TEXT: ANDREA SALIMBETI  
  & RAFFAELE D’AMATO
  ILLUSTRATED BY GIUSEPPE RAVA
  The Carthaginians  
  6th–2nd Century BC
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  Elite • 201
  The Carthaginians  
  6th–2nd Century BC
  ANDREA SALIMBETI  
  ILLUSTRATED BY GIUSEPPE RAVA
  & RAFFAELE D’AMATO
  Series editor Martin Windrow 
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  CONTENTS
  INTRODUCTION 
  4 
  ���������������������
  HISTORICAL REPUTATION 
  9
  ����������������� �� ���������������
  CHRONOLOGY 
  12
  ORGANIZATION 
  16
  �������� �� ���������������� �� ������������������ �� ������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  TACTICS 
  28
  ������������������������� �� ������������������������������������������������������������������������
  ARMS & EQUIPMENT 
  32
  ������������������������������������������������������������� � Shields �� �������� �� ������
  �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
  standards
  CLOTHING & PHYSICAL APPEARANCE 
  46
  THE NAVY 
  48
  SELECTED CAMPAIGNS & BATTLES 
  52
  ������������������������������c.������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 
  61
  INDEX 
  64
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  �
  INTRODUCTION
  Carthage was the greatest military power in the western Mediterranean 
  world during the centuries of the Greek and Roman expansions, and used its 
  mighty fleet to build a commercial and territorial empire in North Africa, the 
  Iberian Peninsula and the central and western Mediterranean islands. The 
  study of the armament and military culture of these formidable Western 
  Phoenicians – Chanani (Kn’nm, from Canaanites, as they called themselves), 
  or Punics (from the Latin Poeni, i.e. Phoenicians) – is still ongoing; but some 
  attempt at an analysis is essential for any understanding of the history of 
  their conflicts with the Greek potentates of the central and western 
  Mediterranean and later with the Roman Res Publica. This book tries to 
  represent how Carthaginian warriors might have looked, according to the 
  current state of our knowledge based on a comparative synthesis of the main 
  archaeological finds and the iconographic and literary sources.
  * * *
  In the 9th century BC, Phoenician refugees from Tyre, escaping 
  from the threat posed by the Assyrians to their east, founded 
  on the coast of what is now Tunisia a ‘New City’ – Qrt hdst 
  in the Phoenician language, Karchedon to the Greeks and 
  Carthago to the Romans. This Phoenician expansion into 
  the western Mediterranean was essentially provoked  
  by economic competition. Confronted by both the 
  Assyrians from the east and the Greeks from the  
  north-west, the Tyrians decided to found colonies far to 
  the west, of which Carthage became the largest. 
  Following the Phoenician tradition, it was a mercantile 
  city whose affairs centred on maritime trade, but which 
  made war when this was considered necessary to defend 
  a new enclave or to open new markets. The acropolis of 
  Carthage, traditionally built by the mythical queen Dido, was 
  called by the Semitic name of Bozra (‘citadel’), but this was 
  corrupted by Greeks into Byrsa, (‘bull’s hide’). Hence arose the 
  legend that when the settlers were each allowed as much ground as 
  they could ‘cover with a hide’, they ingeniously cut a hide into a 
  continuous narrow strip to surround as much land as possible.
  THE CARTHAGINIANS  
  6th–2nd CENTURIES BC
  ��������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������
  shophet�����������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������� 
  ������������������������������
  nezem� ������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  �
  During the 8th century 
  Phoenicia itself was overrun 
  by the Assyrians, and 
  Carthage assumed the role of 
  protector over the other 
  western settlements, while 
  her own colonies also 
  proliferated. There was thus 
  increasing competition with 
  Greek colonies in the same 
  regions (North Africa, Iberia, 
  Sicily 
  and 
  other 
  Mediterranean islands). The 
  first real expansion of 
  Carthage from a city-state 
  into an empire very likely 
  occurred in the middle of the 
  6th century BC. At that 
  period historical sources 
  refer to military expeditions 
  by the Carthaginian general 
  Mazheus to Sicily and 
  Sardinia (545–535 BC), 
  when he gained control of 
  Phoenician colonies already 
  established on those islands. 
  (This rendering of his name 
  was changed to ‘Malchus’ by 
  a 17th-century editor who 
  recognized the Punic word 
  Mlk in the text.) There is also 
  mention of the unsuccessful 
  sea battle of Alalia (535 BC), fought off Corsica by Carthaginians in alliance 
  with Etruscans against Greeks. At the end of the 6th century Carthage 
  already controlled the North African shores from the Atlantic coast of 
  today’s Morocco to the western borders of Egypt, plus Malta, the western 
  part of Sicily, Sardinia and the Balearic Islands. Multi-ethnicity was an 
  essential component of Carthaginian policy; over centuries, the elite 
  contracted marriages with foreigners in order to reinforce relations with 
  subject or allied peoples by means of kinship (the renowned Hannibal Barca 
  himself married an Iberian princess).
  During the 5th century Carthage’s major rivals were the Greek rulers of 
  Syracuse, who drove Punic expeditionary forces out of Sicily for decades 
  after 480 BC. However, Sardinia became one of Carthage’s most productive 
  and valuable possessions in this period, and the agricultural exploitation of 
  that island was particularly intensive. On the eve of the battle of Himera in 
  480 BC the Punic general Hamilcar the Magonid, leader of an expedition 
  to Sicily, sent part of his fleet to Sardinia to procure wheat. In 396 BC 
  Himilco, a grandson of Hamilcar who was then besieging Syracuse during 
  the renewed Sicilian wars, sent ships to both Libya and Sardinia to stock 
  up on food, particularly wheat. When military expeditions failed and the 
  Libyans revolted in North Africa, Carthage owed   its salvation to the 
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������� 
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  (Magna Graecia)���������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  �
  continued ability to import grain from Sardinia. Later, even after  
  the treaty that ended the expeditions of Agathocles of Syracuse 
  (310–306 BC), it is said that he was planning to cut the Carthaginian 
  grain supply from Sardinia.
  From 430 BC Pericles of Athens and, a century later, Alexander the 
  Great of Macedonia considered expeditions against Carthage to 
  enhance the spread of Greek commerce in the Mediterranean; but 
  after the removal of the danger represented by Agathocles in 307 BC, 
  the Punic state entered one of its most glorious periods. Master of the 
  seas, it controlled the passage between the western and eastern halves 
  of the Mediterranean. Carthage consolidated once again its ancient 
  links with the Phoenician motherland, which under the Sidonian 
  dynasties entered a new period of prosperity. In about 300 BC even 
  Ptolemy of Egypt recognized this predominance, adopting the symbol of the 
  Phoenician horse on his coinage, and renewing alliances with Carthage and 
  its Levantine sisters. Carthage was now firmly attached to the main cultural 
  centres of the Hellenic world - Alexandria and Tarento – and began a marked 
  process of Hellenization, with a philo-Hellenic aristocracy holding power 
  within the state. In the early 3rd century BC Carthage’s colonies around the 
  Mediterranean assured it of an enviable prosperity, especially thanks to its 
  commercial and military fleet, called the ‘silver fleet’.
  The three Punic Wars
  The Greek legacy of war against Carthage now passed to Rome, which 
  challenged this rival for power over the western Mediterranean in three 
  ferocious wars during a total of 120 years. After Carthaginian defeat at 
  the sea battle of the Aegadian Islands brought to an end the First Punic 
  War (264–241 BC), which had been fought for control of Sicily, the Punics 
  swore to the peace treaty in the name of Jupiter Lybicus, the Romans on 
  Jupiter Capitolinus. In front of the temple of Jupiter in Rome the cut-off 
  beaks (rostra) of captured Carthaginian ships were installed as war 
  trophies (Silius Italicus, I, 623), and as an ever-present reminder of 
  unfinished business.
  EARLY CARTHAGINIANS, 6th CENTURY BC
  1: Carthaginian war-chariot and crew; Sardinia, c.550 BC
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������(1a), 
  �����������(1b)������������������������������������(1c); in 
  ������ ���������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ���������� ������� ����� ��� ���� ������ ������� ������ ����� ���
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������� ���� ����� ��������� ���������� ����� ����������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ������� ��� �� ���������� �������� ���� �������������� �������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ����� ����� ���������� ����� ������������ �������� ������� ���
  ���������
  2 & 3: Sardian Iolei warriors
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  ������� ����� ��� ����� ��� ������ ���������� ���� ���� ���������
  ��������� ���� ���������� ����� ���� �������� �����������
  ���������������������������������������
  A
  ������������������������������
  ����������(Carthago Nova) in 
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������
  ��������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  �
  1a
  1b 
  1c
  2 
   
  3
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  �
  During the conflict a Carthaginian leader had emerged as a brilliant 
  organizer of guerrilla warfare against the Romans: Hamilcar (Abdmilqart, 
  ‘the favourite of’ or ‘servant of’ Melqart), of a family clan named the Barca 
  (in the Punic language hbrq, ‘the lightning’). The Barcids were one of the 
  leading families of Carthage, traditionally claiming their descent from an 
  ancient king of Sidon who had escaped from the Phoenician coast to follow 
  the mythical Dido to North Africa (SI, I, 70–76). Returning to Carthage,  
  in 240 BC Hamilcar became involved in another fierce conflict, against an 
  army of mutinous mercenaries. Hamilcar defeated them at Utica and Tunis; 
  but meanwhile the mercenary garrisons in Sardinia had also rebelled, killing 
  the generals Bostar and Hannon, and spreading terror among the 
  Carthaginians on the island. The Sardinians rose against the mutineers and 
  forced them to flee to Italy; there the mercenaries asked for help from Rome, 
  which took the opportunity to intervene in 238 BC. The following year  
  the Carthaginians lost their rich provinces of Sardinia and Corsica to Rome; 
  an attempt to organize an expedition to retake them failed, and Carthage 
  even had to pay an indemnity of 1,200 talents. Thus Sardinia and Corsica 
  became, after Sicily, the first Roman provinces truly overseas, and Carthage 
  emerged from this ‘mercenary war’ even more greatly weakened.
  Hamilcar Barca was appointed commander-in-chief of the Punic army, 
  and to offset the loss of Sicily and Sardinia he used existing Carthaginian 
  footholds in southern Spain to begin a conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, 
  from which he hoped to launch a counter-offensive against Rome.  
  ���������������������������������
  ����������������������
  �������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����������������c.�����������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������
  ����������������������������
  clipeus ��������������������������
  ������������������������������
  (linothorax) ���������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  �
  The see-sawing course of the long Second Punic War (218–201 BC), Rome’s 
  resilience in the face of disastrous defeats, and the deeds of Hamilcar’s sons 
  Hannibal (‘Baal gracious to me’) and Hasdrubal (Azrubâal) Barca in Spain 
  and Italy, are too well chronicled elsewhere to repeat here. After the decisive 
  victory of Scipio Africanus at Zama south of Carthage in 202 BC forced the 
  city to accept humiliating peace terms, Carthage was a pale ghost of its 
  former self; but this was not enough for a powerful war-faction among the 
  Romans, who argued for its final destruction. Conflict between Carthage  
  and Numidia provided the excuse for the Third Punic War in 149 BC, and in 
  146 BC a Roman army utterly destroyed the city and its people, annihilating 
  forever one of the most famous and successful civilizations in Western history 
  (Velleius Paterculus, I, 12).
  HISTORICAL REPUTATION
  ‘The Carthaginians are cruel’, commented Silius Italicus. 
  Coming immediately after mention of the fate that they 
  suffered at Roman hands in 146 BC, that charge may seem 
  hypocritical, but it is certainly true that Carthage 
  condemned captured enemy leaders to atrocious 
  executions. The Iberian prince Tagus was crucified by 
  Hasdrubal (SI, I, 151ff), and the Roman general Atilius 
  Regulus was thrust into a barrel lined with iron spikes and 
  rolled down the streets of Carthage. Silius Italicus has left 
  us (I, 170ff) an unsparing description of the tortures 
  inflicted by the Carthaginians to punish the Iberian 
  avenger of Tagus, who had assassinated Hasdrubal with 
  the late prince’s favourite sword: fire and red-hot steel, 
  and scourges that cut the body to ribbons. In fact we have 
  no direct knowledge of the Punic code of ethics, only the 
  negative judgements of Greek and Roman writers, who 
  were influenced both by political hostility and by the fact 
  that they mainly came into contact with only the most 
  unscrupulous elements of Carthaginian society – 
  mercenaries commanded by ruthlessly competitive 
  generals.
  However, it is perhaps arguable that the 
  Carthaginians showed even less respect for human life 
  than was the norm among the Greeks and the Romans 
  of the Consular Age, low though that sets the bar. This 
  is evident from the cruelties inflicted by the city’s senate 
  not only on individuals of low rank but also on members 
  of the elite, as a matter of state policy. Accounts of the 
  First Punic War show that the ‘Council of the Hundred 
  and Four’ showed no mercy to their own generals when 
  these were unsuccessful. Hanno, the commander of the 
  garrison of Messana (today’s Messina), was crucified 
  for having surrendered to the Romans; another 
  commander of the same name was lucky, after suffering 
  two defeats, to be punished only by a fine of 6,000 gold 
  pieces. In 253 BC, after the defeat of Regulus, the 
  Council still crucified the commander who failed to 
  recapture Panormus (today, Palermo); and in 241 BC an 
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ���������������������������� 
  ������������������������������
  �����������������Poenulus  
  ���������������������������� 
  ��������������������������� 
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������� 
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������
  ����������������������
  ������������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  admiral also named Hanno was crucified after he was defeated at the 
  battle of the Aegadian Islands. The Romans believed that the Punic 
  government’s extreme harshness towards its own commanders was one of 
  the causes of Carthage’s defeat.
  It might be argued that a contempt for human life was not surprising 
  among a people for whom the ultimate meritorious act was ritual suicide 
  (one is inescapably reminded of the Japanese cult of bushido as still practised 
  in the 1930s–40s). The Phoenicians also shared the ancient belief in the value 
  of sacrifices to propitiate their gods. When they were threatened by Agathocles 
  of Syracuse at the end of the 4th century BC, the Carthaginians blamed their 
  misfortune on negligence of their religious observances, and reportedly 
  sacrificed 500 children taken from the noblest families. (We are told that the 
  richest families actually bred and educated slave children to substitute for 
  their own sons in such extreme situations.) Notoriously, the Phoenicians are 
  alleged to have sacrificed young children by burning them alive, but to what 
  degree this took place is still a subject of dispute among scholars. Phoenician-
  Punic sacred places are called by the biblical word tophet, and there is 
  plentiful archaeological evidence for cremations of children at such sites in 
  North Africa, Sicily and Sardinia; but whether these were actual burnt 
  sacrifices or the cremated remains of natural deaths (perhaps stillbirths) 
  is unconfirmed.
  It seems probable that children were sacrificed in early times, but that 
  later the sacrifice of an animal was normally substituted, and only when a 
  terrible crisis threatened the city were living infants sometimes given to the 
  holy fires in front of the altar of Baal Moloch or inside his monstrous oven-
  statue; this happened in 238 BC, during the revolt of the mercenaries. Stelae 
  were erected in honour of sacrificial victims, but their exact interpretation 
  is still disputed (a stele is a monumental or grave stone; pl., stelae). Ruins 
  and archaeological excavations of the Punic civilization speak of a 
  prosperous and vigorous city culture. It is hard to reconcile this positive 
  picture with the hideous idea of child-sacrifice by fire, but not impossible: 
  the mentality and moral codes of ancient peoples were completely different 
  from our own.
  FIRST BATTLE OF HIMERA, 480 BC
  1: Sardinian Phoenician marine
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������kopis 
  ������������������������������
  2: Hamilcar the Magonid
  ����� ���������� ������� ��� �������� ��� ���� ������ ��� ������ ���
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������� ��� ���� �������� ��������� ��� ���� ������������ ��� ��
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ���� ������������ ��� ���� ��������� ���� ���� ����� ��� ���� ������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������������
  ����� ���� ����� ����������� ���� ������� ���������� ���� ����� ���
  shophet������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ���� ������� ������ ������� ����� ���������� ����� �������� ����
  ��������� ��� ������ ����������� ����������� ����� ��� ������ �����
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������
  3: Carthaginian ‘Greek’ hoplite
  ����������������kopis������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������� omphalatos����������Onomasticon�����������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  B
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  1
  2
  3
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  CHRONOLOGY (all dates BC)
  Note: Attention to the chronology is advised in order to avoid confusion, 
  owing to the repeated use of a few Carthaginian personal names – e.g. 
  Hamilcar, Hasdrubal, Hannibal, Hanno, etc – and repeated battles at or near 
  the same sites, e.g. Himera and Akragas in Sicily.   
  814 
   Traditional date for foundation of Carthage by Queen Elissa Dido 
  at the head of refugees from Tyre.   
  c.600 
   The Carthaginian expansion in Sicily begins, bringing confrontation 
  with the Italiotes (Greek colonists in southern Italy).  
  6th century BC:
  c.545– 
  Carthaginian operations on Sardinia led by General Mazheus end 
  535  
  in his defeat. 
  535 
   A Punic-Etruscan allied fleet of 120 ships is defeated by the 
  Phocean Greeks near Alalia (today, Aleria), Corsica.  
  509 
    First agreement between Rome and Carthage, over geographical 
  limits of each’s trading activities. 
  5th century BC:
  481 
   War breaks out between Syracusan Greeks and Carthage.
  480 
    Syracusan Greeks under tyrant Gelon defeat Carthaginian army of 
  Hamilcar the Magonid at battle of Himera in Sicily; Carthaginian 
  army withdraws from the island.  
  480–410 
   Carthaginian naval expansions westwards, 
  including planting outposts beyond the Straits of 
  Gibraltar.  
  409–400 
   Renewed invasion of Sicily under Magonid 
  descendants Himilco and Hannibal brings many 
  victories, including second battle of Himera (409), 
  and Akragas (406).  
  4th century BC:
  398–397 
   Dionysius, Tyrant of Syracuse, captures island-
  fortress of Motya, north-west Sicily; Carthaginian 
  army under Himilco besieges Syracuse, but is 
  repulsed with heavy losses. 
  392   
   New peace negotiated between Carthaginians and 
  Syracusans; in succeeding years the latter reduce 
  Carthaginian territory to enclaves in western Sicily.
  385–376 
   Carthaginians again expand eastwards in Sicily. 
  348   
   Renewal of Carthaginian-Roman trading 
  agreement.
  341   
   Carthaginians nearly capture Syracuse, but, under 
  command of Corinthian mercenary general 
  Timoleon, Syracusans drive back and destroy 
  Carthaginian army at battle of Crimissus (Krimisos) 
  river; reportedly 10,000 Carthaginians are killed, 
  including entire Sacred Band.  
  323–312 
   Disunity among Syracusans allows renewed 
  Carthaginian expansion in Sicily.  
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������������ 
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������ 
  �������������������������� 
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  311–306  War with Agathocles, Tyrant of Syracuse. Carthaginian general 
  Hamilcar defeats Agathocles at third battle of Himera (311) and 
  besieges Syracuse; but Agathocles then lands in North Africa, 
  defeats a Carthaginian army under Hanno (310), and besieges the 
  city (310–307). Eventual Carthaginian victory forces Agathocles to 
  withdraw to Sicily, though not under ruinous peace terms (306). 
  Simultaneously, Carthage renews its trading agreement with Rome. 
  3rd century BC:
  278–276  Syracuse makes alliance with Pyrrhus of Epirus, then master of 
  southern Italy, but he is unable to defeat Carthaginians. Carthage 
  concludes anti-Pyrrhus treaty with Rome (277).  
   
   (275 Pyrrhus decisively defeated by Romans at battle of 
  Beneventum, Italy. By 265 Rome is unchallenged master of whole 
  Italian peninsula.)
  264–241 First Punic War:
   
   This war between Rome and Carthage is fought, on land and sea, 
  over control of Sicily. It begins when rival Sicilian local rulers each 
  appeal for assistance; both powers send expeditionary forces.
  262 
   Victory in battle at Akragas gains Rome control of most of Sicily. 
  256 
   Following Roman naval victory at Cape Ecnomus, Roman army 
  under Regulus lands in North Africa. Carthage rejects peace terms 
  demanded after Roman victory at Adys (today, Uthina). 
  255 
   Regulus is defeated and captured by Carthaginian army led by 
  Spartan mercenary general Xanthippus; most of rescue fleet 
  withdrawing Roman army is sunk by storm, with massive 
  loss of life.  
  254 
   Carthaginians return to Sicily in strength, but military 
  stalemate follows. 
  251 
   After defeat at Panormus (Palermo) by army under  
  L. Caecilius Metellus, Carthaginians send Regulus to Rome 
  under parole with offer of terms. (The traditional account is 
  that he advised against agreement, but insisted on keeping his 
  oath of parole and returning to Carthage, where he was 
  tortured to death.) 
  249 
   Disastrous Roman naval defeat at Drepanum (Trapani). In 
  Sicily, Hamilcar Barca successfully repulses Romans at Eryx. 
  247–242  Hamilcar Barca defeats repeated Roman attempts to retake 
  Sicilian strongholds.  
  241 
   Roman naval victory at the Aegadian Islands; Carthaginians 
  forced to evacuate most of Sicily and sue for peace; end of the 
  First Punic War.  
  240–238  Hamilcar Barca crushes revolt of mercenaries at Carthage, but 
  mutiny of Sardinia garrisons leads to loss of island to Rome.  
  237–229  Hamilcar begins conquest of the Iberian Peninsula from 
  existing Punic settlements in Spain; by his death he has 
  conquered most territory south of the Tagus and Ebro rivers. 
  228–221  Hamilcar’s son-in-law Hasdrubal consolidates his Spanish 
  conquests, and Rome recognizes Carthaginian sovereignty 
  over submitted territory. 
  ����������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  221 
   Hasdrubal is assassinated, and succeeded by Hamilcar’s son 
  Hannibal Barca. Foundation of Cartagena (Carthago Nova, ‘New 
  Carthage’). 
  219 
   In autumn, Hannibal finally captures unsubmitted port of 
  Saguntum, an ally of Rome. (Since the end of the First Punic War, 
  Rome has been preoccupied by wars in Illyria and by a Gallic 
  invasion of central Italy.) 
  218–201 Second Punic War:
  218 
   Leaving his brother Hasdrubal Barca (not to be confused with his 
  late brother-in-law) with an army to defend Spain against Roman 
  attacks, in the spring Hannibal leads his army north with an initial 
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������
  ������������������������
  ����������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  strength of c.50,000 infantry, 9,000 cavalry and between 30 and 
  40 elephants. Crossing the Pyrenees Mountains (March–June),  
  he profits from preparatory contacts and intelligence to pick up 
  support in Gaul, and avoids interception by the army of Publius 
  Scipio. He then crosses the Alps (October) and reaches the Po 
  Valley in Cisalpine Gaul, though now weakened to perhaps 20,000 
  infantry, 6,000 cavalry and a few surviving elephants. Recruiting 
  Italic allies locally, Hannibal defeats a Roman army in a mainly 
  cavalry clash at the Ticinus river (November). At the Trebbia river 
  (December), now with 30,000-plus men, he routs a stronger 
  Roman army under T. Sempronius. Meanwhile, Roman expedition 
  to Spain under Publius’s brother Gnaeus Scipio captures territory 
  north of the Ebro.
  217 
   Hannibal brilliantly outmanoeuvres and outmarches (March–June) 
  two Roman armies, led by consuls G. Flaminius and Gn. Servilius, 
  to get south between them and Rome. At battle of Lake Trasimene 
  (April) he destroys Flaminius’s army in a huge ambush, and 
  immediately afterwards that of Servilius. Rome appoints as dictator 
  Q. Fabius ‘Cunctator’ (‘the Delayer’), who conducts an able 
  campaign of denying Hannibal pitched battles while rebuilding 
  Roman strength.  
  216, August 
   
   
   At Cannae on the Aufidus river Hannibal, with c.40,000 infantry 
  and 10,000 cavalry, faces 80,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry under 
  the consuls C. Terentius Varro and L. Aemilius Paulus. He routs 
  them in one of history’s greatest exemplary tactical victories, killing 
  perhaps as many as 70,000 Romans.  
  216–207  Stalemate in Italy; annual campaigns and counter-campaigns, 
  indecisive victories and defeats on both sides. Rome raises large 
  armies to campaign on several fronts, while Hannibal has difficulty 
  recruiting; the Punic senate, dominated by his father’s opponent 
  Hanno, denies him the support he needs. 
  217–206 Other fronts:  
   
   The cooperating forces of brothers P. and Gn. Scipio campaign in 
  Spain, gradually forcing Hasdrubal Barca back from the Ebro line, 
  and eventually retaking Saguntum (212), but losing the captured 
  territory again the following year. The Romans also foment an 
  anti-Carthage revolt in North Africa by a Numidian king, but 
  Hasdrubal returns and crushes this with help from Numidian 
  prince Massinissa, whose valuable light cavalry accompany him 
  back to Spain (212). Meanwhile (215), King Philip V of Macedonia 
  opportunistically declares war against Rome (First Macedonian 
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������� 
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  War), without much effect. Publius Scipio dies; his son P. Cornelius 
  Scipio (the future ‘Africanus’) takes his place (210), and captures 
  Cartagena (209). After Scipio defeats Hasdrubal Barca at Baecula 
  (208), Hasdrubal takes reinforcements across the Alps (207) to 
  cooperate with Hannibal in Italy. The remaining Carthaginians in 
  Spain are finally defeated by Scipio in a decisive victory against 
  great odds at Ilipa (206). 
  207 
   Battle of the Metaurus river. Forced march by C. Claudius Nero 
  allows link-up with army of M. Livius Salinator, and when battle 
  is joined Nero’s audacious left hook around the Carthaginian flank 
  destroys Hasdrubal Barca’s army; Hasdrubal is among the many 
  thousands slain. 
  204–203  Landing in North Africa by P. Cornelius Scipio, who wins victories 
  over Hannibal Barca’s brothers and allies. Hannibal is recalled 
  from Italy (203) with c.18,000 men, mostly veterans of the Italian 
  campaign, and raises a new army around this core. 
  202 
   Battle of Zama (Naraggara): Hannibal, with c.45,000 foot, but 
  only 3,000 horse and some elephants, is defeated with huge loss by 
  Scipio’s 34,000 infantry and 9,000 cavalry. Carthage sues for 
  peace. 
  201 
   Under harsh terms of peace treaty Carthage is left with only its 
  African possessions, loses its fleet and its elephants, and pays heavy 
  annual tributes. 
  2nd century BC:
  c.183 
  The exiled Hannibal, pursued by Rome, commits suicide. 
  149–146  Third Punic War:
  147 
   P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, adopted grandson of Scipio 
  Africanus, takes command of siege of Carthage. 
  146 
   Carthage is stormed, sacked and destroyed, the few surviving 
  citizens being sold into slavery. 
  ORGANIZATION
  Command
  The leading class of Carthaginians, who traced their roots back to the Tyrian 
  and Sidonian aristocracy, formed a small mercantile oligarchy, jealous of its 
  privileges and riven by rivalries. Following the overthrow of its monarchy in 
  the 5th century BC, Carthage was ruled by an aristocratic senate or council 
  (‘Council of the Hundred and Four’), presided over by two shophet 
  (magistrates) who served similar functions to those of Roman consuls. 
  Carthage’s noble clans could afford, and were legally allowed, to maintain 
  their own armies. There is also plentiful evidence for individuals from the 
  leading families serving in command roles in the national military forces.
  The different ranks of the Carthaginian army are little known, but they 
  probably adopted Hellenic terminology. The Greek sources referred to the 
  commander of Punic forces as strategos or boetarch. The latter was the title 
  of a general commanding the troops of a garrison. The strategos could at the 
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��mina�����������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  sparto�������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  pilum��������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  same time be a military governor, and had the authority to sign treaties.  
  In areas of conflict we often find instances of dual command, and not all of 
  these strategoi seem to be concerned with governing provinces.
  Citizen militia
  The Carthaginian troops, structured in the archaic period upon Eastern 
  models such as the Assyrian armies, reshaped their organization to conform 
  to Hellenic models during the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. From the second half 
  of the 4th century Carthage could field a citizen force of heavy infantry. 
  According to Diodorus Siculus (XVI, 80), a part of it was organized in a 
  ‘Sacred Band’ of 2,500 warriors recruited among the wealthy families. 
  However, they could not stand up to most Greek hoplite infantry, and were 
  sometimes wiped out in battles in Sicily. A band of young Carthaginian 
  citizen warriors is mentioned by Silius Italicus in the army of Hannibal  
  (III, 230ff). Some senators seem to have been included among those with the 
  status of Carthaginian citizens who served in Hannibal’s army, being 
  mentioned in the treaty concluded with Philip V of Macedonia in 215 BC.
  The mobilization of citizens (Punic, b‘lm = ‘the citizens’) is attested as an 
  institution not only in Carthage itself but also in the colonies. Panormus in 
  Sicily minted silver coins to pay mercenary troops, but from 320 BC the 
  Punic Sicilian tetradrachms had a design including mention of the mmhnt 
  (‘the citizens in the camp’, i.e. the citizen militia serving alongside the 
  mercenaries in the Carthaginian army). These coins bore on one side 
  either the image of the goddess Core surrounded by dolphins or the 
  head of Herakles-Melqart, and on the other side a horse’s head and 
  a palm tree. From 410 BC Carthage itself began to mint tetradrachms 
  with the inscriptions qrthdšt e (‘Carthage’) and mhnt (the ‘military 
  camp’, i.e. the military administration) to pay the mercenary troops 
  employed in Sicily. The adoption on one side of the coin of bridled 
  and free horses, both crowned by Nike as symbols of victory and 
  military power, had strong propaganda value in a time of full-scale 
  military operations against the Greeks.
  Libyo-Phoenicians
  The Libyo-Phoenicians or Punics were the national element, who 
  lived in North Africa between the Atlantic coast of modern Morocco 
  in the west and the Egyptian borderlands in the east, and also in the 
  Spanish coastal regions between Cadiz and Almeria. The core of the 
  army was always formed by them and, in some instances, by colonial 
  or Levantine elements, whom the ancient authors generically call 
  ‘Phoenicians’. It is interesting to note, in the first phases of the Punic 
  conquest of North Africa, the military ‘contracts’ mentioned by the 
  ancient historians (Herodotus; Justinus, XIX, 2, 10). These included 
  the forced regimentation of North Africans within Punic armies, 
  under the command of Punic officers and subject to Punic law, and 
  also presumably looser agreements with the semi-nomadic Libyan 
  tribe of the Macae from Cirta (Constantine, in modern Algeria).
  These Libyo-Phoenicians, as distinct from those of the capital, 
  were recruited on a mercenary basis to remedy the deficiency in 
  numbers of what we might term the ‘metropolitan’ citizenry, and 
  their reluctance to serve on campaign. In the eyes of the elite of 
  Carthage these provincials were citizens of the second rank, and their 
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������� 
  �����������������������
  ��������������������������� 
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������� 
  ��������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  paid participation in military service was also intended to improve their 
  economic and social situation. The cities that furnished contingents are noted 
  by Silius Italicus (III, 241ff) as Utica, Aspys, Berenicis, Barce, Cyrene (of 
  Greek origin), Sabratha, Leptis (like Carthage, of Tyrian origin), Oea (today’s 
  Tripoli, whose contingents were a mixture of North Africans and Sicilians), 
  Vaga, Hippo, Ruspina, Zama and Thapsus.
  The Carthaginian national troops did not enjoy as good a reputation as 
  their fleet. Although citizen-soldiers often showed courage and energy, the 
  Carthaginian leaders preferred to entrust the defence of their strategic 
  interests to professional soldiers.
  MERCENARIES & ALLIES
  Although the Carthaginian army was at first composed only of citizens of 
  Phoenician origin, from the 6th century BC it saw increased recruitment of 
  contingents of mercenaries and allies in order to realize the policy of imperial 
  expansion. This use of mercenaries saved the metropolitan population from 
   HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS, c.400 BC
  1: Carthaginian general
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ���� ������� ��� ������� ����� ��������� ������ ��������� �����
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  �������� ���� ��������� ���� ����������� �������� ��������� ����
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ������ ��� ���������� ������ �������� ����������� ����� ���������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ������ ��� ���������� ��� ��� �������� ������ ����� �������� ����
  ��������� ����������� ��� ������ ��� ���� ��������������� ����
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  2: Priest
  ����� ������� ��� ��������� �� ����������� ������ ���� �������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������
  3: Shophet  
  �����������������������������������������������lebbade ���
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������
  C
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������
  �������������������thyreos������
  ����������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��������������(linothorax)� and 
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������
  (geminae pinnae)�������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������
  �������������������������� 
  ���������������������
  �������������������������� 
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������
  ������������������������
  ����������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
   
  3
  1
  2 
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  heavy casualties that were not easily replaceable, and it also reflected the 
  Carthaginian concept of war, which was considered simply as an extension 
  of business. When a war was necessary, it should be brief, so as not to divert 
  too many resources from the main occupations of Punic citizens. This 
  normally held true whatever the outcome of a particular campaign, thus the 
  willingness of the government to discuss terms as soon as possible after an 
  initial failure to achieve an objective. All in all, it was therefore natural  
  to entrust these operations to professionals (as also, increasingly from the  
  4th century BC, did the Greeks).
  This heavy reliance on mercenaries brought its own problems, the most 
  serious of which was the question of command and control, since this policy 
  might leave the city at the mercy of unscrupulous men. In some instances, 
  those who were responsible for Carthage’s defence seized the first opportunity 
  to turn against the ‘civilian bourgeoisie’ that they hated. Carthage, whose 
  great wealth was not equally spread among the population, was in more 
  danger of civic unrest than other states, and mercenaries might ally themselves 
  with a rebellious proletariat. To avoid such situations, the Punic government 
  took the precaution of keeping the proletarian classes out of all positions of 
  command. All the most important appointments were reserved for members 
  of the aristocracy, and even the junior military cadres were recruited from 
  among the mercenaries.
  This system might have given good results if the Punic officers had had 
  enough authority and prestige; but the mercenaries could feel little loyalty 
  to the oligarchy of wealthy merchants who governed the city, and it was not 
  easy to maintain discipline among them. One way to overcome the problem 
  was to engage charismatic military leaders, but these men, almost exclusively 
  of Greek nationality, might have political ambitions that were dangerous 
  for the Punic state. Some of these ‘Wallensteins’ might well have conceived 
  the idea of   transforming Carthage into a kingdom for their own profit;  
  so, indeed, might members of the oligarchy itself, such as the Barca family 
  – thus the simmering mutual suspicion and disunity within the governing 
  class, which weakened Carthage so dangerously at militarily 
  critical moments.
  With the enlargement of Punic economic interests the army became ever 
  more exclusively mercenary, and progressively came to include almost all the 
  peoples of the central and western Mediterranean area. The sources mention 
  Moors (Mauri), Numidians and Africans; Pyrenean tribes and other Iberian 
  allies; Sardinians, Corsicans and Balearics; Italic Celts, Ligurians, Etruscans, 
  Campanians, Apulians, Lucanians, 
  Bruttians, Sicels, Macedonians and 
  Greeks. Elements of this heterogeneous 
  mass 
  preserved 
  their 
  regional 
  characteristics and served under their 
  own junior officers. Silius Italicus 
  (Punica, I, 189ff; III, 231ff) offers a list 
  of mercenary nationalities who were in 
  Hannibal’s army in Spain and followed 
  him to Italy. Besides the Libyans who 
  formed the core of the ‘national army’, 
  there was a strong component of North 
  African infantry (perhaps the majority), 
  supported by Iberian light and heavy 
  �������������������������
  ������������������������� 
  ������������������������� 
  ��������������������������
  bipennis �����������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  infantry. The auxiliary troops consisted of the cavalry, 
  especially the Numidian light horse, and the valuable 
  Balearic slingers.
