Has anything ever been found in the Cannae battlefield?

**Megasalexandros** · February 15, 2011, 02:15 AM

My question and inquiry is if anything was found archeologically in the Cannae battlefield, if we consider the fact that 60.000 Romans died there there should be something left, but having searched the net i havent found anything specific.
Does anyone knows?

**military tribune** · February 15, 2011, 09:46 AM

I think archeologists are not even quite sure where exactly the battlefield is.

**Legatus Legionarii** · February 15, 2011, 10:22 AM

I guess the Carthaginiens took everything... the rings of the fallen Senators were presented to the Council in Carthage to promote Hannibals strategy and victory; the armour and weapons of the fallen legionairies taken by Hannibal's soldiers; so what's left after more than 2000 years? The bones certainly not...

**Megasalexandros** · February 16, 2011, 07:54 PM

In such great battles especially in such a great battle, the bloodiest day in ancient warfare there should be ALOT of things that were left accidentally behind, i cannot believe that nothing was ever found there. And if nothing was ever found in the identified field as the field of the battle of Cannae(cause yes historians are pointing a certain valley as the battle site) then they should re think about their conclusion cause probably the battle site should have indicated it self by its content

**RebelCub** · February 17, 2011, 09:53 AM

I used to work in the field of Archaeology, mainly excavating and cataloging American Civil War battlefields and artifacts and it is pretty surprising to me to read that nothing has been found at Cannae. That makes me wonder if they are looking in the wrong place because even though the battle happened so long ago, a clash that large leaves evidence.

They have found thousands of pilum spear points and other bits of Roman and Gallic equipment at battlesites like Alesia and Gergovia, so we know that battlefield artifacts from that far back still exist in the ground.

Having spent many years digging around battlefields myself, I have to believe that either A) they are looking in the wrong spot, or B) they aren't doing enough excavation.

**military tribune** · February 17, 2011, 08:16 PM

@off-topic, rebelcub, you been to Gettysburg?

**RebelCub** · February 17, 2011, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by military tribune

@off-topic, rebelcub, you been to Gettysburg?

Of course! Although most of my focus in my field was concerned with the Western Theater of the Civil War and battles such as Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chickamauga, Atlanta, etc.

**Silius Saurus** · February 18, 2011, 03:06 AM

If you want a fascinating and beautiful battlefield, check out Little Bighorn in June; preferably the last week when they reenact the battle. Some of the Cheyenne and Lakota reenactors when I was there were descendants of men who fought there. Great fun.

Little Bighorn is particularly beautiful in June; it's very green and you can see the battlefield as it would have appeared during the battle. The Park Rangers are knowledgeable and there are some excellent military historians among them.

Little Bighorn is unique in that you can see how the battle progressed by the markers- they aren't tombstones, but markers that were placed where individual men actually fell. Brilliant stuff.

**RebelCub** · February 18, 2011, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Silius Saurus

Little Bighorn is unique in that you can see how the battle progressed by the markers- they aren't tombstones, but markers that were placed where individual men actually fell. Brilliant stuff.

Yep, that's the only battlefield in the world like that. It's pretty dang creepy.

**Brusilov** · February 20, 2011, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by military tribune

@off-topic, rebelcub, you been to Gettysburg?

I went to Gettysburg in 2001.

It was only a brief visit and it did start to rain. It was the day after I'd flown into Washington DC on the 18th November 2001 and we were heading off for the NASCAR race at Dover Downs so we had a bit of a drive ahead.

I'd like to go back there again and have a good look around without having to head off.

The best battlefield I've been to has been Anzac Cove - you would not believe the hills that they tried to climb. I also did a visit to Suvla Bay and Cape Helles.

