Harbour Hostilities

Something wicked this way comes...

 While working on Corinthian and Sicilian models I got to examining the business of reinforced bows in more detail.

The first occasion was at the battle at Erinaeus in the same year as the great battle in Syracuse harbour but shortly before. This is significant because it would appear that the Syracusans used Corinthian experience to inflict a tactical/technological surprise on the Athenians.

The Corinthians fought the Athenians to a moral draw at Erineus by inflicting as much damage as they received. They did this by taking position in a restricted bay near the city of Erineus and facing the Athenians bow-on. The Athenians excelled in manoeuvre and here their style was, literally, cramped.

Bow-to bow impacts were to be avoided with the lightly biuilt triremes of the period, which were usually built for speed. The rams of this period may not have been so heavy or well-designed as those we know of from Egadi , Athlit and Actium. Bow-on impacts could damage attacker and target both.

At Erineus the Corinthians had considered their chances carefully and decided to avoid the open sea to limit the Athenians chances to excel in ramming and to face them down bow-to-bow. The Corinthians would reduce the  usual carnage of such a tactic for themselves and increase it  for the Athenians because they modified the bows of their ships. The Peleponnesians also had infantry stationed on headlands which partly enveloped the battle site.

The Corinthian modification was to reinforce their epotides.The epotis is a cross-beam, the foremost in the ship, which supports the foremost end of the outrigger upon which the thranites' oars are supported. It is also translated as 'bow timbers' - somewhat equivocally - or 'cathead' - again a modern term which is not 100% accurate. The epotis was probably also associated with deploying, recovering and supporting the anchor but modern era sailing ships had them projecting fowards and without the outrigger-supporting function. For this reason I follow translations from publications associated with the Olympias project or maritime publications rather than classics editions which often suffer from errors in technical translation.

Model of HMS Victory cathead assembly. The beam projecting at 4 o'clock is the cathead. The capstan can recover the anchor via a block suspended from the cathead. 

This beam was usually decorated by carving or ornament as the head of a lion - a cat.

18th century cathead ornament plate.

The way the Corinthian shipwrights strengthened their epotides is undefined (Thuc. 7.34) but  this meant that in the limited angles of attack possible for the Athenians they put 3 Corinthians out of action but had 7 of their own crippled with smashed outriggers. The Athenian ships did not take on water - so they were not holed, not damaged by rams, but lost 1/3 of their motive power on one side if the outrigger was smashed in a clash.

Syracuse was a colony founded by Corinthians. It should therefore come as no surprise that it as possble for this innovation to be applied shortly after by the Syracusans in their desire to face down the cooped-up Athenian fleet in the Great Harbour at Syracuse shortly afterwards.

In 7.36 Thucydided is more specific in describing how the Corinthian modification was achieved. The key here is that the situation in the Great Harbour provided the same setting as at Erineus. The battle would be constrained by topography to favour the Corinthian tactic.

Taking the translation from 'The Athenian Trireme' 2nd Ed. 2000....

'shortened the bows of their ships and made them stronger and placed stout timbers across the bows, taking brackets from them to the ships' sides to a distance of 6 cubits (9 feet) both inside and outside in just the same way as the Corinthians had modified their ships in the bow-to -bow fight against the ships at Naupactus'.

(the Athenians at Erineus had sailed from Naupactus)

This description should apply to both battles exactly. it was possible for Syracusan and Corinthian ships to be modified n the same way. They were principally the same in construction.

Add cThe Confederate Modification. CSS Mississipi: Secretly built on the Mersey for the Confederacy, served instead with the Royal Navy as HMS Wyvern - complete with ram.aption

Let us try to see what this means in practice.
'shortened the bows of their ships'

The ram of a classical trireme was deployed on a set of timbers fitted to the bows. It was not an integral part of the ship. Technically speaking, a ships could have its ram ripped off by a transverse blow and this would not harm the integrity of the ship's hull.

It was possible to dismount the rams and associated timbers, leaving the stem post naked, as in most ships not equipped for ramming combat.

Thucydides does not say the rams were removed. However, at Erineus the Corinthians had not holed any Athenians. The Penguin edition says the Syracusans had 'specially constructed beaks' which implies a ram but may be a confuson with the latin 'rostrum' instead of the Greek' embolos' wedge or plug. It is therefore possible to suggest that modified ships had no bronze ram. In this special battlefield the lack of a ram was not a disadvantage.

