Roman Seas Roman Naval Myths

There are several myths that surface when talking about Roman naval history. Most of these come to light whenever I put on an ancients Roman naval miniatures game and they should be dispelled. The below list are the most common misconceptions about Roman naval history:

Myth Number 1: The Romans used slaves to row their ships.

Neither the Romans nor the Greeks employed slaves as rowers onboard military vessels that were expecting to go into combat. There is some speculation that slaves may have been used to move a military vessel from one port to another in times of peace, but never in combat. Slaves had neither the training, the skill, nor the motivation required to row warships and could not be trusted to act in the best interests of those who owned or controlled the ships, especially in combat when the slaves may have been set free by those who captured their ship. Freeman were used to man the oars of warships, and in most cases, these were trained individuals who were well paid in their days. Paid freemen are more likely to perform at their best.

Myth Number 2: Galley rowers did not fight in combat.

It is true that rowers may not have been involved in as many fights their ship marines, but when push came to shove, rowers could and did fight along side their ship’s marine. Some historians insist that short swords were kept on board galleys for use by the rowers when boarding actions were being fought. Remember: The losers of naval battles often ended up as the slaves of the winners. A rower is a freeman who probably did not want to end up as a slave for the rest of his life in some far away foreign place.

Myth Number 3: Catapults could not be used onboard ships because their recoil was too severe for the ship to withstand.

The Romans, beginning around 80 B.C., started to place a lot more emphasis on placing artillery onboard their war galleys, although there was always a preference for the placement and use of marines to fight the hand-to-hand actions. The Romans used ballistae catapults onboard their warships, and these catapults have no recoil and therefore were ideal for placement onboard galleys. During Julius Caesar’s reign, artillery moved more to the forefront as a main offensive arm of the Roman navy. Often with the spoils of war, after a successful military campaign, the Roman navy ended up with many of the enemy’s catapults. Light and medium ballistae were used regularly on Roman warships, whereas heavy ballistae were probably not used due to the weight of the weapon and also because of the excessive weight of its ammunition.

Myth Number 4: Artillery fired projectiles with a high arch and was relatively ineffective

Ballistae catapults fired virtually flat trajectory up to at least 200 meters (some ancient historians stated that the range could go as high as 400 meters) and was deadly. A light ballistae could penetrate 4 inches of wood planking, whereas a medium ballistae fired a 10lb concrete/marble ball projectile that could far surpass the light ballistae for penetrating power (if you think cannon ball, you are on the right track). Rowing crews in a cataphract ship, being hit at short range by a medium ballistae were probably injured in high numbers by these 10lb projectiles. Being in a cataphract ship was not a guarantee of protection against artillery.

Myth Number 5: Ramming was a highly effect means of attacking and sinking enemy ships

Ramming, by the end of Alexander the Great’s time, was a risky and unsure system of attack that required great skill, and a fair amount of luck, to be pulled off successfully. One miscalculation could mean that you would inflict more damage on your own ship than onto the ship you attempted to ram. More ships of this period were starting to be built with reinforced waterlines which meant that ramming attacks were becoming less effective. To sink an enemy ship by ramming often meant having to ram the target more than once before it would finally sink. The Rhodians partly solved this problem by having their rams mounted lower on their ship’s bows allowing them to strike an enemy ship’s hull beneath the reinforced waterline belt, but the trade off was that has the ship’s bow could drag when attempting to beach the ship, as well as other problems (perhaps decreasing the ships draft?). The Romans circumvented ramming altogether by using boarding as their main method of attack. Boarding combat was a easier to control, quicker to resolve and safer than ramming, and the Romans had a ready stock of heavily armed, trained soldiers from their land armies. This was an easy solution for the Romans as well as also being a highly effective one since most other navies only used lightly armed and armoured marines.

Myth Number 6: Romans always preferred using Corvus (Raven) which was a ramp like device that was placed in the bow of their larger Quinquereme ships — the ramps was dropped onto to an opponent’s ship deck allowing the Roman marines to storm across for close quarter combat.

The Romans only used Corvus during the First Punic War (264BC to 241BC), and then only for about 5 years from its introduction in 264 BC. From around 269 BC, it was never used again. Corvus works very well, but it is also a very heavy device that could not be easily jettisoned once it has been mounted onto a warship. Corvus made the Roman warships slow and sluggish, but, more important, also top heavy. This proved a disaster for a Roman fleet that were caught out at sea during a violent storm. Their top heavy ships sank easily and in great numbers. This disaster happened twice within a three year period and in both cases, more 80% of their ships sank, totaling as many as 100,000 casualties. With such a bitter lesson learned, the Romans discontinues the use of Corvus (and rightly so).

Myth Number 7: Before the First Punic War (264BC to 241BC), Rome did not posses a navy.

Before the First Punic War (264BC to 241BC), the Romans did not build their own warships and did not possess a large navy, but they did, for at least 50 years prior, posses a navy. Their navy was thought to be composed of ships no larger than Triremes and numbering fewer than 50 ships. This small force was used for the purpose of escorting grain ships.

Myth Number 8: The Roman navy played only a small part in land campaigns and was therefore insignificant.

It could be argued that without a navy, many Roman land battles could never have been fought and won. The Roman navy fought far too many battles, in virtually every Roman campaign, than can be counted. The navy’s conflicts were often small actions, numbering fewer than 30 ships aside, but they were numerous and usually not recorded by the historians. The battles and skirmishes recorded show a long history of fighting that would embarrass the average Roman land commander with their frequency. Often when historians noted that a Roman army sat idle in campaign for the better part of six months, they failed to record that the Roman navy was fighting very fierce and bloody naval battles trying desperately to keep the supply lines open to their idle land army. The Roman navy were the unsung heroes of the Roman Empire.

Myth Number 9: The main idea of naval combat was to sink your opponent.

Capturing enemy ships was preferable to the sinking of enemy ships. It is easier and cheaper to refit a captured warship than it is to build a new one from scratch. Also, nothing hurts an enemy more than seeing one of their warships serving in the navy of their former enemy. Sinking of war galleys was, for the most part, impossible since galleys were built “light” so as to attain good speeds and maneuverability. A ship that is recorded as having sunk during a battle, in fact really just sinks up to its deck, and then floats around as a wreck for the next few weeks, or even, perhaps, the next few months before finally sinking or breaking up. It has been rumoured that even sunken/floating wrecks were salvaged by whomever found and recovered the wreck. It has been theorized that the only time a warship actually sank in battle was when it was constructed from green wood, which is heavier than the usual dried wood


The Rise of the Super-Galley

L’Encyclopédie Navale

Les Hyper-galères Hellénistiques (420-30 av. jc.)

The race to build more powerful ships with the capacity to carry larger contingents of mariners was driven by the increasing incidence of naval warfare. The obvious solution to the problems of how to increase oar power without greatly increasing vessel length was to introduce a second deck of rowers above the first to create a bireme. This advance had already been adopted by the Phoenicians by the end of the eighth century. The earliest certain image of a Greek bireme appears on an Attic cup of the late sixth century. An earlier image, sometimes claimed as a bireme, on a Late Geometric vase of the eighth century, is best interpreted as an attempt to show two rows of rowers sitting side by side on the same deck. That said, it is quite possible that the Greeks were using biremes as early as the Phoenicians.

Once the idea of multiple rowing decks had been introduced, the next step was the introduction of a third deck to create the trireme, a development that seems to have taken place about 700 BC. Some writers attributed the idea to the Phoenicians. Thucydides’ assertion that the earliest Greek triremes were built in Corinth does not necessarily mean that the Greeks were first with the idea. Triremes are mentioned in sixth-century engagements by both Herodotus and Thucydides. By the fifth century they had begun to dominate the Mediterranean.

Contemporary texts and illustrations on pottery have provided rich material for scholars, enamoured by the technical specifications of these iconic vessels so redolent of Greek naval power, to debate at length. One issue is the meaning of the word. `Trireme’ is an Anglicized version of the Latin triremis (`three-oared’). The more precise Greek naval term is trieres (`three-fitted’). After centuries of speculation it is now generally agreed that the rowers were placed on three different levels, the highest being accommodated on outriggers extending outwards from each side. So arranged, a vessel of no more than 35 metres in length could carry 170 rowers, thereby giving a very favourable ratio of oar power to length. There would also have been an additional crew of thirty, including five officers, about fourteen marines, and various seamen to handle the sails. The equipment carried on the triremes is known in some detail from fourth-century BC inscriptions found at the Athenian naval base at Piraeus. Among the items mentioned are the `big sail’ (mainsail) and the `boat sail’ (foresail) and the various ropes needed to work them: the halyard, the braces, the sheets, and the lifts. There were also two iron anchors and their cables, together with mooring lines.

By the fifth century the trireme had become the prime fighting vessel. At the battle of Salamis, fought in 480 BC, when the Greek fleet of three or four hundred assorted vessels faced a Persian force of about twice the size, both sides relied heavily on triremes. The Greeks had two hundred, requiring thirty-four thousand rowers. Triremes also played a leading part in the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), when Athens and her allies confronted Sparta and Corinth. By the fourth century the Athenian navy had grown considerably, the number of triremes reaching four hundred. But by now the trireme was beginning to be dwarfed by much larger warships. It was fast becoming yesterday’s technology.

The new Hellenistic states that began to emerge in the latter part of the fourth century as the power of Athens waned now spearheaded the advances in shipbuilding. Among the formidable navy of Dionysus I of Syracuse (430-367 BC) triremes were overshadowed in size by tetremes (`four-fitted’) ships. His son introduced `six- fitted’ vessels. Sizes increased still further under the rulers of the Hellenistic states that emerged after the fragmentation of Alexander’s brief empire until Ptolemy IV (reigned 222-204 BC) capped them all by launching a `forty-fitted’ ship. Navies now regularly included squadrons of these mega-ships alongside their triremes and smaller vessels, though Ptolemy’s monster was probably built more for show than for practical engagement.

How the rowers were arranged in these super-galleys has been the subject of lively debate. In the trireme and its smaller predecessors each oar was manned by one seated rower. In the larger ships there could be as many as eight men to an oar and, if arranged on more than one deck, the high number of rowers implied in the ships’ names could easily be reached. Putting more men to the oar would have increased power. It would also have compensated for lack of skilled rowers. The name tririka ploia, sometimes applied to these multi-handed oared vessels, implies that some at least were arranged with three rowing decks, as were the triremes. To have added more would have been to increase the chance of capsizing. And what of the `forty-fitted’ ships? One second-century AD reference discussing a very large vessel described it as `double-prowed and double-sterned’, raising the possibility that it was two vessels joined together in catamaran style, perhaps with a platform between the two to provide space for a large contingent of marines. If each half had three rowing decks with three or four rowers to an oar, the forty rowers could easily be achieved. How manoeuvrable these vast constructions were is a moot point, but their shock-and-awe factor must have been considerable.

The escalation in size of these mega-galleys between the mid-fourth and mid-third centuries was the result of changing naval tactics, away from the ram-and-run style of the earlier period to a grapple, hold, and board approach. Thus, the marines became increasingly important, and many more were now carried. To add to the fighting capacity of the ships removable wooden towers were added to stern and prow to provide platforms for archers and javelin throwers. The larger vessels could also support catapults to hurl a variety of missiles at opponents. Catapults were first used in land warfare about 400 BC. The first recorded sea-battle using catapults took place off Cyprus between Demetrius I of Macedon and Ptolemy I in 307 BC, the catapults both shooting arrows and throwing stones. Another contraption, invented this time by the Romans, was the corvus (raven), a boarding device consisting of a long walkway which could be rotated from a fixture in the bows and could be raised and lowered by ropes and pulleys. When its free end was dropped onto the deck of an enemy ship, a sharp iron beak (hence corvus) attached to the end penetrated the wood and held fast, allowing marines to board. Naval warfare had changed a lot: ships were now used increasingly to bring armies together.

Mare Nostrum

The destruction of Carthage in 146 BC brought the need for centuries of continuous naval vigilance almost to an end, but it was not until 31 BC, with the triumph of Octavian at Actium, that the last of the old-style sea-battles was fought. Thereafter the navy in the Mediterranean relaxed into peacetime duties, ferrying troops and officials, patrolling the wilder coasts, and occasionally rooting out pirates.

The decisive naval battle of Actium, fought off the coast of Epirus in 31 BC between Octavian and the combined forces of Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra, brought the long period of civil war to an end. A few years later, in 27 BC, Octavian, now Augustus, could proclaim himself princeps (first citizen) and set about restoring the republic, which, in effect, meant inaugurating the empire. Although there were a few coastal regions still to be formally taken under Rome’s wing, the Mediterranean was now, in reality, a Roman preserve: it was `the great sea’, the `internal sea’, `our sea’.

With the civil war at an end and no other fleets to challenge Rome’s authority on the `internal sea’, heavy battle units soon became an irrelevance. The navy’s function was now reduced to keeping down the threat of pirate raids and providing transport for troops and officials when required. The time of the super-galleys was over. Augustus immediately set about reforming the navy, disbanding the massive combat units and instead setting up two squadrons, the larger based on Naples, the smaller on Ravenna. Both had some large vessels, but mostly the flotillas were made up of triremes with a few liburnians-light two-level galleys that could move fast and engage if necessary. Other much smaller squadrons, mainly of liburnians, were stationed elsewhere around the Mediterranean. The design of the ships changed too. No longer was there any need for the heavy and very expensive bronze-sheathed battering-ram. The ram was still retained, now with a blunt point, more symbolic than functional but quite sufficient to deal with pirates.

The troubled times beginning in the late third century focused anew upon the importance of having military command of the sea-a fear made real by the temporary secession of the province of Britannia. Some years later, in 324, when Constantine was making his bid for the throne, he was drawn into a sea-battle with his rival Licinius at the entrance to the Dardanelles. With no standing navies at his command Licinius was forced to gather some 350 triremes from Egypt, the Levant, and Asia Minor, while Constantine managed to put together a fleet of two hundred small thirty-oared and fifty-oared galleys. His victory against the much bigger vessels signalled the end of the age of the trireme. The future lay with smarter, faster ships.

The Byzantine warships and their tactics


Reconstruction of an early 10th-century Byzantine bireme dromon by John H. Pryor, based on references in the Tactica of Emperor Leo VI the Wise. Notice the lateen sails, the full deck, the fore- and mid-castles, and the Greek fire siphon in the prow. The above-water spur is evident in the bow, while the captain’s tent and the two steering oars are located at stern.

The typical high-seas elite warship of the empire in the period was the dromon (from the Greek dromeas, meaning `the runner’). This was a two-masted fully decked bireme with two banks of oars, one rowed from below the deck and one from above it. There were twenty-five oarsmen on each side of each deck, thus raising the total number of oarsmen to a hundred, all fully seated. The marines and the officers of the ship numbered around fifty men, while the ousia, the standard complement of a war galley (its crew excluding the marines and the officers), totalled 108 men. Another type of warship that had the same features as the dromon was the khelandion; both Ahrweiler and Pryor consider these two types of vessel to be almost identical. However, although the Greek primary sources used these two terms indiscriminately, it is interesting to mention that Theophanes identifies the khelandia primarily as horse transports. The Arabic primary sources, however, use only the term khelandion to describe Byzantine warships.

A smaller but much faster type of ship compared to the dromon and the khelandion was the galea. It derived from the same design mentality for a war ship and it had two sails (the one amidships being smaller by a third) and probably one bank of oars on the deck. Because of its speed, however, this type of ship was used primarily for courier service and, during campaigns, for the transport of orders. There is also mention of galeai being used in espionage. Other types included the supply and carrier ships like the pamphylos, which was `like a baggage-train, which will carry all the equipment of the soldiers, so that the dromons are not burdened with it; and especially in time of battle, when there is need of a small supply of weapons or other materiel, [these] undertake the distribution’.

In the non-tidal waters of the Mediterranean war galleys, like the dromons and the khelandia, would have been suitable for any sort of landing on a hostile beach, unlike the heavy and round-hulled pamphylos, which required a dock. The horse-transport units of the Byzantine fleet had been equipped with a climax since at least the early tenth century, which was a ramp used for the loading and unloading of the horses from the ship’s gunwales, either from the stern or usually from the bow. This term is mentioned in the De Ceremoniis for the Cretan expeditions of 911, 949 and 960/126 and reveals the necessary modifications to the ships when they had to carry horses, such as hatches not just to the sides but also on the decks, leading down into the holds, while further modifications would have been engineered in the hulls of the ships concerning the stabling of the horses. According to Pryor, the khelandia were indeed specialised horse transports, able to carry between twelve and twenty horses. But these must have been built differently from dromons when it comes to the dimensions of the ship’s beam, which would have been much wider to accommodate both the lower bank oarsmen and the horses. A significant structural difference between the tenth-century Byzantine transport ships and their Italian counterparts in the twelfth century was that the latter placed both banks of oarsmen on the upper deck, thus making more room for the horses in the ship’s hull.

Turning to the battle tactics of the Byzantine navy, the existence of an above-water beak in the larger warships reveals a fundamental difference between the ancient Greek and Roman naval tactics and those used by the Byzantines, at least after the early tenth century. This beak, replacing the below-water ram, possibly as early as the sixth century, indicates a change in the objectives of naval engagements, from penetrating the enemy ship’s hull below the water line to damaging the ship’s oars and upper hull and bringing it to a stop in order to board it and capture or burn it.

What is obvious in all contemporary treatises of naval warfare is the same spirit of avoidance of battle at all costs, identified as Vegetian strategy by modern historians, which characterised the Byzantine attitude towards warfare on land. The basic idea of Byzantine warfare at sea follows the simple dicta by Syrianus Magister (c. 830-40s) that `if the enemy is overwhelmingly stronger than us and a great danger hangs over our cities, then we should avoid war and overcome the enemy by wisdom rather than might’. Leo VI also strongly urges an admiral that:

You must indeed deal with the enemy through attacks and other practices and stratagems, either with the whole of the naval fleet under you or with part of it. However, without some urgent compelling reason for this, you should not rush into a general engagement. For there are many obstacles [in the workings] of so-called Tyche [Luck] and events in war [are] contrary to expectation.

When a decision to engage the enemy was taken by the senior officers, then the fleet would deploy its squadrons in several formations depending on a series of factors such as `time, by attacking the enemy at a moment when we have the winds as allies, as happens frequently with off-shore winds; place, [by using] the sea between two pieces of land, or a river, [areas] in which the numbers of the enemy are useless because of the narrowness of the sea’. The author of the Taktika provides his readers with a variety of naval formations to engage the enemy (§§50-6); the two most commonly used were the crescent-shaped and the straight line:

Sometimes [you should draw up] a crescent-shaped or sigma-shaped [i. e. C-shaped] formation in a semi-circle, with the rest of the dromons placed on one side and the other [i. e. of the flagship] like horns or hands and making sure that the stronger and larger [ships] are placed on the tip. Your Gloriousness [should be positioned], like a head in the deep of the semi-circle [. . .] The crescent arrangement should be such that, as the enemy attack, they are enclosed within the curve. Sometimes you will form the ships on an equal front in a straight [line], so that, when the need calls, [you can] attack the enemy at the prow and burn their ships with fire from the siphones.

The tactical objective of the crescent-shaped formation was for the stronger ships on the sides of the formation to overwhelm the enemy ships and then turn around and attack the rest of the formation on their exposed flanks where they were most vulnerable. Once the opposing units came into close proximity with each other they would attack the enemy ships and their crews with bows and arrows, snakes, lizards and other dangerous reptiles, pots with burning lime or tar and, of course, with Greek fire, projected either through the ship’s siphones, through small hand-siphons or thrown against the enemies in a form similar to small hand-grenades. The importance of the proper management of the preliminary missile phase was indicated by the emperor’s insistence on using the projectiles effectively, not wasting them against an enemy protected by shields, and ensuring that neither supplies were exhausted nor the crews exhausted themselves in hurling them. When the ships were close enough, boarding detachments were sent to the enemy ship and the result of the naval battle largely depended on the courage and the fighting abilities of the boarding teams. For that reason,

apart from the soldiers or the upper oarsmen, [all others] however many there might be, from the kentarkhos down to the last [man], should be kataphraktoi – having weapons such as shields, pikes, bows, extra arrows, swords, javelins, corselets, lamellar cuirasses, helmets, vambraces – especially those engaged in fighting hand to hand in the front line of attack in battle.

Finally, if we follow the writings of Leo VI, a potentially decisive weapon that came to the fore at this point of the naval engagement were the `gerania [cranes] or some similar contrivances, shaped like a gamma [A], turning in a circle, to pour either wet flaming pitch or the processed [fire] or anything else into the enemy ships when they are coupled to the dromons when the manganon is turning over them’. This technique was coupled with the thrusting of pikes from the lower bank of the dromons through the oarports, a tactic that Leo claims had only recently been devised.

Salamis on Cyprus in 306 BC

Ptolemy’s fleet, the appropriated Phoenician navy, made the Egyptian dynast a powerful force in the Aegean.

The strategic location of Rhodes and Cyprus, as we have said, made control of both of them desirable. Cyprus was also rich in grain, copper, and especially timber, which Ptolemy needed for his fleet, and he and the other Ptolemies always worked to maintain some sort of influence over the island. Likewise, Rhodes was an important commercial center for Egyptian grain, and a transit point for all goods shipped to Egypt throughout the Hellenistic period. The large number of Rhodian amphorae found in Alexandria testifies to the commercial contacts between the two places, and the Rhodians probably furnished Ptolemy with warships and let him use their island as a port for his fleet. 60 Both islands had been allies of Alexander and had close ties to Ptolemy, but then again, the Rhodians had made alliances with practically every Successor at some point. Cyprus especially had been a bone of contention between Ptolemy and Antigonus for years, so if Demetrius were to take both islands he would strike a blow at Egypt’s economy and security, as well as assuring Antigonid control of the eastern Mediterranean.

In the spring of 306, Demetrius set out to Cyprus with 15,000 infantry, 400 cavalry, and at least 163 warships. En route he tried to win over the Rhodians, but they refused his diplomatic advances, preferring to maintain their amity (and trading prerogatives) with Ptolemy. Both Antigonus and Demetrius viewed the Rhodian reaction as a causus belli, and decided to deal with the island later. Demetrius sailed on to Cyprus, landing near Salamis with his infantry and cavalry. Close to that city he did battle with Menelaus, Ptolemy’s brother, who had 12,000 infantry and 800 cavalry, and defeated him. Menelaus escaped into Salamis and managed to send urgent word to his brother Ptolemy before Demetrius laid siege to the city. His enormous siege engines, taller than the ramparts of the city, included the fearsome, multistoried armored helepolis, designed by Epimachus of Athens; at over 100 feet high, with a 40-foot base, it could launch missiles weighing over 175 pounds a staggering 650 feet.

Ptolemy sailed at once to relieve his brother with at least 140 warships and 200 transport vessels carrying 10,000 troops. Landing at Paphos, he received reinforcements from some of the Cypriot cities and made plans to join up with Menelaus’ own fleet of sixty warships. But Demetrius moved quickly to barricade Menelaus in the harbor of Salamis, and then as Ptolemy arrived (probably unaware of Menelaus’ fate), Demetrius attacked him. Both fleets included huge quadriremes and quinquiremes, so their enormity of size, numbers, and the other armaments must have made the entire scene breathtaking in scale. The epic naval battle, characterized by daredevil prow on prow ramming of the warships and Demetrius’ use of catapults mounted on ships (reminiscent of Alexander’s use of siege towers and battering rams on boats at Tyre), provided “an excellent case study for how best to attack or defend a coastal city with the aid of a fleet,” and became a “textbook example” for the next century. Demetrius’ left wing successfully drove back Ptolemy’s right wing, enabling Demetrius to maneuver into the space and attack Ptolemy’s center, which also was pushed back (precisely what Ptolemy had intended to do to his opponent’s line). Ptolemy had no choice, given Demetrius’ relentless assault, but to retreat to Citium in utter defeat.

Ptolemy’s losses are not properly known, but at least forty warships and one hundred supply ships were captured and eighty damaged, with 8,000 men taken as prisoners of war, to Demetrius’ twenty ships damaged. Menelaus’ only option now was to surrender Cyprus to Demetrius, and Ptolemy to return to Egypt with his tail between his legs, although “not at all humbled in spirit by the defeat.” Thus Demetrius had his revenge for his defeat six years earlier at Gaza, and the Antigonids now became the dominant naval power. Among the captives at Salamis were Menelaus and Leontiscus (Ptolemy’s son by Thais), whom Demetrius allowed to leave unharmed and without a ransom. Another captive was the courtesan (hetaira) Lamia, who had accompanied Ptolemy to Cyprus, perhaps as his mistress, but had been left behind by him there. Although older than Demetrius and “past her prime,” she seduced him and became one of his numerous mistresses in Athens for many years.

Ptolemy would not regain his ascendancy in the Aegean until 294. He still had Egypt and Cyrene, and some cities in the Peloponnese, but these were far from the possessions he had painstakingly accumulated over the past sixteen years. Worse was to come later that year when, Antigonus and Demetrius decided to invade Egypt to topple him from power once and for all.

Soon after news of his son’s crushing victory at Salamis in 306 reached him, Antigonus, at the grand old age of 79, began to wear a diadem and took the title of king, the first of the Successors to do so. He then sent a diadem to his son in Cyprus and allowed him to be called king as well. Lysimachus, Seleucus, Cassander, and Ptolemy quickly proclaimed themselves kings so that they would not be considered inferior, as satraps, to Antigonus and Demetrius as kings.

Antigonus’ move formally ended the mirage of satrapal status. Although Justin claims the Successors had refused the title of king “as long as sons of the king [Alexander the Great] had been able to survive. such was the respect they felt for Alexander that, even when they enjoyed the royal power, they were content to forego the title `king’ as long as Alexander had a legitimate heir,” Alexander IV, the “legitimate heir,” had been put to death four years previously. That it took that long for the Successors to call themselves kings of their territories was perhaps because they had brought down the dynasty to which they had sworn allegiance and had lived under all their lives. The world of 306 was very different from that of 310, and appearance could now give way to the reality of kingship. Suddenly this new world went from no king to a multitude of them. Ptolemy’s army apparently acclaimed him king. Exactly when this occurred is unknown, and scholars are split into two camps over a date in 306 or 304.

The ancient sources seem to suggest that Ptolemy (and the others) became kings in the same year as Antigonus so as to match his authority. Since Ptolemy was an ambitious ruler, we would not expect him to have been content in a subordinate position once the others were calling themselves kings. In fact, Ptolemy even backdated his kingship to include his years as satrap after Alexander’s death in 323. But would Ptolemy have assumed the kingship in 306, when Demetrius had so recently and decisively defeated him off Salamis? This question has given rise to the belief that Ptolemy became king only in 304, after Demetrius’ lengthy siege of Rhodes had ended, during which Ptolemy had given the defenders valuable assistance and had also warded off an Antigonid invasion of Egypt. Thus he was again enjoying the sorts of victories that people would expect of a king. Moreover, the year 305/304 fits in with the chronology of Egyptian documents, which dated his kingship to that year, as the Egyptian year ran from November 7 to November 6, and the siege of Rhodes was over by the spring of 304. He may have become king on the first day of the Egyptian New Year in 305 (November 7), but did not celebrate his accession until the anniversary of Alexander’s death, which fell in the following year; this in turn became the anniversary of his accession.

