SoA Forums

History => Ancient and Medieval History => Weapons and Tactics => Topic started by: Justin Swanton on May 20, 2020, 08:01:11 AM

Title: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 20, 2020, 08:01:11 AM
I've noticed that whenever somebody has no idea why a formation or a tactic was effective they affirm it worked because it was 'flexible'. This cropped up in the documentary Hannibal, Rome's Worst Nightmare, where the great general lays out his battleplan to his commanders the night before the battle, showing them the bow-shaped infantry formation in the middle of his line and affirming it will be "strong yet flexible."

I doubt flexibility had much to do with why Hannibal deployed his Gauls and Spaniards in a bow (or perhaps wedge). So why did he do it? My working hypothesis is that he wanted to immediately engage the Roman cavalry with his own thus fixing them in place, and then suck the Roman infantry forwards by creating a line that would recoil before the Roman foot but not have to engage them all at once. Only the centre of his line, where his best troops are under his personal command, initially fight the Roman foot; the flanks of his line come into the fray later as the centre falls back.

This would achieve two things: draw out the infantry engagement and separate the Roman infantry from their cavalry, enabling Hannibal to make use of his superior number of horsemen to envelope the Roman cavalry. The Romans countered by dismounting against which the Carthaginians and Gauls dismounted themselves, creating a deeper line that overwhelmed the Romans and opened the way to surround the Roman foot.

This is the only way I can make sense of bow/wedge-shaped infantry line (which otherwise seems completely bizarre). Comments?

PS: I might have already posted a thread on this but can't remember.

Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Imperial Dave on May 20, 2020, 08:09:57 AM
the immediate question I have is how the centre units were able to fall back in order whilst fighting to the front especially against the Romans. Was it purely design and did Hannibal have complete trust in the discipline of his own infantry to be able to pull this off or was there a luck element in it?
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 20, 2020, 08:21:01 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 20, 2020, 08:09:57 AM
the immediate question I have is how the centre units were able to fall back in order whilst fighting to the front especially against the Romans. Was it purely design and did Hannibal have complete trust in the discipline of his own infantry to be able to pull this off or was there a luck element in it?

My reading of the sources tells me that trained infantry could fall back hundreds of yards without a problem - e.g. the Macedonian pikemen at Sellasia, Philip's pikemen at Chaeronea. I side with Patrick on the notion that by Cannae Hannibal's Spaniards and Gauls were in fact trained heavy infantry and not wild and woolly warband. If he told them ahead of time they must yield ground as part of the plan they would have done it without a problem.
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Imperial Dave on May 20, 2020, 08:27:17 AM
I agree that they were well trained by Cannae by all accounts. If the plan was to retreat in order before commencing the battle and thus completed during the battle, it surely has to rank as one of the tactical manoeuvres of all time. 
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Duncan Head on May 20, 2020, 08:33:35 AM
When I saw the thread title I thought for a moment you were about to reveal the untold story of archery at Cannae.
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 20, 2020, 08:48:31 AM
Thinking about it, the Roman deployment at Cannae was actually quite smart if one makes the assumption that Numidian LH always operated independently of Carthaginian/Spanish/Gallic medium cavalry. That assumption seems fairly safe as the Numidians were invariably deployed as a separate wing in all of Hannibal's battles, implying that they operated in a fashion fundamentally different to medium cavalry and hence couldn't be cobbled together with them.

At Cannae Hannibal had 4000 Numidian LH and 2000 Spanish, 4000 Gallic and 450 Carthaginian medium cav. Rome had 6400 medium cavalry. Rome would assume that the Carthaginians would deploy their Numidians on one flank and their medium cav on the other. So 4000 LH on one flank and 6450 medium cav on the other. Rome had 4800 Italian cavalry and 1600 Roman cavalry. Deploying 4800 on one flank and 1600 on the other, with the 1600 occupying a narrow space between the Roman infantry and the river ensured that the Roman cav would not be heavily outnumbered on either flank: either Hannibal's 4000 Numidians or his 6450 medium cav would confront the 4800 Italan cav on the open flank, whilst the 1600 Roman cav on the closed flank could handle any number of enemy cav since depth was of no use in mounted engagements. A good plan.
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 20, 2020, 08:49:00 AM
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 20, 2020, 08:33:35 AM
When I saw the thread title I thought for a moment you were about to reveal the untold story of archery at Cannae.

That comes later...
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Erpingham on May 20, 2020, 10:44:41 AM
Republican Romans are something I've learned about largely by accident (i.e. by watching Patrick argue with everyone else) but I would have some questions of "the bow".  It is often shown in text books as a smooth arc or lens.  Is this supported by the sources?  making a smooth lens would be a serious piece of drill and deployment, yet the people who did it are supposed to be barbarians.  Or are we just seeing a deployment where the flanks of the centre are refused? 

Then we have the withdrawal part.  What does this tell us about the fight?  We know in other battles of the Republic, barbarians could fight fiercely, become worn out and fall back in a defensive formation.  Is Hannibal exploiting that here?   Does the fact that the Carthaginian centre can fall back tell us anything about the intensity of fighting?  If the entire Roman front executed a "chuck and charge", would a withdrawal be possible?  Or are the Romans more in "ebb and flow" mode, at least to begin with, perhaps commiting more as the enemy centre seems to be giving way?

Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Nick Harbud on May 20, 2020, 10:48:44 AM
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 20, 2020, 08:33:35 AM
When I saw the thread title I thought for a moment you were about to reveal the untold story of archery at Cannae.

...or 'How to do Creçy during the 2nd Punic War'    ;)
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: RichT on May 20, 2020, 10:55:43 AM
OK I'll bite.

Justin
Quote
So why did he do it? My working hypothesis is that he wanted to immediately engage the Roman cavalry with his own thus fixing them in place, and then suck the Roman infantry forwards by creating a line that would recoil before the Roman foot but not have to engage them all at once. Only the centre of his line, where his best troops are under his personal command, initially fight the Roman foot; the flanks of his line come into the fray later as the centre falls back.

First of all I don't think that 'bow' is the ideal word - it causes the confusion with archery (which was my first thought too). 'Wedge' is worse. Polybius uses 'menoeides', usually translated 'crescent' or 'crescent-shaped', so best stick to that.

Then, your working hypothesis seems OK, as after all it is broadly what Polybius says (except for the stuff about cavalry, which I'll return to). We can't know what was in Hannibal's mind, and neither did Polybius, but Polybius probably had a better chance than us of guessing, or of hearing something close to the truth from others, so the best bet seems to be to follow what he says, which is:

"his object [in forming the crescent] being to have his Libyans as a reserve in the battle, and to commence the action with his Iberians and Celts" (Pol.3.113.9)

"Thus it came about, as Hannibal had planned, that the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of Libyans — thanks to their impetuous pursuit of the Celts." (Pol.3.115.11)

So the point of the formation was that the Romans would fight the Celts and Iberians first, and would be outflanked by the previously unengaged Libyans. Of course there are all sorts of practical difficulties and 'whats' and 'whys' and 'hang on a minutes' around all this, which we have probably all been over many times - but the basic plan, as Polybius understands it, was this.

Cavalry - I don't see any relevance of the infantry formation to the cavalry. The cavalry will do their own thing on the flanks, and Carthaginian cavalry superiority was no doubt always part of Hannibal's plan, but the crescent shaped infantry formation doesn't seem to contribuute to it at all.

Controlled withdrawal of the trained and disciplined Celts and Iberians - perhaps, but it's not what Polybius describes:

"For a short time the Iberian and Celtic lines stood their ground and fought gallantly; but; presently overpowered by the weight of the heavy-armed lines, they gave way and retired to the rear, thus breaking up the crescent. The Roman maniples followed with spirit, and easily cut their way through the enemy's line; since the Celts had been drawn up in a thin line, while the Romans had closed up from the wings towards the centre and the point of danger. For the two wings did not come into action at the same time as the centre: but the centre was first engaged, because the Gauls, having been stationed on the arc of the crescent, had come into contact with the enemy long before the wings, the convex of the crescent being towards the enemy." Pol. 3.115.5-6

This doesn't sound like a controlled withdrawal but a defeat, as the heavy Celtic losses would indicate:

"On the side of Hannibal there fell four thousand Celts, fifteen hundred Iberians and Libyans, and about two hundred horse." Pol.3.117.6

So it appears that Hannibal's plan (or at least the way things worked out, which he could later claim was his plan) was to advance the Celts and Iberians to engage the Romans first; when they were defeated the Romans in pursuit would close up toward the centre, where the fighting was, and advance between the flanking Libyan forces; then the Libyans would take the Romans in the flank, assisted by the cavalry which had in the meantime won their battle against inferior Roman opposition.

It appears that this plan could only work if the Romans did what they did, which is form up deeper than usual, with smaller gaps between maniples than usual, and then close further toward the centre as they pursued the Celts (and Iberians), all of which seem to be things it would have difficult for Hannibal to foresee. But that is just one the many mysteries about Cannae.
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: RichT on May 20, 2020, 11:26:30 AM
Anthony:
Quote
Republican Romans are something I've learned about largely by accident (i.e. by watching Patrick argue with everyone else) but I would have some questions of "the bow".  It is often shown in text books as a smooth arc or lens.  Is this supported by the sources?  making a smooth lens would be a serious piece of drill and deployment, yet the people who did it are supposed to be barbarians.  Or are we just seeing a deployment where the flanks of the centre are refused?

That is indeed the question. The neat little battle diagrams that wargamers and those of a wargamery disposition always draw show a lovely curve, like a young moon, of Celts/Iberians, flanked by two columns of Libyans, and probably bear as little relation to what really happened as these things generally do.

Here's what Polybius says:

"Having now got them all into line he advanced with the central companies [tagmata] of the Iberians and Celts; and so arranged the other companies next these in regular gradations, that the whole line became crescent-shaped, diminishing in depth towards its extremities: his object being to have his Libyans as a reserve in the battle, and to commence the action with his Iberians and Celts." Pol 3.113.7-9

This is Shuckburgh's translation, or if you prefer Paton:

"After thus drawing up his whole army in a straight line, he took the central companies of the Spaniards and Celts and advanced with them, keeping rest of them in contact with these companies, but gradually falling off, so as to produce a crescent-shaped formation, the line of the flanking companies growing thinner as it was prolonged, his object being to employ the Africans as a reserve force and to begin the action with the Spaniards and Celts."

Which is clear enough - advancing tagmata by varied amounts to produce a crescent (on the grand scale), which would have (on the smaller scale) have been formed from stepped units, so not a smooth curve (Peter Connolly illustrates this well IIRC).

The problem is with "diminishing in depth towards its extremities" which doesn't make sense if the crescent is formed of stepped units (which would have been facing forward, and have had the same frontage, and therefore depth, as if they were in a standard line). So something is amiss with the formation, or with Polybius' understanding of the formation, or with our understanding of Polybius (or all three).
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 20, 2020, 12:36:11 PM
Quote from: RichT on May 20, 2020, 10:55:43 AM
OK I'll bite.

Justin
Quote
So why did he do it? My working hypothesis is that he wanted to immediately engage the Roman cavalry with his own thus fixing them in place, and then suck the Roman infantry forwards by creating a line that would recoil before the Roman foot but not have to engage them all at once. Only the centre of his line, where his best troops are under his personal command, initially fight the Roman foot; the flanks of his line come into the fray later as the centre falls back.

First of all I don't think that 'bow' is the ideal word - it causes the confusion with archery (which was my first thought too). 'Wedge' is worse. Polybius uses 'menoeides', usually translated 'crescent' or 'crescent-shaped', so best stick to that.

Fair enough.

Quote from: RichT on May 20, 2020, 10:55:43 AMThen, your working hypothesis seems OK, as after all it is broadly what Polybius says (except for the stuff about cavalry, which I'll return to). We can't know what was in Hannibal's mind, and neither did Polybius, but Polybius probably had a better chance than us of guessing, or of hearing something close to the truth from others, so the best bet seems to be to follow what he says, which is:

"his object [in forming the crescent] being to have his Libyans as a reserve in the battle, and to commence the action with his Iberians and Celts" (Pol.3.113.9)

Makes sense to an extent. The Libyans weren't just a reserve in the sense of a second line ready to buff up / take over from the first line, but were divided into two contingents that outflanked the Roman line. But if they were deployed just behind the crescent, then they wouldn't have to fall back with the retreating front crescent as the flanks of that cresecent didn't move since they hadn't yet engaged the Romans. So the Libyans were free to commence their outflanking manoeuvre when Hannibal judged the time right.

Quote from: RichT on May 20, 2020, 10:55:43 AM"Thus it came about, as Hannibal had planned, that the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of Libyans — thanks to their impetuous pursuit of the Celts." (Pol.3.115.11)[/color]

So the point of the formation was that the Romans would fight the Celts and Iberians first, and would be outflanked by the previously unengaged Libyans. Of course there are all sorts of practical difficulties and 'whats' and 'whys' and 'hang on a minutes' around all this, which we have probably all been over many times - but the basic plan, as Polybius understands it, was this.

Fine.

Quote from: RichT on May 20, 2020, 10:55:43 AMCavalry - I don't see any relevance of the infantry formation to the cavalry. The cavalry will do their own thing on the flanks, and Carthaginian cavalry superiority was no doubt always part of Hannibal's plan, but the crescent shaped infantry formation doesn't seem to contribuute to it at all.

I'm musing on the fly, but the question does arise about the Roman cavalry deployment. Unlike infantry, cavalry don't get any advantage from depth, and the Roman left flank cavalry wing of 1600 horse could have kept any amount of enemy cavalry at bay provided its flanks were secured by the river and the Roman infantry. Once the infantry advanced that was no longer the case. I argue that Hannibal intended it that way which was one reason at least for using a crescent - it would encourage a Roman advance in the centre.

Quote from: RichT on May 20, 2020, 10:55:43 AMControlled withdrawal of the trained and disciplined Celts and Iberians - perhaps, but it's not what Polybius describes:

"For a short time the Iberian and Celtic lines stood their ground and fought gallantly; but; presently overpowered by the weight of the heavy-armed lines, they gave way and retired to the rear, thus breaking up the crescent. The Roman maniples followed with spirit, and easily cut their way through the enemy's line; since the Celts had been drawn up in a thin line, while the Romans had closed up from the wings towards the centre and the point of danger. For the two wings did not come into action at the same time as the centre: but the centre was first engaged, because the Gauls, having been stationed on the arc of the crescent, had come into contact with the enemy long before the wings, the convex of the crescent being towards the enemy." Pol. 3.115.5-6

This doesn't sound like a controlled withdrawal but a defeat, as the heavy Celtic losses would indicate:

"On the side of Hannibal there fell four thousand Celts, fifteen hundred Iberians and Libyans, and about two hundred horse." Pol.3.117.6

So it appears that Hannibal's plan (or at least the way things worked out, which he could later claim was his plan) was to advance the Celts and Iberians to engage the Romans first; when they were defeated the Romans in pursuit would close up toward the centre, where the fighting was, and advance between the flanking Libyan forces; then the Libyans would take the Romans in the flank, assisted by the cavalry which had in the meantime won their battle against inferior Roman opposition.

It appears that this plan could only work if the Romans did what they did, which is form up deeper than usual, with smaller gaps between maniples than usual, and then close further toward the centre as they pursued the Celts (and Iberians), all of which seem to be things it would have difficult for Hannibal to foresee. But that is just one the many mysteries about Cannae.

There is a real problem with Polybius' passage, in that taken at face value it makes it inevitable that the Roman foot would have escaped the trap by bursting through the Carthaginian centre - just as they had done at the Trebia. Hannibal had not forgotten the Trebia and neither had the Romans. How did the Roman infantry get boxed in?

Polybius states that the Spanish and Gauls were organised into alternating speira. This implies there were as many Spanish as Gauls, but this wasn't the case. I'm doing this at work so don't have all the sources in front of me but the Wikipedia article on the battle affirms there were 8,000 Spanish and 16,000 Gauls. If 8,000 Gauls shared the crescent with the Spanish, where were the rest? My take is that there must have been a second line of Gauls behind the crescent, which acted as a classical relief line a la Romain. When the Spanish/Gauls "gave way and retired to the rear" they retired to rear of what? Retiring to the rear doesn't sound like breaking and running; it sounds more like falling back behind some reserves.

Putting it all together, Polybius gives a picture of Hannibal using the natural impetuosity of the Gauls and Spanish to convince the Romans that this was a classic barbarian bash, and that when they fell back - a planned fall-back - the Roman infantry would believe they had won the battle and advance against them, which is exactly what Hannibal wanted.

I'm inclined to think that part of the Libyans were in the second reserve line and part formed the outflanking contingents, which would better suit what Polybius says about them.
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Jim Webster on May 20, 2020, 12:57:08 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 20, 2020, 08:33:35 AM
When I saw the thread title I thought for a moment you were about to reveal the untold story of archery at Cannae.

thank the lord it wasn't just me  :-[
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Jim Webster on May 20, 2020, 01:02:51 PM
Seriously are we looking at it from the wrong side.

I have no problem with the Carthaginian army, including Spanish and Gauls, being decent regular heavy infantry who'd been constantly under arms for well over a year

The Romans on the other hand?

How about the Romans were a pretty poorly trained and motivated militia, a lot of whom had no combat experience, which is why their commanders decided to keep them in deep columns and just send them forwards.
Hannibal knew enough about the quality of the army that he faced to know that if he pinned them, they were probably competent to roll forward but would probably be a nightmare to stop and even worse to turn or expand

When we had the discussion about Cannae on the DBMM list I suggested that rather with creating Gauls as Regular auxiliaries you ought to start with legionaries being Horde superior

And no, I'm not bitter ;)
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm....CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 20, 2020, 01:12:39 PM
Quote from: RichT on May 20, 2020, 11:26:30 AM
Anthony:
Quote
Republican Romans are something I've learned about largely by accident (i.e. by watching Patrick argue with everyone else) but I would have some questions of "the bow".  It is often shown in text books as a smooth arc or lens.  Is this supported by the sources?  making a smooth lens would be a serious piece of drill and deployment, yet the people who did it are supposed to be barbarians.  Or are we just seeing a deployment where the flanks of the centre are refused?

That is indeed the question. The neat little battle diagrams that wargamers and those of a wargamery disposition always draw show a lovely curve, like a young moon, of Celts/Iberians, flanked by two columns of Libyans, and probably bear as little relation to what really happened as these things generally do.

Here's what Polybius says:

"Having now got them all into line he advanced with the central companies [tagmata] of the Iberians and Celts; and so arranged the other companies next these in regular gradations, that the whole line became crescent-shaped, diminishing in depth towards its extremities: his object being to have his Libyans as a reserve in the battle, and to commence the action with his Iberians and Celts." Pol 3.113.7-9

This is Shuckburgh's translation, or if you prefer Paton:

"After thus drawing up his whole army in a straight line, he took the central companies of the Spaniards and Celts and advanced with them, keeping rest of them in contact with these companies, but gradually falling off, so as to produce a crescent-shaped formation, the line of the flanking companies growing thinner as it was prolonged, his object being to employ the Africans as a reserve force and to begin the action with the Spaniards and Celts."

Which is clear enough - advancing tagmata by varied amounts to produce a crescent (on the grand scale), which would have (on the smaller scale) have been formed from stepped units, so not a smooth curve (Peter Connolly illustrates this well IIRC).

The problem is with "diminishing in depth towards its extremities" which doesn't make sense if the crescent is formed of stepped units (which would have been facing forward, and have had the same frontage, and therefore depth, as if they were in a standard line). So something is amiss with the formation, or with Polybius' understanding of the formation, or with our understanding of Polybius (or all three).

"Diminishing in depth towards its extremities" actually makes perfect sense if the centre of the crescent is expected to fight for longer than its wings since the centre is in contact with the Romans for longer and hence needs deeper speira to better weather the fighting. It would be stepped speira as you say, not a true curved crescent.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Erpingham on May 20, 2020, 01:35:03 PM
I think Jim has a good point.  This goes back to our "D" class infantry discussion.  If we take stereotypical Romans and stereotypical Gauls then we are doing it wrong.  These are raw Romans and veteran Gauls. The gauls are quite well controlled and cohesive, the Romans struggle with anything but the basics.  How differently the Gauls fought to their tribal traditions is probably moot - we know that wild charging, big sword swinging, easily knackered barbarians weren't the whole story.  But certainly playing about with the usual list descriptions of troops in this battle may make it easier to refight.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Prufrock on May 20, 2020, 01:40:52 PM
Cannae is one of those battles that you read about so much that you almost absorb it by osmosis. That familiarity notwithstanding, it does seem to be relatively straightforward, especially when you take into account the fact that in the previous two large-scale clashes between Hannibal and Rome a portion of the Roman heavy infantry had managed to break through and make good its escape.

This time around Hannibal didn't want that to happen again, so he devised a plan which would draw the Roman infantry forward in such a way as to crowd them together, allow him to fall on their flanks with his best troops, and give himself the best chance of inflicting maximum damage and casualties.

I quite like Delbruck's account of it, actually.
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Imperial Dave on May 20, 2020, 01:44:50 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 20, 2020, 01:02:51 PM
Seriously are we looking at it from the wrong side.

I have no problem with the Carthaginian army, including Spanish and Gauls, being decent regular heavy infantry who'd been constantly under arms for well over a year

The Romans on the other hand?

How about the Romans were a pretty poorly trained and motivated militia, a lot of whom had no combat experience, which is why their commanders decided to keep them in deep columns and just send them forwards.
Hannibal knew enough about the quality of the army that he faced to know that if he pinned them, they were probably competent to roll forward but would probably be a nightmare to stop and even worse to turn or expand

When we had the discussion about Cannae on the DBMM list I suggested that rather with creating Gauls as Regular auxiliaries you ought to start with legionaries being Horde superior

And no, I'm not bitter ;)

a good point re the Roman infantry Jim and one I had not considered previously. If the Roman infantry was made up of mainly newly raised troops this could help explain Hannibal's thinking or at least the outcome of the formations when they clash
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Mark G on May 20, 2020, 01:51:10 PM
I'm still trying to understand why everyone views the Numidians as incapable of fighting like heavy cavalry.

They seem to do it a lot, and be placed where heavy cavalry would be placed a lot, almost as often as they are used for light cavalry duties when they are not in North Africa.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 20, 2020, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 20, 2020, 01:35:03 PM
I think Jim has a good point.  This goes back to our "D" class infantry discussion.  If we take stereotypical Romans and stereotypical Gauls then we are doing it wrong.  These are raw Romans and veteran Gauls. The gauls are quite well controlled and cohesive, the Romans struggle with anything but the basics.  How differently the Gauls fought to their tribal traditions is probably moot - we know that wild charging, big sword swinging, easily knackered barbarians weren't the whole story.  But certainly playing about with the usual list descriptions of troops in this battle may make it easier to refight.

I would posit that Roman infantry - unlike phalangites - didn't need much training. Working on the legion deploying in continuous open-order lines and not compact maniples with maniple-wide gaps means that all a recruit had to learn was a) how to form a file, b) how to deploy in open order (this actually is not necessary if the velites' files are intercalced with those of the heavy foot - when the velites advance to skirmish the heavy foot are left in open order), and c) how to double from open to intermediate order, a simple process.

And we are back to line relief but what can I do?
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 20, 2020, 01:57:10 PM
Quote from: Mark G on May 20, 2020, 01:51:10 PM
I'm still trying to understand why everyone views the Numidians as incapable of fighting like heavy cavalry.

They seem to do it a lot, and be placed where heavy cavalry would be placed a lot, almost as often as they are used for light cavalry duties when they are not in North Africa.

It's just that they were never mixed with medium cavalry types that themselves were combined without a problem. This suggests, not that they couldn't fight heavier cavalry (they kept the Roman right flank cavalry guard at bay) but that they didn't fight in the same way as medium cav.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Erpingham on May 20, 2020, 02:19:56 PM
QuoteI would posit that Roman infantry - unlike phalangites - didn't need much training.

Even if this were so (I hear the shade of Vegetius wailing), it just means that the best they can hope for is the basics.  Perhaps more critical is their lack of combat experience vis-a-vis Hannibal's army.  If troops have neither been trained how to perform nor experienced action, they are doubly disadvantaged.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Mark G on May 20, 2020, 02:24:35 PM
To me it suggests they were deployed in sufficient numbers to not need anyone else
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 20, 2020, 02:27:05 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 20, 2020, 02:19:56 PM
QuoteI would posit that Roman infantry - unlike phalangites - didn't need much training.

Even if this were so (I hear the shade of Vegetius wailing), it just means that the best they can hope for is the basics.  Perhaps more critical is their lack of combat experience vis-a-vis Hannibal's army.  If troops have neither been trained how to perform nor experienced action, they are doubly disadvantaged.

Sure, I mean training in executing manoeuvres. Once they formed up in a triplex acies that was it - they advanced, executed line relief if necessary, and did nothing else. The point is that line relief - the essential item in a legionary's repertoire - was a simple manoeuvre to learn. And most of the time it was all that was necessary.

It was only veterans like Scipio's troops that could do the fancy stuff as at Ilipa and Zama (and Flaminius' troops at Cynoscephalae). The legions at Cannae were about as trained in formation and manoeuvring as citizen hoplites. They seem to have fought well enough though.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: nikgaukroger on May 20, 2020, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 20, 2020, 02:19:56 PM
QuoteI would posit that Roman infantry - unlike phalangites - didn't need much training.

Even if this were so (I hear the shade of Vegetius wailing), it just means that the best they can hope for is the basics.  Perhaps more critical is their lack of combat experience vis-a-vis Hannibal's army.  If troops have neither been trained how to perform nor experienced action, they are doubly disadvantaged.

Yeah, I think the statement is way to generalised and somewhat putting the cart before the horse in terms of what was possible.

At Cannae the legionarii were very raw so it would have been very foolish to try anything even slightly sophisticated with them (and the Romans did not try) - and the same would apply to any other troops as raw. If they were more experienced you can be more sophisticated as, say, Scipio demonstrates. The Romans in general seem to have been quite keen on significant training of troops before combat - its a bit later time but look at the way Caesar kept his newer legions away from combat to begin with.

Given how the Romans approached this battle I wonder if they even tried to use their normal legionarii tactics in any way, shape or form or just went for a very deep sledgehammer with zero subtlety (which I think is what is suggested) - and in a refight you wouldn't classify them in the way you might normally.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: RichT on May 20, 2020, 03:28:11 PM
The idea that the Celts (and Iberians) necessarily were still in place (or that a second line of them was still in place) is obviously appealing (else why didn't the Romans just escape?) but it isn't what Polybius says:

"For a short time the Iberian and Celtic lines stood their ground and fought gallantly; but presently overpowered by the weight of the heavy-armed lines, they gave way and retired to the rear, thus breaking up the crescent. The Roman maniples followed with spirit, and easily cut their way through the enemy's line ... The Romans, however, going in pursuit of these troops, and hastily closing in towards the centre and the part of the enemy which was giving ground, advanced so far, that the Libyan heavy-armed troops on either wing got on their flanks ...  Thus it came about, as Hannibal had planned, that the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of Libyans — thanks to their impetuous pursuit of the Celts. Still they fought, though no longer in line, yet singly, or in maniples, which faced about to meet those who charged them on the flanks ... [Hasdrubal] hastened to the part of the field where the infantry were engaged, and brought his men up to support the Libyans. Then, by charging the Roman legions on the rear, and harassing them by hurling squadron after squadron upon them at many points at once, he raised the spirits of the Libyans, and dismayed and depressed those of the Romans."

All of which, strictly speaking, suggests that the Celts/Iberians weren't a factor at this point and the victory was down to the Libyans and the cavalry. The Celts/Iberians might have rallied once the Libyans attacked - but Polybius doesn't say so. Why didn't more Romans escape as they had at Trebia? I'd rather just accept that we don't know than make up an explanation (but I expect it has to do with the events on a real battlefield being more complex and chaotic than a few hundred word account, or a diagram, or a wargame, make them seem).

Roman quality - absolutely, I think they should rate as very low quality, a hastily levied militia, with little more in their favour than innate Roman bloodlust (to indulge a stereotype).

'Roman line relief' - if it consists of both a fighting withdrawal in the face of the enemy, and a simultaneous passage of lines - would be one of the most difficult, complicated and dangerous manoeuvres in military history, and I'm sure would be beyond a completely untrained militia (I don't know if the Romans at Cannae were completely untrained). I suspect therefore that the Romans didn't attempt their usual manoeuvres, and this is why they formed unusually deep (the usual procedure for poor quality infantry), and with smaller than usual gaps between maniples (which suggests they weren't planning any line relief).

I don't believe Hannibal could have foreseen exactly how the Romans would act, least of all the further closing in toward the centre, and may have intended his African infantry to defeat the Roman flanks, then envelop, and that the Roman bunching to the centre was an added bonus. I'm also not convinced by the common depiction of the Libyans in column, not least because I can't find anything in Polybius to suggest that they were.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Jim Webster on May 20, 2020, 03:29:47 PM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on May 20, 2020, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 20, 2020, 02:19:56 PM
QuoteI would posit that Roman infantry - unlike phalangites - didn't need much training.

Even if this were so (I hear the shade of Vegetius wailing), it just means that the best they can hope for is the basics.  Perhaps more critical is their lack of combat experience vis-a-vis Hannibal's army.  If troops have neither been trained how to perform nor experienced action, they are doubly disadvantaged.

Yeah, I think the statement is way to generalised and somewhat putting the cart before the horse in terms of what was possible.

At Cannae the legionarii were very raw so it would have been very foolish to try anything even slightly sophisticated with them (and the Romans did not try) - and the same would apply to any other troops as raw. If they were more experienced you can be more sophisticated as, say, Scipio demonstrates. The Romans in general seem to have been quite keen on significant training of troops before combat - its a bit later time but look at the way Caesar kept his newer legions away from combat to begin with.

Given how the Romans approached this battle I wonder if they even tried to use their normal legionarii tactics in any way, shape or form or just went for a very deep sledgehammer with zero subtlety (which I think is what is suggested) - and in a refight you wouldn't classify them in the way you might normally.

Just to add that hastily trained phalanxes (That of Mithridates and also, from memory, the Achaeans,) actually fought well and took experienced legionaries to beat them.
So I'm not sure it is a road we can usefully go down
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Andreas Johansson on May 20, 2020, 03:30:03 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 20, 2020, 08:48:31 AM
depth was of no use in mounted engagements.

This clearly can't be quite true, or multi-rank formations wouldn't be standard throughout history.
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Imperial Dave on May 20, 2020, 07:18:46 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on May 20, 2020, 03:30:03 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 20, 2020, 08:48:31 AM
depth was of no use in mounted engagements.

This clearly can't be quite true, or multi-rank formations wouldn't be standard throughout history.

although here I think we have to clarify whether we means multi-ranks to give relief/support or 'othismos' type momentum
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Andreas Johansson on May 20, 2020, 07:51:05 PM
Quote from: Holly on May 20, 2020, 07:18:46 PM
although here I think we have to clarify whether we means multi-ranks to give relief/support or 'othismos' type momentum
You give me little choice but to invoke the Strategicon again ...

As we've discussed in various O-word threads, Maurice notes that unlike infantry, rear-rank cavalrymen cannot push on the ranks in front. Nevertheless, he insists that cavalry needs to be at least five ranks deep - albeit noting that in the good old days when men were real men and goats were nervous, four was enough - and that weaker units need more ranks, up to ten.

He also insists that it be employed in multiple lines, at least two and preferably three, so he sees utility in total depths of up to thirty ranks.

(Even greater line depths have been advocated by others; Nicephorus Phocas would have his cataphracts - who were surely not in any sense weak troops - twelve deep, and in the Northern Seven Years War Swedish regulations called for cavalry to be no less than fifteen deep, irrespective of quality.)

