Talk:Trireme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

WikiProject Echo has identified Trireme as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

VERY nice, Josh! --MichaelTinkler

Thanks! I don't remember the construction details, rower arrangements, speeds, or precisely which countries maintained fleets (there were only a few), so anyone who knows about these is very encouraged to add to the article. Also, I'm not quite sure how exactly the Carthaginian quinqueremes were employed, and would be anxious to find out, though that would go on quinquereme rather than here.

---

My encyclopedia states that triremes were first constructed in Corinth (8th century B.C.) and their design was evolving constantly. Their use was generalised during the Peloponnesian War (end of 5th century B.C.). Before them there were only big ships with 50 or 100 lines of rows that were too big and slow to serve effectivelly in battles where velocity and agility were crusial (see Salamis). After the appearance of the trirems it was attempted the introduction of another in between type of ship, one with 2 lines of rows that was not proved to be equally effective. After the Peloponnesian War other ships with 5, 7 or 10 lines of rows were constructed but none of those could mach the trireme. Is there any contradiction with your text?

Both the idea that triremes were invented in Corinth and the idea that they preceded the bireme are contradicted, but that's because the first is very doubtful and the second isn't true. The constant evolution isn't gone into at the moment, though additions would as always be wonderful, and the larger boats are not considered inferior to the trireme because they were used for different things.

---

I was under the impression that in the Battle of Salamis it was only the Athenians that had trirems and that was the whole point of their manouvering!?

No. The Persians simply had heavier triremes - so slower and less maneuverable - because they needed space on board to hold marines.

---

The sources about the first triremes in Corinth seem to be an error. In these times all Greek warships were called triremes and the Greek refered often to their predeccessor, the pentekonters and hexakonters as triremes. The oldest depictions of triremes can be found on assyrian reliefs and show phonician triremes. The battle of salamis was a prepared naval battle by the Greeks and Persians (Phoenicians). It is unlikely that the Perian fleet was not fit for combat, when they seeked to have the battle. Their intelligence fooled them, that the other Greeks would betray Athen and desert. So it seemed favorable to intercept them surprisingly. This led to the state that the Persian rowers were tired after a night of rowing to ambush the Greek and not fit for a major naval engagement. Persians and the Pelopenesian Greeks used heavier triremes than the Athenians. The advantage of a heavier trireme is, that it they cant be rammed succesfully under such acute angles as a light trireme. But a light Athenian trireme has a superior manoeuvreability and acceleration to ramming speed. This advantage could not be employed if the enemy fleet used its supreme numbers succesfully. In the naval tactics of this time, minor fleets formed a circle of defence. In this formation an Athenian ships are the weakest points. They are naval supremacy fighters and their best is attack, where tactics of movement could be used.

I will write more about quinquiremes soon. Wandalstouring 10:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

209.130.174.16, did you mean to take that sentence out? Yes

Contents 1 Oarsmen 2 Infobox 3 QA for the experts 4 Awesome 5 Objections by an anonymous editor 6 Maneuverability 7 French featured article

[edit] Oarsmen

The trireme's staggered seating permitted three row of oarsmen, and an outrigger above the gunwale, projecting laterally beyond it, kept the third row of oars out of the way of the first two. I am afraid I don't understand this. There are a lot more than three rows of oarsmen on the trireme. This sentence doesn't do a very good job of describing to me how the oarsmen were situated. --timc | Talk 14:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It needs a good picture. But the sentence seems perfectly clear. The second row sat above the first row and the third row sat above the second row. What makes you think there were more than three rows? Gdr 15:17, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

I'd add c400 BC the number of rowers/oar was increased. Trekphiler 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ships with more oars [or rowers per oar — Gdr] weren't triremes, they were quinqueremes and the like. I'm not sure they became popular as early as 400 BC. Josh

that is not quite right. A different classification system was used, not based upon lines of rowers above each other, but numbers in vertical sections. Anything from three oars above each other with one man per oar to three man per oar in a single line of oars, was a trireme in this classification. Some historians agree that all such arrangements existed for the heavy quinquiremes, possibly also for triremes at the same time. Wandalstouring 23:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

User:Pmoshs added an infobox for the reconstructed trireme Olympias. This isn't appropriate here: this is an article about triremes in general. So I made a new page Olympias (trireme) for the reconstruction and moved the infobox there. Gdr 20:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QA for the experts

To man the oars at the Battle_of_Arginusae, Athens offered freedom to slaves who volunteered. (Note this solves the military problem of slaves slowing down on purpose, hoping the opposition will free them.)

Would the generals have admitted slaves who were blind, or had weak eyesight? Note that rowing requires hearing and muscles, not eyesight...

Enquiring minds want to know!

There are no known sources about that to me. After the much earlier battle of Marathon the freed Greek slaves had brought great social unrest to Athen, but were also the basis for manning the triremes.

Athenians were suspicious of lefthanders at that time (not allowing them to be part of their armed forces) and Pericles reform of Athenian citizenship (both parents had to be Athenian for being Athenian) would be regarded highly nationalistic today. Not being Athenian excluded from the right to vote and take up arms in the phalanx. Military manpower was limited this way.

So necessity led to using all ressources reasonably (political circumstances) avaiable. Before the invention of glasses and without much long range weapons there also existed a different concept of what was necessary eyesight for military purposes. For Athenian hoplites it was sufficient to recognize their opposing enemy at spearlength.

Sources about bad eyesight appear with the Muslims and their reliance on bows. There it was an argument for obvious disability, a hindrace to become calif.

Wandalstouring 23:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome

I remember visiting this article back when it was much shorter

looks much nicer now

[edit] Objections by an anonymous editor

The reconstruction project effectively proved conclusively what had previously been in doubt, that Athenian triremes were arranged with the crew positioned in a staggered arrangement on three levels with one person per oar. This would have made optimum use of the available internal dimensions. However since modern humans are on average approximately 2 inches (6 cm) taller than Ancient Greeks (and the same relative dimensions can be presumed for oarsmen and other athletes), the construction of a craft which followed the precise dimensions of the ancient vessel led to cramped rowing conditions and consequent restrictions on the modern crew's ability to propel the vessel with full efficiency, which perhaps explains why the ancient speed records stand unbroken. These 3 paragraphs are biased and completely contradict what had been said in the articles above. Not even with 170 perfectly fit oarsmen the Olympias could last in sea for a realistic amount of time (a bunch of amateurs oaring for 30 minutes to see if it works is not realistic). The ship lacked space for water and supplies (how did they fit the battering rams then?! how did they oar without drinking water?! Where they aliens or humans?!). Not to speak of the ship carrying soldiers. In a battle and with the movement of the water generated by the other ships and the sea itself, the oars would most probably tangle and both sides would loose greatly. No army would waste so many resources in such unpractical sea technology. The ship wouldn’t stand to a sole test under real conditions. Again, these three paragraphs should be corrected for giving misleading information.

there were 200 men on board an Athenian trireme, 20 of them soldiers. the rowers did not row all the way, but the ship sailed. from the punic wars, we have at least verified info that the warships had several smaller ships in company. these vessels offered escape possibilities for officers in the punic army, but could also be utilized for transport. reports about the vikings and their longboats also state, that they had smaller vessels tied to their main ship. does this give you a satisfactory explanation for the problems of adequate supply? I appreciate your critical reading, but the article is not an appropriate place for discussions. Please sign your comments with four tilde (~). Wandalstouring 22:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for answering but it does not give me a satisfactory explanation. first of all you mention the vessels being tied to the main ship, this means the weight increases anyway. this is a physics problem. second of all, you cannot use the viking longboats to support your argument because those were not triremes. longboats were much lighter. there is many points to this but the main point in my opinion is not the fact that a ship like this is simply not suitable for battle but the fact that a ship like this is simply stupid. as you mentioned they sailed most of the time. first of all this is not correct because during battle they did not sail, and we both know battles are quite long at sea. secondly, if they noticed the advantages of sailing most of them time (a sail is cheaper than dozens of rowers and a sail wights much less than dozens of rowers, even if the rowers work for free you still have to feed them, the body has physical limits too) why didn't they just build ships with more sails rather than more rowers? it took 4 thousand years to realize this? in regard to the appropriate place for discussions i must say i am disappointed with wikipedia because i thought this was "the" place for real knowledge, that which is not absolute and is continuously open to discussions, who is to say what goes in or not? you? the trireme trust?. kissing ass to the trireme trust is not real knowledge guys. thank you and sorry for the grammar is just that English is not my first language. if you are interested in having a real discussion we can do it in Spanish.

