SoA Forums

In 219 BC, the consul Tiberius Sempronius was to launch an invasion of Africa. During Rome's mobilization, Livy (21 17) and Polybius (3 41) allocate the consul Tiberius Sempronius 160 quinqueremes. Livy also claims that Tiberius Sempronius had a fleet of 220 warships and 20 light galleys, for a total of 240 ships. Later, Livy allocates Tiberius Sempronius 160 quinqueremes and 12 light galleys for a total of 172 ships. Appian (The Iberian Wars 14) allots Tiberius Sempronius Longus with 160 ships and two legions. However, Livy and Polybius, only allocate the consul Publius Cornelius Scipio, with a fleet of 60 quinqueremes to transport his consular army to Iberia. Appian (The Iberian Wars 14) also allocates Publius Cornelius Scipio 60 ships, conveying 10,000 infantry and 700 cavalry. This becomes more perplexing because in 229 BC, Polybius (2 11 7) has the consul Gnaeus Fulvius sail from Rome with 200 ships to Corcyra. So, it would appear that around 200 ships should be allocated to a consul.

As Polybius (1 26 7) has, during the First Punic War, stated that 120 soldiers were allocated to each quinquereme, and yet Polybius shows no concern that Publius Scipio's fleet of 60 quinqueremes was grossly inadequate for a consular army. Now if we follow Polybius that a legion had 4,200 infantry, we are only going to experience dead ends, but my working on the figure of 4,800 infantry per legion (1,200 velites, 1,800 hastati, 1,200 princeps and 600 triarii), when the 4,800 infantry per legion are divided by 120 infantry per ship, this means each legion needed to be conveyed in 40 ships, and four legions needed 160 ships, which is a figure provided by Appian, Livy and Polybius. With 19,200 infantry requiring 160 ships, Publius Scipio's 60 ships can only convey 7,200 infantry, which means Scipio is missing 12,000 infantry.

The two consular armies would require 320 ships to convey 38,400 infantry organised into eight legions each of 4,800 infantry. And here the answer to the problem is revealed. Basically, you are looking right at it. When it comes to the fleet of Publius Scipio, Polybius or his source has mistaken the number of ships for two consular fleets as being the number of infantry able to be conveyed on the ships, so Scipio's 60 ships each transport 320 infantry, which produces a total of 19,200 infantry (320 infantry x 60 ships = 19,200 infantry).

In order to rid the Mediterranean of pirates, in 67 BC, the senate allocated Pompey an army of 120,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry, and 270 ships. Well, the problem is pretty obvious, 270 ships to convey 120,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry, while the consuls of 218 BC needed 320 ships to convey 38,400 infantry. It could be that the Romans now built ships with five storeys, like the modern cruise liners. Now, if we cast our net out further, Appian tells us that after defeating the pirates, Pompey capture 71 pirate ships, another 306 pirate ships surrendered, and "about" 120 pirate towns, and fortresses were captured with "about" 10,000 pirates killed. These captured pirate ships, towns and fortresses have been deducted from Pompey's original fleet, and when included, Pompey's fleet of 270 ships increased to 767 ships.

Turning ships into captured towns first appears in Polybius' account of the First Punic War, and then again in the Second Punic War, and again in 67 BC. The other disparity relating in Pompey's army is 120,000 infantry are only allocated 4,000 cavalry. This is because those 10,000 pirates killed have been converted from 10,000 cavalry, which would increase Pompey's cavalry to "about" 14,000 cavalry. A very common pattern in Appian, is he breaks the total number of infantry and cavalry into separate infantry and cavalry figures. For example; 7,700 infantry and 1,000 cavalry amount to 8,700 men, which Appian then breaks into 8,000 infantry and 700 cavalry.

If anyone is interested, I can rant on about the battle of Bagradas and how Roman ships were turned into Carthaginian elephants or Carthaginian towns.

Chinese whispers with maths.
Good approach to looking at them though.

It's a weird thing to do, swapping ships for towns and elephants.  What do you think the reason might be?

I think you are making the error of assuming that the field army is only transported by galleys, and not by other ships in addition, not least the cavalry. Just because the other ships are not mentioned does not mean they were not there. It is the same in the 16th C, the contemporary sources are very focused on the galleys of the Christian and Ottoman fleets, but any invasion force was heavily reliant on "round ships" which only tend to get much of a mention when the larger ones embarrass galleys trying and failing to take them out.

