Hannibal Barca - book recommendations?

[Patrocles]

I found a used paperback copy of Ernle Bradford's book "Hannibal" covering the life of Hannibal Barca and the Carthaginian-Rome war. The book was well written imho, but quite short (<200pages) and lacking in maps and photos/images.

Can anyone recommend books about the life of Hannibal Barca, not too groggy/academic, but with a bit more detail than Mr. Bradford's work on the Carthaginian general?

Thanks!

this is the list provided by wiki on reading material regarding Hannibal Barca:

* Bickerman, Elias J. "Hannibal’s Covenant", American Journal of Philology, Vol. 73, No. 1. (1952), pp. 1–23.

* Bradford, E, Hannibal, London, Macmillan London Ltd., 1981

* Caven, B., Punic Wars, London, George Werdenfeld and Nicholson Ltd., 1980

* Cottrell, Leonard, Hannibal: Enemy of Rome, Da Capo Press, 1992, ISBN 0-306-80498-0

* Daly, Gregory, Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War, London/New York, Routledge, 2002, ISBN 0-415-32743-1

* Delbrück, Hans, Warfare in Antiquity, 1920, ISBN 0-8032-9199-X

* Hoyos, Dexter: Hannibal's Dynasty: Power and Politics in the Western Mediterranean, 247–183 B.C. (Routledge: London & New York, 2003; paperback edition with maps, 2005) - has much discussion of strategy and warfare.

* Hoyos, Dexter, Hannibal: Rome's Greatest Enemy, Bristol Phoenix Press, 2005, ISBN 1-904675-46-8 (hbk) ISBN 1-904675-47-6 (pbk)

* Lamb, Harold, Hannibal: One Man Against Rome, 1959.

* Lancel, Serge, Hannibal, Blackwell Publishing, 1999, ISBN 0631218483

* Livy, and De Selincourt, Aubery, The War with Hannibal: Books XXI-XXX of the History of Rome from its Foundation, Penguin Classics, Reprint edition, July 30, 1965, ISBN 0-14-044145-X (pbk)(also [2])

* Prevas, John, Hannibal Crosses the Alps: The Invasion of Italy and the Second Punic War, 2001, ISBN 0306810700, questions which route he took

* Talbert, Richard J.A., ed., Atlas of Classical History, Routledge, London/New York, 1985, ISBN 0-415-03463-9

* Yardley, J.C. (translator) & Hoyos, D. (introduction, notes, maps and appendix on Hannibal's march over the Alps): Livy: Hannibal's War: Books 21 to 30 (Oxford World's Classics: Oxford Univ. Press, UK & USA, 2006).

[Stalins Organ]

Hannibal's own history is prety well known and there isn't a lot that anyone can add to it AFAIK - so the much of the "analysis" comes down to the war and it's strategy and internal politics at Carthage.

Delbruk is somewhat obsolete AFAIK - and also very old so best avoided for any real insight. But he's a classic on the topic and apparently quite readable although superseeded now.

Definitely get Livy and Daly - the former for the "feel" of the war (I have had it for 30 yrs & it gets referenced roughly monthly!) and Daly for some detail on how the war was fought at the battle level.

those are the ones I know of.....Hoyos et al "Power and Politics...." looks like it might give a good overview if it sticks to its title.

[John Kettler]

Patrocles,

Permit me to recommend Connolly's HANNIBAL AND THE ENEMIES OF ROME, which he wrote and superbly illustrated, also Warry's WARFARE IN THE CLASSICAL WORLD. Both of these should serve admirably. If you know the history of the man, these will show you how he operated, with lots of illustrations, maps and photos to help the process.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Stalins Organ]

Connoley's book is nicely illustrated...but many of the illustrations are of fictional troops - eg the pikemen and hte armoured horses.......apart from that tho it's short on real substance and high on pretty pictures.

Not really good as a reference work.

[Wilhammer]

But does it have a good conspiracy in it?

[Patrocles]

ok, thanks for the info!

[Stalins Organ]

Oh and get hold of Polybius in translation too - not sure if there's any better ones but Loeb have it, and it's online at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/home.html

[John Kettler]

Patrocles,

This should help, especially since it lists some items no one else has mentioned, to include Appian. It's in two parts.

http://www.livius.org/ha-hd/hannibal/hannibal.html

Here is a link to Theodore Ayrault Dodge's classic 1891 biography, HANNIBAL

http://tinyurl.com/47nfkx

I strongly disagree with Stalin's Organist's characterization of the Connolly book. It's not fluff, the illustrations are derived from ancient sources, artifacts and archeological reconstruction, and the maps are quite helpful in terms of understanding both routes and military topography. My responses are below.

