11-14-2013, 10:55 AM
Hi all
I've been thinking about the deployment at Cannae, and I've thought up a possible Roman strategy that I've never seen discussed (brought to you by The Wonder of Hindsight). So, either I've thought of something clever or, more likely, it's so stupid no-one even bothers to address it! I suspect it's the latter, but I'd just like to understand why the following strategy is never discussed.
Before I start, I should stress that I realise the Romans were probably always going to do a standard battle plan, and weren't likely to pull of something surprising. However, I don't think this plan involves that much deviation from their standard strategy... or does it?
Looking at the setup of the battle, when the Romans deployed, they didn't have room for a standard battle array, and had to pack their troops in close, and much deeper than usual. They put the cavalry on the flanks. When the battle started, their cavalry was defeated, allowing Hannibal's cavalry to circle round and hasten their defeat.
Let's take a step back, and look at the deployment. The Romans knew the Cannae plain was good terrain for cavalry to operate, and presumably they knew that Hannibal had superior cavalry. From my reading, they hoped/expected to win the battle before his cavalry could defeat theirs. Well, my question is, why bother with their own cavalry at all?
The plain stretched from hills on one flank to a river on the other, and they had far more troops than they could actually bring to bear on the enemy. Instead of using a standard set-up, with cavalry on the flanks, why not stretch the infantry from the hills to the river? The flanks are covered, the troops have room to fight, and they've probably still got a deep formation, just not the impractical crush they ended up with.
The Carthaginian cavalry isn't going to be effective against a wall of heavy infantry, and although Hannibal's "feigned retreat" plan might work in the centre, its effectiveness would be lessened, as his flanking troops would be fighting at their front. Also, there'd be pressure all along his line.
By the way, I'm not saying this would necessarily result in a Roman victory, just less of a defeat. Hannibal's troops were overall better quality, if outnumbered. But this plan could bring more of the Roman numerical advantage to bear, and allow their manipular tactics to be used more freely.
So if the Romans on the day had the imagination to try the above, would it be viable? Or is there some obvious flaw in the above plan? As I mentioned above, I'm not saying it would definitely work, just that I've never seen it discussed.
Possible objections to this plan I can think of (assuming the Romans considered the idea):
Anyway, I welcome any thought on this!
I've been thinking about the deployment at Cannae, and I've thought up a possible Roman strategy that I've never seen discussed (brought to you by The Wonder of Hindsight). So, either I've thought of something clever or, more likely, it's so stupid no-one even bothers to address it! I suspect it's the latter, but I'd just like to understand why the following strategy is never discussed.
Before I start, I should stress that I realise the Romans were probably always going to do a standard battle plan, and weren't likely to pull of something surprising. However, I don't think this plan involves that much deviation from their standard strategy... or does it?
Looking at the setup of the battle, when the Romans deployed, they didn't have room for a standard battle array, and had to pack their troops in close, and much deeper than usual. They put the cavalry on the flanks. When the battle started, their cavalry was defeated, allowing Hannibal's cavalry to circle round and hasten their defeat.
Let's take a step back, and look at the deployment. The Romans knew the Cannae plain was good terrain for cavalry to operate, and presumably they knew that Hannibal had superior cavalry. From my reading, they hoped/expected to win the battle before his cavalry could defeat theirs. Well, my question is, why bother with their own cavalry at all?
The plain stretched from hills on one flank to a river on the other, and they had far more troops than they could actually bring to bear on the enemy. Instead of using a standard set-up, with cavalry on the flanks, why not stretch the infantry from the hills to the river? The flanks are covered, the troops have room to fight, and they've probably still got a deep formation, just not the impractical crush they ended up with.
The Carthaginian cavalry isn't going to be effective against a wall of heavy infantry, and although Hannibal's "feigned retreat" plan might work in the centre, its effectiveness would be lessened, as his flanking troops would be fighting at their front. Also, there'd be pressure all along his line.
By the way, I'm not saying this would necessarily result in a Roman victory, just less of a defeat. Hannibal's troops were overall better quality, if outnumbered. But this plan could bring more of the Roman numerical advantage to bear, and allow their manipular tactics to be used more freely.
So if the Romans on the day had the imagination to try the above, would it be viable? Or is there some obvious flaw in the above plan? As I mentioned above, I'm not saying it would definitely work, just that I've never seen it discussed.
Possible objections to this plan I can think of (assuming the Romans considered the idea):
- The Romans didn't have the numbers to deploy that wide and still anchor their flanks (I'd say - but why not deploy wider than they did, even if this is true)?
[li] The Romans didn't have the tactical flexibility to deploy that wide (I don't think so, but perhaps there's a technical reason why the marching columns couldn't deploy easily in this way).
- The flanks wouldn't be secure enough (surely at least the river flank would be, and thus they could forgo cavalry there).
- The Carthaginian cavalry could still defeat the infantry on the Roman flanks (unlikely, I think)
- Hannibal would just change his tactics accordingly (he probably would want to, but how much time would he have to enact this, and anyway, how worse could they be defeated than how it turned out?)
Anyway, I welcome any thought on this!
Mr. Robert Grainger
