Understanding Hannibal and Cannae -TV Heads Up!

Just a headsup for those interested.

Today, tommorrow and in April the Discovery Times Channel is airing an episode entitled "Hannibal".

It gives an EXCELLENT accounting of the events surrounding Hannibal's Spanish and Italian campaigns. What is particularly outstanding is the graphical dipiction of the battle of Cannae. This documentary gives a greater textbook dipiction of the troops and tactics employed at Cannae. It does so in a manner superior to either the British, "Time Commanders" or American, "Decisive Battles" (which I presume to be virtually the same), which focused more on the *dramatic*.

The Discovery Times version VERY accurately displays the *Convex-Straight-Concave" battle manuverings, along with Hannibals decisive use of his cavalry.

If you've ever wanted to know *how* to use your calvalry in any of the Total War games---watch this episode! Equally, the episode provides the best graphical viewing of how to best tactically employ your foot units in the Total War series.

Just as Hannibal succeeded at Cannae, the episode graphically dipicts the tactical theory for defeating a larger (and somewhat superior) force within the Total War Series.

[Just as an aside, I first viewed this episode a few months ago. Upon viewing and comprehending Hannibals tactics at Cannae, I was rather shocked to see that, being ignorant of the Cannae tactics, through too many hours and much trial and error, thru Shogun and the MedMod, that I had developed tactics mirroring Hannibal at Cannae PRECISELY. That is the, Convex-Straight-Concave manuever, as well as *unit* layout.

My argument regarding CA's choice for 1.1's speed and unit settings were in the view that Hannibal's, as well as my own's battle tactics and manueverings were IMPOSSIBLE to effect as the *middle* would not hold long enough to effect the manuevers. Version 1.2 is a good deal better, but still not truly adequate, imuho. MTW/VI and the Medmod were the best version to effect such.]

This post is not intended to rehash ANY old arguments, simply to point to what I believe to be an excellent documentary.

If you're in the NYC area the episode airs today at 1:00 and 4:00 PM. Here's a listing of other dates and times.

Enjoy!

There is no option for a tactical retreat in RTW, which Hannibal used in the centre. This means you would be wiser to station extra troops immediately behind the point you expect to be pushed back in.

All in all, you're better deploying like this:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...air01/cann.jpg

As your cavalry hit the backs of the enemy on your flanks, they push into the centre, where they (and the now freed-up infantry from the flanks) hit the enemies centre in the flank and rear.

Of course, in the total war games, rarely does the enemy just "march on" with their entire army, like the romans did. At least in MTW there's always a couple of units trying to sneak past your flanks. These units can be stopped, of course, but might slow down your little maneuver.

Anyways, in MTW, I usually used a tactic just like that (without knowing how Hannibal did at first), but remember, there was so much more to hannibals tactic than just "run around to the rear and attack them with cavalry". He let his center infantry feign retreat, drawing the romans forward, whereas the reserves went up on the sides and the cavalry on the back. Thus: Romans in a box. A box made out of mercenaries, cutting away at anything latin-looking.

Is there anyway to download all these episodes of Time Commanders or even this program legally? Because I don't have Discovery Channel. Actually, i doubt I can even get it here.

It's unlikely Hannibal used tactical retreat at Cannae, and it apparently wasn't even a tactic in ancient times once the lines engaged. He used a weak center which was probably routing when the flanking units closed in. He must have correctly judged how long his center could hold. So, I wouldn't say it should be a tactical opion in RTW, but, since everything is so speeded up in RTW, you can't re-enact such a battle with RTW despite the History Channel's Decisive Battles program giving the impression that you can. I think with the SPQR mod there is a much better chance of re-enacting ancient battles such as Cannae. You'll even get significant pushback by stronger forces on weaker forces since the fighting time is long enough for this to occur.


EvilNed,

Forget about the Discovery Channel programs. They are poorly done, and give a false impression of how RTW actually plays. I've never seen Time Commanders, but my European friends who did see the programs say that RTW doesn't play the way it did in those programs. Something changed before RTW was released or Time Commanders was given a special version of the game which had different gameplay.

Sweet! i can make the 4pm airing ~:cheers: thanks for the heads up!

