Talk:Hellenistic-era warships

message: As far as I can tell, these are just two names for the same type of ship Nik42 03:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean quinquiremes? Some people are not sure about spelling it correctly. Wandalstouring 11:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quintiremes 

message: I've always understood the number to be the number of banks of oars; thus, the bireme has one on each side; the trireme 2 on one and 1 on the other; the quadrireme, 2 on each side; the quinquereme, 3 on one and 2 on the others. That is the way the dictionaries present it and that is the way all ship reconstructions I've seen present it. I'm astounded to read of five banks on a side and to see references given for this. Moreover, the article itself is now self-contradictory. The man who supplied the refs says, no, he loaned his books to a friend and does not have them. Oh yeah? I question the whole thing. I'm not ready to work on this article but I thought I would bring this little matter up as did one of the commentators above. All the Roman ship articles were evidently done with the same understanding. I believe they are all wrong. Needs a multi-source lookup. Later.Dave (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental problem

message: Hi there. Someone else got my machine this morning so I could not finish this intro. Liddell & Scott says Herodotus but the big edition does not substantiate it so it appears that Polybius is the first Greek. I had planned to put some etymology in there - I will do that now - it does not mean what you have there in greek - Latin is "5-oar" but no one knows what that means. The Greek is "5-row" or "5-sweep" based in the action not the oars. I will however try to keep what you have just added if that is possible -I need a little time to get the refs in thereDave (talk)
:Medium? That's fine with me - it's pretty much a judgement call. There were heavier ships but they were not practicable. There were lighter ships than the trireme, much lighter. Why don't you think it over and if you change your mind change it. By the way don't get your heart set on 5 banks. Smith goes for the 2-bank, 3-bank, 4-bank, etc and that is easier to justify with the lower numbers but just about most of the other authors I see point out it can't mean that - for one thing there are no ancient representations of more than 3 banks. When you gat into the higher banks that is a physical impossibility. This is why it needs some etymology, but very likely as this article already points out the term need not mean the same thing in all periods. Later.Dave (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! I though the Herodotus reference was very odd... After all, the quinquiremes were invented about a century later... As for the etymology, the meaning "five banks of oarsmen" is well accepted not on the basis that there were five rows of oars, but five groups of oarsmen on each side, arranged in different ways, e.g. 2-2-1, or 3-2 etc. It is well-accepted that the max. number of oar banks was three. As for "medium", you understood correctly what I meant: compared with the heavy Hellenistic polyremes, the quinquiremes were so to speak the middle-weight main warship, complemented by the trireme and lighter vessels, such as the lemboi, hemioliae, etc. I have some good books on the subject, and will add some stuff. Cheers, Constantine   �?  14:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well hello Constantine, so it is you. I have to agree with the 3 banks and 5 rows myself, but looking through these articles I see there is a problem with interpretation. Some think there would have been 6 banks of oars for a trireme, 3 on a side, 5 on a side, 10 in all, for a quinquereme. What I want to do is put that idea to rest. It is common, I dare say. The main classical encyclopedia of the 19th century, by Smith, promulgates that idea. I noticed the inconsistent ideas in the articles, which is why I am here. I think your use of "bank" is still a little confusing: in English we don't have banks of people unless they work in a bank. As "bank" is not in the etymology I suggest you use "row" of oarsmen like everyone else. I see you cut out my refs. What did you do that for? The public might like to see those dictionary entries! I don't think that is according to policy but I see we do agree on some major points and the overall summary still says the same. So I have two choices. I can fight you for the refs or I can let you fix the inconsistencies, since we agree over all. My inclination is, since we agree generally, I'm going to let you fix the inconsistencies. Then later I will make suggestions with the fact tag if warranted. In summary here is what I would like. 1) Make sure the 5 rows of people is clear. 2) Try to present your theories as theories and not as definitively established fact. You don't have to agree with the other theories but they ought to be mentioned. 3) Back up more of your constructional and other ideas with refs from some of those great books you have. 4) Especially, put some pictures in, will you? 5) As a final desideratum, when you get this article fixed, do go on to trireme, will you? And then there is bireme, etc. None of them are too good.  Are you interested in ships? If there is any bottom-line critique of what you are doing, I would say, don't be quite so arbitrary and don't use language that is arbitrary unless it is for facts proven beyond a doubt. So until later, ciao, and have fun. The next you will see of me will probably be suggestive tags unless you are in the mood to discuss.Dave (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am always in the mood to discuss :) I was indeed a bit heavy-handed (sorry about that) because I was working on a version of the article at the same time as you were, and ran into the dreaded "edit-conflict", in which cases I tend to be less discriminate than usual (a bad trait, alas). I am perfectly willing to re-incorporate any and all citations that are necessary, and agree with you about the need to make the "bank" vs "row" issue clear. On the first, there were several issues: a) the lead needed to be rewritten, per MOS, as to present a summary of the article, so the fact of the trireme's disappearance or the etymology and the list of writers who mention the terms were a bit too much there (it can however be added elsewhere in the article) and b) the incorporation of refs in the lead section is generally to be avoided, if the same point is made (and properly cited) in the main body of the text. On the latter, most scholars still use both interchangeably, and I tend to follow their usage (I'll try to be more consistent though). Second, they are not "my" theories, but the theories of people who have studied naval history and architecture a lot more than I hope to ever do... Third, pics will indeed be useful, but copyright is the killer. I recently brought the Byzantine navy to FA, and am working on the Greek fire article, and the lack of suitably-licensed images is one of the biggest problems... So if you have any, please either upload them or link to them. Fourth, I know about the trireme article, since I wrote most of that myself in earlier days. Anyhow, any comments, additions and/or criticism are more than welcome. As for the etymology section, I leave it to you entirely, and you can freely re-introduce the refs there. Regards, Constantine   �?  17:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

text: PS, what would you think about renaming the article to "Polyremes" or "Hellenistic warships", so that we could include the other ships (fours, sixes, etc) as well? It would not serve any purpose to start small articles with what little we know of each of them. The "design" section of the quinquireme, as it stands know, really sums up our current state of knowledge, and there is, if anything, less to go on with the rest. On the other hand, they all share many common characteristics, be it construction, the oar numbers controversy, or the tactics (missile fire & boarding) which they exemplified. PS2 would you care to clarify your comment in the section above? I don't really understand what you mean by the trireme having one row on one side and two on the other, etc.... Cheers, Constantine   �?  18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: hello cplakidas

message: I still express my doubts that Carthage's and Rome's navies can be handled in an article about Hellenistic warships. Yes, the Hellenistic powers built big ships, but the great fleets were not by Hellenistic powers, but Rome and Carthage(over 300 each during the I.PW), giving them more weight. As long as you don't proof that Carthage copied the Hellenistic designs it's OR to group them together with the Hellenistic warships. I'll do some research in Scientific American, they have the reconstruction of a Carthaginian warship with intermediate oardecks. I don't know of this feature in Hellenistic ships. For this reason I object to the current article title because Rome and Carthage are different animals(also mentioned in another source I'll retrieve) and together with the Hellenistic warships they could be covered under the better title "polyremes". However, the idea to cover the Hellenistic navies isn't a bad one and I would opt that you spare your intended material for such an article about the different fleet philosophies of the great and small Hellenistic powers. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, I agree with you? How can I say it more clearly? The term is not entirely satisfactory, and I remain very much open to proposals for a more satisfactory heading ("Ancient Mediterranean galleys"? too generic). However it must be noted that the Romans at least used a lot of Hellenistic designs (their sixes at least, not to mention the liburnians, were built with outriggers, not in the fashion of the Punic five), and the Punic design is at least partly derived from Phoenician (i.e. Eastern Mediterranean) origins. My objections to "polyremes" have already been stated, and the present title at least has the virtue of being used by a major scholar of the field like John Morrison (thus it is not exactly OR)... As for the "great fleets", Egypt and the Seleucids also fielded hundreds of warships; "big fleets" were not a Roman or Punic privilege. If however we decide to split the article, how should we proceed? There will be an article "Hellenistic navies", covering organizational aspects as well, but under what heading do you intend to group the Punic five (which, given our sources, seems to be a one-off exception)? Only a full article on the Carthaginian navy could cover it adequately. Constantine   �?  17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Carthaginian shiptypes were copied by the Romans, possibly with some Greek influences because the prototype for the fives belonged to Hannibal the Rhodian. Other ship types were rare in the Roman navy(until Agrippa), however, not excluded. Thus we have shiptypes of the Western and of the Eastern Mediterranean. The eastern types were Illyrian(lemboi) and Hellenistic, the western were Carthaginian (with some Greek fleets that played a minor role). Polyremes excludes the lemboi, Hellenistic warships excludes Carthage and the Romans. So I favour a two article solution. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I very much doubt that the two halves of the Mediterranean were as much isolated as you imply. The Romans, who after all were in the middle, used Hellenistic designs quite often (hemiloliai, for example, as transports, during the Punic Wars) and given their eventual dominance of the entire Mediterranean, Greek-type ships also appeared in the West. Also, Syracuse, which invented the fives and sixes, was a Greek state located in the Western Med... The period covered here is ca. 400 BC to around Actium, and we shouldn't let the Punic Wars, no matter how important they were, determine the entire scope of the article. Furthermore, a quinquereme, whether it was Greek-type or Punic-type, fulfilled the same operational role. Just as there were differences of construction between German and British battleships for example, it doesn't mean that they did not belong in the same category of warships (plus, the different Punic type only appears in the mid-3rd century). Granted, the relative absence of heavier warships in the West is a major difference, but this article, as it stands, deals with the ships, not with the naval philosophies of the Mediterranean powers. Either way, the basic operational philosophy (boarding & missile fire vs ramming) is common for both East and West. Also, if the fours, fives, sixes etc are an evolution of the trireme, so is the trihemiolia, and so are the sevens, eights etc, and they belong together. In conclusion I am strongly in favour of keeping the ship types in a single article, simply because they represent a single chapter of naval technology (AFAIK, this is how they are treated by the overwhelming majority of scholarly works on the subject). I remain always open to a more inclusive naming proposal, which I feel would solve our problem. Constantine   �?  18:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you name me a few sources for your claim that Punic and Greek ship can be handled together as Hellenistic warships. That's rather new to me. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, to clarify, I didn't say that Punic and Greek warships are handled together as Hellenistic warships, I merely said that they are usually handled together as belonging to the same chapter in maritime technology. You can check Meijer, the Cambridge history, Casson or Morrison and Coates. In all of them, the warships of the 4th to 1st centuries BC are handled together, whether they were of Punic or Greek type, which is quite natural, as explained above. For the Hellenistic , I agree it is not very accurate, but Morrison at least has written a chapter "Hellenistic Oared Warships, 399–31 BC" in AGE OF THE GALLEY in which he includes both Western and Eastern Mediterranean ships. Perhaps a more accurate title for our article would be "Hellenistic-era warships" which emphasizes the period and not the culture? Given that the Hellenistic era lasted all the way to the battle of Actium, it would also fit the article's scope. Constantine   �?  13:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hellenistic-era warships" is OK (Rome and Carthage were both under Greek influence, same for the Phoenicians and Illyrians). I've some problems retrieving the image of the Carthaginian trireme with intermediate decks. It isn't where I thought it was. I'll do some more research. There aren't so many resources for colourful photos of recontructed ship models. Of course, I could sent you a copy out of my photographic memory to show you what I mean. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Glad we could reach a satisfactory solution! :) Proceeding with moves & redirect fixing ASAP. As for colourful images, I will be in Crete for Easter, and the Naval Museum of Chania (reputed to be rather good) may have something interesting... Cheers, Constantine   �?  16:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Have fun, if you need some advice you can ask User:Durova about achieving high quality images, she's our specialist on photography. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR? 

message: We do have actual ship finds of Punic warships at Marsala and they are very much different from the Greek design. Please correct your statements. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, I haven't yet gotten around to writing fully on either ship construction or tactics and weaponry, as opposed to general characteristics and oar arrangement. Please be patient, or, better yet, be bold and add the information yourself. :) Constantine   �?  14:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction 

message: This is the E N G L I S H wikipedia. You can't assume that everybody visiting this site speaks or reads ancient Greek fluently. Please render all terms in Latin letters. You can additionally provide Greek letters, but only as an add on. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I had noticed, thank you. You can be a bit more polite, you know. :)  Constantine   �?  14:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you perceived this as impolite, but I wanted to stress this still very much neglected fact. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: The article is too heavily structured around minor differences and lacks important innovations like katamaran ships. I advice to totally restructure it around groups of light, medium, heavy and superheavy ships and not so much into hardly relevant subsections. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To make things clear: the article is in no way perceived by me to be complete. I intend to expand greatly on architecture and armament and tactics, but won't have the necessary time for meaningful additions until July, at least. So if you want, go ahead and add stuff. I certainly do not own not want to monopolize the article. The catamarans are mentioned in the "larger polyremes" section, but again, it is something best left for elaboration in the "construction" section.  As for the trireme, I agree it must be included. IMO, I would include it in the light ships, as its tactical role was mostly auxiliary to the bigger vessels in this era. As for the structure, I tried to explain the names of various ships, and how they differed from each other. Again, if you have more info or a better idea on how to restructure the article, go ahead and improve it, I'll be more than happy if you do. :) Best regards, Constantine   �?  20:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ill suited article structure 

message: The following sentence makes me a bit weary: "This system [several men per oar, a scaloccio]  was also in use in Renaissance galleys, but jars with the evidence of ancient crews continuing to be thoroughly trained by their commanders."
Who says there's a contradiction here? Is it de Souza or whoever wrote the sentence? I don't even see that there should be any apparent contradiction. Even if rowing a scaloccio (the Italian term for more than one per oar), we're still talking about a quite complicated process of synchronization with various maneuvers that need to be mastered. I've recently read about French 17th century galleys, which employed huge numbers of penal convicts, and their captains also stressed the need for constant exercise and training.
Peter Isotalo 17:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jarring" 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Quadriremis.Roman.BCE31.001.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: It seems to me the above discussion of prat and Constantine actually does propose a solution. You just have to consider it. On the one hand this is a really super article. It explains the matter of the banks of oars totally lucidly. I would hate to see that go anywhere else. On the other hand expansion is needed for the special types of vessel. More could be put in: the inventor, some main battle, changes over the ages, what not. The two approaches can be combined simply by the use of the "main" template. So, each type would have a brief introduction here and a full article somewhere else linked by "main". That article would have a "see also" leading to here. I believe that is the way it is done. I therefore vote for that solution. I think I will put in a few "main"s to try it out. I'm not really working on ships right now. If we go for this solution then the proposal tag should be removed.Botteville (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all right, I misunderstood the situation a little. Links have already been set up on those topics to here. I'm going to butt out. But before I do, I recommend, not splitting this article up as is, but creating new, expanded articles on each of those topics. That is a lot of work, I know. Once the decision is made the tag should come out, as it is an obstacle to further work. Nobody will create the articles until the matter is "decided."Botteville (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your approach of making more articles and summarizing in relevant context articles seems to be the de-facto wiki way ... it makes sense to me and seems to be similar to what I was proposing. By the way I don't think anyone can block creating new articles ... that's just not how Wikipedia works. See also the quote I link to above to refute the false assertion that all this stuff belongs in some ancient, nation-state centric era out of classical studies. prat (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution just proposed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hellenistic-era warships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013221811/http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/ships.pdf to http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/ships.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The current explanation of the term “hemiolia” (ἡμιολία) has a weak point: The notion of “one and a half files of oarsmen” doesn't make immediate sense. A different explanation can be found in Benselers Griechisch-Deutsches Schulwörterbuch, Leipzig and Berlin 1931: „Es war nur zur Hälfte mit Ruderern besetzt (daher sein Name), um für die Kämpfer Raum zu behalten.“ (“It was only manned by half the number of oarsmen (hence its name) to make room for the fighters.”) A weak point of that is that the meaning “half” can't be directly derived from that of the adjective, although its female form “ἡμιόλια” looks suggestively similar. So I won't change it, but I'm submitting it for the consideration of the editors of this article. ◅ Sebastian 13:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: please go ahead and add it to the article as an alternative interpretation. Constantine   ✍  19:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:    Good suggestion; I'll do that. ◅ Sebastian 01:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

text:  Done. One thing I noticed that appears to be a mistake in the citation of Morrison 2004: Our article first says “they would have had 15 oars on each side, with a full file of ten and a half file of five” but then goes on to explain that there may have been only one file of oars, citing the same source. Can someone with access to the source please check which of these contradicting statements is actually in the source? ◅ Sebastian 02:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

text:  For now, I merged the two contradicting statements as if they were both in the source, so that at least the wording in our article is consistent. Still, as per the above, it needs to be checked by someone with access to the source. ◅ Sebastian 02:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different explanation of hemiolia