What are the advantages & weaknesses of Japanese against Roman warfare?

[smooth_operator]

What do you think guys? Will the testudo stand a chance against the fearsome katana? Will roman discipline save them from a banzai charge? Post your thoughts here!

Again, due to the demand of populus romanus, I will specify further the features of this match-up. I think we'll have to match these armies when they are their strongest...

For Japan, let's presume that their army is from the Azuchi- Momoyama Jidai(The unification period), where Japan could possibly field a deadly combination of the strengths of its various clans.

For Rome, let's presume that they will be fielding units from the Imperial Period. Where a legion consists of more or less, 5000 men(heavy infantry) with 120 cavalry.

As to the type of battle, let us refer to these 3 scenarios(purely of my own ideas)

1. Reenactment of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. This time, the Japanese are the ones who will carry out the ambush. Rome has three legions (Legio XVII, Legio XVIII, and Legio XIX), six cohorts of auxiliary troops (non-citizens or allied troops) and three squadrons of cavalry.
>>>It's up to YOU if you will employ the same tactic of bisecting the Roman Army and what Japanese Units will you use.

2. A Siege Battle. Let's just say Rome made a time machine to lay waste on Japan. They will be assaulting Himeji Castle(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himeji_...Design_details). Attacking contingent will be 3 legion strong complete with onagers and ballistae.
>>>What will be the ideal number of Japanese units to successfully defend the castle? And what units will YOU field?Can the Romans use their siege engines to full effect?

3. A Field Battle. It's purely a measure of tactical prowess. Provided we copy the battle specs of the Battle of Zama. However, it would be the Japanese instead of Carthage. Rome, led by Scipio, is 34,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry strong(including Numidians), Japanese will have 45,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and 80 war elephants with Carthaginians to man them.
>>>Who shall win?

Refer to this picture for case number 2.

[Nelson]

For starters, you have about 1000 years of Rome to match up with at least several centuries of Japanese military systems. Each faction changed a lot over time.

If you compare a Marian legion to a Sengoku army the teppo would blow the Romans away. Leave aside the guns and I doubt the Japanese could handle Roman legions. They fought like Roman enemies and would go down the same way. Warriors had trouble fighting the SPQR machine.

The horse archers of earlier Japanese history might have a better chance. I’m not sure the Japanese could field enough of them to get the job done though.

[JeromeBaker]

My humble opinion is the Roman machine would win out unless outnumbered heavily. The Samuri are no doubt great individual fighters, but they would be hard pressed to take on a large Roman field army. First off, the Samuri would lose many men to the Pilum throws, then when they get to the Roman front line, they would face a wall of sheilds with barely any exposed areas to attack. They then would face sword thrusts comming through the shield wall and they would have no shields to protect against this and nothing to block a punch of a shield boss to throw them off balance. I also assume the Romans would have a nice mix of seige style weapons. I know its not a direct comparison and a little bit of a stretch, but the Romans faced strong individual fighters in many of the germanic tribes who weilded swords that could easily do major damage as an offensive weapon, and while the individual german could take on a few Romans in isolated battle, they mostly lost when facing well trained Romans in a large army. For my comparison I am assuming you mean Roman armies at the height of their power with a solid field commander who isnt fool hardy and easy to trick.

Of course, who is to say the Samuri couldnt learn to adapt to fighting a more solidified profesional army. If they made good use of speed, arrows, and suckered the Romans into a situation where the Samuri could envelope 1 side of the Roman army and swarm this side with samuri it could be a very interesting outcome/victory for them.

My guess is Romans would win 7 out of 10 times.

EDIT- Also I am assuming no guns or cannons for the Japanese army

[Populus Romanus]

Japanese matchlocks and cannons would blast any Roman invasion into oblivion. It would be a hilarious sight to see some Japanese teppo gunners mowing down 80,000 Roman legionaries in a hail of gunfire. The unfortunate Romans would never know what hit them. However, if gunpowder weapons are taken out of the equation, then it would be a fairly even fight. On one hand, the Romans would have massive numerical superiority: Rome could call on immense reserves and regularly fielded armies so large that even the biggest Sengoku Japanese armies would put to shame. On the other, the Japanese would have cutting edge weapons technology (lol). Whereas Roman arms and armor were constructed out of iron, Sengoku Japanese weapons were build of steel. Japanese armor was also of superior quality, having been tried and tested for 1000 years more than Roman armor was. Japanese armorers and weaponsmiths were regarded as some of the best in the world. And although the Roman legionary is regarded as one of the most disciplined soldiers in history, in the end they cannot compare to the martial spirit, ability, training, dedication, and skill of the Samurai. Japan's main disadvantage would be numbers: most of their armies were Samurai, with a few auxiliary Ashigaru, and Samurai were few in numbers.

[Vladimir]

I really hate these comparisons. It's probably better to compare different aspects of the army; logistics, for example. The Romans likely outclassed the Japanese in their respective time periods.

[Voigtkampf]

I wouldn't be so fast to write it off in Roman's favor, even without samurai army using guns and cannons. I do not recall Hannibal's army of mercenaries having the reputation to excel in advanced strategies, but we still had the bloody outcome at Cannae.

One aspect nobody thought of - imagine the charge of samurai warriors; see them before your inner eye, storming down in their glittering armor, with demon masks on their heads, swinging katanas that could cut even through the Roman shields. Fearless, screaming enraged, charging in the middle of the enemy. The bravery of Roman soldiers aside, I think they would be sure the gates of Hades themselves opened to unleash that demon army.

[spicykorean]

You could suggest this for that Spike Show "Deadliest Warrior." I recall they did a Spartan vs. Ninja show.

Obviously, the show is pure fantasy yet fun, but a pattern that emerges is that all other things being equal, higher tech will usually yield more kills.

I'm guessing that the same will apply in the case of armies. Historically, this also seems to hold true. Given similar sized armies and not taking into account terrain/tactics, the higher tech army will win.

[Nelson]

The Japanese had no weapons advantage over the Romans. All of the melee weapons available to both were more than adequate to kill one another. Differences in melee weapons were almost NEVER very important throughout history. Put a modern soldier with a bayonet on his assault rifle against a man with a baseball bat and the outcome is not a foregone conclusion. Especially if the man has used the bat in combat before and is fearless!

Katanas could not cut through a scutum. No way. Samurai were no braver than Celts and Germans who were also skilled and motivated .

Marian legionaries were pros and formations would give them a huge advantage. Fighting single combat warriors like samurai or pikemen like Sengoku era ashigaru is what the Roman army did for a living.

[Kagemusha]

What era are we speaking off? Post Marian legions vs the Japanese warriors of same era? In my mind its clear cut victory for Legions. Sengoku period Japanese army vs Roman army 1300 years earlier?
If we count gunpowder weapons, it would be no contest. So should we compare lets say Japanese army prior 1543 when Portuguese shipwrecked sailors first introduced european gunpowder weapons in Japan? Please pick an setting and i will play along.

[JeromeBaker]

I wouldn't be so fast to write it off in Roman's favor, even without samurai army using guns and cannons. I do not recall Hannibal's army of mercenaries having the reputation to excel in advanced strategies, but we still had the bloody outcome at Cannae.
.

I could be wrong here, but I thought Hannibal did indeed have a reputation for exceling in strategy considering the time period he fought in. Advanaced strategy is closely related to the time period the fighting occured, and maybe Hannibal's ideas seem basic today but for the 200sBC they were quite effective. Hannibal also did a amazing job of allowing an army made up of different nationalities with different languages to fight as a unified force. He knew the Romans were over confident/uber aggressive and he used this against them. One of his favorite methods of fighting Rome was to allow the Roman center to advance by making it appear they were kicking the crap out of his middle, and as the Roman's eagerness to be agressive took over they pushed too far and created a natural envelopment of their own troops that Hannibal would exploit. Hannibal would press in on all sides and squish the romans so tight they couldnt even raise their swords without great effort, at that point its game over man.

Most of the Roman general's that attacked Hannibal were too eager for glory and did not put a lot of strategy into the battles except the standard march forward and conquer technique and continued to fall prey to being double enveloped. Some Romans generals realized the greatest weakness for Hannibal was the fact he was on foreign soil, so they simply shadoweded him, didnt give in to a pitched battle, and more or less skirmished which would eventual wear down Hannibal and force him to leave. This didnt go over well with the Senate that wanted victory now.

As a counterpoint to myself, Hannibal probably seemed more capabale than he really was because Rome was pretty stupid in how they fought him. A lot of the famous Roman generals would have run their campaigns much different if they were in charge against Hannibal and I dont think he would have fared as well. Rome was no where near its peak in terms of power and ability to fight battles at 216 B.C. which is around the time of Cannae's massive route. Didnt the Marius reforms take place 100 some odd years later than Cannae?

My earlier post picking Rome to win 7 of 10 times against a Samuri army was assuming a Roman army that was post Marius reforms.

I am sure seeing a samuri with his armor and face covering would be extremely terrifying, but a 6 foot 4 extremely muscular german running at you screaming with a sword or axe the size of a young Roman adult was also terryfying. I still say their discipline would allow them to fight effectively despite any fear the enemy could instill due to their fierce appearance.

[Kagemusha]

Jerome Baker, please elaborate how dicipline and organisation of Roman army was superior to a Sengoku period Japanese army?

[JeromeBaker]

Jerome Baker, please elaborate how dicipline and organisation of Roman army was superior to a Sengoku period Japanese army?

Hey Kagemusha,

Simply stated I can not do that... they were not more disciplined.

I beleive you were refering to my last post where I mentioned Rome had enough discipline to overcome the fear factor of seeing a samuri warrior, which appears very impressive on the battlefield. Someone posted above that the general look of the Samuri would be so intimidating that it would be a huge factor in Rome not being able to beat a Samuri army. I was just trying to make the point that Rome overcame other intimidating warrior nations and they had enough discipline that they wouldnt turn tail and run from the Samuri.

I would think you would be hard pressed to argue any soldier was more disciplined and had a greater sense of honor than a Samuri.

Where I think Rome did have an advantage is the Samuri fought like many of Rome's enemies which is a "warrior style" that promoted individual fighting skills and bravery. Often times warriors wont beat a professional army. I would put forth that Rome was more organized. By this I mean they were more similar to how we organize professional armies today than the Sengoku period. Rome's legions were well prepared under the correct leadership to produce many formations and tactics due to their training. They were well trained to fight as a single unit that put aside personal acheivement to fight as a cohesive group that relied on their troops protecting each other while they moved forward. 1 on 1 they would get their butts handed to them by a samuri, but as a group they get the advantage of synergy. They were also extremely well orgaized logistically to mount a long campaign on someone elses territory which was exceptional for their time period.

I dont think the Sengoku period in Japan necessitated they treat warefare the way Romans did. I am not that knowledgable with this period though so I could be off in how I explained Samuri as being less of a professional army and more of a group of extremely taleted warriors that individually would kick most other soldiers rear ends.

Edit - @SpicyKorean , Deadliest Warrior was a pretty cool show, not sure if they are still making new episodes. That was the first thing I thought about when I saw this thread.

[Kagemusha]

Thank you for your answer Jerome Baker.

As Sengoku Jidai period Japanese warfare is lot more less known then lets say Roman warfare. Let me shed some light how a period Japanese army was constructed and what kind of organisation it had.

Composition

During Sengoku Jidai period a typical Japanese army was a sort of feudal army. It composed of Samurai and Ashigaru mostly. Based on vassals income in koku. (1 koku being amount of rice to feed a man for a year.) A vassal provided troops to his master. A typical ratio of troops would be three ashigaru per a single mounted samurai. This ratio was not made in stone and some Clans had lower ratio of ashigaru compared to samurai or vice versa.

Organisation

Army of a daimyo comprised of several smaller armies of his vassals, this kind of "mini" army was called Sonae, which means "formation". Sonae was a combined arms unit, which consisted of the basic troops of the era. Mounted or unmounted samurai and Ashigaru armed with Nagae Yari, which were a pike length spears, yumi bows and during the later part teppo muskets.
Sonae would usually have teppo and yumi ashigarus protected by nagae yari ashigarus, with samurai acting as officers and heavy infantry and mounted component of Sonae.
Each Sonae would be built of Tai or literallu "unit". These were the forementioned weapon squads. usually around 50- 100 men strong. Each Tai was made of by several smaller units called Kumis, literally "groups" each 10-30 men. Kumi was the smallest unit in Japanese army of the period.
So Tai and Kumi were basic "units" as we might understand them today, but Sonae could be of any size based on many factors.Now ofcourse next question is how this organisation was commanded.