  By that time, at the end of the 3rd century, these 
  mercenaries were no longer simply troops hired for a single 
  campaign and discharged after a few months’ service, as 
  had still sometimes been the case 50 years earlier during the 
  First Punic War. They were a professional standing army 
  seasoned by long years of warfare, under the command of 
  skilled generals like Hamilcar Barca and his sons.
  North Africans
  Among the North Africans were the subjected Libyans of 
  the Marmarica, forming the light infantry: Garamantians, 
  Nasamones, Macae from the Cynips river, the tribes of 
  Barce, the Autololes, the ferocious Adyrmachidae, the 
  inhabitants of greater Syrtis, and the Gaetulians (SI, II, 56–
  64). These peoples spoke Libyan and/or Egyptian (SI, II, 56). 
  Sometimes their ranks even included women, true ‘Amazons’ 
  fighting on chariots or horseback; they are described as 
  protected by the crescent-shaped, red-painted pelta, which was sometimes 
  jewelled (SI, II, 75ff; 167), and wielding the double axe (SI, II, 189).  
  The image of Princess Asbyte fighting together with Hannibal at Saguntum 
  is perhaps purely legendary, but even the Greek accounts remembered that 
  the earliest Amazons came from Libya. Matriarchal warrior tribes and 
  matrilineal tribal descent are a continuing theme in African history, and in 
  some cases, as in Libya, this culture survived well into modern times. (It is 
  also noteworthy that mosaics in African cities of the Imperial age often show 
  fights between Amazons equipped with the bipennis axe and pelta shield, 
  and other gladiators or beasts.)
  Other African contingents were furnished by Ethiopians and Nubians, 
  often used as elephant-riders; by the Marmaridae; and the Baniura, 
  inhabitants of Mauretania Tingitana.
  Iberians
  In Spain the Phoenicians mixed, during centuries of presence 
  and influence, with the indigenous Tartessio-Turdetan or 
  Bastulo peoples, who were soon considered Carthaginian 
  for all practical purposes. It was from Spain that 
  Hannibal raised 12,000 men to form the nucleus of 
  his phalanx, so decisive in the battle of Cannae, and 
  Iberians provided the backbone of both Hamilcar’s 
  and Hannibal’s troops (SI, I, 220ss). Contingents 
  came from Celtic Asturias (SI, I, 252; III, 334), a 
  land particularly famous for its mines and for the 
  breeding of warhorses. Fast and tenacious, the 
  Iberian horsemen were almost as lightly armoured 
  as the Numidians and, as remembered by Livy, they 
  were perfectly able to replace them in ‘nuisance’ and 
  skirmish actions. According to the ancient authors, 
  their rapidity was actually the characteristic that most 
  distinguished the Iberian soldiers.
  Clipeus�����������������
  ����������������������������
  c.���������������������������� 
  ���������������������� 
  ������������������������
  ����������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ����������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Apart from the Asturians, other named peoples were the Cantabrians 
  (Concani – descendants of Massagetae), Turdetani, Olcadi, Mastieni, 
  Vascones (Basques), Turduli, Lusitani (Portuguese), Carpetani, Vaccaei and 
  Arevaci (Celtiberians), Vettones, Arbacians, Galicians, Ilergetes, Ilercavones, 
  Ceretani, Edetani, Sedetani, and obviously the Balearic slingers – the best in 
  the ancient world. New and old Phoenician cities, Greek colonies or 
  subjugated towns such as Oene, Cartagena, Emporiae, Tarraco (Cassetani), 
  Tydae, Castulo (Tartessians), Hispalis (today’s Seville), Tartessus, Munda, 
  Carteia, Cordova and Nebrissa all furnished contingents for Hannibal’s army 
  (SI, III, 362ff), together with the ferocious inhabitants of Uxama, supposedly 
  of Sarmatian ancestry. Many acted as light infantrymen: according to Livy 
  (XXI, 55, 2), the Balearic slingers at the battle of the Trebbia are clearly 
  indicated as levis armatura.  
  Celts
  Mercenaries in Mediterranean Europe were found among the Iberians, 
  Ligurians and Celts. In fact, those recruited in Iberia included Iberians, but 
  also Celts (Celtiberians), and Liguria (north-west Italy) provided Ligurians, 
  but also Celts (Celtoligurians). The warriors recruited in Transalpine and 
  Cisalpine Gaul (i.e. north and south of the Alps, respectively) were primarily 
  Celts. During his march to join Hannibal in 208–207 BC, Hasdrubal Barca 
  hired mercenaries ‘along the northern coast of the Ocean [i.e. the 
  Mediterranean]...[and] crossed the Pyrenees to the land of the Celts along 
  with Celtiberians whom he had hired as mercenaries’ (App., Hisp. 28; App., 
  Hann. 52). Hasdrubal was welcomed by the Arverni, and later by other 
  Alpine populations, and both followed him to fight against Rome (Livy, 
  XXVII, 39, 6).
  Among the Celtic peoples of north-eastern and north-central Italy only 
  the Insubri and the Boii people (the latter, according to Cato, divided into 
  112 tribes) could be expected to provide allied manpower for Carthaginian 
  military plans, while the others, as for example the Senones, had already been 
  conquered by the Romans. At the outset of the Second Punic War Hannibal 
  believed that the support of the Transalpine and Cisalpine Celts was essential 
  for any military success in Italy, and therefore sent messages to the Celtic 
  leaders in advance to seek their assistance, in the form of military contingents 
  to be provided by the tribes as evidence of their anti-Roman political 
  commitment (Pol., III, 34, 1–6). The presence of the Cisalpine Gauls and 
  LEFT�����������������
  ���������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������������
  ������������������������ 
  �������������������������������� 
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������
  RIGHT���������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ������������������������ 
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Ligurians is indirectly evidenced by Livy, who describes them out of battle 
  and thus escaping the slaughter at the Metaurus river in 207 BC (Livy, 
  XXVII, 49, 8).
  The presence of Celts in the Carthaginian army in Italy indicated a spirit 
  of greater commitment than was the case in various intra-tribal coalitions 
  promoted by the same peoples. In the latter case, tribal motivation seems 
  mainly to have been their own policies of expansion or maintenance of 
  territories in competition with rivals near and far (although, of course, these 
  included an important enemy like Rome). The Celtic tribes contributed to 
  Hannibal’s army differing levels of numbers and support, and were thus of 
  varying military value. The historical sources state or imply that Hannibal’s 
  project was seen as a pole of attraction for the hopes of revenge nurtured by 
  the Insubri and the Boii after the Romans had defeated the Senones; but they 
  also describe Celtic indecision, ambiguity and uncertain reliability, at a time 
  when Hannibal needed loyal, solid allies that he could count on in the long 
  term (Pol., III, 106, 6).
  NON-INFANTRY TROOPS
  Cavalry
  The Carthaginians made widespread use of cavalry, especially during the 
  Punic Wars with Rome. It was mainly used to harass or pursue the enemy 
  on the march, and to launch outflanking attacks in battle. At least after the 
  4th century BC this arm was mainly composed of Numidians, and to a 
  lesser extent of tribes from the Atlantic coastal plains such as the Moors or 
  Gaetuli. The Numidians were the best cavalrymen (especially the powerful 
  tribe of the Massyli), followed by the 
  Iberians. Both were light cavalry, who 
  proved in many decisive battles their 
  superiority to Roman horsemanship. 
  Nevertheless, Carthage also possessed a 
  heavy cavalry, probably an elite 
  formation composed of young Punic 
  aristocrats. This latter was used for 
  shock action based upon mass impact in 
  battle, so it was a less versatile asset than 
  the nimble Numidians or Iberians, who 
  were accustomed to fighting in looser, 
  more manoeuvrable formations.
  Chariots
  In the absence of a mobile field artillery to 
  provide shock support for their infantry in 
  battle, the early Carthaginians   used 
  scythed war-chariots and later fighting 
  elephants. The chariots, widely used in the 
  wars against Sardinians and Greeks, were 
  drawn by a pair of horses (or sometimes 
  four – Plutarch, Timoleon, 27, 4) and 
  probably had a single axle; the basic  
  two-man crew were a driver and an archer. 
  Lethal blades were fixed on the wheels 
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������� 
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  and on the front part of the chariots (which were sometimes armoured),  
  so that they could be used for direct charges to open gaps in the enemy’s ranks. 
  To succeed in such tactics the chariots needed open ground and linear enemy 
  formations, but on islands like Sardinia and Sicily these conditions were 
  seldom found except in the coastal areas. The tactic was undoubtedly of 
  Persian origin, but although it was used for several centuries it was never 
  really effective, because of the vulnerability of the horses and the difficulty of 
  managing the chariots. Nevertheless, chariots were commonly employed by 
  the Libyans, especially in the Sahara, and two-horse chariots are still described 
  in Libyan use at Saguntum (SI, II, 81–82, 166, 200). In Hannibal’s time some 
  Celtiberian tribes also still fought in chariots, breeding excellent warhorses for 
  this purpose (Punica, I, 223ff).
  As a ‘breakthrough’ weapon that needed to be launched at high speed to 
  disconcert and penetrate enemy units of infantry and cavalry, the chariots 
  were usually arranged on the two wings of the Celtic ranks (Pol., II, 28, 5). 
  In contemporary accounts their role in battle is, not surprisingly, always 
  overshadowed by the large-scale employment of war-elephants, and in the 
  first half of the 3rd century BC chariots disappeared almost completely 
  except when used by commanders during parades (SI, III, 240).
  Elephants
  The elephants were perhaps the most lastingly famous asset of the 
  Carthaginian army. These were not the African elephants (Loxodonta 
  africana) that live on the savannah of Central and Southern Africa, but 
  animals native to North Africa belonging to the now-extinct species 
  Loxodonta africana cyclotis (or Loxodonta atlantica). These elephants were 
  �������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������
  ������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  still living in the Punic area of Berberia, isolated in the region after the 
  desiccation of the Sahara and malnourished from the lack of vegetation. 
  They had neither the stature nor the strength of the Central African elephant, 
  which can grow 3.5m (11ft 4in) tall at the shoulder; they were also less 
  powerful than the 3m (9ft 9in) Indian elephant, but they could be 
  domesticated as easily. The North African elephant reached a maximum 
  height of 2.5m (8ft 2in); they had huge ears with rounded lobes, a high head 
  carriage, a segmented or ridged trunk unlike the smooth proboscis of the 
  Asian species, and long tusks. Their fairly modest height governed their 
  employment in battle.
  Despite some legends describing them as having the multiple qualities  
  of almost divine animals, the Carthaginians used elephants only for war.  
  The idea was suggested by the example of some Hellenistic monarchs  
  (a reminder of Carthage’s close ties with the Hellenistic world), after 
  Alexander’s army encountered them in the late 4th century. The first animals 
  and their mahout drivers were probably Indian, brought in via the Ptolemaic 
  kingdom of Egypt with which Carthage had close commercial relations.  
  The Punics subsequently began to capture elephants themselves in the  
  then-extensive southern woodlands of Algeria and Morocco; since 
  Carthaginian power in Africa was then at its height, it was easy to acquire a 
  large number of elephants fairly quickly.
  From 262 BC hundreds of these animals were used, against the Romans 
  in Sicily and against Regulus’s mercenaries during his invasion of North 
  Africa. They certainly had a powerful psychological effect on Roman 
  legionaries, mercenary mutineers, and the inhabitants of the Alps alike. Their 
  massive bulk, loud trumpeting, sharp tusks, and the amazing dexterity of 
  their ‘hand in the shape of a snake’ were terrifying to those facing them in 
  battle. To add to their fearsome image elephants were also used to crush 
  prisoners sentenced to death, and their almost supernatural prestige was 
  enhanced by dressing and equipping them richly with oriental-style fabrics. 
  It also seems that Indian names were given even to animals born in Africa, 
  and that they learned to recognize these names.
  For battle it would appear that wooden superstructures with attached 
  shields were sometimes mounted on their backs, and, according to Silius 
  Italicus, long spears were fixed to their tusks to make these even more 
  effective weapons. The use of ‘towers’ or howdahs on North African 
  elephants is problematic, however. An Indian elephant could easily carry 
  upon its back a boxy structure large enough to hold two or three archers, 
  slingers or javelineers, but the same was not necessarily true of the smaller 
  North African species. It seems probable, therefore, that the latter mainly 
  made use of their physical strength and weight for impact, with the driver 
  (in the Punic term, cornac) riding alone on the neck; but we cannot exclude 
  the use of smaller (one-man?) towers or some simpler support 
  for a crewman mounted on the back.
  Horses hate the smell of elephants, and their approach might 
  cause cavalry to break up and scatter. However, from the tactical 
  point of view the elephants’ main function in the attack on 
  heavy infantry and fortifications was the same as that of World 
  War II ‘infantry tanks’. The most effective remedy to their use 
  against formed infantry was the elastic defence: the Greek 
  phalanx was too compact to perform this, but the Roman legion 
  was much more flexible and articulated. No doubt based upon 
  �����������������������
  ����������������������� 
  ������������������������ 
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������
  ��������������������������� 
  ��������������������������� 
  �����������������������cornac 
  ����������������tophet in 
  ��������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  the precedent of anti-chariot tactics, Scipio had his legions drilled to open up 
  corridors through their ranks, in which the elephants could quickly be isolated 
  and surrounded. While it still took the bravest and steadiest infantry to tackle 
  them, they were not machines but only animals, and their relative intelligence 
  made them vulnerable to extreme nervousness. In the midst of battle the cries, 
  the cacophony of trumpets, blazing torches, and the pain of the wounds 
  inflicted on them by spearmen and archers could drive them mad, and they 
  became equally dangerous to their masters as to the enemy. In such cases the 
  Carthaginians had no option but to shoot the elephant down themselves, or 
  for the cornac to kill it by hammering an iron wedge down through its spine. 
  (This method is said to have been invented by Hannibal’s brother Hasdrubal 
  – Livy, XXVII, 49, 1–2).
  Famously, Hannibal attempted the exceptional feat of leading several 
  dozen elephants across the Pyrenees and the Alps by forced marches, but 
  many died of cold in the process. By the end of his Italian campaign only one 
  survived, employed as a simple mount. By the terms of the treaty imposed 
  after the battle of Zama in 202 BC, Carthage was both deprived of its 
  remaining elephants and forbidden from taming others.
  Artillery
  The Punic armies used artillery against the Greek cities in Sicily. A general 
  named Hannibal Mago conquered Selinus and Himera in 409 BC thanks to 
  THE MERCENARY REVOLT, 238 BC
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������
  1: Gaetulian cavalryman
  ���������������������������������������������������������������������
  �������� ������� ��� ������� �������� ����� �������� ������� ���
  ���������� ���� ���� �������� ������ �Punica�� ����� ������ ����
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������
  2: Iberian cavalryman, Cohors Sedetana  
  �����������������������������������������equites����������������
  ��������������Punica������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ������ ����������� �������� ����� ���������� ���� �����������
  ������������������������������ falcata���������������������
  ������������������falarica����������������������������������
  �������� ���� ���������� ������� ���� ������ �������� ��������
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  3: Balearic slinger
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  �������� ���� ����� �������� ���� ������ ����� ����������� ����
  sparto�����������������������������������������������������
  ���� �������� ��� ���� ����� ��� ������ ����������� ��� ���������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������
  4: Carthaginian war-elephant
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������� ����� ����� ������� ���� ������� ������� ���� ��������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������Mauri������������������
  ������� ��������� �������� ���� ����������� ����� ������ ���������
  ����� ��� ������ ������ �������� ������� ���� ������ ����
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �����
  D
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  4
  1 
  2 
  3 
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  the use of the ram, mobile towers and mining.  
  The Greeks did not take long to overtake their rivals 
  by the invention of the torsion catapult (gastraphetes), 
  created by a Syracusan engineer at the time of 
  Dionysius the Elder, who used it for the first time 
  against Punic Motya in 398 BC. The energy provided 
  by the twisting of cords allowed the projection of 
  both darts, by means of a giant bow, and of stones 
  by means of a swinging arm. The Carthaginians, too, 
  would build a considerable number of these 
  machines, termed (depending on their size) catapults, 
  crossbows or scorpions. Small machines threw 
  incendiary projectiles coated with flaming pitch, as 
  used by Hannibal Barca at his siege of Saguntum in 
  219 BC (SI, I, 320). High mounds were erected to 
  allow attacks on the ramparts of besieged cities (SI, 
  I, 348ff), and formations of soldiers sheltering under 
  close-packed shields in ‘tortoise’ style allowed miners 
  to sap their way up to the walls (SI, I, 365ff).
  In 149 BC the Romans reportedly requisitioned 
  as many as 20,000 war machines which were stored 
  in Carthaginian arsenals, and during the final siege 
  the women of Carthage offered their hair to be 
  twisted into cords for the construction of artillery to 
  replace them.
  TACTICS
  The Punic armies were particularly strong in cavalry and light infantry,  
  but in battle the phalanx formation was standard for the heavy infantry.  
  The dominance of the heavily armoured hoplite at the apogee of the Greek 
  city-states had been shaken since the beginning of the 4th century BC by the 
  introduction of the peltast light infantryman, less powerful but more mobile 
  on the battlefield.
  The fighting method of the Carthaginian phalanx was very similar to  
  that of the Macedonians: a closed formation of 4,096 men, formed by  
  16 companies of 256 soldiers, each drawn up in a square-shaped block  
  16 men wide by 16 men deep. Its strength lay in its coordinated mass, all the 
  men moving together with their spears pointing towards the enemy, thus 
  forming a (theoretically) unbreakable wall. Usually the weak point was the 
  right flank, because the hoplite was wielding his spear with both hands and 
  could not manoeuvre his slung shield to protect his right side. In Hannibal’s 
  army this problem was solved by using light infantry, such as the Turdetani, 
  to cover the right flank of heavy formations.
  Polybius gives us detailed descriptions of the arrangement of Hannibal’s 
  armies, and of his ability to combine the various contingents to best effect. 
  For example, at Cannae (Pol., III, 113, 1), after having positioned his slingers 
  and pikemen across the Aufidus river and stationed them in front, he led the 
  rest of his forces out of camp and crossed the stream in two places, drawing 
  up the army opposite the enemy. On his left, close to the river, he placed his 
  �������������linothorax������
  pteryges������������������thyreos 
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������
  �����������������
  ������������������������� 
  ��������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Iberian and Celtic horse facing the Roman cavalry; next to these 
  were half of his heavily armed Africans; then the Iberian and 
  Celtic infantry in the centre; right of them the other half of the 
  Africans; and finally, on his right wing, the Numidian horsemen. 
  After thus drawing up his whole army in a straight line, he led 
  the central companies of Spaniards and Celts into the advance. 
  They kept contact on their flanks with the rest of the army, 
  which gradually ‘echeloned off’ on both sides so as to produce 
  a convex crescent-shaped battle line with the flanking companies 
  growing shallower as the line was prolonged. His intention was 
  to employ the Africans as a reserve force and to begin the action 
  with the Spaniards and Celts.
  We know that this strategy was victorious at Cannae, where 
  his wings encircled the enemy who were pushing his centre back, 
  but Hannibal had more problems with Roman generals when 
  they only acted defensively without offering to meet him in 
  pitched battle. Fighting against Appius Claudius, the Punic army 
  surrounded his camp and at first harassed him with skirmishers 
  with the object of provoking the Romans to come out and give 
  battle. But as they did not respond the attack finally became very 
  much like an attempt to storm the camp; the cavalry advanced in 
  squadrons, and with loud cries hurled their javelins into the 
  camp, while the infantry attacked in maniples and attempted to tear down the 
  palisade. But the Romans used their own lightly armed forces to repel the 
  assault on the palisade, and kept their heavy legionaries in their ranks under 
  their standards, merely protecting themselves from the shower of missiles. 
  Hannibal was dissatisfied at being unable either to penetrate into the camp or 
  to provoke the Romans to come out and do battle.
  The tactics of the Carthaginians also had an effect on the traditional 
  fighting style of their mercenary troops, such as the Celts. Gallic armies were 
  divided into infantry, and cavalry and chariots (Pol., II, 23, 4). In ancient 
  ��������������������������
  ���������tophet������������
  ����������������������� 
  ������������������������� 
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  thyreos �����������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ��������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������
  ������������������������
  �����������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  times the typical characteristics of Celtic warriors were well known: their 
  love of drinking and quarreling, their barbarism, individualism, impulsiveness, 
  and a certain lack of discipline, of tactical and strategic intelligence, and of 
  stamina. If this image has become a cliché, it remains true that the Celts 
  traditionally fought as individuals or in small groups around their immediate 
  chieftains. Against troops in formed ranks their usual tactic was a frontal 
  attack by a mass of individuals or groups, delivered at a rush to achieve 
  maximum impact. This was very expensive in terms of energy and, if it did 
  not have the immediate effect of breaking into the opposing ranks, it left the 
  Celts themselves exhausted and vulnerable to organized counter-attack.  
  The need to adapt their tactics to those employed by the Romans led the 
  Celts to a gradual acceptance of the logic of formations, as happened within 
  the Carthaginian army. It is also interesting that at Cannae the Celtic (and 
  Iberian) riders, instead of using their horses for tactical manoeuvres  
  and charges in the front line, dismounted at the appropriate opportunities 
  and fought on foot: ‘once plunged into the fray, they dismounted and fought 
  clinging body to body with their enemies’ (Pol., III, 115, 3).
  At the battle of the Metaurus they followed the decisions and movement 
  orders of the Carthaginians. The Celts did not engage by their traditional 
  method of mass shock, but remained where Hasdrubal had placed them on 
  his left wing – where, because of difficult terrain and steep slopes, they failed 
  to come into contact with the Romans (Livy, XXVII, 33). Indeed, on this 
  occasion there were neither major attacks nor counter-attacks, but only 
  localized and unimportant skirmishes that allowed the Roman commander, 
  Claudius Nero, to divert a portion of his army to the left across the rear of 
  his line to outflank Hasdrubal’s right wing, taking the Gallic troops in the 
  right flank and defeating them. Livy (XXVII, 49, 8) wrote that ‘the Celts 
  suffered the bulk of the losses,[and] a part of the Cisalpine riders and infantry 
  withdrew to their homelands’. Besides the absence of the dynamic element of 
  initial impetuous assault, in this battle the Celts also lacked the war-chariots 
  that they had used in previous battles, such as Talamone.
  During the 3rd century BC it is evident that Celtic forces to some degree 
  moved away from their traditional individual style of combat and towards a 
  more valuable cohesion; at the end of the century they were showing some 
  adaptation to the enemy’s more developed techniques, while still retaining 
  their specific strengths.
  LIFE IN THE CITY, MID-4th CENTURY BC
  1 & 2: Carthaginian citizen infantry
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ����� ����� ��� ��������� ����� ��� ���� ��� �������� ��� �����
  �������������������������������������������linothorax����������
  �� �������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������pteryges�������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ������� ����� ��� ����� �������� ��� ��������� ����� ���������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  �����
  3: Greek mercenary
  �������������������������������������������������������������������
  ephaptis.�����������������������������������������hôplon���������
  ����������������������
  4: Carthaginian women dancing
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ����� ������������� ������ �������� �� ����������� ���� �������
  ����������������������������������������������������
  E
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  1 
  2 
  3 
  4
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  ARMS & EQUIPMENT
  Carthaginian & Libyo-Phoenician infantry and cavalry
  Iconographies of various kinds from North Africa, ranging from 
  stelae and moulded items to decorated ostrich shells and razors, 
  represent warriors and warrior-divinities. It is reasonable to suppose 
  that these images are related to the reality of the material culture of 
  the Punic armies.
  In the early period of its history the Carthaginian army resembled 
  those raised by the kings of the Near East, and later those of the 
  great Greek city-states. In both cases these armies were composed 
  of bands recruited at a local level from different territories, which 
  retained the tactics and therefore the weapons and equipment of 
  their areas of origin.
  Armour
  In the earliest period, together with proto-Corinthian helmets, some warriors 
  wore protection for the arms and legs conforming to the equipment of the 
  archaic Greek hoplite. They fought at close range with a spear and short 
  sword, or as heavy mounted infantry. Some Punic stelae depict panoplies as 
  a kind of mannequins covered with weapons, probably representing the war 
  gear of the dead (and perhaps captured enemy trophies). In some stelae round 
  shields are also shown. These images remind us of the panoplies that the 
  Greeks displayed on walls, pilasters or funerary columns. The value of these 
  Punic representations is enhanced by the curious images of trophies which 
  decorated the fronts of some buildings, resembling a stake covered with 
  pieces of armour and ‘armed’ with a shield and spear. Despite our relative 
  ignorance of Carthaginian beliefs, it is reasonable to interpret these as some 
  kind of propaganda by which the oligarchic ruling families encouraged a 
  warrior mystique. From the period of the Barca family’s ascendancy we also 
  have images of shields, helmets and military daggers shown as the main 
  decorative motifs on many votary stelae and funerary monuments.
  The brilliant weaponry of the Sacred Band is described by Plutarch in his 
  life of the mercenary Corinthian general Timoleon (28): iron breastplates and 
  bronze helmets, great shields and swords. Not only was much bronze and 
  iron gear taken from the bodies of the 3,000 native Carthaginians who fell 
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������
  ������������������������� 
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������ 
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������������� 
  ����������������������������� 
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������� �������������linothorax 
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  at the battle of the Krimisos in 341 BC, but also silvered and gilt armour.  
  We are told that 1,000 breastplates of superior workmanship and beauty 
  and a total of 10,000 shields were assembled and displayed by Timoleon’s 
  tent, and along with the report of his victory he sent the most splendid of 
  the captured armour back to his homeland.
  Helmets of Greek piloi (Pilos) type are represented on some stelae and 
  coins, while the ‘triangular’-shaped helmets represented in other carvings 
  probably refer to conical helmets of Assyrian typology, originally the most 
  common in the army of Carthage. Only one original helmet of this type has 
  been found, from the Numidian royal grave of El-Soumaa; although dated 
  as 2nd century BC this helmet has a clear Puno-African origin, with typical 
  ear-shaped decorations. Crested bronze helmets were often given to officers 
  (SI, I, 401); and a distinctive helmet of Libyan-Punic type was ‘conspicuous 
  for the horns that curved over his temples’ (SI, I, 415), a detail clearly linked 
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ������������aspis �� clipeus 
  �������������������������
  �����������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������� 
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������ 
  �����������������������������
  statos ������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ��������(pteryges)��������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������������� 
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  with the cult of Baal-Hammon (SI, III, 10). Helmets of generals were 
  surmounted by a wide crest, that of Hannibal having a scarlet plume with a 
  long, flowing horsetail: ‘The plume that nodded on his head showed a deadly 
  brightness, even as a comet terrifies fierce kings with its flaming tail and 
  showers blood-red fire’ (SI, I, 460ff). From another passages of Silius Italicus 
  (I, 501, 525) Hannibal seems to wear a helmet fitted with additional plumes, 
  probably in imitation of that of Alexander the Great.
  The chapel of Carton at Salambo contained the ceramic statue of a god 
  wearing a Greek-style armour. This statue probably represented Adad, 
  perhaps the most warlike god of the Phoenician pantheon. Stelae from the 
  sanctuary of Cirta, dating from the 2nd to the 1st century BC, show similar 
  armours on trophies which are carved with much more precision than those 
  from Carthage.
  A beautiful and precious armour was found in a Punic tomb at Ksour 
  es-Saf in the Byzacena area. It consists of two heart-shaped bronze plates 
  covering the chest and back. The decoration, which is identical on both, 
  shows the helmeted head of the goddess Athena placed below two pectoral 
  discs. This armour is not of local production but comes from a 3rd-century 
  BC workshop in Campania, Italy. It was probably purchased or looted by 
  one of Hannibal’s Libyan soldiers and taken back to Africa. The data from 
  this grave, as illustrated in the recent studies by Fariselli, show that it 
  belonged to a Libyan warrior rather than an Italic mercenary as might 
  initially be supposed. That it was placed in the tomb shows that it was 
  reverently associated with the dead warrior’s memory.
  This Ksour es-Saf find is a dramatic reminder that the equipment of an 
  army might also include elements 
  originating in other regions; armour 
  was valuable, and a multi-ethnic army 
  campaigning abroad had many 
  opportunities to acquire it. For example, 
  at the battle of Cannae, Hannibal 
  armed the Libyan and African troops in 
  Roman fashion with equipment taken 
  from fallen enemies, probably including 
  ringmail and Italic armours (Pol., III, 
  87, 3 & 114, 1; Livy, XXVIII, 46, 4): 
  ‘The Africans were armed in the Roman 
  fashion, Hannibal having equipped 
  them with the choicest of the arms 
  captured in the previous battles.’ Such 
  captured weaponry replaced in part 
  that given to the Carthaginians by 
  Braneus, appointed by Hannibal as 
  leader of the Allobroges (Livy, XXI, 31, 
  6) before the passage of the Alps. These 
  weapons, which replaced Carthaginian 
  equipment that had become worn with 
  age, were definitely of Celtic type (Pol., 
  III, 49, 11). Thus, while we know from 
  the ancient sources that different 
  peoples were characterized by specific 
  weaponry, we should not interpret this 
  ������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ������������������������� 
  ������������������������������ 
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  information too rigidly, i.e. ‘Celtic weaponry = Celtic warrior’. The sources 
  in fact confirm that weapons of foreign origin might be used not only by 
  individuals but also by whole contingents.
  The monumental altar of Simitthus/Chemtou dating from the middle of 
  the 2nd century BC tells us many things about the equipment of Hannibal’s 
  last army at Zama. It attests the employment of linothorakes, fabric cuirasses 
  of Greek type, furnished with hanging pteryges flaps. Made of multiple layers 
  of linen glued together, some models of this armour were also fitted with 
  various overlapping metal scales. These were of bronze, varying from 1–4cm 
  (0.4–1.6in), and were sewn to the linen background. A second linen protection 
  was worn under this armour, having attached pteryges that hung down 
  visibly below the cuirass to protect the belly, groin and upper thighs.  
  The decoration of such armour was often realized with geometrical patterns 
  of various colours, mainly red, light blue and black, and with symbols linked 
  to the Carthaginian religion.
  The armours of generals, officers and heavy cavalry were often 
  personalized. At the siege of Saguntum, Hannibal is mentioned wearing his 
  father’s armour (SI, 319, 525), made of gilded iron scales and probably the 
  product of a North African workshop. (The famous scale armour from Lake 
  Trasimene, now preserved in the Royal Ontario Museum, is more likely to 
  have been made in a Carthaginian workshop than an Italic or Roman one, 
  though its style and characteristics oblige the present authors to suppose that 
  an early medieval date is in fact more probable.) Ringmail armour of 
  exquisite workmanship was also employed by generals – see Plate H1a.
  Shields
  The main Punic shield represented in the sculptures is the typically Hellenic 
  round type (the Greek aspis or Latin clipeus) of about 90–93cm (35–36in) 
  diameter. The Carthaginian nobles, who always performed the military 
  service from which the majority of their compatriots were exempted, loved 
  to wear beautiful armor. Hannibal’s brother Hasdrubal Barca had a silver 
  clipeus adorned with his portrait, which the Romans captured and set up 
  LEFT����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������� 
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  �������������������������
  �����������������������
  �������������������������� 
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������� 
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ������
  RIGHT������������������������
  ��������������c��������������
  ��������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  above the door of the Capitol. The detailed description by Silius Italicus (I, 
  522) of Hannibal’s shield gives us an idea of what an arresting spectacle the 
  brazen, embossed and chiselled Hellenic shield of a Punic general would have 
  presented. In this particular case it was the product of a Galician workshop 
  (II, 395–397, 406ff): it bore scenes referring to the origin of Carthage, of 
  Dido’s meeting with Aeneas, and her suicide; of Hannibal’s oath on the altar 
  of the nether gods; of his father Hamilcar’s campaigns; of the triumph of the 
  Spartan Xanthippus over Regulus, the latter’s torture, and death on the cross; 
  scenes of African life with lionesses, hunters, shepherds and huts; and finally 
  the siege and conquest of Saguntum – all embossed and chased in shining 
  metal.
  Carthaginian shields were usually decorated with blazons related to the 
  military unit, or with patterns evoking religious meanings. Some shields, 
  though of glittering bronze like that of Hannibal at Saguntum, were also 
  fitted with an umbo boss (SI, II, 211, 246, 256). One Carthaginian officer at 
  Saguntum bore a shield chiselled with a representation of the source of a 
  river (SI, I, 407). In the frieze of Chemtou various shield blazons are shown: 
  an Apollonian griffin emblem (or perhaps a lioness); the source of a river 
  with the Lernian Hydra; the club of Herakles-Melqart; an apotropaic eye (to 
  turn away evil, as sometimes painted on the prows of Mediterranean ships); 
  and a magnificent embossed decoration with Medusa’s head, as traditionally 
  displayed on Athena’s aegis. This last image valuably confirms the care taken 
  by Silius Italicus in researching his sources for the appearance of Carthaginian 
  warriors, because he reports an identical shield for a warrior from Galpes 
  near Gibraltar (see Plate H2).
  The elite body of heavy cavalry was mainly 
  composed of citizens of Carthage. The Punic 
  god of war, Adad, was generally depicted 
  riding a horse, and the horse alone was often 
  depicted as his symbol. One of the legends 
  about the foundation of Carthage held that 
  when digging the foundations for the Capitol 
  the workers discovered the head of an ox; this 
  was considered an unlucky portent of 
  perpetual servitude, so the site was abandoned. 
  Digging elsewhere, they uncovered the head of 
  a horse, and since this was the symbol of a 
  powerful warrior the city’s Capitol was built 
  there. If, as we believe, there is an authentic 
  Phoenician reference behind this legend, it is 
  probably linked with Adad, who was honoured 
  by a cult in Carthage from the earliest times, 
  and whose symbol of a warhorse was a blazon 
  of the Carthaginian cavalry shield.
  Other representations on stelae from the 
  beginning of the 2nd century BC and on the 
  slightly later Simitthus frieze show an 
  elongated oval shield with a median ridge (the 
  Greek thyreos). This shield, of Western origin 
  and light materials, is also mentioned in the 
  inventory of weapons captured by the Romans 
  in Carthaginian arsenals in 149 BC.
  Aspis �� clipeus�����������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Weapons
  On a stele from Cirta this oblong shield is shown in 
  conjunction with a long sword, two javelins and a conical 
  helmet, probably showing the panoply of a light infantry 
  soldier rather than that of a hoplite. This shield is also 
  associated in some stelae with a sword whose hilt has a 
  very characteristic shape, with two spheres at the top and 
  ending in ‘V’-antennae below. This type of sword was 
  both a slashing and a stabbing weapon (SI, I, 515–516); 
  it was common among Italic and Celtic warriors as well 
  as among the Celtiberians, and was certainly introduced 
  into North Africa by European mercenaries. The sword 
  used by Hannibal at the siege of Saguntum was (Punica, 
  I, 429ff) forged by a legendary Iberian smith, Temisus.
  A very important but forgotten discovery was made in 
  1890 by Delattre. Excavating a Punic grave on the hill of 
  St Louis in Carthage, he found fragments of copper at the 
  height of the dead man’s waist, composed of a ring and a 
  double sheet 4cm (1.57in) wide, which had a ‘Y’ and a ‘T’ 
  shape at the edges. These were fragments of a military 
  belt, associated with the remains of a weapon: perhaps a 
  short sword or dagger, with parts of the wooden scabbard 
  and of an iron blade ending in an antenna hilt, respectively 
  40cm and 42cm (15.8in and 16.5in) long. The French archaeologist believed 
  that the grave belonged to a member of the early Carthaginian military elite.
  The heavy, curved, single-edged kopis slashing sword, with a hooked-over 
  pommel forming a knuckle-guard, was known in Greece from the late  
  6th century BC, and examples have been found in Spain. After the 4th century 
  straight, double-edged Greek short swords became common; these were 
  probably similar to those represented on Hellenistic monuments, e.g. in the 
  famous 3rd-century Macedonian tomb of Lyson and Kallikles.1 They were 
  worn slung across the body on a baldric from the right shoulder. Among the 
  weapons depicted in the friezes of Chemtou there is a long, straight cavalry 
  sword with an asymmetric hilt shaped like a bird’s head; this detail again 
  echoes the Lyson and Kallikles tomb-paintings.
  At the beginning of the wars against Rome, infantrymen were still armed 
  with a spear and a Greek type of sword. The spear of the phalangites was of 
  varying length according to their position in the phalanx, but usually ranged 
  from 3–6m (9ft 8in–19ft 7in). Javelins and spears were the main cavalry 
  weapons, and are often mentioned in the hands of commanders (SI, I, 305, 
  Hannibal fighting with a jaculum at Saguntum; also II, 400, Hannibal with 
  sword and spear). Javelins and also bows were used by Punic aristocrats for 
  hunting (SI, I, 394); but one of the pieces of evidence for a ‘Westernization’ of 
  the Carthaginian army was the relative lack of importance of archers, in 
  contrast to their essential role in the Assyrian and Persian armies. Nevertheless, 
  some arrowheads have been found in Punic tombs of the 7th and 6th centuries, 
  showing an interesting barbed shape. A magnificent carving from Utica shows 
  a kneeling naked warrior, wearing a large helmet while using a bow and arrow. 
  Various seals show Carthaginian officers dressed like Herakles-Melqart, with 
  a lion’s-head headdress and holding a recurved (composite?) bow.
  1 See MAA 477, Macedonian Armies after Alexander 323–168 BC
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  North African cavalry and infantry
  We know the Numidian horsemen from the images engraved on stelae from 
  the Constantine area of modern Algeria. Their main weapon was the javelin 
  (Sall., Jug., 6); like their infantry, they also carried a small shield, and long, 
  narrow darts thrown with force and high precision. Some of them, probably 
  the leaders, also used swords, as shown by the El-Soumaa grave. Silius Italicus 
  claimed that they poisoned the blades of their javelins, thus ‘disgracing the 
  ABOVE������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �������������������������
  BELOW������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������
  ��������������������������� 
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������� 
  ����������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������Punica������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������� 
  ��������������������������
  ��������������������������� 
  �������������������������
  ������������������������� 
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������ 
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  steel’ (III, 269ff); the use of poisoned darts was still typical of Nubians and 
  Ethiopians in the Late Antique period.
  The Nubians protected their heads as well as their bodies with many folds 
  of linen. The Macae, who pitched tents in their camps in Phoenician fashion, 
  had their backs covered with the bristling hide of a wild goat, wore shaggy 
  beards, and carried a ‘curved javelin’. The Marmaridae and the Baniuta 
  fought with all-wooden javelins with the heads simply hardened by fire.
  The Numidians’ superb horsemanship was achieved while riding their 
  young horses bareback and using the simplest head-stall without a bit 
  (Punica, I, 215); they used just a light switch, which they plied between the 
  horse’s ears (SI, III, 293). Coins from the Numidian mint of King Sifax, at the 
  end of the 3rd century BC, show us princes on horseback with broad cloaks 
  billowing in the wind. Following the tradition of his people, Prince Naravas 
  rode with neither saddle nor harness, controlling his mount with a rod held 
  between its ears.
  Iberians
  The Spaniards used several different missile weapons according to their 
  regional origins. The Celtiberian falarica was compared by Livy with the 
  Roman pilum, and the soliferrum had a long shaft completely of iron. 
  Spanish weapons are probably represented on a funerary stele from Cirta. 
  On the other hand, Numidian javelins were reportedly also used by the 
  Asturians (SI, III, 3 34). The Arbacians are mentioned as being armed with 
  slender javelins or darts (SI, III, 363).
  The horsemen were armed with spear, curved falcata sword (see below) 
  and dagger. The shields and swords of the Iberian mercenaries are described 
  by Polybius (III, 114, 1) in comparison with those of the Celts: ‘The shields 
  of the Spaniards and Celts were very similar, but their swords were entirely 
  different, those of the Spaniards thrusting with as deadly effect as they cut, 
  but the Gallic sword being able only to slash, and requiring a long 
  sweep to do so’. It is clear that here the Greek historian is 
  speaking first of the deadly Iberian straight, double-
  edged sword, ancestor of the Roman legionary’s 
  gladius hispaniensis, by contrast with the long 
  Celtic slashing sword that is widely confirmed 
  by archaeology.
  The falcata (a modern denomination) 
  was a sword with a curved, single-edged 
  blade swelling wider in the middle, and 
  sharpened on both edges where it 
  pitches down towards the point 
  (‘Bowie-knife’ style). This slash-and-
  stab weapon, like the small, round 
  caetra shield, was specific to the south-
  western areas of Spain (Andalucia, 
  Murcia and Alicante). Analysis of the 
  archaeological finds in funerary contexts 
  suggests that the falcata was present only 
  in the graves of high-status individuals, and 
  thus conferred a certain prestige.
  The panoply of the cavalryman was often 
  completed by scale armour, greaves and caetra. 
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  However, the kind of shield given to the Iberians by Polybius is not the round 
  caetra (though this was diffused among them, and even used by other 
  mercenaries) but the elongated-oval thyreos made of hide over wood, with 
  the umbo central on a long median reinforcing ridge, similar to that of the 
  Celtic shield.
  The Pozo Moro burial
  The occasional acquisition of individual pieces from other operational 
  theatres is attested by some helmets found in the Iberian Peninsula, probably 
  booty taken from the Romans. In this context we can place the helmet from 
  a cremation burial found at Pozo Moro, Spain. This grave contained some 
  pottery including an Attic black-glaze kantharos dating from 375–350 BC, 
  an Iberian brooch, and a complete set of weapons: an Iberian falcata, a 
  spearhead and spear-butt, one or two javelins, a big handgrip for a round 
  shield, a bronze helmet, a bent La Tène sword without the scabbard, and, 
  among minor metal objects, an element from a La Tène bivalve shield-boss. 
  While some of these items are consistent with the 4th century, the presence 
  of the helmet and of the La Tène sword might suggest a more recent date, 
  e.g. the time of the Punic Wars (although the lack of a scabbard deprives us 
  of the best chronological indicator). The sword itself is 72cm (28.4in) long, 
  with a 62.5cm (24.6in) blade having plain rounded shoulders and parallel 
  edges, no mid-rib, and apparently with a short, rounded point (today badly 
  corroded). The fragment of iron shield-boss is of a type usually dated to the 
  4th century but also found in 3rd- or even 2nd-century contexts.
  The grave seems be that of an Iberian warrior with a set of Celtic weapons. 
  However, the helmet poses a particular problem: it seems to be much later, 
  and has been dated by Garcia Maurino to the latter stages of the Second 
  Punic War. It presents a lot of punched and incised decoration on the rim and 
  neck-guard, holes for attaching cheek-guards, an iron ring at the back for 
  anchoring chin-thongs, and a decorated knob on top of the bowl. Above all, 
  a punched Latin inscription ‘MVLVS’ (‘mule’) on the inside of the neck-guard 
  is probably the mark of the original Italic owner. As underlined by Quesada 
  Sanz, the helmet shares an important characteristic with the famous ‘Braganza 
  brooch’ helmet: two holders soldered to the sides of the bowl to hold vertical 
  plumes – a characteristic of some Roman legionary helmets, although 
  surviving examples are rare. However, iconographic and literary sources tell 
  us that Iberian peoples also used crests and plumes on helmets; according to 
  Strabo (III, 3, 6), Lusitanians used helmets with the three plumes (one central 
  and two side) implied by the Pozo Moro find.
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������
  ���������������������
  ����������������������������� 
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������
  a
  b
  c
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  The lack of cheek-pieces was another important Iberian characteristic, 
  again as represented on the Braganza brooch. Many well-preserved helmets 
  found in Italy and Gaul still have their cheek-pieces, and it seems clear from 
  the iconography that Italics (including Celts) all used helmets with face 
  protection. However, no example found in Iberian burials or sanctuaries has 
  cheek-pieces, and warriors represented on pottery also show helmets without 
  them. So it seems that the Iberians deliberately dispensed with cheek-pieces, 
  and the warrior who acquired the Pozo Moro helmet may have removed 
  them on purpose.
  Incidentally, the Iberians sometimes added animal-heads to their helmets 
  to increase their fearsome appearance; Silius Italicus (III, 384ff) tells us that 
  the warrior-hunters of Uxama, armed with spears, decorated their helmets 
  with the open jaws of wild beasts. At Cannae the Celts and Spaniards were 
  drawn up in alternate companies, the Gauls being naked and the Spaniards 
  ‘dressed in linen tunics bordered with purple, as was their custom’ (Pol., III, 
  114, 4). A specific practice of Edetan warriors was to cover their forearms, 
  lower legs and feet with a natural product that dried and hardened the skin, 
  simultaneously giving it a blackened colour.
  Balearic slingers
  These renowned specialists among the Iberian mercenaries each used three 
  slings of different lengths (SI, III, 363): the first was long, to throw as far as 
  possible; the second, shorter, to hit close-up targets; and the third of a 
  medium length, to cover the ranges in between. According to Diodorus 
  Siculus (V, 18), one was worn looped around the head and another around 
  the flanks while they held the third, but Strabo says that all three were 
  fastened around the head (III, 5, 1). The slings were made of vegetable 
  fibres (reed) or of interlaced animal tendons or sinew. Diodorus goes on to 
  say that ‘… they are so accurate in their aim that in the majority of cases 
  they never miss the target before them. The reason for this is the continual 
  practice which they get from childhood, in that their mothers compel them, 
  while still young boys, to use the sling 
  continually; for there is set up before them as 
  a target a piece of bread fastened to a stake, 
  and the novice is not permitted to eat until he 
  has hit the bread’.
  The sling was used by the man while 
  standing erect, whirling the light thong three 
  times around his head before launching the 
  stone or lead bullet (SI, I, 314), and volleys 
  from Balearic slingers could have devastating 
  effects on helmets, armour, shields and faces. 
  According to Diodorus Siculus (V, 18), ‘In the 
  business of war they hurl much larger stones 
  than do any other slingers, and with such 
  force that the missile seems to have been shot, 
  as it were, from a catapult; consequently, in 
  their assaults upon walled cities they strike 
  the defenders on the battlements and disable 
  them, and in pitched battles they crush both 
  shields and helmets and every kind of 
  protective armour.’ According to Silius 
  ������������������������ 
  (glandes)�������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Italicus, at Cannae the consul Aemilius Paulus was killed by a hit from a 
  Balearic slinger after having lost his helmet. Sometimes slingers would also 
  simply throw stone bullets by hand with accuracy and force; Hannibal 
  himself was trained in this exercise (SI, I, 317; II, 135).
  Celts
  From Polybius we understand that a certain type of equipment was 
  characteristic of the Gallic ‘reguli’. He describes an occasion when Hannibal 
  motivated his troops before Trebbia by forcing two prisoners to fight in 
  single combat to the death, wearing ‘suits of armour normally worn by the 
  kings of the Gauls’ (Pol., III, 62, 5). Livy, clearly drawing upon Polybius, 
  speaks generically of ‘Gallica arma’ and ‘ferrum’, the latter being synonymous 
  with the sword (Livy, XXI, 42, 1–4). ‘Complete armament’ should perhaps 
  be interpreted as the complex of traditional weapons rather than as the 
  helmet and ringmail or leather armour.
  More specifics are provided by Strabo (who differs in some cases from 
  Polybius and Livy): ‘the weapons of the Celts are proportional to the large size 
  of their bodies: they consist of a long sword suspended on the right side, a long 
  shield, spears and a kind of javelins, bows and slings’ (Strabo, IV, 4, 3). 
  Diodorus also tells us that Celts carried their swords on the right side, hanging 
  from a belt around the waist rather than a baldric over the shoulder like the 
  Greeks or Etruscans (V, 30, 3). He describes (V, 29–30) the fighting techniques 
  of the Celts, including war-chariots, and lists the weapons used: shields as tall 
  as a man, with embossed figures of animals in rolled bronze for both decoration 
  and reinforcement; bronze helmets with high crests, horns, or figures of birds 
  and animals on the top; iron ringmail armour; long swords hanging from the 
  right side by means of iron or bronze chain; belts plated with gold or silver; 
  spears, javelins, and war trumpets that made hoarse sounds.
   BATTLE OF LAKE TRASIMENE, 217 BC
  1: Caius Flaminius Nepos
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  �Punica�����������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������� �������� ���� �������� ���� ������ ��� �� ������ ������ ����
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ���� �������� ����� ���� ������� ��� ����� ���� �������� ����� ��� ��
  �����������������
  2: Insubrian chieftain
  ���������� ��� ������� ��������� ���� ��������� ������� �������
  ��������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������.������������������������������������������
  ���� ������� ������� ���� �������� ��� ���� �������� ����� ���� 
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ������ ��� ������� ������� ������ ��� ���� ������� ����� ��� ���� 
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  3: Roman triarius  
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  4: Garamantian light infantryman
  ���� ����� ����� ��� ��������� ��� ����� ������� ������� ����
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  ��� ���� ����� ����� ���� ������� ����� ���������� ������ ��� 
  ���������������tragula����������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������
  F
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  1 
  2 
  3 
  4
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Nudity was also characteristic of the Celts in battle, as at Cannae, where 
  their lack of clothing or defensive body armour contrasted with the clothing 
  of the Iberians. In other cases the Celts in battle are described as being 
  dressed in a simple mantle, as visible on various Etruscan urns, in the frieze 
  of Civitalba, and on a small bronze plaque. Descriptions in Gaelic and 
  Latin poems include striped or fringed cloaks in deep red, purple or green; 
  the Aeneid speaks of such a cloak as a sagulum virgatum et lucens.
  The ancient authors commonly speak of the inferiority of Celtic weapons 
  in battle by comparison with the Romans’ more effective arms. This topic is 
  visited at least four times by Polybius, and, for the period in which they served 
  in the Carthaginian armies, by Livy, Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius  
  of Halicarnassus, and, as quoted before, Strabo. According to Polybius:  
  ‘The Gallic sword is less effective than Roman one because it can only hit by 
  cutting and not [by stabbing], and because of this feature only its first blow is 
  effective’ (II, 30, 8); ‘After the first blow, in fact, it bends and deforms, forcing 
  the warrior to straighten it with his foot ... on the ground’ (II, 33, 3); ‘The 
  sword of the Celts is without a sharp tip and thus can be only used for slashing’ 
  (II, 33, 5); and ‘The Gallic sword is only effective for cutting actions and from 
  a certain distance, while the Iberian, which is completely different, is strong in 
  both thrusting and cutting and is very effective in close combat’ (III, 114, 2–3).
  However, in 367 BC (some 150 years earlier than the weapons described 
  by Polybius) Celtic swords of the La Tène culture were certainly well made 
  and did not suffer from the deficiencies he criticized. The context in which 
  the weakness of Celtic swords was emphasized was the last quarter of the 
  3rd century BC (e.g. at Cannae, 216 BC). A laboratory analysis of iron/steel 
  La Tène swords has shown these products of Celtic smiths to have a 
  remarkable solidity, resistance and elasticity. However, other blades made of 
  almost pure iron have poor mechanical strength and are easily deformable, 
  thus apparently justifying Polybius’s opinion.
  During the 3rd century BC, Celtic weaponry underwent a series of 
  transformations that saw both the evolution of existing items (sword blades, 
  scabbards, shields, lances) and the appearance of new elements (e.g. chain 
  belts), and in the final decades of the century equipment tended to became 
  lighter. For instance, the chains of sword belts evolved into lighter, more 
  comfortable flat-faced designs, and at the end of the century these disappeared, 
  to be replaced by a type of leather belt formed of elements connected by 
  massive rings and with a bronze terminal hook.
  Ancient writers mention the Gaesati, a Celtic people who came to Italy 
  from the Rhone valley and owed their name to a type of javelin called a 
  gaesum (Verg., Aen. VIII, 661). At the battle of Lake Trasimene the Insubrian 
  warrior Ducarius killed the Roman consul Flaminius Nepos with a lancea; 
  Silius Italicus tells us (I, 318) that the lancea could also be thrown with the 
  help of an amentum, a loop around the shaft. In Livy’s words (XXII, 6, 4):
  The battle continued for nearly three hours, and in every quarter with 
  fierceness; around the consul, however, it was still hotter and more 
  determined. [He being] distinguished by his armour, the enemy 
  attacked him with the utmost vigour, while his countrymen defended 
  him; until an Insubrian horseman named Ducarius, who also knew his 
  face…rushed through a very dense body of the enemy; and first slaying 
  [the consul’s] armour-bearer, who had opposed himself to [Ducarius] 
  as he approached, he ran the consul through with his lance.
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  The historical sources are unclear about the bow, though it was certainly 
  used by the Celts. Archaeology tells us little, but it is worth mentioning a 
  group of iron arrowheads from Tomb 135 of the necropolis at Monte Bibele, 
  dated to the 3rd century BC.
  The shield was fitted with a convex, slightly trapezoidal iron plate 
  with ribs and fins fixed to the surface by large hemispherical hollow rivet-
  heads. Writing of Cannae, Polybius mentions a close similarity between 
  the shields of Celtic and Celtiberian infantry as the only common element 
  between the two units (III, 114, 2). This is also mentioned by Livy (XXII, 
  46, 5): ‘The Gauls and the Spaniards had shields of almost the same 
  shape’. He goes on to draw the familiar comparison between their 
  weapons: ‘Their swords were different in use and in appearance, those of 
  the Gauls being very long and unpointed, while the Spaniards, who 
  attacked as a rule more by thrusting than by slashing, had pointed ones 
  that were short and handy’.
