What the academics don't teach you.

[DBS]

There is no evidence of "infantry" quinqueremes or "cavalry" quinqueremes, let alone hypothecation of quinqueremes to the rorarii/leves, hastati, principes or triarii. You are making such things up.  (Yes, Polybius does say the fourth squadron at Ecnomus was called the triarii, but because they were the rearmost squadron, not because of who found their complement.) There is also no evidence that a legion equals 32 quinqueremes. If there was any set equivalence between land and naval forces, I am sure that an author would have mentioned it.  Instead, the unsurprising and perfectly logical inference from the ancient sources is that the Romans mobilised the number of ships that a) they judged they needed, and b) that they could actually muster (which might be less than they would have liked.)  Even at Ecnomus, Polybius states that the Romans had selected the best of their soldiers to serve in the warships, which would seem to imply that not all could be embarked.

One also needs to be cautious setting Orosius and Eutropius against, say, Polybius.  Polybius is writing perhaps a century after the First Punic War, and is an experienced military man.  Orosius and Eutropius are writing up to six centuries after the war.  Polybius has seen quinqeremes at first hand.  Orosius and Eutropius have not, as they are a long extinct breed of warship.  They may have had access to earlier texts, closer in time to Polybius, but one has to be very cautious in giving them any preference.

With regards to Mylae, the whole point is that Duilius has left his legions and alae behind on land, under the command of the tribunes, so the idea that the fleet is divided up according to the legionary organisation immediately sinks!  Whatever the precise size of his fleet, it is also already missing the seventeen ships lost with Scipio at Lipara, which also makes a bit of a mess of any calculations...

And most importantly, it is again nonsense to claim that the figures given for captured Carthaginian ships are all derived from Roman fleet strengths.  You do know how the rostrum in the Forum got its name?  Are you really suggesting that the Romans do not even know how many large warships they have captured at the end of the battle?

[Monad]

There is no evidence of "infantry" quinqueremes or "cavalry" quinqueremes, let alone hypothecation of quinqueremes to the rorarii/leves, hastati, principes or triarii. You are making such things up.

That is true, the ancient sources do not define a quinquereme as being "infantry" or "cavalry." However, the data clearly demonstrates this outcome. Out of necessity I had to invent labels for them to describe their function. They are called infantry quinqueremes because they are conveying infantry and they are called cavalry quinqueremes because they conveying cavalry. I found it made life easier to give them a category, and it also avoided confusion.

There is also no evidence that a legion equals 32 quinqueremes.

Again, the data clearly demonstrates this outcome. However, because no one has been interested in compiling all the data regarding fleet sizes, even though it is in plane sight, it has remained hidden for centuries. Let me explain how it works. In 229 BC, Polybius mentions the consul Aulus Postumius had one legion and 40 warships. (7) In 204 BC, one legion and 40 warships were allocated to the protection of Sardinia. Following Polybius that a quinquereme was able to convey 120 infantry, 40 ships x 120 = 4,800 infantry = 1,200 light infantry + 1,800 hastati + 1,200 princes + 600 triarii = 4800. Therefore, a consular army would have 19,200 infantry requiring 160 quinqueremes. Polybius gives the size of the Roman fleet in 260 BC at 120 ships (100 quinqueremes and 20 triremes), whereas Florus numbers the Romans fleet at 160 ships. As explained in the Mylae example. Florus' 160 ships are referring to the infantry ships for a consular army. From each legion of 40 ships, one fifth, that is 8 ships, are selected to the be the revictual fleet or garrison fleet that protects the harbour. This leaves each legion with 32 infantry ships.

Therefore, a consular fleet is left with 128 infantry quinqueremes. In 260 BC, Orosius reports that a Carthaginian fleet of 70 ships, under the command of Hannibal raided the coast of Italy. (1) This raid prompted the Romans to build a fleet of 130 ships. Tell me David, is the 130 ships rounded from 128 ships?

In 256 BC, before sailing from Sicily to Africa, Polybius reports that the Romans selected their best men from the land forces for the invasion of Africa. In other words, selecting the revictual fleet. For the year 255 BC, Zonaras mentions that both consuls, before departing for Africa; left a revictual fleet in Sicily. In 250 BC, Polybius mentions that the Romans sent from Italy to Sicily 60 ships to revictual the legions.