As for the purpose of the depth, the 2nd to 4th ranks can, Maurice implies, reach the enemy with their lances, as well as shoot effectively. This, of course, may not be very relevant to Cannae, where cavalry had no bows, and, I believe, rather shorter spears than what Maurice is implying (a lance that can reach past three ranks of horses is pretty damn long!). The later ranks, he makes it sound like, are mostly there to have somewhere to put men who are not up to fighting at the front. This is presumably not the whole story - if it were, why bring these guys along at all?
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: RichT on May 20, 2020, 08:40:28 PM
Indeed and this could all lead into a 'purpose of depth' discussion which would sail ominously close to the 'O' word. Bottom line is that although we don't really know why depth was useful for all sorts of forces that definitely didn't physically shove their comrades, such as cavalry, the fact is that it was, and cavalry formed deep because there was some advantage in doing so.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Imperial Dave on May 20, 2020, 10:13:46 PM
absolutely and only mentioned the O word for clarity that we weren't talking about massed ranks of cavalry only ranks of cavalry supporting each other in some other way  :)
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 21, 2020, 06:39:54 AM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on May 20, 2020, 07:51:05 PM
Quote from: Holly on May 20, 2020, 07:18:46 PM
although here I think we have to clarify whether we means multi-ranks to give relief/support or 'othismos' type momentum
You give me little choice but to invoke the Strategicon again ...

As we've discussed in various O-word threads, Maurice notes that unlike infantry, rear-rank cavalrymen cannot push on the ranks in front. Nevertheless, he insists that cavalry needs to be at least five ranks deep - albeit noting that in the good old days when men were real men and goats were nervous, four was enough - and that weaker units need more ranks, up to ten.

He also insists that it be employed in multiple lines, at least two and preferably three, so he sees utility in total depths of up to thirty ranks.

(Even greater line depths have been advocated by others; Nicephorus Phocas would have his cataphracts - who were surely not in any sense weak troops - twelve deep, and in the Northern Seven Years War Swedish regulations called for cavalry to be no less than fifteen deep, irrespective of quality.)

As for the purpose of the depth, the 2nd to 4th ranks can, Maurice implies, reach the enemy with their lances, as well as shoot effectively. This, of course, may not be very relevant to Cannae, where cavalry had no bows, and, I believe, rather shorter spears than what Maurice is implying (a lance that can reach past three ranks of horses is pretty damn long!). The later ranks, he makes it sound like, are mostly there to have somewhere to put men who are not up to fighting at the front. This is presumably not the whole story - if it were, why bring these guys along at all?


I had the tacticians in mind in that a few ranks are necessary (I think they also advocate 5) but more than that didn't achieve much. Methinks cavalry ranks were capable of charging and then countermarching back, allowing the ranks behind them to charge in turn. Aelian gives a description of the Roman cavalry using this tactic to throw javelins but it could have worked just well with contact weapons. In this context a few ranks are required to keep the conveyor belt going, but many ranks don't add an advantage. Maurice's multiple lines would have acted rather like a mounted triplex acies - if the front line was outfought and fell back, the second line could take up the fight, and so on.

Just adding extra ranks wouldn't of itself have helped the Carthaginians much against the Roman left flank cavalry. The Carthaginians needed to envelope the Romans which implies separating them from their infantry.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Chris on May 21, 2020, 02:20:54 PM
Interesting reading!   8)

Content to snack on dried kale chips from the cheap seats.  :)

Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Erpingham on May 21, 2020, 02:42:43 PM
Quote from: Chris on May 21, 2020, 02:20:54 PM
Interesting reading!   8)

Content to snack on dried kale chips from the cheap seats.  :)

A decidedly healthy option.   UK vegetable crisps tend to be made of root veg, like parsnips and beetroot.
Title: Re: The bow at Cannae
Post by: Andreas Johansson on May 21, 2020, 02:57:14 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 21, 2020, 06:39:54 AM
I had the tacticians in mind in that a few ranks are necessary (I think they also advocate 5) but more than that didn't achieve much.

Aelian mentions "square"* formations with depths of three, four, and five, but doesn't say if those are the only ones that should be used. He spends more time on rhombus and and wedge formations, whose maximal depth is much greater. (It apparently never occured to the ancients to use hollow wedges.)

He's no help at all on what rear ranks were actually good for, sounding rather like even the 2nd is useless.

Asclepiodotus says that Greek cavalry was typically eight deep, but feels that three or four is better, because "the depth of the cavalry unit, providing that it is enough to hold the squadron firm and in line, does not have the same importance as in the infantry". Apparently then, at least part of the point to depth was to aid formation keeping. He too discusses at some length rhomboidal and wedge formations of much greater maximal depth.


* Horses being rather longer than wide, Aelian's square's have two or three times as many files as ranks. He also mentions, but doesn't discuss, formations that are "squares in terms of numbers", i.e. the same number of ranks and files. Asclepiodotus OTOH prefer to reserve "square" for formations of equal ranks and files, while ones square in shape are "oblong".
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 21, 2020, 03:42:00 PM
It's been a very quiet day at work so let me take some time to look at the sources a bit more closely.

Polybius states the Romans had 8 Roman legions and 8 allied legions at Cannae, giving a strength of 80,000 men.  Livy quotes a strength of 87,200 men (Livy 22.36). Polybius affirms that the legions deployed with their units (speira) with a depth 'many times' (πολλαπλάσιος) their width. The speira could refer to the maniple or century. I posit that the maniple's default deployment consisted of two centuries side by side, giving it a width of 20 men and a depth of 8 (including velites)*. For it to become many times deeper than wide, one would probably have to halve the width and double the depth of each century, making them 5 men wide and 16 deep, and place the centuries one behind the other, creating a unit 5 men wide and 32 men deep.

A standard Consular army of 4 legions would have a deployment width of about 800 yards - 200 for each legion (20 yards per maniple each consisting of 2 centuries deployed 10 x 8 once the velites were withdrawn) Quadrupling the number of legions but reducing by 3/4 the width of each legion leave you with a frontage that matches that of a normal Consular army - 800 yards.

Against this Hannibal deployed about 4,000 - 6,000 Spanish, 16,000 Gauls and 8,000 Libyan heavy foot. Even if the Libyans did not front the Roman foot (they did - see below), that means that the combined Gallo-Spanish line was 800 yards wide. If each file is a standard yard wide that gives a depth for the line of a least 20,000 / 800 = 25 ranks. There is no way on the planet you could call that a 'thin line'. So something is missing from Polybius' account.

If one takes Polybius' speira as a century, then halving its width whilst doubling its depth gives you a unit 4 times deeper than wide. 16 legions side by side would have a frontage of 1,600 yards. The Gauls and Spanish facing them would be at least 12 men deep, still not a thin line by any definition.

Polybius' description of the Carthaginian deployment implies that everyone was side by side in a single line: first the Spanish and Gallic cavalry by the river, then half the Libyans, then the Gallic and Spanish foot, then the other half of the Libyans and finally the Numidian cavalry. Livy however states there were two lines:

      
At length after long and repeated efforts the Romans closed up their ranks, echeloned their front, and by the sheer weight of their deep column bore down the wedge (cuneum) of the enemy which was stationed in front of Hannibal's line (aciem), and was too thin and weak to resist the pressure.
Notice that 'aciem' is in the singular; the wedge (Latin equivalent of crescent) is in front of a single, continuous line which means there are two lines.

How does one reconcile these two passages? Here's a reconstruction that takes everything into account. Presuming the Roman infantry deployed on a frontage of 1,600 yards (more plausible as seen below), each legion would have been about 50 yards deep (16 + 16 + 10 + space between the lines) and 100 yards wide.

Livy makes it fairly clear that the Libyans on the flank are fronting the Roman foot, not the cavalry, as only the Gallic and Spanish cavalry engage the Roman right flank cavalry. That being the case, the entire Carthaginian infantry line is about 1,600 yards wide. The Libyans number 8,000 men and The Spanish/Gauls about 20,000 at least.

Livy implies that the Libyans, like the Gallic/Spanish centre, were in two lines:

      
As the Romans rushed on incautiously between them, they were enfiladed by the two wings, which extended and closed round them in the rear. - Livy: 22.47
Notice the 'extended' (mox cornua extendendo clausere et ab tergo hostis) The Libyans on each wing extend their lines and then wrap around the roman rear (tergum). This manoeuvre will be repeated later by the Romans at Cynoscephalae. where an enterprising Tribune detaches the principes and triarii lines to wrap around the rear of the unrouted phalanx. It is however impossible to extend a line that is engaging the enemy, which implies a portion of the Libyans fought the Romans frontally whilst the rest moved around and attacked them from the rear. This corresponds to Polybius:

      
Thus it came about, as Hannibal had planned, that the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of Libyans—thanks to their impetuous pursuit of the Celts. - Polybius: 3.115
Each Libyan line would need to be a decent depth, say 10-deep. That means that each Libyan wing was 200 yards wide (4,000 men / 2 lines / 10 ranks). So the Libyans took up about 400 yards of frontage. That leaves 1,200 yards for the Gauls and Spanish.

If the Spanish are 4,000 strong and the Gauls 16,000, they deploy in two lines, one right behind the other to give the appearance of a single line - Hannibal wasn't showing any of his cards before the game began (the first line advances as a crescent only after the battle has begun). The first line consists of an equal mix of Spanish and Gallic units organised in alternating speira. It has 4,000 Spanish and 4,000 Gauls and is 6-7 men deep (8,000 / 1,200). That is a thin line. The remaining Gauls - 12,000 strong - form a second line 10 deep, a standard depth.

These figures are somewhat flexible but the general pattern is clear - two lines take into account the 50/50 mix of Spanish and Celts in the crescent, account for the thinness of the crecent and explain the existence of a second aciem behind it. It also explains how Hannibal would ensure the Spanish - who had planned to defect (Livy: 22.40) - would have no choice but to fight. With Gauls on either side and behind them their only way was forwards.

Assuming the Roman horse deploy 6 deep at 2 yards per cavalry file, the left flank Allied cavalry will have a frontage of 1,600 yards whilst the Roman cavalry on the right flank will have a frontage of about 530 yards. This last number is the distance between the infantry and the river. Hannibal's Numidians match the frontage of the Allied cavalry at about the same depth, however his Gallic and Spanish Cavalry must deploy nearly 20 deep to match the Roman cavalry.

Rereading Livy's account of the cavalry fight (thanks Richard), it's clear there was no need for a wrap around. The two bodies of cavalry, initially deployed a standard 2 yards per file, compacted up as rearward horsemen advanced between the files of the horsemen in front to engage the enemy, then dismounted to fight on foot. Once the cavalry fight had become an infantry fight the Romans were at an irremediable disadvantage. On foot they occupied about 1 yard per man which gave their line an average depth of 3 men. The Carthaginians however had a depth of about 8-9 men. They could now use their numbers to drive the Romans back.

Let me tackle the course of the battle in another post.



*With no maniple-wide gaps between, but that's another topic.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: RichT on May 21, 2020, 04:51:51 PM
This all sounds very familiar - have you presented this theory before?

It's all well and good, but I will repeat (or say for the first time) what I said last time (if there was a last time) - these sorts of numerical calculations are deceptive because there are too many imponderables (eg just taking the Romans, width of file, depth, size of gaps, not to mention number of Romans).

