Cannae

[Antiochus III]

I have read Adrian Goldsworthy's "Cannae" as well as his "Punic Wars" and "Roman Warfare." In these, he lays out the order in which major events during the battle played out. He also includes several diagrams which show the phases of combat. In these, he shows the infantry line being pushed back, breaking, the roman infantry advancing through the gap in hannibal's line, and african reserves close in on the romans BEHIND the main line where the romans were pushing through, and then the routing gauls and iberians return to close off the front, while the cavalry close off the rear. However, in everything else ive read about the battle, (mostly online sources), it shows the main infantry line of Hannibal bending back but not breaking while the africans went around and hit the flanks of the roman legions and alae. Does anyone know FOR SURE what ACTUALLY happened? it seems more likely that goldsworthy's theory is better from a military strategy perspective, but I need to know for sure. Thank you for your expertise on the topic.

 

Antiochus III

[Pompieus]

Clearly nobody can KNOW what happened - there is only Livy xxii.46-49, and Polybius iii.113-117 to guide us. All modern descriptions are derived from those two surviving sources. There were others in ancient times but they were lost in the middle ages. Historians must build large castles on the "Spanish sand" of the primary sources; and battles (even modern ones) are particularly dangerous ground. Didn't the Duke of Wellington say that one may as well try to tell the history of a dance as describe a battle?

 

Personally, I find it difficult to comprehend how even Hannibal could annihilate and army of 87000 with 45000. I agree with Brunt and some of the older historians that it is more likely the alternate tradition mentioned by Livy (xxii.36) is correct in saying that Aemilius and Varro commanded four reinforced legions with allied contingents - say 54000 men, and that Polybius or his source source was confused by the terminology describing a legion and it's associated allied "wing" (stratopedon). On the other hand Polybius is usually more reliable (unless he chose to magnify the disaster "per magnum gloriam Scipionis" - so take your pick.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Pompieus

[M. Porcius Cato]

Goldsworthy's reconstruction makes the most sense to me. His depiction of the role of the African infantry is also consistent with Polybius (3.115):

For a time the Spaniards and Celts kept their ranks and struggled bravely with the Romans, but soon, borne down by the weight of the legions, they gave way and fell back, breaking up the crescent. The Roman maniples, pursuing them furiously, easily penetrated the enemy's front, since the Celts were deployed in a thin line while they themselves had crowded up from the wings to the centre where the fighting was going on. For the centres and wings did not come into action simultaneously, but the centres first, as the Celts were drawn up in a crescent and a long way in advance of their wings, the convex face of the crescent being turned towards the enemy. The Romans, however, following up the Celts and pressing on to the centre and that part of the enemy's line which was giving way, progressed so far that they now had the heavy-armed Africans on both of their flanks. Hereupon the Africans on the right wing facing to the left and then beginning from the right charged upon the enemy's flank, while those on the left faced to the right and dressing by the left, did the same, the situation itself indicating to them how to act. The consequence was that, as Hannibal had designed, the Romans, straying too far in pursuit of the Celts, were caught between the two divisions of the enemy, and they now no longer kept their compact formation but turned singly or in companies to deal with the enemy who was falling on their flanks.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Didn't the Duke of Wellington say that one may as well try to tell the history of a dance as describe a battle?

Salve, P. Gratiam habeo for such a cleaver quote; in a letter to John Croker, August 8, 1815 (from H.T. Sibome's The Waterloo Letters ):

 

"The history of a battle, is not unlike the history of a ball. Some individuals may recollect all the little events of which the great result is the battle won or lost, but no individual can recollect the order in which, or the exact moment at which, they occurred, which makes all the difference as to their value or importance. ... Just to show you how little reliance can be placed even on what are supposed the best accounts of a battle, I mention that there are some circumstances mentioned in General--'s account which did not occur as he relates them. It is impossible to say when each important occurrence took place, or in what order."

Edited June 6, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Does anyone know FOR SURE what ACTUALLY happened?

Clearly nobody can KNOW what happened ...- so take your pick.

