-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
Roman Resources
- Thread starter RacingRodent
- Start date
willowfall
Senator
Yep, the story they tell is rams were not sharp because a sharp ram would impale the side of the enemy ship locking them together thus rendering both ineffective.
The square ram staves in the planks and breaks the water tight integrity.
The other big myth is that Roman war galley were rowed by slaves. They were actually rowed by professional freemen/ Slaves rowing galleys only shows up after the Islamic expansion.
kisses
willowfall
Praefectus Praetorio
R.I.P. Brother of the Quill
Another not myth, but a misconception. Though the Roman galleys had rams (Latin rostrum; pl. rostra) they did not usually try to use them in the Punic Wars. The Carthaginian ships were usually faster and more maneuverable amd would dominate in raming. Therefore, the Romans developed the corvus, a boarding ramp with a spike on the end to penetrate the deck of the enemy ship and hold fast.
Then legionnaires would rush across and capture the other galley.
The word rostrum gave the name to the large platform in the Forum Romanum where speakers would stand. Six rostra which were captured during the victory at Antium in 338 BC were mounted to its side. Still Today in English, we call a speaker's platform or stand a rostrum.
Naraku
Draconarius
The corvus was an attempt to make up for the Roman lack of experience in naval warfare. It was hoped it would allow them to fight a land battle at sea by getting their legions onto the enemy ships.
It was very difficult to use in anything but a calm sea and the added weight in the bow may have adversely affected handling. It seems to have been abandoned after the First Punic War, by which time the Romans had learned more about fighting at sea and were able to hold their own against the Carthaginians.
Eva Inanna
Governor
Is there any need to get boring, stark facts to ruin my fantasy of rowing to my exile in the salt mines ?
RacingRodent
Consul
It is alright for your fantasy. Galley slaves simply did not serve on war galleys, privately owned pleasure and trading galleys could be crewed as the owner liked.
The issue with military vessels was that most nations and city states who possessed navies could draw rowers from a lower census class than their heavy infantry mainstays cf Rome and Athens and in battle you might need the extra manpower in action.
willowfall
Senator
However the corvus was a short term innovation by the Romans until they had developed an efficient fleet. You only hear of their usage during the early engagements and certainly all references to them disappear by the time the Civil Wars start (thus they were not used at Actium).
It is also a myth that the Carthaginian warships were faster and more maneuverable as the Roman built a fleet of copies of a captured Carthaginian vessel. What the Carthaginians had was a better manned and commanded fleet at the beginnings of the wars when the Romans had little experience in seapower. The Carthaginian problem was a lack of manpower (something the Romans didn't suffer from until the of the Western Empire) and once their initial supply of experienced sailors\rowers was lost they couldn't replace it. While the Romans (who were very good at what today would be called a military-industrial complex) could afford the losses and had the ability to train up new crews fairly quickly.
kisses
willowfall
Loxuru
Graf von Kreuzigung
Just an anecdote. Ramming became a popular naval tactic in the second half of the 19th century. Armor technology had taken a big advance on gunnery techonology, so warships were nearly invulnerable against gunfire. On July 20th 1866, a naval battle was fought in the Mediterranean, between an Italian and an Austrian fleet, the Battle of Lissa. It was the first major naval battle ever fought with steamships. Due to the lack of decisive impact of the gunnery, several ramming attacks were undertaken. Finally, the Austrians won.
The battle of Lissa has had great impact on warship design, the next 50 years, even after gunnery had been largely improved, warships were equipped with a ram. Hence the typical design of warships from the time, with a concave forward slanting bow. But it was rarely used after Lissa, only against smaller ships, e.g. submarines. The last capital ships to serve with this feature were the Royal Navy's Queen Elisabeth class battleships (Queen Elisabeth, Barham; Malaya, Valiant and Warspite), which served even throughout World War II.
The battle of Lissa has had great impact on warship design, the next 50 years, even after gunnery had been largely improved, warships were equipped with a ram. Hence the typical design of warships from the time, with a concave forward slanting bow. But it was rarely used after Lissa, only against smaller ships, e.g. submarines. The last capital ships to serve with this feature were the Royal Navy's Queen Elisabeth class battleships (Queen Elisabeth, Barham; Malaya, Valiant and Warspite), which served even throughout World War II.
RacingRodent
Consul
The problem with the revival in ramming in the 19th Century was that it would prove more dangerous to one's friends than one's enemies. So you have the SMS Konig Wilhelm sinking the SMS Grosser Kurfust and later the HMS Camperdown sinking the HMS Victoria in 1893.
