|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 4, 2013 12:49:26 GMT
When we think of the Greek or Roman Trireme we think, and indeed are taught, that this referred to a type of galley with three banks of oars. However, there is a school of thinking that rather than three banks of oars, trireme referred to the number of men per oar. The evidence for this seems to be that elsewhere in the Mediterranean (Specifically Venice) this is what 'trireme' meant. The three oared version of the galley has been recreated, the Olympias was built back in the mid 1980's, and was successfully sailed on several occasions. So clearly making such a ship was not impossible, nor would it have been useless in combat. That said, the question remains as to if the 'three decked' design would really be practical. Or if it would have been any more effective than a design that had fewer oars but more rowers per oar. Anyone have any information to add, or any ideas as to how we could find out which design might have been 'better'? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 4, 2013 15:33:50 GMT
When we think of the Greek or Roman Trireme we think, and indeed are taught, that this referred to a type of galley with three banks of oars. However, there is a school of thinking that rather than three banks of oars, trireme referred to the number of men per oar. The evidence for this seems to be that elsewhere in the Mediterranean (Specifically Venice) this is what 'trireme' meant. The three oared version of the galley has been recreated, the Olympias was built back in the mid 1980's, and was successfully sailed on several occasions. So clearly making such a ship was not impossible, nor would it have been useless in combat. That said, the question remains as to if the 'three decked' design would really be practical. Or if it would have been any more effective than a design that had fewer oars but more rowers per oar. Anyone have any information to add, or any ideas as to how we could find out which design might have been 'better'? well, I can certainly see the logic in more rowers per oar, rather than more decks of oars. I'm not going to dig through the interwebz at the moment - do you know if there are period depictions of triple decked ships? here is the modern one in action: |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 4, 2013 15:44:10 GMT
one factor that occurs to me is that with three rowers sitting side by side, the outboard (hullward) rower is going to have less range of motion than the inboard rower. this may have a significant effect on the efficiency of stacking rowers on the same oar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 4, 2013 17:15:45 GMT
Honestly, I have no idea. I have run across references to images, or at least detailed descriptions, but all of these seem to come back to the same people who provided the information that went into building the Olympias.
This means that the evidence for the three 'decked' trireme appears to come from the Olympias, which was designed and built by people who were trying to prove that the trireme was a three 'decked' vessel.
They may well be right of course, and certainly the Olympias shows that such a design could work. However I do have to wonder if the design was really as practical or efficient as claimed. As far as I'm aware no one has tried to test the 'single' and 'triple' decked designs against each other.
One of the things I'm wondering is if 'Trireme' may not have related to both designs. A three 'decked' vessel would certainly have made for a frightening and effective military vessel due to its size*. But from what I can tell lacked storage space, making them unsuitable for long range missions or trading. However a single 'decked' vessel with three rowers per oar may have possessed more storage space, plus as a military ship may have had the advantage of having more men available for fighting* - you could quite easily pull one or even two men off each oar without loosing mobility. Unlike a 'three decker' where if you pulled men from the oars, those oars would be either hanging loose which would probably foul others or would have to be pulled inboard, which might clutter up the deck at an inconvenient time.
(*Keep in mind that naval battle of this, and indeed much later periods, were usually settled by hand to hand fighting between soldiers being carried on a ship. The typical (and fairly consistent) complement for a trireme seems to be around 200 men, of which 170 were rowers. Being able to pull one man per oar off to help with hand to hand fighting could easily double or maybe even triple the number of fighting men available.
