On a hot and dusty summer's day in 216 BC, the forces of the Carthaginian general Hannibal faced the Roman army in a dramatic encounter at Cannae. Massively outnumbered, the Carthaginians nevertheless won an astonishing victory - one that left more than 50,000 men dead. Gregory Daly's enthralling study considers the reasons that led the two armies to the field of battle, and why each followed the course that they did when they got there. It explores in detail the composition of the armies, and the tactics and leadership methods of the opposing generals. Finally, by focusing on the experiences of those who fought, Daly gives an unparalleled portrait of the true horror and chaos of ancient warfare. This striking and vivid account is the fullest yet of the bloodiest battle in ancient history.
This book was too clinical for me. I was expecting more of a historical account of the battle, perhaps some improvised dialog for the main actors involved. But it was mainly a painstaking review of makeup of the armies involved, and an analysis of how and why the battle unfolded as it did. Interesting in some respects, but too much minutiae for me.
This is a sober analysis of the bloodiest battle in ancient history, in 216 BCE, a day of killing that would remain unmatched for about two millenia: About 50,000 Roman soliders and their allies did not survive this day. The author follows the pattern and concepts of Keegan's "The face of battle" in constructing his investigation. Personally, I am no admirer of Keegan, whose analysis I often consider to be more pretentious than insightful. But this seems to work well for Gregory Daly.
This is a very academic analysis, als Daly carefully weighs at every step the conflicting information available from the Greek and Roman historians, as well as modern reconstruction and the experience of soldiers in later times. It is a bit too dry to help the reader to imagine what it was really like to be in the field at Cannae that day, but then that experience is unimaginable for us, and must be impossible to describe. Daly writes about the battlefield being literally drenched in blood and slippery with piled-up corpses and body parts, but he does so with a clinical, scientific detachment.
The author argues that modern battles, in which most of the casualties are inflicted at a distance, are so very different that we don't even have a frame of reference for ancient battles, while the contemporary historians wrote for men who often had personal experience of it. (Maybe modern "crowd control" disasters such as the football stadium dramas of the Heysel and Hillsborough can help us to understand what happened when tens of thousands of men were forced into a small area, attacked from all sides, and pelted with projectiles.) Daly therefore tries to reconstruct from basic principles, considering how the length over which a spear could be thrown, the weight of a shield, the dust and noise of the battlefield, and countless other factors influenced how ancient battles were fought.
It is impossible to tell whether the picture that emerges, is an accurate representation of the events of that day. It is more a hypothesis than a story. But it appears to fit the facts that we know, and helps us to understand some aspects of Cannae.