Praefectus Praetorio
R.I.P. Brother of the Quill
Thank you for that. Unfortunately you have set off the American Civil War Nerd in me. On March 9, 1862, at Hampton Roads, Virginia, a harbour at the mouth of the James River, history’s first duel between ironclad warships occured, marking the beginning of a new era of naval warfare. Known as The Battle of the Monitor and Merrimack (misnamed thus - the Confederate ship was built on the burned out and raised hull of the U.S. frigate, Merrimack - but was re-christened, Virginia). The Virginia, and most Confederate ships was designed with a ram. However, it was very clumsy and slow to turn, so the much more agile Monitor never came close to being rammed. (note the same issue the Romans faced in the First
Last edited:
Praefectus Praetorio
R.I.P. Brother of the Quill
Does the word "anachronistic" get taught in Arkansas schools?
Frank Petrexa
Tribune
This is of course exactly what happened in the Pacific War between the US and Japan. Initially better trained, better equipped Japanese naval forces lost out to American industry, American inventiveness and unconventionality, and the capacity of the United States to train many more combatants more thoroughly (one big problem for the Japanese was that training pilots required oil, and the United States had a big advantage). The Japanese also had a battleship faction, and didn't have the resources to do both carriers and battleships like the United States did. Yamato and Musashi were basically worthless to the Japanese war effort, and they burned fuel at a prodigious rate.
As Prefectus Praetorio says, the American Civil War shows American unconventionality at its best. The Monitor ironclad (a "cheesbox on a raft") almost sank on the high seas on the way to Virginia--almost swamped. The Confederacy employed a submarine. All of this was highly dangerous to the crews, but "the king don't care"--this is war.
One Royal Navy wag said during the Battle of the Atlantic in respect to use of convoys: "the Americans always do the right thing--after they've tried everything else". The Battle of the Atlantic featured a lot of innovation (sonar, depth charges, code-breaking), but if more long-range aircraft had been allocated earlier it would have gone better. This would have hindered Sir Arthur Harris' bombing campaign, however. Utlimately, "escort carriers" with a few planes for anti-submarine work proved highly useful. (Of course, Turing's code breaking multiplied their effectiveness.) If you have resources to do everything, you win.
Praefectus Praetorio
R.I.P. Brother of the Quill
If as American, you mean the "melting pot" of talent here. The Monitor was designed by Johan Ericsson who was born at Långban in Värmland, Sweden. He learned engineering working for his father in the excavation of the Swedish Göta Canal. In America he invented the first practical screw propellor for a steamship. His design for the Monitor, a vessel that broke almost every rule with over fifty patentable ideas, was so well done that the ship went from plans to launch in approximately 100 days. The real breakthrough was the idea of a rotating gun turret, a key design of almost every warship since. He died on the 27th anniversary of the famous battle. He asked to be buried in Sweden. His remains were sent on the U.S.S. Baltimore from New York harbor. Nearly 100,000 attended the procession through the city. As the Baltimore pulled out, a twenty one gun salute was fired and the Blue and Yellow Swedish flag flew from every ship in the large squadron.
The White Squadron's Farewell Salute to the Body of John Ericsson, New York Bay, August 23, 1890. Note the Swedish ensign flying from the ship's foremast.
Frank Petrexa
Tribune
Yep, the melting pot, where the atmosphere encourages innovation (often no thanks to the "establishment", but they often can't block it.)
I doubt it... They can't even spell it!
RacingRodent
Consul
Which notably Ericsson himself pointed out was an "old idea" it also being worth noting than Cowper Coles had patented a turret design March 10 1859, the Coles type turret equipping several Royal Navy and foreign warships. These included the unfortunate HMS Captain which sank in the Bay of Biscay with all hands including Captain Coles, in large part due to lack of sufficient righting moment a defect singular to its design as other Royal Navy turret ships were built with twicre or more the capacity to recover from a roll.
Praefectus Praetorio
R.I.P. Brother of the Quill
Ericsson also stated the flat low deign was borrowed from Swedish lumber rafts.
Loxuru
Graf von Kreuzigung
Good thinking! I wonder how history would have moved, if Mark Antony would have had a few submarines in Actium.
Actium, where the debate over large, but badly maneuvrable ships (Mark Antony) against smaller, but faster and quicker to turn ones (Octavian) is also since long an issue, (vs. the allegation that Mark Antony lost because his ships were undermanned and their crews less experienced, AND he had to break out from an enclosed position, locked in in a bay, AND Cleoaptra's fleet stayed out of the battle).
