Ancient and Modern Ships Part 2

Some of the naval expeditions recorded in Greek history were conceived on a gigantic scale. The joint fleets of Persia and Phoenicia which attacked and conquered the Greek colonies in Ionia consisted of 600 vessels. This expedition took place in the year 496 B.C. Shortly afterwards the Persian commander-in-chief, Mardonius, collected a much larger fleet for the invasion of Greece itself.

After the death of Cambyses, his successor Xerxes collected a fleet which is stated to have numbered 4,200 vessels, of which 1,200 were triremes. The remainder appears to have been divided into two cla.s.ses, of which the larger were propelled with twenty-five and the smaller with fifteen oars a-side. This fleet, after many misfortunes at sea, and after gaining a hard-fought victory over the Athenians, was finally destroyed by the united Greek fleet at the ever-famous battle of Salamis. The size of the Persian monarch's fleet was in itself a sufficient proof of the extent of the naval power of the Levantine states; but an equally convincing proof of the maritime power of another Mediterranean state, viz., Carthage, at that early period--about 470 B.C.--is forthcoming. This State equipped a large fleet, consisting of 3,000 s.h.i.+ps, against the Greek colonies in Sicily; of these 2,000 were fighting galleys, and the remainder transports on which no less than 300,000 men were embarked. This mighty armada was partly destroyed in a great storm. All the transports were wrecked, and the galleys were attacked and totally destroyed by the fleets of the Greek colonists under Gelon on the very day, according to tradition, on which the Persians were defeated at Salamis. Out of the entire expedition only a few persons returned to Carthage to tell the tale of their disasters.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 8.--Greek unireme. About 500 B.C.]

The foregoing account will serve to give a fair idea of the extent to which s.h.i.+pbuilding was carried on in the Mediterranean in the fifth century before the Christian era.

We have very little knowledge of the nature of Greek vessels previously to 500 B.C.[9] Thucydides says that the s.h.i.+ps engaged on the Trojan expedition were without decks.

According to Homer, 1,200 s.h.i.+ps were employed, those of the Boeotians having 120 men each, and those of Philoctetes 50 men each. Thucydides also relates that the earliest h.e.l.lenic triremes were built at Corinth, and that Ameinocles, a Corinthian naval architect, built four s.h.i.+ps for the Samians about 700 B.C.; but triremes did not become common until the time of the Persian War, except in Sicily and Corcyra (Corfu), in which states considerable numbers were in use a little time before the war broke out.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 9.--Greek bireme. About 500 B.C.]

Fig. 8 is an ill.u.s.tration of a single-banked Greek galley of the date about 500 B.C., taken from an Athenian painted vase now in the British Museum. The vessel was armed with a ram; seventeen oars a-side are shown. There is no s.p.a.ce on the vase to show in detail the whole of the mast and rigging, but their presence is indicated by lines.

Fig. 9 is a representation of a Greek bireme of about the date 500 B.C.--that is to say, of the period immediately preceding the Persian War. It is taken from a Greek vase in the

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 10.--Fragment of a Greek galley showing absence of deck. About 550 B.C.]

British Museum, which was found at Vulci in Etruria. It is one of the very few representations now in existence of ancient Greek biremes. It gives us far less information than we could wish to have. The vessel has two banks of oars, those of the upper tier pa.s.sing over the gunwale, and those of the lower pa.s.sing through oar-ports. Twenty oars are shown by the artist on each side, but this is probably not the exact number used.

Unfortunately the rowers of the lower tier are not shown in position.

The steering was effected by means of two large oars at the stern, after the manner of those in use in the Egyptian s.h.i.+ps previously described.

This is proved by another ill.u.s.tration of a bireme on the same vase, in which the steering oars are clearly seen. The vessel had a strongly marked forecastle and a ram fas.h.i.+oned in the shape of a boar's head. It is a curious fact that Herodotus, in his history (Book III.), mentions that the Samian s.h.i.+ps carried beaks, formed to resemble the head of a wild boar, and he relates how the aeginetans beat some Samian colonists in a sea-fight off Crete, and sawed off the boar-head beaks from the captured galleys, and deposited them in a temple in aegina. This sea-fight took place about the same time that the vases were manufactured, from which Figs. 8 and 9 are copied. There was a single mast with a very large yard carrying a square sail. The stays are not shown, but Homer says that the masts of early Greek vessels were stayed fore and aft.

It is impossible to say whether this vessel was decked. According to Thucydides, the s.h.i.+ps which the Athenians built at the instigation of Themistocles, and which they used at Salamis, were not fully decked.

That Greek galleys were sometimes without decks is proved by Fig. 10, which is a copy of a fragment of a painting of a Greek galley on an Athenian vase now in the British Museum, of the date of about 550 B.C.

It is perfectly obvious, from the human figures in the galley, that there was no deck. Not even the forecastle was covered in. The galleys of Figs. 8 and 9 had, unlike the Phoenician bireme of Fig. 7, no fighting-deck for the use of the soldiers. There was also no protection for the upper-tier rowers, and in this respect they were inferior to the Egyptian s.h.i.+p shown in Fig. 6. It is probable that Athenian s.h.i.+ps at Salamis also had no fighting, or flying decks for the use of the soldiers; for, according to Thucydides, Gylippos, when exhorting the Syracusans, nearly sixty years later, in 413 B.C., said, "But to them (the Athenians) the employment of troops on deck is a novelty." Against this view, however, it must be stated that there are now in existence at Rome two grotesque pictures of Greek galleys on a painted vase, dating from about 550 B.C., in which the soldiers are clearly depicted standing and fighting upon a flying deck. Moreover, Thucydides, in describing a sea-fight between the Corinthians and the Corcyreans in 432 B.C., mentions that the decks of both fleets were crowded with heavy infantry archers and javelin-men, "for their naval engagements were still of the old clumsy sort." Possibly this last sentence gives us a clue to the explanation of the apparent discrepancy. The Athenians were, as we know, expert tacticians at sea, and adopted the method of ramming hostile s.h.i.+ps, instead of lying alongside and leaving the fighting to the troops on board. They may, however, have been forced to revert to the latter method, in order to provide for cases where ramming could not be used; as, for instance, in narrow harbours crowded with s.h.i.+pping, like that of Syracuse.

It is perfectly certain that the Phoenician s.h.i.+ps which formed the most important part of the Persian fleet at Salamis carried fighting-decks. We have seen already (p. 28) that they used such decks in the time of Sennacherib, and we have the distinct authority of Herodotus for the statement that they were also employed in the Persian War; for, he relates that Xerxes returned to Asia in a Phoenician s.h.i.+p, and that great danger arose during a storm, the vessel having been top-heavy owing to the deck being crowded with Persian n.o.bles who returned with the king.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 11.--Galley showing deck and superstructure. About 600 B.C. _From an Etruscan imitation of a Greek vase._]

Fig. 11, which represents a bireme, taken from an ancient Etruscan imitation of a Greek vase of about 600 B.C., clearly shows soldiers fighting, both on the deck proper and on a raised, or flying, forecastle.

In addition to the triremes, of which not a single ill.u.s.tration of earlier date than the Christian era is known to be in existence, both Greeks and Persians, during the wars in the early part of the fifth century B.C., used fifty-oared s.h.i.+ps called penteconters, in which the oars were supposed to have been arranged in one tier. About a century and a half after the battle of Salamis, in 330 B.C., the Athenians commenced to build s.h.i.+ps with four banks, and five years later they advanced to five banks. This is proved by the extant inventories of the Athenian dockyards. According to Diodoros, they were in use in the Syracusan fleet in 398 B.C. Diodoros, however, died nearly 350 years after this epoch, and his account must, therefore, be received with caution.

The evidence in favour of the existence of galleys having more than five superimposed banks of oars is very slight.

Alexander the Great is said by most of his biographers to have used s.h.i.+ps with five banks of oars; but Quintus Curtius states that, in 323 B.C., the Macedonian king built a fleet of seven-banked galleys on the Euphrates. Quintus Curtius is supposed by the best authorities to have lived five centuries after the time of Alexander, and therefore his account of these s.h.i.+ps cannot be accepted without question.

It is also related by Diodoros that there were s.h.i.+ps of six and seven banks in the fleet of Demetrios Poliorcetes at a battle off Cyprus in 306 B.C., and that Antigonos, the father of Poliorcetes, had s.h.i.+ps of eleven and twelve banks. We have seen, however, that Diodoros died about two and a half centuries after this period. Pliny, who lived from 61 to 115 A.D., increases the number of banks in the s.h.i.+ps of the opposing fleets at this battle to twelve and fifteen banks respectively. It is impossible to place any confidence in such statements.

Theophrastus, a botanist who died about 288 B.C., and who was therefore a contemporary of Demetrios, mentions in his history of plants that the king built an eleven-banked s.h.i.+p in Cyprus. This is one of the very few contemporary records we possess of the construction of such s.h.i.+ps. The question, however, arises, Can a botanist be accepted as an accurate witness in matters relating to s.h.i.+pbuilding? The further question presents itself, What meaning is intended to be conveyed by the terms which we translate as s.h.i.+ps of many banks? This question will be reverted to hereafter.

