During this battles severals roman legions were slaughtered by Hannibal troups: about 47 000 legionary died during this batlle.

I can't understand how it was possible that the best army was defeated? How was it possible for 47 000 roman soldiers , well trained, well equiuped and protected by cuirass to be killed?

Thnks for your answers.

It is mind boggling the amount of carnage that took place. We are talking bludgeoning >45K, by a largely numerically inferior force, just incredible.

There is good reason this is the most studied battle of all time. So many leaders tried to reproduce his tactics, but no one reproduced Hannibal's level of success.

The Romans failed to support their flanks, and continued to advance blindly while they were outflanked and surrounded. I think they were so used to being superior in force, discipline, and grit that tactics and good common sense were not considered.

Alternating leadership with the Roman Consuls certainly didn't help the Romans. Hannibal was such an electric leader, motivator of men. It's incredible that he lead so well, a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic force.

 The romans could of won had they not sacrificed the flexibility of the legions for the rigidity of the phalanx, their formation was so tight that it resembled the rigidity and the weaknesses of a massive phalanx.

 The maniples within the legions could not turn properly to face other enemies hence why when they were hemmed in by Hannibals Libyan troops on the flanks they were unable to engage them properly, the cavalry to the rear then hemmed them in fully and the massacre began in earnest.

 Had the Romans not crammed together in one big mass trying to smash right through the centre of Hannibals army theres no reason why they should of lost because not matter how good Hannibal was his army was  much smaller that even if the legions were reasonably well led theyd of overran the Carthagian army eventually.

 Hannibal knew his Iberian and Gallic troops were unreliable he used this weakness to an advantage by positioning them in the centre, when they started to buckle and the Romans even more sucked into the centre. The Libyans wheeled around and pin the flanks of the crammed legions. The Romans fell for it utterly and paid an unimaginable price in lives.

 Hannibal is said to have lost only around 6000 men most of them gauls and iberians the Romans could have lost as many as 50,000-55,000 it cant be known for sure.

 It was a truly amazing victory but Roman stupidity and the incompetance of its great majority of generals doomed countless thousands of men to death when the same men could just of easily had slaughtered their enemies.

THE Battle Of Cannae

In detail,please click

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html - http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html

The conventional deployment for armies of this time was to place infantry in the centre and split the cavalry between the wings. The Romans followed this fairly closely, but chose extra depth rather than breadth for their infantry (resulting in a front of about equal size to the numerically inferior Carthaginians) in the hopes of quickly breaking through Hannibal's centre.

 A close escape indeed for Scipio.

 Cannae was just a mess from the beginning, exposing every single weakness of Roman military power, its lack of appreciation for a cavalry wing, its arrogance, its disrespect for the flexibility of the carthaginian army, its unability to learn from past experiences, shoddy and divided leadership etc etc.

 The allied cavalry on the right flank of the Romans actually put up a good fight, but was severely outnumbered, the cavalry on the left flank fled when the Spanish heavy cavalry from the Carthaginian left came to join the Numidians on the right.

 The Carthaginian army was actually less mobile than the Romans, until Hannibal altered his Libyans formation and turned them from rigid block phalanxes to flexible infantry. However in this battle Rome sacrificed its flexibility for the ancient and outdated rigidity of a phalanx, trying to break the enemies centre with a massive concentration of force.

 Theres examples of other Carthaginian generals attempting to copy Hannibals weak centre tactic, I believe Hasdrubal tried it in Spain but it fell to pieces. It shows that this tactic takes immense skill and ability to work.

 Cannae was a Roman defeat because of pure stupidity, even I could of got it right.

 Carthage could win the battles but not the war, not rebuilding the fleet and not sending enough help to Hannibal made battles like Cannae worthless, very very bloody but worthless nonetheless. Stupidity in Spain also played a major part, a total lack of coordination and foresight allowed Scipio to seize new Carthage for example. Romes problems on the field were largely negated by having domination of the seas and better focus, whereas Hannibal was waltzing around Italy in a futile attempt to break the Roman confederacy, Rome was looking further abroad to the main battle which was the one for Spain. Hannibal was contained in Italy whilst the Barcid empire was picked apart by Scipio.

 Carthage blew the best chance someone would have to take down Rome for the next 6 centuries.

Are you referring to the Battle of Dertosia?

The failure of Hasdrubal's formation there wasn't due to any lack of skills on his part.  The formation didn't work because his center broke before the cavalry could provide relief.

You have to realize, Hasdrubal's army (and most importantly, his Iberian levy) wasn't the veteran, crack army that Hannibal used at Cannae, and that at Dertosia, the Roman commanders weren't nearly as inept.

 Nigel Bagnall in "The Punic wars: Rome, Carthage and the struggle for the Meditterranean" suggests it was partly because of Hasdrubal when he says;

"The Roman legions probably adopted their normal formation; Hasdrubal for his part, in obvious imitation of Hannibal's tactics at Cannae, thinned out the Spanish infantry holding the centre, and concentrated the Libyans and the cavalry on the wings. But Hasdrubal was no Hannibal and the Romans broke though his line before the wings could close and envelop them. The Carthaginians suffered heavy casualties and were completely defeated, leaving the Scipios with the initiative".

 That says to me that Hasdrubal either thinned the centre out to much or didnt time and coordinate things properly as Hannibal had. I believe Hasdrubal was a good commander but that tactic takes expert timing and skill.

 Hasdrubals army was nowhere near as good as Hannibals granted, but then why try and do something that clearly only a veteran experienced army could do?

 Also Hasdrubal was not outnumbered like Hannibal was, this battle was around 25,000 Carthaginians against around 25,000 Romans. The fact they were totally defeated, its largely due to the fact he attempted to copy Hannibals tactics. Because as Hannibal knew if the centre broke to early the army would be annihilated.

Not sure how the passage gives you that impression.  In any case, his formation was quite sound.

Those tactics destroyed the Romans once, so why couldn't they do it again? 

It was a fair assumption that the overall numerical equality and the Carthaginian advanatge in cavalry would make Hasdrubal's plan a success.

Why was his decision to imitate Hannibal's formation such a bad one?  Had his Iberian levy not been of inferior quality to the Roman foot, he likely would've won that battle.  It only makes sense to copy successful tactics.

 It makes sense to copy a successful tactic used by a good army if you yourself have a good army, Hasdrubal didnt.

 That passage gives me that impression because he says Hasdrubal was no Hannibal, pointing out he was inferior to Hannibal so unable to use this formation effectively, its takes a high level of skill to pull this off.

 If Hasdrubal had had a better army then maybe itd of been a good idea, but he didnt have a particularly good army, so it was suicide to place unreliable troops in the centre. It was ok for Hannibal because his men were veterans with 2 major victories over Rome in its own backyard already behind them. 

 Therefore it's a big negative on Hasdrubals ability that he practically suicided his army when trying to copy a far superior commander, he should of known his centre would not be able to hold the legions back.

 Hannibals iberian and gauls were inferior to the roman foot soldiers that was the whole point in the formation, but again his men were veterans Hasdrubals wernt, choosing a formation like that, exposing your weakest men to the best of the enemy when your army is clearly inferior is a dumb move. Hannibal was miles ahead of Hasdrubal and so was his army hence why they were able to annihilate the Romans at Cannae.

 Thats my point, it was an error in judgement on Hasdrubals part, to think by simply copying Hannibals tactics, victory would be his.

 Hannibal didnt just win Cannae because of his tactics, he was an immensely inspirational leader , by placing himself at the centre of the formation his presence inspired his troops to fight harder and longer.

But it wasn't Hasdrubal that caused the loss, rather, it was the Roman center.

I've already pointed out the rationale behind using Hannibal's formation.  The assumption must've been that if a vastly outnumbered group of veterans could hold out against the Romans, then a unit that wasn't heavily outnumbered, but was of lesser quality could hold out too.

At Cannae, Hannibal was exposing his weakest men to the enemy's best...

 At Cannae I know Hannibal was, ive already said that! but ive also said his army was far better coupled with his superior leadership/ability he turned a disadvantage into an advantage, because he was a tactical genius, Hasdrubal was not.

 "But it wasn't Hasdrubal that caused the loss, rather, it was the Roman center."

 Yes but also at Cannae the centre of Hannibals army was in danger of buckling to from Romes, that was the whole idea of the plan, but Hannibal was far better than Hasdrubal. Hannibal knew if his centre broke all was lost, he took a risk but a risk he knew he had the ability to overcome. Hannibal knew man for man his army was inferior, even without the numerical advantage, thats why he's a genius the fact he overcame that.

 Hasdrubal just copied him without any of the ability Hannibal had, he had the same plan but it took the kind of precise timing and coordination that Hannibal made look so easy to pull it off. Hasdrubal didnt pull it off, if because he didnt flank the Romans fast enough or expected to much from his centre is a negative on his generalship either way.

 I can see what he was thinking, but he should also of known his army was not as good as Hannibals, two different battles in two totally different locations different circumstances, it wasnt going to end up the same as Cannae just because he used Hannibals tactics. Varro at Cannae was a total incompetant, the Scipios wernt.

He was taking the same risks as Hannibal had four years earlier.  That his cavalry couldn't defeat their opposition as fast as Hannibal's had at Cannae doesn't point to any flaw in Hasdrubal's generalship.  Dertosia was lost by factors out of Hasdrubal's control.

 I think Hasdrubal was a good commander but not in Hannibal rank he had smaller army than Hannibal army,I think the cavalry of Hannibal was the decisive factor of his win in Canne like Parthian they could defeat roman army by cavalry because roman system depended on infantry

therefor the Roman was good in offensive and Parthian was good in defensive.

I wouldn't underestimate a significant factor ...actually two of them:

The first: In Cannae, the Romans cooperated fully with Hannibal's plan. Instead of widening their front to try and outflank the smaller army, they placed the legionaries at half of the normal space, to gain in density and impact - didn't do much good to them in the end, of course. Also, they charged their head on into the advancing Gauls&Iberians, instead of retaining the formation.

Full cooperation which resulted in the mass slaughter we all know.

The second factor: Luck. Even the best general needs luck on his side to suceed. Hannibal was lucky - very lucky indeed. But most leaders winning decisive battles had luck on their side.

TOTAL 70,000 Romans vs 50,000 Carthaginian

 Depends whose accounts you believe Livy seems to suggest there was around 90,000 romans, but even if it were 70,000 v 50,000 the fact remains 20,000 men is a huge advantage and Hannibal was significantly outnumbered. Made worse by the fact this was a Roman army who often didnt need massive armies to crush enemy armies. The armies subsequent defeat was due to shoddy tactics and total stupidity.

 If you dont consider a 70,000 man army as outnumbering a 50,000 man army then you should look up the meaning of being outnumbered.

 The Roman numbers actually favoured Hannibal the more men that crammed into one place the harder itd be for them to resist Hannibals tactics, the use of  Roman numbers and poor tactics caused their annihilation.