Cannae

[Al Amos]

Any chance that Hannibal got the idea for his deployment at Cannae from the Greeks deployment at Marathon? Weakened center, reinforced flanks resulting in a double envelopment.

[Maty]

Any chance that Hannibal got the idea for his deployment at Cannae from the Greeks deployment at Marathon? Weakened center, reinforced flanks resulting in a double envelopment.

 

It's an interesting idea, though it would have needed some lateral thinking on Hannibal's part. Certainly there's no reason why he would not have known of the battle, but remember that the Greeks were attacking bowmen and going for an envelopment with a surprise charge under the first volley.

 

The Carthaginians were defending against heavy infantry and going for envelopment which involved a considerable cavalry element. So the same effect was achieved, but by different means.

 

It is more probable that Hannibal got the idea from the Trebbia, where the legions steamed through his centre, and observing that the rest of the battle was lost, kept right on going. If I were Hannibal musing on that battle, my musings would have been something like 'damn, if only I had some infantry to hit them in the flank as they went by ....'

[caldrail]

I agree, an interesting speculation. My own feeling is that Hannibal didn't use any inspiration for the battle plan other than his own crafty imagination. Battle plans were decided before battle commenced in the ancient world, as it was difficult, if not impossible, to control an army effectively for people of the time. The Romans had for a long time treated maniples/cohorts as semi-independent units within the legion that relied on individual initiative of their commanders more often than not. I strongly suspect Hannibal knew that, and deliberately set his forces to disrupt the large unwieldy formation used to attack Carthage on the day by forcing troops on the periphery to turn and face the flanks. This then caused the flanks of the Roman formation to slow down and stop whilst the centre dragged inexorably on, thus enabling them to be bottled up so easily.

 

Hannibal did, after all, have a knack for clever subterfuge in tactics. In strategy Hannibal scores far less, and there's already been debates on his failures on campaign.

[sylla]

Any chance that Hannibal got the idea for his deployment at Cannae from the Greeks deployment at Marathon? Weakened center, reinforced flanks resulting in a double envelopment.

 

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam.

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[marcus silanus]

From Sylla above.

 

What we most definitively know is that Carthage had a long and successful military tradition on their own, even if our available Hellenic and Latin sources understandably pretended to ignore it.

We have here a nice positivist fallacy, because we have objective evidence of many Punic victorious campaigns, even in the absence of textual records. The narrative on let say Punic War I clearly illustrates this fact.

And of course, the old myth that Punic armies were only able to win under Hellenic sponsorship (eg, Xanthippus or Sosylos) was simply unpolluted chauvinism.

 

With specific reference to Punic War I, was there a Punic land victory other than that won by Xanthippus? Plainly in general, there was no Punic requirement of Hellenic support but your reference seems to be to the first war, in which there was that single Punic victory. Who knows, had it not been for the arrogance and harshness of Regulus' demands after Adys, there may have been a settlement and that battle would not have taken place.

Edited November 18, 2009 by marcus silanus

[sylla]

With specific reference to Punic War I, was there a Punic land victory other than that won by Xanthippus? Plainly in general, there was no Punic requirement of Hellenic support but your reference seems to be to the first war, in which there was that single Punic victory. Who knows, had it not been for the arrogance and harshness of Regulus' demands after Adys, there may have been a settlement and that battle would not have taken place.

If we are to absolutely rely on Polybius (as you know, no Punic sources survived), the Carthaginians would have been able to contain (at least) the Romans for no less than 23 years with but one land victory (sponsored by a Spartan mercenary), one naval victory (due to the Roman commander impiety) and a couple of coincidental major wreckages from the Roman fleet (?!?!?).

 

Aside of that, Punic War I would have been just a plethora of wonderful Roman victories...

 

Needless to say, all that is entirely unreliable for even the most naive reader; it

Edited November 19, 2009 by sylla

[marcus silanus]

With specific reference to Punic War I, was there a Punic land victory other than that won by Xanthippus? Plainly in general, there was no Punic requirement of Hellenic support but your reference seems to be to the first war, in which there was that single Punic victory. Who knows, had it not been for the arrogance and harshness of Regulus' demands after Adys, there may have been a settlement and that battle would not have taken place.

