Ecnomus: The largest naval battle of the ancient world

[raunchel]

weaponsandwarfare.com/2018/04/15/battle-of-ecnomus-256-bc-largest-naval-battle-in-history/

Perhaps not the largest of all time, but it certainly was huge in ancient terms.

[lordroel]

Apr 14, 2018 20:14:04 GMT raunchel said:

weaponsandwarfare.com/2018/04/15/battle-of-ecnomus-256-bc-largest-naval-battle-in-history/

Perhaps not the largest of all time, but it certainly was huge in ancient terms.

Nice find raunchel, very interesting to read. 

For people who do not like to read, i have found a YouTube clip about the battle.



For those who like to read, here is a article about the battle.

[stevep]

Possibly one of the most important, if poorly known battles in classical history. If the Romans hadn't developed the corvus or the Carthaginians had found a counter - although not sure what would have worked then Carthage would probably have won again, as it had a far more experienced navy. By making it effectively a land battle at sea the Romans played to their strengths. Especially of those transports carried troops as I presume they did it could have been a crippling blow as quite possibly as well as the fleet most of the slow transporters could well have been captured or sunk. Have Carthage win the 1st Punic war, secure control of Sicily and maintain their grip on Sardinia and Corsica and things might have developed differently. Rome would still have been a major power given its resources and organisation and would have almost certainly come back for round 2 but in turn that might have gone differently.

Thanks raunchel & lordroel

[lordroel]

Apr 15, 2018 10:08:12 GMT stevep said:

Possibly one of the most important, if poorly known battles in classical history. If the Romans hadn't developed the corvus or the Carthaginians had found a counter - although not sure what would have worked then Carthage would probably have won again, as it had a far more experienced navy. By making it effectively a land battle at sea the Romans played to their strengths. Especially of those transports carried troops as I presume they did it could have been a crippling blow as quite possibly as well as the fleet most of the slow transporters could well have been captured or sunk. Have Carthage win the 1st Punic war, secure control of Sicily and maintain their grip on Sardinia and Corsica and things might have developed differently. Rome would still have been a major power given its resources and organisation and would have almost certainly come back for round 2 but in turn that might have gone differently.

Thanks raunchel & lordroel

Is this really the largest naval battle of the ancient world in size ore can another one rival this one.

[Deleted]

Apr 15, 2018 10:11:16 GMT lordroel said:

Is this really the largest naval battle of the ancient world in size ore can another one rival this one.

The Battle of Salamis might have been bigger, but it's hard to be certain. This ought to be in contention, too.

[lordroel]

Apr 15, 2018 11:56:27 GMT @vonhitchofen said:

Apr 15, 2018 10:11:16 GMT lordroel said:

Is this really the largest naval battle of the ancient world in size ore can another one rival this one.

The Battle of Salamis might have been bigger, but it's hard to be certain. This ought to be in contention, too.

Ore we check the wiki article called Largest naval battle in history

[stevep]

Apr 15, 2018 11:58:59 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 15, 2018 11:56:27 GMT @vonhitchofen said:

The Battle of Salamis might have been bigger, but it's hard to be certain. This ought to be in contention, too.

Ore we check the wiki article called Largest naval battle in history

  Interesting article.  It depends on what parameters we're using, i.e. number of ships, total tonnage, number of sailors or whatever.  Also how reliable the figures are for the earlier battles especially, when figures were often inflated.

  Interesting that, while not a classical battle, the largest one in terms of manpower according to the Wiki article, Lake Poyang, was actually on a freshwater lake rather than actually at sea.

[raunchel]

There actually are several solutions to the Corvus. One of the most important is manoeuvre and not being overly intimidated by it. The other is having sufficient marines on board to defend yourself.

[lordroel]

I wonder, that is a huge manpower they needed, could be a large portion of it be rounded up citizen and slave ore how did this work.

[stevep]

Apr 15, 2018 12:31:24 GMT raunchel said:

There actually are several solutions to the Corvus. One of the most important is manoeuvre and not being overly intimidated by it. The other is having sufficient marines on board to defend yourself.

  Maneuvering is an obvious approach and given that the Carthagians were a lot more experienced that is something they could have done.  Reading the Wiki article on it the Romans had used the corvus before so the Carthaginians obviously knew about it.  In fact it says that they tried to attack ships from their sides to avoid it.  Possibly with so many ships the degree of maneuvering required was impossible.

  The other factor is that their flanking forces, which attacked the transports and the 3rd fleet defending them, seems to have put a lot of effort into attacking the transporters.  As such when the 1st two Roman forces defeated the Carthaginian centre and returned they were able to overwhelm the flanking forces.  Possibly if they had concentrated on the military units and defeated the reserve fleet before the Roman van units returned they would have been able to win then?  Even if most of the transports had escaped they would have posed less of a threat without the warships to escort them.

  I'm less certain about more marines to be honest.  As I understand it the Roman 'marines' were largely normal legionary men, just operating at sea once the corvus had fixed a Carthaginian ship so it couldn't move.  Not sure if the Carthaginians could carry that many extra troops without seriously encumbering their movement, or to train that number of men up to the necessary standards to fight Roman HI in such a battle?

[stevep]

Apr 15, 2018 12:58:47 GMT lordroel said:

I wonder, that is a huge manpower they needed, could be a large portion of it be rounded up citizen and slave ore how did this work.

  Are you talking about the Romans or Carthaginians or both? 

