"jorganos" <joe_at_H2laQVbruu0tpDSWaEidUbteomTaYeTVhU9HjM2vssgAAwL03JbL3Zbj3Kdyi6AYZQN_Gj-R.yahoo.invalid> writes:
>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.
As I understand it, it's mostly a question of acceleration and power-to-weight ratio. A trireme strikes the best balance between number of oarsmen per metre of hull length, and hull weight.
>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.
My understanding is that it depends on the time period. Classical Greek and Phoenecian triremes usually rammed the hull; so did the navy of Rhodes in later times. Obviously not head-to-head; like dogfighting aircraft, they manoeuvred for a good attack position.
>From Sosylus of Sparta's history written at some point in the late 2nd
century BC:
"For the Phoenicians [Carthaginians] if they find themselves confronting an enemy prow-to-prow regularly carry on forward as if to engage but do not close at once. After making a diekplous (sailing through the enemy line) they turn and just when the enemy ships are broadside on smash into them."
A rammed galley wouldn't sink, unless it was carrying an unusually heavy cargo. It would become swamped and waterlogged, unable to manoeuvre, and lose its lateral stability (making it likely to capsize). At most, it might break apart into floating flotsam.
Attacking the hull requires a lot of skill, and is little use against ships heavier than a trireme, so attacking the oars became more prevelant after the decline of professional navies and the rise of Rome. You'll notice that most Byzantine and mediaeval galleys have spurs above the waterline instead of rams below the waterline...
>Depends on how the quinquereme really looked - five levels of oars
>with one rower per oar has been shown to be unlikely.
I know - I think the most common assumption is that Hellenistic and Punic quinqueremes had five banks of oarsmen operating three banks of oars (two per oar for the top two oars). The ships were still wider and heavier than a trireme of equivalent length, which more than cancelled out the extra power.
Main source for this is Conway Maritime Press's "The Age of the Galley", 1995
Stephen
Powered by hypermail