Ancient Logistics and ancient warfare

[Paralus]

You keep making the same mistake of arguing that Herodot’s numbers ARE wrong as if my position is that they ARE right. No, our HUGE difference is that I claim that they MAY be right whereas you that ?. I have theories of my own which I personally hold as more or less probable but I am very reluctant to disregard Herodot as a fairytale just because some numbers “sound” inflated/ridiculous etc to some. Scholars often work with minimums and maximums, and even these are often self-accepted as personal estimations. In my opinion, Herodot’s numbers of Xerxes’ land army and fleet are my maximum, not my minimum. And since I am baffled as to your position.. please, tell me clearly where you stand as regards Herodot's numbers on the Persian fleet at th start of the campaign and at Salamis.

I do believe Herodoyus'

Sybota (1.49.1):

As soon as the signals were raised on either side, they joined battle. The fighting was of a somewhat old fashioned kind since they were still behindhand in naval matters, both sides having a large number of hoplites aboard their ships, together with archers and javelin throwers.

Clearly the old way was to deck the trireme and fight using infantry. This likey explains the “heavier” or “larger” Phoenician triremes: these were loaded with infantry whereas we hear only of ramming by the Greeks at Salamis. The diekplous, as practised by the Phoenicians at the time of Salamis, was designed to catch up enemy ships (grappling hooks, et al) and bring the on-board infantry to bear. This is clearly what Cimon did when he sailed east: decked his ships and loaded them with hoplites (Plut.Cim.12.2). By 450 the Athenians seem to have changed tactics for Diodorus (12.3.3) tells us that they “sank” many enemy ships. Here is possibly the classic diekplous of driving through, turning and ramming rather than catching?

Yes and no. It was indeed an older mode of sea-fighting to have more hoplites on board based more on boarding tactics, but that doesn't mean that there was no ramming on the Persian side during the 2nd Persian War. Where did you find this information on the “Phoenician diecplous”? I think that you use the word “clear” very freely. At Lade, Herodot reports that many ships of the Chians were damaged. This points to ramming tactics being implemented by the Imperial fleet too. At Salamis, we also see action that resembles ramming among the Imperials in both Herodot and Aeschylus. Having more hoplites on board did not mean that there was only boarding to be employed and do not forget that, as I wrote in a former post, it is the Greek ships that are described to be heavier... What seems to be described in the accounts is a mix of ramming and boarding tactics on both sides, as was deemed most effective by the captain of each trireme. Herodot also describes something that might be a periplous, an even more complex maneuver to be employed by the Greeks. And of course we cannot say how common were tactics like the diekplous or the periplous. To ram you do not have to employ any of the above. Maybe the imperials used less ramming, the Greek more. Fact is that ramming tactics require higher expertise than boarding tactics, and yet one could easily maintain that boarding should have been more effective than ramming in what was supposed to have been very confined space.

Again, I’d love to see the source material that describes the constant warring of the Greeks at sea. It matters little that your “marines” are the most experienced belligerents in the Mediterranean if you cannot sail the ships upon which they fight. Seamanship is paramount: pilots, rowers and captains must all know what they are doing.

You did not understand what I wrote. Seamanship is paramount BUT :
Experience and training in trireme fighting is the seamanship needed here. Take the best captain and crew of any merchant ship and give them charge of a warship… It is a completely different thing. Experience in trireme fighting does not only have to do with the “marines”. It also has to do with the rowmen, the sailors, the captains and the generals. If I have 20,000 rowmen that are experienced in trireme fighting, I will have the upper hand against someone whose rowers have less such experience. If my captains have more experience in trireme fighting, they will have the upper hand. If my generals have better tactical knowledge and experience in trireme fighting…. Well I hope that you get my meaning now. It is one thing to have HUGE experience in merchant sailing and another to have that experience in sea combat. And I am sure you know that triremes were combat vessels, they were not used for trade or casual traveling.

And of course I do not say that the Phoenicians or the Ionians, the Cypriots etc were incompetent or something. I simply stated that in my opinion it is very possible for the sources to be right regarding the mainland Greeks' relative superiority. Being better, of course does not mean that the opponent is not good...

What source material? That the hundreds of Greek independent states warred against each other? That they fought in sea too since maybe half of them were island or maritime states with sea trade interests?

That is a most remarkable assertion regarding the Phoenicians. “Non-Aegean” and whose wars were “mainly land-bound”!? This is one of the most famous of seafaring peoples of the ancient world and always the core of any “royal fleet”. To imply that they were somehow inexperienced compared to the Greeks at this time is incredible to me. Clearly the Greeks thought not. Aeschylus (Persae, 341 ff) describes 207 of the Persian ships as “arrogant in speed”. These are almost certainly Phoenician. At Artemesium the Greeks sought to test the Phoenician’s tactics – including the diekplous which they were clearly aware of and concerned about. Having done so, Themistocles was in no mood for a repeat and so pushed for the confines of Salamis to remove the luxury of space.

There is nothing remarkable about this assertion. Sea fights are fought when land fights cannot be fought or when they are not enough. There are very few islands along the Phoenician coast, certainly very few inhabited places that would be fought over. The city of Tyre was one and even in its case, the lands it ruled over were on the mainland, Sea lanes were straightforward, along a single coast and into the open sea. You just cannot compare the opportunities and necessities for sea fights in that area with that in the Aegean which is a unique peculiarity in the Mediterranean and not only. Sea faring, again I will say, has nothing to do with trireme fighting. And “clearly”, since you clearly like the use of this word, the Greeks believed so too and the sources also tell us so (of course the Greek sources). Your comment about ships which are “arrogant in speed” and for some reason “almost certainly Phoenician” I do not understand. How can something like that indicate that the Phoenicians were or were regarded as equal to the Greeks in trireme fight? At Lade, the Persian fleet was supposedly (Herodot) very alarmed for having to fight against the 350 Ionian triremes with only 600 ships. Yep, might be a boastful lie… the thing is that our (Greek) sources mainly present the mainland Greeks better at sea fight than the Ionians and the Ionians better than any other non-Greek. We may argue about that, but this is what the sources say. We also have to somehow account for the Persian defeat… Even if no source is taken into account, inferiority in trireme fighting would be a very valid guess as to why a smaller fleet beat a larger one. What is this about the diekplous and the Phoenicians in your posts? I do not get it. Have you read in any sources that the Phoenicians performed the diekplous (which is a ramming tactic when used as a tactical term) whereas the Greeks did not? What is that about the Greeks being terrified at the prospects of facing the Phoenicians because of this diekplous and so pushing into space where the Phoenicians would not use this tactic?[/quote]