If we are to absolutely rely on Polybius (as you know, no Punic sources survived), the Carthaginians were able to contain (at least) the Romans for no less than 23 years with but one land victory (sponsored by a Spartan mercenary), one naval victory (due to the Roman commander impiety) and a couple of coincidental major wreckages from the Roman fleet (?!?!?).

 

Needless to say, all that is entirely unreliable for even the most naive reader; it’s a good example of a positivist fallacy.

Some (if not many) other Punic victories must have been present, even if good ol' Polybius conveniently forgot to tell us; otherwise, Punic war I would have ended in a year or two at most; simple as that.

 

Although I would agree that Polybius was "selling" Rome to the newly subject people of Greece, I can not accept that he was the crude propogandist that you consistently describe. You will recall how he views his main sources for this period as misleading and biased, Fabius Pictor as the Roman offender and Philinus of Agrigentum that of the Punic side.

 

If there had been another Punic victory, in a pitched battle, I do not see that Polybius would choose to not mention it, purely because that would not dilute his message or dent his objective.

 

Archaeology is a science that assists historical understanding. History is a humanity and the consensus belief is often based on the balance of probability.

Edited November 19, 2009 by marcus silanus

[sylla]

Although I would agree that Polybius was "selling" Rome to the newly subject people of Greece, I can not accept that he was the crude propogandist that you consistently describe. You will recall how he views his main sources for this period as misleading and biased, Fabius Pictor as the Roman offender and Philinus of Agrigentum that of the Punic side.

 

If there had been another Punic victory, in a pitched battle, I do not see that Polybius would choose to not mention it, purely because that would not dilute his message or dent his objective.

 

Archaeology is a science that assists historical understanding. History is a humanity and the consensus belief is often based on the balance of probability.

I am not trying to explain here why Polybius acted as he did; the fallacy stands, and you haven't dealt with it.

 

Such a long war against a superpower like Rome can't be explained just by a couple of victories from the other side; at the risk of overstating the obvious, that would be plainly absurd; simple as that.

Edited November 19, 2009 by sylla

[marcus silanus]

Although I would agree that Polybius was "selling" Rome to the newly subject people of Greece, I can not accept that he was the crude propogandist that you consistently describe. You will recall how he views his main sources for this period as misleading and biased, Fabius Pictor as the Roman offender and Philinus of Agrigentum that of the Punic side.

 

If there had been another Punic victory, in a pitched battle, I do not see that Polybius would choose to not mention it, purely because that would not dilute his message or dent his objective.

 

Archaeology is a science that assists historical understanding. History is a humanity and the consensus belief is often based on the balance of probability.

I am not trying to explain here why Polybius acted as he did; the fallacy stands, and you haven't dealt with it.

 

Such a long war against a superpower like Rome can't be explained just by a couple of victories from the other side; at the risk of overstating the obvious, that would be plainly absurd; simple as that.

 

Whilst the sources are flawed, simply no respected scholar or historian backs the claim to secret Punic victories. I can understand the notion, but firstly Rome was not at this time the superpower of later years. Carthage was her military equal and the most successful thalassocracy to be seen in the region.

 

Are we to doubt everything that we think we know about Carthaginian military practices, simply because our sources are Greek or Roman? You stated earlier that we can know practically nothing about Carthaginian military culture for this reason, but went on to state that they definitely had a deep military tradition. You simply can not know nothing of the former and be so definite of the the latter: it does not stand logical scrutiny.

[sylla]

Whilst the sources are flawed, simply no respected scholar or historian backs the claim to secret Punic victories. I can understand the notion, but firstly Rome was not at this time the superpower of later years. Carthage was her military equal and the most successful thalassocracy to be seen in the region.

 

Are we to doubt everything that we think we know about Carthaginian military practices, simply because our sources are Greek or Roman? You stated earlier that we can know practically nothing about Carthaginian military culture for this reason, but went on to state that they definitely had a deep military tradition. You simply can not know nothing of the former and be so definite of the the latter: it does not stand logical scrutiny.

There's no need to blindly or uncritically accept the statements of any source.

 

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam.

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla