SoA Forums

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 

Cheapskate, me?   

 

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.

 

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 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.