@ Puzz3D

I think you're wrong. Hannibal was brilliant. While outnumber with less quality forces he was able to win over and and over again.

But I think you should see the broadcast like the author (or me). Not say: 'I heard from my friend that, bla bla bal).

I actually think Hannibal ordered his iberian mercenaries (who formed up the front), to feign retreat, for one single reason: He didn't want to loose to many of then. Remember, his tactics were not only to kill the romans, but to loose as few of his own men as possible, since he didn't know if he would ever be getting any reinforcements.

I saw this program last night, but what he did different than any game I played is match cavalry to cavalry first then went for the flanks.


I always use or try to, anti cavalry units first behind a spear line.


Also the AI never reacts the way the romans did, half the time they wont go for the main line but start chasing a weak unit.


The show was interesting, just showed if the carthagians actually backed hannibal when needed we could have been playing total rome carthage now...:)

As for Scipio being the better general, well he bought off Numidian cavalry, which while clever, made him win the day with numerous cavalry.


I try to use my skirmishers like hannbial did, but half the time they dont retreat fast enough and get mowed down by cavalry, unless I can see it developing ahead of time and have them run behind the lines. Sometimes I wonder if this was why units are not exactly side by side when forming single lines, in order to give your troops a place to run thru but heh they always l;ike to run thru my own formations and disrupt them.

Hannibal did not do a tactical retreat. There was no reason to do that. And a tactical retreat could easily turn into a collapse (it would embolden the enemy.) He personally supervised the center of the line to make sure it held for the time needed. His whole plan hinged on holding the center long enough for his cavalry to win on the flanks, enveloping the Romans. His better disciplined African infantry were used to seal the flanks.

He used the same basic alignment at Trebbia. But at Trebbia the center ruptured, allowing 5,000 Romans or so to escape.

Scipio was brilliant, but if he had faced Hannibal's Italian campaign army at Zama, he would have lost. Hannibal nearly pulled it off despite having hastily trained citizen levies in his first line. It is not clear how many veterans he had managed to bring to Zama--certainly not his Iberian/Celtic cavalry. The key to Zama was that Rome now had Numidian cav as allies.

Remember this about any shows you see using RTW: They are scripted battles. The units will march forward and do as the script orders them to do.

You can see this in the RTW historical battles as well.

One thing you have to wonder about. Both Carthage and Rome wrote about the battle. Unfortanately all of Carhtages history was burned to the ground. So the history we read are from those of the Roman army that are fleeing. Not a good way to learn about a battle.

Second what in the world did Hannibal and Scipio ever discuss in thier personel encounters.

i just checked the TV guide and theres nothing in there about this tv show?
what time will it be on UK time? :help: thanks for any :help:

No, I'm quite sure Hannibal DID order his Iberian mercenaries to feign retreat. He did this so that the romans would advance, and make the whole ordeal so much easier for his troops to envelop the romans. This was, of course, succesfull, and he didn't have to loose as many troops as he might have done otherwise.

EDIT:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html

"The crescent of Celtic and Spanish swordsmen buckled and retreated. To the Romans this appeared to be due to their powerful drive into the opponents lines. In fact the troops had been told to retreat."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Hannibal did not do a tactical retreat. There was no reason to do that. And a tactical retreat could easily turn into a collapse (it would embolden the enemy.) He personally supervised the center of the line to make sure it held for the time needed. His whole plan hinged on holding the center long enough for his cavalry to win on the flanks, enveloping the Romans. His better disciplined African infantry were used to seal the flanks.

He used the same basic alignment at Trebbia. But at Trebbia the center ruptured, allowing 5,000 Romans or so to escape.

Scipio was brilliant, but if he had faced Hannibal's Italian campaign army at Zama, he would have lost. Hannibal nearly pulled it off despite having hastily trained citizen levies in his first line. It is not clear how many veterans he had managed to bring to Zama--certainly not his Iberian/Celtic cavalry. The key to Zama was that Rome now had Numidian cav as allies.

