Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
Hannibal's Battle Tactics.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Friday, 9th November 2007
Cannae came up on another thread and I was wondering if anyone knows what battle system Hannibal used.Was it a copy of the Roman legion, the Macedonian phalanx or something else?
Trike. -
Message 2
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Saturday, 10th November 2007
The Carthaginian heavy infantry were spearmen, probably closer to Greek hoplites than either the Roman or Macedonian types of infantry. I don't think any details of unit organisation have come down to us.
Hannibal's army also had a lot of light auxiliary type soldiers (Spanish & Celts)fighting in loose formation with javelins or slings etc.
Then of course you have the cavalry, which also included a lot of foreign auxiliary troops, most famously the Numidian light cavalry. -
Message 3
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 10th November 2007
Trike
I am not sure if you are referring to Hannibal鈥檚 tactics at just the battle of Cannae or the battle tactics adopted by the Carthaginians while under Hannibal command.
Hannibal鈥檚 strength as a great general was his ability to combine the differing fighting styles and abilities of his troops. The Carthaginian army was made up from people from all over its empire and unlike Rome these troops fought in their own traditional style.
The Heavy infantry were from many regions including Spain, Africa and Gaul, many were mercenaries, which was typical of many ancient armies.
They would probably have fought with long spear in solid blocks, often referred to as phalanxes, but most heavy infantry could be described by ancient authors as fighting in Phalanxes, it tends to be a generic term used for spear armed infantry.
The Gauls would have fought in close formation, again armed with spears but relying on their swords and shields.
Around this core of heavy infantry there were light troops recruited from many regions, some with slings, but most with light throwing spears.
The cavalry are less well understood, most of the cavalry in Africa would have come from the Numidians but while in Spain and Italy the cavalry was recruited from many areas.
The Carthaginians did not fight in the Roman 3 line system of Hastati, Principes and Triarii, but they did often deploy in 3 lines, such as at Zama.
There is no real evidence that the Carthaginians fought in the Macedonian pike phalanx, but some modern historians claim that the African heavy infantry used pikes. Personally I doubt that they used pikes, rather the long spear and shield more akin to hoplite warfare.
As for unit organisation and battlefield tactics very little is known. -
Message 4
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 11th November 2007
Idamante and Englishvote,
Thank you for your replies.
The hoplite idea matches up with what I've managed to find. During the first Punic war, the Carthiginians hired a Spartan mercenary, Xanthippus, to command their army. So the hoplite phalanx would probably be the method the Carthaginian army was trained to use.
Hannibal's army, with its various components using their own weapons,sounds like a combined ops force, and a very effective force.
I did wonder if Hannibal had altered his army after Trebia and Lake Trasimene by re-equiping with captured Roman weapons and armour.It's unfortunate that we only have the Roman side of the story.
Thanks again,
Trike. -
Message 5
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Monday, 12th November 2007
combined ops听
That should be combined arms -
Message 6
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
The most fascinating thing about Cannae in particular is that, according to Livy, Hannibal set his Gaulish and Spanish troops in a crescent at the centre of his line. When attacked by the Roman legions, this crescent slowly withdrew, still fighting, to suck the Romans into the trap while the Carthaginian flanks advanced. This must have been an incredibly difficult thing to do eve with highly trained troops yet the Gauls were notorious for their lack of discipline. How on earth did Hannibal manage to control a fighting withdrawal in the face of the largest Roman army ever seen with such troops at his disposal?
It's a pity that the only accounts come to us from the Roman side and even then not from eyewitness accounts. Not that there were many Romans left afterwards to act as eyewitnesses. Yet you would hardly think that the Romans would make a mistake about this sort of thing. Why would they show the Gauls in a good light? The Africans and the cavalry may have sealed the trap but if the centre had collapsed there would have been no trap.
The only reason I can think of is that they wanted to build Hannibal up to be such a military genius that their own ultimate victory over him seemed even more incredible. Did he, perhaps, organise his army differently? Did he really have his Spanish and African veterans in the centre and the Gauls on the flanks? Or was he really every bit as good as the Romans made him out to be? -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
It is a shame in a site about history that exists for some years now, to still hear things like:
"closer to Greek hoplites rather than Macedonian ..."
I mean are you illiterate or something?
