Military History's Best Loser

Actually, I don’t know that.  I’m not sure that you have ever admitted you were wrong.  If you did admit you were wrong it would be something of a record, glad I was the one to finally make you admit you were wrong.

Selective memory must be something you like to do? In that case search the posts to get your answer.

Right, you wouldn’t want to troll now would you IL.  Nothing like making fun of peoples appearances like you calling me a fat wife beater and making fun of brain injuries.  But if I have hurt your feelings I am sorry IL.  Do you feel better now?  BTW I did read your email awhile ago where you said sorry for going over the top with personal insults.  I did not get back to you because I felt it was disingenuous.  Gee, I wonder why I would get that impression?

I agree with Garg. Crunch, this is an example of trolling behavior I find distasteful. You restarted and hijacked yet another thread. You could have left it alone, but like some kid who loves to open a scab or eat his own boogers…you just troll again and again.

then perhaps you can dispense with the attacks on personal appearances and my brain injury.

Perhaps if you don’t bring them up, they may go away? You think?

Crunch, turning this into a forum to lash out at IL is shameful quite frankly.

Garg is correct.

I agree with Garg 100%

Let me say that Garg is correct ok?

Hannibal takes the lead.

I still stand by my statement-

Napoleon conquering Europe is more impressive than Hannibal’s failed invasion of Italy.

What makes it Hannibal for me is that he challenged the greatest power of the age and came that close to overturning the status quo and he was not even the political leader of his country, so was always dependent on Carthage’s miserly reinforcements and others’ jealousies.
Napoleon’s feats were great, but as Emperor he commanded every Frenchman and had all the resources at his fingertips.
The Carthage/Rome clash was the biggest and most influential of the time and the reward was hundreds of years of growth and prosperity. The lesson of how close it came  to losing all(after Cannae) was never lost on Rome.

Napoleon was not born Emperor of France. He earned the title and its benefits.

Not sure how much of an underdog Carthage truly was. True they were defeated in the First Punic War, but it was far from complete devastation. Carthage still had vast resources at its disposal. (After all North Africa became the most economically important part of the Roman Empire)

Crossing the Alps was amazing, but it is important to remember at Cannae Hannibal faced a Roman army that switched commanders on a daily basis - a most bizarre and inefficient command structure.

Hannibal only needed reinforcements when the army he marched into the Italian peninsula failed.

Crossing the Alps was amazing, but it is important to remember at Cannae Hannibal faced a Roman army that switched commanders on a daily basis - a most bizarre and inefficient command structure.
That was a weird system admittedly.
Wonder how much it contributed to the defeat.
The two Roman Consuls were so dissimilar and on the 2nd August Varro got the command and his impetuosity and Roman arrogance probably cost them that day.
I always think how unfair it is that he survived, was not censured for the outcome and died an old man, yet Paullus was killed and was against fighting Hannibal.

@wittmann:

Crossing the Alps was amazing, but it is important to remember at Cannae Hannibal faced a Roman army that switched commanders on a daily basis - a most bizarre and inefficient command structure.
That was a weird system admittedly.
Wonder how much it contributed to the defeat.
The two Roman Consuls were so dissimilar and on the 2nd August Varro got the command and his impetuosity and Roman arrogance probably cost them that day.
I always think how unfair it is that he survived, was not censured for the outcome and died an old man, yet Paullus was killed and was against fighting Hannibal.

It wasn’t a great way of running armies, certainly not against Hannibal, but it had worked in the long run and won them the Italian peninsular, Sicily and Sardinia. Those in command had often many years of experience in the Roman army. Paullus had won against the Illyrians in 219 BC and may have again been in command on the day at Cannae (there is controversy, based on the fact that Paullus was in command of the Roman right wing, the position of command usual for the Roman army, and that the days had been moved around - Paullus was Scipio’s father-in-law so Polybius may have had further reasons to cover it as he was a client of the Scipio family - though I still tend to believe it was in fact Varro who was in command).

Paullus was more cautious, but he wasn’t against fighting Hannibal, the purpose of the large army at Cannae was to bring about a decisive engagement. An army that size would have been going through a lot of supplies and could not be supported in one area for long. Varro gets a lot of bad press, but that doesn’t mean he was a bad commander - large armies are not easy to command, and it was the largest Rome had fielded to that point. Varro in fact shows signs of good leadership and strategic thought with rallying a force of roughly ten thousand survivors of the battle (which must have been difficult considering the drubbing they just received) and strategically helped Rome by installing garrisons in a number of towns which would prevent their defection and could harass Hannibal’s route further south. Varro’s plan at Cannae was sound considering the success they had achieved previously, and it could have gone horribly wrong for Hannibal (the Roman’s had cut through Hannibal’s centre in both Trebia and Trasimene, and would do so against Hannibal’s brother at Dertossa.)

