New big paper on Catalan Y-DNA

[Sile]

another surname frequencies with gascons included

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg201514x7.pdf

 

[Hauteville]

False:

"Phoenician interest in central Italy, as in Sardinia, was motivated primarily by the metals trade; the wealth of the Etruscan cities also rendered them profitable commercial markets for Phoenician goods. The earliest and clearest evidence of Phoenician presence in Italy may be found on the island of Pithekoussai (modern Ischia) off the coast of southern Campania. An early Euboean foundation, the island housed an active community of Phoenician traders by the late eighth century BC, as finds of Phoenician pottery (some with graffiti) attest. In all likelihood, the islet, situated strategically en route to coastal Etruria, served as a "free port" at which native Greeks and Near Easterners mingled freely.The primary objective of Phoenician trade in Italy was, however, the northern Etrurian heartland with its ore-rich deposits of copper, lead, iron, and silver...; from an early date, it attracted Phoenician prospectors, commerciants, and artisans, who left in their wake a variety of imported goods, including luxury vessels in repoussé silver. The latter, locally produced by resident Phoenician craftsmen, may well have been offered as diplomatic gifts to local leaders in order to secure commercial mineral rights. Phoenician influence is also evident in the dramatic appearance, in the late eighth century BC, of a strongly orientalizing artistic tradition in Etruria.

Imported pottery finds suggest that the flourishing northern Etruscan coastal cities of Populonia and Vetulonia may have formed the primary bases of operation for the Phoenicians. Phoenician knowledge of Etrurian mineral resources may have come through contact with the native inhabitants of Sardinia or through the Cypriots, both of whom were involved in the Tyrrhenian metals trade."

http://books.google.com/books?id=sm...v=onepage&q=phoenicians italy etruria&f=false

Page 179.

Better learn history from books, not from "maps".

Regarding the Etruscans, the most recent genetic study on the subject can be seen here:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105920

From a historical, artistic, cultural & linguistic perspective the Oriental/Eastern origin of the Etruscans is also the one that has the most going for it:

http://www.i-italy.org/bloggers/364...northern-italian-ideologically-biased-history

Don't say bullshits. Phoenicians and Carthage had just two small emporiums in extreme Western Sicily (Palermo and Mothia) and 5 or 6 in Sardinia. Never other in the rest of Italy. On the opposite Mediterranean Spain is plenty of their settlements.
Don't forget the big Carthage rule.

 

[Angela]

False:

"Phoenician interest in central Italy, as in Sardinia, was motivated primarily by the metals trade; the wealth of the Etruscan cities also rendered them profitable commercial markets for Phoenician goods. The earliest and clearest evidence of Phoenician presence in Italy may be found on the island of Pithekoussai (modern Ischia) off the coast of southern Campania. An early Euboean foundation, the island housed an active community of Phoenician traders by the late eighth century BC, as finds of Phoenician pottery (some with graffiti) attest. In all likelihood, the islet, situated strategically en route to coastal Etruria, served as a "free port" at which native Greeks and Near Easterners mingled freely.The primary objective of Phoenician trade in Italy was, however, the northern Etrurian heartland with its ore-rich deposits of copper, lead, iron, and silver...; from an early date, it attracted Phoenician prospectors, commerciants, and artisans, who left in their wake a variety of imported goods, including luxury vessels in repoussé silver. The latter, locally produced by resident Phoenician craftsmen, may well have been offered as diplomatic gifts to local leaders in order to secure commercial mineral rights. Phoenician influence is also evident in the dramatic appearance, in the late eighth century BC, of a strongly orientalizing artistic tradition in Etruria.

Imported pottery finds suggest that the flourishing northern Etruscan coastal cities of Populonia and Vetulonia may have formed the primary bases of operation for the Phoenicians. Phoenician knowledge of Etrurian mineral resources may have come through contact with the native inhabitants of Sardinia or through the Cypriots, both of whom were involved in the Tyrrhenian metals trade."

http://books.google.com/books?id=sm...v=onepage&q=phoenicians italy etruria&f=false

Page 179.

