RRRROM@N N@VYOM@N N@VYOM@N N@VY - …...In 31 BC, the great naval Battle of Actium ended the civil wars culminating in the final victory of Augustus and the establishment of the Roman

RRRROM@N N@VYOM@N N@VYOM@N N@VYOM@N N@VY

Caius Duilius Columna rostrata (Szczebrzeszynski, Wikipedia, Creative Commons).

NAVIGARE NECESSE EST Non solo per gli appassionati di storia navale,

ma per tutti gli amanti del mare e della classicità,

ed in particolare per coloro che, come me,

non sanno sottrarsi al fascino della civiltà romana. di DOMENICO CARRO

� Introduzione (in Italiano):

� genesi e nome di questo sito Web.

� Parte I

VETRINA « CLASSICA» sulla storia navale e marittima dell'antica Roma (in Italiano):

elementi relativi alla ricerca che da diversi anni sto conducendo al fine di pervenire ad una migliore messa a

fuoco degli aspetti navali e marittimi del mondo romano. Dati sulle pubblicazioni maggiori (situazione e progetti) e bibliografia delle fonti antiche.

� Parte II

ROMA MARITTIMA - Roma Eterna sul mare (in Italiano, con un po' di Francese e un po' di Inglese):

altri miei contributi alla ricostruzione della storia navale e marittima dell'antica Roma e alla conoscenza dei

Romani che si sono illustrati sul mare. Contiene alcuni saggi, qualche altro scritto minore e una bibliografia di

fonti moderne. � Parte III

TESTI ANTICHI (in Italiano e Latino): alcuni scritti poco conosciuti, che trattano questioni navali o

marittime secondo gli usi degli antichi Romani.

� Parte IV

CONTRIBUTI ESTERNI (in Italiano): spazio predisposto per ospitare scritti di altri autori, quali ulteriori

contributi alla conoscenza della storia navale e marittima dell'antica Roma. � Parte V

GALLERIA NAVALE (in Italiano): selezione di immagini navali romane (affreschi, mosaici, bassorilievi,

sculture, monete e altri reperti) pubblicate su «Classica» o sulla Rete.

� Accreditamenti (titoli in Italiano e Inglese; commenti in Italiano):

Guida alle risorse Internet d'interesse per la ricerca di altri elementi relativi alla storia navale e marittima dell'antica Roma.

ROMA, 30-XI-2007

Ritorno a « R O M A A E T E R N A »

http://www.romaeterna.org/navigare.html

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Roman Navy (Latin: Classis, lit. "fleet") comprised the naval forces of the Ancient Roman state. Although the

navy was instrumental in the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean basin, it never enjoyed the prestige of the Roman

legions. Throughout their history, the Romans remained a primarily land-based people, and relied on their more

nautically inclined subjects, such as the Greeks and the Egyptians, to build and man their ships. Partly because of this,

the navy was never wholly embraced by the Roman state, and deemed somewhat "un-Roman".[1] In Antiquity, navies and trading fleets did not have the logistical autonomy that modern ships and fleets possess. Unlike modern naval

forces, the Roman navy even at its height never existed as an autonomous service, but operated as an adjunct to the

Roman army.

During the course of the First Punic War, the Roman navy was massively expanded and played a vital role in the

Roman victory and the Roman Republic's eventual ascension to hegemony in the Mediterranean Sea. In the course of the first half of the 2nd century BC, Rome went on to destroy Carthage and subdue the Hellenistic kingdoms of the

eastern Mediterranean, achieving complete mastery of the inland sea, which they called Mare Nostrum. The Roman

fleets were again prominent in the 1st century BC in the wars against the pirates, and in the civil wars that brought down

the Republic, whose campaigns ranged across the Mediterranean. In 31 BC, the great naval Battle of Actium ended the

civil wars culminating in the final victory of Augustus and the establishment of the Roman Empire.

During the Imperial period, the Mediterranean became a peaceful "Roman lake"; in the absence of a maritime enemy, the navy was reduced mostly to patrol and transport duties. On the fringes of the Empire however, in new conquests or,

increasingly, in defense against barbarian invasions, the Roman fleets were still engaged in warfare. The decline of the

Empire in the 3rd century took a heavy toll on the navy, which was reduced to a shadow of its former self, both in size

and in combat ability. As successive waves of the Völkerwanderung crashed on the land frontiers of the battered

Empire, the navy could only play a secondary role. In the early 5th century, the Roman frontiers were breached, and

barbarian kingdoms appeared on the shores of the western Mediterranean. One of them, the Vandal Kingdom, raised a navy of its own and raided the shores of the Mediterranean, even sacking Rome, while the diminished Roman fleets

were incapable of offering any resistance. The Western Roman Empire collapsed in the late 5th century. The subsequent

Roman Navy of the enduring Eastern Roman Empire is called by historians the Byzantine Navy.

Early Republic The exact origins of the Roman fleet are obscure. A traditionally agricultural and land-based society,

the Romans rarely ventured out to sea, unlike their Etruscan neighbours.[2] There is evidence of Roman warships in the

early 4th century BC, such as mention of a warship that carried an embassy to Delphi in 394 BC, but at any rate, the

Roman fleet, if it existed, was negligible.[3] The traditional birth date of the Roman navy is set at ca. 311 BC, when, after the conquest of Campania, two new officials, the duumviri navales classis ornandae reficiendaeque causa, were

tasked with the maintenance of a fleet.[4][5] As a result, the Republic acquired its first fleet, consisting of 20 ships, most

likely triremes, with each duumvir commanding a squadron of 10 ships.[3][5] However, the Republic continued to rely

mostly on her legions for expansion in Italy; the navy was most likely geared towards combating piracy and lacked

experience in naval warfare, being easily defeated in 282 BC by the Tarentines.[5][6][7] This situation continued until the First Punic War: the main task of the Roman fleet was patrolling along the Italian

coast and rivers, protecting seaborne trade from piracy. Whenever larger tasks had to be undertaken, such as the naval

blockade of a besieged city, the Romans called on the allied Greek cities of southern Italy, the socii navales, to provide

ships and crews.[8] It is possible that the supervision of these maritime allies was one of the duties of the four new

praetores classici, who were established in 267 BC.[9]

First Punic War The first Roman expedition outside mainland Italy was against the island of Sicily in 265 BC. This led to the outbreak of hostilities with Carthage, which would last until 241 BC. At the time, the Punic city was the

unchallenged master of the western Mediterranean, possessing a long maritime and naval experience and a large fleet.

Although Rome had relied on her legions for the conquest of Italy, operations in Sicily had to be supported by a fleet,

and the ships available by Rome's allies were clearly insufficient.[9] Thus in 261 BC, the Roman Senate set out to

construct a fleet of 100 quinqueremes and 20 triremes.[8] According to Polybius, the Romans seized a shipwrecked

Carthaginian quinquereme, and used it as a blueprint for their own ships.[10] The new fleets were commanded by the annually elected Roman magistrates, but naval expertise was provided by the lower officers, who continued to be

provided by the socii, mostly Greeks. This practice was continued until well into the Empire, something also attested by

the direct adoption of numerous Greek naval terms.[11][12]

Despite the massive buildup, the Roman crews remained inferior in naval experience to the Carthaginians, and could

not hope to match them in naval tactics, which required great maneuverability and experience. They therefore employed

a novel weapon which transformed sea warfare to their advantage. They equipped their ships with the corvus, possibly developed earlier by the Syracusans against the Athenians. This was a long plank with a spike for hooking onto enemy

ships. Using it as a boarding bridge, marines were able to board an enemy ship, transforming sea combat into a version

of land combat, where the Roman legionaries had the upper hand. However, it is believed that the corvus' weight made

the ships unstable, and could capsize a ship in rough seas.[13]

Although the first sea engagement of the war, the Battle of the Lipari Islands in 260 BC, was a defeat for Rome, the forces involved were relatively small. Through the use of the corvus, the fledgling Roman navy under Gaius Duilius

won its first major engagement later that year at the Battle of Mylae. During the course of the war, Rome continued to

be victorious at sea: victories at Sulci (258 BC) and Tyndaris (257 BC) were followed by the massive Battle of Cape

Ecnomus, where the Roman fleet under the consuls Marcus Atilius Regulus and Lucius Manlius inflicted a severe

defeat on the Carthaginians. This string of successes allowed Rome to push the war further across the sea to Africa and

Carthage itself. Continued Roman success also meant that their navy gained significant experience, although it also suffered a number of catastrophic losses due to storms, while conversely, the Carthaginian navy suffered from

attrition.[13]

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.[13] Illyria and the Second Punic War After the Roman victory, the balance of naval power in the Western Mediterranean

had shifted from Carthage to Rome.[14] This ensured Carthaginian acquiescence to the conquest of Sardinia and Corsica,

and also enabled Rome to deal decisively with the threat posed by the Illyrian pirates in the Adriatic. The Illyrian Wars

marked Rome's first involvement with the affairs of the Balkan peninsula.[15] Initially, in 229 BC, a fleet of 200

warships was sent against Queen Teuta, and swiftly expelled the Illyrian garrisons from the Greek coastal cities of

modern-day Albania.[14] Ten years later, the Romans sent another expedition in the area against Demetrius of Pharos, who had rebuilt the Illyrian navy and engaged in piracy up into the Aegean. Demetrius was supported by Philip V of

Macedon, who had grown anxious at the expansion of Roman power in Illyria.[16] The Romans were again quickly

victorious and expanded their Illyrian protectorate, but the beginning of the Second Punic War (218–201 BC) forced

them to divert their resources westwards for the next decades.

Due to Rome's command of the seas, Hannibal, Carthage's great general, was forced to eschew a sea-borne invasion, instead choosing to bring the war over land to the Italian peninsula.[17] Unlike the first war, the navy played little role on

either side in this war. The only naval encounters occurred in the first years of the war, at Lilybaeum (218 BC) and the

Ebro River (217 BC), both resulting Roman victories. Despite an overall numerical parity, for the remainder of the war

the Carthaginians did not seriously challenge Roman supremacy. The Roman fleet was hence engaged primarily with

raiding the shores of Africa and guarding Italy, a task which included the interception of Carthaginian convoys of

supplies and reinforcements for Hannibal's army, as well as keeping an eye on a potential intervention by Carthage's

ally, Philip V.[18] The only major action in which the Roman fleet was involved was the siege of Syracuse in 214-212

BC with 130 ships under Marcus Claudius Marcellus. The siege is remembered for the ingenious inventions of

Archimedes, such as mirrors that burned ships or the so-called "Claw of Archimedes", which kept the besieging army at

bay for two years.[19] A fleet of 160 vessels was assembled to support Scipio Africanus' army in Africa in 202 BC, and,

should his expedition fail, evacuate his men. In the event, Scipio achieved a decisive victory at Zama, and the subsequent peace stripped Carthage of its fleet.[20]

Operations in the East Rome was now the undisputed mistress of the Western Mediterranean, and turned her gaze

from defeated Carthage to the Hellenistic world. Small Roman forces had already been engaged in the First Macedonian

War, when, in 214 BC, a fleet under Marcus Valerius Laevinus had successfully thwarted Philip V from invading Illyria

with his newly-built fleet. The rest of the war was carried out mostly by Rome's allies, the Aetolian League and later the Kingdom of Pergamon, but a combined Roman-Pergamene fleet of ca. 60 ships patrolled the Aegean until the war's end

in 205 BC. In this conflict, Rome, still embroiled in the Punic War, was not interested in expanding her possessions, but

rather in thwarting the growth of Philip's power in Greece. The war ended in an effective stalemate, and was renewed in

201 BC, when Philip V invaded Asia Minor. A naval battle off Chios ended in a costly victory for the Pergamene-

Rhodian alliance, but the Macedonian fleet lost many warships, including its flagship, a deceres.[21] Soon after,

Pergamon and Rhodes appealed to Rome for help, and the Republic was drawn into the Second Macedonian War. In view of the massive Roman naval superiority, the war was fought on land, with the Macedonian fleet, already weakened

at Chios, not daring to venture out of its anchorage at Demetrias.[21] After the crushing Roman victory at

Cynoscephalae, the terms imposed on Macedon were harsh, and included the complete disbandment of her navy.

Almost immediately following the defeat of Macedon, Rome became embroiled in a war with the Seleucid Empire. This

war too was decided mainly on land, although the combined Roman-Rhodian navy also achieved victories over the

Seleucids at Myonessus and Eurymedon. These victories, which were invariably concluded with the imposition of peace treaties that prohibited the maintenance of anything but token naval forces, spelled the disappearance of the Hellenistic

royal navies, leaving Rome and her allies unchallenged at sea. Coupled with the final destruction of Carthage, and the

end of Macedon's independence, by the latter half of the 2nd century BC, Roman control over all of what was later to be

dubbed mare nostrum ("our sea") had been established. Subsequently, the Roman navy was drastically reduced,

depending on its Greek allies to supply ships and crews as needed.[22]

Late Republic Mithridates and the pirate threatIn the absence of a strong naval presence however, piracy flourished throughout the

Mediterranean, especially in Cilicia, but also in Crete and other places, further reinforced by money and warships

supplied by King Mithridates VI of Pontus, who hoped to enlist their aid in his wars against Rome.[23] In the First

Mithridatic War (89–85 BC), Sulla had to requisition ships wherever he could find them to counter Mithridates' fleet.

Despite the makeshift nature of the Roman fleet however, in 86 BC Lucullus defeated the Pontic navy at Tenedos.[24] Immediately after the end of the war, a permanent force of ca. 100 vessels was established in the Aegean from the

contributions of Rome's allied maritime states. Although sufficient to guard against Mithridates, this force was totally

inadequate against the pirates, whose power grew rapidly.[24] Over the next decade, the pirates defeated several Roman

commanders, and raided unhindered even to the shores of Italy, reaching Rome's harbor, Ostia.[25] According to the

account of Plutarch, "the ships of the pirates numbered more than a thousand, and the cities captured by them four

hundred."[26] Their activity posed a growing threat for the Roman economy, and a challenge to Roman power: several prominent Romans, including two praetors with their retinue and the young Julius Caesar, were captured and held for

ransom. Perhaps most important of all, the pirates disrupted Rome's vital lifeline, namely the massive shipments of

grain and other produce from Africa and Egypt that were needed to sustain the city's population.[27]

The resulting grain shortages were a major political issue, and popular discontent threatened to become explosive. In 74

BC, with the outbreak of the Third Mithridatic War, Marcus Antonius (the father of Mark Antony) was appointed

praetor with extraordinary imperium against the pirate threat, but signally failed in his task: he was defeated off Crete in 72 BC, and died shortly after.[28] Finally, in 67 BC the Lex Gabinia was passed in the Plebeian Council, vesting Pompey

with unprecedented powers and authorizing him to move against them.[29] In a massive and concerted campaign,

Pompey cleared the seas from the pirates in only three months.[22][30] Afterwards, the fleet was reduced again to policing

duties against intermittent piracy.

Caesar and the Civil Wars

In 56 BC, for the first time a Roman fleet engaged in battle outside the Mediterranean. This occurred during Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, when the maritime tribe of the Veneti rebelled against Rome. Against the Veneti, the Romans

were at a disadvantage, since they did not know the coast, and were inexperienced in fighting in the open sea with its

tides and currents.[31] Furthermore, the Veneti ships were superior to the light Roman galleys. They were built of oak

and had no oars, being thus more resistant to ramming. In addition, their greater height gave them an advantage in both

missile exchanges and boarding actions.[32] In the event, when the two fleets encountered each other in Quiberon Bay, Caesar's men resorted to the use of hooks on long poles, which cut the halyards supporting the Veneti sails.[33]

Immobile, the Veneti ships were easy prey for the legionaries who boarded them.[34] Having thus established his control

of the English Channel, in the next years Caesar used this newly-built fleet to carry out two invasions of Britain.

The last major campaigns of the Roman navy in the Mediterranean until the late 3rd century AD would be in the civil

wars that ended the Republic. In the East, the Republican faction quickly established its control, and Rhodes, the last

independent maritime power in the Aegean, was subdued by Gaius Cassius Longinus in 43 BC, after its fleet was

defeated off Kos. In the West, against the triumvirs stood Sextus Pompeius, who had been given command of the Italian

fleet by the Senate in 43 BC. He took control of Sicily and made it his base, blockading Italy and stopping the

politically crucial supply of grain from Africa to Rome.[35] After suffering a defeat from Sextus in 42 BC, Octavian

initiated massive naval armaments, aided by his closest associate, Marcus Agrippa: ships were built at Ravenna and

Ostia, the new artificial harbor of Portus Julius built at Cumae, and soldiers and rowers levied, including over 20,000 manumitted slaves.[36] Finally, Octavian and Agrippa defeated Sextus in the Battle of Naulochus in 36 BC, putting an

end to all Pompeian resistance.

Octavian's power was further enhanced after his victory against the combined fleets of Mark Antony and Cleopatra,

Queen of Egypt, in the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, where Antony had assembled 500 ships against Octavian's 400

ships.[37] This last naval battle of the Roman Republic definitively established Octavian as the sole ruler over Rome and the Mediterranean world. In the aftermath of his victory, he formalized the Fleet's structure, establishing several key

harbors in the Mediterranean (see below). The now fully professional navy had its main duties consist of protecting

against piracy, escorting troops and patrolling the river frontiers of Europe. It remained however engaged in active

warfare in the periphery of the Empire.

Principate

Operations under Augustus Under Augustus and after the conquest of Egypt there were increasing demands from the Roman economy to extend the trade lanes to India. The Arabian control of all sea routes to India was an obstacle. One

of the first naval operations under princeps Augustus was therefore the preparation for a campaign on the Arabian

peninsula. Aelius Gallus, the prefect of Egypt ordered the construction of 130 transports and subsequently carried

10,000 soldiers to Arabia.[38] But the following march through the desert towards Yemen failed and the plans for control

of the Arabian peninsula had to be abandoned. At the other end of the Empire, in Germania, the navy played an

important role in the supply and transport of the legions. In 15 BC an independent fleet was installed at the Lake Constance. Later, the generals Drusus and Tiberius used the Navy extensively, when they tried to extend the Roman

frontier to the Elbe. In 12 BC Drusus ordered the construction of a fleet of 1,000 ships and sailed them along the Rhine

into the North Sea.[39] The Frisii and Chauci had nothing to oppose the superior numbers, tactics and technology of the

Romans. When these entered the river mouths of Weser and Ems, the local tribes had to surrender. In 5 BC the Roman

knowledge concerning the North and Baltic Sea was fairly extended during a campaign by Tiberius, reaching as far as

the Elbe: Plinius describes how Roman naval formations came past Heligoland and set sail to the north-eastern coast of Denmark, and Augustus himself boasts in his Res Gestae: "My fleet sailed from the mouth of the Rhine eastward as far

as the lands of the Cimbri to which, up to that time, no Roman had ever penetrated either by land or by sea...".[40] The

multiple naval operations north of Germania had to be abandoned after the battle of the Teutoburg Forest in the year 9

AD.

Julio-Claudian dynasty In the years 15 and 16, Germanicus carried out several fleet operations along the rivers Rhine and Ems, without permanent results due to grim Germanic resistance and a disastrous storm.[41] By 28, the Romans lost

further control of the Rhine mouth in a succession of Frisian insurgencies. From 43 to 85, the Roman navy played an

important role in the Roman conquest of Britain. The classis Germanica rendered outstanding services in multitudinous

landing operations. In 46, a naval expedition made a push deep into the Black Sea region and even travelled on the

Tanais. In 47 a revolt by the Chauci, who took to piratical activities along the Gallic coast, was subdued by Gnaeus

Domitius Corbulo.[42] By 57 an expeditionary corps reached Chersonesos (see Charax, Crimea). It seems that under Nero, the navy obtained strategically important positions for trading with India; but there was no

known fleet in the Red Sea. Possibly, parts of the Alexandrian fleet were operating as escorts for the Indian trade. In the

Jewish revolt, from 66 to 70, the Romans were forced to fight Jewish ships, operating from a harbour in the area of

modern Tel Aviv, on Israel's Mediterranean coast. In the meantime several flotilla engagements on the Sea of Galilee

took place.

In 68, as his reign became increasingly insecure, Nero raised legio I Adiutrix from sailors of the praetorian fleets. After Nero's overthrow, in 69, the "Year of the four emperors", the praetorian fleets supported Emperor Otho against the

usurper Vitellius,[43] and after his eventual victory, Vespasian formed another legion, legio II Adiutrix, from their

ranks.[44] Only in the Pontus did Anicetus, the commander of the Classis Pontica, support Vitellius. He burned the fleet,

and sought refuge with the Iberian tribes, engaging in piracy. After a new fleet was built, this revolt was subdued.[45]

Flavian, Antonine and Severan dynasties

During the Batavian rebellion of Gaius Julius Civilis (69-70), the rebels got hold of a squadron of the Rhine fleet by treachery,[46] and the conflict featured frequent use of the Roman Rhine flotilla. In the last phase of the war, the British

fleet and legio XIV were brought in from Britain to attack the Batavian coast, but the Cananefates, allies of the

Batavians, were able to destroy or capture a large part of the fleet.[47] In the meantime, the new Roman commander,

Quintus Petillius Cerialis, advanced north and constructed a new fleet. Civilis attempted only a short encounter with his

own fleet, but could not hinder the superior Roman force from landing and ravaging the island of the Batavians, leading to the negotiation of a peace soon after.[48]

In the years 82 to 85, the Romans under Gnaeus Julius Agricola launched a campaign against the Caledonians in

modern Scotland. In this context the Roman navy significantly escalated activities on the eastern Scottish coast.[49]

Simultaneously multiple expeditions and reconnaissance trips were launched. During these the Romans would capture

the Orkney Islands (Orcades) for a short period of time and obtained information about the Shetland Islands.[50] There is

some speculation about a Roman landing in Ireland, based on Tacitus reports about Agricola contemplating the island's

conquest,[51] but no conclusive evidence to support this theory has been found.

Under the Five Good Emperors the navy operated mainly on the rivers; so it played an important role during Trajan's

conquest of Dacia and temporarily an independent fleet for the Euphrates and Tigris rivers was founded. Also during

the wars against the Marcomanni confederation under Marcus Aurelius several combats took place on the Danube and

the Tisza. Under the aegis of the Severan dynasty, the only known military operations of the navy were carried out under

Septimius Severus, using naval assistance on his campaigns along the Euphrates and Tigris, as well as in Scotland.

Thereby Roman ships reached inter alia the Persian Gulf and the top of the British Isles.

3rd century crisis As the 3rd century dawned, the Roman Empire was at its peak. In the Mediterranean, peace had

reigned for over two centuries, as piracy had been wiped out and no outside naval threats occurred. As a result, complacency had set in: naval tactics and technology were neglected, and the Roman naval system had become

moribund.[52] After 230 however and for fifty years, the situation changed dramatically. The so-called "Crisis of the

Third Century" ushered a period of internal turmoil, and the same period saw a renewed series of seaborne assaults,

which the imperial fleets proved unable to stem.[53] In the West, Picts and Irish ships raided Britain, while the Saxons

raided the North Sea, forcing the Romans to abandon Frisia.[53] In the East, the Goths and other tribes from modern

Ukraine raided in great numbers over the Black Sea.[54] These invasions began during the rule of Trebonianus Gallus, when for the first time Germanic tribes built up their own powerful fleet in the Black Sea. Via two surprise attacks

(256) on Roman naval bases in the Caucasus and near the Danube, numerous ships fell into the hands of the Germans,

whereupon the raids were extended as far as the Aegean Sea; Byzantium, Athens, Sparta and other towns were

plundered and the responsible provincial fleets were heavily debilitated. It was not until the attackers made a tactical

error, that their onrush could be stopped.

In 267–270 another, much fiercer series of attacks took place. A fleet composed of Heruli and other tribes raided the coasts of Thrace and the Pontus. Defeated off Byzantium by general Venerianus,[55] the barbarians fled into the Aegean,

and ravaged many islands and coastal cities, including Athens and Corinth. As they retreated northwards over land, they

were defeated by Emperor Gallienus at Nestos.[56] However, this was merely the prelude to an even larger invasion that

was launched in 268/269: several tribes banded together (the Historia Augusta mentions Scythians, Greuthungi,

Tervingi, Gepids, Peucini, Celts and Heruli) and allegedly 2,000 ships and 325,000 men strong,[57] raided the Thracian

shore, attacked Byzantium and continued raiding the Aegean as far as Crete, while the main force approached Thessalonica. Emperor Claudius II however was able to defeat them at the Battle of Naissus, ending the Gothic threat

for the time being.[58]

Barbarian raids also increased along the Rhine frontier and in the North Sea. Eutropius mentions that during the 280s,

the sea along the coasts of the provinces of Belgica and Armorica was "infested with Franks and Saxons". To counter

them, Maximian appointed Carausius as commander of the British Fleet.[59] However, Carausius rose up in late 286 and seceded from the Empire with Britannia and parts of the northern Gallic coast.[60] With a single blow Roman control of

the channel and the North Sea was lost, and emperor Maximinus was forced to create a completely new Northern Fleet,

but in lack of training it was almost immediately destroyed in a storm.[61] Only in 293, under Caesar Constantius

Chlorus did Rome regain the Gallic coast. A new fleet was constructed in order to cross the Channel,[62] and in 296,

with a concentric attack on Londinium the insurgent province was retaken.[63]

Late Antiquity By the end of the 3rd century, the Roman navy had declined dramatically. Although Emperor Diocletian is held to have strengthened the navy, and increased its manpower from 46,000 to 64,000 men,[64] the old

standing fleets had all but vanished, and in the civil wars that ended the Tetrarchy, the opposing sides had to mobilize

the resources and commandeered the ships of the Eastern Mediterranean port cities.[54] These conflicts thus brought

about a renewal of naval activity, culminating in the Battle of the Hellespont in 324 between the forces of Constantine I

under Caesar Crispus and the fleet of Licinius, which was the only major naval confrontation of the 4th century.

Vegetius, writing at the end of the 4th century, testifies to the disappearance of the old praetorian fleets in Italy, but comments on the continued activity of the Danube fleet.[65] In the 5th century, only the eastern half of the Empire could

field an effective fleet, as it could draw upon the maritime resources of Greece and the Levant. Although the Notitia

Dignitatum still mentions several naval units for the Western Empire, these were apparently too depleted to be able to

carry out much more than patrol duties.[66] At any rate, the rise of the naval power of the Vandal Kingdom under

Geiseric in North Africa, and its raids in the Western Mediterranean, were practically uncontested.[54] Although there is

some evidence of West Roman naval activity in the first half of the 5th century, this is mostly confined to troop transports and minor landing operations.[65] The historian Priscus and Sidonius Apollinaris affirm in their writings that

by the mid-5th century, the Western Empire essentially lacked a war navy.[67] Matters became even worse after the

disastrous failure of the fleets mobilized against the Vandals in 460 and 468, under the emperors Majorian and

Anthemius.

For the West, there would be no recovery, as the last Western Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed in 476. In the East however, the classical naval tradition survived, and in the 6th century, a standing navy was reformed.[54] The

East Roman (Byzantine) navy would remain a formidable force in the Mediterranean until the 11th century.

Organization The bulk of a ship's crew was formed by the rowers, the remiges (sing. remex) or eretai (sing. eretēs) in

Greek. Despite popular perceptions, the Roman fleet, and ancient fleets in general, relied throughout its existence on

rowers of free status. Galley slaves were usually not put at the oars, except in times of pressing manpower demands or

extreme emergency. Even then, they were employed after they had been freed.[68] In Imperial times, non-citizen

freeborn provincials (peregrini), chiefly from nations with a maritime background such as Greeks, Phoenicians, Syrians

and Egyptians formed the bulk of the fleets' crews.[68][69]

During the early Principate, a ship's crew, regardless of its size, was organized as a centuria. Crewmen could sign on as

marines, rowers/seamen, craftsmen and various other jobs, though all personnel serving in the imperial fleet were

classed as milites ("soldiers"), regardless of their function; only when differentiation with the army was required, were the adjectives classiarius or classicus added. Along with several other instances of prevalence of army terminology, this

testifies to the lower social status of the naval personnel, considered inferior to that of the auxiliaries and the

legionaries.[68] Emperor Claudius first gave legal privileges to the navy's crewmen, enabling them to receive Roman

citizenship after their period of service.[70] This period was initially set at a minimum of 26 years (one year more than

the legions), and was later expanded to 28. Upon honorable discharge (honesta missio), the sailors received a sizable cash payment as well.[71]

As in the army, the ship's centuria was headed by a centurion with an optio as his deputy, while a beneficiarius

supervised a small administrative staff.[12] Among the crew were also a number of principales (junior officers) and

immunes (specialists exempt from certain duties). Some of these positions, mostly administrative, were identical to

those of the army auxiliaries, while some (mostly of Greek provenance) were peculiar to the fleet. An inscription from

the island of Cos, dated to the First Mithridatic War, provides us with a list of a ship's officers, the nautae: the gubernator (kybernētēs in Greek) was the helmsman or pilot, the celeusta (keleustēs in Greek) supervised the rowers, a

proreta (prōreus in Greek) was the look-out stationed at the bow, a pentacontarchos was apparently a junior officer,

and an iatros (Lat. medicus), the ship's doctor.[72]

Each ship was commanded by a trierarchus, whose exact relationship with the ship's centurion is unclear. Squadrons,

most likely of ten ships each, were put under a nauarchus, who often appears to have risen from the ranks of the

trierarchi.[68][73][74] The post of nauarchus archigubernes or nauarchus princeps appeared later in the Imperial period, and functioned either as a commander of several squadrons or as an executive officer under a civilian admiral,

equivalent to the legionary primus pilus.[75][76] All these were professional officers, usually peregrini who had a status

equal to an auxiliary centurion (and were thus increasingly called centuriones [classiarii] after ca. 70 AD).[77] Until the

reign of Antoninus Pius, their careers were restricted to the fleet.[12] Only in the 3rd century were these officers equated

to the legionary centurions in status and pay, and could henceforth be transferred to a similar position in the legions.[78]

High Command During the Republic, command of a fleet was given to a serving magistrate or promagistrate, usually of consular or praetorian rank.[79] In the Punic Wars for instance, one consul would usually command the fleet, and

another the army. In the subsequent wars in the Eastern Mediterranean, praetors would assume the command of the

fleet. However, since these men were political appointees, the actual handling of the fleets and of separate squadrons

was entrusted to their more experienced legates and subordinates. It was therefore during the Punic Wars that the

separate position of praefectus classis ("fleet prefect") first appeared.[80] Initially subordinate to the magistrate in command, after the fleet's reorganization by Augustus, the praefectus classis became procuratorial positions in charge

of the permanent fleets. They were initially filled either from among the equestrian class, or, especially under Claudius,

from the Emperor's freedmen, thus securing the Emperor's control over the fleets.[81] From the period of the Flavian

emperors, the status of the praefectura was raised, and only equestrians with military experience who had gone through

the militia equestri were appointed.[75][81] Nevertheless, the prefects remained largely political appointees, and despite

their military experience, usually in command of army auxiliary units, their knowledge of naval matters was minimal, forcing them to rely on their professional subordinates.[71] The difference in importance of the fleets they commanded

was also reflected by the rank and the corresponding pay of the commanders. The prefects of the two praetorian fleets

were ranked procuratores ducenarii, meaning they earned 200,000 sesterces annually, the prefects of the Classis

Germanica, the Classis Britannica and later the Classis Pontica were centenarii (i.e. earning 100,000 sesterces), while

the other fleet prefects were sexagenarii (i.e. they received 60,000 sesterces).[82]

Ship types For more details on this topic, see Hellenistic-era warships.

The generic Roman term for an oar-driven galley warship was "long ship" (Latin: navis longa, Greek: naus makra), as

opposed to the sail-driven navis oneraria, a merchant vessel, or the minor craft (navigia minora) like the scapha.[83]

The navy consisted of a wide variety of different classes of warships, from heavy polyremes to light raiding and

scouting vessels. Unlike the rich Hellenistic Successor kingdoms in the East however, the Romans did not rely on heavy

warships, with quinqueremes (Gk. pentērēs), and to a lesser extent quadriremes (Gk. tetrērēs) and triremes (Gk. triērēs)

providing the mainstay of the Roman fleets from the Punic Wars to the end of the Civil Wars.[84] The heaviest vessel mentioned in Roman fleets during this period was the hexareme, of which a few were used as flagships.[85] Lighter

vessels such as the liburnians and the hemiolia, both swift types invented by pirates, were also adopted as scouts and

light transport vessels.

During the final confrontation between Octavian and Mark Antony, Octavian's fleet was composed of quinqueremes,

together with some "sixes" and many triremes and liburnians, while Antony, who had the resources of Ptolemaic Egypt to draw upon,[84] fielded a fleet also mostly composed of quinquiremes, but with a sizeable complement of heavier

warships, ranging from "sixes" to "tens" (Gk. dekērēs).[86][87] Later historical tradition made much of the prevalence of

lighter and swifter vessels in Octavian's fleet,[88] with Vegetius even explicitly ascribing Octavian's victory to the

liburnians.[89]

This prominence of lighter craft in the historical narrative is perhaps best explained in light of subsequent

developments. After Actium, the operational landscape had changed: for the remainder of the Principate, no opponent

existed to challenge Roman naval hegemony, and no massed naval confrontation was likely. The tasks at hand for the

Roman navy were now the policing of the Mediterranean waterways and the border rivers, suppression of piracy, and

escort duties for the grain shipments to Rome and for imperial army expeditions. Lighter ships were far better suited to

these tasks, and after the reorganization of the fleet following Actium, the largest ship kept in service was a hexareme, the flagship of the Classis Misenensis. The bulk of the fleets was composed of the lighter triremes and liburnians (Latin:

liburna, Greek: libyrnis), with the latter apparently providing the majority of the provincial fleets.[90] In time, the term

"liburnian" came to mean "warship" in a generic sense.[22]

In addition, there were smaller oared vessels, such as the navis actuaria, with 30 oars (15 on each bank), a ship

primarily used for transport in coastal and fluvial operations, for which its shallow draught and flat keel were ideal. In late Antiquity, it was succeeded in this role by the navis lusoria ("playful ship"), which was extensively used for patrols

and raids by the legionary flotillas in the Rhine and Danube frontiers.

Roman ships were commonly named after gods (Mars, Iuppiter, Minerva, Isis), mythological heroes (Hercules),

geographical maritime features such as Rhenus or Oceanus, concepts such as Harmony, Peace, Loyalty, Victory

(Concordia, Pax, Fides, Victoria) or after important events (Dacicus for the Trajan's Dacian Wars or Salamina for the

Battle of Salamis).[91] They were distinguished by their figurehead (insigne or parasemum),[92] and, during the Civil Wars at least, by the paint schemes on their turrets, which varied according to each fleet.[93]

Armament and tactics In Classical Antiquity, a ship's main weapon was the ram (rostra, hence the name navis

rostrata for a warship), which was used to sink or immobilize an enemy ship by holing its hull. Its use, however,

required a skilled and experienced crew and a fast and agile ship like a trireme or quinquereme. In the Hellenistic

period, the larger navies came instead to rely on greater vessels. This had several advantages: the heavier and sturdier

construction lessened the effects of ramming, and the greater space and stability of the vessels allowed the transport not only of more marines, but also the placement of deck-mounted ballistae and catapults.[94] Although the ram continued to

be a standard feature of all warships and ramming the standard mode of attack, these developments transformed the role

of a warship: from the old "manned missile", designed to sink enemy ships, they became mobile artillery platforms,

which engaged in missile exchange and boarding actions. The Romans in particular, being initially inexperienced at sea

combat, relied upon boarding actions through the use of the corvus. Although it brought them some decisive victories, it

was discontinued because it tended to unbalance the quinqueremes in high seas; two Roman fleets are recorded to have been lost during storms in the First Punic War.[95] During the Civil Wars, a number of technical innovations, which are

attributed to Agrippa,[96] took place: the harpax, a catapult-fired grappling hook, which was used to clamp onto an

enemy ship, reel it in and board it, in a much more efficient way than with the old corvus, and the use of collapsible

fighting towers placed one apiece bow and stern, which were used to provide the boarders with supporting fire.[97]

Fleets

Principate period

After the end of the civil wars, Augustus reduced and reorganized the Roman armed forces, including the navy. A large

part of the fleet of Mark Antony was burned, and the rest was withdrawn to a new base at Forum Iulii (modern

Fréjus),[98] which remained operative until the reign of Claudius.[99] However, the bulk of the fleet was soon subdivided

into two praetorian fleets at Misenum and Ravenna, supplemented by a growing number of minor ones in the provinces,

which were often created on an ad hoc basis for specific campaigns. This organizational structure was maintained almost unchanged until the 4th century.

2 Praetorian fleets. The two major fleets were stationed in Italy and acted as a central naval reserve, directly available

to the Emperor (hence the designation "praetorian"). In the absence of any naval threat, their duties mostly involved

patrolling and transport duties. These were not confined to the waters around Italy, but throughout the Mediterranean.

There is epigraphic evidence for the presence of sailors of the two praetorian fleets at Piraeus and Syria. These two

fleets were:

• The Classis Misenensis, established in 27 BC and based at Portus Julius. Later Classis praetoria Misenesis Pia

Vindex. Detachments of the fleet served at secondary bases, such as Ostia, Puteoli, Centumcellae and other

harbors.[100]

• The Classis Ravennatis, established in 27 BC and based at Ravenna. Later Classis praetoria Ravennatis Pia

Vindex. 11 Provincial fleets The various provincial fleets were smaller than the praetorian fleets and composed mostly of

lighter vessels. Nevertheless, it was these fleets that saw action, in full campaigns or raids on the periphery of the

Empire.

• The Classis Africana Commodiana Herculea, established by Commodus in 186 to secure the grain shipments

(annona) from North Africa to Italy,[101] after the model of the Classis Alexandrina.

• The Classis Alexandrina, based in Alexandria, it controlled the eastern part of the Mediterranean sea. It was founded by Caesar Augustus around 30 BC, probably from ships that fought at the battle of Actium and manned

mostly by Greeks of the Nile Delta.[102] Having supported emperor Vespasian in the civil war of 69, it was awarded

of the cognomen Augusta.[102] The fleet was responsible chiefly for the escort of the grain shipments to Rome (and

later Constantinople), and also apparently operated the Nile river patrol.[103]

• The Classis Britannica, established in 40 or 43 AD at Gesoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer).[104] It participated in

the Roman invasion of Britain and the subsequent campaigns in the island.[102] The fleet was probably based at

Rutupiae (Richborough) until 85 AD, when it was transferred to Dubris (Dover). Other bases were Portus Lemanis

(Lympne) and Anderitum (Pevensey), while Gesoriacum on the Gallic coast likely remained active.[105] During the

2nd-3rd centuries, the fleet was chiefly employed in transport of supplies and men across the English Channel. The

Classis Britannica disappears (at least under that name) from the mid-3rd century, and the sites occupied by it were soon incorporated into the Saxon Shore system.[105]

• The Classis Germanica was established in 12 BC by Drusus at Castra Vetera.[106] It controlled the Rhine river,

and was mainly a fluvial fleet, although it also operated in the North Sea. It is noteworthy that the Romans' initial

lack of experience with the tides of the ocean left Drusus' fleet stranded on the Zuyder Zee.[107] After ca. 30 AD,

the fleet moved its main base to the castrum of Alteburg, some 4 km south of Colonia Agrippinensis (modern Cologne).[108] Later granted the honorifics Augusta Pia Fidelis Domitiana following the suppression of the Revolt

of Saturninus.[109]

• The Classis nova Libyca, first mentioned in 180, based most likely at Ptolemais on the Cyrenaica.

• The Classis Mauretanica, based at Caesarea Mauretaniae (modern Cherchell), it controlled the African coasts

of the western Mediterranean sea. Established on a permanent basis after the raids by the Moors in the early 170s.

• The Classis Moesica was established sometime between 20 BC and 10 AD.[106] It was based in Noviodunum and controlled the Lower Danube from the Iron Gates to the northwestern Black Sea as far as the Crimea.[110] The

honorific Flavia, awarded to it and to the Classis pannonica, may indicate its reorganization by Vespasian.[111]

• The Classis Pannonica, a fluvial fleet controlling the Upper Danube from Castra Regina in Raetia (modern

Regensburg) to Singidunum in Moesia (modern Belgrade). Its exact date of establishment is unknown. Some trace

it to Augustus' campaigns in Pannonia in ca. 35 BC, but it was certainly in existence by 45 AD.[109][112] Its main base was probably Taurunum (modern Zemun) at the confluence of the river Sava with the Danube. Under the

Flavian dynasty, it received the cognomen Flavia.[112]

• The Classis Perinthia, established after the annexation of Thrace in 46 AD and based in Perinthus. Probably

based on the indigenous navy, it operated in the Propontis and the Thracian coast.[45] Probably united with the

Classis Pontica at a later stage.

