NAUMACHIA : PART XII

Following behind  Demetrios' fleet, here come his opponents - the Rhodians!

A trihemiolia - Rhodian speciality

Tetrereis coming up behind the trihemioliai

Another Rhodian favourite - the tetreres

ANTI-GRAVITY NIKE

The Samothrace Nike is one of the most famous statues in the world. It should follow that the ship - an ancient war galley ! - she stands on should also be famous. Sadly, the ship is often forgotten and does not feature in many printed photos of the monument. galley fans don't forget the ship, though, and last year an interesting paper was published concerning it.

The Monument
The Samothrace Nike stood in a fantastic location before it was probably destroyed in an earthquake and plundered for building stone.  The remnants were identified as something interesting and taken to the Louvre by three expeditions in 1863 , 79  and 81.

 

Nike being protected from war in 1939

The viewer saw the ships standing in a pool of springwater.

The blocks were put back together to reveal the remains of a beautiful statue standing on the prow of a ship. The monument was constructed between 220 and 185BC and is thought to be a memorial for one of the sea battles that Rhodes participated in against Philip V or Antiochous III.

 The Statue
The Nike - goddess of victory - is standing on a victorious warship and proferring a victory garland. The sculpting is second only to the Parthenon frieze and the artist may have gone on to work on the Pergamum Altar frieze now in Berlin. The wings were additions, fitted into slots and cantilevered out over the shoulders, secured with pins. The figure was originally painted.

Traces of colour...

 Beautiful short film on Nike's discovery and recovery and restoration.



The Nike was not just a pretty face, though. She was located at a crucial point to provide stability to the monument. The ram and stem actually stood proud of the base and gave an even more realistic appearance with the water running in beneath the ship! In order for the sculpted blocks to stand in this way the statue is positioned exactly and her mass counters the ship's prow perfectly.

Blue blocks are secured by Nike. No Nike - no monument....

The Ship
17 blocks form the ship and it stands on a base of 6 flat blocks. The ship and figure are of white Parian marble and the base of grey Rhodian marble. The scale of the sculpture is about  66% of the original size. This is calculated from the length of a rowing 'room' or interscalmium from the spacing of the oarports. The most remarkable thing about the ship is how fine-lined it is. A slim profile of an efficient bow for mounting a ram and cutting through the water. Originally visitors would have experienced the ship as gliding towards them over the water of the fountain pool.

Bronze reconstruction 1890's

Identifying the Ship
The type of ship depicted has been a bone of contention. It has variously been described as a Three, a Four, a 'lembus biremis' or a Trihemiolia.

Last year a paper was published (HERE - 12dollar download) identifying the ship as a Four.

 The recent conservation and reinstallation of the Nike of Samothrace, the restudy of its archaeological context and petrology, the collapse of the consensus that it celebrated the Rhodian naval victories at Side and Myonessos in 190 B.C.E., and the growing accord among naval historians that its ship is not a trihēmiolia together prompt a reexamination of its date and purpose. Fortunately, the monument offers three significant clues, all previously overlooked or underappreciated. First, why was it dedicated on the remote island of Samothrace, and not, for example, on independent Delos? Second, although ancient galleys could not fight in gales and never did, why is it battling one? And third, why is its ship made of imported Rhodian marble and probably a quadrireme, a vessel superseded elsewhere by the quinquereme but still favored by the Rhodians? The Great Gods’ rescue of pious initiates from storms at sea and second-century B.C.E. naval history point to one occasion in particular: Prousias II of Bithynia’s abortive invasion of Pergamon in 155, his impious assaults on the sanctuaries en route, his fleet’s sudden destruction by a storm, and the Rhodian contribution of five quadriremes to Attalos II’s successful naval counteroffensive in 154.

  The grounds for this were based upon the fact that a Four is a cataphract ship. This means its hull was closed-in so it could fight at close quarters with the rowers protected from missiles. The author''s sole peg for his identification was the 'fact' that the Nike was standing on the deck of the ship. He reasons that because the other types  were  aphract ships with no deck then the Nike could not be standing on a deck that was not there.

A cataphract ship : sides closed and fully decked-over (where troops stand)

Unfortunately, when one looks at how the Nike has been standing for 80 years or so, and how she stands today, one can see she is standing on a deck which is not there. The blocks of the blocks of the monument were carefully made to include a gangway - or not. The Nike was until recently standing on a block over a gangway and now stands on one set in the gangway. There is also the clue that she has wings and does not even need a deck to stand on !

The gangway with Nike set over it.

If only one could always see round the sides or back of museum exhibits ! If there was a perfectly made block missing then there is no gangway.  There is no detail engraved on the top of the blocks, maybe because the viewer could never see downward onto it.

Filling the gap - fragments left behind on Samothrake maybe.

If the Nike is not standing on a Four then the rest of the arguments become weaker. The campaign against Bithynia was not a particularly high point in Rhodian history. Be that as it may Stewart's theory has one less place to stand on if there was a gangway or if the gangway was never represented.
Even if there is no gangway, the Nike is standing on the foredeck which would be present regardless whether the rest of the ship was decked-over or not. The foredeck does not allow one to identify if the ship was cataphract or not.

The ram is also a factor to consider. The Athlit ram is a proabbale surviving ram from a Four. It is much heavier and larger than the rams found at the Ægetes Islands which are from ships approximating to Threes or Trihemioliai. The reconstructed appropriate size for a ram on the Samothrace ship is that of a Three/Trihemiolia.

