The Roman Navy

[Josef]

those are mounted rock throwing ballistas read about it somewhere but that was in the battle of actium

[Commilito]

actually the harpax was a form of grappling hook. Yes, they were used at Actium, but that doesn't mean they wern't used anywhere else.

[Josef]

Commilito

check this link [url:6twk3vmo]http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~murray/actium/brochure.html[/url]

[Robert]

On the Pompei painting shown on the Actium site, the ships (are those liberna's?) DON't have masts, either. I recently read somewhere (ah yes, this famous Ancient Warfare Magazine, issue 1 vol 1, don't miss it) that the Roman fleet supplied close support to troops when carrying out raids on shoreline settlements. An artillery piece or two would certainly throw in some weight (pun intended :lol: ). The way they are displayed, mounted amidships and facing outward with enough room between them to allow deployment, makes sence. Anchors are found at bow or stern, construction is way to heavy for a simple maststep and these would be further apart.

[D B Campbell]

the two strange items on deck are usually identified as artillery pieces

What's your source, Florian? The museum catalogue, perhaps? Can you give the full citation?

I've never seen the relief discussed in terms of artillery. Marsden, for example, seems unaware of it. (Was it discovered after 1971, perhaps?)

Certainly, there's some slight evidence for artillery on shipboard in a Roman (as opposed to a Hellenistic) context: Caes., BGall 4.25.1; BCiv. 2.4.2 (with 2.6.3); BAlex. 19.3. Marsden lists some passages of Livy, too (24.34.5; 26.44.10; 26.26.3; 27.14.5; 30.4.10). But he is sometimes too credulous (as when he takes "every kind of missile" on the ships at Naulochus as evidence of artillery: App., BCiv 5.118).

Surprisingly, artillery (afaik) is not mentioned in accounts of Actium ... unless you know different?

[Ildar]

Ave, Duncan,

I've never seen the relief discussed in terms of artillery.

I haven't seen any discussion of this relief anywhere even in a naval context.

Marsden, for example, seems to be unaware of it. (Was it discovered after 1971, perhaps?)

Marsden didn't know a lot of what was widely known even at his time, for example, the treatise "De Administrando Imperio" of Constantinus VII. Although ballistarii of Chersonesos were and remains one of the most popular ancient controversial subject of the Russian-Soviet historiography till now. Moreover, Alan Wilkins didn't care to verify his works with the treatise and misrepresented the word χειροβολίστρα (cf. χειροτοξοβολιστρων) in his last papers.

But he is sometimes too credulous

Yes, Marsden sometimes passed the desirable for reality. For example, he believed that catapults no doubt went on here: Frontin. Strat., II, 3, 17; Polyaen. Strat., VIII, 13.

as when he takes "every kind of missile" on the ships at Naulochus as evidence of artillery: App., BCiv 5.118

Yes, he was hasty here. But it would be incorrect to deny presence of artillery at the battle of Naulochus. At least because harpagones were thrown by use of catapults (V, 118, 19-21: μηχαναις επισπώμενα τον άρπαγα ότε της πολεμίας νεως εκ καταπέλτου λάβοιτο), and also because stones, incendiary missiles and arrows were thrown both by machines and by hands (V, 119, 2-4: και βέλη τα μεν εκ μηχανης τα δ' απο χειρων όσα λίθοι και πυρφόρα και τοξεύματα).

Surprisingly, artillery (afaik) is not mentioned in accounts of Actium ... unless you know different?

No, Duncan. Both main sources on battle of Actium mentioned shipborne artillery.

Dio Cass., L, 32, 8: while others sank [them] with both stones and machines, from their height (οι δε άνωθεν αυτους και πέτραις και μηχανήμασι βαπτίζοντες).
Dio Cass., L, 34, 2: also [they] threw pots, full of charcoal and pitch, from afar with the use of machines (και χυτρίδας ανθράκων και πίττης πλήρεις πόρρωθεν μηχαναις επερρίπτουν).
Plut., Ant., 66, 2: and others of Antonius also shot with catapults from wooden towers (οι δ' 'Αντωνίου και καταπέλταις απο ξυλίνων πύργων εβαλλον).

[D B Campbell]

Both main sources on battle of Actium mentioned shipborne artillery.

Many thanks for reminding me, Ildar! (More quotes which Marsden omitted from consideration.) :oops:

btw Does anyone know of any other evidence for Roman shipborne artillery?

[Praefectusclassis]

Haven't got the source handy, but I always find it interesting that Marc Antony had 'floating fortresses' (rafts with arty) constructed to defend Brundisium and the supply lines to Dalmatia. It's in Appian & Polyaenus.

[Flavius Promotus]

AFAIK the relief with the two artillery pieces (?) on a ship was discussed in H.C. Konen's thesis about the Classis Germanica. I'm VERY busy at the moment and don't have the time to look it up - sorry

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Hi Ildar and thanks, Florian!

Anyway, I'd like to discard every other possibilities before clinging to the one I'd like most: Artillery pieces 8)

Has somebody tried to see them as paired anchors? :?

Aitor

It was my first thouight on opening the thread and browsing through!
I have seen odd looking anchors in my life, but those are really odd for anchors, IMHO

sorry to jump in so late, and I am sure you all came to this conclusion already!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Both main sources on battle of Actium mentioned shipborne artillery.

Many thanks for reminding me, Ildar! (More quotes which Marsden omitted from consideration.) :oops:

btw Does anyone know of any other evidence for Roman shipborne artillery?

Didn't Caesar use it for his landings in Britain?

[Praefectusclassis]

He did. That's Duncan's Caes., BGall 4.25.1.

[Scipio Bristolus]

They are in the wrong place for anchors - they would be bow or stern to allow the ship to swing on its cable to be bow or stern on to the current/wind/tide. Anchors amidships would put the ship at an angle if one was deployed or even beam on if both were deployed to one side.

However, if used as an artillery platform, you may have cause to move the ship at an angle to the current/wind/tide to bring the artillery to bear. If you could veer or haul the cables then this would be possible. If firing flammable stuff you would also be wary about setting light to your own rigging and sails, so a good idea to have them out of the way. :?:

Another theory as to the lack of masts; in later periods ships were often launched (assuming a slip launch and not the flooding of a dry dock) without them, and floated alongside to have them fitted - the strains of launching would be enough to topple masts as the ship hit the water etc. It might tie in with this being the state the shipwright completed the ship before it went elsewhere for fitting out with rigging etc :?:

Other theory - could it be artillery with covers to protect it from the weather / sea spray :?:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

They the masts were often stowed for battle on greek triremes, so that's another possibility, but I like the theory of the ship being launched, ready for outfitting....

[D B Campbell]

Well, look at the plumbob. If this guy wants to show he built warships, he would've built the hull and perhaps artillery as well.

I don't suppose there's an inscription, is there?

(Are we certain it's a tombstone?)