Cannae - Military Genius at work or Bumbling General at work?

[Toddy]

The Battle of Cannae in the summer of 216 BC is a milestone in Roman history.
It was Hannibal's finest hour and forced the Romans to learn a painful lesson.
The Roman legions were perhaps the finest military units of their day. Their methods of fighting, their training and their equipment were highly sophisticated and very effective.
But an army on its own, no matter how devastating, will not win battles. It stands or falls with its commander. The long line of brilliant Roman military leaders should largely arise from the lessons learnt against Hannibal.

CARTHAGE
Strength 56,000:
40,000 heavy infantry,
6,000 light infantry,
10,000 cavalry

ROMAN and ALLIED
86,400:
40,000 Roman infantry,
40,000 Allied infantry,
2,400 Roman cavalry,
4,000 Allied cavalryCasualties and losses

CARTHAGE
Killed:
8,000 (Livy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livy))
5,700 (Polybius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybius))
* 4,000 Gallic
* 1,500 Spanish and African
* 200 cavalry

ROMAN and ALLIED
Killed: (according to Livy)
45,500 Romans and allied infantry
2,700 Roman and allied cavalry
Captured:
3,000 Roman and allied infantry
1,500 Roman and allied cavalry


The historians I have heard talk on the subject always talk about the tactical brilliance of Hannibal in defeating a much superior Roman and Allied army, however surely the blame must rest squarely on the shoulders of the arrogance of the Roman generalship for getting their army into such a predicament.

Is this the singular most amazing victory of any era or the biggest blunder that would make Custer's last Stand look like a trip to Disney Land?

[ThatHistoryDude]

First and most importantly the manipular legion of the Punic Wars was a militia system of part time soldiers and was quite far removed from the professional soldiers of Caesar's Gallic Wars.

In general, for a militia system, the Roman legions of the era were remarkably well disciplined and even pretty well trained. This was largely due to the Roman character in general but also in part attributable to the fact that at this point in Rome's history at least some soldiers were basically full time. This allowed for a core of well experienced troops to help integrate the larger number of part timers that were mobilized at each campaign season.

Following the Battles of Ticincus, Trebia, and Lake Trasimene many of the full time soldiers and officers were killed or captured. For example the forces Tiberius Sem****ius Longus were the full time garrison troops stationed in Sicily and they were decimated at Trebia. This must have aided Hannibal in his battle at Cannae by making the Roman forces gathered there that much less effective.

Combine relatively inexperienced Roman troops with amateur leadership and you have a recipe for disaster. Especially when you consider the fact that most of Hannibal's troops were professional soldiers and he was no doubt a consummate general and you can see that the huge army Rome gathered for the 216 campaign season was probably doomed in a head on fight.

To directly answer your question I think most battles or campaigns that are as one sided as Hannibal's first years in Italy are usually the result of a combination of one side's ineptitude and another's competence.

[Toddy]

The thing I find absolutely amazing is that for the next 17 years (I think) the Romans avoided a pitched battle after the disaster at Cannae which severley depleted Hannibal's army both of morale and also of the mercenaries that fought with him (the defection of the Numidian cavalry must also have smarted somewhat to his pride).

All the time Rome grew stronger and Scipio Africanus decided to conduct the war on Carthaginian soil which eventually brought Hannibal home to a rather empahtic defeat. All in all some say that hannibal was the nightmare of Rome, probably more like the nightmare of Carthage as he woke what was essentially a sleeping dog in Rome.

Conflict would have been inevitable though.

[Chiptox]

The Romans also had two consuls alternating command each day which worked against them. Hannibal had his choice of field of battle and commander to face.

The Romans served him victory on a silver platter before the campaign even began and Hannibal, a great general, decimated them.

They should have listened to Fabius.

[ThatHistoryDude]

Especially important for Rome's victory and Hannibal's ultimate defeat was his long supply lines. Carthage was forced to try to support Hannibal by overland supply routes through Spain to Gaul to Italy. Because they could not control Sicily or the sea in general.

Once Scipio had locked down Spain; Hannibal's efforts to break up the Roman alliance system in Italy was doomed to failure.

[shadowsrider]

As I recall Napoleon said:
"Army of pigeons commanded by a lion will be better than an army of lions commanded by a pigeon".

[budgie]

It's really hard to call it for a battle that happened 2,200 years ago and was only really properly recorded by a historical propagandist 200 years after the fact (2,000 years ago). Who's right? Well luck is a factor in all campaigns as well...