As for your unusual interpretation of Livy to mean there were two Carthaginian lines - it does way too match damage to what Livy actually says (and remember Livy is basically paraphrasing Polybius).

On a philosophical note, there are two ways of dealing with ancient battle accounts - one is to try to understand what they say, explaining the units present and their movements so far as possible from the account, and go no further; and the other is to construct a narrative or model of what might have happened and fit the ancient accounts around it. I'm deeply suspicious of the latter, which seem always to be built on exceptionally shaky ground and which too often involve doing violence to the ancient accounts in order to fit them to the model.

Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Chuck the Grey on May 21, 2020, 04:59:56 PM
Some thoughts,

What was Hannibal thinking?
I believe that the crescent formation was designed to buy time at the cost of distance. Battles often revolve around a time and distance problem; will my units be able to cover the distance in time to help win the battle (think Wellington and Napoleon watching the Prussians march to contact at Waterloo).

Hannibal was aware that his infantry couldn't hold off the Roman legions forever since in two previous battles the Roman infantry had be able to break through his infantry line late in the battle. The crescent formation was to buy additional time while giving ground to the Roman legions. This would give Hannibal's cavalry more time to defeat the Roman horse, drive them from the battlefield, rally, and attack the Roman infantry.

This of course would only work if the Iberian and Gallic units were able to maintain discipline and cohesiveness long enough for the Punic cavalry to be successful. This boils down to two factors; trust and confidence in Hannibal, and the nature of fighting withdrawal.

The Gauls and the Iberians trusted Hannibal and had confidence in his leadership. Under his command they had already defeated two Roman armies in battle and they had no reason to doubt that this battle would also be a victory. When the Gauls and Iberians  were told that they were to delay a Roman breakthrough long enough for victory, they trusted Hannibal and his plan. The was reinforced when Hannibal took his position in the center of their line (apparently) placing himself at risk if the Romans broke through.

A fighting withdrawal slows the enemy advance (costing time) by giving ground (costing distance). It is not meant to stop the enemy's advance, but to slow the enemy down. This reduces the intensity of combat at the front and preserves the fighting efficiency of your soldiers. The crescent formation helps this since as the Romans push the leading units back, they encounter fresh units that again slow the advance down until the fresh units are also pushed back. And so on, and so on, etc., buying more and more time.

What were the Romans Thinking?
The Romans knew, like Hannibal, that their legions would be able to break through the Punic infantry eventually. The Romans also were aware that their cavalry was of lesser quality than Hannibal's and would not be able to stop the Punic horse for an indefinite period of time.

The Roman plan was to mass their legion and smash through the Carthaginian battle line before Hannibal's cavalry could win the battle. Simple and straightforward.


Reality Sets In
I'm sure the legions in the center of the Roman line thought they were winning the battle and their plan was working. The Punic crescent was stretched to the breaking point and they were probably achieving small local victories. Then Hannibal's Libyan veterans closed in from flanks and Hasdrubal's heavy cavalry attacked the rear of the Roman legions.

The Romans had lost the battle for time.


Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 22, 2020, 07:40:11 AM
Let me cover the battle this evening. Working through Livy's Latin I came across a classic case of the standard translation not translating the Latin but rather inventing what the translator thinks Livy should have said. Livy in fact mentions a second Carthaginian line behind the front crescent more than once. Stay tuned...
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: RichT on May 22, 2020, 09:22:48 AM
Let me guess - 'in mediam primum aciem'

Maybe something abut the bow at Cannae would be more worthwhile - Romans and Carthaginians were both hot on slings and javelins but seem a bit behind with bows - how come? Or were they archery users and I'm just ignorant of it?
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Duncan Head on May 22, 2020, 09:29:37 AM
There are quite a few scattered references to Carthaginian archery, but apart from Appian's "Moorish and Balearic archers and slingers" not many specific mentions of its use in battle. 
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: aligern on May 22, 2020, 09:35:02 AM
Do I recall Caesar hiring Numidian archers?
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: aligern on May 22, 2020, 10:02:20 AM
Just three points,
1) Hannibal was upon an elevated position at the village of Cannae, it gives a good view of the plain. The Roman commanders  do not gave the same view, they are positioned on the flood plain of a river. Hannibal can indeed be flexible in his response.
2) The Roman army will have taken a long time to deploy. Their layout is unusual and that always causes problems. It is not a deployment that is easy from marching out of camp(s) . Thus they will have displayed their formation to Hannibal long before it was completed, giving him time to react to it.
3) Falling back fighting is something that barbarians do as well as 'disciplined' troops. For example the Helvetii and Ariovistus Germans against Caesar. I venture to suggest that  the nature of short intense fights followed by mutual pull backs to rest leads itself to that sort of rearward movement if one of the protagonists keeps pushing forward. Roman rank replacement within their formations might well play a part here. The legionaries at Cannae would see no trap, their enemy was falling back, they were following up, a few rounds of this and they would  be through.

Hannibal's genius was the management of time, but not by ordering his trained barbarians to fall back or do anything that might lead to confusion or a panic.  He set them up so that the natural processes of conflict would lead to the Romans being crowded in the centre and  with exposed flanks . It does not matter too much whether Hannibal formed his Gauls and Iberians deep but in one front line, or had two libes one in back of the first. The key  is that the Romans had to get through the centre and either a deeper formation or a reserve in the centre would achieve that.
It also seems logical that with the Carthaginians presenting a concave front, the Roman legions in the centre would contact first, but those on their flanks would not be fighting yet because they would try and hold the as a line rather than break ranks by advancing beyond the first line of  contact. Contact in their hipugely deep formation tgey would wait for the Carthaginian line to retire and firm a straight front before engaging.
Roy



Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: RichT on May 22, 2020, 10:18:49 AM
Is it just that the bow is not part (a major part of) of the WMWW then? (Dives for cover).

Which does suggest (if we didn't already think it) that there's not much to choose in terms of battlefield performance between slings, bows and javelins and people just use whatever their culture is used to using.

Fighting withdrawal at Cannae - if you forget for a moment everything you know about Cannae and about what 'must have happened', and just read Polybius (quoted above) and Livy, I don't think you would ever conclude that the Celts conducted a fighting withdrawal.

Incidentally I was right, I do remember this:
http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4062.msg52651#msg52651

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Erpingham on May 22, 2020, 10:49:21 AM
And yet, it is hard to read the account and think the Gauls all just break and run.  They retire, suggesting cohesion and a limitation on the progress of the Romans, who don't just burst through, but follow up.  As I said earlier, and Roy restates, we know of occassions when barbarians fell back in front of Romans and on some occassions made stands.  This must be at least a potential explanation - that Hannibal knew his Gauls would, when the going got hot, attempt to retire, rather than he had turned them into trained regulars who could conduct a disciplined fighting withdrawal.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: RichT on May 22, 2020, 11:11:04 AM
Quotethey retire

We come down again to meaning of words (good, my favourite) and 'hypochoreo', is a general word for retreat, retire, give way, break - used by Polybius in all sorts of contexts that I'm sure nobody wants me to enumerate... It could be translated here as 'they fled' or as 'they retired' or as 'they fell back', each of which would give us a very different impression of what happened.

But I can certainly buy the idea that Celts fought in a lower intensity way in which defeat might mean falling or being pushed (not literally!) back, rather than the higher intensity way with catastrophic collapse typical of Greek hoplites, say.

Quote
who don't just burst through, but follow up

Polybius says diakopto, cut in two or cut through. (The same word in fact arose in another context, one identified by a TLA, IIRC). So strictly speaking, Polybius says they did burst through (perhaps). But see above.

Edited to add - one other use of diakopto is of interest:

'After this, while the centre of the Roman rear was losing heavily, and suffering severely from the attack of the Numidian ambuscade, their front, thus driven to bay, defeated the Celts and a division of Africans, and, after killing a large number of them, succeeded in cutting their way through [diakopto] the Carthaginian line.' Pol 3.74.4

This is the Roman escape through the Carthaginian centre at the Trebia.

Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Erpingham on May 22, 2020, 11:30:29 AM
Thanks Richard.  I originally wrote a sentence enquiring what the word for retire was, but knew you'd tell me if it was important, so took it out :)

I do wonder though if Hannibal's line was split asunder, could he have surrounded the Romans in the way he is said to have done?  Hannibal's Libyans weren't in enough numbers to effectively close off the centre and push in from the flanks.  That the Gauls and Spanish were hanging around, even if no longer capable of offensive action, seems a potential explanation.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: aligern on May 22, 2020, 11:45:57 AM
Surely the key here is when the Gauls were broken through. If it occurs at the end of the battle when the Romans fighting them are driven to desperate straits by the knowledge that theybare surrounded then diesn't that fulfil all conditions .  Its just tgat Polybius does not give a timeline for all the actions going on in the different parts of the field. That is hard enough to depict in 'modern' accounts of battles.  Are the French guard stopped by Maitland's standing up of the British guards, or by the flanking fire of the in-swinging 52nd?
Roy
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: RichT on May 22, 2020, 01:27:15 PM
Quote
Surely the key here is when the Gauls were broken through. If it occurs at the end of the battle when the aromans fighting them are driven to desperate straits by the knowledge that theybare surrounded then diesn't that fulfil all conditions .

The aromans? Were they particularly smelly? :)

I don't disagree, and don't expect Polybius to provide or us to have a strict timeline of events, but I do think that a fair reading of Polybius would put the breakthrough earlier in the fighting. As Polybius describes it, the Romans push back/cut through the Celts, then the Libyans and the cavalry attack the Roman flanks and rear, and then the Romans, attacked 'on every side ... were gradually huddled in and surrounded'. Polybius doesn't say that the Celts/Iberians returned to the attack, and though his implication is that the Romans were attacked front, flank and rear, he doesn't specifically say who by. I think it's very likely that the Celts/Iberians weren't completely broken and driven from the field and that at least some (most?) of them returned to the attack once the flank and rear attacks began. At any rate I think this is vastly more likely than that the Celts/Iberians withdrew in good order as a deliberate fighting withdrawal, or that there was a second line which nobody remembered to mention.

Quote
I do wonder though if Hannibal's line was split asunder, could he have surrounded the Romans in the way he is said to have done?  Hannibal's Libyans weren't in enough numbers to effectively close off the centre and push in from the flanks.  That the Gauls and Spanish were hanging around, even if no longer capable of offensive action, seems a potential explanation.

Yes I think it's perfectly likely, and much to be preferred to the various invented scenarios. But what I wonder is whether we understand enough about how armies operated in battle and especially armies that are being attacked in flank and rear, to be certain that the Romans could or would have just marched merrily off to their front if they had defeated the Celts stationed there; they did at Trebia - the difference at Cannae was the crescent, which meant that once the Romans drove back the Celts, they (the Romans) were now between the Carthaginian flanks rather than beyond them.

