The bow (ehrmm...CRESCENT) at Cannae

[Erpingham]

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.

[RichT]

they 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.

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[aligern]

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

[RichT]

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.

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)

[Andreas Johansson]

The aromans? Were they particularly smelly?

A variant, clearly, of "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.)

[Justin Swanton]

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).



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:



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

[Erpingham]

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)?

[Justin Swanton]

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. 

[Erpingham]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

The perils of crossing posts.  I apologise for my lack of patience Justin.

I'll forgive you, eventually, maybe...let me think about it...

[RichT]

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).

[Justin Swanton]

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. 

[Jim Webster]

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

[Erpingham]

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.