Ecnomus: The largest naval battle of the ancient world

[stevep]

Apr 21, 2018 9:23:18 GMT lordroel said:

Found this nice artile called Roman Navy, what period is the Roman navy during the Battle of Ecnomus.

  Intresting summary and I found illuminating the bit,

"The Battle of Drepana in 249 BC resulted in the only major Carthaginian sea victory, forcing the Romans to equip a new fleet from donations by private citizens. In the last battle of the war, at Aegates Islands in 241 BC, the Romans under Gaius Lutatius Catulus displayed superior seamanship to the Carthaginians, notably using their rams rather than the now-abandoned corvus to achieve victory. "

  It mentioned a bit earlier that the corvus was prone to make ships unstable so it seems to have had a relatively short lifespan, but did enable them to gain experience and weaken the Carthaginian fleet enough they could become dominate without it. 

  Thanks

  Steve

[lordroel]

Apr 21, 2018 10:28:51 GMT stevep said:

Apr 21, 2018 9:23:18 GMT lordroel said:

Found this nice artile called Roman Navy, what period is the Roman navy during the Battle of Ecnomus.

  Intresting summary and I found illuminating the bit,

"The Battle of Drepana in 249 BC resulted in the only major Carthaginian sea victory, forcing the Romans to equip a new fleet from donations by private citizens. In the last battle of the war, at Aegates Islands in 241 BC, the Romans under Gaius Lutatius Catulus displayed superior seamanship to the Carthaginians, notably using their rams rather than the now-abandoned corvus to achieve victory. "

  It mentioned a bit earlier that the corvus was prone to make ships unstable so it seems to have had a relatively short lifespan, but did enable them to gain experience and weaken the Carthaginian fleet enough they could become dominate without it. 

  Thanks

  Steve

The corvus being that giant walking plank if i am correct.

[stevep]

Apr 21, 2018 10:31:24 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 21, 2018 10:28:51 GMT stevep said:

  Intresting summary and I found illuminating the bit,

"The Battle of Drepana in 249 BC resulted in the only major Carthaginian sea victory, forcing the Romans to equip a new fleet from donations by private citizens. In the last battle of the war, at Aegates Islands in 241 BC, the Romans under Gaius Lutatius Catulus displayed superior seamanship to the Carthaginians, notably using their rams rather than the now-abandoned corvus to achieve victory. "

  It mentioned a bit earlier that the corvus was prone to make ships unstable so it seems to have had a relatively short lifespan, but did enable them to gain experience and weaken the Carthaginian fleet enough they could become dominate without it. 

  Thanks

  Steve

The corvus being that giant walking plank if i am correct.

  Quite correct.  Presuming that's an accurate scaled model you could see how much top weight it adds to a pretty narrow ship, especially in raised position.  Also galley normally lowered their masts before going into combat, I think to prevent a damaged mast falling after a ramming attack and causing greater damage.  Obviously the Romans couldn't do this while using the corvus.  However it obviously worked for that crucial period during which Rome became the dominant naval power in the western Med and established a fleet which was to be vital in its later wars.

[lordroel]

Apr 21, 2018 10:50:11 GMT stevep said:

Apr 21, 2018 10:31:24 GMT lordroel said:

The corvus being that giant walking plank if i am correct.

  Quite correct.  Presuming that's an accurate scaled model you could see how much top weight it adds to a pretty narrow ship, especially in raised position.  Also galley normally lowered their masts before going into combat, I think to prevent a damaged mast falling after a ramming attack and causing greater damage.  Obviously the Romans couldn't do this while using the corvus.  However it obviously worked for that crucial period during which Rome became the dominant naval power in the western Med and established a fleet which was to be vital in its later wars.

Is that at the end of the corvus something to hammer into a enemy ships so that the corvus is not able to be removed by the enemy.

[stevep]

Apr 21, 2018 10:53:15 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 21, 2018 10:50:11 GMT stevep said:

  Quite correct.  Presuming that's an accurate scaled model you could see how much top weight it adds to a pretty narrow ship, especially in raised position.  Also galley normally lowered their masts before going into combat, I think to prevent a damaged mast falling after a ramming attack and causing greater damage.  Obviously the Romans couldn't do this while using the corvus.  However it obviously worked for that crucial period during which Rome became the dominant naval power in the western Med and established a fleet which was to be vital in its later wars.

Is that at the end of the corvus something to hammer into a enemy ships so that the corvus is not able to be removed by the enemy.

  Yes there are a couple of large hooks to dig into the enemy ship to hold the two in place relative to each other.

[lordroel]

Apr 22, 2018 9:41:09 GMT stevep said:

Apr 21, 2018 10:53:15 GMT lordroel said:

Is that at the end of the corvus something to hammer into a enemy ships so that the corvus is not able to be removed by the enemy.

  Yes there are a couple of large hooks to dig into the enemy ship to hold the two in place relative to each other.

A yes i saw it in one of the videos i posted: Warfare of Classical Antiquity: Republican Roman Navy, i think in the one called Republican Fleet Tactics and which is talked about around 1:30.

[steffen]

Yep, the romans were not the best, in nothing - on the battlefield.
But - they had large numbers and they were average in everything.

Also, if you see how they solved their inferiority in naval aspects - making it a land battle - and how they worked on the most important aspect of warfare - logistics, it is no wonder why they dominated europe so long.

On a tactical level Hannibal was vastly superior to anything the romans had, but strategical... well, lets say it is good for us today, so many ancient roman ruins we could visit

Carthago never established what was needed to be truly dominant... they had a large economic empire, with lots of mercenaries, but rome was - well rome.

[lordroel]

May 11, 2018 8:02:57 GMT steffen said:

Yep, the romans were not the best, in nothing - on the battlefield.
But - they had large numbers and they were average in everything.

Also, if you see how they solved their inferiority in naval aspects - making it a land battle - and how they worked on the most important aspect of warfare - logistics, it is no wonder why they dominated europe so long.

On a tactical level Hannibal was vastly superior to anything the romans had, but strategical... well, lets say it is good for us today, so many ancient roman ruins we could visit

Carthago never established what was needed to be truly dominant... they had a large economic empire, with lots of mercenaries, but rome was - well rome.

Carthago had Hannibal in the Second Punic War even if he lost.

[raunchel]

May 11, 2018 9:31:39 GMT lordroel said:

May 11, 2018 8:02:57 GMT steffen said:

Yep, the romans were not the best, in nothing - on the battlefield.
But - they had large numbers and they were average in everything.

Also, if you see how they solved their inferiority in naval aspects - making it a land battle - and how they worked on the most important aspect of warfare - logistics, it is no wonder why they dominated europe so long.

On a tactical level Hannibal was vastly superior to anything the romans had, but strategical... well, lets say it is good for us today, so many ancient roman ruins we could visit

Carthago never established what was needed to be truly dominant... they had a large economic empire, with lots of mercenaries, but rome was - well rome.

Carthago had Hannibal in the Second Punic War even if he lost.

Yes, but they lacked the strength and resolve to just raise new army after new army thattge Romans could with their political system and enormous manpower pool.

[steffen]

May 11, 2018 9:31:39 GMT lordroel said:

May 11, 2018 8:02:57 GMT steffen said:

Yep, the romans were not the best, in nothing - on the battlefield.
But - they had large numbers and they were average in everything.

Also, if you see how they solved their inferiority in naval aspects - making it a land battle - and how they worked on the most important aspect of warfare - logistics, it is no wonder why they dominated europe so long.

On a tactical level Hannibal was vastly superior to anything the romans had, but strategical... well, lets say it is good for us today, so many ancient roman ruins we could visit

Carthago never established what was needed to be truly dominant... they had a large economic empire, with lots of mercenaries, but rome was - well rome.

Carthago had Hannibal in the Second Punic War even if he lost.

Hi,

i am a great "fan" of Hannibal, esp. because he was the one who beated the romans with inferior numbers in "hopeless" situations, just because he understood to fight a war.

But he wasn´t "rome" as a nation. For that he should have been "king of Carthage" - he could beat the romans, but he could not clear the major problem of the carthagians... they were merchants, no war makers. 

Hannibal, his father Hasdrubal had tried to form a nation out of carthage, but they never understood why that war with rome was one to the death.
After the 2nd punic war carthago destroyed much more war ships as the romans had... better ships, better crews, with a method to avoid the roman way of fighting naval battles. But the merchants IN carthage wanted to protect short-timed ressources instead of beating the enemy.

They did not support Hannibal in the proper way - after Cannae the romans did "everything" to beat Hannibal, but carthago did nothing. 

It wasn´t the war "Carthage versus rome" but "Family Barkas and friends versus rome".

Rome was to powerful to loose against this family. 

Hannibal itself was propably the "greatest" military leader of ancient europe, greater as Alexander, greater as Caesar. 

He achived something nobody else achived in the next 600 years - the frightened rome to death.

[raunchel]

May 11, 2018 18:05:26 GMT steffen said:

May 11, 2018 9:31:39 GMT lordroel said:

Carthago had Hannibal in the Second Punic War even if he lost.

Hi,

i am a great "fan" of Hannibal, esp. because he was the one who beated the romans with inferior numbers in "hopeless" situations, just because he understood to fight a war.

But he wasn´t "rome" as a nation. For that he should have been "king of Carthage" - he could beat the romans, but he could not clear the major problem of the carthagians... they were merchants, no war makers. 

Hannibal, his father Hasdrubal had tried to form a nation out of carthage, but they never understood why that war with rome was one to the death.
After the 2nd punic war carthago destroyed much more war ships as the romans had... better ships, better crews, with a method to avoid the roman way of fighting naval battles. But the merchants IN carthage wanted to protect short-timed ressources instead of beating the enemy.

They did not support Hannibal in the proper way - after Cannae the romans did "everything" to beat Hannibal, but carthago did nothing. 

It wasn´t the war "Carthage versus rome" but "Family Barkas and friends versus rome".

Rome was to powerful to loose against this family. 

Hannibal itself was propably the "greatest" military leader of ancient europe, greater as Alexander, greater as Caesar. 

He achived something nobody else achived in the next 600 years - the frightened rome to death.

I agree that Hannibal was an excellent commander, but he was no Alexander (sorry, total Hellenistic fangirl speaking). The Romans were much more united and in the end, it wasn't just Rome. Throughout the war, the Italian allies remained loyal, giving a far greater pool of manpower and economic might. Added to that was the Roman political culture which meant that although there were disagreements in the elites, they couldn't possibly seek a way out of the war without winning. So, for them, it was a fight to the finish with greater resources.

The Barcid war effort indeed was tgat of mostly one family, albeit a very powerful one. Tgey however did frighten the rest of the Carthaginian elites, if only because it looked a lot like they might try to overthrow the whole republic. Added to that, they didn't see war as something as dedining as the Romans did, and in fact, always saw it as having ways out. Unfortunately for them, that didn't really work with Rome.