The battle of Cannae
2 august 216 b.C.
Historical background
An impressive reconstruction of the Carthaginian arsenal. When thinking about ancient times, we often miss to figure out how these famous towns could be developed. This was an astonishing work of engineering. Not even a stone on a stone remains of Carthage. During the III century b.C. Rome and Carthago (latin: Carthago, Carthaginis; english: Carthage) struggled for domination over the Mediterranean sea, because of conflicts between their respective economical interests. The first Punic War was mainly fought on sea, and Rome won it. The second War, at the opposite, was a terrestrial one. Hannibal was the leader of the Punics. He wanted to bring the war in Italy, hoping to force the italic cities to rebel against Rome. That is why he moved from the punic territories in Iberia (Spain) and crossed the Alps with all his army. Once crossed the Alps, Hannibal defeated the Romans in three battles, that took him to the south of Italy. The Romans elected Quintus Fabius Maximus as a dictator, and he was able to keep the punics at bay with a "low profile" strategy, an ante litteram guerrilla. Unfortunately, in 216 b.C. Fabius Maximus went out of charge, leaving his place to two consules, Lucius Aemilius Paulus and Terentius Varro. Moved by personal pride and reciprocal envy, the two stubborn politicians decided to lead the army together, one day each! As a result the roman leadership would be schizophrenic and uneffective. In search of glory, they marched against Hannibal with 8 legions (4 romans and other 4 provided by the allied cities, as usual). The battle took plaace near the village of Cannae, in the south of Italy.
An impressive reconstruction of the Carthaginian arsenal. When thinking about ancient times, we often miss to figure out how these famous towns could be developed. This was an astonishing work of engineering.
Not even a stone on a stone remains of Carthage.
During the III century b.C. Rome and Carthago (latin: Carthago, Carthaginis; english: Carthage) struggled for domination over the Mediterranean sea, because of conflicts between their respective economical interests. The first Punic War was mainly fought on sea, and Rome won it. The second War, at the opposite, was a terrestrial one. Hannibal was the leader of the Punics. He wanted to bring the war in Italy, hoping to force the italic cities to rebel against Rome. That is why he moved from the punic territories in Iberia (Spain) and crossed the Alps with all his army. Once crossed the Alps, Hannibal defeated the Romans in three battles, that took him to the south of Italy.
The Romans elected Quintus Fabius Maximus as a dictator, and he was able to keep the punics at bay with a "low profile" strategy, an ante litteram guerrilla. Unfortunately, in 216 b.C. Fabius Maximus went out of charge, leaving his place to two consules, Lucius Aemilius Paulus and Terentius Varro.
Moved by personal pride and reciprocal envy, the two stubborn politicians decided to lead the army together, one day each! As a result the roman leadership would be schizophrenic and uneffective. In search of glory, they marched against Hannibal with 8 legions (4 romans and other 4 provided by the allied cities, as usual). The battle took plaace near the village of Cannae, in the south of Italy.
The two armies
Rome At those times, a legion was strong of 3.000 armored soldiers, and 1.200 velites, who only carried a small shield and some javelins. In addition, there were 300 horsemen. The allied legions were equal except they had a double number of horsemen, So the roman army was likely to amount to:
Carthage Hannibal lead a multi-ethnic army. There were Celts, Gauls, Iberians and miscellaneous north africans, while the cavalry was african and numidian. This numidian cavalry was particularly renowned. The total was:
1) Line-up
The armies were drawn up on the side of the river Aufidus (now Ofanto), near the village of Cannae, as shown in the picture. The romans had set their infantry in a single square formation, instead of three lines as usual, determined to crush the weaker punic infantry.
2) First horse defeat
The two armies moved against each other. The first contact occurred between the Roman and Hispanic cavalries. It was a harsh melee, difficult for them to maneuver, but finally the hispanics prevailed, and the roman horsemen were overridden.
3) Second horse defeat
Then the numidian cavalry and the Allied ones crashed together. The numidian horsemen prooved their bravery, and the romans were overridden. In the meantime, the infantries were in contact. The middle punic ranks were staggered by the roman legions. They backed for a while, and seemed to reach the point of override.
Then the numidian cavalry and the Allied ones crashed together. The numidian horsemen prooved their bravery, and the romans were overridden.
In the meantime, the infantries were in contact. The middle punic ranks were staggered by the roman legions. They backed for a while, and seemed to reach the point of override.
4) The slaughter
But both punic cavalries, instead of chasing the roman horsemen fleeing, turned back to charge the roman foot from behind. Surrounded, the infantrymen were doomed to a slaughter, and so it was. Aemilius Paulus was killed in the battle, as well as nearly 30.000 soldiers. Terentius Varro was able to escape.
And then?
Hannibal wasn't able to take the time and attack Rome. At the moment the city was defended by just one legion of classiarii (the roman marines). But Hannibal had suffered considerable losses (about 6.000 soldiers) and he expected the macedon king to join him. In the following years roman diplomacy managed to prevent the new ally from helping Hannibal, while the well known Fabius Maximus was elected dictator again and resumed his strategy of sappering and skirmishing to prevent Hannibal from marching onto Rome. For his skills, Fabius M. will be appealed as the cunctator (the temporizer). In the meantime Rome will recover its military strenght, and a new leader will rise: Publius Scipio, who will reverse the course of history...
Sun Tzu's corner - Strategic considerations
Romans... Purchase now the greatest masterpiece of strategy: Sun Tzu's The Art of War Buy it now at the world's biggest bookstore. As stated above the roman leadership was poor under many points of view. They were more in number, but had inferior cavalry, and an encirclement was likely... They could have reduced this risk by not fighting in open ground. More over the Punics were short of supply, and would have been soon forced to engage on a ground choosen by the Romans. At the opposite, Hannibal drew up his army scornfully, and the consules were fooled by their idiotic sense of honor. Romans could even just have waited while raising more troops. Anyway, time was on their side, but they didn't catch it. As a last chance, they could have used the river to protect their right side, while concentrating all the horsemen on the left. They could have fougth with a forest behind them, to allow a safe retreat... too many errors. Hannibal... showed a clever strategy, being able to take the romans on a battleground favourable to his cavalry. He put the Celts in the heat of battle, with a solid rank of Iberians behind them, to prevent them from fleeing when charged by the superior Roman ranks. In fact, the Celts suffered the major losses, but it was unavoidable to save the best African infantry for further prosecution of the war. More over, those expert soldiers were on the flanks, necessary to assure the encirclement of the Romans, a difficult maneuver that could not fail. There is a trick that, if really happened, would clearly display the genius of Hannibal.It is told that he ordered 500 Celts to conceal short swords under their clothes, and then pretend they were deserting. The Romans took their long swords and shields and passed them to the rear ranks (they couldn't do nothing more in the mayhem of battle). Then the Celts suddenly drew their hidden weapons and attacked the Romans, so causing even greater confusion while the legions were attacked from all sides. And again, it looks like a part of the numidian cavalry was partly hidden in some woods. The other numidians faked a flee, only to have the roman allied cavalry chase them and get counter-charged by the hidden numidians. Anyway, many legends rose after the battle of Cannae, and these two could be among them... There is just one thing Hannibal could have done better: the slaughter of the romans costed him 6.000 men, because the legionaries, even if surrounded and hopeless, fought to the last drop of strenght. He could have allowed them to surrender and take them as prisoners. He would win with his army untouched!
Romans... Purchase now the greatest masterpiece of strategy: Sun Tzu's The Art of War Buy it now at the world's biggest bookstore. As stated above the roman leadership was poor under many points of view. They were more in number, but had inferior cavalry, and an encirclement was likely... They could have reduced this risk by not fighting in open ground. More over the Punics were short of supply, and would have been soon forced to engage on a ground choosen by the Romans. At the opposite, Hannibal drew up his army scornfully, and the consules were fooled by their idiotic sense of honor. Romans could even just have waited while raising more troops. Anyway, time was on their side, but they didn't catch it. As a last chance, they could have used the river to protect their right side, while concentrating all the horsemen on the left. They could have fougth with a forest behind them, to allow a safe retreat... too many errors.
Hannibal... showed a clever strategy, being able to take the romans on a battleground favourable to his cavalry.
He put the Celts in the heat of battle, with a solid rank of Iberians behind them, to prevent them from fleeing when charged by the superior Roman ranks. In fact, the Celts suffered the major losses, but it was unavoidable to save the best African infantry for further prosecution of the war. More over, those expert soldiers were on the flanks, necessary to assure the encirclement of the Romans, a difficult maneuver that could not fail.
There is a trick that, if really happened, would clearly display the genius of Hannibal.It is told that he ordered 500 Celts to conceal short swords under their clothes, and then pretend they were deserting. The Romans took their long swords and shields and passed them to the rear ranks (they couldn't do nothing more in the mayhem of battle). Then the Celts suddenly drew their hidden weapons and attacked the Romans, so causing even greater confusion while the legions were attacked from all sides.
And again, it looks like a part of the numidian cavalry was partly hidden in some woods. The other numidians faked a flee, only to have the roman allied cavalry chase them and get counter-charged by the hidden numidians. Anyway, many legends rose after the battle of Cannae, and these two could be among them...
There is just one thing Hannibal could have done better: the slaughter of the romans costed him 6.000 men, because the legionaries, even if surrounded and hopeless, fought to the last drop of strenght. He could have allowed them to surrender and take them as prisoners. He would win with his army untouched!
Click here to order a book entirely dedicated to the Battle of Cannae
or try the search box below
Search: Books Popular Music Classical Music Video
Punic Wars Hannibal Carthago Rome Roman legion Enter keywords...