"Corvus tactics" Topic

Roman war galleys during the 1st Punic War were, on occasion, equipped with a corvus. I understand that that made them more sluggish in the water than vessels without – BUT did it preclude them from ramming, or did the lowering of the corvus follow a ram attack?

Cheers!

From what I understand is that it did make the ships less manueverable. I don't think they were used following a ramming. Just a guess, but the shock of the ram might unstep the corvus before it could be used.

From reading between the lines of some contemporary accounts, the corvus made the ships unstable as well as slow and sluggish. The sudden shock of a ramming would most likely have caused a disaster on the corvus equipped ship.

The corvus was invented largely as an attempt to counter the better agility of the Punic ships and hold them so they could be boarded. If they couldn't catch them to board I doubt they'd be able to ram them either so the issue probably didn't arise much.

The Romans used the Corvus to make use of their infantry. They would approach the enemy ship, drop the corvus, catching it with the spike on the end of the corvus, and board it, outnumbering the enemy crew with their marines. They did not try to ram other ships, but capture them instead. The main disadvantage of the corvus was that it made the ship a bit top heavy. Several fleets were lost to bad weather during the Punic Wars.

What GildasF' said:

The corvus was a hefty piece of kit. It was 36 feet long, 4 feet wide with sides 2 feet high. It was solidly constructed out of wooden planks. The pole on which it was hoisted was 24 feet high.

Mounted well forward, and with marines waiting to cross it, the bows of the ship would certainly be down in the water. This being the case, I'm not sure if the ram would be effective against a shallow drafted galley.

There is also a problem with coming to a sudden stop with such a tall piece of equipment. Prior to combat, masts and yards were taken down to stop them snapping when ramming and encumbering the deck, not to mention possible damage below decks where the mast was fixed. I imagine this problem would be even worse with something as heavy as the corvus.

My understanding is that the corvus could not be used directly forward because of the prow It was dropped obliquely forward or to the beam.

Consequently, I would say that Roman ships with a corvus should not be allowed to ram.

That is great gents, thanks. Nice to see consensus among wargamers :)

Not to spoil the consensus, but don't forget that "ramming" included more than just trying to hole the enemy below the waterline. Equally important was hitting at an oblique angle to sheer off the opponent's oars. I don't see anything inconsistent with such sheering tactics and using a corvus.

Ivan – that is usually called an 'oar rake' and is an entirely different tactic to a ram.

The optimum angle of approach needs to be different for a successful rake to that for a good ram contact AND you need a good crew to do one without an equal risk to your own oar bank.

It was most commonly used by smaller craft with high agility that could chew off some of the oars of a big galley (and probably kill a fair few of its oarsmen too).

Roman crews were not as skilful as the Punic ones at this stage in the Punic Wars – hence their attempt to counteract that skill advantage with an innovative device.

I think its perceived success can be measured by it short period of use. The risks probably outweighed its other advantages.

The corvus WAS meant to be used with the normal manoeuvres of a ship ramming the opponent (or getting rammed). The main point was to meet the enemy's ram with one's own – then, instead of the usual stalemate and backing water, the corvus was dropped. The advantage of the corvus being able to be swung round was that a mis-strike not directly at the bow could also be turned to advantage and if one's own ship was hit in the bow area then the enemy may be trapped before he backed-off. But it was only c.8metres long from the pole so with say 3 metres crossing its own ship's deck there was precious little length to play with..th eprojecting length of oars on a 5 would have been about 3 metres so there was notmuch to play with in judging the drop unless the enemy had been hit by charging him.Polybius says it was used with ramming action(embolas) and sideways(plagios). So much extra top-weight in the bow must have made the ship awful to steer and in bad weather …thogu Plybius never connects the corvus with the storm disasters)glug.

The corvus WAS meant to be used with the normal manoeuvres of a ship ramming the opponent (or getting rammed).

Except when boarding a ship that rammed the corvus carrying vessel (where the corvus could be deployed) I think this is not true. Simple physics counts against corvus carrying vessels ramming (see masts being taken down before combat). Polybius was not a sailor and wrote sometime after the events.

Given that a successfully rammed ship would sink, why board it? Also see the comments above about the stability and consequences of carrying a corvus.

Contact between ships would be almost essential to drop the corvus onto an enemy deck, but that does not mean ramming at ramming speed. Bumping alongside somewhat obliquely, at an easy speed, would be the obvious approach.

As Roman seamanship improved, and their ships became more skilled at ramming and raking, the corvus was disposed of almost ASAP. It was a stop gap to overcome superior Punic seamanship. That the corvus only lasted a few decades at most speaks volumes about its overall worth VS its downside.

Ramming as a tactic to sink or disable an enemy ship RATHER than board it was not actually employed very often in Ancient galley warfare.

I think what you are referring to is more like a controlled collision that brings your ship close to the enemy and allows you to board him.

Certainly there would be many times when the ram did penetrate the opponent's hull BUT, just as frequently, the aggressor could get stuck. The he'd be unable to withdraw if the boarding battle went badly or avoid others joining in (and so being outnumbered) or even returning to the fray if the other ship was captured.

Ramming was a risky tactic at the best of times and used mostly by large craft on smaller ones that a single blow would break or capsize. Between equally sized ships it was risky against an opponent who was more skilled or more agile than you.

The trouble with using ancient words is that we don't always know what the author meant when he used them. An embolus is the beak of a ship – but could just as easily refer to the whole of the bow section as to the ram itself. Later the same term may refer to loading a ship ('putting on board' is the translation I found) – could possibly refer to boarding too ???

Wooden ships rarely sank – even the heavily ballasted ships of the Napoleonic period would often float even when burned to the waterline.

Its just that Polybius says so.. He was a military enthusiast and was with Scipio in the siege of Carthage. he then undertook a naval expedition down the coast of Africa. He knew which end of the ship was the pointy one. At Ecnomus the Romans sank more ships than the Carthaginians – it must have been by ramming. They captured twice as many – presumably taken by boarding. The Romans fought mainly on the defensive which meant facing the enemy down bow-to-bow and then the corvus is a trap for the attacker. At Drepanum the Romans charged the Carthaginians. Sounds a bit rammy. Ramming speed was not fast.

Certainly by Drepanum the corvus had been abandoned. I've played that particular engagement both ways because it gives the Romans a chance if they have corvus. I also allow ramming by corvus carrying vessels within my own rules Fleet of Battle published and available as a free download from WI

link

but that doesn't mean it's historical – it just makes the game 'counters' different / interesting.

I love this period of naval wargames because there is no wind or coal power. It is land warfare at sea. It can also look pretty

Drepanum once

Drepanum twice

Drepamun thrice

I really do love this period of naval warfare – my fleets

mea culpa i Meant Ecnomus where the Romans charge..
But also at Drepanum Polybius says the Romans are rubbish at manoeuvering. I think the lack of success at rammingi s because they were poorer seamen on poorer vessels rather than just the corvus. Maybe they still had it. The usual situation is one side is 'superior' and can get ramming atttacks in and the 'inferior' side has to adopt some kind of defence and make a counterattack to win. I'm in favour of 'scientific' galley warfare and ramming tactics rather than the boring old melee.(Thuc.1.49) ;) Whatever tactics it is nice to see a tabletop full of struggling ships.