Thanks again Markdienekes: great read.
I had read some have doubted whether Varro had command that day, because of his position on the left, not right. Your suggestion of a Roman change of tactics makes sense, therefore.
Of course all battles won against the odds involve some risk taking(almost losing the centre) and this was part of the plan: make the enemy think they were winning. Then the losing weighs all  the more heavy.
I forgot Varro showed great courage at the battle’s end.

I am off for a few days, but will have my phone.
Hope you can post some more.

@ABWorsham:

@Last:

Napoleon was not born Emperor of France. He earned the title and its benefits.

Not sure how much of an underdog Carthage truly was. True they were defeated in the First Punic War, but it was far from complete devastation. Carthage still had vast resources at its disposal. (After all North Africa became the most economically important part of the Roman Empire)

Crossing the Alps was amazing, but it is important to remember at Cannae Hannibal faced a Roman army that switched commanders on a daily basis - a most bizarre and inefficient command structure.

Hannibal only needed reinforcements when the army he marched into the Italian peninsula failed.

Rome had vast amount of manpower, where Carthage was limited in that area.

Not sure about this.

Not sure if it was manpower that saved Rome. It was resilience and everyone, really everyone, giving everything to the war effort. Not intended to sound heroic.
Then again, I know my history with Alexander, not so much with Hannibal.

Anyone read the books from JM Roberts, Hannibals Children and The Seven Hills? Not that those are the best books ever, but overall nice. Alternate history.

Thank you. I might like that. I have read a trilogy about the end of the US Civil war, starting with a Confederate victory at Gettysburg. It is by Newt Gingrich.
I am fancying looking at Cannae again, after these discussions.
Sorry to say Alexander has never interested me!

@wittmann:

Thank you. I might like that. I have read a trilogy about the end of the US Civil war, starting with a Confederate victory at Gettysburg. It is by Newt Gingrich.
I am fancying looking at Cannae again, after these discussions.
Sorry to say Alexander has never interested me!

Two books worth purchasing that are devoted to the battle of Cannae:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cannae-Experience-Battle-Second-Punic/dp/0415327431/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1367837992&sr=8-11&keywords=cannae

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cannae-Hannibals-Greatest-Adrian-Goldsworthy/dp/0753822598/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367837992&sr=8-1&keywords=cannae

I’d go for Daly’s if you only buy one.

Dont know either, thx for that. Goldsworthy in general I enjoy a lot.

I have the Goldsworthy, so thank you for another suggested title.
I will probably just flick through the one I own as a reminder.

Richard Miles - Carthage Must Be Destroyed

@wittmann:

Crossing the Alps was amazing, but it is important to remember at Cannae Hannibal faced a Roman army that switched commanders on a daily basis - a most bizarre and inefficient command structure. That was a weird system admittedly.

The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, by Dupuy and Dupuy, decribes the Roman military system that existed just prior to the start of the Second Punic War.  At the time, Rome had two consuls in place each year (they changed every year).  Consuls were both elected civic officials and military field commenders, holding both military and political power.  Each of the two consuls commanded a consular army, each consisting of two Roman legions and two auxiliary legions.  When the two regular consular armies were joined for operational purposes, the consuls would alternate command every 24 hours.  My guess is that this practice reflects Roman republican reservations about putting too much power in the hands of one man (just look at what happened to Julius Caesar), plus the fact that consuls were elected civil officials rather than just generals.  Switching command every 24 hours kept the two consuls equal, and put a restraint on their power.  The concept of having a joint consular army under the permanent single command of just one of the two consuls (thus giving him command of not just his army but the other consul’s army too) would have raised the thorny question of just who would get to choose and designate that single commander.

@wittmann:

I have the Goldsworthy, so thank you for another suggested title.
I will probably just flick through the one I own as a reminder.

It’s a fine book!

I think it is fantastic, remarkable even, that Sweden would dare to take on Russia. And that they did so well!
Poltava in 1709 saddens me. I love victories against Russia. Sweden’s armies were something special and Charles was a great loser. Well said Worsham.