there is a Video done by a Channel called the Templin Institute on trying to build an intersteller fleet for a sci-fi story, this video, while decently thought-out, clearly didn't have any actual naval research behind it (ex: they thought that Dreadnought in the real world referred to one of the age of sail line ships named dreadnought) if in an alternate timeline they had reached out to you, what would you change about their video?
Seeing all these triremes has me thinking about galleys in the age of sail how many sets of rowers did most galleys have? And how large were galleys compared to triremes
The _Furutakas_ were originally built with six single 8-inch turrets, only later being rebuilt with three twin turrets. How were the original six single turrets arranged - did they have a combination of wing and centerline turrets along the ship (like the _Hawkinses_ except with actual turrets)?
I miss the old intro music drach😢 I now have to put the video on my TV, pause it Put an old video on my phone and play the intro while the TV is on mute...😂
I started playing total war rome 2 divide et impera a month ago and watched the other videos of drachinifel about ancient naval warfare a few days ago. He is is making videos specifically for us.
In my opinion, that was the best collaboration you’ve done yet. Not only a very interesting subject with someone who complemented you in terms of voice and timing and sense of humor. A big thumbs up very well done to you both.
@@klarthkoken1925 Depends on the ship type. Some (especially the big ones) are literally irreplaceable, others are standard designs churned out by the millions in forge worlds.
I have heard the story about the run-aground Carthaginian ships and the amazing Corvus so many times in so many retellings, including back in High School and in so many popular retellings on TH-cam (Invicta, Oversimplified, and more). It is nice to hear an actual historian talk about these things without just parroting everything Polybius said.
There's another school of interpretations for Pyrrhus's semi-random switch of objectives. That he was in need of securing loot for the army he took with him from Greece. Those people were either free Epirote tribesmen or/and veterans of the Diadochi wars embarked on expedition for loot. Hence some fighting in Italy, then Romans do not pay up so he looks for payoff in Sicily, Carthaginians also do not pay even if when he kicks them back to Lilybaeum, then he loots temple at Sicily (quite sacrilegious by standards of the day but he might be desperate), then he goes back to the peninsular allies again pressed by Rome, then there's quite unresolved fighting at Beneventum and then he gets the opportunity to claim kingship of Macedon (Ptolemaios Keraunos gets himself killed by Celts AND by the blood Pyrrhus was cousin to Alexander the Great and the last surviving person with actual ties to this royal bloodline) so now he rushes back to Greece to counter Antigonos (AND then looks the other way when his mercenaries loot royal tombs at Pella which again indicates money problems). The he gets himself killed by accident in Argos and the story ends. Pyrrhus was about fifty-something when he died and was considered the most successful general of his generation. It's unlikely he could win fighting both Western Mediterranean powers at the same time (and he would end having to do so if he was any more successful, especially after his threats of maybe one day visiting Carthaginians in Africa), but quite likely he was far less random than Romans were depicting him.
Agreed entirely. Pyrrhus's army was not the national army of Macedon created by Phillip and used by Alexander. It was composed of hired professional mercenaries. They had to be paid. HIs entire venture in Italy could be looked at as essentially a fund-raising expedition. He wanted an army large enough to compete with the real heavy-weights - the Diadochi successor states to Alexander. He needed money, and the southern Italian Greeks offered him payment if he would protect them against Roman aggression. So I think you are right. Pyrrhus's real ambition was geared towards Pella and the monarchy held by Cassander. But to compete against the Diadochi he needed money and lots of it. Hence his Italian adventure which went so very badly.
Agree. The histories we have around Pyrrhus' time in Italy are a bit...thin. I suspect he was rich allies to pay his men and to build a tax or tribute base to expand operations to claim wider kingship. Also, he does beat the Romans twice and it's pretty obvious that, for a couple of years, the Romans lose their control over Lucania and Bruttium which they had just acquired.
@@Wien1938 I tend to agree. He beat the Romans twice, but both times could not afford the losses entailed. Asculum in 279 was a disaster even though nominally a victory. He'd lost many of his best commanders. His camp was sacked and burned. He could not replace the casualties he'd suffered. He was bankrupt and had to bail out to Sicily on another fundraising drive. This failed, and, his position no better, he had to return to Italy and face final absolute defeat of his campaign and imperial ambitions at Beneventum in 275. Pyrrhus's problem was that he failed to understand what he was up against. Rome in the early 3rd century BC had access to enormous military resources compared to all of its opponents. Rome was supposed to be a mere recruiting drive to build up his forces for the real clash with the Diadochi. Instead, he was ground into dogmeat. The loss of Lucania and Bruttium was promptly undone by his disaster at Beneventum. Rome could survive all its defeats; he could survive none of them. A mere monarch with nothing more than hired troops, regardless of how good they were, was going to get crushed the moment the Romans got serious about him. The Roman system was invincible against all of their Mediterranean opponents at the time. They steamrolled all of the Greek Successor States very rapidly. The largest, the Seleucid Empire, could not withstand even one defeat at Magnesia before the empire disintegrated with Rome seizing Anatolia and Syria, and the Parthians devouring the rest. The only power that stood up to Rome for any length of time was Carthage. All the rest of them collapsed at the first serious setback.
@@colinhunt4057 Pyrrhus main mistake was that he was a Hellenic monarch thinking in terms of Hellenic warfare. Which is not what Rome and Carthage understood by going to war. If it was between Hellenic kingdoms, after two battles won or after kicking them out of an entire island save for one stronghold, he'd get his treaty and a payoff. The very moment both powers decided that they will keep fighting, he lost. Grinding a war to the bitter end how it was between Rome and Carthage wasn't only beyond durability of those Hellenic monarchies. It was also completely beyond scope of their way of thinking.
@@graveyard1979 Agree entirely. Rome I think was the first time that a nation-state came to a national approach to war and conflict. Rome's wars rarely ended with a peace treaty. Rome was 'in it to win it". They only failed on two occasions: fighting the assortment of German tribes; and the long string of clashes with the Parthian Empire. The former ended sharply in 9 AD with the disaster at Teutoburger Wald. Rome could no longer afford to lose three legions and an entire army at once. Very simply, victory was not worth the cost. The second came to an end in three phases. Carrhae and the defeat of Crassus in 53 BC showed that this would be a very hard project. This was confirmed by the disaster of Mark Antony's campaign in 37-36 BC. The shortlived success of Trajan 113-116 AD showed that it could not be done at all. Even with internal Parthian civil wars of succession nothing could be achieved. Roman victories meant nothing to the Parthians, as Rome was unable to sustain any meaningful explansion beyond Syria. The logistics were simply impossible to a pre-20th century non-motorized army. Rome was a Mediterranean power, and that was all.
