Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Speaking of Cannae...
#46
Quote:CDA wrote:
Excuse this digression, but I want to address Caractscus's comment which illuminates a national shortcoming.

Welcome to my world! As an ex-teacher myself, I know exactly what you are talking about. Over here, we call it "dumbing down" (which may also be a US term). Kids know less and less about more and more. Exams are now so easy that in some instances they have a 98% "pass rate". "Professional" educationalists deny this is the case but they have very thick pink specs. History is now taught as a series of 'themes'. These are politically correct. The British Empire isn't even mentioned! This is taken to be a "thoroughly bad thing", so kids are not exposed to it. I wonder if they wonder where all the Asian immigrants came from and why they chose Britain? Basically, school history here for the 11-16 age group is centred around (a) the Romans, (b) the Tudors and © the 1st and 2nd World Wars (minus the Holocaust in some areas, lest it 'offend' Muslim sensibilities). There are no connecting elements, no idea that history is a continuous stream of events, each of which has influence over the one that follows it.

I speak here, not as an historian. My specialisation was in chemistry - where in some respects the situation is even more dire (chemistry departments at Universities are closing down hand over fist for lack of students). History was, however, my hobby (in a way) and I was always able to engage in discussion with the history teachers at my schools. Many have now retired from teaching and taken early leave in despair. Sic transit gloria Mundi!

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
Reply
#47
Part of the fun of 're-enacting' is the opportunity to it presents to tell the story of the past and in so doing spark a lifetime's interest in a new generation. I remain optimistic: between the web, Hollywood, TV, novels, Time Team, and other media, the public is open to being excited by the human story.
Lindsay Powell
[url:1j6646pm]http://www.Lindsay-Powell.com[/url] website
@Lindsay_Powell twitter
Reply
#48
Quote:
Quote:Reminds me of a conversation with a girl in a bar in Montana many years ago........

Oh come on! Montana? Even Custer got lost there - and he had a whole cavalry regiment to set him right. :lol:

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)


He wasn't lost....and besides, I had some excellent teachers at that very small community college.
I have also met people here in the UK who don't know where Alberta is.... :wink:
Just because we're near the mountains, doesn't mean we are totally ignorant of geography, or have a good excuse to be.....
And your right, I have worked with many people who can't understand why all these foreigners wanted to come here.....
but that is also fostered by the fear of being pushed out of their jobs....understandable if you are not qualified for other things....
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#49
According to P.A. Brunt's Italian Manpower (and before him DeSanctis and Afzelius) the Romans fielded 13 legions at the start of campaigning in 216 BC. 2 in training at Rome, 2 in Cisalpine Gaul, 2 in Sicily, 1 in Sardinia, 2 under the Scipios in Spain and 4 (reinforced) under the consuls in Apulia which fought at Cannae. Brunt prefers Livy's lost alternate source (Livy xxii.36) to Polybius on the strength of the Roman army at Cannae. Brunt estimates losses of about 30000 killed and missing at Cannae, of which half would be citizens and the rest allies. Brunt gives 65000 as the number of citizens in the 13 legions on the eve of the battle, so on this calculation Cannae cost about 23% of mobilized Roman manpower.

Later in the year 216 BC the 2 legions in Gaul were ambushed and cut to pieces with the loss of most of 9000 more citizen troops. But the Romans raised 2 more legions that year, plus 2 legiones Cannenses [i] from survivors of the battle and legiones volones from manumitted slaves.

Has anyone ever seen the 1937 epic made in Mussolini's Italy "Scipio Africanus"? They used over 30000 extras in the battle scenes (many of whom were shipped off to fight in Ethiopia after cheering "Duce Duce" when Mussolini visited the set.) I have the thing on VCR tape but nothing to play it on.
Anthony
Reply
#50
Quote:
Caratacus:2infwjc8 Wrote:I'm surprised that (according to some of the above posts) the Americans have not heard of this battle! It is one of those that all military historians come across because of its seminal use of tactics
(Caratacus)

Excuse this digression, but I want to address Caractscus's coment which iluminates a national shortcoming.

After some long discussions with a number of teachers, this is my general conclusion, and other may not share it: I think you have to understand the American public school system here. History is simply not a priority. Textbooks are highly sanitized, and oversimplified to the point of being misleading. Teaching is less about factual knowledge than an enculturation to a set of values. Many teachers see that as their primary purpose, and they are rightly or wrongly dedicated to it. There is a strong emphasis on what things should be, less than what they are, or have been. "War is bad. It should not be studied. The Romans were oppressive, they should not be studied." The agenda is simply an attempt at socio-cultural engineering. When I was in graduate school, in the late 70s and early 80s all the jokes were on education majors who were regarded as not bright enough to study anything else. The School administration here is generally considered to be inept, and the school board is run by elected officials, many of which have dubious qualifications. The result is an emphasis on the political short term, and white-washing short comings in both the curriculum and in the quality of personnel at all levels. When I was working in law enforcement, I found the behavior of a significant part of our local administration to be unethical, hypocritical, and in many cases borderline criminal. In too many cases it was criminal. I found this group hard to investigate due to the uncooperative attitude towards law enforcement, and the misconception that school policy was above state law, which it is not.

In my area, the High School graduation rate is between 53% and 59%. Of the ones who do graduate, about 25% are considered functionally illiterate. So there is no wonder that no one ever heard of Carthage, or Hannibal, much less Cannae.

Higher educational institutions are different. You can match them with the best anywhere. History is a very popular area, with students who are enthusiastic. I do think that this enthusiasm comes from learning things that the public school system neglected. The material is not sanitized, and debate is encouraged, whereas in the public schools, it is functionally obstructed, or moderated to fit only approved perspectives. There is a widespread acceptance that too many incoming students have not been prepared well enough, so there are a huge number of remedial programs to make up for the poor public school system.

Frankly, I think that the only way to remedy the failure of the American system is open and public criticism. Sometimes ridicule has a place also. Unfortunately, the only time when may see progress, is when change is forced through outrage when enough disclosures are made public.

I also applauded forums like this where interested parties can have discussion, and make information available to students who should have had it readily available but did not though shortcomings of the institutions who are inadequate to the task they are supposed to do.

Thanks for this tangental discussion, which is off the thread topic.

Ralph

Ralph, I think I mostly agree with your points about the American education system, with the exception of the bolded part. I don't necessarily think that the attitude is that "war is bad, it should not be studied." Rather, I think there at some point there was a shift to attempting to teach students that there is more to learn about history than names, dates, and places (most of which tend to have to do with battles!) Smile Unfortunately, this must have coincided with the downward spiral in expectations, which I'm afraid is ongoing today (this is a major concern of mine, as I am an aspiring professor myself). In some regards, I sympathize with the "ditching of the dates" phenomenon, because I believe it forces us to focus more on things like why human beings fight wars with each other, and what we can learn from it to avoid terrible conflict in the future; this is doubly good for me, because questions like these are much harder to put on a standardized test (which are another pet peeve of mine; what is the point of teaching people the date that some war happened if you can't explain why they were fighting?? I mean I think personally that if you're not proclaiming to be some expert on a given time period, there should be no shame in not knowing an exact date for something, within reason. I mean if you ask a student when the Second Punic War began and they say "um I dunno... 300 CE?" then you have a problem, IMO; but if they can tell you it was in the late 200s BCE, I don't see why they necessarily NEED to know that it was 218-201 BCE, you know?


On another point, I think you make an interesting one about college students perhaps being more "eager to learn" because of what we might have been denied in high school. I've noticed this myself to some degree. Unfortunately, I've also seen a lot of people just coast along because if I'm honest, I don't think university is as hard as it must have been in the past. I'm going into my 5th year as an undergrad (long story Big Grin oops:


Okay on the actual topic at hand now... Big Grin I am currently enjoying the O'Connell book on Cannae, and I watched him on the Daily Show as well when he was on. I enjoyed it, but then I'm a fan; yeah Stewart was being goofy but I mean... that IS his job after all 8) Anyway, the death toll at Cannae is truly astounding; the other day I tried to imagine just how many dead people that really was in physical terms, but it is just mind boggling. It would be like if every single person in my town and the 3 next closest towns died... EVERYONE! Even if Polybius was exaggerating a little bit--he was an ancient author, after all--that is still a heck of a lot of human beings dead in one place at one time. But it's not like it would be a bunch of funeral-home-prepared corpses laying around... it would be a horrific stench-giving bloody mess of body parts and guts all over the place with people slipping around in the goo and tripping over each other and as the hours wore on, each knew they were just delaying the inevitable, and before long, it would be their intestines wrapping around their surviving comrades' feet as.... well you get the idea! I think the real point isn't to what extent the Roman army itself was absolutely devastated by Cannae, but instead how the Romans even had the will to fight on after that!
"...atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."

????? ???? ?\' ?????...(J. Feicht)
Reply
#51
Sometimes these shocking reverses (shocking to the Romans) lead to new leadership, fresh resolve and ultimately victory.

Horrific as Cannae was to contemporary Romans, it's fading from historical attention may be due to its not having been the decisive battle of the Punic Wars. Hannibal didn't take Rome; the Romans eventually took Carthage.

(Much said above is true. The dumbing down of American education at the secondary level, I believe, is matched by its politicization--not universally, of course) at the undergraduate level. The result is two generations of ignoramuses, and no "light at the end of the tunnel.")
"Fugit irreparabile tempus" (Irrecoverable time glides away) Virgil

Ron Andrea
Reply
#52
I could go either way on the "politicization" argument. On the one hand, I think it really does pay to compare our past to more modern times. For instance, with Cannae, the way the survivors were treated has some disturbing parallels with our own experience with Vietnam where we collectively tried to sweep them under the rug so we wouldn't have to think about losing that war anymore, and the result being the shocking numbers of Vietnam vets who are still homeless to this day (if they're even still alive) and have no access to real medical care, especially for things that we've only recently come to recognize as being pertinent, like post traumatic stress disorder. On the other hand, some professors can be really disingenuous with their handling of the past at times, and almost distort the historical record to fit neatly within their own personal political agenda. I won't name any names here, but there are some truly great historians today who nevertheless can't resist from doing this from time to time. I guess in the end though, for the student, it can be used as another tool to teach us how things are relative, and you don't have to believe everything you read/are told. Smile
"...atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."

????? ???? ?\' ?????...(J. Feicht)
Reply
#53
I sometimes wonder if the casualty figures for these battles are to be trusted at all! Cannae is just one example (Lake Trasemene was also horrific as to losses, I believe). Then we have Carrae under Crassus. And Arausio (modern Orange) by the (I think) Cimbri - where the losses were even larger if you believe the accounts (Livy says 80,000 men and 40,000 allies). Not forgetting the Teutobergerwald in AD 9. Going the other way, we have Marius' forces annihilating a whole Celtic/Gallic tribe at Aquae Sextiae (the Teutones), somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 men! Ditto for the destruction of the army of Boudicca and virtually the whole of the Iceni tribe (if you believe Tacitus on this).

Large losses in battles where one side was catastrophically out-thought (and out-manoeuvred) by their enemy must include a large number of unfortunates who were killed in the subsequent flight and persuit. Actual losses in the battle itself leading up to the collapse of one side would probably have been minimal. Cannae was so different because there was no flight! However, up until the wars of the previous century, casualties on this scale would surely have been physically difficult to achieve. The British Army lost 20,000 men killed (and another 40,000 wounded) on the First Day of the Somme in July 1916 - but they were facing machine guns and artillery fire. Mechanised death as some authors have described it. The effort in physically taking down 50,000 men (or whatever the figure at Cannae was) would have been colossal and possibly beyond the capacity of men to do.

I wouldn't mind betting that many of those listed as being 'casualties' actually got away from the field of battle and had it away on the tiptoes as fast as their little legs could carry them. Given that the victors would have been (a) bloody tired and (b) burdened down with weapons, armour and shields while their enemies (i.e. Romans) would probably have ditched the weapons and armour and had the urgency of survival upon them, I propose that an awful lot of them (the Romans) would have got away. The most serious loss for the Romans (as always) would have been the experienced soldiers, centurions, etc, who would probably have gone down in the first hour of the battle. There is the famous story of the emmisary from Hannibal going back to Carthage and scattering a bagfull of gold rings on their senate floor - all taken from the Roman superior officers. And that was the real disaster for the Romans - their loss of experienced high and middle-grade officers. The men they could make up again, either from those who ran or from the reserves of manpower that Italy had - I've seen an estimate that there were 750,000 men of military potential available at this time.

