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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page