---

i agree, if scipio didn't had the help of numidian cavalry he probably would have lost, and also if hannibal had better troops he would have won. but that's all after talk. we will never really know

Just to clear a couple of things up:

The Discovery Channel documentary is does NOT use RTW for its graphical representation, and it is NOT part of the Decisive Battles nor the Time Commanders series. It is a different representation entirely, and IMUHO, provides a more accurate and *informative* picture of Hannibal's battles, including Trebia, etc.

Hannibal did NOT feign a "tactical retreat". He used a **weak** Center as someone stated. The troops used in the center were Gauls. In other words, Hannibal presented a battle situation to the Roman general(s) whereby the *obvious* point to focus an attack was the Center.

Understand a *weak* center is only considered weak, because the troops on the flanks (not including cavalry) were better equipped and trained, overall they were Carthiginias (sp?), as opposed to lesser equipped, lesser trained, and *expendable* Gauls.

In MTW parlance (if I recall correctly), the middle might have been comprised of regular Spears or first level Sword units, while the flanks were say Chivalric Swords (or whatever. It wasn't as if the Center was comprised of Peasants.

As for the Cannae battle tactics and the TW series, the Tactics (and the battle) can be played out with a fair degree of reality, excepting RTW.

In STW, the AI had an enormous tendancy to attack the Middle, and particularly so with its Knights (and to our great chagrin its General!). So, in presenting a *weak* middle in STW, the AI would react VERY much as Romans and continually shove units toward the Center. It was always a great tactic to have Archers in your second or third line to pummel the AI's troops attacking the middle, a huge AI mass, how could the Archers miss. The better the Archers the more the massacre.

In MTW, the AI's tendancy to attack the Center was a bit more subdued than STW, but the tendancy still remained. In fact, by presenting a *weak* middle, and placing your General behind the middle (like Hannibal), this served two purposes.

One, the AI is aware that killing the General is a high objective and usually leads to victory. So placing your General in a weak position attracks the AI to focus its attack at that point.

Second, placing your General directly **near** the weak center troops, causes them to Hold longer, that is they won't Flee as easily or quickly.

With the General close and setting the weak center troops on *Hold Position* the troops would usually fight to the death, given a decent 3 star or better general and the troops have modest experience 2/3 or so.

MTW's AI had a tendancy to attack toward the General, so again, MTW's AI would shovel troops toward the Center. Though, the AI would certainly attempt to Flank with its Cavalry or whatever. A player needed to watch for this and be prepared. I found that once you noticed the AI positioning to flank, a counter positioning would give the AI pause! and the AI's battle focus would resume toward the Center.

I also found that, when attempting Hannibals flanking manuever, either with Cav or Foot, it was prudent to do so with a *Screen* of Spears, as the AI tended to react with its Cavalry. A unit of Spears on Wedge and Hold would take care of the AI's cav and the flanking could continue, just as at Cannae.

The general gist to take away from it all is to use a *Strong* unit to Flank to one side or the other, defeating a **single** AI/Opponnet unit, and then using the remainder of that unit as well as that of the initial unit that had taken on the enemey flanked unit to continue flanking other AI/Opponent units. Just as Hannibal did with his Heavy Cavalry at his left flank.

Unfortunately, the documentary doesn't give a representation of the *attrition* that occurred as the troops engaged. One must rightly presume that Hannibals Heavy Cav suffered losses as it defeated the Roman Cav. In the MTW example, above, after the initial flanking success, a player may have a couple of units, that in total, only comprise 25-50% of a single unit (not to mention that they are now Uber troops, tired Uber troops), BUT that is enough to hit another AI/Opponnet unit at the side, or, preferrably, at the rear, and cause it to cave and **Flee**. After which its just a *rolling* effect down the line, with the **Flight** effect gradually prevading the AI/Opponnents troops, and they all run.

To more precisely emulate Cannae, the Fleeing effect would have to be toned down quite a bit, BUT, overall the Outcome and the general Tactics can be **almost** precisely effected in STW and more so, in MTW/VI/MedMod, particularly so, given these versions' Terrain effects and Unit Settings, which differ so greatly from RTW.

n00bicus,

Quote:

---

This means you would be wiser to station extra troops immediately behind the point you expect to be pushed back in.