The issue falls back to a basic argument about how far stone monuments copy a real prototype. The unfortunate answer is that they do..but.. If a lot of work is required for a part never to be seen was that work done ? Again, the answer is ..sometimes.... In addition, we have the  practice of painting detail onto statues. Morrison and Coates reckon there was painted detail along the sides of the hull above the oarbox to represent ventilation louvres for the oarsmen's benefit. This would argue for a cataphract ship. The renovation found no traces if the paint ever was there. In any case, the Trihemiolia was usually a closed-cataphract ship.
 
The Samothrace Ship as a Trihemiolia
The identification of the ship as a Trihemiolia is made on several grounds.

1)The monument is probably Rhodian and the Trihemiolia was closely identified with that state.
2)The ship shown has extremely fine lines. Larger ships were broader.
3)There are two sets of offset oarports in the oarbox. A Trihemiolia had a partial third, lower,    thalamian row of ports but these would not be visible at the prow.

Trihemiolia after John Coates..................................................................Samothrace  prow

The Trihemiolia was an economical ship which was very fast and handy and used by the Rhodians to patrol and police the sea lanes they earned their living from. Thier ships were out-stationed to smaller islands who could not defend themselves against pirate flotillas in a practice known as phylake which was an acknowledgement of responsibility to defend the common good (and your own trade).

HERE YOU CAN SEE THE WHOLE THING (with a godawful backing track)



Nice long documentary mais malheureusement seulement en Francais HERE
If you have not seen enough Nike then look HERE for a lot of video material
Nike at the Louvre HERE

'THE TIME HAS COME' THE WALRUS SAID........

'Don't cry. It's only an Osprey.'

A few things to straighten out about ancient ships. Yes, still banging on about the Osprey New Vanguard 225 'Republican Roman Warship'. On the principle that bad medicine is better in small doses, here is another teaspoonful.

How Big is a Ship ?  OR  Is that an Almost-Trieres?

Palazzo Barberini ship (No relation. Ed.)

Plate D of the book has an illustration of a 'hemiolia-trihemiolia'.
'It has been reconstructed with oars at two levels.'

Said to be based upon a mosaic at the Palazzo Barberini mosaic and the Palazzo Spada stern along with the Lindos stern and the Samothrace prow.

The thing that hit me between the eyes was the statement that the ship is 'about 60ft long.'Sixty feet is about 18 metres! Olympias - a trieres- is 37 metres or so. hmmm.

Next the statement that the ship has' 52 oars a side'. He takes a calculation from Morrison ?(which I have never come across) that there were three tiers of oars 26+26+13. ? What ?  26 plus 26 plus 13 is 65. Last time I checked. I think it still is. And..'A quarter double manned '. What ?

Next one looks at the illustration and counts laboriously that there are shown..
26 oars in the upper row.
27 in the second row.
13 in the lower half row.
Giving 66.

Plate D from New Vanguard 225 - This is 60ft long.

This is a train wreck of a caption. On wonders if it is the author or the illustrator or both who can take credit. It also shows the woeful standard or absence of any technical editing or proof-reading at Osprey.

A hemiolia is a ship with one-and a half men per half-oar-room. The extra half gave extra speed but also allowed 1/3 of the crew to down oars and be ready to fight while the ship could still make way. It probably descended from pirate vessels. It had almost the speed and agility of a dikrotic vessel but required fewer crewmen (about 50 rowers) and was lighter. The hemiolia had all oarsmen on about the same level, the half-file being inboard in the widest part of the hull. It is possible the mid-half was double-manned instead of them having their own oars.

Trihemiolia

The trihemiolia is a ship with two and a half men per half oar-room. The extra half gave extra speed and allowed 1/5 of the crew to down oars and be ready to fight while the ship could still make way. It probably descended from pirate vessels and was favoured by the Rhodians. It had almost the speed and agility of a trieres but required fewer crewmen (120 rowers or so as opposed to 170 for a trieres).
The trihemiolia  had oarsmen on three levels as per a trieres but the upper two would be closer vertically than in a trieres.

And you cannot get 3 rows right ? - don't think about justifying this thing...

There was no 'hemiolia-trihemiolia'. Just as there was no 'trieres-'tetreres'. The point of the name is that a hemiolia is 'a ship with a half(extra) file of oarsmen. Halfway between a monokrotic and dikrotic pentekonter. A trihemiolia is ' a trieres with a half-file of oarsmen'. Halfway between a dikrotic ship and a trieres.

Reconstructing this hybrid ship with oars at two levels is meaningless. If it is a hemiolia it has oarports at two levels - one a half-row- or one, and oarsmen at the same level. If it is a trihemiolia it has oarports at three levels and oarsmen at three levels.

Lastly, the number of oars and the length of the ship.

Morrison and Coates estimate the oars on a hemiolia at 50 and on a trihemiolia at 120.

Rava-D'Amato state there were 130 on their hybrid. And draw it with 132. This gives 132 men in a crew which was trying to save on personnel whereas the trihemiolia had just 120. But wait ! We must add the 'quarter double-manned'. This raises the total of rowers to 162 or 163. A saving of just 7 or 8 men over a trieres, hardly worth it.

And length. Here, size is not everything but it is a lot. My initial bugbear is that it is quoted in feet. In a European publication in the 21st century.... It is really easy ,online even,to find the length of a hemiolia at 21metres and a trihemiolia at about 32metres. 60ft is 18 metres. 'Go figure' as they say in their American accents.

John Coates' trihemiolia

 And the deck is wrong. Oops..