How would you have changed the battle?

[John M McDermott]

In later times, standard operating procedure called for a surrounded Roman legio to form an orbis and slowly press in a direction of safety. This worked.

About 10,000 Romans escaped at Cannae. They fought their way out, but history does not give many details how they did it.

[stevesarak]

In later times, standard operating procedure called for a surrounded Roman legio to form an orbis and slowly press in a direction of safety. This worked.

About 10,000 Romans escaped at Cannae. They fought their way out, but history does not give many details how they did it.

Just wonder if those 10,000 men had attacked the enclosing lines, if a defeat could have been turned to a victory?

Hindsight is great for war.

[Praefectusclassis]

Weren't those 10,000 part of the army that stayed back to guard the camp at the other side of the river?

[John M McDermott]

That's what always happens in the simulations. The Romans face outboard, counterattack, break through, turn around and start attacking the flanks and rear of the Carthaginians. It works every time. However, that's not what happened at Cannae.

[stevesarak]

That's what always happens in the simulations. The Romans face outboard, counterattack, break through, turn around and start attacking the flanks and rear of the Carthaginians. It works every time. However, that's not what happened at Cannae.

When panic sets in, all military strategy goes out the window.

[John M McDermott]

The question remains: How to fix Cannae?

The ultimate answer history provides is: Don't frontally attack Hannibal. Re-vamp your tactics to be much more cautious. Train your units to support each other. Finally, develop a flanking maneuver of your own.

Another interesting factor occurred: The Romans, who were obsessed with class status, temporarily forgot about it. Slaves served with nobles, and, after a while, no one could remember the origin of the other, or cared. The Roman Republic actually achieved, for a fleeting moment, a near universal appeal to all its inhabitants.

[Praefectusclassis]

How about this: put the cavalry in the reserve and be very un-roman: stick your triarii of all your legions on the flanks resting on river & hills. You could even hold some of your legionaries in reserve as well, the Romans had a numerical advantage after all.

[Robert Vermaat]

How about.. Don't fight at Cannae, go for Spain?

[stevesarak]

Get a new general.

Allow the rear units to be more flexible under the right conditions.

Allow command of individual units to be localized in the event that the master plan and contingency plan falls apart and loss of all communication.

With numerical superiority, the Romans should have had a dynamic plan to deal the changing flow of battle. But of course they developed one later, so you might say that the evolutionary development of military strategy was still in its infancy. Unless you had a commander that could think outside the box, then you were doomed to fail from allowing the enemy to learn your strategy.

Just like the Spartans, unless you have a commander that can change with the battle, don’t fight the enemy to many times, you run the risk of them predicting you plans.

[floofthegoof]

That's what always happens in the simulations. The Romans face outboard, counterattack, break through, turn around and start attacking the flanks and rear of the Carthaginians. It works every time. However, that's not what happened at Cannae.

When panic sets in, all military strategy goes out the window.

From what I have read of early Roman history, I get the feeling that in the time of Hannibal, Roman methods were designed to win a simple, stand up fight. I don't think 'strategy' was ever used against them before Hannibal. The importance of holding the flanks was completely unknown to them if you look at accounts of previous battles.

Conversely, it seems that every Carthaginian battle I read about, no matter who the commander is, an attempt is made to press inward from two overstrength flanks. I think the Carthaginians just came up with a method that the rest of the world wasn't ready for, similar to the German blitzkreig of WW2.

Plenty of counter-strategies are available when the threat is known and analyzed, but if you don't know it, the results are complete and devestating. There's really nothing you can do differently unless you can see into the future, but if you can see into the future, you can't fail to be victorious.

[John M McDermott]

I think Marathon was an example of attacking the enemies' flank.

Going after the enemy flank was understood in ancient times and was not invented by Hannibal.

However, the Romans were confident of the ability of the legions to steamroller their opponents. It had worked against the Carthaginians in previous Punic Wars. In fact, the Romans had pretty handily knocked the Carthaginians about.

[Cornelius Quintus]

The question remains: How to fix Cannae?

The ultimate answer history provides is: Don't frontally attack Hannibal.

Ave omnes,

as a victorious crackerbarrel strategian, I never would have tried to face Hannibal without my elite ancient anti-tank troops...

[urlo4xd4uh]http://www.onlinepictures.de/2/?img=antitank2a3f17561jpg.jpg[/url]

Greetings from Germany

Heiko (Cornelius Quintus)

[stevesarak]

That's what always happens in the simulations. The Romans face outboard, counterattack, break through, turn around and start attacking the flanks and rear of the Carthaginians. It works every time. However, that's not what happened at Cannae.

When panic sets in, all military strategy goes out the window.

From what I have read of early Roman history, I get the feeling that in the time of Hannibal, Roman methods were designed to win a simple, stand up fight. I don't think 'strategy' was ever used against them before Hannibal. The importance of holding the flanks was completely unknown to them if you look at accounts of previous battles.

Conversely, it seems that every Carthaginian battle I read about, no matter who the commander is, an attempt is made to press inward from two overstrength flanks. I think the Carthaginians just came up with a method that the rest of the world wasn't ready for, similar to the German blitzkreig of WW2.

Plenty of counter-strategies are available when the threat is known and analyzed, but if you don't know it, the results are complete and devestating. There's really nothing you can do differently unless you can see into the future, but if you can see into the future, you can't fail to be victorious.

That’s an interesting idea but what about at Gaugamela when Alexander attacked the Persians? If I remember correctly, before the battle he had ordered his men, that when the chariots came racing in, they were to pull off to the sides making killing lanes to take out the horses then the riders, he also had left some men in the rear so when the chariots tried to attack from the rear there would be a phalanx waiting for them. Then he took his cavalry off to the side, hiding some infantry following along. When the enemy cavalry came in, his infantry engaged and allowed Alexander to run through the gap and go for the jugular, attacking Darius III.

To me that shows clear sign of a strategic plan and before Cannae. I think one of the problems with the Romans was not that there wasn’t any good strategy to learn from, at that time, semi-current history was filled with it; one of their main problems was over confidence. Why do something complicated when you can march in and over the enemy destroying them with brute force?

Now of course new things were still coming along that had never been tried before, which could be deadly for the other side. But a good commander should study his opponent and prepare for their fight, when possible, and at the same time be read for a fluent battle, move forces where and when needed.

[floofthegoof]

The Carthaginian style of flanking wasn't really the type where you come around to the rear of the enemy line in an encirclement, it was more using the flanks to squeeze the enemy together by pushing, rather than killing individuals.

I'm not near my sources at the moment, I'll try to get some specific examples later.

[floofthegoof]

That's what always happens in the simulations. The Romans face outboard, counterattack, break through, turn around and start attacking the flanks and rear of the Carthaginians. It works every time. However, that's not what happened at Cannae.

When panic sets in, all military strategy goes out the window.

From what I have read of early Roman history, I get the feeling that in the time of Hannibal, Roman methods were designed to win a simple, stand up fight. I don't think 'strategy' was ever used against them before Hannibal. The importance of holding the flanks was completely unknown to them if you look at accounts of previous battles.

Conversely, it seems that every Carthaginian battle I read about, no matter who the commander is, an attempt is made to press inward from two overstrength flanks. I think the Carthaginians just came up with a method that the rest of the world wasn't ready for, similar to the German blitzkreig of WW2.

Plenty of counter-strategies are available when the threat is known and analyzed, but if you don't know it, the results are complete and devestating. There's really nothing you can do differently unless you can see into the future, but if you can see into the future, you can't fail to be victorious.

That’s an interesting idea but what about at Gaugamela when Alexander attacked the Persians? If I remember correctly, before the battle he had ordered his men, that when the chariots came racing in, they were to pull off to the sides making killing lanes to take out the horses then the riders, he also had left some men in the rear so when the chariots tried to attack from the rear there would be a phalanx waiting for them. Then he took his cavalry off to the side, hiding some infantry following along. When the enemy cavalry came in, his infantry engaged and allowed Alexander to run through the gap and go for the jugular, attacking Darius III.

To me that shows clear sign of a strategic plan and before Cannae. I think one of the problems with the Romans was not that there wasn’t any good strategy to learn from, at that time, semi-current history was filled with it; one of their main problems was over confidence. Why do something complicated when you can march in and over the enemy destroying them with brute force?

Now of course new things were still coming along that had never been tried before, which could be deadly for the other side. But a good commander should study his opponent and prepare for their fight, when possible, and at the same time be read for a fluent battle, move forces where and when needed.

When I say 'previous' I mean previous Roman history. The Romans tended to attribute their success to courage and discipline, and frowned upon the use of strategems. There are some quotes regarding this that I will look for later. When you look at Roman battles before hannibal, there's just not much need for anything fancy except for each man to do his utmost.