>The use of triremes by the Kethaelans is long-established canon.
>
>In my personal opinion, this is also the reason why the Holy Country
>failed to dominate the seas after the Opening: triremes are bad at
>high sea sailing and work best in sheltered waters - e.g. between the
>archipelagos.
>
>I can't help but wonder: Do triremes have better ramming speed and
>maneuverability than say Augustan biremes or Byzantine Dromons? Is
>this the same argument as longbow vs. crossbow (i.e. with a genuine
>advantage for demanding that much training), or is this because of
>tradition or magic?
>From my reading of the subject many years ago triremes were a step
in an arms race involving bigger and bigger galleys. They are best
known because the Greeks used triremes to defeat the Persian biremes
at Salamis. Subsequently quadriemes and quinquiremes were also used.
The bireme had already reached the maximum length that was feasable
for the galley design so bigger meant more banks of oars. The main
advantage the extra banks give is mass - the same ramming speed
does a lot more damage. They're also higher above the waterline
making them more difficult to board. So why didn't the Romans continue
using them? Probably because by the time they got the technology from
the Greeks they had control of the Mediterrean Sea. No other navies to
fight so biremes were cheaper and just as effective against pirates.
Same applies to the Byzantines, Viking longboats and Arab galleys
would be easily beaten in a straight fight by a bireme so no point
in building the more expensive ships. That's assuming the technology
was still known.
>Dormal's voyage of Opening would have used some sea-going,
>non-military type of craft - likely the sailed cargo tub from Men of
>the Seas.
Certainly.
>The first naval battles (the Alatan incidents) may have involved rowed
>ships, but I doubt that highly specialized war vessels were involved.
>I always pictured these more along the early Hanseatic League naval
>battles (e.g. against Denmark and Sweden, or against the Likedeeler
>pirates), with armed merchantment sailing ships as the main participants.
>
>
>Personally, I would have expected the post-Opening navies to employ
>ships similar to the byzantine (and moslem) dromons of 8th to 11th
>century Mediterranean naval warfare. Rowed and sailed ships, equipped
>for ramming, with sailing properties similar to the Viking longship
>(there may have been cross-fertilization along the eastern Viking
>trade route). Less seaworthy than the tubbier merchant vessels, but
>faster. (This goes for Viking dragonships vs knorrs as much as for
>Byzantine dromons vs their grain tubs.)
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromon
Given that the Holy Country hasn't an enemy fleet to fight in the 3rd Age I'd suggest that the triremes are a tradition although there may be magical reasons as well. Possibly going back to the wars between the God Learners and the EWF in the 2nd Age. I'm not sure that all their galleys are triremes - MotS shows the Courage of Belintar as a bireme subsequently fitted with an extra bank of oars astern. Which makes it a two and a half banked galley. I forget the Greek name for this configuration. It could be the illustration is wrong and it actually has three and a half banks of oars. Whichever it is the crew figure is hopelessly low, 50-60 oarsmen in each bank is more reasonable.
>Pasos and Kethaela have a good use for a rowed navy among their home
>islands (and on the wave-arm Mirrorsea Bay). Ramming and sinking ships
>full of bloodthirsty pirates also gives a tactical advantage to the
>more peacefully inclined Kethaelans. The barbarian elements of
>Kethaela still could serve as marines - fiery missiles hurled by
>Caladrans, close combat axe wielding Heortlings, or even Uz blockers
>and enlo spearkin.
Triremes traditionally didn't have very many marines. I suspect their main function was to hold off enemy boarders while the ship backed oars after ramming. Something a hoplite was far more suited for then boarding other ships.
>In engagements where the navy did corner wolf pirate vessels, my money
>would have been on the navy - coordinated ramming attacks are superior
>to wild boarding actions.
>
>So, overall life as a navy rower doesn't look like a drowning position
>- until 1616.
Triremes will be far superior to the wolf pirate vessels provided triremes are prepared and have room to manover. If they were defeated in a sea battle they would have been caught in a bad position and unable to get up to ramming speed. Another possibility is that the ships weren't at sea - the wolf pirates arrived unexpectedly, overwhelmed a few guard vessels and burnt the ships while at anchor or beached.
>Raiding navy ships would have provided little of worth to an
>enterprising wolf pirate captain who has to provide for his crew and
>their dependents. The ships are unlikely to carry huge amounts of
>provisions (and not the most tasty, either - hard bread and dried or
>salt fish), only the marines have any weaponry worth taking, and the
>bloody oars get tangled if you try to row these ships yourself with
>all banks manned (done only in combat or parade situations). The ram
>made them unwieldy to beach, too, and the rowers would not make so
>good serfs as peasants (and especially peasant or fisherfolk women).
Why does a ram make them difficult to beach? You just turn the ship round so that the ram is facing out to sea and back oars. Agreed without the trained drummers and oarmasters they'll be tricky to row but there's going to be a lot of valuable stuff to salvage and for that you don't need all banks of oars manned. The bronze covered ram alone will be worth the trouble and there's rope, sails, fittings and seasoned timber as well. However I think a wolf pirate would be very lucky to catch a navy ship in a position they could catch and board it.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail