Marine inc.

[chairman]

During the EB time period, what manifestation did the marines of national navies take on? I know that greek marines were either hoplites or archers, and according to the 'Numidian Archer' description, the hiring of these troops allowed Carthage to re-allocate their punic archers to serve as marines. But what about other types of Carthaginian marines? Or Roman classiarii? Diadochi marines? Other naval troops?

Thanks in advance

Chairman

[Jolt]

To be honest, I'm a complete (well, not complete) ignorant when it comes to naval warfare. I know that Greeks had long used hoplites has melee marines and archers as ranged marines. I think that it was in Alexander's navy that introduction of the catapult into the ships came into place, but I'm most probably wrong. I suppose carthaginians used hoplites as well, being that the Romans most probably used soldiers versed in both spear and sword fighting, whereas the Diadochi would most certainly have used hoplites as well.

[lobf]

I have read that when the Romans were dividing citizens by wealth for miltary service, those at the lowest bracket, below even the skirmishers, went to the navy. This seems to say something to me about their arms and armor and probably fighting skill.

[General Appo]

No, that´s probably just the rowers. At least in the First Punic War the Roman marines were often normal legionaries serving onboard ships, which in part explains Rome´s successes against Carthaginian fleets, as coupled with the Corvus this enabled the Romans to transfer their greatest advantage at land (their strong heavy infantry) to the sea. Carthaginian navies were more used to ramming and missile exchanges then boarding, and were often did not sport a great amount of marines, ensuring that as soon as the Romans got a foothold on a Carthaginian ship it was almost certainly doomed.

[lobf]

I hadn't thought of the rowers. That makes sense, considering I had also read about legionnaires on boats. I just figured that real legionnaires only started getting thrown on when the corvus was invented.

[General Appo]

I know that at least in Carthage the poorer population could always found occupation in the fleet as rowers, a great way to keep poor unemployed people away from the streets where they´ll just cause a lot of trouble for everyone.

[Eduorius]

Mostly the same troops that were used for land, were used for sea. Carthaginian citizens were more often found serving in the navy than in the army.

Also from what I read in the Osprey book of "Roman Legionary".

After the naval battle of Actium between Marcus Antonius and Augustus, many of the legionaries of Augustus that served as marines used the surname "Actiacus".

Vegetius suggested that marines should use blue tunics and shields painted blue. Not sure if maybe this was to camouflage with the sea and the sky.

[Xurr]

No, that´s probably just the rowers. At least in the First Punic War the Roman marines were often normal legionaries serving onboard ships, which in part explains Rome´s successes against Carthaginian fleets, as coupled with the Corvus this enabled the Romans to transfer their greatest advantage at land (their strong heavy infantry) to the sea. Carthaginian navies were more used to ramming and missile exchanges then boarding, and were often did not sport a great amount of marines, ensuring that as soon as the Romans got a foothold on a Carthaginian ship it was almost certainly doomed.


Um I seem to recall the Corvus being a dismal failure and actually contributing to the sinking of an entire roman fleet. It made the ships top heavy and caused them to capsize in anything but calm water.

[Watchman]

Yup. That's why they ditched the thing as soon as they were confident enough in their seamanship it was deemed unnecessary. But as rank greenhorns in naval matters going up against one of the most illustrious seafaring powers in the entire Mediterranean, I think it is obvious why they were willing to trade seaworthiness for a tactically very useful "ace in the hole" initially.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Though, granted, many a naval battle would be fought during aforementioned calm weather. For one thing, you're not going to happily ram every enemy ship if you can't even handle your own. (And handling seems to have been an important contribution to either victory or defeat.)

AFAIK, a good indicator of any serious naval engagement would be how many of your ships damaged themselves so badly that either these could not get out of the target, or could no longer be used properly.

Still, the capture of some Carthaginian ships to serve as prototype's seemed to have contributed a rather good deal more when it came to Roman naval power.

[chairman]

The corvus was a disadvantage, depending on the circumstances. In bad weather or in battles of maneuver, the corvus caused a ship to be ill-balanced and liable to tip over. However, in boarding battles, it allowed the Romans to gain huge advantages over the Carthaginians. It was abandoned because of its problems in sailing over long distances. Later, the Romans used a form of ballista with a grappling hook to draw in enemy ships so that shorter boarding platforms could be used. In China, some large ships used rigid grappling beams to hold a target at a set distance to prevent it from boarding or escaping so that missle fire could be directed at it. Very different from the boarding-minded Romans. Of course, the Chinese often resorted to crossbows in a crises.

Chairman

[Eduorius]

The wind and currents in the Mediterranean favor the North. This is explained more by "The Moors and the Islamic West". I believe Carthage had some disadvantage because of this during sea battles and that explains that why even tough they had one of the greatest navy of the Ancient World they had very poor success against the Greeks and Romans.