How would you have changed the battle?

[stevesarak]

"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."

I agree, to the Romans if it’s been working up to this point, why change. I've also read someplace where some high ranking Roman was either frowning against or ridiculing the idea of a need to use stratagems.

[John M McDermott]

I feel that Hannibal was more than just a good strategician. As a matter of fact, strategy didn't play that big a part of the Cannae battle.

Hannibal could see into the mechanics of combat in an extremely effective way. We may even surmise that he knew how the Roman soldier was going to act and then collapse once the encirclement was complete. I could imagine that Hannibal had witnessed an enemy force collapse before, only on a smaller scale.

Since his days, every commander with any ambition has tried to emulate Cannae, but, no one, has ever achieved the total annihilation he achieved at that battle.

[stevesarak]

I feel that Hannibal was more than just a good strategician. As a matter of fact, strategy didn't play that big a part of the Cannae battle.

Hannibal could see into the mechanics of combat in an extremely effective way. We may even surmise that he knew how the Roman soldier was going to act and then collapse once the encirclement was complete. I could imagine that Hannibal had witnessed an enemy force collapse before, only on a smaller scale.

Since his days, every commander with any ambition has tried to emulate Cannae, but, no one, has ever achieved the total annihilation he achieved at that battle.

I agree with what you said. Hannibal knew his enemy and its tactics and how to exploit them. So here’s another question, before Scipio defeated Hannibal, he had studied his tactics and knew how to fight him; he came up with a simple plan to null the effects of the elephants and felt that he had come up with a plan to counter Hannibal’s tactics. Do you think that Scipio had out fought him, or Hannibal after leaving most of his battle hardened troops in Italy, lost because he didn’t have the same army to fight with that he had been using?

[John M McDermott]

I always thought Hannibal embarked from Italy with a good portion of his veteran troops with him. At the time of Zama, the Numidians had switched sides. One thing is sure: there were some Roman troops present that had been at Cannae.

Scipio, who was probably at Cannae, was extremely confident before the battle. He was a master tactician himself. It is tempting to say Scipio beat the master at his own game of tactical brilliance.

[Narukami]

In his recent book, In The Name Of Rome, Adrian Goldsworthy quotes at length a passage from Livy about a purported meeting in 193BCE at Ephesus between Africanus and Hannibal:

From In The Name Of Rome, Page 69.

"During one of their conversations:

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 traveled 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

The story may well be apocryphal, but such a judgment was certainly not undeserved."

As Dr. Goldsworthy says, this story may be only that, a story and such a meeting may never have taken place, but it should have.

Narukami

[floofthegoof]

I feel that Hannibal was more than just a good strategician. As a matter of fact, strategy didn't play that big a part of the Cannae battle.

Hannibal could see into the mechanics of combat in an extremely effective way. We may even surmise that he knew how the Roman soldier was going to act and then collapse once the encirclement was complete. I could imagine that Hannibal had witnessed an enemy force collapse before, only on a smaller scale.

Since his days, every commander with any ambition has tried to emulate Cannae, but, no one, has ever achieved the total annihilation he achieved at that battle.

Don't give him too much credit though. Anyone who marches to attack superior numbers in enemy territory is already violating the first rule of generalship. He is relying on fortune alone. Anything could have happened on that day beyond his control that would have have brought an end to Hannibals campaign. I'm sure he himself watched the battle over his shoulder should he need to make a hasty retreat.

Also, generals are supposed to see the big picture. This man, on his own authority, without consulting anyone, declared a war that his country could not finish, and so was brought to ruin along with it.

Do you really want Hannibal in charge of your army? I'd definately take the much maligned caution of Q. Fabius Maximus over Hannibal, when *everything* is on the line.

I promised sources for my earlier statements! I'm still looking! It's been a while since I read them.

[floofthegoof]

I always thought Hannibal embarked from Italy with a good portion of his veteran troops with him. At the time of Zama, the Numidians had switched sides. One thing is sure: there were some Roman troops present that had been at Cannae.

Scipio, who was probably at Cannae, was extremely confident before the battle. He was a master tactician himself. It is tempting to say Scipio beat the master at his own game of tactical brilliance.

When Hannibal first attacked, the Romans immediately sent an expedition to Spain led by Scipio's uncle. Scipio was very young at the time, but while Hannibal was stomping all over Italy, the Scipios were stomping all over Carthaginian Spain. Scipio was making a name for himself in Spain durign the early years of the war.

[stultus]

I am always very reluctant to 'armchair quarterback' a battle after the fact. It can be interesting and certainly in the course of wargaming it is quite fun. However, considering that chaos theory applies more to battle than any other human endeavor (with the possible exception of puberty) I get a little tired of people making blanket statements about battles, and how the outcome could have been changed.
IF /THEN is for computer programs, not history.
Please don't take this as hostile. I guess I have just heard one too many people make statements to the effecct of "If the Germans would have made MP43s and Me262s only from 43 onward they would have one the war." or "If Lee had forced the issue on Cemetary Hill, Hank Jr. would now be president." :x
Rant concluded.
Thanks for bearing with me.

[stevesarak]

I am always very reluctant to 'armchair quarterback' a battle after the fact. It can be interesting and certainly in the course of wargaming it is quite fun. However, considering that chaos theory applies more to battle than any other human endeavor (with the possible exception of puberty) I get a little tired of people making blanket statements about battles, and how the outcome could have been changed.
IF /THEN is for computer programs, not history.
Please don't take this as hostile. I guess I have just heard one too many people make statements to the effecct of "If the Germans would have made MP43s and Me262s only from 43 onward they would have one the war." or "If Lee had forced the issue on Cemetary Hill, Hank Jr. would now be president." :x
Rant concluded.
Thanks for bearing with me.

Like you said, war gaming is quite fun. That’s what this it, war gaming. Just like using boards or computers or reenacting a battle and allowing each side to take their liberties. This is war gaming, it’s an intellectual discussion on strategies.

Just like a coach, after a game, discussion what they could or should have done. Sometimes hindsight allows you to see thing that could have made a difference. This discussion is a what-if. What if you were the commander in charge, what would you have done different? No one is saying an absolute; they’re saying from their point of view, what they might have done if they were in charge. Some people don’t like to discuss strategy, it bores them, other can’t get enough of it, they enjoy the intellectual process of it.

Napoleon lost at waterloo. That’s a fact, but some experts are saying that he lost because it was one of the first times that he didn’t scout out the battle field ahead of time when he had a chance, if so he would have know there was a path of retreat close by. They say he didn’t scout out ahead of time because he was suffering from a bad case of hemorrhoids. They say that Napoleon lost because of hemorrhoids. Experts, true experts have said that if he had seen that avenue of escape that things might have been different.

There’s nothing wrong with debating the outcome of a battle. There are a lot of generals that discuss the outcome of ancient battle and what they would or wouldn't have done different. If a person, professional or not as an opinion on strategy, who’s to say that its valid or not.


This is my little rant.
Thanks for bearing with me

[Felix]

Any wargame simulating Cannae has limitations. The first is that the gamer knows what happened, and invariably throws the Roman plan of battle out the window. The Roman commanderS (both of them - another difference between a game and the reality) didn't know this. They were not professionals, either, but elected politicians (admittedly with military experience). So they decided on an uninspired plan, but one that did emphasize the traditional Roman superiority in heavy infantry, which was in fact the strength of their army.

Gamers don't think in the manner of ancient generals, and easily do things which real armies find very difficult. Two cases come to mind: the Gloucestershire regimental honors, and Patton in the Battle of the Bulge. The Gloucestershire regiment had the unique distinction of being entitled to wear their badge on both the front and back of their caps. They won this in the Napoleonic Wars. The regiment was engaged, when a French unit suddenly showed up in their rear. The rear ranks turned about face, and started firing at the new enemy, and both foes were repulsed. In game terms, this is easy to do; but in reality, this success was unheard of. In 1944, Patton's 3rd army was south of the German attack in the Ardennes Forest. His forces had been pushing their way east, but when the front collapsed north of his forces, he was to turn his forces 90 degrees and attack the Germans on their southern flank. He promised to do this in 24 hours (as I recall), and moved with a speed that surprised the Allied command and the Germans. Again, in game term switching an attack's direction is easy, but for an army it is a lot more complicated.

