Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Cannae/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Discrepancy

On the one hand, the article states that Hannibal deployed such that the morning sun and wind were in the Romans' eyes as the lines advanced to combat (Dodge, citation 8), meaning the battle must have been fought before noon. On the other hand, the article quotes a source claiming that Hannibal's men slew 600 Romans every minute until the sun set (Cowley, citation 12). Simple arithmetic indicates that, if true, the battle must have been fought in the late afternoon (4-5pm ish), as it would only take 2 hours to kill 70,000 men that way. Which of these are we to believe? They can't both be right. A battle line does not engage and then hold for in excess of 6 hours. --70.131.56.200 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Both are theories presented by historians, we simply don't know the truth. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are so many discrepancies concerning the battle it's difficult to say. Dodge claims that the Carthaginian army fought with it's back on the river, the Roman right being obliquely formed onto the river. I'm reading his account right now, his account does not say anything about the sun hitting the Romans in the face, it says that the sun was hitting neither side in the face, as they were both facing North and South, according to his account. It's just impossible to say. I disagree with the account on Wikipedia, Dodge's account seems accurate to me, he's been there and his account is consonant with the ancient sources. Hannibal may have placed his back on the river so that his Gauls would not prematurely retreat, as he may have feared they would do. This again, is however, criminally idle speculation. I do not pretend to know Hannibals mind.SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Senators as casualties.

...eighty senators (at a time when the Roman Senate was no more than 300 men, this constituted 25–30% of the governing body).

Senators is an ambiguous term. While all members of the Roman Senate (political body) were Senators (class), not all Senators (class) were members of the Roman Senate (political body). Did Rome lose 25-30% of its governing body at the battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.243.104 (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and many more of the Senatorial class who had a gold ring on their finger. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 80 senators, or men of senatorial rank (meaning they were qualified to enter the Senate) that died at Cannae, we have no way of estimating what percentage of the ruling class this constituted, except to comment that it must have been a terrible toll. The Hannibalic War certainly cut a huge swathe through the Roman ruling class, as all historians agree. Rome's later political evolution was heavily affected by this disaster, just as much as the smallholders were affected by the economic devastation of much of the Italian peninsula. As for the "gold rings," these were worn not only by many members of the Senate, but also by most of the equestrian class, which was considerably larger than the number of Senators. In Smith's Dictionary we find it described as follows. "This right of wearing a gold ring, which was subsequently called the jus annuli aurei, or the jus annulorum, remained for several centuries at Rome the exclusive privilege of senators, magistrates, and equites, while all other persons continued to use iron ones." An interesting wrinkle on this custom is that a significant number of Senators and Equestrians continued to wear iron rings as a political gesture to the 'mos maiorum,' the "ways of the ancestors." Some patrician families wore the old iron rings as a personal badge, and Gaius Marius himself wore an iron ring as he triumphed over Jugurtha. Esf456 (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)esf456

Livy's statement that 80 senators "or those qualified to enter the Senate" indeed should not be taken to mean that 25-30% of the Senate was wiped out. One could be qualified for membership - though dint of having held a magistracy - though not be a member. One only joined when the censors updated the senatorial register (the album senatorium). This was done every 5 years, and censors had not been in office since 220/219. All those who had held a magistracy in the interim may be considered "on the waiting list" for the a senatorial seat, though not actual senators until enrolled (or not) by the censors.Catiline63 (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I am disappointed to see that somebody removed my discussion of "another view" of Cannae from the discussion page. I raised a great many points that ought to have been incorporated in the Wikipedia article on Cannae. Despite further revisions, none of these points were incorporated in the article. Whoever removed my text, please put it back into the discussion page. I simply assumed that it would not be taken out. All the work I did on it would otherwise be lost, since I did not keep a copy for myself. Esf456 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)esf456

As shown by the discussion page history, your piece wan not deleted but was among those sections archived by a bot in Oct 2009. Your contributions are currently at Talk:Battle of Cannae/Archive 4. Hope this helps. Catiline63 (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Roman Army

I think that the Roman Army in the infobox could do with a bit of sprucing up. To be consistent with the article, I propose the following changes. The article states (from a reliable source), that the Senate brought out eight Roman legions, each with a strength of 5,000 men, plus 2,400 Roman cavalry. Each legion had the same number of allied troops, plus 4,000 allied cavalry. So that means, the infobox should read something like this:

86,400:
40,000 Roman Infantry
40,000 Allied Infantry
2,400 Roman Cavalry
4,000 Allied Cavalry

Or, it could read something like this:

86,400:
42,400 Roman troops
44,000 Allied troops

(82.28.237.200 (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

This would be needed for every article about a force of a mixed political entity. Sorry, but current policy is to keep the infobox simple and give the total number of troops. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In the info box it says under Casualties and losses (according to Livy). Could I get an exact place in Livy where these numbers show up. I can see in Livy 22.59 it says: We did not think it a crime for some of Rome's soldiers to survive the battle of Cannae, seeing that 50,000 men had been butchered there... If there is no exact Livy reference for the existing numbers now in the info box, then I will have to change to 50,000 killed. Also in Livy 22.60 it says: All round you on that day were lying fifty thousand dead, Romans and allies.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Decisive tactical victory...

I can't find this in the archive, so I have a question...What is a decisive tactical victory? I presume that for a victory to be decisive in a campaign, it has to succeed both tactically and a strategically. If it is only a tactical victory, then how could it be decisive? Jim101 (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense

How can an 86000 man army get surrounded by a 40000 man army, and then get cut into pieces?

This is illogical. How can you surround a larger force with a smaller force, and expect to cut down all of them, without any significant losses?

This can only be possible if the Roman infantry was either:

1. Significantly handicapped. It is established that the Roman infantry was better equipped than Hannibal's light infantry, and that they had the same equipment as the African heavy infantry. Therefore the Roman legionaries were at least equal, if not superior, to Hannibal's troops, in terms of equipment.

2. Unable to fight back for some reason. Now the article says the Roman infantry was "compacted together so closely that they had little space to wield their weapons." This does not make any sense, you don't need a lot of space to wield your weapons unless you were swinging them around, but the Roman infantry tactic was to move forward as a solid line, forming a wall of shields, and just stab at the enemy. If anything, being compacted together would increase the fighting power of the Roman legion, so this doesn't make any sense.

3. Completely idiotic. Are expected to believe that, all of the Roman infantry blindly marched forwards into the river, even though there were significant amounts of enemy soldiers on their flanks? Did they not attempt to break out through the enemy lines? Which brings me onto the next point.

4. Totally surrounded by a thick shell of enemy infantry. This does not make any sense, as discussed earlier, because you cannot envelop larger force with a smaller force and not expect your line to be so thin that the enemy forces easily break out.

Just in terms of pushing power, the Romans can just push through the African infantry. Taking into account that the Romans had equipment at least equal to those used by the heavy African infantry, how is it possible that the African infantry can just continually cut down lines of Roman infantry without suffering the same damage being dealt in reverse?

I find this passage extremely confusing: "as their outer ranks were continually cut down, and the survivors forced to pull back and huddle together, they were finally all killed where they stood."

Now, the Roman infantry was confident and fighting for the survival of their nation. Therefore it would make sense that they would have exerted all of their power to push outwards and attack the enemy soldiers enveloping them.

But instead we are expected to believe that they just stood there, waiting to be cut down, and then "pull back and huddle together"?

So an inferior infantry force of 40000 men could simply envelop a larger, superior infantry force of 86000 men and just cut down the superior infantry without suffering any significant casualties?

This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Either there were not 86000 legionaries at the battle, or the number of mercenaries employed by Hannibal was grossly understated. Someone please explain this to me. TryMakingSense (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It might have worked if Hannibal's army was 75% of Varro's in numbers though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TryMakingSense (talk • contribs) 13:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just did another simulation and yeah, 74% is the lowest number required to defeat a surrounded army of equal quality. TryMakingSense (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

We can really only go by the historical sources. There is considerable variation in the actual numbers, but all sources agree that the Roman army was significantly larger than the Carthaginian army. There were a lot of secondary factors working in the Carthaginians' favor. For example, the Carthaginians clearly had no uniforms, and there are some accounts suggesting that the flanking heavy infantry on Carthage's side may have been garbed (a substantial portion of them, that is, not all of them) in Roman attire, leading to confusion along the Roman flanks. There were some significant weather considerations as well. And the Roman army did achieve a breakthrough in the lightly-equipped Carthaginian center -- they were just too tightly massed (and moving towards a river) to take advantage of it.

Also, remember that the Roman army was not at all aligned to handle infantry charges from the flanks.

Finally, don't discount the effect the early routing of the Roman cavalry had on the battle. The Roman army was surrounded on three sides by infantry, and were taking on cavalry charges from the rear that were entirely unopposed by Roman cavalry.

All that said, I agree that it's difficult to believe. Right now, I'm actually trying to go through the article and indicate in a few important places that what we have is essentially "scholarly opinion" and not incontestable historical record.

Out of curiosity, what are you using to simulate this? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably needs more citations

Just looking at the section "Effects on Roman military doctrine" there are a few areas that require a source. The most striking is: "This appointment may have violated the constitutional laws of the Roman Republic, but, as Hans Delbrück wrote, it "effected an internal transformation that increased her military potentiality enormously" while foreshadowing the decline of the Republic's political institutions.". This sentence quotes this Delbrück but does not provide a source. 70.68.103.162 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Roman numbers

According to my copy of Polybius, the Romans had ~300 horse per legion (which agrees with the 2,400 Roman cavalry number); however, he says that "as a rule the allied cavalry are three times as numerous as the Roman", which would seem to apply that the allied cavalry numbered 7,200, rather than the 4,000 listed in the article. Is there an explanation for this discrepancy? 141.211.231.232 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Era Style

Why BC, not BCE? BCE is the accepted academic style, and more inclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.92.235 (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Gaetulian

I'm sorry, i'm italian. I can not find the meaning of "Gaetulian" in the chapter called "Force". Is an adjective which indicates the origin? If so, "gaetulian" was a resident of the ...? Thank you. --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! That needed a link: they're Gaetuli. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions about words

I continue there my questions about words in the page. I'm sorry, but I can not find the meaning of "Ducan Head" in the Equipment. Thank you. --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I've find the meaning: Is it the name of an autor as Polybius for example? --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
That was a typo: the name is Duncan Head, a modern author. There was no bibliographic info for the work cited. It is D. Head, Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars (Wargames Research Group, 1983), which doesn't look like a traditional reliable source. — cardiff | chestnut — 20:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. As I think you understand, I am translating the page in Italian, so thank you by the wikipedia italian too! --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry again. What do you mean by "depth"? (in the Tactical deployment) The army was longer than wide or is more "united" than large? Thank you. --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I believe that the authors meant that the Romans chose to add extra rows to their infantry, as opposed to using a thinner, wider central line. Maybe a diagram will help.
More "depth":
(Hannibal's forces are here)
^
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
More breadth:
^
**********
**********
**********

Hope this helps. — cardiff | chestnut — 20:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Innocenti Erleor (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Another problems

Hallo again. In the chapter called "Casualties", where there are the figures of Appian, Plutarch, Quintilian and Eutropius; in the figures of Eutropius, "300 hundred" means 300x100, so 30.000 or 300? And, in the same preriod there is "3,500 horse" they are animals or men on animals?; after that, in the chapter "Effects on Roman military doctrine", near the end, "the battle exposed the limits of a citizen-militia army" means "the battle exposed the boundaries between the status of citizen and the status of soldier (so express clearly when one person was civilan or soldier)" or "the battle exposed what the citizen-militia army (army formated by citizen) had or didn't had to do". Thank you.--Innocenti Erleor (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied here. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 15:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Mean of a phrase

I'm not sure of the mean of "By anchoring his army on the river, Hannibal prevented one of his flanks from being overlapped by the more numerous Romans", in the chapter "Tactical deployment". It mean that Romans were unable to do the flanking manover because one flank of Carthaginians was too near to the river or it mean that the leftmost group of soldiers in the army of Hannibal could not have been hit the front by the rightmost one in the Roman army (for the same cause)? Thank you.--Innocenti Erleor (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Caro Innocenti, I think you are right: "Romans were unable to do the flanking maneuver because one flank of Carthaginians was too near to the river". The phrase "being overlapped" is not one that I know in a battle description, but I can think of no other interpretation than that the river protected their flank. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 19:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I think Pincer movement may be what you're looking for. I've also heard this as "enfolding," "enveloping," "outflanking" and the like, but "overlapping" just sounds wrong. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
In any case it was very bad English, far too figurative. Ships may anchor on rivers, armies don't or anyway shouldn't. I have rewritten it. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sentence Daly Gregory