In one other instance a writer cites a doc.u.ment in which one of these many-banked s.h.i.+ps is mentioned as having been in existence during his lifetime. The author in question was Polybios, one of the most painstaking and accurate of the ancient historians, who was born between 214 and 204 B.C., and who quotes a treaty between Rome and Macedon concluded in 197 B.C., in which a Macedonian s.h.i.+p of sixteen banks is once mentioned. This s.h.i.+p was brought to the Tiber thirty years later, according to Plutarch and Pliny, who are supposed to have copied a lost account by Polybios. Both Plutarch and Pliny were born more than two centuries after this event. If the alleged account by Polybios had been preserved, it would have been unimpeachable authority on the subject of this vessel, as this writer, who was, about the period in question, an exile in Italy, was tutor in the family of aemilius Paulus, the Roman general who brought the s.h.i.+p to the Tiber.

The Romans first became a naval power in their wars with the Carthaginians, when the command of the sea became a necessity of their existence. This was about 256 B.C. At that time they knew nothing whatever of s.h.i.+pbuilding, and their early war-vessels were merely copies of those used by the Carthaginians, and these latter were no doubt of the same general type as the Greek galleys. The first Roman fleet appears to have consisted of quinqueremes.

The third century B.C. is said to have been an era of gigantic s.h.i.+ps.

Ptolemy Philadelphos and Ptolemy Philopater, who reigned over Egypt during the greater part of that century, are alleged to have built a number of galleys ranging from thirteen up to forty banks. The evidence in this case is derived from two unsatisfactory sources. Athenaeos and Plutarch quote one Callixenos of Rhodes, and Pliny quotes one Philostephanos of Cyrene, but very little is known about either Callixenos or Philostephanos. Fortunately, however, Callixenos gives details about the size of the forty-banker, the length of her longest oars, and the number of her crew, which enables us to gauge his value as an authority, and to p.r.o.nounce his story to be incredible (see p. 45).

Whatever the arrangement of their oars may have been, these many-banked s.h.i.+ps appear to have been large and unmanageable, and they finally went out of fas.h.i.+on in the year 31 B.C., when Augustus defeated the combined fleets of Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium. The vessels which composed the latter fleets were of the many-banked order, while Augustus had adopted the swift, low, and handy galleys of the Liburni, who were a seafaring and piratical people from Illyria on the Adriatic coast. Their vessels were originally single-bankers, but afterwards it is said that two banks were adopted. This statement is borne out by the evidence of Trajan's Column, all the galleys represented on it, with the exception of one, being biremes.

Augustus gained the victory at Actium largely owing to the handiness of his Liburnian galleys, and, in consequence, this type was henceforward adopted for Roman wars.h.i.+ps, and s.h.i.+ps of many banks were no longer built. The very word "trireme" came to signify a wars.h.i.+p, without reference to the number of banks of oars.

After the Romans had completed the conquest of the nations bordering on the Mediterranean, naval war ceased for a time, and the fighting navy of Rome declined in importance. It was not till the establishment of the Vandal kingdom in Africa under Genseric that a revival in naval warfare on a large scale took place. No changes in the system of marine architecture are recorded during all these ages. The galley, considerably modified in later times, continued to be the princ.i.p.al type of wars.h.i.+p in the Mediterranean till about the sixteenth century of our era.

ANCIENT MERCHANT-s.h.i.+PS.

Little accurate information as we possess about the wars.h.i.+ps of the ancients, we know still less of their merchant-vessels and transports.

They were unquestionably much broader, relatively, and fuller than the galleys; for, whereas the length of the latter cla.s.s was often eight to ten times the beam, the merchant-s.h.i.+ps were rarely longer than three or four times their beam. Nothing is known of the nature of Phoenician merchant-vessels. Fig. 12 is an ill.u.s.tration of an Athenian merchant-s.h.i.+p of about 500 B.C. It is taken from the same painted vase as the galley shown on Fig. 9. If the ill.u.s.tration can be relied on, it shows that these early Greek sailing-s.h.i.+ps were not only relatively short, but very deep. The forefoot and dead wood aft appear to have been cut away to an extraordinary extent, probably for the purpose of increasing the handiness. The rigging was of the type which was practically universal in ancient s.h.i.+ps.

Fig. 13 gives the sheer draught or side elevation, the plan, elevations of the bow and stem, and a mids.h.i.+p section of a Roman vessel, which from her proportions and the shape of bow is supposed to have been a merchant-s.h.i.+p. The ill.u.s.tration is taken from a model presented to Greenwich Hospital by Lord Anson. The original model was of white marble, and was found in the Villa Mattei in Rome, in the sixteenth century.

We know from St. Paul's experiences, as described in the Acts of the Apostles, that Mediterranean merchant-s.h.i.+ps must often have been of considerable size, and that they were capable of going through very stormy voyages. St. Paul's s.h.i.+p contained a grain cargo, and carried 276 human beings.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 12.--Greek merchant-s.h.i.+p. About 500 B.C.]

In the merchant-s.h.i.+ps oars were only used as an auxiliary means of propulsion, the princ.i.p.al reliance being placed on masts and sails.

Vessels of widely different sizes were in use, the larger carrying 10,000 talents, or 250 tons of cargo. Sometimes, however, much bigger s.h.i.+ps were used. For instance, Pliny mentions a vessel in which the Vatican obelisk and its pedestal, weighing together nearly 500 tons, were brought from Egypt to Italy about the year 50 A.D. It is further stated that this vessel carried an additional cargo of 800 tons of lentils to keep the obelisk from s.h.i.+fting on board.

Lucian, writing in the latter half of the second century A.D., mentions, in one of his Dialogues, the dimensions of a s.h.i.+p which carried corn from Egypt to the Piraeus. The figures are: length, 180 ft.; breadth, nearly 50 ft.; depth from deck to bottom of hold, 43-1/2 ft.

The latter figure appears to be incredible. The other dimensions are approximately those of the _Royal George_, described on p. 126.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 13.--Roman merchant-s.h.i.+p.]

DETAILS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF GREEK AND ROMAN GALLEYS.

It is only during the present century that we have learned, with any certainty, what the ancient Greek galleys were like. In the year 1834 A.D. it was discovered that a drain at the Piraeus had been constructed with a number of slabs bearing inscriptions, which, on examination, turned out to be the inventories of the ancient dockyard of the Piraeus.

From these inscriptions an account of the Attic triremes has been derived by the German writers Boeckh and Graser. The galleys all appear to have been constructed on much the same model, with interchangeable parts. The dates of the slabs range from 373 to 323 B.C., and the following description must be taken as applying only to galleys built within this period.

The length, exclusive of the beak, or ram, must have been at least 126 ft., the ram having an additional length of 10 ft. The length was, of course, dictated by the maximum number of oars in any one tier, by the s.p.a.ce which it was found necessary to leave between each oar, and by the free s.p.a.ces between the foremost oar and the stem, and the aftermost oar and the stern of the s.h.i.+p. Now, as it appears further on, the maximum number of oars in any tier in a trireme was 62 in the top bank, which gives 31 a side. If we allow only 3 ft. between the oars we must allot at least 90 ft. to the portion of the vessel occupied by the rowers. The free s.p.a.ces at stem and stern were, according to the representations of those vessels which have come down to us, about 7/24th of the whole; and, if we accept this proportion, the length of a trireme, independently of its beak, would be about 126 ft. 6 in. If the s.p.a.ce allotted to each rower be increased, as it may very reasonably be, the total length of the s.h.i.+p would also have to be increased proportionately. Hence it is not surprising that some authorities put the length at over 140 ft. It may be mentioned in corroboration, that the ruins of the Athenian docks at Zea show that they were originally at least 150 ft. long. They were also 19 ft. 5 in. wide. The breadth of a trireme at the water-line, amids.h.i.+ps, was about 14 ft., perhaps increasing somewhat higher up, the sides tumbled home above the greatest width. These figures give the width of the hull proper, exclusive of an outrigged gangway, or deck, which, as subsequently explained, was constructed along the sides as a pa.s.sage for the soldiers and seamen.

The draught was from 7 to 8 ft.

Such a vessel carried a crew of from 200 to 225, of whom 174 were rowers, 20 seamen to work the sails, anchors, etc., and the remainder soldiers. Of the rowers, 62 occupied the upper, 58 the middle and 54 the lower tier. Many writers have supposed that each oar was worked by several rowers, as in the galleys of the Middle Ages. This, however, was not the case, for it has been conclusively proved that, in the Greek galleys, up to the cla.s.s of triremes, at any rate, there was only one man to each oar. For instance, Thucydides, describing the surprise attack intended to be delivered on the Piraeus, and actually delivered against the island of Salamis by the Peloponnesians in 429 B.C., relates that the sailors were marched from Corinth to Nisaea, the harbour of Megara, on the Athenian side of the isthmus, in order to launch forty s.h.i.+ps which happened to be lying in the docks there, and that _each_ sailor carried his cus.h.i.+on and his oar, with its thong, on his march. We have, moreover, a direct proof of the size of the longest oars used in triremes, for the inventories of the Athenian dockyards expressly state that they were 9-1/2 cubits, or 13 ft. 6 in. in length. The reason why the oars were arranged in tiers, or banks, one above the other was, no doubt, that, in this way, the propelling power could be increased without a corresponding increase in the length of the s.h.i.+ps. To make a long sea-going vessel sufficiently strong without a closed upper deck would have severely taxed the skill of the early s.h.i.+pbuilders. Moreover, long vessels would have been very difficult to manoeuvre, and in the Greek mode of fighting, ramming being one of the chief modes of offence, facility in manoeuvring was of prime importance. The rowers on each side sat in the same vertical longitudinal plane, and consequently the length of the inboard portions of the oars varied according as the curve of the vessel's side approached or receded from this vertical plane. The seats occupied by the rowers in the successive tiers were arranged one above the other in oblique lines sloping upwards towards the stem, as shown in Figs. 14 and 15. The vertical distance between the seats was about 2 ft. The horizontal gap between the benches in each tier was about 3 ft. The seats were some 9 in. wide, and foot-supports were fixed to each for the use of the rower next above and behind. The oars were so arranged that the blades in each tier all struck the water in the same fore and aft line. The lower oar-ports were about 3 ft., the middle 4-1/4 ft., and the upper 5-1/2 ft., above the water. The water was prevented from entering the ports by means of leather bags fastened round the oars and to the sides of the oar-ports. The upper oars were about 14 ft. long, the middle 10 ft., and the lower 7-1/2 ft., and in addition to these there were a few extra oars which were occasionally worked from the platform, or deck, above the upper tier, probably by the seamen and soldiers when they were not otherwise occupied. The benches for the rowers extended from the sides to timber supports, inboard, arranged in vertical planes fore and aft. There were two sets of these timbers, one belonging to each side of the s.h.i.+p, and separated by a s.p.a.ce of 7 ft. These timbers also connected the upper and lower decks together. The latter was about 1 ft. above the water-line. Below the lower deck was the hold which contained the ballast, and in which the apparatus for baling was fixed.

In addition to oars, sails were used as a means of propulsion whenever the wind was favourable, but not in action.

The Athenian galleys had, at first, one mast, but afterwards, it is thought, two were used. The mainmast was furnished with a yard and square sail.

The upper deck, which was the fighting-platform previously mentioned, was originally a flying structure, and, perhaps, did not occupy the full width of the vessel amids.h.i.+ps. At the bow, however, it was connected by planking with the sides of the s.h.i.+p, so as to form a closed-in s.p.a.ce, or forecastle. This forecastle would doubtless have proved of great use in keeping the s.h.i.+p dry during rough weather, and probably suggested ultimately the closed decking of the whole of the s.h.i.+p. There is no record of when this feature, which was general in ancient Egyptian vessels, was introduced into Greek galleys. It was certainly in use in the Roman wars.h.i.+ps about the commencement of the Christian era, for there is in the Vatican a relief of about the date 50 A.D. from the Temple of Fortune at Praeneste, which represents part of a bireme, in which the rowers are all below a closed deck, on which the soldiers are standing.

In addition to the fighting-deck proper there were the two side platforms, or gangways, already alluded to, which were carried right round the outside of the vessel on about the same level as the benches of the upper tier of rowers. These platforms projected about 18 to 24 in. beyond the sides of the hull, and were supported on brackets. Like the flying deck, these pa.s.sages were intended for the accommodation of the soldiers and sailors, who could, by means of them, move freely round the vessel without interfering with the rowers. They were frequently fenced in with stout planking on the outside, so as to protect the soldiers. They do not appear to have been used on galleys of the earliest period.

We have no direct evidence as to the dimensions of s.h.i.+ps of four and five banks. Polybios tells us that the crew of a Roman quinquereme in the first Carthaginian War, at a battle fought in 256 B.C., numbered 300, in addition to 120 soldiers. Now, the number 300 can be obtained by adding two banks of respectively 64 and 62 rowers to the 172 of the trireme. We may, perhaps, infer that the quinquereme of that time was a little longer than the trireme, and had about 3 ft. more freeboard, this being the additional height required to accommodate two extra banks of oars. Three hundred years later than the above-mentioned date Pliny tells us that this type of galley carried 400 rowers.

We know no detailed particulars of vessels having a greater number of banks than five till we get to the alleged forty-banker of Ptolemy Philopater. Of this s.h.i.+p Callixenos gives the following particulars:--Her dimensions were: length, 420 ft.; breadth, 57 ft.; draught, under 6 ft.; height of stern ornament above water-line, 79 ft.