality can always win the day

Well, the fact that Hannibal kept all of Italy in terror for all those years with a smaller army of largely mercenary troops doesn't speak awful lots for Roman supremacy in battlield, really. Not to mention that he won almost every major engagement he fought except Zama where he lacked good cavalry, preparation and well, troop loyalty. Scipio had veterans, a larger contingent of Numidian cavalry and had lots of time to prepare for the battle.

The Roman troops in all the three great defeats were more experienced and more numerous...and you cannot say it was just Hannibal who won. It was his army too. Mago and the other guy whipped both the elder Scipios in Spain although they had no numerical superiority; in fact, Rome likewise relied on Scipio the younger and Marcellus and Fabius - that is, good commanders - to make their troops effective. Moreover, at Metaurus, Baecula, Catagena, Cirta - the Romans were more in number. Only Scipio ever won when outnumbered, at Illipi, Zama and Bargadas.

In fact, as to the quality of Roman troops...I distinctly remember Titus Livius saying the Romans conscripted everyone 16-40 years old at one point, and these recruits were absolutely raw. I also remember the same Titus Livius writing that the Roman line broke before the Carthagenian infantry even reached them, at Herdonea.

Not to say that the legions didn't become utterly professional under Marius et al. but during the Punic wars the Romans army was just evolving, really. It clearly wasn't that great. Cannae speaks volumes about that, for example.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by veezed


Well, the fact that Hannibal kept all of Italy in terror for all those years with a smaller army of largely mercenary troops doesn't speak awful lots for Roman supremacy in battlield, really. Not to mention that he won almost every major engagement he fought except Zama where he lacked good cavalry, preparation and well, troop loyalty. Scipio had veterans, a larger contingent of Numidian cavalry and had lots of time to prepare for the battle.

and when we look at the records, the carthaginain army was expericed from amssive wars in iberia...

Originally posted by veezed

The Roman troops in all the three great defeats were more experienced and more numerous...and you cannot say it was just Hannibal who won. It was his army too. Mago and the other guy whipped both the elder Scipios in Spain although they had no numerical superiority; in fact, Rome likewise relied on Scipio the younger and Marcellus and Fabius - that is, good commanders - to make their troops effective. Moreover, at Metaurus, Baecula, Catagena, Cirta - the Romans were more in number. Only Scipio ever won when outnumbered, at Illipi, Zama and Bargadas.

your right, for the most part, the second punich war was a commanders war- it truellt was the skill of the generals which was the decideng factor in the war- troops were secondary, but, infantry wise, none can argue that Rome had the best out there (of course in EVERYTHING other then infantry, the Roman army sucked- and sucked big ones)

Originally posted by veezed

In fact, as to the quality of Roman troops...I distinctly remember Titus Livius saying the Romans conscripted everyone 16-40 years old at one point, and these recruits were absolutely raw. I also remember the same Titus Livius writing that the Roman line broke before the Carthagenian infantry even reached them, at Herdonea.

that right- and it shows in the italian battles- they were fresh UNTRAINED troops

Originally posted by veezed

Not to say that the legions didn't become utterly professional under Marius et al. but during the Punic wars the Romans army was just evolving, really. It clearly wasn't that great. Cannae speaks volumes about that, for example.

I agree

BTW- i have to say, it poster like you Veezed, who make coming to CFC a pleasure, if I sound a bit mean in reply to your posts, its unintentional, I hope you choose to stci around, and become a firm member of this forums community

kudos to veezed

 

[Louis XXIV]

OK, I'm back

I haven't finished even reading the thread, but so far it seems Xen is, at least, partially correct.

Its a little hard to follow, but Costa e Silva posts first, followed by Xen. My posts aren't quoted.

Originally posted by Costa e Silva
- Carthage has assimilate much better the greek combat form.
- Scipio copy the movements from Hannibal troops.
- Like i said: Roman Cavalry only becames good after Carthage's fall.
- Spain in the times of second punic war is simple a Punic colonie.- Peoples in Iberia are to Carthage, no diferent then indians to europeans in XVI century.

Originally posted by Xen


intersting considering Rome DID NOT assimlite the inferior forms of warfare carried on by the Greeks at all, or rather they had reformed into a distcitlly Roman way of war


this is complete bull Sh*t

the ONLY time where you could even think this would be at the battle of Zama, where near the end the Roman flanks had drifted into a reverse cannae type deployment
ROman cavalry only becomes good aftyer the reforms of first emperor Agustus

only up to the Ebro, and even then places under the Ebro were not under Carthaginian juristdiction- or perhaps your forgetting why the Punic war started inthe first place

except for the fact that over the last several centuries Greek and phoniciean colonies had made an indipendent culture blending the tribal ways of the native Iberians with the city culutre of the Greeks and Phonecians

- Celtiberians (celts from iberia) were white with dark brown hair, and fight naked.

not all of them, merelly the fanatics would fight naked- the majority still used bronze brestplates, the moajority still wore cloths- you would ONLY see this sort of style near the alps were the celtiberians were in closer contact with the central celtice peoples

The Celtiberians were considered to be the balance between civilization and barbarism. They were believed to have the strength and ferosity of a Celt, but the brains of a civilized man. Whether this is true or not, I have not clue. But the Iberians were very different from the Celts. Some wore chain mail, wore cloths (they wore white tunics, with a purple border), and they had weapons that were useful against Rome (The Falcata was based on the Greek Kopis, they invented the Gladius Hispanica, etc). I can't remember which Roman General/Consul/Emperor praised the Spansish highly.

- Roman army were much more week than carthage's.

correct me if I'm wrong, but ROme won, it did this despite haveing a great of pitiful commanders, as the roman armies were, by nature of there orginazation, nearlly infallable- and once a compitent leader like Scipio Africanus comes in charge of them, there is NO defeatingthem[/quote]

In the first Punic War, the trend was this:
Rome dominated almost all land fights, Carthage would dominate the sea, until the invention of the Corvus (then it was about even, until Rome lost a bunch of ships to a storm, re-built them, and started to gain an edge).

- Carthage was much moreadvanced than Rome... They saw romans like barbarians.

hardley, I'd liek to see what great technologies the Carthaginians had access to, particuraley when you concider it was ROME who was doing ALL the innovateing in the war- during the Punic war the polybian era legions perfected the marching camp, and honed in on military engineereing skills, combine this with innovations liek the CORVUS, which was able to turn sea battles which the Romans were at a disadvantage at into more or less land battles, so the the ROmans could take advatge of better marines

I don't think Carthage ever saw Rome as barbaric. During their conquest of Italy, after the Etruscans had started to support Syracuse, Carthage needed an ally. Since Rome was relatively unkown, they didn't know what to expect. When Pyrrus invaded and won a couple of Pyrric victories before heading into Sicily, Carthage was in a mutual alliance with Rome (Enough so, that they later offered to send aid by ship, an act that was suspicious in Roman eyes). Remember, the cause of the Punic War was not Rome vs. Carthage, but rather Rome vs. Syracuse (Carthage was mearly an ally that stayed fighting for a long time )

- Punic had a lot of Hellenic influence.

hmmm....so did Rome[/quote]

While I don't see the point, I can'y exactly think strait. Carthage did absorb some hellenistic culture while Syracuse was in its golden age. They also hired a Spartan general to help them with against the Romans. After he lead them to victory, he either left to avoid being killed, or was killed by someone who wanted power.

- Carthage lost the war because of this way of life: It is no nation or empire, it's just a city-state ruling over others...

gee, seems kinda liek the republic system ROme had- mebey thats because BOTH were republics- they even had essetially the same ways of governing there territories, and the same goals and ideal in mind when ruling

Carthage did have one disadvantage which seemed to present itself at bad times. Because the government and military were seperate, the Carthaginian Senate would often decide to do something besides what the general wanted. When they could have re-built their navy and taken back Sicily, Carthage desides to conquer more of Africa. When Hannibal desperately needs more troops, they send soldiers to Sicily and Spain (I think they sent a small force to Italy, but it was sunk )

- Rome allways invested into the "roman" spirit. They win because they never give up. And because Punic merchantman were unfavor to bellic actions.

That and the fact that Roman armies were the best on earth- hannibal was a BRILLIANT general- because his armies utterlly sucked, and yet he was able to use them to gain skillful defeats upon Rome- until Scipio Africanus came onto the scene, and wiped the floor with Hannibals, and all carthages' ass

Hannibal had an advantage over Rome that Flavius (?) recognized. Hannibal was a general trained to fight in a war. The Consuls of Rome were not. In fact, Legions were designed to win inspite of their generals. Consuls were politions. They reached their position with flatery, lies, extravigant shows, and everything else to make people happy, and have nothing to do with war. Since Rome didn't have a general to match Hannibal, they didn't fight him. They attacked his supply lines, etc (you know the story) and Hannibal could never march on Rome. Eventually, they did what was described as a bold tactic (I don't think it was, because it was what they had planned to do before they learned Hannibal was crossing the Alps. They probably never completely feared for Italy because they kept a garison in Sicily and an army continued to march towards Spain). Anyway, what they did was head towards Italy. Hannibal had to follow. However (and this is why I think Numidian Cavalry were so important) he didn't have the Cavalry he had before. Scipio worked to get an alliance with a Numidian king to give him Cavalry (which he was sorely lacking in). Hannibal tried to attack before the Numidians united with Scipio, but I believe he was unseccesful (or they arrived just in time, I can't remember )

Hannibal took a completely different tactic than what he used at Cannae. Since he had Elephants with him (all had dies crossing the Alps), he tried to go for a massive Elephant charge. Scipio was prepared for this, and spread his Legions into collums, with spaces inbetween (as opposed to an anti-Elephant tactic used in the First war, where they bunched their troops together to try and withstand the shock). The Elephants, thinking that the collums of Legions were giant animals, avoided them (and the drivers could be shot down the Elephants hearded away, etc). Some of the Elephants were panicked and stampeded over the Carthaginian lines, badly damaging them. And Hannibal suffered a devistating defeat.

I think Hannibal was an excellent general, and his mercenaries were not horrible (I think his Barbarian infantry were definately poor, but his African troops and cavalry weren't too bad).

- In all time that Hannibal was in Italic peninsul, he never received backups from Carthage.

and do you know why? because the Punic back ups were CRUSHED by ROMAN troops

I think only once was backup sent, and Rome's superior navy sunk it before it arived. But, for the most part, Cathage really didn't care about Hannibal. They didn't want Italy. They didn't care about a broken Latin League. They wanted the rich lands of Sicily and Spain.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I might as well post about the Peonic Cavalry. From what I know, to say it was a "citizen Cavalry" is a bit misleading. Also, to say Carthage hired Mercenaries is misleading.

In addition to mercenaries, all subjegated territory had to give troops. The Phoenician colonies under Carthage's rule were no exception. In fact, I think Carthage treated them the cruelest of all.

I'm pretty sure the Punic Cavalry come from the colonies, as Carthage was apparently exempt from all military service at least by the Second Punic War.

But, if someone makes that unit too, I'll gladly include it (I'll make it cheaper and require no support).

 

[Dom Pedro II]

To everyone, I find the discussion very interesting, but also your grammar and typos are hard on the eyes.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Hey! I know my spelling and grammar are sub-perfect, but I don't want them compared to Xen's! That's not fair!

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Xen is by far the worst. That is true.

There's an "edit" button there for cleaning up just such things.

 

[Xen]

as long as the point comes across, I usually dont care if its spelled right or not- most of this stuff is speed typed while I'm in the middle of still thinking about the reponse, and trying to mentally pull up assorted fact that pretain to the argument- its called multi-tasking, and I'm not extreamelly good at it

 

[Louis XXIV]

I do the same thing (and I really haven't been thinking strait at all recently )

If search works today, I can link the old thread about Numidian Cavalry (which was, ironically, 6 posts or so). It will have all the pictures of them, and a little bit of info.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

I'm just saying that it does get pretty hard to read sometimes. For me anyway.

Sorry, continue with your arguments...