Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Roman Fleet of the Republic
Yep, persistence pays off. Another revision of Ecnomus undertaken. This time I had another look at Polybius’ claim of the Carthaginian fleet numbering 350 ships manned by more than 150,000 men.

Armed with the knowledge of how many men each Carthaginian quinquereme had, which has been tested more than once, the first mistake is not to divide the +150,000 men by 350 ships, a path I had followed for too long, and ended up nowhere. Polybius has given the details for two different Carthaginian fleets sizes, so +150,000 men are for a different sized fleet and also includes the crews for the Carthaginian casualties. With that information, it becomes clear how Polybius also arrived at 350 ships and from this, the actual size of the Carthaginian fleet can be obtained. It definitely is not 350 ships.
Again, a re-examination of the battle of Ecnomus according to Polybius still shows the Carthaginian left wing’s difficulty in attacking the Roman third squadron towing the horse transports and hem them in against the coastline. Polybius states the third squadron formed the base of the Roman formation, so the Carthaginian left wing would have the same number of ships to do this based on frontage, considering that Polybius does state the third squadron was in a single line and the Carthaginian fleet deployed in a single line.
Looking over my diagrams of the Roman wedge being formed, I had employed the squadron organisation and omitted the legion organisation of the Roman fleet, and there was my speed bump. The third legion forms the bottom of the right side of the wedge, and behind it the line of the third squadron. The third legion is made up of the first and second squadron. It is quite feasible for the Carthaginian left wing to attack the third legion and hem it in between the coast.
Polybius states there was three separate battles each of equal size and this is what I get in relation to the number of ships involved in these three battles. Hanno’s squadrons are to attack the rear of the Roman fourth squadron, and because the fourth squadron is in open order, due to having an extended line, the Carthaginian ships would be able to sail between the Roman ships, turn and hit the Roman ships in the stern. It would be the third squadron that must come to the support of the fourth squadron. While Hanno attacks the rear, Hamilcar’s squadron are attacking the wedge on both sides, which includes the third legion.
The only point I am in disagreement with Polybius, is that the Carthaginian left wing is attacking the third legion and not as Polybius states, the third squadron. I believe Polybius has confused this issue.
In his description of the Roman fleet organisation at Ecnomus, Polybius describes the Roman fleet as being divided “into four divisions, with each division having two names, called either the 1st Legion or the 1st Squadron, and the others accordingly.” I have found that a Roman fleet has two organisations, a squadron organisation and a legion organisation, which makes it possible for someone to confuse the two.
The revision into the naval actions of the First Punic War have been completed and finally put to bed. All casualty figures given for the various battles follow the same mathematical procedures. It seems some of the sources employed by the various ancient historians give accurate figures and others rounded figures, but within a zero point zero one margin. So basically, if some sources say 12 ships, others have in their calculations rounded this to 10 ships. This has result in the rounded numbers being interpreted as being different casualty numbers to the unround numbers and therefore has been included in the totals. This has resulted in a blow out of the casualties, both sunk and captured ship, and more especially in the number of sunken ships. As the Roman tactic was to board and capture a ship, the number of sunken ships should be lower than the number of captured ships. From my research, below are the losses incurred by a fleet given in percentages for the following six battles:

Mylae: Carthaginian losses 25%
Tyndaris: Carthaginian losses 23%
Ecnomus: Carthaginian losses 27%, Roman losses 9%
Cape Hemaeum: Carthaginian losses 33%
Drepana: Roman losses 53%
Aegates Island: Carthaginian losses 35%, Roman losses 10%
This makes Drepana the most costly naval battle. It would seem that when a third of the their fleet was lost, the Carthaginians bugged out.
I wrote:

The revision into the naval actions of the First Punic War have been completed and finally put to bed.
Well I got that wrong big time. Now back to doing a major naval revision. While investigating other references about praetors I came across a couple of references concerning naval matters, that has now grown into a bundle of them. The references of fifty ships and fifty five ships I mistook for rounding, that is fifty five was rounded to fifty ships. I regrouped all the fleet number references but this time included other data such as twenty five ships which is half of fifty and thirteen ships, which is around half of twenty five. Then went one step further and listed what their mission was in relation to each fleet number.
All this shows there are three doctrines, coastal protection, raiding and invasion, with each having a different number of men on the ship, which makes sense. However, in typical fashion, most invasion numbers omit the horse transports. All the types of troops placed on these ships vary depending on the mission. So, a little bit more of the primary sources is making sense, and a wonderful window into the Roman naval operations comes to light.
I sent a friend (historian) my latest research. His response was:

“I continue to shake my head in wonder. You continue to make even more progress when I figure you’ve squeezed all the juice that possibly could remain!”
This was mainly in reference to the elephants numbers in the First Punic War, which follows the same methodology for arriving at the number of elephants, and therefore, is from the same ancient author (???).
At the naval battle at Cape Hermaeum, depending on which ancient author, the Carthaginians lost a minimum of 24 ships (Diodorus), 114 ships (Polybius), to a maximum of 134 ships, (Eutropius and Orosius), thereby creating a difference of 110 ships between the lowest and the highest. As Polybius states that the Roman fleet easily routed the Carthaginians, the Carthaginian losses should be small.
At the Aegates Island, the Carthaginian ship losses range from 117 ships (Diodorus), 120 ships (Polybius), 188 ships (Orosius), and 198 ships (Eutropius), giving a difference of 72 ships. Again, Polybius remarks that the Carthaginian ships were quickly routed; therefore, the Carthaginian losses would also be small.
At first I thought it was coincident, but all the Carthaginian ships losses, men killed and captured have been calculated on the Romans mathematical procedure of changing the inequality of a number to equality. Using this process on both the Carthaginian ship losses and also the manpower losses, at Cape Hermaeum, without rounding or fudging the numbers, it works out that the Carthaginians lost 24 ships as per Diodorus. At the Aegate Islands, even less.
The inflated numbers are due to the rounding of the original losses by various sources, and then others have mistaken the rounded numbers (sunk, captured and disabled) as different casualty figures and added them to the original. However, at Cape Hermaeum, Diodorus did not do this.
At present, the author of the changing the inequality of a number to equality methods appears to point toward Philinus (of Agrigentum), who wrote about the First Punic War. If so, then Polybius’ indication of Philinus being a Carthaginian sympathiser is incorrect due to the Carthaginian losses being exaggerated.
The inequality of a number to equality method is a good way to inflate small losses, and the smaller the losses, the greater the integer they are multiplied by. Take for example Eutropius and Orosius’ claim of 125 Carthaginian ships sunk at the Aegate Islands and Orosius’ 63 captured, for a total of 188 ships sunk. Change the 125 ships sunk to 126 ships, giving a total of 189 ships, and you have 63 ships multiplied by three. Eutropius’ total of 198 ships on the surface equates to 66 multiplied by three, but it is 63 multiplied by three, and then the 12 Romans ship are added which have been rounded to ten ships. The Roman ten ships are included in the manpower numbers.
The end result is no matter what the varying numbers are given for a particular battle, they are all within each battle, compatible with each other and show the method of how the various author used the data.
The inequality of a number to equality method also applies to the Carthaginian elephants numbers, so all of those elephant numbers are highly inflated, and something I stumbled on, as elephant numbers were not on my radar. Take Orosius and Eutropius’ figure of 26 elephants killed at Panormus and 104 killed, giving a total of 130 elephants. The figure of 130 elephants equates to 26 multiplied by five. The figure of 104 killed is 26 multiplied by four. Same style as the Aegate Islands, and like the naval casualties, all the elephant numbers for the First Punic War have been greatly exaggerated.
So those 100 elephants at Bagradas, well I have said goodbye to them. Elephants are present, but nowhere near 100 elephants.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  roman fleet commanders eugene 2 1,189 10-27-2009, 01:26 AM
Last Post: popularis
  Roman Fleet Antek 9 2,507 12-09-2006, 09:49 PM
Last Post: Antek
  Strength of Roman fleet Jona Lendering 11 2,133 08-28-2006, 02:20 PM
Last Post: Praefectusclassis

Forum Jump: