Naval forces in the first Punic War

[Thomas Davie]

First off, a disclaimer; these numbers are taken from Adrian Goldsworthy's 400pp, 2000 book 'The Punic Wars', and from Polybius.

The Romans suffered approximately 773 ship casualties sunk, crippled, captured and lost to weather during the years 264-241 BC. Approximately 570 of these ship losses were due to weather. The Carthaginians lost approximately 441 ships sunk, crippled and captured during the same period.

The Romans built approximately 120 ships in 261 BC, 220 ships in 254 BC, 50 ships in 250 BC, and 200 ships in 243 BC.

In 255 BC, the largest naval battle in the world's history was fought at Ecnomus off of the island of Sicily.


From my perspective, this 23 year war bears a lot of similarity to the Pacific island hopping from 1941-45. Clearly, the naval capaign was of paramount importance to how the First Punic War played out (and thus how the second and third wars were fought). I know that the main goal of RTW is going to be land battles, but how much attention, if any, will the naval spect receive?

thanks

Tom

[khurjan]

there you go some more info

War at Sea
Despite all the effort on land, it was the fighting at sea that decided the outcome of the war. At the start of the war, Carthage was by far the greater naval power, with what was probably close to a standing navy, while Rome herself had no navy, instead relying on those of her allies that had a naval tradition. It was these allies that provided the navy used to transport the first Roman army to Sicily in 264. Only in 260 did Rome decide to build her own fleet, of 120 ships. These ships were said to be copied from a captured Carthaginian ship, and the higher individual performance of Carthage's ships was probably due to the superior quality of their crews. The bulk of the ships on both sides were quinqueremes, or 'fives', probably with three banks or oars. The main tactic of naval warfare at this point was the boarding attack, after which marines crossed over to fight on the target galley, probably in part explaining why the Romans did so well. These ships had a very large crew, in the Roman case some 300 men plus marines, resulting in the very large numbers of men present at some of the naval battles of the war. The new Roman fleets were to win a series of great naval victories, but suffer a shocking level of losses to storm and wreck.
The first encounter between the two fleets did not show any evidence of this. The consul Cnaeus Cornelius Scipio, in command of the fleet, took part of the fleet south, and hearing of a chance to capture Lipara. The battle of Lipara was a simple Carthaginian victory, against little effective resistance. In a second skirmish the main Roman fleet destroyed a raiding force, but it was still clear that Carthage had the better fleet. The Roman response was the corvus, a type of boarding bridge. It's first apparent use was at the battle of Mylae (260), where two roughly equal fleets fought. The corvus gave the Romans the advantage, and the consul Caius Duilius was able to perform the first naval triumph in Roman history. The Roman fleet was now used to support operations on the ground on Sicily, with another minor battle at Tyndaris (257), which also resulted in a Roman victory.
The biggest naval battle of the war came in 256 as part of the Roman invasion of Africa. Carthage managed to gather together the biggest fleet yet, probably close to 350 ships, while the Roman fleet was 330 strong. The two fleets met at the battle of Ecnomus, probably the biggest naval battle in history, at least in terms of the numbers of men involved, and once again Rome was victorious. This allowed the unsuccessful invasion of Africa detailed above, after which the Roman fleet, now 350 strong, was sent to rescue the survivors, winning another battle at Cape Hermaeum (255 BC) on the way. However, on their return to Sicily, the consuls decided to attempt to intimidate the Carthaginians left on Sicily and attempted to sail along the south west coast. A storm promptly blew up, and perhaps as many as three quarters of ships and crew were lost.
In an impressive sign of the strength of Rome, the next year another fleet of 220 ships was constructed, which played a part in the capture of Panormus (254 BC), but after an raid to Africa the following year another 150 ships were lost to storms. This was followed by a period of quiet on the part of the Roman fleets, followed in 249 BC by the only major Roman naval defeat in battle, at Drepana, where a surprise attack on the city failed. This was followed once again by yet another fleet destroyed by storm, after which the Romans abandoned major naval activities until 243 BC.
It was a sign of the strain that Rome was under that the fleet of 253 BC was financed by private individuals rather than the state. A fleet of 200 ships, commanded by one of the consuls for 252, Caius Lutatius Catulus, was sent to Sicily with the apparent aim of forcing a naval battle. This fleet was give time to prepare, and after a year was probably in better condition than the slightly larger Carthaginian fleet sent against it. The resulting battle of the Aegates Islands (10 March 241) was everything the Romans wanted from it. Over half of the Carthaginian fleet was lost. Carthage lost the will to resist further, and gave their commander on Sicily full power to negotiate peace.

[Sir Robin]

The naval portion of RTW will probably not receive much more attention than it did in MTW.

True, there were some tremendous naval battles during the game's timeframe, but CA has alot on its plate already.

Instead of trying to create a substandard naval battle field they will probably wait until they have the kinks worked out of RTW's engine.

I would love to fight great naval battles but would not want the land battles to suffer for it.