Traismene and Cannae

[John the Mad]

The one thing i never understood is how any nation,present or past,could absorb such losses and still continue on fighting.

For a modern nation the losses of the two would be overwhelming for an ancient one with maybe a population 1/20th of the modern day US it would have been devestating.Something doesn't add up

During WWII,with a population near 100,000,000 the US suffered about a million casualties,and it affected almost every family in the country..so how could the romans shake off the loss of 100'000 men,in the prime of their life,without a serious hit on their society?

[A Very Super Market]

Those were not all Romans. Their allies in Italy also sent troops to fight Hannibal.

[John the Mad]

Those were not all Romans. Their allies in Italy also sent troops to fight Hannibal.

Hannibal let the non-roman troops go.

[Samurai Waki]

The Romans were a determined lot, thats for sure. Those numbers could also have been exaggerated, as was common in the day, but even so if it were 20,000 men, its nothing to shrug off, thats still a lot of men!

Perhaps, it was felt within Roman Society, we will probably never know for sure, seeing as there are few articles left available to really know how the Average Roman Citizen felt. I'm guessing they felt something, maybe more along the lines of searing hate, as the Romans had, after conquering Carthage, they burned it all to the ground, and salted the earth so nothing new could grow. It may be taken, that the Senate wanted to make sure that after Carthage was dead, it would stay that way for good. Primal fear

After that the Romans really became ruthless when dealing with an enemy, as you could also say that after having dealt with the Getai they killed, burned, pillaged, and ransacked anything in their way.

hence the quote "They [Romans] had created a desolation, and called it peace."

[John the Mad]

The Romans were a determined lot, thats for sure. Those numbers could also have been exaggerated, as was common in the day, but even so if it were 20,000 men, its nothing to shrug off, thats still a lot of men!

Perhaps, it was felt within Roman Society, we will probably never know for sure, seeing as there are few articles left available to really know how the Average Roman Citizen felt. I'm guessing they felt something, maybe more along the lines of searing hate, as the Romans had, after conquering Carthage, they burned it all to the ground, and salted the earth so nothing new could grow. It may be taken, that the Senate wanted to make sure that after Carthage was dead, it would stay that way for good. Primal fear

After that the Romans really became ruthless when dealing with an enemy, as you could also say that after having dealt with the Getai they killed, burned, pillaged, and ransacked anything in their way.

hence the quote "They [Romans] had created a desolation, and called it peace."

The roman armies after Trasimene and Cannae would have had to be made up entirely of old men and young boys by reading Livy.

No way a society,no matter how warlike,losses 100,000 men not only in the prime of their lives,but also representing the entire middle class and goes "oh well" lets call up the young boys and old men and free all the slaves..without their society being turned upside down.

[Samurai Waki]

The roman armies after Trasimene and Cannae would have had to be made up entirely of old men and young boys by reading Livy.

No way a society,no matter how warlike,losses 100,000 men not only in the prime of their lives,but also representing the entire middle class and goes "oh well" lets call up the young boys and old men and free all the slaves..without their society being turned upside down.

Thats what I was trying to get at. The "not being sure how the Romans felt" was more akin to how the French, and Allied Armies felt about war after WWI. The French lost a massive portion of their military aged population (out of 7,500,000 Mobilized 5,651,000 were either killed or wounded... almost 75% of their effective fighting force) I'm sure, had it been up to them, would have done much the same as the Romans did, if they could've gotten away with it, and later on regretted not having done so.

[Megas Methuselah]

Perhaps, it was felt within Roman Society, we will probably never know for sure, seeing as there are few articles left available to really know how the Average Roman Citizen felt. I'm guessing they felt something, maybe more along the lines of searing hate, as the Romans had, after conquering Carthage, they burned it all to the ground, and salted the earth so nothing new could grow. It may be taken, that the Senate wanted to make sure that after Carthage was dead, it would stay that way for good. Primal fear

IIRC, I believe public mourning was banned for a while in Rome after Cannae. That should give us some idea of the situation.

[British Mutt + Viking]

Remember what Stalin said, "Quantity ha a quality all its own."

In `1914, the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) was the finest force, man for man, in the world. Those 160,000 men were first rate patriots of the British Empire. Most had combat experience in the Boer War. Unfortunately for the BEF, it took less than 5 weeks for a fighting force twenty-years in the making to be destroyed completely. The problem is that the German conscript he faced may have not been experienced but he was very well trained, with 16 weeks of Prussian torture under his belt. The BEF soldier may have been worth two Germans, but the Germans had twenty men for every BEF soldier and it took only 16 weeks to replace the conscript; It was impossible to replace the BEF man. End result, 160,000 BEF soldiers took down perhaps 200,000 Germans at a loss of 98,000 men.

The real lesson, then, is that conscripts are better than volunteers when the conscript program is properly run and the conscripts properly trained. In WW2, the conscripts were raised FOR THE DURATION and underwent a full and complete four months of basic training that dealt with the enemy likely to be faced. The average 1943 conscript then spent up to a year in the service before he was likely to see combat. In Vietnam, We trained them for a few weeks in tactics for fighting a Soviet invasion of West Germany, not a Vietnamese guerilla in the Delta or highlands. We then sent them home just a few months later, just as they were starting to learn to be real soldiers. That is why the conscript of 1967 failed.

