[Research] Collection

[sanjayraj85]

Chandragupta campaigned against the Macedonians when Seleucus I Nicator, in the process of creating the Seleucid Empire out of the eastern conquests of Alexander the Great, tried to reconquer the northwestern parts of India in 305 BCE. Seleucus failed (Seleucid–Mauryan war), the two rulers finally concluded a peace treaty: a marital treaty (Epigamia) was concluded, in which the Greeks offered their Princess for alliance and help from him. Chandragupta snatched the satrapies ofParopamisade (Kamboja and Gandhara), Arachosia (Kandhahar) and Gedrosia (Balochistan), and Seleucus I received 500 war elephants that were to have a decisive role in his victory against western Hellenistic kings at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BCE. Diplomatic relations were established and several Greeks, such as the historianMegasthenes, Deimakos and Dionysius resided at the Mauryan court.
Chandragupta established a strong centralized state with an administration at Pataliputra, which, according to Megasthenes, was "surrounded by a wooden wall pierced by 64 gates and 570 towers— (and) rivaled the splendors of contemporaneous Persian sites such as Susa and Ecbatana." Chandragupta's son Bindusara extended the rule of the Mauryan empire towards southern India. The famous Tamil poet Mamulanar of the Sangam literature described how the Deccan Plateau was invaded by the Maurya army.^[21] He also had a Greek ambassador at his court, named Deimachus Strabo.
Megasthenes describes a disciplined multitude under Chandragupta, who live simply, honestly, and do not know writing:
"The Indians all live frugally, especially when in camp. They dislike a great undisciplined multitude, and consequently they observe good order. Theft is of very rare occurrence. Megasthenes says that those who were in the camp of Sandrakottos, wherein lay 400,000 men, found that the thefts reported on any one day did not exceed the value of two hundred drachmae, and this among a people who have no written laws, but are ignorant of writing, and must therefore in all the business of life trust to memory. They live, nevertheless, happily enough, being simple in their manners and frugal. They never drink wine except at sacrifices. Their beverage is a liquor composed from rice instead of barley, and their food is principally a rice-pottage." Strabo XV. i. 53–56, quoting Megasthenes.


I think u will find this helpful.

[sanjayraj85]

Bindusara was the son of the first Mauryan emperor Chandragupta Maurya and his queen Durdhara. During his reign, the empire expanded southwards. According to the Rajavalikatha a Jain work, the original name of this emperor was Simhasena. According to a legend mentioned in the Jain texts, Chandragupta's Guru and advisorChanakya used to feed the emperor with small doses of poison to build his immunity against possible poisoning attempts by the enemies.^[22] One day, Chandragupta not knowing about poison, shared his food with his pregnant wife queen Durdhara who was 7 days away from delivery. The queen not immune to the poison collapsed and died within few minutes. Chanakya entered the room the very time she collapsed, and in order to save the child in the womb, he immediately cut open the dead queen's belly and took the baby out, by that time a drop of poison had already reached the baby and touched its head due to which child got a permanent blueish spot (a "bindu") on his forehead. Thus, the newborn was named "Bindusara".^[23]
Bindusara, just 22 year-old, inherited a large empire that consisted of what is now, Northern, Central and Eastern parts of India along with parts of Afghanistan andBaluchistan. Bindusara extended this empire to the southern part of India, as far as what is now known as Karnataka. He brought sixteen states under the Mauryan Empire and thus conquered almost all of the Indian peninsula (he is said to have conquered the 'land between the two seas' – the peninsular region between the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea). Bindusara didn't conquer the friendly Dravidian kingdoms of the Cholas, ruled by King Ilamcetcenni, the Pandyas, and Cheras. Apart from these southern states, Kalinga (modern Odisha) was the only kingdom in India that didn't form the part of Bindusara's empire. It was later conquered by his son Ashoka, who served as the viceroy of Ujjaini during his father's reign.
Bindusara's life has not been documented as well as that of his father Chandragupta or of his son Ashoka. Chanakya continued to serve as prime minister during his reign. According to the medieval Tibetan scholar Taranatha who visited India, Chanakya helped Bindusara "to destroy the nobles and kings of the sixteen kingdoms and thus to become absolute master of the territory between the eastern and western oceans."^[24] During his rule, the citizens of Taxila revolted twice. The reason for the first revolt was the maladministration of Suseema, his eldest son. The reason for the second revolt is unknown, but Bindusara could not suppress it in his lifetime. It was crushed by Ashoka after Bindusara's death.
Ambassadors from the Seleucid Empire (such as Deimachus) and Egypt visited his courts. He maintained good relations with the Hellenic World.
Unlike his father Chandragupta (who was a follower of Jainism), Bindusara believed in the Ajivika sect. Bindusara's guru Pingalavatsa (alias Janasana) was a Brahmin^[25]of the Ajivika sect. Bindusara's wife, Queen Subhadrangi (alias Queen Aggamahesi) was a Brahmin^[26] also of the Ajivika sect from Champa (present Bhagalpur district). Bindusara is accredited with giving several grants to Brahmin monasteries (Brahmana-bhatto).^[27]
Bindusara died in 272 BCE (some records say 268 BCE) and was succeeded by his son Ashoka the Great.

[sanjayraj85]

Chandragupta's grandson Ashok Vardhan Maurya, son of Bindusara, was also known as Ashoka or Ashoka The Great (ruled 273- 232 BCE)
As a young prince, Ashoka was a brilliant commander who crushed revolts in Ujjain and Taxila. As monarch he was ambitious and aggressive, re-asserting the Empire's superiority in southern and western India. But it was his conquest of Kalinga (262–261 BCE) which proved to be the pivotal event of his life. Although Ashoka's army succeeded in overwhelming Kalinga forces of royal soldiers and civilian units, an estimated 100,000 soldiers and civilians were killed in the furious warfare, including over 10,000 of Ashoka's own men. Hundreds of thousands of people were adversely affected by the destruction and fallout of war. When he personally witnessed the devastation, Ashoka began feeling remorse. Although the annexation of Kalinga was completed, Ashoka embraced the teachings of Buddhism, and renounced war and violence. He sent out missionaries to travel around Asia and spread Buddhism to other countries.
Ashoka implemented principles of ahimsa by banning hunting and violent sports activity and ending indentured and forced labor (many thousands of people in war-ravaged Kalinga had been forced into hard labor and servitude). While he maintained a large and powerful army, to keep the peace and maintain authority, Ashoka expanded friendly relations with states across Asia and Europe, and he sponsored Buddhist missions. He undertook a massive public works building campaign across the country. Over 40 years of peace, harmony and prosperity made Ashoka one of the most successful and famous monarchs in Indian history. He remains an idealized figure of inspiration in modern India.
The Edicts of Ashoka, set in stone, are found throughout the Subcontinent. Ranging from as far west as Afghanistan and as far south as Andhra (Nellore District), Ashoka's edicts state his policies and accomplishments. Although predominantly written in Prakrit, two of them were written in Greek, and one in both Greek and Aramaic. Ashoka's edicts refer to the Greeks, Kambojas, and Gandharas as peoples forming a frontier region of his empire. They also attest to Ashoka's having sent envoys to the Greek rulers in the West as far as the Mediterranean. The edicts precisely name each of the rulers of the Hellenic world at the time such as Amtiyoko (Antiochus),Tulamaya (Ptolemy), Amtikini (Antigonos), Maka (Magas) and Alikasudaro (Alexander) as recipients of Ashoka's proselytism. The Edicts also accurately locate their territory "600 yojanas away" (a yojanas being about 7 miles), corresponding to the distance between the center of India and Greece (roughly 4,000 miles).

[sanjayraj85]

[sanjayraj85]

In detail:

Seleucus I Nicator, a Macedonian satrap of Alexander, reconquered most of Alexander's former empire and put under his own authority the eastern territories as far as Bactria and the Indus (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars 55), until in 305 BCE he entered into conflict with Chandragupta:

Always lying in wait for the neighboring nations, strong in arms and persuasive in council, he acquired Mesopotamia, Armenia, 'Seleucid' Cappadocia, Persis, Parthia, Bactria, Arabia, Tapouria, Sogdia, Arachosia, Hyrcania, and other adjacent peoples that had been subdued by Alexander, as far as the river Indus, so that the boundaries of his empire were the most extensive in Asia after that of Alexander. The whole region from Phrygia to the Indus was subject to Seleucus. He crossed the Indus and waged war with Sandrocottus [Maurya], king of the Indians, who dwelt on the banks of that stream, until they came to an understanding with each other and contracted a marriage relationship. Some of these exploits were performed before the death of Antigonus and some afterward.
—Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars 55

The exact details of engagement are not known. As noted by scholars such as R. C. Majumdar and D. D. Kosambi, Seleucus appears to have fared poorly, having ceded large territories west of the Indus to Chandragupta. Due to his defeat, Seleucus surrendered Arachosia (modern Kandahar), Gedrosia (modern Balochistan), Paropamisadae (or Gandhara).^[16][17]
Mainstream scholarship asserts that Chandragupta received vast territory west of the Indus, including the Hindu Kush, modern day Afghanistan, and the Balochistan province of Pakistan.^[18][19] Archaeologically, concrete indications of Maurya rule, such as the inscriptions of the Edicts of Ashoka, are known as far as Kandhahar in southern Afghanistan.

