Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Wildfire Games / 0 A.D. Embassy
#31
In a description of Rome's first quinquiremes during the First Punic Wars, Polybius says the oar / rower system was like this:

"As it was, those who had been given the task of shipbuilding occupied themselves with the construction work, while others collected the crews and began to teach them to row on short in the following way.1 They placed the men along the rowers' benches on dry land, seating them in the same order as if they were on those of an actual vessel, and then stationing the keleustes2 in the middle, they trained them to swing back their bodies in unison, bringing their hands up to them then to move forwards again thrusting their hands in front of them, and to begin and end these movements at the keleustes' word of command."

Footnotes:
1. This practice was necessary because the method of rowing a quinquireme (five men to each oar) is different from that of a trireme (one man per oar); the latter was the largest vessel of which the Romans hitherto had had any experinece.
2. The keleustes called the time, and so regulated the pace and rhythm of the rowing.

Source: The Rise of the Roman Empire, Polybius, Penguin Classics 1979, Book I.21, p. 63.

So the quinquireme's oars had five men per oar, if the footnoter is correct, but this source doesn't say how many banks of oars. If there were two banks, they'd have five men on each oar, I'd think, based on this info.

And there was a man whose job it was to "call time" so the rowing was coordinated.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#32
Hi David,
The footnoter (doubtless the translator) doesn't provide any evidence for his supposition, does he? The rowing arrangement of a quinquereme is by definition different from a trireme. With a maximum of three levels of oarsmen, you're always going to have at least two men to some oars, which is different from one man per oar max, obviously. The 'Five men to an oar' is just a straight translation of quinquereme = five oars/oarsmen. Oddly enough he doesn't translate trireme (=three oars/oarsmen) the same way. The question of the number of oarsmen to each oar in multiremes has fascinated philologists and historians since the 16th century. There is simply no written source that describes the exact makeup of the oarsystem.
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#33
Yep, I agree to all you've said. I'm just reporting what's in the book (if the footnoter was correct). Seems to me that the fellows on the 4th and 5th places of the oar would have a harder time of it, as they'd have to walk back and forth, being at least 8 feet further down the oar stroke. I don't know...but 5 to an oar would greatly increase the power behind the oar. Guess we won't know for a while longer.

One thing is clear from Polybius, however the rowing arrangement was set up, is that they trained the same way they would have rowed, when it came to that...otherwise, what's the point of the training, eh?
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#34
Yeah, it's assumed that they just built a sort of half-ship. That entire story in Polybios is slightly suspect though, as he tries to pretend Rome was completely new to the whole naval warfare thing at the start of the first Punic War, while this was patently not the case.

Anyway, it's very likely there were no 4th and 5th men per oar on a quinquereme. It'd make the ship enormously wider for one, though inevitably dekeres and larger would have to have had such an arrangement.
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#35
I thought there was some discussion of this matter in Connelly's Rome and Greece at War, or was it another book, ancient Warfare....
There was no definitive conclusion if I recall though.....and thats a big if!
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#36
Quote:That entire story in Polybios is slightly suspect though, as he tries to pretend Rome was completely new to the whole naval warfare thing at the start of the first Punic War, while this was patently not the case.

When did it actually start? I'd like to read more about this. I know that the "traditional" start of the navy was 311 B.C. but not much more.
Michael Paglia
Reply
#37
The argument is most extensively made by Christa Steinby in her PhD thesis, but that may be hard to get. She summarized her position in Ancient Warfare II.2.
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#38
Great! Thanks Jasper!
Michael Paglia
Reply


Forum Jump: