"Some Ancient Roman Naval Questions." Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Galleys Message Board
Action Log
15 Jan 2011 4:39 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from Ancients Discussion board
- Crossposted to Galleys board
Areas of InterestAncients Medieval Renaissance
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleAdam loves Scorched Brown...
Featured Profile ArticleFor the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
peterx | 15 Jan 2011 3:42 p.m. PST |
Hi TMP resident Roman experts! I'm a teacher of 4th and 5th grade students who are writing reports on Roman history. One student is writing about the Roman army, and included some facts about the Roman navy as well. He said that some Roman naval vessels carried 600 Roman soldiers and had 250 rowers. The rowers sounds like it could be a bit high, but possible. The internet search I did- did not turn up the fact of 600 Roman troops on a single ship. I suspect he got his facts wrong. Am I wrong, or is he? |
MajorB | 15 Jan 2011 4:11 p.m. PST |
According to this site: link (yeah, it's Wikipedia, but in this case it looks quite good), a quinquereme would have 3 banks of 30 oars on each side and a rowing crew of 300. It says that the marine contingent would be 70 – 120 men. I suspect your figure of 600 men would apply to transports rather than fighting ships. I would question your student as to his sources. |
Agesilaus | 15 Jan 2011 4:25 p.m. PST |
Yes Margard is right about the size of the Quinquereme. During the Roman period there were other vessels employed including 8s, 10s, 12s, 16s, 32s and Ptolemy's 40 which carried 4000 rowers and 4000 marines. So the size of the crew varied according to the size of the ship, but not more than 8000! |
peterx | 15 Jan 2011 4:28 p.m. PST |
Wow, Agesilaus, that is a lot of Roman soldiers n a ship. Current nuclear Carriers have 3500 to 4000 crew, so they had more crew than a Carrier? Zounds! |
GreyONE | 16 Jan 2011 1:06 a.m. PST |
It is said that Mark Anthony's flagship at Actium had about 500 rowers and 200-250 marines plus up to 6 medium artillery (ballistae) pieces. Mark Anthony's ship was a "10" whereas the typical main Roman warship of the same period was a "5". A 5 (Quinquereme) had about 120 or so marines. Roman 5's were considered "medium" size warships -- large enough to carry a good number of marines, but light enough to still be maneuverable. Romans did employ a few "6's", but these were typically flagships. Apparently, for short periods, commanders could cram more marines onboard their ships, but this could cause a ship to become top heavy. There was at least one known case of making a Quinquereme go turtle by employing too many marines at one time leading to the death of at least 400 rowers and marines. Although fairly large, warships wer fragile/lightly built vessels. E.H. |
olicana | 16 Jan 2011 2:32 a.m. PST |
Yep, about 300 rowers and 120 marines for a Roman 5. |
MajorB | 16 Jan 2011 5:18 a.m. PST |
Apparently Ptolemy's "40" was never used in battle. |
LORDGHEE | 20 Jan 2011 2:46 p.m. PST |
sounds like a typo. 250 rowers and 60 marines seems right. A lesson in using more than one source. Now during operations like at Actium or Alexanders seige of tyre loading extra marines would be common Lord Ghee |
WarpSpeed | 01 Feb 2011 11:49 p.m. PST |
Consider the lake Nemi ships which were more like cruise ships,hot running water,firplaces,pools,temples.Ancient naval constructs might not be as elaborate but certainly could be sizeable and crew needy. |
|