My last post used the words of Polybius to answer a question
regarding the effectiveness of the Roman manipular technique against the phalanx
formation. In this post we will delve deeper into the subject, specifically the
Roman battles against Hannibal and his phalanx, to show that victory had more
to do with leadership and skill than the phalanx as a superior military tactic.
Hannibal was superior in every way to the Roman generals of the Republican
period because he was an expert tactician and charismatic leader. Having said
that, we have to give the Roman generals some slack because they were hamstrung
by politics and the command philosophy of the Republican political system.
In the first years of the Second Punic War, the Romans fought
Hannibal on three occasions: Trebbia in November 218, Lake Trasimene in June
217, and Cannae in August 216. All were
disasters for Rome. In each case Hannibal used topography, the element of
surprise, and speed to defeat his enemy. The Romans were unprepared to fight a
superior tactician and in at least the first two cases vastly underestimated
their adversary.
At Trebbia, Hannibal set up the battle so the Romans missed their breakfast and had to wade through ice cold water to get to him, exhausting themselves before they could engage. After Hannibal’s Numidian cavalry chased off the Roman horsemen, the maniples became vulnerable to attacks from the side as they moved forward. Then, with elephants trampling the wings of the Roman front, an ambush from behind was launched. Eventually the Romans were able to puncture the center of the Punic line, but the battle was lost everywhere else by that time. Roman casualties amounted to some 15,000.
The phalanx at the Punic center had been manned by
expendable Gauls who were not the tactical focal point of the battle but instead
were used as a drawing card for the Roman legions.
It’s hard to believe that Hannibal had only arrived in Italy a couple of weeks earlier after his tortuous journey over the Alps where he lost as many as 20,000 men. To plan and engage in a major battle in that short time is a testimony to his leadership.
It’s hard to believe that Hannibal had only arrived in Italy a couple of weeks earlier after his tortuous journey over the Alps where he lost as many as 20,000 men. To plan and engage in a major battle in that short time is a testimony to his leadership.
Before moving on to Lake Trasimene, we need to discuss the
politics and structure of the Roman Army as it impacted military operations
during this period. At the time of the second Punic War no consul was allowed
to have more than two legions under his command, severely limiting the size of his
army. Moreover, on those occasions where the consuls represented rival factions
in the Senate, they refused to cooperate in a combined command structure and,
instead, operated separately. The only option to overcoming this limitation was
to invoke a dictatorship, but the Senate had not yet lost confidence in its
commanders in the period after Trebbia.
Flaminius and Germinus were elected consuls for 217 B.C. and
each took command of his army in the spring. Flaminius was positioned to pursue
Hannibal if he chose the center route through Italy while Germinus’ army was
located to the west. Once Flaminius became aware of Hannibal’s moves in his
direction he made the unwise decision to go after him without waiting for
Germinus to reinforce him. Aware of Flaminius by reconnaissance, Hannibal’s movements
took him near Lake Trasimene which he immediately recognized as the perfect location
for an ambush.
Hannibal distributed his troops along a defile that framed
the eastern shore of the lake and deployed cavalry and skirmishers on the road to
the north. Flaminius, following Hannibal, marched around the north side of the
lake with no sense of what lie ahead of him. In the morning mist the Romans
encountered the vanguard of the Punic army thinking it was their rear. As they
pushed on, they came under fire by the Punic troops stationed above them on the
hillside. Then as they continued to press southward into the defile, the Romans
were annihilated.
The photograph below shows defile on the right of the modern
road with the lake on the left.
Roman loses were 15,000 killed, including Flaminius, and
10,000 captured.
The loses at Trebbia and Lake Trasimene demanded the
appointment of a dictator and Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus was named. Little
was accomplished during his tenure which amounted to the remainder of 217 B.C.
Fabius dogged Hannibal but would not fight him. This frustrated Hannibal
because the Punic leader believed that Rome could only be taken if its allies
could be turned and the allies could only be turned if they saw the Roman army
defeated. At the end of 217 B.C, the dictatorship was suspended.
The year 216 B.C. brought new consuls into the command
position: C. Terentius Varro and L. Aemilius Paullus. They readied their armies
in the spring and picked up Hannibal’s trail that summer, arriving at Cannae on
the last day of July. Both commanders knew how important it was to operate
with a combined force as they agreed to
alternate command on a daily basis. On the day of the battle Varro served as the overall commander.
His plan was to apply the lessons of Trebbia by eliminating the wings that were
decimated in that battle so he collapsed his maniples into a phalanx of
overwhelming strength designed to destroy the center of the Punic line. The
absence of wings meant that the infantry contingent had to be protected by
cavalry or it would be vulnerable on all sides.
This was to be one of the classic battles of all time,
studied by military strategists ever since. Hannibal had his strongest troops
on the wings with the weakest in the center drawn up in a narrow crescent. Those
wings were protected by a superior cavalry which routed the Roman horsemen and
left the Roman sides vulnerable. The Roman infantry punched through the center
but was then attacked by the Punic wings who had performed a ninety degree turn
toward the flanks of the Romans and formed a phalanx on each side. They pressed
forward and compressed the Roman army into a box. New assaults from the rear completed
the box and made the rout complete. Fifteen thousand were killed or taken
prisoner and Paullus was slain.
The Romans at Cannae had used a collapsed manipular
formation against a Punic phalanx
designed to give way. Once the Romans had pushed to their deepest penetration,
the wing phalanxes of the Carthaginian army turned inward and destroyed them. At
Cannae, Hannibal’s master plan came to fruition. The pincer movement that
failed at Trebbia worked brilliantly here. He used speed against the strength
of the Roman center by offering only minimal resistance to it and then
maneuvering around it until the trap was sprung.
In each of these battles we see the phalanx as a component
of the Carthaginian formation but not the key. There was never a pure phalanx/maniple
face-off that would prove the military superiority of one versus the other
because there were other more important factors that determined the outcome.
3 comments:
Great post, thanks! When you talk about the Carthaginian phalanx, what exactly do you mean? Do you believe they operated in a similar fashion to the Macedonian phalanx, or are you using the term to mean a mass of heavy infantry that fought hand-to-hand with spear and shield?
Also, the consul Publius Laverius Laevinius is thought to have had four legions with accompanying allies at Heraclea in 280BC, so was there a specific law limiting a consul's command to two legions, or are you talking about the customary allocation? Of course, at Cannae there were 8 legions plus allies, so they could clearly change things when they needed to!
Enjoying your blog. Thanks!
Aaron
Hi Mike:
A wonderful site you have here. I will have to spend more time with it to really grok it.
That aside, the reason I’m writing is I wanted to tell you and your readers that I am holding a Mesopotamian Cookoff over on Silk Road Gourmet through the end of September. We are using recipes from Bottero and other sources that I have re-analyzed and in most cases corrected for accuracy.
Chefs from three continents (so far) have submitted dishes based on these recipes from 4,000 years ago. Dishes include Lamb and Carob Stew, Pistachio stuffed dates, Lamb with Licorice and Juniper Berries and more. I’ll be posting new recipes this weekend and am urging other cooks and chefs to step up with their creative interpretations of their dishes!
Check it out if you are interested in ancient cookery.
Thanks,
Laura Kelley
Thanks for the valuable information. I am a high school history teacher and will be sure to not to overemphasize the importance of the phalanx in his victory.
J.J.
Post a Comment