Manpower in the Second Punic War

[Aryaman2]

It is generally accepted that the Romans won the war thanks to the superior manpower reserves that their political system allowed them to mobilize. I agree with that, however I am puzzled to see that those same scholars in general accept the numbers given by the sources for the Carthaginian armies. Let´s take a look at them through Polybius, generally considered the most reliable source.
Hannibal departed from Nova Carthago in 218 with an army of 102.000 (3.35.1). Later in the war, in 206 Hasdrubal muster an army of 74.000 for the battle of Illipa (11.20.2). In 203 Scipio destroys around Utica an army of 93.000 (14.1.14), but that same year the Carthaginians rebuild his army and they gathered 30.000 for the battle of the Grat Plains. An army of another 40.000 was asembled the following year to fight at Zama (15.11.1).
To sum up, we either rethink about the manpower theory, or once and for all discard ancient sources for the numbers in Carthaginian armies and accept most of the time if not always they were outnumbered.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, I always read it as they were able to build another army, but you see the numbers are greatly reduced, which in my mind reinforces the idea that the Romans were able to win out, because they could rebuild, in more or less the same consistent level of numbers? perhaps I am wrong, tho!

[Paullus Scipio]

Sorry, Inaki, perhaps it is just me but I don't understand from your post what you think is wrong with those numbers or why.....especially when you have included figures from Spain as well as Africa - surely two very different situations? :? ?

Could you give more detail, please?

[Aryaman2]

Sorry, Inaki, perhaps it is just me but I don't understand from your post what you think is wrong with those numbers or why.....especially when you have included figures from Spain as well as Africa - surely two very different situations? :? ?

Could you give more detail, please?

The problem I see is that it is generally accepted that the Romans won the war because they had much larger manpower resources, thanks to the Roman inclusive political system, however the numbers I give, usually also accepted (more or less, you read the numbers could be exagerated here and there but overall no one is suggesting the Carthaginians were outnumbered in those battles I mentioned) means the Carthaginians were able to mobilize larger armies than the Romans, and to quickly rebuild them after defeat. So, we either abandone the theory of Roman superior manpower, or we discard the numbers given by the sources on the Carthaginians as widely exagerated and think tha the Carthaginians were actually outnumbered most of the time. One or the other, we can´t have both logically.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

They had greater reserves to rebuild from, even tho they did not necessarily have total overwhelming superiority on the field at any given time. Thay only enlisted a fraction of the available manpoer per levy is how I understand it.

[Aryaman2]

They had greater reserves to rebuild from, even tho they did not necessarily have total overwhelming superiority on the field at any given time. Thay only enlisted a fraction of the available manpoer per levy is how I understand it.

However we are dealing in the sources with the opposite situation, overwhelming Carthaginian superiority. Also, despite crushing defeats, the Carthaginians apparently had no problem to rebuild large armies.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

But towards the end, they were resorting to recruiting from the citizens of the city itself?

Yes the carthaginians had superiority on the field maybe, but not so much so. The Romans were able to field a large army at Cannae, but lost.
They lost large numbers at sea, but managed to rebuild the fleets.

'Gaius Julius Caesar wrote:
They had greater reserves to rebuild from, even tho they did not necessarily have total overwhelming superiority on the field at any given time. Thay only enlisted a fraction of the available manpoer per levy is how I understand it.

INAKI replied....
However we are dealing in the sources with the opposite situation, overwhelming Carthaginian superiority. Also, despite crushing defeats, the Carthaginians apparently had no problem to rebuild large armies.'

I did not say the Romans had superiority just large reserves to replenish the losses. As in untapped pools of men who had not been called. I believe this has been raised in other threads on the subject?
This is pretty much what Polybius says, I believe.?
_________________

[Aryaman2]

According to Polybius, the Romans fielded 80.000 at Cannae, after the defeat they had to resort to enlist even slaves. But the Carthaginians lost an army of 93.000 at Utica and they were able to field that same year another 30.000, lost it and fielded another 40.000 next year. It is difficult to say that the Romans had a larger manpower pool from those numbers, however it is a logical argument. The Romans had a much larger number of citizens than the Carthaginians given their inclusive citizen system, they had also an even larger pool of Italic allies with latin citizenship. The Carthaginian had to resort to mercenary armies, however expensive they could be according to the sources they were able to field them in larger numbers than the Romans and to rebuild them after defeat. It simply does not fit.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

OK, I have to admit I am not sure where you are going here... :?

[Sean Manning]

It is generally accepted that the Romans won the war thanks to the superior manpower reserves that their political system allowed them to mobilize. I agree with that, however I am puzzled to see that those same scholars in general accept the numbers given by the sources for the Carthaginian armies. Let´s take a look at them through Polybius, generally considered the most reliable source.
Hannibal departed from Nova Carthago in 218 with an army of 102.000 (3.35.1). Later in the war, in 206 Hasdrubal muster an army of 74.000 for the battle of Illipa (11.20.2). In 203 Scipio destroys around Utica an army of 93.000 (14.1.14), but that same year the Carthaginians rebuild his army and they gathered 30.000 for the battle of the Grat Plains. An army of another 40.000 was asembled the following year to fight at Zama (15.11.1).
To sum up, we either rethink about the manpower theory, or once and for all discard ancient sources for the numbers in Carthaginian armies and accept most of the time if not always they were outnumbered.

That seems like a false dilemma. One possible explanation is that some but not all of our numbers are inflated. Even in the Alexander historians, for example, we hear of some strengths of individual units which might well be accurate mixed in with the ridiculous overall figures. Also, wouldn't each army in Spain include a large fraction of the troops from the last army which was destroyed?

[Paullus Scipio]

Sean wrote:-

One possible explanation is that some but not all of our numbers are inflated

.....that is certainly so, and, for example, one is a little suspicious of that 93,000, but there is nothing inherently implausible in those figures for all sorts of reasons. To try and keep this post to a reasonable size, I'll just mention two major ones.
First, Roman Man-power
Polybius records that in 225 BC ( just before the second Punic war ) Rome and it's Allies could field more than 700,000 Infantry, and 70,000 Cavalry (Polybius II.24, where a detailed breakdown is given) - which suggests that the total pool of men available was of the order of 6-7 million men ( Oxford Illustrated History of Rome)
Inaki wrote:-

According to Polybius, the Romans fielded 80.000 at Cannae, after the defeat they had to resort to enlist even slaves.

....but this was not due to shortage of manpower, but purely the short term Time problem. At the time, elsewhere, Rome fielded another 9 legions plus Allies, for a total of roughly 90,000 men ( having raised an unprecedented 17 legions for that year -216 BC). Whilst the next year the total was down to 14, the year after (214 BC), the total reached an even higher 20 legions and would reach a peak of 25 Legions in 212 BC. (something like 250,000 men under arms). Rome's potential manpower was barely affected by the disaster at Cannae ! hock:
Now, although Carthage as a city-state was roughly comparable to Rome, Carthage was much wealthier because in addition to wealth from Agriculture ( common to both states), Carthage had a vast trading empire generating wealth from Commerce.(not to mention vast amounts of silver from Spain!) All this wealth meant that Carthage hired armies and rarely resorted to it's own manpower. This explains why the largest army that Carthage raised in extremis was 93,000 maximum, much smaller than Rome's efforts.
Second, Casualties and re-raising armies

In 203 Scipio destroys around Utica an army of 93.000 (14.1.14), but that same year the Carthaginians rebuild his army and they gathered 30.000 for the battle of the Great Plains.

...there is nothing improbable in this either. As I have written elsewhere, casualty estimation in Ancient times was an inexact science....for example if an army of 50,000 was 'destroyed', with 10,000 prisoners taken, an author might then estimate 40,000 dead, when the reality might be 10,000 dead and 30,000 dispersed and run away.
If we compare Cannae and Utica in detail, we can see this process at work, and also that the results in terms of recovery were also similar.
At Cannae, Polybius gives figures of 86-89,000, and records only 3,370 survivors taken on the field, with the rest dead/subsequently captured, by the 'guesstimation' method (10,000 taken when the camps surrendered and just 3,000 Infantry and 370 cavalry escaping, so the rest -70,000 infantry and 5,630 cavalry must be 'dead') - but we know there were enough survivors to form three Legions - the two Legiones Cannensis, sent to Sicily in disgrace, and the 'exercitus Terrentianus' that continued to watch Hannibal.
Livy, relying on Roman records and Fabius Pictor, records similar figures for the army -87,000 and 4,500 taken on the field.......so far, so good.
But Livy goes on to give more detail - 2,000 rounded up and taken by Carthaginian cavalry after the battle, and 12,800 taken when the camps capitulated ( who were subsequently released minus arms, horses and property), and 48,200 dead ( no doubt taken from census figures) leaving 32,500 escaped to form the three legions plus Allies that we know existed.
So, if after the disaster at Cannae Rome could muster 32,500 from it's 'destroyed' army of 86-89,000, then Carthage re-mustering 30,000 from 93,000 after the surprise attack and burning of the camp at Utica is entirely credible. Of these, thanks to the selfless rearguard action of the Celt-Iberians, some 12,000 or so escaped from the Great Plains to join Mago and Hannibal's returned armies, and form the second line at Zama.
In each case referred to, roughly one-third of a 'destroyed' army escaped to fight another day.
I could do a similar analysis for armies in Spain, but this post is long enough! :wink:
All in all, I see no reason to doubt either Roman manpower, or the figures given for Carthaginian armies.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

There you go..... :lol: wish I had said that!

[Paullus Scipio]

.....but you did, Byron ! 8)

I did not say the Romans had superiority just large reserves to replenish the losses. As in untapped pools of men who had not been called. I believe this has been raised in other threads on the subject?
This is pretty much what Polybius says, I believe.?

.......I just filled in the boring bit...numbers and so on to back up what you said.... D lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Ahhhh, cheers, I just thought I was speaking through a hole in my head!! :lol:

[Aryaman2]

Paul
Your reconstruction is quite reasonable, and I agree that "destroyed" armies doesn´t mean everyone was dead. In fact, I would venture to say that even of those 48.200 dead only a fraction were really dead, the rest being severely wounded or missing, and I realised I made a mistake, because I didn´t remember that Rome was fighting not only Carthage itself, but also Italic rebels, Gauls and other Carthaginian allies.
I am still pretty sure that figures are highly inflated for the Carthaginians, but I guess the theory of Roman manpower superiority can still be asserted without resorting to discard them