At Mylae it is 53 ships for 1 consular army. So, 8 ships per legion x 4 legions = 32 infantry ships allocated to the revictual fleet. This means for 2 consular fleets, there would be 64 infantry quinqueremes. For the battle of Ecnomus, Polybius claims 64 Carthaginian ships captured, Eutropius 64 Carthaginian ships captured, Orosius 64 Carthaginian ships captured, AVI 63 Carthaginian ships captured. Therefore, Polybius 60 ships to revictual the legions have been rounded from 64 ships.

Orosius and Polybius number the Roman fleet for the invasion of Africa at 330 quinqueremes. This is 2 consular fleets each of 165 ships (160 infantry and 5 cavalry). The 5 cavalry ships = 1 flagship and 4 cavalry ships each carrying the legate. Following the premise that one-fifth constituted the revictual fleet 165 ships per consul divided by 5 = 33 ships = 32 infantry and 1 cavalry. Therefore, 330 ships produce 66 ships (64 infantry and 2 cavalry).

With a consul fleet having 160 infantry quinqueremes, I am using infantry here to prevent confusion, and I deducted the revictual fleet of 32 infantry ships, this leaves 128 infantry quinqueremes, and 2 consular fleets equals 256 infantry quinqueremes. Diodorus writes that after the disaster of Camarina in 254 BC, the Romans constructed another fleet and sailed to Cephaloedium in Sicily with 250 ships. In 253 BC, Eutropius and Orosius have the consuls Cnaeus Servilius Caepio and Caius Sempronius Blaesus sailed to Africa with 260 ships. Is that 256 ships rounded David? Why are these numbers consisted of following some form of continuity?

At Mylae it is 53 ships for 1 consular army, then 2 consular fleets would amount to 106 ships, which can be used to get supplies. In 249 BC, the consul Lucius Junius Pullus' went to Syracuse to get supplies. Diodorus later reports that Pullus' fleet amounted to 105 ships, which has been rounded from 106 ships. Polybius claims Pullus had 120 ships and about 800 transports, but that is another matter, and well covered in my book.

If you believe my interpretation of those numbers are incorrect, what is your conclusion of what those ship numbers mean? Can you walk me through the data as I have done?

If there was any set equivalence between land and naval forces, I am sure that an author would have mentioned it. 

Then how do you explain Florus' statement that the Roman fleet resembled that of a land army?

Instead, the unsurprising and perfectly logical inference from the ancient sources is that the Romans mobilised the number of ships that a) they judged they needed, and b) that they could actually muster (which might be less than they would have liked.)

Logical inference is not evidence. Conjecture is not evidence, nor is an opinion, nor is speculation.

Even at Ecnomus, Polybius states that the Romans had selected the best of their soldiers to serve in the warships, which would seem to imply that not all could be embarked.

Finally, we see eye to eye. The Romans were selecting those to go to Africa and those who remained behind with the revictual fleet. Hurray.

One also needs to be cautious setting Orosius and Eutropius against, say, Polybius.  Polybius is writing perhaps a century after the First Punic War, and is an experienced military man.  Orosius and Eutropius are writing up to six centuries after the war.

Oh, this sad old chestnut being pulled out again. As I said before, eye witness statements at an even that happened on the same day also differ. Can you prove to me that Eutropius and Orosius were not using the same sources as Polybius?

Polybius has seen quinqeremes at first hand.  Orosius and Eutropius have not, as they are a long extinct breed of warship. 

Orosius and Eutropius were not describing ship designs, just providing ship numbers, that do conform to Polybius' sources. In many cases, I have found that Polybius was their main source.

They may have had access to earlier texts, closer in time to Polybius, but one has to be very cautious in giving them any preference.

The old reliable list developed by academics, that in my eyes has sabotage academic for some time.

With regards to Mylae, the whole point is that Duilius has left his legions and alae behind on land, under the command of the tribunes, so the idea that the fleet is divided up according to the legionary organisation immediately sinks!  Whatever the precise size of his fleet, it is also already missing the seventeen ships lost with Scipio at Lipara, which also makes a bit of a mess of any calculations...