Wiser words have been hardly ever said. Both T. Livius and Lord Wellesley would agree for sure.

 

Anyhow, If we all agree (I think so) that:

- there is only Livy xxii.46-49, and Polybius iii.113-117 to guide us. All modern descriptions are derived from those two surviving sources.

I don't think there's any significant disagreement on this one:

In these, he shows the infantry line being pushed back, breaking, the roman infantry advancing through the gap in hannibal's line, and african reserves close in on the romans BEHIND the main line where the romans were pushing through, and then the routing gauls and iberians return to close off the front, while the cavalry close off the rear.

As MPC rightly notes:

Goldsworthy's reconstruction ... depiction of the role of the African infantry is also consistent with Polybius (3.115):

For a time the Spaniards and Celts kept their ranks and struggled bravely with the Romans, but soon, borne down by the weight of the legions, they gave way and fell back, breaking up the crescent. The Roman maniples, pursuing them furiously, easily penetrated the enemy's front,

And it's consistent with Titus Livius too (Ab Urbe Condita, Liber XXII, cp. XLVII):

...est peditum pugna, primo et uiribus et animis par dum constabant ordines Gallis Hispanisque; tandem Romani, diu ac saepe conisi, aequa fronte acieque densa impulere hostium cuneum nimis tenuem eoque parum ualidum, a cetera prominentem acie. Impulsis deinde ac trepide referentibus pedem institere ac tenore uno per praeceps pauore fugientium agmen in mediam primum aciem inlati, postremo nullo resistente ad subsidia Afrorum peruenerunt, ...

 

...the infantry became engaged, and as long as the Gauls and Spaniards kept their ranks unbroken, both sides were equally matched in strength and courage. At length after long and repeated efforts the Romans closed up their ranks, echeloned their front, and by the sheer weight of their deep column bore down the division of the enemy which was stationed in front of Hannibal's line, and was too thin and weak to resist the pressure. Without a moment's pause they followed up their broken and hastily retreating foe till they took to headlong flight. Cutting their way through the mass of fugitives, who offered no resistance, they penetrated as far as the Africans ...

 

Then, if

... in everything else ive read about the battle, (mostly online sources), it shows the main infantry line of Hannibal bending back but not breaking while the africans went around and hit the flanks of the roman legions and alae.

...you should probably check out their primary sources.

Edited June 7, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Kosmo]

For me the descriptions of this battle don't make much sense, be they ancient or modern.

This flanking move of carthagian infantry can happen only if the roman frontline was shorter and if the romans had superior numbers it cannot be shorter.

If the 2 frontlines bended they bended togheter. Regardless on what happened in the center the wings should have still face each it other.

How could roman wings be outflanked by an enemy that was in front of them? Only if they moved behind the center but this could not happen because they have orders to fight the opposing wing and because once engaged at the front they could not slide towards the center.

[sonic]

For me the descriptions of this battle don't make much sense, be they ancient or modern.

This flanking move of carthagian infantry can happen only if the roman frontline was shorter and if the romans had superior numbers it cannot be shorter.

 

You are assuming that both sides adopted the same depth of formation. The Romans deployed in depth - virtually in column - so their greater numbers were behind the front line. The Carthaginians deployed in a 'thinner' formation, so that their fewer numbers still extended beyond the Roman lines. Or, in a poor attempt at a diagram to make the point:

 

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

RRRRRRRRRRRRRR

RRRRRRRRRRRRRR

RRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

 

As you can see, even though the Romans outnumber the Carthaginians, the Carthaginians' line is still longer.

 

 

How could roman wings be outflanked by an enemy that was in front of them? Only if they moved behind the center but this could not happen because they have orders to fight the opposing wing and because once engaged at the front they could not slide towards the center.

 

Now you can see how the Carthaginians could outflank the Romans. Furthermore, because a large number of Roman troops are deployed in the centre -the bold letters in the diagram - they can never bring their superior numbers to bear.

 

Although this is simplified from reality, I hope it helps to explain what happened.