Maxim

There were two Roman commanders, Paullus and Varro, and at least one of them (Paullus) did have some previous military background as a general. So based on that fact alone the argument that they were inexperienced holds no merit. The Romans handed over the largest army ever gathered by Rome at the time to two people to battle Rome's greatest enemy, so Romans must have generally agreed Paullus and Varro were able commanders. But Cannae was one of the rare instances where two heads weren't better than one. Paullus was smarter than Varro, but Hannibal was smarter than both of them combined. There is little relevance in debating what would have happened if other commanders were there. Would they have seen through Hannibal's games before it was too late? Possibly, but that isn't what happened, which makes it pointless to think about from a historical point of view other than to exercise one's imagination.

What Hannibal did was genius, and more importantly, it was effective. Hannibal was a hundred times the general and tactician when compared to those two Roman pansies that lead their army into slaughter. uhm...I don't think you understand the point of military strategies. But here's a clue; you generally don't want your enemy to know what you're doing (especially when they've got an army twice as large as yours).

Good list, all my favorites.