Because you have no idea of the existence of a revictual fleet, then what if he is referring to the revictual fleet? Do you seriously believe not one legionary manned those ships that engaged the Carthaginian fleet? If you believe there was a separate force of marines for the job, then you are seriously mistaken. Polybius' 120 ships would require 14,400 marines, separate from the 20,000 legionaries. Show me one bit of information that supports this?

As to the 17 ships lost, the ancient writers don't give a damn about what happen months before, they just use the standard number for consular fleet. As to those 17 ships on a supply mission as given by Polybius, Appian allocates Scipio 22 ships, while Orosius gives Scipio 11 ships. So, who is right David? Whether it be 17, 22 or 11 ships lost, the ancient sources have not deducted them from the consular fleet. However, they do pop up as Carthaginian ship losses.

And most importantly, it is again nonsense to claim that the figures given for captured Carthaginian ships are all derived from Roman fleet strengths.  You do know how the rostrum in the Forum got its name?  Are you really suggesting that the Romans do not even know how many large warships they have captured at the end of the battle?

Fine, that is your belief, but please provide evidence to back it up. Yes, the Romans would have known how many ships they captured, but let's reiterate Orosius again: "For it is certainly not the custom of writers of olden time to preserve for posterity the number of the victor's dead." Because of a lack of enemy dead, later writes made it up and it became a standard practice.

You still keep stonewalling about not answering that question I presented to you about Orosius' comment "For it is certainly not the custom of writers of olden time to preserve for posterity the number of the victor's dead."

However, the list of my unanswered questions continues to grow here. All I get in response is as a sprinkling of phrases like "nonsense" and "making it up." Now instead of just David, what say the rest of the forum? Am I making it up? You do have a voice?

[Jim Webster]

You are convinced they had no idea.  Leaving aside that at least when the Romans won they would know how many prisoners they had taken, and roughly how many they had killed (not just because of the logistic demands of feeding the prisoners and looting the dead, but because they were criteria for claiming a triumph, and any magistrate who could not offer some evidence would be in trouble with his political enemies), you have dredged up from nowhere the fantasy that they instead fabricated the numbers based on their own strength. 

Actually, it is not my own idea, it is backed up by 5 volumes of research and over 1,000 pages of examined data to prove otherwise. I would like your opinion of this quote from Orosius (4 1 12-13):

"For it is certainly not the custom of writers of olden times to preserve for posterity the number of the victor's dead, lest the losses tarnish the glory of the victory, unless by chance so few fall that the numbers lost enhances the admiration for and the fear of the victor's courage. This was the case with Alexander the Great in the first battle of the Persian War. It is reported that his army lost only 9 infantrymen, whereas the enemy's losses numbered 400,000."

Sorry but what has Orosius's comments on the reporting their own army's dead got to do with the Roman army knowing how many prisoners it has taken? Especially given the records that would have to be kept because prisoners, apart from being fed, were a saleable, or at least ransomable commodity and the Senate would need to know what happened to the money.
Also they will have had to record their own army's dead because they'd need it for pay records, as well as whether men were available for call up in future years.
Also it would impact on census data.

[Monad]

Sorry but what has Orosius's comments on the reporting their own army's dead got to do with the Roman army knowing how many prisoners it has taken? Especially given the records that would have to be kept because prisoners, apart from being fed, were a saleable, or at least ransomable commodity and the Senate would need to know what happened to the money.
Also they will have had to record their own army's dead because they'd need it for pay records, as well as whether men were available for call up in future years.
Also it would impact on census data.

Happy to answer your questions Jim when you answer mine.

[DBS]

You are impossible.  Fine, continue to tilt at windmills, but as long as you keep claiming "the data demonstrates" when the only person who reads the "data" that way is your good self, the truth is you will convince nobody.  At least stop deluding yourself that you are the only person since Lipsius to have understood the ancient sources, and that you are better read than anyone else.  You are not.

I do not get upset by people who have odd notions.  I do get a tad irritated when they react so angrily to having their odd notions challenged with sensible questions, and do not understand that their lack of rigour and substitution of conviction for proper analysis does not count as evidence.

