Not sure what you want to hear, Boaz.

>>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<<

The pattern I associate with your habit of grabbing at gobbets of information and turning them into a "topic", is that they usually morph into a sermon on the beauties of your religious faith.

Until that happens I'll keep my powder dry, thank you.

So, when exactly do you intend to drop the other shoe?

Pericles.. actually.. I am most interested in alternative strategies to apply to this battle... no other shoe I'm afraid this time. No sermon.

We are dealing with history here, and also, I'm rather hoping that some of us represent sufficient sense and creativity to approach an important battle in a way which would win it.

I often wonder about these ancient battles.. I mean.. I read in one part about this battle that 'after 3 hours of fighting'..... good grief.
I'm about as fit as I've ever been now.. and I (and blokes 1/3 my age) can last about a minute flat stick in one go, and that's not eve with my life at stake.

Combat (even the friendly kind) is so incredibly draining, that I just 'boggle' at the idea of a 3 hour battle involving hand to hand combat, heavy armor and increasingly heavy weapons.

We can see small glimpses into the mindset of these generals..they were fully aware of the differences between elite trained troops and barely trained canon fodder.

Vallus had a group called 'hastarti' from memory.. less trained.. he put them at the FRONT of his 'centre'.. and I can only imagine this was to wear out the front line soldiers of Hanibal so the stronger troops (at the rear)could more easily deal with them.

This seems to fly in the face of Roman strategy of using the 'Turtle' to penetrate or defend.

Seems Hanibal not only read Sun Tze, but remembered more :)

Pericles.. *fair warning*... you might wish to describe this one as 'the other shoe' but not really.

I want to allude to a strategy gleaned from the Old Testament, Gideon in particular, and show how this strategy fits the approach also of Sun Tzu who said "Deception" is the best thing in war.

BACKGROUND.
Midianite oppression, burnt earth strategy against Israelites.
Israelites fading, dying, starving.
They cry for help from God.
God orders Gideon to save Israel.
Gideon raises an army of around 30,000
God prunes them back to 300 (so the Israelites cannot boast about 'their 'strength)
Gideon then approaches the Midianite camp, and orders his vastly outnumbered men to do a strange thing.

Move around the Midianite camp, with trumpets and torches (Hidden in Jars). His method was simple. "What you see me do, do also"

The command was given, Jars were broken, torches exposed, trumpets blasted...and the impact was such that the Midianite camp fell into total confusion and panic, and ended up killing each other (night time..poor visibility)

Applying this to the Roman predicament may have worked wonders!

The Romans at Cannae fell into the very trap that Gideon was told to avoid "By our strength, we will win"

Overconfidence is often our worst enemy. Surprise, deceit, can be our greatest allies against seemingly insurmountable odds.

There must be a host of scenarios of deception and diversion and distraction which come to some bright minds among us? Please share.

With the greatest respect, Boaz, this is nonsense.

>>We are dealing with history here, and also, I'm rather hoping that some of us represent sufficient sense and creativity to approach an important battle in a way which would win it<<

History cannot be massaged in this way for any useful purpose.

"Sense" and "creativity" are all very fine attributes, but cannot come to any justifiable conclusions, since they can only produce a sequence of "ifs".

As my wise old grandmother used to say, "if 'ifs' and 'ands' were pots and pans, there'd be no work for tinkers"

I know a lot of Germans who would like to rule that Geoff Hurst's goal hadn't crossed the line, and they would have been certain to go on and win the 1966 World Cup. But it wasn't, and they didn't.

Incidentally, what evidence do you have that Hannibal read Sun Tzu?

>>Seems Hanibal not only read Sun Tze, but remembered more<<

I somehow doubt that there was an Arabic translation available to him, or that he was able to read Chinese.

Whatever happened to your original theory, which postulated that Cato was a "NeoCon", and related to Oswald Mosley?

Perhaps you would like to explain that a little further, rather than rabbit on about changing history.

aAAh.. sorry Pericles.. when I have tongue in cheek you can't 'see' that from the post :)

Hanibal and Sun Tzu? I haven't a clue if he knew he existed. Just postulating and playing with words and ideas.

How about a strategy to defeat Hanibal?

It is so difficult to tell sometimes, Boaz.

>>aAAh.. sorry Pericles.. when I have tongue in cheek you can't 'see' that from the post :)<<

You quite regularly say things as if they are incontrovertible fact, only to back off when challenged. Since I had no idea from the context whether you actually think you know what you are talking about, or "have tongue in cheek", I thought it worth another challenge. After all, you brought up the connection on two separate occasions...

>>Hanibal and Sun Tzu? I haven't a clue if he knew he existed. Just postulating and playing with words and ideas.<<

Well, to paraphrase the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, you would say that, wouldn't you? The sheer pointlessness of bringing up the connection, if you were fully aware that there was none, defies exaggeration.

>>How about a strategy to defeat Hanibal?<<

News flash: Hannibal was defeated by Scipio at Zama, losing 20,000 men to the Roman 1,500.

Next question?