>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?
Historically: yes. A trireme was essentially the fastest and most manoeuvrable an oared warship can get without modern construction techniques or magic.
It was eventually phased out in favour of both heavier and lighter ships, for different reasons:
The Hellenistic kingdoms started adding thicker timbers (armour) to their galleys to resist ramming attacks, until it reached the point that missile weapons were more effective than ramming. They also started adding catapults to their ships. This meant that warships also needed a solid deck to protect the oarsmen instead of being open-hulled like traditional triremes. The net result was a much heavier ship, which needed five (or more) rather than just three banks of rowers. A quinquereme was only slightly slower than a trireme in a straight dash, but much slower to accelerate or turn. On the other hand, it was much more seaworthy.
The Romans after the conquest of the Mediterranean basin only needed a small, cheap navy for anti-piracy purposes, so they preferred biremes. (A trireme needed 50% more crew than a bireme, and they had to be better trained too). At first the Roman fleets had a core of quinqueremes and triremes supporting their biremes, but the larger ships were gradually phased out. By the end of the Western Roman Empire the knowledge of building big ships was almost lost, and had to be re-invented by the Byzantines.
Stephen
Powered by hypermail