@wittmann:
Crossing the Alps was amazing, but it is important to remember at Cannae Hannibal faced a Roman army that switched commanders on a daily basis - a most bizarre and inefficient command structure.
That was a weird system admittedly.
Wonder how much it contributed to the defeat.
The two Roman Consuls were so dissimilar and on the 2nd August Varro got the command and his impetuosity and Roman arrogance probably cost them that day.
I always think how unfair it is that he survived, was not censured for the outcome and died an old man, yet Paullus was killed and was against fighting Hannibal.
It wasn’t a great way of running armies, certainly not against Hannibal, but it had worked in the long run and won them the Italian peninsular, Sicily and Sardinia. Those in command had often many years of experience in the Roman army. Paullus had won against the Illyrians in 219 BC and may have again been in command on the day at Cannae (there is controversy, based on the fact that Paullus was in command of the Roman right wing, the position of command usual for the Roman army, and that the days had been moved around - Paullus was Scipio’s father-in-law so Polybius may have had further reasons to cover it as he was a client of the Scipio family - though I still tend to believe it was in fact Varro who was in command).
Paullus was more cautious, but he wasn’t against fighting Hannibal, the purpose of the large army at Cannae was to bring about a decisive engagement. An army that size would have been going through a lot of supplies and could not be supported in one area for long. Varro gets a lot of bad press, but that doesn’t mean he was a bad commander - large armies are not easy to command, and it was the largest Rome had fielded to that point. Varro in fact shows signs of good leadership and strategic thought with rallying a force of roughly ten thousand survivors of the battle (which must have been difficult considering the drubbing they just received) and strategically helped Rome by installing garrisons in a number of towns which would prevent their defection and could harass Hannibal’s route further south. Varro’s plan at Cannae was sound considering the success they had achieved previously, and it could have gone horribly wrong for Hannibal (the Roman’s had cut through Hannibal’s centre in both Trebia and Trasimene, and would do so against Hannibal’s brother at Dertossa.)
Thanks again Markdienekes: great read.
I had read some have doubted whether Varro had command that day, because of his position on the left, not right. Your suggestion of a Roman change of tactics makes sense, therefore.
Of course all battles won against the odds involve some risk taking(almost losing the centre) and this was part of the plan: make the enemy think they were winning. Then the losing weighs all the more heavy.
I forgot Varro showed great courage at the battle’s end.
I am off for a few days, but will have my phone.
Hope you can post some more.
@Last:
Napoleon was not born Emperor of France. He earned the title and its benefits.
Not sure how much of an underdog Carthage truly was. True they were defeated in the First Punic War, but it was far from complete devastation. Carthage still had vast resources at its disposal. (After all North Africa became the most economically important part of the Roman Empire)
Crossing the Alps was amazing, but it is important to remember at Cannae Hannibal faced a Roman army that switched commanders on a daily basis - a most bizarre and inefficient command structure.
Hannibal only needed reinforcements when the army he marched into the Italian peninsula failed.
Rome had vast amount of manpower, where Carthage was limited in that area.
@ABWorsham:
@Last:
Napoleon was not born Emperor of France. He earned the title and its benefits.
Not sure how much of an underdog Carthage truly was. True they were defeated in the First Punic War, but it was far from complete devastation. Carthage still had vast resources at its disposal. (After all North Africa became the most economically important part of the Roman Empire)
Crossing the Alps was amazing, but it is important to remember at Cannae Hannibal faced a Roman army that switched commanders on a daily basis - a most bizarre and inefficient command structure.
Hannibal only needed reinforcements when the army he marched into the Italian peninsula failed.
Rome had vast amount of manpower, where Carthage was limited in that area.
Not sure about this.
Not sure if it was manpower that saved Rome. It was resilience and everyone, really everyone, giving everything to the war effort. Not intended to sound heroic.
Then again, I know my history with Alexander, not so much with Hannibal.
Anyone read the books from JM Roberts, Hannibals Children and The Seven Hills? Not that those are the best books ever, but overall nice. Alternate history.
Thank you. I might like that. I have read a trilogy about the end of the US Civil war, starting with a Confederate victory at Gettysburg. It is by Newt Gingrich.
I am fancying looking at Cannae again, after these discussions.
Sorry to say Alexander has never interested me!
@wittmann:
Thank you. I might like that. I have read a trilogy about the end of the US Civil war, starting with a Confederate victory at Gettysburg. It is by Newt Gingrich.
