Sea battles of the attila time period?

[Anon052]

Where sea-battles common in the time period of Attila? Just wondering because I never really heard about them and had the impression that navys had lost importance in comparison to the classical period.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Where sea-battles common in the time period of Attila? Just wondering because I never really heard about them and had the impression that navys had lost importance in comparison to the classical period.

You know it was called "Mare nostrum" for a reason With the Roman Empire sorrounding the Mediterranean Sea it is no surprise that there was no other navy around, just occasionally people from the black sea coasts and the Danube. That first changed with the Arabs.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

There were a few:

1. Corsica, 457. After defeating Vandal raiders on the Island Ricimer led a small force of Roman ships to victory over a small force of vandal raiding ships off the coast of the island.

2. The Battle of Cape Bon, 468. This is probably one of the most decisive battles in World History. The Eastern Roman Empire sent a force of over 1100 ships and 70,000 men to reconquer North Africa from the Vandals under Basiliscus. However, instead of landing his troops on the shore, Basiliscus decided to anchor his ships off shore for the night. Gaiseric siezed the opportunity and loaded ships with dry grain (which is explosive) and lit them on fire, pushing them into the anchored Roman fleet and burning so much of it they had to call off the campaign permanently. The economic and military losses were crippling for the Eastern Empire, and it basically ensured there was no chance for a restoration of the Western Roman Empire.

[Julio-Claudian]

2. The Battle of Cape Bon, 468. This is probably one of the most decisive battles in World History. The Eastern Roman Empire sent a force of over 1100 ships and 70,000 men to reconquer North Africa from the Vandals under Basiliscus. However, instead of landing his troops on the shore, Basiliscus decided to anchor his ships off shore for the night. Gaiseric siezed the opportunity and loaded ships with dry grain (which is explosive) and lit them on fire, pushing them into the anchored Roman fleet and burning so much of it they had to call off the campaign permanently. The economic and military losses were crippling for the Eastern Empire, and it basically ensured there was no chance for a restoration of the Western Roman Empire.

I'm still haunted by the memory of this.

[Hae_Shin]

There were a few:

1. Corsica, 457. After defeating Vandal raiders on the Island Ricimer led a small force of Roman ships to victory over a small force of vandal raiding ships off the coast of the island.

2. The Battle of Cape Bon, 468. This is probably one of the most decisive battles in World History. The Eastern Roman Empire sent a force of over 1100 ships and 70,000 men to reconquer North Africa from the Vandals under Basiliscus. However, instead of landing his troops on the shore, Basiliscus decided to anchor his ships off shore for the night. Gaiseric siezed the opportunity and loaded ships with dry grain (which is explosive) and lit them on fire, pushing them into the anchored Roman fleet and burning so much of it they had to call off the campaign permanently. The economic and military losses were crippling for the Eastern Empire, and it basically ensured there was no chance for a restoration of the Western Roman Empire.

Could Gaiseric have read The Battle of Red Cliffs ?

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Of course the vandals. I totally forgot them. They are the perfect example how fast people can adapt. From wandering "nomads" in to a maritime power.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Gaiseric was just as much of a Genius as Aetius or Attila were, and is often overlooked.

[Ariamanesh]

The only naval power at this time frame was Rome!No more no less!
The only possible conflict may goes between ERE and WRE at Mediterranean!
So i think talk about naval battles is a waste of time!

[juanplay]

The only naval power at this time frame was Rome!No more no less!
The only possible conflict may goes between ERE and WRE at Mediterranean!
So i think talk about naval battles is a waste of time!

Emperor Leo and his destroyed gigantic fleet in cape bon would disagree with you,as would gaiseric and his raiding fleets.

[wulfgar610]

The adventures of the Vandals sound like something from an Edgar Rice Burroughs fantasy novel, but it was for real.

Osprey image removed due to copyright issues - Maximinus Thrax

Although CA's Vandals will probably end up looking like this, minus the pistol but complete with hooka boots!

[Gäiten]

You shall not underestimate the Sassnian navy.
While they did not have a navy in the Mediterranean, but were a naval power in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea, protecting their sea trade lanes.

[Iulian Bashir]

Honestly, the Sasanian "navy" in the Persian Gulf is fair but they will stand no chance against the Roman navy.

[Ariamanesh]

Honestly, the Sasanian "navy" in the Persian Gulf is fair but they will stand no chance against the Roman navy.

Its debatable!Since i don't remember any major naval conflicts between romans and sassanians then comparing them without any solid evidences is very hard for me but if you have good sources please don't left me uninformed!

[Gäiten]

In the Great last war (Khosrow II versus Phocas+Heraclius) the Sassanians used a navy for conquering Egypt, Cypern and Rhodos.
In the Lazic War of Khosrow I the Eastern Romans fought like devils to stop the encroachment of the Sassanians to the Black Sea coast.

IMHO they were capable of but did not used their maritime power as they should have.

[Iulian Bashir]

In the Great last war (Khosrow II versus Phocas+Heraclius) the Sassanians used a navy for conquering Egypt, Cypern and Rhodos.
In the Lazic War of Khosrow I the Eastern Romans fought like devils to stop the encroachment of the Sassanians to the Black Sea coast.

IMHO they were capable of but did not used their maritime power as they should have.

Why not at the siege of Constantinople? and what kind of navy? source?

They don't really build an appropriate navy but instead they may have raised their navy hastily with Shalandi instead of Dromon and other fishing boat to bolster their numbers during their Mediterranean campaign.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

One point might be that the Eastern Roman Fleet had a doctrine which wasn't concipated for naval warfare in the first place? I have no real idea since it is not my field, but i have the feeling that the navy was there to transport troops and the warships to protect the transportships. I read a lot about logistic masterpieces like Cape Bon and the transport of the Aethopian Army including Elephants to conquer modern day Jemen, but rarly about actual naval battles.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

At Wulfgar:

The top image is completely inaccurate, pretty much all of that equipment was in use AFTER the Vandal Kingdom was conquered.

[Gäiten]

Due sources see Greatax and Lieu: The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian WArs, part II 363-630. Pages 195 (assault on Cyprus around 617), page 197 (Persian naval activities in Aegean and conquest of Rhodos).

Why they did not use their navy in the assault on Constantinople? Bad planning and maybe even they did not have the resources for such a massive fleet construction program.

[Iulian Bashir]

Any evidence that they use dromon?

I don't think they have no money but they are impatient to raise a real navy plus the avaricious king who have nothing but lust, pride and greed which make the situation more difficult for a proper planning.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Dromons weren't around until the 500's AD.