• The Classis Pontica, founded in 64 AD from the Pontic royal fleet,[106][113] and based in Trapezus, although on occasion it was moved to Byzantium (in ca. 70),[114] and in 170, to Cyzicus.[115] This fleet was used to guard the

southern and eastern Black Sea, and the entrance of the Bosporus.[81] According to the historian Josephus, in the

latter half of the 1st century, it numbered 40 warships and 3,000 men.[116]

• The Classis Syriaca, established probably under Vespasian, and based in Seleucia Pieria (hence the alternative

name Classis Seleucena)[117] in Syria.[103] This fleet controlled the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean sea. In addition, there is significant archaeological evidence for naval activity by certain legions, which in all likelihood

operated their own squadrons: legio XXII Primigenia in the Upper Rhine and Main rivers, legio X Fretensis in the

Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee, and several legionary squadrons in the Danube frontier.[118]

Dominate period Our main source for the structure of the late Roman military is the Notitia Dignitatum, which

corresponds to the situation of the 390s for the Eastern Empire and the 420s for the Western Empire. Notable in the

Notitia is the large number of smaller squadrons that have been created, most of these fluvial and of a local operational role.

Fleets of the Danube frontier The Classis Histrica, the successor of the Classis Pannonica and the Classis Moesica

was active in the Upper Danube, with bases at Mursa in Pannonia II,[119] Florentia in Pannonia Valeria,[120] Arruntum in

Pannonia I,[121] Viminacium in Moesia I[122] and Aegetae in Dacia ripensis.[123] Smaller fleets are also attested on the

tributaries of the Danube: the Classis Arlapensis et Maginensis (based at Arelape and Comagena) and the Classis

Lauriacensis (based at Lauriacum) in Pannonia I,[121] the Classis Stradensis et Germensis, based at Margo in Moesia I,[122] and the Classis Ratianensis, in Dacia ripensis.[123] The naval units were complemented by port garrisons and

marine units, drawn from the army. In the Danube frontier these were:

• In Pannonia I and Noricum ripensis, naval detachments (milites liburnarii) of the legio XIV Gemina and the

legio X Gemina at Carnuntum and Arrabonae, and of the legio II Italica at Ioviacum.[121]

• In Pannonia II, the I Flavia Augusta (at Sirmium) and the II Flavia are listed under their prefects.[119]

• In Moesia II, two units of sailors (milites nauclarii) at Appiaria and Altinum.[124]

• In Scythia Minor, marines (muscularii)[125] of legio II Herculia at Inplateypegiis and sailors (nauclarii) at

Flaviana.[126]

Fleets in Western Europe In the West, and in particular in Gaul, several fluvial fleets had been established. These

came under the command of the magister peditum of the West, and were:[127]

• The Classis Anderetianorum, based at Parisii (Paris) and operating in the Seine and Oise rivers.

• The Classis Ararica, based at Caballodunum (Chalon-sur-Saône) and operating in the Saône River.

• A Classis barcariorum, composed of small vessels, at Eburodunum (modern Yverdon-les-Bains) at Lake

Neuchâtel.

• The Classis Comensis at Lake Como.

• The old praetorian fleets, the Classis Misenatis and the Classis Ravennatis are still listed, albeit with no

distinction indicating any higher importance than the other fleets.

• The Classis fluminis Rhodani, based at Arelate and operating in the Rhône River. It was complemented with a

marine detachment (milites muscularii) based at Marseilles.

• The Classis Sambrica, based at Locus Quartensis (unknown location) and operating in the Somme River and the Channel. It came under the command of the dux Beligae Secundae.[128]

• The Classis Venetum, based at Aquileia and operating in the northern Adriatic Sea. This fleet may have been

established to ensure communications with the imperial capitals in the Po Valley (Ravenna and Milan) and with

Dalmatia.[129]

It is notable that, with the exception of the praetorian fleets (whose retention in the list does not necessarily signify an

active status), the old fleets of the Principate are missing. The Classis Britannica vanishes under that name after the mid-3rd century;[130] its remnants were later subsumed in the Saxon Shore system. The Mauretanian and African fleets

had been disbanded or taken over by the Vandals, while the absence of the Classis Germanica is most probably due to

the collapse of the Rhine frontier after the Crossing of the Rhine by the barbarians in winter 405-406.

Fleets in the Eastern Mediterranean As far as the East is concerned, we know from legal sources that the Classis

Alexandrina[131] and the Classis Seleucena

[132] continued to operate, and that in ca. 400 a Classis Carpathia was

detached from the Syrian fleet and based at the Aegean island of Karpathos.[133] A fleet is known to have been stationed at Constantinople itself, but no further details are known about it.[54]

Ports Major Roman ports were:

• Misenum

• Classis, near Ravenna

• Alexandria

• Leptis Magna

• Ostia

• Port of Mainz (Mogontiacum, river navy on the Rhine)

See also Military of ancient Rome portal

• Nemi ships

• Caligula's Giant Ship

Notes

1. ^ Potter 2004, pp. 77–78

2. ^ Meijer 1986, pp. 147–148 3. ^ a b Meijer 1986, p. 149

4. ^ Livy, AUC IX.30; XL.18,26; XLI.1

5. ^ a b c Goldsworthy 2000, p. 96

6. ^ Meijer 1986, p. 150

7. ^ Potter 2004, p. 76

8. ^ a b Goldsworthy (2003), p. 34 9. ^ a b Goldsworthy (2000), p. 97

10. ^ Polybius, The Histories, I.20-21

11. ^ Saddington 2007, p. 201

12. ^ a b c Webster & Elton (1998), p. 166

13. ^ a b c Goldsworthy (2003), p. 38

14. ^ a b Meijer 1986, p. 167 15. ^ Gruen (1984), p. 359.

16. ^ Meijer 1986, pp. 167–168

17. ^ Meijer 1986, p. 168

18. ^ Meijer 1986, p. 170

19. ^ Meijer 1986, pp. 170–171

20. ^ Meijer 1986, p. 173 21. ^ a b Meijer 1986, p. 175

22. ^ a b c Connolly (1998), p. 273

23. ^ Appian, The Mithridatic Wars, §92

24. ^ a b Starr (1989), p. 62

25. ^ Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, XXXVI.22 26. ^ Plutarch, Life of Pompey, §24


28. ^ Goldsworthy (2007), p. 186


30. ^ Appian, The Mithridatic Wars, §95-§96

31. ^ Caesar, Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, III.9




35. ^ Saddington 2007, pp. 205–206

36. ^ Saddington 2007, p. 206 37. ^ Saddington 2007, p. 207

38. ^ Saddington 2007, p. 208

39. ^ Tacitus, The Annals II.6

40. ^ Res Gestae, 26.4

41. ^ Webster & Elton (1998), pp. 160-161 42. ^ Webster & Elton (1998), p. 161

43. ^ Tacitus, The Histories, II.12

44. ^ Tacitus, The Histories, II.67

45. ^ a b Webster & Elton (1998), p. 164

46. ^ Tacitus, The Histories, IV.16

47. ^ Tacitus, The Histories, IV.79 48. ^ Tacitus, The Histories, V.23-25

49. ^ Tacitus, Agricola, 25; 29

50. ^ Tacitus, Agricola, 10

51. ^ Tacitus, Agricola, 24

52. ^ Lewis & Runyan (1985), p. 3

53. ^ a b Lewis & Runyan (1985), p. 4 54. ^ a b c d e Casson (1991), p. 213

55. ^ Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Vita Gallienii, 13.6-7

56. ^ Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Vita Gallienii, 13.8-9

57. ^ Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Vita Divi Claudii, 6.2-4; 8.1

58. ^ Zosimus, Historia Nova, I.42-45

59. ^ Eutropius, Breviarium, IX.21 60. ^ Panegyrici Latini, 8.6

61. ^ Panegyrici Latini, 8.12

62. ^ Panegyrici Latini, 6.5; 8.6-8

63. ^ Eutropius, Breviarium 9.22; Aurelius Victor, Book of Caesars 39.42

64. ^ Treadgold (1997), p. 145 65. ^ a b MacGeorge (2002), pp. 306-307

66. ^ Lewis & Runyan (1985), pp. 4-8

67. ^ MacGeorge (2002), p. 307

68. ^ a b c d Casson (1991), p. 188

69. ^ Starr (1960), p. 75 Table 1

70. ^ Saddington 2007, p. 212 71. ^ a b Gardiner 2000, p. 80

72. ^ Saddington 2007, pp. 201–202

73. ^ Starr (1960), p. 39

74. ^ Webster & Elton (1998), pp. 165-166

75. ^ a b Saddington 2007, p. 210

76. ^ Starr (1960), pp. 42-43 77. ^ Saddington 2007, pp. 210–211

78. ^ Wesch-Klein (1998), p. 25

79. ^ Rodgers (1976), p. 60

80. ^ Livy, AUC XXVI.48; XXXVI.42


82. ^ Pflaum, H.G. (1950). Les procurateurs équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain, pp. 50-53 83. ^ Saddington 2007, pp. 202–203

84. ^ a b Potter 2004, p. 77

85. ^ Gardiner 2000, p. 70

86. ^ Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, L.23.2

87. ^ Gardiner 2000, pp. 70, 77 88. ^ Plutarch, Antony, 62

89. ^ Vegetius, De Re Militari, IV.33

90. ^ Casson (1995), p. 141

91. ^ Casson (1995), pp. 357-358; Casson (1991), pp. 190-191

92. ^ Saddington 2007, p. 203

93. ^ Warry (2004), p. 183

94. ^ Warry (2004), p. 98

95. ^ Warry (2004), p. 118

96. ^ Appian, The Civil Wars, V.106 & V.118

97. ^ Warry (2004), pp. 182–183

98. ^ Tacitus, The Annals, IV.5; Strabo, Geography, IV.1.9 99. ^ Gardiner 2000, p. 78

100. ^ Webster & Elton (1998), p. 158

101. ^ Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Vita Commodi, 17.7


103. ^ a b Saddington 2007, p. 215 104. ^ Cleere (1977), pp. 16; 18-19

105. ^ a b Cleere (1977), p. 19

106. ^ a b c Cleere (1977), p. 16

107. ^ Webster & Elton (1998), p. 160

108. ^ Köln-Alteburg at livius.org

109. ^ a b Webster & Elton (1998), p. 162 110. ^ Webster & Elton (1998), pp. 162-165

111. ^ Webster & Elton (1998), p. 163

112. ^ a b Saddington 2007, p. 214

113. ^ Starr (1989), p. 76

114. ^ Tacitus, The Histories, II.83; III.47

115. ^ Starr (1989), p. 77 116. ^ Josephus, The Jewish War, II.16.4

117. ^ Codex Theodosianus, X.23.1

118. ^ Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz: The Fleets and Roman Border Policy

119. ^ a b Notitia Dignitatum, Pars Occ., XXXII.

120. ^ Notitia Dignitatum, Pars Occ., XXXIII.

121. ^ a b c Notitia Dignitatum, Pars Occ., XXXIV. 122. ^ a b Notitia Dignitatum, Pars Orient., XLI.

123. ^ a b Notitia Dignitatum, Pars Orient., XLII.

124. ^ Notitia Dignitatum, Pars Orient., XL.

125. ^ musculus (meaning "small mouse") was a kind of small ship

126. ^ Notitia Dignitatum, Pars Orient., XXXIX. 127. ^ Notitia Dignitatum, Pars Occ., XLII.

128. ^ Notitia Dignitatum, Pars Occ., XXXVIII.

129. ^ Lewis & Runyan (1985), p. 6

130. ^ Classis Britannica at RomanBritain.org

131. ^ Codex Justinianus, XI.2.4

132. ^ Codex Justinianus, XI.13.1 133. ^ Codex Theodosianus, XIII.5.32

References

• Casson, Lionel (1991), The Ancient Mariners: Seafarers and Sea Fighters of the Mediterranean in Ancient

Times, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0691014777, http://books.google.com/?id=4Ls6MczXvBEC

• Casson, Lionel (1995), Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN

0801851300

• Cleere, Henry (1977), "The Classis Britannica" (PDF), CBA Research Report (18): 16–19,

http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/cbaresrep/pdf/018/01804001.pdf, retrieved 2008-10-11

• Connolly, Peter (1998), Greece and Rome at War, Greenhill

• Gardiner, Robert (Ed.) (2004), AGE OF THE GALLEY: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since pre-Classical

Times, Conway Maritime Press, ISBN 978-0851779553

• Goldsworthy, Adrian (2000), The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC, Cassell, ISBN 0-304-

36642-0

• Goldsworthy, Adrian (2003), The Complete Roman Army, Thames & Hudson Ltd., ISBN 0-500-05124-0

• Goldsworthy, Adrian (2007), "A Roman Alexander: Pompey the Great", In the name of Rome: The men who

won the Roman Empire, Phoenix, ISBN 978-0-7538-1789-6

• Gruen, Erich S. (1984), The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome: Volume II, University of California

Press, ISBN 0-520-04569-6

• Lewis, Archibald Ross; Runyan, Timothy J. (1985), European Naval and Maritime History, 300-1500, Indiana

University Press, ISBN 0253205735

• MacGeorge, Penny (2002), "Appendix: Naval Power in the Fifth Century", Late Roman Warlords, Oxford

University Press, ISBN 978-0199252442

• Meijer, Fik (1986), A History of Seafaring in the Classical World, Routledge, ISBN 978-0709935650

• Potter, David (2004), "The Roman Army and Navy", in Flower, Harriet I., The Cambridge Companion to the

Roman Republic, Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–88, ISBN 978-0521003902

• Rodgers, William L. (1967), Naval Warfare Under Oars, 4th to 16th Centuries: A Study of Strategy, Tactics

and Ship Design, Naval Institute Press, ISBN 978-0870214875

• (German) Rost, Georg Alexander (1968), Vom Seewesen und Seehandel in der Antike, John Benjamins

Publishing Company, ISBN 9060323610

• Saddington, D.B. (2007), "Classes. The Evolution of the Roman Imperial Fleets", in Erdkamp, Paul, A

Companion to the Roman Army, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., ISBN 978-1-4051-2153-8

• Starr, Chester G. (1960), The Roman Imperial Navy: 31 B.C.-A.D. 324 (2nd Edition), Cornell University Press

• Starr, Chester G. (1989), The Influence of Sea Power on Ancient History, Oxford University Press US, ISBN

978-0195056679

• Treadgold, Warren T. (1997), A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford University Press, ISBN

0804726302

• Warry, John (2004), Warfare in the Classical World, Salamander Books Ltd., ISBN 0-8061-2794-5

• Webster, Graham; Elton, Hugh (1998), The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D.,

University of Oklahoma Press, ISBN 0806130002

• (German) Wesch-Klein, Gabriele (1998), Soziale Aspekte des römischen Heerwesens in der Kaiserzeit, Franz

Steiner Verlag, ISBN 3515073000

• Workman-Davies, Bradley (2006), Corvus: A Review of the Design and Use of the Roman Boarding Bridge

During the First Punic War 264 -241 B.C., Lulu.com, ISBN 978-1847288820,

http://books.google.com/?id=V5TZSAVLIMcC

External links

• (Italian) The Imperial fleet of Misenum

• The Classis Britannica

• The Roman Fleet, Roman-Empire.net

• The Roman Navy: Masters of the Mediterranean, HistoryNet.com

• Galleria Navale on Navigare Necesse Est

• Port of Claudius, the museum of Roman merchant ships found in Fiumicino (Rome)

• Diana Nemorensis, Caligula's ships in the lake of Nemi.

• Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz: The Fleets and Roman Border Policy

• Forum Navis Romana

Three-banked ("trireme") Roman quinquereme with the corvus boarding bridge. The use of the corvus negated the

superior Carthaginian naval expertise, and allowed the Romans to establish their naval superiority in the western

Mediterranean

Roman as coin of the second half of the 3rd century BC, featuring the prow of a galley, most likely a quinquereme.

Several similar issues are known, illustrating the importance of naval power during that period of Rome's history

A Roman octeris of the 3rd century BCE

A Roman triremis of the 2nd century BCE

An enneris, one of the larger ships of the Roman fleet, 1st century BCE

Pompey the Great. His swift and decisive campaign against the pirates re-established Rome's control over

the Mediterranean sea lanes

Vivid view of the Battle of Actium in this reconstructional illustration of an enneris (a large type of battle

galley, used by Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra)

Silver denarius struck by Sextus Pompeius in 44–43 BC, featuring a bust of Pompey the Great and a Roman

warship

The Battle of Actium, by Lorenzo A. Castro, painted 1672.

A quadriremis, another ship of the combined Roman-Egyptian fleet during the Battle of Actium

A triremis, part of the Roman-Egyptian fleet of Antony and Cleopatra, Battle of Actium

A small Roman biremis, one of the ships fighting at the battle of Actium (source: bas relief in Madrid

Mosaic of a Roman galley, Bardo Museum, Tunisia, 2nd century AD

A

dromo of the West Roman kingdom under Germanic rulers, CE 526

An East Roman penteconteris, featuring already the divided stern which was so typical for the later

byzantine dromons

Roman warship on a Mark Antony denarius

Model of a Roman bireme

Reconstruction of a late Roman navis lusoria at Mainz.

Two-banked lburnians of the Danube fleets during Trajan's Dacian Wars. Casts of reliefs from Trajan's Column, Rome.

Ballistae on a Roman ship


Pages in category "Ancient Roman admirals"

The following 15 pages are in this category, out of 15 total. This list may not reflect recent changes

A

• Marcius Agrippa

• Lucius Arruntius

• Marcus Atilius Regulus

B

• Bonosus (usurper)

D

• Gaius Duilius

L

• Marcus Lurius

• Gaius Lutatius Catulus

M

• Menas (admiral)

P

• Papias (admiral)

• Pliny the Elder

R

• Lucius Aemilius Regillus

S

• Gaius Livius Salinator

• Gnaeus Servilius Geminus

• Titus Statilius Taurus

V

• Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa

Naval tactics in the Age of Galleys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Naval tactics in the age of galleys were used from antiquity to the early 17th century when sailing ships replaced oared galleys.

Weapons in the age of galleys Throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages until the 16th century, the weapons relied on

were:

• the ship itself, used as a battering ram,

• the swords of the crew,

• missile weapons such as bolts from heavy crossbows fixed on the bulwarks, bows and arrows, weights dropped

from a yard or pole rigged out, and the various means of setting an enemy alight; by shooting arrows with

burning tow or by Greek fire or wild fire, blown through tubes (cannae, whence "cannon").

The nature of Greek fire is still an unsettled question, and it is believed by some authorities that the Byzantines of the

Middle Ages were acquainted with the use of gun-powder. However, it is certain that even after the introduction of

artillery in the 14th century, they were very feeble. Early naval tactics All actions were fought at close quarters, where ramming and boarding were possible. But the use

of the ram was only available for a vessel driven by oars. A sailing vessel could not ram unless she were running before

a good breeze. In a light wind her charge would be ineffective, and it could not be made at all from leeward. Therefore,

while fleets depended on the methods of battle at close quarters, two conditions were imposed on the warship:

• she must be small and light, so that her crew could row her with effect, and

• she must carry a numerous crew to work her oars and board or repel boarders. Sails were used by the triremes and other classes of warship, ancient and medieval, when going from point to point – to

relieve the rowers from absolutely exhausting toil. They were lowered in action, and when the combatant had a secure

port at hand, they were left ashore before battle.

These conditions applied alike to Phormio, the Athenian admiral of the 5th century BC, to the Norse king Olaf

Tryggvason of the 10th century AD, and to the chiefs of the Christian and Turkish fleets which fought the battle of Lepanto in AD 1571. There might be, and were, differences of degree in the use made of oar and sail respectively.

Outside the Mediterranean, the sea was unfavourable to the long, narrow and light galley of 120 ft. long and 20 ft. of

beam. But the Norse ship found at Gokstad, though her beam is a third of her length, and she is well adapted for rough

seas, is also a light and shallow craft, to be easily rowed or hauled up on a beach.Some medieval vessels were of

considerable size, but these were the exception; they were awkward, and were rather transports than warships. Given a

warship which is of moderate size and crowded with men, it follows that prolonged cruises, and blockade in the full sense of the word, were beyond the power of the sea commanders of antiquity and the Middle Ages. There were ships

used for trade which with a favourable wind could rely on making six knots. But a war fleet could not provide the

cover, or carry the water and food, needed to keep the crews efficient during a long cruise. So long as galleys were

used, that is to say, till the middle of the 18th century, they were kept in port as much as possible, and a tent was rigged

over the deck to house the rowers. The fleet was compelled to hug the shore in order to find supplies. It always

endeavoured to secure a basis on shore to store provisions and rest the crews. Therefore the wider operations were slowly made. Therefore too, when the enemy was to be waited for, or a port watched, some point on shore was secured

and the ships were drawn up. It was by holding such a point that the Corinthian allies of the Syracusans were able to pin

in the Athenians. The Romans watched Lilybeum in the same way, and Hannibal the Rhodian could run the blockade

before they were launched and ready to stop him. The Norsemen hauled their ships on shore, stockaded them and

marched inland. The Greeks of Homer had done the same and could do nothing else. Ruggiero di Lauria, in AD 1285, waited at the Hormigas with his galleys on the beach till the French were seen to be coming past him. Edward III. In

AD 1350, stayed at Winchelsea till the Spaniards were sighted. The allies at Lepanto remained at anchor near

Dragonera till the last moment.

