4 ms·
Yeah... nice thesis, just it is not right. The Romans won against Carthage, even though they had no navy (apart some Liburnian ships copied from the Illyrians)
by ardit33 5y ago
Yeah... nice thesis, just it is not right.
The Romans won against Carthage, even though they had no navy (apart some Liburnian ships copied from the Illyrians), and had to build it by scratch.
They actually won with no true experience.
Carthage was a mercantile navy power, while Rome was a land power at the time. The exact scenario repeated in the battle of Lepanto, but this time the navy power won. (the Ottomans being the land super power of the time, and Venice a mercantile navy power).
- thedudeabides5 5y agoI mean, that's true. But really only when the Carthaginians were arrogant enough to invade Rome and hang out for a couple years. Usually when the naval power stays off the home turf, it goes alright, but I take this is a great counter point.
- boomboomsubban 5y agoThis ignores the multitude of navy destroying battles Rome had in the First Punic War before gaining enough shipbuilding experience to compete, though even then their naval skills were so much worse they competed by developing a way to turn it into a land battle. Lepanto was the opposite, the end of over a millennium of armies fighting at sea and the emergence of a new form of naval supremacy.
- naim08 5y agoWait, Romans won because a war of attrition was not in favor for Carthage. Carthage won more naval battles yet the loses from each battle weren't replenished like the Romans.