I've been pondering Nick Harbud's article 'We set sails and hauled our oars.' (Cracking article and fascinating reading.)
But one thing I was wondering, has anybody got standard crew figures/marine figures for Quadriremes? What I've managed to find seems to indicate a very similar crew to Triremes but a lot more marines
I don't think there is any ancient numerical evidence for the marine compliments of quadriremes. I'm guessing that Jim has probably read William Murray's 2012 monograph "The Age of Titans", Oxford University Press. My impression is that Murray is the expert in matters polyreme.
For the benefit of those without access to Murray, he says on pages 53-54 (my emphasis):
"Because "fours" were utilized in most of the major fleets, a fair amount of evidence survives regarding their chronological development, performance characteristics, and use by various naval commanders. Although we might logically expect "fours" to be the least expensive of the "larger" classes to build and deploy, there is no evidence to support Morrison's claim that "fours" were cheaper to build and man than were "threes." Athenian inscriptions that published the city's naval assets during the fourth century show clearly that when trierarchs of "fours" reimbursed the state for ship's gear, they paid 50% more than did trierarchs of "threes." Surely this refl ects the greater costs associated with "fours," at least in fourth century Athens.30 From values preserved in these same lists, one can also see that this class had double-manned oars. Morrison was the fi rst to notice this fact, although I believe we can refi ne his calculations slightly.31 In 325/4 BCE, the Epimeletai ton Neorion , or board of ten who oversaw the naval yards, received 415 drachmai for a set of oars from a "four" that were characterized as "unfinished" or "rough" ( tarrou argou ). Many years earlier during the Peloponnesian War (in 411), a rough-hewn spar for a trireme oar ( kopeus ) was apparently worth 5 drachmai. Although we must use prices that are separated by almost nine decades for two different commodities (oar spars for "threes" and for "fours"), we can still get a general idea of the relative numbers involved. The money received for the unfinished oars of a "four" would purchase roughly 83 units if they cost 5 drachmai a piece. Even if we are off by a variance of 25% to account for the imprecise nature of our evidence, our calculations still indicate a relatively low number of oars for a "four" (roughly 40 to 50 per side) when compared to a "three," whose tarros , or full set, numbered 170 (85 per side). Since a full set of oars for a "four" must have numbered between 80 and 100 units, and since we know the ship could keep pace with "fives" and "threes" in fleet maneuvers, the oars must have been double manned.32 If so, the oarcrew of an Athenian "four," at 160–200 men, would have roughly equaled that on a "three" of the same period (170 men). It seems likely, then, that a "four" cost as much to man as did a "three." No savings here. And finally, since we suspect that "fours" normally carried more deck soldiers than did "threes" among the full crew, Morrison's conclusion that this class was more economical to run than "threes" must be incorrect.
In general, ancient references to "fours" imply they were heavier than "threes" and were considered to be an upgrade in size. Both "fours" and "fives" were expected to defeat "threes" in prow-to-prow ramming attacks, but when "fours" challenged "fives" in a similar way, "fours" were normally expected to lose. This is why Rhodian "fours" rigged fire pots at their prows to deter attacks on their bows from larger vessels.33"
Presumably, were there any more precise data available, particularly for deck crew and marines, Murray would have cited it. I imagine the exact compliment could vary, perhaps considerably, across time, place and circumstance.
Adrian.
"Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World" - Lionel Casson, page 306-309, list 7 officers, 6 ratings, 10 seamen, at least 2 catapult operators, at least 6 archers, and at least 19 marines. It doesn't provide the number of rowers, but given estimates from other sources that number is probably close to that for triremes.
edit: sorry those numbers are for a Rhodian ship in the hellenistic period.
Thanks for that Adrian, I've seen mentions to Murray, and indeed seen quotes from it, but I've struggled to find a copy because I don't have any academic log ins
Jim,
An extract of Murray, including the section I quoted, is available on his academia.edu page here:
https://www.academia.edu/4452872/Frontal_Ramming_Structural_Considerations
Its not the whole book but perhaps it may help decide whether you want to try and obtain one. It is still in print and the paperback is about £35. Of course you may not be that interested!
Adrian.
Thanks for that, useful
I confess that it's a bit marginal. If I saw it in a second hand shop for a tenner or even fifteen, I'd probably snap it up 8)
Cheapskate, me? ;)
;D
You might want to read John Coates's paper
"Carrying Troops In Triremes". This turns the problem on its head. Rather than starting from the point of view that you have a working quad and you are wondering how many oarsmen and marines you can fit into it, he looks at the vessel design required to carry different payloads of marines. He concludes that a payload of up to 50 marines can be accommodated within a trireme design, although it requires girdling of the hull with extra planking. However, carrying an extra 100 marines needs the hull to be widened. This cannot be achieved with a 3-bank trireme oar arrangement due to outriggers scraping on the sides of the ship shed. Hence, one needs to go to a 2-bank design without outriggers.
Assigning an extra man to each oar is necessary in order to maintain performance with all the additional mass and wetted hull area. As noted in my article, there is no business case for a larger vessel if it can be easily outmanoeuvred and outperformed by conventional trireme opposition. No one has yet experimented with relative performance of 4 men pulling two oars versus 3 men pulling 3 oars. However, it is certainly better than 3 men pulling two oars. Therefore, the quad's contingent of oarsmen was almost certainly larger than that of a trireme.
In any event, there is no suggestion that moving to the double-manned oars reduces the number of oars that can be fitted lengthwise in a galley. That is, 60 oars/bank. A trireme has 180 oarsmen and therefore a quad would have something like 240.
The table below gives some idea of the numbers one could have in an Olympias trireme, a girdled trireme and a quad.
Marines | Vessel | Oarsmen | Mass(te) |
20 | Olympias Trireme | 180 | 44 |
50 | Girdled Trireme | 180 | 50.3 |
120 | Quadrireme | 240 | 60 |
One further consideration is the total number of men and logistic support required for the larger vessels. A fleet of 50 conventional triremes requires approximately 10,000 men to be fully manned whereas a fleet of girdled triremes needs only slightly more (11,500). However, a similar size quadrireme fleet containing six times as many marines needs 18,000 men. This is a significant number of bodies to feed and water.
8)
I've read Coate's contribution to the Olympias Report where he (or somebody) mentions the undergirding and the problem with ship sheds etc, and the swapping to two men per oar and two banks of oars as a solution.
I've not seen the specific paper, every body cites it, nobody publishes it ::)
I wondered about the 120 marines on the quadrireme which is pretty much the same as on the quinquereme?
Quote from: Nick Harbud on September 05, 2024, 12:13:58 PMYou might want to read John Coates's paper "Carrying Troops In Triremes".
Nick, I don't recall seeing this paper and my Googlefu has so far failed me. Can you cite the full reference please?
Adrian.
This paper is published in 'The Trireme Project: Operational Experience 1987-90 Lessons Learnt', T. Shaw (Ed), 1993, ISBN 0-946897-58-1.
Copies are available on Amazon (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trireme-Project-Operational-Experience-Archaeology/dp/0946897581/ref=sr_1_1?crid=18O3UDTXH175D&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.6riaWbyvBh17RmW22dQwrw.bryNI2YEUbMm0IBL9K4o3_5bs8__w5J_lEZJwyXS_ww&dib_tag=se&keywords=The+Trireme+Project%3A+Operational+Experience&qid=1725539152&sprefix=the+trireme+project+operational+experience%2Caps%2C76&sr=8-1) at an eye-watering price. I was fortunate to pick up my copy for £8 at a second hand bookshop, back in the days when they had such things.
It may also be available on Academia or similar learned paper website. However, I have not delved into that option.
Wow! A thirty-second response time Nick. Fantastic!
Though maybe our posts crossed in the ether? Whatever, thanks very much.
Adrian.
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 05, 2024, 01:07:27 PMI wondered about the 120 marines on the quadrireme which is pretty much the same as on the quinquereme?
Well, yes. If any discussion on quads is an exercise in speculation, then for quins it must be doubly so. However, there are a few boundaries that one can put on things.
- The length of galleys was generally limited by what can be practically achieved with the keel and was much the same for triremes, quads and quins. Height of the hull is limited by stability and is also rather limited. Therefore the only way to increase the number of oarsmen is to increase the beam, which is constrained by the size of the ship sheds.
- Coates's view is that the size of ship is driven by the weight of marines, artillery, towers, etc, rather than deck space limitations. For design purposes, 10 marines = 1 tonne of equipment.
- Increasing the number of marines/vessel can have a major impact on the overall manning for the fleet and its logistical requirements. Unlike windjammers, galleys could not carry large amounts of stores.
- If you cannot find enough marines, you can improve the chances of the ones you have by adding towers, artillery, a corvus, etc, to give them an edge in boarding.
- The oar arrangement is generally thought to be either 3-2 or 2-2-1. The latter involves 3 oar banks, which would require outriggers that could not fit into the ship sheds. Therefore, I prefer the 3-2 arrangement of oars in two banks as most practical. As with the quad, no one has conducted any research on the efficiency of this arrangement, but 5 men pulling 2 oars is certainly better than 4 or 3 men in any other arrangement. This means that the quin might have up to 300 oarsmen.
It could be that the quin was a very similar size to the quad and had an identical marine contingent with the extra oarsmen being fitted into the hull through clever interior design. In which case, the extra oarsmen would probably give it the edge in manoeuvrability over the quad.
Then again, it may have needed to be wider than the quad, but not so much that it would not fit into the ship sheds. In any event, it would appear that, overall, it was considered a superior vessel. If this was not the case, it would not have replaced the quad and trireme as the main style of warship.
???
Interesting about ship sheds
Whilst the Piraeus has rather narrow (under 5.5m) nearer 6m appears to be more standard, even in Carthage had at least two that were 7.1 and 8m wide
Also on Rhodes (Empoiro) there were some 8.5m to 9m and 9.5m to 10m Roman Shipsheds by David Blackman
But the narrow (5.5m to 6m) appear to be the standard
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 05, 2024, 05:02:27 PMInteresting about ship sheds
Whilst the Piraeus has rather narrow (under 5.5m) nearer 6m appears to be more standard, even in Carthage had at least two that were 7.1 and 8m wide
Also on Rhodes (Empoiro) there were some 8.5m to 9m and 9.5m to 10m Roman Shipsheds by David Blackman
But the narrow (5.5m to 6m) appear to be the standard
And of course, Athens' naval peak had passed by the time the quadrireme and quinquereme came along. It is possible that legacy infrastructure limited scope for adoption - for a modern period equivalent, the French Navy was seriously hampered for decades in its designs for capital ships in the late 19th and early 20th centuries because they had fallen seriously behind the UK and Germany in terms of naval infrastructure, and money spent on modernising infrastructure was money unavailable for ships.
Quote from: DBS on September 05, 2024, 06:31:08 PMQuote from: Jim Webster on September 05, 2024, 05:02:27 PMInteresting about ship sheds
Whilst the Piraeus has rather narrow (under 5.5m) nearer 6m appears to be more standard, even in Carthage had at least two that were 7.1 and 8m wide
Also on Rhodes (Empoiro) there were some 8.5m to 9m and 9.5m to 10m Roman Shipsheds by David Blackman
But the narrow (5.5m to 6m) appear to be the standard
And of course, Athens' naval peak had passed by the time the quadrireme and quinquereme came along. It is possible that legacy infrastructure limited scope for adoption - for a modern period equivalent, the French Navy was seriously hampered for decades in its designs for capital ships in the late 19th and early 20th centuries because they had fallen seriously behind the UK and Germany in terms of naval infrastructure, and money spent on modernising infrastructure was money unavailable for ships.
Just been pondering.
We have examples of rams from memorials where it's possible to get some idea of ram size by the stonework left behind.
But almost by definition these were selected to be spectacular.
Rams found at sea, especially those from Carthaginian and Roman battle sites are 'more random'.
And an awful of of those seem to be Quadriremes.
The other guide to the size of ships is ship sheds.
The vast majority of these are geared up to triremes, but it is postulated (and I agree with it) that Quadriremes could fit in the same ship shed. Indeed due to the capital invested there is an obvious pressure to make the new warship (Quadrireme) fit the same ship shed.
Now Polybius for one states that the Romans built Quinqueremes (in vast numbers). Firstly do we find many larger rams on battle sites? And if quinqueremes were so much better than Quadriremes and Triremes then either the Romans were genuinely inept, or the Carthaginians had a lot of Quinqueremes as well, but wintered them outside because they didn't have the ship sheds for them. (Or there were ship sheds we haven't found, but I cannot imagine us missing a hundred or more)
Or Quinqueremes would also fit inside the same ship sheds? Two banks of oars, two men on the bottom ones, three men on the top?
Then the handful of much larger ship sheds were for the occasional really large ship, or alternatively they were handy for building ships under cover because it gave people room to work.
Whilst once again emphasising the dangers in extrapolating from later periods back some eighteen or nineteen centuries, I am minded that it was certainly possible for 16th century Mediterranean galleys to increase the number of oarsmen squeezed onto a bench when using multiple rowers per oar. Don Garcia de Toledo in the 1560s recommended trying to find an extra 20 oarsmen for standard Spanish "triremes" which normally had a rowing gang of some 164. He had two reasons - one was redundancy for sick or injured rowers during a campaign, the other was that a squadron commander could temporarily strip out the extra men to man selected galleys rowing four by four instead of three by three, especially if there was a need for a fast or higher endurance detachment.
I simply wonder whether there was any such latitude in ancient designs? Was a quadrireme always a quadrireme, or sometimes a trireme when short of men, or potentially a quinquereme when the manpower could be found? Renaissance galleys started with three oarsmen all pulling individual oars, but by the time of Lepanto had moved to multiple oarsmen on a single oar. As Guilmartin points out, the Venetians (who had the best oarsmen and the fastest galleys) were the last to adopt this method, but the Spanish and to some extent the Ottomans did so more readily as it needed only one good rower per oar, to control the stroke, and facilitated the use of slaves or pressed men in the rowing gangs. Notwithstanding the famous story of the 1st Punic Romans practising their rowing ashore, one wonders whether such considerations favoured the reported selection of the quinquereme as the main design, rather than an inherent superiority?
Just to follow up David's point, triremes did move with just one bank of oarsmen (top bank I think) when the boats just needed to be moved.
When galleys were being used as transports, for infantry or for horses, they seem to have reduced the number of men rowing to make room
Horse transports might be modified triremes or specially built vessels.
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 05, 2024, 06:59:54 PMNow Polybius for one states that the Romans built Quinqueremes (in vast numbers). Firstly do we find many larger rams on battle sites? And if quinqueremes were so much better than Quadriremes and Triremes then either the Romans were genuinely inept, or the Carthaginians had a lot of Quinqueremes as well, but wintered them outside because they didn't have the ship sheds for them.
According to most historians, the Romans
were pretty inept when it came to building warships. Indeed, they only got better once they started copying captured Carthaginian vessels.
Ship sheds and other naval infrastructure were vital if one wanted to continue having a navy. Every hour spent in the water tended to damage the galleys. Firstly, the wood absorbed water that made the whole vessel heavier and less manoeuvrable. Hauling the ship out of water allowed the wood to dry out. Secondly, until the use of copper to sheath hull bottoms, all wooden ships in salt water suffered attack by shipworms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teredo_navalis). Hauling the ship out of water does not kill the worms, but does slow down the damage.
8)
Quote from: Nick Harbud on September 06, 2024, 09:40:37 AMQuote from: Jim Webster on September 05, 2024, 06:59:54 PMNow Polybius for one states that the Romans built Quinqueremes (in vast numbers). Firstly do we find many larger rams on battle sites? And if quinqueremes were so much better than Quadriremes and Triremes then either the Romans were genuinely inept, or the Carthaginians had a lot of Quinqueremes as well, but wintered them outside because they didn't have the ship sheds for them.
According to most historians, the Romans were pretty inept when it came to building warships. Indeed, they only got better once they started copying captured Carthaginian vessels.
Ship sheds and other naval infrastructure were vital if one wanted to continue having a navy. Every hour spent in the water tended to damage the galleys. Firstly, the wood absorbed water that made the whole vessel heavier and less manoeuvrable. Hauling the ship out of water allowed the wood to dry out. Secondly, until the use of copper to sheath hull bottoms, all wooden ships in salt water suffered attack by shipworms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teredo_navalis). Hauling the ship out of water does not kill the worms, but does slow down the damage.
8)
Apparently it was thought that the weight of copper sheathing was too big a disadvantage, but pitch was applied liberally instead. Drying out over winter would allow the hull to be cleaned, damaged planks removed and a fresh coat of pitch to be applied, to dry wood. So I agree that ship sheds are vital to the state with serious naval ambitions.
That's why I'm beginning to wonder if Quinqueremes could fit in a standard ship shed? :-\
Quote from: DBS on September 05, 2024, 09:18:51 PMWas a quadrireme always a quadrireme, or sometimes a trireme when short of men, or potentially a quinquereme when the manpower could be found?
Certainly, looking at some of the Athenian records from the Lamian War, a period of transition to heavier ships, the Athenians are quite clear they have triremes and quadriremes, not a hybrid form. They seem to keep a much larger proportion of their quadrireme fleet "at sea" (which seems to mean on operations as opposed to in the sheds, rather than literally floating) than the triremes. Presumably, they crewed these as a priority, then the best of their triremes and left the rest in reserve or under repair.
I would suggest that quins could fit in a standard ship shed, but it might depend upon what one considers to be standard. To determine the limitations in this area, it might be best to consult with an architect regarding longest practical spans for ancient wooden roofs. I mean modern roof truss design can easily span 18m, but ancient designs may have been more limited. The hammer beam roof in Westminster Hall is nearly 21m. Alternatively, simply hauling the boats onto dry land might be acceptable.
Of course, what happened with the larger polyremes is another matter, but there were relatively few of these. However, the location of large ship sheds could have been a factor in their deployment. To take a 20th century example, the objective of the World War 2 raid on St Nazaire was to disable the Normandie dry dock, which was the only one on the Atlantic seaboard capable of taking the largest German warships.
Roof span is interesting https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353021946_Large_span_timber_roofs_in_Italy_between_the_16th_and_19th_centuries
"The trusses of the central nave of S. Domenico, erected a century later, in 1727, follow the Palladian scheme, with a span of approximately 16 meters (Figure 6). In this case the builders decided to reduce the span by means of masonry corbels.
Actually looking at this, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364755111_Historic_timber_roofs_in_Belgium_overview_of_materials_and_structures_1150-1960 to roof might contain more timbers than the ship you haul under it 8)
The Wiki is interesting giving ancient examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Greek_and_Roman_roofs
I don't think architecture was going to limit the size of ship sheds as such.
I did wonder about just hauling them out onto a beach. There are issues. By definition galleys are designed to do this. So that isn't a problem.
The problems are when it comes to working. In a ship shed you can work on both sides simultaneously, whereas with galleys pulled up onto a beach unless you're spending a lot of time and money on props, you'll have to just to one side, let the pitch dry, then roll her over onto the other side. So it'll take a lot more space.
Working conditions would not be as good
Also security. Historically these places were walled off and guarded, if only because you have large amounts of pitch soaked dry timber in one place.
At the back end of the 16th century, the Venetians maintained in commission a fleet of about 29 galleys, divided into small regional squadrons, and of these about four or five would be laid up for repair at any one time. They could very rapidly expand this force from new build or galleys held in reserve - at Lepanto they fielded some 106 from Venice proper and their satellites - but I suspect these reserve ships were the main beneficiaries of sheds.
The other big question that I have never seen properly addressed for ancient fleets is food. 16th century galley fleets lived off biscuit, as the only thing that could survive being kept on sodden ships. The Venetians and Ottomans each had a very senior official who was the Superintendent of the Biscuit. The Spanish did not, but concessions on grain often formed an important part of the contracts they let with mercenary squadrons such as the Genoese Dorias.
Now, I have never seen any discussion of whether biscuit as such was available to ancient navies, but if not, it begs the question what did they take to sea? If one looks at some of the great ancient naval powers, they tended to have a good supply of grain - Carthage certainly did, the Ptolemies (incl Antony and Cleo) certainly did, Sextus Pompeius when running out of Sicily probably did (the Spanish in 1564 eventually combined the posts of Captain General of the Sea and Viceroy of Sicily as the latter was of critical economic importance to the fleet). The Athenians did not have such grain security, but then we are told that they were paranoid about their grain supplies from the Black Sea. It is usually assumed that this was to feed Athens, but perhaps also was essential for the maintenance of the fleet at its imperial peak? Of course, biscuit requires not just grain but also ovens: these were the two big concerns of the Venetian and Ottoman officials...
Hard tack
Quote from: Imperial Dave on September 06, 2024, 02:27:38 PMHard tack
Absolutely. Ever had the joy of eating Biscuits AB? Still in UK military ration packs, but essentially the same thing as ships' biscuit minus the added protein of the weevils. I am four decades out of date, but certainly we still had large sealed tins of Biscuit AB on ships in the 1980s as emergency rations; in best RN style, when our emergency tins finally passed their ten year expiry date, we were expected to eat them for several days rather than be allowed simply to bin them. The mark of a veteran soldier was his expertise in making them vaguely palatable... some of my army mates even liked them, perverts.
Quote from: Imperial Dave on September 06, 2024, 02:27:38 PMHard tack
Bucellatum is the Roman word, I think. Certainly available to the army and presumably to the fleet. Don't know about Greeks.
Virtually indestructible or spoilable...but also hard to eat
given the amount of time Greek galley crews seem to spend foraging it does strike me that some participants didn't plan this too well
From what I've been told/read the sensible way to eat hard tack is to break it up in fresh water and cook it as a porridge rather than try and eat the biscuit
Certainly for armies in the Hellenic and Hellenistic period you hear more of distributing flour or grain (and men having access to mills) rather than issuing hard tack
Just going back to fitting ships into ship sheds. Having a third bank of oars meant that the trireme had its top row of oarsmen working from outriggers which overhung the hull by a couple of feet on either side
So Olympias had a beam of 5.5m which was at the outrigger
There is a discussion if the Olympias final report, The Dimensions of the Ancient Trireme: and it points out that the ship sheds excavated were designed to be pretty 'snug' as the last thing they wanted is the ship toppling and damaging itself.
If the quadriremes and quinqueremes didn't have outriggers (only two banks of oars) then they could have a wider hull than a trireme but still fit into the ship shed.
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 06, 2024, 07:35:38 PMIf the quadriremes and quinqueremes didn't have outriggers (only two banks of oars) then they could have a wider hull than a trireme but still fit into the ship shed.
One problem with this is that Hellenistic, Punic and Roman ships are often shown in art as having outriggers. It is possible that art only tends to show triremes and other smaller vessels and the larger ships are not illustrated but it doesn't seem likely. So, perhaps early outrigger-less types existed to fit in existing trireme sheds but not sure one can assume that that was the norm later.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 07, 2024, 01:05:32 PMOne problem with this is that Hellenistic, Punic and Roman ships are often shown in art as having outriggers.
Artists are generally neither naval architects not professional oarsmen. So what do they know?
Certainly there were earlier triaconters, penteconters and biremes that lacked an outrigger, but this is to be expected as it is only required when one has three oarbanks. The arguments for galleys with three oarbanks requiring an outrigger are detailed in Morrison & Coates
'The Athenian Trireme'.
I feel that this is one of those cases where those arguing something different really have no idea of the practicalities.
Quote from: Nick Harbud on September 07, 2024, 02:02:50 PMArtists are generally neither naval architects not professional oarsmen. So what do they know?
Well, they did have the advantage of living in the same world as the real life prototypes, whereas we don't. And it is an odd shift to say that art of the trireme era was sufficiently accurate that we can base reconstructions on it but after that it was fantasy.
Anthony, your arguement sounds very 1960s, if not a little Watersonian. I mean, simply considering various artistic representations, one can come up with several different oar arrangements. R.C. Anderson 'Oared Fighting Ships', published in 1962, describes many of them. However, as Coates points out, although several different interpretations of the ancient archaeological, artistic and literary evidence are possible, in nearly all cases there is only a single practical solution.
For galleys with three oarbanks, the practical solution requires an outrigger. If you believe quads, quins and larger polyremes had an outrigger, you have to find evidence of larger ship sheds or other facilities to maintain them. Otherwise, to meet the requirements of a wider hull in the same size ship shed, you have to dispense with the outrigger and use two oarbanks.
Quote from: Nick Harbud on September 07, 2024, 04:52:36 PMAnthony, your arguement sounds very 1960s, if not a little Watersonian.
I am not in the slightest convinced by this line of argument. Firstly, Patrick's view on ancient ships from quads upwards can be seen elsewhere on this forum. He clung stubbornly to the Victorian notion that the number of oar banks equalled the number of levels of oars, and there was never more than one man per oar. I, however, am simply talking about a current mainstream view (not 60s) that possible constructions of quadriremes and quinqueremes used out riggers in at least some designs. Otherwise we must account for the evidence. A great many (hundreds) of ancient imagines of warships on coins, sculptures, paintings show ships with outriggers. This is especially true for the Hellenistic and Republican Roman periods. There are some ways in which your argument can be squared with the evidence, which I've hinted at above e.g.
1. it was conventional across the Mediterranean only to show smaller warships in art. So what we are seeing a triremes and smaller with outriggers and we lack the non-outrigger fours, fives and above which made up the main-line warships pretending to be their bigger cousins. Thus the Isola Tiberina ship would not be a life size quinquereme but a super-sized trireme, which would also explain why it is too big for the Egadi rams.
2. Another explanation might be most ships remained triremes and the ancient historians exaggerated the role of other types (Patrick really would disagree with that).
3. we have got the wrong end of the stick and fours and fives were trireme-like in size and appearance and the Egadi rams really are from fours and fives.
To me, the most straightforward explanation is the mainstream one - at least some of the art does represent fours and fives or bigger, that at least some of these vessels were outrigger equipped and some were on three levels, and that the size of the Egadi rams remains a mystery.
With regard to outriggers it is a fair point
A quick google turned up the following from that source of all madness, Wiki
Based on iconographic evidence from coins, Morrison and Coates have determined that the Punic triremes in the 5th and early 4th centuries BC were largely similar to their Greek counterparts, most likely including an outrigger.[22] From the mid-4th century, however, at about the time the quinquereme was introduced in Phoenicia, there is evidence of ships without outriggers. This would have necessitated a different oar arrangement, with the middle level placed more inwards, as well as a different construction of the hull, with side-decks attached to it. From the middle of the 3rd century BC onwards, Carthaginian "fives" display a separate "oar box" that contained the rowers and that was attached to the main hull. This development of the earlier model entailed further modifications, meaning that the rowers would be located above deck, and essentially on the same level.[23][24] This would allow the hull to be strengthened, and have increased carrying capacity in consumable supplies, as well as improve the ventilation conditions of the rowers, an especially important factor in maintaining their stamina, and thereby improving the ship's maintainable speed.[25] It is unclear however whether this design was applied to heavier warships, and although the Romans copied the Punic model for their quinqueremes, there is ample iconographic evidence of outrigger-equipped warships used until the late imperial period.
But it does give a source,
Coates, John F. (1995). "The Naval Architecture and Oar Systems of Ancient Galleys". In Morrison, John S.; Gardiner, Robert (eds.). The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times. London: Conway Maritime Press. pp. 127–141. ISBN 0-85177-554-3.
Having discovered this is available from Oxfam for £16 I decided to invest 8)
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 07, 2024, 07:54:42 PMHaving discovered this is available from Oxfam for £16 I decided to invest
It's a good book and it covers more than just classical stuff - there's a lot on medieval ships too.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 07, 2024, 11:03:27 PMQuote from: Jim Webster on September 07, 2024, 07:54:42 PMHaving discovered this is available from Oxfam for £16 I decided to invest
It's a good book and it covers more than just classical stuff - there's a lot on medieval ships too.
Yes I decided given the names involved it was worth going for a longer view 8)
Could the outriggers have been removable for storage in a shed?
Quote from: Cantabrigian on September 08, 2024, 11:09:59 AMCould the outriggers have been removable for storage in a shed?
I suspect not. They seem to be an integral part of the ships structure. I suspect they must be to support the forces involved.
We're perhaps assuming one design here.
Take Athens or Carthage (or other established naval powers.)
They would have a large number of ships stored in the ship sheds. At the start of the campaigning season (or in case of need) a set number of ships would be fitted out and launched. So a fleet of sixty ships might be sent, but over a hundred more could be left safe, dry, and available, in the ship sheds.
For a high proportion of the time most ships would spend most of their time in the sheds, available if needed.
So when a new ship type came along, quadriremes or quinqueremes, it was of great importance that they too would fit in the sheds. So when Carthage or Athens got the idea of quadriremes, somebody was out with a tape measure making sure they'd fit.
For Carthage, the introduction of quinqueremes was probably similar, fitting into the sheds, if possible, was important. So we get quinqueremes without outriggers. They fit.
But then the Romans start getting serious about naval developments. If they want to know about quinqueremes then they don't need Carthage, they've got their ally Syracuse or their ally Tarentum, who understand ship design and building.
Rome has had small fleets, some of the ships might have been theirs, but they were probably allied ships and allied ship sheds. Rome doesn't have a huge capital investment in columns and fancy stonework
So when they decide to build ships, they just build a ridiculous number of quinqueremes (probably, but the evidence of lost rams indicates that they might not even have been a majority type)
They can build them any damn width they like, because there are no ship sheds, and having your upper oarsmen in an outrigger might have advantages it that they get more fresh air so might be more efficient.
Obviously when the fleet sailed somebody could turn to the architect and ask, "So now should we build some ship sheds?"
The answer was probably along the lines of, "Do you think he'll fetch any home?"
With Roman strategy, and fleets constantly at war, pretty much every ship they had was at sea. There was no reserve tucked away safely in case it was needed. It was always needed.
I suspect the attitude was along the lines of, "If he fetches any home, we can haul them up on the beach and winter them there, service them, replace stuff, and build some more so we have a fleet to send out next spring."
I wonder how many Roman ships (or even Carthaginian ships) during the first Punic war were old enough to have been worried by ship worm? Both sides were burning through them so quickly.
Once the war is over and things have settled down, then you could contemplate putting up a few ship sheds, but you've already got the ships so you can build the sheds to fit if you want any.
Let us not forget that the motivation for building quads and quins with their wider hulls had nothing to do with accommodating extra oarsmen, but everything to do with a need for a stable vessel that could transport 120 marines (or an equivalent mass of equipment) on its deck and have a similar manoeuvrabilty to existing triremes. They could not be trireme size and achieve this objective.
Now supposing one asked two separate shipwrights to come up with designs that met these specifications for a larger vessel. One develops a ship without an outrigger that can use existing shipsheds, whilst the other develops a design with outriggers that requires new shipsheds to be built. Bearing in mind that the shipsheds cost more than the ships to build, the business case for the latter design is somewhat shaky to say the least.
Regarding the relative merits of using permanent slipways and shipsheds rather than simply beaching galleys, John Coates wrote a paper 'On Slipping and Launching Triremes from the Piraeus Shipsheds and from Beaches' published in Trireme Olympias: The Final Report. In summary, hauling out a big vessel like a trireme (let alone a quad or quin) was a major exercise made a lot easier with a permanent slipway and shipshed. Coates concludes that it would be hard to see that a trireme would ever be beached, except out of necessity.
Regarding the frequency that a trireme or other galley needed to be taken out of water, there is a paper in the same book by Paul Lipke 'Triremes and Shipworm' that is worth looking at. He notes that modern wooden hulls can be reduced to worthlessness in a couple of months. Infestation can occur rapidly in any season and at any time the hull is more or less stationary. He includes a couple of pictures of worm damaged planking removed from Olympias. It is all fairly gruesome stuff.
With modern coatings, vessels may remain immersed for up to 6 months, but traditional coatings, such as tar and pitch, need renewal much more frequently. To minimise infestation it is best to haul out the hull every few days to kill off shipworms that are just becoming attached. If the time between haul-outs lengthens to a couple of weeks or more, then a longer period in high temperature and bright sunlight is needed to be an effective defence. Longer immersions could require the ship to be out of water for months and include replacement of worm damaged timbers. So, yes, good fleet infrastructure is a must if one wishes to continue having a fleet.
Finally, my views on Anthony's three points about 7 posts ago. As noted above, I reject the argument that quads and quins were the same size as triremes, and my arguments for the larger vessels not having outriggers are also noted above. Should we consider that the majority of galleys at Aegates were triremes rather than the larger vessels? Only if we assume that a vessel with a maximum complement of 20-50 marines is better than one with 120, which would rather undermine any reason for developing the larger vessels in the first place and deploying them in large numbers. When it comes to artistic depictions, I tend to treat them all with some scepticism. They might be accurate, but then they often depict the subject in a conventional style or according to the whims of the guy paying the artist. (I recently watched one of those antiques programmes on the TV which included a picture of Lake Windemere with a completely fictitious folly on one of its islands, simply there because the artist was painting in an Italianate style.)
:P
Hi Nick
I went and read Launching Triremes from the Piraeus Shipsheds and from Beaches (I downloaded the report but haven't had time to read it, with other stuff keeping pestering me :-[ )
I can see the issue. I must admit that if I had to overwinter a force of quinqueremes my first thought might be to build 'boat trailers' which would go out under the ship and you then then haul it up onto the beach. All you need is enough oxen 8)
The problem comes with both the size and cost of trailers because you'd need one per ship and whilst you might be able to take the wheels off it's probably not worth the bother. Indeed it has struck me that, frankly, it might get to the stage where it's cheaper, if you don't have the proper ship sheds, to accept a high level of losses and build new ships every spring :-[
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 08, 2024, 01:55:31 PMBut then the Romans start getting serious about naval developments. If they want to know about quinqueremes then they don't need Carthage, they've got their ally Syracuse or their ally Tarentum, who understand ship design and building.
Only thing is that the very distinct tale that they modelled their new quinqueremes on a very fast blockade runner which they had finally captured. Now, one can question the veracity, but there presumably must be a kernel of truth in there. It is often forgotten that during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, the French ships were often regarded to be superior designs to those of the Royal Navy; they just did not know how to get the best out of them after the Revolutionary purges... The RN was not at all backward in using such ships that they captured and incorporating their finer points in new builds.
Quote from: Nick Harbud on September 08, 2024, 05:10:20 PMLet us not forget that the motivation for building quads and quins with their wider hulls had nothing to do with accommodating extra oarsmen, but everything to do with a need for a stable vessel that could transport 120 marines (or an equivalent mass of equipment) on its deck and have a similar manoeuvrabilty to existing triremes
We do not know that; it is simply an inference from the fact that quinqueremes could carry rather more fighting men than the triremes of Salamis were said to have embarked. Was the form driven by an increased function, or were the extra men simply an exploitation of a design adopted for other reasons? And how often did the larger ships actually embark so many men? If you know you are going to fight a big battle close by, then yes, fine. If, like the Romans at Ecnomus, you are en route for an amphibious invasion of Africa, then yes. But so many "marines" has almost doubled your food and water burden on a class of warship which really, really hurts to meet the demands of just its oarsmen.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 08, 2024, 11:19:07 AMQuote from: Cantabrigian on September 08, 2024, 11:09:59 AMCould the outriggers have been removable for storage in a shed?
I suspect not. They seem to be an integral part of the ships structure. I suspect they must be to support the forces involved.
In Cambridge there's a wooden bridge that was designed to be built without fasteners. So there's no inherent need to make a build irreversible just for strength. The lower part of the ship probably does need to be an irreversible build because of the need for waterproofing, but that's not needed for outriggers.
If you have enough labour then it should be possible to disassemble the superstructure as a regular part of the process of docking.
Interestingly, modern rowing eights have riggers that can be removed in less than five minutes. The limiting factor tends to be lack of spanners.
The problem may be the use of the term outrigger. Accurate for Athenian triremes, probably not accurate for quadriremes and quinqueremes of the 3rd and 2nd centuries, which are widely held to have employed oarboxes, effectively integral to the hull, with decking overhead (hence the cataphract description). These would not need to follow the contours of the ship's hull, and would allow the lower hull to enjoy finer lines, thus mitigating the drag imposed by the much greater mass of the vessel. It is a great shame that the victory ship sheds erected by Augustus at Actium have not survived, or at least not been discovered, as we know that they accommodated the full range of Antonine trophies, from a small "one" up to a "ten".
I honestly believe that the ship sheds were for winter and reserve storage; so yes, at a well managed dockyard with plenty of skilled labour, it is possible that the ships were partially disassembled, but I suspect that becomes less practical with the larger vessels, which are the very ships which are asserted to be too big for the sheds...
In passing, I have not seen any credible suggestion that the larger vessels did not have "outriggers", unless that is a misunderstood reference to them actually having upgraded to oarboxes.
Quote from: DBS on September 09, 2024, 07:36:10 AMThe problem may be the use of the term outrigger.
I think I agree. To me, the overhanging side that carries oars I have tended to call an outrigger, if only to avoid the mass of Greek technical terms associated with it. However, I am willing to acknowledge that the bit that sticks out of an aphract trireme is not structurally the same as that which sticks out from later cataphract ships.
Quote from: DBS on September 09, 2024, 07:36:10 AMIn passing, I have not seen any credible suggestion that the larger vessels did not have "outriggers", unless that is a misunderstood reference to them actually having upgraded to oarboxes.
In fairness to Nick, I have seen suggestions that some early fours and possibly fives were two level vessels without outriggers. The finger is usually pointed at the Phoenicians and hence the Carthaginians because of cultural connections. However, as some ancient sources suggest that the larger vessels originated in Sicily, who we must therefore assume were early adopters even if not actually originators, the Carthaginians had plenty of inspiration from their near enemies.
Quote from: DBS on September 08, 2024, 10:44:05 PMQuote from: Nick Harbud on September 08, 2024, 05:10:20 PMLet us not forget that the motivation for building quads and quins with their wider hulls had nothing to do with accommodating extra oarsmen, but everything to do with a need for a stable vessel that could transport 120 marines (or an equivalent mass of equipment) on its deck and have a similar manoeuvrabilty to existing triremes
We do not know that; it is simply an inference from the fact that quinqueremes could carry rather more fighting men than the triremes of Salamis were said to have embarked. Was the form driven by an increased function, or were the extra men simply an exploitation of a design adopted for other reasons? And how often did the larger ships actually embark so many men? If you know you are going to fight a big battle close by, then yes, fine. If, like the Romans at Ecnomus, you are en route for an amphibious invasion of Africa, then yes. But so many "marines" has almost doubled your food and water burden on a class of warship which really, really hurts to meet the demands of just its oarsmen.
Yes we do. John Coates, the naval architect, performed stability calculations on the Olympias and determined that it could not carry more than 20 marines without become dangerously unstable. Furthermore, in order to carry an additional 100 marines, it would be necessary to redesign the vessel with a significantly wider hull.
Why would anyone want to carry more than 20 marines? Well, consider the galley as means of getting fighting men (that is, marines) into the battle. In order to deliver 6,000 marines one has the following options:
- 300 triremes with 54,000 oarsmen
- 50 larger vessels with 12,000-15,000 oarsmen
Which one would you pick?
You miss the point I am making. We do not know whether the decision to adopt the quadrireme and quinquereme was driven by a desire to ship more marines. It is more usually suggested that the primary driver was for a heavier and more robust vessel better suited than the Salamis era trireme for head-on engagements in close waters (eg harbour attacks or where a weaker enemy has chosen a narrow bay to make a stand) and greater utility in coastal siege operations. Yes, they can carry more marines than an early aphract trireme (but equally later triremes also embarked more marines than Athens had tended to do so), but this may be a secondary benefit of a heavier, slower, less manouevrable but tougher design. If you just want to transport an army efficiently, galleys are not your primary choice, whatever their class. The Roman galleys at Ecnomus were escorting a transport fleet.
As I say, the limiting factor is not just stability, but food and water. A Salamis trireme has about 200 men (170 oarsmen, 30 deck crew and marines). A quinquereme is 270-300 crew before one even gets to the marines. If one embarks 120 marines, then you have some 420 people to feed and water. There are not many places where a squadron, let alone a fleet, can rock up and readily find water for those numbers every couple of days. As Guilmartin observes in his brilliant work on 16th century galleys, these are the logistic considerations that actually drive Mediterranean naval operations above all else.
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 08, 2024, 08:15:28 PMHi Nick
I went and read Launching Triremes from the Piraeus Shipsheds and from Beaches (I downloaded the report but haven't had time to read it, with other stuff keeping pestering me :-[ )
I can see the issue. I must admit that if I had to overwinter a force of quinqueremes my first thought might be to build 'boat trailers' which would go out under the ship and you then then haul it up onto the beach. All you need is enough oxen 8)
The problem comes with both the size and cost of trailers because you'd need one per ship and whilst you might be able to take the wheels off it's probably not worth the bother. Indeed it has struck me that, frankly, it might get to the stage where it's cheaper, if you don't have the proper ship sheds, to accept a high level of losses and build new ships every spring :-[
Unfortunately, as Lipke makes clear, hauling galleys out of the water is not something one does once per year, but an activty that needs to happen every few days or, at the most, every couple of weeks. Therefore, the option of writing off the galleys at the end of Summer is not viable as the will have been consumed by shipworm long before.
Quote from: DBS on September 09, 2024, 11:28:25 AMYou miss the point I am making. We do not know whether the decision to adopt the quadrireme and quinquereme was driven by a desire to ship more marines. It is more usually suggested that the primary driver was for a heavier and more robust vessel better suited than the Salamis era trireme for head-on engagements in close waters (eg harbour attacks or where a weaker enemy has chosen a narrow bay to make a stand) and greater utility in coastal siege operations. Yes, they can carry more marines than an early aphract trireme (but equally later triremes also embarked more marines than Athens had tended to do so), but this may be a secondary benefit of a heavier, slower, less manouevrable but tougher design. If you just want to transport an army efficiently, galleys are not your primary choice, whatever their class. The Roman galleys at Ecnomus were escorting a transport fleet.
There are a few assumptions here that are not supported by Coates and I would disagree with. That is, that quads and quins were more robust and less manoeuvrable than triremes.
The method of construction for all classes was the same mortice and tenon monocoque, which made them equally vulnerable to ramming. Likewise, the danger of losing one's own ram when approaching from the front of a target would be same. In addition, I am not sure that heavier ships fighting their way through an enemy in narrow seas would find it that easy. I mean, the Persians had heavier vessels at Salamis and things did not go too well for them there.
Coates explicitly looked at the manoeuvrabilty and top speed of heavier polyremes when compared to triremes. There is more mass to shift and the vessels sit lower in the water, but there is significantly more power available from the higher number of oarsmen. Overall, he concluded that quads would be just as manoeuvrable as triremes, but slightly slower on the sprint.
With all due respect to Coates, other views are available; the argument I have outlined, for example, is one for which Rankov has expressed sympathy (I believe it originated with Murray), and given Boris was the rowing master of Olympias and is, I believe, still chairman of its trust, he is something of a Coates acolyte.
