It's certainly possible, CBR, and I hope I didn't sound like I was foreclosing the possibility. After all, we are never going to know for sure what the plan was; there's just too many variables that we can't possibly pin down. I merely think that the factors against a double envelopment strategy outweigh those factors that suggest it.

James, by his own admission, ignores the cavalry aspect of the battle. For Hannibal to complete a double envelopment and close the rear of the Roman lines (which is what James is suggesting when he theorizes that the point of Hannibal's strategy is to annihilate the Romans, rather than engage in a war of attrition), he would need his horse to perform a similar function that it did at Cannae, i.e. to come back around and close the circle. However, he is severly outnumbered in cavalry from the outset, and must have seen that it was far more likely for his cavalry to be defeated than the other way around. This obviously arm-chair generalling, but with that in mind, I would think that he would use the elephants as a cavalry screen to offset Scipio's advantage here, and ward the Roman cavalry away. That would allow Hannibal's own cavalry to operate more effectively. Or, do you believe that James agrees with the "feigned retreat" of the Carthaginian cavalry? (This is not a challenge, I am genuinely interested in your take on James's view of the cavalry, even though not specified in the article). I just don't know if I can find the double envelopment hypothesis convincing without knowing how the cavalry fit in, i.e. the integrated battle plan, other than to say that they fit in in the way they were used. Seems too...self-fulfilling, I suppose. I guess it comes down to me mostly not believing in the feigned retreat of the cavalry, in which case I think the elephants especially would have been deployed differently, James's ideas on them notwithstanding.

Quote Originally Posted by CBR View Post
And I think the line extension makes a lot more sense than having routed men from the first and second line rally and suddenly put up a good fight.
I agree with you here that the first and second line rally has always troubled me a bit. Seems counterintuitive that a line would easily break, then reform and fight valiantly. However, Goldsworthy suggests (The Fall of Carthage, p. 303 (I think - once again I am not by the book, so am operating from memory of reading this section last night, but it is definitely around 300-305)) that most of the 1st and 2nd line actually fled all the way back to camp, and that it was only a few of the African units from the 2nd line that actually rallied and came back to battle. If that is indeed the case, then I can buy a few units coming back and fighting courageously while the majority flees entirely.

It's not that I think James doesn't make some good points; I do. I guess I'm just not fully convinced.