Part 3

All the ideas put forth in regard to the number of banks of oars and to the respective places occupied by the oarsmen rest only on hypotheses. There have been more than one bank of rowers, but it is probable, however, that it was exceptional when there were more than two. Each oar at the beginning was handled by a single man. (_Encyclopædia Britannica_, 9th Edition, p. 806; ~Holmes~, p. 44; ~Torr~, p. 18; ~Witsen~, p. 13.)

As a general rule, vessels moved by oars underwent little change after the invention of gunpowder. The propelling force could not be developed because it was not possible to increase the number of oars without trouble (_Archéologie Navale_, ~A. Jal~, Vol. I, p. 50; _Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines_, p. 40; idem p. 30).

So, ~Jal~, in the “_Archéologie Navale_”, refuses to admit that there were ships as large as the “Great Eastern” in the times of the Greeks and Romans.

According to the monument of Prora of Samothrace, thole pins may already have been known to the ancients. Dr. ~Assmann~ gives much information on this point (_Baumeister Denkmälen Seewesen_, p. 1632, fig. 1693).

[Sidenote: II 24]

The habit, not yet wholly given up, of painting an eye at the bow, on each side of the stem, proves how long old customs may last. It was already a habit of the Phœnicians, the Greeks and the Romans, and it is still found on a few Italian and Portuguese vessels (See: _Das Seewesen, der Griechen und Römer_ by ~Dr. Emil Lübeck~, 1890, p. 43; ~Assmann~, _Seewesen_, p. 1597; _Jahrbuch des Deutsch._ _Archeol. Instituts_, 1889, p. 99; _Archéologie Navale_, ~Jal~, p. 105; _Ancient Ships_ by ~Torr~, p. 69).

These eyes were a symbol: they were intended to show that the ship was seeking its own path, they have been considered sometimes, but wrongly, to be hawse holes.

Old forms have also been long preserved, and among these the ram is the most remarkable.

[Sidenote: II 54]

[Sidenote: II 59]

In this order of ideas, the _Speronara_ of Malta, which appears in Paris’s work, Vol. IV, nᵒ 203 (nᵒ 164, etc.) is the most interesting example of the Mediterranean. The stem of this boat rises vertically from the water and is provided with a ram; even the eyes too are there.

Maltese boats without a ram are to be seen in the same figure, but these vessels differ little from the _Speronara_.

By bringing Layard’s drawing above mentioned close to this one, there will be seen in each some boats having a ram and a mast while others have none, but have stems which rise vertically above the water.

It can be concluded from this that, as far back as the times of the Phœnicians, ships already presented these same differences.

Hence there is no doubt that the _Speronara_ represents a Phœnician type of boat, in which the steering oar is replaced by a rudder.

There is no entire agreement as to the place occupied by the ram. Some persons place it above, others below the load-water line. Be this as it may, it is found on all the ancient models and, in most cases, the bottom line of the ship is prolonged in a straight or a slightly curved line as far as the ram.

The constant presence of this latter element in the reproductions, allows the conclusion that it was placed not _below_ but _above_ the water. If the _contrary_ had been the case, the ram could not have made so great an impression on the painters and sculptors. As for the rest, all the ancient types, on which traces of a ram are found, carry this element above the water line.

The fact that the bottom line ended in the ram, does not prove that this latter was below the water, for this line was invisible, and the draughtsmen, who were uninitiated in the art of shipbuilding, not knowing any other means for representing it, cut the ship off at the water line; but as the drawing then appeared rather strange, they added a curved line joining the ram to the sternpost.

If several of the old pictures be considered from this standpoint and if the curious bottom lines drawn by the draughtsmen be covered by better lines borrowed from the _Speronara_ or from ancient galleys, these reproductions acquire a wholly different meaning.

If little be known about the ancient Phœnician boat, a more thorough knowledge of the Greek or Roman ship has been reached, through researches, especially in the matter of dimensions.

It is settled that the Ancients had dock yards containing sheds for the shelter of vessels from which the running rigging had been removed while the standing parts were left. (See: _Das Seewezen der Gr. und R._ by Dr. ~Em. Lübeck~, 1890, p. 2.) These sheds give an idea of the sizes of their ships.

