Academic literature on the topic 'Histoire militaire – Numidie'

On 23 January 295 a young recruit named Maximilian, a Christian by religion and twenty-one years old, appeared in court before Dion, proconsul of Africa, in the town of Theveste in Numidia. He was accused of refusing a summons to serve in the Roman army. Maximilian was accompanied to court by his father, Fabius Victor, described in the record as a temonarius, i.e. ‘an agent who collected the temo, or tax levied for the outfitting of military recruits’; the latter was obliged to present his son for army service if he could not find another suitable recruit. Maximilian, although pressed by the proconsul to submit himself to the formalities leading to induction into the army, stubbornly resisted and was finally sentenced to death. His execution followed immediately.

The past two decades have seen dramatic changes of perspective and an explosion of new information in the broad fields covered by this overview. Within the constraints of space allowed it is not possible to cover all aspects or to mention all relevant publications. References to pre-1969 work have been kept to a minimum, except where dramatic revision of older views is now necessary.The traditional picture of the Roman frontier in Tripolitania owes an incalculable debt to the pioneering work of Richard Goodchild. Much of his observation remains of the highest value (accessible particularly through the volume of collected articles (edited by Joyce Reynolds), Goodchild 1976), but in the 40 years since his initial work on the limes Tripolitanus (1949a/b; 1950a/b; Ward-Perkins and Goodchild 1949) the available body of data has increased greatly and the conceptual framework for interpreting it has changed considerably (the scale of the reappraisal may be judged by comparing Brogan and Smith 1957 and 1985). The most controversial aspects of Goodchild's work concern the date of the development of a frontier in Tripolitania and the interpretation of the fortified farms which are so characteristic of the zone: ‘…no traces of a pre-Severan limes have yet been found. In this respect it may be significant that the linear fossata which Baradez has proved to constitute the central feature of the Numidian limes, and which he tentatively dated to the Hadrianic period, have not yet been found in the area of modern Tripolitania … Apart from … the outer fortresses of Gheriat el-Garbia and Bu Ngem … the military works of the limes Tripolitanus seem to have consisted almost exclusively of fortified farmhouses occupied by Libyan limitanei.’ (Goodchild 1950 = 1976, 44).

Les Numides et les Maures avaient les mêmes manières de combattre. Ils combattaient avec leurs armes propres, mais avaient aussi l'habitude de guerroyer avec les armes de leurs ennemis ramassées sur les champs de batailles. Ils savaient aussi fortifier et assurer la protection de leurs agglomérations. L'armée de ces peuples était composée de plusieurs types d'unités : une garde royale, une cavalerie lourde et une autre cavalerie légère, une infanterie, elle aussi lourde et légère. Cette armée était bien entraînée. Elle pratiquait diverses formes de combat, mais usait aussi de stratagèmes. Elle savait assurer efficacement la logistique. Elle était organisée et instruite et se constituait dans son noyau initial à partir de la famille royale mais elle faisait appel aussi à d'autres peuples et même à des mercenaires. On voit donc, que les Numides et les Maures formaient un vrai État appuyé sur une armée efficace, loin d'être un État barbare
Numidians and Mauri used to fight the same way. They fought with their own weapons, but they also used to wage war with their enemies' weapons, which they collected on the battleground. They also knew how to fortify and protect their settlements. These peoples had different types of units in their armies: king's guard, heavy cavalry and light cavalry, infantry of both kinds too. Armies received good training. They used various fighting techniques, as well as stratagems. They knew how to efficiently manage logistics. The army was well organized and instructed; its first seed originated in the king's family but other nations as well were called to arms, and even mercenaries. Then, obviously, Numidians and Mauri formed genuine States supported by efficient armies, States far from being barbarian

