Imperial Navy.

[Kosmo]

Assume for a moment that during Tiberius' reign, an Asiatic enemy used its fleet to attack the Empire from the Black Sea. Would Augustus be blamed for not providing a navy, (from the left overs of Actium at least), to protect the Empire?

 

During the reign of Tiberus the Black Sea was largely a roman lake. They had the south and east shores in provinces or closely guarded client kingdoms. The north and the east had greek cities and states (like the Bosporan kingdom) that were clients as well. No asiatic power had ports at the Black Sea.

The roman fleet in the Med was landlocked because I doubt they went to the Atlantic.

Rome had no acces to the Caspian Sea and needed not bases in the Maeotis where the client Bosporan kingdom was established.

They had a fleet in the Red Sea.

[Gaius Octavius]

Kosmic, and the Sarmatians?

[Primus Pilus]

Were there any naval stations in the Maeotis or the Caspian Sea? If I recall correctly, there was a Roman fort on the coast of Yemen, if so, was this to support a naval station there?

 

Nothing in the Maeotis nor in the Caspium, though there were 2 major fleets in the Euxinus at Noviodunum and Trapezus. Considering the semi-permanent nature (at best) of Rome's authority there, in all probability Rome probably relied on allied Armenian fleets in the Caspium.

 

As for Yemen (Arabia Felix) the only early expedition I'm aware of was a failed enterprise by the Augustan governor of Egypt, Aelius Gallus. Little is known other than that the attempt didn't bear fruit. Cassius Dio 53.29.3. There is no evidence that I'm aware of, of attempts by such eastern expeditions of Trajan and Severus to establish any permanence in Arabia Felix. However, there has been much speculation as the to the range of Roman fleets and capital influence beyond Arabia and into the Indian Ocean. Whether there were Roman fleets involved or it was knowledge passed along by sailors and merchants, I don't know.

[Horatius]

To my understanding, it was the vision of Augustus that created the Imperial Navy, and that Agrippa carried out this vision. In your opinion, what was the value of this navy to the future of the Empire?

Like all Empires and Nations the business of Rome was business. You can't really have a great mercantile nation state without a fleet to protect it. Even if there were no active threats you couldn't really risk the chance that piracy or another Nation could disrupt your trade while you stopped to build a fleet to counter it. A standing fleet is well worth the cost of maintaining it.

[Kosmo]

Kosmic, and the Sarmatians?

 

Pastoral nomads, not seafaring. And all rivers and ports were covered by romans and their allies.

As PP points the romans had two fleets on the Black Sea (and Lower Danube)

I have no ideea that armenians had a fleet on the Caspic Sea, or direct acces to it.

[Primus Pilus]

I have no ideea that armenians had a fleet on the Caspic Sea, or direct acces to it.

 

Indeed, I didn't mean to suggest that this was definitive, but only that IF the Romans had fleets in the Caspium, they would've been allied Armenians and not likely to be official imperial commands.

[caldrail]

To my understanding, it was the vision of Augustus that created the Imperial Navy, and that Agrippa carried out this vision. In your opinion, what was the value of this navy to the future of the Empire?

Like all Empires and Nations the business of Rome was business. You can't really have a great mercantile nation state without a fleet to protect it. Even if there were no active threats you couldn't really risk the chance that piracy or another Nation could disrupt your trade while you stopped to build a fleet to counter it. A standing fleet is well worth the cost of maintaining it.

 

True, but as has been shown from time to time over naval history, the big ships are expensive and really only useful against each other. For anti-piracy smaller vessels were better, especially since they could pursue in shallower water and up river if need be. Deterrent is fine if the ship is actually there, but with more smaller vessels the risk to pirates is higher since they are more likely to be sited, and given a flotilla of smaller vessels, less able to escape.

 

Regarding Augustus, its possible he saw the navy as effectively 'his', and theefore a deterrent to rivals from gathering naval support for their cause.

[Horatius]

But if Rome was challenged by a nation with real warships it would take a long time to build and man a fleet to counter it. Meanwhile Rome starves. A standing fleet would ensure this could never happen.

[Kosmo]

We're going in circles here.

How could someone challange Rome when the entire Med was a roman lake and the Black Sea and the Atlantic coast were fermly in roman hands?

Nothing like this could happen before somone had control of a suitable shore like it happened when the goths knocked out the Bosporan kingdom.

[Gaius Octavius]

We're going in circles here.

How could someone challange Rome when the entire Med was a roman lake and the Black Sea and the Atlantic coast were fermly in roman hands?

Nothing like this could happen before somone had control of a suitable shore like it happened when the goths knocked out the Bosporan kingdom.

 

Exactly!

[caldrail]

No you're all missing the point. When Octavian came to power he was very aware of the fate that befell Caesar (and others too, since Octavian had a hand in some of their deaths). Now lets remember Octavian wasn't the revered emperor when he first took control. There were many in the senate who wanted him out. They didn't want another Caesar, another dictator for life, another tyrant. Now if some enterprising chap had the resources to put even a small navy together, then the precious corn supply from egypt was under threat and lets face it, that corn was underpinning Rome's economy and Octavian knew it. Why else was he so concerned to keep personal control over that province? Therefore, by establishing a permanent navy loyal to him (as the new Caesar), there was far less risk of an economic blockade by ambitious rivals. The fact that all these rivals had already been dealt with was neither here nor there - there are always others waiting in the wings in a competitive society, and the victory of Actium must have left a lasting impression on Octavian afterward.

[Horatius]

Well caldrail said it much more eloquently then I can but that is what I meant. Italy even with Gaul could no longer feed Rome any more. Without North African grain the political situation in Rome would deteriorate very fast. Even a few warships could disrupt that supply especially if there is nothing to counter it. A rebellion or rogue general in Africa or Asia could shut that supply down and Augustus wouldn't have a year to get it back up before there would be chaos. "Augustus set the number of dole recipients at 200,000 in 2 B.C. (Dio 55.10.1), yet in the Res Gestae the number of recipients of his congiaria deviated from this number: "never fewer than 250,000" of "the Roman plebs" in 44, 29, 24, and 11 B.C.; 320,000 of "the urban plebs" in 5 B.C.; and in 2 B.C. "somewhat more than 200,000," http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2000/2000-02-08.html That's a lot of people!

Edited January 31, 2008 by Horatius

[Gaius Octavius]

When and why did the 'corvus' go out of style? Did Archimedes' 'clamp' actually exist, and if so, was it used elsewhere?

[caldrail]

The Corvus is a heavy piece of kit, and whilst useful for boarding actions and allowing the romans to fight aboard ship as if on land, it tended to make the ship a little top heavy. Also, it was only really usable on the largest vessels. Finally, the need to fight in this manner was much less after the defeat of the stronger carthaginian navy, and so by the Battle of Actium a more conventional method of naval warfare had been learned by the romans, since during the punic wars the romans started as novices. They didn't do too badly did they?

[Kosmo]

The Corvus is a heavy piece of kit, and whilst useful for boarding actions and allowing the romans to fight aboard ship as if on land, it tended to make the ship a little top heavy. Also, it was only really usable on the largest vessels. Finally, the need to fight in this manner was much less after the defeat of the stronger carthaginian navy, and so by the Battle of Actium a more conventional method of naval warfare had been learned by the romans, since during the punic wars the romans started as novices. They didn't do too badly did they?

 

Oh, they did badly. Only their stuberness kept them asking for more after they succeded in losing so many ships to storms. Probably the top heavy corvus had something to do with their fleets ending usualy at the bottom of the sea.