**Perdiccas_Nile** · February 17, 2011, 10:17 PM

I would be a bit freaked out to swim in lake trasimene... roman ghosts

**Megasalexandros** · February 19, 2011, 09:47 PM

I strongly believe that in a battlefield like this remains are always there, probably they are looking at the wrong spot that is my bet, or even the historians exaggerated the numbers for some reason, in "ancients behaving badly" they say that hannibal was not a Genius after all and that polyvius was working for the scipio family thats why he portrayed hannibal as a "genius" to emphasize the victors greater genius

**Xellos_Moon** · February 20, 2011, 02:31 AM

Or the Ancient Romans themselves took out everything after the war to erase the embarrassment...

**NightEye** · February 20, 2011, 03:31 AM

You'd at least expect a few remnants from the battle here and there. Not even nations these days can wipe a battlefield that clean.

**caratacus** · February 20, 2011, 03:33 AM

I think they are looking in the wrong place and assuming the Lake Trasimeno is the same size it was two thousand years ago.

Natural watercourses and lakes are extremely changeable and it is unlikely the Lake would have been the identical shape and size it is today. Although confined by the mountains in the north and north eastern side, the area attributed to be the battlefield area on the north west side is on the edge of an extensive plain. This plain may have been covered by either water or marshland and the battlefield area is most likely nearer Camucia close to Cortona. This land has been entirely drained for farmland over the years but back then comprise extensive Reid beds which would still be considered part of the Lake.

**RebelCub** · February 20, 2011, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Xellos_Moon

Or the Ancient Romans themselves took out everything after the war to erase the embarrassment...

Impossible. I think you'd be amazed (I know I was) to discover how much debris is left after even a minor skirmish. There is so much crap strewn around a battlefield that sinks into the earth you'd think that every soldier who fought in it just threw all their crap on the ground.

In my personal experience excavating American Civil War battlefields, you can come across a battle that had 1,000 men fighting for 15 minutes and find hundreds and hundreds of items. Go to something as massive as Cannae with over 100,000 men probably and it is truly impossible for me to imagine there not being crap EVERYWHERE around that battlefield.

Like I said earlier, they've founds thousands of items around Caesar's famous battles, so there is no reason to think Cannae would be any different.

**Megasalexandros** · February 20, 2011, 02:51 PM

And let not forget that especially at the battle of Cannae we are talking CERTAINLY about thousands upon thousands of little or large things that would have been definitely dropped at the battlefielf cause it was not just a typical battle , or at least that is what the history books are saying, it was a total encyclement and butchery of more than 60.000 men, so we are talking about 60.000 corpses confined in an area of maybe few miles and all of them dead lying on the ground in a very short amount of time. So remnants are just inevitable even after 2000 years there should be something , to think about it they managed to find remnants of the battle of the Teutoberg forest and not for Cannae?
It is really strange.

**RebelCub** · February 20, 2011, 04:54 PM

It's only strange insofar as they are obviously looking in the wrong place! hah

Aside from the arrowheads and spearpoints, etc., you'd without a doubt find bits of metal from armor or from shields that got knocked off. Similarly, one of the things that I've found all over the place at American Civil War battlefields are buckles from knapsacks, canteens, and other gear. Cannae would be no different.

Also, it can be difficult to find Civil War sites sometimes. I mean, we obviously know where the battles generally were, but specific locations of troop positions are sometimes hard to locate...and that was just 150 years ago. Looking for a site of something that occurred 2200 years ago has to be an extremely difficult process. I have to think they are just looking in the wrong place.

**Megasalexandros** · February 21, 2011, 06:53 AM

But thats strange , i mean no one ever thought that they should have found something in a battlefield of that size?
If i could and lived in Italy i would have searched for it, for eg i dont even know if there are any remnants in Cynosephalae and at Pydna, here in Greece there is also the pharsalus battlefield from the Roman era

**RebelCub** · February 21, 2011, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Megasalexandros

But thats strange , i mean no one ever thought that they should have found something in a battlefield of that size?

I see what you mean. It's definitely strange. You'd think someone would go "umm, hey guys, maybe this isn't the battlefield where 70,000 people got hacked to pieces. Maybe we should look somewhere else..."