Clamo, clamatis, omnes clamamus pro glace lactis

Just read Livy's description of the battle of Cannae. He blames Varro (the zealous and rash plebian consul) pretty squarely for the defeat. Hannibal's weakening of the centre is described pretty poorly and not very clearly, probably because it wasn't very clear to any of the eyewitnesses at the time.

What I find really astonishing about Cannae is that the Roman losses seem to have been 40,000 plus (Livy's own 45-50,000) seems to be the lowest estimate, and that Hannibal's army seems to have only been 50,000 strong. This would be the worst defeat in all history (possibly except for the fall of Singapore) in terms of force strengths and losses. I don't think the Romans would have overplayed their own losses or the size of Hannibal's forces.

Cannae was a greater achievement than Lake Trasimene - Hannibal was more outnumbered, and the terrain less favourable. The Romans also made less mistakes. And they really should have learned by then. Still, Fabius (who is also known as cunctator - the delayer) did get the right idea.

The amazing thing is that more of Rome's allies did not desert. I don't really understand why... the only explanation can be that they were sure of Roman victory.
Hannibal's success seems to have been based on:
1) Cavalry superiority
2) Delaying success of the Spanish and Gaulish infantry in the middle
3) Encirclement

I'm amazed at the losses and the fact that the Romans and their allies didn't break after Cannae. What resilience!