While Vossius was of opinion that no vessel had ever more than seven tiers of oars,—though he does not show how that number could have been worked,—he, for the reasons just quoted, arrived at the conclusion “that in the lower tier one man only was stationed to an oar, which being short, and but trivially elevated above the surface of the water, he might be able to work without much difficulty.” He then explains that, in his opinion, as to which there can be no question, “the oars in all superior tiers, as they increased in height from the water, increased also in length, within board as well as without, leaving room for a greater number of rowers to work, each in progressive proportion to their length;” but he draws a false conclusion from right premises when he remarks that the difficulty consists “not in so many tiers, but in the number of seats of rowers comprised in one oblique tier.”[394] Such are the views of a few of the leading writers on this intricate question. While agreeing with Vossius in the opinion that the oar-ports were placed obliquely in the sides of the vessel, and that the number of men to an oar was regulated by its length and position, there are many objections to his theory that the galleys of the ancients were classed, either by the number of men or by the number of their seats; and any seaman who takes the trouble to put the theory into practice will find that even the principle of obliquity will not admit of the effective working of more than five tiers of oars. Each theory, however, contains less or more truth; and by a careful examination of the whole, the problem which has occupied the attention of so many writers may be successfully solved, if there be less attempt to harmonize statements made by ancient authors, who were not practically conversant with the subject, or whose writings have been misquoted or imperfectly interpreted. All writers agree in the opinion that the uniremes had only one bank or tier of oars, and there is no difference of opinion with regard to the mode of propelling these vessels. Although “seated” (and this expression has led to much controversy), the rowers, in the case of large vessels, doubtless, rose simultaneously to their oars at the word of command, stretching out the handles as far as the allotted space would permit, and then throwing themselves back uniformly upon their seats, and, with their whole weight, propelling the galley forwards. This mode of rowing may be seen in the Mediterranean and elsewhere at the present day.