Its like saying "closer to English soldiers rather than the Southamptonians ones..."
Or "closer to Russian soldiers rather than the Petrogradian ones..."
Nice. If cannot resolve such issues then how can we go on talk about history? -
Message 8
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
It is a shame in a site about history that exists for some years now, to still hear things like:
"closer to Greek hoplites rather than Macedonian ..."
I mean are you illiterate or something?
听
So what's your point Nik? Are you not aware that Greek hoplites used totally different weapons and tactics than the Macedonian armies of Alexander & the Successors? Or is this just your usual obsession about the Macedonians being 'Greek'? -
Message 9
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
There is a distinct difference between Greek hoplite warfare and the Macedonian style of warfare involving pike phalanxes.
I have no wish to get involved in Greek nationalist banter, but it is fair to use the descriptions as I have.
The same way it is fair to compare Roman legionary warfare with Byzantine warfare, in fact to separate Greek from Macedonian is more correct than differentiating between Rome and Byzantine.
In answer to TonyG, I would suggest that it was not so much that Hannibal ordered the Gauls to with draw or organised a fighting withdrawal as such. It was just that the Guals would be driven back by the superior Roman numbers, the critical issues was how far they could be driven back before they broke and run.
Hannibal knew that the Roman legions would drive the Gauls back, and he could judge the time to launch the flank attacks.
His strength as a commander was that he knew the capabilities of his troops, he could get each differing contingent to fight together even when they were using their own individual styles of warfare.
Cannae was a huge gamble for Hannibal, he was assuming the Romans would use their strength in the centre and he was assuming the Guals would hold long enough to allow his superior strength on the flanks to win him the battle. In fact if the Guals had stood their ground his plan would not have worked so brilliantly, and if the Gauls had broken too early then he would have lost the battle.
A brilliant plan that relied on a brilliant commander judging his troops to perfection. Cannae deserves it place among the teaching manuals of our armed forces. -
Message 10
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
I am sorry but with views like the ones you have above you are not entitled to have serious views on history. The one naif makes an ethnic distinction between Greeks and Macedonians and the other tries to base it on the fact of different fighting styles (UNIMAGINABLE). Better go talk about the latest news on Britney Spears rather than right in a history forum.
-
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
To teach you how to talk like a proper historian you have to say it this way:
"The Macedonian army was quite different than that of the rest of Greeks." (which of course as a meaning is also false as I will explain down).
Otherwise one is entitled to say things like:
"In WWI, soldiers from Manchester fought most wars than the soldiers coming from England."
or
"Petrograd citizens saw two invading armies fighting over their dead corpse in WWII (German and Russian)."
and son on... and then bye bye to logic and speech.
In an Orwellian society they would impose whatever bllsht, in the semi-iliterate of our days one can say whatever bllsht, but then here in a history forum we have to strive for more accuracy of what we say.
It is not a matter of nationalism or something, it is a matter historical accuracy if not a matter of pure sense. -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
As for the so different Macedonian tactics I have to really count down the ancient Greek cities, kingdoms, and cofederations that NEVER fought phalanx style... so in the end the phalanx thing would start resembling something of less of a Greek thing.
Only a brief comparion of the weaponry used in the kingdom of Macedonia prior to the reforms of Philip and he can easily make the link with archaic and even Mycenean weaponry. Not accidental that even the societal structures in this isolated mountainous kingdom resembled earlier archaic and mycenean structures (just like the dialect that obviously was a father dialect to Dorian) - no wonder it is described by modern historians and archailogists as a fossil of the 5th B.C.). But they were not the only. The kingdoms of Epirus were something of the same while the neighbours of the Delphi (so much cosmopolitan), the Aitolians and Akarnanes were along the same lines. Oh, and lets do not mention the even more backwards Eyrytaneans.
Now, despite the supremacy of the phalanx in warfare throughout the greek world, it is more than true that the phalanx NEVER became the one and only warfare style. Thessalians had a style much more close to Persian warfare (due to their ability to raise greater number of quality horses) while Cretans fought usually light armed. In places like Cyprus we have never heard of phalaxes while even in South Italy the Dorians had so many tricks that the phalanx was merely one of them. Even just after the Peloponesian war Athenian generals like Ificrates worked much better the (not so greek in the poor minds of some) peltast way against Spartan phalanxes. In fact the Macedonian phalanx, a mere continuation on the phalanx tactics had much more in common with the phalanx rather than the peltast tricks of Ificrates.
Anyway, what should I say more on a topic that is so obvioys. Run back to your books? Or use your logic and do not level everything down? Back on our topic, the tactic of Hannibal in this battle resembled so much the tactic of Miltiades in Marathon that probably Hannibal copied it though I would not use that word... I mean it is the most natural way to fight a greater in number army. -
Message 13
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
Obviously there is a type of message board rage equivalent to car rage.
The protection and isolation within a car induces some to believe that normal polite attitudes can be dispensed with.
It would appear that you have the same attitude in regards common polite behaviour while on a message board.
Unfortunately the house rules prohibit me from addressing your comments in the time-honoured tradition.
But it is obvious why the Republic of Macedonian cherishes its independence.
Back to the subject, Greek hoplite warfare is distinct from Macedonian pike warfare, mostly in regards to use of the pike.
Obviously the introduction of the pike within Macedonian warfare led to a drastic change how the troops could be organised and in basic tactics.
The long spear of the hoplites was a more manageable weapon than the pike, but the Macedonian phalanx was able to overcome the restrictions imposed on their mobility by employing other varied troop types.
Of course the success enjoyed by Macedonian could well just be accredited to Philip and Alexander, their genius was like Hannibal was in co-ordinating the disparate troop types involved.
When the pike phalanxes came up against the superior Roman legions they did not enjoy the advantages that Philip and Alexander would have provided. -
Message 14
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 14th November 2007
When the pike phalanxes came up against the superior Roman legions they did not enjoy the advantages that Philip and Alexander would have provided.听
A certain person will now explain to you that the phalanx was in fact superior to the Roman legion and the Romans only won by trickery, skulduggery and abuse of the offside rule.
But that's enough from me on this issue, I think I've made my point and will leave it to others to decide who's talking most sense here... -
Message 15
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
Everyone is entitled in his own view but then when you say whatever (out of lack of knowledge or sheer complexes of inferiority like the ex-Bulgarians of FYROM - many of whom, certain politicians and thinkers already admit the truth, i.e. that Tito created some grave confusion on the identity of their people) then I am 100% entitled to answer in anyway I like.
As I told you, you are well accepted to talk here whatever, you are also accepted in some Britney Spear board where you may discuss in the level of your choice.
If you are not able to realise the kind of historical mistake you are making how can you set the basis to discuss further details. I mean it is up to you to consider the legion as superior to any other fighting style but it is not up to you to fabricate new hypothetic nations in the region that is the most documented place on earth since 2000 B.C. (for fks shake!).
My view is that Macedonians were simply just one of the numerous Greek states and thus when you talk about them in comparison to the rest of the Greeks you refer to them as "Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks" not as separate entities. IF you have ANY objection to this very simple point then let me have your points. Please go back 100s of topics, 2 years ago, and see how I have ended all that really lowly issue... with absolutely no-one able to present 1 valid point (not even one) against my position.
Try to present points not say whatever. And talking about rage and such will not aid you as I am always in excellent mood, life is good, it is just my flamboyant writing style to add more interest - I will not change that now will I? If you consider that annoying it is your problem, normally what should annoy you is more the lack of argumentation. -
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
Also on the phalanx, Philip's phalanx and Roman legion thing we have had discussed for long in the past and the general consensus was that both phalanx and Philip's phalanx outlived some 1300 years the legion tactics, being used by a large variety of cultures and armies thus telling us a lot of what was finally better or not. The fact that Alex fought with armies of 35,000 soldiers total and did what he did while that was for early Republican Rome (still a provincial city) less than half of their standing army - Rome that had to send 150,000 legionaires for the conquest of Dacia and spend some 10 years in difficulties, and that in their heyday should tell us really about the effectiveness of the legion. Legion was not bad as a tactic, unlike the phalanx, it was a thing of its time, born out of the need of Romans to have some basic reference for their army and their elected commanders. It is known that most things moved in favour of Romans due to their excellent politics (alliances with local aristocracies, divide and conquer and such). A couple of centuries later, failure after failure they reacted and changed it altogether incorporating on the basis of Greek and Roman tactics (heavy infantry but then with combined arms more like Philips army), a huge injection of Persian tactics (heavy cavalry, cavarly archers) and a lot of Gothic ones (due to the presence of the Gothic foederati in the army).