Line abreast Given that the fighting was at close quarters with ram, stroke of sword, crossbow bolt, arrow, pigs of iron

or lead and wild fire blown through tubes, it follows that the formations and tactics were equally imposed on the

combatants. The formation was inevitably the line abreast – the ships going side by side – for the object was to bring all the rams, or all the boarders into action at once. It was quite as necessary to strike with the prow when boarding as when

ramming. If the vessels were laid side by side the oars would have prevented them from touching.

Ramming The extent to which ramming or boarding would be used respectively would depend on the skill of the

rowers. The highly trained Athenian crews of the early Peloponnesian War relied mainly on the ram. They aimed at

Ancient dashing through an enemy's line, and shaving off the oars from one side of an opponent. When successfully

practised, this maneuver would be equivalent to the dismasting of a sailing line of battle ship. It enabled the assailant to turn, and ram his crippled enemy in the stern. But an attack with the ram might be exceedingly dangerous to the

assailant, if he were not very solidly built. His ram might be broken off in the shock. The Athenians found this a very

real peril, and were compelled to construct their triremes with stronger bows, to contend with the more heavily built

Peloponnesian vessels – whereby they lost much of their mobility. In fact success in ramming depended so much on a

combination of skill and good fortune that it played a somewhat subordinate part in most ancient sea fights. The

Romans baffled the ramming tactics of the Carthaginians by the invention of the corva or crow, a plank with a spike for

hooking onto enemy ships which grappled the prow of the rammer, and provided a gangway for boarders. It's not

certain whether this weapon destabilized ships and led to whole fleets being lost in storms. The Romans did continue

their boarding tactics in the naval battles of the Punic Wars, but are also reported as ramming the Carthiginian vessels

after the abandonment of the corvus. An older and alternative way for boarding was the use of grappling hooks and

planks, also a more flexible system than the corvus. Agrippa introduced a weapon with a function similar to the corvus, the harpax.

The introduction of guns After the introduction of artillery in the 14th century, when guns were carried in the bows of

the galley, it was considered bad management to fire them until the prow was actually touching the enemy. If they were

discharged before the shock there was always a risk that they would be fired too soon, and the guns of the time could

not be rapidly reloaded. The officer-like course was to keep the fire for the last moment, and use it to clear the way for the boarders. As a defense against boarding, the ships of a weaker fleet were sometimes tied side to one another, in the

Middle Ages, and a barrier made with oars and spars. But this defensive arrangement, which was adopted by Olaf

Tryggvason of Norway at Swolder (AD 1000), and by the French at Sluys (AD 1340), could be turned by an enemy

who attacked on the flank. To meet the shock of ramming and to ram, medieval ships were sometimes "bearded", i.e.

fortified with iron bands across the bows. The principles of naval warfare known to the ancient world descended

through Byzantium to the Italian Republics and from them to the West. This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911).

Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Classis Misenensis


The classis Misenensis ("Fleet of Misenum"), later awarded the honorifics praetoria and Pia Vindex, was the senior

fleet of the imperial Roman Navy.

History The classis Misenensis was founded by Caesar Augustus in 27 BC, when the fleet of Italy, until then based

mostly at Ostia, was moved to the new harbour of Portus Julius at Misenum in the Bay of Naples.[1] It was commanded

by a praefectus classis, drawn from the highest levels of the equestrian class, those earning more than 200,000 sesterces a year. Its mission was to control the western part of the Mediterranean Sea, and, as the honorific praetoria, awarded by

Vespasian for its support during the civil war of AD 69,[2] suggests, the classis Misenensis, together with the classis

Ravennatis, formed the naval counterpart of the Praetorian Guard, a permanent naval force at the emperor's direct

disposal.The classis Misenensis recruited its crews mostly from the East, especially from Egypt.[2] Since Rome did not

face any naval threat in the Mediterranean, the bulk of the fleet's crews was idle. Some of the sailors were based in Rome itself, initially housed in the barracks of the Praetorian Guard, but later given their own barracks, the Castra

Misenatium near the Colosseum.[1] There they were used to stage mock naval battles (naumachiae), and operated the

mechanism that deployed the canvas canopy of the Colosseum.[3] Among the sailors of this fleet, Nero levied the legio I

Classis, and used some of its leading officers in the murder of his mother Agrippina the Younger.[1] In 192, the

Misenum fleet supported Didius Julianus, and then participated in the campaign of Septimius Severus against

Pescennius Niger, transporting his legions to the East.[4] The fleet remained active in the East for the next few decades, where the emergence of the Persian Sassanid Empire posed a new threat. In 258–260, the classis Misenensis was

employed in the suppression of a rebellion in North Africa.[5] In 324 the fleet's ships participated in the campaign of

Constantine the Great against Licinius and his decisive naval victory in the Battle of the Hellespont. Afterwards, the

bulk of the ships were moved to Constantinople, where emperor Constantine had moved the capital of the Roman

Empire.

List of known ships The following ship names and types of the classis Misenensis have survived:[1]

• 1 hexeres: Ops

• 1 quinquereme: Victoria

• 9 quadriremes: Fides, Vesta, Venus, Minerva, Dacicus, Fortuna, Annona, Libertas, Olivus

• 50 triremes: Concordia, Spes, Mercurius, Iuno, Neptunus, Asclepius, Hercules, Lucifer, Diana, Apollo, Venus,

Perseus, Salus, Athenonix, Satyra, Rhenus, Libertas, Tigris, Oceanus, Cupidus, Victoria, Taurus, Augustus, Minerva, Particus, Eufrates, Vesta, Aesculapius, Pietas, Fides, Danubius, Ceres, Tibur, Pollux, Mars, Salvia,

Triunphus, Aquila, Liberus Pater, Nilus, Caprus, Sol, Isis, Providentia, Fortuna, Iuppiter, Virtus, Castor

• 11 liburnians: Aquila, Agathopus, Fides, Aesculapius, Iustitia, Virtus, Taurus Ruber, Nereis, Clementia,

Armata, Minerva

By 79 this fleet had probably nothing larger than a quadrireme in service,[6] for Pliny the Elder, commander of the fleet,

investigated the eruption of Vesuvius in a quadrireme, presumably his flagship and the largest class of vessel in the fleet.

References

1. ^ a b c A Companion to the Roman Army, p. 209

2. ^ a b Age of the Galley, p. 80

3. ^ Historia Augusta, Commodus XV.6

4. ^ Age of the Galley, p. 83


6. ^ Pliny the Younger, Letters, VI.16

Sources

• Erdkamp, Paul (ed.) (2007). A Companion to the Roman Army. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. ISBN 978-1-4051-

2153-8.

• Gardiner, Robert (Ed.) (2004). AGE OF THE GALLEY: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since pre-Classical

Times. Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 978-0851779553.

Classis Ravennatis


The classis Ravennas ("Fleet of Ravenna"), later awarded the honorifics praetoria and Pia Vindex, was the second most senior fleet of the imperial Roman Navy after the classis Misenensis. Ravenna had been used for ship construction and as a naval port at least since the Roman civil wars, but the permanent classis

Ravennas was established by Caesar Augustus in 27 BC. It was commanded by a praefectus classis, drawn from the highest ranks of the equestrian class, those earning more than 200,000 sesterces a year, and its

mission was to control the Adriatic Sea and perhaps the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. As the honorific praetoria, awarded by Vespasian for its support during the civil war of AD 69,[1] suggests, together

with the classis Misenensis, it formed the naval counterpart of the Praetorian Guard, a permanent naval force at the emperor's direct disposal. Its home port of Classis (modern Classe), which was named after the fleet, was built under Augustus, and included a canal, the Fossa Augusta, which united the port with the lagoons of

the interior, as well as with the river Po to the north.[2][3] Naval arsenals and docks stretched along the Fossa, in a complex that reached 22 km in length. According to a passage by Cassius Dio, related by Jordanes, the

harbour could accommodate 250 ships.[4] The classis Ravennas recruited its crews mostly from the East, especially from Egypt.[1] Since Rome did not face any naval threat in the Mediterranean, the bulk of the fleet's crews was idle. Some of the sailors were based in Rome itself, initially housed in the barracks of the

Praetorian Guard, but later given their own barracks, the Castra Ravennatium across the Tiber.[5] There they were used to stage mock naval battles (naumachiae), and operated the mechanism that deployed the canvas

canopy of the Colosseum.[6] In 70, Emperor Vespasian also levied the legio II Adiutrix from the marines of classis Ravennas. In the civil war of 192-193, the fleet supported Septimius Severus, and, together with the classes Misenensis, it participated in the campaign against Pescennius Niger, transporting his legions to the

East.[7] The fleet remained active in the East for the next few decades, where the emergence of the Persian Sassanid Empire posed a new threat that required frequent reinforcements to be ferried.[8] In 324 the fleet's

ships participated in the campaign of Constantine the Great against Licinius and his decisive naval victory in the Battle of the Hellespont. Afterwards, the bulk of the ships were moved to Constantinople, where emperor Constantine had moved the capital of the Roman Empire.

List of known ships The following ship names and types of the classis Ravennas have survived: • 2 quinqueremes: Augustus, Victoria.

• 6 quadriremes: Fortuna, Mercurius, Neptunus, Padus, Vesta, Victoria. • 28 triremes: Aesculapius, Apollo, Aquila, Archinix, Ariadna, Augustus, Castor, Concordia,

Costantia, Danae, Danubius, Diana, Felicitas, Hercules, Mars, Mercurius, Minerva, Neptunus, Nereis, Pax, Pietas, Pinnata, Providentia, Silvanus, Triumphus, Venus, Virtus, Victoria.

• 5 liburnians: Ammon, Diana, Pinnata, Satyra, Varvarina.

• 5 other vessels: Clementia, Danubius, Hercules, Mercurius, Victoria.

References

1. ^ a b Age of the Galley, p. 80 2. ^ A Companion to the Roman Army, p. 205 3. ^ Age of the Galley, p. 78

4. ^ Jordanes, Getica 150 5. ^ A Companion to the Roman Army, p. 209

6. ^ Historia Augusta, Commodus XV.6 7. ^ Age of the Galley, p. 83


Sources • Erdkamp, Paul (ed.) (2007). A Companion to the Roman Army. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. ISBN

978-1-4051-2153-8. • Gardiner, Robert (Ed.) (2004). AGE OF THE GALLEY: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since pre-

Classical Times. Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 978-0851779553.

Classis Britannica


The Classis Britannica (literally, British fleet, in the sense of 'the fleet in British waters' or 'the fleet of the province of

Britannia', rather than 'the fleet of the state of Britain') was a provincial naval fleet of the navy of ancient Rome. Its purpose was to control the English Channel and the waters around the Roman province of Britannia. Unlike modern

(and some contemporary Roman) "fighting navies", its job was largely the logistical movement of personnel and

support, and keeping open communication routes across the Channel. There is no literary reference in the classical

historians to the Classis Britannica by that name, and archaeological evidence is also tantalizingly scant (although tiles

stamped CLBR are common along the east Kent coast and in London, suggesting either government buildings or an

early instance of army surplus), meaning that details of its history and form are unfortunately based on a large degree of interpretation.

Invasion A fleet was originally raised for the invasion of Britain under Claudius, with the task of bringing an invasion

force of 40,000 men from the Roman army, plus supplies, to Britain. It continued after the successful invasion to

provide support for the army, shuttling massive quantities of supplies across the English Channel.

Conquest This fleet played a major role in the subsequent conquest of Britannia. However, Tacitus states that strangely, about twenty years after the invasion, it was not present at Suetonius Paulinus's crossing of the Menai Strait to Anglesey

before the Boudican Rebellion.[1] This suggests the force was still occupied in the Channel area, unsuitable to the long

voyage up to north Wales, or too small by then to offer any useful level of support to the ground troops. In the Flavian

period what had been raised initially as a temporary invasion fleet was formalised as the Classis Britannica and made

permanent in statute. Also in the Flavian period, under the governor Agricola, it circumnavigated Scotland, and in 83

attacked the eastern coast of Scotland. One year later the fleet is recorded as having reached the Orkney Islands. [2] Due to the lack of serious naval opposition in the early Imperial period in the area of the fleet's operations[3] - the invasion

crossing, for example, went navally uncontested -, the Classis's main role was as logisitical support both to the army in

Britannia, and also to armies campaigning in later years in Germania.

Hiatus The fleet disappears from the archaeological record towards the middle of the 3rd century but is known from

contemporary sources to have continued in existence after this date.

Carausius Main article: Carausian Revolt In 286, Carausius, a Roman military commander of Gaulish origins, was appointed to command the Classis Britannica, and given the responsibility of eliminating Frankish and Saxon pirates

who had been raiding the coasts of Armorica and Belgic Gaul. However, he was suspected of keeping captured treasure

for himself, and even of allowing the pirates to carry out raids and enrich themselves before taking action against them,

and Maximian ordered his execution. In late 286 or early 287 he learned of this sentence and responded by usurping

power and declaring himself emperor of Britannia and northern Gaul. When the British fleet was attacked by a German and French fleet representing the Roman Empire, the British fleet was victorious, showing that it must have been

substantial at the time. The would-be invaders, however, blamed poor weather for their defeat. By 300, however,

Britannia was once again a part of the larger Roman Empire, and the Classis Britannica restored as a Roman imperial

fleet.

End of empire In the final years of Roman Britain, the fleet was devoted almost entirely to protecting the Eastern and

Southern coasts of Great Britain against first piratic actions and, shortly before the withdrawal of troops from Britain, against Saxon raids against coastal towns and villages on what came to be known as the Saxon Shore. The fleet

probably had some role in the operation of the Saxon Shore Forts.

Ports and harbours It was originally believed that the main base of the fleet was in Richborough but more recent

archaeological work has uncovered one of only three surviving forts occupied by the fleet's marines at Dover,

suggesting this was in fact a major base of the Classis. It may even have been its primary base, though one of the other

surviving fleet forts, at Boulogne-sur-Mer, is far larger and thus said by some to be a more likely contender than Dover for that role.[citation needed] Portus Adurni (which was later adapted and known as Portchester Castle) at the north of

Portsmouth harbour is another contender and believed to have been at the very least a major base for the fleet[4].

Notes

1. ^ Tacitus, Agricola 18

2. ^ Tacitus, Agricola 10, 25, 29 - 30, and 38

3. ^ Though adept at cross-channel maritime trade, the Ancient Britons had no military fleet.

4. ^ Plaque In Portchester Castle Museum

Secondary sources Cleere, Henry, The Classis Britannica, in D E Johnston (ed.), The Saxon shore, 1977

Carausian Revolt The Carausian Revolt (286 – 296 AD) was an episode in Roman history, during which a Roman naval commander,

Carausius, declared himself emperor over Britain and northern Gaul. His Gallic territories were retaken by the western

Caesar, Constantius Chlorus, in 293, after which Carausius was assassinated by his subordinate Allectus. Britain was

regained by Constantius and his subordinate Asclepiodotus in 296.

Revolt Carausius, a Menapian of humble birth, rose through the ranks of the Roman military and was appointed to a

naval command at Bononia (Boulogne), tasked with clearing the English Channel of Frankish and Saxon raiders. However, he was accused of collaborating with the pirates to enrich himself, and the western Augustus, Maximian,

ordered him to be put to death. Carausius responded by declaring himself emperor in Britain.[1] His forces comprised

not only his fleet, augmented by new ships he had built, and the three legions stationed in Britain, but a legion he had

seized in Gaul, a number of foreign auxiliary units, a levy of Gaulish merchant ships, and barbarian mercenaries

attracted by the prospect of booty.[2] A panegyric delivered to Maximian in 288 or 289 AD refers to the emperor preparing an invasion to oust Carausius.[3][4] A later panegyric to Constantius Chlorus says that this invasion failed due

to bad weather, although Carausius claimed it as a military victory,[5] and Eutropius says that hostilities were in vain

thanks to Carausius's military skill, and peace was agreed.[6] Carausius began to entertain visions of legitimacy and

official recognition. He minted his own coins and brought their value in to line with Roman issues as well as

acknowledging and honouring Maximian and then Diocletian. He appears to have appealed to native British

dissatisfaction with Roman rule: he issued coins with legends such as Restitutor Britanniae (Restorer of Britain) and Genius Britanniae (Spirit of Britain). Previously, Britain had been part of the Gallic Empire established by Postumus in

260, which had also included Gaul and Hispania and had only been restored by Aurelian in 274. A milestone from

Carlisle with his name on it suggests that the whole of Roman Britain was in Carausius' grasp.[7]

Recovery of the Empire In 293 Constantius Chlorus, now the western Caesar, isolated Carausius by retaking the

territory he held in Gaul. He besieged the port of Bononia, building a mole across the harbour mouth to prevent the

rebels from escaping by sea and ensure they could not receive maritime aid, and invaded Batavia in the Rhine delta, securing his rear against Carausius's Frankish allies. However, it was impossible to mount an invasion of Britain until a

suitable fleet could be built.[8] Carausius, who had been in power for seven years, was assassinated by his subordinate

Allectus, who assumed command.[9] Three years later, in 296, the reconquest of Britain began. With Maximian holding

the Rhine frontier, Constantius divided his fleet into several divisions. He led one division himself from Bononia;

another, sailing from Le Havre, was commanded by Asclepiodotus, prefect of the Praetorian Guard.[10] They set sail in poor weather, but fog allowed Asclepiodotus's ships to pass Allectus's fleet, stationed at the Isle of Wight, unseen. They

landed in the vicinity of Southampton and burned their ships. The rebels were forced to retreat from the coast, but in

doing so, fell into the hands of another division and were routed. Allectus himself was killed in the battle, having

removed all insignia in the hope that his body would not be identified.[11] Archaeology suggests that Calleva Atrebatum

(Silchester) was the site of his defeat.[12] A group of Roman troops, who had been separated from the main body by the

fog during the channel crossing, caught up with the remnants of Allectus's men, mostly Franks, at Londinium (London), and massacred them.[13] Constantius himself, it seems, did not reach Britain until it was all over, and the panegyrist

claims he was welcomed by the Britons as a liberator.[14]

Medieval British legend Carausius, Allectus, Asclepiodotus and Constantius appear in Geoffrey of Monmouth's

Historia Regum Britanniae (1136) in distorted guise, as rulers of Britain. Here, Carausius is a native Briton who

persuades the Romans to give him a naval command, and uses that to overthrow the king of Britain, Bassianus, or

Caracalla. The Romans send Allectus with three legions to remove him, but Allectus proves an oppressive ruler, and Asclepiodotus, here a duke of Cornwall, leads a popular uprising to depose him. He defeats Allectus near London, and

besieges his last legion in the city. The Romans surrender on the condition they are allowed safe passage out of Britain,

which Asclepiodotus grants, but his allies the Venedoti behead them and throw their heads in the river Gallobroc. Ten

years later Asclepiodotus is deposed by Coel, duke of Colchester, for his part in the persecution of Christians under

Diocletian. The Romans send Constantius to negotiate with him. Coel agrees to pay tribute to Rome and gives

Constantius his daughter Helena in marriage, and upon his death Constantius becomes the new king of Britain.[15]

References

1. ^ Panegyrici Latini 8:6; Aurelius Victor, Book of Caesars 39:20-21; Eutropius, Abridgement of

Roman History 21; Orosius, Seven Books of History Against the Pagans 7:25.2-4

2. ^ Panegyrici Latini 8:12

3. ^ C. E. V. Nixon & Barbara Saylor Rodgers (ed & trans), In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The

Panegyrici Latini, University of California Press, 1994, pp. 42-43

4. ^ Panegyrici Latini 10:12.1

5. ^ Panegyrici Latini 8:12.2

6. ^ Eutropius, Abridgement of Roman History 22

7. ^ Frere, Britannia, p. 327-328

8. ^ Panegyrici Latini 6:5, 8.6-8

9. ^ Panegyrici Latini 8:12; Aurelius Victor, Book of Caesars 39.40; Eutropius, Abridgement of Roman

History 22; Orosius, Seven Books of History Against the Pagans 7:25.6

10. ^ Panegyrici Latini 8:13-14; Aurelius Victor, Book of Caesars 39.42; Eutropius, Abridgement of

Roman History 22; Orosius, Seven Books of History Against the Pagans 7:25.6

11. ^ Panegyrici Latini 8:14-16

12. ^ Frere, Britannia p. 331 13. ^ Panegyrici Latini 8:17

14. ^ Panegyrici Latini 8:19

15. ^ Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae 5.3-6

Naval ram


A naval ram was a weapon carried by varied types of ships, dating back to antiquity. The weapon consisted of an

underwater prolongation of the bow of the ship to form an armoured beak, usually between six and twelve feet (2–4 m)

in length. This would be driven into the hull of an enemy ship in order to puncture the hull and sink, or at least disable, that ship.

