Friday 3 February 2017

FYI 1.0

At : on comment page for Imperial Roman Warships NV 230

I please You to post correct and scientific critics on the PUBLIC post in Amazon. In Your blog You are master, and You can write whatever You want. You had do a public critic, please post a scientific comment which justifies Your critic. To these I will answer with my scientific work. Please post also the list of Your articles and books on the topic.
The Dhromon You criticized is mainly based on the works of
Bonino, M., Archeologia e tradizione navale tra la Romagna ed il Po, Ravenna, 1978
Morrison, J. S. & Gardiner, R. (ed.), The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times. Conway Maritime, London, 1995;
Prokopios of course
Some details are from the graffito of Malaga
Anchor from the garden of Museum of Marsin
The warships from Yenicapi are related to 10th - 11th century context, but for the ship structure I have used some technical detail visible in the VI-VII century Yenicapi excavations, where I worked with Cemal Pulak for some days.
Best wishes
Raffaele D'Amato

 Dear Raffaelle,
I will not copy what I have written at my blog here. This is not a forum for discussion. When the new book comes out if there is something to be written maybe I can write it on a comment for that Amazon page. Anyone can make comment at a blog and I do not censor comments. It is quite public on a blog.
My detailed criticism of the Osprey books is on my blog Rams, Ravens and Wrecks. If you search with the 'label' 'D'Amato ' or 'Osprey' you will see all posts, keep using the 'older posts' button until there are no more

I will make a review of the book (Osprey NV 244, Imperial Roman Warships 193-567AD) when it is
published and I have a copy in hand. Dr Raffaele has been kind and open to say exactly how he built up the dromon on the cover. I still think it is odd and will explain in more detail when I review the book.

Thursday 2 February 2017

Useless Critic

It seems Dr D'Amato cannot find his way around my blog.


I wrote..

Imperial Roman Warships 27 BC-193 AD (New Vanguard)
This book is on a par with its predecessor. It is full of errors and inconsistencies. The proof-reading is better than in the previous volume but the analysis and conclusions no better. One star is for nice photos of frescoes at Pompeii and Herculaneum. The author repeatedly shows a misunderstanding of how ancient galleys functioned. The reconstructive artworks are contrived and erroneus. In several places the author contradicts a statement by presenting evidence to the contrary. I have done a longer crit on my blog 'Rams Ravens and Wrecks'.
These books may send a whole cohort of people interested in galleys off in the wrong direction. Another arrives in February............


Andrea Salimbeti 1 day ago 
Ut supra. Consider that this is a useless critic, I am waiting to see clear the problems do you find in the book
Just a little note: I was not able to find the critics on my books on Your blogs. I saw also the critic to the Dhromon which will be published in the next book. It is clear, from them, that You are not acquainted with the works of Bonino and with the recent excavations of Yenicapi.
Best wishes
Raffaele D'Amato

He refers to these ?..
 YENIKAPI(link)- Byzantine ships from 9th century onward.
Yenikapi 4_ A 10th century galley. Highest surviving timbers show oarports. Interscalmium averaged 96cm. Oarbench sat below port on ends of the two futtocks.
Re. Bonino : I do not read Italian, but I would try if I could get the books.

Marco Bonino, Un sogno ellenistico: le navi di Nemi, Ospedaletto Pisa 2003 Seems to have been a misprint in Imperial Roman Warships which has 2013...
 Dettagli prodottoNon disponible.....

Dettagli prodottoNon disponible
 Dettagli prodottoNon disponible

The Desolation of Smog

Posted at

 My review:
This review is from: Republican Roman Warships 509-27 BC (New Vanguard) (Paperback)
This book is a poorly written and presented account. The reconstructions are erroneous and at least three directly based on preexisting works. Ancient authors are directly contradicted. Modern researches are not included. I have made a lengthier critique on my blog Rams, Ravens and Wrecks. The text is so idiosycratic and has so many typos that it seems not to have been proof-read. The suggestion that an oarcrew should chant a special song is made, despite Thucydides stating a good crew was a silent one and the crew included a musician who dictated the rythm. A suggestion is made that sailors wore a specific Etruscan costume. etc.
The single star is due to the concise chronology of naval wars - material available many other places.

Dear Sir
I am always open to criticism but constructive ones. This one is completely useless. You say that the reconstructions are erroneous. Where? It should be important to understand it. The reconstructions are directly based on ancient sources and modern books (all the modern bibliography is quoted) but of course not all the ancient authors are speaking about the same ship model neither existed only one type of Triremes or Quadriremes.
About the text has been review by Osprey, english mother-tongue people. About the mention of Thucydides, I can remember You that we are dealing not with ships of the Thucidides Greeks, but with Roman ships, and the song I reported is from an ancient source. The images of the Roman ships in the punic wars is copied from the Etruscan urnes, where sailors are dressed exactly like I have reconstructed.
At the moment, Your critics are just smog. But I am waiting for technical details, mention of the sources, etc..
Best wishes
Dr. Raffaele D'Amato

I replied:

Take a look at my blog Rams Ravens and Wrecks for detail.
Is this written by Andrea Salimbetti or Raffaele D'Amato ?