Vossius’s views.
The whole of the question of rowing ancient galleys has been exceedingly well put by Vossius, in his “Dissertation on the Construction of Ancient Ships.”[393] Speaking of the largest of all these ships, of which any record remains, he says: “If we compare the oars that must necessarily have been used on board of this (Ptolemy’s) ship with those by which the modern galley is worked, and allow for their different proportions in respect to length, we must also keep in view a similar comparison in regard to their size and thickness, and we shall then have a correct idea of their relative dimensions, as well as their strength.” He then goes on to remark, “Let us now consider in what manner the four thousand rowers, which are said to have been employed on board this vessel, were employed or stationed at the forty banks of oars. It is not my intention,” he continues, “to combat or examine what many learned men have already written on this subject, both in France and in other countries. Their opinion is certainly correct in respect to the tiers of oars being placed obliquely over each other. Existing remnants of antiquity convince us clearly of the fact; but there still remains a much heavier difficulty to be got over: it is, in what manner the oars of the upper tier could be worked and managed by one person only; for it is denied that more than one was stationed to each oar, and the perplexity of the enigma is not a little increased by the assertion that a very small part of the oar reached within board. It is well known that there are no weights whatever which, by the proper assistance and combination of mechanical power, may not be moved even by a single person; but we are at the same time certain, that the greater the weights are, so much the slower can they be moved. Oars, it must be remembered, become almost useless unless they are impelled with quickness and spirit, as well as brought back to their original station, for a renewal of the stroke with equal celerity. The mechanical powers are of no use in this instance, as the law remains fixed and immutable, that any operation which, in the ordinary course of things, requires ten men to perform it, and one only is employed, may indeed be executed by that one, but will require a period ten times as long to perform it in; for nature will not suffer herself to be deceived, or her laws perverted by any such vainly-hoped-for advantage.”
While Vossius was of opinion that no vessel had ever more than seven tiers of oars,—though he does not show how that number could have been worked,—he, for the reasons just quoted, arrived at the conclusion “that in the lower tier one man only was stationed to an oar, which being short, and but trivially elevated above the surface of the water, he might be able to work without much difficulty.” He then explains that, in his opinion, as to which there can be no question, “the oars in all superior tiers, as they increased in height from the water, increased also in length, within board as well as without, leaving room for a greater number of rowers to work, each in progressive proportion to their length;” but he draws a false conclusion from right premises when he remarks that the difficulty consists “not in so many tiers, but in the number of seats of rowers comprised in one oblique tier.”[394]
Such are the views of a few of the leading writers on this intricate question. While agreeing with Vossius in the opinion that the oar-ports were placed obliquely in the sides of the vessel, and that the number of men to an oar was regulated by its length and position, there are many objections to his theory that the galleys of the ancients were classed, either by the number of men or by the number of their seats; and any seaman who takes the trouble to put the theory into practice will find that even the principle of obliquity will not admit of the effective working of more than five tiers of oars.
Each theory, however, contains less or more truth; and by a careful examination of the whole, the problem which has occupied the attention of so many writers may be successfully solved, if there be less attempt to harmonize statements made by ancient authors, who were not practically conversant with the subject, or whose writings have been misquoted or imperfectly interpreted. All writers agree in the opinion that the uniremes had only one bank or tier of oars, and there is no difference of opinion with regard to the mode of propelling these vessels. Although “seated” (and this expression has led to much controversy), the rowers, in the case of large vessels, doubtless, rose simultaneously to their oars at the word of command, stretching out the handles as far as the allotted space would permit, and then throwing themselves back uniformly upon their seats, and, with their whole weight, propelling the galley forwards. This mode of rowing may be seen in the Mediterranean and elsewhere at the present day.
Writers differ with regard to the number of men placed at an oar; but herein there is, practically also, no difference of opinion, for the number of men at an oar must depend on the size of the vessel. A jolly-boat has never more than one man at an oar, but a launch has two, and, in the phraseology of our own time, launches thus rowed are called “double-banked,” although this expression was not applicable to the galleys of the ancients. Nor is there much difference of opinion with reference to what was meant by a bireme. Apart, therefore, from direct testimony, there can be no doubt that a bireme (as a rule) meant a vessel, not with two rowers to an oar, but with two banks or tiers of oars. Some writers, as already explained, have maintained that the oar-ports were placed directly one above the other; but this could only be possible in vessels such as the bireme. On the other hand, a careful examination of Trajan’s column, and of other remains of ancient sculpture, proves that the oars were placed obliquely over each other: thus, on coins of the Emperor Gordian, two tiers of oars so placed are very conspicuous. If, however, any doubts still exist on this point, they are entirely set at rest by the recent discoveries of Layard and others.
The illustration on the next page, a copy of an alabaster slab found at Kouyunjik, the site of ancient Nineveh, clearly shows the oar-ports arranged obliquely on the broad side of the galley. The only further question is, to what extent this principle could be applied, so as to place at work the vast number of rowers some galleys are said to have carried, and also to afford accommodation for the troops and stores.
Mr. Howell’s plan.
GALLEY FROM KOUYUNJIK (NINEVEH).