Ancient rams The ram was a naval weapon in the Greek/Roman antiquity and was used in such naval battles as

Salamis[1] and Actium. Naval warfare in the Mediterranean rarely used sails, and the use of naval rams specifically

required oarsmen over sails in order to maneuver with accuracy and speed, and particularly to reverse the movement of

a ramming ship to disentangle it from its sinking victim, lest it be pulled down when its victim sank. The Athenians

were especially known for their diekplus and periplus tactics that disabled enemy ships with speed and ramming techniques.[2] The history of the naval rams in antiquity begins with their arrival and use at the Battle of Salamis in 480

BCE. The evidence available to suggest an earlier date for the first appearance of the naval ram relies on stylized

images found on Greek pottery and jewelry, as well as somewhat ambiguous Assyrian reliefs and paintings.[3] Stronger

evidence exists that the naval ram most likely evolved from cutwaters, structures designed to support the keel-stem joint

and allow for greater speed and dynamism in the water.[4] Naval rams required incredible force and manpower, two requirements that most likely hindered the use of the ram until the rise of the Athenian fleet. However, ancient

shipbuilding eventually grew to include pegged mortise and tenon construction, heavier designs, and a wineglass shaped

hull, which allowed for the strength and sturdiness necessary for a ram to be effective in battle without the danger of

twisting off. There is also evidence to suggest that cutwaters were sheathed in thin metal as well, which correlates to the

metal casings on rams, specifically bronze. All of the factors point to a Greek invention of the naval ram, and credit

must also be given for their pioneering use of it against the Persians in the Battle of Salamis.[5] The Athlit ram found off of the coast of Israel is the best example of naval rams discovered to this day. It is thought to be one of the main

weapons of the Athenian trireme, and its construction implies advanced technology developed over long periods of

time. The ram is special because heavy timbers were shaped and attached to the hull, and then a bronze case was created

to fit around the timbers for added strength. The evidence for this lies with the bits of timber found still inside when the

Athlit ram was discovered. The blunt edge of the ram and the patterned protrusion would have been enough to disable a

rigid ship and disperse the force of the impact on the attacking ship to prevent the twisting off of the ram or damage to the ship itself.[6] The Athlit Ram consists of a unitary bronze casting weighing 465 kg,[7] and measuring 226 cm long

with a maximum width of 76 cm, and a maximum height of 96 cm. The bronze that makes up the shell is a high quality

alloy containing 9.78% tin with traces of lead and other elements. The shell was cast as a single piece to fit the timbers

it protects perfectly[8]. This must have been a difficult endeavor without the technical equipment we have now. The ram

can be separated into three parts, the driving center, the bottom plate, and the cowl. The driving center is 30 cm long and 76 cm wide[9]. This is the area of the ram that makes contact with enemy vessels in battle. The front wall of the head

of the ram has the thickest layer of casting at 6.8 cm for extra protection during battle. The surface of the ram was

decorated with several symbols[10]. On each side, an eagle head, a helmet, and an eight point star. These symbols are

similar in dimension, but contain many inconsistencies with each other, suggesting that they were made from the same

mold[9]. The ram has a handle depicting a tri-form thunderbolt[9]. It is attached with mortis and tenon joints pegged with

15 mm oak pegs. The wales and the ramming timber are made to interlock for extra strength. The bottom of the ram features a mortis cut into the ramming timber to fit the most forward end of the keel which has been formed into a four

centimeter thick and ten centimeter long tenon[10]. The ramming face is flat, so the ram can disengage contact easily and

without being pulled or twisted off. Many other historical vessels were used as rams, such as the Korean Turtle ship.

Oar-powered, ram-armed ships remained in use, particularly in the Mediterranean (which has unreliable wind), through

the Middle Ages. The last battle between fleets of oar-powered ships was the Battle of Lepanto, fought in 1571. The

battle of Lepanto was saw the victory of a combined christian fleet over the Ottoman Empire. One of the tactics used by the Christian fleet was to cut the rams off their galleys which enabled their prow cannons to get closer and fire at point

blank onto the deck of the Ottoman galleys[11]

Abandonment of the ram Dutch Ships Ramming Spanish Galleys off the Flemish Coast in October 1602, by Hendrick

Cornelisz Vroom and Cornelis Vroom. Note the size—especially height—disparity between the ships involved. When

naval vessels grew to depend on cannon for fighting and sails for propulsion, the ram became obsolete. Not only did

gunfire allow ships to be sunk or disabled (often) at a distance (which would eliminate the possibility of being boarded

by the other ship's crew), but sailing vessels do not stop and back up easily.[12] In the Age of Sail, only a few intentional

combat rammings were reported, usually of vessels enough smaller than the ramming vessels that the rammed vessels

would be broken in two or submerged by the impact, allowing the ramming ship to continue in the same direction as

before. Steam rams With the development of steam propulsion, the speed, power, and maneuverability it allowed again raised

the idea of using the ship's hull, which could be clad in iron, as an offensive weapon. As early as 1840, the French

admiral Nicolas-Hippolyte Labrousse proposed building a ram steamship, and by 1860, Dupuy de Lôme had designed

an ironclad with a ram.[13] The quick success[14] of the CSS Virginia's ramming attack on the USS Cumberland at the

Battle of Hampton Roads in 1862 attracted much attention and caused many navies to re-think the ram. The first coastal battleship, France's Taureau, was built in 1863 for the purpose of attacking warships at anchor or in narrow straits, and

was armed with a ram.[15] Many ironclad ships were designed specifically to ram opponents; in ships of this type, the

armour belt was prolonged to brace both sides of the ram to increase structural integrity. Several wooden steamships

were purpose-built as rams, or converted from existing commercial vessels, such as the General Price, pictured to the

right. The theory behind the revival of the weapon derived from the fact that, in the period around 1860, armour held

superiority over the ship-mounted cannon. It was believed that an armoured warship could not be seriously damaged by the naval artillery in existence at the time, even at close range. In order to achieve a decisive result in a naval

engagement, therefore, alternative methods of action were believed to be necessary. As it followed, from the same

belief, that a ship armed with a ram could not be seriously damaged by the gunfire of its intended victim, the ram

became, for a brief period, the main armament of many battleships. It was observed that the guns placed on the Taureau

were there "with the sole function of preparing the way for the ram."[16] The frequent use of ramming as a tactic in the

Battle of Lissa (1866) and, to a lesser extent, at the Battle of Iquique also led to many late nineteenth century naval designers equipping their warships with ram bows. This only really aggravated a number of incidents of ships being

sunk by their squadron-mates in accidental collisions as ramming never featured as a viable battle tactic again. The

fixation on ramming may also have inhibited the development of gunnery. When it became clear, towards the end of the

nineteenth century, that breech-loading cannon could hit, and hit effectively, enemy ships at several thousand yards

range, the ineffectiveness of the ram became clear and ships ceased to be fitted with them. No other ironclad was ever

sunk by an enemy ship in time of war by the use of the ram, although the ram was regarded by all major navies for some thirty years as primary battleship armament. A number of ships were, however, rammed in peacetime by ships of

their own navy. The most serious in terms of loss of life was the collision between HMS Victoria and HMS

Camperdown, which took place in the Mediterranean in 1893. The only battleship over submarine victory in history

occurred during World War I, when the battleship HMS Dreadnought rammed and sank a German U-Boat, but

Dreadnought's bow was not intended for ramming enemy vessels. Numerous incidents of destroyers ramming and sinking German U-boats which had been earlier forced to the surface by depth charges or gunfire occurred during the

Second World War.[citation needed]

Torpedo ram Main article: Torpedo ram The torpedo ram was a hybrid torpedo boat combining a ram with torpedo

tubes. Incorporating design elements from the cruiser and the monitor, it was intended to provide a small and

inexpensive weapon systems for coastal defence and other littoral combat. Like monitors, torpedo rams operated with

very little freeboard, sometimes with only inches of hull rising above the water, exposing only their funnels and turrets to enemy fire. In addition to the guns in their turrets, they were also equipped with torpedoes. Early designs

incorporated a spar torpedo that could be extended from the bow and detonated by ramming a target. Later designs used

tube-launched self-propelled torpedoes, but retained the concept of ramming, resulting in designs like HMS

Polyphemus, which had five torpedo tubes, two each port and starboard and one mounted in the centre of her reinforced

ram bow.

Civilian use Naval rams have also been used on civilian vessels.[17] The Seattle fireboat Duwamish, built in 1909, was designed to ram wooden vessels, as a last resort.

References

1. ^ Lazenby, J.F. The Defence of Greece 490–479 BC. Aris & Phillips Ltd., 1993 (ISBN 0-85668-591-

7); pp. 34-37.

2. ^ Coates, J., J. Morrison, and N. Rankov. The Athenian Trireme: The History and Reconstruction of

an Ancient Greek Warship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000 3. ^ Casson, L. "The Ancient Mariners: Seafarers and Sea Fighters of the Mediterranean in Ancient

Times." Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991; pp. 76-77.

4. ^ Mark, Samuel. "The Earliest Naval Ram." International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 37:253-

272, March 2008.

5. ^ Casson, L. The Ancient Mariners: Seafarers and Sea Fighters of the Mediterranean in Ancient

Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991; pp. 76-77

6. ^ Mark, Samuel. "The Earliest Naval Ram." International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 37:253-

272, March 2008

7. ^ The Athlit Ram, Avshalom Zemer, Haifa Museum.

http://www.hms.org.il/Museum/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=84&FID=1196&PID

=2949

8. ^ Mark, S. 2008. “The Earliest Naval Ram” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 35:

261-4

9. ^ a b c Oron, A. 2001. “The Athlit Ram: Classical and Hellenistic Bronze Casting Technology.” MA. Thesis, Texas A&M University

10. ^ a b Casson, L., J. Steffy, E. Linder. 1991. The Athlit Ram. College Station: Texas A&M University

Press.

11. ^ Crowley, Roger. 2009. Empires of the Sea: The final battle for the Mediterranean, 1521-1580.

Faber and Faber, London 12. ^ See, e.g., Sailing Texas Sailing Lessons. Accessed 2010.10.11. (Sailing backwards "is not possible

on all sailboats".)

13. ^ Ropp, Theodore, and Stephen S. Roberts. The Development of a Modern Navy: French Naval

Policy, 1871-1904. Naval Institute Press, 1987; p. 12.

14. ^ The Cumberland sank so quickly that it almost brought the Virginia down as well.

15. ^ Ropp and Roberts, p. 13; Hore, Peter: The Ironclads, page 38. Anness Publishing Ltd, 2006. ISBN 978-1-84476-299-6.

16. ^ Ropp, Theodore, and Stephen S. Roberts. The Development of a Modern Navy: French Naval

Policy, 1871-1904. Naval Institute Press, 1987; p. 13.

17. ^ James Delgado (1988). "Duwamish Fireboat: National Historic Landmark Study". National Park

Service. Archived from the original on 2009-12-29.

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nps.gov%2Fhistory%2Fmaritime%2Fnhl%2Fduwamish.htm&date=2009-12-29.

See

also Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Naval rams

• Ramming at sea warfare

Ram of Olympias, a reconstruction of an ancient Athenian trireme. Metal naval ram ("Athlit ram") of a Hellenistic war galley

.

USS General Price, a Union ram and gunboat, near Baton Rouge, LA, January 18, 1864 The radical Confederate steam ram CSS Manassas

HMS Polyphemus's ram. Originally the Seattle fireboat Duwamish was built with a 'ram' bow.

Corvus (weapon)


Boarding-bridge diagram

The corvus ("crow" in Latin) or harpago (probably the correct ancient name)[1] was a Roman military boarding device

used in naval warfare during the First Punic War against Carthage. In Chapters 1.22-4-11 of his History, Polybius describes this device as a bridge 1.2 m (4 ft) wide and 10.9 m (36 ft) long, with a small parapet on both sides. The

engine was probably used in the prow of the ship, where a system of pulleys and a pole allowed the bridge to be raised

and lowered. There was a heavy spike shaped as a bird's beak on the underside of the device. The spike was designed to

pierce the enemy ship's deck when the boarding-bridge was lowered. This allowed a firm grip between the vessels and a

route for the legionaries to cross to the other ship. In the 3rd century BC, Rome was not a naval power and had little or no experience in war at sea. Before the first Punic war, the Roman Republic had not campaigned outside the Italian

Peninsula. The Republic's military strength was on land, and her greatest assets were the discipline and courage of her

soldiers. The boarding-bridge allowed her to use her marines against the superior Carthaginian naval skills. The

Romans' application of boarding tactics worked; they won several battles, most notably those of Mylae, Sulci, Tyndaris,

and Ecnomus. Despite its advantages, the boarding bridge had serious drawbacks: it could not be used in rough seas

since the stable connection of two working ships endangered each other's structure. Operating in rough seas, the device became useless and was abandoned.[2] According to Bonebaker, Professor of Naval Architecture at Delft, with the

estimated weight of one ton for the boarding bridge, it is "most improbable that the stability of a quinquereme with a

displacement of about 250m³ would be seriously upset".[2] Some other historians[who?] believe that its weight on the prow

compromised the ship's navigability and the Romans lost almost two entire fleets to storms in 255 and in 249 BC,

largely due to the instability caused by the device. These losses were probably the main reason for the abandonment of

the boarding-bridge in ship design by the end of the war. As Roman naval tactics improved and the Roman crews became more experienced, the boarding-bridge was no longer used in battle. It is not mentioned in period sources after

the battle of Ecnomus and apparently the Battle of the Aegates Islands that decided the first Punic war was won without

it. A variant of the boarding bridge, called arpax or harpax, was used in the Battle of Naulochus.

Notes

1. ^ Wallinga p.73-75

2. ^ a b Wallinga p.77-90

References

• Wallinga, Herman Tammo (1956) The boarding-bridge of the Romans, J.B. Wolters Groningen, Djakarta

• Goldsworthy, Adrian (2004). The Fall of Carthage. Cassel Publications. ISBN 0-304-36642-0.

• Gonick, Larry (1994). "The Cartoon History of the Universe II". Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-26520-4.

Link Livius.org: Polybius' description

Hellenistic-era warships


From the 4th century BC on, new types of oared warships appeared in the Mediterranean Sea, superseding the trireme and transforming naval warfare. Ships became increasingly bigger and heavier, including some of the largest wooden

ships ever constructed. These developments were spearheaded in the Hellenistic East, but also to a large extent shared

by the naval powers of the Western Mediterranean, more specifically Carthage and the Roman Republic. While the

wealthy Successor kingdoms in the East built huge warships ("polyremes"), Carthage and Rome, in the intense naval

antagonism during the Punic Wars, relied mostly on medium-sized vessels. At the same time, smaller naval powers employed an array of small and fast craft, which were also used by the ubiquitous pirates. Following the establishment

of complete Roman hegemony in the Mediterranean after the battle of Actium, the nascent Roman Empire faced no

major naval threats. In the 1st century AD, the larger warships were retained only as flagships, and were gradually

supplanted by the light liburnians until, by Late Antiquity, the knowledge of their construction had been lost.

Terminology Most of the warships of the era were distinguished by their names, which were compounds of a number

and a suffix. Thus the English term quinquereme derives from Latin quinque-rēmis and has the Greek equivalent πεντ-ήρης. Both are compounds featuring a prefix meaning "five": Latin quinque, ancient Greek πέντε. The Roman suffix is

from rēmus, "oar": "five-oar".[1] As the vessel cannot have had only five oars, the word must be a figure of speech

meaning something else. There are a number of possibilities. The -ηρης occurs only in suffix form, deriving from

ἐρέσσειν, "to row". As "rower" is eretēs and "oar" is eretmon, -ērēs does not mean either of those but, being based on

the verb, must mean "rowing". This meaning is no clearer than the Latin. Whatever the "five-oar" or the "five-row"

originally meant was lost with knowledge of the construction, and is, from the 5th century on, a hotly debated issue. For the history of the interpretation efforts and current scholarly consensus, see below.

Evolution of design In the great wars of the 5th century BC, such as the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War, the

trireme was the heaviest type of warship used by the Mediterranean navies.[2][3] The trireme (Greek: triērēs, "three-

oared") was propelled by three banks of oars, with one oarsman each. During the early 4th century BC however,

variants of the trireme design began to appear: the invention of the quinquereme (Gk. pentērēs, "five-oared") and the hexareme (Gk. hexērēs, "six-oared") is credited by the historian Diodorus Siculus to the tyrant Dionysius I of Syracuse,

while the quadrireme (Gk. tetrērēs, "four-oared") was credited by Aristotle to the Carthaginians.[4][5][6]

Oaring system Far less is known with certainty about the construction and appearance of these ships than about the

trireme. Literary evidence is fragmentary and highly selective, and pictorial evidence unclear. The fact that the trireme

had three levels of oars (trikrotos naus) led medieval historians, long after the specifics of their construction had been

lost, to speculate that the design of the "four", the "five" and the other later ships would proceed logically, i.e. that the quadrireme would have four rows of oars, the quinquereme five, etc.[7] However, the eventual appearance of bigger

polyremes ("sixes" and later "sevens", "eights", "nines", "tens", and even a massive "forty"), made this theory

implausible. Consequently, during the Renaissance and until the 19th century, it came to be believed that the rowing

system of the trireme and its descendants was similar to the alla sensile system of the contemporary galleys, where

multiple oars were rowed by one oarsman each from the same level.[8] 20th-century scholarship disproved that theory,

and established that the ancient warships were rowed at different levels, with three providing the maximum practical limit. The higher numbers of the "fours", "fives" etc. were therefore interpreted as reflecting the number of files of

oarsmen on each side of the ship, and not an increased number of rows of oars.[9] The most common theory on the

arrangement of oarsmen in the new ship types is that of "double-banking", i.e. that the quadrireme was derived from a

bireme (warship with two rows of oars) by placing two oarsmen on each oar, the quinquereme by placing two oarsmen

on the two uppermost levels (the thranitai and zygitai, according to Greek terminology), and the later hexareme by

placing two rowers on every level.[10] Other interpretations of the quinquereme include a bireme warship with three and two oarsmen, or even a monoreme (warship with a single level of oars) with five oarsmen.[11] The "double-banking"

theory is supported by the fact that the 4th-century quinqueremes were housed in the same ship sheds as the triremes,

and must therefore have had similar width (ca. 16 feet, or 5.3 m), which supports the theory of an evolutionary

progression from the one type to the other.[12] The reasons for the evolution of the polyremes are not very clear. The

most often forwarded argument is one of lack of skilled manpower: the trireme was essentially a ship built for ramming, and successful ramming tactics depended chiefly on the constant maintenance of a highly trained oar crew,[13]

something which few states aside from Athens had the funds or the social structure to do.[14] Using multiple oarsmen

reduced the number of such highly-trained men needed in each crew: only the rower at the tip had to be sufficiently

trained, and he could then lead the others, who simply provided additional motive power.[15] This system was also in use

in Renaissance galleys, but jars with the evidence of ancient crews continuing to be thoroughly trained by their

commanders.[16] The increased number of oarsmen also required a broader hull, which on the one hand reduced the ships' speed, but offered several advantages: larger vessels could be strengthened to better withstand ramming, while the

wider hull increased their carrying capacity, allowing more marines and eventually catapults, to be carried along. The

decks of these ships were also higher above the waterline, while their increased beam afforded them extra stability,

making them superior missile platforms.[17] This was an important fact in an age where naval engagements were

increasingly decided not by ramming but by less technically demanding boarding actions.[14] It has even been suggested

by Lionel Casson that the quinqueremes used by the Romans in the Punic Wars of the 3rd century were of the

monoreme design (i.e. with one level and five rowers on each oar), being thus able to carry the large contingent of 120 marines attested for the Battle of Ecnomus.[16][18]

Construction There were two chief design traditions in the Mediterranean, the Greek and the Phoenician/Carthaginian

one, which was later copied by the Romans. As exemplified in the trireme, the Greeks used to project the upper level of

oars through an outrigger (parexeiresia), while the later Punic tradition heightened the ship, and had all three tiers of

oars projecting directly from the side hull.[19] Based on iconographic evidence from coins, Morrison and Coates have determined that the Punic triremes in the 5th and early 4th centuries BC were largely similar to their Greek

counterparts, most likely including an outrigger.[20] From the mid-4th century however, at about the time the

quinquereme was introduced in Phoenicia, there is evidence of ships without outriggers. This would have necessitated a

different oar arrangement, with the middle level placed more inwards, as well as a different construction of the hull,

with side-decks attached to it. From the middle of the 3rd century BC onwards, Carthaginian "fives" display a separate

"oar box" that contained the rowers and that was attached to the main hull. This development of the earlier model entailed further modifications, meaning that the rowers would be located above deck, and essentially on the same

level.[21][22] This would allow the hull to be strengthened, and have increased carrying capacity in consumable supplies,

as well as improve the ventilation conditions of the rowers, an especially important factor in maintaining their stamina,

and thereby improving the ship's maintainable speed.[23] It is unclear however whether this design was applied to

heavier warships, and although the Romans copied the Punic model for their quinqueremes, there is ample iconographic

evidence of outrigger-equipped warships used until the late imperial period. In the Athenian Sicilian Expedition of 415-413 BC, it became apparent that the topmost tier of rowers, the thranitai, of the "aphract" (un-decked and unarmored)

Athenian triremes were vulnerable to attack by arrows and catapults. Given the prominence of close-quarters boarding

actions in later years,[13] vessels were built as "cataphract" ships, with a closed hull to protect the rowers, and a full deck

able to carry marines and catapults.[5][24]

Quadrireme Pliny the Elder reports that Aristotle ascribed the invention of the quadrireme (Latin: quadriremis; Greek:

τετρήρης, tetrērēs) to the Carthaginians.[25] Although the exact date is unknown, it is most likely that the type was developed in the latter half of the 4th century BC.[26] Their first attested appearance is at the Siege of Tyre by Alexander

the Great in 332 BC,[27] and a few years later, they appear in the surviving naval lists of Athens.[5][28] In the period after

Alexander's death (323 BC), the quadrireme proved very popular: the Athenians made plans to build 200 of these ships,

and 90 out of 240 ships of the fleet of Antigonus I Monophthalmus (r. 306–301 BC) were "fours". Subsequently, the

quadrireme was favored as the main warship of the Rhodian navy, the sole professional naval force in the Eastern Mediterranean.[29] In the Battle of Mylae in 36 BC, "fours" were the most common ship type fielded by the fleet of

Sextus Pompeius,[30] and several ships of this kind are recorded in the two praetorian fleets of the imperial Roman navy.