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
Reply
#54
Well, it seems the battle was remembered specifically for the fact that the losses on the battle field were so horrific.
Why would they exaggerate the losses to a smaller army if they did not have to?
The tactics described point to a complete outclassing of the Roman army tactics used, and when you are surrounded and hemmed in, the ability to fight effectively is gone. Even Caesar had to step in and tell his troops to spread out and give themselves room to fight effectively.
If they took breaks....and they hated the Romans with a zeal, they would have carried on as long as they were able.
Our mindsets are not of the same level as theirs. We tend to give quarter easily to those who have opposed us.
Hanibal had made a vow to his father to never give quarter to Rome.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#55
I have read somewhere that Hanibal and Scipio became friends? and often met for discussions, I believe the same source attributed Hanibals' death to a scrape and following infection from his own sword, I thought that he was pursued by Rome for a number of years and finally commited suicide as Roman soldiers were literaly at his doorstep. :?
_____________________________________________________
Mark Hayes

"The men who once dwelled beneath the crags of Mt Helicon, the broad land of Thespiae now boasts of their courage"
Philiades

"So now I meet my doom. Let me at least sell my life dearly and have a not inglorius end, after some feat of arms that shall come to the ears of generations still unborn"
Hektor, the Iliad
Reply
#56
Quote:I have read somewhere that Hanibal and Scipio became friends? and often met for discussions, I believe the same source attributed Hanibals' death to a scrape and following infection from his own sword, I thought that he was pursued by Rome for a number of years and finally commited suicide as Roman soldiers were literaly at his doorstep. :?

I don't think they ever became 'friends'! They did meet just before the Battle of Zama and Hannibal (on instruction) tried to make peace but Scipio wasn't having any! "Delenda Cathago est" indeed!

You are right, however, that he was hounded by the Romans until finally, as they were closing in, he took poison. He was determined that he would never figure as the 'star attraction' at someone's triumphal parade in Rome.

Quote:Well, it seems the battle was remembered specifically for the fact that the losses on the battle field were so horrific.
Why would they exaggerate the losses to a smaller army if they did not have to?
The tactics described point to a complete outclassing of the Roman army tactics used, and when you are surrounded and hemmed in, the ability to fight effectively is gone. Even Caesar had to step in and tell his troops to spread out and give themselves room to fight effectively.
If they took breaks....and they hated the Romans with a zeal, they would have carried on as long as they were able.
Our mindsets are not of the same level as theirs. We tend to give quarter easily to those who have opposed us.
Hanibal had made a vow to his father to never give quarter to Rome.

It's not the mindset that I question - it's the sheer physicality of it all. Hannibal and the Barca clan may have been blood enemies of the Romans but I doubt that attitude would have extended to the rest of Hannibal's rather rag-tag army (who were from all over the place). Killing that large number of men by hand cannot have been an easy thing to accomplish, even if the Romans were just standing there waiting for the blow to fall. Those on the outside of the encirclement would surely have fought back, even if those trapped inside were unable to do so.

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
Reply
#57
The use of the heavy Carthaginian pahlanxs on th flanks hemmed them in.
If you cannot swing or even draw your elbow back to thrust, you will tire far more quickly than the guys hemming you in.
You cannot exchange places with some one behind you, because it requires room to manuver, you can fight back, but you will be a sitting target as soon as you step out to give yourself room to fight.
another similar fight was in North Africa, where the dead did not have room to fall over. I can't recall if that was in the Punic wrs or later in the civil wars.... but it was also documented.
All these people were not friends of Rome, and Hanibal had roused them up wit hthe aim of destroying Rome, not just defeating them.
Red mist would set in for sure .....humans are capable of many things.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#58
Quote:I don't think they ever became 'friends'! They did meet just before the Battle of Zama and Hannibal (on instruction) tried to make peace but Scipio wasn't having any! "Delenda Cathago est" indeed!

