Ancient galleys—Different descriptions—Their
outfit—Beaks—Stern—Masts and sails—Oars—Mode of
rowing—Single-banked galleys—French galley—General Melvill’s
theory—Charnock’s theory—Vossius’s views—Mr. Howell’s
plan—Plan of Revd. J. O. W. Haweis (Appendix No. 1)—Our own
views—Biremes—Triremes—Quadriremes—Quinqueremes—Hexiremes and
larger galleys—Suggested plan of placing the rowers—Summary.
[Sidenote: Ancient galleys.]
Frequent reference has been made in the course of this work to the
row-galleys of the ancients, and no subject connected with shipping has
called forth more conflicting opinions: nor is this surprising. Most
ancient writers who refer to it are less or more at variance with each
other; while the representations on coins and monumental sculptures
are generally on so small a scale as to afford little assistance in
its elucidation. Within the last two centuries numerous authors have
endeavoured to solve the problem how these galleys were classed and
rowed, and to establish a system of propulsion which, while applicable
to every class, would harmonize with the accounts preserved of the size
of these vessels and of the number of rowers employed on board of them.
[Sidenote: Different descriptions.]
Galleys appear to have been rated by their bank of oars, that is,
uniremes had one, biremes two, triremes three, quadriremes four,
quinqueremes five, and so forth, up to the enormous ship of Ptolemy
Philopator, which we have already noticed. But the chief point of
controversy has been what constituted a bank.
According to Homer,[372] the Greek fleet at the siege of Troy consisted
entirely of uniremes. They were then undecked, with the exception of
a platform at each end on which the archers or principal fighting men
stood, and were guided by oars or sweeps at both extremities so as to
ensure rapid evolution. Pliny[373] states that the Erythræans were the
first who built biremes. Various ancient writers give the Corinthians
the credit for having been the first to construct triremes. “And now
Greece,” remarks Thucydides,[374] “began to construct navies and to
apply herself more assiduously to nautical affairs. The first who
introduced a change in the structure of vessels, so as to form them
very nearly in the present mode, are said to have been the Corinthians;
and _triremes_ are thought to have been built first for Greece at
Corinth. It appears, too, that Ameinocles, a Corinthian ship-builder,
also constructed four such vessels for the Samians.”
[Sidenote: B.C. 430.]
Although triremes, in the time of Thucydides, and for some centuries
afterwards, were more approved for purposes of war than any other
description of vessel, the authority of Pliny, Athenæus,[375]
Polybius,[376] and others is sufficient proof that vessels of four,
five, six, and ten banks of oars were built;—that Alexander increased
the number of banks to twelve;—that Philip, father of Perseus, had
a galley of sixteen banks;[377] and—that vessels of four and five
banks were frequently engaged in war. The triremes, however, were
much more numerous than any other class of galleys except those which
had only one bank of oars. Themistocles built three hundred triremes
for the purpose of carrying on the war against Ægina; and obtained a
decree authorizing the construction of a further, but limited number
of these vessels from the produce of the mines of Laureium.[378] By
his influence twenty triremes were annually built by the Athenians so
as to maintain in efficient order a permanent fleet of from three to
four hundred vessels of this description.[379] Triremes consisted of
two classes, fighting ships and transports. The former were propelled
at great speed, frequently reaching seven to eight miles an hour; the
number of rowers employed on each varying from fifty to two hundred.
The transports were bulkier and stronger vessels, and, though armed,
were not brought into action except in cases of urgent necessity.
[Sidenote: B.C. 431-403.]
[Sidenote: B.C. 400.]
[Sidenote: B.C. 255.]
No mention is made of any vessel with more than three banks of oars
having been employed in the Peloponnesian war, but quadriremes and
quinqueremes were known in the reign of Dionysius I., of Syracuse, and
were employed by the Carthaginians in the first Punic war, who had also
in their service some vessels of the hexireme and septireme class.
From the ease, however, with which the Romans captured these large
vessels (even allowing for their superior energy and vigorous mode of
close action), they were evidently much less efficient in proportion
to their size than triremes. Nevertheless, according to the testimony
of Plutarch, very large galleys were in high favour with Demetrius
Poliorcetes,[380] whom he represents as a prince possessing superior
knowledge of the arts, and of a highly inventive turn of mind. This
prince, he states, caused several of fifteen and sixteen banks to be
built, he himself superintending their construction; and so formidable
are these vessels said to have appeared, that Lysimachus, when he had
ocular confirmation of the reports he had heard of their strength and
capacity, raised the siege of Rhodes rather than encounter them in
action. Plutarch also states that Antony[381] possessed a fleet of no
less than five hundred armed vessels, magnificently adorned, having
eight and ten banks of oars, and that he selected the best and largest
of them for the celebrated battle of Actium. However exaggerated some
of the accounts preserved of these very large galleys may be, and
however imperfect and inconsistent the descriptions of them by ancient
authors, their existence has been established beyond all doubt.
[Sidenote: Their outfit.]
[Sidenote: Beaks.]
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
[Sidenote: Stern.]
[Sidenote: Masts and sails.]
With reference to their outfit, it is sufficient to state that, in
nearly every instance, they were highly ornamented with figures
carved on the bow and stern. Below the bow, and between it and the
fore-foot or keel, there was generally a projecting piece of very
strong timber, to which was attached either a ram’s head, sharp metal
bolts, cleavers, or some other instrument of destruction. These
beaks were at first constructed so as to be visible above the water,
but afterwards they were immersed, like the beaks of the iron-clad
rams of our own time, themselves evidently copies from the original
Grecian and Roman designs. The most trustworthy illustrations of
these have been taken from the Trajan column and a few coins of the
period, of which the accompanying drawings are fair representations.
Nearly the whole of the ancient war-galleys had their bows and sterns
considerably elevated above the level of the deck. From the former, or
the “_coursier_”—centre platform—an officer regulated the duties of the
rowers; whilst the pilot directed, from the quarterdeck, the course of
the ship. In many cases, this officer sat under a highly ornamented
canopy, from which he issued his commands, and behind it there was
usually carved the image of the tutelar deity of the galley. From the
flag-staff floated her ensign or private signal; and, sometimes, a
large vane on the taffrail pointed to the direction of the wind. On
the column of Trajan a lantern is shown suspended close to the stern
in one of the galleys. Each trireme carried two wooden ladders and
three “spreads,” poles of different lengths. Although the oars were
the chief means of propulsion, almost every vessel above the size of
a trireme had either one or two masts, but one of them, from raking
forward and being comparatively small, resembled in many respects a
bowsprit, so that, practically, there was only one mast except in very
large vessels, which, with the yard and square sail attached, usually
completed their rig. The portion of the mast immediately above the
yard formed a “top,” or structure similar to a basin, serving for the
purpose of a look-out or as a place from which arrows or other missiles
could be discharged. All the Athenian galleys had square sails only, as
may be seen in numerous illustrations; and it is very questionable if
any of the Greek vessels used topsails of a triangular form, Δ, though
they were known to the Romans;[382] but, from their form, the wide part
being attached to the yard and the point reaching the topmast head,
they could, under any circumstances, have been of very little service,
and none whatever when the wind was abeam or before the beam.
[Sidenote: Oars.]
The oars varied in size according to the bank on which they were used,
of course increasing in length as they ascended. Their length in a
trireme is stated at from 9 to 9¼ cubits, but no mention is made of the
part of the vessel to which they belonged. An oar, however, of only
fourteen feet in length could have been of no service unless used on
the lowest rank and almost on a level with the water. Those employed in
the smallest wherries of the Thames are from twelve to fourteen feet
long. Thucydides,[383] in describing the attack of the Peloponnesian
commanders on the Piræeus, the harbour of Athens, remarks, “The plan
was that each sailor should take with him his oar, his cushion and his
thong, and go by land from Corinth to the sea over against Athens,
and, proceeding with all speed to Megara, should put off with forty
triremes which happened to be at Nisæa, their naval station, and sail
immediately for Piræeus.” From these remarks it may be inferred that
none of the oars belonging to a trireme were of greater weight than one
man could carry for a distance of four or five miles; and that only
one man was stationed at an oar, unless “his oar” might be construed
as meaning the oar under his charge. But though no mention is made of
different-sized oars having been used on board of a trireme, there can
be no doubt that the oars of the ancients differed far more in size
than those of the river barge or man-of-war sweeps as compared with the
sculls of the Thames wherry of modern times.
[Sidenote: Mode of rowing.]
This is clear from the fact that while various ancient writers mention
oars of 9½ cubits in length, Athenæus distinctly states that the
oars belonging to Ptolemy Philopator’s large ship were thirty-eight
cubits long.[384] Here we have a specific account of oars varying
from fourteen to fifty-seven feet in length, the latter requiring to
have lead embedded in their handles as a counterpoise to the weight
outside the rowlock.[385] Besides, it is clear that the oars must have
increased in size according to the banks on which they were employed.
In the case of the oar fifty-seven feet in length, if worked from a
great height a large portion of it would require to be inboard—say
nineteen feet against thirty-eight; and even the one-third would
not, at a line of nine feet above the water, be sufficient as a
counterpoise, unless the shoulder of the oar were of unwieldy thickness
or heavily weighted by lead. In all single-banked vessels the oar
worked on the gunwale, and was kept in its place by means of a leather
thong. In larger galleys it passed through an oar-port. Various ancient
writers assert that there was only one man to each oar, and add, that
he sat, when rowing, on a single bench or small stool attached to the
ribs of the vessel, and within a very short distance from the _scalmus_
of his oar.
But these assertions, though they increase the difficulty of solving
the intricate problem of how galleys, with more than one bank of
oars, were propelled, can have no weight when opposed to practical
experience. It is clear, without any testimony beyond our knowledge of
the physical power of man, that no one man, however herculean, unless
he had the aid of machinery, of which there is no proof, could work an
oar in the manner described. Indeed, we know that in ancient galleys
of every description, above the smallest uniremes, more men than one
_were_ frequently employed upon the same oar. Such was the case in the
celebrated Liburnian[386] galleys, already described.
Here the question arises how many men could, with convenience, sit on
each bench? Presuming that, in the case of an oar fifty-seven feet
in length, one-third, or nineteen feet, remained within board, there
would, allowing fifteen inches for each rower, be space for fifteen men
to work at the one oar; and if the men who sat within six feet of the
row-port were of no service, there is still ample space left to place
ten effective rowers.
If in comparatively modern times, when rowers were by no means
crowded, eighteen inches for each man abreast was considered more
than sufficient, we may infer that five men to an oar was far from
an unfrequent practice in manning the state galleys of the Italian
Republics. But while there is no difficulty in understanding how five
or even ten men could be rendered serviceable in working the oars of
single-banked galleys, a great difficulty arises when we inquire how
that number of men could effectively handle the upper bank oars of
the quadriremes and quinqueremes. On these and on many other matters
the accounts of the ancients are conflicting: nor do the imperfect
illustrations on ancient monuments and on coins materially assist in
their elucidation. Assured of the fact that there were many vessels of
much larger dimensions than even quinqueremes propelled by oars, we
have to consider _how this was done_. Now the only mode of arriving at
correct conclusions on this, the most conflicting and intricate of all
the problems connected with shipping which ancient authors have left
for solution, is to trace the progress of the galleys themselves, from
the single-banked craft or unireme upwards.
[Sidenote: Single-banked galleys.]
With the exception of the extraordinary Liburnian galleys, every
account extant leads to the conviction that the single-banked galleys
of the Venetians and Genoese resembled in many respects those of the
Romans and ancient Greeks. Drawings of Venetian galleys, to which
references will hereafter be made, have been preserved, but, as no
detailed account of them exists, we are obliged to seek for information
from a writer of a comparatively modern date.[387]
[Sidenote: French galley.]
In its leading features, a French galley, constructed somewhere about
the close of the seventeenth century, would appear to have resembled
those of Venice and of Rome of a similar class. She is described as
having been one hundred and fifty feet long and _fifty feet broad_; but
there is evidently a mistake in the description of her width, as there
is no record of any war galley, either ancient or modern, where the
length was only three times the breadth of beam. They were invariably
from five to ten times longer than they were wide. All writers on
the ships of the ancients or of the middle ages are agreed upon this
point; nor is there any account of a vessel propelled by oars of our
own times, which is not at least six times longer than she is wide;
therefore, it is safe to assume that the French galley of one hundred
and fifty feet in length did not much exceed thirty feet in width.
In other respects, with the exception of the length of oars, the
description of this single-banked galley is evidently quite reliable.
The author says, that she “consists but of one deck, which covers the
hold; this hold is in the middle nine feet, but at the sides of the
galley only six feet high. By this we may see that the deck rises
about a foot in the middle, and slopes towards the edges to let the
water more easily run off; for when a galley is loaded, it seems to
swim under water, at least the sea constantly washes the deck. The sea
would then necessarily enter the hold by the apertures where the masts
are placed, were it not prevented by what is called the _coursier_.
This is a long case of boards fixed on the middle or highest part of
the deck, and running from one end of the galley to the other. There
is also a hatchway into the hold as high as the _coursier_. From this
superficial description, perhaps, it may be imagined that the slaves
and the rest of the crew have their feet always in the water; but the
case is otherwise; to each bench there is a board raised a foot from
the deck, which serves as a footstool to the rowers, under which the
water passes. For the soldiers and marines there is, running on each
side along the gunwale of the vessel, what is called a _bande_, which
is a bench about the same height with the _coursier_, and two feet
broad. They never lie here, but each leans on his own particular bundle
of clothes in a very incommodious posture. The officers themselves are
not better accommodated, for the chambers in the hold are designed only
to hold the provisions and naval stores of the galley.”
The author then proceeds to state that the French galley had a chamber
in the poop or raised deck, only large enough to hold the captain’s
bed; that, contiguous to it, were compartments for the more valuable
stores; and, after remarking on various details, he adds, that she
had twenty-five benches for the rowers on each side of the vessel.
These fifty benches, which were four feet apart, and ten feet long,
are described as having been “covered with sackcloth, stuffed with
flocks, and over this is thrown a cow-hide, which, reaching down to the
_banquet_ or footstool, gives them the resemblance of large trunks. To
these the slaves are chained, six to a bench; along the _bande_ runs
a large rim of timber, about a foot thick which forms the gunwale of
the galley. On this, which is called the apostic, the oars are worked.
These _are fifty feet long_, and are poised in equilibrio upon the
afore-mentioned piece of timber, so that the thirteen feet of oar which
come inboard are equal in weight to the thirty-seven feet outboard; and
as it would be impossible to hold them in the hand, because of their
thickness, they have handles by which they are managed by the slaves.”
If the oars of this vessel, which in their leading features no doubt
resembled those of the large single-banked galleys of the ancients and
of the middle ages, were fifty feet in length, then a beam of thirty
feet would not suffice for oars of that enormous length. But if the
beam was only one-fifth of her length, we may assume that the oars were
not more than thirty-nine feet long, especially as that length would
be amply sufficient for propelling a single-banked vessel. In that
case the oar would be “thirteen” feet inboard as described, affording
abundance of space for six slaves to be stationed at it, although the
two nearest the side would be of comparatively less service in rowing.
To enable the rowers, and especially those who were stationed nearest
the centre of the galley, to work with effect, their benches must have
been placed in a slightly oblique position.
From this description, there is no difficulty in understanding the
character of the uniremes; it is only when we come to inquire what
was meant by biremes, triremes, and so forth, and how they were
propelled, that the most conflicting statements are met with. Although
Scheffer,[388] General Melvill, and others, have bestowed an immense
deal of learning in their endeavours to prove that each oar was rowed
by one man only, and that the banks were placed directly one over the
other, the bulk of the testimony of ancient writers, confirmed by
experience, is opposed to any such views. Besides, the most casual
inquiry will show that it would be impracticable to row any galley with
more than two banks of oars on the plan suggested. Every additional
rank adds to the difficulty in a greatly increased ratio; and if
hexiremes were efficient ships, which, on the authority of Polybius
they were,[389] it would have been altogether impracticable to propel
them by oars on the plan suggested.
[Sidenote: General Melvill’s theory.]
It might be unnecessary to offer any further remarks on this branch of
the subject, had not Mr. Mitford, the celebrated historian of Greece,
expressed so strong an opinion in favour of it. “The most satisfactory
conjectures,” he remarks, “that I have met with by far, are those of
General Melvill.”[390] It may, however, be here explained that General
Melvill, in common with other writers, had previously entertained the
opinion that the number of banks were measured by the number of men
at an oar. That is to say, a unireme, he considered, had only one man
placed at an oar, a bireme two, a trireme three, and so forth, up to
the great ship of Ptolemy Philopator, which had, according to this
theory, forty men to each of its fifty-seven feet oars. As the General
on examination found such a theory to be untenable, he conceived the
idea that in no case was there more than one man to an oar. “He,”
then,[391] “set himself to investigate the subject for confirmation
of this opinion on fact, as he should find that fact to turn out
in the descriptions of sea-fights and other naval transactions, as
given by the ancient authors, particularly Polybius, Cæsar, Livy, and
Florus.” Impressed with his new idea, it occurred to him, that “the
indispensable requisites were, that in the arrangement of the rowers
within, each side ought to have been such as to admit of the greatest
number possible, that they should be so placed as not to impede each
other; that they should be enabled to row to the best advantage; and
that the highest tiers, both in respect to length and weight, should be
sufficiently manageable: from these grounds the discovery immediately
resulted to him, which was, that by a combination of two obliquities
between the galley and a rower’s gallery running along its waist part,
projecting outwards from a small distance above the water’s edge, with
an angle of 45°, and rows of horizontal seats of about two feet in
length, fixed obliquely upwards from the bottom of this gallery against
this obliquely projecting part of the side, with no more space betwixt
them in all directions than should be found necessary for the free
movement of men when rowing together, a quincunx or chequer order would
be formed, with all the above-mentioned requisites, to the highest
degree of advantage which could co-exist consistent with each other.”
It is not easy to understand the General’s scheme by this description
of it. He lays down, practically enough, some essential points which
require to be considered; but while the oar adapted for the lowest
banks might be “sufficiently manageable,” the oars of the upper banks,
even if well balanced, could not be effectively worked by one man. Nor
is it easy to understand what is meant by “rows of horizontal seats, of
about two feet in length, fixed obliquely upwards from the bottom of
this gallery.” However, the General caused a model of a quinquereme to
be erected against a high wall belonging to his house in London, which
was of the same proportions as would have been required for a “fifth
part of a real galley.” The model is said to “have held, in a very
small space, but with sufficient ease, the rowers of five tiers, of
six men in each, lengthways, making one-fifth the rowers on each side
of a quinquereme, according to Polybius, who mentions three hundred
as the whole number of rowers in it, besides one hundred and twenty
fighting men.” But this further explanation does not assist in the
elucidation of his theory of “one man to each oar.” On the contrary, it
rather tends to confuse, unless the General means that there were one
hundred and fifty row-ports on each side of the quinquereme mentioned
by Polybius, which would be absurd.
But the impracticability of the whole plan is shown when an examination
is made of the space that would be required to place, single file,
three hundred rowers at the oars of a quinquereme.
The sweep of an oar is measured by its length, and would require a
certain defined space for its movement, irrespective of the number of
men at work upon it. The single-banked French galley already described
was one hundred and fifty feet long, having twenty five benches on
each side, requiring a length of one hundred feet. All other accounts,
as well as experience, show that the benches were, and required to
be, three feet apart: and, allowing one foot for the breadth of the
bench, each oar would require a space of four feet in a horizontal
line. According to the General’s theory there would be thirty oar-ports
on each bank, which, allowing for their obliquity, would require the
gallery attached to the side of his galley to be somewhere about two
hundred feet in length for the accommodation of the rowers. No doubt
such a vessel could be built, but it is very questionable if any
such vessel _ever was built_. Ptolemy Philopator’s ship would have
required two thousand oar-ports on each side, to afford employment to
her rowers. There is, however, another equally valid objection to the
General’s scheme: a bank of oars means something whereby one class of
galleys could be clearly distinguished from another class. Ships of
war, up to a comparatively recent period, were rated as mounting so
many guns, just as ancient galleys were rated by their banks of oars;
the one measured the fighting, the other the propelling power. But if,
according to the General’s plan, triremes or quinqueremes were known
by the number of banks, what was the measure of vessels of the larger
size? for he does not profess to work any galley on his plan with more
than five tiers; nor does he maintain that the size of his galley
was measured by the number of her oars, which would depend upon her
length. In whatever way this scheme is examined it will be found to be
altogether untenable.
[Sidenote: Charnock’s theory.]
Charnock, in his “History of Marine Architecture,”[392] has evidently
devoted more space than thought to the elucidation of this intricate
subject. While he, with all other writers on the subject, accurately
describes “uniremes” as “those galleys or vessels which had only one
row of oars extending between their masts, or perhaps the entire length
of the vessel,” he breaks down at the first step beyond a unireme, when
he says that “the biremes had one tier of oars between their masts,
and another abaft the main or principal mast.” Indeed, all theories
must necessarily fail which cannot be made applicable to vessels of
every description; and it is no solution of the difficulty to deny, as
Mr. Charnock and others have done, the existence of vessels beyond a
certain size, when it is found that a theory practicable within certain
limits would be altogether impracticable if carried beyond them.
That this would be the case in Mr. Charnock’s plan he himself admits.
He says that a trireme was a galley more formidable than the bireme,
“having one tier of oars extending between the masts, a second abaft
the mainmast, and a third forward, near the prow or stem before the
foremast.” The quadriremes he describes as having had “their oars
ranged like the triremes, with the difference of having two tiers of
oars one above the other, abaft the mainmast.” “The quinqueremes,”
he adds, “were also of the same description, with the addition of
the second tier of oars forward.” He then goes on to state that “the
octoremes had two tiers of oars in the midships, and _three_ at the
stem and stern, making in all eight.” This is no doubt an easy method
of solving the difficulty, so far as regards biremes, triremes,
quadriremes and octoremes, but our author fails to explain how his
principle can be applied to vessels of a larger description, or even
how the number of rowers each of these classes are said to have
contained was placed at the oars. The latter he does not attempt,
and as summarily dismisses the former by questioning the existence
altogether of any vessels with more than three tiers of oars placed
either directly or obliquely above each other, in the face of the most
ample evidence to the contrary. However, the theory Mr. Charnock
considers unanswerable would not be the most perfect in practice, even
in vessels of an inferior class to the octoreme. The oars would be more
effective in midships than at any other part of the vessel, yet our
author places the greatest number of these aft and forward, near “the
prow or stem and near the stern.” If there is any merit in his scheme,
it would consist in placing the three banks in midships, and one aft
in the case of a quadrireme; one aft and one forward in the case of a
quinquereme; and two instead of three near the “stem and stern.”
[Sidenote: Vossius’s views.]
The whole of the question of rowing ancient galleys has been
exceedingly well put by Vossius, in his “Dissertation on the
Construction of Ancient Ships.”[393] Speaking of the largest of all
these ships, of which any record remains, he says: “If we compare the
oars that must necessarily have been used on board of this (Ptolemy’s)
ship with those by which the modern galley is worked, and allow for
their different proportions in respect to length, we must also keep
in view a similar comparison in regard to their size and thickness,
and we shall then have a correct idea of their relative dimensions,
as well as their strength.” He then goes on to remark, “Let us now
consider in what manner the four thousand rowers, which are said to
have been employed on board this vessel, were employed or stationed
at the forty banks of oars. It is not my intention,” he continues,
“to combat or examine what many learned men have already written on
this subject, both in France and in other countries. Their opinion
is certainly correct in respect to the tiers of oars being placed
obliquely over each other. Existing remnants of antiquity convince us
clearly of the fact; but there still remains a much heavier difficulty
to be got over: it is, in what manner the oars of the upper tier could
be worked and managed by one person only; for it is denied that more
than one was stationed to each oar, and the perplexity of the enigma is
not a little increased by the assertion that a very small part of the
oar reached within board. It is well known that there are no weights
whatever which, by the proper assistance and combination of mechanical
power, may not be moved even by a single person; but we are at the same
time certain, that the greater the weights are, so much the slower
can they be moved. Oars, it must be remembered, become almost useless
unless they are impelled with quickness and spirit, as well as brought
back to their original station, for a renewal of the stroke with equal
celerity. The mechanical powers are of no use in this instance, as
the law remains fixed and immutable, that any operation which, in
the ordinary course of things, requires ten men to perform it, and
one only is employed, may indeed be executed by that one, but will
require a period ten times as long to perform it in; for nature will
not suffer herself to be deceived, or her laws perverted by any such
vainly-hoped-for advantage.”
While Vossius was of opinion that no vessel had ever more than seven
tiers of oars,—though he does not show how that number could have been
worked,—he, for the reasons just quoted, arrived at the conclusion
“that in the lower tier one man only was stationed to an oar, which
being short, and but trivially elevated above the surface of the water,
he might be able to work without much difficulty.” He then explains
that, in his opinion, as to which there can be no question, “the oars
in all superior tiers, as they increased in height from the water,
increased also in length, within board as well as without, leaving room
for a greater number of rowers to work, each in progressive proportion
to their length;” but he draws a false conclusion from right premises
when he remarks that the difficulty consists “not in so many tiers, but
in the number of seats of rowers comprised in one oblique tier.”[394]
Such are the views of a few of the leading writers on this intricate
question. While agreeing with Vossius in the opinion that the oar-ports
were placed obliquely in the sides of the vessel, and that the number
of men to an oar was regulated by its length and position, there are
many objections to his theory that the galleys of the ancients were
classed, either by the number of men or by the number of their seats;
and any seaman who takes the trouble to put the theory into practice
will find that even the principle of obliquity will not admit of the
effective working of more than five tiers of oars.
Each theory, however, contains less or more truth; and by a careful
examination of the whole, the problem which has occupied the attention
of so many writers may be successfully solved, if there be less
attempt to harmonize statements made by ancient authors, who were
not practically conversant with the subject, or whose writings have
been misquoted or imperfectly interpreted. All writers agree in the
opinion that the uniremes had only one bank or tier of oars, and there
is no difference of opinion with regard to the mode of propelling
these vessels. Although “seated” (and this expression has led to much
controversy), the rowers, in the case of large vessels, doubtless, rose
simultaneously to their oars at the word of command, stretching out the
handles as far as the allotted space would permit, and then throwing
themselves back uniformly upon their seats, and, with their whole
weight, propelling the galley forwards. This mode of rowing may be seen
in the Mediterranean and elsewhere at the present day.
Writers differ with regard to the number of men placed at an oar;
but herein there is, practically also, no difference of opinion, for
the number of men at an oar must depend on the size of the vessel. A
jolly-boat has never more than one man at an oar, but a launch has
two, and, in the phraseology of our own time, launches thus rowed are
called “double-banked,” although this expression was not applicable to
the galleys of the ancients. Nor is there much difference of opinion
with reference to what was meant by a bireme. Apart, therefore, from
direct testimony, there can be no doubt that a bireme (as a rule) meant
a vessel, not with two rowers to an oar, but with two banks or tiers
of oars. Some writers, as already explained, have maintained that the
oar-ports were placed directly one above the other; but this could
only be possible in vessels such as the bireme. On the other hand,
a careful examination of Trajan’s column, and of other remains of
ancient sculpture, proves that the oars were placed _obliquely_ over
each other: thus, on coins of the Emperor Gordian, two tiers of oars
so placed are very conspicuous. If, however, any doubts still exist on
this point, they are entirely set at rest by the recent discoveries of
Layard and others.
The illustration on the next page, a copy of an alabaster slab found
at Kouyunjik, the site of ancient Nineveh, clearly shows the oar-ports
arranged obliquely on the broad side of the galley. The only further
question is, to what extent this principle could be applied, so as to
place at work the vast number of rowers some galleys are said to have
carried, and also to afford accommodation for the troops and stores.
[Sidenote: Mr. Howell’s plan.]
[Illustration: GALLEY FROM KOUYUNJIK (NINEVEH).]
Mr. Howell, a comparatively modern writer,[395] adopts many of the
views of Vossius, but differs from him in that he maintains that
it would be impossible to work with effect more than five banks of
oars. As his views are more in accordance with our own than those of
any other writer, we shall refer to them at greater length, although
differing also from him in some of his most important conclusions.
And here it ought to be stated, that all modern writers, Mr. Howell
included, appear to have given too little consideration to the facts,
that ancient galleys varied quite as much in size as the vessels of
modern times, that their power or dimensions were not, in all cases,
measured by the number of their banks of oars, and that in proportion
to the number of rowers the capacity of the hold would require to be
increased. A war-galley would be comparatively useless if she had not
ample capacity for fighting men, and for their munitions of every
kind, besides stores, including water. All these points must, however,
have been fully considered by the ancients, who evidently saw, when
they wished to have more than thirty oars on each side of a galley,
that an increase could not be obtained on the single-bank principle
without constructing her of an unwieldy length in proportion to her
depth and breadth, and thus sacrificing an unnecessarily large amount
of space. Consequently, they invented the bireme, whereby they could,
in little more than the length required for fifteen oars, place double
that number without any corresponding sacrifice of space; while in the
trireme, they would in nearly the same length obtain space for three
times the number of oars, and secure for the use of the soldiers and
stores ample accommodation and any extra length they might desire.
Mr. Howell, in discussing this principle as applicable to quinqueremes,
shows that, by adopting the oblique ascent, the rowers of the first
and highest bank can be placed so as not to interfere with the rowers
on the second, their oars having space to play free of the benches
before them. “That a bank or bench of oars,” he adds, “never contained
more than five oars, I think, can be proved, whatever the size of
the galley was, whether a bireme or trireme, up to the galley of
Philopator, which had forty banks, nine feet being the highest point
from the water for the _scalmi_, from which they could pull with
effect.”[396]
Mr. Howell, in confirmation, as he conceives, of this opinion, quotes
Athenæus;[397] but, though there is nothing in the description of the
great ship to lead to the conclusion that the _scalmi_ of her highest
bank of oars were only nine feet above the level of the water, we
agree with Mr. Howell that an oar could not be worked effectively at
a greater height, and that the seats of the rowers were arranged by
the system of obliquity, so as not to interfere with each other. We,
however, differ from him in other respects. “A Greek trireme,” he
remarks, “at the time of the invasion of Xerxes, had from one hundred
and fifty to one hundred and sixty rowers and forty armed foot, while
the average-sized Persian triremes carried two hundred rowers and
thirty soldiers.” Presuming these to be established facts, Mr. Howell
endeavours to make his theory harmonize with them. “I have shown,”
he says, referring to the French vessel, of which we have furnished
particulars, “that a modern galley pulling fifty oars has six rowers on
a bench. If I am correct,” he continues, “a trireme pulled thirty oars,
that is, three banks, five oars in each, thus:—
[Illustration]
Now, to a vessel of her bulk, with elevated poop and stern,” he goes
on to state, “less than five men cannot be allowed to each seat. Thus
there are twenty-five rowers in each bank, and six times twenty-five
make one hundred and fifty.” But though this mode of calculation
(which, by the way, does not allow for any “watch-and-watch” or
reliefs[398]) makes the Grecian galley agree with his scheme of
manning her so far as regards the number of rowers, it is based upon
the presumption that every oar had the same number of men. But this
could not have been the case; for even if five men could be placed to
advantage on each of the upper tiers of oars, two of them, at least,
would be useless on the lower tiers of a vessel of this size, as they
would not have space to work at it. The same fallacy runs throughout
his arguments in other places. Thus he accounts for the Persian trireme
with her two hundred men, by saying that she “must have had six men to
an oar, which is not improbable, the Asiatics being not so athletic as
the Greeks. Six times thirty,” he adds, “is one hundred and eighty,
leaving twenty men for casualties, etc., etc.”
This is an exceedingly easy mode of attempting to solve an intricate
question; but Mr. Howell, instead of overcoming the difficulty, only
increases it when he says that there must have been six men to an oar,
for six men would be less easily placed at each of the lower tiers of
oars than five. Nor does he aid in the solution of this vexed problem
when he comes to deal with vessels of five banks. Practically his
arguments are the same, and show the mistakes which learned men are
liable to make when dealing with questions requiring experience as
well as learning. “Polybius,” remarks Mr. Howell, “informs us the crew
of a quinquereme was three hundred rowers, and one hundred and twenty
fighting men. Now a quinquereme,” he reasons, “having five banks, thus—
[Illustration]
pulled fifty oars, or twenty-five aside, the same number as the modern
galley. As by this arrangement, adding to the banks of the galley,”
he continues, “did not add to her height, and not in any great degree
to her length, seven feet being sufficient for a bank, I think the
addition of one man to an oar was all she could require. Six times five
is thirty, and ten times thirty, three hundred. Both of these,” he
concludes, by saying with evident self-satisfaction, “are remarkable
coincidences, and tally better with the description of ancient authors
than any solution that has yet been given.”
“I shall now,” he continues, “show how remarkably it agrees with
Athenæus; thus taking in the whole range and applying to all, a thing
it could never do were it not near the truth. The tesseracontoros
having,” he adds, “forty banks, five oars to a bench, makes her have
two hundred oars of a side, or four hundred in all. Considering her
size, she could not have less than ten men to an oar.” The Liburnia
of Caligula, according to the testimony of Suetonius, had, he states,
that number of men to an oar, forgetting that she was a single-banked
galley, and consequently he concludes that that number was attached to
each of the four hundred oars in Philopator’s ship, which “gives four
thousand, the number mentioned by Athenæus.” Here again he overlooks
the impracticability of placing ten men at each of the lower tier of
oars.
[Sidenote: Our own views.]
[Sidenote: Biremes.]
Now, while there can be no doubt that all vessels had their ports
placed obliquely in cases where there were more than one tier of oars;
that there were vessels of five tiers of oars thus placed and no more,
and that the Grecian trireme had one hundred and fifty rowers, and
the Persian two hundred, it is clear from the descriptions of ancient
authors that there were many triremes of much smaller dimensions,
especially from the facility with which they were hauled upon the
beach: while there were others carrying even more men than the galleys
he refers to.[399] But presuming Mr. Howell to be correct in his
supposition, that a trireme derived her name from “having three rows of
five tiers and no more,” as he illustrates, then a bireme would derive
her name because she had only two rows of five tiers, thus:—
[Illustration]
No practical man, however, could entertain the idea that ten oars,
arranged as he suggests, would be as efficient as a similar number in
single lines or even in double tiers; nor would a galley of this size
be nearly so efficient as she would be with her ports in a horizontal
line, for she would be much too high in proportion to her length.
Similar remarks apply with nearly equal force in the case of triremes.
[Sidenote: Triremes.]
The perusal of ancient authors, as well as experience, leads to the
conviction that galleys, from the unireme to the quinquereme inclusive,
had their oars arranged not merely in oblique vertical rows, but also
in horizontal rows according to circumstances. Besides, the plan
illustrated on the sculpture from Nineveh is much more practicable than
the one suggested by the theory of Mr. Howell. A galley with only ten
oars on a side would be more efficient if they were placed as follows:—
[Illustration]
than if arranged in the manner suggested by Mr. Howell. Nor would they
occupy more space, the saving of which evidently induced the ancients
to increase the number of tiers.
[Sidenote: Quadriremes.]
[Sidenote: Hexiremes and larger galleys.]
As the galleys of the ancients must have varied very much in their
capacity and dimensions, it would be more reasonable to suppose that,
from the unireme to the quinquereme inclusive, they derived their names
from the number of oars placed horizontally over each other, rather
than from the number of oblique rows as suggested by Mr. Howell. That
is to say, though a trireme bore that name because she had three tiers
of oars placed thus:—
[Illustration]
she was, nevertheless, still a trireme, if she had four, five, ten,
or even twenty oblique rows of oar-ports, only she would be a trireme
of a larger size, just as we have or had frigates—single-decked
vessels, which have varied in size from 600 to 6,000 tons. A trireme
might therefore be a much more powerful vessel than a quadrireme or
quinquereme. On a similar principle, a quadrireme would have four
horizontal tiers of oars, as follows:—
[Illustration]
but, as in the case of the trireme, she would still be a quadrireme,
only of a larger size, if she had more than four oblique rows. There
is, however, a limit beyond which oars could not be worked when placed
over each other in any fashion. That limit would be reached at the
fifth horizontal row, and, for the reasons already named, a sixth row,
however obliquely placed—for obliquity has also its limits—would be
useless. Therefore, while a quinquereme had five horizontal rows, and
the same number of oblique rows, forming a _quincunx_ thus:—
[Illustration]
a galley must have acquired another name when she had _more than five
of these oblique rows_. For instance, vessels with six oblique rows
were, in our opinion, called hexiremes; with seven rows, septiremes;
with eight rows, octoremes, and so forth; up to Ptolemy Philopator’s
tesseracontoros. That the number of men placed on board the ships of
the ancients was regulated, as at present, by the work they had to
perform, and by the size of the ship, there can be no doubt; but the
number of men had nothing in itself to do with the class or grade of
the galley. In some triremes there may have been only fifty rowers, in
others five hundred. Our theory does not require the number of men to
harmonize with the number assigned by Polybius, Athenæus, and other
authors, to differently-rated galleys. Thus, in the trireme, with the
thirty oars and one hundred and fifty rowers, it would not be necessary
to place five men at _each_ oar, as Mr. Howell has proposed.
[Illustration: TRANSVERSE MIDSHIP-SECTION OF A QUINQUEREME.]
[Sidenote: Suggested plan of placing the rowers.]
Six men to each of the oars of the highest bank, five to each oar of
the second, and four men to each oar of the third bank, would give the
requisite number of one hundred and fifty rowers, who would be far more
effective than if placed in the manner he describes. So in the case of
the quinquereme, with her three hundred rowers, instead of placing six
men (presuming there were no reliefs) to each of her fifty oars, our
theory, while it equally solves the difficulty created by the statement
of Polybius (a difficulty which could only arise in quinqueremes with
so large a crew as three hundred rowers), is one which could be carried
out with much more practical effect; for, by placing on the 1st bank 8
men × 5 = 40; 2nd, 7 × 5 = 35; 3rd, 6 × 5 = 30; 4th, 5 × 5 = 25; 5th,
4 × 5 = 20; there would be 150 on each side, or 300 rowers in all, as
represented on the preceding page, in the transverse midship-section of
what a quinquereme really must have been.
Before proceeding to examine in detail how rowers thus arranged could
work with effect, it will be desirable to show that the outline of
the vessel, of which a section is here given, corresponds not merely
with the imperfect information obtained from ancient authors, but with
what would be practicable. To work the number of men here shown, the
breadth of the beam of the galley would, presuming every rower on board
to be employed at the same time, require to be, at least, forty-two
feet, which would allow eighteen feet for the range inside of each of
the oars on the upper bank, and six feet for the width of the raised
midship-deck, where the hatches were placed. That width would allow
for oars fifty-four feet in length, which would be ample where the
highest row-port was nine feet above the level of the water; and as
thirty men would be able to work on each oblique row, a hexireme, of no
greater width, could carry three hundred and sixty rowers, a septireme
four hundred and twenty, an octoreme four hundred and eighty, and so
forth. In the case of a tesseracontoros, with no greater beam, two
thousand four hundred rowers could find employment; but as vessels of
that enormous size—if, indeed, more than this one was ever built—were
very considerably wider,[400] it would be an improvement on the plan
proposed by Mr. Howell, of ten men to each of the four hundred oars,
to place fourteen rowers upon each of the oars of the upper bank,
twelve on the second, ten on the third, eight on the fourth, and six
on the fifth or lowest bank, which would give the required number of
four thousand, though, in either case, many of the men would be more
ornamental than serviceable. There is, however, no doubt that about
three thousand men could be placed so as to row in each individual case
with effect if they were apportioned to their oars in somewhat the
scale of ten, nine, seven, six, and five, or say, thirty-seven men to
each of the forty banks or oblique rows of oars, which would leave one
thousand and forty for reliefs.
If the men were arranged in the manner suggested, and as represented
in the following front view of their positions when placed at their
stations before they commenced work on board of a trireme, the various
objections which have been raised to the plan of working oars placed
one over the other are removed.
A practised eye will at once perceive that rowers thus arranged
could work with great effect and simultaneously, without in any way
interfering with the movements of each other. Nor would there be any
difficulty in placing to the best advantage, as may be seen in our
illustration (see p. 285) of the tranverse midship-section of the
quinquereme, the large number of three hundred rowers required for
vessels of that class.
[Illustration]
If this theory be correct, then the problem of how the various classes
of galleys were rowed is solved; for, if this was the principle of
their classification, the difficulty does not increase with their
dimensions, as is the case in all other theories; the extreme height of
the highest bank of rowers, either in the case of the quinquereme, or
in that of any of the larger vessels, being not necessarily more than
nine feet above the water.
At the word of command from the officer, who walked upon the elevated
portion of the deck, and guided by the leading men, who were stationed
at the inner end of the oars, the rowers, when seated, stretched the
handles of their oars as far aft as their arms would permit, as shown
in the following representation:—
[Illustration]
The action of the rowers would, however, in some measure be regulated
by the size of the galley and the space at their disposal. Placed
alternately, those who worked at the lower tiers would, in all galleys,
have full swing for their oars, as the footstools of the rowers who sat
above them would not interfere with the free action of their bodies,
though such might appear to be the case by the side representation,
which in itself, and without reference to the front view, necessarily
fails to show their exact position. But while the men in small galleys,
no doubt, rowed from their seats, there is every reason to suppose that
in the larger vessels, where great numbers of rowers were employed,
they rose, if seated, and after moving forward, according to the space
at their disposal, threw themselves backward into their seats with
an impetus as simultaneous and harmonious as it would be possible to
attain without the aid of a machine to regulate their joint action.
Indeed, the ancients practised this art with the greatest care, and the
rowers were frequently exercised on benches erected on the shore, and
their harmonious movements were sometimes made an object of display
in their theatres. In nearly every case they plied their oars to the
sound of either vocal or instrumental music, so that a fleet of the
larger description of galleys, when under way on the smooth waters of
the Levant, must have been, as various ancient authors describe, a
heart-stirring and magnificent display.
Vossius, Le Roy, and all who have written on the subject of how the
rowers were placed at their oars, though they differ less or more from
each other, and fail, as we conceive, to propound a theory applicable
to vessels of every class, agree in the opinion that the rowers were
divided into classes, and that the _thranitæ_, who pulled the longest
and highest oars and had the greatest amount of labour, “were exposed
to the darts of the enemy.” For these reasons they received, as we
learn from Thucydides, the highest pay; and from the same authority
we ascertain that even the largest description of galleys “were _not_
decked _throughout_.”[401]
These statements are important, as they show a thoroughly organized
system among the rowers, without which it would have been impossible
to make available, in a limited space, large numbers of men, and in so
far as they answer objections, frequently raised, to the employing so
many men close together in the hold of a ship. In our illustration (p.
293) it will be seen that by our theory the galleys were only decked
somewhat less than halfway across, a large space remaining open for
ventilation, while the rowers of the upper tier were above the level of
the deck, and were consequently exposed to the darts of the enemy.
As far as we can now judge from the writings of the ancients,
first-class galleys were divided into compartments, not unlike the
steamers of our own day, verifying the adage that there is “nothing new
under the sun;” and certainly this holds true on comparing the bows
of the war galleys of the ancients with the iron-clad rams of modern
times. Our theory, therefore, after the most careful inquiry, is that
_the paddle-wheel steamer of to-day resembles in her structure_ (though
materially improved, and possessing the vast advantage of mechanical
power) _the row galley of the ancients_. Her machinery and coal bunkers
are distinct and separate from the hold, cabins, or any other portions
of the ship; while the engines and the paddle-wheels take the position
and act the part of the rowers and their oars. Here modern genius
and skill, as in a thousand other instances, substitutes mechanical
for manual labour. The modern paddle, in its revolutions, performs
exactly the same duty as the oars of the ancients in their simultaneous
movements, and the well-trained crews of the Grecian and Roman galleys
in their action at the oars were, so far as is traceable, almost as
regular as the beat of the paddle-wheel.
Nor was it necessary to appropriate for the use of the rowers, even
when three hundred men were engaged, a larger space in the ship than
would now be required for a steam engine of one hundred and fifty
horse-power, and her fuel for twenty days. A glance at the illustration
will show that, by the plan suggested, the whole of the fore and after
holds, with the midship portion of the galley, besides a large space
below the platform of the rowers, could be appropriated to cargo and
stores, the fore and after main-decks to troops, while the rowers
themselves could be berthed in that portion of the vessel where they
performed their daily toil, and where there would be space, however
uncomfortable, for their beds and scanty apparel.
By reference to the accompanying deck plan, and by comparing it with
the midship-section previously given, it will be seen that though the
portion of the galley occupied by the rowers was open, it could be
covered with an awning in warm, and by a tarpaulin in wet, weather.
To have enclosed this space would have been fatal to the men, who,
especially during the summer months, when the galleys were chiefly
employed, could not have existed, much less have laboured in a confined
hold.
[Illustration: DECK PLAN.
_A. Castle_
_B. Deck_
_C. Hatch_
_D. Coursier Deck_
_E. Catastroma Deck_]
In confirmation of this opinion, Thucydides, in describing the galleys
of the Bœotians and of Philoctetes, of whom Homer also writes, says,
“Nor had they, as yet, _covered_ ships;”[402] and we find in the
“Iliad” such expressions as, “He marched upon the _hatches_ with
long strides;”[403] and in the “Odyssey,” where Ulysses is preparing
to encounter Scylla, “upon the _hatches_ of the prow of the ship he
went.”[404] Mr. Howell, in opposition to the views of most translators,
remarks that the hatches should be construed as meaning “the thwarts
or seats upon which the rowers sat:”[405] but it is obvious that no
other construction can be put upon the word except that it meant the
hatches of the hold, which, being slightly elevated above the level of
the deck, would be a much more likely place for the master or officer
of the galley to walk than upon the thwarts where the rowers sat;
and this opinion is also confirmed by the expression in the latter
quotation, where “the hatches _of the prow_” are distinctly mentioned
as the covering of the entrance to the fore-compartment or hold of the
galley.
Though parts only of the galleys were open, the proportion of open
and closed spaces varied with the class and size of the galleys or
the purposes for which they were employed. In all such matters, also,
different nations had doubtless different arrangements, if not in the
form, at least in the outfit and general equipment of their galleys,
and these no doubt have undergone great changes in the course of
centuries. Nor does this fact modify the opinion that “hatches” in
their literal sense are meant; for, in the time of Homer, though the
galleys were all single-banked and “open,” they had a deck in midships
and at the bow and the stern, as well as the catastroma or platform in
the waist, for the use of the soldiers.
Although many of the war-galleys of the ancients had high towers at the
stern, and at the bow, these were frequently temporary erections, not
interfering with the general plan of the hull of the ship, and varying
in form and size; the oar-ports, too, could not have been of the form
generally drawn. They are more likely to have been oblong, fashioned
so as to allow the oar—which in galleys of many banks could only have
been unshipped by being passed outwards—to be brought pretty close
alongside of the vessel when the rowers ceased work. In regard to the
seats, stools, or benches of the rowers, so frequently mentioned, and
which have created a good deal of controversy, the plan here suggested
satisfies all these requirements, for to each rower a separate seat or
stool attached to the oblique benches or steps is appropriated. The
height of each of the oar-ports above the level of the water in that of
the quinquereme, and in all vessels of greater dimensions, would be as
follows:—
ft. in.
From the first or lowest _port_ to water-line 2 0
Distance between 1st and 2nd port 1 9
” ” 2nd ” 3rd ” 1 9
” ” 3rd ” 4th ” 1 9
” ” 4th ” 5th ” 1 9
----
9 0
So that the height of the sill of the port on the fifth or highest bank
would be nine feet above the water-line.
The space between the rowers, seated on their respective benches or
platforms, doubtless varied according to the size of the galley. While
from four to six feet between each rower seated on the same level would
be ample in the case of uniremes, biremes, or triremes, galleys of the
larger class, in many cases, most likely had an intervening space of
from six to even ten feet, so as to afford room for the sweep of the
handles of the oars, and to enable the rowers to walk one or two steps
forward, and then throw themselves backwards with greater impetus into
their seats, as already described.
[Sidenote: Summary.]
The conclusions at which we have arrived may be condensed as follows:—
1. Ancient galleys were classed or rated according to their number of
banks, rows or tiers of oars.
2. All galleys above the unireme had their oar-ports placed obliquely
above each other in horizontal rows.
3. No galley had more than five horizontal rows.
4. Every galley, from the unireme to the quinquereme inclusive, derived
its name or class from the number of _horizontal_ rows.
5. All galleys, above a quinquereme, were likewise classed according
to the number of rows. In their case, however, the _oblique_ rows were
counted; but, in all cases, from the smallest to the largest, including
Ptolemy’s tesseracontoros, _each row, whether oblique or horizontal,
was a distinct bank of oars_, which, like the number of guns, wherever
they were placed, in wooden men-of-war, _constituted the only basis for
their classification_.
6. The portion of the galley appropriated to the rowers and their
oars was as separate from the other portions of the vessel as is the
machinery of a paddle-wheel steamer. The rowers, also, like modern
engineers and stokers, were entirely distinct from the seamen and
marines; and among them were leaders and crack rowers, who were as
indispensable to get the galley under way and keep the rest of the
rowers in time as are the engineers of our own day, who start and keep
the machinery in proper working order.
In a word, the row-galley constituted the steamship of the ancients,
as distinguished from their sailing vessels. She had sails to aid her
progress when the winds were fair, as a steamer now has, but the one
depended on her oars as much as the other now does upon her machinery;
and, however vast the improvements, there is really no difference in
principle between the galley of the ancients and the steamship of
to-day. In practice they are the same, except that steam is substituted
for manual labour. An oar is a paddle, and the blades of the oars
fastened together, like the spokes round the axle of a wheel, and
projecting into the water, constitute the paddle-wheel of modern times.
FOOTNOTES:
[372] Hom. Il. ii. 510. Od. xii. 409, &c.
[373] Plin. vii. 207, cf. Cic. ad Attic. xvi. 4. The _biremis_ was
often a little boat managed by two oars. Horat. iii. 29, 62. Lucan,
viii. 562.
[374] Thucyd. i. c. 13.
[375] Athen. v. 37.
[376] Polyb. in Excerpt.
[377] Liv. xlv. 34.
[378] Plutarch, Themist. c. 4.
[379] Plut. ibid.
[380] Plut. Vit. Demet. c. 10.
[381] Plut. Vit. Anton. c. 4. Hor. iv. ii. 4. Virg. Æn. viii. 691. Dio.
L. 33.
[382] As noticed in the Introduction to this work, these sails were
called Suppara. Lucan, v. 429. Stat. Sylv. ii. 2, 27. Senec. Epist. c.
77.
[383] Thucyd. ii. c. 93.
[384] Athen. v. c. 37.
[385] Athen. v. c. 37.
[386] Dio. xxix. 32. Horat. Epod. i. 1. Veget. iv. 33. Sueton. Vit.
Calig. c. 37.
[387] In the “Monthly Magazine,” vol. xviii., London, 1758, p. 445,
there is a review of a work, entitled “The Memoirs of a Protestant
condemned to the Galleys of France,” written by himself, which
contains, in minute detail, a description of a French galley in
which, in the year 1701, he was condemned to labour. The account was
originally published at the Hague, and was afterwards translated into
English, 2 vols. 12mo.
[388] The curious treatise by Scheffer, entitled “I. Schefferi de
varietate Navium,” is preserved in Gronovius’s “Thesaurus Antiq. Græc.”
vol. viii fol. In the same vast collection are treatises by Bayfius,
Doletus, and Laurentius, on similar subjects, which are worthy of
examination.
[389] Polyb. i. c. 23.
[390] Mitford’s Hist. of Greece, vol. ii. p. 194.
[391] Pownall’s “Treatise on the Study of Antiquities,” Appendix, no.
iii., pp. 236-40.
[392] Vol. i. p. 47.
[393] Vossius’ Treatise, entitled “I. Vossii de Triremium et
Liburnicarum constructione dissertatio,” is printed in Graevii Thes.
Antiq. Roman, vol. xii. fol. See also “Charnock’s History,” vol. i. p.
52. etc.
[394] In the course of our examination of this subject we have received
from the Revd. J. O. W. Haweis, of Colwood, Crawley, in the county of
Sussex, a paper so ingenious and original, that, though we doubt its
practicability, we have much pleasure in printing it in the Appendix to
this volume.—See Appendix No. 1, pp. 625-8.
[395] “An Essay (pamphlet) on the War-Galleys of the Ancients.” By John
Howell. W. Blackwood: Edinburgh, 1826.
[396] Howell’s Pamphlet, p. 48.
[397] Athen. v. c. 37.
[398] Although Homer (Odys. xiii. v. 81-95) states that Ulysses was
rowed from Corcyra (Corfu) to Ithaca, a distance of eighty nautical
miles, without apparently any resting of the oarsmen, there is no proof
that ancient galleys were propelled _continuously_ by their oars, or
for a longer period on a stretch than the one set of rowers could
endure. To this day the Malay pirates sometimes row more than ten hours
without change, and are fed at their oars. Nor is there anything to
show how many spare men were carried for reliefs, in case of accident.
[399] Thucyd. i. c. xciv., etc., etc.
[400] Ptolemy’s ship had a beam of 57 feet.
[401] Thucyd. i. c. xiv.
[402] Thucyd. c. x.
[403] Hom. Il. xiv.
[404] Hom. Odys. xii.
[405] Howell’s Pamphlet, p. 7.