Here area few basic ground rules for successful conscripts,

1.) Full and complete training by professionals. Just because they did not volunteer doesn't mean they are inferior material, just material acquired by other means.

2.) Conscripts fight best when the term of service is tied to victory, not time. If a conscript is told that he will be released after a period of time, he spends his days counting down and avoiding trouble, not learning to win to get home faster. This also helps encourage the conscripts and professionals because both groups know that they will both be in the fight to the end. One of the biggest problems we had in Vietnam was the disconnect between the professionals and conscripts. The professionals hated the fact that they were being forced to fight on and on while hordes of "cowards" swept off the streets back home were riding home with barely their feet getting wet (so to speak).

3.) Conscripts need a cause more practical than simple patriotism. Volunteers may be willing to die for a stupid piece of fabric on a pole (otherwise known as a flag), but a conscript needs to know that he is fighting for something tangible, even if you have to lie to them.

[rotorgun]

That last post was an astute analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of conscription armies. Well said British Mutt + Viking. This begs the question, were the Roman legions sent against the Carthaginians during this time of a professional or a conscript nature? Being that Rome was still a republic then, I envision a large contingent of the soldiery may have been "reservists" recalled for the "national emergency", much as the Army of the United States was during the opening involvement in WWII. We know that the Romans had an efficient way of training their citizens to be soldiers. Do you think that they could produce an efficient army of conscripts?

[Pannonian]

That last post was an astute analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of conscription armies. Well said British Mutt + Viking. This begs the question, were the Roman legions sent against the Carthaginians during this time of a professional or a conscript nature? Being that Rome was still a republic then, I envision a large contingent of the soldiery may have been "reservists" recalled for the "national emergency", much as the Army of the United States was during the opening involvement in WWII. We know that the Romans had an efficient way of training their citizens to be soldiers. Do you think that they could produce an efficient army of conscripts?

Polybius has a full description of the selection process. IIRC the Roman territories have an obligation to provide n men for service. The selection will take into account fitness for service, service already rendered, the consul's choice, etc. They then make their way to a gathering point, eventually meeting up on the Field of Mars. When Hannibal marched on Rome in an attempt to relieve Capua, 4 legions had coincidentally just been raised and assembled in Rome.

Also, training might still have been done by parents and parent figures at this point in time. It was Scipio Africanus, during his Iberian campaign, who brought in gladiator-style standardised training.

[Kagemusha]

I think if we are starting a discussion about conscripts versus professionals is that both in Britain and US the whole conscription system was and still is different. While most countries in European continent had mandatory military service for certain amount of time for all capable males. Germany was example of this.
Results from such conscription are bit different specially if continued by well timed rehearsals compared to drafted conscripts that are shipped out after basic training incase numbers of the professional army are too low for the need of conflict.

So while US and Britain drafted and gave basic training to their men. Germans and for example Finnish simply called in arms their reservist that formed the troops they had been trained previously for.

[Pannonian]

I think if we are starting a discussion about conscripts versus professionals is that both in Britain and US the whole conscription system was and still is different. While most countries in European continent had mandatory military service for certain amount of time for all capable males. Germany was example of this.
Results from such conscription are bit different specially if continued by well timed rehearsals compared to drafted conscripts that are shipped out after basic training incase numbers of the professional army are too low for the need of conflict.

So while US and Britain drafted and gave basic training to their men. Germans and for example Finnish simply called in arms their reservist that formed the troops they had been trained previously for.

Wasn't the German system created as a way around the restrictions Napoleon placed on the Prussian army? If Prussia can only have an army of 100,000, Prussia would have a permanent corps of 5,000 fulltime officers, then have drafts of 95,000 conscripts who are trained and demobbed in time for the next lot, thus giving it access to a paper strength of 100,000 current soldiers plus 500,000 reservists or summat.

[rotorgun]

Polybius has a full description of the selection process. IIRC the Roman territories have an obligation to provide n men for service. The selection will take into account fitness for service, service already rendered, the consul's choice, etc. They then make their way to a gathering point, eventually meeting up on the Field of Mars. When Hannibal marched on Rome in an attempt to relieve Capua, 4 legions had coincidentally just been raised and assembled in Rome.

Also, training might still have been done by parents and parent figures at this point in time. It was Scipio Africanus, during his Iberian campaign, who brought in gladiator-style standardized training.

So, the Roman armies of the period were likely made up of a mixture of full time professionals, recalled veterans (reservists of a kind), and a large number of hastily, but well trained recruits. Their pattern of tactics must have therefore, become predictable to an astute General. Hannibal was certainly an astute tactician. He seemed to have an uncanny knack of getting well inside the decision making process of his Roman opponents.

[Samurai Waki]

The Parthians were also quite aware of the Roman's inflexibility.