History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 1 (of 4)Lindsay, W. S. (William Schaw)
History
History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 1 (of 4)
Lindsay, W. S. (William Schaw)
Commerce -- History; Shipping -- History; Steam navigation -- History
Mr. Howell, a comparatively modern writer,[395] adopts many of the
views of Vossius, but differs from him in that he maintains that
it would be impossible to work with effect more than five banks of
oars. As his views are more in accordance with our own than those of
any other writer, we shall refer to them at greater length, although
differing also from him in some of his most important conclusions.
And here it ought to be stated, that all modern writers, Mr. Howell
included, appear to have given too little consideration to the facts,
that ancient galleys varied quite as much in size as the vessels of
modern times, that their power or dimensions were not, in all cases,
measured by the number of their banks of oars, and that in proportion
to the number of rowers the capacity of the hold would require to be
increased. A war-galley would be comparatively useless if she had not
ample capacity for fighting men, and for their munitions of every
kind, besides stores, including water. All these points must, however,
have been fully considered by the ancients, who evidently saw, when
they wished to have more than thirty oars on each side of a galley,
that an increase could not be obtained on the single-bank principle
without constructing her of an unwieldy length in proportion to her
depth and breadth, and thus sacrificing an unnecessarily large amount
of space. Consequently, they invented the bireme, whereby they could,
in little more than the length required for fifteen oars, place double
that number without any corresponding sacrifice of space; while in the
trireme, they would in nearly the same length obtain space for three
times the number of oars, and secure for the use of the soldiers and
stores ample accommodation and any extra length they might desire.
Mr. Howell, in discussing this principle as applicable to quinqueremes,
shows that, by adopting the oblique ascent, the rowers of the first
and highest bank can be placed so as not to interfere with the rowers
on the second, their oars having space to play free of the benches
before them. “That a bank or bench of oars,” he adds, “never contained
more than five oars, I think, can be proved, whatever the size of
the galley was, whether a bireme or trireme, up to the galley of
Philopator, which had forty banks, nine feet being the highest point
from the water for the _scalmi_, from which they could pull with
effect.”[396]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account