Great show Drach! Loved Brett as a guest he paints a great picture of that first Punic war. Far better then my old college history professor ever did. Hope he’s a guest i the future again!
Ah, my introduction to Ancient History, in middle high school, was with the Punic Wars. Great to hear a deeper and more nuanced discussion of the background and events.
As a student of classics, I always love when ancient naval warfare comes up on your channel. This was one of my favourite videos so far. It’d be interesting to have someone talk more about the evolution of Roman naval warfare, as it battles against other powers and itself, as well as Rome’s Atlantic operations
This might be one of the most informative and excellent works on the 1st Punic War on youtube. Oversimplified presented it in a funny and digestible way, but Bret brought a scholarship to it I can't help but be in awe of. Thank you Drach for bringing him into my sphere of knowlege!
regarding the corvus: maybe using grappling hooks turned out to work better. After all, when using plenty of grappling hooks, you're binding the two ships together. With a corvus, you get a linking rod, hence creating a triple pendulum consisting of two ships and a connecting corvus. Hence, I guess grappling turned out to be the better solution to the boarding problem.
The problem I’ve always had with the traditional Corvus story is that now the Romans have to fight their way across a narrow choke point, and choke points tend to be easily defensible unless the attacker has a dominant advantage. Now maybe Roman marines were just exceptionally skillful at forcing their way across, but there’s room for a healthy dose of skepticism, I think.
@@robertlee5456 But there are plenty of choke-points in land warfare too. Breaches in walls, gates, narrow bridges, narrow lanes, etc.. Granted, not all of the listed scenarios allow for enfilading "fire", but I guess fighting across a corvus might not have been that unfamiliar to legionaries. However, simply binding two ships together using grappling hooks allows you to enter the other ship on more than one single location. Hence, I guess, that would be a strong contender why the corvus fell from use (if it did indeed do so). Storming across to the other ship on a wider front seems much preferable than goose-lining across a potentially wobbly corvus.
Drach, being a good host/interviewer is definitely a skill, and you've done great here. I love that you aren't afraid to ask questions, but you also let him speak and don't rush it. Very good vid!
One of the most interesting things about this is a lot of how history stays the same. The historians having agendas and need to look at sources and how things are happening. The capturing of ships and common use of them against each other if they like the ability to use them. Foundational naval myths along with massive reogranisation of the state to pay for the navy. Consequences for failure being worse then rewards for success leading to often bad leadership options. People getting into big long costly wars without intending to. Peace deals leading to wars 20 ish years down the line. History doesnt repeat it rhymes and so on comes to mind here.
Thank you so much for doing this video together. I love Roman history and found this presentation so delightful. A brilliant overview with super interesting details. Please have him back for more! Best greetings, Peter
That was great! I would love to see another video with Bret, especially covering some of the things he mentioned but didn't get back around to, like head to head ramming. Great vid Drach!
I realise this would be an odd collab, but I was half-hoping this would be Blue from OSP. Of course, this was fantastic, and Brent’s use of casual terminology makes it very approachable.
Oh I know! I loved it - the modern terminology makes it very relatable, kind of putting us in the spirit of the times. I would have loved to have a down-to-earth history teacher like this!
I write "popular" histories about mountain areas and I've noticed that it is rare for academic historians to be able to cross over into popular history that is accessible to a mainstream audience. However Dr Deveraux with his flippant use of popular terminology and ability to make generalised summaries, appears to be one of those few people.
Wonderful ! Please come back with Punic, Round 2 and Round 3. I know they're not ship based, but this was riveting, and you are a historical sleuth with a right knack for asking the pertinent questions of a visiting expert, who, by the way, you have a judicious eye at choosing a knowledgeable and measured one.
We definitely need a continuation. Bring forth the Second Punic war! Too bad there's nothing to say here about the Third one, as that Hannibal fellow preferred elephants and Alpine passes. I still believe he'd have made a decent Admiral.
They still celebrate Hannibal, his elephants and the various kinds of fighters leading off from the main square of a certain Spanish port city. They go up and over the bridge to the entertainment tents on the other side.
On the Corvus: Polybius may be channeling Thucydides on the difference between Athenian and Spartan naval expertise but as the Roman commanders were basically infantrymen put to sea they were probably less adept at naval tactics at first. So the idea of the Corvus as a device to get a short term advantage, which would not be needed once they’d gained more experience and expertise, seems a reasonable one.
Drach i don't know how you do it every time you have a guest they are absolutely brilliant grade A and always awesome and easy and enjoyable to listen to a great early naval history can't thank you enough for sharing your gift with us once again let me say thank you for doing what you do
Thank you for a wonderfully detailed presentation of the First Punic War. This subject has fascinated me since I was in college some 40 years ago. Although I was studying to be an Engineer, I was fascinated by the school library. I remember reading discouragingly on the parse description of what took place. There was a lack of overall strategy, economics, and discussion of Naval tactics. This really brought everything together. Greatly appreciated and major kudos.
An excellent short, relatively, encapsulation of the first of the Carthage/Roman conflict. It does answer for some the seemingly lacking deeper thoughts of Carthage in regards to why they did not take a somewhat more aggressive tack on Rome itself.
This intro music is a keeper. Almost as good as the one that you frustratingly cannot use anymore. Nice choice! Quality that is so rare on TH-cam. As a historical sociologist, I am always impressed.
Not everyday you hear Rome compared to Goku🤣👍. Edit:It's interesting that a large power having its ship made by an ally/colony is floated up again with the suggestion for South Korea to make frigates for the US Navy. Imperial Japan (1500's, I think) also supposedly learned to make ships from a Korean (when they were still a kingdom) ship that was beached in Japan.
@Drachinifel Are we also going to see more medieval/early-modern naval battles covered? I'd love to see one for Lepanto 1571, or perhaps the impact of the Sea Beggars in the Eighty Years War.
I did, but the Armada's only one particular instance in centuries of naval warfare between nation-states in the early modern era. There's a lot of focus on the beginning and end of the Age of Sail but fairly little otherwise that gets covered. Lepanto 1571, despite being a major naval victory for the Christians, is not particularly well covered, and there's precious few other naval battles that get any coverage until Trafalgar at the twilight of the Age of Sail, just before the dawn of steam-powered ironclads.
I am in the middle of planning a trip to Sicily to learn more of its ancient history. This episode just eliminated a large portion of my ignorance on that subject. Thank you.
Been a while since I was hooked on Roman history but this presentation got me hooked right back in. What an interesting time. Great presenter as well loved Bret's style.
Yes, please have Bret return! I love the 10 questions format and you just seem to know how to get your guests talking! One topic I enjoyed from this video was the Corvus myth debunking. Roman wonder weapon that even occasionally aids to capsizing Roman warships!
This is a great discussion and the information which our guest brings is fabulous - there's plenty of new angles and material for me to get my teeth into. Great points about the corvus and general seaworthiness vs usable sea lanes. The one thing that strikes me about the whole cost-benefit analysis of maintaining vs losing whole fleets - and it's a *great* discussion point that Bret makes, which I'd not considered previously - is that it's fine to say that the hierarchy could afford to be ruthless about the loss of lower-class rowers, but the loss of a war galley would almost certainly involve the death of all those higher-status marines too! They had armour on; I don't know how many were good enough swimmers to deal with that conundrum and pretty sure Carley floats wouldn't be a thing for a while yet. But you lose men in battle and it's not like the Roman army was any different in terms of using up the easy-to-replace young men first and saving the older veterans for the last line - especially at this time. Still, quality of rowers is a thing to think about, and a good friend (who has rowing experience) and I discussed this issue of lower-class rowers in ancient galleys (not late medieval or Renaissance so much): His view being very much that a reasonable portion of the rowers would need to be very hIgh quality (strong, fit and experienced and themselves either professional or at least semi-), capable of 'leading' a team on long oars in two-bank 'fives', 'tens' and so on. They'd probably also fight, too, if the ship was boarded. So these were not going to be the very lowest status rowers. The crew could then be filled out with household slaves of higher-status crew as needed, and these could be less trained and just follow the lead of the better rowers. This is, of course, theory, but the 'team economics' of it make sense to a Navy man - and to me, too. I won't argue with it. Fabulous video - thanks to bret and thanks for talking about such a fascinating topic. These mysterious warships have a spell of their own.
As I've been made to understand it, Rome had ships but they learned Carthage's mass production methods from the assembly markings on a shipwreck they found.
Really super presentation ... this is like a Punic War version of the Battle of Midway story as revolutionized by Jon Parshall and Anthony Tully - clearing away all the unexamined (and endlessly repeated) myths of ancient (and modern) naval warfare!
A thing that was missing form this presentation and its relatively recent, and well known now in academia, is how fascinating construction methods of these type of ancient ships was. There is evidence of methods resembling modern era industrial type of assembly, with various wooden boards being found with inscriptions\ instructions clearly to be use on a assembly line of sorts, with some of them having written instructions ( like letters and numbers designations like a ikea furniture) directly on the board and designations so each construction worker knew where to place and how to place it. Pretty interesting stuff. No wonder they built them so fast.
It'd be wonderful to have a Drach episode covering ancient marine-warfare, and what the most-recent, (or, generally-recent) archaeological finds have been--- and how those confirm & conform to the ancient-historiography; or counter it... and how they confirm, or dispute, what we thought we understood about naval warfare, shipbuilding, & technologies of the ancient-world...
I actually wrote a paper on this. The reason the Romans did away with the Corvus was not because it was top heavy, though that was an issue, it was the fact that it was a nearly useless piece of junk. You could not “turn it around in any direction” it was only about 36 ft long. Anything longer would be too big and heavy to operate. They were mounted on a stump-mast near the bow on the centerline giving the contraption a reach of only about 30 feet over the side, but only near the bow. It had less reach the closer to amidships the enemy was and no ability to be used aft. A throwing line and hook could be as long as 50 ft, meaning enemy borders could be swinging onto your ship before you could deploy the ungainly thing. What’s more, when it was used the troops using it had to march down a 4' wide board in single or double file to the end of the ramp, a specific spot on the enemy ship anyone could see. All the enemy had to do was set up a defense at the end and around the sides of it and your troops would find themselves surrounded facing a shield wall with attackers stabbing at their flanks. In contrast, standard grappling lines CAN be used in all directions, have an effective range of however far a strong, well conditioned soldier can throw it, oh about 40-45 feet, and can come from any direction to any location on the ship, forcing the defenders to spread out and defend the entire side of the ship near the enemy. The Corvus is noted as having only 1 major use, which is with the Roman 3rd force at Cape Ecnomus when they cut their horse barges loose and formed up with their sterns towards the Sicilian coast presenting their Corvus equipped bows to the Carthaginian left flank force. This had no tactical use, as both sides found themselves in a standoff, but had the strategic use of stymieing the Carthaginians with the menacing threat of the spiked implements until the Roman lead forces returned to help them take the entire force. It was only this intimidation factor that was of any real use in this one situation. Earlier historians attributed he Roman success to the device because it was the only difference between the two forces that they noticed and attributed in the Roman favor to counterbalance the Carthaginian experience. They are of course wrong and completely missed the entire purpose of the battle. For the Carthaginians it was to stop the Romans from reinforcing their North Africa campaign and their ships sailed out with the standard 40 man marine force on each, where the Romans had sailed out to do just that reinforcement with 2 entire fresh Legions onboard for transport. Once distributed among 300-odd vessels, that’s about 40 men per ship, plus the standard marine detachments making each Roman ship a very crowded vessel with not 40 but about 80 soldiers on each. A quick look at the outcome shows the difference. The Carthaginian fleet was decimated with most of the fleet lost where the Romans had very few losses, but look again at the types of losses. Both sides had roughly the same number of ship sunk or burned, but where the vast majority of the Carthaginian losses were ships captured to Roman boarding, a possible factor arguable in favor of the corvus except, not a single Roman ship was captured. Not one. So in all that ship-to-ship melee not even 1 Roman ship got caught from behind by Carthaginian boards and overwhelmed? No, I am quite sure many more than that were attacked across their stern, only to have their attackers overwhelmed by the defenders who then turned the tables and took the Carthaginian ship instead. The Corvus was a piece of junk, the Romans won with the old strategy of shear overwhelming number that isn’t reflected by the numbers of ships but the number of fighting men involved.
@43:00 "warships weren't plated with lead because they needed to be light." But the ships needed to carry ballast anyway so it didn't matter if it was in lead sheathing or is a bunch of rocks in the bilge. If your ships are only in the water during campaign season, hull fouling isn't as big a problem as for merchant ships which stay in service and at sea their entire lives. Most likely it was for cost and time. The lead might be cheap, but the skilled labor to form the thin sheets and to attach them to the ship would not be, and its very time intensive to install.
Thank you so much for sharing all this interesting information in a most entertaining way! I like the speculation about the nitty-gritty details of the naval infrastructure, ship architecture, and financing but also the poor guys who had to fight on the sea. I do have one question: Do any of the historians mention how, or even if, the armies gathered up all the injured who fell overboard? Was there any sort of rescue operation after the battle was over? For either side? If so, how did that work? Smaller rowing vessels? Some kind of flotation device tied to s rope to gather drowning men? I learned a lot and had fun while doing it - my favorite way to learn! I would love a part 2 on this series, maybe going into more of what happens with all those mercenaries going rogue that Carthage had to deal with - and how society changed after that. Rome becoming more of a naval power in the area and how that evolved and influenced the Mediterranean would also be interesting to learn more about. Thanks so much!
As much as I love Polybius, it's also worth mentioning that he was a Greek hostage raised in the Scipio family so largely identified with Rome. Since you got into the 2nd Punic War a bit, it's worth noting -- as Mahan must have at some point -- that the REASON Hannibal marched over the Alps was because he didn't have the ships to go by sea. Moving an army by sea is easy and fast in comparison.
An awesome discussion. I greatly enjoyed it. I understand there wasn't time for everything but I'm mightily interested in the purchasing power of ancient silver. How much was funding a ship compared to funding a land unit? Or to contemporary prices on everyday goods? Or to a wagon of grain? Just to win an impression, how expensive a fleet really was.
It's hard to quickly grasp as prices change with time and they used different units acress regions and time. I've found thesis that lists worker's wage at 450d. per year. Yearly barley for family at 30-40d. House at 700d. Yearly rent at 55d. Boots at 10d. But it's for Athens in IV c. BC, so Rome/Carthage hundred years later might have completly different prices. That one drachma for rower was monthly pay? With those prices, it would be not enough of daily wage for such hard labor.
Regarding the stability effect of the corvus, did whoever estimated the effect account for the additional reduction in stability caused by the fact that it isn’t fixed, but rather is partly suspended and therefore free to swing from side to side as the ship rolls? Because that shifting weight will further decrease the stability of the ship in a manner similar to the free surface effect.
The comment about aggressive naval commanders and the US Navy in WWII reminded me of the first WWII history book I can remember reading as a kid. It had photos of the important commanders from each faction and a corresponding quote from them; the Bull Halsey quote was "Attack. Repeat, attack." I could never decide if it was brilliantly direct or dangerously simple-minded, which is maybe how some people viewed Halsey himself.
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Will you gonna talk more about special shell types such as Japanese type 3 shell?
there is a Video done by a Channel called the Templin Institute on trying to build an intersteller fleet for a sci-fi story, this video, while decently thought-out, clearly didn't have any actual naval research behind it (ex: they thought that Dreadnought in the real world referred to one of the age of sail line ships named dreadnought) if in an alternate timeline they had reached out to you, what would you change about their video?
Seeing all these triremes has me thinking about galleys in the age of sail how many sets of rowers did most galleys have? And how large were galleys compared to triremes
The _Furutakas_ were originally built with six single 8-inch turrets, only later being rebuilt with three twin turrets. How were the original six single turrets arranged - did they have a combination of wing and centerline turrets along the ship (like the _Hawkinses_ except with actual turrets)?
I miss the old intro music drach😢
I now have to put the video on my TV, pause it
Put an old video on my phone and play the intro while the TV is on mute...😂
I literally fire up Rome: Total War for the first time in years and you suddenly upload this, the stars have aligned 😂
I started playing total war rome 2 divide et impera a month ago and watched the other videos of drachinifel about ancient naval warfare a few days ago.
He is is making videos specifically for us.
Y’all we need more plane + boat / carrier collab videos! Hope you’re doing well!
We need more plane-ship combos set in the Classical Era.
Howdy, Rex!
@@michimatsch5862aye. The mod is insanely deep. Good enough as a game unto itself.
In my opinion, that was the best collaboration you’ve done yet. Not only a very interesting subject with someone who complemented you in terms of voice and timing and sense of humor. A big thumbs up very well done to you both.
Brett knows his stuff. I'd very much like to see more ancient naval videos with the two of you.
Over 70 minutes of discussion about a very interesting subject felt like 25. Wow, great work, lads. Time truly is relative.
It really happened… so glad you are covering classical era naval warfare :0
I am happy to have Drach stepping in to discuss the biggest boat battles in ancient history
Salimis, it's like voyage of the second Pacific squadron the prequel for the sillyness of the advance by the Persians.
"We lost 200 ships in a storm!
It's okay, we'll build another fleet!" is one of the most 40k things ever said in a historical context.
This is the opposite of (the Imperium in) 40k, where people are cheap and ships can take decades to build if anyone even still has the technology.
@@klarthkoken1925 Fair point. However, in a Imperium with tens of millions of ships, 200 lost in a storm is a drop in the sea in comparison.
@@klarthkoken1925 Depends on the ship type. Some (especially the big ones) are literally irreplaceable, others are standard designs churned out by the millions in forge worlds.
Yes! The Punic Wars! One of the most epic conflicts of all time.
Carthago est delengo.
@@20chocsadaycarthaginem esse delendam .... carthago has to be destroyed
@@alexzenz760 What a way to spice up your speeches. It ranks with
The China Virus.
@@20chocsaday Gerundive✅
@@Petaljane My attempted translation was very bad.
I have heard the story about the run-aground Carthaginian ships and the amazing Corvus so many times in so many retellings, including back in High School and in so many popular retellings on TH-cam (Invicta, Oversimplified, and more).
It is nice to hear an actual historian talk about these things without just parroting everything Polybius said.
Nice change of pace. Good to see some ancient naval history, it's not as well covered as Age of Sail and later on.
There's another school of interpretations for Pyrrhus's semi-random switch of objectives. That he was in need of securing loot for the army he took with him from Greece. Those people were either free Epirote tribesmen or/and veterans of the Diadochi wars embarked on expedition for loot.
Hence some fighting in Italy, then Romans do not pay up so he looks for payoff in Sicily, Carthaginians also do not pay even if when he kicks them back to Lilybaeum, then he loots temple at Sicily (quite sacrilegious by standards of the day but he might be desperate), then he goes back to the peninsular allies again pressed by Rome, then there's quite unresolved fighting at Beneventum and then he gets the opportunity to claim kingship of Macedon (Ptolemaios Keraunos gets himself killed by Celts AND by the blood Pyrrhus was cousin to Alexander the Great and the last surviving person with actual ties to this royal bloodline) so now he rushes back to Greece to counter Antigonos (AND then looks the other way when his mercenaries loot royal tombs at Pella which again indicates money problems).
The he gets himself killed by accident in Argos and the story ends.
Pyrrhus was about fifty-something when he died and was considered the most successful general of his generation. It's unlikely he could win fighting both Western Mediterranean powers at the same time (and he would end having to do so if he was any more successful, especially after his threats of maybe one day visiting Carthaginians in Africa), but quite likely he was far less random than Romans were depicting him.
Agreed entirely. Pyrrhus's army was not the national army of Macedon created by Phillip and used by Alexander. It was composed of hired professional mercenaries. They had to be paid.
HIs entire venture in Italy could be looked at as essentially a fund-raising expedition. He wanted an army large enough to compete with the real heavy-weights - the Diadochi successor states to Alexander. He needed money, and the southern Italian Greeks offered him payment if he would protect them against Roman aggression. So I think you are right. Pyrrhus's real ambition was geared towards Pella and the monarchy held by Cassander. But to compete against the Diadochi he needed money and lots of it. Hence his Italian adventure which went so very badly.
Agree.
The histories we have around Pyrrhus' time in Italy are a bit...thin. I suspect he was rich allies to pay his men and to build a tax or tribute base to expand operations to claim wider kingship.
Also, he does beat the Romans twice and it's pretty obvious that, for a couple of years, the Romans lose their control over Lucania and Bruttium which they had just acquired.
@@Wien1938 I tend to agree. He beat the Romans twice, but both times could not afford the losses entailed. Asculum in 279 was a disaster even though nominally a victory. He'd lost many of his best commanders. His camp was sacked and burned. He could not replace the casualties he'd suffered. He was bankrupt and had to bail out to Sicily on another fundraising drive. This failed, and, his position no better, he had to return to Italy and face final absolute defeat of his campaign and imperial ambitions at Beneventum in 275.
Pyrrhus's problem was that he failed to understand what he was up against. Rome in the early 3rd century BC had access to enormous military resources compared to all of its opponents. Rome was supposed to be a mere recruiting drive to build up his forces for the real clash with the Diadochi. Instead, he was ground into dogmeat. The loss of Lucania and Bruttium was promptly undone by his disaster at Beneventum. Rome could survive all its defeats; he could survive none of them.
A mere monarch with nothing more than hired troops, regardless of how good they were, was going to get crushed the moment the Romans got serious about him. The Roman system was invincible against all of their Mediterranean opponents at the time. They steamrolled all of the Greek Successor States very rapidly. The largest, the Seleucid Empire, could not withstand even one defeat at Magnesia before the empire disintegrated with Rome seizing Anatolia and Syria, and the Parthians devouring the rest.
The only power that stood up to Rome for any length of time was Carthage. All the rest of them collapsed at the first serious setback.
@@colinhunt4057 Pyrrhus main mistake was that he was a Hellenic monarch thinking in terms of Hellenic warfare.
Which is not what Rome and Carthage understood by going to war. If it was between Hellenic kingdoms, after two battles won or after kicking them out of an entire island save for one stronghold, he'd get his treaty and a payoff. The very moment both powers decided that they will keep fighting, he lost.
Grinding a war to the bitter end how it was between Rome and Carthage wasn't only beyond durability of those Hellenic monarchies. It was also completely beyond scope of their way of thinking.
@@graveyard1979 Agree entirely. Rome I think was the first time that a nation-state came to a national approach to war and conflict. Rome's wars rarely ended with a peace treaty. Rome was 'in it to win it". They only failed on two occasions: fighting the assortment of German tribes; and the long string of clashes with the Parthian Empire. The former ended sharply in 9 AD with the disaster at Teutoburger Wald. Rome could no longer afford to lose three legions and an entire army at once. Very simply, victory was not worth the cost.
The second came to an end in three phases. Carrhae and the defeat of Crassus in 53 BC showed that this would be a very hard project. This was confirmed by the disaster of Mark Antony's campaign in 37-36 BC. The shortlived success of Trajan 113-116 AD showed that it could not be done at all. Even with internal Parthian civil wars of succession nothing could be achieved. Roman victories meant nothing to the Parthians, as Rome was unable to sustain any meaningful explansion beyond Syria. The logistics were simply impossible to a pre-20th century non-motorized army. Rome was a Mediterranean power, and that was all.
Great show Drach! Loved Brett as a guest he paints a great picture of that first Punic war. Far better then my old college history professor ever did. Hope he’s a guest i the future again!
Ah, my introduction to Ancient History, in middle high school, was with the Punic Wars. Great to hear a deeper and more nuanced discussion of the background and events.
As a student of classics, I always love when ancient naval warfare comes up on your channel. This was one of my favourite videos so far. It’d be interesting to have someone talk more about the evolution of Roman naval warfare, as it battles against other powers and itself, as well as Rome’s Atlantic operations
I stopped what I was doing and sat down to listen to this! I knew only a smattering about the Punic wars and found this FABULOUS!
This might be one of the most informative and excellent works on the 1st Punic War on youtube. Oversimplified presented it in a funny and digestible way, but Bret brought a scholarship to it I can't help but be in awe of. Thank you Drach for bringing him into my sphere of knowlege!
No question. Been reading prof. Devereaux's blog for a while, and have also been watching this channel for quite a while. Enjoying the video. Thanks!
regarding the corvus: maybe using grappling hooks turned out to work better. After all, when using plenty of grappling hooks, you're binding the two ships together. With a corvus, you get a linking rod, hence creating a triple pendulum consisting of two ships and a connecting corvus. Hence, I guess grappling turned out to be the better solution to the boarding problem.
Or both were used at the same time but the Corvus just isn't mentioned.
@@barrybend7189 I think both would make for very effective combination.
The problem I’ve always had with the traditional Corvus story is that now the Romans have to fight their way across a narrow choke point, and choke points tend to be easily defensible unless the attacker has a dominant advantage. Now maybe Roman marines were just exceptionally skillful at forcing their way across, but there’s room for a healthy dose of skepticism, I think.
@@robertlee5456 But there are plenty of choke-points in land warfare too. Breaches in walls, gates, narrow bridges, narrow lanes, etc.. Granted, not all of the listed scenarios allow for enfilading "fire", but I guess fighting across a corvus might not have been that unfamiliar to legionaries. However, simply binding two ships together using grappling hooks allows you to enter the other ship on more than one single location. Hence, I guess, that would be a strong contender why the corvus fell from use (if it did indeed do so). Storming across to the other ship on a wider front seems much preferable than goose-lining across a potentially wobbly corvus.
As an armchair historian I found this very informative and educational. Now I have a much better understanding of the Punic Wars. Thank you!
Remember not to throw the sacred chickens overboard and anger the Gods, we’re looking at you Claudius Pulcher
This does somewhat predate the Russian naval tradition of sacrificial binoculars…
Drach, being a good host/interviewer is definitely a skill, and you've done great here. I love that you aren't afraid to ask questions, but you also let him speak and don't rush it. Very good vid!
One of the most interesting things about this is a lot of how history stays the same. The historians having agendas and need to look at sources and how things are happening. The capturing of ships and common use of them against each other if they like the ability to use them. Foundational naval myths along with massive reogranisation of the state to pay for the navy. Consequences for failure being worse then rewards for success leading to often bad leadership options. People getting into big long costly wars without intending to. Peace deals leading to wars 20 ish years down the line. History doesnt repeat it rhymes and so on comes to mind here.
Thanks to the two of you for this amazing video, once again 👍
Several semesters of college in the 1980s were put to the torch after a single video lecture. Well done my friend, well done.
I just discovered your channel two days ago and have been binge watching your videos since. You've got some great stuff mate.
Thank you so much for doing this video together. I love Roman history and found this presentation so delightful. A brilliant overview with super interesting details.
Please have him back for more!
Best greetings, Peter
Again, a video where I feel an urge to stand up and applaud at the end. Concentrated, concise and informative, simply excellent. Thank you!
That was great! I would love to see another video with Bret, especially covering some of the things he mentioned but didn't get back around to, like head to head ramming. Great vid Drach!
I love learning from history professors who are passionate about their area of research
I like that you’ve been playing around with the intro music recently, this is the coolest sounding one yet!
I understand some dink claimed copyright on the open source music he used to use……
Awesome! That’s going to make my drive so much better this morning….
Looking forward to a video about the Second Punic war! That was amazing, keep it up!
Great video, I’m a big fan of Brets realistic Lord of the Rings blog!
I realise this would be an odd collab, but I was half-hoping this would be Blue from OSP. Of course, this was fantastic, and Brent’s use of casual terminology makes it very approachable.
Oh I know! I loved it - the modern terminology makes it very relatable, kind of putting us in the spirit of the times.
I would have loved to have a down-to-earth history teacher like this!
His blog posts on Sparta are great, too.
I particularly appreciated the reference to Hannibal's "stacked" galley.
I write "popular" histories about mountain areas and I've noticed that it is rare for academic historians to be able to cross over into popular history that is accessible to a mainstream audience. However Dr Deveraux with his flippant use of popular terminology and ability to make generalised summaries, appears to be one of those few people.
Wonderful !
Please come back with Punic, Round 2 and Round 3.
I know they're not ship based, but this was riveting, and you are a historical sleuth with a right knack for asking the pertinent questions of a visiting expert, who, by the way, you have a judicious eye at choosing a knowledgeable and measured one.
We definitely need a continuation. Bring forth the Second Punic war!
Too bad there's nothing to say here about the Third one, as that Hannibal fellow preferred elephants and Alpine passes. I still believe he'd have made a decent Admiral.
They still celebrate Hannibal, his elephants and the various kinds of fighters leading off from the main square of a certain Spanish port city.
They go up and over the bridge to the entertainment tents on the other side.
On the Corvus: Polybius may be channeling Thucydides on the difference between Athenian and Spartan naval expertise but as the Roman commanders were basically infantrymen put to sea they were probably less adept at naval tactics at first. So the idea of the Corvus as a device to get a short term advantage, which would not be needed once they’d gained more experience and expertise, seems a reasonable one.
Drach i don't know how you do it every time you have a guest they are absolutely brilliant grade A and always awesome and easy and enjoyable to listen to a great early naval history can't thank you enough for sharing your gift with us once again let me say thank you for doing what you do
I'm glad you are branching out to the classical era and I hope you do one on world war greece, the pellopenesion wars!
Thank you for a wonderfully detailed presentation of the First Punic War. This subject has fascinated me since I was in college some 40 years ago. Although I was studying to be an Engineer, I was fascinated by the school library. I remember reading discouragingly on the parse description of what took place. There was a lack of overall strategy, economics, and discussion of Naval tactics. This really brought everything together. Greatly appreciated and major kudos.
It was very informative for me to fill in my knowledge of the naval side of the conflict.
An excellent short, relatively, encapsulation of the first of the Carthage/Roman conflict. It does answer for some the seemingly lacking deeper thoughts of Carthage in regards to why they did not take a somewhat more aggressive tack on Rome itself.
This is a really great analysis and discussion with Bret. Thank you for the great video I enjoy your guest expert specials every time.
I loved seeing prof. Devereaux on here and hope to see rather more of him. Thanks for the video!
history is wonderful. When told with clarity and whit. Thanks to you and your guest for a most enjoyable time!
This video was ACES! I really hope you can get Bret back for more videos. He was very easy to listen to : )
This intro music is a keeper. Almost as good as the one that you frustratingly cannot use anymore. Nice choice! Quality that is so rare on TH-cam. As a historical sociologist, I am always impressed.
Not everyday you hear Rome compared to Goku🤣👍.
Edit:It's interesting that a large power having its ship made by an ally/colony is floated up again with the suggestion for South Korea to make frigates for the US Navy. Imperial Japan (1500's, I think) also supposedly learned to make ships from a Korean (when they were still a kingdom) ship that was beached in Japan.
@Drachinifel Are we also going to see more medieval/early-modern naval battles covered? I'd love to see one for Lepanto 1571, or perhaps the impact of the Sea Beggars in the Eighty Years War.
You seen the wonderful Spanish Armada series? I suppose, though, that’s on the edge of early modern naval history.
I did, but the Armada's only one particular instance in centuries of naval warfare between nation-states in the early modern era. There's a lot of focus on the beginning and end of the Age of Sail but fairly little otherwise that gets covered.
Lepanto 1571, despite being a major naval victory for the Christians, is not particularly well covered, and there's precious few other naval battles that get any coverage until Trafalgar at the twilight of the Age of Sail, just before the dawn of steam-powered ironclads.
I am in the middle of planning a trip to Sicily to learn more of its ancient history. This episode just eliminated a large portion of my ignorance on that subject. Thank you.
First! The last time I was this early, the first Punic war was still ongoing.
Heeeey, the guest is from my home State.
Fantastic analysis: especially towards with the peer/near peer analysis comparing Rome and Carthage. Great stuff.
Extremely entertaining and informative performance by the guest! Hope to see more collaborations with this gentelman😊. Good job as always, Drach!
Been a while since I was hooked on Roman history but this presentation got me hooked right back in. What an interesting time. Great presenter as well loved Bret's style.
Great ! So informative and giving a much more concrete feel to these mysterious Carthaginians/Phoenicians. I was fascinated.
This intro music was pretty decent, easily the best so far (not counting the original)
Very much enjoyed Brett talking, would love to hear him again!
Fantastic, a history of Punic War naval warfare.
....and further more, Carthage must be destroyed
Shut up and go back to writing recipees on cheesecake.
Carthago delenda est
Catoposting
salty
Drach AND Rome?? Omg...This is the greatest video yet
Wonderful gentlemen. Thank you both 💓
I keep rewatching this. Excellent conversation.
When you mention the series Rome, yes, the "town crier" is the most memorable MVP of the 2 seasons.
Yes, please have Bret return! I love the 10 questions format and you just seem to know how to get your guests talking! One topic I enjoyed from this video was the Corvus myth debunking. Roman wonder weapon that even occasionally aids to capsizing Roman warships!
I am so pumped for you getting in ancient naval warfare.
The right kind of podcast
This is a great discussion and the information which our guest brings is fabulous - there's plenty of new angles and material for me to get my teeth into. Great points about the corvus and general seaworthiness vs usable sea lanes.
The one thing that strikes me about the whole cost-benefit analysis of maintaining vs losing whole fleets - and it's a *great* discussion point that Bret makes, which I'd not considered previously - is that it's fine to say that the hierarchy could afford to be ruthless about the loss of lower-class rowers, but the loss of a war galley would almost certainly involve the death of all those higher-status marines too! They had armour on; I don't know how many were good enough swimmers to deal with that conundrum and pretty sure Carley floats wouldn't be a thing for a while yet.
But you lose men in battle and it's not like the Roman army was any different in terms of using up the easy-to-replace young men first and saving the older veterans for the last line - especially at this time.
Still, quality of rowers is a thing to think about, and a good friend (who has rowing experience) and I discussed this issue of lower-class rowers in ancient galleys (not late medieval or Renaissance so much): His view being very much that a reasonable portion of the rowers would need to be very hIgh quality (strong, fit and experienced and themselves either professional or at least semi-), capable of 'leading' a team on long oars in two-bank 'fives', 'tens' and so on. They'd probably also fight, too, if the ship was boarded. So these were not going to be the very lowest status rowers. The crew could then be filled out with household slaves of higher-status crew as needed, and these could be less trained and just follow the lead of the better rowers.
This is, of course, theory, but the 'team economics' of it make sense to a Navy man - and to me, too. I won't argue with it.
Fabulous video - thanks to bret and thanks for talking about such a fascinating topic. These mysterious warships have a spell of their own.
As I've been made to understand it, Rome had ships but they learned Carthage's mass production methods from the assembly markings on a shipwreck they found.
Really super presentation ... this is like a Punic War version of the Battle of Midway story as revolutionized by Jon Parshall and Anthony Tully - clearing away all the unexamined (and endlessly repeated) myths of ancient (and modern) naval warfare!
Very enjoyable and knowlegable. Thanks both of you.
I tend to dislike the interview type videos, but this one was one of my favorites!
awesome, awesome, awesome.. very cool format!
the people demand more
This was surprisingly awesome and engaging, thank you Drach, thank you Mr Deveraux.
Nice to see you here on Drac's channel Prof. Deveraux.
So happy, good a rarely discussed topic in this detail, know as couple of months ago checked all over youtube
This is an incredibly interesting interview! Thank you so much for setting it up!
A thing that was missing form this presentation and its relatively recent, and well known now in academia, is how fascinating construction methods of these type of ancient ships was. There is evidence of methods resembling modern era industrial type of assembly, with various wooden boards being found with inscriptions\ instructions clearly to be use on a assembly line of sorts, with some of them having written instructions ( like letters and numbers designations like a ikea furniture) directly on the board and designations so each construction worker knew where to place and how to place it. Pretty interesting stuff. No wonder they built them so fast.
This guest was fantastic thank you so much would love more
It'd be wonderful to have a Drach episode covering ancient marine-warfare, and what the most-recent, (or, generally-recent) archaeological finds have been--- and how those confirm & conform to the ancient-historiography; or counter it... and how they confirm, or dispute, what we thought we understood about naval warfare, shipbuilding, & technologies of the ancient-world...
Amazing guest! A great talk into the “other” Punic war 😂😂
I actually wrote a paper on this. The reason the Romans did away with the Corvus was not because it was top heavy, though that was an issue, it was the fact that it was a nearly useless piece of junk. You could not “turn it around in any direction” it was only about 36 ft long. Anything longer would be too big and heavy to operate. They were mounted on a stump-mast near the bow on the centerline giving the contraption a reach of only about 30 feet over the side, but only near the bow. It had less reach the closer to amidships the enemy was and no ability to be used aft. A throwing line and hook could be as long as 50 ft, meaning enemy borders could be swinging onto your ship before you could deploy the ungainly thing. What’s more, when it was used the troops using it had to march down a 4' wide board in single or double file to the end of the ramp, a specific spot on the enemy ship anyone could see. All the enemy had to do was set up a defense at the end and around the sides of it and your troops would find themselves surrounded facing a shield wall with attackers stabbing at their flanks. In contrast, standard grappling lines CAN be used in all directions, have an effective range of however far a strong, well conditioned soldier can throw it, oh about 40-45 feet, and can come from any direction to any location on the ship, forcing the defenders to spread out and defend the entire side of the ship near the enemy. The Corvus is noted as having only 1 major use, which is with the Roman 3rd force at Cape Ecnomus when they cut their horse barges loose and formed up with their sterns towards the Sicilian coast presenting their Corvus equipped bows to the Carthaginian left flank force. This had no tactical use, as both sides found themselves in a standoff, but had the strategic use of stymieing the Carthaginians with the menacing threat of the spiked implements until the Roman lead forces returned to help them take the entire force. It was only this intimidation factor that was of any real use in this one situation. Earlier historians attributed he Roman success to the device because it was the only difference between the two forces that they noticed and attributed in the Roman favor to counterbalance the Carthaginian experience. They are of course wrong and completely missed the entire purpose of the battle. For the Carthaginians it was to stop the Romans from reinforcing their North Africa campaign and their ships sailed out with the standard 40 man marine force on each, where the Romans had sailed out to do just that reinforcement with 2 entire fresh Legions onboard for transport. Once distributed among 300-odd vessels, that’s about 40 men per ship, plus the standard marine detachments making each Roman ship a very crowded vessel with not 40 but about 80 soldiers on each. A quick look at the outcome shows the difference. The Carthaginian fleet was decimated with most of the fleet lost where the Romans had very few losses, but look again at the types of losses. Both sides had roughly the same number of ship sunk or burned, but where the vast majority of the Carthaginian losses were ships captured to Roman boarding, a possible factor arguable in favor of the corvus except, not a single Roman ship was captured. Not one. So in all that ship-to-ship melee not even 1 Roman ship got caught from behind by Carthaginian boards and overwhelmed? No, I am quite sure many more than that were attacked across their stern, only to have their attackers overwhelmed by the defenders who then turned the tables and took the Carthaginian ship instead. The Corvus was a piece of junk, the Romans won with the old strategy of shear overwhelming number that isn’t reflected by the numbers of ships but the number of fighting men involved.
Drac, thank you for the deep dive! Excellent and informative on every level.
Excellent stuff! I learned a boat-load from this discussion. Bravo!
@43:00 "warships weren't plated with lead because they needed to be light."
But the ships needed to carry ballast anyway so it didn't matter if it was in lead sheathing or is a bunch of rocks in the bilge. If your ships are only in the water during campaign season, hull fouling isn't as big a problem as for merchant ships which stay in service and at sea their entire lives.
Most likely it was for cost and time. The lead might be cheap, but the skilled labor to form the thin sheets and to attach them to the ship would not be, and its very time intensive to install.
Wow this was really good. I really enjoyed the deep dive into the where Rome actually got it's navy and how much the ships really cost.
Excellent episode. Thank you both.
Best program on I have ever seen. There are restored Lingurian ships Italy. .
Thank you so much for sharing all this interesting information in a most entertaining way!
I like the speculation about the nitty-gritty details of the naval infrastructure, ship architecture, and financing but also the poor guys who had to fight on the sea.
I do have one question: Do any of the historians mention how, or even if, the armies gathered up all the injured who fell overboard?
Was there any sort of rescue operation after the battle was over? For either side? If so, how did that work? Smaller rowing vessels? Some kind of flotation device tied to s rope to gather drowning men?
I learned a lot and had fun while doing it - my favorite way to learn!
I would love a part 2 on this series, maybe going into more of what happens with all those mercenaries going rogue that Carthage had to deal with - and how society changed after that.
Rome becoming more of a naval power in the area and how that evolved and influenced the Mediterranean would also be interesting to learn more about.
Thanks so much!
Great timing, I just watched Flashpoint History ' series on the Punic wars last night.Pretty cool, thanks Drach!
Another really concise summery. When I crossed the straits of Messina I went by train.
As much as I love Polybius, it's also worth mentioning that he was a Greek hostage raised in the Scipio family so largely identified with Rome.
Since you got into the 2nd Punic War a bit, it's worth noting -- as Mahan must have at some point -- that the REASON Hannibal marched over the Alps was because he didn't have the ships to go by sea. Moving an army by sea is easy and fast in comparison.
Finally we get more contents on classical era warfare.
I'm happy old 40k prepared me for Drach's videos with things like the Corvus Assault Ships and rams and stuff.
Omg it’s Devereux, I love his blogs!
Two of my favorite things...
Drachinifel and Rome!
I always hoped you would cover it one day.
Great talk, thank you both for this!
I love Dr.D. His podcast with Garrett Ryan on Middle Earth Warfare is epic.
An awesome discussion. I greatly enjoyed it.
I understand there wasn't time for everything but I'm mightily interested in the purchasing power of ancient silver. How much was funding a ship compared to funding a land unit? Or to contemporary prices on everyday goods? Or to a wagon of grain? Just to win an impression, how expensive a fleet really was.
It's hard to quickly grasp as prices change with time and they used different units acress regions and time. I've found thesis that lists worker's wage at 450d. per year. Yearly barley for family at 30-40d. House at 700d. Yearly rent at 55d. Boots at 10d. But it's for Athens in IV c. BC, so Rome/Carthage hundred years later might have completly different prices. That one drachma for rower was monthly pay? With those prices, it would be not enough of daily wage for such hard labor.
@@antonisauren8998 one drachma per-day, per-oarsman
Regarding the stability effect of the corvus, did whoever estimated the effect account for the additional reduction in stability caused by the fact that it isn’t fixed, but rather is partly suspended and therefore free to swing from side to side as the ship rolls? Because that shifting weight will further decrease the stability of the ship in a manner similar to the free surface effect.
The comment about aggressive naval commanders and the US Navy in WWII reminded me of the first WWII history book I can remember reading as a kid. It had photos of the important commanders from each faction and a corresponding quote from them; the Bull Halsey quote was "Attack. Repeat, attack." I could never decide if it was brilliantly direct or dangerously simple-minded, which is maybe how some people viewed Halsey himself.