Talk:Battle of Cannae
From Academic Kids
An event mentioned in this article is a August 2 selected anniversary
Your numbers need work. You mention the Roman army fielded 80,000 men at Cannae - which is generally seen as correct. How, then, did the Romans suffer between 70,000 and 80,000 casualties *and* have 16,000 survive to escape? 96,000 is a higher number than 80,000 in most numerical systems.
I have heard that the battle of Cannae had the greatest number killed in a battle in one day in all of history, more even than the first day of the Somme. Is this true? If so, this should be given a mention. Gingekerr 21:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Highly unlikely. In the ancient world perhaps, but my sources don't even make that claim. Stan 14:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would like to note that this page is inconsistent as to the number of casualties with the page Second Punic War. In particular, that page claims that less than a hundred Romans survived.
--Pmetzger 19:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Roman Forces
I think the number about Roman Forces should be revised. As far as I know, there are two versions on that:
1 - Romans had 2 "standard" Consular armies, each consisting of 2 legions, for a total of 4 legions.
2 - Romans had 2 "augmented" consular armies, each consisting of 4 legions, for a total of 8 legions.
This should set the Roman forces at 6000x4=24000 or 6000x8=48000 legionary infantry, plus the cavalry and auxiliary troops.
Moreover, during the early republic there were no legions formed entirely by Italic allies. Instead, every single legion was formed by approximately the same number of Roman and Allied men, organized in manipuli.
Roman Tactics
Like many people, I've always wondered how this battle came to be such a disaster. How do you surround a larger force with a smaller one? If Hannibal had his weakest troops in the centre, why weren't the Roman legionaries able to break through them like they did at Trebia and Trasimene?
Here's the only theory I can come up with.
Trasimene and Trebia were both heavy defeats for the Romans. It's just possible that in the recriminations that must have followed, someone blamed the legionaries who cut their way out for not staying to help their colleagues.
So maybe, when the Carthaginian centre began to collapse, it was actually someone in the van of the Roman army who gave the order to halt. With that huge depth of legionaries behind, some of whom were beginning to be pressed from the sides and behind, utter confusion would have been caused. The retreating Carthaginian centre would have seen their foes halted and in confusion, and would have counter-attacked.
At this point the entire Roman army would have been in panic, and it's possible that the majority of them were killed by crushing, not by Carthaginian weapons.
Just a theory...
Why can't some people just accept that on the day of battle the Carthaginians were better soldiers lead by Hannibal an ackowledged millitary genius of all times? The carthaginian Army was as much a mercenary army and more professional at that point than the Roman army which in the early early repblic was not a professional force. That made part of the difference. Now by the end of the second punic war those men who survived cannae, transimene etc were hardy veterans looking for revenge led by Scipio Africanus who was at least as good of a general as Hannibal. Hannibals army of carthaginans that he raised to conter Scipio (in the last battle of the Second punic war fought just outside Carthage) was mostly inexperenced.
Dont believe me here is a source. http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/army-carthage.htm
--68.164.231.3 20:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
very wrong info about the battles exxecution
To the above poster - this battle was the most people killed in one day UNDER THE COMMAND of one field general. so, patton for example, never kllled that many people in one day. ya know?
to the other above poster - The weak Gallic center did not break 1) because the Gauls were fierce warriors who wanted revenge for their own war with Rome and 2) because the Romans could not even swing their swords because they were being crushed together by the elite african phalanxes. Roman spearmen were usually in the rear of the army to deal with cavalry or for emergency situations... the romans in the front were short sword carriers and the roans couldn't break out of the sides because the punic infantry used phalanx discipline and romans were short swords probably couldnt even TOUCH them. Also keep in mind that Hannibal himself was behind the Gauls and his presence must have inspired the center to hold fast.
The dusty wind also blew in the Roman front line's direction with a strong gust - thus "Pushing" the gauls into the Romans and giving them an advantage on the field.
Now, the major inaccuracu in the article is that Hannibals cavalry only fought and won on Hannibal's left flank. the numidian light cavalry and the roman light cabalry were waiting around not doing much of anything. the spanish/gallic heavy cavalry won against the outnumbered romans, then charged across the back of the roman lines in a show of great discipline and rode towards the roman light cavalry. the roman light cavalry werer young pretty boy nobles, and when they saw the spears of the heavy cavalry instead of the lighter weapons of the numidian cavalry, they ran. in fact, the carthaginians pointed their spears upwards towards the roman youths' faces to scare them from potential scars.
