Romans weren\'t good sailors? Why :?

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

We've many sources about Roman ships and how Romans faired as sailors but it's often stated (I feel at least :? ) that Romans in general conducted poorly as a seafaring nation. (Though IDK if this applies to late roman times as well). But it seems odd to me that a people that lived so close to - effectively almost surrounded by - the sea shouldn't have been more able in mastering the maritime challenges. I mean there was a lot of sea trade and fishing fleets that would have helped develop maritime skills.
And looking (with the laymans perspective) at the other great seafaring "nations" like Greece or Carthage I don't see these had better ships. I'm aware that sailing is more than a good ship but why is it that Romans are considered poor sailors. Or is this just a assessment of the military branch of the Roman fleet, that's retrospectivly used to justify their setbacks on sea?

I'm kind of consfused here.
Any thoughts?

[Praefectusclassis]

I think it's a combination of land-focused Roman writing elite, some well reported naval disasters, early modern sailing experience (in the Med) and the handy qualification (for more modern historians) and contrast with Athens that made this story. It's also due to a misunderstanding of naval strategy and naval capabilities.

So the short answer is, that factoid is mostly male bovine excrement.

[Antonius Lupus]

I disagree.

First Punic War, on one side, a second-to-none seafaring nation, the Carthaginians, descendants of Phoenicians. On the other, the land-based Romans. The result was a Roman victory in a war fought mainly at sea. Maybe they were not such poor sailors after all.

For many centuries the Romans excelled at almost any military enterprise they undertook. If they focused on sea warfare, like they did in this war, they did great. What happened is that land warfare took most of their attention.

[M. Demetrius]

By extension, Lupus, what really happened on those sea battles, is the Romans found a way to convert them to (small-scale) land battles, by boarding the enemy ship with infantry, and fighting on their terms, if not on their turf.

I can't picture being out of sight of land on one of those galleys in clear weather, let alone in any kind of rough seas or storm. But I'm a landlubber.

[DanRO]

Yes. As far as I know the Romans faced many defeats due to their lack of seamanship. The Corvus was a great help but it was cumbersome and not easy to deal with.

The Romans eventually gained skill with sea battles so that, by the time of the 2nd Punic War, the Corvus was deprecated. The Romans were however, never a sea nation but got eventually trained to deal with fleets and had access to a vast arsenal of vessels and weaponry.

[john m roberts]

I think that Romans, who considered themselves first and foremost as farmers and soldiers and were contemptuous of sailing and sailors. Seamanship was something Greeks excelled at, and anything Greeks were good at was suspect. But when they had to Romans were decent seamen. Sextus Pompey flourished for years with a virtual floating nation, though it must have included many non-Romans.

[Francois]

I think that Romans knew very well about sea and its importance... Very early in Rome's history, its supply had to be brought from overseas and the control and security of the Mediterranean became an important issue. Look at the powers granted to Pompey to fight against the pirates... And later during the civil wars, if we always focus on land-battle (Pharsalus, Thapsus, Munda), we must not forget that both sides fought first for the control of the sea...

I don't know how good they were compared to other nations, but they surely were not as bad as we often think... Even when fighting on the Ocean against maritime Gallic tribes !

[Epictetus]

Some Roman authors pointed out that they were not a seafaring nation. This wasn’t necessarily a true statement, by the way, but was indicative of how the Romans viewed themselves. They didn’t define themselves simply, like how the Carthaginians were great sailors or the Greeks were great philosophers.

Instead of proclaiming that they were good at something in particular, Roman authors instead often boasted of their openness and adaptability to any circumstance. Here is a great example of a speech put into the mouth of Roman diplomat:

When the Carthaginian had spoken thus, Kaiso replied: ‘This is what we Romans are like… : with those who make war on us we agree to fight on their terms, and when it comes to foreign practices we surpass those who have long been used to them. For the Tyrrhenians used to make war on us with bronze shields and fighting in phalanx formation, not in maniples; and we, changing our armament and replacing it with theirs, organised our forces against them, and… we were victorious. Similarly the Samnite [oblong] shield was not part of our national equipment, nor did we have javelins, but fought with round shields and spears; nor were we strong in cavalry… but when we found ourselves at war with the Samnites we armed ourselves with their oblong shields and javelins, and fought against them on horseback, and by copying foreign arms we became masters… Nor were we familiar… with the art of siege warfare, but we learned from the Greeks… Do not force the Romans to engage in affairs of the sea; for if we have need of naval forces we shall… prove more effective in naval battles than people who have long practised seafaring.’

(translated by) Cornell, Beginnings of Rome

Many Roman authors loved to do this. “We were horrible sailors, but we beat Carthage.â€

[Arminius Primus]

Ave,

Just to add another dimension to this discussion, you have to have a fairly good understanding of ships and sea conditions to develop the naval engineering skills to create artificial harbors (Ostia) and to improve almost every harbor under roman control....and let's not forget the sailors that deployed the sun shade in the coliseum, Ok not at sea , but that took a tremendous amount of effort and 'naval' knowledge.


However, after the Punic wars, it seems that most military naval issues were secondary, after all, in later years the major threats came overland across the borders.

Regards from the Balkans, Arminius Primus aka Al

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Thanks for all the ideas so far. Very interesting opinions. Reading through the posts I get the impression that Romans (at least the rank and file) actually weren't worse or better on sea than any other people. That might have been different was that their navy and fleet building programs were commanded by people who sometimes didn't much understand of maritime warfare which led to maritime disasters.

We've currently the Amateurs in Command thread running, and correspondingly I wonder what did qualify a Roman admiral for his post? Other than for land forces I would think that the decisions of a commander of sea forces are far more important to the outcome of battle.

So the short answer is, that factoid is mostly male bovine excrement.

Good you didn't give the VERY short answer. ;-)

[Praefectusclassis]

Good you didn't give the VERY short answer. Wink Laughing

I can't have to warn myself, now can I?

We've currently the Amateurs in Command thread running, and correspondingly I wonder what did qualify a Roman admiral for his post? Other than for land forces I would think that the decisions of a commander of sea forces are far more important to the outcome of battle.

In most cases the same qualifications as in ancient Greece.

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

We've currently the Amateurs in Command thread running, and correspondingly I wonder what did qualify a Roman admiral for his post? Other than for land forces I would think that the decisions of a commander of sea forces are far more important to the outcome of battle.

In most cases the same qualifications as in ancient Greece.

May be, BUT given the different cultural traditions it seems to me that Roman admirals often simply tried to fight see battles the same as if on land. Granted, sometimes succesfull. But Greek and Carthaginian commanders might have had another approach to fighting on sea than land-centered Romans.

[Praefectusclassis]

Oh, that may be true, but you were asking about qualifications.

[Matthew Amt]

Remember that seamanship is also more than military matters. Rome in the late Republic and Principate depended heavily on grain from Egypt to feed the masses. If they did not have enough mastery of the sea and the fleets to get the grain to Rome, there would have been mass starvation. And that was only a small part of the huge amount of seaborne commerce taking place all through the Roman era.

Pompey and Caesar, among others, were able to deal with bad piracy problems very quickly. So clearly the ships and good sailors were available--what the generals supplied was leadership and organization.

It's quite possible that many of those ships and sailors, both merchant and military, were from the provinces rather that from Italy, but using provincial and foreign assets to best advantage was a very Roman thing, eh?

Matthew

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The fact that at the start of the Punic wars, they were using ships based on captured Carthaginian ships, and of course, turned sea battles into
land engagements through the use of the Corvus, and won resounding military victories, but then turned around and lost entire fleets and armies due to bad seamanship, is perhaps the basis of the theory.

But as with anyone, practice makes perfect, usualy! :?