Trebia and Cannae, in Polybius' accounts, are almost identical, right down to the vocabulary, with the main difference in deployment being the crescent, and in outcome being 10,000 Romans escaping from Trebia and only 3,000 (from an army twice as large) from Cannae. I expect there were a number of reasons for the difference and the continued presence of combat-capable Celts/Iberians in the Roman front may be one of them, but the better timing of the flank attacks seems to me to be the main one.

(Also should point out that Livy has 14,000 Romans escape, and two legions being formed from the fugitives, which wold be much more in line with Trebia)
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Andreas Johansson on May 22, 2020, 03:52:17 PM
Quote from: RichT on May 22, 2020, 01:27:15 PM
The aromans? Were they particularly smelly? :)
A variant, clearly, of "Aromanians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanians)".

(To my mild surprise, the only website I can find using that particular form is some sort of alt-hist wiki that features an Aroman Empire. But Aromâni seems to be the standard form in Romanian.)
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 23, 2020, 08:46:01 AM
OK, let's do this. What I'm trying to do is create a coherent narrative that takes everything from Polybius and Livy into account whilst attempting to resolve any inconsistencies, and make sense of things in the context of what we know about the formations and manoeuvring of armies of this period. In other words if Livy and Polybius are talking tosh, fine, but if I can show they are talking coherent tosh then I will have accomplished something.  ::)

Initial deployment. Depth to width distortion is 2:1. The Libyans are a little back from the Gauls and Spanish (reasons for that below).

(https://i.imgur.com/kkJYk5x.png)

1. The Gallo-Spanish centre advances to form a crescent.
      
Having now got them all into line he advanced with the central companies of the Iberians and Celts; and so arranged the other companies next these in regular gradations, that the whole line became crescent-shaped, diminishing in depth towards its extremities: his object being to have his Libyans as a reserve in the battle, and to commence the action with his Iberians and Celts. - Polybius: 3.113
One way to explain 'diminishing in depth' is the fact that half of this original line remains in place, which means that the combined depth of the back and front sections of the lines (effectively two lines) diminishes as the front line is further back. Notice that the central companies (tagmata) advance as a block, i.e. they are not echeloned. It is only the companies on either side of them that are echeloned. Which produces this arrangement:

(https://i.imgur.com/0UGbEid.png)

2. The cavalry fight near the river.
      
Then the Gallic and Spanish horse which formed the left wing engaged with the Roman right in a combat very unlike a cavalry action. For they had to charge front to front, there being no room to move out round the flank, for the river shut them in on one side and the ranks of infantry on the other. Both parties pushed straight ahead, and as the horses came to a standstill, packed together in the throng, the riders began to grapple with their enemies and drag them from their seats. They were fighting on foot now, for the most part; but sharp though the struggle was, it was soon over, and the defeated Roman cavalry turned and fled. - Livy: 22.47
      
But as soon as the Iberian and Celtic cavalry got at the Romans, the battle began in earnest, and in the true barbaric fashion: for there was none of the usual formal advance and retreat; but when they once got to close quarters, they grappled man to man, and, dismounting from their horses, fought on foot. But when the Carthaginians had got the upper hand in this encounter and killed most of their opponents on the ground,— because the Romans all maintained the fight with spirit and determination,—and began chasing the remainder along the river, slaying as they went and giving no quarter; then the legionaries took the place of the light-armed and closed with the enemy. - Polybius: 3.115
The confined space turns the cavalry into an infantry fight, enabling the Spanish and Gauls to bring their superior numbers to bear and drive the Romans back along the river. At this point the Roman infantry execute stage one of their line relief repertoire, recalling the velites. I've not marked the light troops on the map as they didn't play a significant part in the battle other than buy the Carthaginian centre a little time.

(https://i.imgur.com/Hfbzhcy.png)

3. The Roman heavy foot are stalled by the Gallo-Spanish crescent.
      
For a short time the Iberian and Celtic lines stood their ground and fought gallantly - Polybius: 3.115
      
Towards the end of the cavalry engagement the infantry got into action. At first they were evenly matched in strength and courage, as long as the Gauls and Spaniards maintained their ranks - Livy
Notice that only the flattened central part of the crescent is engaged, where presumably Hannibal has placed his best troops. The flanks of the crescent do not yet fight. This buys further time for Hannibal.

(https://i.imgur.com/a4unonS.png)

4. The Roman infantry echelon their own first line and break the Gallo-Spanish crescent.
      
but; presently overpowered by the weight of the heavy-armed lines, they gave way and retired to the rear, thus breaking up the crescent. The Roman maniples followed with spirit, and easily cut their way through the enemy's line; since the Celts had been drawn up in a thin line, while the Romans had closed up from the wings towards the centre and the point of danger. For the two wings did not come into action at the same time as the centre: but the centre was first engaged, because the Gauls, having been stationed on the arc of the crescent, had come into contact with the enemy long before the wings, the convex of the crescent being towards the enemy. - Polybius: 3.115
      
but at last the Romans, by prolonged and frequent efforts, pushing forward with an oblique/slanting front (obliqua fronte) and a dense line, drove in the wedge which projected from the enemy's other line, for it was too thin to be strong - Livy: 22.47
'Frons' is the front part of anything. The implication is that the Romans slanted only the first of their triplex acies lines, i.e. the hastati, to engage the entire Carthaginian wedge. This was enough to crack the wedge and drive it back. The Romans clearly do not like arranging themselves into funny shapes and take a while before deciding to form an inverted crescent. Being unused to this manoeuvre the hastati naturally gravitate inwards towards the sides of the crescent and shorten their own line in consequence. Notice the "projected from the enemy's other line" -  a cetera prominentem acie. This is a clear statement that there was a second line behind the crescent.

(https://i.imgur.com/Bv23zdM.png)

5. The remaining Roman lines join the first line to pursue the Gauls and Spanish and shorten their lines in consequence, leaving themselves overlapped by the Libyans.
      
The Romans, however, going in pursuit of these troops, and hastily closing in towards the centre and the part of the enemy which was giving ground, advanced so far, that the Libyan heavy-armed troops on either wing got on their flanks. - Polybius: 3.115
      
and then, as the Gauls and Spaniards gave way and fell back in confusion, pressed forward and without once stopping forced their way through the crowd of fleeing, panic-stricken foes, till they reached first the centre and ultimately —for they met with no resistance —the African supports. - Livy: 22.47
The passage from Livy is the standard translation but what does the Latin actually say? (bang on, Richard!)
      
inpulsis deinde ac trepide referentibus pedem institere, ac tenore uno per praeceps pavore fugientium agmen in mediam primum aciem inlati postremo nullo resistente ad subsidia Afrorum pervenerunt,
Breaking it down:

inpulsis deinde - then, impelling them
ac trepide referentibus - and with fear driving them back
pedem institere - they pressed upon the foot
ac tenore uno - and without pause
per praeceps pavore fugientium - by the panicked headlong flight (of those fleeing)
agmen in mediam - the army into the centre
primum aciem - the first line
inlati - was brought to
postremo nullo resistente - finally, with no-one resisting,
ad subsidia Afrorum pervenerunt - it reached the African reserves

A few things to note. The agmen is the Roman infantry that drives the pedem - the Carthaginian foot - before it. The agmen reaches the 'first line' in the middle. Mediam is a noun here, not an adjective qualifying anything else (it is in the feminine and acies which follows it is in the masculine). The implication is that the first line is in the centre of the infantry, i.e. the African reserves flank it. The 'first line' is clearly 'first' because it is before the African reserve which is in the plural - subsidia - and hence can be understood as two flanking lines.

So putting it all in good English:

The [Roman] infantry pressed upon the [Carthaginian] foot, driving them back with fear and, without pause thanks to their panicked flight, reached the first line in the centre and then, encountering no resistance, finally arrived at the African reserves.

(https://i.imgur.com/KVInnfX.png)

6. The Libyans outflank the Romans and attack them from front and rear.
      
Those on the right, facing to the left, charged from the right upon the Roman flank; while those who were on the left wing faced to the right, and, dressing by the left, charged their right flank,1 the exigency of the moment suggesting to them what they ought to do. Thus it came about, as Hannibal had planned, that the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of Libyans—thanks to their impetuous pursuit of the Celts. - Polybius: 3.115
      
These had been used to form the two wings, which had been drawn back, while the centre, where the Gauls and Spaniards had been stationed, projected somewhat. When this wedge was first driven back so far as to straighten the front, and then, continuing to yield, even left a hollow in the centre, the Africans had already begun a flanking movement on either side, and as the Romans rushed incautiously in between, they enveloped them, and presently, extending their wings, crescent-wise, even closed in on their rear. - Livy": 22.47
Notice that the Gallic centre is intact: "continuing to yield, even left a hollow in the centre". The line is coherent enough to form a definite shape, very different from the panicked headlong flight of earlier. The second line is clearly recoiling but not breaking.

The African outflanking manoeuvre consists of about half of each African wing fighting the Romans frontally whilst the other half envelopes their rear.

(https://i.imgur.com/hNb5RAn.png)

7. The Roman infantry cease their attack on the Gauls and Spaniards and confront the Africans.
      
From this moment the Romans, who had gained one battle to no purpose, gave over the pursuit and slaughter of the Gauls and Spaniards and began a new fight with the Africans. - Livy: 22.47
Another bad translation. The Latin says:
      
hinc Romani defuncti nequiquam proelio uno omissis Gallis Hispanisque, quorum terga ceciderant, adversus Afros integram pugnam ineunt,
Which comes out at:
      
The Romans, having completed in vain the fight, left the Spanish and Gauls the rear of which they were slaughtering, and began a new fight against the Africans.
Notice the "rear" (tergum) of the Africans and Gauls. This is a clear reference to the second line that was still in the fight although losing it.

And the rest is history.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Erpingham on May 23, 2020, 08:51:05 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 22, 2020, 07:40:11 AM
Let me cover the battle this evening. Working through Livy's Latin I came across a classic case of the standard translation not translating the Latin but rather inventing what the translator thinks Livy should have said. Livy in fact mentions a second Carthaginian line behind the front crescent more than once. Stay tuned...

We are still tuned in and awaiting the pronouncement.  Or has it been superceded by later events (e.g. Richard's reference to a previous discussion)?
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 23, 2020, 08:57:20 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 23, 2020, 08:51:05 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 22, 2020, 07:40:11 AM
Let me cover the battle this evening. Working through Livy's Latin I came across a classic case of the standard translation not translating the Latin but rather inventing what the translator thinks Livy should have said. Livy in fact mentions a second Carthaginian line behind the front crescent more than once. Stay tuned...

We are still tuned in and awaiting the pronouncement.  Or has it been superceded by later events (e.g. Richard's reference to a previous discussion)?

See above.  :)
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Erpingham on May 23, 2020, 09:05:36 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 23, 2020, 08:57:20 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 23, 2020, 08:51:05 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 22, 2020, 07:40:11 AM
Let me cover the battle this evening. Working through Livy's Latin I came across a classic case of the standard translation not translating the Latin but rather inventing what the translator thinks Livy should have said. Livy in fact mentions a second Carthaginian line behind the front crescent more than once. Stay tuned...

We are still tuned in and awaiting the pronouncement.  Or has it been superceded by later events (e.g. Richard's reference to a previous discussion)?

See above.  :)

The perils of crossing posts.  I apologise for my lack of patience Justin.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 23, 2020, 09:09:56 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 23, 2020, 09:05:36 AM
The perils of crossing posts.  I apologise for my lack of patience Justin.

I'll forgive you, eventually, maybe...let me think about it... ;)
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: RichT on May 23, 2020, 04:39:28 PM
Well thanks for posting all that Justin, interesting, and nice diagrams. But also sadly wrong, in particular in the mangling of poor old Livy's Latin. If I were your Latin teacher I would throw a copy of Kennedy's Latin Primer at your head (at least I would have in the good old days, when such things were allowed). As it is I will just mutter 'nonsense', and better leave it at that. :)

I'm glad at least that you don't have the Libyans in column, we can agree on that (if on nothing else).
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 23, 2020, 05:39:01 PM
Quote from: RichT on May 23, 2020, 04:39:28 PM
Well thanks for posting all that Justin, interesting, and nice diagrams. But also sadly wrong, in particular in the mangling of poor old Livy's Latin. If I were your Latin teacher I would throw a copy of Kennedy's Latin Primer at your head (at least I would have in the good old days, when such things were allowed). As it is I will just mutter 'nonsense', and better leave it at that. :)

I'm glad at least that you don't have the Libyans in column, we can agree on that (if on nothing else).

Feel free to demangle. I'm always happy to be proven wrong.  :) :o :-[ :'( :-\ :)
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Jim Webster on May 23, 2020, 05:53:54 PM
Many years ago I had "Hannibal: Enemy of Rome by Leonard Cottrell"
I wore it out and last saw it perhaps thirty five years ago.
But vague memory tells me that he had the spanish and gauls in two lines with only the front line pulled forward.

BUT having read Livy and Polybius, be damned if I can work out where he gets it from  :-[

Jim
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Erpingham on May 23, 2020, 06:04:22 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 23, 2020, 05:53:54 PM
Many years ago I had "Hannibal: Enemy of Rome by Leonard Cottrell"
I wore it out and last saw it perhaps thirty five years ago.
But vague memory tells me that he had the spanish and gauls in two lines with only the front line pulled forward.

BUT having read Livy and Polybius, be damned if I can work out where he gets it from  :-[

Jim

I still have my teenage copy of Enemy of Rome (Pan paperback with copper cover).  Cotterell does show two lines of both Romans and Carthaginians, but closer inspection shows the front lines are skirmishers.  The crescent is there with a single line behind the skirmishers - nothing behind it.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Jim Webster on May 23, 2020, 06:16:52 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 23, 2020, 06:04:22 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 23, 2020, 05:53:54 PM
Many years ago I had "Hannibal: Enemy of Rome by Leonard Cottrell"
I wore it out and last saw it perhaps thirty five years ago.
But vague memory tells me that he had the spanish and gauls in two lines with only the front line pulled forward.

BUT having read Livy and Polybius, be damned if I can work out where he gets it from  :-[

Jim

Thanks for that  8)

I still have my teenage copy of Enemy of Rome (Pan paperback with copper cover).  Cotterell does show two lines of both Romans and Carthaginians, but closer inspection shows the front lines are skirmishers.  The crescent is there with a single line behind the skirmishers - nothing behind it.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: aligern on May 23, 2020, 06:28:57 PM
It would be illuminating to see the unit divisions on the diagrams.
How do the Libyans manage to lap around? What structure do tge Africans  have that allows all that bending?
How do the  Roman legions operate as units? ? There is a key part in the Polybian story where large numbers of Romans appear  to be concentrating in  the centre, in order to exploit the breakthrough and this is what exposes their flanks.  If that indeed occurs than what is your concept  of what is occurring? Are the Libyans facing Romans in acies and those Romans withdraw?  An alternative , that the Libyans are in column , hidden behind Spaniards and Gauls and that they march around  the flank  and make a half turn to face in on the flank makes sense in the shape of the battle and has the benefit of inspiring Scipio's later manoeuvre. If the Libyans are initially engaged frontally tgan how do they become a flank attack?

Whilst I think that we have to take account of the Latin and Greek of Livy and Polybius and it would be wrong to move too far away from the sources  we do have to be able to describe the  battle  in a way that fits what could  happen on the ground as long as it is  in line with the major points of the sources.
So, it is, for me, perfectly legitimate to  have either a deeper Gallic formation in the centre (because it will be fighting longer than  the flanks of the crescent) or to have a second line, if the greater point is that relatively few Romans break out and unless the Carthaginian Celts maintain a front for most of the battle then large numbers of Romans should escape. Likewise it is distinctly possible that the  fighting in the centre is protracted  for either of the  above reasons because the story of the  battle is not maintained if the Gauls break early. If they do break quickly then there has to be an explanation  to why  the Romans do not largely escape.  As I believe  that in history the biggest cause if a current decision  is what happened to the decision maker most recently then I am very willing that  prevention of another Trebia is the motivation behind the deployment Hannibal orders. 
It is important to have the best translation of the Latin or the Greek, but we should not be too beholden to the exact words if they do not give us a coherent account of the battle.  For example, if the Bayeux embroidery was our only account of Hastings then we might find someone  insisting that William only had cavalry and archers , that no Norman footsoldiers were shown, so they were not there, probably left to guard the camp. A source may  not be everything.
Roy
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: RichT on May 23, 2020, 06:48:50 PM
Justin
Quote
Feel free to demangle. I'm always happy to be proven wrong.

That's a lot of work. Sorry, I know that's not very helpful, but I'd just say that if you are not sure of your Latin skills your best bet is to follow the translations of those who are. If you are sure of your Latin skills, then perhaps you shouldn't be.  :o

It is often possible by teasing out the meaning and usage of a particular word to do better than the existing translation on technical points, but how likely is it that every translator has got the whole sense wrong, and now you have come along and got it right? The translations on Perseus (which I assume you are using) have strengths and weaknesses as all translations do, but they all render the Latin accurately (AFAIK).

Roy
Quote
Whilst I think that we have to take account of the Latin and Greek of Livy and Polybius and it would be wrong to move too far away from the sources  we do have to be able to describe the  battle  in a way that fits what could  happen on the ground as long as it is  in line with the major points of the sources.
...
It is important to have the best translation of the Latin or the Greek, but we should not be too beholden to the exact words if they do not give us a coherent account of the battle.

I don't utterly disagree, but the problem is, how do we judge what is 'a coherent account of the battle'? Your judgement, mine, and Justin's will all be very different. I think Polybius' account is coherent, though very high level. Who are we to say that we have a better idea of what was possible in an ancient battle than Polybius did? If the problem to solve is why the Romans didn't escape to their front, then I think other explanations than a second Celtic line are more likely (for example, the explanation Polybius gives). Besides, my problem with Justin's theory is not so much that he is going beyond the sources, but that he is altering the sources to fit his theory.

Edit to add:

Incidentally since I've been forum diving and looking at our old chum, the KTB thread, I notice that the start of that thread was one of my earliest posts on this forum, on a remarkably similar subject:

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1508.msg16100#msg16100

I was making the same points with the same words to the same people (except Patrick now sadly), five and a half years ago.  ::)
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 23, 2020, 07:20:43 PM
Quote from: aligern on May 23, 2020, 06:28:57 PM
It would be illuminating to see the unit divisions on the diagrams.

How do the Libyans manage to lap around? What structure do tge Africans  have that allows all that bending?

How do the  Roman legions operate as units? ? There is a key part in the Polybian story where large numbers of Romans appear  to be concentrating in  the centre, in order to exploit the breakthrough and this is what exposes their flanks.  If that indeed occurs than what is your concept  of what is occurring? Are the Libyans facing Romans in acies and those Romans withdraw?  An alternative , that the Libyans are in column , hidden behind Spaniards and Gauls and that they march around  the flank  and make a half turn to face in on the flank makes sense in the shape of the battle and has the benefit of inspiring Scipio's later manoeuvre. If the Libyans are initially engaged frontally tgan how do they become a flank attack?

I suspect that my last diagram is a bit inaccurate, in that the Libyans don't actually contact the ends of the Roman infantry, but just move in battle column around to the rear. Here's a plausible reconstruction of the wrap-around using the kinds of formations and manoeuvring described by the tacticians. The Libyans are organised into pseudo-centuries on the Roman model (they are equipped in Roman gear which suggests they fight in the Roman manner). Each Libyan line has 20 centuries, each century 10 x 10 men. The width to depth ratio in the diagrams below is accurate. Click on them to get the zoomed version.

(https://i.imgur.com/3iKmt48.png)

As the Romans contact the first Libyan line, the centuries of each second line wheel outwards to face away from the centre, forming a battle column 10 men wide.

(https://i.imgur.com/zxMmFX5.png)

Each column, commencing with the lead century, wheels 90 degrees and marches past the ends of the Roman line.

(https://i.imgur.com/arB5H30.png)

The lead centuries then wheel again and march into the Roman rear.

(https://i.imgur.com/jFkG0In.png)

When it reaches the edge of the Roman line, the lead century wheels to face the Romans and advances 10 yards. This permits the following centuries to march past and wheel into line adjacent to it.

(https://i.imgur.com/NW82GPU.png)

The remaining centuries wheel into line next to the others and the reconstituted Libyan line charges the Romans.

(https://i.imgur.com/Ik40m5r.png)

This does leave gaps at the ends through which some Romans could and did escape. As you can see the Gauls really do have to hold the line otherwise a lot of Romans will get away.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Jim Webster on May 23, 2020, 08:19:52 PM
A nice parallel account of livy and polybius

https://www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal_Sources6.html

What struck me, from the text I'd say that there is no reason for the legionaries to meet the African infantry frontally.

Has anybody worked out relative frontage of legionaries and celts?
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: aligern on May 23, 2020, 08:58:41 PM
I tend to agree Jim, The nature of the terrain at Cannae is that it is very flat.  As I said before the Roman commanders cannot see over the line of Celts and Spaniards. Hannibal can keep his Africans hidden until the Romans are fully engaged and thus pinned.
The Celts and Iberians in their crescentiform line are designed to be pushed back slowly.  Whatever Polybius might seem to say I see Hannibal as managing time brilliantly, holding the Romans in the centre until their flanks are exposed and then  releasing the Africans who have not fought until deployed to the flank. The joy of Hannibal's manoeuvre is that  the Romans are funnelled towards the centre, which is much less less likely if they are engaged with the Libyans frontally because it would be very difficult to converge centrally if your formation was already engaged to the front with such tough fighters as the Libyans.
Rereading Jim's excellently cted parallel account it seems clear that the Libyans are nit engaged til they are turned n to the flanks and that there are reserve units in the centre or at the very least the Celts and Spaniards are sufficiently revovered to return to the fray in rder to box the Romans in. Either  way it does not argue for a severe fracturing if the Celtic linebecause it is unlikely that troops who have been thus broken can be brought back.  Actually its rather like Magnesia and Argentoratum  and indeed Mons Lactarius    where terms are used that are translated as severe fragmentation, but then the line comes back into action. Perhaps we could reconcile this with a very localised penetration of the line  awe might then ask why the troops that greak through do not turn and take their opponents in the rear.?
Roy
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 24, 2020, 08:43:56 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 23, 2020, 08:19:52 PM
A nice parallel account of livy and polybius

https://www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal_Sources6.html

What struck me, from the text I'd say that there is no reason for the legionaries to meet the African infantry frontally.