Better learn history from books, not from "maps".

Regarding the Etruscans, the most recent genetic study on the subject can be seen here:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105920

From a historical, artistic, cultural & linguistic perspective the Oriental/Eastern origin of the Etruscans is also the one that has the most going for it:

http://www.i-italy.org/bloggers/364...northern-italian-ideologically-biased-history

Perhaps you should consider the difference between a port city where merchants from all over the world meet to trade and might have a small manufacturing operation, and a colony or series of colonies. Large parts of Spain were part of the Carthaginian Empire, which you can see on the map posted by Pax Augusta.

As for the Etruscans, I am very fond of their culture, and quite appreciative of the tremendous contributions they made to Roman civilization and through them to Europe. I honestly don't give a darn how much of their ancestry came from the Near East in the Neolithic versus in the first millennium BC. Perhaps there was large gene flow. Perhaps it was an elite migration. We don't yet know, and probably won't know until we get ancient dna. To imply that this poorly conceived paper is the gold standard for answering this question is absolutely unwarranted. This wasn't the Reich Lab, unfortunately. See the following thread for an analysis of its shortcomings.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...heory-on-the-Origi?highlight=Origin+Etruscans

As for that second article, the person who wrote it is sadly misinformed. There is nothing uniquely or exclusively "Italian", much less "northern Italian" about seeing the Etruscans as indigenous peoples of the Italic peninsula, and their culture as an outgrowth of the Villanovan culture. Anyone who claims that obviously has no grounding in archaeology or prehistory. Had the author done some honest research, he would have found names like J.P. Mallory, John Bryan Perkins and others , names which, unless I'm very mistaken, are not Italian.

You also might find it informative to read at least the Wiki article on the origin of the Etruscans. There are many references in that article, including some to scholars who have viewed the Etruscans as indigenous people. Had the person at least read that and followed the links, he would have found that indeed some Italian scholars used to believe they had a more recent Anatolian origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_origins

Over and above all of that, what a certain anonymous blogger does or does not believe has nothing to do with the actual history of the migrations, and as I said that is going to have to wait for ancient dna, in my opinion.

Regardless, I would remind posters that this is not a thread about the Etruscans. Posts about them are off-topic.

Also, posts that are motivated by "ethnic" agendas and rivalries are neither appreciated nor sought. Neither is there any place for incivility, by the way.

Ed. I have taken a closer look at that blog. It's very dodgy, in my opinion. I also have my doubts whether this person is even of Italian ancestry, and so his posts cannot have anything very informative to offer as to "Italian" opinions on any of these matters. (I understand it is quite an internet "thing" for people of non Italian or part Italian ancestry to claim it for various nefarious purposes. This makes me very leery and cautious. I just alert you to this so that you don't assume that statements from people claiming to be Italian are actually probative of the views of any actual Italians. Just some friendly advice.)

 

[Alan]

T1a are all potentially of Jewish or Arabic origin, although the Greeks and Romans could also have contributed in Catalonia.

Wasn't T1a also found in a late Neolithic sample, who in turn was very Yamna like?

 

[Alan]

Not that I am against the idea of Phoenicians reaching Catalonia. But I am very sceptical that most of J2a was brought by them. I see other sources for that.

 

[Drac II]

Don't say bullshits. Phoenicians and Carthage had just two small emporiums in extreme Western Sicily (Palermo and Mothia) and 5 or 6 in Sardinia. Never other in the rest of Italy. On the opposite Mediterranean Spain is plenty of their settlements.
Don't forget the big Carthage rule.

Once again you are trying to deny historical/archaeological evidence from actual books on the subject, so the only "bullshit" is coming from your part. And we were talking about Phoenicians, not Carthaginians, who by the way ended up invading Italy as well:

 

[Drac II]

Perhaps you should consider the difference between a port city where merchants from all over the world meet to trade and might have a small manufacturing operation, and a colony or series of colonies. Large parts of Spain were part of the Carthaginian Empire, which you can see on the map posted by Pax Augusta.

