Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: On the Battle of Cannae (and on a more general note)

  1. #1

    Default On the Battle of Cannae (and on a more general note)

    I don't understand why the Romans, after being surrounded, didn't simply continue the foreward attack and break though the Carthaginian center. Even after being surrounded they still had a huge numerical advantage on all sides (though I doubt they had been trained to fight under such conditions). From looking at the casualty figures, nearly all of the Carthaginians who died were Gauls/Iberians in the center who were hit in the initial charge. It seems as if the Romans gave up once Hannibal flanked them. The casualities on the Carthaginian side should have been much higher considering they had to fight and kill 70,000 Romans on the field.

    I suppose what I'm really asking is what being flanked does to an army's effectiveness(assuming morale is not a factor, which it wasn't in this case).

  2. #2
    ShangTang's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,272

    Default

    They were so compacted they could hardly use their weapons.


    "AVDENTES FORTVNA JUVAT"

  3. #3

    Default

    maybe because of the psichological effect that gave.Imagine yourself inn the middle of the battle surrounded by the enemies, your general can't give orders,you don't have a way to escape, you don't know that your forces are greater than the enemies.maybe because of that.
    Manstein16 This is especially for you and your bill.

  4. #4
    Iskender Bey's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    196

    Default

    By then, The Romans had lost their cohesion, they were simply ill prepared for such an event. The Legions had been quicky assembled and was full of new recruits, the sheer size of the army made it extremely clumsy and panic among the troops brought about disunity. The best qualities of the legion had been dismembered and thus it became useless. The Front did almost give in, but they were just brought into panic.
    "Good God, there is nothing more infamous than a man that is vanquished; for he must on one side accept to endure the insolence and triumph of his enemies; and on the other the fearful countenence and wrath visage of his friends."
    -- Hamza Kastrioti. After his betrayal of Spano

  5. #5

    Default

    Well, do remember that there is considerable dispute about both casualty numbers and army totals and composition. Essentially one of the relative weaknesses of sword armed infantry vs shield armed is relative frontage. Polybius goes ont some detail about this. In a situation like Cannae where units became compacted, unit abilites were seriously degraded. Its also probable that morale wasn't quite as good as it was portrayed by our all Roman sources.

  6. #6
    Tom Paine's Avatar Mr Common Sense
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Silver Spring, Maryland (inside the Beltway)
    Posts
    33,698

    Default

    If you look at a Roman formation, it is hard to wheel around and take on a flnk charge; even harder to take charges on a flank and any other side. Being flanked is difficult to deal with, it means that once you break through the centre you are still being attacked; if you break through a side you are being harried by mainly undamaged groups, because you concentrated the attack on the forward charge. Not much you can do to deal with the situation.

  7. #7
    Trajan's Avatar Capodecina
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,934

    Default

    As soon as the Romans were flanked on all sides, they all panicked. They loss order and discipline and had no idea where to go. If the Romans were organized by a good leader, they could have concentrated their attack on one point and breakthrough. Panic is the reason why they got slaughtered. Some Romans were so terrified that they buried their heads into the dirt, suffocating themselves instead of waiting to die. Most of the Romans fought for their lives literally. I really hope Vin Diesel does a good job in presenting this battle for his upcoming flick. It may be the only chance for us ancient war buffs to see how it might have looked liked. I heard that this battle had more people dead in just this one battle then any other single battle that ever took place from then on.
    Last edited by Trajan; July 10, 2005 at 05:45 AM.

  8. #8
    Freddie's Avatar The Voice of Reason
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,537

    Default

    formation. The Romans nearly broke the front line of Hannibal’s men but by that time Hannibal had already ordered his reserves to attack the flanks. Soon after the flanking attack, the Carthaginian cavalry returned (after defeating the Roman cavalry) and attack the at the rear side of the Romans.
    I believe Polybus says the Romans were then very tightly packed they were unable to use their weapons effectively.

    The Romans were organised into one big block of men because many of the troops were still very green and would likely have broke if they charged in a standard 3 line

    What I can never work out is why the Romans fielded so little cavalry at the battle of Cannae. They would have known that the Carthaginian cavalry was superior to their own from past experience, and then they go onto the battlefield with inferior cavalry and vastly outnumbered. Surely the best way to have defeat the Carthaginian cavalry would have been to field more cavalry then Hannibal and just overwhelm them.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Freddie
    What I can never work out is why the Romans fielded so little cavalry at the battle of Cannae. They would have known that the Carthaginian cavalry was superior to their own from past experience, and then they go onto the battlefield with inferior cavalry and vastly outnumbered. Surely the best way to have defeat the Carthaginian cavalry would have been to field more cavalry then Hannibal and just overwhelm them.
    Remember that the Romans had little time to gather troops - and cavalry. Romans weren't horsemen, who used cavalry as a main weapon (like the Macedonians, with their hammer and anvil, and eastern armies). Roman cavalry was mainly used as bodyguards, messengers and recon forces. Cavalry was there to support the heavy infantry, in the 4th and 5th century, the heavy infantry supported the cavalry. In battle, the Romans relied on auxiliary cavalry: Germans or Spaniards, who were born in the saddle. I think that the Romans had to little time to recruit auxiliary cavalry, when Hannibal marched through Italy. I'm not sure, but I think Hannibal had cut off southern-Italy from Europe, so it would be impossible to recruit and train auxiliary cavalry and to get them to Italy. So the Romans had to fight with the troops they had.

  10. #10
    Trajan's Avatar Capodecina
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,934

    Default

    You guys must remember that at this time and before, the Romans depended on their strength of numbers, power, and aggressiveness. They never relied on tactics and strategy at this time. They always headed for the center and destroyed everything in their way. Scipio, having learned from this massacre, taught his men how to make tactical decisions in a blink of an eye, which made the Roman legions so superior later in the years.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •