"My approach is to use the same levels of deception and faking"

Yeah I'd noticed and that from somebody who claims to serve a god who is supposed to be about truth. That's one of the reasons many of us don't have a lot of respect for your faith. You value deception and fakery.

R0bert

Dear David,

The links I gave you clearly illustrate the tactics that the Romans should not have used. The battle of Cannae has served as a classic example of a 'double-envelopment' maneuver, a way for an inferior force to defeat a superior force on an open terrain. Hannibals tactics at Cannae are still studied in military academies.

Clearly the Romans should not have allowed themselves to get surrounded - with no place to move, they should have attacked the wings, not the centre. It's a case of putting 'all your eggs into the one basket.' Militarily, big mistake.

Quite so, R0bert. Boazy's tiresome predilection for "deception and faking" in his posts to this forum is one reason I lack respect for him. - and not just intellectually. It's hard to respect continual mendacity.

Which is of course the very reason I've avoided this silly thread thus far. Ciao!

Dear Foxy... well_done :)

yep.. in my view they (Romans) concentrated far too many of their best troops in the centre, and used 'military orthodoxy' as their guide rather than practical common sense.

It should have been clear that if you just mass troops on the centre, those AT the very centre can't even DO anything, until the others are killed around them.

I don't know that attacking the wings alone would have done it, I think an associated faking of frontal attack, then apparent withdrawal..(exactly as the Hanibal did) and then..IF the quarry took the bait, then you can indeed surround and destroy them.

In terms of intelligence, the Romans SHOULD have known that Hanibal had superior heavy cavalry, and that the potential for being outflanked was high.

I would be most interested to see what Hanibal did, IF the Romans had fought for a while then feined 'defeat' by withdrawing.. would he recognize his own tactics being used against him, or been sucked in and told them to just go for it? or.. withdrawn for a re staging after reveiwing the tactical situation.

The Romans biggest problem was Vallus.. 'rash and impuslive'

Given the river as a 'barrier to escape'.. I think I would have done the following:

1/ Placed physical impediments against cavalry on the flanks (to counter the Carthaginian superiority of numbers.

2/ Used my strongest infantry along with the Cavalry at the flanks to take out Hanibals cavalry, while the centre is more a 'treading water' exercise..keeping the enemy occupied.

3/ If the victory over Hanibals flank cavalry was successful, then the Romans would be in the same position Hanibal was after the Roman centre became deeply enmeshed in his own, and they could embark on a pincer movement themselves.

4/ At all costs, the river flank of the Cathaginians would need to be held from advancing, to seal the encirclement and prevent escape or a flanking movement by them.

I can well imagine why this and other battles are studied. The Battle of Yarmuk (Byzantine/Roman defeat by Muslims) is another worthy of serious contemplation.

Dear David,

Just for your information... My husband became quite fascinated with the Battle of Cannae, and especially with the challenge you put forward.

The end result being was, he came up with the same conclusion as you did.
Almost word for word.

How about that?

So, Thank You for an interesting thread.

Ur most welcome Foxy

If I have achieved some interested interaction.... I'm very happy :)

Simply 'thinking' about such things can better prepare us all for events which may some day engulf us.

I hope some of our other 'brainiacs' like Bugsy and CJ and Pericles will venture a strategy :) but they seem best at just criticizing the work of others than offering original information. (now that should annoy them enuf for a retort :)

I'm interested in 'PEACEFUL' solutions if anyone has any to offer.

We so often hear "We must not resolve conflict with violence".....

ok..wait...

a bit more...

still recovering.....

Almost there....

OK.. NOW I'm ready.. the choking, laughing fit my quote there triggered took a while to recover from :)

Serious now, .. we do need to distinguish between international conflict and more personal localized. No way should we solve ideological disagreements with a punch on!