Talk:Battle of Cannae

Hannibal & Menelik II

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The year of the battle is wrong in the illustration picture

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)

Battlefield map

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)

Citation needed for abandoning oversized baby claim in "Aftermath" section

I added a citation needed to the statement in the "Aftermath" section regarding the statement the Romans abandoned an oversized baby in the Adriatic Sea. I cannot find a valid source for this claim, and the book that was cited before does not mention it. I updated the citation to refer to the page where Roman human sacrifice was mentioned, page 126. In the book, it does not mention babies being sacrificed in the way described in the article. While there are mentions of the Carthaginians practicing human sacrifice of children in the book, it does not extend those actions to the Romans. I believe the following quote from the same source supports this:

In the reorganization of Saturnalia in 217 B.C., the Romans acknowledged at the very least Saturn’s paramountcy among the Carthaginians. In 213 or 212 did the Romans revert to an old, old notion of the proper fulfillment of a ver sacrum that called for child sacrifice, a practice notorious among their present enemy? We cannot be certain that they did.

In his account of the religious zealotry in 213 Livy supplies no hint of it. To the contrary, he does not speak of crime or of the abominable. The foreign rites practiced by women (reinforced by country folk in refuge at Rome) occurred both at home and out of doors; the Capitol and the Forum were encumbered by the women and their ritual traps. These two public places would account for both rites to Saturn at the west end of the Forum and to Venus Erycina on the Capitol. The Roman government neither through senate nor praetor invoked any regulation against such cult practices (such as the fictitious, in my view, exclusion of sacra externa from within the pomerium), and in the event, the praetor merely forbade offerings of such kind on ground that was public or consecrated. In other words, what was done in secreto modo atque intra parietes could not be controlled or curbed as surely child sacrifice could have been.

— Robert E. A. Palmer, Rome and Carthage at peace, pp. 127-128

Roman sources I've looked at do not mention the oversized baby either:

• https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0152%3Abook%3D22%3Achapter%3D57
• https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/15*.html
• https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0230%3Atext%3DHann.%3Achapter%3D5
• https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D118
• https://www.attalus.org/translate/orosius4A.html
• https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Roman_Questions*/D.html#83

I was hoping for some feedback on whether or not this statement should be removed entirely, since I am having trouble finding a secondary source that supports it. I should have made this talk page before making my edit, I apologize. Thank you. Owen (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Battle of annihilation

@Owen peugeot
— You could have started the discussion first and then, as a result of it, reverting(?) It would be more polite that way. So, the term is extremely important, as I consider. It explains why this battle is counted on par with Austerlitz, even though the losses suffered by the vanquished were far greater.
— If you do not like such "harsh language" in the lead, it could simply be inserted into this first paragraph of the lead, like this: "The Carthaginians and their allies, led by Hannibal, surrounded and practically annihilated a larger Roman and Italian army under the consuls Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro." Kolya Muratov (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kolya, I apologize for doing that, that is my mistake. I will move to do better in the future. I agree with you that on a literal level, the wording that they were annihilated is accurate, and the lead in states that. I disagree, however, with adding the wikilink because I believe that creates an implicit connection with a newer idea that was developed and used by future military commanders. In my opinion, it would be slightly anachronistic to create this connection, since some evidence suggests that it wasn't necessarily Hannibal's goal to completely destroy the Romans at Cannae. I found the following source:

https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199340132.003.0002

In chapter 2, the author states,

“Contrary to Hannibal’s expectations, the victory at Cannae, devastating as it was, did not lead Rome to surrender. Historical evidence, scant though it may be, suggests Hannibal did not aim to destroy Rome but merely to reduce its power and influence, while at the same time restoring the prestige and influence that Carthage had lost in the first Punic War (264–241 bce). Historians believe two concessions would have satisfied Hannibal: an indemnity from Rome and the return of some of Carthage’s Mediterranean islands, namely Corsica and Sicily. Yet the Roman senate voted not to negotiate, perhaps fearing Hannibal’s terms would prove as harsh as their own usually were, or believing Roman losses, which had been severe indeed, had to be avenged.”

Owen (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Whether Hannibal intended it or not, the battle was of annihilation. I think that, although the idea is newer, it perfectly captures the result of the battle. I think it makes sense to add this in the lead: "Cannae turned out to be what would later be referred to as a battle of annihilation." (after this sentence: "They massed their heavy infantry in a deeper formation than usual, while Hannibal used the double envelopment tactic and surrounded his enemy, trapping the majority of the Roman army, who were then slaughtered.") What do you consider? Kolya Muratov (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I like your idea. I would reword it a bit to say something like, "Later historians and military strategists have used Cannae as an exemplary battle of annihilation." Owen (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally, it was not the first time that I had spoken to someone who asked why Cannae is on par with Austerlitz, although it is clearly, (judging by the casualties) a more "brilliant" victory. Kolya Muratov (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hannibal's Route of Invasion map

The map is supposed to be from the third century BC. However, it shows Turin, but Augusta Taurinorum, the early name of Turin would not be founded until the first century B.C.--Gciriani (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)