Command

The command structure of a typical army of mid to late Sengoku jidai would be like this:

So-Daisho (the general of the army, often the Daimyo himself)
Samurai Taisho (Sonae commander)
Bugyo or Ashigaru Taisho (Tai commander)
Kumi-Gashira (Kumi commander)
Samurais and Ashigarus (soldiers; but obviously Samurais held a higher rank than Ashigarus)

Apart from this there were sort of staff officers, which did not make it into European armies until very late. These were Gunkan or Metsuke. They were direct retainers of a Daimyo, observing the actions of Samurai Taisho and communicating with the So- Daisho, so they were essentially staff officers.

For battle field communications the So-Daisho had an designated messenger unit called Tsukai Ban, whom were ranking samurai with their task to deliver battlefield communications. So when we think of a Daimyo leading a battle in feudal Japan, the picture is more like a general leading various brigades or divisions in battle rather then a huge blocks of homogenously armed men as one commander for infantry, two wings of cavalry and one leading missile troops.

So in my point of view this kind of army differs quite heavily from the Roman enemies.

[econ21]

An interesting thread, although perhaps it belongs in the Monastery? I'll leave it here for a while though, as it's nice to have some more traffic in this forum.

I'm interested in Kagemusha's information about the organisation of the Japanese armies, as it has always seemed a strong point of the Romans. I've always been puzzled by how ancient battles seemed to be much more tactical and complex than (European) medieval ones, as it seems a kind of regression.

On the weapons, I think the Roman sword and shield would be rather effective against the yari and bow based foot soldiers of medieval Japan (I take the point about gun powder). The Deadliest Warrior match up of Samurai vs Viking does give some pause for thought however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ng_vs._Samurai

In the match-up, the Samurai had a massive two-handed club that was shown to be devastating against a shield (if it did not break the shield, it would nonetheless do nasty things to the shield arm).

[Vladimir]

What do you think guys? Will the testudo stand a chance against the fearsome katana? Will roman discipline save them from a banzai charge? Post your thoughts here!

Because of various requests, I will clarify things just a little bit.
>>>It's a battle between a Sengoku army without gunpowder units and a Roman army at the peak of its power.<<<

I'm also thinking that after this thread, I will be posting another which features the Japanese Army against the
Medieval armies of Europe since it would be a more appropriate matchup regarding the time period. :)

I like your edits. This is getting more interesting.

[JeromeBaker]

That was very interesting Kagemusha, thanks for the insight.

[Populus Romanus]

It depends upon what era of Japan this takes place in (unified under a Shogun when Japan could muster huge armies or civil war when only little armies) and how many legions are brought to the fight.

[Voigtkampf]

The Japanese had no weapons advantage over the Romans.

This implies that a roman gladius was basically of the same quality as the katana. I don't think that claim could stand the scrutiny.

Katanas could not cut through a scutum. No way.

Two planks of wood covered with canvas and calf-skin, with a varying thickness of 1-2 inches? I am not impressed. My money is still on the katana.

Marian legionaries were pros and formations would give them a huge advantage. Fighting single combat warriors like samurai or pikemen like Sengoku era ashigaru is what the Roman army did for a living.

On the other hand, samurai didn't fight for living, as Roman soldiers did; samurai lived for fighting. I simply do not believe that roman lines would hold the initial samurai charge. Also, the myth of unshakable and firm roman defense lines and armies that never lost formation and cohesion is a tad little bit overblown.

I could be wrong here, but I thought Hannibal did indeed have a reputation for exceling in strategy considering the time period he fought in.

That is indeed true, Hannibal was a genius, to say the least; hence I specifically referred to his army:

I do not recall Hannibal's army of mercenaries having the reputation to excel in advanced strategies, but we still had the bloody outcome at Cannae.

Point was to prove that, even though Hannibal did in fact devised an ingenious double envelopment strategy, first ever recorded, the entire victory cannot be ascribed to him alone. There is the bravery of his men, his mercenaries, infantry and cavalry, who fought against overwhelming odds, outnumbered and - pardon the pun - out-gunned. Those people stood their ground and conducted a maneuver of controlled convexing of the initial crescent moon formation, bending inwards and luring romans in to the trap, while their own peril was a proverbial hair breadth away. And they succeeded.

