The Stratagetic Importance of Cannae

Often people comment that Cannae was a superb tactical battle but had no major stratagetic consequences. These people are in fact wrong. In the aftermath of Cannae Romr had no field army capable of contesting control of Italy with Hannibal, she had lost her field army of over 80,000 men only 10-15,000 of whom were brought back to service. Hannibal used this advanatge well looting the battlefield and camps, recovering and trying to arranges ransoms. After this Capua, all but one of the Samnite tribes, most of Bruttium, most of Lucanis, and some of Apulia and Calabria sided with him! The stratagetic importance of Cannae was therefore massive not nil.

Very true DQ.

We aren't aupposing it took place. We are using universally accepted sources and the universally accepted fact he did exist. What are you getting at? Hannibal's accomplishments after Cannae were just as good as before.

Can you explain instead of using bad analogies? Hannibal who is universally held to have existed and Cannae also universally recognized as happening was followed up by diplomacy. In thr aftermath and because of the massive victory numerous towns switched sides including the second largest Italian town Capua. Most of Bruttium, Calabria Lucania and some of Apulia also switched sides. The victory seriously shook the foundation of Rome's alliances. With the absence of a Roman field army Hannibal was able to secure his defections and capture some of the few pro Roman cities. Cannae also had a huge impact on the Roman psyche. Anyway if you contest the universally accepted battle of Cannae and Hannibal extraordinary proof is required.

I personally don't believe in King Arthur. There was probably someone similar to him but there aren't trusted sources for his existence. Not sure on Sun Tzu never researched it but I have read the book. Polybius and Livy are the primary sources for this though Appian and several other authors note this. I'm not sure if you are trying to imply I'm lying but I most certainly am not. The principal sources state this, numerous modern authors also concur.

Edited by Delenda est Roma - 12-Aug-2012 at 14:41

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma I personally don't believe in King Arthur. There was probably someone similar to him but there aren't trusted sources for his existence. Not sure on Sun Tzu never researched it but I have read the book. Polybius and Livy are the primary sources for this though Appian and several other authors note this. I'm not sure if you are trying to imply I'm lying but I most certainly am not. The principal sources state this, numerous modern authors also concur.

Polybius and Livy were said to have gained what they used mainly off of the same works from a couple of other authors. Like I have already said, no fragments of these other authors say anything about hannibal at all.

Livy was a love struck patriot yet he copied most of Polybius' work so he is sort of reliable. Polybius reviwed eyewitnesses, used eyewitness accounts an contemporary sources. He mentions Sosylus and Chaereas. Small parts of these writers have survived. Most of Polybius' work was also destroyed only somr being preserved so its no suprise only some of the contemporary sources survived.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma I'm not sure what you mean? This is again accepted fact by the majority of historians. Are you suggesting corruption and the "disappearance" of legions caused these massive population declines and the emerging of plantations? You claim Hannibal didn't exist. As such you need to provide evidence that the majority of historians aren't aware of. The Second Punic War is also known as the Hannibalic War showing how much he affected it. If you deny the existence of Hannibal you deny the existence of The Punic Wars. Coelius Antipater used Silenus a contemporary source which Livy used and quoted.

Isn't that somewhat a contradiction in terms saying something is an accepted fact, when what looks to have been accepted has nothing solid to back it up? You are trying to make out what historians are using is solid facts because they are using them. That's not automatically something which is logic at all. There are well known ancient historians whose works have been used and taken for truth until found out to be not so accurate after all. When it comes to the existence of hannibal why don't we apply a little scientific thinking, as for proof the scientific method is usually considered the best. Hannabil took a lot of men and elephants over the Alps. The weather was very cold and many men died from either the cold or due to falling and being lost. After all the losses they move into Northern Italy and crush Roman forces at the Trebia River and at Lake Traisimens. Looking at these things scientifically, and taking the march over the Alps alone. There are no remains found from the fallen, and not one piece of their equipment. Even at the Trebia River and at Lake Traisimens where the Romans were meant to have been crushed, nothing.

Actually as I've shown their is indeed archeological evidence. But in asnwer to your questions the sites of these battles are disputed and so accurate digging can't be done. Also many mass graves from history have yet to be found. The fact id Hannibal and the Second Punic War's existence is unquestionable until evidence is provided otherwise. We have to much written and archaeological evidence to dismiss him and the war.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Actually as I've shown their is indeed archeological evidence. But in asnwer to your questions the sites of these battles are disputed and so accurate digging can't be done. Also many mass graves from history have yet to be found. The fact id Hannibal and the Second Punic War's existence is unquestionable until evidence is provided otherwise. We have to much written and archaeological evidence to dismiss him and the war.

I didn't say anything about the second Punic war not existing, just aspects of it.