You are right, however, that he was hounded by the Romans until finally, as they were closing in, he took poison. He was determined that he would never figure as the 'star attraction' at someone's triumphal parade in Rome.

Thank you Mike, probably just another case of BS perpetrated as historical commentary, if I ever see it again I will post it so everyone may have a good laugh!

Thanks again for clearing that up for me!
_____________________________________________________
Mark Hayes

"The men who once dwelled beneath the crags of Mt Helicon, the broad land of Thespiae now boasts of their courage"
Philiades

"So now I meet my doom. Let me at least sell my life dearly and have a not inglorius end, after some feat of arms that shall come to the ears of generations still unborn"
Hektor, the Iliad
Reply
#59
Quote:I have read somewhere that Hanibal and Scipio became friends? and often met for discussions, I believe the same source attributed Hanibals' death to a scrape and following infection from his own sword, I thought that he was pursued by Rome for a number of years and finally commited suicide as Roman soldiers were literaly at his doorstep. :?

Yes, "friends" might be too strong a word, but there is clearly respect there and mutual admiration. As the Bard said "Let us do as soldiers do in battle - strive mightily, but eat and drink s friends."

The story you are referring to (I believe) comes from Livy and I first encountered it in Goldsworthy's 2003 book, In The Name Of Rome, page 69:

Africanus asked who, in Hannibal’s opinion, was the greatest general of all
time. Hannibal replied, ‘Alexander … because with a small force he routed
armies of countless numbers, and because he traversed the remotest lands.’
Asked whom he placed second, Hannibal said: ‘Pyrrhus. He was the first to
teach the art of laying out a camp. Besides that, no one has ever shown nicer
judgment in choosing his ground, or in disposing his forces. He also had the
art of winning men to his side.’ When Africanus followed up by asking whom
he ranked third, Hannibal unhesitatingly chose himself. Scipio burst out laughing
at this and said, ‘What would you be saying if you had defeated me?’

‘In that case,’ replied Hannibal, ‘I should certainly put myself before Alexander
and before Pyrrhus – in fact before all other generals!’ This reply, with its elaborate
Punic subtlety, affected Scipio deeply, because Hannibal had set him
apart from the general run of commanders, as one whose worth was beyond
calculation.


This story may not be true, but it should be.

I am reminded of the film Khartoum:

Julian Blaustein (the producer) was a stickler for authenticity, and much about the film is accurate.
He even sent a copy of the script to the Mahdi's grandson, who returned it with a note that although,
as far as he was aware , his grandfather and Gordon never met. "It's an extremely fine script." When
Blaustein expressed his regret that the screenplay erred on this point, the grandson replied,
"Ah, but Mr. Blaustein, they should have." -- Past Imperfect c1995 p163

Also...

Thanks for the numbers Pompieus. Depending upon the actual casualty figures, the Roman Army lost between 20-25% of their active duty manpower. That is quite a loss for a single day and served to compound their continuing losses in the 2nd Punic War.

Except for the leadership of the Scipio brothers in Spain and that of the younger Publius, Rome was not having much luck. This reinforces the idea of just how amazing the Scipio family was, particularly Scipio Africanus. Even after his death Africanus' legacy lived on in the person of his daughter Cornelia and her sons, Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus.

:wink:

Narukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Reply
#60
That is definitely an excerpt from what I read, but it was much longer and the author stated that they were friends who met for discussions on multiple occasions, also the story of the means of Hannibal's death was obviously misconstrued. I do wish I could remember where I read that piece.

Thanks
_____________________________________________________
Mark Hayes

"The men who once dwelled beneath the crags of Mt Helicon, the broad land of Thespiae now boasts of their courage"
Philiades

"So now I meet my doom. Let me at least sell my life dearly and have a not inglorius end, after some feat of arms that shall come to the ears of generations still unborn"
Hektor, the Iliad
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman army public speaking inkstain 18 4,350 02-02-2013, 04:10 AM
Last Post: markhebb

Forum Jump: