Printable View
Hi al :beam:
What is the scale of naval combat in EB?? Does one "unit" depict a couple of ships?? a squadron, a fleet??
Take the battle of Ecnomus (256 BC): the Romans had about 330 ships. How big would that fleet be in EB and what would be it's composition??
Does anyone else take time and trouble to create historical accurate fleets??
Or is it just pointless do to so??
Thanks :2thumbsup:
I believe one unit card depicts only 1 ship since you can see from the number of soldiers in their description. Also although i want to have a historaically accurate fleet supporting a big one will be extremely expensive, where instead investing in land units seems to be more economical.
In RTW one unit card = one ship. In EB one unit card = a fleet, the number of ships equalling the number of soldiers.
Foot
Ah i didnt know that... thanks for the info foot^_^
I always thought that the number of 'soldiers' was just the amount of damage it could still take, so when you "retrain" you are repairing. So are the fleets balanced differently than RTW to compensate that each "soldier" is a ship?
Ah thanks for that thread, I wanted to open a similar one. I supposed that it couldn't be the actual numbers of the soldiers, because if you read the unit descriptions, it says that the crew of a Trireme consisted of 200 soldiers, so it has to be a complete fleet. Also the unit upkeep would be too expensive for a single ship.
Most of their ships in the fleet were probably simple cargo and transport vessels not used for fighting. =/
cargo vessels were towed. same with captured vessels.
At Ecnomus the Romans had transport vessels besides their 350 warships. With (about) 700 ships it is considered as the biggest naval battle of all times ~:cool:
I doubt a wooden ship would towing another wooden ship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
Is that even possible with a ship that uses sails?
I mean, their cargo vessels were probably similar to merchanting/trade ships....they're just regular ships that are manned.
Probably the biggest naval battle in the Mediterranean in the 3rd century BCE. 350 warships for a total of 700 ships doesn't seem that many...and really can't qualify for the largest naval battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchhoplite
The wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest...tle_in_history
Salamis 200 years earlier involved way more ships and more personnel.
This was a common way of dealing with transports in the ancient world. Polybios (1.26) writes of the Romans at the Battle of Ecnomus:Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
Astern of the line which formed the base [of the triangular Roman formation] sailed the horse-transports, which were attached by tow-ropes to the ships of the third squadron.
Did you even read that article?Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
It says:
The candidates
- Salamis, September (28?) 480 BC. 371 Greek ships defeated 1,271 Persian ships in this decisive battle. Greek triremes had a crew of about 200 while their small penteconters had 50 oarsmen. With 1,642 ships altogether, it is thought possible that 200,000 sailors, soldiers and marines took part.
- Cape Ecnomus, (exact date and duration unknown) 256 BC. Like Salamis, Ecnomus was also a single engagement where 680 ships were fighting in a very small area. Some historians accept Roman claims that Rome had about 100,000 personnel. If this were true, which is unlikely, it would make it probable that at least 200,000 Roman and Carthaginian sailors and soldiers were involved.
The fact is we really have no accurate estimate of the total numbers of ships and men involved
in those two sea battles. Polybios says a total of 290,000 fought at Ecnomus; this has been
widely doubted. The numbers of ships at Salamis is constantly argued over. But it is certain that
both Salamis and Ecnomus were two of history's great naval battles.
Hmm, I see. I stand corrected then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilius
Did you read what I was responding to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilius
I was responding to this statement: "With (about) 700 ships it is considered as the biggest naval battle of all times"
Even if you take the low estimate for Salamis and the high estimate for Ecnomus, the total number of people & ships for both the Greek & Persians add up to be more than the total number of people & ships for the Romans & Carthaginians. (200,000 was the figure given for the Persian fleet by itself, whereas the high estimate of 200,000 was the number for both Roman and Carthaginian fleets)
Thus
1. Ecnomus was not the biggest naval battle in the Mediterranean.
2. It was not the biggest battle of ancient times.
3. It definitely isn't the largest naval battle of all time.
That's not what wiki article says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
Oh no? Here is the exact quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilius
"With an average of 200 men per ship onboard, the total Persian naval force would be at least 200,000 men, without taking into account the numerous auxiliary vessels..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_..._Persian_fleet
try finding a better source than Wiki.
Well, we are talking about the wiki article itself - about what the wiki article says about the battle of Salamis. And before you start bashing wiki, it has been shown that wiki is generally accurate. For the Salamis article, it lists its sources as primary and secondary evidence from the works of Herodotus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
And you don't need wiki to know that Ecnomus was not the largest naval battle in history.
OK this is getting silly. I was referring the the first article you linked to, discussing the worlds largest naval battles. Then you linked to an entirely different article, the one on Salamis.
We were comparing Ecnomus with Salamis on wiki, so it's only natural I'd link it to another wiki article on Salamis. The point is despite all the exaggerations for both events, the 700 ships of Ecnomus is still not nearly large enough to be "the" largest naval battle of ancient times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilius
No, I was asking if you'd read the article you linked to, since you somehow concluded that more naval personell were involved at Salamis than at Ecnomus; a conclusion that article does not support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
Then maybe you should read the article and the article links again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilius
In the first article, it says that it is very likely Salamis had at least 200,000 participants. For Ecnomus, the article says it is improbable it had 200,000 participants.
1st article Description of Salamis ---> "it is thought possible that 200,000 sailors, soldiers and marines took part."
1st article Description of Ecnomus ---> "If this were true, which is unlikely, it would make it probable that at least 200,000"
And if you took the time to go to the article links that discussed the figures in more detail, you would've read the part that says the 200,000 figure was only for the Persian side, so that means Salamis had over 200,000 if you include the Greek figure as well.
2nd article Description of Salamis ---> "With an average of 200 men per ship onboard, the total Persian naval force would be at least 200,000 men, without taking into account the numerous auxiliary vessels."
So going by just the first article, there are still more people in Salamis than in Ecnomus...and that's even after using the improbable Ecnomus figures.
Going by the 2nd article, it is evident that there were definitely way more people in Salamis than in Ecnomus.
No matter which article you go by, both wiki articles say Salamis has more participants than Ecnomus.