In short, people are accustomed to view roman armies as invincible machinery that grinds opponents down without as much as a feeling the bump in the road, whereas the "barbarians", if successful, would have their success attributed to either exceptional leaders and/or overwhelming numbers. The less romantic truth is that roman armies won in the end, but never were as unstoppable and perfectly tuned as some are inclined to believe. They fought, they messed up, they broke formation, they ran in fear and they died, as all men do.

Alas, back to the main point; as the aforementioned The Deadliest Warrior show, this is a matter of theorizing where no finite answer can be provided.

However... If we were to observe the two armies in strict technological sense (without gunpowder and /or any kind of artillery whatsoever), I am wondering how are the two very important types of army faring against each other in comparison; I am talking about cavalry and archers. It seems that roman armies mostly had inferior, ally cavalry at disposal, which didn't always end well for them; wouldn't they be sub-par to samurai cavalry? Also, the archers; does it not strike people as probable that Japanese archery was far better developed than their roman counterparts? (I believe the English longbow would give them the run for their money, but Romans had none of those...)

[Nelson]

This implies that a roman gladius was basically of the same quality as the katana. I don't think that claim could stand the scrutiny.

Katana quality might be important at Sotheby's in London but such craftsmanship is not very relevant once the stabbing and slashing begins. The equipement only needs to be good enough. Roman gear was more than adequate. All of these weapons do their jobs. Very little practical advantage would be had by a samurai because his katana was folded so many times by an artisan smith. If one man fights with a shiny new pipe and another with a rusty one, does the first man have some mighty advantage? I think not..

Two planks of wood covered with canvas and calf-skin, with a varying thickness of 1-2 inches? I am not impressed. My money is still on the katana.

The scutum would stop a blow by a katana of any quality. That's all it need do. I would think that a katana might even get stuck at which time our samurai would get eviscerated by one or more legionaries! Or do you suggest that the scutum would simply fall to pieces? Rome used the scutum/gladius combination for centuries and racked up a pretty good track record.

And don't underestimate the charge and ferocity of barbarian attacks. A horde of large, blue painted, tatoo'ed warriors screaming and shouting had to be unerving to say the least. The Romans handled them.

Roman armis were not invincible. They lost plenty of battles over the centuries. I still believe however that at their best, a Marian legion would defeat a similar number of samurai. Alas, we can't put our theories to the test. It does make for good conversation though.

[Voigtkampf]

It is true, it makes for a good conversation. Especially when you got civilized company to discuss it with.

Alas, to the arguments at hand.

Katana quality might be important at Sotheby's in London but such craftsmanship is not very relevant once the stabbing and slashing begins. The equipement only needs to be good enough. Roman gear was more than adequate. All of these weapons do their jobs. Very little practical advantage would be had by a samurai because his katana was folded so many times by an artisan smith. If one man fights with a shiny new pipe and another with a rusty one, does the first man have some mighty advantage? I think not..

Well, I think there is a great difference there. First of all, katana is longer than a gladius, it has a greater reach. And being of higher quality than a gladius, in any eventual collision of blades, gladius would be either severely damaged or would even break on impact. Now here is a difference not between holding a new shiny or a rusty pipe, but between holding a three foot long blade in your hand or holding a stump.

The scutum would stop a blow by a katana of any quality. That's all it need do. I would think that a katana might even get stuck at which time our samurai would get eviscerated by one or more legionaries! Or do you suggest that the scutum would simply fall to pieces? Rome used the scutum/gladius combination for centuries and racked up a pretty good track record.

Katana has been known to be tested on condemned criminals, sometimes cutting them basically in half, especially when used the diagonal strike, going downward from right high to left low. Based on this empiric evidence, I find it easy to conclude that katana would cut a fairly deep slice through the scutum. Now imagine a roman soldier holding the shield up to his eyes to protect himself; the top of the shield is more or less at the height of his shoulder or say, for the sake of argument, at the level of the top of the soldiers head. A katana swung downward with enough thrust should easily cut through the edge of the shield deep enough to cut through the soldiers shoulder; such a strike which is not all too hard to accomplish would inevitably cut through the shoulder of the hand holding the shield. A cut aorta and the soldier is without consciousness within six seconds, dead within 15.

Like it or not, better weapons do in fact give an edge, sometimes a substantial edge for the better geared soldier. To be blunt - and pardon my pun - sharper blades cut deeper.

