Jump to content

Battle of Cape Ecnomus

Coordinates: 37°06′00″N 13°56′00″E / 37.1000°N 13.9333°E / 37.1000; 13.9333
This is a good article. Click here for more information.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 21:02, 22 February 2019 (Adding Good Article icon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Battle of Cape Ecnomus
Part of the First Punic War
Date256 BC
Location
Off Cape Ecnomus, near Licata, Sicily
37°06′00″N 13°56′00″E / 37.1000°N 13.9333°E / 37.1000; 13.9333
Result Roman victory
Belligerents
Roman Republic Carthage
Commanders and leaders
Marcus Atilius Regulus
Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus		 Hamilcar
Hanno the Great
Strength
330 ships
140,000 crew and marines		 350 ships
150,000 crew and marines
Casualties and losses
24 ships sunk
10,000 men killed

94 ships

30 ships sunk
64 ships captured
30,000–40,000 men killed or captured
Battle of Cape Ecnomus is located in Sicily
Battle of Cape Ecnomus
class=notpageimage|
Location of the Battle, off the south coast of Sicily

The Battle of Cape Ecnomus or Eknomos (Ancient Greek: Ἔκνομος) was a naval battle, fought off Cape Ecnomus (modern day Poggio di Sant'Angelo, Licata, Sicily), in 256 BC, between the fleets of Carthage and the Roman Republic, during the First Punic War. The Carthaginian fleet was commanded by Hanno the Great and Hamilcar; the Roman fleet jointly by the consuls for the year, Marcus Atilius Regulus and Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus. Due to the number of ships and crews involved, a combined total of about 680 warships carrying up to 290,000 crew and marines, the battle was possibly the largest naval battle in history.

The Roman fleet of 330 warships plus an unknown number of transports had sailed from Ostia, the port of Rome, and had embarked approximately 26,000 picked legionaries shortly before the battle. Their plan was to cross to Africa and invade the Carthaginian homeland. The Carthaginians were apparently aware of the Roman's intentions and mustered all available warships, 350, off the south coast of Sicily to intercept them. When they met, the Carthaginians took the initiative and the battle devolved into three separate conflicts, where they hoped that their superior ship handling skills would be decisive. After a prolonged and confused day of fighting the Carthaginians were decisively defeated, losing 30 ships sunk and 64 captured to Roman losses of 24 ships sunk.

Sources

The main source for almost every aspect of the First Punic War is the account of the historian Polybius (c. 200–c. 118). Polybius composed The Histories some time after 167 BC, or about a century after the Battle of Ecnomus.[1][2] He was a native Greek writing in Rome, and his work is considered to be broadly objective and largely neutral as between Carthaginian and Roman points of view.[3] Polybius was an analytical historian and wherever possible personally interviewed participants in the events he wrote about.[4] However, he based his account of the First Punic War on several earlier, now lost, Greek and Latin sources.[5] Only the first book of the 40 comprising The Histories deals with this war,[6] but modern historian G. K. Tipps considers that The Histories contains "an extensive and meticulously detailed account [of the Battle of Econmus]".[2] The accuracy of this account has been much debated by more recent historians, but the modern consensus is to accept Polybius' account largely at face value. Therefore the details of the battle in modern sources are almost entirely based on interpretations of Polybius' account.[6][7][8] Other, later, histories of the war exist, but in fragmentary or summary form,[9] and they usually cover military operations on land in more detail than those at sea.[10] Other sources of information include inscriptions, archaeological evidence and reconstructions such as the trireme Olympias.[11]

Background

Operations in Sicily

In 264 BC the states of Carthage and Rome went to war, starting the First Punic War.[12] Carthage was a well-established maritime power in the Western Mediterranean; Rome had recently unified mainland Italy south of the Po under its control. The immediate cause was control of the Sicilian town of Messana (modern Messina). More broadly both sides wished the allegiance of Syracuse, the most powerful city state on Sicily.[13] By 256 the war had grown into a struggle in which the Romans were attempting to decisively defeat the Carthaginians and, at a minimum, control the whole of Sicily.[14] The Carthaginians were engaging in their traditional policy of waiting for their opponent to wear themselves out, in the expectation of then regaining some or all of their possessions and negotiating a mutually satisfactory peace treaty.[15] The Romans were essentially a land based power, and had gained control of most of Sicily, but the war there was approaching a stalemate, as they were unable to effectively bring their superior army to bear against the Carthaginians.[16][17] The focus of the war shifted to the sea, where the Romans had little experience; on the few occasions that they had previously felt the need for a naval presence they had relied on small squadrons provided by their allies.[18][17] The Carthaginians were the unchallenged maritime masters of the western Mediterranean.[16]

Ships

Roman and Carthaginian controlled territory at the start of the First Punic War

By this period the quinquereme (pentērēs, meaning "five-oared", known as "fives") was the standard warship of the Carthaginian navy. The five was a galley, c. 45 metres (150 ft) long, c. 5 metres (16 ft) wide at water level, with its deck standing c. 3 metres (10 ft) above the sea, and displacing around 100 long tons (110 short tons).[19] The quinquereme was superior as a warship to the previous mainstay of Mediterranean navies, the trireme,[20][21] and, being heavier, performed better than the triremes in bad weather.[22] Modern replicas of ancient galleys have achieved speeds of 8.5 knots (9.8 mph; 16 km/h) and have cruised at 4 knots (4.6 mph; 7.4 km/h) for hours on end.[10]

The generally accepted theory regarding the arrangement of oarsmen in this ship type is that for each file there were three banks of oarsmen, one above the other, with two oarsmen on each oar of the two uppermost levels and one on the lower, for a total of five oarsmen per file.[23] At least one man on each oar would need be have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively. Vessels were built as cataphract, or "protected", ships, with a closed hull to protect the rowers, and a full deck able to carry marines and catapults.[24][25] Carthaginian fives used a separate "oar box" that contained the rowers and was attached to the main hull. This development meant that the rowers would be located above or at deck level,[26][27] which allowed the hull to be strengthened, and increased carrying capacity; as well as improving the ventilation conditions of the rowers, an important factor in maintaining their stamina, and thereby improving the ship's maintainable speed.[28]

In 260 BC Romans set out to construct a fleet of 100 quinqueremes and 20 triremes.[16] They used a shipwrecked Carthaginian quinquereme as a blueprint for their own fives.[29] As novice shipwrights the Romans built copies which were heavier than the Carthaginian vessels, and so slower and less manoeuvrable.[22] The quinquereme provided the workhorse of the Roman and Carthaginian fleets throughout the Punic Wars, although "sixes", "fours" and "threes" are also occasionally mentioned. So ubiquitous was the type that Polybius uses it as a shorthand for "warship" in general.[30] A quinquereme carried a crew of 300: 280 oarsmen and 20 deck crew and officers;[31] it would also normally carry a complement of 40 marines,[32] with Roman ships during the mid-3rd century BC carrying as many as 120 marines on board.[33]

The corvus, the Roman ship boarding device

Getting the oarsmen to row as a unit, let alone to execute the more complex battle manoeuvres, required long and arduous training.[34] As a result, the Romans were initially at a disadvantage against the more experienced Carthaginians. To counter Carthaginian superiority, the Romans introduced the corvus, a bridge 4 feet (1.2 m) wide and 36 feet (11 m) long, with a heavy spike on the underside, which was designed to pierce and anchor into an enemy ship's deck.[33] This allowed Roman legionaries to board enemy ships and capture them, rather than employing the previously traditional tactic of ramming. Prior to the Punic Wars, boarding had increasingly become more common than ramming, as the larger and heavier vessels now entering service lacked the speed and manoeuvrability necessary to ram, while their sturdier construction reduced the ram's effect even in case of a successful attack. The Roman adaptation of the corvus was a progression of this trend and compensated for their initial disadvantage in ship manoeuvring skills. However, the added weight in the prow compromised the ship's manoeuvrability and in rough sea conditions the corvus became useless.[35][36]

Largely because of the Romans' use of the corvus the Carthaginians were defeated in large naval battles at Mylae in 260 and Sulci in 257. The Roman naval victories and the continuing stalemate on Sicily led the Romans to focus on a sea-based strategy and to develop a plan to invade the Carthaginian heartland in North Africa and threaten their capital, Carthage (close to what is now Tunis), in the hope of a war-winning outcome.[37]. Both sides were determined to establish naval supremacy and invested large amounts of money and manpower in maintaining and increasing the size of their navies.[38][39]

Prelude

A Roman naval bireme depicted in a relief

The Carthaginian fleet mustered at Carthage in the late spring of 256, before sailing for Lilybaeum (modern Marsala), their major base in Sicily, to resupply and to embark soldiers to use as marines. It then sailed east along the coast of Sicily to Heraclea Minoa, the easternmost of the Sicilian towns the Carthaginians still held[40] and was joined by those ships already operating from Sicily, at least 62 and probably more.[41] These brought the Carthaginian fleet up to 350 ships, nearly all fives, commanded by Hanno the Great, who had been defeated at Agrigentum six years earlier, and Hamilcar, the victor of the Battle of Thermae (not to be confused with Hamilcar Barca).[37][21]

The Romans mustered at about the same time, probably at Ostia, the port of Rome. The Roman fleet consisted of 330 warships, the large majority fives.[21] They were accompanied by an unknown number of transports, mostly carrying the horses of the invasion force.[42] The two consuls for the year, Marcus Atilius Regulus and Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus, were given command of the fleet; each sailed in a "six", the only larger ships noted as participating in the battle.[21] The Roman fleet sailed south along the coast of Italy, crossed to Sicily at Messana, sailed south and then west to the roadstead at Phintias (modern Licata} where they rendezvoused with the Roman army on Sicily. The Roman fleet embarked 80 picked legionaries on each warship, intending to either land them in Africa or use the them as marines if the Carthaginian navy challenged them.[32][43]

In total the Roman fleet had 140,000 men on board: rowers, other crew, marines and soldiers.[44] The number of Carthaginians is less certainly known, but was estimated by Polybius at 150,000 and most modern historians broadly support this. If these figures are approximately correct, then the Battle of Ecnomus is possibly the largest naval battle of all time, by number of combatants involved.[42][45][46]

Rather than sail direct from Phintias for North Africa, the Romans sailed west, intending to cross the Strait of Sicily at its narrowest point. This would minimise the time the fleet spent in the open sea; ships of the time, especially the less seaworthy galleys, kept in sight of land whenever possible.[47] The Carthaginians were aware of the Roman intentions and correctly anticipated their route. They intercepted the Roman fleet a little to the east of Heraclea Minoa, shortly after it had left Licata.[48]

Battle

The Roman fleet advanced along the Sicilian coast in a compact formation. They were deployed in four squadrons, of unequal size. The first two squadrons, each under the command of a consul, led the way arrayed in a wedge. The third squadron was immediately behind them, towing the transports. The fourth was in line abreast, protecting the rear. The Carthaginians sailed expecting to encounter the Roman fleet, and were possibly warned of its approach by small scout-ships.[49] They were organised in three unequally-sized squadrons, arranged in a single, long line with their left, landward, wing advanced. The Carthaginian centre was commanded by Hamilcar and their right by Hanno.[50]

The two leading Roman squadrons, led by the two consuls, advanced on the Carthaginian centre. Hamilcar then staged a feigned retreat with his center, probably by backing water, and the consuls pursued. The Roman squadron towing the transports fell behind and a gap opened between the two leading and the two rear squadrons. Both Carthaginian wings advanced on the two rearmost squadrons, by-passing the Roman centre and attempting to attack from the side so as to avoid the corvus boarding mechanism. The Carthaginian landward squadron attacked the Roman warships towing transports, which had been exposed by the advance of their centre. The Romans cast off their tows in order to be able to manoeuvre. Hanno's force, to seaward, was composed of the fastest and most manoeuvrable ships and attacked the Roman squadron at the rear of their fleet; which was being impeded by the drifting transports. Having separated the Roman centre from the two rearmost squadrons, Hamilcar and his ships turned to fight the pursuing Romans. The battle thus devolved into three separate fights.[51][52]

Modern and ancient historians have both suggested that Hamilcar's retreat was intended to specifically bring this situation about: to break up the compact Roman formation and allow the Carthaginians to use their greater tactical skill to outmanoeuvre the threat of the corvi and ram the Roman ships in their sides or rears. By the time of Ecnomus neither the speed nor manoeuvrability of the Roman ships, nor the skills of their crews, were up to the standards of the Carthaginians.[53][54] However, the Romans had become more skilled over the four years since they first built their navy, while the recent large increase in the size of the Carthaginian navy meant that many of their crews had little experience. Consequently, the superiority in their ships' manoeuvrability and their crews' seamanship was less than they thought. Furthermore, the solidly built Roman ships were less susceptible to the effect of a successful ramming attack than the Carthaginians had anticipated. The three fights became shapeless brawls,[52] where superior ship handling would count for little. On the other hand, when the Romans were able to employ their corvi and board, they had the advantage of the experienced and heavily armoured legionaries they had embarked to transport to Africa.[32][36]

The Roman ships which had been towing the transports felt themselves outmatched and retreated to the shore, where they took up a defensive position. They halted in shallow water, facing away from land, so that the Carthaginians could only attack their flanks with difficulty, and had to face the Roman's corvi if they attacked from the front. In spite of this, this fight was the one where the Romans were most hard-pressed. The rearmost Roman squadron was also outfought by the Carthaginians. It put up a stout resistance, but its situation became desperate.[52] The battle was decided in the fight between the two fleets' centres. A number of Roman ships were rammed and sunk, as were several Carthaginians. More Carthaginian ships were boarded and captured. After a long fight the Carthaginian centre was defeated and fled.[52]

The Roman centre responded to the consuls' signals, broke off its pursuit, and rowed back to assist their two rear squadrons, and to rescue the drifting transports. Consul Vulso's squadron attacked the Carthaginian left. Regulus' squadron launched an attack against Hanno. He approached the Carthaginians from their disengaged side, threatening to trap them against the squadron they were already fighting. Hanno withdrew with those ships that were able to extricate themselves.[55] Regulus then moved to reinforce Vulso's attack on the third Carthaginian squadron. This was when the Carthaginians suffered their heaviest losses; 50 of their ships, trapped against the shore and heavily outnumbered, surrendered. [56] After a prolonged and confused day of fighting the Carthaginians had been decisively defeated, losing 30 ships sunk and 64 captured to Roman losses of 24 ships sunk.[57] The Carthaginians lost between 30,000 and 40,000 men, the majority captured; Roman casualties were approximately 10,000 killed.[58]

Aftermath

Following the battle, the Romans landed in Sicily for repairs, to rest the crews, and to reorganise their forces. The prows of the captured Carthaginian ships were sent to Rome to adorn the rostra of the Forum, according to the tradition initiated after the Battle of Mylae. The Carthaginian fleet fell back to home waters, where it prepared to fight again. However, its commanders were unable to predict the Roman landing point and were on the western side of Cape Bon when the Romans under Regulus successfully landed on the east at Aspis (modern Kelibia) and besieged it.[57] 5,500 Carthaginian troops under Hamilcar were withdrawn from Sicily to reinforce the Carthaginian army in Africa.[59]

The following year, 255, a Carthaginian fleet of 200 ships engaged the Roman fleet in the Battle of Cape Hermaea and was heavily defeated, losing 114 ships captured.[60] The Roman fleet in turn was devastated by a storm while returning to Italy, losing 384 ships.[60] Regulus' invasion initially went well and the Carthaginians sued for peace. Regulus' proposed terms were so harsh that the Carthaginians fought on, defeating his army and expelling the few survivors.[61] The war eventually ended in 242 BC with a Roman victory and an agreed peace.[62]

Citations and sources

Citations

  1. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, p. 20.
  2. ^ a b Tipps 1985, p. 432.
  3. ^ Lazenby 1996, pp. x–xi.
  4. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, p. 21.
  5. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, p. 23.
  6. ^ a b Goldsworthy 2000, pp. 20–21.
  7. ^ Lazenby 1996, pp. x–xi, 82–84.
  8. ^ Tipps 1985, pp. 432–433.
  9. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, p. 22.
  10. ^ a b Goldsworthy 2000, p. 98.
  11. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, pp. 23, 98.
  12. ^ Warmington 1993, p. 168.
  13. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, pp. 74–75.
  14. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, p. 129.
  15. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, p. 130.
  16. ^ a b c Goldsworthy 2000, p. 97.
  17. ^ a b Bagnall 1999, p. 66.
  18. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, pp. 91–92, 97.
  19. ^ Coates 2004, p. 138.
  20. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, p. 101.
  21. ^ a b c d Tipps 1985, p. 434.
  22. ^ a b Murray 2011, p. 69.
  23. ^ Casson 1995, p. 101.
  24. ^ de Souza 2008, p. 358.
  25. ^ Meijer 1986, p. 120.
  26. ^ Coates 2004, pp. 137–138.
  27. ^ Morrison & Coates 1996, pp. 259–260, 270.
  28. ^ Coates 2004, pp. 129–130, 139.
  29. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, pp. 99–100.
  30. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, p. 104.
  31. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, p. 100.
  32. ^ a b c Tipps 1985, p. 435.
  33. ^ a b Casson 1995, p. 121.
  34. ^ Casson 1995, pp. 278–280.
  35. ^ Wallinga 1956, pp. 77–90.
  36. ^ a b Goldsworthy 2000, pp. 102–103.
  37. ^ a b Rankov 2011, p. 155.
  38. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, p. 110.
  39. ^ Lazenby 1996, p. 83.
  40. ^ Tipps 1985, pp. 435–446.
  41. ^ Lazenby 1996, pp. 83, 86.
  42. ^ a b Goldsworthy 2000, pp. 110–111.
  43. ^ Lazenby 1996, pp. 84–85.
  44. ^ Lazenby 1996, p. 86.
  45. ^ Lazenby 1996, p. 87.
  46. ^ Tipps 1985, p. 436.
  47. ^ Tipps 1985, p. 445.
  48. ^ Tipps 1985, p. 446.
  49. ^ Tipps 1985, p. 452, n.68.
  50. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, pp. 111–112.
  51. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, pp. 112–113.
  52. ^ a b c d Tipps 1985, p. 459.
  53. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, pp. 110, 112.
  54. ^ Tipps 1985, pp. 453, 460.
  55. ^ Rodgers 1937, p. 288.
  56. ^ Tipps 1985, pp. 459–460.
  57. ^ a b Bagnall 1999, p. 69.
  58. ^ Rodgers 1937, p. 282.
  59. ^ Rankov 2011, pp. 156–157.
  60. ^ a b Tipps 1985, p. 438.
  61. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, pp. 87–90.
  62. ^ Goldsworthy 2000, pp. 128–129.

Sources

  • Bagnall, Nigel (1999). The Punic Wars: Rome, Carthage and the Struggle for the Mediterranean. London: Pimlico. ISBN 978-0-7126-6608-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Casson, Lionel (1995). Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-5130-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Coates, John F. (2004). "The Naval Architecture and Oar Systems of Ancient Galleys". In Gardiner, Robert (ed.). Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since pre-Classical Times. London: Chrysalis. pp. 127–141. ISBN 978-0-85177-955-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Goldsworthy, Adrian (2000). The Fall of Carthage. London: Pheonix. ISBN 978-0-304-36642-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lazenby, John Francis (1996). The First Punic War: A Military History. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-2673-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Meijer, Fik (1986). A History of Seafaring in the Classical World. London ; Sydney: Croom and Helm. ISBN 0-312-00075-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Morrison, John S.; Coates, John F. (1996). Greek and Roman Oared Warships. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ISBN 1-900188-07-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Murray, William M. (2011). The Age of Titans: The Rise and Fall of the Great Hellenistic Navies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-538864-X. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Rankov, Boris (2011). "A War of Phases: Strategies and Stalemates". In Hoyos, Dexter (ed.). A Companion to the Punic Wars. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 149–166. ISBN 978-1-405-17600-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Rodgers, William Ledyard (1937). Greek and Roman Naval Warfare. Annapolis: United States Naval Institute. pp. 278–291. OCLC 800534587. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • de Souza, Philip (2008). "Naval Forces". In Sabin, Philip; van Wees, Hans; Whitby, Michael (eds.). The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Volume 1: Greece, the Hellenistic world and the rise of Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 357–367. ISBN 978-0-521-85779-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Tipps, G.K. (1985). "The Battle of Ecnomus". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 34 (4th Qtr.): 432–465. JSTOR 4435938. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Wallinga, Herman Tammo (1956). The boarding-bridge of the Romans. Groningen; Djakarta: J.B. Wolters. OCLC 458845955. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Warmington, Brian Herbert (1993) [1960]. Carthage. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc. ISBN 978-1-56619-210-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Cape_Ecnomus&oldid=884621804"