I will not come here and defend the superiority of the phalanx or of any other fighting style - in war there is no magical recipe for victory and there was no army and no people that enjoyed only victories. I write on the basis of what points can we find. If you want my opinion, for an Empire, it was actually the Persian system that worked better (light infantry = less expenses, greater numbers of soldiers, larger coverage / standardised mass production of simpler designs = cheaper weapons of acceptale quality) and that is why finally it prevailed and the medieval soldier dressed and fought so often the Persian way. Take this and spare me the title of "hellenocentric". Hehe, take care! -
Message 17
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
My view is that Macedonians were simply just one of the numerous Greek states and thus when you talk about them in comparison to the rest of the Greeks you refer to them as "Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks" not as separate entities.
听
I even know some Greek people whose sense of honesty forbids them from making such a claim without going beetroot, growing an extra few inches in the nose department, and/or crossing their fingers, hands, forearms and anything else handy behind their backs to ward off the evil eye of historic truth.
Not many, mind you. -
Message 18
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
Have you any special argument or not? Do not forget, I repeat, this is the best documented area on the planet since those ages. I can understand that you do not want to expose yourself to being found with no valid point and you refer to hypothetic Greeks that tell other things than that. Well there were quite many Greeks that actually fought for the side of the Ottomans and Bulgarians and then Yugoslav communists but that does not interest us does it? Have you any valid point or not?
Valid points are things like
1) One self declaration of Macedonians as a different nationality.
3) Substantially different culture (and do not compare a Macedonian villager with Plato or something... you know Greeks were also Aitolians, Thessalians, Cypriots and Epirots...)
2) One hint of non-Greek language in the region. Say we found something else than Greek written somewhere or wherever Macedonians went (India, western China etc.)
3) Any other nation that regarded Macedonians as non Greek (I did not see the Persians consider the little poor and underdeveloped kingdom of Alexander the I as non-Greek? In fact they used them as ambassadors to greeks because "they were their own kind!")
4) Aaaaaaaany other point or even hint that could be valid in aiding any position of yours.
Well, what? For 2 years that I write here there was not a single point that could stand even trembling as a point. It is not my fault that you say whatever and come with no argument.
If I would come here to argue that Orleans is a Chinese city and should belong to Bejing you would say the same (actually I could find more points on the basis of little record of the area prior to the middle ages). -
Message 19
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
Nose looks good. Could do with a few more inches yet, I think!
-
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
at the end you should wonder if we have a real discussion on history or should we talk not of shields and spears but of Miss Spears
so if you want to continue on the issue just bring a specific point. -
Message 21
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
Nah, it's ok. I wouldn't want to ruin your joke.
-
Message 22
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
If I had said any joke and yuo could ruin it you would most certainly have already jumped on the opportunity to do it. Lack of points prohibits you from doing so. Its ok. You may at least comment on the legion thingie at least? No?
-
Message 23
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 15th November 2007
It is remarkable how a simple use of common terminology can spark a rant about nationalism. Hopefully there is not a fanatical Italian nationalist champing at the bit to ridicule the concept that Byzantine is different from Rome.
E_Nik
Your jumping around all over the place, do try and stay within the same era for at least one paragraph.
If you want my opinion, for an Empire, it was actually the Persian system that worked better (light infantry = less expenses, greater numbers of soldiers, larger coverage / standardised mass production of simpler designs = cheaper weapons of acceptale quality) and that is why finally it prevailed and the medieval soldier dressed and fought so often the Persian way.
听
To tell you the truth I did not want your opinion if this is what it amounts to.
What Persian system are you waffling about? Which era?
The different Persian Empires had different fighting styles, many of which were predominantly cavalry based very expensive and certainly not using standard equipment.
You need to define an era and a style and then use it as an example, such as,
The Macedonian pike phalanx was evidently inferior to the Roman Legionary system because every time they met in battle the Roman legion trounced the pike phalanx.
The Macedonian pike phalanx was distinct from the Greek hoplite style of warfare, it was also very different from other pike organisations.
Just because the pike was used throughout history does not mean that it was used in conjunction with the phalanx system employed by the Macedonians.
In the same way just because the Greek hoplites used a long spear and shield does not mean that every body of troops equipped with spear and shield fought in the same style as Greek hoplites.
Anyway getting back to Hannibal and the Carthaginians. It is probable that the African contingent of heavy infantry fought in a style similar to the Greek hoplite style of warfare. -
Message 24
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 16th November 2007
Oh dear. Poor Nik. While I understand the point that the expression "Greek" could be construed as covering a lot of different people, such as Thessalians, Cretans, etc., he then refers to the Persians as though all Persians were the same.
As for Alexander's conquests being completed with fewer men than the Romans used in Dacia, I don鈥檛 believe this can be viewed as being a result of the battle tactics. Surely it had far more to do with the politics within the Persian empire which was used to a sole ruler. Faced with the fait accompli of Darius's death and Alexander replacing him, with no obvious candidates prepared to fight him, the government of the empire could continue whoever was at the head.
And the Romans conquered Britain with only four legions. Dacia was a different problem being a more or less united kingdom under one strong ruler who had been a thorn in Rome's side for along time. Trajan did not just want to subdue Dacia, he wanted to destroy it and colonise it. He also wanted to demonstrate his own authority as emperor so, while I don鈥檛 have the numbers of troops to hand to verify Nik's the use of overwhelming force does not seem surprising. -
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 17th November 2007
Tony, your argument about the different objectives of Romans in Dacia (which was of course a very rich and strong state) is valid. Still someone can again say that the time it took Romans is striking when others had achieved more against stronger opponents and using less at a faster pace thus the legion in the heyday of the Roman Empire can only be classified as an average-achiever that seemed to work mainly on due to the endless resources of the Empire. It is logical also when talking about soldiers whose only incentive was an average wage and who were not always certain of a great-payback in case of victory (remember the campaigns in Epirus where legionaires got nothing).
English vote, I was refering to Achemenid Empire: their simple helmet design and the scale armour are paradigms of mass production oriented designs. The fact that they based their war styles on lighter infantry meant a cheaper deployment of a massive army. Had they deployed Greek-style hoplites all over the place with the same numbers they would had gone bankrupt in a decade! Their army this way was also mobile from the one end to the other. Persians lost to Greeks repeatedly due to their bad strategic choices (and inherent pride) and not due to an inherent disadvantage of their system: their mistake was that they did not adapt their strategy to face a phalanx-style enemy (out of sheer pride and contempt for the enemy) not that... they did not dress up like phalanx men!!! (another paradigm of how much in reality grekonationalist I am e?)
Tony the Medes, the Parthians and the Persians are historic tribes of the same ethnic group that is calling itself as Iranians - one may refer to them as a historic unity. Of course in the sense that these all led multinational Empires spanning at times from Europe to India it is natural to imagine that there was a hell lot of differentiation going on in there (the bulk of their central-southern citizens were Middle-easterner (i.e. what we often describe as semitic or aramaic people).
Now, if the term Greek really confuses you then I am all happy if you used directly the locality/state names of these greek takling people like Athenians (city state), Spartans (city state), Aitolians (federation), Thessalians (federation), Epirots (kingdom), Macedonians (kingdom), Syracusians (city state), Cypriots (kingdom), Milesians (city state), Achaians (federation)... and so on. As Tony correctly said there was a lot of difference between all these states from dialects to local culture and preferred deities, what was common though was some basic notion of civilisational unity in contrast to foreigners, some myths of common origin, the language (though they spoke various dialects) and that was mirrored in their participation in All-Greek institutions like the Olympics Games (to which Macedonians that dear englishvote claims as non-Greek participated before they became powerfull, without englishvote being able to explain how Olympics organisers (like millions of Greeks and foreigners that met with Macedonians from Europe to India and China) were so blind not to see "his truth")!
Tony and Englishvote, my love for history means inherently that I place first historic veracity and accuracy above any "preferences". I simply need for solid points to abide with one view or another. -
Message 26
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 17th November 2007
The term "race" is used with a huge propensity for inaccuracy when discussing populations today, and it appears that the ancients were no better. We have the Greeks to thanks, for example, for reinforcing the concept of "Ethiopians" as a generic term. Unfortunately they used it to denote anyone and everyone who lived in regions south of Egypt. That this must, by definition, therefore encompass people of different genetic groups, cultures and heritage is glossed over even today when such loose Greek terminology is used to support or condemn different theories concerning the racial make-up of Egypt during its dynastic eras.
