This is renowned historian Adrian Goldsworthy's contribution to a series on great battles. In this work he presents an outstanding and concise analysis of not only the Battle of Cannae, but just as importantly provides the perfect amount of context- both regarding the Romans and Carthaginians as a people and as to their military structure. The events leading up to and actually during the conflict are described in unsurpassed clarity.

In my opinion, this is a must-read not only for fans of the Roman Republic, but also for those who want to have a comprehensive understanding of one of the most significant battles in history.

Highly recommended. ( )

Among the cover blurbs on Adrian Goldsworthy’s Cannae is a quote from General Norman Swarzkopf: “I learned many things from the Battle of Cannae which I applied to Desert Storm”. Presumably among the things learned is that totally surrounding your enemy and completely obliterating him is a fine idea in warfare. Cannae remains one of the quintessential battles of history; Goldsworthy, whose specialty is the Roman military, does justice to it. One of the main things that comes across is Hannibal’s outstanding situational awareness; his battle plan was perfect for confronting a larger but poorly trained army with weak cavalry and dense infantry formations.


On the other hand the book illustrates some of the drawbacks of classical history. Goldsworthy’s account of the battle is drawn solely from classical authors (Polybius, Livy, and Arrian); there has never been an archaeological investigation of the battle, and in fact the exact location of the battlefield is unknown. Goldsworthy has his own theory of where it was, which is plausible and suits his account; however, it’s good to remember that his detailed maps of the battle are speculative. Goldsworthy also takes the classical accounts of troop numbers and battle casualties at face value; according to these the Roman army lost between 50000 and 75000 killed in a day. I’m a little dubious; Hans Delbruck showed long ago that ancient historians troop estimates are way exaggerated. Among other things, the physical effort involved in killing 50000 people in an afternoon, even if they weren’t fighting back, seems excessive.


If the maps are good, the illustrations are not. All are taken from classical sculpture, wall paintings, and recovered artifacts. The problem is they usually aren’t very good at portraying what Goldsworthy is trying to show. Rather than a using a warn and damaged relief sculpture to illustrate Roman military equipment, it would have been much better to use simple line drawings.


It’s an easy though erudite read, and Goldsworthy’s opinions about the battle are certainly well thought out and worth considering, even with the book’s flaws. ( )

One book on a major battle may seem a bit excessive yet I wish there was more. The review of contemporary views on the battle are instructive and the maps are first-rate. In an appendix Goldsworthy arranges the primary sources in a column which is a handy way of comparing the primary sources we have for this devastating defeat of Roman legions.

It remains a matter of speculation but Hannibal might have ended the dominance of Rome by attacking the city directly after Cannae but he did not. The Romans were able to regroup and ultimately confine Carthage to the dustbin of history as a result. It is a fascinating story.

A fascinating look at one of histories great generals. Hannibal’s stratagems repeatedly saw legion after legion of the Roman army defeated. Indeed if Hannibal had decided to march on Rome history could have been very different. ( )