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

by W. S. Lindsay

Six men to each of the oars of the highest bank, five to each oar of the second, and four men to each oar of the third bank, would give the requisite number of one hundred and fifty rowers, who would be far more effective than if placed in the manner he describes. So in the case of the quinquereme, with her three hundred rowers, instead of placing six men (presuming there were no reliefs) to each of her fifty oars, our theory, while it equally solves the difficulty created by the statement of Polybius (a difficulty which could only arise in quinqueremes with so large a crew as three hundred rowers), is one which could be carried out with much more practical effect; for, by placing on the 1st bank 8 men × 5 = 40; 2nd, 7 × 5 = 35; 3rd, 6 × 5 = 30; 4th, 5 × 5 = 25; 5th, 4 × 5 = 20; there would be 150 on each side, or 300 rowers in all, as represented on the preceding page, in the transverse midship-section of what a quinquereme really must have been.

Before proceeding to examine in detail how rowers thus arranged could work with effect, it will be desirable to show that the outline of the vessel, of which a section is here given, corresponds not merely with the imperfect information obtained from ancient authors, but with what would be practicable. To work the number of men here shown, the breadth of the beam of the galley would, presuming every rower on board to be employed at the same time, require to be, at least, forty-two feet, which would allow eighteen feet for the range inside of each of the oars on the upper bank, and six feet for the width of the raised midship-deck, where the hatches were placed. That width would allow for oars fifty-four feet in length, which would be ample where the highest row-port was nine feet above the level of the water; and as thirty men would be able to work on each oblique row, a hexireme, of no greater width, could carry three hundred and sixty rowers, a septireme four hundred and twenty, an octoreme four hundred and eighty, and so forth. In the case of a tesseracontoros, with no greater beam, two thousand four hundred rowers could find employment; but as vessels of that enormous size—if, indeed, more than this one was ever built—were very considerably wider,[400] it would be an improvement on the plan proposed by Mr. Howell, of ten men to each of the four hundred oars, to place fourteen rowers upon each of the oars of the upper bank, twelve on the second, ten on the third, eight on the fourth, and six on the fifth or lowest bank, which would give the required number of four thousand, though, in either case, many of the men would be more ornamental than serviceable. There is, however, no doubt that about three thousand men could be placed so as to row in each individual case with effect if they were apportioned to their oars in somewhat the scale of ten, nine, seven, six, and five, or say, thirty-seven men to each of the forty banks or oblique rows of oars, which would leave one thousand and forty for reliefs.

If the men were arranged in the manner suggested, and as represented in the following front view of their positions when placed at their stations before they commenced work on board of a trireme, the various objections which have been raised to the plan of working oars placed one over the other are removed.

A practised eye will at once perceive that rowers thus arranged could work with great effect and simultaneously, without in any way interfering with the movements of each other. Nor would there be any difficulty in placing to the best advantage, as may be seen in our illustration (see [p. 285]) of the tranverse midship-section of the quinquereme, the large number of three hundred rowers required for vessels of that class.

If this theory be correct, then the problem of how the various classes of galleys were rowed is solved; for, if this was the principle of their classification, the difficulty does not increase with their dimensions, as is the case in all other theories; the extreme height of the highest bank of rowers, either in the case of the quinquereme, or in that of any of the larger vessels, being not necessarily more than nine feet above the water.

At the word of command from the officer, who walked upon the elevated portion of the deck, and guided by the leading men, who were stationed at the inner end of the oars, the rowers, when seated, stretched the handles of their oars as far aft as their arms would permit, as shown in the following representation:—

The action of the rowers would, however, in some measure be regulated by the size of the galley and the space at their disposal. Placed alternately, those who worked at the lower tiers would, in all galleys, have full swing for their oars, as the footstools of the rowers who sat above them would not interfere with the free action of their bodies, though such might appear to be the case by the side representation, which in itself, and without reference to the front view, necessarily fails to show their exact position. But while the men in small galleys, no doubt, rowed from their seats, there is every reason to suppose that in the larger vessels, where great numbers of rowers were employed, they rose, if seated, and after moving forward, according to the space at their disposal, threw themselves backward into their seats with an impetus as simultaneous and harmonious as it would be possible to attain without the aid of a machine to regulate their joint action. Indeed, the ancients practised this art with the greatest care, and the rowers were frequently exercised on benches erected on the shore, and their harmonious movements were sometimes made an object of display in their theatres. In nearly every case they plied their oars to the sound of either vocal or instrumental music, so that a fleet of the larger description of galleys, when under way on the smooth waters of the Levant, must have been, as various ancient authors describe, a heart-stirring and magnificent display.

Vossius, Le Roy, and all who have written on the subject of how the rowers were placed at their oars, though they differ less or more from each other, and fail, as we conceive, to propound a theory applicable to vessels of every class, agree in the opinion that the rowers were divided into classes, and that the thranitæ, who pulled the longest and highest oars and had the greatest amount of labour, “were exposed to the darts of the enemy.” For these reasons they received, as we learn from Thucydides, the highest pay; and from the same authority we ascertain that even the largest description of galleys “were not decked throughout.”[401]