A New Look at Cannae

[Chuck the Grey]

I spent the weekend looking at two videos on the Invicta youtube channel analyzing the Battle of Cannae (216 BCE). The first video is titled The Big Lie of Cannae (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McgnF0eubC4) and provides a detailed discussion of why Invicta thinks the common understanding of Cannae is flawed.

The second video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXtbTqXXh0o&t=1s) is Dr. Adrian Goldsworthy's response to The Big Lie of Cannae. I enjoyed both videos, each is about 90 minutes, and would be interested in your thoughts on the analysis in the first video and response from Dr. Goldsworthy.

[Ian61]

Thanks for this post Chuck. Impressive and always interesting to hear well thought out ideas on these matters. I think the young chap is showing us a glimpse of the future for analysis of these battles but unless we find even better source material for the actual setup of the armies rather than guesses I am not convinced we will have a definitive answer to the question of how Hannibal pitted this off. It was interesting that Goldsworthy seems to have been shifting his ideas over time, nice to see in such a highly regarded academic.
PS did you use subtitles at all. I should have noted all the different interpretations on Cannae, it was quite amusing.

[skb777]

Yes I watched that, a bit of unnecessary waffle at times. A good impression of the sheer scale of an ancient battle i though and the problems commanders faced with the length of a battle line when it came to C&C. The 'big lie' was a bot misleading I thought, but interesting visuals showing the limits in visibility. Didn't realise there was a follow up so I'll watch that.

[RichT]

Yes I've watched and enjoyed these too (well I fast forwarded a few bits, not enough hours in the day). The stuff on the site of the battle, course of the river etc was very familiar from a long discussion we had here a few years back. As they admit 'the big lie' was a bit of a clickbait title, there were no great revelations or new theories (thank goodness) but overall it was interesting.

[Justin Swanton]

I did an article on Cannae some years back for Slingshot. My take is that Livy is clear the Carthaginians had two lines in the centre - one thin that formed the wedge and one thick behind it:

"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 [a cetera prominentem acie], for it was too thin to be strong." - Livy: 22.47

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

The point of the wedge was to delay the Roman infantry engagement by having them stop to fight the best troops at the flatted tip of the wedge. They finally advanced against the sides of the wedge which promptly collapsed and fell back to the second line. The concave shape of the second line once it engaged was simply a natural result of the Roman centre pushing ahead whilst the flanks stalled fighting the Poeni infantry to their front and rear.

But do we want to discuss this again?

[Keraunos]

All good wargamers and military historians will be dancing around Cannae to the end of time.