Battle of the Delta

Battle of the Delta was a sea battle between Egypt and the Sea Peoples, circa 1175 BCE when the Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses III repulsed a major sea invasion. Illustration by Igor Dzis

A contingent of the Sea Peoples Invasion came by water. The Ramesses III reliefs text at Medinet Habu, Western Thebes, states that there was a naval encounter at the mouths of the Nile in the Delta. The king’s defensive measures included a stockade of lances that was set up on the shore to impede the enemy ships. At the minimum, this was done to prevent the Sea Peoples from landing their troops. In the accompanying reliefs, perhaps reflecting artistic sensibility, only four Egyptian ships attack five Sea Peoples war vessels. The king remained on land while his archers provided the necessary attack force. No chariots were employed because the battle was fought from shore to ship and from ship to ship. The naval victory was celebrated at a coast fortress. Ramesses III indicates the types of ships employed in this defense, and that they were also divided into three groups: ordinary transporters, galleys, and coasters. The first term was the most common one, and we can assume that the king requisitioned all types of Nile-bound vessels in order to provide his defense. The second refers to cargo ships whereas the third was employed for naval vessels undertaking lengthy voyages in the Mediterranean along the eastern coastline of Palestine and Syria.

The naval battle, quite rightfully, has been the subject of much study. The ships of the enemy reflect an Aegean tradition, one that was based on relatively long sea voyages across a large extent of water. In other words, they were not mere coasters or trading vessels. The hulls of the enemy fleet were angular and the prows and sternposts vertical. In addition, it seems that the Egyptian fleet blockaded the river outlets in order to prevent the enemy from escaping. This novel interpretation implies that Ramesses purposely waited until the enemy was close to disembarking and then, after having trapped them between shore and sea, attacked. In the scenes of battle, the enemy ships are stationary and within range of the land-based archers. Their vessels appear slender and lower in the water than the Egyptian ones, but a problem remains concerning the artistic impression. The Egyptian ships, on the other hand, reveal quite astounding details. Their high angular sternpost has no native parallel. The aftercastles were built with two stories, thereby providing a higher base for the naval archers and giving the helmsman a better position. But the high bulwark that protects the rowers is not known in the Nile Valley even though it was commonplace among the Aegean Bronze Age galleys. The low prow may imply the practice of ramming and therefore reflect a technological defense against the maritime activities of the Sea Peoples. This interpretation, however, seems questionable. Under Ramesses II and III the Egyptians began to employ a type of merchant ship hitherto unknown within the Nile Valley. These ships, called menesh, were probably built in the royal dockyards. But they were not developed from local sailing vessels known to the Egyptian for many centuries earlier. Lucien Basch has proposed that these menesh were derived from the north, and he pinpoints Syria, although Phoenicia is meant, as the origin. Known from the early years of Ramesses II, these ships were also present in the naval battle of Ramesses III against the Sea Peoples but operated as well in the Red Sea for voyages to the fabulous land of Punt, inland from the Somali coast or, as has been recently argued, along the southern coastline of Arabia. By and large, it seems reasonable that in Dynasty XIX, if not somewhat earlier, the flotilla of Egypt was reorganized according to the naval traditions of the Phoenicians. Their ports had close connections with various peoples traversing the eastern Mediterranean, and possibly their shipwrights had developed the high prows and sterns of other foreign sea cruisers. Moreover, these high prows were also common in scenes of the Syrian ships that unloaded their produce at Thebes in Dynasty XVIII. It appears reasonable to conclude that the Egyptian state improved its own merchant and combat navy during the second half of Dynasty XVIII and the first part of the succeeding dynasty in order to transport soldiers and to deliver “tribute” from Asia. Later, however, they would be used in sea combat.

The reliefs show that the fighting was mainly hand-to-hand, notwithstanding the presence of Egyptian archers on land and in the ships. Many of the Sherden and other enemies are carved in the position of captives. Their hands are constrained within wooden shackles. Some Egyptians have spears whereas others brandish swords. The Peleshet, Sherden, and other sea enemies mainly depended upon spears, swords, and protective shields. The reliefs depict one enemy ship captured by Sherden “mercenaries,” and we can see their round shields, medium but thick swords, and distinctive helmets. (Note that the Sherden do not appear to have been part of the archer contingent of the Egyptian army.) Here, an Egyptian with shield is about to climb into an enemy ship. In another location one vessel has already been seized. Avner Raban, after subjecting the scenes of warfare, concluded that Ramesses’ flotilla may have been built upon the lines of the Sea Peoples’ fleet. We can add that it is equally possible that the Egyptians, with the Sherden for instance, may have reorganized their ships along more up-to-date military lines. Whether or not this was a contemporary innovation must remain open, especially because the encounter between Ramesses II and the Sea Peoples early in his reign could have provided such an impetus. At any rate, the juxtaposition of both fleets is so close that we must conclude that only the final hour of the battle is pictorially recorded. The melee appears similar to a land battle, with the tactics of the Egyptian navy dependent upon the use of archers, thereby reflecting the New Kingdom tradition of the composite bow. In other words, just as with chariots, bows and arrows provided the main element of fighting.

Although the navy (such as it was) was certainly not as extensive as the navies of contemporary nations/states. For much of the Dynastic Period, shipping in the Mediterranean was mostly commercial, not military, but this seemed to change towards the latter part of the New Kingdom, when the Delta coastline was under threat from several seaborne foreign armies. For example, there was a raid by Sherden pirates in the second year of Ramesses II’s reign; these pirates were not only defeated, but were also incorporated into the Egyptian military as mercenaries. However, Ramesses II’s reaction to this seemed to be the building of multiple fortresses along the coastline, rather than increasing the number of military ships.

Most of the time, the ancient Egyptian fleet seems to have been used more for the transport of troops to battlefields as quickly as possible for the active engagement in naval battles. For example, towards the end of the Second Intermediate Period, Kamose (making a point to emphasise the amount of timber to be used in the construction of the flotilla) arranged for his fleet to lay siege to the Hyksos capital of Avaris, the soldiers and war supplies being transported to the site more quickly than they could be by marching overland. This would change to some extent later in the New Kingdom, but not hugely.

Much of the evidence for actual naval battles and warships seem to come from the reign of Ramesses III, when (in the eighth year of his reign) the Sea Peoples attacked at the Delta border. They came first over land (but were defeated in a single battle at the northern edge of the Sinai desert) and then by sea, where they were defeated in what seems to have been a fairly epic naval battle. This naval battle is portrayed at the mortuary temple of Medinet Habu, where the relief depicts handto-hand combat between the Sea Peoples (on five boats) and the Egyptians (on four boats which were, naturally, larger than their Sea Peoples counterparts). Ancient Egyptian artistic sensibilities and aesthetics must be taken into account here and it is safe to say that perhaps the numbers of vessels depicted on the reliefs do not accurately reflect the actual numbers that took part in the battle. It is possible, as with the smiting scenes discussed elsewhere, the artists were instructed to portray the superiority of the Egyptian fleet, or maybe there simply was not enough room on the relief to fit in the correct numbers of vessels.

The Egyptian vessels have rows of up to twenty-two oarsmen along with archers and foot-soldiers (although the exact numbers are difficult to discern with any precision), outnumbering the people on board the Sea Peoples vessels, where it is argued that the figures on-board must have doubled-up as warriors and rowers. The Egyptian vessels are described as having low prows, high, angular sterns, with ‘aftercastles’ of two storeys, and a high bulwark. The Sea Peoples boats were angular, with vertical prows and sterns (very much in the tradition of Aegean ships), designed to do well on long sea voyages. One of the Sea Peoples vessels has seemingly capsized or been brought down by the Egyptian flotilla and the Sea Peoples dead are seen floating in the surrounding water. As with the Sherden pirates discussed above, the Sea Peoples were apparently also assimilated into ancient Egyptian empire after Ramesses III’s victory, although in the long-term this solitary victory was only putting-off the unavoidable as the region of Canaan was lost to the Sea Peoples by the end of the Twentieth Dynasty.

It would seem that most of the time, particularly during the latter part of the Dynastic Period, any Egyptian fleet was mostly used to protect and enforce Egypt’s trade interests. For example in the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, the Saite pharaohs created a large fleet of war-galleys, in the style of Graeco-Phoenician ships, in order to regain (albeit temporarily) control of trade in the Levantine.

Despite this evidence for some aspect of naval warfare later on in Dynastic Egypt, throughout most of the Dynastic Period Egypt’s military forces were chiefly land-based, resorting to naval battles rarely, with the flotilla mostly being used to transport equipment and soldiers to battles. Certainly, there is a dearth of evidence for Egypt’s flotilla in the New Kingdom, but there is a wealth of evidence for the land-based forces; this either suggests that the sea-based military was not as important or developed as the land-based army, or that there is simply an annoying lack of primary resources providing relevant information. The former is the most likely explanation, with the land-based military indeed being far more advanced and essential to Dynastic warfare than the ancient Egyptian navy (such as it was).

Sea Peoples by Johnny Shumate.

Sea Peoples

They were a confederation of various groups who were active as pirates and marauders in the Ramessid Period, the Nineteenth Dynasty (1307-1196 B. C. E.) and the Twentieth Dynasty (1196-1070 B. C. E.). RAMESSES II (r. 1290-1224 B. C. E.) sought a pact with the HITTITE ruler HATTUSILIS III, in defense against these wide-ranging attackers, and MERENPTAH (r. 1224-1214 B. C. E.) faced one contingent of them during his reign. The actual listing of the Sea Peoples, however, dates to RAMESSES III (r. 1194-1163 B. C. E.), who destroyed them.

The Sea Peoples recorded on the walls of MEDINET HABU at THEBES include the Ekwesh, believed to be Greek Achaeans; Teresh, Anatolian sailors, possibly the Tyrrhenians; Lukka, an Anatolian coastal people; Sherdana, probably a group of Sardinians; Shekelesh, identified as members of the Sicilian Siculi; Peleset, from Crete and the ancestors of the Philistines. Others not identified with certainty were the Kizzuwatna, Arzawa, Zakala, Alasiya, Tjeker, and Denyen. The MESHWESH, Libyans who were always active in Egypt’s Delta, were also listed.

Originally some of the groups had fortified cities and worked copper mines. Displaced, the Sea Peoples conquered CYPRUS and blockaded Syrian ports. They began their first campaigns near their homelands. The Mycenean Greeks repulsed them, but other nations, including the Hittites, endured their aggression.

In Ramesses III’s eighth regnal year, the Sea Peoples had attacked Cilicia, CARCHEMISH, Palestine, Arzawa, CYPRUS, Amurru, and the HITTITES and had arrived in the Delta region with the Libyans. These marauders came in carts, bringing their entire families to the invasion. They wore kilts and headdresses of feathers or pleated stiffened cloths and they carried spears, short swords, and round shields. The Great HARRIS PAPYRUS adds other details.

Ramesses III met the Sea Peoples who were entering Egypt as migrants, not as marauders. Crop failures in the eastern Mediterranean region caused these nomads to destroy entire cities in their movement. They sought the safety of the Nile, and Ramesses III had to repel land and sea assaults. He moved defensive units to the eastern border and fortified the Nile branches in the Delta. By allowing the Sea Peoples to enter certain Nile branches and then moving floating islands and debris behind them, Ramesses III trapped entire contingents and annihilated them. Others he took as prisoners and forced them into his armed forces or made them slaves.

Egypt withstood their assaults, but the Sea Peoples changed the political matrix of the Mediterranean. One group that managed to escape Ramesses III’s assaults were called the Peleset. These are believed to have been the Philistines documented in Palestine. Some records indicate that the Peleset, or Philistines, were sent into Palestine to control the area there for Egypt.

Colonization and Rome’s Early Navy

In this period of political fragmentation amongst the Latins, marked by the rise of more powerful and cohesive polities, we also have some very intriguing developments in the area of colonization. As noted previously, early Roman colonization probably resembled the Greek practice in many ways. This was not because the Italian practice was in any way based on the Hellenistic model. In fact, the Italians had most likely been founding colonies before the Greeks arrived in the early Iron Age. There is a long tradition of Italic tribes, when their population reached a critical amount, splintering off to form new groups and settlements. This was sometimes accomplished with the splinter group sighting and following a particular animal, often a boar or a wolf, until the animal settled down, and then founding the new settlement at that location. This practice was naturally laden with ritual and religious connotations, but was also incredibly practical as the locations where these animals settled down were usually well away from existing populations and contained the basics needed for a small settlement, including food and water. This practice naturally became more formal and sophisticated as time went on, but the basic system of forming new colonies in order to keep a population within the carrying capacity of the land was one with which the Romans and Latins were very familiar. As with Greek colonies, these new settlements usually became entirely independent after they were founded, although they often maintained sentimental links with their mother community, in addition to the very real bonds of kinship and blood. Despite the anachronistic assertions of Rome’s late Republican historians, who viewed all colonization through the lens of ‘empire’, this more independent type of colonization probably typified the Roman practice during the Regal and early Republican periods. As a result, the concept of Roman or Latin colonies during this period is arguably inapplicable. Although possibly founded by Roman or Latin populations, or indeed jointly, the colonies would have effectively become new Latin settlements (based solely on culture and language) once they were founded, and would not have owed any real allegiance to their mother communities. Although there seems to have been a rough sense of Latin identity, there was no such thing as Latin ‘citizenship’ (and even Roman citizenship is problematic), even in the middle of the fifth century BC – ‘Latin Rights’ being likely based on cultural identity and not political affiliation. As a result, early colonization seems to have had the same fluid character as much of the rest of Latin society during this time.

With the advent of the fourth century BC and the rise of more cohesive urban polities, it seems that the community of Rome recognized that the old way of colonizing was no longer in the city’s best interests. The needs which drove colonization in the Archaic period were naturally still there. Rome had to be very careful that her population did not exceed the carrying capacity of the land around the community and indeed it is likely that she was pulling more and more resources from further and further afield in order to feed her growing citizen body. Additionally, the literary sources and archaeology are unanimous in suggesting a growing desire for and exploitation of land by the Romans in the fourth century BC. As already argued, this is one of the reasons behind Rome’s increasing bellicosity during the period, but it is likely that it would also have led to an increased desire to found new colonies – as this represented the traditional, and by far the easiest, mechanism for acquiring new land for poorer citizens. However, colonization would have also served to weaken Rome, taking citizens away from the community and spreading them across new lands, right when she was desperately attempting to increase her manpower reserves. As a result, although Rome founded four new colonies (Satricum, Sutrium, Nepete and Setia) in the 380s BC, she did not create any further colonies for an entire generation. Instead, Rome attempted a number of new ways to deal with this situation, including the creation of municipia, like that at Tusculum, and the increased use of ager publicus. It was only in the final decades of the fourth century BC that Rome returned to colonization as a viable option, when the city founded a series of new colonies along the coast. It is clear from the nature of these new colonies, however, that things had definitely changed during the intervening years. While Rome’s earlier colonies seem to have been independent, and indeed even the late foundation at Satricum (founded in the 380s BC) evidently had to be recaptured in 346 BC, these new colonies were ‘full citizen colonies’ and extensions of Roman military might. The colonists at these new foundations, dubbed coloniae maritimae (maritime colonies), all explicitly retained their Roman citizenship and association. Although limited in size, with only 300 initial colonists, these new foundations were also planned as part of a new, larger military strategy. This can be seen through their grant of sacrosancta vacatio militia, a military exemption supposedly held by all members of the coloniae maritimae which required them to stay on site at the colony but, evidently in recognition of their importance in guarding the coastline, exempted them from normal military obligations and duties. Between 340 and 240 BC, Rome founded ten of these colonies down the west coast of Italy (Ostia, Antium, Tarracina, Minturnae, Sinuessa, Sena Gallica, Castrum Novum, Pyrgi, Alsium and Fregenae) as part of a concerted pattern of expansion aimed at controlling the sea.

Rome’s apparent interest in naval affairs during this period might strike the casual observer as a bit odd. After all, Rome was supposedly a novice in naval combat in the First Punic War (264 to 241 BC), without a ship of her own and entirely reliant on her allies’ navies until stolen Carthaginian naval technology (the fortuitous wreck of a Carthaginian trireme which gave the Romans the plans for their construction) allowed the creation of her own fleet. Or at least that is the traditional narrative. There are some slight discrepancies to this story, however. The creation of the coloniae maritimae clearly signals an increased interest in at least controlling the coast from the late fourth century BC, although this was done from the land in what might be considered a more traditional Roman approach. Linked to this interest, however, was the creation in 311 BC of the duovir navalis, a team of two magistrates tasked with buying or building ships and conducting naval operations. This indicates that, contrary to the generally accepted narrative, Rome did in fact have at least a nascent navy active in the late fourth century BC, almost fifty years before the First Punic War. In fact the sources record that one of these new naval magistrates was active the year after the office’s creation, raiding near the Bay of Naples in 310 BC. So the Romans seem to have had a navy of their own from at least 310 BC, although how this is reconciled with Polybius’ claim that the Romans did not build their own ships until the 260s BC is uncertain. It is possible that the Romans actually purchased their ships in this early period, thus making Polybius technically correct in that they did not build them, or perhaps they utilized the more common, multipurpose ships during this time and did not have custom-built warships until the 260s BC.