  Inseparable from the consideration of Celtic weapons were their methods 
  of applying ‘psychological pressure’ to strike terror into the enemy, like their 
  matted, bristling hair coated with white gypsum plaster (SI, III, 541). Large 
  numbers of horns and trumpets were also used to fill the air with an 
  intimidating bellowing sound (Pol., II, 29, 6). We have some archaeological 
  evidence for these instruments from later periods, as well as contemporary 
  representations: the plate of the Gundestrup cauldron, Etruscan urns, and 
  monumental Hellenistic and Roman reliefs such as the balustrade of the 
  temple of Athena Nikephoros at Pergamum. In the absence of wind 
  instruments, a terrifying noise could be achieved simply by striking the blades 
  of swords against shields, accompanied by singing and wild screaming (Livy, 
  XXXVIII, 17, 3–4; and, of Galician warriors, SI, III, 348).
  ��������������������������� 
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������������� 
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������� 
  ��������������������������������
  ������������������������������� 
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Insignia & standards
  Another element related to the contingents of the Punic army was insignia. 
  The standards of the Carthaginian army itself are well documented. That on 
  the crude and incomplete ‘stele of the Punic Mars’ is a staff crowned by a 
  crescent shape with the ends slightly turned out like horns, and with a 
  separate short crossbar with attached dangling ribbons (see Plate H4). 
  Babylonian and Assyrian armies had some sort of similar standards from 
  which the Phoenicians had probably copied them. The standard represented 
  on a stele of a warship from the tophet of Carthage shows the lunar crescent 
  of the goddess Ishtar (Astarte) above the sun disc, mounted upon a staff and 
  decorated with ribbons – common Punic religious symbolism. Many stelae 
  from Carthage and other localities show various standards, although it is not 
  always clear whether they are military or processional; these include a staff 
  surmounted by two concentric rings (a symbol of the goddess Tanit, on a 
  stele from Constantine, Algeria, now in the Louvre), and a crescent and disc 
  without ribbons (‘stele of the Mahout’, from Carthage). The crescent was 
  Syrio-Phoenician in origin and, along with the star and the disc, referred to 
  the celestial world, the abode of the gods. With its limbs pointing downwards 
  the crescent was often associated with a symbol of Tanit below it. The latter 
  was made up of three parts: the base, forming a triangle or trapezium; above 
  it a horizontal bar, whose ends in the great majority of cases are turned up 
  more or less perpendicular to the bar; and a slightly flattened circle above 
  the bar. According to Silius Italicus (II, 57; III, 382), the other African peoples 
  also had their own standards.
  The Celtic insignia were generally animal figures (especially the  
  wild boar), and they are shown along with trophies of arms in various 
  Greek-Roman monuments. Some specimens in bronze or brass sheet are 
  preserved, e.g. the bronze wild boar head of Neuvy-en-Sullias now at the 
  Museum of Orléans. Military standards taken from the Celts after the 
  battle of Talamone were brought to the Capitol in Rome by Lucius 
  Papo (Pol., II, 31, 6); and three years later the Insubres, preparing 
  for battle against the Romans, took from the temple of Athena 
  ‘gold insignia considered immovable’ (i.e. untouchable, 
  inviolable and sacred) to guide and protect their warriors 
  (Pol., II, 32, 6).
  CLOTHING & PHYSICAL APPEARANCE
  Together with original Phoenician fashions, 
  Carthaginian costume was also influenced by both 
  Egyptian and Greek styles. Hellenic influences never 
  prevailed completely, however, although many 
  aesthetic fashions and ethnic styles coexisted in this 
  cosmopolitan trading city, with foreign tendencies 
  being adapted to the local taste and needs.
  In peacetime, and sometimes under armour, men 
  seem to have dressed in traditional Near Eastern 
  clothing: a long, one-piece tunic with long sleeves, often 
  of a purple color. This garment was described by Tertullian 
  thus (De Pallio, 3): ‘[They] were noteworthy for the quality 
  of the cloth, for the magnificence and harmony of the dyes, 
  and for the correct proportions. They did not extend in length 
  below the calves, neither were they indecently short above the 
  �������������protome������
  �������������������������� 
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������� 
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ��������������������������� 
  ���������������������������� 
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������� 
  ��������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  knee. They were not short in the arms, nor narrow around the wrists… they 
  hung upon the body in a balanced way, squared and comfortable.’
  Punic warriors and hunters also employed the short tunic of the Greek 
  hoplite, but their decoration followed the patterns that are still visible today 
  on Carthaginian stelae: rosettes, astral symbols and floral motifs. Horse-
  breeders wore a tunic reinforced on the skirt by leather scales. Sometimes 
  nobles wore garments similar to those of the late Egyptians, with fringed 
  sashes wrapped around the skirt, and the head covered by metallic coifs. 
  The Libyans often wore unbelted tunics, and Silius Italicus (II, 56) calls 
  them ‘loosely girt Libyans’. A military cloak similar to the Greek hymation 
  was used by all soldiers, and those of commanders were often distinguished 
  by embroidery in purple and gold (SI, I, 248; III, 238). According to Silius 
  Italicus (III, 231–232), the people of Carthage were not tall: ‘light of limb 
  were they, and the glory of lofty stature was denied them’. The young 
  ����������������������tophet����
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������� 
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ����������������(parma) and 
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������� 
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  warriors marched with bare feet and wore a red discincta (‘unbelted’) tunic, 
  the colour chosen to hide bloodstains. This costume was similarly worn by 
  many Libyans, such as the Adyrmachidae (see Plate H3).
  As can be observed on many of the surviving terracotta facial masks, a 
  nose-ring (nezem), and the practice of cutting or tattooing the cheeks with 
  religious symbols, were both characteristic of the Punics; graves in the 
  Byzacena area also attest to the painting of red motifs on the arms and legs. 
  The Massyli, like the Numidians and Gaetuli, wore their hair hanging down 
  in close curls. Some child statuettes found in Punic sanctuaries show the boys 
  with a central fore-and-aft crest of hair and an amulet hanging on the brow 
  (see Plate H3); Herodotus describes this hairstyle as already characteristic of 
  the Macae tribes in the 5th century BC.
  Between 250 and 200 BC the Greek mode was prevailing to a greater 
  extent, and stelae show young, clean-shaven warriors alongside the ever-
  present Carthaginian fashion for thick beards, rolled and curled in ringlets in 
  the manner of their Phoenician ancestors.
  THE NAVY
  The Carthaginian navy had a high reputation all over the Mediterranean. 
  Even their enemies agreed on the strength and manoeuvrability of the 
  Punic ships and the skill and experience of Carthage’s expert shipwrights 
  and sailors, who had inherited the arts of navigation from their 
  Phoenician ancestors. The warship found in 1971 near Marsala (ancient 
  Lilybaeum, in western Sicily) has revealed construction details that allow 
  us to see how advanced Punic naval technology was during the  
  3rd century BC. If the Greeks were the first to increase the tonnage and 
  power of warships by multiplying the banks of rowers, the Carthaginians 
  (or Phoenicians) were perhaps the first to mass-produce hulls from pre-
  cut sections; the recovered timbers are marked with letters, to speed up 
  the work of assembly. The Carthaginian navy was very similar to those 
  of the Greek cities. Classical sources attribute to Carthage the invention 
  of the quadrireme or tetr�r�s around the 5th century BC, and of the 
  quinquereme or pentecont�r�s, the principal warship used in the wars 
  against Rome. Polybius writes that in 256 BC Carthage had a war fleet 
  of 350 ‘decked’ ships.
  The ‘rudder’ was the classical steering-oar, attached to the side of the 
  stern with two hawsers, with a pole fixed at right angles to the oar’s handle 
  which the helmsman used as a tiller. Some steering-oars represented on 
  stelae clearly show all these components. Normally the ship carried two 
  steering-oars, port and starboard. Some naval experts suggest that only one 
  would be used at a time while navigating, with the second being a spare in 
  case of loss or damage to the first. The use of double helmsmen would 
  demand much training and practice to achieve the necessary synchronization, 
  and might have been employed only in exceptional circumstances; 
  engravings of ships on stelae normally show a single steering-oar in use. 
  However, Aelianus (IX, 40) writes that ‘the Carthaginians appointed two 
  pilots for every ship’, which he argues was a mistake, saying that ‘it was not 
  fit that a ship should have two rudders’. He goes on to admit that in combat 
  Punic ships used both ‘rudders’ simultaneously in order to tack more 
  �����������������������������
  ������ tophet�������������
  ������������������������
  ��������������������������� 
  ���������������������������� 
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������rostrum  
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  rapidly, and we know that the Carthaginians were considered masters in 
  the tactics of naval skirmishing.
  One representation of a heavy ship does seem to show a vertical rudder 
  whose axis passes across the hull of the ship, in a very similar way to a 
  modern rudder, but naval experts agree that a steering-oar is no less efficient; 
  it allows smooth manoeuvring, and is fully compatible with vessels heavier 
  than the warships of the period. Polybius (I, 51) gives us the best description 
  of the Carthaginian ships and of their tactics:
  They much surpassed the Romans in speed, owing to the superior build 
  of their ships and the better training of the rowers, as they had freely 
  developed their line [formation?] in the open sea. For if any ships found 
  themselves hard pressed by the enemy it was easy for them, owing to 
  their speed, to retreat safely to open water and from thence, fetching 
  round on the ships that pursued ... them, they either got in their rear or 
  attacked them in the flank. As the enemy then had to turn round they 
  found themselves in difficulty owing to the weight of the hulls and the 
  poor oarsmanship of the crews, [so the Carthaginians] rammed them 
  repeatedly and sunk many. Again, if any other of their own ships were 
  in peril they were ready to render assistance with perfect security to 
  themselves, as they were out of immediate danger and could sail in open 
  water past the sterns of their own line.
  Between the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, Carthage offered to its visitors 
  spacious harbours: a rectangular artificial basin (cothon) for merchant 
  shipping, and a circular basin for warships, linked by a channel. According 
  to Chateaubriand, who was the first to discover it, the circular harbour also 
  ���������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������gauloi���������
  ������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������
  a
  b
  c
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  communicated with the sea through a second artificial channel, still visible 
  in 1807. In the centre of this military harbour was what is called today ‘the 
  admiral’s island’, a round island linked to the shore by a causeway. Appian 
  explained that this harbour had an entrance 21m (69ft) wide, and was 
  enclosed by high stone embankments; these surrounding structures and the 
  central island all incorporated roofed ship-sheds (like ‘U-boat pens’) for 220 
  war vessels, above which were storage magazines for their tackle and 
  BATTLE OF MYLAE, 260 BC
  1: Carthaginian naval officer
  ������� ��������� ��������� ���� ��������� ������ ����
  ��������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ���� ����� ����������� ��� ���� ������ ������ ��������� ��������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ���� ����� ������� ���������� ��� ����� �Metamorphosis�� ����
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������De Pallio�������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  fibulae �����������������������������������������������
  2: Carthaginian marines
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������
  3: Roman boarding party
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������milites are represented here 
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  �������� ��������� ������� ���� ���������� �������� �� �������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������� ���� ������� ���� ������� ����� ���� ����� ��� ���������
  �������������������������������������������������������
  G
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������
  �����������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������hôplon 
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ephaptis������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
   
  3
  1
  2 
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  equipment. Two Ionic columns flanked the entrance to each shed, giving the 
  appearance of continuous porticoes around both the outside of the harbour 
  and the circumference of the island. High above the 30 ship-pens on the 
  island rose the admiral’s house, from which trumpets gave signals, heralds 
  carried orders, and the admiral overlooked everything. Recent archaeological 
  excavations have confirmed Appian’s data. They have also located the 
  choma described by the Greek historian, a kind of boarding-place for 
  infantry and chariots.
  The city, which stood at the head of a roughly hammer-shaped promontory 
  or isthmus, was also protected by a triple wall on the land side and a single 
  wall round the seafront. Inside the walls were stables for 300 war-elephants 
  and 4,000 horses, and barracks capable of housing 24,000 men.
  SELECTED CAMPAIGNS & BATTLES
  THE CONQUEST OF SARDINIA, 545–c.509 BC
  The presence of Phoenician colonists on the island before the mid-6th-century 
  Carthaginian military expedition is well attested. Though the literary sources 
  speak of a consolidation of positions inland and the military establishment of 
  colonial rule after the battle of Alalia (535 BC), the archaeology shows a more 
  ancient Punic presence along the south-western coast, and the establishment 
  of the first urban settlements at least a century before the 540s. In the coastal 
  and sub-coastal areas we find, from south to north, important remains of 
  fortifications and houses on Monte Nai and Cala Sinzias, and, in the area of  
  Colostrai, the remains of Punic settlements, pottery, and a 2m (6ft 6in) high 
  granite stele bearing two inscribed Punic characters. The remains of a fort or 
  temple were found at Santa Maria di Villaputzu, surrounded by smaller 
  buildings and abundant Punic ceramic finds. A military penetration is clearly 
  attested from the excavations at Monte Sirai.
  The first reliable written information comes from the historian Justin, 
  who describes a military expedition to the island led by the general Mazheus 
  in the mid-6th century BC following his successful campaigning in Sicily. In 
  Sardinia, however, Mazheus was defeated and lost most of his army; wide-
  ranging studies of parallel events (such as the exploits of Cyrus in Persia) 
  allow historians to fix the chronology of the expedition to between 545 and 
  535 BC. In these years the Persians had completed the conquest of the Lydian 
  kingdom of Sardis, original homeland of the Sardinians. If we consider that 
  in about 565 BC the Greeks founded Alalia on the coast of Corsica, and that 
  around 535 BC an alliance of the Etruscans and Carthaginians was defeated 
  by the Phocean Greeks in a sea battle in that area, it seems plausible that 
  Mazheus’s expedition had the purpose of confronting a Greek attempt to 
  counterbalance an increasing Carthaginian presence in Sardinia. But who 
  defeated Mazheus?
  One possibility considered by scholars was an alliance between the 
  existing Phoenician settlements and the indigenous peoples of Sardinia 
  (Sardia), both trying to defend their independence. However, the whole 
  history of relations between Carthage and the Phoenician colonies shows 
  alliance rather than hostility, and it would be far more natural for the native 
  populations of a Sardinia that was not yet under Carthaginian control to 
  OPPOSITE��������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������
  ��������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������� 
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  react to a deep military 
  penetration of their island. An 
  important archaeological 
  discovery has cast light on 
  these events. In 1975 a 
  Nuragic 
  sanctuary 
  was 
  discovered on Monte Prama 
  that contained giant statues of 
  warriors equipped in the 
  Sardian manner. According to 
  the recent interpretation by 
  Pittau, this heroon was 
  constructed in around the 
  mid-6th century BC to 
  celebrate a great victory 
  achieved by the Nuragic 
  warriors over Mazheus’s 
  army in response to this first 
  attempt to impose Punic 
  hegemony over the island. 
  The battle was probably 
  fought 
  nearby, 
  around 
  Oristano or the Sinis isthmus, 
  and the temple ascribed the 
  victory to the main Sardian 
  divinity, the ‘Sardus Pater’. 
  Pausanias (X, 17, 1; 18, 1) 
  wrote that the western Sardoi 
  sent a bronze statue of their 
  god to Delphi, probably on 
  the occasion of this victory 
  over 
  the 
  Carthaginian 
  common enemy
  If the sources are silent 
  about events before Mazheus’s 
  expedition, they are slightly 
  more forthcoming about 
  those that followed. Some 
  years later the Carthaginians 
  began a focused programme 
  of 
  renewed 
  conquest; 
  although these expeditions 
  clearly achieved success, the 
  sources give few details of 
  victories or of the duration of 
  the campaigns. According to 
  the scholars Pais and Lilliu, 
  the actual start of Punic rule 
  over Sardinia as a whole may 
  be fixed at some time pre-
  dating the first trade treaty 
  between Carthage and Rome, 
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  traditionally dated to 509 BC. This treaty prohibited Roman navigation to 
  the west of Cape Fair; allowed free trade in Carthaginian Sicily and Sardinia; 
  and, with reference to Libya, provided that ‘those [Romans] who are coming 
  for commercial purposes cannot conclude any business except in the presence 
  of a Carthaginian herald or scribe’. The fact that the Carthaginian state was 
  the guarantor of commercial transactions agreed in the presence of its 
  officials makes it clear that Sardinia and Libya were both by then under a 
  substantial degree of control by Carthage, and that this position was 
  recognized by international treaty.
  Polybius also comments on the provisions of the treaty concerning Sardinia 
  and Libya, stating that the Carthaginians considered these areas to be their 
  own property. However, the situation in 509 BC was not yet that of 348 BC, 
  when a second treaty was concluded between Carthage and Rome. Again 
  according to Polybius, under the provisions of the 348 treaty ‘No Roman shall 
  make trade or found a city in Sardinia and Libya.’ Although the sources for 
  the Carthaginian conquest of Sardinia are limited, it therefore seems reasonable 
  to conclude that Punic control was not significant before about 540 BC; that 
  it had been established by 509 BC; and that it became increasingly secure 
  during the two centuries that followed. Diodorus Siculus relates that the 
  Carthaginians’ determination to become the overlords of Sardinia led to many 
  wars; but he adds, interestingly, that although they conquered the island they 
  never managed to completely enslave its people:
  The Carthaginians at the time of their greater power took over the 
  island, but they could not reduce to slavery those who occupied it 
  before them. The Iolei took refuge in the mountainous region, 
  digging underground dwellings and focusing on the breeding of 
  HANNIBAL BARCA BEFORE ZAMA, 202 BC
  1a & 1b: Hannibal Barca and his shield-bearer
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������� ��� �������������� ���������� ��� ���� ��������� ����
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������ ���������� ���� ���� ��������� ������� ����������
  ���������� ��� Punica� ����� ��� ���������� ���� ����� ��� ���������
  ��������� ������������ ��� ������ ��� ���� �������� ���� �����
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������
  2: Puno-Libyan doryphoros  
  ����� �������� ��������� ��� ����� ���������� �������� ���������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������aegis������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  painted in red (fard)����������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ���� ������������ ������ ������� ��� ��������� ����� ��� ����� ����
  ���������������������������
  3: Adyrmachid warrior
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������(caetra)�����������������
  �������������������������������������������������(ensis falcatus)��
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������(nezem)����������
  �����������������������������
  4: Standard-bearer, Carthaginian citizen cavalry
  ������������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������� ������������� ��������� �������� ��������� �����
  ������������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������
  H
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  4
  1a 
  1b 
  3 
  2 
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  numerous flocks... Although they have often been attacked by the 
  Carthaginians with impressive forces, they fled to avoid slavery, 
  protected by the difficult access of their country and by their 
  underground dwellings.