In the sentence «He [Daly Gregory] suggests that at the Battle of Zama Hannibal was quoted saying that he had fought Paullus at Cannae» (near the end of "Historical sources") who quoted Hannibal at the Battle of Zama saying that he had fought Paullus at Cannae? What did Daly Gregory write in "Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War", p. 120? Thank you.--Innocenti Erleor (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

When I added that bit citing Daly I had borrowed the book from a library. It has long since been returned. Hence if you are asking for me to write out a direct quote I am unable to help. Sorry.Dejvid (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That page, at least, can be viewed on Google Books.  davidiad.: 15:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

The axis of the grid shown in the two figures is oriented from west (Romans) to the east (Carthaginians), contrary to what is reported in historical sources that identify the axis from the north (Romans) to the south (Carthaginians).

Polybius, Book III,114: And as the Roman line faced the south, as I said before, and the Carthaginian the north, the rays of the rising sun did not inconvenience either of them.

Livy, Book XXII,45: He sent his Numidians, however, across the river to attack the parties who were getting water for the smaller camp.

Is evident from these sources that the battle took place on the east bank of the river, where you place the Roman smaller camp, so is the deployment both camps indicated in the figure are reversed on the other side, according to the following scheme:

NORTH

R-----------------SMALLER ROMAN CAMP

I-------------------------ROMANS

V

E-------------------CARTHAGINIANS

R

SOUTH

--Wikidemarco (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And Livy said (XXII, 44) part of the Romans camped on the east of the river... is difficult say that with the river that flows from west to east. Thank you. --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that Livy wrote something wrong? Should he write to the south of the river? So even Polybius was wrong to write that the Romans and Carthaginians were facing south to the north?--Wikidemarco (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not so arrogant!!! I'm supporting you! Livio said part of the Romans camped on the east of the river. So the river has to frow from north to south or from south to north, considering as true what said Livio, while the picture File:Battle of Cannae, 215 BC - Initial Roman attack.gif shows the river flowing from west to east. So the picture is wrong.--Innocenti Erleor (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification and support. Where can I find a pattern of initial roman attak correct? Can I upload my picture on Wikipedia of the scheme, which was rebuilt according to the sources, without falling into the original research?--Wikidemarco (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gents, do not forget that today's river Ofanto (Aufidius in Roman times) now flows in a different bed than in 3rd Century BC. So Livius (or Livy as you like it) is probably right, as he usually is concerning dates and locations (while he's considerably less reliable in what is his version of the facts. --Claudiocare (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Forces and tactics

Hi Gents,

I find the description of Chartaginian forces rather superficial: according not only to Polybius and Livius and other Roman authors but also according to the excellent studies by modern authors (such as Kruta, Roveda and David Nicolle) the army of Hannibal was manned at 40% by his own forces: all the rest was composed by Celts from Cisalpine Gaul and allies from southern Italy.

As for their equipment and armament, we know, through the sources above, that it did not depend at all from their ethnic origin, but from their tactical role. For instance, celtic infantry could be lightly equipped (if skirmishers) as well as heavily armored (if heavy infantry, depending from what part they had to perform in the tactical disposition of the army; but they were invariably armed with shield, sword (celtic swords were for thrusting and slashing, as archeology has widely shown) and 3 or 4 javelins, as basic standard equipment. Most celtic warriors also bore spears, and steel or bronze helmets were broadly worn. Celtic heavy infantry, which was a significant part of Hannibal's army, was equipped with excellent armors of chain mail, helmets, steel weapons and rich gear: and this is no surprise considering that the celtic Nations of Cisalpine Gaul who were supporting Hannibal were rich and powerful communities, with strong central authorities and large resources, and were celebrated for the quality and workmanship of their wargear. Archeologists continuously discover in northern Italy celtic settlements, graveyards and strongholds laden with arms and armours of the most exquisite level. This is particularly true when one considers the celtic cavalry, fielding only warrior noblemen armed and equipped with the finest military gear of the time, whom Hannibal kept in high regard. Therefore it is a rough semplification to assume thar they were just half-naked and poorly armed countrymen. We must not forget that besides their own gear, Hannibal's army (including Celts) was widely refitted with the spoils of the Roman legions annihilated in the Battle of Trasimenus; and that Hannibal was certainly supplied with weapons and armors in plenty by the italian cities which he encountered, both by sacking or alliance. Livius literally states that Carthaginians were by no means inferior to the Romans in terms of weapons and armor and in fact both hosts looked very much alike.

