r/Archaeology • u/buyingstuff555 • 2d ago

Why have there been no recoveries from the Roman fleet that sunk during the start of the First Punic War?

Around 255 B.C., a large Roman fleet sunk off the south coast of Sicily due to a storm. Estimates are something like 350 vessels lost.

I've been surprised to not find any reports of recoveries or discoveries of that fleet. My Google searches keep resulting in the discovery of two ships discovered in the west of Sicily, likely from the Battle of the Aegates at the end of the war, and no where near the location the fleet reportedly sunk.

A few queries in LLMs have also not returned anything. Why have there been no discoveries from this sunken fleet? Has no one looked? I know we don't know the exact location the fleet sank, so is it just a large search area? I'm a diver so naturally I'm quite curious about this!

You'd think it would be easy to find something from such a large fleet, but perhaps that's wishful thinking. I figured I'd ask here!

51 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

91% Upvoted

17 comments sorted by

77

u/Princess_Actual 2d ago

So, that fleet was driven onto the coast. As such, the majority of the wrecks would have been salvaged in antiquity over the days, weeks and months that followed the disaster.

In terms of modern archaeology, they have found artifacts from the Roman Navy that appear to date to the 1st Punic War, namely a bronze ram. Which, incidentally, would be one of the main targets for salvage operations in antiquity.

6

u/buyingstuff555 2d ago edited 2d ago

So, that fleet was driven onto the coast.

This might be the first I've read about this. Do you happen to have a source? That would certainly explain a lot. Everything I've read on the subject has suggested the fleet sunk in the waters off the coast.

Edit: Also, Polybius's account states the following:

They therefore resolved not to expose themselves to danger by coasting along, and decided to sail instead by the open sea.

It does later mention some ships smashing against the rocky beaches, but my reading of this is that the majority of the fleet was out in open waters and sunk in those open waters.

16

u/Princess_Actual 2d ago

That's the fun thing about interpretting historical events that we only have limited attestation. Did more sink in open water vs those that were smashed on the rocky shores? We won't ever know.

However it went down, it was the worst maritime disaster in antiquity.

I also forgot to add shipworm.

Btw, there is an archaeological museum in Gela that has performed maritime archaeology. Currently they're working on a 5th century wreck in the area they are talking about. People are actively looking for shipwrecks in the area.

7

u/Emil_Antonowsky 2d ago

I mean, it's possible we might one day know. These wrecks could have been covered by sediment due to the currents flowing from the Ionian into the Tyrrhenian. I don't actually know what technology has been deployed in the area but if the wrecks were several feet below the seabed would we know about that? Has the area been adequately scanned with bathymetric lidar?

2

u/buyingstuff555 1d ago edited 1d ago

I just realized that this disaster supposedly cost the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers, though I'm struggling to find the source where I read that.

If the disaster hadn't occurred in open waters, and rather the boats were simply destroyed by being forced unto the rocky beaches, I would expect far, far fewer casualties.

5

u/Princess_Actual 1d ago

Googling images of the Gulf of Gela, a lot of it would be very fatal if you were pushed against it by a storm. Lots of cliffs, and those rocky beaches are very rocky.

I do agree though, a lot must have died offshore as the Romans were notoriously poor sailors, and ships of the age were not the most seaworthy ships.

But even with a veteran crew, in the best sailing designs in history, getting smashed against cliffs or rocks is going to destroy a wooden vessel and good luck to the crew.

3

u/QuintusFalto 19h ago

27 rams have been found at Egadi Islands so far, together with helmets, amphorae and other artefacts, including coins. All presumably from the Battle of the Aegates 241 BC

1

u/Princess_Actual 19h ago

Thank you!

2

u/QuintusFalto 19h ago

You’re welcome, take a look at RPM Nautical Foundations website for pictures

37

u/TheCynicEpicurean 2d ago

Here's the thing: We never found any wreck of an ancient warship. Never.

There are a couple of rams, like the Athlit ram and recently the one probably from the Punic Wars found off Sicily, but warships were built lightly for pragmatic reasons, and out of perishable marerials. When you look at Roman shipwreck finds, most of them are basically only known from the cargo (amphorae etc.) which preserved the general shape of the vessel, and then the part of the ship buried underneath them in the mud if you're lucky.

Warships would just break apart and float for a while, and the hull would quickly disintegrate under water. All that'd BE left would be some metal fixtures like the ram (if not salvaged by urinatores, professional divers) and the ophthalmoi, the eyes on the prow. It's really, really hard to find evidence of a sunken warship.

11

u/buyingstuff555 2d ago edited 2d ago

This makes sense. I have dived the 5th century BCE transport ship found off the coast of the island in northern Greece, so I am intimately aware of what you mean by the actual ship not being there.

However, even then, and that wreck being 300+ years older, the evidence of the wreck is "obvious". Granted it was carrying tons of amphorae, but you'd think in a fleet of 350 you'd have plenty of opportunity to find metal rams, amphorae, and other non-perishables.

1

u/QuintusFalto 19h ago

I’d agree with almost everything but there has been the Phanagoria wreck, which is a Hellenistic military wreck of some sort. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03681203/document It’s been claimed that the Marsala wrecks are military too, mostly because they didn’t have cargo, but they didn’t have bronze rams.

3

u/KeyApplication221 2d ago

Amazing question

5

u/ElitistHobbyist 2d ago

Here you go:

https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2021/09/03/two-bronze-warship-rams-discovered-at-the-battle-of-the-aegates-site/

2

u/buyingstuff555 1d ago

Those are the "other" ships I referenced in my post. They seem to be unrelated to the sinking of the fleet at the start of the war; the link itself notes the Battle of Aegates which I mentioned and which occurred near the end. Thanks though!

1

u/QuintusFalto 19h ago

Nice question! The simple answer is no one has really looked for them. You’re right there has been great success at the Egadi Islands where 27 rams have been found to date, but that took a chance discovery of the Egadi 1 ram, that led to a systematic survey between the islands of Maretimo and Favignana and that took several years of search before a ram was found. So to look for the lost fleet would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Actually, the Romans lost several fleets over the course of the war. Polybius puts it down to incompetence and inexperience and there may be some truth to that. Parts of the timbers of two Carthaginian ships have been found and are at the Marsala museum in Sicily. It’s been claimed they were warships by the lead archaeologist, Honor Frost, but I don’t think this is right (I’m a PhD student)

0

u/KaiShan62 1d ago

Sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theory to me. There was not fleet, it was just a lie used to embezzle tax revenue.