I'm Clueless, Roman Navy Help needed

[Guest Allah]

You know, it's a shame Romans were never potent sailors... They were good at just about everything else.

 

That is not a correct statement by any means...

 

When they had actual naval adversaries they got along quite well. Thing was that by the time the Empire was in full swing there weren't any worthy naval adversaries left...

 

The shear fact that during the Republican era the Rostra was decorated with the beaks of enemy ships should tell you something...

 

That may be, but a good runner will pace himself. Even so, didn't the army generally look down on the navy? By the time the Empire flourished they never seemed to really reach out, despite the capabilty. Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the world what was were the Asian cultures doing? I judge their potency by comparing them to everyone, and really they just don't match up to the Japanse in my opinion. That, and, as said with the Norse watercraft, the fleets could easily be rendered useless. Ship to ship, it would be foolish to challenge the Romans, but I'm sure if they would've looked further they could find somone that could beat them. Just in their small little holding of water (compared to the massive chunk of land they had) they were unchallenged. Who's to say they would win a fight against skilled seafaring cultures besides Carthage?

[Pertinax]

Now ive blundered into a forum where I can truthfully say I have no knowledge at all, and I would like to ask a couple of questions:or rather are these statements reasonable-

I understand that provision of water to crew and combatants was the critical factor in provisioning of vessels , and that (given crew size/versus vessel size) a limit of three operational days at sea was the norm?

 

That crew and marines could not move around vessels without taking care regarding stability.

 

That the boarding bridge was the main reason for Roman domination of Cathaginian shipping but also the main cause of structural instability.

 

 

and -anyone have a source for army transports for marine ops?

Edited April 7, 2006 by Pertinax

[caldrail]

Water and provisions are important factors, but also bear in mind that although the Mediterranean was a 'Roman Lake' it was still a sea, and sailors of that era preferred to remain close to shore. That way they could anchor quickly due to weather or nightfall.

[Rameses the Great]

The Romans had not encountered much sea battles in their time. The thing is whenever they encountered other ships or where they were in a battle they won. At the Battle of Actium which I posted some time ago, the Egyptians had better ships and better crew. The thing is the Romans just outmaneuvered them proving their legitimacy. Although the Egyptian crewman had been undergoing a contageous fever, the Romans still annihalated them. The thing is the Romans had not been known for their navy. When they encountered Greeks on the open seas they did beat them in several minor battles.

 

The idea of Japan beeing able to beat Rome or any western civilization is not fair. Although if you want to compare the two it has been said by many accurate simulations, Japan probably would not be able to take on any Mediterranian nation. Remember the Japanese hd not learned about the flanking tecniques or anything of that nature. To them it was just my men vs. your men and war is purely based on deception. So to say that Rome could not have been able to take on Japanese ships is just pure speculation.

 

I do though think Allah that the Norse way of deploying ships is undoubtedly, nothing compared to the Roman way. The Romans were also active in the North sea, not just the Mediterranian. As Primus Pilus pointed out earlier. If the Romans were to conquer all of Europe also they have to not be dominant on land but also on sea.

Edited April 8, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[Ursus]

Fellows,

 

The question was about the Roman navy. It's not about whether the Japanese Navy or Dark Age Norse Navy could defeat the Roman fleet.

 

Thanks.

[Guest Allah]

Fellows,

 

The question was about the Roman navy. It's not about whether the Japanese Navy or Dark Age Norse Navy could defeat the Roman fleet.

 

Thanks.

 

Not to be rude, Ursus, but since I asked the question initially, and I brought up the other parts... they're technically not going off-topic. It's still my thread, and I really am curious about all aspects of the navy, and am open to discussion.

[Honorius]

Fellows,

 

The question was about the Roman navy. It's not about whether the Japanese Navy or Dark Age Norse Navy could defeat the Roman fleet.

 

Thanks.

 

Not to be rude, Ursus, but since I asked the question initially, and I brought up the other parts... they're technically not going off-topic. It's still my thread, and I really am curious about all aspects of the navy, and am open to discussion.

 

 

i believe Ursus was jsut trying to keep it on track as to not allow it to become a Vs thread..

[Ursus]

Indeed. I was giving everyone a friendly warning not to turn it into another vs thread. If we start having detailed discussions about the Roman Fleet versus the Japanese armada, I will close the thread without further comment.

[caldrail]

Regarding roman ships in the north sea, there are many instances mentioned either in Caesars account of his british expeditions or from Tacitus describing a naval voyage around the northwest european coast that show the effects of weather, and how difficult it was for roman crews to cope with it. Other mediterranean nations were better sailors - the phoenicians successfully traded for tin in Cornwall for instance.