After having made a treaty with him [Sandrakotos] and put in order the Orient situation, Seleucos went to war againstAntigonus.
—Junianus Justinus, Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, XV.4.15

It is generally thought that Chandragupta married Seleucus's daughter to formalize an alliance. In a return gesture, Chandragupta sent 500 war-elephants,^{[16][20][21][22][23][24]} a military asset which would play a decisive role at the Battle of Ipsus in 302 BCE. In addition to this treaty, Seleucus dispatched an ambassador, Megasthenes, to Chandragupta, and laterDeimakos to his son Bindusara, at the Maurya court at Pataliputra (modern Patna in Bihar state). Later Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the ruler of Ptolemaic Egypt and contemporary of Ashoka the Great, is also recorded by Pliny the Elder as having sent an ambassador named Dionysius to the Maurya court.^[25]
Classical sources have also recorded that following their treaty, Chandragupta and Seleucus exchanged presents, such as when Chandragupta sent variousaphrodisiacs to Seleucus:

And Theophrastus says that some contrivances are of wondrous efficacy in such matters [as to make people more amorous]. And Phylarchus confirms him, by reference to some of the presents which Sandrakottus, the king of the Indians, sent to Seleucus; which were to act like charms in producing a wonderful degree of affection, while some, on the contrary, were to banish love.
—Athenaeus of Naucratis, Deipnosophistae, I.32


Chandragupta Maurya conquest

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Good stuff ABH2, Macedon does need an boost from its already weak position, and Athens and Sparta need to be cut down from declaring war. Tylis and other factions should not destroy Macedon at its starting date. Macedon really in the proper sense of RSII should face the Roman threat even more, and its first 20-30 turns should be an easy play because Macedon was fighting Rome at this period. Perhaps script the wars a little bit to really make it feel like the Roman-Macedonian Wars. Magnar did this in his mod with Carthage fighting Rome at 218 bc. The player must build his armies and then defeat Rome in the current wars.

Since the mod starts in 217bc, let us compare the Roman-Macedonian Wars

Taken from wikipedia here:

The First Macedonian War (214–205 BC) was fought by Rome, allied (after 211 BC) with the Aetolian League andAttalus I ofPergamon, against Philip V of Macedon, contemporaneously with the Second Punic War (218–201 BC) against Carthage. There were no decisive engagements, and the war ended in a stalemate.
During the war, Macedon attempted to gain control over parts of Illyria and Greece, but without success. It is commonly thought that these skirmishes in the east prevented Macedon from aiding the Carthaginian generalHannibal in the war with Rome. The "Peace of Phoenice", a treaty drawn up at Phoenice, in 205 BC, formally ended the war.


So in this case, we can have the player normally play as before, having an already established alliance with carthage, we can set the player at least two three missions:

1) First mission is to make the player build up his strength
2) Second mission is to destroy the Roman province, bring it under Macedonian rule, and aid Hannibal of Carthage in his conquest of Rome, helping him to score victory - but in this case, Rome can spawn out many armies - so even if you landed two or three armies - you would either result in phrryic victories, or you'd really have to put your skills to the test. I remember playing the NTW III mod, when I tried to invade England from France, and man, I won victories but with too many English armies it was impossible for me to destroy the capitial. That is how it should feel like - but you know, the player should be able to have help from Carthage at this time. This may result in a few minor changes, and the player can then have an event saying this:

The war has gone badly for Rome, Hannibal has proved himself mighty and an worthy ally, but the politicans and generals feels we have helped him enough. Should we continue to help him, though it is draining our coffers, or should we withdraw, in the hope that we have helped him win?

Yes, we should, with blah blah

No, we should with blah blah

In this way the player won't be restricted into what he can do, if he says no the third mission for him can be to expand towards Illyria and the other Gallic/Balkan states.

But lets note, the first Macedonian War wasn't that great as an event. Things can go either way, so the player at first can choose to decide whether to help Carthage, or whether to consolidy if its regions.

The Second Macedonian War will really give the player an edge as to what to do against Rome. Here is an map of the situation at the time being:



By this time, the player must have occupied much of Macedonia by now and it must be very powerful by the turn 200 bc, it will have a rich economy, robust armies and an terrifying force.

• Article
• Web sites
• Bibliography
• Contributors

Macedonian Wars, (3rd and 2nd centuries bc), four conflicts between the ancient Roman Republic and the kingdom of Macedonia. They caused increasing involvement by Rome in Greek affairs and helped lead to Roman domination of the entire eastern Mediterranean area.
The First Macedonian War (215–205 bc) occurred in the context of the Second Punic War, while Rome was preoccupied with fighting Carthage. The ambitious Macedonian king Philip V set out to attack Rome’s client states in neighbouring Illyria and confirmed his purpose in 215 by making an alliance with Hannibal of Carthage against Rome. The Romans fought the ensuing war ineffectively, and in 205 the Peace of Phoenice ended the conflict on terms favourable to Philip, allowing him to keep his conquests in Illyria.
Philip then began harrying Rhodes, Pergamum, and other Greek city-states of the Aegean. The Second Macedonian War (200–196) was launched by the Roman Senate against Philip after he refused to guarantee to make no hostile moves against these states. Philip’s forces were badly defeated by the Romans and their Greek allies in a battle at Cynoscephalae in 197. The terms of peace included the loss of most of his navy, payment of a large indemnity to Rome, and the loss of his territories outside of Macedonia. Rome subsequently established a benevolent protectorate over Greece.
Philip’s son and successor, Perseus (reigned 179–168), began to make alliances with various Greek city-states and thus aroused the displeasure of Rome. So began the Third Macedonian War (171–168), which ended in 168 when the Roman army of Lucius Aemilius Paullus utterly defeated Perseus’ forces at the Battle of Pydna. Perseus was taken back to Rome in chains, and Macedonia was broken up into four formally autonomous republics that were required to pay annual tribute to Rome. This arrangement produced a state of chronic disorder in Macedonia, however, and in 152 a pretended son of Perseus, Andriscus, tried to reestablish the Macedonian monarchy, thus provoking the Fourth Macedonian War (149–148). The Roman praetor Quintus Caecilius Metellus crushed the rebellion with relative ease, and in 146 Macedonia was made a Roman province. It was in fact the first province of the nascent Roman Empire.

So during the first two years, the player will find lacklusture movement from both Rome and Macedon, but things heat up in 198bc. At that the time the war will go either way. But the first thing Macedon should look to do is to ally with the Achean League, wanting to go into its favour as they will decide whether to go Rome or not. The player has to keep the cities and leagues that historically betrayed the Macedonians/Selecuids and helped the Romans more. Any defeats that happen by the player will result in negative for diplomacy with Greek factions. Any victories will further cause the Achean league and other greek city states will be helping the player. But the thing is, if the player wins the war, he/she can expand into where they want, if they don[='t, then many Greek factions will help Rome expand into the Balkans and thus the player will have to defeat the AI Romans. This would provide a real challenge in my experience and add some good depth into it. I'm not suggesting any big changes, I've ignored the fact that when Macedon attacks Athens, then Rome historically condemned this. Instead, we only take the major events and then let the player do as we will, just scripting a few moments here and there. In this case Macedon will not be attacked on by so many other factions and so on and so forth.

What do you think of this?

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Brief overview:

The Roman Navy was the most powerful navy of its time, having defeated its old enemies the Carthaginians and the Hellenistic Kingdoms. It ended all hopes of any civil wars happening in the sea after the battle of Actium in 30 bc or so. It mamaged to keep the peace for 800 years, and despite being an instrumental force it was neglected under Romans hands as it was viewed as unroman, since the Romans were land based and depended on slaves from other nations to man and build their navies, and captain them.

Note: I am copying and pasting sources from a good variety, as I had written this but TWC did something and I'm not going to go and rewrite the whole damn thing again. Here is the list of fleets and historical info.

The Praetorian Fleets

The Praetorian fleets were created to be under the direct control of the Emperor and were therefore based close to the strategic centres of the Empire. The commanders were carefully selected and directly appointed by the Emperor, often from the ranks of imperial freedmen, in order to ensure their loyalty.
The Classis Ravenatis
Created in 28 BC, their home port was Ravenna.
The Classis Misenensis
Created in 28 BC, their home port was Portus Julius.
Portus Julius was the port that served the area around Pompeii and Herculaneum². Both the classis Ravenatis and classis Misenensis were formed as home water fleets and their duties were mainly to patrol and escort convoys. They were available for Imperial duties and were given the title Praetorian to indicate this status. They may have been formed from the division of the Classis Africana Commodiana Herculea African fleet. The Praetorian fleets were active in all parts of the Mediterranean; inscriptions have been found in Syria and Piraeus near Athens, showing the fleets were active in these areas.
The Fleets in the Provinces

The African to Italy Trade Route

The Classis Africana Commodiana Herculea was created in around 40 AD. Their home port was not recorded but it was likely to have been Ostia. Referred to as the African fleet, it was formed to protect the trade route from Africa to Rome's main port of Ostia. This was necessary to protect the shipments of grain to Rome which included the free wheat allotment to poorer citizens of Rome.
The Channel and Britain

The Classis Britannica was created in 41 AD. The home port was Gesoriacum - (modern Boulogne-sur-Mer). The only purpose of this fleet was to provide support for the invasion of Britain. Gesoriacum was the port of embarcation of the invasion force. After the successful crossing of the Oceanus Britannicus, the English Channel, landings took place at Richborough, Lympne and Dover, with the establishment of a supply base at Noviomagus (modern Bosham in Sussex). The fleet was in action supporting the crossing of the Thames, and providing an escort for Emperor Claudius in 46 AD when he visited Britain, transporting his Praetorian Guard, and elephants for his triumphal entry into Camulodunum (modern Colchester). The home port was transferred to Rutupiae (modern Richborough) and Dubris (modern Dover) in 84 - 86 AD.
The Black Sea, the Aegean and the Coast of Thrace

The Classis Pontica was established in 65 AD. It became part of the Roman navy when Pontus, the Black Sea coast of modern Turkey, was made a province of the Empire by Nero. Originally the Classis Pontica was responsible for the protection of the Black Sea. When he became Emperor, Hadrian reorganised the fleets in the area and this fleet was given the responsibility for the just southern part of the Black Sea, the northern part and the mouth of the Danube becoming the responsibility or the Classis Moesica.
The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean was the responsibility of the Classis Syriaca or Syrian fleet - it was created in 64 BC. The home port was Seleucia Pieriae in Syria.
The coast of Thrace - north-eastern Greece and the part of Turkey that is in Europe - was controlled by the Classis Perinthia, also known as the Thracian fleet. It was created in 46 AD when Thrace became part of the Empire and had its home port at Perinthus, with other bases situated along the Thracian coast.
The other fleets in the area were the Classis Constantinople and the Classis Carpathia. TheClassis Constantinople. was based in the city of the same name (modern Istanbul) but no records have survived - even the name Classis Constantinople is an assumption. The Classis Carpathia was created in 390 AD. Almost nothing is known about this fleet apart from that it was formed from the division of the Classis Syriaca. The home port of the fleet was on the island of Karpathos in Greece.
Northern Adriatic Sea

The Classis Venetum was created in 30 BC. The fleet's home port was Aquileia. It was formed to keep control of the northern Adriatic Sea, and keep open the important route between Dalmatia (modern Croatia) and Rome.
The Western Mediterranean

The Classis Mauretaniae or African fleet - created in 170 AD, the fleet's home port was Caesarea (modern Cherchell, Algeria), it was formed to keep control of the African coast at the western end of the Mediterranean.
The Alexandrian Coast

The Classis Alexandrina or Alexandrian fleet was established in 30 BC. The home port of the fleet was Alexandria in Egypt; the fleet was formed to provide escorts for the grain shipments from the Nile Delta to Rome. The Classis Alexandrina also had the duty of patrolling the Nile. Another fleet recorded near the Nile Delta was the Classis Nova Libyca, created around 153 BC. The home port of the fleet was Ptolemais in North Africa. Little is recorded and as it was based near the Nile Delta, it may have become part of the Classis Alexandrina.
The Fluvial Fleets

A fluvial or river fleet is one which is equipped with ships designed for use in the shallower waters of rivers and estuaries. Another characteristic of a river craft was that it was short enough to turn in a narrow channel, or could go backwards by simply turning the rowers.
For most of the history of the Empire, the northern frontier was formed by the Rivers Rhine and Danube, so control of these rivers was very important.
The River Rhine

The River Rhine was patrolled by the Classis Germanica. Created in 12 BC, their home port was Castra Vetera (near modern Birten). The town was the main base in the region for a legionary force of over 8,000. When the settlement was destroyed during a Batavian uprising in 69 AD, the base was transferred to Colonia Agrippinensis³, modern Köln / Cologne. This was a fluvial fleet; however it did have ships capable of operating at sea as the fleet also sent patrols into the North Sea. There is evidence that there were also ships stationed on Lake Constance (situated between Germany, Switzerland and Austria). It is not clear if these ships were a squadron of the Classis Germanica, since the lake flows into the Rhine, or a separate fleet.
The River Danube and Black Sea

The Western Danube was under the protection of the Classis Pannonica or Pannonian fleet created in 30 BC. Their home port was probably Aquincum, near modern Budapest. This was a major settlement with around 42,000 people by 49 AD. This city had a legionary garrison of 6,000, with a supporting cavalry squadron of 500. The fluvial fleet had various other bases along the western Danube. Owing to the geography of the Danube and the natural hazard of the Kazan Gorge, also known as the Iron Gates, the river had two fleets. The Classis Pannonica patrolled the river west of the Kazan Gorge.
The Eastern Danube, from the Kazan Gorge to the Black Sea, was under the protection of theClassis Moesica or Moesian fleet. Created in 20 BC, their home port was Noviodunum (modern Isaccea, Romania). In addition to the security of the Danube, the Classis Moesica was given the duty of patrolling the northern half of the Black Sea including the shores of the Crimea.
The importance of the city of Noviodunum, the fleet's main statio (landing place) is indicated by the fact that it achieved the status of municipium in 46 AD. The city garrison appears to have been between 2,000 and 3,000 marines and sailors with a vexillation (1,000 men) of the Legion XI Claudia. From 117 AD until 180 AD the Legion V Macedonica supported by 4,000 auxiliary horse and foot were also stationed in the province.
Eventually, around the year 390 AD, the two Danube fleets were combined into the Classis Histrica. The home ports were Mursa, Florentia, Arruntum, Viminacum and Aegetae. There were a number of smaller fleets patrolling the tributaries that fed into the Danube. The fleets patrolling the tributaries were:

• The Classis Arlapensis et Maginensis, based in Comagena and Arelape.
• The Classis Ratianensis based in Dacia Ripensis.
• The Classis Lauriacensis, with a home port of Lauriacum.
• The Classis Stradensis et Germensis, with a home port at Margo.

The military units serving the fleet are listed as the milites liburnarii and the milites nauclarii. This list is a very vague; however these men do appear to have been attached to the following Legions that were stationed in the area:

• The Legio II Herculia, the Second Legion - the followers of Hercules. Formed at the order of Emperor Diocletian to garrison the province of Scythia Minor between the Black Sea and the River Danube.
• The Legio XIV Gemina, the fourteenth Twin Legion. This was one of the legions that invaded Britain, who also distinguished themselves by defeating Boudicca.
• The Legio X Gemina, the tenth Twin Legion. This was one of the legions that took part in Julius Caesar's expedition to Britain in 55 BC.

Other River-based Fleets

Other Fluvial Fleets included the Classis Anderetianorum. The fleet's home port was Lutetia (modern Paris, France)⁴, a city with a population of around 8,000. The fleet's duties were transport and patrol on the Rivers Seine and Oise. The Classis Ararica was stationed at Caballodunum (modern Chalon-sur-Saône); its duties included transport and patrol on the River Saone. The Classis Sambrica had responsibility for the River Somme and had its home port at Locus Quartensis.
The River Rhone fleet, the Classis Fluminis Rhodani, had two home ports. The first was Arelate⁵ (modern Arles), a major port since Phoenician times. Arles was an important settlement due to its size and status as a Colony of the veterans of the VI Legion⁶. The city was also the site of the most southerly bridge on the River Rhone⁷. Despite this Arles for vied for supremacy with Massalia (modern Marseilles). Both cities provided supporting bases for the river fleet the duties of which were mainly transport and patrol on the River Rhone.
Lake-Based Fluvial Fleets

The Classis Barcariorum, with a home port at Eburodunum (modern Yverdon-les-Bains), was a fleet of small ships patrolling Lake Neuchâtel, the largest of the Swiss lakes. The Classis Comensis had a home port on the shores of Lake Como. Although there are no records of this fleet, there are a series of bases on the shores of the Lake, which is one of the largest of the Italian lakes. A fleet of small ships was stationed here for transport and patrol duties.
¹Originally the Roman army was based on conscription of citizens for either a campaign or a year. This was known as a levy, the word legion comes from the Latin word legre or levy. From this time the term was applied to any Roman land-based unit including marines and cavalry. A levy is also a form of taxation.²It was from this port that the rescue attempt was sent after the volcanic eruption that destroyed both Pompeii and Herculaneum.³From around 71 AD.⁴The inhabitants of Lutetia were the Parisii, giving it its modern name. The name Lutetia came from the Parisii word for marsh land.⁵The full title was 'Colonia Iulia Paterna Arelatensium Sextanorum'.⁶The VI Legion was a favourite of Caesar's; the Legion earned the nickname of Ferrata or 'Ironclad'.⁷The unusual feature of which was that it was a pontoon bridge supported by boats. The city also had a canal connecting it to the Mediterranean Sea.

Fleets[edit]

Principate period[edit]

Map of the Roman fleets and major naval bases during the Principate

After the end of the civil wars, Augustus reduced and reorganized the Roman armed forces, including the navy. A large part of the fleet of Mark Antony was burned, and the rest was withdrawn to a new base at Forum Iulii (modern Fréjus),^[99] which remained operative until the reign of Claudius.^[100] However, the bulk of the fleet was soon subdivided into two praetorian fleets at Misenum and Ravenna, supplemented by a growing number of minor ones in the provinces, which were often created on an ad hoc basis for specific campaigns. This organizational structure was maintained almost unchanged until the 4th century.
Praetorian fleets[edit]

The two major fleets were stationed in Italy and acted as a central naval reserve, directly available to the Emperor (hence the designation "praetorian"). In the absence of any naval threat, their duties mostly involved patrolling and transport duties. These were not confined to the waters around Italy, but throughout the Mediterranean. There is epigraphic evidence for the presence of sailors of the two praetorian fleets at Piraeus and Syria. These two fleets were:

• The Classis Misenensis, established in 27 BC and based at Portus Julius. Later Classis praetoria Misenesis Pia Vindex. Detachments of the fleet served at secondary bases, such as Ostia, Puteoli, Centumcellae and other harbors.^[101]

• The Classis Ravennas, established in 27 BC and based at Ravenna. Later Classis praetoria Ravennatis Pia Vindex.

Provincial fleets[edit]

The various provincial fleets were smaller than the praetorian fleets and composed mostly of lighter vessels. Nevertheless, it was these fleets that saw action, in full campaigns or raids on the periphery of the Empire.

• The Classis Africana Commodiana Herculea, established by Commodus in 186 to secure the grain shipments (annona) from North Africa to Italy,^[102] after the model of the Classis Alexandrina.

• The Classis Alexandrina, based in Alexandria, it controlled the eastern part of the Mediterranean sea. It was founded by Caesar Augustus around 30 BC, probably from ships that fought at the battle of Actium and manned mostly by Greeks of the Nile Delta.^[103] Having supported emperor Vespasian in the civil war of 69, it was awarded of the cognomen Augusta.^[103] The fleet was responsible chiefly for the escort of the grain shipments to Rome (and later Constantinople), and also apparently operated the Nile river patrol.^[104]

• The Classis Britannica, established in 40 or 43 AD at Gesoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer).^[105] It participated in the Roman invasion of Britain and the subsequent campaigns in the island.^[103] The fleet was probably based at Rutupiae (Richborough) until 85 AD, when it was transferred to Dubris (Dover). Other bases werePortus Lemanis (Lympne) and Anderitum (Pevensey), while Gesoriacum on the Gallic coast likely remained active.^[106] During the 2nd-3rd centuries, the fleet was chiefly employed in transport of supplies and men across the English Channel. The Classis Britannica disappears (at least under that name) from the mid-3rd century, and the sites occupied by it were soon incorporated into the Saxon Shore system.^[106]

• The Classis Germanica was established in 12 BC by Drusus at Castra Vetera.^[107] It controlled the Rhine river, and was mainly a fluvial fleet, although it also operated in the North Sea. It is noteworthy that the Romans' initial lack of experience with the tides of the ocean left Drusus' fleet stranded on the Zuyder Zee.^[108]After ca. 30 AD, the fleet moved its main base to the castrum of Alteburg, some 4 km south of Colonia Agrippinensis (modern Cologne).^[109] Later granted the honorifics Augusta Pia Fidelis Domitiana following the suppression of the Revolt of Saturninus.^[110]

• The Classis nova Libyca, first mentioned in 180, based most likely at Ptolemais on the Cyrenaica.

• The Classis Mauretanica, based at Caesarea Mauretaniae (modern Cherchell), it controlled the African coasts of the western Mediterranean sea. Established on a permanent basis after the raids by the Moors in the early 170s.

Two-banked lburnians of the Danube fleets during Trajan's Dacian Wars. Casts of reliefs from Trajan's Column, Rome.

• The Classis Moesica was established sometime between 20 BC and 10 AD.^[107] It was based in Noviodunum and controlled the Lower Danube from the Iron Gates to the northwestern Black Sea as far as the Crimea.^[111] The honorificFlavia, awarded to it and to the Classis pannonica, may indicate its reorganization by Vespasian.^[112]

• The Classis Pannonica, a fluvial fleet controlling the Upper Danube from Castra Regina in Raetia (modern Regensburg) to Singidunum in Moesia (modern Belgrade). Its exact date of establishment is unknown. Some trace it to Augustus' campaigns in Pannonia in ca. 35 BC, but it was certainly in existence by 45 AD.^[110][113] Its main base was probably Taurunum (modern Zemun) at the confluence of the river Sava with the Danube. Under the Flavian dynasty, it received the cognomen Flavia.^[113]

• The Classis Perinthia, established after the annexation of Thrace in 46 AD and based in Perinthus. Probably based on the indigenous navy, it operated in the Propontis and the Thracian coast.^[46] Probably united with the Classis Pontica at a later stage.

• The Classis Pontica, founded in 64 AD from the Pontic royal fleet,^[107][114] and based in Trapezus, although on occasion it was moved to Byzantium (in ca. 70),^[115]and in 170, to Cyzicus.^[116] This fleet was used to guard the southern and eastern Black Sea, and the entrance of the Bosporus.^[82] According to the historianJosephus, in the latter half of the 1st century, it numbered 40 warships and 3,000 men.^[117]

• The Classis Syriaca, established probably under Vespasian, and based in Seleucia Pieria (hence the alternative name Classis Seleucena)^[118] in Syria.^[104] This fleet controlled the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean sea.

In addition, there is significant archaeological evidence for naval activity by certain legions, which in all likelihood operated their own squadrons: legio XXII Primigenia in the Upper Rhine and Main rivers, legio X Fretensis in the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee, and several legionary squadrons in the Danube frontier.^[119]
Dominate period[edit]

Our main source for the structure of the late Roman military is the Notitia Dignitatum, which corresponds to the situation of the 390s for the Eastern Empire and the 420s for the Western Empire. Notable in the Notitia is the large number of smaller squadrons that have been created, most of these fluvial and of a local operational role.
Fleets of the Danube frontier[edit]

The Upper Danube (Pannonian) limes

The Lower Danube (Moesian) limes

The Classis Pannonica and the Classis Moesica were broken up into several smaller squadrons, collectively termedClassis Histrica,authority of the frontier commanders (duces).^[120] with bases at Mursa in Pannonia II,^[121] Florentia inPannonia Valeria,^[122] Arruntum in Pannonia I,^[123] Viminacium in Moesia I^[124] and Aegetae in Dacia ripensis.^[125] Smaller fleets are also attested on the tributaries of the Danube: the Classis Arlapensis et Maginensis (based at Arelape andComagena) and the Classis Lauriacensis (based at Lauriacum) in Pannonia I,^[123] the Classis Stradensis et Germensis, based at Margo in Moesia I,^[124] and the Classis Ratianensis, in Dacia ripensis.^[125] The naval units were complemented by port garrisons and marine units, drawn from the army. In the Danube frontier these were:

• In Pannonia I and Noricum ripensis, naval detachments (milites liburnarii) of the legio XIV Gemina and the legio XGemina at Carnuntum and Arrabonae, and of the legio II Italica at Ioviacum.^[123]

• In Pannonia II, the I Flavia Augusta (at Sirmium) and the II Flavia are listed under their prefects.^[121]

• In Moesia II, two units of sailors (milites nauclarii) at Appiaria and Altinum.^[126]

• In Scythia Minor, marines (muscularii)^[127] of legio II Herculia at Inplateypegiis and sailors (nauclarii) at Flaviana.^[128]

Fleets in Western Europe[edit]

In the West, and in particular in Gaul, several fluvial fleets had been established. These came under the command of themagister peditum of the West, and were:^[129]

• The Classis Anderetianorum, based at Parisii (Paris) and operating in the Seine and Oise rivers.

• The Classis Ararica, based at Caballodunum (Chalon-sur-Saône) and operating in the Saône River.

• A Classis barcariorum, composed of small vessels, at Eburodunum (modern Yverdon-les-Bains) at Lake Neuchâtel.

• The Classis Comensis at Lake Como.

• The old praetorian fleets, the Classis Misenatis and the Classis Ravennatis are still listed, albeit with no distinction indicating any higher importance than the other fleets. The "praetorian" surname is still attested until the early 4th century, but absent from Vegetius or the Notitia.^[130]

• The Classis fluminis Rhodani, based at Arelate and operating in the Rhône River. It was complemented with a marine detachment (milites muscularii) based atMarseilles.

• The Classis Sambrica, based at Locus Quartensis (unknown location) and operating in the Somme River and the Channel. It came under the command of the dux Beligae Secundae.^[131]

• The Classis Venetum, based at Aquileia and operating in the northern Adriatic Sea. This fleet may have been established to ensure communications with the imperial capitals in the Po Valley (Ravenna and Milan) and with Dalmatia.^[132]

Bases and command sectors of theSaxon Shore system

It is notable that, with the exception of the praetorian fleets (whose retention in the list does not necessarily signify an active status), the old fleets of the Principate are missing. The Classis Britannica vanishes under that name after the mid-3rd century;^[133] its remnants were later subsumed in the Saxon Shore system.
By the time of the Notitia Dignitatum, the Classis Germanica has ceased to exist (it is last mentioned under Julian in 359),^[134] most probably due to the collapse of the Rhine frontier after the Crossing of the Rhine by the barbarians in winter 405-406, and the Mauretanian and African fleets had been disbanded or taken over by the Vandals.
Fleets in the Eastern Mediterranean[edit]

As far as the East is concerned, we know from legal sources that the Classis Alexandrina^[135] and the Classis Seleucena^[136] continued to operate, and that in ca. 400 a Classis Carpathia was detached from the Syrian fleet and based at the Aegean island of Karpathos.^[137] A fleet is known to have been stationed at Constantinople itself, but no further details are known about it.^[55]
Ports[edit]

Major Roman ports were:

• Portus Julius, located at Misenum
• Classis, near Ravenna
• Alexandria
• Leptis Magna
• Ostia
• Portus
• Port of Mainz (Mogontiacum, river navy on the Rhine)

[The Wandering Storyteller]

I do apologise for the copy and pasting thing - I had written this before, but some damn keyboard shortcut had messed it up that's why I just went a little lazy. Now I'll do the naval siege rosters and siege equipment.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Naval Roster:

Note: Here's some info taken from wiki - but makes a good summary

The Roman navies consisted of triremes, quadriremes and quinqueremes. Though armed with a ram, these ships usually fought by boarding rather than ramming. The Romans during the First Punic War used a special wooden boarding ramp 36 ft (11 m) long and 4 ft (1.22 m) wide, with a long metal spike on the bottom that could be dropped onto an enemy ship to immobilize the ship and facilitate boarding.^[65] This device was called a corvus or "crow". But this invention led to the destruction of complete fleets during storms^{[citation needed]}. Therefore at the decisive battle of the Aegates Islands and afterwards it was no longer employed by the Roman navy. According to Polybius another invention was called the "bear" and simply hit the enemy ship like a ram, but did not penetrate the hull. It was used to unbalance it and throw parts of the crew out of their rowing benches or from deck.
Roman Hemolia:



This ship has been taken from pirate influences in the Mediterranean, this is most likely to be an light warship used with fast rowing. Mostly they would be used for traditional purposes such as patrolling or harrasing the enemy. They disapper from the Roman Navy at around 100 bc and then be used as patrols or something like that. It had up to 50 rowers and could go at 8 knots per hour. Only 10 marines in this ship. Middle oars may have been worked by two men only.

Roman Quinquerme



Main Roman Warship, fully capable of carrying towers and artillery.
- 40 marines were permeant
- Number could have been increased to 120 or so
- Can be equipped with Corvus or so
- More information found from this:
The typical size of a Quinquereme was around 40 metres long, 5 metres wide, fenced. Powered by three banks of rowers, 90 per side, the upper banks of oars would have had two rowers per oar. The ship was fitted with a main mast and foremast and was often rigged with two sails. The Quinquereme was very similar to the Trireme and also had a projecting gallery fitted to each side to house a third bank of rowers. The difference between the two types appears to be the numbers of rowers manning the oars. The top two banks of oars had two rowers on each oar, whilst the lowest bank had one man per oar. This gave five teams of rowers on three sets of oars, hence the name Quinquereme, meaning five-oared. This made sense as the bottom oars were shorter and lighter; the top banks were heavier due to their length and had further to move each stroke. The other advantage was increased speed and distance due to the additional manpower. This vessel would have had a compliment of between 100 and 140 marines.



Penteconter:

• Typically 30m long and 4.5 m wide
• Unfenced - no deck - partial one
• Rowers sat on seas on hull of ship
• Walkway ram down central line of ship
• Powered by single banks of rowers
• Used by merchants and navy
• Original Long ship, open to elements
• Single mast and sail
• Basic type of warship

Roman Trieme




Powerful warship, though succeded by more heavier and more powerful warships
Projecting gallery fitted to each side to house of a third bank of rowers
Name Trieme means three ordered
Ships with multiple bank of rowers - housed in several projecting galleries



The Quadriremes

• Typical Size around 35m long, 6 to 7m wide, fenced
• Powered by two banks of rowers
• 30 to 40 per side with single mast and sale
• Between 70-100 marines
• Used in coastal fleets due to shallow draught
• Ability to be breached

Roman Brieme

• Smaller than trieme
• Used about 50-100 men
• Light fast patrol boat
• Length 108ft
• Marines 40

Roman Decrees - used at Actium





Please note, that Roman navies extensively used only two colours; red and blue. Blue could be used for civil war colours.

Roman Hexeres:



Beaching a Ship

Beaching a vessel was done only when there were no port facilities and was attempted only on gradually sloping sand or shingle beaches. The method was to row the vessel toward the shore at medium speed. As it approached the beach, orders were given to the rowers to ship the oars. Everyone on board other than the rowers was ordered to the rear of the ship; this had the effect of lifting the bows, allowing the ship to run gently ashore. Once beached, the crew could tie or anchor the ship and lower the gangplanks for disembarkation. Beaching was seldom undertaken under sail, as it was possible to cause damage to the rigging. The operation was best carried out between the tides to avoid stranding the ship.
Special Equipment

The Rostra (Ram)

From the beginning, the ship's main weapon in battle was the ram or rostra. This was a large projection of the bows at water level often plated with copper or bronze. This had only one function, which was to punch a hole in the side of an enemy ship. The only problem with ramming was getting the ram out of the enemy vessel quickly. If the sinking vessel settled in the water, it would lock itself on the ram and either pull down the ramming vessel or break the ram off as it sank. It was often the cause of savage fighting, as the only salvation for soldiers and crew on the sinking ship was to take the ship that had rammed them.
The Corvus (Crow)

This functioned in a similar way to a drawbridge; it was a ramp with hand rails that was fitted with the beak-like spike that gave it its name. Mounted on a short mast on the prow of the ship, the corvus could be raised and lowered by a system of pulleys. Often mounted on a turntable, the corvus could be swung over the deck of an enemy ship and dropped suddenly, allowing the spike to pierce the deck. Once attached, the enemy ship was boarded by the soldiers stationed on the attacking ship. If necessary, the corvus could be raised and the enemy ship rapidly released. The main problem with the corvus was that it made ships unstable in rough weather - there are many reports of vessels capsizing and sinking.
The Harpago (Hook)

This functioned in a similar way to a grappling hook. It resembled a harpoon and was fired by catapult. Once embedded in an enemy ship, the attached rope was hauled in, pulling the two ships together. When the ships were alongside, the attacking marines boarded the enemy vessel. The catapult used for the firing of the harpago was also used as ship-board artillery in battle. The harpago was considered more efficient than the corvus and eventually replaced it.
The Ballista

The ballista was a weapon similar in appearance to a huge crossbow. The main difference was that instead of the bow³, it had two levers attached to giant torsion springs made from rope or sinew, tightly wound to provide enormous power. These weapons were used to fire stone shot or massive arrows or bolts and could also fire incendiary missiles at the enemy ships.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Also here is some good stuff I found on TWC

I assume from what I see in the ROME TOTAL WAR PRIMA official game guide that the same ships in that book will at a minimum appear in Rome2. These being;
• Bireme
• Trireme
• Quinquireme
• Corvus Quinquireme
• Decere
• Boats
• Large boats

I found it very amusing that the Carthaginians had less ship types than the romans did in Rome1

If you have anything to add I would dearly like to know about it. I am interested in knowing as much as possible about naval warfare in the age of antiquity. What we are likely to see and what modders will possibly do on the subject of rome2 and its navies. Some of the ship types below need to be fleshed out
as some of my additional sources are still coming in the mail!

I am not interested in comments from those who think there is no point to such speculative posts. This is purely for the enjoyment of those of us interessted in learning about the period and what could be in Rome2 before it comes out. Our collective knowledge may even help shape development if we are lucky.




---------------------------------------------
Heavy warships.
It should be noted that these ships are not the limits
of what was actually built. Just the more common types.

Trireme (three rowers)
The quintessential war galley used throughout the ancient period.
Trireme had a projecting gallery fitted to each side to house a third bank of rowers, the name Trireme means three oared. In ships with multiple banks of rowers the rowers were housed in several projecting galleries.

Carthaginian Trireme


Average Length: 37 to 40 meters long
Average Width: 6 meters
Fenced or Unfenced


Quadrireme (four rowers)
Powered by two banks of rowers, 30 to 40 per side with single mast and sail. This ship could have between 70 and 100 marines. Used in coastal fleets due to the shallow draught and its ability to beach.

Average Length: 35 meters long
Average Width: 6 to 7 meters
Generally fenced

A picture of a Roman Quadrireme. Note the outrigger jutting out along the top side which is typical of Greek (Roman) ship building.


Quinquereme (five rowers) (can have towers)
Powered by three banks of rowers 90 per side the upper banks of oars would have had two rowers per oar. Fitted with a main mast and fore mast and often rigged with two sails. The Quinquereme was very similar to the Trireme and also had a projecting gallery fitted to each side to house a third bank of rowers. The difference between the two types appears to be the numbers of rowers manning the oars. The top two banks or oars had 2 rowers on each oar, whilst the lowest bank had one man per oar. This gave five teams of rowers on three sets of oars, hence the name Quinquereme, meaning five oared. This made sense as the bottom oars were shorter and lighter, the top banks were heaver due to their length and had further to move each stroke. The other advantage was increased speed and distance due to the additional manpower. This vessel could also have had a compliment of between 100 and 140 marines.
This ship type was the mainstay of the Roman Battle Fleets it seems.

Average Length: 40 meters long
Average Width: 5 meters
Generally fenced

A picture of a Selucid Quinquereme. Greek style outrigger.


Hexareme (six rowers) (can have towers)
Powered by three banks of rowers, 75 to 100 per side with single mast and sail. This type is recorded at the battle of Actium on both sides. Confusion has been caused caused by the fact that they were the largest ships in Octavian's fleet and almost the smallest ships in Mark Antony's fleet. This class of ship may have been a trireme with two rowers on each oar.

Average Length: 35 to 40 meters long
Average Width: 5 to 7 meters
Generally fenced

Septireme (seven rowers)
NO DATA

A picture of a Septireme. A Carthaginian one. Note how there does not seen to be an outrigger and the ship seems tall with straight sides.
This is claimed to be typical of carthaginian naval building technique.


A Mecedonian Septireme. Note the Greek style outrigger for the oars. This could be what makes a little differentiation for Rome2 naval looks. Taking a little "attack of the clones" out of the mix.


Octeres (eight rowers)
NO DATA


Enneres (nine rowers)
NO DATA

Deceres (ten rowers)
NO DATA

Larger polyremes (Giant Flagships, often unique rather than a class as such)
Antony and Cleopatra had many of the largest warships of greek antiquity in service at the battle of actium.
They burned all of their own smaller ships. They lost the battle and much of the larger galleys fell out of service and the
knowledge of how to build them was lost. I cannot help thinking whether Antony had any idea what he was doing and how
to use the large ships he had. It seems to me that burning all his smaller ships negated the value of the larger ships hitting power.

The Largest ship of Antiquity (in the west). So large that its dimensions are very well recorded and known.
Even still some think it was a catamaran. It was called the Tessarakonteres but I cannot find a good picture of this
giant "40 rowers" vessel.

Closest I could find was this "30". I have no idea how they would have pulled this out of the water!


This was apparently originally owned by the Thracians before being offered to the Egyptians of the time


This thing was 20m wide and 70m long!


Some barge like ships were also built and were more like royal transport than anything else.
This one for sailing on a lake.
The wreck of this one was actually found and then destroyed during ww2 before scientists could learn
the secrets of its construction.
Have a look at the tiny workers, this thing was massive.


Light warships

Penteconter
Powered by single banks of rowers, 25 per side with single mast and sail. Originally a ship with up to 50 rowers it developed over the years into a general purpose vessel. Used by both the merchant marine and the navy as a general purpose and scout vessel. This original lengthy vessel, was open to the elements with a partial or no deck. This is an early type that may not have even been in service by the time of any Roman naval battles.

Average Length: 30 meters long
Average Width: 4.5 meters
Generally unfenced

Lembos
NO DATA




Actuaria
NO DATA

Roman Actuarius of the Imperial Era


Roman Repulican Actuaria


Hemiolia (Monoreme)
Powered by single or double banks of rowers, 15 per side with single mast and sail. Its uses is unclear but it appears that it was too light for battle so it is likely to have been a river patrol, scout or dispatch vessel.

Average Length: 15 - 20 meters long
Average Width: 4 meters
Generally fenced


Trihemiolia
This type of ship seems to be a very very light Trireme missing a lot of the heavier features of standard triremes.

A Rhodian Trihemiolia. The Rhodian navy were some of the best.


Celes
Light Roman scout or pirate galley

Illyrian Pirate Galley


Liburnians (Bireme)
Liburnians were originally pirate vessels of a swift nature. The Romans adopted the design in its heavier form it seems using two banks of oars rather than one. This ship type seems to have been extremely common and they were often used as scouts and pirate hunters.
Also used in the river fleets due to the shallow draught, the upper deck rails were extended (some were fitted with a partial roof as well) to provide the soldiers and crew protection form missile attack. This type of vessel would have also have had a compliment of between 30 and 60 marines.

Average Length: 25 to 30 meters long
Average Width: 4.75 meters
Generally fenced in roman service

Greek Liburnian


Carthaginian Bireme


A Roman Bireme. Note the tower on the front.


A small roman Liburnian. Possibly for courier use.


A Roman Liburnian allegedly used at the battle of actium


A diagram showing the real difference between ship classes. The manpower at the oars.


The Weapons & Tactics of a War Galley

Corvus – Made the ship unstable but enabled the Roman Marines to use their scutum and board as if fighting on land. Entire fleets were lost because of the unstability caused by this weapon. Used by the Romans only.
Ram – Used to ram other ships and hole them. Some specialist RAMs were designed to breach under the water.
Bear – A type of ram that is designed not to pierce enemy ships but to bunt them. This weapon had the effect of throwing rowers off their benches and marines into the sea before boarding is attempted.
Catapults - Apparently Alexander used them and it is assumed later fleets would have used them as well. I have read some material that claims catapults would be useless due to their less than accurate trajectory against a moving target.
Bolt throwers – These could pierce upper hulls disabling rowers and other crewmen
Archers – Clear the enemy decks and fire ships.
Javelin – Clear enemy decks as they get closer or before boarding.
Fire fire projectiles and arrows – A common tactic of Roman era warfare seems to be the use of fire as a tactic for burning ships. This deserves more research as their may well be greek fire which is hard to put out as well as standard fire projectiles which crews can put out more easily.
Redundant oarsmen – Some ship types have enough rowers on each oar that gives an advantage of not so much of an effect being had when one dies in battle.
Spare Rowers – A lot of ships especially larger ships carried reserve rowers that were used to switch exhausted or dead rowers.
Cataphract\Fenced – This means the ship was covered with wooden planking and re-enforced on both the tops and sides to protect rowers. Some ships had rowers exposed instead.
Light Built\Normal Built\ Re-enforced hull (heavy built) – Ships within classes were often built to a particular doctrine or purpose. Light ships were faster and made saving weight where ever possible. Heavier ships would have re-enforced heavier wood types and be stronger below the water line to resist ramming. Carthaginian build quality seems to have been far superior to Roman build quality especially early on.
Outrigger – The greek doctrine which the Romans adopted seems to have used an outrigger to project the upper row of oars while the Carthaginian shipwrights seems to make their ships taller instead.
Chasing down one ship with many – A tactic that seems to have been used is for one chasing ship to go to ramming speed to exhaust the rowers of the fleeing ship. Once the fleeing ships crew and the chasing ships crew were exhausted the remaining pursuers could over take the fleeing ship at leasure.
Raking Oars – A major disabling tactic of this era was to pull in your ships oars as you swept past the enemies oars breaking them and disabling the oars on an entire side of the enemy ship.
Grapple ballista – This weapon seems to be a little later than others. It was a bolt thrower that had an attachment that allowed grappling. The weapon could penetrate hulls as fairly long range.
Ballista – Standard bolt thrower.
Grappling hooks – Sailors using standard ships grappling ropes to board enemy vessels at close range
Boarding ramps – I do not know how boarding with a corvus took place. I assume a lot of the time that the outrigger actually got in the way of marines jumping from deck to deck. I assume that ramps or ladders would have been used but have no evidence.
Siege attachment – there is evidence of two ships being lashed together or one large ship carrying a siege tower or scaling device in sieges.
Room to lower ship sails below deck – Ships seem to have disembarked sails before battle where possible to avoid damaging them. However there is also ample evidence of ships raising sail to escape a losing battle. From what I have seen their must have been room to store the mast and sail in the middle of the ship just below deck. I also assume that the ships lookout at the top of the mast would have played a huge role in finding the enemy before battle!! The mast having to be pulled down just after?
Living space – Larger ships would have had an advantage at sea of having more living space for some. Fatigue must have played a large part in battles. Some crews sleeping at the oars.
Waterlogging and Speed – Some Ancient Galleys were made of such light wood that they regularly needed to be pulled from the water to dry out to protect from water logging, sea borers and leaking. Waterlogged ships were much slower than their enemies. A good example of this was a blockade carried out where the besieging side was at a disadvantage because the besieged could launch and pull their boats out of the water at leasure while the besiegers had to stay at sea to enforce the blockade.
Rowing Speeds – Needless to say different crews would be capable of different speeds for different sustained periods of time.
I need data on this point. More rowers in ship types would obviously also have a relationship between the weight of the extra rower and diminishing power related to how many extra rowers on an oar was efficient. Some got so large that oarsmen had to stand instead of sitting while rowing.
Spare Oars – 30 or so spare oars are recorded as being carried by the average trireme. This means that damaged ships could replace oars in an emergency.
Sitting on Deck (trireme) – Marines and others on deck would be encouraged to sit whenever possible to prevent upsetting the rowing and stability of the ship. Marines would jump up only when there ship
had stopped to board.