As for the original questions.

The lists mention millitary assets. Warships had a millitary function, and military crews. In these cases substantial (paid and armed) crews. We know that horse transports and commercial shipping was also used. It's just not important (to the writers and their intended audiance) enough to record.

Tom..

Quote from: Erpingham on November 13, 2024, 09:58:08 AMIt's a weird thing to do, swapping ships for towns and elephants.  What do you think the reason might be?

I believe for Bagradas, it was done to hide the true nature of the defeat, which in military terms was a disgrace. Also, it would appear that the original author wanted to protect Regulus' name and reputation. The story of Regulus returning to Rome and telling the Romans to keep fighting, and then going back to Carthage as a hostage is pure fiction, invented to restore Regulus' name and honour.

Regulus faced a Carthaginian army of 12,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry and about 100 elephants. Regulus with 500 cavalry faced the Carthaginian cavalry of 4,000 horse, therefore, outnumbered 8 to 1. They never had a chance against so many elephants and cavalry, that it becomes understandable as to why Regulus was defeated. We sympathise with him.

He is what I have found, and when I found it, I did feel demoralised as now I had something more ludicrous to explain, and knew this was going to make my research harder to sell. However, too much data now of ships and towns being turned into elephants, that the 54 Seulucid elephants at Magnesia could be reduced to 9. Ever wonder why the Carthaginian fleet in Spain during the Second Punic War had 37 ships and Hannibal had 37 elephants.

Back to Bagradas, which is fabrications built on truth, just the national identities get changed. Regulus was left with an army of 15,000 infantry, 500 cavalry and 40 ships. No, Regulus was left with his fleet in Africa, which is a lot more than 40 ships. Orosius has the rest of the army return to Rome with 27,000 slaves, which has been rounded from 26,880 men. Zonaras claims 20,000 slaves, which has been rounded from 19,200 men. Taking into account Eutropius and Orosius give the Roman army (two consuls) that landed in Africa at 32,000 men, while Appian gives the Roman army that landed in Africa at 30,000 men (rounded from 32,000), one can see a link to the 27,000 slaves. Notice that before the battle of Adyss, which is the historical account of Regulus' defeat, the Carthaginians receive 5,000 infantry and 500 cavalry. Well, Orosius' 32,000 Roman army and the 27,000 slaves leaves a difference of 5,000.

Also notice how no ancient author mentions how Regulus travelled to the Bagradas. That is because he went by ship, and landed somewhere near Tunis. Appian's account, which is more accurate than Polybius, has him march around a lake, which is possibly the Tunis Lake.

I'm following Roman military doctrine here which is rigidly structured, and all consuls follow it. Regulus left at Aspis part of the fleet to protect the anchorage, which is close to 40 ships, so the 40 ships are his garrison fleet, which requires around 4,000 men to protect. This left Regulus with 12,000 men (both infantry and cavalry) and 96 ships to transport the Roman army to the coast of Tunis. I hope you can see where this is going.

Once landed, Regulus now needed men to man some of those 96 ships so they can protect the anchorage from any Carthaginian ships that may attack. Following Roman naval garrison doctrine, this meant Regulus had to leave 3,000 men to protect the anchorage, and with 9,000 men (both infantry and cavalry), marched to Tunis.

Regulus' 12,000 men (infantry and cavalry) has been converted to 12,000 Carthaginian infantry, the 4,000-garrison force to 4,000 Carthaginian cavalry, and the figure of "about" 100 elephants has been converted from the 96 ships. Notice the elephant numbers in the First Punic War, like 140 elephants, hmmm, 96 plus 40 = 136, rounded to 140. Important fact, all Roman armies and fleets of the Punic Wars are standardised.

Regulus is defeated, and next year a Roman fleet of 350 ships is sent to rescue Regulus' 40 ships and survivors. Bit odd. Rescue fleet arrives, fights a land battle, and guess what, 9,000 Carthaginians are killed.

Oh, as a side note, the Roman rescue fleet gets shipwreck, Polybius has 364 ships lost while Eutropius has 464 ships, a difference of 100 ships, which, well, are they Regulus 96 ships rounded to 100 ships? Now if I take Regulus' 96 ships and deducted from Polybius' 364 ships lost, this produces 268 ships, and when divided by the two consuls, the result is 134 ships, wow, close to Regulus' 136 ships (96 ships + 40 ships)

So, what do we know about the size of the Carthaginian army, well....zip.

Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 11:29:11 AMI think you are making the error of assuming that the field army is only transported by galleys, and not by other ships in addition, not least the cavalry.

I'm not sure how you can make such an assumption based on not having access to my full research. The differing ships numbers given by the ancient sources is due to some leaving out command ships and horse transport, or others including both, or omitting the horse transports. Also, many omit the garrison fleet that was left to protect the anchorage. Garrison fleet numbers get converted to enemy ship losses, and many of those figures are accurate. Just recently a historian with the British Naval Museum had read my research on the Roman navy for the entire First Punic War and was astounded a what was revealed. It is a very comprehensive study of the data, and I go after all ship numbers, battles, and fleet formations.

Quote from: Monad on November 13, 2024, 11:58:25 AM

Quote from: Erpingham on November 13, 2024, 09:58:08 AMIt's a weird thing to do, swapping ships for towns and elephants.  What do you think the reason might be?

So, what do we know about the size of the Carthaginian army, well....zip.

I think this begs the question 'why did they bother do do this?' Other peoples exaggerated or diminished army sizes perfectly happily without having to go through complicated gymnastics. Also given that the mathematical gymnastics merely allowed somebody to calculate back to the original figures, what was the point?

Sorry, you base your calculations on Publius Scipio only having sixty ships and therefore "missing" 1200 men. Rather than considering whether there were non warships carrying the 12000 (or even more of the army, rather than max out the galleys) you postulate a much higher number of troops per galley. If you study galley design and logistics, you would see that you only put a lot of soldiers on a galley if you are expecting an imminent sea fight.

Otherwise water supply alone becomes a nightmare, and you really want to save every pint for the engine room rowers who are more important than a few extra boarders.

320 infantry per galley is close to the much heavier lanterna galleys of the 16th C, and pushes credulity as a standard load for a quinquereme.

I think this begs the question 'why did they bother do do this?' Other peoples exaggerated or diminished army sizes perfectly happily without having to go through complicated gymnastics. Also given that the mathematical gymnastics merely allowed somebody to calculate back to the original figures, what was the point?
[/quote]

I was hoping someone could tell me. I was a little dumbfounded when the practice of turning ships into cities was still going on for Pompey's campaign of 67 BC. Also found in "The Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus." Archelaus was the bishop of Caschara (one of the cities of Mesopotamia), and was offered for a sum of money, a large number of Christian prisoners (men, women and children) by the soldiers of the camp. After the soldiers had attacked the Christians, the tally of Christians consisted of 'some' 7,700 prisoners, of which 500 were wounded, and 'about' 1,300 Christians were killed. This gives a grand total of about 9,000 Christians. All these number are taken from the Late Roman Army. Those numbers just locked in or reinforced the organisation of the Late Roman Army and amount to 8,967 men (both juniors and seniores). The 7,200 non-wounded prisoner includes infantry and cavalry (both juniors and seniores, and the 500 wounded represent 480 junior cavalry.

On a positive note, using the Roman army or fleet for enemy losses has provided a wealth of data that provides more insight into the Roman army and fleet. And let's not forget how a legion was actually deployed, which no one has come close to getting right. I have not been idle for 20 years.

Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 12:29:40 PM320 infantry per galley is close to the much heavier lanterna galleys of the 16th C, and pushes credulity as a standard load for a quinquereme.

Ok, maybe I did not make it clear. Someone, maybe Polybius, maybe not, had mistaken the 320 ships required to transport two consular armies as being the number of soldiers being conveyed on a single ship. It is nothing more than a mathematical mistake. Someone got confused and that is why Scipio was given 60 ships instead of 160 ships.

Or Scipio had sixty warships and a couple of hundred transports. Simpler and more probable than assuming complicated numerical errors. The Romans will have known/suspected that there was only a small Carthaginian fleet in Iberia, so why take lots more galleys, which are the least efficient maritime transport, and need 270 odd rowers each, a further huge drain on manpower?  The idea that the Romans envisaged a set size for "consular" fleets is highly questionable. You take the number of ships that you need for a task, further modulated by what is actually available. You don't take 200 galleys when sixty is sufficient.

Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 12:59:43 PMOr Scipio had sixty warships and a couple of hundred transports. Simpler and more probable than assuming complicated numerical errors.

I wouldn't call them "complicated numerical errors." They are very basic errors.

Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 12:59:43 PMso why take lots more galleys, which are the least efficient maritime transport, and need 270 odd rowers each, a further huge drain on manpower? 

Where's the evidence that a maritime transport needed 270 rowers.

Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 12:59:43 PMThe idea that the Romans envisaged a set size for "consular" fleets is highly questionable.

Ok, you definitely have not studied the data, or if you had, you would not arrive at such a conclusion.

Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 12:59:43 PMYou don't take 200 galleys when sixty is sufficient

Can you please explain how 60 ships are sufficient? Anything to back up your claim? So far I've only seen a viewpoint. The reason why I am highly confident in my research is because I have gone after all the data concerning the Roman fleets, consular fleet and praetorian fleets, and how they are organised and deployed. I have masses of data that reveal Roman garrison fleets, horse transports, command ships, infantry carrying ships. It is all there in the primary sources, but alas, who has really seriously dissected it? Christa Steinby author of "Rome Versus Carthage: The War at Sea" did not, nor did Lazenby "The First Punic War" who, because of his bias towards Polybius, on page 82 remarks that Appian's figure of 350 ships "this is surely a mistake." So, how can Lazenby who cannot decipher what a Roman consular fleet is, believe Appian has made a mistake?

Interesting isn't it, that Regulus, a consul has 40 ships left with him, which I have already stated was his garrison fleet, and at Mylae, in which a consular fleet was involved, some ancient historians give Carthaginian losses at 44 ships or 45 ships, while Polybius gives 50 ships in total. Seems no one has made the connection. We also have Sulpicius with 200 ships faced 80 Carthaginian ships. So far my examples have been consistent. Lazenby page 59, "He (Diodorus) says that the Romans lost 30,000 foot and 540 cavalry...30,000 surely too many and 540 cavalry too precise." For me, when researching the First Punic War, that quote from Diodorus was manu from heaven, like winning the lottery big time.

Anyway, David, you have your viewpoint and I have mine, and I have no desire to convince you either way. I know what I have and not once did I need to bash squares into round holes. However, if the Romans did not have standardised consular armies or consular fleets, praetorian armies and praetorian fleets, I would not have accomplished what I have accomplished.

270 rowers for a quinquereme. That is why it is a supremely inefficient transport.

With all due respect, you are claiming expertise and denigrating anyone else. The reason that people might dismiss your Pythagorean numerical theories is because they have studied the sources as much as you have, but are not situating their appreciation on a preconceived theory, but also applying pragmatism and common sense.

You are entitled to your opinion but please do not get snippy.

Quote from: Monad on November 13, 2024, 12:43:22 PMI was hoping someone could tell me. I was a little dumbfounded when the practice of turning ships into cities was still going on for Pompey's campaign of 67 BC. Also found in "The Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus." Archelaus was the bishop of Caschara (one of the cities of Mesopotamia), and was offered for a sum of money, a large number of Christian prisoners (men, women and children) by the soldiers of the camp. After the soldiers had attacked the Christians, the tally of Christians consisted of 'some' 7,700 prisoners, of which 500 were wounded, and 'about' 1,300 Christians were killed. This gives a grand total of about 9,000 Christians. All these number are taken from the Late Roman Army. Those numbers just locked in or reinforced the organisation of the Late Roman Army and amount to 8,967 men (both juniors and seniores). The 7,200 non-wounded prisoner includes infantry and cavalry (both juniors and seniores, and the 500 wounded represent 480 junior cavalry.

Sorry, I'm obviously being thick here. When you say all these numbers are taken from the late Roman army (which I might have highlighted in red) what actually do you mean by that. Where is the force that we have that has those figures, or whatever? Then I can look at the figures from the source with the Late Roman army, and compare it with these figures, and understand.

Jim