History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 1 (of 4)

by W. S. Lindsay

This is clear from the fact that while various ancient writers mention oars of 9½ cubits in length, Athenæus distinctly states that the oars belonging to Ptolemy Philopator’s large ship were thirty-eight cubits long.[384] Here we have a specific account of oars varying from fourteen to fifty-seven feet in length, the latter requiring to have lead embedded in their handles as a counterpoise to the weight outside the rowlock.[385] Besides, it is clear that the oars must have increased in size according to the banks on which they were employed. In the case of the oar fifty-seven feet in length, if worked from a great height a large portion of it would require to be inboard—say nineteen feet against thirty-eight; and even the one-third would not, at a line of nine feet above the water, be sufficient as a counterpoise, unless the shoulder of the oar were of unwieldy thickness or heavily weighted by lead. In all single-banked vessels the oar worked on the gunwale, and was kept in its place by means of a leather thong. In larger galleys it passed through an oar-port. Various ancient writers assert that there was only one man to each oar, and add, that he sat, when rowing, on a single bench or small stool attached to the ribs of the vessel, and within a very short distance from the scalmus of his oar.

But these assertions, though they increase the difficulty of solving the intricate problem of how galleys, with more than one bank of oars, were propelled, can have no weight when opposed to practical experience. It is clear, without any testimony beyond our knowledge of the physical power of man, that no one man, however herculean, unless he had the aid of machinery, of which there is no proof, could work an oar in the manner described. Indeed, we know that in ancient galleys of every description, above the smallest uniremes, more men than one were frequently employed upon the same oar. Such was the case in the celebrated Liburnian[386] galleys, already described.

Here the question arises how many men could, with convenience, sit on each bench? Presuming that, in the case of an oar fifty-seven feet in length, one-third, or nineteen feet, remained within board, there would, allowing fifteen inches for each rower, be space for fifteen men to work at the one oar; and if the men who sat within six feet of the row-port were of no service, there is still ample space left to place ten effective rowers.

If in comparatively modern times, when rowers were by no means crowded, eighteen inches for each man abreast was considered more than sufficient, we may infer that five men to an oar was far from an unfrequent practice in manning the state galleys of the Italian Republics. But while there is no difficulty in understanding how five or even ten men could be rendered serviceable in working the oars of single-banked galleys, a great difficulty arises when we inquire how that number of men could effectively handle the upper bank oars of the quadriremes and quinqueremes. On these and on many other matters the accounts of the ancients are conflicting: nor do the imperfect illustrations on ancient monuments and on coins materially assist in their elucidation. Assured of the fact that there were many vessels of much larger dimensions than even quinqueremes propelled by oars, we have to consider how this was done. Now the only mode of arriving at correct conclusions on this, the most conflicting and intricate of all the problems connected with shipping which ancient authors have left for solution, is to trace the progress of the galleys themselves, from the single-banked craft or unireme upwards.

Single-banked galleys.

With the exception of the extraordinary Liburnian galleys, every account extant leads to the conviction that the single-banked galleys of the Venetians and Genoese resembled in many respects those of the Romans and ancient Greeks. Drawings of Venetian galleys, to which references will hereafter be made, have been preserved, but, as no detailed account of them exists, we are obliged to seek for information from a writer of a comparatively modern date.[387]

French galley.

In its leading features, a French galley, constructed somewhere about the close of the seventeenth century, would appear to have resembled those of Venice and of Rome of a similar class. She is described as having been one hundred and fifty feet long and fifty feet broad; but there is evidently a mistake in the description of her width, as there is no record of any war galley, either ancient or modern, where the length was only three times the breadth of beam. They were invariably from five to ten times longer than they were wide. All writers on the ships of the ancients or of the middle ages are agreed upon this point; nor is there any account of a vessel propelled by oars of our own times, which is not at least six times longer than she is wide; therefore, it is safe to assume that the French galley of one hundred and fifty feet in length did not much exceed thirty feet in width. In other respects, with the exception of the length of oars, the description of this single-banked galley is evidently quite reliable.

The author says, that she “consists but of one deck, which covers the hold; this hold is in the middle nine feet, but at the sides of the galley only six feet high. By this we may see that the deck rises about a foot in the middle, and slopes towards the edges to let the water more easily run off; for when a galley is loaded, it seems to swim under water, at least the sea constantly washes the deck. The sea would then necessarily enter the hold by the apertures where the masts are placed, were it not prevented by what is called the coursier. This is a long case of boards fixed on the middle or highest part of the deck, and running from one end of the galley to the other. There is also a hatchway into the hold as high as the coursier. From this superficial description, perhaps, it may be imagined that the slaves and the rest of the crew have their feet always in the water; but the case is otherwise; to each bench there is a board raised a foot from the deck, which serves as a footstool to the rowers, under which the water passes. For the soldiers and marines there is, running on each side along the gunwale of the vessel, what is called a bande, which is a bench about the same height with the coursier, and two feet broad. They never lie here, but each leans on his own particular bundle of clothes in a very incommodious posture. The officers themselves are not better accommodated, for the chambers in the hold are designed only to hold the provisions and naval stores of the galley.”

The author then proceeds to state that the French galley had a chamber in the poop or raised deck, only large enough to hold the captain’s bed; that, contiguous to it, were compartments for the more valuable stores; and, after remarking on various details, he adds, that she had twenty-five benches for the rowers on each side of the vessel. These fifty benches, which were four feet apart, and ten feet long, are described as having been “covered with sackcloth, stuffed with flocks, and over this is thrown a cow-hide, which, reaching down to the banquet or footstool, gives them the resemblance of large trunks. To these the slaves are chained, six to a bench; along the bande runs a large rim of timber, about a foot thick which forms the gunwale of the galley. On this, which is called the apostic, the oars are worked. These are fifty feet long, and are poised in equilibrio upon the afore-mentioned piece of timber, so that the thirteen feet of oar which come inboard are equal in weight to the thirty-seven feet outboard; and as it would be impossible to hold them in the hand, because of their thickness, they have handles by which they are managed by the slaves.”