As for the Etruscans, I am very fond of their culture, and quite appreciative of the tremendous contributions they made to Roman civilization and through them to Europe. I honestly don't give a darn how much of their ancestry came from the Near East in the Neolithic versus in the first millennium BC. Perhaps there was large gene flow. Perhaps it was an elite migration. We don't yet know, and probably won't know until we get ancient dna. To imply that this poorly conceived paper is the gold standard for answering this question is absolutely unwarranted. This wasn't the Reich Lab, unfortunately. See the following thread for an analysis of its shortcomings.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...heory-on-the-Origi?highlight=Origin+Etruscans

As for that second article, the person who wrote it is sadly misinformed. There is nothing uniquely or exclusively "Italian", much less "northern Italian" about seeing the Etruscans as indigenous peoples of the Italic peninsula, and their culture as an outgrowth of the Villanovan culture. Anyone who claims that obviously has no grounding in archaeology or prehistory. Had the author done some honest research, he would have found names like J.P. Mallory, John Bryan Perkins and others , names which, unless I'm very mistaken, are not Italian.

You also might find it informative to read at least the Wiki article on the origin of the Etruscans. There are many references in that article, including some to scholars who have viewed the Etruscans as indigenous people. Had the person at least read that and followed the links, he would have found that indeed some Italian scholars used to believe they had a more recent Anatolian origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_origins

Over and above all of that, what a certain anonymous blogger does or does not believe has nothing to do with the actual history of the migrations, and as I said that is going to have to wait for ancient dna, in my opinion.

Regardless, I would remind posters that this is not a thread about the Etruscans. Posts about them are off-topic.

Also, posts that are motivated by "ethnic" agendas and rivalries are neither appreciated nor sought. Neither is there any place for incivility, by the way.

Ed. I have taken a closer look at that blog. It's very dodgy, in my opinion. I also have my doubts whether this person is even of Italian ancestry, and so his posts cannot have anything very informative to offer as to "Italian" opinions on any of these matters. (I understand it is quite an internet "thing" for people of non Italian or part Italian ancestry to claim it for various nefarious purposes. This makes me very leery and cautious. I just alert you to this so that you don't assume that statements from people claiming to be Italian are actually probative of the views of any actual Italians. Just some friendly advice.)

We were talking about Phoenicians, not Carthaginians, plus the fact that Phoenician goods were being produced locally in Etruria itself shows that Phoenician presence there was not merely as traders, but also as residents.

Funny that you want to dismiss i-italy.org and yet want to appeal to something like WikiPedia, the "Free Encyclopedia" which anyone can edit and manipulate.

The author of the article at i-italy.org is an Italian American, and he cites plenty of sources on the subject, including those who try to argue for the "indigenous" origin. You don't have to be an Italian from Italy itself to be an expert on the subject of Etruscans. In fact, plenty of scholars on Etruscans, like the ones he cites, are not from Italy or have anything to do with Italy.

 

[Hauteville]

These complexed Spanish make me fun. A bunch of self hater who deny their history but not only that: they attack and brownwash Italians.
This is your history: European Roman territory against Carthage/Phoenician MENA territory.

 

[Angela]

We were talking about Phoenicians, not Carthaginians, plus the fact that Phoenician goods were being produced locally in Etruria itself shows that Phoenician presence there was not merely as traders, but also as residents.

Funny that you want to dismiss i-italy.org and yet want to appeal to something like WikiPedia, the "Free Encyclopedia" which anyone can edit and manipulate.

The author of the article at i-italy.org is an Italian American, and he cites plenty of sources on the subject, including those who try to argue for the "indigenous" origin. You don't have to be an Italian from Italy itself to be an expert on the subject of Etruscans. In fact, plenty of scholars on Etruscans, like the ones he cites, are not from Italy or have anything to do with Italy.

I am not going to tell you again. This is not a thread about the Etruscans. If you wish to engage in a full scale debate about their origins, revive one of the old threads.

 

[Angela]

These complexed Spanish make me fun. A bunch of self hater who deny their history but not only that: they attack and brownwash Italians.
This is your history: European Roman territory against Carthage/Phoenician MENA territory.

Hauteville, please refrain from this kind of inflammatory language. Keep this to a discussion of history and genetics.

 

[Angela]

There is a fairly recent book on Carthage which is quite interesting:
Carthage Must Be Destroyed by Daniel Metcalf.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/apr/24/carthage-must-be-destroyed-miles

Despite the fact that he is a little biased, in my opinion, in his view of the Rome-Carthage conflict, it's well worth reading.

The extent of the Carthaginian Empire in the Iberian peninsula is again quite substantial. However, one would think that the Phoenicians might have picked up some E-M81 in North Africa. The distribution of that subclade in Iberia doesn't match the parameters of the Carthaginian Empire. Of course, the scientists have speculated that either some of it came earlier or that the relocations of people from the south to the northwest might have re-arranged the distribution of this haplogroup.

J2 is more problematic, as others have said, and may, indeed, probably does have more than one source. Once again, here are the graphics on J2 from Grugni et al:

J2a M67* appears to be the subclade present in Spain. It is the subclade whose highest frequencies today are in Caucasus populations like the Chechens and the Nakh, although this could be founder effect. The diversity graphic is not particularly helpful in this case because it could be interpreted as showing an origin in both the Levant and Italy.

While it is present in North Africa and so could conceivably have been brought to the Iberian peninsula with the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians and perhaps even the Moors, it is also present all over the Balkans and with a noticeable presence in north-central Italy, areas which were not invaded by any of these people. So, I don't see how it was necessarily brought to Iberia by these people, although some could have been swept up in those migrations.

Also, while it is definitely present in the eastern portions of the Iberian peninsula that were part of the Carthaginian Empire, the highest frequencies today are definitely once again in the west of the Iberian peninsula.

I think this all points out the perils of using modern distributions to make grandiose pronouncements about ancient migration movements. Only ancient dna can give us answers and even then there is ambiguity. Particularly in Spain, where we know that there was systematic population relocation, the original patterns may have been lost. Certainly, however, the flow came from the east and seems to have a wide spread.

 

[Sile]

These complexed Spanish make me fun. A bunch of self hater who deny their history but not only that: they attack and brownwash Italians.
This is your history: European Roman territory against Carthage/Phoenician MENA territory.

the first map is correct, the second is all wrong, the romans where not in north italy in this period of time

 

[Sile]

We were talking about Phoenicians, not Carthaginians, plus the fact that Phoenician goods were being produced locally in Etruria itself shows that Phoenician presence there was not merely as traders, but also as residents.

Funny that you want to dismiss i-italy.org and yet want to appeal to something like WikiPedia, the "Free Encyclopedia" which anyone can edit and manipulate.

The author of the article at i-italy.org is an Italian American, and he cites plenty of sources on the subject, including those who try to argue for the "indigenous" origin. You don't have to be an Italian from Italy itself to be an expert on the subject of Etruscans. In fact, plenty of scholars on Etruscans, like the ones he cites, are not from Italy or have anything to do with Italy.

Carthagians come from phoenicians people........do you know something different?

The city of Carthage (/ˈkɑrθɪdʒ/; Arabic: قرطاج‎ Qarṭāj) is a city in Tunisia and was the centre of the ancient Carthaginian civilization. The city developed from a Phoenician colony of the 1st millennium BC into the capital of an ancient empire.^[2]

The Carthaginian Republic, also known as the Carthaginian Empire (alternatively "Carthaginian hegemony", or simply "Carthage") was the Phoenician city-state of Carthage and its sphere of influence, which included much of the coast of North Africa as well as substantial parts of coastal Iberia and the islands of the western Mediterranean during the 7th to 3rd centuries BC.^[1]

The city, called Qart-ḥadašt (New City)^[2] in the Phoenician language, was founded in 814 BC.^[3][4] A dependency of the Phoenician state of Tyre at the time, Carthage gained independence around 650 BC and established its political hegemony over other Phoenician settlements throughout the western Mediterranean, this lasting until the end of the 3rd century BC. At the height of the city's prominence, it was a major hub of trade with trading stations extending throughout the region.

 

[Sile]

Don't say bullshits. Phoenicians and Carthage had just two small emporiums in extreme Western Sicily (Palermo and Mothia) and 5 or 6 in Sardinia. Never other in the rest of Italy. On the opposite Mediterranean Spain is plenty of their settlements.
Don't forget the big Carthage rule.

this map seems to be a map while hannibal was still fighting in Italy,......... the blockade of macedonian access to the adriatic sea to stop supplying their ally hannibal with supplies and men...........is the blue , hannibal controlled areas?

anyway are map that says nothing ...a war map in flux

 

[Aberdeen]

the first map is correct, the second is all wrong, the romans where not in north italy in this period of time

The Punic Wars lasted, off and on, from 264 BC to 146 BC and the Romans did invade Cisalpine Gaul and conquer it during the Punic Wars, starting in the 220s BC. They were driven out for a time but returned in 202 BC and conquered the last independent Celtic kingdom in Cisalpine Gaul in 192 BC. So Rome was in what is now northern Italy during part of the Punic Wars.

 

[Drac II]

Carthagians come from phoenicians people........do you know something different?

The city of Carthage (/ˈkɑrθɪdʒ/; Arabic: قرطاج‎ Qarṭāj) is a city in Tunisia and was the centre of the ancient Carthaginian civilization. The city developed from a Phoenician colony of the 1st millennium BC into the capital of an ancient empire.^[2]

The Carthaginian Republic, also known as the Carthaginian Empire (alternatively "Carthaginian hegemony", or simply "Carthage") was the Phoenician city-state of Carthage and its sphere of influence, which included much of the coast of North Africa as well as substantial parts of coastal Iberia and the islands of the western Mediterranean during the 7th to 3rd centuries BC.^[1]

The city, called Qart-ḥadašt (New City)^[2] in the Phoenician language, was founded in 814 BC.^[3][4] A dependency of the Phoenician state of Tyre at the time, Carthage gained independence around 650 BC and established its political hegemony over other Phoenician settlements throughout the western Mediterranean, this lasting until the end of the 3rd century BC. At the height of the city's prominence, it was a major hub of trade with trading stations extending throughout the region.

Yes, I know something different which is also known by many others, like the fact that the population of the Carthaginian republic also included the local Berber peoples who were not of Phoenician origin, not to mention the fact that the Carthaginian armies were really more nominally "Carthaginian" than anything else and the majority was actually made up from their Berber, Iberian and Celtic allies and hired mercenaries, not the Carthaginians themselves:

"In its diverse make-up of levies and mercenaries, Hannibal's army bore a strong resemblance to the armies of the Hellenistic world. The core of his expeditionary force consisted of experienced troops who had fought under him in Spain for a considerable amount of time. Of these, the majority of the heavily armed line infantry which Hannibal brought to Italy were Libyans from areas of North Africa which were subject to Carthage. Famous for their endurance and agility, they were equipped similarly to Roman legionaries, with large oval or oblong shields, short cutting and stabbing swords, and throwing spears. A large number of infantry also came from Spain. The Iberian peninsula supplied at least 8,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry for Hannibal's war effort. Iberian levies from areas of southern Spain which had been pacified by the Barcids over the previous twenty years made up a large part of this contingent."

https://books.google.com/books?id=e...se make-up of levies and mercenaries"&f=false

Unpaginated.

"Hannibal's army included Celtiberians and Lusitanians, peoples of Celtic origin who inhabited the northern half of the peninsula. The majority of Hannibal's troops would, however, have been Iberians proper, from the southern half of the peninsula."

https://books.google.com/books?id=o...ncluded Celtiberians and Lusitanians"&f=false

Page 94.

In fact, many historians have attributed the eventual defeat of the Carthaginians by the Romans (despite the fact that they even successfully invaded Italy and the Romans could not defeat them in their very own territories) due to the Carthaginian armies' inherent lack of "national" motivation which the Roman armies of the time had (being made up mostly of Romans themselves, not non-Roman conscripts and mercenaries):

"Carthaginian armies were mercenary armies, and their commanders did not possess the advantage of, say, Roman generals, whose troops were motivated by national pride and patriotism. More often than not, Hamilcar's armies, and later Hannibal's, contained only a minority of Carthaginians, the rest being tribal levies recruited during the campaign itself."

https://books.google.com/books?id=_...ecruited during the campaign itself."&f=false

Page 116.

So despite their military successes in Europe, the Carthaginians eventually failed because their actual presence simply was not numerically important. They were the leaders, the commanders, not the bulk of the armies. Their local allies simply were not motivated enough to continue fighting for a foreign interest. The Romans had a clear advantage at this time in their history, both their leaders and soldiers were by and large Romans themselves, they had all the motivation in the world to keep on fighting for their own interests.

 

[Melancon]

These complexed Spanish make me fun. A bunch of self hater who deny their history but not only that: they attack and brownwash Italians.
This is your history: European Roman territory against Carthage/Phoenician MENA territory.

LOL ^^


I had to put this guy on ignore. He just doesn't get it. Even though I explained several times that it was possible I was wrong. He continues arguments on things that cannot be answered and explains them with logical foxholes; and makes up his own reality.


I personally think he has insecurity issues or something. He self-projects his traits and pretends he knows more about the subject than everyone else; as if he is a seer of truth. But really doesn't have any concrete evidence to back that up, as anyone else here. He is basically claiming he knows more than the genealogists do.




Drac II there is no anti-iberianism; I just don't agree with you.

He will probably be back. ^^ "Melancon you are an anti-iberian" yadda yadda...

 

[Sile]

Yes, I know something different which is also known by many others, like the fact that the population of the Carthaginian republic also included the local Berber peoples who were not of Phoenician origin, not to mention the fact that the Carthaginian armies were really more nominally "Carthaginian" than anything else and the majority was actually made up from their Berber, Iberian and Celtic allies and hired mercenaries, not the Carthaginians themselves:

"In its diverse make-up of levies and mercenaries, Hannibal's army bore a strong resemblance to the armies of the Hellenistic world. The core of his expeditionary force consisted of experienced troops who had fought under him in Spain for a considerable amount of time. Of these, the majority of the heavily armed line infantry which Hannibal brought to Italy were Libyans from areas of North Africa which were subject to Carthage. Famous for their endurance and agility, they were equipped similarly to Roman legionaries, with large oval or oblong shields, short cutting and stabbing swords, and throwing spears. A large number of infantry also came from Spain. The Iberian peninsula supplied at least 8,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry for Hannibal's war effort. Iberian levies from areas of southern Spain which had been pacified by the Barcids over the previous twenty years made up a large part of this contingent."

https://books.google.com/books?id=e...se make-up of levies and mercenaries"&f=false

Unpaginated.

"Hannibal's army included Celtiberians and Lusitanians, peoples of Celtic origin who inhabited the northern half of the peninsula. The majority of Hannibal's troops would, however, have been Iberians proper, from the southern half of the peninsula."

https://books.google.com/books?id=o...ncluded Celtiberians and Lusitanians"&f=false

Page 94.

In fact, many historians have attributed the eventual defeat of the Carthaginians by the Romans (despite the fact that they even successfully invaded Italy and the Romans could not defeat them in their very own territories) due to the Carthaginian armies' inherent lack of "national" motivation which the Roman armies of the time had (being made up mostly of Romans themselves, not non-Roman conscripts and mercenaries):

"Carthaginian armies were mercenary armies, and their commanders did not possess the advantage of, say, Roman generals, whose troops were motivated by national pride and patriotism. More often than not, Hamilcar's armies, and later Hannibal's, contained only a minority of Carthaginians, the rest being tribal levies recruited during the campaign itself."

https://books.google.com/books?id=_...ecruited during the campaign itself."&f=false

Page 116.

So despite their military successes in Europe, the Carthaginians eventually failed because their actual presence simply was not numerically important. They were the leaders, the commanders, not the bulk of the armies. Their local allies simply were not motivated enough to continue fighting for a foreign interest. The Romans had a clear advantage at this time in their history, both their leaders and soldiers were by and large Romans themselves, they had all the motivation in the world to keep on fighting for their own interests.

i don't know what your talking about, you have the wrong time period..........you might as well talk about yesterday............also carthagians where not celts

 

[Maleth]

Yes, I know something different which is also known by many others, like the fact that the population of the Carthaginian republic also included the local Berber peoples who were not of Phoenician origin, not to mention the fact that the Carthaginian armies were really more nominally "Carthaginian" than anything else and the majority was actually made up from their Berber, Iberian and Celtic allies and hired mercenaries, not the Carthaginians themselves:

"In its diverse make-up of levies and mercenaries, Hannibal's army bore a strong resemblance to the armies of the Hellenistic world. The core of his expeditionary force consisted of experienced troops who had fought under him in Spain for a considerable amount of time. Of these, the majority of the heavily armed line infantry which Hannibal brought to Italy were Libyans from areas of North Africa which were subject to Carthage. Famous for their endurance and agility, they were equipped similarly to Roman legionaries, with large oval or oblong shields, short cutting and stabbing swords, and throwing spears. A large number of infantry also came from Spain. The Iberian peninsula supplied at least 8,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry for Hannibal's war effort. Iberian levies from areas of southern Spain which had been pacified by the Barcids over the previous twenty years made up a large part of this contingent."

https://books.google.com/books?id=e...se make-up of levies and mercenaries"&f=false

Unpaginated.

"Hannibal's army included Celtiberians and Lusitanians, peoples of Celtic origin who inhabited the northern half of the peninsula. The majority of Hannibal's troops would, however, have been Iberians proper, from the southern half of the peninsula."

https://books.google.com/books?id=o...ncluded Celtiberians and Lusitanians"&f=false

Page 94.

In fact, many historians have attributed the eventual defeat of the Carthaginians by the Romans (despite the fact that they even successfully invaded Italy and the Romans could not defeat them in their very own territories) due to the Carthaginian armies' inherent lack of "national" motivation which the Roman armies of the time had (being made up mostly of Romans themselves, not non-Roman conscripts and mercenaries):

"Carthaginian armies were mercenary armies, and their commanders did not possess the advantage of, say, Roman generals, whose troops were motivated by national pride and patriotism. More often than not, Hamilcar's armies, and later Hannibal's, contained only a minority of Carthaginians, the rest being tribal levies recruited during the campaign itself."

https://books.google.com/books?id=_...ecruited during the campaign itself."&f=false

Page 116.

So despite their military successes in Europe, the Carthaginians eventually failed because their actual presence simply was not numerically important. They were the leaders, the commanders, not the bulk of the armies. Their local allies simply were not motivated enough to continue fighting for a foreign interest. The Romans had a clear advantage at this time in their history, both their leaders and soldiers were by and large Romans themselves, they had all the motivation in the world to keep on fighting for their own interests.

This is all correct information in my opinion:-

 

[Alan]

i don't know what your talking about, you have the wrong time period..........you might as well talk about yesterday............also carthagians where not celts

Carthagians are Celts? Did just someone went so far and tried to celtify the Carthagians lol?