  THE BATTLE OF HIMERA, 480 BC
  In 480 BC one of the bloodiest battles of the ancient world was fought 
  near the Sicilian city of Himera, between the Syracusan Greeks and the 
  Carthaginians. Writers of the time interpreted events as a surge of Greek 
  resistance against the joint aggression of Persian and Phoenician 
  ‘barbarians’; Herodotus tells us that the battle was fought on the same day 
  as the battle of Salamis, Diodorus that it coincided with that of 
  Thermopylae. Modern scholars reject any interpretation of this coincidence 
  as evidence of a coordinated Persian-Phoenician strategy, although the fact 
  that the Greeks were facing the Persian invasion may have led the 
  Carthaginians to implement their long-considered project of an invasion 
  of Sicily.
  A strong Punic army under the command of Hamilcar the Magonid  
  (a reference to his aristocratic clan) invaded the island, landing at 
  Panormus with, according to sources, a frankly incredible alleged strength 
  of 300,000 men; however, a disaster at sea during the voyage to Sicily had 
  cost him most of his cavalry. As was traditional, the Carthaginian army 
  was composed mainly of mercenaries: not only Libyans, Iberians and 
  Ligurians, but also Corsicans, and fierce Nuragic warriors from Sardinia.
  While Theron of Akragas (today, Agrigento) held the city of Himera 
  against the immediate Carthaginian siege, Gelon of Syracuse marched to 
  his aid with a strong force. Hamilcar had camped to the west of the town, 
  leaving his ships beached in the mouth of the river that watered Himera. 
  His army ravaged the surrounding area, and Himera was blockaded from 
  both land and sea. Theron then launched a sortie to prevent the completion 
  of the Punic ditch and palisade protecting the invaders’ ships; at first 
  successful, this attempt was met with a counter-attack, and the hoplites of 
  Akragas and Himera were forced back into the city.
  When Gelon came up with a Syracusan army of 24,000 infantry and 
  2,000 cavalry, he chose to camp to the south-east of the city, in terrain 
  where he could use his cavalry en masse to exploit Hamilcar’s lack  
  of horse. A battle was fought on the slopes of Mt Eurako (today, Mt  
  St Calogero) when Carthaginian mercenaries were caught by the Syracusan 
  cavalry while they were out raiding, and were slaughtered or taken prisoner. 
  By another stroke of luck for the Greeks, Gelon intercepted a message from 
  Hamilcar in which he asked Selinunte, a city allied to Carthage, to send 
  him a contingent of cavalry. On one of the following days Hamilcar the 
  Magonid intended to make a great sacrifice to Poseidon, the Greek god of 
  the sea, and early in the morning he appeared before the ships dressed in 
  ceremonial robes to officiate over a mass sacrifice of animals. At this point 
  the Tyrant of Syracuse sent his cavalry along the shore, and when they 
  came into view Punic sentries mistook them for the expected reinforcements 
  from Selinunte. The Syracusan horsemen set fire to the Punic ships, and 
  then turned at once on the Carthaginian camp, which was in total chaos. 
  Hoplites came up in support, and together the heavy Greek phalanx and 
  horsemen tore the resistance of the Carthaginian mercenaries to pieces. 
  Overwhelmingly defeated, Hamilcar chose (according to Herodotus) to kill 
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  himself by fire; according to other authors, he died accidentally among the 
  blazing Punic ships. (Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that even several 
  years after the battle the Carthaginians still considered this Hamilcar the 
  Magonid as a hero, going so far as to erect monuments and altars to his 
  memory both in the homeland and in the colonies.) The number of Punic 
  prisoners reported in the sources was so high that in following years it was 
  claimed that there were about 500 slaves for every citizen of Akragas.  
  The Syracusans celebrated the victory by coining a new currency,  
  the demareteion, and by building – with the labour of their prisoners – a 
  magnificent Doric temple complex to the gods of victory, of which the 
  remains may still be seen today.
  Carthage had suffered a severe blow. It had lost its powerful fleet – 
  partly burned, and partly sunk in a storm that struck the surviving vessels 
  on their way home – and no longer had any mercenary army to speak of. 
  The failed invasion had been such a disaster that the Carthaginian rulers, 
  fearing that the Greeks would sail to mount an assault on their own city, 
  sent ambassadors to Gelon to sue for peace. His terms were honourable, 
  but included a large money indemnity, and for 70 years thereafter no Punic 
  army set foot on Sicilian soil.
  As is traditional, the ancient sources claim that improbably huge numbers 
  of Carthaginians fell during the battle. Nevertheless, work on a railway 
  linking Fiumetorto and Ogliastrillo has unearthed on the plain of 
  Buonfornello, not far from Termini Imerese, finds that have been described 
  by experts as the largest necropolis ever discovered in Magna Graecia. More 
  than 500 burials have already been identified, but a survey estimates a total 
  of about 12,000 graves dating from the 5th to 6th centuries BC. Future 
  anthropological study of the skeletons promises to yield valuable information 
  about their lives – such as their diets and diseases – and especially about 
  violent deaths. Among them there are collective burials that may be 
  considered as real mass graves, presumably linked to the two great battles 
  of Himera fought between Greeks and Carthaginians in 480 and 409 BC in 
  the area of the present necropolis.
  THE MERCENARY REVOLT, 240 BC
  Immediately following the First Punic War, Carthage found itself facing a 
  serious threat of overthrow from within. More than 20 years of war had 
  exhausted even this city’s vast wealth, and the Punic state was unable to 
  honour the contracts of its numerous hired soldiers.
  As soon as peace with the Romans was signed, Gesco, governor of 
  Lilybaeum in western Sicily, had begun sending the mercenaries back to 
  Carthage in small detachments in the hope that as they arrived they would 
  be paid off and dismissed, but the city was soon full of angry unpaid 
  warriors. After a while, to avoid the spread of disorder to the local mob, 
  they were collected together in a camp outside the walls and left there 
  waiting for the unpredictable payment of their wages. When the ruling 
  oligarchs learned that these furious soldiers had produced some formidable 
  leaders to speak for them, part of the money owed was sent, but it came 
  too late: the mercenaries were in a mood to plunder the city of all its 
  riches. Two of their leaders stood out among the others: Spendius, a 
  runaway slave from Campania, a man of enormous strength and bravery; 
  and a free-born African named Matho, who found his fellow Africans 
  ready to follow him.
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Gesco, who had been sent to negotiate with the troops, handed over the 
  arrears of actual pay, but postponed the question of the allowances owed for 
  their supplies. Loud cries of discontent were followed by a gathering of the 
  malcontents, the killing of opponents, and the election of Spendius and 
  Matho as commanders of the rebels. Gesco and his staff were seized and held 
  hostage. Most of the North African towns, discontented with their Punic 
  masters, joined the mercenaries (with the exception of Hippo and Utica), and 
  many Libyan slaves increased the mutineers’ numbers. During the expensive 
  war against Rome the oligarchy of Carthage had been obliged to increase the 
  taxes on their subjects and dependencies. Tributes in kind from the cultivators 
  of the soil and taxes on the cities had both been doubled, and any default in 
  payment had been cruelly punished. Now women from all the towns brought 
  their jewellery and threw it into the common treasury of the rebellion. 
  Spendius and Matho found themselves with funds sufficient to settle all the 
  claims of the troops, while leaving a substantial war chest to finance 
  continued operations.
  Utica and the Macar river
  The mutineers divided their forces into three parts, and two of these 
  immediately besieged the loyalist towns of Hippo and Utica. The third 
  division held an entrenched camp at Tunis, cutting off Carthage from all 
  land communication. The Carthaginian commander-in-chief Hanno 
  marched against the rebel force at Utica with a powerful army including 
  100 elephants. With these he broke through the rebels’ entrenchments, and 
  the mercenaries fled in panic. Hanno was accustomed to dealing with half-
  savage enemies who, once defeated, could not easily be rallied, and he 
  believed that his victory was final. He and his soldiers became careless, and 
  amused themselves in Utica; but the mercenaries were seasoned professional 
  soldiers, accustomed to rallying and regrouping after a setback. Seeing that 
  the Carthaginian camp was left largely unguarded, they attacked it, and 
  �������������������������
  ��������������������
  �������������������������� 
  �������������������������������
  aegis ������������������������
  �������������������������� 
  ��������������� ��������
  ����������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  took possession of a great quantity of supplies and even some artillery that 
  Hanno had brought out of the city.
  Hanno’s political opponent Hamilcar Barca, just back from the war 
  against the Romans, now took command of a Punic army consisting  
  of 10,000 native Carthaginians, a force of selected loyalist mercenaries, and 
  70 elephants. To relieve Utica he needed first to break the blockade that 
  Matho had established around Carthage. The hills at the land end of the 
  isthmus on which the city stood were held by the enemy, and the only 
  practical approach was by a bridge over the Macar river. Hamilcar took 
  advantage of a wind that drove up quantities of sand on a bar in the Macar 
  and made it easily fordable. He pushed his army across the river by night, 
  and, appearing on the other side the next morning, he hastened to attack the 
  rear of the mutineers who were guarding the bridge. The rebel besiegers of 
  Utica sent a strong force to help their comrades. Hamilcar marched with his 
  elephants in front, his lightly armed troops behind them and his heavily 
  armed troops in the rear, but on coming in sight of the enemy he ordered 
  changes to these dispositions. Spendius mistook the signs of movement for a 
  flight and ordered a charge, which struck Hamilcar’s heavy infantry, but his 
  cavalry and the elephants fell upon the flanks of the mercenaries: 6,000 
  rebels were slaughtered on the battlefield, and 2,000 taken prisoner. Hamilcar 
  Barca had broken the blockade of Carthage; but Hippo and Utica were still 
  under siege, and the rebels were well established at Tunis.
  Naravas, a leading Numidian prince, 
  now joined the Carthaginians with a force 
  of 2,000 men, and Hamilcar then felt 
  himself strong enough to offer battle.  
  A bloody onslaught followed, in which the 
  Carthaginians eventually prevailed, chiefly 
  thanks to their elephants. The rebels lost 
  10,000 men fallen, and 4,000 were taken 
  prisoner. To these latter Hamilcar wisely 
  offered two choices: to take service with 
  Carthage once again, or to go home – but 
  if they chose the latter option and were 
  ever found in arms again, they would be 
  shown no mercy.
  Dismayed by this unexpected threat to 
  the cohesion of the mutineers, the rebel 
  leaders called an assembly of their soldiers, 
  and brought in a courier who professed to 
  come with a dispatch from the rebels in 
  Sardinia. This warned that a plot was 
  being hatched in the camp for setting free 
  Gesco and the other Carthaginian 
  prisoners. Spendius and Antaritus – a 
  Gallic mercenary who had shared the 
  command with Spendius and Matho, and 
  was able to speak the Carthaginian 
  language – told their soldiers that it was 
  madness to think of concluding peace with 
  Hamilcar and Carthage, and to forestall 
  the alleged plot to free them the decision 
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ���������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  was taken to put the captives to death. Gesco and his 700 comrades were 
  cruelly murdered, and from that time on no mercy would be shown by 
  either side.
  Divided command and Roman interference
  The division of Carthaginian command between Hamilcar Barca and Hanno, 
  who could not agree, did great damage. Moreover, Sardinia was lost to 
  Carthage, and now the townspeople of Utica and Hippo both joined the 
  rebellion, massacring their besieged Carthaginian garrisons. However, the 
  oligarchy now received indirect support from unexpected quarters. Hiero, 
  the Tyrant of Syracuse, did not want a situation in which Rome was left 
  unchallenged by a powerful rival. Rome itself, still governed by the patrician 
  class, did not relish the example of another oligarchy being torn down by 
  popular uprisings. Consequently, the Romans chose not to take (immediate) 
  possession of Sardinia, nor of Utica, both of which were offered to them by 
  the rebels; they also allowed traders to send supplies into Carthage, but not 
  to the rebels.
  The mercenaries outside Carthage were in their turn encircled by Naravas, 
  whose Numidian cavalry cut their supply lines from the surrounding country. 
  This strategy implemented by Hamilcar Barca reduced at least part of his 
  enemies to the most frightful extremities; the rebels who were trapped in the 
  so-called ‘Canyon of the Axe’ (today identified as the Canyon of the Saw, 
  probably located around Mt Zaghoua near Tunis) were forced to resort to 
  cannibalism. The leader Spendius and his comrades accepted terms: the rebels 
  were allowed to go free, with the exception of ten chosen by name – obviously, 
  Spendius and Antaritus were two of them.
  Hamilcar then moved with his army against the remaining rebels 
  encamped at Tunis.He positioned himself on one side of the battle array, 
  leaving command of the other flank in the hands of a deputy named Hannibal 
  (not to be confused with Hamilcar’s son, Hannibal Barca). Spendius and the 
  other nine prisoners were crucified in front of the rebels’ walls to demonstrate 
  the cost of stubborn resistance. However, Hannibal incompetently lost his 
  wing of the army to Matho, who stormed the Punic camp, and Hannibal was 
  crucified alive on the same cross on which the body of Spendius was 
  still hanging.
  By this point all the Carthaginians understood the necessity of putting 
  aside their internal quarrels and bringing the war to an end. Hamilcar Barca 
  and Hanno agreed to act in harmony; a general levy was raised, and every 
  Carthaginian citizen who was of an age to bear arms was compelled to serve. 
  In 238 BC Matho was finally forced to accept battle, was defeated, and taken 
  prisoner. All the North African towns, including Utica and Hippo, once again 
  submitted to Carthaginian rule. According to Polybius, ‘such was the 
  conclusion of the war between Carthaginians and their mercenaries, after a 
  continuance of three years and about four months: a war by far the most 
  impious and bloody of any that we find in history.’
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
  Main historical sources:  
  (LCL = Loeb Classical Library; HUP = Harvard University Press)
  Aelianus, Various Histories, ed. T. Stanley (London, 1965); and Historical 
  Miscellany, ed. G.P. Goold, (Loeb Classical Library; Harvard University 
  Press, 1997)
  Appian (App.), Roman History, in L. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1879); & White, 
  H., Appian, The Foreign Wars (New York, 1913)
  Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library; 12 vols, Greek texts & facing English 
  translation (LCL; HUP, 1933–1967)
  Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities/Rhomaike Archaiologia 
  (Rom.) (LCL; HUP, 1913–1937)
  Herodotus, Histories/Le Storie, ed. A. Colonna & F. Bevilacqua (Utet, Torino, 
  1996)
  Justin, Cornelius Nepos, Eutropius, ed. J. Selby-Watson (London, 1876)
  Livy, History of Rome from the Founding of the City/Ab Urbe Condita 
  (LCL; HUP, 1924–1949)
  Ovid, Metamorphoses, Books I–VIII, trans. F.J. Miller (LCL; HUP, 1916 & 
  1999)
  Pausanias, Description of Greece, Books I–X, 5 vols (HUP, 1918–1935)
  Plautus Titus Maccius, Tutte le commedie, Persa, Poenulus, Pseudolus, ed.  
  E. Paratore (Rome, 1992)
  Plutarch (Plut.), Parallel Lives/Paralleloi Bioi, Timoleon (LCL, IX; HUP, 
  1920)
  Pollux Julius, ed. W. Dindorf, Onomasticon (Leipzig, 1824)
  Polybius (Pol.) Histories/Pragmateia (Prag.); Histories I, Books 1–2  
  (HUP, 1922); Histories III, Books 5–8 (LCL; HUP, 1923)
  Sallust (Sall.), Jugurthine War/Bellum Jugurthinum (Jug.); The Histories/
  Fragmenta Historiarum (Hist.) (LCL; HUP, 1921)
  Silius Italicus (SI), Carthaginian War/Punica, Books 1–8, trans. J.D. Duff 
  (LCL; HUP, 1934); Punica (Punic Wars), II vols, ed. J.D. Duff (Cambridge, 
  1971)
  Strabo, Geography/Geographica, II, Books 3–5, trans. H.L. Jones, Latin & 
  English text (LCL; HUP, 1923)
  Tertullian, De Pallio, ed. Vincent Hunink (on-line; Amsterdam, 2005)
  Velleius Paterculus, Compendium of Roman History (LCL 152; HUP, 1924)
  Virgil (Verg.), Aeneid/Aeneis (Aen.) in Virgil, I, Eclogues, Georgics, Aeneid 
  (LCL; HUP, 1916)
  Modern works:
  Alcaide, J.A. & Cueto, D.A., Los mercenarios espagnoles de Hannibal, siglo 
  III a.C. (Madrid, 2000) 
  Astruc, M., ‘Empreintes et reliefs carthaginois de terre cuite’, in Mélanges 
  d’archéologie et d’histoire, 71 (1959), pp.107–134
  Bardunias, P.M., ‘Mercenary rescues Carthage’, in Ancient Warfare, Vol. III, 
  No. 1 (2009), pp.29–35  
  Bartoloni, P., ‘Le navi e la navigazione’, in Moscati, S., I Fenici (Milan, 1988), 
  pp.72–77; & ‘L’esercito, la marina e la guerra’, pp.132–138
  Charles-Picard, G. & C., Catalogue du Musée Alaoui (Tunis, 1957)
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Charles-Picard, G. & C., La vie quotidienne à Carthage au temps d’Hannibal 
  (Paris, 1958)
  Charles-Picard, G. & C., ‘Thèmes hellénistiques sur les stèles de Carthage’, 
  in Antiquités africaines, 1 (1967), pp.9–30
  Connolly, P., Hannibal and the Enemies of Rome (London, 1978)
  Connolly, P., Greece and Rome at War (London, 1988)
  Corona, M. La rivolta di Ampsicora, cronaca della prima grande insurrezione 
  Sarda, 215 a.C. (Cagliari, 2005)
  Delattre, R.P., Les tombeaux puniques de Carthage (Lyon, 1890)
  Fariselli, A. C., ‘I mercenari di Cartagine attraverso l’esame delle attestazioni 
  letterarie’, in Studi di Egittologia e di Antichità Puniche, 16 (1997), 
  pp.141–162
  Fariselli, A. C., I mercenari di Cartagine (La Spezia, 2002)
  Fariselli, A. C., Gli ‘armati’ nell’iconografia punica, in Acquaro, E. & Callieri, 
  P. (eds.), Transmarinae imagines. Studi sulla trasmissione di iconografie 
  tra Mediterraneo ed Asia in età classica ed ellenistica (Sarzana, 2003), 
  pp.85–109
  Fariselli, A. C., ‘Problematiche iconografiche ed iconologiche delle 
  rappresentazioni di divinità guerriere del mondo punico’, in Pisano, G. 
  (ed.), Iconographica varia ab Oriente ad Occidentem, Studia Punica 6 
  (Rome, 2006), pp.75–108
  Fariselli, A.C., ‘Cartagine ed i Misthophoroi’, in Couvenhes, J.C., Crouzet, S. 
  & Péré-Noguès, S., Pratiques et identités culturelles des armées 
  hellénistiques du monde méditerranéen - Hellenistic Warfare 3 (Paris, 
  2011). pp.129–146
  Fields, N., Carthaginian Warrior 264–146 BC, Warrior 150 (Oxford, 2010)
  Head, D., Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars 359 BC to 146 BC 
  (Worthing, 1982)
  Horn, H.G. & Rüger, B.C., Die Numider, Reiter und Könige nördlich der 
  Sahara (Bonn, 1979)
  Künzl, E., ‘Waffendekor im Hellenismus’, in Journal of Roman Military 
  Equipment, 8 (1997), pp.61–89;
  Manfredi, L.I., ‘Iconografia e leggenda, il linguaggio monetale di Cartagine’ 
  in International Congress of Classical Archaeology - Meetings between 
  cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean (Rome, 2008), pp.36–45;  
  Martin, J., Carthage (Paris, 2000)
  Martin, J., Le costume antique, 2 (Paris, 2000)
  Mazza, F., ‘L’immagine dei Fenici nel mondo antico’, in Moscati, S., I Fenici 
  (Milan, 1988), pp.548–567
  Moscati, S., Fenici e Cartaginesi in Sardegna (Milano, 1968)
  Moscati, S., I Fenici (Milano, 1988)
  Moscati, S., Introduzione alle Guerre Puniche, origine e sviluppo dell’Impero 
  Cartaginese (Turin, 1994)   
  Pittau, M., Il Sardus Pater e i guerrieri del Monte Prama (Sassari, 2008)
  Rüger, B.C., ‘Die Keramik des Grabes von Es Soumâa bei El Khroub’, in 
  Horn, H. G. & Ruger, B.C., Die Numider, Reiter und Könige nördlich der 
  Sahara (Bonn, 1979), pp.119–171
  Ulbert, G., ‘Das Schwert und die eisernen Wurfgeschossspitzen aus dem Grab 
  von Es Soumâa’, in Horn & Rüger, Die Numider, Reiter und Könige 
  nördlich der Sahara (Bonn, 1979), pp.333–338
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Vitali, D., ‘L’armamento dei Celti nel periodo della battaglia del Metauro’, in 
  La battaglia del Metauro, tradizione e studi, ed. Luni, M., in Quaderni di 
  archeologia delle Marche (2002), pp.103–134
  Vives, A. & Escudero, A., Estudio de Arqueologia Cartaginesa, la necropoli 
  de Ibiza (Madrid, 1917)
  Waurick, G., ‘Die Schutzwaffen im numidischen Grab von Es Soumâa’, in 
  Horn & Rüger, Die Numider, Reiter und Könige nördlich der Sahara 
  (Bonn, 1979), pp.305–332
  Wise, T., Armies of the Carthaginian Wars 265–146 BC, Men-at-Arms 121 
  (London, 1982)
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  INDEX
  References to images are in bold, references to plates 
  are in bold with captions in brackets.
  Adad, god of war  34, 36, 45
  Adyrmachidae  21, 48, 55 (54)
  Aegadian Islands, battle of (241 BC)  6, 10, 13
  Africans  20, 29
  Agathocles of Syracuse  6, 10, 13
  Akragas (Agrigento)  12, 56, 57
  Alalia, battle of (535 BC)  5, 12, 52
  Alexander the Great  6, 25, 34
  Algeria  25, 38
  Antaritus  59–60
  appearance  46, 47–48; Celts  45
  Arbacians  22, 39
  archaeology  10, 32–35, 37, 40–41, 52, 53, 57
  archers  23, 25, 26, 37
  aristocracy  20, 23
  armour  7 (6), 11 (10), 19 (18), 28, 31 (30), 32–35, 
  43 (42); see also helmets; shields
  artillery  26, 28
  Assyrians  4, 5, 17, 37, 46
  Asturias  21–22, 39
  Aufidus river  15, 28–29
  Balearic slingers  20, 21, 22, 27 (26), 41–42
  Baniura  21
  Barca dynasty  8, 20, 32
  Barce  18, 21
  beards  12, 39, 46, 47
  Berberia  25
  body paint  31 (30), 43 (42), 48, 55 (54)
  Boii  22, 23
  Campanians  20, 35
  Cannae, battle of (216 BC)  15, 21, 28–29, 30, 34, 
  41, 42, 45
  cannibalism  60
  Carthage  4–6, 8, 9, 16, 36, 53–54; harbour  49–50, 
  52; and Mercenary Revolt  57, 58, 59
  Carthaginians: army  16–17, 18, 19 (18), 20, 32; 
  reputation  9–10
  cavalry  23, 25, 27 (26), 28, 29, 32, 36, 39
  Celts  20, 22–23, 24, 29–30, 42, 43 (42), 44–45
  chariots  7 (6), 21, 23–24, 29, 30, 42
  children  10, 48
  Cirta (Constantine)  17, 34, 37
  citizen militia  17, 18, 31 (30), 55 (54)
  clothing  13, 19 (18), 27 (26), 39, 46–48, 51 (50); 
  and Celts  44; and Hannibal  55 (54)
  coinage  6, 17, 39
  Corsica  5, 8, 20, 52
  Council of the Hundred and Four  9–10, 16
  crescent symbol  46
  crucifixions  9–10, 60
  Dido, Queen of Carthage  4, 8, 12, 36
  Dionysius the Elder  28
  Ducarius  43 (42), 44–45
  Egypt  5, 17, 25, 47
  elephants  21, 23, 24–26, 27 (26), 58, 59
  El-Soumaa  33, 38
  Ethiopians  21, 39
  Etruscans  5, 20, 52
  eye motif  31 (30), 36
  First Punic War (264–241 BC)  6, 8, 9, 13, 21, 57
  Flaminus Nepos, Caius  43 (42), 44
  Gaetuli  23, 27 (26), 48
  Garamantians  21, 43 (42)
  Gaul  22, 41
  Gelon of Syracuse  12, 56, 57
  Gesco  57, 58, 59, 60
  Greeks  4, 5, 6, 9, 17, 28, 48; and Himera  56, 57; 
  and mercenaries  20, 31 (30), 50
  hair  46, 47, 48, 55 (54); see also beards
  Hamilcar Barca  8–9, 13, 21, 36, 59, 60
  Hamilcar the Magonid  5, 11 (10), 12, 56–57
  Hannibal (not Barca)  60
  Hannibal Barca  5, 9, 14–15, 16, 34, 36, 55 (54); 
  and army  17, 20, 21, 28–29; and Celts  22, 23; 
  and elephants  26; and Saguntum  28, 35;  
  and weaponry  37, 42
  Hannibal Mago  26, 28
  Hanno  9, 13, 58, 59, 60
  Hasdrubal (not Barca)  9
  Hasdrubal Barca  9, 13–14, 15–16, 22, 30, 35–36
  Hellenization  6, 17
  helmets  11 (10), 12, 29, 33–34, 45, 51 (50), 53; 
  bronze  5, 27 (26), 31 (30), 32; Celt  42;  
  conical  37, 55 (54); Iberian  40–41; masked   
  7 (6), 12
  Hiero, Tyrant of Syracuse  56, 60
  Himera, battle of (480 BC)  5, 11 (10), 12, 56–57
  Himilco  5, 12
  Hippo  18, 58, 59, 60
  hoplites  7 (6), 11 (10), 13, 28, 32, 56
  horses  21, 23, 25, 27 (26), 30, 36, 39
  Iberian Peninsula  4, 5, 8; and army  21–22, 23, 29, 
  39–40
  infantry  20–21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 32
  insignia  46
  instruments  45
  Insubri  22, 23, 43 (42), 44
  Italy  8, 9, 22, 41
  jewellery  12, 47, 48
  Krimisos, battle of (341 BC)  12, 33
  Ksour es-Saf  34
  Lake Trasimene, battle of (217 BC)  15, 35,  
  43 (42), 44
  Libya  5, 21, 24, 54
  Libyo-Phoenicians  17–18, 20, 32, 47, 48
  Ligurians  20, 22, 23
  Macae tribe  17, 39, 48
  Macedonians  20, 28
  Marmaridae  21, 39
  Massyli  23, 48
  Matho  57, 58, 59, 60
  Mazheus  5, 12, 52, 53
  Mediterranean Sea  4, 5, 6, 48
  mercenaries  18, 20–23, 56; and tactics  29–30
  Mercenary Revolt (240 BC)  57–60
  Mercenary Revolt (238 BC)  27 (26)
  Metaurus, battle of (207 BC)  16, 23, 30
  Moors  20, 23
  Morocco  5, 17, 25
  Motya  12, 28
  multi-ethnicity  5, 34
  Mylae, battle of (260 BC)  51 (50)
  Naravas  59, 60
  navy, the  48–50, 51 (50), 52
  Nero, Claudius  16, 30
  noblemen  4, 16, 35, 39
  North Africa  4, 5, 8, 37, 58, 60; and army  17–18, 
  20–21; and child sacrifice  10
  Nubians  21, 39
  Numidians  20, 21, 23, 29, 38–39, 48
  Oscan warrior  14, 35
  Panormus (Palermo)  13, 17, 56
  Pericles of Athens  6
  Persia  37, 52, 56
  phalanx formation  28–29, 37
  Philip V of Macedonia  15, 17
  Phoenicia  5, 6
  Pozo Moro  40–41
  priests  9, 19 (18)
  Ptolemy of Egypt  6
  Pyrrhus of Epirus  13
  Regulus, Atilius  9, 13, 25, 36
  religion  10, 19 (18), 35, 36, 46
  ritual suicide  10
  Romans  10, 43 (42), 53–54, 57, 60; and elephants  
  25; and navy  51 (50); and Punic Wars  6, 8,  
  9, 23; and tactics  29, 30; and weaponry  28,  
  44
  Sacred Band  31 (30), 32–33
  sacrifices  10, 56
  Saguntum, siege of (219 BC)  14, 21, 24, 28, 35, 36
  Sahara desert  24, 25
  Sardinia  5, 6, 24, 60; and child sacrifice  10; 
  conquest of  52–54, 56; and mercenaries  8, 20; 
  warriors  7 (6)
  Scipio Africanus  9, 26
  Second Punic War (218–201 BC)  9, 14–15,  
  22, 40
  Senones  22, 23
  shields  21, 22, 29, 35–37, 38, 39–40, 45, 55 (54), 
  58
  shophet (magistrates)  16, 19 (18)
  Sicily  5, 6, 8, 24, 26, 54, 56–57; and child sacrifice  
  10; and militia  17
  Sidon  6, 8, 16
  Simitthus/Chemtou monument  8, 28, 35, 36
  Spain  8, 9, 17, 21
  Spendius  57, 58, 59, 60
  standards  46, 55 (54)
  strategos  16–17
  sun disc  9, 39, 45, 46, 51 (50)
  Syracuse  5, 56, 57
  tactics  28–30, 45, 49; and elephants  25–26
  Tagus, Iberian prince  9
  Talamone, battle of (225 BC)  30, 46
  Theron of Akragas  56
  Third Punic War (149 BC)  9, 16
  Timoleon  12, 32, 33
  trade  4, 12, 54, 60
  Trebbia, battle of (218 BC)  15, 22
  trophies  32, 34, 46
  Tunis  8, 58, 59, 60
  Turdetani  22, 28
  Tyre  4, 16
  Utica  8, 18, 37, 58–59, 60
  Uxama  22, 41
  warships  48–49
  weaponry  24, 29, 34–35; arrowheads  15, 37, 45; 
  axes  20; bows  7 (6), 37; catapults  28; Celt  42, 
  44; daggers  27 (26), 32, 38, 39; darts  38, 39; 
  falcata swords  39, 40; javelins  27 (26), 29, 37, 
  38–39, 40, 43 (42), 44; La Tène sword  40, 44; 
  sling bullets  16, 27 (26), 41–42; spears  25, 32, 
  37, 38, 39, 40, 59; swords  27 (26), 32, 37, 38
  wheat  5–6
  women  21, 28, 31 (30), 58
  Xanthippus  13, 36
  Zama, battle of (202 BC)  9, 16, 18, 26, 35
  64
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  RELATED TITLES
  BTO 027 �
  CAM 036 �
  CMD 011 �
  MAA 121 �
  MAA 291 �
  NVG 132 �
  WAR 027 ��
  WAR 150 �
  WAR 162 �
  978 1 84603 145 8
  978 1 85532 470 1
  978 1 84908 349 2
  978 0 85045 430 7
  978 1 85532 598 2
  978 1 84603 074 1
  978 1 85532 867 9
  978 1 84603 958 4
  978 1 84908 781 0
  VISIT THE OSPREY WEBSITE
  Osprey Members’ area � Ebooks � Information about forthcoming books � Author information 
  Book extracts and sample pages � Newsletter sign up � Competitions and prizes � Osprey blog
  www.ospreypublishing.com
  To order any of these titles, or for more information on Osprey Publishing, contact: 
  North America:  uscustomerservice@ospreypublishing.com  
  UK & Rest of World:  customerservice@ospreypublishing.com     
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  First published in Great Britain in 2014 by Osprey Publishing
  PO Box 883, Oxford, OX1 9PL, UK
  PO Box 3985, New York, NY 10185-3985, USA
  E-mail: info@ospreypublishing.com
   
  Osprey Publishing is part of the Osprey Group
   
  © 2014 Osprey Publishing Ltd.
   
  All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private 
  study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, 
  Designs and Patents Act, 1988, no part of this publication may be 
  reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by 
  any means, electronic, electrical, chemical, mechanical, optical, 
  photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission 
  of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be addressed to the Publishers.
   
  A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
   
  Print ISBN: 978 1 78200 776 0
  PDF ebook ISBN: 978 1 78200 777 7
  ePub ebook ISBN: 978 1 78200 778 4
   
  Editor: Martin Windrow
  Index by Zoe Ross
  Typeset in Sabon and Myraid Pro
  Originated by PDQ Media, Bungay, UK
  © Osprey Publishing. Access to this book is not digitally restricted. In return, 
  we ask you that you use it for personal, non-commercial purposes only. 
  Please don’t upload this ebook to a peer-to-peer site, email it to everyone 
  you know, or resell it. Osprey Publishing reserves all rights to its digital 
  content and no part of these products may be copied, stored in a retrieval 
  system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, 
  recording or otherwise (except as permitted here), without the written 
  permission of the publisher. Please support our continuing book publishing 
  programme by using this e-book responsibly.
  Every effort has been made by the Publisher to secure permissions to use the 
  images in this publication. If there has been any oversight we would be 
  happy to rectify the situation and written submission should be made to 
  Osprey Publishing.
  www.ospreypublishing.com
  DEDICATION
  To Meron Bedewi, ﬂower of Africa
    
  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
  The authors wish to acknowledge their gratitude to the numerous scholars 
  and institutions who have assisted them in the realization of this book.
  First, for his patient assistance and for providing photos and 
  documentation, our thanks to the Conservator of the Museum of Carthage 
  in Tunis, Dr Hamden ben Romdhane. Thanks are also due to Dr Philipp von 
  Rummel, who put at our disposal the photographic department of the 
  Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Rome for publication of important 
  items from Simitthus/Chemtou. Special thanks must go to Dr Mariella 
  Maxia, head of the photographic department of the Museo Archaeologico 
  di Cagliari, for her patient assistance in the ﬁeld and the procurement of 
  necessary photographs.
  We would also like to express our great thanks to Prof Raimondo Zucca, for 
  his help during a visit and the collection of photographic material at the 
  Oristano Museum; to Dr Mme Soumaya Gharsallah, Conservator of the 
  Bardo Museum, Tunis, for furnishing photos and her kind permission to 
  publish; to Professor Anna Chiara Fariselli, who sent us her important works 
  on the Carthaginian army; and, as so often, to Prof Livio Zerbini of Ferrara 
  University, for help in obtaining permission to examine and photograph 
  relevant material in various museums and institutions.
  Among the photographic credits we also wish to acknowledge the British 
  Museum, Chiusi Archaeological Museum, the Musei Apostolici Vaticani, 
  Capua Archaeological Museum, Paestum Archaeological Museum, Zaragoza 
  Archaeological Museum, and one individual: Luis-Garcia Zaqarbal.
  Special thanks are also due to Drs Massimo Bizzarri and Vito Silvestro, for 
  their patient and inestimable help with collecting photographs, searching 
  sources, preparing drawings, making travel arrangements, and numerous 
  other activities.
  Finally, we are as always in the debt of our illustrator, Giuseppe Rava, for 
  providing the splendid colour plates that have brought the Carthaginians to 
  life.
  ARTIST’S NOTE
  Readers may care to note that the original paintings from which the colour 
  plates in this book were prepared are available for private sale. All 
  reproduction copyright whatsoever is retained by the Publishers. All 
  enquiries should be addressed to:
  Giuseppe Rava, via Borgotto 17, 48018 Faenza (RA), Italy
  www.g-rava.it 
  info@g-rava.it
  The Publishers regret that they can enter into no correspondence upon this 
  matter.
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
SOURCE: textdata/thevault/Osprey System/Elite (ELI)/Osprey - ELI 201 - The Carthaginians 6th to 2nd Century BC.pdf