La chute de Carthage devant les armées romaines en (146 avant J.-C.) est contemporaine de la constitution de grands États : celui des successeurs de Massinissa, en Afrique du Nord centrale et celui des maures en Afrique du Nord occidentale. Ces États étaient attachés à leur génie propre, qui trouvait longtemps sa meilleure expression dans l’œuvre unificatrice et expansionniste de Massinissa et de ses successeurs, notamment Jugurtha et Juba Ier, de même que dans les prouesses en diplomatie du roi maure Bocchus l’Ancien. Ces rois avaient œuvré, par divers moyens, pour l’édification d’un vaste État africain, original, puissant, unifié sous le même sceptre, et relativement à l’abri de toute ingérence. De nombreux indices témoignent de la continuité et de l’originalité des États maures et numides : une population regroupée notamment autour des villes, nommées « villes royales » par les Romains ; les frappes de monnaies dites de Massinissa et de ses successeurs ; le commerce avec le monde méditerranéen surtout avec Carthage, les Gétules, les Îles Grecques, l’Espagne, et bien sûr avec Rome ; l’armée numide, de par ses prouesses en guerre face à l’armée romaine, constitue un témoignage probant que Jugurtha était un fin stratège et un chef militaire hors pair ; il en va de même pour Juba Ire, qui avait non seulement organisé un État, mais administré également une armée très efficace ; une armée montée selon les normes méditerranéennes alors en cours, donc moderne en cette époque de l’Antiquité. Par ailleurs, dans le domaine religieux, ces États ont laissé des traces monumentales (tombeaux et mausolées). Ces vestiges religieux prouvent que même au moment où la romanisation pesait de tout son poids, cette civilisation a su, en dépit de superficielles adaptations, préserver son originalité
The fall of Carthage in front of the Roman armies (146 BC) is contemporary of the constitution of big States: that of the successors of Massinissa, in central North Africa and that of the Moors in western North Africa. These States were attached to their appropriate genius, which found for a long time its best expression in the unifying and expansionist work of Massinissa and his successors, in particular Jugurtha and Juba I, as well as in the exploit in diplomacy of Moorish king Bocchus the Old. These kings had worked, by diverse ways, at the construction of a vast African, original, powerful State, unified under the same scepter, and with regard to the shelter of any intervention. Numerous indications testify of the continuity and the originality of the Moorish and Numidian States: a population grouped in particular around cities, named " royal cities " by Romain; the said striking’s of coins of Massinissa and his successors; the trade with the Mediterranean world especially with Carthage, Gaetulians, the Greek Islands, Spain, and of course with Rome; the Numidian army, due to its exploit at war in front of the Roman army, constitute a convincing testimony that Jugurtha was a fine strategist and an outstanding military leader; It's the same for Juba I, who had not only organized a State, but also administered a very effective army; an army taken up according to the then current Mediterranean standards, thus modern in this time of the Antiquity. Besides, in the religious domain, these States left monumental tracks (graves and mausoleums). These religious vestiges prove that even as the romanization pressed with all the weight, this civilization knew how to, in spite of superficial adaptations, protect its originality

The Roman historian C. Sallustius Crispus, better known as Sallust, wrote about the war against the Numidian king Jugurtha. For Sallust, the Jugurthine War revealed the problems of the Republic at that time. The fact that a man such as Jugurtha could rise to power by buying Roman military and civil officials reflected a moral crisis in Roman politics. Sallust's account of the nobles' tactics in conducting the war, the rise of the homo novus, Marius, and the beginnings of Sulla's career are particularly effective at showing how Romans sought individual power and advantages often at the expense of the state. Sallust is determined to illustrate decay. He is the creator of a particular manner of writing history. His style has attracted attention and discussion both in ancient times and nowadays because it shows itself at the same time as archaic and innovatory, abrupt and artistic. The translation of this new edition seeks to be faithful to that characteristic Sallustian style and the commentary aims to be useful not only to specialists, but also to readers who know little or no Latin. The introduction deals with Sallust's life and career as a historian, the Jugurthine war itself, and also with the important Sallustian topic of virtus and the development of the ideology of the 'new man'.