I am not sure there is hard evidence that the Persian ships at Salamis were heavier than the Athenian triremes. Less adeptly handled perhaps. More burdened with marines, perhaps (which if true suggests marine numbers were no substitute for good handling).
Contemporary sources are careful to distinguish between cataphract and aphract, so there clearly was an appreciable difference. Reinforced bows worked for the Corinthians at Syracuse, so more robust construction than a standard Athenian trireme was very possible, and a quinquereme with enclosed oarbox and far greater mass would seem inherently more likely to win a headon contest...
Quote from: Cantabrigian on September 09, 2024, 07:00:23 AMIn Cambridge there's a wooden bridge that was designed to be built without fasteners. So there's no inherent need to make a build irreversible just for strength.
If you walk onto the 'mathematical' bridge at my old college you will see that it certainly has metal fasteners - bolts through most of the joints - which were probably part of the original design. There are quite a lot of myths about it, even though it is of much more recent date than triremes, quadriremes and quinquiremes.
My gut feeling is that the stresses that would be put on an outrigger by the rowers and the movement of the vessel would make a solid structure, integrated into the rest of the hull a necessity in an age that did not have access to the wonders of modern ship construction materials (or spanners, which seem not to have appeared until the Fifteenth Century).
What has struck me, going through the ancient citations for Quadriremes and Quinqiremes gathered in the annexes to 'The Age of Titans' is how little we have to go on. The literary evidence can be supplemented with archaeological evidence, notably the Athenian ship sheds, but this, too, is very limited. I have just read Henry Hurst's paper on the ship sheds of Carthage and Athens (https://www.academia.edu/5427302/Exceptions_rather_than_the_rule_the_ship_sheds_complexes_of_Carthage_mainly_and_Athens)
which makes the point that the ruins at Carthage and Athens are exceptional. Wooden structures are much more likely to have been used elsewhere, but consequently much more difficult to find evidence for. What I cannot find is any data on the dimensions of the ship sheds that have been found, apart from those at Athens. Does anyone have references?
This article (https://books.openedition.org/ausonius/2810?lang=en) has quite a bit on Rhodian ship sheds.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 09, 2024, 04:22:29 PMThis article (https://books.openedition.org/ausonius/2810?lang=en)has quite a bit on Rhodian ship sheds.
If you prefer to download a pdf rather than read online this article is available here:
https://www.academia.edu/69407812/The_Rhodian_fleet_and_the_Karian_coast
Adrian.
Quote from: Adrian Nayler on September 09, 2024, 07:03:08 PMQuote from: Erpingham on September 09, 2024, 04:22:29 PMThis article (https://books.openedition.org/ausonius/2810?lang=en)has quite a bit on Rhodian ship sheds.
If you prefer to download a pdf rather than read online this article is available here:
https://www.academia.edu/69407812/The_Rhodian_fleet_and_the_Karian_coast
Adrian.
Thanks
I was going to reply but people have given me so much reading to do 8)
Quote from: Keraunos on September 09, 2024, 03:46:36 PMWhat I cannot find is any data on the dimensions of the ship sheds that have been found, apart from those at Athens. Does anyone have references?
Perhaps the go-to place for such information would be: "Shipsheds of the Ancient Mediterranean" by David Blackman, Boris Rankov, Kalliopi Baika, Henrik Gerding, Jari Pakkanen. 2013, Cambridge University Press.
Page 91 gives examples of shed lengths (i.e. slipway ramp lengths) for Carthage (sheds 1, 2, 29 and 30 on the Ilot) of c. 27-35m.
Page 93 gives widths for the same sheds as c. 5.3 m (interaxial: c. 6.3 m). The latter dimensions are caveated in note 106: "
This is an estimate: the short sheds, 1-2 and 29-30, on the Ilot appear to be c. 0.3 m narrower than the longer sheds, 3-24 and 27-28, as measured from the original 1:200 plan of Hurst 1979: 25 fig. 1."
Much of this volume is available on Google Books but, frustratingly, the catalogue for Carthage is embargoed.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6jZEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA76&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
Adrian.
Quote from: Adrian Nayler on September 09, 2024, 07:44:21 PMfrustratingly, the catalogue for Carthage is embargoed.
I have a copy. I checked it again last night to refresh my memory of Rankov's views on Murray's arguments on the quads and quins being optimised for slogging matches. There are two sheds on the Ilot at Carthage, numbers 25 and 26, which are rather larger than most of the other sheds whose dimensions can be calculated, and both 25 and 26 fall comfortably within the most likely size constraints for a quinquereme. (They might even have taken something bigger, but Rankov points out that no ancient author ascribes anything bigger to the Carthaginians, unlike the Romans with their reported hepteres flagships.)
Also worth noting that Rankov emphasises that one would actually want a ship shed to be a tight fit, at least at the sea end, since one wants the oarbox to rest against something very solid to keep the vessel from tilting over, especially when hauling up or launching down the ramp. He suggests only a few centimetres clearance would be desirable.
Just pondering pulling ships up onto the beach
From Trireme Olympias The Final Report
we have
17. On Slipping and Launching Triremes from the Peiraeus Shipsheds and from Beaches 134
John Coates
After a convincing article, John Coates writes
"As one of the main objects of hauling out would have been to dry out the hull, tighten tenon pegs, clean, stop and re-coat the bottom, the whole bottom would have had to be made accessible on both sides of the ship, only possible if the ship was upright. The crew of a trireme could however raise the unloaded ship upright if she had been hauled out on one bilge by the combination of their weight pulling down on the high side and a smaller number lifting and then pushing up on the low side. When upright, shores would have been set up (Homer Odyssey 2.153 describes an earlier and smaller type of ship supported, when ashore in a trench, by piles of stones confirming also that their bottoms were not then flat).
It is clear from these considerations taken together that beaching a trireme is no light operation and that it
is unlikely that triremes were any heavier than Olympias."
Later in the same volume we have 27. Triremes and Shipworm
Paul Lipke
He goes into considerable detail, and is very convincing. He then quotes Thucydides (7.12.3), where Nicias wrote from Syracuse back to Athens.
"You must none of you be surprised that I say by sea also. They have discovered that the length of the time we have now been in commission has rotted our ships and wasted our crews, and that with the entireness of our crews and the soundness of our ships the pristine efficiency of our navy has departed. For it is impossible for us to haul our ships ashore and careen them, because, the enemy's vessels being as many or more than our own, we are constantly anticipating an attack."
So Nicias seems to think that hauling ships ashore wasn't a major issue if only the enemy would leave them alone.
Quote from: Keraunos on September 09, 2024, 03:46:36 PMWhat I cannot find is any data on the dimensions of the ship sheds that have been found, apart from those at Athens. Does anyone have references?
Further to my previous post, the original summary publication of the excavations of the Ilot shipsheds at Carthage is:
Henry Hurst (1979) 'Excavations at Carthage 1977–8. Fourth Interim Report,'
The Antiquaries Journal, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp.19-49.
https://www.academia.edu/121725384/Excavations_at_Carthage_1977_8_Fourth_Interim_Report
Adrian.
Quote from: Keraunos on September 09, 2024, 02:57:28 PMMy gut feeling is that the stresses that would be put on an outrigger by the rowers and the movement of the vessel would make a solid structure, integrated into the rest of the hull a necessity in an age that did not have access to the wonders of modern ship construction
I'm not entirely convinced by this - just think of the stresses in a sailing ship, and masts were generally removable - though the larger ones needed cranes to get them out.
But even if it was possible, it doesn't mean it happened.
I reread the chapter in Shipsheds on Carthage last night. Two points I had missed or forgotten. Firstly, the famous 170-220 stone sheds in the military harbour were only built in the second century, not long before the destruction of 146; indeed, they may be a major part of the rearmament of the city which so annoyed Rome. Therefore, they were not the home of the supposed huge quinquereme fleets of the 1st Punic more than a century before. There are faint indications that there were timber sheds before the stone ones, but dimensions are beyond recovery.
Second, at least one of the two best preserved slipways seems to have had inspection and maintenance pits between its sleepers, thus meeting in part Jim's concerns about how one could work on a ship sitting very snug in the shed.
Just one thing, from recent reading, about pulling ships onto the beach.
Whatever the academics thought, Caesar pulled his up onto the beach in Britain, and when the Romans invaded Africa 254BC they beached their ships and surrounded them with a trench and palisade.
I don't think it was something you did when the enemy were near, or when you might want to fight (or have to fight) but certainly if you intended to be there for a while you did it.
I personally suspect that academics underestimate the ability of large numbers of men who have done it before, when equipped with enough rope 8)
This article (https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/ETUDESarchivees/Navires/Documents/Votruba2017-Beaching.pdf) may be of interest when discussing ship mooring practices.
The author certainly considers it unlikely that it was done regularly. I think, though, he's mainly thinking about hauling ships completely out of the water, rather than partial beachings in temporary bases.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 11, 2024, 06:46:06 PMThis article (https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/ETUDESarchivees/Navires/Documents/Votruba2017-Beaching.pdf) may be of interest when discussing ship mooring practices.
The author certainly considers it unlikely that it was done regularly. I think, though, he's mainly thinking about hauling ships completely out of the water, rather than partial beachings in temporary bases.
You might find https://honorfrostfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MAGS2020_Nakas.pdf Ships and harbours of the Hellenistic and Roman Mediterranean: a new approach
interesting to read along side it
"Another important aspect of the seamanship and the ships of the period is the ability to deploy alternative methods of using harbours beyond docking. Although a common practice today, docking in antiquity appears to have been a much less popular choice for mariners. Before the introduction of the hydraulic concrete by the Romans in the second half of the 1st century BCE (Brandon et al. 2014: 233-5) most docks and other harbour works were erected on rubble foundations (Rickman 1996; Blackman 2008, 643-7; Wilson 2011: 46-7). Ships of greater tonnage could not approach such structures due to the inclination of the foundation. Wooden piers would have solved the problem, but they appear to have been scarce, as their use is documented in very few sites (Marseille; Hesnard 1994: 209) and in highly stylised Roman frescoes (Votruba 2017: Fig.8), whereas they are totally absent from written sources. Nevertheless, even when the hydraulic concrete was introduced, this did not affect the configuration of every harbour in the Mediterranean, since its application was costly (its basic material, the pozzolana pumice, was imported from Campania) and technically complex. Thus many areas remained untouched from this new technology (Brandon et al. 2014: 233-4, Fig.3.2; Nakas 2019). The merchantmen of the period were, however, well outfitted and quite advanced and could employ alternative methods easily. Anchoring in the open and using lighters and beaching were the main ones, practices widely employed also by vernacular ships in recent years and even today (Houston 1988: 560-1; Votruba 2017: Figs.5 -6)."
The author goes on to say that beaching was very much restricted but anchoring and lighters were the norm
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 12, 2024, 10:02:52 AMYou might find https://honorfrostfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MAGS2020_Nakas.pdf Ships and harbours of the Hellenistic and Roman Mediterranean: a new approach
interesting to read along side it
Thanks very much for the link and the interesting extract. This, though, addresses the question of docking (or lightering) for the handling of cargo, not the question of maintaining ships in seaworthy condition.
Instinctively I find it difficult to accept that if one is prepared to make a massive investment in large vessel to carry grain from Sicily, North Africa or Egypt to Rome, one would not want to get the best out of that investment by careful maintenance - which would have required getting it out of the water - rather than let it be eaten by toredo worms, but perhaps the economics and logistics of cutting timber and building a new boat every couple of years made more sense the effort needed to careen ships when there is no tide to help you?
Worth noting that Blackman and Rankov's Shipsheds mentions at least one location (might be Sounion but cannot check until tonight) where they think there is a set of military slipways/sheds, and a set of commercial ones, as there are significant ballast deposits next to that group. I do wonder whether the worm risk is slightly exaggerated - yes, a real ship killer, but merchant ships, with far smaller crews and thus less imperative to find fresh water every couple of days, were able to make reasonably protracted voyages, including across the Indian Ocean to Ceylon or the Indus, without apparently needing constant pitstops to deworm. Now, it might be that the ships were only good for one or two such trips (and the apparent Tamil quarters in Red Sea ports were constructed from teak probably repurposed from derelict ships), but it seems it was possible to survive a few weeks or even months. The mention in classical sources of rotten ships do seem to be after arduous campaigns, where risks have obviously been taken and a price paid, but ideally at the end of the season; the problem arises when the campaigns drag on longer than planned (eg Athens vs Syracuse_.
Remember that merchant ships could have their bottoms clad in thin lead, the Kyrenia Shipwreck Excavation https://nauticalarch.org/projects/kyrenia-shipwreck-excavation/
The site extended about nineteen meters in length and ten meters wide. 27 stones for hopper-type grain mills had been stacked in three rows along the axis of the ship to serve as ballast. Early in the season small fragments of thin lead sheets with bronze tacks were also found, and later, larger sheets were uncovered, indicating that the Greek ship had been covered in a sheathing of lead to protect its hull against marine life. A large portion of the hull was preserved. The remaining hull was raised, conserved and reconstructed. The reconstructed hull was 14 m in length and 4.2 m in beam. Conservation of the raised artifacts took place between 1969 and 1974.
Also there is https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230774259_Lead_Sheathing_of_Ship_Hulls_in_the_Roman_Period_Archaeometallurgical_Characterization
Lead Sheathing of Ship Hulls in the Roman Period: Archaeometallurgical Characterization
Abstract
An archaeometallurgical analysis of samples of lead sheathing from five ships from the Roman period was carried out in order to determine their composition and microstructure, and to obtain a better understanding of their manufacturing processes. The examinations included optical microscopy of metallographic cross-sections, microhardness tests, scanning electron microscopy, including energy dispersive spectroscopy, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The results show that the samples were all composed of lead covered with a corrosion layer. The sheet thicknesses, microhardness values and microhardness distribution, as well as the grain size distribution, led to the conclusion that all the sheets were produced by the same technology, using a cold-working (strain-hardening) process, and were probably used for the same purpose. The presence of antimony was observed in the sample from the Roman ship from Caesarea, which may hint at an Italian (Sardinia) origin of the material, and perhaps of the ship.
There is only the abstract, the full article isn't uploaded
Also, Farmers into Sailors: Ship Maintenance, Greek Agriculture, and the Athenian Monopoly on Kean Ruddle (IG II2 1128)
This discusses possible methods of preserving hulls but lead sheeting is mentioned.
But almost by definition, lead sheeting would mean you couldn't beach the ship as it would just rip the lead off