I'm Clueless, Roman Navy Help needed

[Pantagathus]

Pertinax,

 

Scratch my crew figure for the "Sixteen", that was for Ptolemy IV's "Fourty"... A sixteen was probably upwards 2720. (Which is still a lot).

 

This naval arms race started with Dionysius I who built the first "Four" (probably two banks with 2 rowers to an oar)

 

Carthage answered with the first "Five" (Trireme set up with 2-2-1 to an oar)

 

Alexander was using "Sixes" by the siege of Tyre with the infighting after his death giving rise to all the monsters up to Ptolemy's "Fourty" starting with the Seleucids (or I should say the Phoenicians under their dominion)

 

In Actium, Octavian's fleet consisted of Liburnians & "Sixes" against MA's "Tens"

[Pertinax]

I was aware of the ship to ship size disparity at Actium , but not the actual technical spec. Again marine warfare is not my forte was this manouverability versus larger combat platform?I know the standard "Cleopatra makes a run" description. Am I correct in saying that MA lost a lot of men by surrender to Octavian?

 

What happened to Ptolmey's "moon shot" statement? Did she fight?

[Pantagathus]

Again marine warfare is not my forte was this manouverability versus larger combat platform?What happened to Ptolmey's "moon shot" statement? Did she fight?

 

At Actium it was definitely manouverability that won out. To such a convincing effect that Augustus totally restructured the Roman Navy geared to smaller ships. There would only be a few "sixes" to remain in the fleet and they were only used as Imperial flagships. I think "fours" begame the favored assault ships for marines.

 

It's almost the same statement as the worlds Navies mothballing the battelships...

 

As to Ptolemy IV's beheamoth, I think that was purely for show but I think some "Thirties" saw service.

 

Another little note, the crew figures I gave only include the rowers... A modern, US nuke supercarrier has a ships company of ~3000 and >5,000 with full Air Wing Compliment. These Supergalleys must have been a sight...

[Pertinax]

It all reads very much like the rise of the Dreadnoughts, the almost immediate obscelescence , the battlecruiser as an innovation ...history repeating itself once more.The manouverability is echoed in the Armada galleases (sp?) versus small English ships. Its yet another example of this whole forum showing how lessons are forgotten and re-learned in all areas of warfare.

And as I pmd , and must make public, a "forty" with 3000 marines and crew besides must have been quite a challenge to the olfactory apparatus.

[Pantagathus]

It all reads very much like the rise of the Dreadnoughts, the almost immediate obscelescence , the battlecruiser as an innovation ...history repeating itself once more.The manouverability is echoed in the Armada galleases (sp?) versus small English ships. Its yet another example of this whole forum showing how lessons are forgotten and re-learned in all areas of warfare.

 

I would now equate the US' move to develop and field the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) as the equivalent of the Romans adopting the small, shift Liburna...

[Primus Pilus]

It all reads very much like the rise of the Dreadnoughts, the almost immediate obscelescence , the battlecruiser as an innovation ...history repeating itself once more.The manouverability is echoed in the Armada galleases (sp?) versus small English ships. Its yet another example of this whole forum showing how lessons are forgotten and re-learned in all areas of warfare.

 

I would now equate the US' move to develop and field the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) as the equivalent of the Romans adopting the small, shift Liburna...

 

Do we know how much use the Liburna saw in the northern fleets... notably Classis Britannica? Considering the lack of Roman seamanship in the rough northern waters, I wonder how the smaller vessels would have fared in comparison to larger cousins. Perhaps better I suppose, but did the Romans see it this way? The reduction of ship size in the Roman navy was as much about being practical and logical as anything else. Since there were no rivals, especially any with hulking behemoths, the continued construction of large ships would've been a waste of resources.

 

Did the Liburna see much activity vs. the northern (as opposed to the Vandals in the Mediterranean circa the 5th century) Germanics and Norse? We know that great energy was focused on building land defenses on the Saxon Shore, but could the Romans have fared better simply with a the use of more maneuverable vessels of their own.

[Pertinax]

Im not venturing to answer PPs post but I would mention 1. The Saxon Shore defences look coherent with hindsight and with the granting of the title relating to responsibility for that system -but they are ,perhaps like Hadrian's Wall (in a way) an organic response to changing conditions but in particular problems arising from the "separatist" Gallic Imperium , and the need to keep Britain relativley stable in comparison to the continent. The Wall is "organic" in the sense of a construction project altered by seat of the pants experience.

