Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apres Cannae

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    Beseiging Rome forces them to give battle no? If Hannibal is sitting outside Rome another supporting army has forage duty or guard our back duty.
    S,

    You seem to ignore Mihais's comment that Hannibal was in no position to siege Rome.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Is it Rome or Hannibal who offers battle?

    Hastrubal was no Hannibal.
    Beseiging Rome forces them to give battle no? If Hannibal is sitting outside Rome another supporting army has forage duty or guard our back duty.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    The reason why Hannibal did not do it and why Fabious did was that Hannibal's men got nothing to eat. Fabious burned everything in front of Hannibal, leaving Hannibal's men nothing to eat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blademaster
    replied
    How come Hannibal did not practice scorched earth policy? He could have raided Roman farms, industries, sea ports, ala Mongol style. It would have the effect of bottling up Roman armies in the cities and Romans would have lost the country side effectively losing control of its empire.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    Well I asked for a military view and am grateful for your opinions, though I not entirely convinced; marching on Rome surely is the ONE way to force Rome to accept battle?
    Is it Rome or Hannibal who offers battle?

    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    Never mind... Suppose Hastrubal had not been defeated? Would the presence of a second Carthaginian/allied army in the immeadiate theatre have alowed Hannibal to win the 2nd Punic War?
    Hastrubal was no Hannibal.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 08 Mar 12,, 15:47.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    Well I asked for a military view and am grateful for your opinions, though I not entirely convinced; marching on Rome surely is the ONE way to force Rome to accept battle? If they are defeated there, outside the very gates of Rome, it's pretty much game over.

    Never mind... Suppose Hastrubal had not been defeated? Would the presence of a second Carthaginian/allied army in the immeadiate theatre have alowed Hannibal to win the 2nd Punic War?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    We are derailing, either KIA+WIA numbers are wrong or 20k is a figure too small for the men that would be fit to participate in the siege. Unless of course Hannibal's casualties were 60%, which were not.

    Anyway, the fact remains that Hannibal can't effectively siege Rome, even if all 50k troops he had prior are alive and well. Can we move on?
    I see why you're confused.Ancient sources give the KIA's.The WIA's are estimated based on typical engagements and modern studies about ancient battles.Some certainly died,some were disabled permanently,while others recovered.Againt some adversaries,it is resonable to say that a higher WIA/KIA ratio existed,based on their tactics and weapons.Like the Parthians,Dacians and Thracians.

    Now ,we can move on

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    Ok... now I am getting lost! A 'tactician' relates to battlefield tactics right and a strategist to 'campaign movement', with logistics (food, weapons, clothes etc) thrown in? So Hannibal is not a strategist? The whole concept of over the Alps and all? That IS a strategic concept yes? (Not sure if I have terms right when addressing the military).
    The move across the Alps was a fantastic piece of strategic surprise but it was squandered when he could not bring the Romans into a battle of annihilation. Cannae does not count. Rome was not annihilated.

    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    You say that Hannibal never managed to bring a Roman army to battle Sir; yes but only after Fabius Maximus was appointed Dictator/assumed command, and his express policy was NOT to give battle.
    I said that he was never able to force battle. He could not force the Romans to a battle that they had to fight.

    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    Ok so you have more (useless) soldiers than Hannibal 2/3rds of whom may change sides. IF he beseiges Rome every day he sits outside the greater the likelihood that City A (particularly the Greek cities - who Hannibal was allied with in their homeland) will defect. The odds on manpower COULD change very rapidly.
    Wellington once said, if you face Napoleon, run away. If you face his Marshalls, stand and fight.

    Hannibal could not defend two cities at once.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Hannibal was a maneuver general, not a positional general. A fantastic tactician but a poor strategist. He never did once forced a Roman army to accept battle.
    Ok... now I am getting lost! A 'tactician' relates to battlefield tactics right and a strategist to 'campaign movement', with logistics (food, weapons, clothes etc) thrown in? So Hannibal is not a strategist? The whole concept of over the Alps and all? That IS a strategic concept yes? (Not sure if I have terms right when addressing the military).

    You say that Hannibal never managed to bring a Roman army to battle Sir; yes but only after Fabius Maximus was appointed Dictator/assumed command, and his express policy was NOT to give battle.

    Originally posted by Mihais View Post
    Sara,nope.The besieger has more problems than the besieged,if the city is prepared and well supplied with food and water.Whatever can be foraged will be gone soon,even if the defenders don't practice scorched earth and foul water and poor food will affect even a modern high tech army with dysenteria.Back then it was much worse and whole armies perished by disease in front of fortified walls.If there is a relief force or one that can harass the besiegers,it's even worse.In short,those are the reasons fortified cities were a functional concept for thousands of years.If you remember,Vercingetorix was sorta forced into Alesia and the city wasn't properly supplied,an impediment compounded by being overcrowded.

    None apply to Rome after Cannae.The city was well supplied after Trasimene.The defenders outnumbered what Hannibal could bring to Rome right after Cannae.Hannibal in a fixed position is an easy target for a commander like Fabius,as the Colonel said.Fabius has an intact fleet,a league of loyal city to harass Hannibal's meagre logistic lifeline and superior numbers.Roman Senate and the most loyal cities were acutely aware of these advantages,thus while the situation was serious,it was not desperate and nobody from the core of Roman power tried to bail out.
    Ok so you have more (useless) soldiers than Hannibal 2/3rds of whom may change sides. IF he beseiges Rome every day he sits outside the greater the likelihood that City A (particularly the Greek cities - who Hannibal was allied with in their homeland) will defect. The odds on manpower COULD change very rapidly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by Mihais View Post
    All KIA's.A bit more than half were Gauls.Polybius and Titus Livius included them,I'm just relaying information.Can't kill them if they lied
    We are derailing, either KIA+WIA numbers are wrong or 20k is a figure too small for the men that would be fit to participate in the siege. Unless of course Hannibal's casualties were 60%, which were not.

    Anyway, the fact remains that Hannibal can't effectively siege Rome, even if all 50k troops he had prior are alive and well. Can we move on?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    All KIA's.A bit more than half were Gauls.Polybius and Titus Livius included them,I'm just relaying information.Can't kill them if they lied

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by Mihais View Post
    Hannibal lost between 5000 to 8000 men.The higher the number,higher the Roman patriotism of the historian.If he had lost more,we would have known.
    Are you including Gallic and Spanish losses?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    Hannibal lost between 5000 to 8000 men.The higher the number,higher the Roman patriotism of the historian.If he had lost more,we would have known.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Mihais,

    Something is wrong wih your numbers, mate.

    Hannibal had 45,000-50,000 troops on the field and suffered 10,000-15,000 KIA. If you add 2-3x more wounded he has no troops left.

    Otherwise I agree with your logic that he can't siege Rome. He has no experience in siege, no tools and no troops for such an adventure.

    Snapper,


    Even if Gallic accept to send more troops, when will they arriveand in what numbers?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    Sara,nope.The besieger has more problems than the besieged,if the city is prepared and well supplied with food and water.Whatever can be foraged will be gone soon,even if the defenders don't practice scorched earth and foul water and poor food will affect even a modern high tech army with dysenteria.Back then it was much worse and whole armies perished by disease in front of fortified walls.If there is a relief force or one that can harass the besiegers,it's even worse.In short,those are the reasons fortified cities were a functional concept for thousands of years.If you remember,Vercingetorix was sorta forced into Alesia and the city wasn't properly supplied,an impediment compounded by being overcrowded.

    None apply to Rome after Cannae.The city was well supplied after Trasimene.The defenders outnumbered what Hannibal could bring to Rome right after Cannae.Hannibal in a fixed position is an easy target for a commander like Fabius,as the Colonel said.Fabius has an intact fleet,a league of loyal city to harass Hannibal's meagre logistic lifeline and superior numbers.Roman Senate and the most loyal cities were acutely aware of these advantages,thus while the situation was serious,it was not desperate and nobody from the core of Roman power tried to bail out.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X