The reverse is that a three 'decked' ship would sit much higher in the water, which would give the troops a significant advantage over vessels that were lower down. This is, in fact, the reason that later sailing ships ended up with a forecastle - it was originally a wooden 'castle' built on (or added to) the front of the ship to give the soldiers the advantage of having the high ground.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 4, 2013 17:32:49 GMT
Honestly, I have no idea. I have run across references to images, or at least detailed descriptions, but all of these seem to come back to the same people who provided the information that went into building the Olympias. This means that the evidence for the three 'decked' trireme appears to come from the Olympias, which was designed and built by people who were trying to prove that the trireme was a three 'decked' vessel. They may well be right of course, and certainly the Olympias shows that such a design could work. However I do have to wonder if the design was really as practical or efficient as claimed. As far as I'm aware no one has tried to test the 'single' and 'triple' decked designs against each other. One of the things I'm wondering is if 'Trireme' may not have related to both designs. A three 'decked' vessel would certainly have made for a frightening and effective military vessel due to its size*. But from what I can tell lacked storage space, making them unsuitable for long range missions or trading. However a single 'decked' vessel with three rowers per oar may have possessed more storage space, plus as a military ship may have had the advantage of having more men available for fighting* - you could quite easily pull one or even two men off each oar without loosing mobility. Unlike a 'three decker' where if you pulled men from the oars, those oars would be either hanging loose which would probably foul others or would have to be pulled inboard, which might clutter up the deck at an inconvenient time. (*Keep in mind that naval battle of this, and indeed much later periods, were usually settled by hand to hand fighting between soldiers being carried on a ship. The typical (and fairly consistent) complement for a trireme seems to be around 200 men, of which 170 were rowers. Being able to pull one man per oar off to help with hand to hand fighting could easily double or maybe even triple the number of fighting men available. The reverse is that a three 'decked' ship would sit much higher in the water, which would give the troops a significant advantage over vessels that were lower down. This is, in fact, the reason that later sailing ships ended up with a forecastle - it was originally a wooden 'castle' built on (or added to) the front of the ship to give the soldiers the advantage of having the high ground.) on the other side of the coin, once the hand to hand fighting starts, the rowing becomes mostly irrelevant; so it may be preferable to keep the men at the oars and have them jump up to fight at the last minute. or, with the design the Olympias seemed to have, they might be able to ship the upper level, and have them essentially racked between the upper benches - leaving both solid decks clear. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 4, 2013 17:34:54 GMT
it DID seem to me like the design of the Olympias seemed to be a circular argument; from my interpretation of the wikipedia article.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 4, 2013 19:41:59 GMT
it DID seem to me like the design of the Olympias seemed to be a circular argument; from my interpretation of the wikipedia article. I got the same impression from the official site for the galley. One other thing that occurs to me is that the design of the Olympias requires that each rower knows exactly what he or she is doing, otherwise you are going to end up loosing oars when someone rows out of time with the rest or manages to miss the water on a stroke. Now it seems to me that training 170 men to row together would be a nightmare, even without having to train them in various manoeuvres to turn the ship using the oars alone. For a ship and crew that is kept in service for an extended period, or a crew that is comprised of 'experts', this would not be a problem. But Galleys had short service lives, and is not something you could afford to keep in service unless you were at war or it was able to pay for itself by acting as a merchant ship* - which it seems the 'three-decker' was far from suited for. I'm trying to imagine the chaos of trying to man a fleet of triremes like the Olympias here. For the 180 ships Athens managed to put together for the Battle of Salamis they would have needed 30,600 men just to man the oars. In terms of manpower this wouldn't have posed a problem - the population of Athens was around 120,000 at the time - but the chances of all of those men being skilled rowers (or at least not needing some form of training) seems rather low. Can you imagine trying to train even half that number of men? Hell, can you imagine the utter chaos that would ensue if half the ships in port decided to train their rowers? Now consider the situation if we have three men per oar. You only need 1/3rd of your rowers to know what they are doing. One experienced man per oar showing the other two what they should be doing. This, to me, makes far more practical sense if you are trying to man a large fleet quickly - which was usually the case. You have a 'standing' navy comprising experienced men who can be dispersed around the fleet to train the land-lubbers. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 4, 2013 22:24:43 GMT
it DID seem to me like the design of the Olympias seemed to be a circular argument; from my interpretation of the wikipedia article. I got the same impression from the official site for the galley. One other thing that occurs to me is that the design of the Olympias requires that each rower knows exactly what he or she is doing, otherwise you are going to end up loosing oars when someone rows out of time with the rest or manages to miss the water on a stroke. Now it seems to me that training 170 men to row together would be a nightmare, even without having to train them in various manoeuvres to turn the ship using the oars alone. For a ship and crew that is kept in service for an extended period, or a crew that is comprised of 'experts', this would not be a problem. But Galleys had short service lives, and is not something you could afford to keep in service unless you were at war or it was able to pay for itself by acting as a merchant ship* - which it seems the 'three-decker' was far from suited for. I'm trying to imagine the chaos of trying to man a fleet of triremes like the Olympias here. For the 180 ships Athens managed to put together for the Battle of Salamis they would have needed 30,600 men just to man the oars. In terms of manpower this wouldn't have posed a problem - the population of Athens was around 120,000 at the time - but the chances of all of those men being skilled rowers (or at least not needing some form of training) seems rather low. Can you imagine trying to train even half that number of men? Hell, can you imagine the utter chaos that would ensue if half the ships in port decided to train their rowers? Now consider the situation if we have three men per oar. You only need 1/3rd of your rowers to know what they are doing. One experienced man per oar showing the other two what they should be doing. This, to me, makes far more practical sense if you are trying to man a large fleet quickly - which was usually the case. You have a 'standing' navy comprising experienced men who can be dispersed around the fleet to train the land-lubbers. That is a valid argument. to play devils advocate, it is possible they had some sort of operating aid to make the necessary synchronization easier; and I am not sure if day to day operations required the intricacy of maneuver that a seasoned crew would be capable of. if you have a reputation for being able to run down and destroy any other boat you choose to; then it is normal for other boats to avoid encouraging you to choose to. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 4, 2013 22:30:15 GMT
It seems to be that a boat with three men per oar would have a beam of, at minimum, 20 feet - which would make a n extremely stable operating platform if you had the fighting deck above the rowing deck - and probably a very shallow draft because of it. both of which would be advantageous in a war where the ships were primarily platforms for infantry battles. if you posted your best oarsmen in the center of the oar, then you could have a good warrior to the inboard end, and the trainee to the outboard end. that would allow the warriors to slip out to the catwalk, and the other two to adjust to the best positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Nov 5, 2013 5:54:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 5, 2013 6:17:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 5, 2013 9:18:33 GMT
I ran across something interesting last night regarding the possible participation of the rowers in battle.
After the Battle of Salamis both fleets eventually went into winter quarters - meaning they were beached to protect them from the weather until the following spring. As soon as spring arrived the Greek fleet set out to find the Persian survivors, eventually finding them pulled up on shore for repairs and cleaning - the Persian Admiral doesn't seem to have expected the Greeks to have followed him that far.
The Greeks ran their own ships ashore - which the very shallow draft of the Trireme allowed - and jumped out to fight the Persians. The resulting battle saw the entire Persian fleet burnt on the beaches.
What is interesting is that apparently the fighting was not done purely by the soldiers carried by the Greeks ships. The rowers disembarked as well, sword, shield and spear in hand.
This tells us that;
A; The Greek rowers, or a significant number of them, were clearly not slaves but free men.
B; They were already carrying the arms and armour when they left Greece. Since they could not have known that they would catch the Persians with their fleet beached, this would seem to imply that it was usual for at least some of the rowers to leave their oars and take part in hand to hand combat.
Both might explain why the Greeks at Salamis were able to fight off a force almost three times their size - since the Persians tended to use slaves as rowers, it is possible that in hand to hand combat between a Greek and Persian ship the Greeks actually had more fighting men available.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 5, 2013 15:30:57 GMT
I ran across something interesting last night regarding the possible participation of the rowers in battle. After the Battle of Salamis both fleets eventually went into winter quarters - meaning they were beached to protect them from the weather until the following spring. As soon as spring arrived the Greek fleet set out to find the Persian survivors, eventually finding them pulled up on shore for repairs and cleaning - the Persian Admiral doesn't seem to have expected the Greeks to have followed him that far. The Greeks ran their own ships ashore - which the very shallow draft of the Trireme allowed - and jumped out to fight the Persians. The resulting battle saw the entire Persian fleet burnt on the beaches. What is interesting is that apparently the fighting was not done purely by the soldiers carried by the Greeks ships. The rowers disembarked as well, sword, shield and spear in hand. This tells us that; A; The Greek rowers, or a significant number of them, were clearly not slaves but free men. B; They were already carrying the arms and armour when they left Greece. Since they could not have known that they would catch the Persians with their fleet beached, this would seem to imply that it was usual for at least some of the rowers to leave their oars and take part in hand to hand combat. Both might explain why the Greeks at Salamis were able to fight off a force almost three times their size - since the Persians tended to use slaves as rowers, it is possible that in hand to hand combat between a Greek and Persian ship the Greeks actually had more fighting men available. one of the articles I cites indicated that Greek standard procedure was if they needed to use slaves to make up their complement of rowers, they would first make them all free men - because one disgruntled slave could bring things to a crashing halt. edit: however, the articles also imply that the development of the triremes marked the beginning of the transition from infantry battles on boats to using the boat as a weapon. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 7, 2013 9:19:18 GMT
I have tried to find out more.
Trireme, indeed , three rows.....
But then it dissolves.
Many believe three rows of oars....
Others argue that three rows of rowers, and, could you actually BUILD a "triple-deck" hull at that time?...
You can now, because we know more, but at that time, that would have been a rather big heavy ship....
All those oars as well... catching a crab?...
Maybe yes one "Royal" barge with that many, highly trained at that, one to "Show off" for special events, but having them as regular battle ships?...
Then they argue that an oar THAT long, to get from "top" deck to water, would have been extremely heavy, and would have taken the strength of one man just to move the bloomin' thing.... therefore, the extra oar and manpower would have cancelled out any advantage anyway.
Three rows of rowers, the argument also states that the "Inside" rower would have already been grabbing his sword by the time any collision happened.
They also didnt use three men per oar at all times, so could rotate the crews, thus getting more miles per man, and still be "Battle ready" when they got there....
Slaves for rowers, the discussion states that slaves maybe on commercial ships, that slaves were treated well, but, no soldier.
Therefore, the rowers on battle ships would be soldiers first....
This is a little light digging from my Kids material, they were studying Greek history at one point, and the books are still on the shelf.
|
|
