How the fuck was navy battles done before cannons? Was there any particular tactics and strategies or did they try to board ships pirate style?
>>1193500
I know ramming was a pretty standard strategy for Greeks, and some boats even had ballistae attached.
But other than that not too sure.
>>1193537
>ramming was a pretty standard strategy for Greeks
>>1193500
Mediterraneans typically built ships with mortise and tennon joins joining the planks with the frame not supported that much but the skin being the main structural body. This made them good ships but also vulnerable to underwater rams which could dig in this type of hull with some ease.
So Boarding and ramming it is!
Medieval galleys were built in a different manner and the underwater ram lost it's effectiveness so they were just stuck with boarding.
>pic not really related
>>1193500
Light the other ship on fire
>>1193585
>Medieval galleys were built in a different manner and the underwater ram lost it's effectiveness so they were just stuck with boarding.
The Spanish were big on crossbow use in Navy combat, so much so that it enter common use at sea before it did on land for them. I think they may have used them to get the defenders off the deck and away from the sails before boarding.
>>1193500
I'm curious as to why you don't really hear about naval battles in the West during the Miedieval period? I know Byzantium had them, and they were a fairly common occurrence during the Roman period, but what caused this to be the case between the two timeframes?
>>1193815
> I know Byzantium had them, and they were a fairly common occurrence during the Roman period,
Actium was probably the last naval battle of antiquity, and that was in like 33 BC.
>>1193805
Oh yes ranged weapons were common and vital part of boarding operations, it's why they built those big structures fore and aft on ships from the Viking age onward.
Crossbows were hugely popular with pretty much all naval forces during the Middle ages. The Venetians had close to a 1000 of them stocked in an arsenal at all times.
>>1193829
>>1193825
What changed then?
>>1193840
Rome controlled all the land surrounding the Mediterranean for until the collapse of the Western Empire?
And even then, I don't know if there was a navy that challenged the ERE until like the 8th century when the muslims got the Levantines and Egyptians to build them ships.
Boarding actions. During the hundred years war cogs and holks were fitted with castles and manned with archers and soldiers. Ships would try to set each other on fire, drill holes with divers and if all else fails board the enemies ship. Sea battles were much more brutal than land battles since there was nowhere to escape and most of the men would not have been able to swim or they would be wearing armour which would make them sink. No quarter was often given and unless you were a noble who could be ransomed you were probably completely fucked if you were on the losing side. You would not want to be in a sea battle.
>>1193857
The vandals.
>>1193825
>Actium was probably the last naval battle of antiquity, and that was in like 33 BC.
Battle of Cartagena (461) and the Battle of Cap Bon (468). Most people say that antiquity ended in the year 476. The Battle of Cap Bon was huge by the way, with the WRE side having 1113 ships. I have no idea why no one talks about it more.
>>1194012
Holy shit, why DOESN'T anyone talk about these battles? Especially Cap Bon, with 100,000 men and over 1100 ships this is comperable to D-day and had even higher stakes. This battle could have completely turned around the germanic invasions (maybe, probably not I know very little about the period).
Still this battle is remarkable by every sense of the word. It'd make a good movie.
>>1193500
Byzantine navy used a projecting weapon called Greek Fire.
Read about it, it kept moslem fleets at bay for centuries.
>>1193881
In the Navy, yes, you can sail the seven seas.
In the Navy, yes, you can put your mind at ease.
In the Navy, come on now people, make a stand.
In the Navy, can`t you see we need a hand.
In the Navy, come on, protect the motherland.
In the Navy, come on and join your fellow, man.
In the Navy, come on, people, and make a stand.
In the Navy, in the Navy.
>>1193500
The Romans had to deal with the whole navy issue when their neighbor, Carthage got buttblasted over some shitty island south of the boot.
The Carthaginians had a huge navy because of a long standing tradition of being a sea-faring Empire. Rome on the other hand was still dealing with its neighbors on land. They had little if any navy to speak of.
So what did they do? They sure as hell didn't give up. They adapted. They knew their soldiers were superior in melee combat over the Canaanite colonists and North African natives.
They designed their ships to not ram the much larger and well built Carthaginian vessels: they designed theirs to catch the large vessels and board them.
But getting onboard was no easy task. Throw some grappling hooks on the enemy boat and they could just hack the ropes apart in moments all while smashing you with arrows and javelins.
Making the ship taller than the Carthiginian ships meant having a larger target for fire arrows and artillery ships: usually scorpions or tiny catapults on the ships.
The Romans decided that to best get on the the enemy ships that they needed bridges. Yep. Bridges. They built those bad boys on all their ships. You can see it in your own image, OP. It is called a "Corvus". It allowed the Roman marines to form testudos just like they did on land, and this allowed them to march right into the Carthaginian boats and engage them like they would on land.
They brought their own superiority and advantages to the enemy when it was supposed to be the Carthaginians in their element.
The Punic Wars are fascinating, and it really pushed both Empires to their limits. Rome won the day and from that great struggle created an Empire we all know today. Made a hell of a Republic too.
>>1194401
>The Romans had to deal with the whole navy issue when their neighbor, Carthage got buttblasted over some shitty island south of the boot.
It's hilarious, because the petty squabbles in Magna Graecie and Sicily between the various Greek cities/states is what started the first Punic War, which led to Sicily falling under Roman dominion.
And then further squabbling in Magna Graecia and in the Hellenistic kingdoms & Greece proper is what led to Pyrrhus' eventual withdrawal
And then even further squabbling led the Greeks to invite Rome into their disputes
Which led to Rome campaigning in Greece 3 separate times before they even decided to annex it
And then the same thing happened in Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucia
And further squabbling still meant the Macedonian's received insignificant support from their fellow Greeks, and thus repeated defeats by Rome
And in between all that somewhere, Greek squabbling also fucked Hannibal and his chance to turn around the 2nd Punic War/begin a second campaign
The Greeks were their own worst enemy, and Carthage's, and Rome's most incompetent enemies
