[greek enemies] Early Chartaginian army\'s

[PMBardunias]

That image above marked "97" is based on the Chemtou shield and is an example of what I think is an innacurate reconstruction, the central depression probably being an artistic device to make the blazon stand out. Many elements of the early Phoenecian/Carthaginian kit are not far different from what can be seen in late Assyrian reliefs.

Below is a drawing of the famous Amanthus bowl believed to show phoenicean troops. There are very good images of this and the british museum site, but they are too bit to post at high quality- just google it. The second image is from an Assyrian relief, but it shows a convex round shield that is rimmed and would be very hard to tell from an aspis but for the more conical profile and the boss, which probably indicates a single hand-grip. Shields like this can be seen from the back on other relierf and they have single grips.

[PMBardunias]

Also, as to elephants, they seem to have displaced chariots sometime after Pyrrhus invaded Sicily. It is a common misconception that the African variety available to the Carthaginians Loxodonta cyclotis (not the larger East Aftican 'bush' elephant, L. africanus) was much smaller than the Indian elephant. This probably occurred because livy says they are smaller and there are some pugmy varieties of l. cyclotis that are now being categorized as seperate species that live in deep jumgle and as with the buffalo- and people- who live in jungle are especially small. Carthage, not being jungle, surely had a type of Cyclotis which was of the large variety. See the comparison below.

I'm not calling Livy a liar, simply stating this because there must be another reason for the size discrepancy such as age or sex. Perhaps large Cyclotis were less manageable. At the very least the modern assumption based on small jungle varieties must be questioned.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B wrote:

Also, I think the Chemtou relief should not be taken as a literal shield with a depressed face as some have rather than an artistic method to make the blazon prominent. There are many reasons why you would not want to dish in the face of a shield.

I agree, and neither the Chemtou nor the Kbor Klib relief showing similar circular shields should be taken as an accurate guide since they are now dated to the late 1st C BC !! (long after Carthage was obliterated from the face of the earth ).....

[Paralus]

This probably occurred because livy says they are smaller and there are some pugmy varieties of l. cyclotis that are now being categorized as seperate species that live in deep jumgle and as with the buffalo- and people- who live in jungle are especially small. Carthage, not being jungle, surely had a type of Cyclotis which was of the large variety. See the comparison below.

I'm not calling Livy a liar, simply stating this because there must be another reason for the size discrepancy such as age or sex. Perhaps large Cyclotis were less manageable. At the very least the modern assumption based on small jungle varieties must be questioned.

Not only Livy; also Polybios. The latter ascribes the "size and smell" of the Asian elephants as the reason for their clear success at Raphia in 217. Livy likely plagiarises Polybios for his size distinction.

Polybios, 5.84.5-7:
Most of Ptolemy's elephants, however, declined the combat, as is the habit of African elephants; for unable to stand the smell and the trumpeting of the Indian elephants, and terrified, I suppose, also by their great size and strength, they at once turn tail and take to flight before they get near them. This is what happened on the present occasion...

It seems apparent that the Asian elephants possessed "great size and strength" in comparison to their African counterparts. I'd suggest that the smaller "jungle" elephant may well be being used. The larger ("bush") elephants will have had to come from south of the tropical area of Africa (the savanah lands they now inhabit). Perhaps the Ptolemies were procuring the larger of those equatorial “jungle” elephants.

[Lessa]

no firm evidence cartho hoplite , Phoenician marine & 2 Etruscan chaps mix them & perhaps were close

Now understand for what you mean.
The first in a small bronze, call "Laran" an Etruscan warrior god (like Mars).
The secon is the statue called "The Mars from Todi".

Thanks for all this images! expecially for the draws.

Also, as to elephants, they seem to have displaced chariots sometime after Pyrrhus invaded Sicily. It is a common misconception that the African variety available to the Carthaginians Loxodonta cyclotis (not the larger East Aftican 'bush' elephant, L. africanus) was much smaller than the Indian elephant. This probably occurred because livy says they are smaller and there are some pugmy varieties of l. cyclotis that are now being categorized as seperate species that live in deep jumgle and as with the buffalo- and people- who live in jungle are especially small. Carthage, not being jungle, surely had a type of Cyclotis which was of the large variety. See the comparison below.
I'm not calling Livy a liar, simply stating this because there must be another reason for the size discrepancy such as age or sex. Perhaps large Cyclotis were less manageable. At the very least the modern assumption based on small jungle varieties must be questioned.

Should search some paleontological data that confirm this idea.
Anyway, it's possible that jungle elephants were smaller, because the jungle is selective for the size. But also, if Carthaginian have domesticated Jungle Elephants, it's probably that they have caused an increment of animal's size, caused by artificial selection.
But could be possible the contrary. In fact we know that one of the principally results of being addomesticated is the diminishment of size.
See for example sheeps and cows.

That image above marked "97" is based on the Chemtou shield and is an example of what I think is an innacurate reconstruction, the central depression probably being an artistic device to make the blazon stand out. Many elements of the early Phoenecian/Carthaginian kit are not far different from what can be seen in late Assyrian reliefs.
Below is a drawing of the famous Amanthus bowl believed to show phoenicean troops. There are very good images of this and the british museum site, but they are too bit to post at high quality- just google it. The second image is from an Assyrian relief, but it shows a convex round shield that is rimmed and would be very hard to tell from an aspis but for the more conical profile and the boss, which probably indicates a single hand-grip. Shields like this can be seen from the back on other relierf and they have single grips.

I cannot find more img on google about this reliefs. Just the same immage you have posted.

Thanks anyway!

[Dutchhoplite]

Below is a drawing of the famous Amanthus bowl believed to show phoenicean troops.

They're all Phoenicians?? Or are they Phoenicians fighting..well...

[PMBardunias]

It seems apparent that the Asian elephants possessed "great size and strength" in comparison to their African counterparts. I'd suggest that the smaller "jungle" elephant may well be being used. The larger ("bush") elephants will have had to come from south of the tropical area of Africa (the savanah lands they now inhabit). Perhaps the Ptolemies were procuring the larger of those equatorial “jungle” elephants.

Its unlikely that they used a jungle variety because they type located north of the Sahara at the time they were catching them were surely not jungle types. I need to make careful distinction that I am not talking about the classic african "bush" elephant of safari fame, which is the subspecies Loxodonta africanis, but populations of cyclotis that do not live in jungle. I was suprised upon looking into this that the small "cyclotis" all of which are from jungle, may be different subspecies all together. The Cyclotis, which the Troglodytic elephants might have been, that are found in central africa, but from more opened areas- areas more like what would have been seen in North Africa and probably the Red Sea coast back then- are only a foot or two shorter and about 500 lbs lighter than the Asians.

This leads me to a few possible conclusions:

1) For some reason the largest Cyclotis were not used or unmanageable.
2) The elephants used at Raphia just happened to be smaller- perhaps more females or younger. Even big young elephants will often quail at older bulls. Any of us older guys who has ever had the pleasure of facing down a teenaged punk know how this works.
3) The Asians were themselves bigger- there are some real big Asian elephants in Nepal, perhpas there were in the NW as well. Domestication and hunting might have played a role in this. Modern asian elephants are far more likely to be tuskless for example because we keep shooting all the males with big tusks. Also we tend to think that we make animals bigger when we domesticate them, but in fact Cows, pigs and dogs are all smaller- and dummer- than Aurochs, boars, and wolves. Smaller is more manageable.

[Paralus]

Its unlikely that they used a jungle variety because they type located north of the Sahara at the time they were catching them were surely not jungle types. I need to make careful distinction that I am not talking about the classic african "bush" elephant of safari fame, which is the subspecies Loxodonta africanis, but populations of cyclotis that do not live in jungle. I was suprised upon looking into this that the small "cyclotis" all of which are from jungle, may be different subspecies all together. The Cyclotis, which the Troglodytic elephants might have been, that are found in central africa, but from more opened areas- areas more like what would have been seen in North Africa and probably the Red Sea coast back then- are only a foot or two shorter and about 500 lbs lighter than the Asians.

Wrong word: "forrest" rather than jungle. The latter are a subspecies. The forrest elephant, living on the forrested eges of the tropics is the likely candidate. As to ranging as far as the Red Sea coast, Ptolemy III famously claimed (in the Adoulis inscription) to be the hunter and trainer - along with his old man Philadelphus - of the Troglodytic and Ethiopian elephants. You are likely correct.

That said, Polybios is quite adamant that African elephants regularly declined combat with Asian elephants. He states that most of Ptolemy's elephants refused to engage their Asian counterparts "as is the habit of African elephants" clearly implying that their performance at Raphia was, in fact, no surprise. It is quite possible that Polybios sees this battle as the first recorded demomstrating what, by his time, was well known fact. His explanation for this is the smell and the Asian's "great size and strength".

Whilst I take the point on gender or youth but, if the inferiority of Africans to Asians was as well known as Polybios implies, were the Ptolemies (and later Carthaginians) regularly utilising females or younger animals it likely will have been remarked upon as a reason.

[Paullus Scipio]

The problem here is that Raphia is , AFIK, the only major battle where African and Indian elephants faced one another. It was certainly the perception after Raphia that Africans could not stand up to Indians - witness, perhaps, the Scipios failing to use theirs against Antiochus' Indians at Magnesia. On the other hand, the fact that there were only 16 Africans and 54 Indians may have been a significant factor in not courting action ! If this was so, it would only add to the 'perceived wisdom' that Africans could not face Indians - hence reflected as 'fact' by Polybius. Those two incidents alone would be the whole basis for Polybius' idea that Africans 'regularly' refused combat with Indians.

Furthermore, at Raphia, the Africans did not refuse to fight Indians ! .....Combat DID take place between African and Indian elephants, for as Polybius himself says:
"The soldiers in the towers made a fine fight of it, jousting with their pikes and stabbing at each other, but the beasts themselves fought even better, battling with all their strength and butting at each other with their foreheads..."

Even the small size differences in the table Paul B. posted would mean that by and large the Indians would generally win these "shoving" contests of strength.

Polybius' statements and generalities would appear to be an example of a an early "Urban Myth", even on his own evidence..... D

[Paralus]

Furthermore, at Raphia, the Africans did not refuse to fight Indians ! .....Combat DID take place between African and Indian elephants, for as Polybius himself says:
"The soldiers in the towers made a fine fight of it, jousting with their pikes and stabbing at each other, but the beasts themselves fought even better, battling with all their strength and butting at each other with their foreheads..."

Even the small size differences in the table Paul B. posted would mean that by and large the Indians would generally win these "shoving" contests of strength.

Polybius' statements and generalities would appear to be an example of a an early "Urban Myth", even on his own evidence..... D

There's distinct possibilities with that last.

Raphia is, from memory, the first attested (that we know of) such battle. Problem is that, whilst some Africans closed in combat, Polybios clearly indicates that the bulk of the Africans wanted no fight:

Most of Ptolemy's elephants, however, declined the combat, as is the habit of African elephants...

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

Problem is that, whilst some Africans closed in combat, Polybios clearly indicates that the bulk of the Africans wanted no fight:

....again, this is likely to be perception. Most zoologists will tell you that almost all animal combat is posturing and intimidation......indeed, so preponderant is this that some animals, such as the famous Australian frill-necked lizard have evolved features to take advantage of the fact and try to intimidate foes into thinking they are bigger.
One suspects therefore that if all the elephants had been of the same species, but Ptolemy's the smaller by and large, the result would have been the same....the smaller animals " backing off" from confronting an opponent obviously bigger than themselves - which suggests in turn that those that did fight were not significantly smaller, as Paul B's table suggests.

[Paralus]

One suspects therefore that if all the elephants had been of the same species, but Ptolemy's the smaller by and large, the result would have been the same....the smaller animals " backing off" from confronting an opponent obviously bigger than themselves - which suggests in turn that those that did fight were not significantly smaller, as Paul B's table suggests.

No argument: the bulk (pardon the pun) of Ptolemy's elephants were smaller than Antiochus'. Therefore Polybios' observation about size is likely correct.

[PMBardunias]

Let me be clear that I am not assuming Polybius to be wrong in any way. What I am saying is probably incorrect is the modern notion that Cyclotis was very much smaller based on a false analysis of existant dwarf populations- as in too small to bear turrets for example. I have read this many times.

One suspects therefore that if all the elephants had been of the same species, but Ptolemy's the smaller by and large, the result would have been the same....the smaller animals " backing off" from confronting an opponent obviously bigger than themselves - which suggests in turn that those that did fight were not significantly smaller, as Paul B's table suggests.

There has been suggestion that those African elephants that did fight were of the true, large bush variety. Audulis diferentiates two types and I think it a fair assumption that there were Troglyditic that equate to either Cyclotis or a wholly new subspecies, while the other are in fact the "bush" variety from southern Sudan or Eritrea. If true then these surely had the potential to be as big as the Asians. There was a long period between the Laodicean war and Raphia though, so perhaps they had stopped getting the larger type from so far south.