As for the Chartaginians, they too were armed according to their task in the order of battle: skirmishers and scouts had small leather (or cane) shields, daggers and bows (or slings, much feared weapons especially in the hands of Balearic professional slingers), regular footsoldiers ("line infantry") bore helmets and body armors (plate or chain armors, the roman "lorica" being the most widespread), cutting edged weapons (falcatae or similar) and possibly a spear; and the Lybian phalanx was composed by soldiers wielding 20-ft long sarissae, round-shaped shields, short-range swords, heavily clad in helmet and armor: here too we can expect a wide array of original and looted equipment, bronze, steel, plate, chain or segmented gear. This is often mentioned by contemporary sources and follows the common military custom of the time.

That said, it is certainly true that Hannibal was keen in matching the tactical roles of his troops with their specific peculiar skills: his army's most striking feature was indeed its high degree of professional specialization, and this is stressed by Polybius many times.


I humbly suggest to mention, if possible, the celtic nations who joined Hannibal's side and, possibly, the background of the Cisalpine Celts who (and that must always be remembered) were engaged in an epic struggle for survival against Rome since decades before the Punic Wars. It is, I think, an important chapter in the description of the Second Punic War since Celts were Hannibal's crucial allies both in Gaul and in Italy, in suppplies as well as in the war campaign and actually, many of the celtic warriors from Insubrians and Boii followed him right to Zama.

"nulla alia gens tanta mole cladis non obruta esset" (no other folk could have survived to such a disaster) - Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita (Battle of Cannae) --Claudiocare (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Result

From Template:Infobox military conflict "result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Lutie (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to state that this battle was strategically irrelevant. At the very least it led to Fabius Cuncator coming back to power and influenced the Romans strategy against Hannibal in Italy. The author of whichever source is being used for that assertion is engaging in an odd bit of historical revisionism. We should not give undue influence to minority opinions when the vast majority of historians would state that this battle was in no way irrelevant to the wider outcome. Just because Carthage ultimately lost does not mean that all of Hannibal's victories did not matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Result

This battle was a complete victory for Carthage, and definitely not inconclusive in any way. Of course it didn't make Hannibal win the war, but it doesn't matter (otherwise you will have to assume that Hitler never won a single strategic victory). I hope you understand what I mean: after the Battle, Hannibal gained many allies and utter control over South Italy, so it was a political and operational victory as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es157 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Result redux

There has been considerable to-ing and fro-ing in the article history regarding the "results" parameter content of the military infobox, namely whether Carthage's victory was or was not "decisive". Rather than maintain the confused (and confusing) contradiction of equally scholarly and equally valid sourced assertions in that parameter, I suggest we follow the advice given at the infobox page: "In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". I see the exact same suggestion was made here a couple of months year ago; nothing seems to have come of it. Haploidavey (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Paul August ☎ 13:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've followed the above plan. The contending scholarly opinions thus removed might be incorporated within the Aftermath section (or some such). Just an observation here, but this seems the locus classicus for winning the battle (resoundingly) but losing the war. Haploidavey (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
While I'm at it - the article shows several edits which insist on Cannae as somehow "decisive". Exactly what does that mean, though? Not very much, when all's said and done - we might just as well describe both the victory and the defeat as "resounding" or "total". Or "Really, really Big". Perhaps "decisive" is a term of art among military historians, but if so, it's best avoided - certainly in the infobox - as potentially confusing to the ordinary, reasonably well-informed but non-specialist readership Wikipedia seeks to address. Providing quotations in explanatory context within the article body is, of course, quite another matter. Haploidavey (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I changed roman defeat into carthaginian victory, and added a note explain it. I hope everyone agrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenditor (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Cannae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Cannae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

FAR

This article is one of the oldest Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. I've just removed some content that I couldn't find in the source given, but the article has further issues: the lead is too short, many statements are uncited, and many references lack page numbers. Much of the sourcing is from old texts or primary sources, rather than up-to-date secondary ones. The original nominator hasn't edited since 2013. I fear this article no longer meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. DrKay (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Cannae/Archive_2&oldid=1214988089"