2.Roman internal marine ops look suspiciously like some of the Viking penetrations of navigable rivers, I know this is against internal insurgents but I mention it in relation to possible "security forces" likely vessel/combat unit makeup.

Also proir to continental incursions the defences (Brancaster in particular) had heavy land based artillery which appears to be designed to be used against renegade "roman type" units.

 

just observations-this is not my field!

Edited April 10, 2006 by Pertinax

[Rameses the Great]

Did the Romans have some form of a catapult or some kind of things to throw huge racks basically. Did they have some form of a catalpult trireme?

[Pantagathus]

Did the Romans have some form of a catapult or some kind of things to throw huge rocks basically. Did they have some form of a catalpult trireme?

 

Good call Rameses, yes they did.

 

I think Dionysius I may have been the first to employ it? & Alexander at Tyre?

 

Romans definitely did. By Actium for sure.

[Guest Allah]

Did the Romans have some form of a catapult or some kind of things to throw huge rocks basically. Did they have some form of a catalpult trireme?

 

Good call Rameses, yes they did.

 

I think Dionysius I may have been the first to employ it? & Alexander at Tyre?

 

Romans definitely did. By Actium for sure.

 

I always wondered HOW that worked, if a corvus screwed up the stability then how would a catapult trireme be deployed? More importantly how would you mount a catapult on that in the first place?

 

Also, can you give me any information on the use of ballistas in naval warfare? They seem like the ticket for puncturing the ship's hull at key points, much like round shot did to cannon-faring vessels. Did they have anything to kill the oarmen specifically?

 

What about fire?

[Pantagathus]

I always wondered HOW that worked, if a corvus screwed up the stability then how would a catapult trireme be deployed? More importantly how would you mount a catapult on that in the first place?

To be clear, most everything screwed up a Trireme's stability. From "sixes" & up they would have had a wider beam and been a bit more stable. Putting a catapult on the centerline was no different in relation to stability than a deck full of marines.

 

Also, can you give me any information on the use of ballistas in naval warfare? They seem like the ticket for puncturing the ship's hull at key points, much like round shot did to cannon-faring vessels.

I think its safe to say that the ram was the primary means of sending a ship to the bottom if that was the desired result. But there was often a storage hold for 'missles' in general but you don't hear much specifics on how they were employed.

 

Did they have anything to kill the oarmen specifically?

Yes, marines...

 

What about fire?

Dromons were a later invention attributed to the Byzantines.

[Pertinax]

What is opinion regarding maritime casualties? The posts seem to hint at a fairly catastrophic results if a unit was rammed , might we assume something similar to U boat crews-ie: survival of most of the crew /virtually total fatalities if defeated ,with little middle ground save perhaps injured marines rather than surviving oarsmen?

[Pantagathus]

What is opinion regarding maritime casualties?

That's a good question that I don't really have an answer to. I would imagine that a majority would survive the sinking if rammed.

 

However, were they good swimmers? Were they plucked from the water as prisoners to be put to work for the winners, sold off or saved just to be put to the sword? Don't know. I'll have to look because I don't remember seeing that spelled out.

 

But of course, the Romans prefered boarding. So how many of the enemy crew survived that process I don't know. Were the Roman aims to capture just the ship as booty or as many crew member who would surrender as well.

[Primus Pilus]

What is opinion regarding maritime casualties?

That's a good question that I don't really have an answer to. I would imagine that a majority would survive the sinking if rammed.

 

However, were they good swimmers? Were they plucked from the water as prisoners to be put to work for the winners, sold off or saved just to be put to the sword? Don't know. I'll have to look because I don't remember seeing that spelled out.

 

But of course, the Romans prefered boarding. So how many of the enemy crew survived that process I don't know. Were the Roman aims to capture just the ship as booty or as many crew member who would surrender as well.

 

Vegetius does mention swimming as an important part of soldier training in the later empire. Vegetius on swimming. He's also quite clear that the 'ancients' learned to swim in the Tiber near the Campus Martius. Despite other flaws, I don't think we should doubt the logic in this situation.

 

As for casualties in a sinking, I suppose it would depend on the circumstances. Is there any evidence of smaller rescue craft or rescue devices?

[Pantagathus]

Is there any evidence of smaller rescue craft or rescue devices?

 

That's one of the things I want to double check because I seem to remember seeing something somewhere about plucking survivors out of the water but whether that was in one of Casson's books or somehwere else I can't remember.