Cannae

[Gloria Exercitus]

Who thinks that Cannae was a great strategic accomplishment on the part of Hannibal? I sure don't. When I hear the History Channel and such say that this battle was won out of sheer strategy and knowledge of the rules of war, I get annoyed. Yes, Hannibal knew what he was doing, but luckily for him, his enemy didn't; thus making it easy for him to just...win. It was due to the Roman general Varus and his utter ignorance and absolute stupidity that he filed his massive army so deep in rank. Hannibal did not win because of his magnificent strategies, he won because his enemy failed to expound on their own strengths.

[phil25]

Well, generations of military historians and professional soldiers in numerous cultures and countries would say you were wrong.

 

However foolish his oppoenents, perhaps the key is the simplicity of Hannibal's strategy, its style and the "classic" nature of the manoeuvre he used, almost perfectly carried out, and the totality of its success.

 

In many senses Napoleon lost Waterloo (ultimately, a much more decisisive battle than Cannae) rather than Wellington winning it. But for the allid armies to have victory in 1815, Wellington had to have stood on his ridge, and withstood all that the French could throw at him. Napoleon and Ney were unimaginative and threw away chances, but Wellington knew his opponents, had evolved tactics to deal with them, and was still clinging on when Blucher brought up his Prussian Corps.

 

Can you say that Hannibal did not know his foe, did not plan his battle and find it worked? Sometimes a good general can play to his enemy's weaknesses and trick them into doing what they ought not.

 

I have no axe to grind, but maybe a prejudice against arm-chair generals!!

 

Phil

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Who thinks that Cannae was a great strategic accomplishment on the part of Hannibal? I sure don't. When I hear the History Channel and such say that this battle was won out of sheer strategy and knowledge of the rules of war, I get annoyed. Yes, Hannibal knew what he was doing, but luckily for him, his enemy didn't; thus making it easy for him to just...win. It was due to the Roman general Varus and his utter ignorance and absolute stupidity that he filed his massive army so deep in rank. Hannibal did not win because of his magnificent strategies, he won because his enemy failed to expound on their own strengths.

 

 

 

 

Hannibal won the day with c. 35,000 men against c. 85,000 , why should we take it from him ?

Btw , the Roman senate did not considered Varro a stupid general , he had a very good career after Cannae for two decades . You can get lucky in one or two battles , Hannibal won every Battle until Zama (despite Livy's attempts to make him lose some...) .

[caldrail]

Who thinks that Cannae was a great strategic accomplishment on the part of Hannibal? I sure don't. When I hear the History Channel and such say that this battle was won out of sheer strategy and knowledge of the rules of war, I get annoyed. Yes, Hannibal knew what he was doing, but luckily for him, his enemy didn't; thus making it easy for him to just...win. It was due to the Roman general Varus and his utter ignorance and absolute stupidity that he filed his massive army so deep in rank. Hannibal did not win because of his magnificent strategies, he won because his enemy failed to expound on their own strengths.

 

In a way I agree with you. hannibal did know what he doing at Cannae - he was talented commander. The two opposing roman commanders - as you say - weren't so hot. They had numerical superiority and assumed they could steamroller the carthaginian army flat. Thats why they attacked in a deep chequerboard formation. In fact, the discipline and order we associate the roman legions with worked against them in this battle. Their orders were to advance en masse so they did. The flanks must have been getting nervous when they saw themselves marching past columns of enemy troops.

 

However - hannibals masterpiece was to draw the enemy in. He fooled them with a ruse, a tactic employed by many successful commander over the ages. The roman generals thought they had a victory in the palm of their hand until the trap closed. Now we need to understand what happened at that point. The carthaginian cavalry returned from seeing off the roman auxilliaries and sealed the exit - the roman army was now bottled up despite have a huge advantage in numbers. The romans lost control there and then. Their formation became disordered into a mass of helpless soldiers. Despite their numbers, the romans were slaughtered in droves which wasn't the first time that had happened either.

 

Now - what if the roman commanders, Varus and Paulus, had their heads screwed on? My guess is that the roman army would have split in two and tackled each carthaginian column head to head. The carthaginian cavalry was superior so the romans would have struggled in that instance, and the weaker carthaginian line that fell back would have been a problem still. By sheer weight of numbers, I believe the romans would have pushed Hannibal back at great loss. Both sides would have gone back to camp to lick their wounds. The important result in this case is that the romans can replenish their numbers at will, given time, whereas hannibal could not. It would have forced hannibal on the retreat and he wouldn't figure so heavily in the history books.

 

Hannibal must be given credit for the victory because his strategy was superior to the roman one. He took on a force twice as numerous and beat them. Don't forget how important leadership was in these ancient battles. From the events we can see that Hannibal had already expected the roman army to behave in a certain manner and he used that knowledge expertly. The returning cavalry didn't just do their own thing - they knew where to go and what to do when they beat their roman adversaries. It was all planned ahead and well executed. The history channel is correct - Hannibal walked away with it because he was by far the better general. But I do understand why you see Cannae in a different light.

[Primus Pilus]

You can get lucky in one or two battles , Hannibal won every Battle until Zama (despite Livy's attempts to make him lose some...) .

 

There was the battle of Nola (a draw with Marcellus). Symbolically important even if it was not an outright defeat.

[Dominus Rex]

I have to say that what Hannibal did at Cannae was tactically brilliant. He took a numerically inferior force and surrounded a larger force. It's true that Varrus made a big mistake, but if you look at it from his view, you can understand. Normally, if your army is twice as big as your opponents, normally you can just steamroll over the center. It was Hannibal's genius that set the trap.

 

As for Hannibals strategy, well, not following up the victory with a march on Rome I believe was his worst mistake and because of it, he lost the war.

 

A note on Varrus's collegue Pallus, well, Pallus didn't want to fight at Cannae. He adheared much more to Fabian stratagies, but as it was Varrus's day to command, he didn't have a choice.

 

I apoligize for my bad spelling.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

You can get lucky in one or two battles , Hannibal won every Battle until Zama (despite Livy's attempts to make him lose some...) .

 

There was the battle of Nola (a draw with Marcellus). Symbolically important even if it was not an outright defeat.

 

 

For the 3 "battles" of Nola we have only the Roman version , as you know , a biased one . Let us read between Livy's lines -

216 BC

[Primus Pilus]

You can get lucky in one or two battles , Hannibal won every Battle until Zama (despite Livy's attempts to make him lose some...) .

 

There was the battle of Nola (a draw with Marcellus). Symbolically important even if it was not an outright defeat.

 

For the 3 "battles" of Nola we have only the Roman version , as you know , a biased one . Let us read between Livy's lines -

216 BC

[Kosmo]

Using a deep formation was the only sound decision for romans. They could not overstrech because Hannibal could mass his cavalry forces and puncture the roman line.

Alexander did the same at Gaugamela when, because of inferior numbers in cavalry, he created a deep formation. The difference it's that he succeded in breaking the persian center before persian cavalry destroyed his rear units.

On this same subforum many boast the superiority of roman imperial proffesional army over levies. Still, we should remember that in that war romans were concripts while Hannibal had a hardened proffesional army.

With that formation the romans could still win if they broke the center of the enemy and keep the formation against flank attacks. Of course, they should have kept the weak cavary they had in the spaces between the infantry formations and not on the flanks where they could be driven off. But, if the carthaginian infantry was forced off the field fast the returning cavalry had to flee as well.

I still believe that the decision to fight was the right one and with better trainining and morale and superior generalship that day could have been the end of Hannibal.

Maybe romans won at Zama because the numid cavalry gave them vital support in an aspect where they never were brilliant. And because Scipio trained his man a lot.

[Rameses the Great]

Taking Cannae away from Hannibal is something that would be saddening. He went into Italy and defeated the Romans, something thought unthinkable.

 

Regardless of the Roman strategy, Hannibal still had to plan his army. Lets face it, since the Romans had a larger force it is human nature to be a bit more Liberal with your moves. Look at Hannibal's army though: Carthaginians, Libyans, Gauls, and Spaniards all in one battle! Hannibal used the dynamic force to defeat a far superior Roman one.

 

By putting his weakest troops in the center they fell back and sprung the trap. He knew where to put his troops and timed it as good as you can. Imagine if the Carthaginian center collapsed, Hannibal would have been saying good bye to hist troops. He put his best troops beeing the phalanx on the size which pushed the Roman within a confined area, and the cavalry was able to finish them off.

 

You see, the Romans had a better and more organized military. They had more support, and a lot of advantages. Given their earlier conflicts with Carthage, Rome thought of them as not a really great threat. As we know from history, a great general on any given day can beat any army you throw at them.

 

That is why Carthage was just blessed with such great military minds, pending if they didn't Rome would have easily crushed them in the wars following the 1st Punic war.

 

Now with all that said to the original quote, yes undoubtledly Hannibal deserves to be glorified for that victory if not a little disrespected in some regards.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

You can get lucky in one or two battles , Hannibal won every Battle until Zama (despite Livy's attempts to make him lose some...) .

 

There was the battle of Nola (a draw with Marcellus). Symbolically important even if it was not an outright defeat.

 

For the 3 "battles" of Nola we have only the Roman version , as you know , a biased one . Let us read between Livy's lines -

216 BC

[Virgil61]

Who thinks that Cannae was a great strategic accomplishment on the part of Hannibal? I sure don't. When I hear the History Channel and such say that this battle was won out of sheer strategy and knowledge of the rules of war, I get annoyed. Yes, Hannibal knew what he was doing, but luckily for him, his enemy didn't; thus making it easy for him to just...win. It was due to the Roman general Varus and his utter ignorance and absolute stupidity that he filed his massive army so deep in rank. Hannibal did not win because of his magnificent strategies, he won because his enemy failed to expound on their own strengths.

 

Minor but important quibble, the correct term for an approach towards battle is tactical accomplishment not strategic.

 

Cannae was the perfect embodiment of what is now known as the 'double envelopment'. If you don't think it belongs among the 'great' accomplishments of modern warfare then I advise you to study mechanized warfare on the Eastern Front during WWII and the executed battle plan of Desert Storm.

[caldrail]

As I've mentioned before, cannae is THE most studied battle ever, and takes pride of place in military colleges. There are important lessons on strategy to be learned from it. Its easy to eulogise hannibal but then its easy to overlook just how talented the man was.

[roman wargamer]

Cannae was the perfect embodiment of what is now known as the 'double envelopment'.

I advise you to study mechanized warfare on the Eastern Front during WWII and the executed

battle plan of Desert Storm.

 

have anybody tried "your left" counter attack flank envelopment against superior enemy.

it is very hard thing to do... what more if you will do it in two flanks.

 

Cannae is the first perfect example of double envelopment tactical success by an inferior rag tag army.

the "double envelopment" attack military masterpiece created by Hannibal will be remember forever.

 

it secured his placed in world military manuals even after Zama.

[Maxim]

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.

 

Yes, Hannibal knew what he was doing, but luckily for him, his enemy didn't; thus making it easy for him to just...win.

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). Edited December 2, 2006 by Maxim