- This topic has 6 voices and 18 replies.
-
Posts
-
This is kind of neat – the ram from a ship that likely came from one of the Roman or Carthaginian ships was recently found in the Mediterranean:Ancient shipwreck points to site of major Roman battle
The Romans used a hooked boarding ramp called a corvus to lock ships together and then capture them by boarding instead of using ramming tactics. Also, the Romans were not the dominant seapower at the beginning of the First Punic War, the Carthaginians were. The Romans were a land power and created their navy virtually from scratch using a captured Carthaginian exemplar as a model. There are several problems with this article. The rams may indeed belong to Carthaginian & Roman ships but it was not ramming that allowed the Romans to win the battle, it was Roman infantry boarding the enemy's vessels..
The Roimans were a land power and created their navy virtually from scratch using a captured Carthaginian exemplar as a model.
There is an anecdote about how when the Romans first went to war against Carthage, they had no ships and so the soldiers had to practice for war at sea using wooden logs.
The Romans used a hooked boarding ramp called a corvus to lock ships together and then capture them by boarding instead of using ramming tactics. Also, the Romans were not the dominant seapower at the beginning of the First Punic War, the Carthaginians were. The Roimans were a land power and created their navy virtually from scratch using a captured Carthaginian exemplar as a model. There are several problems with this article. The rams may indeed belong to Carthaginian & Roman ships but it was not ramming that allowed the Romans to win the battle, it was Roman infantry boarding the enemy's vessels..
Good answer. Obviously a student of AMU. The expertise of the Greeks living in southern Italy were also of assistance in developing Rome's navy.
That, and I went through a Roman history phase about 7-8 years ago where I read just about everything about Rome I could get my hands on. If I had not picked Prussia as a historical specialty it would have been Rome. I find Roman history almost as fascinating as Prussian history.
I too noticed they made Carthage out to be in decline. Carthage was not in decline until they lost their death match with Rome. Even then, the wars were protracted and won by attrition.
I heard Rome was only able to build their navy after finding shipwrecked triremes (I think) and reverse engineering them into something they could use, including the corvus to attach to enemy ships. Also I imagine they were probably afraid of rocking the boat (pun intended) by attacking Carthage's navy in traditional ramming style and they knew their strength was up close with their swords so I suppose they put 2 and 2 together.
I too noticed they made Carthage out to be in decline. Carthage was not in decline until they lost their death match with Rome. Even then, the wars were protracted and won by attrition.
Wait, what? Are you referring to Carthage's military or Carthage as a city? I think that after the Romans dusted off the Carthaginians in the second Punic campaign, they were somewhat surprised when their foes came back. That's why around 150 B.C. at the third campaign the Romans decided that enough was enough, and they leveled Carthage completely and I think put salt on their fields so that it wouldn't come back. That suggests to me that Carthage was not as strong as it was, say, when Hannibal launched his attack during the Second war.
The article is referring to the Battle of Trapani in 241 B.C., which was the final naval battle of the First Punic War. Therefore, I don't think it is correct to label Carthage as a power in decline since it took 80 years and two more cataclysmic wars for Rome to finally utterly defeat Carthage.
The article is referring to the Battle of Trapani in 241 B.C., which was the final naval battle of the First Punic War. Therefore, I don't think it is correct to label Carthage as a power in decline since it took 80 years and two more cataclysmic wars for Rome to finally utterly defeat Carthage.
^^^^^This.
I too noticed they made Carthage out to be in decline. Carthage was not in decline until they lost their death match with Rome. Even then, the wars were protracted and won by attrition.
Wait, what? Are you referring to Carthage's military or Carthage as a city? I think that after the Romans dusted off the Carthaginians in the second Punic campaign, they were somewhat surprised when their foes came back. That's why around 150 B.C. at the third campaign the Romans decided that enough was enough, and they leveled Carthage completely and I think put salt on their fields so that it wouldn't come back. That suggests to me that Carthage was not as strong as it was, say, when Hannibal launched his attack during the Second war.
Actually, with regards to Hannibal and his campaign, I?ve come across some conflicting sources regarding the role that his elephants played in battle. Some texts say that the elephants were never used in combat and only served to give the Romans a psychological blow, while a documentary that I saw talked about the elephants being used in the battle of Trebia. What?s the scoop on this?
To my knowledge Hannibals elephants were never used in any major battles. Most died crossing the Alps. I seem to remember reading a story 10-15 years ago where an archaeologist working in the Alps claimed to have discovered the skeleton of one of Hannibal's elephants.
Hannibal used his cavalry to flank and assault the slow footed Romans. The elephants might have been used but not in any decisive way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
