Corvus (boarding device)

Last updated

Roman corvus boarding plank Corvus anterbrygga.png
Roman corvus boarding plank
Boarding-bridge diagram Corvus.svg
Boarding-bridge diagram

The corvus (Latin for "crow" or "raven") was a Roman ship mounted boarding ramp or drawbridge for naval boarding, first introduced during the First Punic War in sea battles against Carthage. The name is figurative after the beak-like iron hook that is said to have sat at the far end of the bridge, intended to anchor the enemy ship. The corvus was still used during the last years of the Republic. Appian mentions it being used on August 11th 36BC, during the battle of Mylae, by Octavian's navy led by Marcus Agrippa against the navy of Sextus Pompeius led by Papias.

Contents

Description

In Chapters 1.22-4-11 of his History , Polybius describes this device as a bridge 1.2 m (4 ft) wide and 10.9 m (36 ft) long, with a small parapet on both sides. The engine was probably used in the prow of the ship, where a pole and a system of pulleys allowed the bridge to be raised and lowered. There was a heavy spike shaped like a bird's beak on the underside of the device, which was designed to pierce and anchor into an enemy ship's deck when the boarding bridge was lowered. This allowed a firm grip between the vessels and a route for the Roman legionaries (who served as specialized naval infantry called marinus) to cross onto and capture the enemy ship.

In the 3rd century BCE, Rome was not a naval power and had little experience in sea combat. Before the First Punic War began in 264 BCE, the Roman Republic had not campaigned outside the Italian Peninsula. The Republic's military strength was in land-based warfare, and its main assets were the discipline and the courage of the Roman soldiers. The boarding bridge allowed the Romans to use their infantry advantage at sea, therefore helping to overcome the Carthaginians' superior naval experience and skills. The Romans' application of boarding tactics worked by winning several battles, most notably those of Mylae, Sulci, Tyndaris and Ecnomus.

Despite its advantages, the boarding bridge had a serious drawback in that it could not be used in rough seas; the stable connection of two bobbing ships endangered both ships' structures. When operating in rough conditions, the device became useless as a tactical weapon. [1] The added weight on the prow may have also compromised the ship's navigability, and it has been suggested that this instability led to Rome losing almost two entire fleets during storms in 255 and 249 BCE. [1] Those losses may have contributed to Rome abandoning the boarding bridge in ship design over time.

However, a different analysis suggests that the added weight did not threaten ship stability. JW Bonebakker, formerly Professor of Naval Architecture at TU Delft, used an estimated corvus weight of one ton to conclude that it was "most probable that the stability of a quinquereme with a displacement of about 250 m3 (330 cu yd) would not be seriously upset" when the bridge was raised. [1]

Regardless of the reasons, it appears that Rome was no longer using the corvus at the end of the First Punic War. As Rome's ship crews became more experienced, Roman naval tactics also improved; accordingly, the relative utility of using the corvus as a weapon may have diminished. The device is not mentioned in period sources after the Battle of Ecnomus, and apparently, the Battle of the Aegates Islands decided the war in 241 BCE and was won without it. By 36 BCE, at the Battle of Naulochus, the Roman navy had been using a different kind of device to facilitate boarding attacks, a harpoon and winch system known as the harpax , or harpago.

Modern interpretations

The design of the corvus has undergone many transformations throughout history. The earliest suggested modern interpretation of the corvus came in 1649 by German classicist Johann Freinsheim. Freinsheim suggested that the bridge consisted of two parts, one section measuring 24 ft (7.3 m) and the second being 12 ft (3.7 m) long. The 24 ft (7.3 m) section was placed along the prow mast and a hinge connected the smaller 12 ft (3.7 m) piece to the mast at the top. The smaller piece would have been the actual gangway as it could swing up and down, and the pestle was attached to the end. [2]

The classical scholar and German statesman B.G. Niebuhr ventured to improve the interpretation of the corvus and proposed that the two parts of Freinsheim’s corvus simply needed to be swapped. By applying the 12 ft (3.7 m) side along the prow mast, the 24 ft (7.3 m) side could be lowered onto an enemy ship by means of the pulley. [3]

The German scholar K.F. Haltaus hypothesized that the corvus was a 36 ft (11 m) long bridge with the near end braced against the mast via a small oblong notch in the near end that extended 12 ft (3.7 m) into the bridge. Haltaus suggested that a lever through the prow mast would have allowed the crew to turn the corvus by turning the mast. A pulley was placed on the top of a 24 ft (7.3 m) mast that raised the bridge in order to use the device. [4]

The German classical scholar Wilhelm Ihne proposed another version of corvus that resembled Freinsheim’s crane with adjustments in the lengths of the sections of the bridge. His design placed the corvus twelve feet above the deck and had the corvus extend out from the mast a full 36 ft (11 m) with the base of the near end connected to the mast. The marines on deck would then be forced to climb a 12 ft (3.7 m) ladder to access to the corvus. [5]

The French scholar Émile de St. Denis suggested the corvus featured a 36 ft (11 m) bridge with the mast hole set 12 ft (3.7 m) from the near end. The design suggested by de St. Denis, however, did not include an oblong hole and forced the bridge to travel up and down the mast completely perpendicular to the deck at all times. [6]

The next step in that direction occurred in 1956, when the historian H.T. Wallinga published his dissertation The Boarding-Bridge of the Romans. It suggested a different full-beam design for the corvus, which became the most widely accepted model among scholars for the rest of the twentieth century. Wallinga's design included the oblong notch in the deck of the bridge to allow it to rise at an angle by the pulley mounted on the top of the mast. [7]

Not everybody, however, has accepted the idea that the Romans invented and used the corvus as a special device. In 1907, William W. Tarn postulated that the corvus never existed. [8] Tarn believed that the weight of the bridge would be too much for the design of the Roman ships to remain upright. He suggested that once the corvus was raised, the ship would simply roll over and capsize by the weight added by the corvus. [9] Tarn believed that the corvus was simply an improved version of an already-existing grapnel pole, which had been used in Greece as early as 413 BC. [10]

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 Wallinga p.77–90
  2. Freinsheim, Johann (1815). The History of Titus Livius with the entire Supplement of Johann Freinsheim Volume II. London: W. Green & T. Chaplin. pp. 216–217.
  3. Niebuhr, B. (1851). The History of Rome, Volume III. London: Taylor, Walton, and Maberly. p. 578.
  4. Wallingha, Herman (1956). "The Boarding Bridge of the Romans". J. B. Wolters. p. 12.
  5. Ihne, William (1871). The History of Rome. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. pp.  57.
  6. de St. Denis, Emile (1946). "Une machine de guerre maritime: le corbeau de Duilius". Latomus. 5 (3/4): 359–367. JSTOR   41516556.
  7. Wallinga, Herman (1956). The Boarding Bridge of the Romans. J. B. Wolters. pp. 19–25.
  8. Tarn, W. (1907). "Fleets of the First Punic War". The Journal of Hellenic Studies . 27. doi:10.2307/624404. JSTOR   624404.
  9. Tarn, W. (1930). Hellenistic Military & Naval Developments. Cambridge UP. p. 149.
  10. Tarn, W. (1910). A Companion to Latin Studies. London: Cambridge UP. p. 490.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Punic War</span> War between Rome and Carthage (264–241 BC)

The First Punic War was the first of three wars fought between Rome and Carthage, the two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the early 3rd century BC. For 23 years, in the longest continuous conflict and greatest naval war of antiquity, the two powers struggled for supremacy. The war was fought primarily on the Mediterranean island of Sicily and its surrounding waters, and also in North Africa. After immense losses on both sides, the Carthaginians were defeated and Rome gained territory from Carthage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Punic Wars</span> Series of wars between Rome and Carthage (264–146 BC)

The Punic Wars were a series of wars between 264 and 146 BC fought between the Roman Republic and Ancient Carthage. Three wars took place, on both land and sea, across the western Mediterranean region and involved a total of forty-three years of warfare. The Punic Wars are also considered to include the four-year-long revolt against Carthage which started in 241 BC. Each war involved immense materiel and human losses on both sides.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trireme</span> Ancient vessel with three banks of oars

A trireme was an ancient vessel and a type of galley that was used by the ancient maritime civilizations of the Mediterranean Sea, especially the Phoenicians, ancient Greeks and Romans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Battle of the Lipari Islands</span> Battle between Carthage and the Roman Republic during the First Punic War

The Battle of the Lipari Islands or Battle of Lipara was a naval encounter fought in 260 BC during the First Punic War. A squadron of 20 Carthaginian ships commanded by Boödes surprised 17 Roman ships under the senior consul for the year Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio in Lipara Harbour. The inexperienced Romans made a poor showing, with all 17 of their ships captured, along with their commander.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Battle of Mylae</span> Naval battle in 260 BC

The Battle of Mylae took place in 260 BC during the First Punic War and was the first real naval battle between Carthage and the Roman Republic. This battle was key in the Roman victory of Mylae as well as Sicily itself. It also marked Rome's first naval triumph and also the first use of the corvus in battle.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Battle of Cape Ecnomus</span> Naval Battle of the First Punic War; Possibly the largest in history

The Battle of Cape Ecnomus or Eknomos was a naval battle, fought off southern 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 and Hamilcar; the Roman fleet jointly by the consuls for the year, Marcus Atilius Regulus and Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus. It resulted in a clear victory for the Romans.

Hannibal Gisco was a Carthaginian military commander in charge of both land armies and naval fleets during the First Punic War against Rome. His efforts proved ultimately unsuccessful and his eventual defeat in battle led to his downfall and execution.

The naval Battle of Drepana took place in 249 BC during the First Punic War near Drepana in western Sicily, between a Carthaginian fleet under Adherbal and a Roman fleet commanded by Publius Claudius Pulcher.

The Battle of the Aegates was a naval battle fought on 10 March 241 BC between the fleets of Carthage and Rome during the First Punic War. It took place among the Aegates Islands, off the western coast of the island of Sicily. The Carthaginians were commanded by Hanno, and the Romans were under the overall authority of Gaius Lutatius Catulus, but Quintus Valerius Falto commanded during the battle. It was the final and deciding battle of the 23-year-long First Punic War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hellenistic-era warships</span> Oared warships

From the 4th century BC on, new types of oared warships appeared in the Mediterranean Sea, superseding the trireme and transforming naval warfare. Ships became increasingly large and heavy, including some of the largest wooden ships hitherto constructed. These developments were spearheaded in the Hellenistic Near East, but also to a large extent shared by the naval powers of the Western Mediterranean, specifically Carthage and the Roman Republic. While the wealthy successor kingdoms in the East built huge warships ("polyremes"), Carthage and Rome, in the intense naval antagonism during the Punic Wars, relied mostly on medium-sized vessels. At the same time, smaller naval powers employed an array of small and fast craft, which were also used by the ubiquitous pirates. Following the establishment of complete Roman hegemony in the Mediterranean after the Battle of Actium, the nascent Roman Empire faced no major naval threats. In the 1st century AD, the larger warships were retained only as flagships and were gradually supplanted by the light liburnians until, by Late Antiquity, the knowledge of their construction had been lost.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mast (sailing)</span> Pole used in rigging of a sailing vessel

The mast of a sailing vessel is a tall spar, or arrangement of spars, erected more or less vertically on the centre-line of a ship or boat. Its purposes include carrying sails, spars, and derricks, giving necessary height to a navigation light, look-out position, signal yard, control position, radio aerial or signal lamp. Large ships have several masts, with the size and configuration depending on the style of ship. Nearly all sailing masts are guyed.

Roman siege engines were, for the most part, adapted from Hellenistic siege technology. Relatively small efforts were made to develop the technology; however, the Romans brought an unrelentingly aggressive style to siege warfare that brought them repeated success. Up to the first century BC, the Romans utilized siege weapons only as required and relied for the most part on ladders, towers and rams to assault a fortified town. Ballistae were also employed, but held no permanent place within a legion's roster, until later in the republic, and were used sparingly. Julius Caesar took great interest in the integration of advanced siege engines, organizing their use for optimal battlefield efficiency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oared vessel tactics</span> Form of naval tactics

Oared vessel tactics were the dominant form of naval tactics used from antiquity to the late 16th century when sailing ships began to replace galleys and other types of oared ships as the principal form of warships. Throughout antiquity, through the Middle Ages until the 16th century, the weapons relied on were the ship itself, used as a battering ram or to sink the opponent with naval rams, the melee weapons of the crew, missile weapons such as bolts from heavy crossbows fixed on the bulwarks, bows and arrows, weights dropped from a yard or pole rigged out, and the various means of setting fire to enemy ships. The latter could be done by shooting arrows with burning tow or by Greek fire ejected through specially designed siphons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Naval boarding</span> Offensive tactic used in naval warfare

Naval boarding action is an offensive tactic used in naval warfare to come up against an enemy watercraft and attack by inserting combatants aboard that vessel. The goal of boarding is to invade and overrun the enemy personnel on board in order to capture, sabotage, or destroy the enemy vessel. While boarding attacks were originally carried out by ordinary sailors who are proficient in hand-to-hand combat, larger warships often deploy specially trained and equipped regular troops such as marines and special forces as boarders. Boarding and close-quarters combat had been a primary means to conclude a naval battle since antiquity, until the early modern period when heavy naval artillery gained tactical primacy at sea.

A liburna was a type of small galley used for raiding and patrols. Originally utilized by the Liburnians, a pirate tribe from Dalmatia, it later became a staple of the Roman navy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harpax</span> Roman catapult-shot grapnel

The harpax or harpago was a Roman catapult-shot grapnel created by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa for use against Sextus Pompey during the naval battles of the Sicilian revolt.

Ancient navies had a large impact on the navies of today. The outcomes of battles between ancient navies have been studied by the military to learn tactics that would help in their conquests. The ships that these civilizations created were what many ship designs were based on and allowed the vessels to become better built. The Punic Wars are some of the most notorious wars in history, and the naval vessels and tactics used in all three became a major part of naval military history.

A line thrower is a device that casts a line to a remote position. It is used in rescues as well as marine operations. A line thrower may employ a variety of launching methods including guns, rockets, and pneumatics.

The Roman withdrawal from Africa was the attempt by the Roman Republic in 255 BC to rescue the survivors of their defeated expeditionary force to Carthaginian Africa during the First Punic War. A large fleet commanded by Servius Fulvius Paetinus Nobilior and Marcus Aemilius Paullus successfully evacuated the survivors after defeating an intercepting Carthaginian fleet, but was struck by a storm while returning, losing most of its ships.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ships of ancient Rome</span>

Ancient Rome had a variety of ships that played crucial roles in its military, trade, and transportation activities. Rome was preceded in the use of the sea by other ancient, seafaring civilizations of the Mediterranean. The galley was a long, narrow, highly maneuverable ship powered by oarsmen, sometimes stacked in multiple levels such as biremes or triremes, and many of which also had sails. Initial efforts of the Romans to construct a war fleet were based on copies of Carthaginian warships. In the Punic wars in the mid-third century BCE, the Romans were at first outclassed by Carthage at sea, but by 256 BCE had drawn even and fought the wars to a stalemate. In 55 BCE Julius Caesar used warships and transport ships to invade Britain. Numerous types of transport ships were used to carry foodstuffs or other trade goods around the Mediterranean, many of which did double duty and were pressed into service as warships or troop transports in time of war.

References