---

Quite right! One or two units held in reserve to plug the middle was ALWAYS prudent, though the need was definitely dependant upon the quality of the Center troops.

Generally, in MTW, my Center was comprised thusly,

W x x W
a a
g
r

W = unit on Wedge and Hold Position (I started this in STW because of the AI tendancy to quickly charge its Knights. I think it did this because it saw the General *weakly* defended by just a couple of units of weak troops.)
x = unit on Hold Position
a = Archers
g = General
r = Reserve Unit

You're also right that the TW engine doesn't really allow for the Center to be "Pushed-Back". So, how I developed my tactic was to still use a Convex formation resembling a stepped pyramid:

w x x w
F x aa x F
F g F
r

Simply put, primarly, using the F units to Flank, in this way moving my flank units forward, Convex to Straight, and then the outter most Flank units to Concave. Of course there are variations, and, in order to carry out the manuver, your middle MUST MUST **Hold***.

Impossible to effect in RTW 1.1, and very difficult in 1.2.

Took me YEARS to *perfect* the Tactic. In all TW versions save the MedMod (and not including RTW), using the tactic and a *single* stack, ultimately, I could defeat **any** number of AI stacks. The size of the AI force began not to matter, the only thing was how well I, as the General, effected the manuevers. There in lied the Challenge---to be Hannibal, Ceasar, whomever. Ultimately, it was **Generalship** that mattered. It's what's missing in RTW.

Quote:

---

Is there anyway to download all these episodes of Time Commanders or even this program legally? Because I don't have Discovery Channel. Actually, i doubt I can even get it here.

---

Unfortunately, my PC isn't setup properly, so I can't pull it off my DVR, but maybe someone else can. If so, it could be uploaded to one of the Usenet *binary* groups, but NO, it won't be *legal*. Though, I doubt the Discovery channel is having a problem with folks poaching their content. ;)

[Oh well, my little diagrams won't space correctly when posted. Hope you can imagine what I mean.]

~ToranagaSama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvilNed

No, I'm quite sure Hannibal DID order his Iberian mercenaries to feign retreat. He did this so that the romans would advance, and make the whole ordeal so much easier for his troops to envelop the romans. This was, of course, succesfull, and he didn't have to loose as many troops as he might have done otherwise.

EDIT:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html

"The crescent of Celtic and Spanish swordsmen buckled and retreated. To the Romans this appeared to be due to their powerful drive into the opponents lines. In fact the troops had been told to retreat."

---

You have misinterpreted what the site says. It does not say feigned retreat. Read Polybius. This is not a "feigned" retreat. It is a real retreat of troops falling back/buckling as things get too hot. Hannibal's center was vastly outnumbered and on open ground. The troops fought, and gave ground as planned. Hannibal used the classic strategy (tactic in this case) of trading space for time. No, the center was not intended to hold its ground, Hannibal knew it would buckle, just as it had at Trebbia. This is not a feigned retreat, it is a fighting withdrawal. "Giving ground" is a clear indication of the nature of the central action.

Quote:

---

Polybius 3.115 from Perseus:
For a short time the Iberian and Celtic lines stood their ground and fought gallantly; but; presently overpowered by the weight of the heavy-armed lines, they gave way and retired to the rear, thus breaking up the crescent. The Roman maniples followed with spirit, and easily cut their way through the enemy's line; since the Celts had been drawn up in a thin line, while the Romans had closed up from the wings towards the centre and the point of danger. For the two wings did not come into action at the same time as the centre: but the centre was first engaged, because the Gauls, having been stationed on the arc of the crescent, had come into contact with the enemy long before the wings, the convex of the crescent being towards the enemy.
The Romans, however, going in pursuit of these troops, and hastily closing in towards the centre and the part of the enemy which was giving ground, advanced so far, that the Libyan heavy-armed troops on either wing got on their flanks. Those on the right, facing to the left, charged from the right upon the Roman flank; while those who were on the left wing faced to the right, and, dressing by the left, charged their right flank,1 the exigency of the moment suggesting to them what they ought to do. Thus it came about, as Hannibal had planned, that the Romans were caught between two hostile lines of Libyans--thanks to their impetuous pursuit of the Celts.

