Battle of Cannae - What Would You Do?

[JohnFKennedy]

Ok fellows, I am going to post a few of these, I am taking famous battles from history and either taking the losing side, or, if the winning side was vastly outnumbered them.

Please don't look up what actually happened. I will outline your resources, the terrain and then you have to say what you would do if you were controlling the army.

Will be interesting to see the tacticianal minds of the members.

Battle of Cannae - 216BC

In this battle, Hannibal and the Carthaginians defeated the Roman army who vastly outnumbered them by around 54 or so men to 45,000 men. Hannibal's army was a mixture of Gauls, Spaniards, Numidians and Carthaginians who were probably not of the same quality of soldier as the Roman Legionnaires.

You will play the part of Hannibal of Carthage, a man who rivalled Alexander the Great in his tactical and military ability.

Battle Site
The Battle was fought on the right bank of the Aufidus (modern Ofanto) River which is about six miles south of Canosa di Puglia.


Your Forces
35,000 Infantry
10,000 Cavalry

Infantry:
Light Slingers
Spearmen
Celtic Swordsmen
Spanish Swordsmen

Cavalry:
Celtic Heavy Cavalry
Spanish Heavy Cavalry
Numidian Light Cavalry.


Roman Forces
48,000 Infantry
6,000 Cavalry

Roman Set Up:

At the front in the centre the Romans have their velites placed here to cover their position.
Behind the Velites lies the main body of the Legions along with allied Italian Infantry on either side.
On the Roman right flank lies the Roman cavalry (roughly equal numbers to the Numidian Light Cavalry) and on their left flank (nearest the river) is the allied cavalry (outnumbered by Hannibal's Heavy Cavalry around 3:1.

You must position your forces in the way you think would best win the battle and give battle plans.

I will review what you do in accordance to what actually happened and see what would be a likely outcome so don't put at the end "I win" or something.

PLEASE DO NOT LOOK UP WHAT HANNIBAL ACTUALLY DID.

The Battle of Cannae is regarded as one of the greatest military victories in all of history and is still widely studied.

Hannibal was a fantastic General and was the best chance of crushing Rome, however he knew his limitations and did not try to take Rome itself even though he defeated their armies in the Second Punic Wars (which this Battle is part of) every time.

[KEmperor]

I already know what happened, so I'm not going to post the answer.  

[CARLHAYDEN]

Likewise.

I'm a fan of the late and great B.H.L. Hart.

Hannibal did as well as he did in large part because the Roman commanders (with the notable exception of Fabius) were disasters.  Think of a sucession of Ambrose Burnsides.

[The Duke]

I also know what happenned, so I won't post as Hannibal.  I WILL post as the roman general though, and see if you think I do better.

I have a defensive mindset in battle, so I'd likely not have attacked first.  I'd let Hannibal come to me.  I'd have lined up similarly to the way the Romans really did, it isi a sort of basic formation, what they did, and I have little problem with it.  My first move would be to rotate the field, by moving my army in a wide manuever to the left, taking position on the hills, and putting Hannibal's back to the River.  After that, whatever happens is contingent on Hannibal's decisions.

[CARLHAYDEN]

A generally good approach.

While the Carthaginians had a superiority in Cavalry (both quantative and qualatative) the Romans had the same superiority in infantry and qualatative superiority in engineering, logistics and artillery.

The central problem was to get Hannibal to fight in terrain that was not favorable to cavalry.

[© tweed]

Bribe them

[The Duke]

A generally good approach.

While the Carthaginians had a superiority in Cavalry (both quantative and qualatative) the Romans had the same superiority in infantry and qualatative superiority in engineering, logistics and artillery.

The central problem was to get Hannibal to fight in terrain that was not favorable to cavalry.

This is very true.  Thats why I'd try to lure him into the hills that sat to the east of where the fighting actually took place.

I agree with you also that the Romans had crummy commanders for the most part.

I think people put too much emphasis on maneuver and the like.  A lot of these battles get won by the side that can choose where the fight takes place.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Very true.

Strategic offense, tipped with tactical defense as a force multiplier.

The secret (where the enemy commander isn't a rash fool), is to select a location where the enemy cannot allow you to control the area for long.

Often this has been the case of attacking a critical junction in the foes supply line or a 'sacred' ground where he cannot allow his opponent to remain in control lest it undermine morale in his own force.  Lamentably, there were neither for Hannibal in Italy.

Interestingly enough, the French used a similiar tactic (to Hannibal's) in the French and Indian war against the Bristish, with similiar results.  The British commander was an arrogant fool.

[The Duke]

I can't wait for JFK to put up another one of these.

Supersoulty should check this thread out, he loves military history.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Don't forget StatesRights.

His posting on weapons of the Mexican-American war were quite good.

[Lunar]

Interestingly enough, the French used a similiar tactic (to Hannibal's) in the French and Indian war against the Bristish, with similiar results.  The British commander was an arrogant fool.

Good 'ole Braddock.  It works well with alliteration too, as the colonists discovered.  "Braddock's Blunder."

Since I don't know what happened, I'll take a stab:
I'd take advantage of the fact that my troops have their flank to the river.  This means that I have almost no danger of being flanked on that side.   I'll shift my calvary, which are my best troops, to my two flanks and forward a bit, leaving my center a bit behind my flanks.  Since my center is so weak, it will be the juicy target for the Romans to attack and my Calvary, which were previously on my own flanks would soon be on my opponents as they engage my infantry and weaker troops in the center.

If I have to go on the strong offensive, I'd try and take any high ground to the side or behind my opponent with my calvary.  

[CARLHAYDEN]

No fair cheating.

Since you are familiar with Bradock's imcompetence, I have little doubt you are familiar with the double envelopment, which is one of the most overstudied of military operations.  To make it work requires a stupid enemy commander (which Hannibal had).

[Lunar]

No, I know almost nothing about Hannibal beyond what I've read in this thread.  I actually don't know much of medieval miltitary tactics either, so my knowledge of the double envelopment in this period is fairly uninformed.

[CARLHAYDEN]

ok, my mistake.

Althought this shows how stupid the Roman commander was to fail to see this.

[JohnFKennedy]

No, I know almost nothing about Hannibal beyond what I've read in this thread.  I actually don't know much of medieval miltitary tactics either, so my knowledge of the double envelopment in this period is fairly uninformed.

It isn't medieval. It is classical history, 216BC is quite a bit before the middle ages heh.

Ford, I read your post, interesting idea. It may have worked although Hannibal most probably wouldn't have fought you on the hills as you laid out. Hannibal was a military tactician who knew his limitations, he would have somehow outmanoeuvered you I believe. If you look at his earlier ambush at Lake Trasimene. Hannibal would have only fought you in conditions that were ripe for him. Before the Battle of Cannae he had stocked up nicely on supplies from a Roman grain depot. He could have waited for your attack, I think it would take a military genius rivalling Hannibal to defeat him.

[The Duke]

Well, I'm not attacking first, because he has a funny looking formation, and I wouldn't be sure what to make of it.  He better attack me, or we're going to be staring each other down until the sun sets.  If he wants to live forever, thats fine, he doesn't have to fight.  But I am not going to get tricked into some Carthaginian ambush.

I figure the only way he can outmaneuver me is to get to the hills first.  But, if he heads for the hills, and I head for the hills, I still get to fight on favorable terrain.

From what I have studied about Hannnibal, my sense is that he is very good when something unfolds along the lines he expected.  The Roman commanders did exactly what he expected at Cannae, but at a battle like Zama, there was chaos and confusion, Hannibal had to deal with unpredictable things, and he lost.  I don't know how well he'd have dealt with having to change his whole position in response to me.  Maybe I underestimate him, though.

[Lunar]

Which side, the Roman or the Carthaginian, would be more impatient and thus fight worse after staring at your opponent for twenty hours?

[JohnFKennedy]

Which side, the Roman or the Carthaginian, would be more impatient and thus fight worse after staring at your opponent for twenty hours?

Tough one, both were some of the most disciplined armies ever seen, the discipline of the Carthaginians was shown here with the cavalry. However, the Romans were always disciplined. I think both sides could afford to wait it out probably.

[CARLHAYDEN]

In general I agree with you but don't believe it would take a genius to deal with Hannibal.

Hannibal's principle problem was that as he lost troops from his original forces, he had to try to replace them with less skilled recruits from Italian tribes (not very satisfactory).

Fabius recognized that Hannibal would not be drawn into a battleground that did not favor him, and instead Fabius used prudence and patience to wear down (the military term today is 'degrade') Hannibal's forces.

Unfortunately, the Senate and People of Rome  failed to see the sense in Fabius's methods.

[Ben.]

Know what happens, just say keep a reserve back and watch your flanks, particularly your right and that cavalry of yours… or allow them to attack you…  

[Gustaf]

This won't be a lot of fun for those of us who already know... I will make one of my own, plain and simple...

I guess I will just repeat the faint whisper of the dying Schlieffen: Keep the right flank strong...