Carthaginian Blockade of Rome in First Punic War?

Greetings, all.

I just was listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast about the First Punic War, and a thought struck me: Why didn't the Carthaginians just blockade the Romans? If the Carthaginians had better seamanship and a larger navy when the war started, why couldn't they just squeeze the Romans with their vastly superior fleets, like an Anaconda Plan, but ancient-wise. I suppose I am just wondering if that sort of economic reduction of Rome could have worked.
 
Because a navy of Triremes and Quinqueremes would most likely end up on the bottom of the Mediterranean if there was a storm and blocking ports so far away from the Carthaginian bases could end in disaster, plus the Roman economy of the time wasn't dependent on foreign exports, the Second Punic War showed that they were able to survive in horrible conditions to the economy.

Also such blockade would demand Carthage to block all of the costal cities, that were subservient to Rome and they wouldn't be able to do it and engage on the War in Sicily at the same time. Their historical strategy of engaging in naval warfare in Sicily was the logical option at the time, that way they had access to closer naval bases in which to resupply their fleets, what they didn't expect was for Rome to build so many ships so fast and to adapt the way they did to naval warfare.
 
Partly because warships at the time lacked the endurance carrying water for the crew for perhaps three days at most and partly because most Roman needs came down the Tiber. Blockades tended to only work if you had a base right on top of the port being blockaded and even then they were problematic like the Romans blockading the Carthaginians at Lilybaeum and the Tarentines blockading the Romans at...erm Tarentum (today Taranto). In both cases the blockade was not exactly what one might call watertight.

In case you are interested Polybius left us a rather detailed account of the former which begins at about p119 of Book II of his histories which is handily presented on line here.

Also fleets were very vulnerable to storms...with both sides losing several fleets let alone individual ships to bad weather.
 
RodentRevolution and Karolus Rex summed up all the major points: limited endurance of galleys in that era; lack of suitable bases; Roman reliance on land-based supplies; and vulnerability to weather.

I'll add a refinement to one of his points: the need for a close blockade that can intercept ships in a timely fashion. Those few instances we have of such blockades are usually of a tactical variety. i.e., they are assisting in the siege/blockade of a specific coastal city, helping to starve it out. The idea of a strategic blockade, like OP is describing, simply would have been beyond the capabilities of the combatants in that era.
 
Thanks for the informative replies! Especially RodentRevolution for the awesome link.

So, apparently a major blockading action seems out of the question. I am just bewildered that the Carthaginians weren't more successful in blockades on a more limited basis, given their larger navy (at the beginning of the war at least) and the fact that the Romans were clueless as seamen (at the beginning, again).

But thanks for the help--I'm considering writing a TL about Carthaginian expansion into Magna Graecia with a POD of defeating Pyrrhus handily, shifting the First Punic War into a more offensive one for the Carthaginians which would require some siegecraft and blockading. This helps flesh things out at least on that front.
 
Top