---

They feigned retreat so that the romans would follow them. Wether you want to call it "giving ground" or "tactical retreat" doesn't matter. Yes, they were beaten, and they would have retreated eventually anyway, but what is so wrong about calling it feigning retreat? They obviously fell back, so that the romans would be caught in their trap. Hannibal had ordered them to fall back.

So what we call it doesn't really matter, but in essence, it's still a feigned retreat.

You can of course call it whatever you want. That doesn't make it a "feigned retreat."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atreides

@ Puzz3D

I think you're wrong. Hannibal was brilliant. While outnumber with less quality forces he was able to win over and and over again.

But I think you should see the broadcast like the author (or me). Not say: 'I heard from my friend that, bla bla bal).

---

I didn't say he wasn't brilliant. I said his center was pushed back and probably routing. There is no way you can use this tactic in RTW.

I can't watch the Time Commanders show since it's only shown in Europe. Several of my European friends told me that the gameplay in the original Time Commanders programs was not like the gameplay in the RTW. I did watch several of the History Channel's Decisive Battles programs which used RTW, and they all gave a false impression of what you could do with the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

You can of course call it whatever you want. That doesn't make it a "feigned retreat."

---

Well, they pulled back in order to lure the romans forward, making it look as if they were losing.

If that's not feigning retreat, I don't know what is...

They were losing in the center. They didn't have to act to make it look that way. That's not feigned, that's a fighting withdrawal. Hannibal stayed in the center to make sure it didn't collapse. At Trebbia the center actually broke under this pressure. Hannibal made some adjustments for Cannae.

They WOULD have lost, had they just stood there. They retreated (feigned retreat) because Hannibal told them so, otherwise the Romans probably wouldn't have walked into his trap, or it would have been tougher to swarm around them.

Not a single description i have read of the battle describes it as a "feigned retreat." But you are certainly welcome to call it whatever you like.

Read the one I posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvilNed

Read the one I posted.

---

~:) Yep, including that one and I was specifically thinking of it when I wrote that....it also fails to refer to it as a feigned retreat. That is *your* interpretation of what it says. But it does not say "feigned retreat". Feigned retreat carries a different connotation to me, and apparently to the other authors I've read as well. Most of the authors' descriptions interpret Polybius as describing a fighting line being steadily forced backward. Polybius could be interpreted along the lines of a feigned retreat. No author I've read so far spells it out as such. The effect was certainly to form a pocket and a trap.

With feigned retreats one would normally hear it described more along the lines of running away, then turning to vigorously attack their unwitting pursuer.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, the documentary doesn't give a representation of the *attrition* that occurred as the troops engaged. One must rightly presume that Hannibals Heavy Cav suffered losses as it defeated the Roman Cav.

---

Hannibal only lost 200 cavalry at cannae.

Also CA had written in one of the descriptions (prerelease) that Hannibal still had 2/3 of his original cavalry after campaigning, so I can't guarantee the accuracy of that since it was written for a game description.

Quote:

---

I didn't say he wasn't brilliant. I said his center was pushed back and probably routing. There is no way you can use this tactic in RTW.

---

With a few ironmanrules you may find yourself stuck with a few more losers than you really want. It can be done even with town watch taking the brunt of the load. Hannibal had 4 hours you only get about 1 minute to fully execute this properly.

Quote:

---

agree, if scipio didn't had the help of numidian cavalry he probably would have lost, and also if hannibal had better troops he would have won. but that's all after talk. we will never really know

---

If Scipio's cavalry did'nt return when they did he would have lost. When Hannibals veterans engaged the Roman Princepes and Triarii the Veterans of Hannibal were mutilating them. Unfortanately they were used too late.

As far as the retreating went, theres fallbacks where troops that are tired disengage and retire to the rear. I believe the deep formation of the Roman deployment did not allow for this. This allowed the Gauls to tire the Romans and also lure them forward. While the Gauls got breaks during those 4 hours I'm not sure if the Romans ever did.

So you have tired units in a deep UNMANEUVERABLE formation surrounded on 3 sides and soon to be all 4