[Vladimir]

Remember that swords aren't used to cut down trees. As mentioned earlier, a katana would more likely get stuck in a scrotum. It's a composite of wood, metal (brass) and leather.

[JeromeBaker]

The Roman's typical enemy used swords with a longer reach. They werent really using their Gladius to parry off blows from an enemy sword, but simply to thrust forward into a belly, groin, neck or other exposed area. The real question to me isnt if the Gladius would be able to defend a blow from a katana (which it wouldnt), but would the shields hold up long enough for them to win?

I am not sure there,but I think Vlad is right that many Samurai swords would get stuck. I also think it wouldnt take long before the shield is rendered useless. I dont see it absorbing more than a couple blows from a trained Samurai. If the Roman front line kept losing their shields as they rotated their lines, would they be able to kill enough Samurai to win before most of their shields are gone?

Still leaning towards the Romans, but not as strongly as when this thread first started.

[Husar]

a katana would more likely get stuck in a scrotum.

Also, how easily would a katana cut through roman armour? And how easily could a gladius be stabbed through japanese armour?
To kill a soldier you don't just have to cut through their shield or hit them, you also have to penetrate their armour, apparently an easy exercise in most medieval movies but then you got to wonder why people spent so much money on it back in the day, eh?

So basically the scutum would slow the katana down a bit upon impact, but let's assume it cuts through anyway, but then, while still cutting through the wood, the tip of the blade hits a lorica hamata or lorica segmentata, what then? Would it have enough power to cut through them AND the shield? And what if the samurai is using a no-dachi instead?
On the other hand, would a gladius easily penetrate japanese armour? I remember reading it was made specifically to prevent cuts, but a gladius is used to stab, would it go right through or would the romans have problems penetrating it? I don't think that a gladius could easily be stabbed through somewhat decent plate armour for example.

[Voigtkampf]

Remember that swords aren't used to cut down trees.

No. Axes are used to cut down trees. Katanas are designed to cut through bones, flesh and sinew, as well as Japanese armor. Which used to consist mostly from iron plates interwoven with leather. Iron is harder than wood. At least that is what they thought us in schools.

As mentioned earlier, a katana would more likely get stuck in a scrotum. It's a composite of wood, metal (brass) and leather.

Oh, dear... You have a most impressive scrotum indeed.

[smooth_operator]

Oh, dear... You have a most impressive scrotum indeed.

Now this made me laugh.

Going back, it's fun to see how much interaction my thread has achieved and it's really great reading your comments since I get so much knowledge from it.

How about some insights as to the scenarios I provided guys? Yes?

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

No,Roman armies would not have survived.You're all forgetting that the Japanese had archers.They had cavarly,and their infantry was remarkably well trained.Bow Samurai.It would be a equal test.

[Populus Romanus]

Are we or are we not including gunpowder in this debate? After all, the OP specifically mentions the Sengoku period, during which gunpowder was used. If we are factoring in cannons and matchlocks, Japan wins. I'd like to see a Roman legionary's response when invisible arrows start killing everyone through their shields!

[smooth_operator]

Are we or are we not including gunpowder in this debate? After all, the OP specifically mentions the Sengoku period, during which gunpowder was used. If we are factoring in cannons and matchlocks, Japan wins. I'd like to see a Roman legionary's response when invisible arrows start killing everyone through their shields!

I think it would be an overkill if we still include gunpowder in this debate. What do you think?

[Vladimir]

Are we or are we not including gunpowder in this debate? After all, the OP specifically mentions the Sengoku period, during which gunpowder was used. If we are factoring in cannons and matchlocks, Japan wins. I'd like to see a Roman legionary's response when invisible arrows start killing everyone through their shields!

I'll protect them! My shield is strong.

[Noncommunist]

As a counterpoint to myself, Hannibal probably seemed more capabale than he really was because Rome was pretty stupid in how they fought him. A lot of the famous Roman generals would have run their campaigns much different if they were in charge against Hannibal and I dont think he would have fared as well. Rome was no where near its peak in terms of power and ability to fight battles at 216 B.C. which is around the time of Cannae's massive route. Didnt the Marius reforms take place 100 some odd years later than Cannae?

The Romans had 16 years of fighting him testing out different strategies till finally Scipio got him. I'd say he would have had to be rather brilliant simply to survive for that long against all sorts of Roman generals.