Bibliography
http://www.h2g2.com/entry/A69451572
Greece and Rome at war Peter Connolly
Warfare in the classical world John Warry
Battles of the Greek And Roman Worlds John Drogo Montagu
Osprey Ancient Greek Warship 500-322BC
Warfleets of Antiquity R B Nelson
The Age of Titans:The Rise and Fall of the Great Hellenistic Navies Murray William
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic-era_warships
http://www2.rgzm.de/navis/Ships/Ship...alaEnglish.htm
http://www.navistory.com
The Roman navy was an auxiliary branch of the army, a term applied to any military force that was not a legion. They were regarded as second-class soldiers as they were normally recruited from the non-citizen population of the provinces. Auxiliaries were paid 16% less than the men of the legions, and the fixed-term service was extended by a year to 26 years. It was not all bad, as the men that survived the 26 years were granted Roman citizenship on retirement.
The auxiliary part of the navy were the marine cohorts, and the ships' crews. Officers were civilians though it was also possible to find legionary officers placed in charge of marine cohorts. All officers above centurion and squadron commander were normally appointees from the upper classes.
Other auxiliary forces included all non-legionary foot soldiers, light skirmishers, archers and slingers, cavalry scouts and other specialist troops.
Just as in the Roman army, class was an important factor. Only those men of the highest social rank could hold the highest ranks in the Roman navy. All classes of freeborn citizens could rise to hold the other ranks, but as in the army, social barriers prevented promotion beyond the rank of Centurion. As the navy was regarded as an inferior service, there were few career soldiers to be found among its ranks.
Roman Navy Ranks

• The Praefecti ('Fleet commanders'): The command structure of the fighting men in the fleet was the same as in any legion. However, as the navy was considered to be an inferior service, it was considered beneath a Legate to command such a force; Legates were normally appointed from the Noble or Patrician class (the highest class in Roman society) or from the Senatores (the Senatorial class), the next class or level in Roman society. A commander of a fleet would normally be a Prefect because Prefects were thought to be more suitable coming as they did mainly from the lower Equestrian class Eques Romanus¹.
  So, Prefects were normally chosen from those of equestrian class who had some military experience, or they were simply appointed by the Emperor. The practice of appointing freed slaves of the imperial court² was employed because it assured the Emperor a measure of control over the navy. The appointments were largely political and almost all of the Prefects were totally reliant on the experience of their subordinates to command the fleets effectively. Within the rank of Prefect there were further ranks indicating the relative importance of the fleet they commanded and the amount they were paid annually.
  
• The Procuratores Ducenarii: This was the highest rank with an annual pay of 200,000 sesterces. It was the only rank to be placed in charge of the Praetorian Fleets, the Classis Ravenatis and the Classis Misenensis³.
  
• The Procuratores Centenarii: Although they commanded the fleets most likely to see action, the annual pay was much less, only 100,000 sesterces. Procuratores Centenarii were given the command of the Classis Britannica, the Classis Germanica and the Classis Pontica.
  
• The Procuratores Sexagenarii: This rank commanded an annual pay of 60,000 sesterces. The Procuratores Sexagenarii were given the command of the Classis Africana, the Commodiana Herculea, the Classis Moesica, the Classis Perinthia, the Classis Syriaca, the Classis Mauretaniae and the Classis Alexandrina; the other fleets listed would have received a similar rate, but may have been reduced according to the importance of the fleet.

Other Ranks

• Navarch ('Squadron commander'): This rank was also known as the Nauarchus and in later periods Nauarchus Archigubernes or Nauarchus Princeps. A Roman Squadron normally consisted of ten ships.
  
• Trierarch ('Captain'): The Trierarch was in command of all aspects of ship control while the vessel was not in action, giving direct orders regarding the ship and crew. The Centurion was in command of his men at all times; the Navarch had no direct authority over the milites⁴ or common soldiers.
  
• Centuriae ('Centurion' Military commander and Ship's Captain in Battle) The Centurion was in command of soldiers stationed on the ship. He was also in command of all aspects of ship control while the vessel was in action, giving the Trierarch direct orders regarding the ship and crew. Possibly the most dangerous rank in battle, as a good Centurion was an inspiration to his men. Traditionally, Centurions always led the men they commanded from the front, with a furious first-in-last-out style of leadership. Unsurprisingly, Centurions suffered high casualty rates constantly proving they were the bravest and the best of fighters.
  
• Optio Centuriae ('Optio centurion' A junior centurion) : The Optio's main duty in combat was to ensure that the commands of the Centurion were carried out especially in battle. In battle, if the Centurion was killed or injured, it was the Optio's duty to take command of the ship (or the 'century', as it was known, meaning 'the chosen'). Other duties included administration, casualty returns, equipment requisitions and supervision of training and punishment; for this he received twice the pay of ordinary soldiers.
  
• Cohors Classica ('A cohort serving at sea'): These men were also known as marines, but regarded as common soldiers or milites or milites classiarius to indicate they served at sea. Although these men were auxiliaries they were considered as inferior to land-based auxiliaries and men serving in the legions, and were the lowest paid of the auxiliary forces. They had to serve a year longer than a legionary to qualify for citizenship and a retirement allotment.
  
• Remiges⁵ (Rowers): The rowers or oarsmen were not slaves, they were freemen, or freeborn men from the provinces (Peregrini). They did not hold Roman citizenship and were paid a regulation wage. The Remiges were recruited from those provinces that had a seagoing tradition, so the crews were mainly Phoenician, Syrian, Egyptian or Greek. The ship's officer, the celeusta, was placed in charge of the rowers. To avoid many of the problems of training rowers to man ships with multiple banks of oars, basic training was carried out on land. The training was carried out on tiers of rowing benches set in huge frames, so by the time the rowers took their place in the ships for real, they were skilled enough to handle the oars and knew the commands.

The Immunes (Specialists)

• The Beneficiaries Classis (the quartermaster): Responsibilities of this class included the recruitment and welfare of the ship's civilian crew and the role of civilian paymaster. Other duties included procuring the ship's stores and ammunition, and supervising the ship's maintenance while in port.
  
• The Iatros (the medical officer equivalent to the army Capsarius a doctor or Medicus): The Roman navy had a very proficient medical service similar to that of the army and it remained unequalled for 1,400 years.
  
• Custos Armorum (Armourer): The Armourer's responsibility was the care and maintenance of the weapons and equipment of the Cohors Classica, and of the ship's ballista.
  
• The Nautae (Helmsman): Also known as the gubernator or pilot, the Nautae and his subordinates were given the task of steering the ship. Depending on the size of the vessel, it would have been equipped with either one or two linkedsexillie (side-mounted) or quarter rudders mounted on the stern. If the ship was large enough there would have been a team of Nautae working in shifts while the ship was at sea. Often the Nautae would be provided with a shelter mounted on the stern. It is worth noting that the stern-mounted rudder did not appear until about 960 AD, long after the demise of the Roman Navy.
  
• The Proreta (Lookout): The Proreta worked in conjunction with the Naute while guiding the ship through shallow waters, or supervising the beaching of the vessel.
  
• The Celeusta (Officer in charge of the rowers): This officer supervised the rowers, relaying the orders of the avarchregarding speed and direction. The speed was governed by using a drum or hammer to provide the rowers with a rhythm to keep them in time and to control the speed of the ship.

Further ranks included The Fabri, trained wood and metal workers who maintained the ship. They were supervised by an officer called the Nav Phlax. There were also men who acted in a religious capacity, however there is no rank or title recorded for this group.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Roman Siege Equiqment

I don't have much time to go in much detail, therefore I'm providing images instead, and will then see if I can edit the whole thing out. One thing - I believe Rome 2 does have much of the siege equiqment, though I may not be so sure of this.









ARIES


ARIES PRENSILIS


TESTUDO ARIETATA


MUSCULUS & PLUTEUS


TURRIS AMBULATORIA


LILIA & STIMULI

TEREBRA

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Vinea: Gallery Covered

Covered with drill gallery - could be used for attacking wooden forts



Gallery Testudo with battering ram


Osprey images removed due to copyright issues - Maximinus Thrax



Battering Ram



Chiroballista



Double ground gastraphetes

Ballista to throw stones





http://www.scribd.com/doc/102768279/...World#download

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Here's a good image of siege warfare from the siege of Tyre

Osprey images removed due to copyright issues - Maximinus Thrax

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Sources:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-my-list/page2
http://whtdrgon.egloos.com/1664314
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ptop/A74481906
http://historum.com/ancient-history/...engines-2.html
http://catedu.es/aragonromano/artillen.htm
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Ro...ml%3B425%3B293
http://www.castlewales.com/siege.html
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Qu..._sm=0&ie=UTF-8
http://historum.com/ancient-history/...ok-like-2.html
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Ro..._sm=0&ie=UTF-8
http://thebygone.tumblr.com/post/265...at-was-bad-ass
http://www.romanseas.com/images/rs_catalog.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_n...etorian_fleets

[ImperatorAndreas]

Good stuff ABH2, Macedon does need an boost from its already weak position, and Athens and Sparta need to be cut down from declaring war. Tylis and other factions should not destroy Macedon at its starting date. Macedon really in the proper sense of RSII should face the Roman threat even more, and its first 20-30 turns should be an easy play because Macedon was fighting Rome at this period. Perhaps script the wars a little bit to really make it feel like the Roman-Macedonian Wars. Magnar did this in his mod with Carthage fighting Rome at 218 bc. The player must build his armies and then defeat Rome in the current wars.

Since the mod starts in 217bc, let us compare the Roman-Macedonian Wars

Taken from wikipedia here:

The First Macedonian War (214–205 BC) was fought by Rome, allied (after 211 BC) with the Aetolian League andAttalus I ofPergamon, against Philip V of Macedon, contemporaneously with the Second Punic War (218–201 BC) against Carthage. There were no decisive engagements, and the war ended in a stalemate.
During the war, Macedon attempted to gain control over parts of Illyria and Greece, but without success. It is commonly thought that these skirmishes in the east prevented Macedon from aiding the Carthaginian generalHannibal in the war with Rome. The "Peace of Phoenice", a treaty drawn up at Phoenice, in 205 BC, formally ended the war.


So in this case, we can have the player normally play as before, having an already established alliance with carthage, we can set the player at least two three missions:

1) First mission is to make the player build up his strength
2) Second mission is to destroy the Roman province, bring it under Macedonian rule, and aid Hannibal of Carthage in his conquest of Rome, helping him to score victory - but in this case, Rome can spawn out many armies - so even if you landed two or three armies - you would either result in phrryic victories, or you'd really have to put your skills to the test. I remember playing the NTW III mod, when I tried to invade England from France, and man, I won victories but with too many English armies it was impossible for me to destroy the capitial. That is how it should feel like - but you know, the player should be able to have help from Carthage at this time. This may result in a few minor changes, and the player can then have an event saying this:

The war has gone badly for Rome, Hannibal has proved himself mighty and an worthy ally, but the politicans and generals feels we have helped him enough. Should we continue to help him, though it is draining our coffers, or should we withdraw, in the hope that we have helped him win?

Yes, we should, with blah blah

No, we should with blah blah

In this way the player won't be restricted into what he can do, if he says no the third mission for him can be to expand towards Illyria and the other Gallic/Balkan states.

But lets note, the first Macedonian War wasn't that great as an event. Things can go either way, so the player at first can choose to decide whether to help Carthage, or whether to consolidy if its regions.

The Second Macedonian War will really give the player an edge as to what to do against Rome. Here is an map of the situation at the time being:



By this time, the player must have occupied much of Macedonia by now and it must be very powerful by the turn 200 bc, it will have a rich economy, robust armies and an terrifying force.

• Article
• Web sites
• Bibliography
• Contributors

Macedonian Wars, (3rd and 2nd centuries bc), four conflicts between the ancient Roman Republic and the kingdom of Macedonia. They caused increasing involvement by Rome in Greek affairs and helped lead to Roman domination of the entire eastern Mediterranean area.
The First Macedonian War (215–205 bc) occurred in the context of the Second Punic War, while Rome was preoccupied with fighting Carthage. The ambitious Macedonian king Philip V set out to attack Rome’s client states in neighbouring Illyria and confirmed his purpose in 215 by making an alliance with Hannibal of Carthage against Rome. The Romans fought the ensuing war ineffectively, and in 205 the Peace of Phoenice ended the conflict on terms favourable to Philip, allowing him to keep his conquests in Illyria.
Philip then began harrying Rhodes, Pergamum, and other Greek city-states of the Aegean. The Second Macedonian War (200–196) was launched by the Roman Senate against Philip after he refused to guarantee to make no hostile moves against these states. Philip’s forces were badly defeated by the Romans and their Greek allies in a battle at Cynoscephalae in 197. The terms of peace included the loss of most of his navy, payment of a large indemnity to Rome, and the loss of his territories outside of Macedonia. Rome subsequently established a benevolent protectorate over Greece.
Philip’s son and successor, Perseus (reigned 179–168), began to make alliances with various Greek city-states and thus aroused the displeasure of Rome. So began the Third Macedonian War (171–168), which ended in 168 when the Roman army of Lucius Aemilius Paullus utterly defeated Perseus’ forces at the Battle of Pydna. Perseus was taken back to Rome in chains, and Macedonia was broken up into four formally autonomous republics that were required to pay annual tribute to Rome. This arrangement produced a state of chronic disorder in Macedonia, however, and in 152 a pretended son of Perseus, Andriscus, tried to reestablish the Macedonian monarchy, thus provoking the Fourth Macedonian War (149–148). The Roman praetor Quintus Caecilius Metellus crushed the rebellion with relative ease, and in 146 Macedonia was made a Roman province. It was in fact the first province of the nascent Roman Empire.

So during the first two years, the player will find lacklusture movement from both Rome and Macedon, but things heat up in 198bc. At that the time the war will go either way. But the first thing Macedon should look to do is to ally with the Achean League, wanting to go into its favour as they will decide whether to go Rome or not. The player has to keep the cities and leagues that historically betrayed the Macedonians/Selecuids and helped the Romans more. Any defeats that happen by the player will result in negative for diplomacy with Greek factions. Any victories will further cause the Achean league and other greek city states will be helping the player. But the thing is, if the player wins the war, he/she can expand into where they want, if they don[='t, then many Greek factions will help Rome expand into the Balkans and thus the player will have to defeat the AI Romans. This would provide a real challenge in my experience and add some good depth into it. I'm not suggesting any big changes, I've ignored the fact that when Macedon attacks Athens, then Rome historically condemned this. Instead, we only take the major events and then let the player do as we will, just scripting a few moments here and there. In this case Macedon will not be attacked on by so many other factions and so on and so forth.

What do you think of this?

This is a great idea and would be probably quite fun to play but I must disagree on one point, historically, Macedon (even though they had a developing economy) was already dying from internal affairs and its armies weakened. During the Macedonian wars, apart for the elite Peltasts or Hypaspistes, most phalangites were levies with little if no training. Macedon was but a shadow of its past glory. (Also, the smaller states didn't betray Macedon, they never liked them and were forced to obey them, actually the reign of Philip was quite harsh for the southern states.) I don't think they should start with a powerful army. In the game, I think they should start with armies mainly composed of levy pikemen and their recruitment list should be very limited. That would make a good, interesting and not too easy start. I agree with all the other propositions.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

This is a great idea and would be probably quite fun to play but I must disagree on one point, historically, Macedon (even though they had a developing economy) was already dying from internal affairs and its armies weakened. During the Macedonian wars, apart for the elite Peltasts or Hypaspistes, most phalangites were levies with little if no training. Macedon was but a shadow of its past glory. (Also, the smaller states didn't betray Macedon, they never liked them and were forced to obey them, actually the reign of Philip was quite harsh for the southern states.) I don't think they should start with a powerful army. In the game, I think they should start with armies mainly composed of levy pikemen and their recruitment list should be very limited. That would make a good, interesting and not too easy start. I agree with all the other propositions.

Haha, thanks! While I like your statement, I'm afraid I disagree on an few things just with the starting positions. On the historical side I am no expert so I will not bother that much, but from what I know, Macedon may have been a past shadow of its glory, but its king Gonatas was currently reviving the whole situation. I would want them to start with a powerful army, if they ever stand a chance, they need strong armies and their unit recruitment list shouldn't be limited. It should be limited to an certain extent, lets say by what troops Gonatas would have had in his situation. And then as the stages progress, the player will open up to more unit recruitment slots.

[ImperatorAndreas]

Haha, thanks! While I like your statement, I'm afraid I disagree on an few things just with the starting positions. On the historical side I am no expert so I will not bother that much, but from what I know, Macedon may have been a past shadow of its glory, but its king Gonatas was currently reviving the whole situation. I would want them to start with a powerful army, if they ever stand a chance, they need strong armies and their unit recruitment list shouldn't be limited. It should be limited to an certain extent, lets say by what troops Gonatas would have had in his situation. And then as the stages progress, the player will open up to more unit recruitment slots.

Sorry, on my comment I was referring to Macedon under the reign Philip V and later successors. In fact under Antigonos II Gonatas Macedon was still a Major Power. It is under his son Demetrius that its decline started. I was talking of Philip because in 217 BC it was his reign but then I agree with all that you say.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Sorry, on my comment I was referring to Macedon under the reign Philip V and later successors. In fact under Antigonos II Gonatas Macedon was still a Major Power. It is under his son Demetrius that its decline started. I was talking of Philip because in 217 BC it was his reign but then I agree with all that you say.

Oh right, that's no problem then. Ok, thanks. Ah ok, yeah this could work and thx!

[Hetairos]

I finally was able to finish Italy! That is the current Map --> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ehhb7wzogg...ld_map_AAW.png

I am planning to do the Gauls, Celts, Britons and Celtiberians next. Than do Africa, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Balkans, Germania and finally all Eastern Areas.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Looks awesome man!