Command and control were major limitations. Legions fought as units, hastati, prinicpes, triarii. For the Romans at Cannae to have turned sideways and fight properly, the whole legion at the side/rear would have had to stop and turn the entire unit to face the flank, which might have required countermarching the legion backwards to make enough room for the legion to deploy sideways (and then turning); or perhaps wheeling the whole legion using the back rear corner maniple as a pivot. Neither of these would be easy to do - getting the proper commands to all the centurions at the right time would itself be a challenge. The commander and triarii of the legion just ahead of them would need to know what was going on to - or they were going to be confused as heck, and maybe stop their units or even start trying to turn themselves. The frontal push stops, and chaos ensues.

In game terms, what typically would happen is that the end unit or each line and legion would turn in place, and all form an ad hoc line together. This would have some maniples of the hastati, principes and triarii of each of two or more legions, all behaving as a single coherent force. A highly improbable situation in real life.

[stevesarak]

Here are some key points inline with what Felix said about changing the outcome of Cannae.

1) As Felix said, the commanders (Consuls I think) didn’t have the experience as some of the better commanders recorded in history.
2) A lot of the legions at Cannae didn’t have the field experience as their enemy.
3) Half the Roman cavalry were auxiliaries (I’m pretty sure). The other half was a civilian cavalry.
4) Hannibal’s plan wasn’t unique, his brother and father had used it in early battles, Hannibal just perfected it.
5) Rome out numbered Hannibal’s soldiers, Rome had 88,000 (Legions and axillaries) to Hannibal’s 32,000. Ordinarily up to that point, when Rome’s commanders went to war, each commander had two legions, so command and control was based on that size. If the standard formation for the legions had been followed, then it should have been a defeat for Rome, but instead of following standard formation of spreading the men out so each had room to fight, the consuls packed them close together. There’s still conflicting ideas of why? Some say that as they advanced with such a large line, that some troops would advance slower the others causing the line to stall. Some have said that communication would have been to hard with the size of ground the legions took plus others not mentioned.

Either way, the legions weren’t setup in the proven formations that allowed the legions to fight effectively.

6) You might call it the fog of war, once the action started and the legions followed the center Carthaginians back into the trap and found themselves outflanked, the commanders no longer had a clear idea of what was going on and how to counter act it (a radio, a radio, my kingdom for a radio)

7) Even if the commanders did see what was going on, all communication was lost. As the legions pressed closer and closer together, all hopes of sending runners broke down.

As soon as the legions formed up for war that day, they had already lost.

As far a gaming is concerned, imagine you’re in the game. You come up with a plan of attack but your view is at ground level with the troops. Of course you’re on a horse but with the battle raging on and the dust being kicked up you can’t really see your lines. You don’t have any communication coming in once the battle starts and shortly you see your troops pushing inwards from three sides, what can you do?

The point of strategy gaming is to learn tactics, new and from the past and to try to anticipate what the enemy is going and might do. Just like history teaches up, if you don’t lean from the past then your doomed to repeat it.

So in battles like Cannae, its fun (for those that like strategy) to imaging yourself in the heat of it, you see what’s going on (even though in Cannae the Roman commanders probably didn’t as it was happening) and to come up with your own plan to deal with the changing situation. In a forum like this, one person comes up with what they think is the perfect plan only to have the next post effectively counter it. It makes you think a little outside the box. It’s fun to pit your expertise or to point out an obvious flaw in battle and come up with your own plan of attack.

Keep in mind though, the commanders back then, knew their men, knew what they could and couldn’t do, knew the enemy better then anyone now a days could and had the experience of warfare back then. So to say that if you were in their place you’d do something different, keep in mind that you’re speaking from hindsight. If you had never heard of Cannae and had been put in the thick of it, would it have turned out any different?

Probably since we’ve had 2000 year to learn from but let us not forget about the chaos and unpredictability of battle.