RACISM ON WIKIPEDIA!

Perhaps look up the English terms in a dictionary and you will understand the article and the comments much easier. (racist comment)

Tied to the main ship does not meant the vessels are on board of the ship and add to its weight, but they are pulled by the ship (with a long rope) and swim on their own (if they were pulled by the ship they still add wight because they make it harder for the ship to move you ignorant). I can understand your argumentation, but it is based on a misunderstanding (listen for the last time, i understand your language good enough so don't try to escape the flaws in your argument by pulling this racist comments) as a result of poor language knowledge. So I will try to explain things more exhaustive (your explanations are not exhaustive but they are anemic).

The Viking longboats are an example for a type of warship with limited transport capacity in comparison to men on the ship. The Viking ship had a very straight V-shaped form, while the trireme had more capacity as it was more U-shaped. Thus both ships had roughly the same space for storage per man on board, but the longboat was faster under sails. (correct but it does not go the point. you cannot use the viking longboat because this boat has only one line of oars which means less weight and easier to move. the engineering problem arises when you want to add 2, 3, 4, etc lines of oars. you need to learn physics before writing on this article son.)

That they sailed most of the time does not refer to the means of acceleration during battle, it is about the way triremes and other ships usually moved from A to B, especially when they had to travel open water for several days. During battles all ships had discharged the heavy main mast that also made the ship topheavy and far less maneuverable, but the Punic navy had a second small mast and sail that could be quickly erected during battle and helped to disengage with a favorable wind. This devive was adopted by Greek and Roman forces.

There are is also an example of a navy in today's Bretagne that moved only with sails in Caesar's De Bello Gallico (you are citing a book that pretends to convince us that Caesar defeated 3 million Gauls with merely 50 thousand romans, again these are anemic sources). To engage the enemy in ranged and close combat both sides had to come very close to each other(200-50 m and less), giving the Romans the possibility to hail special missiles(with broad blades, often V shaped double-points) at the sails instead of the sailors. The sails were rendered useless by the many cuts from the missiles and the Gallic navy could neither leave nor maneuver. Afterwards the Romans took them out, one by one.

The article is not the appropriate place for discussions, that's the purpose of the talk page (yes but still you are choosing what goes in or not, so far i have not deleted anything from what you wrote on the main section). Perhaps someone in the Spanish wikipedia can explain this to you (racist again). If you check the sources, you will find out that is very little based on information provided by the trireme trust. Basically we try to read all serious publications and write an article based on this information. If you do have serious sources on the topic then do it and stop bickering. If you don't, but think you have valid points to ask, than ask them on the talk page just like now or try to get sources on the topic and share their information with us.

Wandalstouring 11:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

for the racist guy and the rest of the board: no matter how many sources you check you have been checking the same sources again and again, this is not critical thinking, this is called copy and paste my friend. don't worry i won't be posting anymore since you could not successfully answer my questions, did you realize you ignored the most important one? which was: "why didn't they just build ships with more sails rather than more rowers? it took 4 thousand years to realize this?". but you did give me what i needed cause i was looking for more flaws in your argument, thanks for that. and please, stop posting racist comments or i will notify this to whomever will care about it, the last thing wikipedia wants is to have problems with discrimination boards. so long.

You complained about language problems and suggested to switch to Spanish to make it easier for you. At least I do take my time and answer your questions. In return I'm accused of racism, of flawed arguments, etc. Please tell everybody what a racist jerk I am.

So your problem is basically: "Why weren't the ships bigger and had sails?"

Look, ships with sails only were used during the Middle Ages, resulting in a fighting style that resembled large, but quite static boarding battles, while the ramming warfare was more mobile and needed only few heavily armed man.

Another factor was the expense of the ropes to mount the sails until the invention of twisted ropes, reducing production costs to 10% of the woven types before. This was a key factor that enabled the Portuguese to afford ships with more sails and find a traderoute to India. Check some history books on Henry the Navigator for more info.

As to the ships, pulling them behind is one possibility, having extra supply ships like is another, although like prior to the Battle of Actium these could be targeted and destroyed by the enemy. Check "Fighting in the Ancient World" ISBN 0-312-30932-5 for more information.

Good manners on wikipedia: Do not interfere in my statements, write your own beneath and sign your comments using this: ~~~~. Is that clear enough? Wandalstouring 18:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maneuverability

A previous version of the article asserted

Those writers also claim triremes were capable of turning at top speed within their own length,

I (jsd) pointed out that basic physics makes this very implausible. Any object turning in a semicircle with diameter 35 m (the length of a trireme) at 21 km/h (the top speed of a trireme) will be subject to a lateral acceleration of nearly 2 gees. It is implausible that a trireme could tolerate that without tipping, because of its top-heaviness and marginal roll-wise stability.[citation needed] Such a high-gee turn would exceed by more than an order of magnitude the performance of the modern trireme Olympias as described below. For maneuvering in very tight quarters, physics suggests that a better scheme would be to decelerate, turn, and then re-accelerate in the new direction.

Deleting these unsourced and implausible assertions is fine with me Jsd 16:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the trireme turn in a semicircle?

Do the writers claim that it can turn at top speed and that it can turn within its own length at the same time?

Is your suggested scheme possible to be executed with an oar propelled ramming vessel in very tight quarters?

Who are the writers putting forward these claims. Name the sources. Wandalstouring 07:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

More of the same. basic source for the discussed hypothesis are missing - OR.

Those writers also claim triremes were capable of turning at top speed within their own length, but basic physics^[1] makes this very implausible.^[1] Any object turning in a semicircle with diameter 35 m (the length of a trireme) at 21 km/h (the top speed of a trireme) will be subject to a lateral acceleration of nearly 2 gees.^[1] It is implausible that a trireme could tolerate that without tipping, because of its top-heaviness and marginal roll-wise stability, as discussed above. Such a high-gee turn would exceed by more than an order of magnitude the performance of the modern trireme Olympias as described below. For maneuvering in very tight quarters, physics suggests that a better scheme would be to decelerate, turn, and then re-accelerate in the new direction.^{[2][citation needed]}

Who are the ancient writers? That's my point. I have no idea what is the source for these implausible claims about maneuverability. Jsd 16:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Then delete them all. I read about triremes and trieres in several languages and I found such claims sourced nowhere. (the French article is very well sourced) Wandalstouring 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French featured article

fr:Trière(featured article on this problem: Les limitations dues à l'exiguïté [modifier]

Outre le fait qu'il faille faire sécher la trière, ses dimensions et son inconfort ne permettent pas à l'équipage d'y passer la nuit ni d'emporter d'importantes provisions de nourriture et d'eau, ce qui met un autre frein aux grandes expéditions sans s'être assuré au préalable des possibilités de relâche dans un port ami chaque soir. La traversée de l'importante flotte athénienne lors de l'expédition de Sicile en 415 av. J.-C. illustre les mesures prises afin de garantir la sécurité et la sûreté durant ces entreprises :

« Ils en firent trois divisions qu'ils répartirent entre eux au sort. Ils voulaient par là qu'au cours de la traversée, on ne manquât pas d'eau, de rades, de tout le nécessaire dans les escales. […] Après cela, ils dépêchèrent devant eux jusqu'en Italie et en Sicile trois navires, qui devaient s'informer des cités disposées à les accueillir : ordre avait été donné à ces navires de revenir les joindre pour que l'on n'abordât qu'à bon escient. » (Thucydide, Histoire de la guerre du Péloponnèse, VI, 42, 1-2)