What prevented the Romans from naval expansion?

Upvote:0

Logistics (cost) x Wealth of Targets (benefit). The same issues when asking "why did not Rome conquer Scotland?"

Romans went into the Red Sea, and got their asses handed to them due to logistic issues and treachery from their guides. Then they did not emphasize this less successful part of their history... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeUCXM2WwY4

They also tried to explore the Nile, and were similarly unsuccessful (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=romans+nile+expedition) There is difficult marshy terrain before the source of the Nile - the question was only settled on the XIX century anyway.

In the comments, @njuffa tells us (I did not know about the fleet): Germanicus did build a large North Sea fleet for the campaign of 16 AD against Germanic tribes. Tacitus, Annals, 2, 6 (Loeb translation): " Silius and Caecina were made responsible for the construction of a fleet. A thousand vessels were considered enough, and these were built at speed. Some were short craft with very little poop or prow, and broad-bellied, the more easily to withstand a heavy sea: others had flat bottoms, enabling them to run aground without damage; while still more were fitted with rudders at each end, so as to head either way the moment the oarsmen reversed their stroke." –

Useful against German tribes near the coast, although this description does not look like a ocean going fleet for large distances. Anyway, the deeper Roman incursions in Germany did not led to permanent conquest (Teutoburg Forest and later campaigns...).

Thus, in the North, The Romans had short lived attempts to expansion by naval power, with mediocre long term results. Why would they invest in naval tech to go much further away in the North? If Scotland was too poor/cold/remote to sustain a Roman Army in conquest, what about Ireland, Scandinavia or Iceland?

In the south, Romans knew the Sahara: to supply an army across the Sahara would be unthinkable, and they would realize that easily.

Somebody on this site recommended this blog: https://acoup.blog/2022/07/15/collections-logistics-how-did-they-do-it-part-i-the-problem/

A summary about ancient (or pre-railroad) logistics, explaining why ancient armies could not go everywhere, even if it looks easy when looking into a map. It is a long but rewarding reading if you are interested on these issues. Also, from the same guy:

https://acoup.blog/2022/05/27/collections-total-generalship-commanding-pre-modern-armies-part-i-reports/

In short, they did try, in almost all directions possible. But logistics limited them.

Upvote:4

The Roman fleet largely relied on galleys. The Romans had nothing like a carvel or carrack, let alone a galleon. Several reasons come together for this.

  • The technology of sails and rigging was not as well developed as in the 15th century, when European exploration happened. Oars were required for maneuvering, or to travel upwind.
  • Before gunpowder, warships relied on ramming and boarding, with just a few catapults or greek fire. Again that required oars for maneuvering.
  • Rowing ships need large crews. Large crews need lots of food and water. That reduced the endurance of galleys, which would travel along the coasts and go to shore every night, or at least every couple of days. That means they had to be light enough for beaching.

A galley was better suited for use within the Mediterranean than outside of it. You might look at the end of the galley era, the battle of Lepanto, and compare it with the Spanish Armada a decade later.

The Romans had some quite large ships, but those were for established cargo routes, not exploration. The comment by njuffa points out that Rome used transports, not just warships, but some of those used by Caesar to invade Britain were held up by contrary winds.

More post

Search Posts

Related post