Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: how histrical Correct are naval landigns under attack?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Meraun's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    527

    Default how histrical Correct are naval landigns under attack?

    So far i only know about one Battle when Ceasar attack Britannia.

    The tribes attacked his troops while thy were landing. But the Ships fired
    with catapluts and pushed the tribes back. As far as i know.

    Anyone knows about any other Naval Landings under attack?
    (of course there were plenty of landings with an enemy in histiory)

  2. #2
    joker8765's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    184

    Default Re: how histrical Correct are naval landigns under attack?

    Not a perfect example by any stretch of the imagination but the Battle of Marathon is another

  3. #3

    Default Re: how histrical Correct are naval landigns under attack?

    Quote Originally Posted by joker8765 View Post
    Not a perfect example by any stretch of the imagination but the Battle of Marathon is another
    If i remember correct the landing was before the battle. Only the fight after the battle seems to be near the ships.

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  4. #4
    joker8765's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    184

    Default Re: how histrical Correct are naval landigns under attack?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus View Post
    If i remember correct the landing was before the battle. Only the fight after the battle seems to be near the ships.
    That is indeed true however it sprang to mind as one of the more famous battles from antiquity that fit this scenario other than of course Caesars landing in Britain and as I said in my original post it is by no means a perfect example of this at all, though it is closer than most that i can recall

  5. #5

    Default Re: how histrical Correct are naval landigns under attack?

    Landings just on random beaches under attack seem fairly rare because there is usually miles of coastline but around sieges there are many examples. Hopefully if an army landing from fleet into another army ZoC the fight won't necessarily be right on the beach but up a ways with the fleet in the background just off the edge of the battlefield since it would take the nearby army at least a few hours to mobilize to move to the landing site and the landing commander wouldn't want to fight with his back to the sea on low ground.

  6. #6
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The western part of an Island They thought a kind of Coffee...
    Posts
    1,932

    Default Re: how histrical Correct are naval landigns under attack?

    Its more of Joint Naval Blockade - Landroute Siege than Amphibious Assaults in the times of antiquity...

  7. #7
    Sol Invictus's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    2,262

    Default Re: how histrical Correct are naval landigns under attack?

    I guess the assault on Syracuse in 213 B.C.during the Second Punic War would be one example, though it failed and an assault from the landward side was needed to capture the city the fallowing year. Not really a landing under fire but a similar situation.

  8. #8
    Manningham's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    346

    Default Re: how histrical Correct are naval landigns under attack?

    When Alexander besieged Tyr there was a good deal of joint naval/infantry action. A causeway had to be built from the mainland to the island fortress of the city.. ships were used to defend the soldiers and laborers - from what I understand, Hernan Cortez did something similar when attacking Tenochtitlan centuries later.

    In general, assaults from the sea in the Normandy-style didn't happen because of the disadvantage that presented to the attacking army. Far better to unload further away, organize, then march to battle.

    As for Caesar in Britain.. if I remember correctly then he was struggling to find a suitable place to unload and operating on very loose intelligence. He had lost some ships in the Channel and I think he decided it was impossible to avoid some confrontation with the Celtic force tracking his movements from the shore. There was a small engagement on the beach involving chariots, but as stated before, greater action occurred the next year after and a bit further inland, following an unopposed landing. If you haven't already, read Caesar's The Gallic Wars! Great read.

    Still.. the landings CA is making sound cool
    Last edited by Manningham; August 07, 2012 at 03:51 PM. Reason: typeO
    "It don't matter to Jesus"
    - Jesus

  9. #9

    Default Re: how histrical Correct are naval landigns under attack?

    Well the Siege of Syracuse is another example ...

    ------CONAN TRAILER--------
    RomeII Realistic Heights mod
    Arcani
    I S S G A R D
    Creator of Ran no Jidai mod
    Creator of Res Gestae
    Original Creator of severall add ons on RTW from grass to textures and Roman Legions
    Oblivion Modder- DUNE creator
    Fallout 3 Modder
    2005-2006 Best modder , skinner , modeler awards winner.
    actually modding skyrim [/SIZE]

  10. #10

    Default Re: how histrical Correct are naval landigns under attack?

    During the Alexander invasion on Anatolia, there where some cases of persian disembarks on Alexanders rearguard, also remember the siego of tyre, etc

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •