Cannae

[Gloria Exercitus]

well guess what, you misunderstood what i was saying. i wasnt saying that the Romans didnt know what hannibal was planning, its kind of hard to get into to peoples minds.....i was saying how Hannibal knew what he was doing on the battlefield (due to experiance) and the Roman general didnt know what he was doing from a (lack of experiance). I know that the Romans couldnt know what hannibal was planning. I simply was saying that hannibal was experianced and the roman general wasnt.

Edited December 3, 2006 by Gloria Exercitus

[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.

[Gloria Exercitus]

thanks

[caldrail]

as I said before the roman was not subtle. They were relying on numerical superiority and their biggest mistake was to assume that hannibal could not counter such an advantage. They were simply unprepared for a clever ruse - they were not expecting one. By the way, does anyone know where paulus and varo were? Were they in the midst of their army or watching from a hill?

[Dominus Rex]

Remember, Paullus didn't want to fight that day, (atleast according to Livy) it was Varro. Paullus just came along for the ride to offer whatever advice he could, since Varro was following his biggest (avoiding battle).

 

It should also be noted that Paullus lost his life that day, while Varro ran away like a scared little monkey.

[king hannibal]

hi I'm newish and justed started read into the roman army from adrian goldworthys complete roman army pick his book as his book on the fall of carthage is good

 

just adding a point thats not been mentioned would the roman armour and weaponaire have been alot better than that of the carthagians? as the vertans in hannibal army worn and used it also this would have made a big impact on the battle fought

[P.Clodius]

Not sure about that King H. I think at the time of the 2nd punic war we've just reached the chainmail stage, though I could be wrong. I would say that the armor and weaponry was comparable to both sides. Of course Hannibal did have a large contingent of Gauls who tended to fight naked anyway.

[CiceroD]

I think Hannibal also had Hoplites. Didn't he put them on either side of his line? I have heard that that was important to his strategy in surrounding the Romans.

 

This shows great tactical planning! his victory wasn't just because the Romans were stupid.

 

I would like to compare taking Cannae away from Hannibal to taking the Victory of the Battle of Britain from the RAF!!

 

Like the Consuls, Hitler made a mistake. Instead of concentrating on the RAF air fields he blitzed London to rubble. This mistake does not and should not diminish the men who fought in the RAF.

 

likewise Varro and Paullus made a mistake. This doesnt mean that the battle was easy for Hannibal.

Edited December 5, 2006 by CiceroD

[king hannibal]

this is from john warry writer of warfare in the classical world

 

"the african infantry were of mixed libyan and phoeniaian decent. originally armed in hellenistic fashion after hannibal's early victories they were equipped with the choicest captured roman arms he is thus shown wearing mail like the best equipped roman troops however, he probably retained his greek-style shield in order to avoid being mistaken for the enemy"

 

also it show a spanish infantry man with a pilum and roman body armour this is detailed by polybius.

 

which in my view I've mean the romans wear better equipped than the punic counterparts or it was of a better quilty

 

also I not sure on how the battle went now as in john warry and peter connolly show the african infantry coming up and into the phalanxs/side of the romans were as adrian goldsworthy show a picture of hannibals main line breaking and the african infantry going for that gap to block it

 

or do they not actually know the real way in which the african infantry were used?