11-22-2013, 10:37 PM
An interesting approach. I have some questions and some comments on it, although most have little to do with the number of lines in the Roman formation.
Appian's account is interesting and most probably drawing on a different tradition to that of both Livy and Polybius. However, I have to say here that according to him, all three lines he initially describes are heavy infantry, "each part of whom (here he refers to the lines, which he calls "parts") had the infantry in the middle, the light infantry and the cavalry on each side". The most probable reading here has the Romans indeed draw up in three lines of heavy infantry as well as three lines of cavalry and light infantry on the flanks. However, it could also read that the cavalry and light infantry were posted on the flanks of all three lines, which to me is more probable tactically and supported by Appian's further words, since later he writes "the Roman horsemen, being less in number than their enemy, advanced against them, extending their formation, making it thin". This would make no sense, should they have divided their horse in three lines, unless they then made them into one. There is also a problem with the light infantry, which Appian posts with the cavalry (whether in one or three lines) but then has them "run before the rest of the army in the interim space". Regarding your Triarii and the Principes being posted in the same line, I will only say that regardless the veracity of the claim that they were armed in the same manner and so probable to fight as a single formation, you need Appian to speak of two lines of infantry instead of three, should you of course choose to follow him in this.
In my opinion, all sources stress the fact that Hannibal planned to surround the Romans (and thus cause maximum casualties). Polybius does not say that the speirae were closer to each other, so that we could assume that he meant the speirae of the different lines. He says that "they formed the speirae denser than before". This is very clear in the Greek text and different translations are plainly wrong. Regarding Livy, I of course have read that he has the Africans extend, but I cannot confirm or contest the accuracy of the translation, since I unfortunately cannot read Latin... What I have understood from the translation was that, according to him, the Africans managed to form a line on the rear of the Romans, a maneuver impossible to carry out, had there been a second (or third) line of any troops behind the victorious legions in front as I see it. According to Polybius and Plutarch, it was the Roman flanks that the Africans attacked and Appian makes no mention of them, nor of the crescent formation or its function. However, he especially stresses Hannibal's plan to encircle the Romans with his cavalry and the role of various stratagems he has him employ all around the battlefield, so he seems to agree more with Polybius in that matter.
As far as the encirclement is concerned, surrounding an enemy with cavalry, as was the case at Cannae (or partly surrounding them with cavalry as is the case in Appian’s account), is not the same as completely encircling them with infantry. Cavalry formations are much looser and enemy horsemen as well as infantry groups which keep in a body can escape. However, it is of course true that casualties during such attempts are monstrous as was the case here too.
So, in your opinion, what is the length of the Roman infantry formation in your reconstruction in relation to the Carthaginian one? How can 32,000 Celts in single line, those in the middle relatively thinly arrayed have the same frontage with, say, 50,000 Romans (assuming a mere 25% light troops out of the 80,000 total Roman infantry strength) deployed extra deep and in at least close order, if they arrayed in more than one line? Even if they arrayed in 2 and not 3 lines it would be a riddle. And should they array in 2 lines, as in your model, then wouldn't the first line actually consist of less men than the second line, as the latter would include both the Principes and the Triarii that followed the army to the field? Unless you believe that the Romans attacked in a line that was substantially shorter than that of Hannibal’s in order to keep the multiple infantry lines, which however play no role in any of the accounts.
How did you come to the six squadron depth of the Roman right and what do you mean by it exactly? Is this some system of cavalry fight you have devised yourself or do you base its existence on sources?
Quote: I am a great supporter of Appian’s claim the Roman infantry were in three lines at Cannae as his description combined with Livy and Polybius are coherent. The first line consisted of the light infantry, the second line the hastati, and the third line, the principes and triarii."
Appian's account is interesting and most probably drawing on a different tradition to that of both Livy and Polybius. However, I have to say here that according to him, all three lines he initially describes are heavy infantry, "each part of whom (here he refers to the lines, which he calls "parts") had the infantry in the middle, the light infantry and the cavalry on each side". The most probable reading here has the Romans indeed draw up in three lines of heavy infantry as well as three lines of cavalry and light infantry on the flanks. However, it could also read that the cavalry and light infantry were posted on the flanks of all three lines, which to me is more probable tactically and supported by Appian's further words, since later he writes "the Roman horsemen, being less in number than their enemy, advanced against them, extending their formation, making it thin". This would make no sense, should they have divided their horse in three lines, unless they then made them into one. There is also a problem with the light infantry, which Appian posts with the cavalry (whether in one or three lines) but then has them "run before the rest of the army in the interim space". Regarding your Triarii and the Principes being posted in the same line, I will only say that regardless the veracity of the claim that they were armed in the same manner and so probable to fight as a single formation, you need Appian to speak of two lines of infantry instead of three, should you of course choose to follow him in this.
Quote: Polybius does write the maniples were closer than normal and this can lend itself to the principes/triarii being closer to the maniples of hastati. One incident that is overlooked in many modern accounts of Cannae is Livy’s reference that the Africans ‘extended.’ Also during the last stages of the battle a tribune offers Paullus his horse so he can escape. Therefore, the Romans are not encircled en mass as there is still a way of escape. In Appian’s account it is only the last remnants that are encircled en mass and proving the most difficult to eliminate. It is at this point Appian remarks that Hannibal rode around his troops, and while encouraging them, abused them, “calling it shameful if they could not finish off this small group after their victory over the mass.” Appian (The Hannibalic War7 4 24)
There is no way Hannibal’s plan at Cannae was to encircle en mass the whole Roman infantry, especially in light of Frontinus’ comment that at the battle of Lake Trasimene, after the Romans had been enveloped, the Roman fought with greater ferocity. The ferocity of the Romans convinced Hannibal to open up his ranks to give the Romans the opportunity to escape so he could overwhelm them later without loss to his own men. Frontinus (Stratagems 2 6 4) As Livy also mentions bodies of Romans still escaping after his claim they were trapped, this would indicate an opening still remained for the Romans to escape through and take refuge in the Roman camp.
In my opinion, all sources stress the fact that Hannibal planned to surround the Romans (and thus cause maximum casualties). Polybius does not say that the speirae were closer to each other, so that we could assume that he meant the speirae of the different lines. He says that "they formed the speirae denser than before". This is very clear in the Greek text and different translations are plainly wrong. Regarding Livy, I of course have read that he has the Africans extend, but I cannot confirm or contest the accuracy of the translation, since I unfortunately cannot read Latin... What I have understood from the translation was that, according to him, the Africans managed to form a line on the rear of the Romans, a maneuver impossible to carry out, had there been a second (or third) line of any troops behind the victorious legions in front as I see it. According to Polybius and Plutarch, it was the Roman flanks that the Africans attacked and Appian makes no mention of them, nor of the crescent formation or its function. However, he especially stresses Hannibal's plan to encircle the Romans with his cavalry and the role of various stratagems he has him employ all around the battlefield, so he seems to agree more with Polybius in that matter.
As far as the encirclement is concerned, surrounding an enemy with cavalry, as was the case at Cannae (or partly surrounding them with cavalry as is the case in Appian’s account), is not the same as completely encircling them with infantry. Cavalry formations are much looser and enemy horsemen as well as infantry groups which keep in a body can escape. However, it is of course true that casualties during such attempts are monstrous as was the case here too.
Quote: In any reconstruction of Cannae there is as lot of boxes to tick, and I feel confident I have achieved this. Polybius’ statement the maniples were much deeper than their frontage, lends itself to only one mathematical deployment possible for the Romans. Then by taking this I reconstructed the frontage of the Carthaginian line, which then accorded with Polybius’ statement the Carthaginian infantry were over 40,000 men. In fact the numbers and the depth of the Carthaginian infantry at Cannae follows the same mathematical pattern as it does at the Trebia, Illipa and Zama. I originally used the 12,000 mercenaries in Hannibal’s first line in relation to Scipio’s four legions and found a constant pattern throughout the Second Punic war for the Carthaginian infantry. The frontage I have for the Roman army (both infantry and cavalry), is the smallest ever given by a modern historian.
So, in your opinion, what is the length of the Roman infantry formation in your reconstruction in relation to the Carthaginian one? How can 32,000 Celts in single line, those in the middle relatively thinly arrayed have the same frontage with, say, 50,000 Romans (assuming a mere 25% light troops out of the 80,000 total Roman infantry strength) deployed extra deep and in at least close order, if they arrayed in more than one line? Even if they arrayed in 2 and not 3 lines it would be a riddle. And should they array in 2 lines, as in your model, then wouldn't the first line actually consist of less men than the second line, as the latter would include both the Principes and the Triarii that followed the army to the field? Unless you believe that the Romans attacked in a line that was substantially shorter than that of Hannibal’s in order to keep the multiple infantry lines, which however play no role in any of the accounts.
Quote:The plan at Cannae is for the Roman and allied cavalry to hold the Carthaginian cavalry at bay so the Roman infantry can break through the Carthaginian infantry. The Roman infantry are deployed so they can achieve a break in any section of the Carthaginian line. However, for the Roman cavalry on the right wing to hold the Carthaginian infantry at bay so the infantry can achieve the break through, the Roman cavalry is deployed six squadrons deep. The first three lines of squadrons will work on a time basis in combination with the light armed infantry and the hastati. If the hastati do not make the break through, when they are withdrawn, the first three lines of squadrons are replaced by the remaining three lines of squadrons, who will hold the Carthaginian cavalry at bay, while the principes/triarii breaks the Carthaginian line. The allied cavalry on the left wing are also deployed many squadrons deep
How did you come to the six squadron depth of the Roman right and what do you mean by it exactly? Is this some system of cavalry fight you have devised yourself or do you base its existence on sources?