  As I understand it Roman Italy, especially the Romans themselves and their Latin allies seem to have had a pretty large population - possibly also a rapidly growing one, as they didn't even seem to lack troops much after Hannibal's early but very costly victories in the 2nd Punic War.  [Similarly with the early Pyrrhic war where King Pyrrhus won a number of battles against them but the Romans just kept raising new armies and without the promised support from the Greek cities he had come to aid Pyrrhus couldn't afford the losses].

  The Carthaginians had less manpower as a whole and relied largely on mercenaries, which gave them a larger pool of troops than their population could supply itself but does mean you need to pay them more and there are always questions about their reliability.  Also it seemed there was a fair bit of infighting between the powerful Carthaginian families and possibly also some concerns that no general gets too popular and successful and possibly establish a dictatorship/monarchy.  I think Hannibal had problems getting support from Carthage itself during the 2nd conflict.  Not just from Roman domination of the seas in that conflict.

[lordroel]

Apr 15, 2018 13:25:46 GMT stevep said:

Apr 15, 2018 12:58:47 GMT lordroel said:

I wonder, that is a huge manpower they needed, could be a large portion of it be rounded up citizen and slave ore how did this work.

  Are you talking about the Romans or Carthaginians or both? 

  As I understand it Roman Italy, especially the Romans themselves and their Latin allies seem to have had a pretty large population - possibly also a rapidly growing one, as they didn't even seem to lack troops much after Hannibal's early but very costly victories in the 2nd Punic War.  [Similarly with the early Pyrrhic war where King Pyrrhus won a number of battles against them but the Romans just kept raising new armies and without the promised support from the Greek cities he had come to aid Pyrrhus couldn't afford the losses].

  The Carthaginians had less manpower as a whole and relied largely on mercenaries, which gave them a larger pool of troops than their population could supply itself but does mean you need to pay them more and there are always questions about their reliability.  Also it seemed there was a fair bit of infighting between the powerful Carthaginian families and possibly also some concerns that no general gets too popular and successful and possibly establish a dictatorship/monarchy.  I think Hannibal had problems getting support from Carthage itself during the 2nd conflict.  Not just from Roman domination of the seas in that conflict.

Thanks for the answer as always steve.

[stevep]

Apr 15, 2018 13:29:11 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 15, 2018 13:25:46 GMT stevep said:

  Are you talking about the Romans or Carthaginians or both? 

  As I understand it Roman Italy, especially the Romans themselves and their Latin allies seem to have had a pretty large population - possibly also a rapidly growing one, as they didn't even seem to lack troops much after Hannibal's early but very costly victories in the 2nd Punic War.  [Similarly with the early Pyrrhic war where King Pyrrhus won a number of battles against them but the Romans just kept raising new armies and without the promised support from the Greek cities he had come to aid Pyrrhus couldn't afford the losses].

  The Carthaginians had less manpower as a whole and relied largely on mercenaries, which gave them a larger pool of troops than their population could supply itself but does mean you need to pay them more and there are always questions about their reliability.  Also it seemed there was a fair bit of infighting between the powerful Carthaginian families and possibly also some concerns that no general gets too popular and successful and possibly establish a dictatorship/monarchy.  I think Hannibal had problems getting support from Carthage itself during the 2nd conflict.  Not just from Roman domination of the seas in that conflict.

Thanks for the answer as always steve.

  No problem but do remember I'm a enthusiastic amateur so could be off on some details, suggestions.

[lordroel]

Apr 15, 2018 13:41:54 GMT stevep said:

Apr 15, 2018 13:29:11 GMT lordroel said:

Thanks for the answer as always steve.

  No problem but do remember I'm a enthusiastic amateur so could be off on some details, suggestions.

Well i like naval battles, but i am trying to remember what naval battle i saw in the second 300 movie, that is if anybody saw it.

[raunchel]

Apr 15, 2018 13:15:30 GMT stevep said:

Apr 15, 2018 12:31:24 GMT raunchel said:

There actually are several solutions to the Corvus. One of the most important is manoeuvre and not being overly intimidated by it. The other is having sufficient marines on board to defend yourself.

  Maneuvering is an obvious approach and given that the Carthagians were a lot more experienced that is something they could have done.  Reading the Wiki article on it the Romans had used the corvus before so the Carthaginians obviously knew about it.  In fact it says that they tried to attack ships from their sides to avoid it.  Possibly with so many ships the degree of maneuvering required was impossible.

  The other factor is that their flanking forces, which attacked the transports and the 3rd fleet defending them, seems to have put a lot of effort into attacking the transporters.  As such when the 1st two Roman forces defeated the Carthaginian centre and returned they were able to overwhelm the flanking forces.  Possibly if they had concentrated on the military units and defeated the reserve fleet before the Roman van units returned they would have been able to win then?  Even if most of the transports had escaped they would have posed less of a threat without the warships to escort them.

  I'm less certain about more marines to be honest.  As I understand it the Roman 'marines' were largely normal legionary men, just operating at sea once the corvus had fixed a Carthaginian ship so it couldn't move.  Not sure if the Carthaginians could carry that many extra troops without seriously encumbering their movement, or to train that number of men up to the necessary standards to fight Roman HI in such a battle?

The quality of the legionaries shouldn't be overstated I think. Yes, they were good heavy infantry, but other heavies could go toe to toe with them and have a decent chance. The big thing was their massive number. Which again hurt speed and the like, but tactically,the Romans did well enough to counteract that weakness.