Reddit reviews The Ghosts of Cannae: Hannibal and the Darkest Hour of the Roman Republic

First time commenting in AskHistorians, and although I'm not a historian, I am a huge Hannibal/Roman Republic fan so maybe I can offer my services.


Hannibal was one of the greatest generals of all time (opinion) for multiple reasons, two of which most apply to your question:


> 1. His battlefield ingenuity

>Hannibal used multiple ingenious tactics to stomp the Romans. From large scale ambushes to the double envelope at Cannae, he was always able to keep the Romans on their toes. Due to this fact, we can safely assume that due to the sheer number of "good" maneuvers, he must have known what he was doing. The Battle of Cannae was his masterpiece - he took a smaller, less cohesive army and triumphed over a Roman army on their home turf. Hannibal had mostly resorted to ambushes before, but he didn't even need one at Cannae. From the initial placing of his troops and their subsequent movements, it is clear that this was a well thought out plan determined to use the Roman advantages and hybris against them. Roman soldiers and generals were consistently the best of the ancient world, but they prefer to fight hand to hand combat, up close and personal with large shields and short shorts, so they would want a close fight. Their war-like culture encouraged daring feats in battle and rewarded accordingly. The Roman army was controlled by two consuls, Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus. Sources tell us that they had very different styles - Varro, the younger and more ambitious, wanted to make a name for himself and was more aggressive, while Paullus was more reserved. The day of Cannae it was Varro's command and he brought out the troops in battle order against the advice of Paullus. Hannibal knew all of this, and wanted to take advantage of Varro's aggressiveness. Like, they had Roman senators just chillin' at the battle cause they were so convinced their larger army would be victorious. Anddd then 80 of them died. Talk about arrogance, what if George W. Bush and 79 of his bros just decided to go watch the invasion of Iraq... from the frontlines... shooting guns... Insane.

> 2. His ability to bring all types of people together

>He had no baggage train like Alexander, yet he was deep into enemy territory with an army mixed of Gauls, Iberian, Libyan, and Numidians. Keep in mind, at this point in time the Roman army was primarily consistent of Romans, with some allied Italians. This is a huge disadvantage for Hannibal - his army speaks a variety of languages and the majority have no personal ties to him whatsoever and mostly fighting for money. I guess one can make the argument that the Gaulish soldiers probably had some vendetta against Rome, but thats beside the point. Any type of army cohesion would be incredibly hard to create, and as such the morale of Hannibal's army from the get-go was weaker than the Romans. This needs to be highly emphasized when looking at Cannae especially.


So where does this leave us? Let's look at the initial army placements - Romans in their typical 3 line arrangement, and Hannibal with his front forward and his wings slightly back. The Carthaginian center was made up of Gauls and Iberians, and both of his wings consisted of his hardened veteran Punic infantry, who most likely fought in phalanx formation. The Gauls and Iberians did not; the Iberians used a large shield and short sword and the Gauls were probably using some Roman equipment from the previous battles. And his cavalry was placed on both flanks. They deserve less focus than the infantry because there is nothing special to say about them besides the fact that they basically always beat the Roman cavalry, as we shall see, but note how they reacted to their victory.

Hannibal's center is more maneuverable due to the differing in fighting styles of his troops, for in order for his plan to work, he must put his Iberian and Gaulish, who are not Carthaginian, in his middle. Typically, the center of an army is the strongest point, but Hannibal threw that out the window. And where did Hannibal reside? It is mostly overlooked and sometimes given attention, but he was directly behind his center, encouraging and yelling out orders.

As the battle goes, the Roman attack the front, and Hannibal feints a retreat - feints as a decision. Varrus assumed that his larger, superior army could smash Hannibal's center... and look at that! They are backing up! It is only time before they fall and the Carthaginian army will be fall and run back to the Alps!

And then Hannibal gives the halt command, his Gauls and Iberians hold their ground. His veteran infantry on his flanks make a pincer move and double envelope the romans. While a smaller army and less deep, the Carthaginians have effectively completely surrounded the Roman army. Excuse me if that doesn't make you giddier than a schoolgirl because I have the biggest smile on my face right now.

Oh yeah, and those cavalry units? Of course they beat their Roman counterpart for the 50th time, and they return and effectively charge into the back of the Romans. Why is this important? Sometimes in these battles, if one cavalry triumphed over another, they would not necessarily turn and help out their infantry. Sometimes they would leave and plunder the enemy's camp, which is more rewarding for them, but thank goodness Hannibal's brother leads the cavalry and turned immediately after defeating the Romans. A full surround, 50,000 men around 85,000 men. And then they were slaughtered mercilessly.


Back to your question:
> 1. Did Hannibal tell his center to fall back?

>Yes, 100% due to the layout of his army, the maneuvers of his center and the lack of movement from his flanks, his personal placement of himself, the recalling of his cavalry, and the fact that he was just an all-around badass are all reasons why we know without a doubt this was all planned.

> 2. Did he assume it would happen?

>Probably, as well. Keep in mind he had his weakest and least trustworthy troops in his center, and so had to place himself there to personally watch over them. His plan would have been completely foiled if his center fell, and took all measures to assure that it would not. In fact, if his center had fallen, modern historians would probably think much less highly of him because - assuming it collapsed and the invasion was over - it would have been an awful decision. Why would spread his smaller army out, so it's less deep, and put his worst troops in the center, the seemingly most important part of an army. Oh because he's a genius, that's why.