Looking more closely at the Greek,rather than the Penguin Classics edition, it i spossible to see that in actual fact embolos is used throughout, so we have to imaging Corinthian triremes with rams fitted.
Thuc. 7.36
 [3] ἐνόμισαν γὰρ οἱ Συρακόσιοι πρὸς τὰς τῶν Ἀθηναίων ναῦς οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀντινεναυπηγημένας, ἀλλὰ λεπτὰ τὰ πρῴραθεν ἐχούσας διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀντιπρῴροις μᾶλλον αὐτοὺς ἢ ἐκ περίπλου ταῖς ἐμβολαῖς χρῆσθαι, οὐκ ἔλασσον σχήσειν, καὶ τὴν ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ λιμένι ναυμαχίαν, οὐκ ἐν πολλῷ πολλαῖς ναυσὶν οὖσαν, πρὸς ἑαυτῶν ἔσεσθαι: ἀντιπρῴροις γὰρ ταῖς ἐμβολαῖς χρώμενοι ἀναρρήξειν τὰ πρῴραθεν αὐτοῖς, στερίφοις καὶ παχέσι πρὸς κοῖλα καὶ ἀσθενῆ παίοντες τοῖς ἐμβόλοις.

[3] ἐnomisan gὰr oἱ Syrakosioi prὸs tὰs tῶn Ἀthhnaiwn naῦs oὐx ὁmoiws ἀntinenayphghmenas, ἀllὰ leptὰ tὰ prῴrathen ἐxoysas diὰ tὸ mὴ ἀntiprῴrois mᾶllon aὐtoὺs ἢ ἐk periploy taῖs ἐmbolaῖs xrῆsthai, oὐk ἔlasson sxhsein, kaὶ tὴn ἐn tῷ megalῳ limeni naymaxian, oὐk ἐn pollῷ pollaῖs naysὶn oὖsan, prὸs ἑaytῶn ἔsesthai: ἀntiprῴrois gὰr taῖs ἐmbolaῖs xrwmenoi ἀnarrhksein tὰ prῴrathen aὐtoῖs, sterifois kaὶ paxesi prὸs koῖla kaὶ ἀsthenῆ paiontes toῖs ἐmbolois.


'and made them stronger'

 The naked stem post was reinforced. Somehow. Adding wood frontally is most obvious. Maybe replacing the ram-supporting timbers with a shorter, heavier arrangement, maybe leaving them exposed but reinforced, without a ram, or maybe creating a solid mass of uncompressible braced wood- shorter than the usual construction.

Bow vertical section

 'and placed stout timbers across the bows, taking brackets from them to the ships' sides to a distance of 6 cubits (9 feet) both inside and outside'

 The epotis is already keyed into the ships side as we can see in Olympias, and the parexeiresia is joined on its stern side. This initial bracing could be strengthened by adding more and thicker timbers here. Placing stout timbers across the bows' could imply reinforcing the epotis beam itself. This was relatively easy to get at if the forecastle deck is taken up. The six cubit dimension mentioned here tallies well with the distance from stem post to epotis in Olympias.

Bow in plan. Horizontal lines 6 cubits long. c.

In summary.

• Triremes with reinforced bows were used in very specific circumstances.
• Triremes with reinforced bows were to be used in bow-to-bow impacts.
• Triremes with reinforced bows were not generally adopted.
• The bow modification added timber, shortened the bow and, maybe, removed the bronze tip whilest retaining a shortened version of the structure
• The modified ships were nothing special. They were 'ships of the line' from the Corinthian and Syracusan fleets. They were facing Athenian triremes which may have been a little different, a little lighter, built as they were to suit Athenian manoeuvre tactics. Adding a deck which could support more than a dozen fighters would add substantial weight to a ship and raise its centre of gravity. The Athenians never did this as far as we know, prioritising weight reduction.

The result of a collision between the extended, ram-equipped bow of an Athenian trireme and the short, solid and reinforced bow of one with the Corinthian bow modification would be one-sided.

Cod Wars: HMS Falmouth discovers that thin aluminium plating of a graceful high-speed frigate is less substantial than the steel plate of an ugly Icelandic patrol boat.

If the bronze ram hit the stem post or opposing ram, it would not penetrate against strong timber with the entire inertia of the enemy ship behind it, and might have buckled or shattered. The whole ram-supporting structure would be concertina-ed and maybe the ship's hull damaged.

If the ram missed the stem post it would skitter down the side of the bow and when the epotides of opposed ships met then the weaker one would be broken and the ship lose a substantial part of its oar-power.

Last gasp of ramming tactics. HMS Polyphemus.1881

 What we can also learn from thse episodes is that the Corinthian bow modification  was not an innovation which could be applied universally. it is not heard of again in Thucydides. The special circumstances of a harbour battle - denying the possibility of manoeuvre - made the trade-off with reduced speed and performance of  ships which were bow-heavy acceptable. For the usual role of a naval unit required to travel as fast as possible and fight on the open sea this tactic was a fatal restriction.

In the post-Alexandrian age, the development of great maritime cities with harbour defences and of torsion artillery meant that this restriction could be disregarded.

The only safe option for bow-on ramming.

Therefore my current Syracusan triremes with Corinthian bow modification look something like this.

Aplogies to WH Awdry if it looks a bit like Henry on a bad day

But looks a bit better when assembled..