It is known from references from both the Second Punic War and the battle of Mylae that the quadrireme had two levels

of oarsmen, and was therefore lower than the quinquereme,[28] while being of about the same width (ca. 5.6 m).[31] Its

displacement must have been around 60 tonnes, and its carrying capacity at ca. 75 marines.[31] It was especially valued

for its great speed and maneuverability, while its relatively shallow draught made it ideal for coastal operations.[28] The "four" was classed as a "major ship" by the Romans (maioris formae),[28] but as a light craft, serving alongside triremes,

in the navies of the major Hellenistic kingdoms like Egypt.[32]

Quinquereme Perhaps the most famous of the Hellenistic-era warships, because of its extensive use by the

Carthaginians and Romans, the quinquereme (Latin: quinqueremis; Greek: πεντήρης, pentērēs) was invented by

Dionysius I of Syracuse (r. 405–367 BC) in 399 BC as part of a major naval armament program directed against the

Carthaginians.[33] During most of the 4th century, the "fives" were the heaviest type of warship, and often used as flagships of fleets composed of triremes and quadriremes.[34] Sidon had them by 351, and Athens fielded some in 324.[5]

In the East, they were superseded as the heaviest ships by the massive polyremes that began appearing in the last two

decades of the 4th century,[5] but in the West, they remained the mainstay of the Carthaginian navy. When the Roman

Republic, which hitherto lacked a significant navy, was embroiled in the First Punic War with Carthage, the Roman

Senate set out to construct a fleet of 100 quinqueremes and 20 triremes.[35] According to Polybius, the Romans seized a

shipwrecked Carthaginian quinquereme and used it as a blueprint for their own ships,[36] but it is stated that the Roman copies were heavier than the Carthaginian vessels, which were better built.[34] The quinquereme provided the workhorse

of the Roman and Carthaginian fleets throughout their conflicts, although "fours" and "threes" are also mentioned.

Indeed, so ubiquitous was the type that Polybius uses it as a shorthand for "warship" in general.[37] According to

Polybius, at the Battle of Ecnomus the Roman quinqueremes carried a total crew of 420, 300 of whom were rowers, and

the rest marines.[38] Leaving aside a deck crew of ca. 20, and accepting the 2–2–1 pattern of oarsmen, the quinquereme would have 90 oars in each side, and 30-strong files of oarsmen.[34] The fully-decked quinquereme could also carry a

marine detachment of 70 to 120, giving a total complement of about 400.[13] A "five" would be ca. 45 m long, displace

around 100 tonnes, be some 5 m wide at water level, and have its deck standing ca. 3 m above the sea.[13] Polybius is

explicit in calling the quinquereme superior as a warship to the old trireme,[39] which was retained in service in

significant numbers by many smaller navies. Accounts by Livy and Diodorus Siculus also show that the "five", being

heavier, performed better than the triremes in bad weather.[34]

Hexareme The hexareme or sexireme (Latin: hexaremis; Greek: ἑξήρης, hexērēs) is affirmed to have been invented in

Syracuse by the ancient historians Pliny the Elder and Aelian.[40] "Sixes" were certainly present in the fleet of Dionysius

II of Syracuse (r. 367–357 and 346–344 BC), but they may well have been invented in the last years of his father,

Dionysius I.[26] "Sixes" were rarer than smaller vessels, and appear in the sources chiefly as flagships: at the Battle of Ecnomus, the two Roman consuls each had a hexareme, Ptolemy XII (80–58 and 55–51 BC) had one as his personal

flagship, as did Sextus Pompeius.[26][31] At the battle of Actium, hexaremes were present in both fleets, but with a

notable difference: while in the fleet of Octavian they were the heaviest type of vessel, in the fleet of Mark Antony they

were the second smallest, after the quinqueremes.[41] A single hexareme, the Ops, is recorded as the heaviest ship

serving in the praetorian Fleet of Misenum. The exact arrangement of the hexareme's oars is unclear. If it evolved naturally from the earlier designs, it would be a trireme with two rowers per oar;[42] the less likely alternative is that it

had two levels with three oarsmen at each.[26] Reports about "sixes" used during the 1st-century BC Roman civil wars

indicate that they were of a similar height to the quinqueremes, and record the presence of towers on the deck of a "six"

serving as flagship to Marcus Junius Brutus.[26]

Septireme Pliny the Elder attributes the creation of the septireme (Latin: septiremis; Greek: ἑπτήρης, heptērēs) to none

less than Alexander the Great.[43] Curtius corroborates this, and reports that the king gave orders for wood for 700 septiremes to be cut in Mount Lebanon,[44] to be used in his projected circumnavigations of the Arabian peninsula and

Africa. Demetrius Poliorcetes had seven such ships, built in Phoenicia, and later Ptolemy II (r. 283–246 BC) had 36

septiremes constructed.[45] Pyrrhus of Epirus (r. 306–302 and 297–272 BC) also apparently had at least one "seven",

which was captured by the Carthaginians and eventually lost at Mylae.[46] Presumably, the septireme was derived by

adding a standing rower to the lower level of the hexareme.[45]

Octeres Very little is known about the octeres (Greek: ὀκτήρης, oktērēs). At least two of their type were in the fleet of Philip V of Macedon (r. 221–179 BC) at the Battle of Chios in 201 BC, where they were rammed in their prows. Their

last appearance is at Actium, where Mark Antony is said by Plutarch to have had many "eights".[45] Based on the

comments of Orosius that the larger ships in Antony's fleet were only as high as the quinqueremes (their deck standing

at ca. 3 m above water), it is presumed that "eights", as well as the "nines" and "tens", were rowed at two levels.[47] An

exceptionally large "eight", the Leontophoros, is recorded by Memnon of Heraclea to have been built by Lysimachus (r.

306–281 BC). It was richly decorated, required 1600 rowers (8 files of 100 per side) and could support 1200 marines. Remarkably for a ship of its size, its performance was very good.[45]

Enneres The enneres (Greek: ἐννήρης) is first recorded in 315 BC, when three of their type were included in the fleet

of Antigonus Monophthalmus. The presence of "nines" in Antony's fleet at Actium is recorded by Florus and Cassius

Dio, although Plutarch makes explicit mention only of "eights" and "tens". The oaring system may have been a

modification of the quadrireme, with two teams of five and four oarsmen.[48] Deceres Like the septireme, the deceres (Greek: δεκήρης, dekērēs) is attributed by Pliny to Alexander the Great,[43] and

they are present alongside "nines" in the fleet of Antigonus Monophthalmus in 315 BC. Indeed, it is most likely that the

"ten" was derived from adding another oarsman to the "nine". A "ten" is mentioned as Philip V's flagship at Chios in

201 BC, and their last appearance was at Actium, where they constituted Antony's heaviest ships.[48]

Larger polyremes The tendency to build ever bigger ships that appeared in the last decades of the 4th century did not

stop at the "ten". Demetrius Poliorcetes built "elevens", "thirteens", "fourteens", "fifteens" and "sixteens", while Ptolemy II's navy fielded 14 "elevens", 2 "twelves", 4 "thirteens", and even one "twenty" and two "thirties".[9][48]

Eventually, Ptolemy IV (r. 221–204 BC) built a "forty" (tessarakonteres) that was 128 m long, required 4,000 rowers

and 400 other crew, and could support a force of 3,000 marines on its decks. It must be noted however that there is no

indication of any of these monsters actually participating in battle.[49] The larger polyremes were most likely double-

hulled catamarans. John Morrison argues that, with the exception of the "forty", these ships must have been rowed at

two levels.[48] Light warships Several types of fast vessels were used during this period, the successors of the 6th and 5th-century BC

triacontors (τριακόντοροι, triakontoroi, "thirty-oars") and pentecontors (πεντηκόντοροι, pentēkontoroi, "fifty-oars").

Their primary use was in piracy and scouting, but they also found their place in the battle line.

Lembos The term lembos (from Greek: λέµβος, "skiff", in Latin lembus), is used generically for boats or light vessels,

and more specifically for a light warship,[50] most commonly associated with the vessels used by the Illyrian tribes,

chiefly for piracy, in the area of Dalmatia.[51] This type of craft was also adopted by Philip V of Macedon, and soon after by the Seleucids, Rome, and even the Spartan king Nabis in his attempt to rebuild the Spartan navy.[52] In

contemporary authors, the name was associated with a class rather than a specific type of vessels, as considerable

variation is evident in the sources: the number of oars ranged from 16 to 50, they could be one- or double-banked, and

some types did not have a ram, presumably being used as couriers and fast cargo vessels.[53]

Hemiolia The hemiolia or hemiolos (Greek: ἡµιολία [ναῦς] or ἡµίολος [λέµβος]) was a light and fast warship that appeared in the early 4th century BC. It was particularly favored by pirates in the eastern Mediterranean,[54] but also

used by Alexander the Great as far as the rivers Indus and Hydaspes, and by the Romans as a troop transport.[55] It is

indeed very likely that the type was invented by pirates, probably in Caria.[56] Its name derives from the fact that it was

manned by one and a half files of oarsmen on each side, with the additional half file placed amidships, where the hull

was wide enough to accommodate them. Thus these ships gained motive power without significantly increasing the

ship's weight.[57] Little is known of their characteristics, but Arrian, based on Ptolemy I, includes them amongst the

triacontors. This possibly indicates that they had 15 oars on each side, with a full file of ten and a half file of five, the

latter possibly double-manning the middle oars instead of rowing a separate set of oars.[58] Given their lighter hulls,

greater length and generally slimmer profile, the hemiolia would have had an advantage in speed even over other light

warships like the liburnian.[47]

Trihemiolia The trihemiolia (Greek: τριηµιολία [ναῦς]) first appears in accounts of the Siege of Rhodes by Demetrius Poliorcetes in 304 BC, where a squadron of trihemioliai was sent out as commerce raiders.[59] The type was one of the

chief vessels of the Rhodian navy, and it is very likely that it was also invented there, as a counter to the pirates' swift

hemioliai.[60][61] So great was the attachment of the Rhodians to this type of vessel, that for a century after their navy

was abolished by Gaius Cassius Longinus in 46 BC, they kept a few as ceremonial vessels.[62] The type was classed with

the trireme, and had two and a half files of oarsmen on each side. Judging from the Lindos relief and the famous Nike of Samothrace, both of which are though to represent trihemioliai,[47] the two upper files would have been accommodated

in an oarbox, with the half-file located beneath them in the classic thalamitai position of the trireme.[32] The Lindos

relief also includes a list of the crews of two trihemioliai, allowing us to deduce that each was crewed by 144 men, 120

of whom were rowers (hence a full file numbered 24).[32] Reconstruction based on the above sculptures shows that the

ship was relatively low, with a boxed-in superstructure, a displacement of ca. 40 tonnes, and capable of reaching speeds

comparable with those of a full trireme.[47] The trihemiolia was a very successful design, and was adopted by the navies of Ptolemaic Egypt and Athens among others. Despite being classed as lighter warships, they were sometimes

employed in a first-line role, for instance at the Battle of Chios.[32]

Liburnians The liburnian (Latin: liburna, Greek: λιβυρνίς, libyrnis) was a variant of lembos invented by the tribe of the

Liburnians. Initially used for piracy and scouting, this light and swift vessel was adopted by the Romans during the

Illyrian Wars, and eventually became the mainstay of the fleets of the Roman Empire following Actium, displacing the

heavier vessels. Especially the provincial Roman fleets were composed almost exclusively of liburnians.[63] Livy, Lucan and Appian all describe the liburnian as bireme; they were fully decked (cataphract) ships, with a sharply pointed prow,

providing a more streamlined shape designed for greater speed.[64] In terms of speed, the liburnian was probably

considerably slower than a trireme, but on a par with a "five".[56]

Armament and tactics A change in the technology of conflict had taken place to allow these juggernauts of the seas to

be created, as the development of catapults had neutralised the power of the ram, and speed and manoeuvrability were

no longer as important as they had been. It was easy to mount catapults on galleys; Alexander the Great had used them to considerable effect when he besieged Tyre from the sea in 332 BC. The catapults did not aim to sink the enemy

galleys, but rather to injure or kill the rowers (as a significant number of rowers out of place on either side would ruin

the performance of the entire ship and prevent its ram from being effective). Now combat at sea returned to the

boarding and fighting that it had been before the development of the ram, and larger galleys could carry more soldiers.

Some of the later galleys were monstrous in size, with oars as long as 17 metres each pulled by as many as eight rowers. With so many rowers, if one of them was killed by a catapult shot, the rest could continue and not interrupt the stroke.

The innermost oarsman on such a galley had to step forward and back a few paces with each stroke.[citation needed]

Roman The large galleys must have been very sluggish and could be defeated by large numbers of smaller ships. The

Roman navies consisted of triremes, quadriremes and quinqueremes. Though armed with a ram, these ships usually

fought by boarding rather than ramming. The Romans during the First Punic war used a special wooden boarding ramp

36 ft (11 m) long and 4 ft (1.22 m) wide, with a long metal spike on the bottom that could be dropped onto an enemy ship to immobilize the ship and facilitate boarding.[65] This device was called a corvus or "crow". But this invention led

to the destruction of complete fleets during storms[citation needed]. Therefore at the decisive battle of the Aegates Islands

and afterwards it was no longer employed by the Roman Navy. According to Polybius another invention was called the

"bear" and simply hit the enemy ship like a ram, but did not penetrate the hull. It was used to unbalance it and throw

parts of the crew out of their rowing benches or from deck. In the last great naval battle of the ancient world, at Actium

in 31 BC, Octavian's lighter and more manoeuvrable ships defeated Antony's heavy fleet. These lighter ships increasingly relied on shooting and burning the enemy. After that, with the Roman Empire in charge of the entire

Mediterranean, a heavy navy was no longer needed. By 325 there were no more quinqueremes. Still there were naval

wars to fight piracy from time to time and the fleet was politically influential because it controlled the grain supply.

Notes

1. ^ Lewis, Charlton T.; Charles Short (1879, 2009). "rēmus". A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews'

edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten. Oxford, Medford: Clarendon Press, Tufts University.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=re_mus1&highlight=remus

.

2. ^ Morrison (2004), p. 66

3. ^ Goldsworthy (2000), p. 98 4. ^ Morrison (2004), pp. 66, 68

5. ^ a b c d e de Souza (2008), p. 358

6. ^ Casson (1995), p. 97

7. ^ Casson (1995), pp. 78–79, 99

8. ^ Casson (1995), p. 79

9. ^ a b de Souza (2008), p. 357

10. ^ Casson (1995), p. 101

11. ^ Goldsworthy (2000), p. 99

12. ^ Casson (1995), p. 102

13. ^ a b c d Coates (2004), p. 138

14. ^ a b Goldsworthy (2000), p. 102 15. ^ Casson (1995), p. 104

16. ^ a b de Souza (2008), p. 359

17. ^ de Souza (2008), pp. 359–360

18. ^ Casson (1995), p. 105

19. ^ Casson (1995), pp. 94–95 20. ^ Coates (2004), p. 137

21. ^ Coates (2004), pp. 137–138

22. ^ Morrison & Coates (1996), pp. 259–260, 270–272

23. ^ Coates (2004), pp. 129–130, 139

24. ^ Meijer (1986), p. 120

25. ^ Pliny, Natural History, VII.207 26. ^ a b c d e Morrison (2004), p. 70

27. ^ Curtius, IV.3.14

28. ^ a b c d Morrison (2004), p. 71

29. ^ Casson (1995), p. 306

30. ^ Morrison (2004), pp. 70–71

31. ^ a b c d Coates (2004), p. 139 32. ^ a b c d Morrison (2004), p. 75

33. ^ Morrison (2004), p. 68

34. ^ a b c d Morrison (2004), p. 69

35. ^ Goldsworthy (2000), p. 97

36. ^ Polybius, The Histories, I.20–21

37. ^ Goldsworthy (2000), p. 104 38. ^ Polybius, I.26.7

39. ^ Polybius, I.63.8

40. ^ Pliny, Natural History, VII.207; Aelian, Various History, VI.12

41. ^ Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, L.23.2

42. ^ Meijer (1986), p. 119 43. ^ a b Pliny, Natural History, VII.206

44. ^ Curtius, X.1.19

45. ^ a b c d Morrison (2004), p. 76

46. ^ Goldsworthy (2000), p. 107

47. ^ a b c d Coates (2004), p. 140

48. ^ a b c d Morrison (2004), p. 77 49. ^ de Souza (2008), pp. 357–358

50. ^ Casson (1995), p. 162

51. ^ Casson (1995), p. 125

52. ^ Casson (1995), pp. 125–126

53. ^ Casson (1995), p. 126

54. ^ Casson (1995), p. 128 55. ^ Morrison (2004), pp. 73–74

56. ^ a b Morrison (2004), p. 73

57. ^ Morrison (2004), p. 74

58. ^ Morrison (2004), pp. 74–75

59. ^ Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, XX.93.3

60. ^ Casson (1995), pp. 129–130 61. ^ Meijer (1986), p. 142

62. ^ Casson (1995), p. 131

63. ^ Morrison (2004), p. 72

64. ^ Morrison (2004), pp. 72–73

65. ^ Gabriel, Richard A.. "Masters of the Mediterrranean". Military History (December 2007).

References

• Casson, Lionel (1991). The Ancient Mariners (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01477-9.

• Casson, Lionel (1994). "The Age of the Supergalleys". Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times. University of

Texas Press. ISBN 029271162X. http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/ships.pdf

• Casson, Lionel (1995). Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN

0801851300

• Coates, John F. (2004). "The Naval Architecture and Oar Systems of Ancient Galleys". In Gardiner, Robert.

Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since pre-Classical Times. Conway Maritime Press. pp. 127–141.

ISBN 978-0851779553

• Foley, Vernon; Soedel, Werner (April 1981). "Ancient oared warships". Scientific American 244 (4): 116–129.

• Goldsworthy, Adrian (2000). The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC. Cassell. ISBN 0-304-

36642-0.

• Meijer, Fik (1986). A History of Seafaring in the Classical World. Croom and Helm. ISBN 0312000758.

• J. S. Morrison and R. T. Williams, Greek Oared Ships: 900–322 BC, Cambridge University Press, 1968.

• Morrison, John S.; Coates, John F. (1996). Greek and Roman Oared Warships. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ISBN 1900188074.

• Morrison, John S. (2004). "Hellenistic Oared Warships, 399–31 BC". In Gardiner, Robert. Age of the Galley:

Mediterranean Oared Vessels since pre-Classical Times. Conway Maritime Press. pp. 66–77. ISBN 978-

0851779553

• de Souza, Philip (2008). "Naval Forces". In Sabin, Philip; van Wees, Hans; Whitby, Michael. The Cambridge

History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Volume 1: Greece, the Hellenistic world and the rise of Rome. Cambridge

University Press. pp. 357–367. ISBN 978-0521857796

• Polybius History

Bireme Roman warships, probably liburnians, of the Danube fleet during Trajan's Dacian Wars.

Relief of a Rhodian galley, most likely a trihemiolia, carved in the rock beneath the acropolis of Lindos.

Graffiti from the Greek colony of Nymphaion in the Crimea, depicting a heavy polyreme of the 3rd century BC, with

fore- and aft-castles. The Isola Tiberina prow in Rome, depicting a Greek-type "five" or "six", as evidenced by the outrigger.[31]

Depiction of the position of the rowers in three different levels (from top: thranitai, zygitai and thalamitai) in a Greek

trireme. 19th-century interpretation of the quinquereme's oaring system, with five levels of oars.

The famous 2nd century BC Nike of Samothrace, standing atop the prow of an oared warship, most probably a trihemiolia.

Trireme


A trireme (from Latin triremis, literally "three-oarer") was a type of galley, a Hellenistic-era warship that was used by

the ancient maritime civilizations of the Mediterranean, especially the Phoenicians, ancient Greeks and Romans. The trireme derives its name from its three rows of oars on each side, manned with one man per oar. The early trireme was a

development of the penteconter, an ancient warship with a single row of 25 oars on each side, and of the bireme (Greek:

διήρης), a warship with two banks of oars, probably of Phoenician origin.[1] As a ship it was fast and agile, and became

the dominant warship in the Mediterranean from the 7th to the 4th centuries BC, when they were largely superseded by

the larger quadriremes and quinqueremes. Triremes played a vital role in the Persian Wars, the creation of the Athenian

maritime empire, and its downfall in the Peloponnesian War. In English, no differentiation is made between the Greek triērēs and the Latin triremis. This is sometimes a source of confusion, as in other languages these terms refer to

different styles of ships. Though the term today is used almost exclusively for ancient warships, modern historians also

refer to medieval and early modern galleys with three banks of oars per side as triremes.[2] The rowing arrangement of

these differed considerably, though, since knowledge of the multi-level structure of the original triremes was lost some

time during Late Antiquity. Origin The exact origin of the trireme is uncertain and debated, as our evidence comes from literary sources, depictions

in reliefs and pottery fragments, which are open to misinterpretations. Depictions of two-tiered ships (biremes), with or

without the parexeiresia (the outriggers, see below), are common in 8th century BC vases and pottery fragments, and it

is at the end of that century that the first references to three-tiered ships are found. According to Thucydides, the trireme

was introduced to Greece by the Corinthians in the late 8th century BC, and the Corinthian Ameinocles built four such

ships for the Samians.[3] Although this was interpreted by later writers, Pliny and Diodorus, to mean that triremes were invented in Corinth,[4] it is likely that the earliest three-tiered warships originated in Phoenicia. Fragments from an 8th

century relief at the Assyrian capital of Nineveh depicting the fleets of Tyre and Sidon have been interpreted as

depicting two- and three-level warships, fitted with rams. The 2nd century Christian scholar Clement of Alexandria,

drawing on earlier works, explicitly attributes the invention of the trireme (trikrotos naus, "three-tiered ship") to the

Sidonians.[5]

Early use and development Herodotus mentions that the Egyptian pharaoh Necho II (610–595 BC) built triremes on the Nile, for service in the Mediterranean, and in the Red Sea, but this reference is disputed by modern historians, and

attributed to a confusion, since "triērēs" was by the 5th century used in the generic sense of "warship", regardless its

type.[6] The first definite reference to the use of triremes in naval combat dates to ca. 525 BC, when, according to

Herodotus, the tyrant Polycrates of Samos was able to contribute 40 triremes to a Persian invasion of Egypt.[7]

Thucydides meanwhile clearly states that in the time of the Persian invasions, the majority of the Greek navies consisted

of (probably two-tiered) penteconters and ploia makrá ("long ships").[8] In any case, by the early 5th century, the trireme

was becoming the dominant warship type of the eastern Mediterranean, with minor differences between the "Greek"

and "Phoenician" types, as literary references and depictions of the ships on coins make clear. The first large-scale naval

battle where triremes participated was the Battle of Lade during the Ionian Revolt, where the combined fleets of the

Greek Ionian cities were defeated by the Persian fleet, composed of squadrons from their Phoenician, Carian, Cypriot and Egyptian subjects.

The Persian Wars Partly as a result of Athenian support to the Ionian Greeks, the Persian Great King Darius started

moving against metropolitan Greece. The Persian fleet roamed the Aegean Sea unopposed, but the first invasion force

was defeated at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC. The second invasion, under Xerxes, included a massive land army

and a large navy, which were to cooperate closely. Athens was at that time embroiled in a conflict with the neighbouring island of Aegina, which possessed a formidable navy. In order to counter this, and possibly with an eye

already at the mounting Persian preparations, in 482 BC the Athenian statesman Themistocles used his political skills

and influence to persuade the Athenian assembly to start the construction of 200 triremes, using the income of the

newly discovered silver mines at Laurion. The first clash with the Persian navy was at the Battle of Artemisium, where

both sides suffered great casualties. However, the decisive naval clash occurred at Salamis, where Xerxes' invasion fleet

was decisively defeated.

"Tereus: Where are you from? Euelpides: From where the good triremes come (i.e. Athens)"

Aristophanes, The Birds

After Salamis and another Greek victory over the Persian fleet at Mycale, the Ionian cities were freed, and the Delian

League was formed under the aegis of Athens. Gradually, the predominance of Athens turned the League effectively

into an Athenian Empire. The source and foundation of Athens' power was her strong fleet, composed of over 200

triremes. It not only secured control of the Aegean Sea and the loyalty of her allies, but also safeguarded the trade routes

and the grain shipments from the Black Sea, which fed the city's burgeoning population. In addition, as it provided

permanent employment for the city's poorer citizens, the fleet played an important role in both maintaining and promoting the radical Athenian form of democracy. Athenian maritime power is the first example of thalassocracy in

world history. Aside from Athens, other major naval powers of the era included Syracuse, Corfu and Corinth. In the

subsequent Peloponnesian War, naval battles fought by triremes were crucial in the power balance between Athens and

Sparta. Despite numerous land engagements, Athens was finally defeated through the destruction of her fleet during the

Sicilian Expedition and finally, at the Battle of Aegospotami, at the hands of Sparta and her allies. Design No surviving written source gives complete information on the construction or form of the trireme. Already in

the 4th century, the writer Zosimus lamented the loss of the information concerning the trireme's construction.[9] It is

worth noting that with the 1987 construction of Olympias, historians and researchers became aware of how dreadful the

conditions aboard triremes truly were. For example, Olympias had to be cleaned every five days due to the stench of

170 rowers' sweat. Keep in mind that these modern rowers used toilet facilities, presumably unlike the rowers in

antiquity.[10] Because the triremes had positive buoyancy, no remains of the ship have been found on the seabed,[11] and scholars have had to rely on indirect evidence in texts, depictions on monuments and amphorae, as well as indirect

archaeological evidence, most prominently the ship sheds of Piraeus. Most of it concerns the "classical" type of the 5th

century, especially as used by Athens. Valuable further information as to the validity of past assumptions was provided

by the trireme reconstruction project (see below). Triremes required a great deal of upkeep in order to stay afloat, as

references to the replacement of ropes, sails, rudders, oars and masts in the middle of campaigns suggest.[10][12] They

also would become waterlogged if left in the sea for too long. In order to prevent this from happening, ships would have to be pulled from the water during the night. The use of lightwoods meant that the ship could be carried ashore by as

few as 140 men.[13] Beaching the ships at night however, would leave the troops vulnerable to surprise attacks. While

well-maintained triremes would last up to 25 years, during the Peloponnesian War, Athens had to build nearly 20

triremes a year to maintain their fleet of 300.[10] The Athenian trireme had two great cables of about 47 mm in diameter

and twice the ship's length called hypozomata (undergirding), and carried two spares. They were possibly rigged fore

and aft from end to end along the middle line of the hull just under the main beams and tensioned to 13.5 tonnes force. The hypozomata were considered important and secret: their export from Athens was a capital offence.[14] This cable

would act as a stretched tendon straight down the middle of the hull, and would have prevented hogging. Additionally,

hull plank butts would remain in compression in all but the most severe sea conditions, reducing working of joints and

consequent leakage.[15] The hypozomata would also have significantly braced the structure of the trireme against the

stresses of ramming, giving it an important advantage in combat.[16] Dimensions Excavations of the ship sheds (neōsoikoi) at the harbour of Zea in Piraeus, which was the main war

harbour of ancient Athens, were first carried out by Dragatsis and Wilhelm Dörpfeld in the 1880s.[17] These have

provided us with a general outline of the Athenian trireme. The sheds were ca. 40 m long and just 6 m wide. These

dimensions are corroborated by the evidence of Vitruvius, whereby the individual space allotted to each rower was 2

cubits.[18] With the Doric cubit of 0.49 m, this results in an overall ship length of just under 37 m.[19] The height of the

sheds' interior was established as 4.026 metres[citation needed], leading to estimates that the height of the hull above the

water surface was ca. 2.15 metres. Its draught was relatively shallow, about 1 metre, which, in addition to the relatively

flat keel and low weight, allowed it to be beached easily.[citation needed]

Construction Construction of the trireme differed from modern practice. The construction of a trireme was expensive

and required around 6000 man-days of labor to complete.[20] The ancient Mediterranean practice was to build the outer

hull first, and the ribs afterwards. To secure and strengthen the hull, cables (hypozōmata) were employed, fitted in the

keel and stretched by means of windlasses. Hence the triremes were often called "girded" when in commission.[21] The triremes were made of softwoods, primarily pine and fir, with the latter preferred, according to Theophrastos, for its

lightness. Larch and plane were used for the ship's interior parts.[12] The large requirements of timber for ship

construction led not only to the deforestation of much of southern Greece, but also to imports of timber from Macedon

and Thrace, or even from as far as Lebanon.[12] The use of lightwoods meant that the ship could be carried ashore by as

few as 140 men,[13] but also that the hull soaked up water, which adversely affected its speed and maneuverability. Once the triremes were seaworthy, it is argued that they were highly decorated with, "eyes, nameplates, painted figureheads,

and various ornaments". These decorations were used both to show the wealth of the patrician and to make the ship

frightening to the enemy. The home port of each trireme was signaled by the wooden statue of a deity located above the

bronze ram on the front of the ship.[22] In the case of Athens, since most of the fleet's triremes were paid for by wealthy

citizens, there was a natural sense of competition among the patricians to create the "most impressive" trireme, both to

intimidate the enemy and to attract the best oarsmen.[22] Of all military expenditure, triremes were the most labor- and (in terms of men and money) investment-intensive.

Propulsion and capabilities The ship's primary propulsion came from the 170 oars (kōpai), arranged in three rows,

with one man per oar. Evidence for this is provided by Thucydides, who records that the Corinthian oarsmen carried

"each his oar, cushion (hypersion) and oarloop".[23] The ship also had two masts, a main (istos megas) and a small

foremast (istos akateios), with square sails, while steering was provided by two steering oars at the stern (one at the port

side, one to starboard). Classical sources indicate that the trireme was capable of sustained speeds of ca. 6 knots at a relatively leisurely pace.[24] There is also a reference by Xenophon of a single day's voyage from Byzantium to Heraclea

Pontica, which translates as an average speed of 7.37 knots.[25] These figures seem to be corroborated by the tests

conducted with the reconstructed Olympias: a maximum speed of 8 knots and a steady speed of 4 knots could be

maintained, with half the crew resting at a time.[26] The distance a trireme could cover in a given day depended much on

the weather. On a good day, the oarsmen, rowing for 6–8 hours, could propel the ship between fifty and sixty miles.

There were rare instances however when experienced crews and new ships were able to cover nearly twice that distance (Thucydides mentions a trireme traveling 184 miles in one day).[27] The commanders of the triremes also had to stay

aware of the condition of their men. They had to keep their crews comfortably paced so as not to exhaust them before

battle.

Crew The total complement (plērōma) of the ship was about 200.[28][29] These were divided into the 170 rowers (eretai),

who provided the ship's motive power, the deck crew headed by the trierarch, and a marine detachment. Perhaps the most interesting aspect pertaining to the men who composed the crew of the Athenian triremes was the fact that the

ships were an extension of their democratic beliefs. The rich and poor rowed alongside each other and, as Victor Davis

Hanson points out, "Served the larger civic interest of acculturating thousands as they worked together in cramped

conditions and under dire circumstances."[30] In the Athenian fleet, during the Peloponnesian War, there are a few

variations to the typical crew layout of a trireme. One variation used a drastically reduced number of oarsmen so as to

use the ship as a troop transport. The thranites would row from the top benches, while the rest of the space below would be filled up with hoplites. Another variation, which the Athenians used for transporting horses (the Athenian fleet had

about 10 or so of these ships),[31] had 60 oarsmen, leaving the rest of the ship open for horses. By design the trireme was

meant for day-long journeys, with no capacity to stay at sea over night or carry the necessary provisions to sustain the

men it carried. There were however storage facilities on board large enough to provide each crewman with the 2 gallons

of fresh drinking water he would need to stay hydrated each day.[32] This meant that all those aboard were dependent

upon the land and peoples of where they landed each night for supplies. Sometimes this would entail traveling up to fifty miles in order to procure the necessary provisions. In the Peloponnesian War, the beached Athenian fleet was

caught unawares on more than one occasion, while out looking for food (Battle of Syracuse[disambiguation needed] and Battle

of Aegospotami). The cities, which suddenly found themselves needing to provide for all these sailors were usually

agreeable and did not mind the extra business, but those in charge of the fleet and/or mission had to be careful not to

completely deplete the 'host' city of resources.[33]

Trierarch The ship's captain was known as the trierarch (triērarchos). He was a wealthy Athenian citizen (usually from the class of the pentakosiomedimoi), responsible for manning and maintaining the ship for 35 years, which otherwise

belonged to Athens. The triērarchia was one of the liturgies of ancient Athens, and although it afforded great prestige,

it constituted a great financial burden, so that in the 4th century, it was often shared by two citizens, and after 397 BC it

was assigned to special boards.

Deck crew The deck and command crew (hypēresia) was headed by the helmsman, the kybernētēs, who was always an experienced seaman and was often the actual commander of the vessel. These experienced sailors were to be found on

the upper levels of the triremes. Other officers were the bow lookout (prōreus or prōratēs), the boatswain (keleustēs),

the quartermaster (pentēkontarchos), the shipwright (naupēgos), the piper (aulētēs) who gave the rowers' rhythm and

two toicharchoi, in charge of the rowers on each side of the ship. What constituted these sailors' experience was a

combination of superior rowing skill (physical stamina and/or consistency in hitting with a full stroke) and previous

battle experience. The sailors were likely in their thirties and forties.[34] In addition, there were ten sailors handling the

masts and the sails.[35]

Rowers Contrary to popular perception, in the ancient navies, crews were composed not of galley slaves but of free

men. In the Athenian case in particular, service in the ships was the integral part of the military service provided by the

lower classes, the thētai, although metics and hired foreigners were also accepted.[36][37] Although it has been argued

that slaves formed part of the rowing crew in the Sicilian Expedition,[38] a typical Athenian trireme crew during the Peloponnesian War consisted of 80 citizens, 60 metics and 60 foreign hands.[39] Indeed, in the few emergency cases

where slaves were used to crew ships, these were deliberately set free, usually before being employed.[40] For instance,

the tyrant Dionysius I of Syracuse once set all slaves of Syracuse free to man his galleys, employing thus freedmen, but

otherwise relied on citizens and foreigners as oarsmen.[41] In the Athenian navy, the crews enjoyed long practice in

peacetime, becoming skilled professionals and ensuring Athens' supremacy in naval warfare. The rowers were divided according to their positions in the ship into thranitai, zygitai, and thalamitai. According to the excavated Naval

Inventories, lists of ships' equipment compiled by the Athenian naval boards, there were:

• 62 thranitai in the top row (thranos means "deck"). They rowed through the parexeiresia, an outrigger which

enabled the inclusion of the third row of oars without significant increase to the height and loss of stability of

the ship. Greater demands were placed upon their strength and synchronization than on those of the other two

rows.[42]

• 54 zygitai in the middle row, named after the beams (zygoi) on which they sat.[42]

• 54 thalamitai or thalamioi in the lowest row, (thalamos means "hold"). Their position was certainly the most

uncomfortable, being underneath their colleagues and also exposed to the water entering through the oarholes,

despite the use of the askōma, a leather sleeve through which the oar emerged.[43]

Coordinating the rowing required great skill and practice. It is not known exactly how this was done, but there are

literary and visual references to the use of gestures and pipe playing to convey orders to rowers. In the sea trials of the reconstruction Olympias, it was evident that this was a difficult problem to solve, given the amount of noise that a full

rowing crew generated. In Aristophanes play The Frogs two different rowing chants can be found: "ryppapai" and "o

opop", both corresponding quite well to the sound and motion of the oar going through its full cycle.[44]

Marines A varying number of marines (epibatai), usually 10–20, were carried aboard for boarding actions. At the

Battle of Salamis, each Athenian ship was recorded to have 14 hoplites and 4 archers (usually Scythian mercenaries) on board,[45] but Herodotus narrates that the Chiots had 40 hoplites on board at Lade[46] and that the Persian ships carried a

similar number.[47] This reflects the different practices between the Athenians and other, less professional navies.

Whereas the Athenians relied on speed and maneuverability, where their highly trained crews had the advantage, other

states favored boarding, in a situation that closely mirrored the one that developed during the First Punic War.

Grappling hooks would be used both as a weapon and for towing damaged ships (ally or enemy) back to shore. When

the triremes were along side each other, marines would either spear the enemy or hop across and cut the enemy down with their swords.[48] As the presence of too many heavily armed hoplites on deck tended to destabilize the ship, the

epibatai were normally seated, only rising to carry out any boarding action.[49] The hoplites belonged to the middle

social classes, so that they came immediately next to the trierarch in status aboard the ship.

Tactics In the ancient world, naval combat relied on two methods: ramming and boarding. Artillery in the form of

ballistas and catapults was widespread, especially in later centuries, but its inherent technical limitations meant that it

could not play a decisive role in combat. Rams (embolon) were fitted to the prows of warships, and were used to rupture the hull of the enemy ship. The preferred method of attack was to come in from astern, with the aim not of creating a

single hole, but of rupturing as big a length of the enemy vessel as possible. The speed necessary for a successful impact

depended on the angle of attack; the greater the angle, the lesser the speed required. At 60 degrees, 4 knots was enough

to penetrate the hull, while it increased to 8 knots at 30 degrees. If the target for some reason was in motion in the

direction of the attacker, even less speed was required, and especially if the hit came amidships.[50] Another method was to brush alongside the enemy ship, with oars drawn in, in order to break the enemy's oars and render the ship immobile,

to be finished off with ease. In any case, prior to engagement, the masts and railings of the ship were taken down,

hindering any attempt at using grappling hooks. The Athenians especially became masters in the art of ramming, using

light, un-decked (aphraktai) triremes.

On-board forces Unlike the naval warfare of other eras, boarding an enemy ship was not the primary offensive action

of triremes. Triremes' small size allowed for a limited number of marines to be carried aboard. During the 5th and 4th centuries, the trireme's strength was in its maneuverability and speed, not its armor or boarding force. That said, fleets

less confident in their ability to ram were prone to load more marines onto their ships. On the deck of a typical trireme

in the Peloponnesian War there were 4 or 5 archers and 10 or so marines.[51] These few troops were peripherally

effective in an offensive sense, but critical in providing defense for the oarsmen. Should the crew of another trireme

board, the marines were all that stood between the enemy troops and the slaughter of the men below. It has also been

recorded that if a battle were to take place in the calmer water of a harbor, oarsmen would join the offensive and throw stones (from a stockpile aboard) to aid the marines in harassing/attacking other ships.[51] Most of the rowers (108 of the

170 - the zygitai and thalamitai), due to the design of the ship, were unable to see the water and therefore, rowed

blindly.[52]

Naval strategy in the Peloponnesian War Squadrons of triremes employed a variety of tactics. The periplous (Gk.,

"sailing around") involved outflanking or encircling the enemy so as to attack them in the vulnerable rear; the diekplous

(Gk., "Sailing out through") involved a concentrated charge so as to break a hole in the enemy line, allowing galleys to

break through and then wheel to attack the enemy line from behind; and the kyklos (Gk., "circle") and the mēnoeidēs

kyklos (Gk. "half-circle"; literally, "moon-shaped (i.e. crescent-shaped) circle"), were defensive tactics to be employed

against these manoeuvres. In all of these manoeuvres, the ability to accelerate faster, row faster, and turn more sharply than one's enemy was very important. It is well known that Athens' strength in the Peloponnesian War came from its

navy, whereas Sparta's came from its land-based Hoplite army. As the war progressed however the Spartans came to

realize that if they were to undermine Pericles' strategy of outlasting the Peloponnesians by remaining within the walls

of Athens indefinitely (a strategy made possible by Athens' Long Walls and fortified port of Piraeus), they were going

to have to do something about Athens superior naval force. Once Sparta gained Persia as an ally, they had the funds necessary to construct the new naval fleets necessary to combat the Athenians. Sparta was able to build fleet after fleet,

eventually destroying the Athenian fleet at the Battle of Aegospotami. The Spartan General Brasidas best summed up

the difference in approach to naval warfare between the Spartans and the Athenians: "Athenians relied on speed and

maneuverability on the open seas to ram at will clumsier ships; in contrast, a Peloponnesian armada might win only

when it fought near land in calm and confined waters, had the greater number of ships in a local theater, and if its better-

trained marines on deck and hoplites on shore could turn a sea battle into a contest of infantry."[53] In addition, compared to the high-finesse of the Athenian navy (superior oarsmen who could outflank and ram enemy triremes from

the side), the Spartans (as well as their allies and other enemies of Athens) would focus mainly on ramming Athenian

triremes head on. It would be these tactics, in combination with those outlined by Brasidas, that led to the defeat of the

Athenian fleet at the Second Battle of Syracuse during the Sicilian Expedition.

Paying the price at sea Once a naval battle was underway, for the men involved, there were numerous ways for them

to meet their end. Drowning was perhaps the most common way for a crew member to perish. Once a trireme had been rammed, the ensuing panic that engulfed the men trapped below deck no doubt extended the amount of time it took the

men to escape. Inclement weather would greatly decrease the crew's odds of survival, leading to a situation like that off

Cape Athos in 411 (12 of 10,000 men were saved).[54] An estimated 40,000 Persians died in the Battle of Salamis. In the

Peloponnesian War, at the Battle of Arginusae six Athenian generals were executed for failing to rescue several

hundred of their men clinging to wreckage in the water.[55] If the men did not meet a watery grave, they might be taken

prisoner by the enemy. In the Peloponnesian War, "Sometimes captured crews were brought ashore and either cut down or maimed - often grotesquely, by cutting off the right hand or thumb to guarantee that they could never row again."[56]

The image found on an early-5th-century black-figure, depicting prisoners bound and thrown into the sea being pushed

and prodded under water with poles and spears, shows that enemy treatment of captured sailors in the Peloponnesian

War was often quite brutal.[57] The idea of troops being speared amid the wreckage of destroyed ships seems the most

common way of dealing with enemy sailors in the Peloponnesian War. Naval Battles were far more of a spectacle than the hoplite battles on land. Sometimes the battles raging at sea were watched by thousands of spectators on shore.[48]

Along with this greater spectacle, came greater consequences for the outcome of any given battle. Whereas the average

percentage of fatalities from a land battle were between 10-15%, in a sea battle, the forces engaged ran the risk of losing

their entire fleet. The number of ships and men in battles was sometimes very high. At the Battle of Arginusae for

example, 263 ships were involved, making for a total of 55,000 men, and at the Battle of Aegospotami more than 300

ships and 60,000 seamen were involved.[58] In Battle of Aegospotami, the city-state of Athens lost what was left of its navy: the once 'invincible' thalassocracy lost 170 ships (costing some 400 talents), and the majority of the crews were

either killed, captured or lost.[58]

Changes of engagement and construction During the Hellenistic period, the light trireme was supplanted by larger

warships in dominant navies, especially the pentere/quinquereme. The maximum practical number of oar banks a ship

could have was three. So the numbers did not refer to the banks of oars any more (for biremes, triremes and

quinqueremes), but to the number of rowers per vertical section, with several men on each oar. The reason for this development was the increasing use of armour on the bows of warships against ramming attacks, which again required

heavier ships for a successful attack. This increased the number of rowers per ship, and also made it possible to use less

well-trained personnel for moving these new ships. This change was accompanied by an increased reliance on tactics

like boarding, missile skirmishes and using warships as platforms for artillery. Triremes continued to be the mainstay of

all smaller navies. While the Hellenistic kingdoms did develop the quinquereme and even larger ships, most navies of

the Greek homeland and the smaller colonies could only afford triremes. It was used by the Diadochi Empires and sea powers like Syracuse, Carthage and later Rome. The difference to the classical 5th century Athenian ships was that they

were armoured against ramming and carried significantly more marines. Lightened versions of the trireme and smaller

vessels were often used as auxiliaries, and still performed quite effectively against the heavier ships, thanks to their

greater manoeuvrability. With the rise of Rome the biggest fleet of quinqueremes temporarily ruled the Mediterranean,

but during the civil wars after Caesar's death the fleet was on the wrong side and a new warfare with light liburnians was developed. By Imperial times the fleet was relatively small and had mostly political influence, controlling the grain

supply and fighting pirates, who usually employed light biremes and liburnians. But instead of the successful liburnians

of the Greek Civil War, it was again centred around light triremes, but still with many marines. Out of this type of ship,

the dromon developed.

Reconstruction Main article: Olympias (trireme) In 1985–1987 a shipbuilder in Piraeus, financed by Frank Welsh (an

author, Suffolk banker, writer and trireme enthusiast), advised by historian J. S. Morrison and naval architect John F.

Coates (who with Welsh founded the Trireme Trust that initiated and managed the project), and informed by evidence

from underwater archaeology, built a reconstructed Athenian trireme, Olympias. Crewed by 170 volunteer oarsmen and

oarswomen, Olympias in 1988 achieved 9 knots (17 km/h or 10.5 mph). These results, achieved with inexperienced

crew, suggest that the ancient writers were not exaggerating about straight-line performance. In addition, Olympias was able to execute a 180 degree turn in one minute and in an arc no wider than two and one half (2.5) ship-lengths.

Additional sea trials took place in 1987, 1990, 1992 and 1994. In 2004 Olympias was used ceremonially to transport the

Olympic Flame from the port of Keratsini to the main port of Piraeus as the 2004 Olympic Torch Relay entered its final

stages in the run-up to the 2004 Summer Olympics opening ceremony. The builders of the reconstruction project

concluded that it effectively & conclusively proved what had previously been in doubt, i.e.- that Athenian triremes were arranged with the crew positioned in a staggered arrangement on three levels with one person per oar. This architecture

would have made optimum use of the available internal dimensions. However since modern humans are on average

approximately 6 cm (2 inches) taller than Ancient Greeks (and the same relative dimensions can be presumed for

oarsmen and other athletes), the construction of a craft which followed the precise dimensions of the ancient vessel led

to cramped rowing conditions and consequent restrictions on the modern crew's ability to propel the vessel with full

efficiency, which perhaps explains why the ancient speed records stand unbroken.

See also

• Warship

• Trierarch

• Penteconter

Notes

1. ^ Casson (1995), pp. 57–58 2. ^ See index in Morrison (2004) for examples.

3. ^ Thucydides I.13.2-5

4. ^ Diodorus, Bibliotheca historica, XIV.42.3

5. ^ StromataSNIFF JIM!!, I.16.36

6. ^ The Age of the Galley, p. 45-46 7. ^ Herodotus, III.44

8. ^ Thucydides I.14.1-3

9. ^ Zosimus, Historia Nova, V.20

10. ^ a b c Hanson (2006), p. 260

11. ^ The Age of the Galley, p. 62

12. ^ a b c Fields (2007), p. 10 13. ^ a b IG I.153

14. ^ The 18th Jenkin Lecture, 1 October 2005: Some Engineering Concepts applied to Ancient Greek

Trireme Warships

15. ^ Proceedings of 1st INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON SHIP CONSTRUCTION IN

ANTIQUITY PIRAEUS, 30 AUGUST - 1 SEPTEMBER 1985: THE TRIERES, ITS DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION 16. ^ SHIPS & WAYS OF OTHER DAYS, BY E. KEBLE CHATTERTON

17. ^ Piraeus: Cantharus, Zea, Munichia, from the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum of Mainz

18. ^ Vitruvius, De architectura I.2.4

19. ^ Fields (2007), p. 8

20. ^ Hanson (2006), p. 262 21. ^ Fields (2007), p. 9

22. ^ a b Hanson (2006), p. 239

23. ^ Thucydides, II.93.3

24. ^ The Age of the Galley, p. 58–59

25. ^ The Age of the Galley, p. 58

26. ^ Adrian Goldsworthy, The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-246 BC, Cassell 2003, p. 98 27. ^ Hanson (2006), p. 261

28. ^ Thucydides VI.8, VIII.29.2

29. ^ Xenophon, Hellenica, I.5.3-7

30. ^ Hanson (2006), p. 252

31. ^ Hanson (2006), p. 257

32. ^ Hanson (2006), p. 258 33. ^ Hanson (2006), p. 259)

34. ^ A War Like No Other, p. 238-9

35. ^ Fields (2007), p. 14–15

36. ^ Rachel L. Sargent, “The Use of Slaves by the Athenians in Warfare”, Classical Philology, Vol. 22,

No. 3 (Jul., 1927), pp. 264-279 (266-268)

37. ^ Ruschenbusch, Eberhard, “Zur Besatzung athenischer Trieren“, Historia, Vol. 28 (1979), pp. 106-

110 (106 & 110)

38. ^ A. J. Graham, “Thucydides 7.13.2 and the Crews of Athenian Triremes”, Transactions of the

American Philological Association, Vol. 122 (1992), pp. 257-270 (258-262) 39. ^ Ruschenbusch, Eberhard, “Zur Besatzung athenischer Trieren“, Historia, Vol. 28 (1979), pp. 106-

110 (110)

40. ^ Casson (1991), p. 188

41. ^ Rachel L. Sargent, “The Use of Slaves by the Athenians in Warfare”, Classical Philology, Vol. 22,

No. 3 (Jul., 1927), pp. 264-279 (277) 42. ^ a b Fields (2007), p. 13

43. ^ Fields (2007), p. 13-14

44. ^ Morrison, Coats & Rankov (2000), pp. 248-50

45. ^ Plutarch, Parallel Lives Themistocles XIV

46. ^ Herodotus, VI.15.2

47. ^ Herodotus, VII.184.2 48. ^ a b Hanson (2006), p. 254

49. ^ Fields (2007), p.15

50. ^ John Coates, "The Naval Archictecture and Oar Systems of Ancient Galleys" in The Age of the

Galley, p. 133.

51. ^ a b Hanson (2006), p. 242

52. ^ Hanson (2006), p. 240 53. ^ Hanson (2006), p. 255

54. ^ Hanson (2006), p. 246-47

55. ^ Hanson (2006), p. 246

56. ^ Hanson (2006), p. 247-8

57. ^ Hanson (2006), p. 248

58. ^ a b Hanson (2006), p. 264

References

• Casson, Lionel (1991). The Ancient Mariners (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01477-9.

• Casson, Lionel (1995). Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Johns Hopkins University Press.

ISBN 0801851300.

• Coates, John F. (April 1989). "The trireme sails again". Scientific American 261 (4): 68–75.

• Foley, Vernon; Soedel, Werner (April 1981). "Ancient oared warships". Scientific American 244 (4): 116–129.

• Fields, Nic (2007). Ancient Greek Warship, 500-322 BC (New Vanguard Series 132). Osprey Publications.

ISBN 978-1-84603-074-1.

• Hanson, Victor D. (2006). A War Like No Other. Random House. ISBN 0-8129-6970-7.

• Meijer, Fik (1986). A History of Seafaring in the Classical World. Croom and Helm.

• Morrison, John S. (1974). "Greek naval tactics in the 5th century BC". International Journal of Nautical

Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 3 (1): 21–26. doi:10.1111/j.1095-9270.1974.tb00854.x.

• Morrison, John S.; Williams, R. T. (1968). Greek Oared Ships: 900–322 BC. Cambridge University Press.

• Morrison, John S. (2004). Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since pre-Classical Times. Conway

Maritime Press. ISBN 978-0851779553.

• Morrison, John S.; Coates, John F.; Rankov, N. Boris (2000). The Athenian Trireme: The History and

construction of an ancient Greek warship (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521564190.

• Wallinga, Herman T. (1993). Ships and Sea-Power Before the Great Persian War: The Ancestry of the Ancient

Trireme. E.J. Brill. ISBN 9004092250.

• Warry, John (2004). Warfare in the Classical World. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0-8061-2794-5.

• Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War

• "Age of the Trireme", special issue of Ancient Warfare, 2/2 (2008)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Trireme

External links

• A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890), entry on "Warships"

• E. J. de Meester's page

• Hellenic Navy web page for the reconstructed Olympias trireme

• History and archeology of the ship - lecture notes - 26. Triremes, from the Centre for Maritime Archaeology of

the University of Southampton

• Merchant ships page

• The Trireme Trust

Roman trireme from Carthage, mosaic at Bardo Museum, Tunis A schematic view of what the circular kyklos formation would have looked like from above.

Model of a Greek trireme Olympias, a reconstruction of an ancient Athenian trireme.

Assyrian warship (probably built by Phoenicians) with two rows of oars, relief from Nineveh, ca. 700 BCThe

Lenormant Relief, from the Athenian Acropolis, depicting the rowers of an aphract Athenian trireme, ca. 410 BC. Found in 1852, it is one of the main pictorial testaments to the layout of the trireme. A Greek trireme

Depiction of the position and angle of the rowers in a trireme. The form of the parexeiresia, projecting from the deck, is

clearly visible. The mortise and tenon joint method of hull construction employed in ancient vessels.

Liburna

The most known Liburnian ship was their warship, known as a libyrnis to the Greeks and a liburna to the Romans,

propelled by oars. According to some thoughts, liburna was shown in the scene of naval battle, curved on a stone tablet

(Stele di Novilara) found near Antique Pisaurum (Pesaro), outlined to 5th or 6th century BC, the most possibly showing

imaginary battle between Liburnian and Picenian fleets. Liburna was presented as light type of the ship with one row or

the oars, one mast, one sail and prow twisted outwards. Under the prow there was a rostrum made for striking the

enemy ships under the sea. By its original form, the liburna was the most similar to the Greek penteconter. It had one bench with 25 oars on each side, while in the late ages of the Roman Republic, it became a smaller version of a trireme,

but with two banks of oars (a bireme), faster, lighter, and more agile than biremes and triremes. The liburnian design

was adopted by the Romans and became a key part of Ancient Rome's navy, most possibly by mediation of Macedonian

navy in the 2nd half of the 1st century BC. Liburna ships played a key role in naval battle of Actium in Greece, which

lasted from August 31 to September 2 of 31 BC. Because of the its naval and maneuver features and bravery of its Liburnian crews, these ships completely defeated much bigger and heavier eastern ships, quadriremes and penterames.

Liburna was different to the battle triremes, quadriremes and quinqueremes not because of rowing but rather because of

its specific constructional features.[20][21] It was 109 ft (33 m) long and 16 ft (5 m) wide with a 3 ft (0.91 m) draft. Two

rows of oarsmen pulled 18 oars per side. The ship could make up to 14 knots under sail and more than 7 under oars.[22]

Such a vessel, used as a merchantman, might take on a passenger, as Lycinus relates in the second-century dialogue,

traditionally attributed to Lucian of Samosata: "I had a speedy vessel readied, the kind of bireme used above all by the Liburnians of the Ionian Gulf." Once the Romans had adopted the liburnian, they proceeded to make a few adaptations

to improve the ships’ use within the navy. The benefits gained from the addition of rams and protection from missiles

more than made-up for the slight loss of speed.[23] Besides the construction, the ships required that the regular Roman

military unit be simplified in order to function more smoothly. Each ship operated as an individual entity, so the more

complicated organization normally used was not necessary.[24] Within the navy, there were probably liburnian of several

varying sizes, all put to specific tasks such as scouting and patrolling Roman waters against piracy.[25] The Romans made use of the liburnian particularly within the provinces of the empire, where the ships formed the bulk of the

fleets,[26][27][28] while it was included by small numbers in fleets of Ravenna and Micenum, where a large number of the

Illyrians were serving, especially Dalmatae, Liburnians and Pannonians. Gradually liburna became general name for the

different types of the Roman ships, attached also to the cargo ships in the Late Antique. Tacitus and Suetonius were

using it as a synonym for the battle ship. In inscriptions it was mentioned as the last in class of the battle ships: hexeres,

penteres, quadrieres, trieres, liburna.[clarification needed][29] In the Medieval sources the "liburna" ships were often recorded in use by the Medieval Croatian and Dalmatian pirates and sailors, but probably not always referring to the ships of the

same form.

Battle between Liburnian and Picenian ships from the Novilara tablets (6th/5th century BC)

Classis RomanorumClassis RomanorumClassis RomanorumClassis Romanorum http://www.imphttp://www.imphttp://www.imphttp://www.imp----romromromrom----nav.com/nav.com/nav.com/nav.com/

WELCOME - to the Website of the Imperial Roman Navy

This is the site to find brief information about the full-time professional Roman Navy of Imperial times from purely primary sources, that is, from the tombstones and end-of-service-Diplomas which have been found over the years and

which belonged to the Fleet Auxiliaries themselves.

After the Battle of Actium, the soon-to-be Emperor Augustus reorganised the army, which included making the

auxiliary Navy a full-time professional force, even though there were no more foreign Navies strong enough to take on

Rome.

There were, however, merchant ships to be protected from pirates and wreckers as well as Customs duties to be collected, Imperial dispatches to be sent to far-distant provinces and important personages to be ferried as quickly and

as safely as possible, although sometimes the Emperors used the Navy to arrange 'accidents' for people who they found

troublesome, so that the Roman Army's navy became busier than ever.

After about 245 - 250 both the gravestones and the diplomas disappear and it seems as if the Fleets were mothballed,

but the Danuble fleets were still active into the 400's, whilst there is a record of a milestone put up by a Prefect of the

Ravenna Fleet in the reign of the Emperor Gratian (died 378). These pages are extracts from a forthcoming downloadable book called "The Imperial Roman Army's Navy", which is

currently only available as an e-book from www.lulu.com. Hopefully a paperback will soon follow

The information given here was collated by first building up a database which had 915 entries, before writing up the

details in a book. Since the first draft of the book was finished, some 22 more records, mostly end-of-service Diplomas,

have been published. Unfortunately, most of them are very badly damaged and only about 6 or 7 carry any useful

information, including one which just mentions a ship named 'Pa[..]' (probably 'Peace'), although one, hardly damaged memorial stone, which carries a carving of a centurion belonging to the Classis Ravennatis was found in Ravenna a

couple of years ago. To see a picture of this memorial, please turn to the 'Contacts' page and click on the link marked

'Centurion'.

Acknowledgement: All the books, papers and journals used to research this site were made available to me by the Library of the Institute of

Classical Studies, in London, England and I am very grateful to the Library's staff for all their help. A link to the

Libary's webpage can be found on the 'Contacts' page.

The Roman flag at the top of the page is shown by courtesy of Wikipedia

Caligula's Giant Ship


Caligula's "Giant Ship", also known as the 'round ship', was a very large barge whose ruins were found during the

construction of Rome's Leonardo da Vinci International Airport in Fiumicino, Italy. This was previously a Roman port

a few kilometers north of Ostia at the mouth of the Tiber River. This Roman barge had a length of between 95 and 104

meters (341 ft) and a beam of about 20.3 meters (66 ft). It was 6 decks high, displaced a minimum of 7400 tons, and

carried a crew of 700-800. Pliny the Elder describes the sinking of a massive 800 ton obelisk ship that had transported

the St. Peter's Square obelisk from Egypt to use as the foundation of a large lighthouse in Ostia. This lighthouse was an imitation of the famous lighthouse in Alexandria, the Pharos of Alexandria.[1] The ship was destroyed during WW2

when German soldiers burned down the Italian museum where it was being restored.[citation needed]

Documents

RRRROM@N N@VYOM@N N@VYOM@N N@VY - …...In 31 BC, the great naval Battle of Actium ended the civil wars culminating in the final victory of Augustus and the establishment of the Roman