Hope that helps!

Sources - The Ghosts of Cannae by Robert L. O'Connel, Hannibal by Robert Garland

*edited for grammmmar and format

That comment was supposedly said by Maharbal, one of Hannibal's lieutenants, after Cannae. Cannae was the third and most devastating in a series of victories Hannibal won against Roman legions immediately after arriving in Italy. Rome was genuinely crippled after the battle and the City was almost entirely undefended. Hannibal hesitated to march on Rome though, as he didn't trust his army's ability to maintain a siege against the most heavily fortified city in the world. Because he didn't deliver the coup de grace, Rome gradually recovered and ultimately defeated Hannibal and Carthage after a war of attrition that lasted nearly twenty years. You can read Livy's account here (the exchange with Maharbal is in 22.51).

Even though the hesitancy to march on Rome is sometimes seen as a strategic blunder, the decision wasn't so obviously wrong at the time. Hannibal hoped to strip away Rome's Italian allies after demonstrating his ability to crush Roman armies. He underestimated the nature and durability of those Italian alliances, but he continued in Italy for another sixteen or seventeen years, defeating nearly every army that was sent against him. He only left when Scipio Africanus invaded Africa and Carthage recalled him to defend the homeland. Hannibal's tactical brilliance is absolutely undeniable--he is one of the most imaginative and successful generals of the classical world--and his strategic missteps are I think somewhat over-exaggerated.

If you're interested in Hannibal, the two best classical sources are Livy and Polybius. I would also recommend The Ghosts of Cannae. It's a highly engaging and readable account of Hannibal's invasion written by an historian with a great deal of military expertise, and it goes into some detail about the precise tactics Hannibal employed.

The standard textbook history right now appears to be The Romans: From Village to Empire.

Klaus Bringmann's A History of the Roman Republic also still seems to be the standard introduction to that period (i.e. the time period of Imperator).

If you want to read about the end of the Roman Republic and Caesar/Augustus, it's hard to turn down Caesar: Life of a Colossus which is great for the general reader, alongside his Augustus: First Emperor of Rome.

He also writes pretty solid books on other major Roman figures, such as In the Name of Rome: The Men who won the Roman Empire.

If you want to get a pretty good introduction to Roman History, but more of what life was like for the average citizen, SPQR by Mary Beard is actually a good choice.

Older, but still solid, is Peter Garnsey's The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture which covers a lot of things Beard doesn't.

For the Roman army, Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army is a solid introduction.

However you'll want to break that down into several books if you want to go deeper:

Roman Military Equipment by MC Bishop and JCN Coulston

The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries AD by Graham Webster

A Companion to the Roman Army by Paul Erdkamp

For the collapse of the Western Roman Empire I'd recommend both Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians combined with the more scholarly Guy Halsall's Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West.

For the forgotten half of Roman History, often mistakenly called the "Byzantine Empire," it's hard to cover with just one book, but Warren Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine State and Society has become the standard reading. John Haldon's The Empire that would not Die covers the critical transition during the Islamic conquests thoroughly.

Of course I have to include books on the two IMO most overrated battles in Roman history on this list since that's what people love:

The Battle of the Teutoberg Wald: Rome's Greatest Defeat by Adrian Murdoch

The Battle of Cannae: Cannae: Hannibal's Greatest Victory is sort of the single book to read if you can only pick one. However, The Ghosts of Cannae is also good. But if you actually want to go really in depth, you need Gregory Daly's dry-as-the-Atacama book Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War. When I say dry as the Atacama, I mean it, but it's also extraordinarily detailed.

I'd complement this with Goldsworthy's The Punic Wars.

For other interesting topics:

The Emergence of the Bubonic Plague: Justinian's Flea and Plague and the End of Antiquity.

Hadrian's Wall: Hadrian's Wall by Adrian Goldsworthy

Roman Architecture: Roman Architecture by Frank Sear (definitely a bit more scholarly but you can probably handle it)

I may post more in addendum to this list with further comments but I think I'm reaching the character count.

It's pretty metal. By "fire whirl" they mean "gigantic city burning fire tornado."

EDIT: btw, if cannae is something you're into, I quite liked this. Not as easy to read as Tuchman or Beevor, but still good.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ghosts-Cannae-Hannibal-Republic/dp/0812978676/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1341592497&sr=8-10&keywords=hannibal+barca

This one's not too dry, actually. Might be a good place for you to start. Easily readable while still going into a good amount of depth

Ditto on Dan Carlin. Probably the most comprehensive thing you'll find since he sources so much and does such a thorough job.

I'm currently listening to the Ghosts of Cannae audio book off of Dan Carlin's recommendation. Great stuff: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ghosts-Cannae-Hannibal-Republic/dp/0812978676

The Ghosts of Cannae does a great job of describing Hannibal's methods.

I know the whole second Punic war's first history was written 70 years after... Second some 120-130 years after. the only actual physical evidence that Hannibal existed? a passing reference on a piece of tablet that was a dedication.

Source: Ghosts of Cannae

Good book to check out about the Second Punic War with a heavy focus on the Battle of Cannae.

https://www.amazon.com/Ghosts-Cannae-Hannibal-Darkest-Republic/dp/0812978676