Stalin's Organist,

Since I happen to own the Connolly book in question, and have gone through it carefully in search of what you find so objectionable, I conclude as follows: On page 40, it's clear Connolly is simply using "pikeman" as shorthand for a phalangite or Carthaginian heavy infantryman. A pikeman is something well known by the British, and Connolly is himself British. Assessment of objection? Yawn.

As for your complaint about Connolly's depiction of "fictional" armored horses, please see this http://tinyurl.com/4w2ffy Section E2 in an excerpt from the Osprey ARMIES OF THE CARTHAGINIAN WARS 265-146 B.C.

From it, it's clear that lamellar armor for horses was well-known, tracing back to Macedonia. Assessment of objection? Flat wrong! Further, the three paragraphs here at the Encyclopedia Iranica, Armor, site trace lamellar armor back as far as the second millennium B.C and body armor on horses to the time of Alexander the Great. I quote paragraph three.

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v2f5/v2f5a004.html

(Fair Use)

"The main evidence for the form of armor used under the Achaemenids comes from Xenophon and Herodotus. Xenophon in his Cyropaedia (6.4.1; 7.1.2) describes the guard of Cyrus the Great as having bronze breastplates and helmets, while their horses wore bronze chamfrons and poitrels together with shoulder pieces (parameridia) which also protected the rider’s thighs. Xenophon gives a similar description of the cavalry guard of Cyrus the Younger in 401 B.C. (Anabasis 1.8.6) but Herodotus (7.61-88) in his description of the army of Xerxes which invaded Greece in 480 B.C. suggests that the Medes and Persians were more lightly armored, with iron scale armor for infantry and horsemen, iron helmets for the horsemen only and no horse armor. The parameridia mentioned by Xenophon has been identified by Bernard with the armor covering for a horseman’s leg shown on a Lycian sarcophogus, and the use of scale armor has been confirmed by finds at Persepolis which included numerous iron scales, some large enough to have been used for horse armor, and a few bronze and gold-plated iron ones (E. Schmidt, Persepolis, Chicago, 1957, p. 100, pl. 77)."

Regards,

John Kettler

[Stalins Organ]

Since I happen to own the Connolly book in question, and have gone through it carefully in search of what you find so objectionable, I conclude as follows: On page 40, it's clear Connolly is simply using "pikeman" as shorthand for a phalangite or Carthaginian heavy infantryman. A pikeman is something well known by the British, and Connolly is himself British. Assessment of objection? Yawn.

Assessment of your assessment - fluff.

Firstly he doesn't just call them pikemen - he illustrates one. Naming conventions can certainly vary - and if he's just said the carthaginians were pikemen and illustrated them as looking like Romans (as we are told they did at Cannae for example!) then that'd be sloppy .......but not what I'm talking about.

Connelly subscribed to Livy's description of there being 6000 Macedonian heavy infantry at Zama - ie Macedonian pikemen like 'wot Alexander had. Phalangite is specifically a Macedonian pikeman - NOT a carthaginian heavy infantryman, who are normally referred to as Africans or Liby-Phoenecians.

The mention of pikemen at Zama is propaganda by Livy to help demonise Macedonia and justify Roman wars vs it.

you analysis that "Connelly knew of pikemen therefore it's fine" is just rubbish and ignores everything that is actually known about Connelly, Livy and the Carthaginian army.

horse armour - well duh...yes horse armour was known around the ancient world..........so now show that Carthaginians actually used it?? And remember of course that their cavalry was 95% Gallic, Spanish and Numidian....of 10000 cavalry at Cannae, for example, only 450 are supposed to have been Carthaginian.

the Osprey work? "Armour has been around since (whenever) and so it is logical to assume (the Carthaginians) used it.." - bull. Romans didn't use it, other Greeks didnt' use it, Gauls and Spanish didn't use it....it is not logical to say that it happened unless you have actual evidence!!

(oh and the "Sacred Band"....well it's only known to have been INFANTRY!! And the last mention of it is prior to the 1st Punic war......and it usually got wiped out in battle! Some Osprey works are quite good....others...like this one...are of little value!)