[Pantagathus]

I understand that provision of water to crew and combatants was the critical factor in provisioning of vessels , and that (given crew size/versus vessel size) a limit of three operational days at sea was the norm?

It really depends on the ship. But generally if your focus is on a fully complimented ship of the line (i.e Trireme) there was not much room left for provisions. This was primarily done to keep them light and fast not really space contraints. What drinking water that was kept on board from what I understand was kept in sealed clay or glass vessals in the sand balasts (to keep the water cold) or strapped down on deck if the seas were calm and the temperature mild.

 

Most often however, the fleets were accompanied by "roundships" that carried the provisions. On those ships there was usually a potable water hold made out of a canvas lined box that could hold in some of the larger ships upwards 20,000 gallons.

 

That crew and marines could not move around vessels without taking care regarding stability. That the boarding bridge was the main reason for Roman domination of Cathaginian shipping but also the main cause of structural instability.

 

This is kind of a tricky one and really depends on the seas. A Trireme was inherently unseaworth because all the weight was put high and outboard of the ship. However, starting with first cataphracts (armored, covered warships) of the Corinthians they started putting a fighting deck somewhat above even the topmost line of rowers. I guess as long as the ship was ballasted well the marines (even though at a high center of gravity) added some central stability. Along those lines the Corinthians as the Romans prefered boarding to ramming and did so by ramming bow to bow and unloading the marines from the centerline. I'm trying to double check but since the Roman war galley was fitted in a similar mannor, I would imagine that is how they would have boarded as well given that any weight over the side based on how the weight was distributed already from the rowers would cause the ship to broach too much and take on water at the gunwales.

 

It would seem that even at a late period, naval engagements were avoided in rough seas and bad weather for these reasons.

 

anyone have a source for army transports for marine ops?

It depends on the ops and time period. For the Republican period it would have been a combination of the following:

1. Older, slower war galleys only using only one bank of rowers so they could then hold almost 100 marines.

2. Contracted Merchentmen ("roundships")

 

But during the Imperial Period, the Romans moved to much smaller lighter faster ships so it may have been a variation of an aphract two banked "Liburnian" ship.

 

 

Who's to say they would win a fight against skilled seafaring cultures besides Carthage?

 

They did. Caesar agaist the Veneti fleet in the Atlantic is a perfect example of the Roman's adapting to a different style naval engagement in unfamiliar conditions and winning.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Pantagathus

[Pertinax]

Pantagathus , thank you for that very informative reply.

 

It leads me to ask a little more:

 

is there any substantiated link in pedigree between Norman transport vessels and Roman transportation ships of any period?( the horse transports crossed my mind).

 

I presume with what appears to be an "unstable" design ( I use the word only to simplify) given weight distribution, that a critical absolute size in tiered warship design must (did) exist?

 

What life expectancy would a trireme hull have in the Med?(outside of combat).

[Pantagathus]

is there any substantiated link in pedigree between Norman transport vessels and Roman transportation ships of any period?( the horse transports crossed my mind).

Archaeological evidence as surfaced in the last half a century that has shown that the Romans adopted more indigenous shipbuilding styles (Built shell first like the Veneti & later Norse ships) for trans-Channel & North Sea transports. So in that sense I think the answer is yes there was a Pedigree that went from Insular & Gaulic designs ---> Roman hybrids ---> Norman transports

 

I presume with what appears to be an "unstable" design ( I use the word only to simplify) given weight distribution, that a critical absolute size in tiered warship design must (did) exist?

Crazy enough the warships of the Hellenistic Age never seemed to find it... Polyremes did exist but not many had more than 3 superimposed banks. They just bult them longer and put more than one man to an oar. A trireme had 170 oarsman and and a "Sixteen" had 4000...

 

What life expectancy would a trireme hull have in the Med?(outside of combat).

Amazing enough a good amount of Athenian naval records survived and through them it's safe to say a trireme hull lasted about 20 years on average.

[Pertinax]

A sixteen! Holy Moley ( to quote Homer (J Simpson)). What was that deployed for? Other than scaring everyone else with your machismo and exceptional spending power?

[Pantagathus]

A sixteen! Holy Moley ( to quote Homer (J Simpson)). What was that deployed for? Other than scaring everyone else with your machismo and exceptional spending power?

 

I think those are the exact two reasons they were built...

[Guest Allah]

i believe Ursus was jsut trying to keep it on track as to not allow it to become a Vs thread..

 

I'm glad I didn't approach it with deliberate hostility, that makes perfect sense. I'm sorry I didn't understand that in the first place. D: