From my understanding, maps werent used for navigation until the early mdoern period. While I understand that the stars can be used to navigate, I've been learning more about Hannibal Barca recently, and wondered how he could have made strategic moves, like cutting off Roman armies from their supply lines, marching through that river marsh, and setting up ambushes, without maps? Of course, other examples can be used, but he seems like an ideal example. Without maps, how could he and his generals plan out where local towns and cities were, where enemy forces were located, which areas were loyal to them, and where nearby boundaries like rivers and mountains were, to perform such complex feats?
Any information would be appreciated, and I always like book recommendations for topics like this. Thanks in advance!
Well, as a small answer I can say the following. Map making itself is already quite old and has been around for far longer than the sources that have until now survived. We know this because of the mentions that have been made in acient texts to maps, maps found themselves that were more than crude (implying other, more simple maps were made before but have not been found), and the fact that the word map is also open to discussion.
To start off with the last point of what a map represents. A given space on the land or a route over land or over sea would have been important to ancient people because they made used of it. In this way a tract of land would have been important to mark as belonging to a group of people so that other people would not built houses or temples on it. Francois de Polignac makes an intresting argument that one of the first ways new greek colonies on the Italian mainland made apparent their claim on the land was to set up temples, sanctuaries and places of worship on plots that had clear distinguishable features on the land. Features for example were groves, waterways, rivermouths, etc. In this way a new people to the land (Greek colonisers) could argue a connection to the land that was inhabited by the gods.
For the land and their makeup in later times this claiming is important because districts could be compiled of different tribes not per se associated with the ruling polis or city. The markup of the land was in another aspect of maps important because it made clear were to go for trading certain things. As with the greek search for metals on the coast of modern day England in the 4th century bc, or the trade between colonies and the mainland, these kinds of exercitions needed clarifications to pinpoint were to go. Without research I dont know of surving maps, but at least navigation based on the landscape was definately needed.
A third means through which ancient people got to know the landscape was by means of travel diaries. One of the best know examples is that of Pausanias, a Roman traveller tracking his way through ancient times and writing and giving his own observations. Another source of topographical knowledge was, although a bit later than your question, Claudius Ptolomaeus, an Egyptian cartographer that was rediscovered in Renaissance cartography.
Then, to return to the question. When there was warfare going on it was not quite as simpel that the area in which an army was at the moment would be totally surrounded by enemy people. Imagine a farmer on a tract of land and an army comes over the hills. There will be need of food and supplies, and there is a choice of working to get paid for what is on the land or the army can just take it. Knowledge of the land and its surrounds was valuable to an army that was not of the region. In that way trade, religion and agriculture could well have contributed to specific strategy.
Sources