Assessment of your objection - pure straw man - you never mentioned Carthage once.........

Oh and I own the book too .......have done for at least 20 years.

But if you want some much better research into the Carthaginian army then you cannot go past Duncan Head's "Armies and Enemies of the Macedonian Wars" - also getting on now, and the author does acknowledge there's some newer research that supplants his, but much better. And you can quiz the author on the AncMed yahoolist discussion group (AncMed = Ancients and Medieval military history)

[DASman]

My presumption is that neither Carthage, nor Rome, ever existed, therefor, all of this is rubbish. I have never seen either one.

History is bunk!

E

[John Kettler]

Stalin's Organist,

In no particular order. Am not asserting all, or even most, Carthaginian cavalry had horse armor fitted. To the contrary, if you're keying your comment on the illo with Hannibal atop his last elephant, the guys whose horses are shown with armor on their horses are likely his inner circle. I don't have the book you mention, but I note with interest that the topic is mentioned, at least as a possibility, in terms of horse armor reported recovered at one putative site (there are three) for the Metaurus Campaign.

The analysis of the campaign possibilities is groggy even by grog standards, and Appian doesn't come off at all well, being variously characterized as a "blunderer" in one place and an "incompetent" elsewhere. What concerns us, though, is that in the case of candidate battlefield S. Silvestro, there are some interesting finds, one of which is horse armor and another an inscribed patera.

(Fair Use)

"(d) The 'finds,' viz. bones (according to the peasants); a helm and horse's armour (according to Macci); and thirdly a striking find. Last century a grave was opened near Montiego, which lies four miles south of Urbania, in which among other objects was found a silver patera engraved with three inscriptions, which are unintelligible, but whose type is similar to that found on coins of New Carthage and that district, of the epoch immediately subsequent to the second Punic war. The patera, it seems, no longer exists. The three inscriptions, containing the first thirteen, the second nine, the third four, complete characters, were preserved in Lanzi's papers at Florence. The patera is engraved therefore in Iberian characters, and is believed by Lenormant27 and Hübner28 to have belonged to one of Hasdrubal's Spanish troops who fell in this Metaurus battle.29"

Later that scholar assesses things this way.

"But to build this theory on the 'finds' mentioned is to construct on but an unstable foundation. Bones go for very little, both here and at S. Angelo (cf. infra). The helm and horse's armour rest on Macci's authority, and even if these be adequate, what proof have we that they were Carthaginian? Finally the patera, however interesting from the point of view of ancient dialects, can hardly be said to be of any use whatever in this topographical controversy. Oehler's answer, indeed, to its evidence, is that when the officers of the Austrian Militär-geographisches Institut devised their Carta dell' Italia centrale in 1851 they attached no importance to the find or the tradition. This is scarcely to the point. Surely it is more satisfactory to remember that the patera was found in a grave near Montiego, four miles away from the Metaurus in the Candigliano valley; that there is a S. Silvestro in the immediate vicinity, but that this is totally different from the S. Silvestro on the northern shore of the upper Metaurus. Shall we therefore, on the strength of this supposed Iberian patera, place the battle site in the upper Candigliano valley?"

Here are the footnotes cited, and no, I don't know who Macci is:

27 Revue Archéologique, 1882, XLIV.31.

[decorative delimiter]

28 La Arqueologia deº España, Barcelona, 1888; Adiciones, p280, quoted by Oehler.

[decorative delimiter]

29 Cf. too W. T. Arnold, Second Punic War, note O.

The topic of Carthaginian horse armor is very tough from an Internet perspective. Either that, or I haven't been sufficiently creative. I may quiz Mr. Head at some point, but I doubt it'll be right away.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wilhammer]

John, is there nothing you can't Google up?

[Affentitten]

What use is horse armour against underslung Panther turrets?

[Michael Emrys]

What use is horse armour against underslung Panther turrets?

It looks pretty in parades.

Michael

[Wilhammer]

http://phoenicia.org/index.shtml

Remember, Carthaginians are/were Phoenicians.

[Stalins Organ]

Patera are round (circular) decorations - the word comes from latin for saucer.

Decoration is not armour.

[John Kettler]

Wilhammer,

Thanks! Got excited initially about that site, only to discover that it was really not thought well of in a thread on Ancients I found, not to mention it had nothing on horse armor. I did find it interesting, though, that there are quite a few sets of Carthaginian historical miniatures in which at least some of the horses are so fitted. Also, some of the computer games covering the period bard at least some of the horses. It's fair to say there's far more on Carthaginian horse armor in threads on miniature and computer gaming than there is in straightforward topic threads.

Are you praising my Google skills, kvetching about them, or both?

Stalin's Organist,

There is a very clear distinction made in the quotes between what Macci said he saw (horse armor and helm), and the patera, which was found elsewhere. And yes, I know a patera isn't armor. I have managed to identify this Macci fellow. He is Sebastiano Macci and was a historiographer. He's discussed in this JSTOR article, but I'm not a member.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2504347

As shown in the second paragraph here, Macci researched and wrote about, among other things, the Metaurus and Hasdrubal's War. That's about as far as I care to push my Italian.

http://tinyurl.com/3mjhau

Affentitten,

Since you asked, I seriously doubt any firing would be required. Were such an encounter to take place, I think it would spook the horses. The UFO literature is full accounts of animals freaking out when UFOs are present.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Affentitten]

Wilhammer,

Affentitten,

Since you asked, I seriously doubt any firing would be required. Were such an encounter to take place, I think it would spook the horses. The UFO literature is full accounts of animals freaking out when UFOs are present.

Regards,

John Kettler

But John, in the ancient world, an "underslung Panther turret" is like this big black cat thing that has a turret strapped under its belly via an ingenious leather harness. I think the Parthians used them. Or the Hottentots.

[Wilhammer]

kvetching, I had some of that with my fries last night.

Not whining, critiquing your abuses of the web.

You see, your scholarship, if that is what it is, consists of typing in search phrase and surfing the web, 99.9% of the time. And it shows.

By the way, don't thank me, the link I posted was NOT designed to help you.

I found it interesting that that person, an obvious fan of the period, has absolutely nothing about Horse Armor.

As some might have hinted at, consider this - the bones and artifacts often dug up by Archaeologists is from the upper crust (pun intended) of society, and the trappings of wealth go into the grave with them.

Further, as you are an expert on this, when the Grays showed up on ancient battlefields, the horses got spooked, and armor meant nothing.

Also, Archaeologists are notorious 'embellishers' - nearly all their conclusions are biased to meet some personal quest, and are mostly opinion.

Panther skins and other big cat skins were often the best 'armor' to find on a horse back then.

Was horse armor EVER effective? In the middle ages it was used by the Chivalrous Class, but to show off.

A slow heavily armored horse in a pitched battle was a huge deficit. The exploits of knights are overrated - the fools had rules preventing battle with commoners, and they expected ransom if captured, and killing each other was generally against the rules.

Calvary is about speed and shock due to the animal's size, and the most effective defense against a horse, the pikeman and its square worked against areas of a horse that could NEVER be armored as it would turn into a statue.

Further, and you know this as this is your field of expertise, when the Greys showed up on ancient battlefields, the horses got spooked, rendering any protection moot.

-----------

Wow, computer games as source material? Are you mixing up your copies of Rome Total War and Medieval Total War?

I have no doubt that some rich maniacs armored their horses as signs of wealth and not for any real military needed or doctrine - though someone probably fielded them at one or two points as an experiment that failed, but definitely was unusual.

It's kind of like WW2 - reading comic books, veteran accounts, and the movies would leave everyone to think that all German Tanks were Tigers, and we know that 95% of the time, that simply was not true.

Finding one horse in a grave with armor is no indication of its widespread use, and logically it would not be - the logistics of the time would prevent it.

[Stalins Organ]

Macci was a 17th century "archaeologist" - if you'd read the entire article you quoted from you'd have seen that - his account of the battle is De Bello Asdrubalis, Venice, 1613.

See here for the complete article taken from the English Historical Review of 1898.

We have no way of knowing what the horse armour he found was, or even if indeed it was armour, or even if he found anything at all or just invented it.

He certainly intended his work to be taken seriously - see a review by the same author of the aricle above here, however, where the shortcomings in his methodology are exposed - essentially Macci merely took local placenames that sounded liek the names in the ancient accounts and built his work around them, and Bernard Henderson slams him for it:

it becomes at times so amusing as even to raise the question of the author's good faith, were this not (as I have said) so clearly beyond dispute: but because it is by far the best illustration known to me of the method of this use of tradition and place-names to help decide topographical controversy, and of the extreme danger and uncertainty of the whole proceeding.

so basically Macci is old, unverifiable, and highly dubious.