We then still need to explain how "the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of Libyans" - Polybius: 3.115. Livy makes it clear that the Libyans moved around to the Romans' rear: "the Africans had already begun a flanking movement on either side, and as the Romans rushed incautiously in between, they enveloped them, and presently, extending their wings, crescent-wise, even closed in on their rear." - Livy: 22.47. Combined with Polybius that means that there were some Libyans on the Romans' front.

Quote from: Jim Webster on May 23, 2020, 08:19:52 PMHas anybody worked out relative frontage of legionaries and celts?

I had a crack at it earlier in the thread.

Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: aligern on May 24, 2020, 10:35:13 AM
Wouldn't the description still stand if  the Libyans were on the left and right flanks of the Roman mass? They would still be between two hostile lines of Libyans.

As to the rear I have a sneaking feeling that the diagrams thatyou so helpfully created show the Roman  line as too shallow. Crudely, if the Carthaginian line is 16000 men eight deep then its 16 yards deep and 2000 yards wide. Rome has  64,000 men on this frontage so its force is 64 yards deep.
Please correct my maths  if necessary .
The Africans have 4000 men a unit ( that's a legion isn't it) 500 men wide and  thus 500 yards wide, plenty of frontage to hit the flank and lap around.
Roy
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 24, 2020, 11:31:05 AM
Quote from: aligern on May 24, 2020, 10:35:13 AM
Wouldn't the description still stand if  the Libyans were on the left and right flanks of the Roman mass? They would still be between two hostile lines of Libyans.

There's an interesting idea there. The Libyans all advance in column down the flanks of the Romans and then form line facing inwards. The two short thick lines then squeeze the Romans from the ends inwards, breaking up their structure and compressing them.

(https://i.imgur.com/3114SJt.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/tTxFw53.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/2i79YuD.png)

Problem is that the Libyans then don't wrap around the Roman rear as described by Livy.

Quote from: aligern on May 24, 2020, 10:35:13 AMAs to the rear I have a sneaking feeling that the diagrams thatyou so helpfully created show the Roman  line as too shallow. Crudely, if the Carthaginian line is 16000 men eight deep then its 16 yards deep and 2000 yards wide. Rome has  64,000 men on this frontage so its force is 64 yards deep.
Please correct my maths  if necessary .
The Africans have 4000 men a unit ( that's a legion isn't it) 500 men wide and  thus 500 yards wide, plenty of frontage to hit the flank and lap around.
Roy

My reconstruction* is based on the notion that a Roman legion was normally about 200 yards wide, each hastatus and princeps line consisting of 10 maniples which themselves consisted of 2 centuries that deployed 10 men wide and 8 men deep once the velites were withdrawn (the velites forming the last 2 ranks of the hastati, principes and triarii). There are no maniple-sized gaps between the maniples, the gaps being the file gaps between files deployed in open order and doubling to intermediate order once the line in front withdrew through them. On that assumption (no way of going into the arguments for it here) to create a speira many times deeper than wide according to Polybius, the simplest way is to deploy the centuries 5 men wide and 16 men deep. Each legion will now occupy a frontage 100 yards wide. This is a double-double consular army of 16 legions in total, so its frontage will be 1,600 yards. The hastati will be 16 men deep, the principes 16 and the triarii 10 men deep. Total of 42 yards. Add some distance between the lines and you get 50 - 60 yards or more. The legions were approaching a square shape.

Infantry didn't deploy too wide. The manuals fix the width of an infantry phalanx at about 1000 yards. Vegetius does not recommend a width greater than 1,650 yards: "One thousand paces contain a single rank of one thousand six hundred and fifty-six foot soldiers, each man being allowed three feet." Any wider is problematic: "Six ranks drawn up on the same extent of ground will require nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-six men. To form only three ranks of the same number will take up two thousand paces, but it is much better to increase the number of ranks than to make your front too extensive." So 1,600 yards frontage for the Cannae legions looks about right.

Working on the Spanish being about 4,000 strong and the Gauls 16,000 strong, we need a means of having a front line of alternating Gallic and Spanish speira, which means the Gauls and Spanish are in equal numbers in the crescent line. That means 8,000 men. If they spread across the entire 1,600 yards they are 5 men deep. You then have to account for the remaining Gauls - 12,000. Simplest way is to put them in a second line (which Livy mentions several times) which will be 7-8 men deep. However I worked on the Libyans being deployed in line and facing the Roman infantry since there is no mention of them engaging the Roman cavalry. If they deploy each in a single line they can't 'extend the wings' and encircle the Romans - impossible to execute such a manoeuvre whilst fighting to your front. If they deploy in 2 lines each 10 men deep (could be a little less)  each wing will front 200 yards of the Roman line, leaving the Gauls and Spanish with 1,200 yards. That makes the crescent 6-7 men deep and the support line 10 men deep. It works.

*largely Patrick's actually
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Imperial Dave on May 24, 2020, 11:59:17 AM
if the Libyans were in column, then they would also be partially (or even wholly) hidden from Roman eyes in the lead up to the first clash of the infantry lines
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Jim Webster on May 24, 2020, 01:07:05 PM
I don't think that the Africans need to be in column
I suspect that because of drawing the centre forward and the screens of light infantry both sides deployed, the Romans might have struggled to see what was going on with the Africans anyway.

I apologise for the low grade picture

Take Polybius
"he stationed the Iberian and Celtic horse opposite the Roman cavalry; and next to them half the Libyan heavy-armed foot; and next to them the Iberian and Celtic foot; next, the other half of the Libyans, and, on the right wing, the Numidian horse. Having now got them all into line he advanced with the central companies of the Iberians and Celts; and so arranged the other companies next these in regular gradations, that the whole line became crescent-shaped, diminishing in depth towards its extremities: his object being to have his Libyans as a reserve in the battle, and to commence the action with his Iberians and Celts."

No mentions of column, just an army drawn up in line as you'd expect

then the legionaries took the place of the light-armed and closed with the enemy. For a short time the Iberian and Celtic lines stood their ground and fought gallantly; but; presently overpowered by the weight of the heavy-armed lines, they gave way and retired to the rear, thus breaking up the crescent. The Roman maniples followed with spirit, and easily cut their way through the enemy's line; since the Celts had been drawn up in a thin line, while the Romans had closed up from the wings towards the centre and the point of danger. For the two wings did not come into action at the same time as the centre: but the centre was first engaged, because the Gauls, having been stationed on the arc of the crescent, had come into contact with the enemy long before the wings, the convex of the crescent being towards the enemy.
The Romans outflanked by the cavalry.
The Romans, however, going in pursuit of these troops, and hastily closing in towards the centre and the part of the enemy which was giving ground, advanced so far, that the Libyan heavy-armed troops on either wing got on their flanks. Those on the right, facing to the left, charged from the right upon the Roman flank; while those who were on the left wing faced to the right, and, dressing by the left, charged their right flank,1 the exigency of the moment suggesting to them what they ought to do. Thus it came about, as Hannibal had planned, that the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of Libyans—thanks to their impetuous pursuit of the Celts. Still they fought, though no longer in line, yet singly, or in maniples, which faced about to meet those who charged them on the flanks.

1 ἐξ ἀσπίδος ἐπιπαρενέβαλλον. The ordinary word for "forming line" or "taking dressing" is παρεμβάλλειν. In the other two passages where ἐπιπαρενβάλλειν is used, ἐπί has a distinct (though different) force. I think here it must mean "against," "so as to attack." And this seems to be Casaubon's interpretation.

My conclusion is that the Romans never hit the Africans, the Africans hit the Romans and not from the front.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 24, 2020, 01:59:17 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 24, 2020, 01:07:05 PM

The Romans, however, going in pursuit of these troops, and hastily closing in towards the centre and the part of the enemy which was giving ground, advanced so far, that the Libyan heavy-armed troops on either wing got on their flanks. Those on the right, facing to the left, charged from the right upon the Roman flank; while those who were on the left wing faced to the right, and, dressing by the left, charged their right flank,1 the exigency of the moment suggesting to them what they ought to do. Thus it came about, as Hannibal had planned, that the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of Libyans—thanks to their impetuous pursuit of the Celts. Still they fought, though no longer in line, yet singly, or in maniples, which faced about to meet those who charged them on the flanks.

One interesting word there: 'faced about' - from στρέφω strepho - with the meaning in a military context of turn/twist about, i.e. turn 180 degrees: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0032,010:11:9&lang=original

Which implies the Libyans were in the Roman rear rather than strictly speaking on their flanks.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Erpingham on May 24, 2020, 02:16:58 PM
Reading the two source passages, I was struck by Livy's account of the survivors. Most flee to the two Roman camps behind the army.  Only 3000 push forward to Cannae.  So it seems most of the survivors didn't break out forwards Trasimene style, they broke out from the cavalry encirclement at the back.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Duncan Head on May 24, 2020, 08:45:43 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 24, 2020, 11:31:05 AMWorking on the Spanish being about 4,000 strong and the Gauls 16,000 strong, we need a means of having a front line of alternating Gallic and Spanish speira, which means the Gauls and Spanish are in equal numbers in the crescent line.

If we can take Polybios' "alternately" (enallax) absolutely literally (G:S:G:S ...), rather than meaning just "intermixed"; and as applying to the whole line and not just, for instance, the central portion.

And if Gallic and Spanish speirai were of the same strength.

And if Gallic and Spanish speirai formed up in the same number of ranks.

I submit that none of the above are certain.
Title: Re: The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae
Post by: Justin Swanton on May 24, 2020, 08:49:18 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 24, 2020, 08:45:43 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 24, 2020, 11:31:05 AMWorking on the Spanish being about 4,000 strong and the Gauls 16,000 strong, we need a means of having a front line of alternating Gallic and Spanish speira, which means the Gauls and Spanish are in equal numbers in the crescent line.

If we can take Polybios' "alternately" (enallax) absolutely literally (G:S:G:S ...), rather than meaning just "intermixed"; and as applying to the whole line and not just, for instance, the central portion.

And if Gallic and Spanish speirai were of the same strength.

And if Gallic and Spanish speirai formed up in the same number of ranks.

I submit that none of the above are certain.

OK, but we still need a thin crescent and that second line behind it (unless, as Richard says, I got Livy's Latin completely wrong).