The excavations made by Lieutenant von Alten (_Das Seewesen der Gr. und R._, p. 5), attached to the Imperial German Archeological Institute (1876-1877), have shown that the figures given by Graser are inaccurate. The dimensions of eight docks could be measured at Munichia, and these structures were 6.25 m. wide by 21.20 m. long.

Later excavations brought to light at Zoa some docks 5.50 m. wide and about 40 metres long, measured along the bank. (_Das Seewesen der Gr. und R._, idem p. 6.)

The dimensions of the ships must, therefore, have been relatively small.

It is generally granted that the beam of the Greek ship propelled by oars is less than that of the galleys of the Middle Ages.

According to ~Jal~ (_Archéologie Navale_), the ratio of the beam to the length, in the middle ages, was for war vessels: 1:8; for merchant ships it was 1:7. Graser found that among the Greeks this ratio was 1:8¼, and according to ~Serre~ (_La Marine de guerre de l’Antiquité_, p. 33) and ~Lemaître~ (_Revue archéologique_ 1833, Vol. 8, pp. 149 _et seq._) its value was 1:9.

Hence the vessels were narrow as compared with their length, which increased their degree of mobility.

Besides, the depth of the docks discovered shows that the boats drew but little and, consequently, that the ships slid along in a way, on the water.

In this respect too, the ancient boats did not differ much from those of the Middle Ages. Neglecting this detail, among others, Graser reaches a type of ship having far too great a draught.

Alongside of the war vessels, _naves longæ_, there were the merchant vessels, _naves onerariæ_. It was natural that great mobility should be sought for the former; it is this which explains the lengthened shape of these boats, whereas the merchant ships were shorter and had more beam.

Later, but still several centuries B. C., when the power of Rome was developed, when its population increased and when the importation of wheat and other provisions became more and more important and had to be made more and more quickly, the ship with oars was used as a merchant vessel in addition to the short, wide boat.

The Roman freight galleys seem, further on, to have been made broader, like those of the Middle Ages, with a view to increasing their capacity. But no _new_ type followed from this; it was merely a new application of existing types.

It can be certified that no new type of boat was created later all at once, and that this change was due not to the shifting of lines of trade or to the construction of new ports. This latter condition could, at most, have modified the accepted dimensions.

The different types of antiquity remained in use for centuries and are still to be found to a great extent.

Nothing more will be done than to attract attention to certain ancient pictures where are seen ships having rounded stems. A short time ago, this peculiarity was still to be found in “la Muleta” a boat of the Tagus, now disappeared. (Compare ~Paris~, Vol. V, fig. 268; and _Jahrbuch der Deutsch. Archeol. Inst._, 1889, p. 91.)

The size of boats changed little. In order to develope more force, the number of rowers was increased and, as the length of the ship was reduced, the rowers had forcedly to be placed in banks, one above another.

~Jal~ considers that a triple bank of oars must have been an exception, and that the lowest bank must have been separated from the other two by a deck. The celebrated trireme, built at Asnières in 1860, under orders from Napoleon III, was carried out in accordance with this conception; but, as has been said, the experiment tried with this boat did not give satisfactory results. (See, _Das Seewesen der Gr. und R._, Dr. ~Lübeck~, p. 49.)

If, however, the experiment did not solve the question of the position of the rowers, it showed sufficiently that, in the trireme, the ship was filled up with rowers.

The ancient vessel had little space for provisions. Care was taken consequently so to arrange matters as to be able to land every evening, and it can be understood from this that most naval battles were fought close to the shore.

But, in order to land everywhere, a small draught of water was necessary. This, according to Assmann and Lemaître, must have been about one metre. (_Das Seewesen der Gr. und R._, Dr. ~Emil Lübeck~, p. 10, note 5.)

The disposable space on board was so restricted that, when it was not possible to go ashore at night, the oarsmen could only sleep in gangs. While the boat was in motion they had, in order not to interfere with each other, to make their movements absolutely together, and even when coming on board a certain order of succession had to be observed. (_Das Seewesen_, idem p. 10.)

It is not known exactly when the old method of propulsion, each oar handled by a single man, gave place to the new in which heavy oars were worked by several men. It appears however that the Liburnians already had heavy oars of which the use seems to have been a consequence of the battle of Actium, fought B. C. 31. (_Das Seewesen der Gr. und R._, Dr. ~Em. Lübeck~, p. 21.)

As has been seen, there were, alongside of the ships of war or _naves longæ_, merchant ships or freight vessels, _naves onerariæ_. The dimensions of these latter were also rather small; as can be judged by their capacity. Their cargo, as shown by ancient documents, was stated in Greek talents or in Roman amphora (1 amphora = 26.50 m.), and later also in midimnes of Attica (1 midimne = 42.50 m.). (_Das Seewesen der Gr. mid R._, Dr. ~Em. Lübeck~, p. 22.)

According to an arrangement regulating the size of merchant vessels, made in the year B. C. 218, the boats which brought goods from the senatorial possessions in Sicily and Sardinia to Rome, had a cargo space of only 786 cubic feet. It is true that descriptions of much larger vessels are found. These ships, from calculations made by Assmann and other authors, must have had a capacity of 26,000 to 200,000 cubic feet. Graser even goes so far as to say, from the quantity of freight carried, that the ship “Alexandreia” belonging to Hiero of Syracuse must have had a capacity of 240,000 cubic feet. Mention is even made of one ship having a length of 120 ells, while for another a depth of 29 ells is given.

All these dimensions are not to be despised even now, but, considering the small size of the ports and navigable highways of those days as well as their lack of depth, they must have been an impossibility. Furthermore, all these numerical data rest only on hypotheses, and cannot be exact.

The short, bluff merchant ship of the Ancients was certainly not longer than the vessel with oars and its average size does not seem to have exceeded that of a “tialque”.

The progress of shipbuilding was gradual throughout Western Europe, and as the same may be said of the Mediterranean, since the Middle Ages, what reason is there, then, for supposing that the vessels of Antiquity were of extraordinary dimensions?

In this order of ideas, the _Prora of Samothrace_, discovered in 1863 and dating from B. C. 306, gives an exact idea of the war ship of the Ancients and proves that this vessel differed little in shape and size from the ships of the Middle Ages.

The bottom was slightly curved near the middle and the hull was made slender toward the ends. The mean draught of water was one metre, while that of the largest vessels scarcely exceeded 1.50 m. (~Assmann~, _Seewesen_, p. 1597, etc.) The stem and the sternpost were ornamented with signs which are unimportant for this study.

Ships with oars of which the stern was rounded at the level of the water line, carried at the bow a ram, which was used to sink the enemy’s ships and to smash their oars. A heavy block of wood, ornamented with the head of a ram, prevented the ram from penetrating too far into the side of the ship which it attacked.

The arrangements of the ram varied a good deal as is shown by the figures, but the form of the vessel itself was not influenced thereby. This element was the emblem of power and was meant to inspire terror. There is nothing astonishing then that, in most of the old drawings, the draughtsman should have dwelt rather on this detail than on the ship itself, thus causing the shape of this latter to become an accessory.

The ram, which was already in use among the Phœnicians, did not appear among the Greeks until B. C. 536. (Dr. ~Em. Lübeck~, p. 13.) Whence it follows, and it cannot be repeated too often, that the art of shipbuilding had reached a higher degree of perfection with the Phœnicians than among the Greeks and that the former exercised a preponderating influence over the peoples dwelling along the shores of the Mediterranean.

Hence, the thesis of uniformity of the boats of the Mediterranean could be sustained, but this would not imply that each people had known but one type of vessel. Boats of sundry types existed at the same time; there were the short bluff merchant ships side by side with the long vessels driven by oars, and perfected types were crowded against the primitive.

History tells us, that Cæsar put to sea with a fleet thirty days after the cutting of the wood to be used in its construction. (~Nicolas Witsen~, p. 12, col. 1.) It would be hard to grant that the boats which composed this fleet were well finished ships moved by oars. They were, doubtless flat bottomed vessels, of the type which is still found in the Adriatic and which is so well reproduced in the “Rascona”. (~Paris~, Vol. II, and _Das Seewesen der Gr. und R._ by Dr. ~Em. Lübeck~, p. 39.)

The rapid construction of the fleet in question furnishes one proof more in favor of the point raised regarding the small size of ships.

In order to show more clearly what is meant by uniformity in the shape of vessels, attention will be called to the “tialque” type of the Netherlands, which is found, with slight changes and under other names, from Denmark to Belgium. All the boats of this type have a common fundamental character; but with the tialque are met still other types which are also found elsewhere.

So, from Denmark to Belgium, there is a series of well defined fundamental types and hence we can speak of common forms.

This remark applies also to the Mediterranean (_Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines_, 36th part, p. 24; _Navis_), where these fundamentals have been preserved for centuries: the old types of wooden vessels to be met with at the present time still give an exact idea of them, save in what relates to the rudder and rig.

Sundry types have evidently been set aside or have undergone changes demanded by local conditions, so that, in order to find among them the fundamental characters belonging to a given country, it is often necessary to seek elsewhere.

So, for example, there are found in Holland, at ’s Gravenmoer (North Brabant), an old Rhenish type; in Portugal, small fishing boats which resemble greatly the ancient Egyptian vessels and, in the Arabian Sea, a ship which, aside from the rudder and rigging, resembles, to an astonishing degree, the primitive Roman vessel. And the Arabs claim that they have the oldest and best ships (compare ~Paris~, Vol. III, nᵒ 135, with the relief of the “port of the Tiber” which appears in ~Baumeister~, _Denkmäler des Klassischen Altertums_, fig. 1688).

If vessels moved by oars underwent no changes as the result of the invention of gunpowder, the cause must be sought in the slenderness of their construction required by the small motive power which they could put forth. The number of oarsmen was limited and very soon a maximum was reached which could not be exceeded.

In view of the fact that a practical vessel having more than three banks of rowers could not be constructed, and that the old reproductions which are known never show more than three, it seems permissible to conclude that the ancient writers who speak of four banks of oars and more, have allowed their imaginations to run away with them or, which appears more exact, that they had a way of counting other than the one adopted in our time? Doubtless, it was desired to designate the number of oars which passed in banks through the side of the ship.

Huys’s drawing, according to Breugel (dating from the middle of the XVIth century), shows oars grouped thus in sets of threes, and the same process is found in other old pictures; if these pictures show triremes, the question would be simple to explain.

A reproduction of the trireme, often referred to, is that of the bas-relief of the Acropolis at Athens. (_Baumeister Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums_, fig. 1689.) Copies of it are found in all the works, but they do not always agree and hence can offer nothing certain. (Dr. ~Moritz Rühlmann~, p. 62.)

Let a few more words be said now about merchantmen.

[Sidenote: II 26]

For these, the most beautiful drawing known is certainly the aforementioned relief of the port of the Tiber, preserved in the Torlonia Museum. In this is seen a large merchant ship with inclined stem and rounded stern. At about two-thirds of the length of the ship from the bow, the gunwale projects so as to give a support to the steering oar. This mode of construction is still found on several Indian boats, etc. The ordinary mast, set up near the middle of the vessel and provided with a stay, is secured by strong ropes. The square sail can be lowered by means of ropes running through rings fastened thereto. Then the mast carries but a single yard; a jib is attached to its upper end.

A mast called “dolon” stands forward; it was used, in the beginning, to hoist in a small life boat. It is still called the “boat mast” probably for this reason.

The cabin occupies all the available space aft of the mast.

The sails were generally square; they were sometimes of rectangular shape on the Alexandria freight ships.

War ships, like important freight vessels, always had two masts. (Dr. ~Breusing~, _Die Nautik der Alten_, p. 56.) In action, the sails were furled and the masts lowered, in order to save them from being reached by the ram of the enemy’s ships. (Dr. ~Breusing~, p. 71.)

[Sidenote: II 31]

Attention should not bear alone on large ships, but also on the small merchant vessels. The most beautiful picture of this sort of boat is, unquestionably, the old relief of the Cathedral at Salerno. (_Jahrbuch des Kaiserlichen Deutschen Archeol. Instituts_, Vol. IV, p. 103, fig. 1_c_.) Aside from the question of the rudder, the vessel there shown would easily pass for a modern craft.

This boat is in course of being discharged; the bridge is lowered and the forward panel is raised. The mast which is down had to be taken from its step for this purpose; this method was still much in use in our country in the XVIIIth century. The steering oars hang alongside of the vessel, resting against the projecting side.

The boat itself is completed by a stem and a sternpost. The step of the mast is about one-third of the length of the boat from the bow, and abaft this is seen the hold. This last, as in our present river boats, is closed by means of panels. Even the grooves (half-rounds), into which the panels are set, can be made out and, in these grooves, even the openings to let the water run off (shown by little marks) are to be seen.

The panels are on a slope, as shown by the upper lines.

The meaning of these little half-circles was not understood by the author of the Jahrbuch afore-named. (_Jahrbuch des Kais. Deutsch. Arch. Instituts_, Vol. IV, 1889, p. 103.)

Two mooring bitts are seen near the bow and four near the stern; their special form allows it to be assumed that they were to be used as a support for oars, which gave the means for going ahead in a calm.

The mast, which is short and thick, is provided with cleats throughout its entire height, hence it may be supposed that these pieces of wood were placed there for climbing the mast. Hence it is probable that this boat did not have rigging sufficiently strong for this purpose. It is true that no ropes are seen in the figure in question, but it cannot be concluded, however, that the vessel had none.

It is my opinion that this boat could not have been larger than a small “tialque”. Here is another proof in support of the argument that, in the course of ages, boats have been but little changed and that their construction soon reached a high degree of perfection. There is nothing surprising to be found in this assertion, if the masterpieces bequeathed to us by the Greeks and Romans be considered.

It is matter of regret that no positive data exist in regard to the position of the oarsmen among the Ancients, because it is just on this point that vessels propelled by oars were modified in the Middle Ages. It was at this period that the oars handled by one man, according to the primitive fashion, gave place to a single bank of heavy oars each of which was worked by several rowers.

This transition was not coïncident with the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476). In fact, the Emperor Leo (886 to 911) advised the construction of “dromon” biremes (~La Croix~, p. 75), and even in the XIth century, a writer is seen to speak of a _chélandre_ or _sélandre_, to which he attributes a very high speed and which had two banks of oars superposed. (~La Croix~, pp. 75 and 79.)

The change came about gradually, in all probability.

In the XIIIth century, only vessels with one bank of oars, galleys, are mentioned. (See, for banks, ~van Yk~, p. 11; ~Torr~, _Ancient Ships_, pp. 19 et seq.)

Meanwhile, the rudder arose and its appearance brought about changes in the stern of the vessel.

As a general rule, little is known about the condition of the art of shipbuilding at the beginning of the Middle Ages. All the same, however, this period must have seen an important marine on the Mediterranean and, consequently, the art of shipbuilding must have been flourishing. There is no doubt that the Crusades (1096-1291) had a great influence on the old state of affairs. Venice became the centre of progress and Genoa followed closely.

The importance of the navy at this time is attested by the famous navy yards at Venice and by a great number of edicts which relate to the construction of ships. Thus, there is found in the XIIIth century an edict which determines the water line for the vessel loaded and for the vessel empty. (~Jal~, p. 267, article 4.)

In regard to the construction of ships with oars, it is only necessary to refer to the edicts of the Emperor Leo which were observed, even to the Xth century. This Emperor ordered that the galleys should be sufficiently strong and swift, involving thus great length and little beam, but the latter was to be, however, proportioned to the length. These edicts were simple, but categorical.

Later on, people were no longer free to build as they pleased. They had to follow the rules laid down regarding the form of the ships which bore a certain relation to the capacity and to the trips to be made.

The length of the boats was not extraordinary: ~Jal~ gives, for example, a length of about 44 metres for vessels propelled by oars. This figure, as one can see, differs little from that of the vessels of antiquity, and was little exceeded later on.