[Jim Webster]

Sorry but what has Orosius's comments on the reporting their own army's dead got to do with the Roman army knowing how many prisoners it has taken? Especially given the records that would have to be kept because prisoners, apart from being fed, were a saleable, or at least ransomable commodity and the Senate would need to know what happened to the money.
Also they will have had to record their own army's dead because they'd need it for pay records, as well as whether men were available for call up in future years.
Also it would impact on census data.

Happy to answer your questions Jim when you answer mine.

Sorry what question did you ask?

[Monad]

You are impossible.  Fine, continue to tilt at windmills, but as long as you keep claiming "the data demonstrates" when the only person who reads the "data" that way is your good self, the truth is you will convince nobody.  At least stop deluding yourself that you are the only person since Lipsius to have understood the ancient sources, and that you are better read than anyone else.  You are not.

I do not get upset by people who have odd notions.  I do get a tad irritated when they react so angrily to having their odd notions challenged with sensible questions, and do not understand that their lack of rigour and substitution of conviction for proper analysis does not count as evidence.

Can you please tell me where the data goes wrong?

And I can assure you I am not the angry one. If you feel I have sidestepped sensible questions, please restate your strongest specific question regarding the data, and I will address it. However, I am only interested in debating the ancient sources and methodology. If we can keep the focus there rather than on personal assessments of each other's rigor, I'm happy to continue. If not, let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Sorry what question did you ask?

You wrote: "It's like the legion sent to Sardinia in 215BC, it had 'the wrong number of cavalry' and at the same time wasn't brigaded with an allied ala." My question is how do you know the wrong number of cavalry were sent?

[DBS]

Would it be excessively mean to point out that a certain Hannibal during the First Punic War transported 10,000 troops to Sicily in just 50 ships?  The point being that the number of troops embarked in a ship varied according to need and availability.  And that there is no evidence that cavalrymen served as marines or were in quinqueremes as opposed to the horse transports with their mounts.  They might have been in quinqueremes, but I am not aware of a single author who states that to be the case.

I heartily commend the late Professor John Guilmartin's Gunpowder and Galleys to anyone wanting an insight into the logistics of Mediterranean galley warfare.  Yes, it is about the sixteenth century conflicts, but, aside from artillery and gunpowder, the logistic constants and realities are unaltered from the Punic Wars.  It is also a fascinating analysis of the subtle differences in different nations' galleys, all seemingly comparable, according to the nations' differing tactical and operational priorities.  The Venetians, for example, have a strong resonance with Hannibal the Rhodian, having the fastest galleys under oar, and a similar interest in running rings around blockade forces to get in and out of contested harbours.  The Spanish and Knights are perhaps slightly reminiscent of a Roman quinquereme, less handy but heavily loaded with armoured infantry.  The Ottomans are strategically interested in invasion fleets, but rely a lot on corsair squadrons with a similar premium to the Venetians on ship handling, but more fussed about speed under sail for predatory cruising than flat-out speed under oars.

[Monad]

Would it be excessively mean to point out that a certain Hannibal during the First Punic War transported 10,000 troops to Sicily in just 50 ships?  The point being that the number of troops embarked in a ship varied according to need and availability.  And that there is no evidence that cavalrymen served as marines or were in quinqueremes as opposed to the horse transports with their mounts.  They might have been in quinqueremes, but I am not aware of a single author who states that to be the case.

If you take the number of troops and ships at face value as found in the ancient sources, yes, it would give the appearance that the troops conveyed in a ship did vary. In the reference you have produced, each of the 50 ships would be conveying 200 troops.

However, for the same campaign, Diodorus has 4,000 Carthaginian reinforcements sent to Lilybaeum, which equates to each ship conveying 80 troops. The difference between Polybius' 10,000 troops and Diodorus' 4,000 troops is 6,000 troops, and 6,000 troops divided by the 120 infantry are to be conveyed in a quinquereme, as per Polybius, produces 50 ships (6,000 divided by 120 = 50).

And that there is no evidence that cavalrymen served as marines or were in quinqueremes as opposed to the horse transports with their mounts.  They might have been in quinqueremes, but I am not aware of a single author who states that to be the case.

The cavalry sent to Africa in the First Punic War had to be conveyed on something. Orosius and Polybius number the Roman fleet for the invasion of Africa at 330 quinqueremes. At 120 infantry per quinquereme, the 38,400 infantry for a consular army would need 320 quinqueremes. The residue 10 ships are conveying the cavalrymen, without their horses. Of those 10 ships carrying the cavalry, 2 are consular flagships, and the remaining 8 quinqueremes would allocate each of the 8 legions 1 quinquereme. Golden rule is the ships carrying the cavalry act as command ships for the infantry ships.

[Justin Swanton]

I used to like getting involved in these scrums, but somehow not so much anymore....

[DBS]

You wrote: "It's like the legion sent to Sardinia in 215BC, it had 'the wrong number of cavalry' and at the same time wasn't brigaded with an allied ala." My question is how do you know the wrong number of cavalry were sent?

Take a gander at the Sardinian thread from earlier this year.  https://forum.soa.org.uk/index.php?topic=10544.0

The residue 10 ships are conveying the cavalrymen, without their horses. Of those 10 ships carrying the cavalry, 2 are consular flagships, and the remaining 8 quinqueremes would allocate each of the 8 legions 1 quinquereme. Golden rule is the ships carrying the cavalry act as command ships for the infantry ships.

Pure conjecture.  There are not eight legions, but (probably) four.  You keep calling alae legions, but the ala is a subtly different beast, to the limited extent we understand it, to a legion.  Perhaps most importantly here, it supposedly has (at least later in the Republic) a lot more cavalry than a legion.  One also has to question whether the invasion fleet had a full Polybian complement of cavalry, given that only 500 remain in Africa with Regulus and that transporting cavalry over large distances in large numbers is a real challenge in the ancient world, even unopposed.

So in short, we do not know that the cavalrymen were embarked in quinqueremes rather than the horse transports (separating cavalrymen from their mounts might be considered risky, given the frequency sections of fleets got separated), we do not know whether any were in the hexareme flagships, and we do not know how many cavalry were in the force to start with.  Your foundations are sand.

And that is before we even get to the question of how many non-decked ships were with the fleet: the horse-transports are definitely there, in unspecified numbers, what about other ships?  Polybius focuses on the decked warships because they are the ones who will fight at Ecnomus, not because they are the entirety of the fleet.

[Jim Webster]

Sorry what question did you ask?

You wrote: "It's like the legion sent to Sardinia in 215BC, it had 'the wrong number of cavalry' and at the same time wasn't brigaded with an allied ala." My question is how do you know the wrong number of cavalry were sent?

Perhaps rather than 'wrong' I should have used 'unusual'
I gave it as an example of how bad the situation had got for Rome.
It is the year after Cannae
Things are so bad, to quote Orosius, Book 4 16

"The Romans, daring to breathe again, and emerging, as it were, from death to the hope of life, chose Decimus Junius dictator. He made a levy of those above seventeen years of age and gathered fifteen legions of immature and untrained soldiery.  With a promise of freedom he then induced slaves of proven strength and purpose to take the military oath. Some of these slaves volunteered, but others, when urgently needed, were bought with public money. The arms that were lacking were taken from the temples, and private wealth poured into the impoverished public treasury. The equestrian order as well as the frightened plebeians forgot their own interests and planned for the common welfare. 9 The dictator Junius, resuming an ancient practice of the days of Rome's misery, in order to reinforce the army, decreed that all men subject to punishment for crime or debt should be promised immunity and turned over to the military service - opening for them, as it were, a haven of refuge. Their number amounted to six thousand. "
https://www.attalus.org/translate/orosius4B.html#16

Livy's comments about the same period
"Armour, weapons, and other things of the kind were ordered to be in readiness, and the ancient spoils gathered from the enemy were taken down from the temples and colonnades. The dearth of freemen necessitated a new kind of enlistment; 8000 sturdy youths from amongst the slaves were armed at the public cost, after they had each been asked whether they were willing to serve or no." Immediately after Cannae. "A levy was ordered, and all from seventeen years upwards were enrolled, some even younger; out of these recruits four legions were formed and 1000 cavalry."

So on arriving on Sardinia, Manlius Torquatus (to quote Livy) "He hauled ashore his war-ships and furnished the seamen and rowers with arms, so that they might be available for service on land"

Note being oarsmen they are most unlikely to have met the property qualification to serve in the land forces of their own city.

The Senate even devalued the currency
https://www.geochemicalperspectivesletters.org/article1613/

The defeat of Hannibal's armies at the culmination of the Second Punic War (218 BC–201 BC) was a defining moment in Western world history. One of the underappreciated consequences of the conflict was the Roman monetary reform of 211 BC, which ushered in a monetary system that would sustain Roman power for the next many centuries. This system would encapsulate many of the issues plaguing finances of governments until today, such as inflation, debasement, and the size of monetary mass. Here we approach the issue of financial fluxes using a newly developed powerful tracer, that of silver isotopic compositions, in conjunction with Pb isotopes, both of which we measured in Roman coinage minted before and after the 211 BC monetary reform. The results indicate that pre-reform silver was minted from Spanish metal supplied by Carthage as war penalty after the First Punic War, whereas post-reform silver was isotopically distinct and dominated by plunder, most likely from Syracuse and Capua. The 211 BC monetary reform and the end of debasement, therefore, were aimed at accommodating new sources of silver rather than being the response to financial duress. The drastic weight reduction of silver coins implemented by the Roman mint was not motivated by metal shortage but by the need to block inflation after a major surge of war booty.



The Roman Senate, and its commanders were so hand to mouth that they were taking whatever men they could find, ignoring property qualifications, wealth, or even citizenship. They even devalued the currency and paid their bills in dodgy money.
But it's war, it's what people do, they don't stick to esoteric systems which look so satisfying in peace time.

In Sardinia it actually made sense to add more cavalry to the legion raised. Already on the island there were two legions with 800 cavalry. Manlius Torquatus had, according to Livy, 22,000 infantry and 1,200 cavalry
We know that there were two legions stationed on Sardinia.
Assume that with illness and some casualties they were now 4000 strong, this means the infantry is composed of 8000 existing legionaries based there, 5000 who have arrived with Manlius, and this gives about 9000 for the sailors and oarsmen from mixed cities, the majority of whom were not wealthy enough to be liable to service in the legions or allied equivalent.
Extra cavalry could well have been considered useful on Sardinia because the island was (and apparently still is) known for having plenty of small but tough horses.

[Monad]

In Sardinia it actually made sense to add more cavalry to the legion raised. Already on the island there were two legions with 800 cavalry. Manlius Torquatus had, according to Livy, 22,000 infantry and 1,200 cavalry
We know that there were two legions stationed on Sardinia.
Assume that with illness and some casualties they were now 4000 strong, this means the infantry is composed of 8000 existing legionaries based there, 5000 who have arrived with Manlius, and this gives about 9000 for the sailors and oarsmen from mixed cities, the majority of whom were not wealthy enough to be liable to service in the legions or allied equivalent.

Wow, and I get accused of conjecture. You guys are legends!

[Jim Webster]

In Sardinia it actually made sense to add more cavalry to the legion raised. Already on the island there were two legions with 800 cavalry. Manlius Torquatus had, according to Livy, 22,000 infantry and 1,200 cavalry
We know that there were two legions stationed on Sardinia.
Assume that with illness and some casualties they were now 4000 strong, this means the infantry is composed of 8000 existing legionaries based there, 5000 who have arrived with Manlius, and this gives about 9000 for the sailors and oarsmen from mixed cities, the majority of whom were not wealthy enough to be liable to service in the legions or allied equivalent.

Wow, and I get accused of conjecture. You guys are legends!

Right so would you kindly give us the proper answer then and show how we're all wrong on the Sardinian expedition?

[Monad]

Right so would you kindly give us the proper answer then and show how we're all wrong on the Sardinian expedition?

No Jim, that would be pointless. If I posted what you did, I would be shouted down. I've provided a lot of my research, which never gets addressed, questions get avoided. I read the Sardinia thread and seriously, what I am being tainted with, or accused of, everyone on that thread was doing the same. As far as I am concerned, this debate has ended.