Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Misconception About Hannibal's Army

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Misconception About Hannibal's Army

    Hannibal's army is almost always said to have been a professional army composed of mercenaries, this assumption is partly wrong. Hannibal did in fact have mercenaries namely the Balearic slingers, CeltiIberians, and Lusitanians. However the majority of his men were either allied contigents or conscripts. The Libyan troops in Hannibal's army's were either conscripted from the Libyan cities Carthage controlled or some of them might have been allied contigents if Carthage had a treaty with a Libyan city. The Numidians were allied troops their rulers had long been allies of Carthage. Most Spanish troops were either conscripted from Carthaginian controlled Spain or obtained through alliances to the tribes both the Spanish and Numidian chieftains and Princes served as these units commanders. The Celts were virtually all allies. Hannibal concluded a series of treaties with different tribes and they provided him with troops and supplies. Illyrians were it seems hired. The southern Italians were either allied contigents, conscripts, or volunteers.
    First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

  • #2
    Bump. Any discussion?
    First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

    Comment


    • #3
      six threads about Hannibal are quite enough.
      "Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way." - Christopher Hitchens

      Comment


      • #4
        So trolling as usual?
        First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
          Bump. Any discussion?
          No. Just stating the obvious.
          "Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way." - Christopher Hitchens

          Comment


          • #6
            So trolling? No facts, no debating, just trolling.
            First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

            Comment


            • #7
              A lot would depend on the definition of the term "mercenaries". The Celts had a tradition of sending their young men out to take service as mercenaries throughout the Mediterranean. This helped ensure the young men could go out and earn a living and quit trying to take the young women the older males wanted. When Rome was sacked by the Teutons they picked up contingents from the local Celtic tribes as they passed through. Hannibal was able to get similar contingents as he passed through the Alps and North Italy. This made them sort of Allies, but these guys picked up quite a bit of loot as they went through Italy, not to mention arms and armor. I would call them semi-mercenaries.

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • #8
                Indeed Pruitt. Depending on your definition of the term mercenary will determine your viewpoint of the army. However I in this instance see the Celts as allies. Seeing as the Celts formally allied with Hannibal and provided him with both troops and supplies I view them as allies. Since they also revolted from the Romans this means they were at war not simply mercenaries.
                First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by globetrotter View Post
                  No. Just stating the obvious.
                  Yes, a bit like opening a book titled "Hellenistic Warfare" and finding the contents page shows all six chapters devoted to Hannibal.

                  Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                  Since they also revolted from the Romans this means they were at war not simply mercenaries.
                  Mercenaries are always at war. A mercenary at peace is an oxymoron.
                  Paralus

                  Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
                  Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

                  Academia.edu

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Not sure why you always want a fight Paralus. Its rather annoying.


                    False. Mercenaries are not always at war. They have also been used as garrisons and police forces in peace time.
                    First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                      False. Mercenaries are not always at war. They have also been used as garrisons and police forces in peace time.
                      That you see my comment as wanting a fight speaks far more to your state of mind than mine. It struck me as a strange thing to write. Since someone is at war does not, ipso facto, prove they are not mercenaries.

                      Mercenaries are not paid to sit on their shields. Mercenaries (and "national" troops) were often used as garrisons. This is active service and presumes the need to defend a possession/strategic position. Coele-Syria was Garrisoned by the Ptolemies since Soter's time - because of the constant warring. Athens was garrisoned by the Macedonians since Antipater's time - due to constant war.

                      Athenian troops involved in the Lamian War are not mercenaries. Athenian troops fighting with Artabazus in the 350s are mercenaries.
                      Paralus

                      Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
                      Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

                      Academia.edu

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Because instead pf wanting to objectively debate or talk you immediately start with the insults and implications. I didn't state that it was. However, the fact the Celtic tribes allied with Hannibal against Rome and supplied troops and supplies proves I think that they were allies not mercs.

                        Mercenaries are not as you did say always at war. They've been used to police cities for tyrants, simple garrison duty, and many other things. Actually Athens was left ungarrisoned for a time due to Antigonus and Demtrius' new policy of self autonomy and the removal of garrisons.

                        Most of the Celtic troops fighting for Hannibal in the Second Punic War were allies. However the majority fighting in the first Punic War were mercenaries.
                        First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                          Because instead pf wanting to objectively debate or talk you immediately start with the insults and implications.
                          You appear to be feeling rather "precious" today. You might please post the supposed "insult" I directed at you for I'm having difiiculty finding one.

                          Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                          However, the fact the Celtic tribes allied with Hannibal against Rome and supplied troops and supplies proves I think that they were allies not mercs.
                          I haven't had a word to say about the Celtic tribes, only the statement about mercenaries in general - which I still find odd.

                          Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                          Actually Athens was left ungarrisoned for a time due to Antigonus and Demtrius' new policy of self autonomy and the removal of garrisons. .
                          Antipater garrisoned Munychia and Cassander followed suit - despite Polyperchon's diagramma on behalf of the kings in 319. Demetrius "freed" Athens only to occupy it himself (taking residence in the Parthenon) along with his troops.
                          Paralus

                          Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
                          Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

                          Academia.edu

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            There you go again. I'm feeling precious? Firstly that doesn't make any sense. Secondly I can only take that badly. All I ask is for civility.


                            What I said was in reference to them.



                            He did eventually garrison it but you must admit he first tried a more moderate approach.
                            First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                              There you go again. I'm feeling precious? Firstly that doesn't make any sense. Secondly I can only take that badly. All I ask is for civility.
                              That is an observation, not an insult. It stems from your claim that I'd started with "insults and implications".

                              I still do not see any insult in that post and, if you also cannot (as you've not produced it), it might be civil to remove the claim?

                              Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                              What I said was in reference to them.
                              And that's true. But, whilst we are on the subject of implications, the implication that follows from the statement "Since they also revolted from the Romans this means they were at war not simply mercenaries" is that those who at war are not simply mercenaries.


                              Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                              He did eventually garrison it but you must admit he first tried a more moderate approach.
                              His call for Greek eleutheria was little more than a political propaganda tool. He and his son would still garrison Greek towns in Asia Minor as the interminable wars dragged on. As I say, Demetrius actually occupied Athens himself.
                              Paralus

                              Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
                              Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

                              Academia.edu

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X