Slitherine

Hi All,

Interestingly enough I haven't really read very much about naval invasion, but I'm wondering was there very much 'defended landings' in the Ancient period a la Normandy 1944?

I'd think for the most part the sheer size of the invasion force would mean 'local resistance' would be minimal and survivors would run to the local baron who would organise a welcoming committee somewhere down the road.

Does this sound right?

If not, what house rules would work for a landing forming up for battle etc.

Ian

Caesar's first landing on Britain was opposed.

I would have thought, that since travel by boat was much faster than travel by land in those days, if it looked like your landing may be opposed you just travelled further along the coast on most occassions.

lawrenceg wrote:Caesar's first landing on Britain was opposed.

Yes, but was it opposed by more than three guys in a chariot saying 'Romans go home'? Did they actually have to fight their way off the ships a la the movie 'Troy'?

I would have to say most likely not since most naval actions seem to have taken place out on the water. Even if it involved a large invading army like the Persians. Not sure how much resistance the Romans would have had when they were out scouring the Mediterranean for pirates. They did have to go into the pirate lairs to hunt them down and crucify them so they couldn't set up operations again a few months later.

As for the Trojan war, I believe the Greeks had to send forth the shields and spears of war as an official declaration so they might have had a welcoming comittee waiting for them since they weren't being sneaky quite yet.

deadtorius wrote:I would have to say most likely not since most naval actions seem to have taken place out on the water. Even if it involved a large invading army like the Persians. Not sure how much resistance the Romans would have had when they were out scouring the Mediterranean for pirates. They did have to go into the pirate lairs to hunt them down and crucify them so they couldn't set up operations again a few months later.

As for the Trojan war, I believe the Greeks had to send forth the shields and spears of war as an official declaration so they might have had a welcoming comittee waiting for them since they weren't being sneaky quite yet.

That's not what happened in the movie!!!

If you cant trust hollywood who can you trust!!

I mean they did a good job with "The Patriot"

The Britons and terrain dissuaded the Romans from landing at Dover. When Caesar sailed on, the British chariots and cavalry were able to keep up with the fleet and oppose the landing. It seems fighting did occur on the shore until the Romans fought their way ashore with the help of shooting from the ships.

More here: http://forumromanum.org/literature/caes ... ic_e4.html

Julian

MARVIN_THE_ARVN wrote:If you cant trust hollywood who can you trust!!

That's my point! I'm using 'Spartacus' as a painting guide... complete with flaming logs!

MARVIN_THE_ARVN wrote: mean they did a good job with "The Patriot"

The Patriot... Braveheart... Kingdom of Heaven... Alexander... and these are some of the more educated movies

I've had this discussion elsewhere - I often wonder 'when is bending the truth ok?'

Ian

jlopez wrote:The Britons and terrain dissuaded the Romans from landing at Dover. When Caesar sailed on, the British chariots and cavalry were able to keep up with the fleet and oppose the landing. It seems fighting did occur on the shore until the Romans fought their way ashore with the help of shooting from the ships.

More here: http://forumromanum.org/literature/caes ... ic_e4.html

Julian

Hmm, interesting. So, I wonder if it's ever large enough to worry about trying to do a re-fight.

The flexible 'men per base' in FoG means that it would be simple enough to do, it would just mean trying to work out how many landing forces, how many Heavy Artillery, how many bases on a ship etc etc.

Ian

lawrenceg wrote:Caesar's first landing on Britain was opposed.

So in a sort of way was William the conquers landing. Harold had spent time waiting for it too occur after all and had side issues to deal with though. The issue at the time for Harold in the planning stages was knowing where the landing force would put to shore. It was much easier to move on sea (as long as wind and tide was the way you wanted to go) than on land in that period so being able to repulse a true large naval landing would involve luck in being at the right place at the right time. Maldon is a good example of that actually happening, but we know how that ended - so much for playing fair and letting the beachhead be established for a fair fight...


Some of Alexander's battle involved large river crossings and so might actually be better examples of fighting while storming beaches. They were not really triggered by true navies but had a large amount of fighting on the beaches etc. The Battle of the Boyne is another great example of storming the beach in British history - but that's FOGR's period. So a large river may give an opposed landing effect more than a naval invasion.

mellis1644 wrote:So a large river may give an opposed landing effect more than a naval invasion.

Yeah, I don't suppose there was much of a surprise when Caesar bridged the Rhine! It's not like he would have done that in a matter of minutes.

Ian

there were examples of river fighting...all thru roman history in gaul, spain...vs hannibal, etc...sometimes involving elements driving up river or down to cross unopposed and divert enemy...

DaiSho wrote:Hi All,

Interestingly enough I haven't really read very much about naval invasion, but I'm wondering was there very much 'defended landings' in the Ancient period a la Normandy 1944?

I'd think for the most part the sheer size of the invasion force would mean 'local resistance' would be minimal and survivors would run to the local baron who would organise a welcoming committee somewhere down the road.

Does this sound right?

If not, what house rules would work for a landing forming up for battle etc.

Ian

Ian,

Yes, there was absolutely a classic amphibious opposed landing during the period covered by FoG, complete with shore bombardment, and special purpose landing craft: The Nikephorian Byzantine invasion of Crete in 960 AD. The Byzantines sent their best general Nikephoras Phokas (for whom the list is named) to eliminate the Muslim Arab stronghold on Crete in 960AD. The Byzantine force inlcuded the classic transports escorted by warships sea power and thousands of troops, cavalry and infantry.

The Arabs knew the Byzantines were coming (too big an expedition to hide ala D-Day) and where they'd be landing (from capturing a Byzantine scouting party) and set their initial defense line at the water's edge. They were driven back to a ridge above the beach by Byzantine archers and artillery firing from the warships. Nikephoras then landed his infantry inlcuding Russ mercenaries on the beach and advanced on the Arabs. Then in another parallel to modern naval invasions he landed his armor (ed cavalry that is) fully armed and mounted directly onto the beach from specially modified transports with ramps to let the horses ride directly into battle. They hit the Arab flank and finished what the infantry attack had started routing the Arabs and securing the beachhead. The Byzantines went on to conquer the entire island in after a lengty siege fo the Arab capital.

All in all a textbook amphibious operation against opposition at the landing site. It's all in "The History of Leo the Deacon" translated by Mary Alice Talbot, still in publication.

Paul Georgian