The Mighty Roman Navy

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

This one area of interests I have been wanting to chat about. We all know how the Roman Leion is always praised as the unstoppable greatest military forces of its time.But the Roman Navy which was just as important as the Roman Legion was(and more so in some wars such as the 1st Punic War) and was one of, if not, the most advanced naval force of its time.Despite this, there is hardly discussions on the Roman navy even in many sites specializing in Roman civilization tend to ignore this part of the Roman military.

 

I am interested in discussing this topic. Reason for me putting this topic here, not in Gloria Exercitus - 'Glory of the Army' is because that section is supposed to be about the Roman army and Iam not sure this topic is appropriate to post there.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

The roman navy was far from being either technologicaly advanced or even powerfull, being often left to rot at the end of a war and using mainly mid-sized units whose design stayed almost the same for half a millenary, with the republican forces sometimes numerous (about 200 to 250 ships) and more often much smaller (about 50 to 100 ships, less than Athens in it's decline). Also Rome often made use of the local navies of the various cities with which it had treaties or exerced it's domination upon.

 

The vaunted "corvus" of the first punic war was only a tool used to diminish the impact of inferior seamanship and might even have been suppressed from roman ships after that date, with maybe a revival during the second triumvirate period.

 

Indeed the period between the Rubicon crossing and Actium was probably the time at which the roman had the most ships, with the battles around Sicily being some of the biggest ever fought at sea, rivaling in scale with the largest battles of the Peloponnesian war (which used slightly smaller ships).

 

As for the imperial fleet, the mediterranean one was rather small (on the order of 100 ships probably) and mainly for police usage, with the specific river fleets (Rhine, Danube, ...) being possibly larger but made of smaller ships.

 

The above does not mean the fleet did not play a role in Roman history, but it was much less important than the legion. You'll probably want to read "Hellenistic and Roman Naval Wars 336BC-31BC", published by Pen and Sword, for which I review I wrote should soon by published on UNRV : it will give you a good idea of the importance of the roman fleet, especially in light of the other navies of the period.

[Melvadius]

I would actually agree and disagree with what Byraxis has posted because it really does depend which period in Rome's history you are talking about how large and/or effective Rome's naval forces were whether maritime or riverine.

 

At some points Rome had massive and highly effective fleet(s) sometimes raided for additional troops (e.g. I & II Auditrix established by Nero) while at others the majority of ships had been left to rot so when they were needed again there was a real scrabble to pull together enough effective units for the current campaign.

 

Although I have a few issues with the book by Michael Pitassi on The Navies of Rome it does give a good overview of the fluctuating support by Rome for her maritime and riverine forces the size and nature of their opposition and consequently the fortunes of the respective forces.

 

One point which may not have been made clear in the book read by Byraxis due to the period it covers is that Roman writers were fairly loose in the terminology they used to refer to naval ships. As an example both liburnums and triremes were terms used through much of Rome's naval history but seem to have meant different things at different times.

 

There also are issues with naval bases being established for particular campaigns while others were run down and Pitassi does provide some good arguments that many of Rome's successful campaigns actually required the active support of the naval forces to support the movement of supplies and/or the landing of military forces behind enemy lines e.g. the conquest of Wales.

[GhostOfClayton]

Interesting areas to expand this discussion into:

 

First, the use of the navies to provide manpower for non-maritime military duties (e.g. Use of the Classis Britannica to build the granaries at Arbeia and other structures associated with Hadrian's Wall)

 

Second, the adaptations that the Classis Britannica (and other non-mediterranian fleets) must have made to cope with tidal sea conditions. It seemed that this was fairly alien to them on Ceasar's crossing of the English Channel, and was still reported as somewhat of an issue on Hadrian's visit 175 years later. Was this an ongoing issue right through to the end of the western empire, being inherent with the type and size of ships used?

[Ursus]

There seem to be a lot of books out lately on the Roman Navy, some of which have been or will be reviewed for this site.

[Centurion-Macro]

Interesting areas to expand this discussion into:

 

First, the use of the navies to provide manpower for non-maritime military duties (e.g. Use of the Classis Britannica to build the granaries at Arbeia and other structures associated with Hadrian's Wall)

 

Second, the adaptations that the Classis Britannica (and other non-mediterranian fleets) must have made to cope with tidal sea conditions. It seemed that this was fairly alien to them on Ceasar's crossing of the English Channel, and was still reported as somewhat of an issue on Hadrian's visit 175 years later. Was this an ongoing issue right through to the end of the western empire, being inherent with the type and size of ships used?

Indeed. The navy frequently provided aid to the Roman army, with some legions actually being conscripted to form new legions (eg. II Adiutrix).

 

As far as I know, the Roman naval vessels were very impractical for waters outside the Mediterranean. I can only imagine the hardship the Roman triremes in the Classis Britannica and Classis Germanica must have faced on the open waves. I do not believe the Romans never expanded their fleet and introduced vessels better suited for these areas. I suppose that these fleets (for a lot of their lifespan) were not of high importance, but it is still interesting that they never upgraded their navy for different waters.

 

But as for the Roman navy in general, they were the hated service. The majority were not Roman, you had to serve 26 years, the pay was pretty bad, and you were hated by the other services. It was not seen as a very honorable service, and therefore it was always (the exceptions being naval wars) understrength and under funded.

[GhostOfClayton]

I suppose that these fleets (for a lot of their lifespan) were not of high importance, but it is still interesting that they never upgraded their navy for different waters.

 

I wondered if it was possible (with the shipbuilding technology of the time) to build larger ships to cope with tidal conditions.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Size was really not a problem for the ancient shipwrigths, grainships from the alexandrian to pouzzole or ostia line and the mega-warships of the hellenistic period (which could go to 16 ranks of oarsmen and use catamaran double-hulled designs) give us proof of that. And indigenous designs like the Venetes ships Caesar had to fight in the area of Britany could serve as a basis to create the right kind of design for the tidal sea conditions.

[Centurion-Macro]

I suppose that these fleets (for a lot of their lifespan) were not of high importance, but it is still interesting that they never upgraded their navy for different waters.

 

I wondered if it was possible (with the shipbuilding technology of the time) to build larger ships to cope with tidal conditions.

Of course it was. The Celtic Veneti (most famous example I can think of) made ships capable of sailing in the Atlantic, and no doubt other peoples settled along the coasts had better ships than the triremes that Rome did. Indeed, in the later empire when Roman Britain was being raided, they were done from lightweight ships of very clever construction. If the Romans put their minds to it, they could have constructed a new navy.

 

It was not about size though, but more about seaworthiness. For sailing the rough seas of the Atlantic and North Sea, you needed a good that was lightweight and able to sail easily. A trireme, with its reliance on rowing ports, was good for the calm waters of the Mediterranean, but against the less calm seas they were horrible. Yes, they could have made better ships, but they just did not divert the resources to do it.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

The main difference between galleys and ocean going ships was also the hull form : galleys were designed with flat hulls for frequent beaching and were thus badly suited to strong currents and heavy waves which are frequent in the ocean but rather less in the mediterranean (especially the waves are less powerful). What we see of rhine river craft or danubian river craft shows that the roman could build better suited ships :

 

 

But not all their ships were built with such a design :

 

 

On both ship rowing power was considered as the main power source. Using row banks like the one on the first of the two reconstituted ships also had the disavdentages for ocean going ship that waves could come underneath and make pressure that could overturn the ship (especially the flat bottomed ones), with the other side's weight making the ship capsize even more quickly.

[parthianbow]

There seem to be a lot of books out lately on the Roman Navy, some of which have been or will be reviewed for this site.

 

Another excellent text is The Roman Republican Navy (from the 6th C to 167 BC) by Christa Steinby (224PP).

Edited May 11, 2011 by parthianbow