Ram vs Board - Classic
I was thinking about ancient naval tactics, and the interesting progression of the use of the trireme and its larger descendants in the two major mediterranean super-wars: Athens v Sparta and Carthage v Rome. In both cases you have a classic land v sea conflict, with the land power winning in the long run despite amazing runs of success by the naval power. I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this in the literature I've read recently.
But both the strategy and tactics of the Spartans and the Romans in adapting to naval warfare was very very different. Rome built and paid her own huge fleets, whereas Sparta relied on Persian talents (most notably from the Lysander-Cyrus alliance) to fund her own. Sparta seems to have tried to copy the successful Athenian tactics of frontal ramming but Rome seems to have switched to a boarding-based strategy that negated much of the Carthaginian superiority in manoeuvering. Rome's navy was far more successful than Sparta's.
In some ways the Carthaginian tactics seem to be developments from the Athenian - manoeuvre round the flank of the enemy and ram his exposed side, either on an individual or whole fleet basis. The problem was that the Romans had more and better marines, so that any boarding action would be won by their superior numbers. The 'corvus' or grappling raven also seems to have given the Romans a colossal advantage in frontal ramming and pinning.
I think the answer as to why this difference in approach was taken, and what this reveals about the two societies, is all about the socio-political structure of the Roman and Spartan societies. Sparta was neither set up nor inclined to create professional navies of poor sailors. The poor were utterly disenfranchised in Sparta, but had some political influence in Rome through the Plebian tribune. And Roman societal unity seems to have been much stronger.
This will take me back to my thinking about empires and power...
But both the strategy and tactics of the Spartans and the Romans in adapting to naval warfare was very very different. Rome built and paid her own huge fleets, whereas Sparta relied on Persian talents (most notably from the Lysander-Cyrus alliance) to fund her own. Sparta seems to have tried to copy the successful Athenian tactics of frontal ramming but Rome seems to have switched to a boarding-based strategy that negated much of the Carthaginian superiority in manoeuvering. Rome's navy was far more successful than Sparta's.
In some ways the Carthaginian tactics seem to be developments from the Athenian - manoeuvre round the flank of the enemy and ram his exposed side, either on an individual or whole fleet basis. The problem was that the Romans had more and better marines, so that any boarding action would be won by their superior numbers. The 'corvus' or grappling raven also seems to have given the Romans a colossal advantage in frontal ramming and pinning.
I think the answer as to why this difference in approach was taken, and what this reveals about the two societies, is all about the socio-political structure of the Roman and Spartan societies. Sparta was neither set up nor inclined to create professional navies of poor sailors. The poor were utterly disenfranchised in Sparta, but had some political influence in Rome through the Plebian tribune. And Roman societal unity seems to have been much stronger.
This will take me back to my thinking about empires and power...
posted by Dark Hunter at
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
2 Comments:
So, is your theory then that Rome had the advantage of the superior marine force for boarding tactics because of the relatively strong political influence of the lower classes? Is it tied in with the existence and Roman support for the development of a professional army?
But the Spartans also had a very effective infantry. Did they not bother assimilating or developing the techniques that they would need for boarding? Were the techniques beyond them technologically or ethically? Perhaps they preferred to keep the professional warriors in reserve for land battles?
You'll have to pardon, it's just off the top of my head, and I haven't read any of the literature. I may be speaking out of my arsehole, if you know that I mean... :)
I'm all in favour of talking straight from the arse - it tends to be more interesting than dryly citing sources!
I don't think that the political influence of the lower/working class is the key issue. The Roman system was just better at integrating and controlling the masses than the Spartan system. The Spartans relied on terror and control, while the Romans used the patronage system and the tribunes to channel plebian politics. As a result the Senate could trust the working classes to fight and die for Rome.
The Spartans did not have that luxury. Their narrow political franchise meant that the Periokoi and the Helots could never be armed en masse (although Brasidas seems to have taken some sub-Spartiate fighters with him in his attack on Amphipolis) and that therefore they were dependent on others both for the rowers in their navy and also for a large proportion of most of their land armies.
I think you hit on an excellent point about keeping professional warriors for land battles, though. Sparta could not risk the loss of its professional soldiers as they were the state - crowding them onto ships as the Romans did was not on the agenda.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home