I am fancying looking at Cannae again, after these discussions.
Sorry to say Alexander has never interested me!
Two books worth purchasing that are devoted to the battle of Cannae:
I’d go for Daly’s if you only buy one.
Dont know either, thx for that. Goldsworthy in general I enjoy a lot.
I have the Goldsworthy, so thank you for another suggested title.
I will probably just flick through the one I own as a reminder.
Richard Miles - Carthage Must Be Destroyed
@wittmann:
Crossing the Alps was amazing, but it is important to remember at Cannae Hannibal faced a Roman army that switched commanders on a daily basis - a most bizarre and inefficient command structure. That was a weird system admittedly.
The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, by Dupuy and Dupuy, decribes the Roman military system that existed just prior to the start of the Second Punic War. At the time, Rome had two consuls in place each year (they changed every year). Consuls were both elected civic officials and military field commenders, holding both military and political power. Each of the two consuls commanded a consular army, each consisting of two Roman legions and two auxiliary legions. When the two regular consular armies were joined for operational purposes, the consuls would alternate command every 24 hours. My guess is that this practice reflects Roman republican reservations about putting too much power in the hands of one man (just look at what happened to Julius Caesar), plus the fact that consuls were elected civil officials rather than just generals. Switching command every 24 hours kept the two consuls equal, and put a restraint on their power. The concept of having a joint consular army under the permanent single command of just one of the two consuls (thus giving him command of not just his army but the other consul’s army too) would have raised the thorny question of just who would get to choose and designate that single commander.
@wittmann:
I have the Goldsworthy, so thank you for another suggested title.
I will probably just flick through the one I own as a reminder.
It’s a fine book!
I have been reading on Charles XII of Sweden. What an awesome military mind. Shame that he died at such a young age and such a gruesome way.
Found this quote of his, " I have resolved never to start an unjust war, but never end a legitimate one except by defeating my enemies."
I think it is fantastic, remarkable even, that Sweden would dare to take on Russia. And that they did so well!
Poltava in 1709 saddens me. I love victories against Russia. Sweden’s armies were something special and Charles was a great loser. Well said Worsham.
Hard to beat Hannibal.
I’m beginning to think that the main topic of this thread is whether the war between Rome and Carthage was primarily a land war or a naval war. And that any discussion other than that would be off-topic. Nonetheless, I’d like to discuss why I voted for von Manstein.
1939: planned the invasion of Poland–a plan that crushed the bulk of Polish resistance in just two weeks.
1940: other German generals, senior to von Manstein, had come up with a plan to take Belgium and some north Channel ports. France itself would be left basically intact. Von Manstein and Guderian came up with a bolder, more radical plan–a plan to defeat France outright. Hitler approved this latter plan over the resistance of most of his senior generals, which is why France fell.
1941: von Manstein’s corps advanced much faster than neighboring parts of the German Army; making it a target for Soviet counterattacks.
1942: in the Battle of Kerch Peninsula, forces under von Manstein’s command captured 170,000 Soviet prisoners, while losing only 8,000 Germans.
Third Battle of Karkov: after the fall of Stalingrad, the German front was in disarray. Von Manstein prevented its collapse by launching a brilliant series of unexpected counterattacks; and achieving a favorable exchange ratio in the process.
Battle of Kursk: von Manstein advised against the attack.
It was already established as a land war a looong time ago unless elephants were used as boats and swim to Italy.
@Imperious:
It was already established as a land war a looong time ago unless elephants were used as boats and swim to Italy.
Wow, I recall this topic getting very lengthy. Lol
@Imperious:
It was already established as a land war a looong time ago unless elephants were used as boats and swim to Italy.
In shallow waters Hannibal’s elephants, owing to their trunks, would have been analogous to tanks fitted with snorkel tubes (for air intake and engine exhaust) to allow the tank to ford a river while submerged (as was planned for the Maus, which was too heavy for most bridges). The Mediterranean is too deep to be forded that way, of course, but I guess Hannibal could have brought in his elephants on the Carthagenian equivalent of LSTs and then have allowed them to wade ashore on the final approach to the landing beaches like Duplex Drive Sherman amphibious tanks. :-D
Thank you for bringing back this thread KurtGodel.
I have enjoyed rereading parts.
Your thoughts on Manstein are pertinent and well made.
He was the man for the job and of the hour, undoubtably.
