What Do We Know About Naval Battlles?

Anybody have a synopsis?

This covers quite a few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...attles#Ancient

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

This covers quite a few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...attles#Ancient

---

*not-sure-if-serious.gif*:book2:

We know what is in this pic:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attac...1&d=1342435437
And can infer some things from history.

There will be galleys of various sizes & capabilities.
In the pic are at least 3 variants:
A small unmasted galley, presumably a trireme, quite crowded with deck troops.
2 large masted galleys presumably penteres, one with & one without onager type catapaults.

Devs have said that a unit will consist of multiple ships so fleets should be bigger than we've seen before.

Historically in the time period there was an extremely large range of ship types from 50man ships with single row of oars right up to the mighty Tessaconteres with 4,000 rowers & 2,000 marines.

Carthage & Rome mostly built Fives & smaller while in the East there were lots of Eights & higher and many were apparently combat effective.

Ramming, boarding, disabling by breaking oars & stand-off ranged combat were all used.
Higher rowing skill nations (Rhodes & Carthage) normally went for side & rear ramming/disabling tactics while those with good soldiers (Successors & Rome) went for frontal ramming & boardings.

Julius Caesar ran into trouble when confronted by a Celtic navy consisting of high sided solidly built ships so there can be some interesting naval action outside the Med.


And probably the best description of a period naval battle I've read, with multiple dramatic actions, varied tactics and wild turns in fortune, Polybius' description of the battle of Chios between Philip V and Attalus with Rhodian Theophiliscus in 201BC:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...%3Achapter%3D2
The whole number of ships engaged were, on Philip's side, fiftythree decked, accompanied by some undecked vessels, and galleys and beaked ships to the number of one hundred and fifty; for he had not been able to fit out all his ships in Samos.
On the side of the enemy there were sixty-five decked vessels, besides those which came from Byzantium, and along with them nine triemioliae (light-decked vessels), and three triremes.

The fight having been begun on the ship on which King Attalus was sailing, all the others near began charging each other without waiting for orders. Attalus ran into an eight-banked ship, and having struck it a well-directed blow below the water-line, after a prolonged struggle between the combatants on the decks, at length succeeded in sinking it.

Philip's tenbanked ship, which, moreover, was the admiral's, was captured by the enemy in an extraordinary manner. For one of the triemioliae, having run close under her, she struck against her violently amidships, just beneath the thole of the topmost bank of oars, and got fast jammed on to her, the steersman being unable to check the way of his ship. The result was that, by this craft hanging suspended to her, she became unmanageable and unable to turn one way or another. While in this plight, two quinqueremes charged her on both sides at once, and destroyed the vessel itself and the fighting men on her deck, among whom fell Democrates, Philip's admiral. At the same time Dionysodorus and Deinocrates, who were brothers and joint-admirals of the fleet of Attalus, charged, the one upon a seven-banked, the other upon an eight-banked ship of the enemy, and had a most extraordinary adventure in the battle.

Deinocrates, in the first place, came into collision with an eightbanked ship, and had his ship struck above the water-line; for the enemy's ship had its prow built high; but he struck the enemy's ship below the water-line, and at first could not get himself clear, though he tried again and again to back water; and, accordingly, when the Macedonian boarded him and fought with great gallantry, he was brought into the most imminent danger. Presently, upon Attalus coming to his aid, and by a vigorous charge separating the two ships, Deinocrates unexpectedly found himself free, and the enemy's boarders were all killed after a gallant resistance, while their own vessel being left without men was captured by Attalus.

In the next place, Dionysodorus, making a furious charge, missed his blow; but running up alongside of the enemy lost all the oars on his right side, and had the timbers supporting his towers smashed to pieces, and was thereupon immediately surrounded by the enemy. In the midst of loud shouts and great confusion, all the rest of his marines perished along with the ship, but he himself with two others managed to escape by swimming to the triemiolia which was coming up to the rescue.

The fight between the rest of the fleet, however, was an undecided one; for the superiority in the numbers of Philip's galleys was compensated for by Attalus's superiority in the number of his decked ships. Thus on the right wing of Philip's fleet the state of things was that the ultimate result was doubtful, but that, of the two, Attalus had the better hope of victory.
As for the Rhodians, they were, at first starting, as I have said, far behind the enemy, but being much their superiors in speed they managed to come up with the rear of the Macedonians. At first they charged the vessels on the stern as they were retiring, and broke off their oars; but upon Philip's ships swinging round and beginning to bring help to those in danger, while those of the Rhodians who had started later than the rest reached the squadron of Theophiliscus, both parties turned their ships in line prow to prow and charged gallantly, inciting each other to fresh exertions by the sound of trumpets and loud cheers.
Had not the Macedonians placed their galleys between the opposing lines of decked ships, the battle would have been quickly decided; but, as it was, these proved a hindrance to the Rhodians in various ways. For as soon as the first charge had disturbed the original order of the ships, they became all mixed up with each other in complete confusion, which made it difficult to sail through the enemy's line or to avail themselves of the points in which they were superior, because the galleys kept running sometimes against the blades of their oars so as to hinder the rowing, and sometimes upon their prows, or again upon their sterns, thus hampering the service of steerers and rowers alike.
In the direct charges, however, the Rhodians employed a particular manœuvre. By depressing their bows they received the blows of the enemy above the water-line, while by staving in the enemy's ships below the water-line they rendered the blows fatal. Still it was rarely that they succeeded in doing this, for, as a rule, they avoided collisions, because the Macedonians fought gallantly from their decks when they came to close quarters. Their most frequent manœuvre was to row through the Macedonian line, and disable the enemy's ships by breaking off their oars, and then, rowing round into position, again charge the enemy on the stern, or catch them broadside as they were in the act of turning; and thus they either stove them in or broke away some necessary part of their rigging. By this manner of fighting they destroyed a great number of the enemy's ships.

But the most brilliant and hazardous exploits were those of three quinqueremes: the flagship on which Theophiliscus sailed, then that commanded by Philostratus, and lastly the one steered by Autolycus, and on board of which was Nicostratus. This last charged an enemy's ship, and left its beak sticking in it. The ship thus struck sank with all hands; but Autolycus and his comrades, as the sea poured into his vessel through the prow, was surrounded by the enemy.
For a time they defended themselves gallantly, but at last Autolycus himself was wounded, and fell overboard in his armour, while the rest of the marines were killed fighting bravely.
While this was going on, Theophiliscus came to the rescue with three quinqueremes, and though he could not save the ship, because it was now full of water, he yet stove in three hostile vessels, and forced their marines overboard. Being quickly surrounded by a number of galleys and decked ships, he lost the greater number of his marines after a gallant struggle on their part; and after receiving three wounds himself, and performing prodigies of valour, just managed to get his own ship safely off with the assistance of Philostratus, who came to his aid and bravely took his share of the danger. Having thus rejoined his own squadron, he darted out once more and ran in upon the enemy, utterly prostrated in body by his wounds, but more dashing and vehement in spirit than before.

So that there were really two sea-fights going on at a considerable distance from each other. For the right wing of Philip's fleet, continually making for land in accordance with his original plan, was not far from the Asiatic coast; while the left wing, having to veer round to support the ships on the rear, were engaged with the Rhodians at no great distance from Chios.

As the fleet of Attalus, however, was rapidly overpowering the right wing of Philip, and was now approaching the small islands, under cover of which Philip was moored watching the result of the battle, Attalus saw one of his quinqueremes staved in and in the act of being sunk by an enemy's ship. He therefore hurried to its assistance with two quadriremes. The enemy's ship turning to flight, and making for the shore, he pursued it somewhat too eagerly in his ardent desire to effect its capture.
Thereupon Philip, observing that Attalus had become detached a considerable distance from his own fleet, took four quinqueremes and three hemioliae, as well as all the galleys within reach, and darting out got between Attalus and his ships, and forced him in the utmost terror to run his three ships ashore.
After this mishap the king himself and his crew made their way to Erythrae, while Philip captured his vessels and the royal equipage on board them. For in this emergency Attalus had employed an artifice. He caused the most splendid articles of the royal equipage to be spread out on the deck of his ship; the consequence of which was that the first Macedonians who arrived on the galleys, seeing a quantity of flagons and purple robes and such like things, abandoned the pursuit, and turned their attention to plundering these. Thus it came about that Attalus got safe away to Erythrae; while Philip, though he had distinctly got the worst of it in the general engagement, was so elated at the unexpected reverse which had befallen Attalus, that he put to sea again and exerted himself strenuously in collecting his ships and restoring the spirits of his men by assuring them that they were the victors. For when they saw Philip put to sea towing off the royal ship, they very naturally thought that Attalus had perished.

But Dionysodorus, conjecturing what had really happened to the king, set about collecting his own ships by raising a signal; and this being speedily done, he sailed away unmolested to their station in Asia.

Meanwhile those Macedonians who were engaged with the Rhodians, having been for some time past in evil case, were gradually extricating themselves from the battle, one after the other retiring on the pretence of being anxious to support their comrades. So the Rhodians, taking in tow some of their vessels, and having destroyed others by charging them, sailed away to Chios.

In the battle with Attalus Philip had lost a ten-banked, a nine-banked, a seven-banked, and a six-banked ship, ten other decked vessels, three triemioliae, twenty-five galleys and their crews. In the battle with the Rhodians ten decked vessels and about forty galleys. While two quadriremes and seven galleys with their crews were captured. In the fleet of Attalus one triemiolia and two quinqueremes were sunk, while two quadriremes besides that of the king were captured. Of the Rhodian fleet two quinqueremes and a trireme were destroyed, but no ship was taken. Of men the Rhodians lost sixty, Attalus seventy; while Philip lost three thousand Macedonians and six thousand rowers. And of the Macedonians and their allies two thousand were taken prisoners, and of their opponents six hundred.

Besides everything else, what happened after the battle impressed all who saw it too strongly. For the slaughter and destruction was so great that, on the day of battle itself the whole strait was filled with corpses, blood, arms, and wrecks; while on the subsequent days the strands might be seen piled up with all these together in wild confusion.

Amazing stuff :bow:

Good info. Hoom. I hope some of the monster Hellenic ships do make it in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

This covers quite a few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...attles#Ancient

---

Funny. And a good link.

In the pic for the battle for Carthage I had assumed that the small unmasted ships were hemiolos. The Romans used them as transports, and as you can see they carry more troops than the larger ships.

The larger ships I was assuming to be Quadriremes and Quinqeremes which were the backbone of their fleet. But at this point who can say.

It dose disturb me that any of the ships in the battle are equipped with masts. Those were made to be stepped and unstepped for battle. The masts were not meant to withstand the stresses of collisions and ramming.

The 16ers were about the largest practical war ships. We are not quite sure what the number mean though. Eight men is about the largest amount that can effectively pull an oar. It was surely not 16 levels of oars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

The 16ers were about the largest practical war ships. We are not quite sure what the number mean though. Eight men is about the largest amount that can effectively pull an oar. It was surely not 16 levels of oars.

---

I believe I read that the number does refer to the men on an oar and that ships - at most - had 3 levels of rowers. And I agree with you - how does on get 16 men on an oar?

Once upon a time I had this book: Greek and Roman Naval Warfare: A Study of Strategy, Tactics, and Ship Design from Salamis (480 B.C.) to Actium (31 B.C.) by William Ledyard Rodgers

I think he made mention of a ship built by the Ptolemys that was called a 40er. I won’t bother with the Greek name.

It had 400 sailors, 4000 oarsmen and 3000 marines. It was of little use though. It either capsized when they tried to move it or sunk at the pier, as I recall.

That is the Tessarakonteres of Ptolemy IV.
Generally considered to have been just for show & never actually went into action.

I'm not so sure though, the prevalence of the polyremes in the East & several period accounts showing them to be very effective in combat indicates that at least in the right circumstances it could have been quite impressively devastating.

I've always speculated that above a certain number, it considered the file of rowers. For example with the 16ers there would be 5-5-6 for three oars, one in each deck and so on...

Yup fascinating discussion .Org'ers.

We here at CA have been doing lots of research ourselves and are very much persuaded that it is unlikely that the numbers referred to the number of oared banks, we think it was in fact a reference to the number of men assigned to the oars. (nobody can be certain)
There seem to have been specific benefits to 3 banks of oars and 2 banks of oars. These are namely straight line speed, maneuverability, space/fighting deck clearance and seaworthiness. The trireme design wasnt the outright best decision in every case.
For anyone interested in the subject "Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient world" and "The Navies of Rome" are two good resources to name but a few.

Cheers

Intrepid

Perhaps we should reintroduce the CA icon next to threads in forum view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick

Yup fascinating discussion .Org'ers.

We here at CA have been doing lots of research ourselves and are very much persuaded that it is unlikely that the numbers referred to the number of oared banks, we think it was in fact a reference to the number of men assigned to the oars. (nobody can be certain)
There seem to have been specific benefits to 3 banks of oars and 2 banks of oars. These are namely straight line speed, maneuverability, space/fighting deck clearance and seaworthiness. The trireme design wasnt the outright best decision in every case.
For anyone interested in the subject "Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient world" and "The Navies of Rome" are two good resources to name but a few.

Cheers

Intrepid

---

Thanks for the References!

Do you mean the number of oarsmen at each bank? I can only see that up to 24.

Putting more than 8 men on an oar would cause more problems than any benefit it would give you. I think the number of the larger ships came from the files of oars, both sides of the ship, once they reached the larger sizes.

However you arrive at the numbers is fine, I think. Ancient naval warfare has always fascinated me.

As long as not lowering masts before battle and depicting the disadvantages of the Corvus at sea are there I will be a happy camper.

The widely held interpretation is that the really big ones are catamarans with oars inbetween hulls.

Another shot with ships in the new bunch of screens
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attac...9&d=1349391421

Looks to be more or less same bunch of classes.
Big with 1 catapault
Big with 2 catapaults
Big with 2 catapaults & lots of deck crew
Intermediates with packed decks (on either side)
Smaller ships with pretty big deck crew (but they are bigger than the smallest in the earlier shot)

All of them have their masts up.


Also I have just started reading The Age of Titans by William Murray which is a 2012 book specifically about the rise of the polyremes.
Apparently somewhat challenges the status quo regarding the primary reasons/usage of the big ships, I believe arguing for more emphasis on ramming/harbor blockades/fights, less on boarding & catapaults.
Has particularly nice appendices where he has collected references to polyremes & other aspects from ancient texts & ordered them by class.

There's going to be shipborne artillery, which should be interesting, and with those combined battles you can have D-Day 200 BC. The ships are going to be in groups of two to increase the scale of the battle, but I'm not sure how many maneuvers there are going to be for the ships. Can't wait to find out

Im interested in how the ships with catapults will be used and how powerful they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick

Yup fascinating discussion .Org'ers.

We here at CA have been doing lots of research ourselves and are very much persuaded that it is unlikely that the numbers referred to the number of oared banks, we think it was in fact a reference to the number of men assigned to the oars. (nobody can be certain)

---

Thanks for chiming in Intrepid! That is definitely the widely held opinion among scholars. They believe it refers to how many oarsmen were on one side, in a cross-section. For example here you see a cross-section of a quinquereme, and you see 5 (quinque):
http://www.mmdtkw.org/CNAf0316Quinquereme.jpg

Looking forward to seeing more from you guys.