>>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.
In an environment of little wave action.
Where does the maneuverability advantage stem from, compared to other oared vessels? Simpler designs like the Hektaconter or the Viking Longship had less draft and roughly the same length.
> 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.
Most ramming was done against the oars rather than against the hull, according to my sources (both wargame rules and serious literature). Any rowing crew that did not pull in the oars fast enough in a close pass was bound to be mangled by the oars levered against the inside of the hull.
If the hull was rammed, then bow-to-bow rammings were avoided except in desperate situations or with serious size advantage. If the rammed ship sunk (or burned), there was a danger that the ramming ship would sink (or burn), too. (This is why later mediterranean galleys had rams that would damage the rowers banks extending both sides from the hull.)
A below-water ram wasn't too useful in commerce raiding, either, unless you had underwater salvage experts. Hmm, a point in favour of underwater rams on Kethaelan triremes - tribute to the Ludoch.
> 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.
Archers and slingers were as great a menace to rowers in aphract (uncovered) triremes as e.g. ceramic shrapnell shot by catapults. Most anti-personnel artillery targeted the deck crew, including the marines.
> 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.
Depends on how the quinquereme really looked - five levels of oars with one rower per oar has been shown to be unlikely.
I seem to recall naval battles where both heavy and inflexible ships like quinqueremes (as "line ships" and missile or marine platforms) and mobile flanking units like bi- or triremes were used.
> The Romans after the conquest of the Mediterranean basin only
> needed a small, cheap navy for anti-piracy purposes, so they
> preferred biremes.
Pirate suppression would imply fast response in sufficient strength. This is basically what both the Pasos and the Kethaelan navies are about - neither has ambitions to wage naval wars against huge fleets of strong ships. (In case of Kethaela, not any more since the defeat of the exploratory fleet in Kralorela.)
> (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.
That time also saw the first Viking-like ventures both in the North Sea (Saxons) and in the Mediterranean (Vandals), which the fleets were unable to solve.
Donald Oddy:
> Square rigging is the original form of sail. Used by galleys and
> merchant ships everywhere since prehistory. Lanteen and fore-and-
> aft rigging are subsequent developments to improve performance
> when the wind isn't right behind the ship.
Actually, a single square sail could sail quite well into the wind if turned almost along the keel. The main problem was to keep the ship from drifting sideways, which is where sideswords come into play. (This was also tried in the recently failed reed-boat West-East-crossing of the Atlantic.)
> The elaborate multi-sail rigs of the renaissance and later may
> be expected by some gamers but don't appear in MotS and would be
> a serious anachronism if they did. And it's only those that require
> sailors to climb masts, a single sail can be handled from the deck.
Climbing the mast mainly comes to play when sails are shortened. Orienting the sails is done from below as well, using all kind of winches and blocks. How was the sail put up and down on single-sail masts? I don't think that a square sail was let down flapping wildly.
> However if someone wishes their Glorantha to have such ships then
> it's up to them.
The Kralori junks might just cross that border - historically, junks combine galleon-like rigging with ribbed sails.
Powered by hypermail