SoA Forums

https://allthatsinteresting.com/aegates-islands-roman-naval-ram

One for Nick 

One of a couple of dozen examples recovered in the area.  Proof, if any were needed, that losing the ram from one's galley was by no means unknown.

Given that so many have been recovered with no sign of the galley, I am left wondering whether they would fit a new ram to an old galley when it got back to port

Or did the process of losing a ram cause such damage that the vessel was rendered u/s?  IIRC, the rams were attached directly to an extension of the keel. 

Intriguing that for a battle the Romans won, we have several Roman rams but virtually no identifiably Carthaginian debris.

To answer Anthony's question, the ram was an extension to the keel rather than part of it.  To my knowledge, no one has suggested that snapping off the ram would render the vessel unseaworthy.  It would merely rob it of its main weapon.

Regarding Duncan's point on the lack of Carthaginian rams at the site of Aegates, Wikipedia shows this item.  Beyond this, I would ask how one distinguishes the ship fittings from different nations?  I mean, the Roman ram recovered looks pretty similar to say, the Greek ram used on Olympias.  Even if one supposes that the Carthaginians developed distinctive styles for galleys and their fittings, we should not forget that by the end of the 1^st Punic War all Roman galleys were copies of captured Carthaginian vessels and it was common practice for one side to reuse vessels captured from the other.

There is mention in the article of looking for inscriptions on the ram.  These will not preclude it belonging to either side in this particular battle (reuse of captured ships/rams etc.) but would show it was in the possession of one side or the other at some point.  Incidentally, how many of these rams have the three-feather helmet motif and does that have significance (e.g. as a manufacturer's mark)?  I remember an earlier conversation on helmets where Duncan mentioned this image on a previous ram.

This Ancient Warfare podcast from earlier this year may be of interest - https://thehistorynetwork.org/aw301-rams/

It is all about rams and the Aegates finds feature quite a bit (obviously).

I am normally very cautious about drawing parallels between vastly different time periods, but John Guilmartin's truly excellent works on 16th century galley warfare makes the point that the galleys themselves, during that period, were ultimately far more disposable than the crews.  When in trouble, save the men, not the ship.  A new galley can be built over the winter, finding decent oarsmen, let alone sailors for the deck crew, not so easy.

The one material valuable item was, in the 16th C, the artillery armament.  As it happens, expensive lumps of bronze.  It is quite probable that ancient galley commanders were more upset at the loss of the bronze ram than the rest of the ship - but equally the loss of rams, given the tactics, was sometimes unavoidable.

Purely speculation on my part, but perhaps that was why later galleys abandoned the waterline ram for the above water boarding bridge/beak, which might be metal shod to get better penetration to hold the target in place, but less likely to end up the bottom of the 'oggin with the loss of rather more metal?

Quote from: Nick Harbud on August 27, 2024, 11:33:13 AMBeyond this, I would ask how one distinguishes the ship fittings from different nations?

Some of the Roman rams (Egadi IV and VI at least) have Latin inscriptions, naming the magistrates responsible for having them made.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 27, 2024, 11:11:29 AMIntriguing that for a battle the Romans won, we have several Roman rams but virtually no identifiably Carthaginian debris.

We should perhaps not forget that the material recovered from the postulated site of the battle of the Aegetes Islands includes much more than the bronze rams. The following paper:

'The Battle of the Aegates Islands, 241 BC: mapping a naval encounter, 2005–2019' by Sebastiano Tusa, Peter Campbell, Mateusz Polakowski, William M. Murray, Francesca Oliveri, Cecilia A. Buccellato, Adriana Fresina and Valeria Li Vigni in the 2021 book 'Trinacria – An Island Outside Time' by Oxbow Books.
https://www.academia.edu/47755439/The_Battle_of_the_Aegates_Islands_241_BC_mapping_a_naval_encounter

suggests that though a preponderance of the 23 (now 24) rams can be identified by their inscriptions as Roman, a few have been identified as Carthaginian, or potentially so, having inscriptions in Punic. Much pottery has been recovered, again a preponderance of Greaco-Roman amphorae but also a lesser number from Punic amphorae. A variety of other material has also been recovered including arms and armour.

I believe I recall reading that the ships to which the rams once belonged are thought to have actually sunk to the sea bed, rather than them having their potentially broken-off rams sinking alone. Thus it may be that Carthaginian casualties are represented amongst the finds. However, life is never that simple and Johnathan Prag sounds a note of caution when he writes:

"The rams show considerable variation, which extends to their form and construction. The variation, the mention of several different quaestors, and other officials, the predominance of Latin-inscribed rams, is most simply explained by the rams being the products of diverse building programs over the preceding years, and the fact that rams and ships were undoubtedly re-used following capture by both sides during the war. It cannot therefore be assumed that all these rams were manufactured c. 242 BC for this battle alone, but rather at multiple points during the war."

Prag, J.R.W. (2014) 'Inscribed Bronze rostra from the site of the Battle of the Aegates Islands, Sicily, 241 BC.'
https://www.academia.edu/8557025/_Inscribed_bronze_rostra_from_the_site_of_the_Battle_of_the_Aegates_Islands_Sicily_241_BC_in_W_Eck_and_P_Funke_eds_%C3%96FFENTLICHKEIT_MONUMENT_TEXT_XIV_Congressus_Internationalis_Epigraphiae_Graecae_et_Latinae_27_31_Augusti_MMXII_Akten_Berlin_2014_pp_727_729

There is a good deal of material now available on Academia.edu which is a good place to start. One other of particular interest might be:

Murray, W.M. (2019) 'The Ship Class of the Egadi Rams and Polybius' account of the First Punic War.'
https://www.academia.edu/43721510/The_ship_class_of_the_Egadi_rams_and_Polybius_account_of_the_First_Punic_War

Adrian.

Well, 11 rams with Roman inscriptions and 2 with Punic (as of the 2019 article) - my intriguedness still stands, I think.

This is the paper I read that discusses the theory that the Egadi ships sank intact with their equipment, cargoes and ballast, rather than being swamped and remaining on the surface. It also considers the notion of rams being forcibly detached from their ships during battle, which it rejects.

Sebastiano Tusa and Jeffrey Royal (2012) 'The landscape of the naval battle at the Egadi Islands (241 B.C.),' Journal of Roman Archaeology, Vol. 25, pp. 7-48.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281788633_The_landscape_of_the_naval_battle_at_the_Egadi_Islands_241_BC

Adrian.

Quote from: Adrian Nayler on August 27, 2024, 07:55:44 PMThis is the paper I read that discusses the theory that the Egadi ships sank intact with their equipment, cargoes and ballast, rather than being swamped and remaining on the surface.

Indeed:

QuoteThe evidence from our survey shows that entire warships sank to the seafloor along with their rams. This is contrary to the commonly accepted belief that warships never sank when destroyed, but floated in a swamped condition at the water's surface. In certain conditions, however, it now seems likely that warships could and did sink, taking their rams and associated bow timbers to the bottom.

But the idea in that paper that might address my query about the relative numbers of Roman and Punic rams is the suggestion that the Punic fleet at the Aegates may have included numbers of Roman ships captured on previous occasions.

I'm neither agreeing with the various authors nor arguing against Duncan's perspectives. My intention was to bring these published arguments to the attention of those who may be unaware of them.

If I have a point it is that it might be wrong to suggest that virtually no punic-related material has been recovered. There is certainly a significant disparity but such material is there.

Whilst recognising that the assemblage of artefacts recovered so far may be biased in ways we don't yet understand, it is certainly a conundrum as to why the victors apparently lost a large number of their own ships for little loss on the other side. Perhaps that is why speculation that the Carthaginians may have previously captured a number of Roman ships arose?

Adrian.