Fig. 194.
space of the two long sides of the ship, with the exception of the two ends; they were arranged over one another in rows of different heights, not separated by partitions, but only by the open structure of wood. In each row each rower sat immediately in front of the next man in a straight line, but there is a difference of opinion as to the manner in which the rowing benches were arranged. According to Graser, they were immediately under one another, but the rowers did not sit perpendicularly above each other; but in order to save space as much as possible, and partly to facilitate their movements, they were arranged in such a way that the seat of the next highest was in the same direction and height as the head of the man on the next seat below, so that each man, instead of sitting directly under the man above, sat a little towards the back, and, in moving, kept his arms immediately under the seat of the man above. Lemaître, on the other hand, assumes that only the lowest benches were close to the edge, and those
Fig. 195.
above were removed by the breadth of the thwart, the third by two breadths, in which case the height must have been so arranged that the oar of the man above always passed over the head of the one immediately below. It is impossible to attain any certainty about this matter; both hypotheses are open to objection. For the length of the oars naturally increased in proportion to the distance of the rowers from the water, and those of the highest row must have been longest; according to Graser’s arrangement, the length of the oars increased 1 yard for each row, so that in a ship of five rows the lowest rank had oars 2½ yards long, the highest 6½; according to the arrangement of Lemaître, the length was even greater, but there was this advantage, that the longer oars had also longer leverage, and could consequently be more easily controlled. The larger the number of rows, the greater in consequence was the length of the oars, but still they were able to build and control ships of fifteen or sixteen rows. The splendid ship of Ptolemy Philopater is said to have had no less than forty rows, and the length of the highest oars was 18½ yards; but this was not a ship of war, and was only used in calm water—in fact, a modern authority on seafaring regards the whole description of this forty-decker as a satire. Of course, the larger the ships the greater the number of oarsmen required, since the number of rows would be greater; a “trireme” was rowed by 174 men, a “quinquereme” by 310, the arrangement being that each higher row had two men more than the one below, because the bulk of the ship was broadened towards the top. In rowing the greatest regularity of movement was indispensable; this was attained by the command of a special captain, and also by marking time with flutes, so that all the oars might strike the water at the same moment. Here we meet with a problem, hitherto unsolved: how was it possible for the long oars of the upper rows to keep stroke with the short ones of the lower rows? This would have been impossible if the same word of command was given to all the rowing benches, since the stroke of a long oar would naturally require more time than that of a short one. Another difficulty is the great number of oarsmen which would have been required for Attica, where the number of ships was very considerable; still, the number of sailors and marines was very small, as in naval warfare the main object was to sink the enemy’s ship by means of the prow, while they did not trouble much about shooting and fighting at a distance.
As to the construction of the ships, the prow and stern were, generally speaking, of similar build; both, as a rule, ended in curves, but there was usually a lofty decoration of leaves or feathers for the stern, while at the prow they put the image of a god, or the head of an animal, or some other picture, which often showed the name of the boat; these were constructed of wood or bronze, and a flag waved at the top. Below the prow, for the most part under water, lay the strong beak, made of boards firmly fastened into the bow, and protected in front by massive iron points. On the deck there was usually a little canopy at both ends; in Fig. [194] this is seen on the front deck, and apparently also in Fig. [191], though this may be a little tent used as a protection against the sun, such as was often placed on the upper deck. The tower at the back, and the little hut for the helmsman from which he directed both rudders, are wanting on these pictures. The old ships had two rudders, to the right and left of the stern; by means of a mechanical contrivance, which is, however, not represented in the pictures, these two rudders could be directed at the same time in a parallel direction.
In Figs. [192] and [192] we observe near the bow a round opening, corresponding to a similar hole in Fig. [191]; the object of this was to enable the anchor-ropes to pass through the ship to the anchors, which resembled our modern ones in all essentials, and were hung up when not in use on little projections at both sides of the prow, which also served the purpose of keeping off the enemy’s ship when avoiding an attack. On the great mainmast there were, as a rule, two square yard sails, fastened one over another, with a third above them, and at the top of the mast two triangular topsails. The ships of war also had two sails following the length of the ship, which were of particular importance for turning when the wind blew from the side. The Attic inscriptions give us many other details about seafaring, but these are only of special interest for professional sailors.