The ancient Egyptians themselves provide us with valuable data concerning the different racial types that inhabited the region and which they felt were worthy of distnguishing one from the other. They even portrayed them graphically, so their assessment is not only available but literally plain to see. A wall painting from the tomb of Seti I, for example, clearly indicates four distinct "races" (all of whom were Egyptian) in the form of tributaries paying homage to the dead pharaoh. From left to right we see a "Libyan" (light skinned), a "Nubian" (very dark skinned), an "Asiatic" (light skinned) and an "Egyptian" (dark skinned).
The questioner in this thread framed his question in a manner that Egyptians, at least from the time of Set I (13th century BC), would have problems understanding. It implies a uniracial type, or at least a substantially dominant racial type, prevailing within the political borders of Egypt. Given Egypt's geographical location, and especially when viewed in the context of the successful and thriving economic and political entity that Egypt was for many centuries, such a view is not only simplistic but effectively a barrier to arriving at the truth since it precludes as a possibility the most probable correct answer.
Egypt, from its nascent political stage, was a society that expanded to include surrounding peoples, both in terms of extending its political borders and in terms of absorbing human input from areas outside those borders. That this development lasted in one form or another for two thousand years should make it obvious that its racial mix would be varied and undergoing constant adjustment with regard to dominance of particular racial types at any particular stage.
And that is exactly what the records indicate, the interpretation of which is made challenging by the Egyptians' own seeming ambivalence to the question of race. Politically Egypt was a land formed by very African people who evolved as a society to one that looked to its north and east in terms of defining its later identity. But to overstress that faculty in the interests of arriving at a narrow "racial" definition for its inhabitants is to detract from the land's rich and fascinating history. There were political "takeovers" along the way that undoubtedly changed the racial features of the ruling elite from time to time, but we have no good understanding of what equivalent processes, if any, occurred in the general population.
Anthropolical studies of the subject in recent years, and especially those published by Keita, have done much at least to remove the offensive (in terms of historical accuracy) depiction of ancient Egyptians as quasi-Greeks, a tendency that the Greeks started a long time ago and one that Egyptologists of the modern era gravitated towards without question for way too long. But they have as yet to arrive at a conclusive answer to the crucial question of which "race" Egyptians could be classed as belonging to. We might just have to settle for accepting that such a dynamic social milieu over two millennia incorporated so many races (as defined anthropologically) that the question itself is redundant and beloved only of those who have a racial axe to grind in today's world. They were a mixture of peoples, and towards the end of the dynastic period the mix had broadened to include far more races than the sub-Saharan one which had first succeeded in forging a greater Egypt from the two kingdoms along the Nile.
And for the record - these were almost certainly a dark-skinned people with little or no interest in or knowledge of what then passed for Asians or Europeans. -
Message 27
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 17th November 2007
Apologies - I posted the above reply in the wrong thread. It belongs to the Egyptian race thread (obviously) and I have posted it there now as well.
-
Message 28
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 18th November 2007
Nordmann
Thanks anyway, it is all very interesting!
I was wondering what it had to do with this subject but I assumed as I read through it you were building a background and would come to a profound conclusion.
E_Nik
English vote, I was refering to Achemenid Empire: their simple helmet design and the scale armour are paradigms of mass production oriented designs. The fact that they based their war styles on lighter infantry meant a cheaper deployment of a massive army
听
this is still a massive simplification of Achaemenid Persian fighting style. The Achaemenid Persian Empire lasted for about 230 years, and over that time they fought repeated wars against the Greeks. Their tactics change progressively, as did the equipment and clothing. The Achaemenid Persian army contained many varied troops types, of which the infantry contingent was made up of light and heavy infantry from many regions and fighting styles, some of which were Greek.
At the battle of Marathon and the Battle of Plateau Persians infantry were probably mostly bow armed, but also with shields and spears. The Immortals and Sparabara infantry had wicker shields and spears but their primary weapon was the bow. They expected to fight from a distance so were no match for the Greek hoplites in close combat.
But the immortals and Sparabara infantry were not light infantry, they fought as heavy infantry, or line infantry if you prefer. Their equipment was not as heavy as the Greeks but they tried to fight in close combat with them, with normally disastrous results.
But by the time the Achaemenid Persian faced the Macedonians under Alexander the Sparabara infantry had been dropped and the infantry was very much second rate compared to the cavalry.
In fact the only really reliable infantry the Achaemenid Persian had at this time were Greek hoplites.
Greeks had fought for the Achaemenid Persian in many wars before of course, as many lived within the Persian Empire and other fought as mercenaries.
In fact it could be argued that the Greeks fought as allies for the Macedonians and the Persians at the same time!
鈥︹.to which Macedonians that dear englishvote claims as non-Greek鈥..
听
I never claimed any such thing, I have not mentioned anything about Macedonian ethnicity. I have been discussing fighting styles.
But if the Macedonians considered themselves 鈥淕reek鈥 why did Antigonos twice publicly declare his policy of 鈥渇reedom for the Greeks鈥 while his 鈥淢acedonian鈥 army was occupying Greece? -
Message 29
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 18th November 2007
""But if the Macedonians considered themselves 鈥淕reek鈥 why did Antigonos twice publicly declare his policy of 鈥渇reedom for the Greeks鈥 while his 鈥淢acedonian鈥 army was occupying Greece?""
Englishvote, similar statements we may trace in the speeches of many Athenian, Spartan, Theban and Syracusian politicians but no doubt these cannot constitue any argument. Yes tracing back your sayings you never did any explicit declaration of different ethnicity but then your phrases if taken literally indicate so. As a Macedonian myself it is natural to react and clarify things. At the end you are entitled into your own particular views, and the only thing I can do is to present all my points (and I am never tired of doing so, not also afraid of boring people here).
I am very well aware that the Persian army at all times maintained "special forces" made up by mercenaries coming from various Greek states. Especially after the Peloponesian wars many disenchanted soldiers (from both sides) found employment in Persian armies, especially to that of Cyrus, satrap of Minor Asia who fought against his brother Darius, king of Persia. But it goes without saying that Persians would never want to generalise that fighting style because it would triple military expenses! They had basically a good army but they chose the wrong battle tactics repeatedly out of their belief in their greater numbers (that historically has been proven to workn, not always and everywhere though).
Take into account also that Philip's or Parmenion's phalanx was a lighter one than say the Spartan (I like these two descriptions because it was these two men that worked hard to create it and evolve it in training even before implementing it with great success in war - it was not any military tradition of the kingdom of Macedonia that till then fought very archaic-style).
People usually forget about logistics. Philip managed to find a brilliant basic-tactic to enforce in battle that worked well in a close fight but demanded maybe more training but certainly less expenses. Why? Because a long sarissa-spear, a simple helmet design, a small hanging-shield and a light body armour (if any at best a lino-thorax padded with scales) are more cheap than a corinthian helmet, a large shield and a proper metal-thorax. Hence, with the same money that say Thebans armed 10,000 men Philip armed 20,000 men. And without commenting on the success of the training and smart tactics, that gave some advantage to Philip that could then wage war in all fronts from north to east to south. Philip's / Parmenion's reforms were costly in terms of training not so much in terms of weaponry investments thus in comparison to southern phalanx systems were more suitable for war on the international level.
A similar advantage was enjoyed by the Roman legions that up to 1 B.C. century was armed relatively lightly (if not taking into account the crude, thus again cheap, heavy wodden shields).
However, I still believe that had I been a strategist of the time serving an Empire I would opt for basically the Persian system but insisting on avoiding in battles collisions of close formations. Bowmen and slingers were not at all a shame to use in battle! -
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 18th November 2007
To tie this with the original message, I am not 100% aware of what was the basis of Hannibal's army. I am not talking about his Iberian and Celtic allies but about his home-grew Carthagenian troops. My guess is that Phoenicians had weaponry that basically resembled Middle Eastern armies but with some Greek influences. I think by the times of Hannibal these influences would be more due to the fact that a lot of the military consultants they used came from Greek states. Unfortunately we have not many details saved for this army as we do not have many details saved from this fascinating culture that played such a great role in the Mediterranean.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.