As title. The other day I saw this...gem?...on Zhihu, the Chinese equivalent of Quora, in which a user call the Battle of Cannae a fabrication.

Link to the original text: https://www.zhihu.com/question/51294216/answer/1997505086

本来就是只知道村坊械斗的西方历史发明家意淫出的会战，能怎么破？上万人的大规模会战根本不是这么打的。

上万人的大会战，中央叫人给打崩了，整体阵型都变形了，不但没有全军崩溃，反而借机包围了对手。这种案例，古今中外真是独一份。

史上所有的精妙指挥，不管看上去多不可思议，但只要是真实发生的，一定会有人复制。只有汉尼拔的这一战，没发现过第二例。

中国军队是诈败的大行家，先诈败，再埋伏的手段一直使用了几千年。在汉尼拔诞生几百年前的春秋时期，诈败已经是一种常规操作。但就是这样，也找不到一个敢中央真败不脱离战斗还能包围对手的例子。

只能说瞎编历史的人没有军事常识，只有打群架的经验。

你把所谓的战斗场面想象成几十人的群架，就会觉得合理很多，知道该怎么办了。

Translation:

"The Battle of Cannae was from the beginning a mental masturbation conjured up by Western 'historians' who can only conceive of battles as glorified armed brawls between villagers. Real battles involving tens of thousands of people don't work like that, period.

In a battle involving tens of thousands of soldiers--where one side's center was pulverized and the entire formation deformed--instead of falling into utter disarray, they miraculously seized the chance to envelop the enemy? Why did this happen only this once in history and was never replicated thereafter?

Any brilliant tactic, no matter how implausible they are, will be imitated by someone else. Hannibal's Battle of Cannae doesn't have such an imitator.

The Chinese are masters at feigned retreat. The trick of faking a loss and luring the enemy into an ambush has been used for several millennia, and had already been popularized during the Spring and Autumn period, centuries before Hannibal was even born. But even in such an environment, the tactic of deliberately letting your center be annihilated (instead of letting them run away to goad the enemy forward) in exchange of the enemy's encirclement was totally unheard of.

All evidence points to those Westerners, who fake their whole history, possessing practically no military knowledge and only knowing how mob brawls work. Replace those tens of thousands of soldiers with a few dozen villagers and it becomes self-evident that this is true."

​

...Now, I know that it's astronomically more likely that this is all baseless garbage (the "all Western history is faked to make themselves look better" claim is a rhetoric often used by Chinese jingoists, whose variations I have seen everywhere), done only out of ignorance and hubris. But I would still want to know: Are there ever disputes, to the best of your knowledge, about the authenticity of the Battle of Cannae (and by extension, Hannibal's other successful battles), and if yes, which side does historical evidence actually favor?