Ships and Navies

[Patrick Waterson]

Then again, Livy was writing at a time when polyremes were still very much part of living memory (Actium and all that) and Roman numerical usage tended to be simple and straightforward - getting clever with their number system was challenging to say the least (they eventually had to adopt Greek 'numerals' because of this).

And if Isidore had stated that a quinquereme had five men to an oar, would there be quite the same reservations about accepting his evidence? 

The engineering side was sufficiently daunting for the Romans to (like us) be unable to work out how to build a quinquereme until they had one in their hot little hands, so there may have been an as yet unrealised twist to the architecture which, once mastered, made polyreme construction not only possible but achievable on an industrial scale.

Patrick

[Jim Webster]

It seems that all warships could be built on an 'industrial' scale.
The speed with which various people turned out very large number of ships seems to tell us that.
I think one problem isn't the speed of building but the sourcing of timber. It is interesting that the Carthaginians had timber available in store at the start of the Third Punic War

If you build with green timber you end up with a heavier boat (because the sap is still in it) and also one whose timbers will warp as it ages.
They were comparatively 'short term' expedients, but after the campaigning season if you had a quiet winter you could dry them out and probably do a lot of 'rebuilding'

Jim

[Andreas Johansson]

Roman numerical usage tended to be simple and straightforward - getting clever with their number system was challenging to say the least (they eventually had to adopt Greek 'numerals' because of this).

Hm? I presume you mean "numeral" in the mathematical rather than the linguistic sense, but then I don't see why you'd need them at all to come up with perversities like eighty-man centuriae.

[Patrick Waterson]

Ah, but the 80-man century was not the 'century' - it was a later derivation.

The 'century' as a military formation seems to arise only with the Polybian legion: I have not found any mention in Livy of the century as a Roman subunit prior to the formation of the Polybian legion (10 maniples each of hastati, principes and triarii as opposed to the earlier 15-maniple organisation that Livy details as existing in 340 BC).

The Polybian legion has two establishments: 'normal' (4,200 infantry and 200 or 300 cavalry) and 'emergency' (5,000 infantry and 300 cavalry).  In a 5,000-strong legion (which rapidly became the norm rather than the exception), the maniples of hastati and principes were raised to a strength of 160 heavy infantry and 40 velites - so the two subunits of the maniple were each one 'centuria' - 100 men - strong.  This seems to have been the origin of the term 'century' for a legionary subunit (although Livy mentions 'centurions' earlier - possibly anachronistically).  This 'century' consisted of 80 heavy infantry and 20 velites.

The 'Marian' legionary reorganisation removed the velites from the century, which then became an 80-man basic unit, perhaps with 20 'ferentarii' initially attached.  The 80-man 'century' (sans ferentarii) survived into the Empire period, presumably because everyone was used to the term, but the original nomenclature was entirely consistent with its numeric content.

Polyreme designations would similarly have been founded on exact numerical correspondence, but nobody would have removed oar banks as part of a fleet reorganisation. 

Patrick
P.S. - Greek 'numerals' were actually represented by letters, and were much handier than the Roman system.

[Andreas Johansson]

Ah, but the 80-man century was not the 'century' - it was a later derivation.

So was the quinquereme, both the ship and the word.

Assume for a moment that the 2-2-1 reconstruction is correct. What would you call it? If ancient engineers were like modern ones, they very well might call it a quinquereme by analogy with the trireme, even if that made a mockery of the original reason for calling a trireme a trireme. Both are "numerically exact", they just don't count the same thing.

I'm still completely in the dark, BTW, why you think the properties of the Roman or Greek numerals would matter at all here. You simply don't need numerals (in the mathematical sense) to number stuff, whether you number them according to a consistent scheme or not.

[tadamson]

quinquereme was a latinisation of penteres (a five'er)
trireme is a lantinisation of trieres (three oar, literally three'er) it is ALSO a Latin term for a three bank ship

The Greek naval terminology starts with triaconter (a thirty) and penteconter (a fifty). Both single bank un-decked craft.
Then they use dieres (two'er or upper) for the 2 banked ships developed by the Phoneticians etc.
Then the great trieres is developed and rules the waves.

The Carthaginians (or possibly Syracuse but Western Med) then develop the tetreres (4) and penteres (5)
I'm sure that there is a reference to tetreres having 2 banks of oars (but it might be later Roman paintings of early battles) and at Mylae the Roman 5's were able to drop their 'crows' onto Hannibal's flagship which was a 7. At this time 3's were the fastest, 4's almost as fast but 5's were noticeably heavier and slower.

Syracruse developed the 6 and 7, Hellenistic engineers then built 8s 9s and 10s (but in tiny numbers).
Hellenistic fleets seem to have been 5s and 6s for 'line of battle', 3s and 4s for scouting/cruising and a few big ships as flagships. (the Ptolomy's though went to extremes)

The Rhodians then developed the triēmiolia (three less a half).  and so it goes on

[Patrick Waterson]

I do love 'Phoneticians'! 

I'm sure that there is a reference to tetreres having 2 banks of oars (but it might be later Roman paintings of early battles) and at Mylae the Roman 5's were able to drop their 'crows' onto Hannibal's flagship which was a 7. At this time 3's were the fastest, 4's almost as fast but 5's were noticeably heavier and slower.

We noted, investigated and dismissed the 'two-bank quadrireme' earlier in this thread - it was pure wishful thinking unsupported by anything in the original source.

It is unsurprising that a quinquereme could drop its corvus onto the deck of a hepteres, if one considers the description of a corvus (Polybius I.22):

Their mechanism was this. A round pole was placed in the prow, about twenty-four feet high, and with a diameter of four palms. The pole itself had a pulley on the top, and a gangway made with cross planks nailed together, four feet wide and thirty-six feet long, was made to swing round it. Now the hole in the gangway was oval shaped, and went round the pole twelve feet from one end of the gangway, which had also a wooden railing running down each side of it to the height of a man's knee. At the extremity of this gangway was fastened an iron spike like a miller's pestle, sharpened at its lower end and fitted with a ring at its upper end. The whole thing looked like the machines for braising corn. To this ring the rope was fastened with which, when the ships collided, they hauled up the "crows," by means of the pulley at the top of the pole, and dropped them down upon the deck of the enemy's ship, sometimes over the prow, sometimes swinging them round when the ships collided broadsides. And as soon as the "crows" were fixed in the planks of the decks and grappled the ships together, if the ships were alongside of each other, the men leaped on board anywhere along the side, but if they were prow to prow, they used the "crow" itself for boarding, and advanced over it two abreast.

In order to move the corvus on its pivot, it would have to be clear of the deck by several feet, which would allow it to drop onto the deck of a taller vessel and still be approximately level.

The idea that quinqueremes as a class were 'noticeably heavier and slower' than triremes is not borne out by the fact that Carthaginians used quinqueremes, not triremes, as fast blockade runners at the siege of Lilybaeum (Polybius I.46-47).  The first Roman quinqueremes were indeed heavier and slower, not least for the reasons Jim mentioned earlier, but for the final battle of the war the Romans built a fleet all modelled on the fast quinquereme they had captured during the siege of Lilybaeum (Polybius I.59).

And we might wish to remember Demetrius' fifteens and sixteens:

Up to this time no man had seen a ship of fifteen or sixteen banks of oars ... However, in the ships of Demetrius their beauty did not mar their fighting qualities, nor did the magnificence of their equipment rob them of their usefulness, but they had a speed and effectiveness which was more remarkable than their great size. - Plutarch, Demetrius, 43.

I put that last bit in bold because up to now readers seem to have missed it.  Larger did not necessarily mean slower.

Patrick

[tadamson]

We should put up the whole bit, it does include the famed 40.....

43 1 But while Demetrius lay most dangerously sick at Pella, he almost lost Macedonia; for Pyrrhus swiftly overran it and advanced as far as Edessa. As soon, however, as Demetrius had somewhat recovered his strength he easily drove Pyrrhus out of the country, and then came to a kind of agreement with him, being unwilling that continual collisions and local conflicts with this opponent should defeat his set purpose. 9102 And his purpose was nothing less than the recovery of all the realm that had been subject to his father. Moreover, his preparations were fully commensurate with his hopes and undertakings. He had already gathered an army which numbered ninety-eight thousand foot, and besides, nearly twelve thousand horsemen. 3 At the same time, moreover, he had laid the keels for a fleet of five hundred ships, some of which were in Piraeus, some at Corinth, some at Chalcis, and some at Pella. And he would visit all these places in person, showing what was to be done and aiding in the plans, while all men wondered, not only at the multitude, but also at the magnitude of the works. 4 Up to this time no man had seen a ship of p109fifteen or sixteen banks of oars. At a later time, it is true, Ptolemy Philopator built one of forty banks of oars, which had a length of two hundred and eighty cubits, and a height, to the top of her stern, of forty-eight; she was manned by four hundred sailors, who did no rowing, and by four thousand rowers, and besides these she had room, on her gangways and decks, for nearly three thousand men-at‑arms. But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger. 5 However, in the ships of Demetrius their beauty did not mar their fighting qualities, nor did the magnificence of their equipment rob them of their usefulness, but they had a speed and effectiveness which was more remarkable than their great size.


It's worth pointing out that speed comes from a power to weight ratio and mechanically the 'multiple men per oar' model should produce faster boats.  :-)

The corvus thing is interesting.  In the middle ages Italian 2 bank galleys were some 2-3m higher than Turkish single bank galleys (all multiple men per oar) even using the 'expanded Olympus' banks each bank adds about 1.2m  so a 7 might only be 3m higher than a 5.

[Patrick Waterson]

But since we have mentioned the subject of the building of ships, let us speak (for it is worth hearing of) of the ships which were built also by Ptolemaeus Philopator, which are mentioned by the same Callixeinus in the first book of his Account of Alexandria, where he speaks as follows:- "Philopator built a ship with forty ranks of rowers, being two hundred and eighty cubits long and thirty-eight cubits from one side to the other; and in height up to the gunwale it was forty-eight cubits; and from the highest part of the stern to the water-line was fifty-three cubits; and it had four rudders, each thirty cubits long; and oars for the thranitae, the largest thirty-eight cubits in length, which, from having lead in their handles, and because they were very heavy in the part inside the ship, being accurately balanced, were, in spite of their bulk, very handy to use. And the ship had two heads and two sterns, and seven beaks, one of which was longer than all the rest, and the others were of smaller size; and some of them were fixed to the ears of the ship; and it had twelve undergirths to support the keel, and each was six hundred cubits in length. And it was well proportioned to a most extraordinary degree; and all the appointments of the vessel were admirable, for it had figures of animals on it not less than twelve cubits in size, both at the head and at the stern, and every part of it was inlaid and ornamented with figures in wax; and the space between the oars down to the very keel had a running pattern of ivy-leaves and thyrsi; and there was great store of every kind of equipment to supply all parts of the ship that might require any. And when it put to sea it held more than four thousand rowers, and four hundred supernumeraries; and on the deck were three thousand marines, or at least two thousand eight hundred and fifty. And besides all these there was another large body of men under the decks, and a vast quantity of provisions and supplies. And the vessel was launched originally from a sort of framework, which they say was erected and made out of the wood of fifty ships of five ranks of oars; and it was launched by the multitude with great acclamations and blowing of trumpets. But after that a Phoenician devised a new method of launching it, having dug a trench under it, equal to the ship itself in length, which he dug close to the harbour. And in the trench he built props of solid stone five cubits deep, and across them he laid beams crosswise, running the whole width of the trench, at four cubits distance from one another; and then making a channel from the sea he filled all the space which he had excavated with water, out of which he easily brought the ship by the aid of whatever men happened to be at hand; then closing the entrance which had been originally made, he drained the water off again by means of engines; and when this had been done the vessel rested securely on the before-mentioned cross-beams. - Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, 37 (http://www.attalus.org/old/athenaeus5b.html)

The '40' was the largest of the polyremes, and the only one I know of for which we possess actual measurements.  Taking a cubit as 18", we get a length of 420 feet, beam of 57 feet and height of probably 45 feet from deck to keel (judging by the rudder measurements).  We are not told what the ship drew (very rough guess = c.5'), but the immediate conclusion is that 40 banks of oars took about 40 feet of height.

The trireme Olympias, by comparison, is 121' long, with 18' beam and drawing 4' of water, with 170 rowers.  Adding 37 banks of oars added just under 40' to the beam and, surprisingly, 300' to the length.  This suggests that a way had been found to stagger the oarsmen so that each bank of oars took up only 1' of height, but needed 1' on the beam and several additional feet of length.  Conclusion?  The oarsmen were not sitting: they were practically lying down.  This may be one of the keys to the whole polyreme business.

The 'multiple men per oar model should produce faster boats', but does it?  Putting more than one man on an oar results in lost power (only the man at the end is fully efficient) and requires a wider beam, which does nothing for hydrodynamic performance.  The benefit side of the cost-benefit equation assumes that the one-man-per-oar ship will be constructed along the same lines as the multi-man oared ship.  However, the heavy emphasis in Greek sources on internal cable reinforcement for warship structure suggests very light scantlings indeed, with concomitant weight savings, while the narrow 'greyhound' beam and great length of Hellenistic warships maximise possible speed.  My own impression, for what it is worth, is that the one-man-one-oar configuration was more effective.

Patrick

[Erpingham]

Patrick, has your copy of Age of the galley come through from the library yet?  It does give lots more examples, which you would find interesting.

But, to pick up on some of these points, can we say Patrick has rejected the two-tier four.  The evidence is accepted by some well informed scholars.

Secondly, some scholars believe that there was a shift of meaning of what we call a bank of oars around the time the five was invented (fives come before fours).  They propose that the terminology in Greek and Latin refers to files of oarsmen. 

On another specific point, the Isthmia, Antigonis Gonatos' flagship, thought to be a nine, is described as triarmenos,
which Morrison believed meant three-decked.  I mention this to allow Patrick to consider possible alternative meanings.

I really would recommend a reading of some of the relatively modern works (1980s and later - the Olympias era) to see some of the arguments.  But I don't think they can be conclusive on the basis of current evidence.  I think in particular, the literary evidence is open to a lot of interpretations and you need to move away to look at other evidence, like the absence of images of ships with more than three levels of oars, or the arguments of naval architects about the practicalities of oar-powered skyscrapers.

[Patrick Waterson]

We have already looked at this imaginary two-tier quadrireme.

[107] Agrippa bore down directly upon Papias and struck his ship under the bow, shattering it and breaking a hole in the keel. The men in the towers were shaken down, the water rushed into the ship, and all the oarsmen on the lower benches were cut off. The others broke through the deck and escaped by swimming.

In Greek, 'hoi heteroi' (hoi d'heteroi in the text, which is simply inserting de, 'but', to give 'but the others ...') simply means 'the others': it can mean 'one of two groups', but does not always have the sense of two equal groups (see Perseus lexicon entry, 'heteros' http://tinyurl.com/cmjwlr4).  I think adducing only two banks of oarsmen stretches the concept a bit far: if one wished to stretch with equal facility and less special pleading in the other direction, one could posit two banks of oarsmen being included in the word 'thalamiai', which in origin signifies the men within the 'thalamos', the lower part of the ship.  The Perseus translator has evidently already thought of this.

However nothing in the text identifies the ship as a quadrireme.  I looked back through the text in case a passing reference was made, but there seems to be nothing.

To reiterate, where is the evidence that this ship is a quadrireme?  Where is the evidence that specifies it as having two banks of oars?  What actual evidence is there to accept?  Please tell me!

You will forgive a mild case of scepticism about scholars who, with considerable latitude in interpretation, conjure two oar banks from the above and arbitrarily assume the vessel to be a quadrireme, and who similarly believe (without adducing evidence) in a shift of meaning, who believe that the Isthmia was a 'nine', and believe that triarmenos might mean three-decked.

Triarmenos, at least according to my Greek dictionary, means 'possessing three sails'.  Please tell me something Morrison can get right, and then I might consider it worth parting with £4 for an inter-library loan.

Patrick

[Erpingham]

To reiterate, where is the evidence that this ship is a quadrireme?  Where is the evidence that specifies it as having two banks of oars?  What actual evidence is there to accept?  Please tell me!

You will forgive a mild case of scepticism about scholars who, with considerable latitude in interpretation, conjure two oar banks from the above and arbitrarily assume the vessel to be a quadrireme, and who similarly believe (without adducing evidence) in a shift of meaning, who believe that the Isthmia was a 'nine', and believe that triarmenos might mean three-decked.

Triarmenos, at least according to my Greek dictionary, means 'possessing three sails'.  Please tell me something Morrison can get right, and then I might consider it worth parting with £4 for an inter-library loan.

Patrick

The problem we are having is that I, a person not familiar with the sources and knowing relatively little about the mechanics of oared propulsion, is trying to pass you bits of information in an e-mail about complicated arguments by classical scholars and naval architects.  Hence, you think Morrisons arguments are rubbish, because you haven't read them, only short excerpts, which I have not necessarily relayed correctly.  Hence my suggestion that you track down these arguments at source.  You are not a man to condemn one of the major scholars on a subject without having read him - I know this from previous discussions.

And, of course, there is your "primacy of sources" approach, which is going to clash with people who come at the problem from an engineering or physiological approach (i.e. start with what is physically possible/plausible and interpret the sources accordingly) - many of those who have thrown their hat into this particular ring are such people.

[Patrick Waterson]

Actually the reasons I think Morrison's arguments are rubbish are because from what has been relayed it seems he cannot read his sources correctly and mistranslates Greek, but I accept your point and shall live in hope that the book will be suitably informative (a near certainty) and not a concatenation of scholarly misconceptions (currently an open question).

And despite your modest disclaimer you actually make a very good job of cutting through to the essentials of a subject.

The perspective of current engineering may not be entirely reliable because of certain a priori assumptions; I would be more confident if those contributing were Hellenistic engineers, but we shall see.  One remembers such gems as the attempt in a TV documentary to recreate Archimedes' 'claw' - it became evident that the 'engineer' had not the faintest idea what the device was, let alone how to replicate it (an Italian engineer briefly interviewed on the same programme had a much better idea, and he really should have been the one doing the project).

Patrick

[Erpingham]

In true classical fashion, I had an idea while soaking in the bath.  Morrisons 1980 book Long Ships and Round Ships was serialised in Slingshot (strange but true).  Anyone with the CD should be able to turn up the relevant articles.  Granted, it is early Morrison but it does show the start of some of these discussions and does not cost £4 for an interlibrary loan (which is mighty cheap - ours are £5.80)

[Patrick Waterson]

In true classical fashion, I had an idea while soaking in the bath.

They say the old ways are the best. 

Thanks for that, Anthony.  As soon as my current backlog is cleared the Slingshot DVD will be back in the computer.

Patrick