Talk:Battle of Cannae

message: Having studied both battles, I find it hard not to see an example of history repeating itself here. After annihilating the Roman army at Cannae, he refused to march on Rome & drive the Romans into the sea -- despite the pleas of his advisors. Thus the Carthaginians lost the war. Almost two millennia later, another victorious African general, Menelik II, likewise had not only crushed an Italian army at Adwa, but also refused to complete the task & drive his enemy into the sea -- despite the pleas of his advisors. Thus the Ethiopians ensured there would be another war which they would lose. I am sorely tempted to point out the shared similarities here. However, is this similarity irrelevant to this subject? Or violate WP:NOR? I'll add this detail if a consensus supports me in this. -- llywrch (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a bit too anachronistic and in a different area, but you can mention the story of Spartacus, who refused to march on Rome after his victories as well.  Another thing, I read that Hannibal did not have his elephants at Cannae? It is worth mentioning, and explaining if possible. T8612 (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

text: You'd have to find a good source that already points out the similarity. I can't find any myself, perhaps because there are too many detail differences, besides which there are lots of historical examples of an army winning a battle but failing to follow it up with a knock-out punch. In my opinion people remember Cannae for the pincer movement, and Adwa for the rarity of a European colonial power losing a setpiece battle against local forces, not so much the strategic aftermath. There's a risk the article will end up overburdened with historical parallels. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't say that European colonial powers losing a "setpiece battle" was a rare event. These include Battle of Tsushima, Battle of the Little Big Horn, Battle of Isandlwana, Gordon's defeat at Khartoum, & the Battle of Dien Bien Phu; & these are just those I could mention off the top of my head. Although far from typical, defeat of colonial/imperial powers happened often enough that "rare" would be an exaggeration. -- llywrch (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Hannibal wasn't in the position for a long siege - Rome was heavily defended behind its walls.50.111.44.54 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hannibal & Menelik II 

message: I have read from many sources that Roman Army outnumbered Carthaginian army 2 to 1 Uzair Ansari333 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Uzair Ansari333 - Please cite which Reliable published sources you are referring to in order to obtain those figures - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of combatants 

message: "because they could not have carried an unwieldy pike at the same time as a heavy Roman-style shield"
This doesn't make much sense to me; Greek and Macedonian warriors of the time formed a phalanx, fronted by a wall of shields, and armed with long pikes (or with swords; swords were expensive). I think the Macedonians used 18-foot long pikes - I couldn't get a weapon that size into my home! I believe the pike was strapped to the warrior's belt, so he only needed to use the strength of his right arm to point the thing, not to carry it. And he could wedge the rear end into the ground, if he was standing his ground and not advancing. His left arm was free for carrying a shield. If they were using swords, they'd hack at the enemy's legs, under the shield wall. If they were using pikes, it's hard to see how an enemy swordsman could get near them - you'd have to set pikes against pikes. Battles were short and nasty. 
I think the Greeks used a lighter shield than the Romans; a circular boss shield, made from a wood frame covered with hide. If Hannibal's troops routinely took the weapons of their defeated enemies, then I suppose they'd have been using heavy Roman shields.
I understand the normal way for a battle to end was for the defeated army to discard their weapons and run away; without their weapons they could run faster than the adversary. Greek warriors were farmers; they were fighting to defend their land, but they didn't want to die.
I haven't edited the article, because (a) these remarks are about Greeks, not Africans or Iberians; and (b) I'm not sure that Hannibal went big on pikes anyway (although I think the Numidians fielded pikemen). Just noting that you should be able to carry both a shield and a long pike.
No citations available! Well, OK, I'm  relying on John Keegan, "A History of Warfare", but I can't be bothered to look up chapter and verse. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No one saying you can't carry a shield with a pike.  The statement was about how you can't use a long pike and a heavy shield in combat.  This is true.  An army can base their infantry on a shield-wall, or a pike-wall, but not both at once; one or the other must be the primary arm in the formation and tactics.  A short one-hand pike can work well with any shield, but that's really a spear rather than a pike.  A soldier with a several-meter long pike can have a small shield, but not one so massive that he can't use his shield arm to also wield the pike, like the shields of the Roman legionaries.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  23:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pikes and shields 

message: I have realised that the pictures illustrating the combat stated the battle took place in 215 BC. So I have made a note in the description of the picture stressing that the battle took place in 216 BC, if anyone has an illustration with a correct date please update. Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerong Lin (talk • contribs) 07:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The year of the battle is wrong in the illustration picture 

message: The battlefield map is unsatisfactory. The north-pointing arrow, with its head apparently broken off and pointing right, is confusing. In fact the Aufidus river does not travel from west to east, but from southwest to northeast (roughly in a two o'clock direction). This is not at all apparent from the map shown. One wonders if other features of the map are equally inaccurate. Kanjuzi (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battlefield map