The advent of Rome’s navy and the coloniae maritimae not only suggests that Rome’s interests were expanding beyond the confines of Central Italy and towards the Mediterranean more generally, but also an increasing strategic awareness and both the foresight and ability to invest in military infrastructure. The creation of both the coloniae maritimae and a fleet required a form of delayed gratification on the part of the Romans. With regards to the coloniae, despite the Romans’ evident desire to increase their military manpower during the fourth century BC, they granted the colonists sent to these new foundations an official exemption from service – provided that they maintained Rome’s naval security at these new coastal locations. This hints that the Romans recognized that the long-term control of the coast was a benefit which outweighed the short-term boost in manpower which these colonists would have provided. The creation of a fleet represents an even more extreme example of this. Roman warfare was generally a rather inexpensive enterprise; it was primarily about acquiring portable wealth as opposed to spending it. In the fifth and fourth centuries BC, Roman soldiers would supply their own equipment and often their own supplies, with some of this cost being offset by the stipendium collected from the populace. The army would then venture out, acquire wealth via either raiding or conquest in the fourth century BC, and then return home at the end of the campaigning season. The only costs for the community as a whole was therefore the stipendium, which was both limited and irregular. Instead, it was generally assumed that any costs of warfare incurred by the army would be taken out of the spoils of war, and the stipendium was supposed to have been refunded out of these – although how often this actually happened is debated. Indeed, the reason Roman soldiers fought during this period was unlikely to have been from either a sense of protonationalism or duty, or because of the limited stipendium, but rather from the desire for booty and spoils – this was the main motivator. Warfare was therefore something which occurred largely out of the civic sphere. The generals were elected by the community and the soldiers were associated with Rome, either as citizens or allies, and of course there was a stipendium available in case the war was unsuccessful or did not recoup its expenses. But once the army was in the field, it existed as a discrete and separate entity from the urban city of Rome and was generally supposed to earn its own keep. Navies, however, were very different creatures – particularly by the fourth century BC.

The earliest ancient navies, both in Italy and elsewhere in the Mediterranean, seem to have followed roughly the same model as Rome’s early armies. In a time of need, wealthy individuals would lend their ships (and likely their crews) to the community for use in war. Many of these ships, although primarily used for trade, were eminently serviceable as warships as well – as noted before, the difference between an ancient merchant and an ancient pirate was often simply a question of opportunity. So although they were not custom-built for war, they could easily handle a complement of soldiers and were reasonably manoeuvrable and effective fighting platforms. From the seventh and sixth centuries BC, there was an incremental move in the eastern Mediterranean toward more purpose-built warships, most notably triremes (named because of their three banks of oars), although the cost and single function limited their popularity. Although triremes were incredibly effective in military situations, being far faster and more manoeuvrable than the multipurpose ships utilized before, it was hard to convince the wealthy citizens to invest in them. To build, equip, and staff one trireme seems to have cost between 10,000 and 12,000 drachmas, which was a significant outlay. While a multipurpose ship could be used for trade and other activities when the community was not at war, a trireme was suited for no other purpose and had to be carefully maintained (kept out of water in a ship shed) in order to maintain its seaworthiness. These ships were the high-end sports cars of their day – expensive luxury items which were not suited for everyday use. During the fifth century BC, however, the rise of the powerful Greek navies (like that of the Athenians) and the wars against the Persians changed the equation. In conflicts with these types of enemies, the old-fashioned, multipurpose ships were simply outclassed, although they did continue to play a role, and triremes were a ‘must-have’ item if one wanted to compete. As a result, communities like Athens and others around Greece poured immense amounts of state money into their navies – investing heavily in this technology. Moving away from privately-funded initiatives, Greek states built hundreds of triremes and their associated ship sheds, in addition to spending huge amounts on the salaries of rowers – in the case of Athens, effectively creating an entirely new class of citizen. This development turned warfare, or at least naval warfare, into an almost entirely state-based, state-centred activity. This would, eventually, have a knock-on effect on land warfare, which became increasingly mercenary in nature and which ultimately, by the fourth century BC, had also become effectively a state expenditure with the rise of professional and mercenary armies like those of Philip II and Alexander the Great of Macedon. This was the world of naval warfare into which Rome was venturing in the late fourth century BC – a world of highly professional and specialized fleets which required an enormous ‘buy in’ from the state in order to simply participate. Given this situation, it is no surprise that Rome took so long to get involved and, even once the city did, was not completely sold on the idea. The requirements of naval warfare went against many of the basic premises which underpinned Roman warfare to that point.

But in the late fourth century BC, Rome did slowly invest in naval infrastructure. Although the details are hazy to say the least, Rome’s duoviri navalis evidently acquired ships and were active in raids up and down the coast of Italy. So, although it represents an arguably minor and often ignored aspect of Roman warfare, it actually represents a significant turning point in Rome’s approach to war. It suggests that Rome was willing to invest a significant amount of state money, something which was limited given the absence of taxation at this time, in order to buy and maintain ships as part of a larger strategic plan. When this is combined with the contemporary construction of the Via Appia (Appian Way), a military road designed to move Rome’s armies south faster and more effectively, an entirely new phase in Roman warfare seems to have dawned. Gone were the days when warfare was expected to pay for itself, an activity which occurred largely outside of the state’s concern, and instead there existed a mindset where Rome was willing and able to invest state resources in military infrastructure to encourage and allow long-term success. Rome seems to have finally entered an era of truly state-based warfare.


The type of bow most people are familiar with is the “post Corinthian” bow. Previously, triremes had a ‘hollow’ bow. See Connolly’s reconstruction of this type, p.265 “Greece and Rome at War”, and the coin reverses on p.264 giving a good ‘before and after’ idea of the old and modified bows.

What Thucydides says can be translated thus: “They shortened the bows of their ships and strengthened them;they laid out stout ‘epotides’, and fixed stays from the ‘epotides’ to the ships sides both inside and out” (the ‘epotides’ lit: “ears” were the transverse beams across the hull supporting the ‘paraxereisia’ = outrigger that supported the upper bank of oars, sometimes in English called ‘catsheads’).

The Greek word for ‘fixed’ is the same derivative as the English term ‘hypotenuse’. The stays thus formed a “Y” support to each of the the “T” shapes formed by the ‘epotides’ running at 90 degrees to the ship’s sides. This strengthened ‘epotides’ meant that the opponent’s epotides and paraxereisia would be smashed in a near head-on collision, allowing the scraping off of the opponent’s oar-banks…….

Although the repulse of the Persians in the Aegean did not end hostilities, it provided the catalyst that elevated Greek culture and society to unprecedented heights, creating the Golden Age of Athens. Supported by a vast commercial system and a most formidable navy which commanded the Aegean and adjacent waters, Athens from the early fifth to the mid-fourth centuries became the focus of urban Western thalassocratic activities, a magnet which attracted learned and ambitious Greeks from everywhere. A partial list of thinkers and artists who reflected this dynamic society (from the sixth century) is stunning in its brilliance: in poetry Pindar, in painting Polygnotus, in drama Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes, in history Herodotus and Thucydides, in rhetoric Isocrates, in philosophy and physics Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Zeno, Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Socrates, Protagoras, Plato, Democritus, and such later universal characters as Xenophon and Aristotle. Like the high Minoan civilization before it, however, the Athenian maritime-centered state of the Aegean rested not on political tranquility but on perpetual tension-first from the continuing external threat of Persia, then that of Sparta and from the directly related internal divisiveness of the peoples and states made subject to the fifth-century Athenian Empire. Although the endless wars of these times would sap the wealth and power of Athens, its intellectual vigor would eventually conquer and Hellenize the entire Western world.

Formed as a voluntary anti-Persian defensive and offensive alliance in 478, the Delian League of Ionian islands and coastal cities followed Athenian leadership in the spirit of Marathon and Salamis to rid the Aegean of the Persians and Phoenicians altogether. From the beginning, however, Spartan refusal to join and Athenian demands for Panhellenic cooperation and tribute brought resentment and revolts by several city-states that had to be coerced back into the alliance. In that very summer of 478 the Greeks improved their strategic position by sending naval expeditions to support a successful revolt against Persian rule over the island of Cyprus and to seize Byzantium, which commanded the approaches to the Black Sea, thus restoring the grain route thence. Two years later another force captured Eion in Thrace, ending Persian influence there and convincing nearby islands to submit to Athenian rule. But other cities, especially Naxos and Thasos, resisted or seceded and over the next ten years were forced to submit, losing their autonomy as a penalty. Under the leadership of Themistocles, until his dismissal for overambitious tendencies, Athens annually added 10 to 20 new triremes to its 200-vessel war fleet and depended upon naval vessels also from several major subject allies. Utilizing a new and stronger type trireme that could carry more troops, the Athenian admiral Cimon crossed the Aegean with 200 triremes in 466, crushed and destroyed the Persian fleet of equal size at the Eurymedon River in southern Asia Minor, then turned to destroy a reinforcing squadron off Hydrus.

The back of Persian sea power thus shattered and the Empire in chaos since the death of Xerxes in 465, Athens in 460 mounted a naval offensive throughout the Eastern Mediterranean which brought on the consternation of the League members who felt Athens had exceeded the original intent of the alliance. Powerful Aegina and Corinth, encouraged and occasionally assisted by both Persia and Sparta, revolted in 459, so that Athens had to fight a two-front war-in the Aegean and in the Eastern Mediterranean. With consummate skill, Athenian vessels crushed the Aeginetan fleet and took 70 vessels in a naval battle in 458 and raided the Peloponnesus; ground forces battled the Spartans and Corinthians and conquered Boeotia; and a League fleet cruised to Egypt via Cyprus to assist the Egyptian revolt against Persia. Moving up the Nile, the Greeks brushed aside a Persian squadron and took Memphis, only to be defeated during a Persian counteroffensive in 455-454. This reverse ended Greek aspirations in the Eastern Mediterranean and encouraged more Ionian revolts, which the Athenians suppressed in the late 450s. In 451 Cimon used his 200 triremes again to attack the delta of the Nile and then to destroy a major Persian fleet of Phoenicians and Cilicians at the beach of Salamis in Cyprus, though Cimon died during the campaign. By the end of the year Athens, able to conclude favorable peace treaties with Persia and Sparta, stood at the pinnacle of her power.

The end of the hostilities with Persia heralded an acceleration of Athenian culture and overseas trade and the institution of a Pax Atheniana over the Aegean and Black seas-the greatest stability over these waters since the days of Minos. The architect of this period of Athenian Empire was Pericles, an experienced naval commander who directed Athenian naval-maritime policies and codified them in Athenian laws and the Constitution of 432. At the heart of Periclean strategy lay the notion of command of the sea over real and potential rivals: Phoenician and Greek pirates, restless subject states like Samos, and the Spartan-led Peloponnesian League. Extending the walls of Athens to include the port of Piraeus, Pericles garrisoned troops in the overseas possessions and drew upon a great fleet of 300 triremes (plus another 100 in reserve) to police Athenian trade routes, keeping a permanent squadron of 60 ships at sea on maneuvers eight months out of every year. Continuing strife and reverses in mainland Boeotia, fed by Spartan intervention, convinced Pericles to abandon any continental pretensions in 446 and to rely totally on Athens’ insular position-the final cornerstone in his logical maritime strategy.

A long-term peace treaty between Athens and Sparta in 445 proved illusory, though, for as Pericles put down several revolts within the empire he alarmed the Spartans. In 440-439, for instance, Samos revolted and received some aid from Persia, only to be crushed in an eight-month blockade and siege by Pericles and his reinforced fleet of 160 triremes of Athens and another 55 from Chios and Lesbos. As penalties, Samos lost her autonomy and navy altogether. Then, in 435, war broke out on the Adriatic coast-Corinth of the Peloponnesian League and Epidamnus (later Dyrrachium, modern Durazzo) against Corcyra (Corfu)- during which, the next year, the Corcyran fleet destroyed or captured 75 Corinthian triremes in a naval battle off Actium, then blockaded and captured Epidamnus. Angered by this reverse, Corinth created a 150-trireme fleet of new and allied Peloponnesian vessels, whereupon Athens gave support-10 triremes-to Corcyra. In the naval battle off the Sybota Islands in 433 Corinth claimed 60 Corcyran ships, but was checked from finishing the job by the Athenian intervention.

Athens’ brief war against a Spartan ally, Corinth, now precipitated the general Peloponnesian War in 431 between the two major powers of the Greek world-already mutually suspicious competitors. For ten years Athens pitted her maritime strategy against the armies of continental Sparta. Aided by allied vessels from Chios and Lesbos, the Athenians used their navy to blockade and raid the Peloponnesus, the Ionian coast of Asia Minor and the Gulf of Corinth, while Spartan and Boeotian armies ravaged the Attican countryside, leading to a strategic stalemate. When, in 429, a Corinthian-Spartan fleet of 47 and then 77 triremes attempted to wrest command of the Gulf of Corinth from an Athenian squadron of 20 galleys under Phormio, he routed it in two successive engagements at Chalcis and Naupactus (Lepanto). However, the cramped conditions of insular, walled-in Athens gave rise to a disastrous plague which claimed the life of the brilliant Pericles in 429. His successors, notably Cleon and Demosthenes, continued his strategy by suppressing revolts in Lesbos and Corcyra in 427, but began to overextend Athenian energies by carrying the war overland into Boeotia and overseas into Sicily.

Then, in 425, Demosthenes brought the war home to Sparta by taking the coastal city of Pylos and offshore Sphacteria by amphibious operations, capturing a Spartan fleet in the process. Athenian warships also occupied the island of Kythera to further strangle Peloponnesian overseas communications, and the theater of active fighting shifted northward to mainland Boeotia and Thrace, where the Spartans tried to cut the Athenian grain routes to the Black Sea. Refusing to make peace following the success at Pylos, Athens suffered sufficiently in the north-where Cleon met his death-to accept a settlement in 421.

But Athens had become so aggressive, particularly under the new leadership of Alcibiades, that cold war ensued throughout the Aegean and finally grew into a full-blown world war. While Sparta crushed a revolt by Argos and other cities, Alcibiades used 30 triremes to virtually annihilate the small island state of Melos in 416 and then to extend the Athenian Empire west to Sicily. Little had happened there until 415 when the cities of Segesta and Leontini appealed to Athens for help against Syracuse, ally of Corinth. The next year Alcibiades and Nicias led a fleet of 136 galleys to Catana, Sicily, followed later by reinforcements under Demosthenes. Alcibiades fled his political enemies by defecting to Sparta, which now rallied to the side of Syracuse and again declared open war on Athens.

An Athenian blockade of Syracuse was broken by a skirmish with a Spartan Corinthian squadron in 413, thus opening maritime communications between Syracuse, Sparta and Corinth. Athens tried to disrupt these connections by stationing a 33-ship squadron off the Gulf of Corinth, only to have it ravaged by 25 Corinthian triremes equipped with a new, reinforced prow for bows-on ramming. Then the Syracusans blocked the 115 Athenian triremes returning to the blockade in the harbor of Syracuse by sinking several hulks at the harbor entrance. There, after several skirmishes, on September 9, 74 Syracusan triremes – all reinforced with the new Corinthian prow-pressed in on the cautious Nicias and aggressive Demosthenes. In cramped waters that prevented the use of their diekplous and periplous maneuvers, the Athenian fleet was roundly defeated, losing 50 triremes sunk to 30 of Syracuse. Trapped, the Athenians scuttled their surviving craft and attempted to escape overland, only to be pursued and captured, Nicias and Demosthenes being executed. Still, the loss of 200 triremes did not deter Athens from raising another fleet and conniving successfully to get Alcibiades back from Sparta to command it. More colonies revolted, Persia intervened on the side of Sparta, and long-quiescent Carthage became involved in the Sicilian theater. The Peloponnesian War had become general.

Because of the remarkable Athenian ability to recover from the disaster in Syracuse and retain command of the Aegean, the issue would have to be settled at sea-for which non-maritime Sparta only slowly and with great difficulty prepared itself. A general Ionian revolt against Athens in 412 resulted from the news from Syracuse, but under the inspired political and naval leadership of Alcibiades between 411 and 407 Athens so isolated rebellious Lesbos, Chios, Thasos and Euboea by his naval and amphibious victories that pro-Athenian parties managed to return to power throughout the Aegean, with Samos being restored as the staunchest of Athenian allies and main naval base in the eastern Aegean. Sparta developed a fleet to cut Athenian supply routes to the Black Sea, but its various inexperienced commanders suffered disastrous defeats at the hands of Alcibiades, in 411 at Cynossema and Abydos and in 410 at Cyzicus, where the main Spartan fleet was wiped out. Alcibiades restored Athenian control over the Hellespont, only to be removed from command by his political enemies in 407.

Sparta built another fleet of 170 triremes, a contingent of which under Lysander won a small engagement at Notium in Asia Minor, and then moved against Lesbos under Callicratidas. This fleet trapped 70 Athenian triremes under Conon in the roadstead of Mytilene, only to be attacked and defeated by a relieving force of 150 triremes from Athens off Arginusae which sank or took 70 ships and killed Callicratidas. By now, the Athenian thalassocracy had degenerated into a military despotism which executed six admirals, allegedly for their poor performance at the battle. By contrast, Sparta placed its fortunes in the hands of Lysander, who cemented relations with Persia and took the offensive at sea with yet another fleet. The Athenian fleet of 180 ships under Conon moved to Aegospotami near the Hellespont to guard the supply route and in 405 was there surprised at anchor and on the beach by Lysander, whose fleet made quick work of the helpless Athenians, destroying some 170 triremes. With Athenian lifelines to the Black Sea now severed and the fleet destroyed, all Aegean cities submitted to Spartan sea power, and Lysander commenced a land-sea siege of Athens itself. In April 404 Athens surrendered.

As long as Athens had followed Themistocles and Pericles in their maritime strategy aimed at commanding only the sea, she had prospered, but Athenian commitments on the mainland and abroad in Sicily had dangerously overextended her resources and irreparably undermined the thalassocracy. With the demise of Athens, maritime stability collapsed in the Aegean, and the victor states hastened to improve their fortunes.

Roman Imperial fleets I



Drawing by Graham Sumner What you see is the Roman naval base at Velsen, just west of Amsterdam, which was in use during the reign of the emperor Tiberius. It is almost certainly identical to the fort named Flevum mentioned by Tacitus.

At the conclusion of the civil wars in 30 BC, Octavian had acquired fleets of his own and of his former enemies, totalling nearly 700 warships of all types, far more than could be afforded or, in the total absence of any opposition, would be needed. With the start of the Imperial period the whole concept of fleet organisation changed in parallel with the change in its role for the future. Having become a Roman lake, the Mediterranean and, increasingly, the Black Sea, had to be consolidated and policed. To do this, Octavian (now Augustus) and Agrippa established permanent, separate fleets, each with its own identity, commander, headquarters home base and defined area of responsibility. The system was to be formed around two main classes or fleets, based in Italy, with subsidiary fleets at strategic points around the Empire.

The first was the Classis Misenensis, based at Misenum at the northern tip of the Bay of Naples. Established by 22 BC, this was to be and remain the senior fleet of the navy and was ranked as praetorian, i.e. part of the emperor’s personal guard. The fleet’s area of operations was the entire western Mediterranean basin, but it could also (and did) project its power into the Atlantic and established a subsidiary squadron on the Mauretanian (Algerian) coast. This fleet was maintained at a strength in ships and men much greater than was strictly needed to perform its duties. As the senior fleet of the empire, it covered the western Italian coast and transported emperors, members of the imperial family and other notables; it also, importantly, acted as a training centre and a reserve of trained personnel for all branches of the service. These men could be and were sent to supplement other forces throughout the empire and even to provide the manpower for the foundation of other fleets. As an example, men from the Misene fleet were sent to establish the Classis Britannica in AD 43.

The Misene fleet remained the principal and strongest of the empire’s fleets almost to the end of the Western Empire. It was close enough to be able to be directed from Rome, as relay riders could deliver despatches between Rome and Misenum in one day. It was ideally positioned to be able to project its power across any part of the western Mediterranean basin, as well as to screen the ports of western Italy and the ends of the trade routes to the capital itself. The fleet had local facilities at various other ports and naval stations, for example at Cagliari (Carales), Civitavecchia (Centumcellae) and Aleria in Corsica. Ships were sent further afield from time to time, either for a particular mission or as a temporary detachment, inscriptions of members of the fleet having been found, for example, in Syria and Piraeus. There was a permanent detachment at Ostia and Portus, (when built); another was stationed at Rome, initially quartered in the praetorian barracks, but from the Flavians (later first century AD) until at least the mid-third century AD in their own permanent barracks in the city. There, one of their duties was to attend to the awnings that gave shade to the Colosseum.

The size of this fleet, and indeed that of all of the fleets, is unknown. The names of many ships of the fleet appear on grave stelae and votive altars and Nero was able to enrol a legion (approximately 4,500 men) from among the marines of this fleet in AD 68, later named I Adiutrix by his successor, Galba. At this time, it has been estimated, the fleet had over 10,000 sailors (whether this included marines is not said); at an average of 200 men to crew a trireme, this would indicate a fleet of about fifty ships. This is, of course, a very crude way of estimating numbers when considering a period of several centuries and a variety of ship types, each with differing crew numbers. Nevertheless, the base itself was the size of a town and the fleet establishment was many thousands of men deploying dozens and dozens of ships for most of its existence.

The second of the Italian fleets was the Classis Ravennate, established in about 23 BC at a new base built a short way south of the city of Ravenna, at the upper end of the Adriatic Sea. Slightly smaller than the Misene fleet, it was also rated as praetorian and had as its area of responsibility the Adriatic and Ionian Seas and, being adjacent to the mouth of the River Po (Padus), the navigation of that river system. This enabled the fleet to be a part of the protection of Italy north of the Apennines. The fleet could and did also operate around the Peloponnese and into the eastern Mediterranean.

Like the Misene fleet, a detachment from this fleet was stationed in Rome, again with their own quarters. The fleet’s harbour was one of the best on the Italian Adriatic coast, which has few natural harbours and the location also linked with the northern end of the Via Flaminia, a direct link to Rome. From their location, the fleet could provide rapid connections and communications with the north end of the Adriatic (through the port of Aquileia), to the eastern Alpine and upper Danube regions, or across to Split (Salonae), the Dalmatian coast (previously, with its myriad islands, a notorious haunt of pirates) and connections with the middle Danube area. In the south, stations were maintained at Ancona and Brindisi, the latter one terminal of the route to Durres in Albania (Durazzo, Dyrrhachium) connecting with the Via Egnatia through the Balkans to Thessaloniki (Salonica) and Byzantium (later Constantinople/Istanbul). There were two other stations in western Greece, to cover the Gulfs of Patras and Corinth and the Ionian Islands and passage along the western Peloponnese. Units of the fleet operated from time to time in support of the Misene fleet, especially in the third century AD, with frequent campaigns in the East.

Provincial fleets

Two other fleets were established for the eastern Mediterranean, the Classis Alexandrina and the Classis Syriaca. The former was to control the sometimes troublesome North African and Palestinian coasts and to oversee the increasingly important trade route, including grain transports, from Egypt to the West. The policing and regulation of traffic on the River Nile was the responsibility of the potamophylacia, a separate river police force organised by and inherited from the Ptolemies that had its own men, ships and bases on the river. This could be, and was from time to time, augmented by the fleet when needed; the potamophylacia was wholly absorbed by the fleet in the second century AD.

One other area of operations for this fleet was the Red Sea. The Romans did not maintain a permanent fleet on this sea, but did organise a fleet in 26 BC with personnel drawn from the Alexandrine fleet for a military expedition to what is now Yemen. This fleet had eighty warships and 130 transports, the latter being requisitioned local merchant ships. The warships, which in the absence of any anticipated opposition (there was in fact none) need only to have been of the smallest types, were ‘built’ on the Red Sea shore, presumably from prefabricated parts brought overland. Some were provided by the allied kings of Nabatea and Judaea, who also contributed forces for the venture. It is possible that the Nile-Red Sea canal was in use and that some of the ships could have been brought from the Mediterranean by this route. The canal was prone to silting if not constantly maintained; Trajan (ruled AD 98–117) restored the canal and with his annexation of the kingdom of Nabatea in AD 106, had both sides of the northern Red Sea under Roman control. Even so, there remains no evidence for any but occasional forays by the Alexandrine fleet on to the Red Sea.

The Classis Syriaca had its headquarters at Seleucia near Antioch on the north Syrian coast and was placed to cover the Levantine coast as well as the south coast of Asia Minor, also previously a notorious centre of piracy. The fleet also extended into the southern Aegean Sea and being the closest to the ever-present threat of Parthian and Persian power to the east, was instrumental in maintaining transport and communications links with the West, frequently having to transport troops to oppose threats or attacks from the east.

Although each fleet was a totally independent entity, their spheres of responsibility could and did overlap. Ships from separate fleets operated together seamlessly for differing operations, ships from other fleets being drafted to assist in major operations, such as the transport of troops and supplies for campaigns against the Parthians, or Trajan’s campaigns across the Danube.

The North African littoral of what is now Algeria and Morocco had been in a state of unrest and occasionally open revolt after the emperor Gaius (Caligula, emperor AD 37–41) had its ruler murdered. Under his successor, Claudius (emperor AD 41–54), the whole territory was brought under direct Roman rule in AD 41 and 42 and formed into the provinces of Mauretania Caesariensis (the eastern part) and Mauretania Tingitana (the western part). These campaigns were supported by the Classis Misenensis, augmented by ships of the Alexandrian and Syrian fleets. The capital of Caesarea (Caesariensis) received a naval base with its own harbour, distinct from the merchant harbour and which became home to a permanent naval detachment or squadron. This unit was made up from ships and men from the Alexandrine fleet, but was not constituted as a fleet in its own right, but remained an adjunct of its parent fleet, which was well able to supply the required ships and men as well as support, from the relative tranquillity of the eastern Mediterranean.

The squadron, although sufficient to patrol the coasts, including the Atlantic seaboard,, was not able to deal with major conflagrations and Misene ships had to intervene to suppress raiding by Mauretanians in AD 170 and 171. It intervened again in AD 260, to help suppress revolts in Africa and Numidia (part of modern Algeria). There were more peaceful interventions when naval personnel were employed to apply their abilities in civil works, for example, in AD 152, the engineer in charge of building an aqueduct at Saldae in Mauretania reported that ‘the constructor and his workmen began excavation in their presence, with the help of two gangs of experienced veterans, namely a detachment of marine infantry and a detachment of alpine troops…’

The expansion of the empire to the line of the Danube under Augustus, completed by 12 BC, engendered the formation of two more fleets for the defence of that river. The Danube was naturally divided into upper and lower parts by the Iron Gates Gorge (between Orsova and Donti Milenovac, about 100 miles (160 km) east of Belgrade), which was at that time an impassable torrent. For the new border adjacent to the provinces of Noricum, Rhaetia and Pannonia (approximately modern Switzerland, Austria and western Hungary), flotillas previously formed and used in the advance on the rivers Sava (Savus) and Drava (Dravus), were moved up to the Danube and reinforced to form the Classis Pannonica, with headquarters at Zamun, near Belgrade (Taurunum).