TRANS-WARRIORS

Spot the Non-Shah-male

Seeing as how the Great King of Kings often tends to be portrayed as a rather androgynous character is it not rather appropriate if he should get some Trans-Warriors to go along with him on his Persian Pride cavalcades into foreign parts ?

I made a little experiment to try and improve on card soldiers. I like my card soldiers and consider they are a good solution to representing figures at small scales and go well with the card ships.A drawback with them is the opaque background they come with. Cutting the figures out at this size is not an option.

Reasoning that a transparent background could hide the card-ness of the card figures printed some off on transparency acetate to create some Trans-(parent)-Warriors.

First impressions not so bad...

But, sadly, the improvement was not without a down side.
The degree of transparency is just too great. They look quite colourful and translucent but when stood against anything tend to disappear. Quite a nice representation of some modern high-tech camouflage technology but not good at this scale to have vanishing troops.

Now you see them. Now you don't..

 To see the Trans-Warriors alongside the card ones shows up how much easier their dull cousins are to see and also to handle. 

Greeks, Trans-Warriors and.. is that a Gay Pride float ?

This long-sighted 'mature'- gamer reluctantly has to admit that not all good ideas have a practical application. As a consolation I have discovered a great way to make fire and smoke markers!

Carthaginian Naval Helmet ?

The Egadi excavations have dredged up what may be a Carthaginian helmet from the Egadi battle site.
Here reported on Archaeology News Network.

Battle of Mylæ as seen by Look and Learn. Egadi may have been a ramming rather than boarding battle but there were still plenty of deck troops on both sides.

Pea -Green Boats

Some very attractive model triremes in bronze produced for 'It's All Greek'.

And much else besides if you have some dosh burning a hole in your pocket. Great to add atmosphere to a trireme wargame.

Why not play with a dramatic mask available to reflect your emotions as the Fates play with you.

With the money saved by using card ships this is possible !

RULES

Still plugging away. Many aspects still to finish-off. Basic movement is more-or-less done with templates still out of the picture. Combat is a new deal compared to other galley rules and involves target and attacker getting choices that are resolved as a final result. Dice and cards involved. A taster coming soon.

The first booklet will be 'Trireme Tactics' : 600 to 323 B.C.'.
Other additions to the rules and models to cover Hellenistic Wars, Rome and Carthage, The Roman Lake, Late Rome and Early Medieval.

The ships may now be produced as pre-printed, push-out, coloured cards. Up to 3 per A4 sheet.

THAT UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING ON DECK

 

"Single to Sphacteria please"

In the Age of the Ram, before ships became fighting platforms, it was the trireme which dominated ancient naval warfare. No other oared ship, before or since could achieve such speed and agility under oar - the ideal characteristics for ramming combat.

The ramming attack has, though, the paradox that the attacker has to come into contact with the target and give him a chance to engage in deck fighting. Pure ramming tactics eschew deck fighting. The attacker should, ideally, hit the target and back away before its deck crew can take any action against the ship that just sank it. 


Deck troops were a necessary evil to those using what Thucydides terms modern tactics. A sea battle which just resembled a land battle on floating platforms was not very edifying. Brute strength could win rather than skill and technical prowess. The raison d'etre of the trireme was manouvreable speed. Sacrificing this to stay locked with another vessel while the deck troops hacked away at each other was a crass folly. But there was a necessity for some combat troops on deck.

Deck troops had a special role and must learn how their role meshed with the other activities and priorities of the fighting ship. Everything hinged on keeping the ram in action .
Deck troops were there to defend the ship. There were only 10 or so spearmen on each trireme as fighting deck crew. Ten men cannot possibly board and take over an opponent which has 170 oarsmen plus deck crew. With casualties and leaving some men on their own ship this idea leaves us with the suggestion that, say, 6 or 8 marines could fight their way onto an enemy ship and then subdue 200 men. Thus, their job was effective defence in the very special situation of being riders on a ram. They must be effective but not hinder the operation of the trireme. What must they have done and how did they do it ?

Epibatai  were  ranked second on the ship after only the trierarch. Aristotle considered them to control the ship and so these socially and militarily elite members of the crew seemed to have helped the trierarch maintain discipline and morale. Leaving one's oar at a critical stage of the battle was obviously not tolerated. The rowing crew or nautai were usually free men and had some status of their own but that freedom did not extend to endangering the trireme's human engine.

Also a naughtai crew in need of discipline

We have a hint that the Athenian epibatai were a military elite when we learn from Thucydides that the loss of 120 epibatai in Aetolia in 426bc by Demosthenes was considered a tragic loss of the best and fittest soldiers.

The archers aboard Athenian triremes were described as sitting beside the helmsman  and trierarch in the stern. The hoplite-armed were to be found on the main deck.The armament of the epibatai may have included specially long spearsfor ship-to-ship fighting and javelins alongside their normal doru and some form of sword.Throwing javelins from a sitting position was the preferred method. Quite a skill. This was to avoid men standing and moving on the deck which could cause the ship to roll a few degrees and hamper the strokes of the oars, especially the thalamites. - the lowest  row. On Olympias, the movement of one man could lead to complaints from rowers that they could not row efficiently.

Pictures of epibatai standing or running as their ship approaches another to ram it or watching as another attacks them,  are misleading. The force of impact could be up to 2G and the crew must have had a procedure to brace for impact. Anyone standing on the deck when two triremes collided would be thrown off their feet, maybe injured and maybe chucked into the drink.
The epibatai must have waited for the impact to subside and then moved to the forecastle to deter enemy boarding attempts as the ship backed-off to sail away or maybe ram again.

Nice picture shame about the place.

If they were already assembled at the forecastle this would depress the ram in the water, if at the stern this would raise the ram. Either of these cases could increase the chances of the ram being lodging in the enemy hull. The logical solution is that the troops remained midships or distributed but not concentrated in the bows.
If the ship was itself rammed then the epibatai must get to the point of impact as fast as possible and repel any enemy boarding attempt and support or assist their own crew's attempts to get off the enemy ram a.s.a.p..


The elite deck troops were fit and agile. They were used to getting around the shifting  deck in quick order, and they had to be. Their equipment included the large aspis which was about 7kg in weight, the doru a 2.3m spear and a sword about 60cm in the blade. They probably had helmets - In the Persia Wars possibly in Corinthian style and thereafter a more open-faced style. The intense nature of deck fighting might make a simpler, more open helmet more liely so that the soldier could see and hear better. Armour may or may not have been worn. If the epibatai equated with hoplites then they probably did have armour. This would be a linen or bronze cuirass. Greaves were available too. The whole kit could add 25 kilos to the soldier's weight. 
 

Hop-light : Not necessarily soooo heavy infantry

Some authors have written that if an hoplite equipped warrior fell into the sea he was doomed to drown. This is not true. It is possible to swim in a mail shirt so if the man throws his shield and helmet away he should stand a chance to swim a short distance or hang onto a nearby oar. The equipment was, however, quite a burden in a hot climate and the cross-gripped shield in particular could not be shed easily and meant the man's hands were not available to grab a hold if he needed.  When I was a boy I was impressed by bus conductors who could effortlessly stand issuing tickets as the floor of the bus bucked and rolled beneath them using both hands to take money and reel out tikcets. . Epibatai needed to develop such skills.

Bus conductors adjusting extra 25 kg of 'equipment'

The requirement for a deck soldier thus equipped  to get around amongst the ropes and gaps on a moving deck support Thucydides description of the dead of Demosthenes' force as particularly fit and able. Any attempt to go on the offensive and try to board an enemy vessel would be a daunting prospect even for these men. To make an opposed crossing onto the enemy deck would be very dangerous. 

'Lets finish this outside !'

Most of the anecdotes we have for deck fighters end badly. There are no accounts of swashbuckling heroes clearing enemy decks. There are  examples of warriors coming to grief, such as Brasidas - felled as he tries an amphibious landing at Pylos and  Ariamnes at Salamis who is pitched into the sea on the end of Athenian spears as he attempts a boarding. Successful boarding is achieved by the Samothracians at Salamis who, though suffering a deadly ramming attack , revenged themselves by taking over their tormentor whose ram became lodged fast. We must remember here that the Samothracians would have had c. 50 deck troops against the Aeginetians' 15 and the battlefield was now relatively motionless with access to the other ship assured - an exception proving our rule, maybe.

Talking of Brasidas.. the deck soldiers' other function was as amphibious marines. They had to disembark and fight on occasion. Another versatility which infantry did not have to match. At the battle of Kyzikos the Athenians disembarked troops to attack the town and to attack the beached Peloponnesians. They may also have re-embarked some troops and set them into the fight on the other side of the bay. The chance of normal hoplite infantry re-engaging on the same day were small indeed.

In summary; epibatai (literally 'topsiders' or 'passengers') were a special breed. They operated in a small unit with the objective of both helping to control their ship and of protecting it from enemy assault. The deck troops had to get around their ship quickly. They had to meet attacks from all directions and to keep an eye on thier own crew. This was  a tall order for men in heavy gear on a galley at sea. One of the secrets of Athens naval supremacy must have been their maintenance of a corps of quality epibatai . The age of the polyremes reduced the requirement for these specialists and the Romans, characteristically, totally punctured the concept by just floating their army out to sea - before much later developing their own specialist corps of marines....

..and then, there is this ....

VIEW FROM THE DECK

Taking a while to consider why the Greeks at Salamis were not simply shot off the decks of their ships by the heavily manned Persian vessels.

Persians pour arrows into a Greek ship

The Persian ships came from maritime nations including the Phoenicians who were the foremost mariners of the ancient world. Each ship already had a complement of marine infantry - epibatai - which, if the Athenians were following an established pattern, would be about a dozen to 18 men per ship.
Xerxes decided to add 30 of his infantry to each vessel according to Herodotos. The marines were armed as hoplites and the infantry in Persian style one would imagine.
Persian/Median/Iranian infantry were archers first and spearmen second. A proportion carried large shields to screen the rear ranks who would shoot in battle. 

Persian archers behind spearmen

At sea this model would not really work. It is difficult to see how the large shields could  be used in a mobile way. Most likey the ships had shields fixed along the deck rails to provide cover and the archers could shoot from wherever they could come to the rail. After this model each Persian ship now had a dozen heavy infantry and 30 archers aboard. However, Persian archers never presented serious opposition to determined Greek infantry and at sea the landlubbers would be even more inferior in a clash. 

Hoplites enjoy some quality time with their neighbours

The Persians were accomplished archers. The bow was their national weapon and nobles prided themselves in skill with the bow. However, on the Greek mainland Persian archery never dominated the battlefield as it could in Asia against less heavily armed and less determined opponents. Here we have the first reason to downgrade the effectiveness of the Persian seaborne throng. Greek deck troops would just not be very susceptible to Persian archery.



The rest of the trireme crew was unarmoured as far as we know, and largely unprotected. How could this semi-naked human motor not be susceptible to major disruption by a storm of bronze-tipped arrows arcing over from the Persian ships ? 

(Very) Lightly Armoured oarsmen

An initial point is that we do not really know what the Greek ships were like and the degree of protection they offered to the oarsmen.  Thucydides is our best source and he implies they were no kataphract at this time, i.e. not protected by deck and screens. We know from the Erment model and earlier depictions of Phoenician ships that shields could be mounted for protection.Maybe this was possible. The other source of protection is the epibatai with their large hoplite aspides these warriors could stand and block arrows to some extent.


We must also bear in mind that the archers did not have an ideal situation to bring their skill to bear. At Agincourt the English created the best possible situation where their archery could be applied. At Salamis almost everything is against the Persians.

Agincourt : historians can now give a more three dimensional picture of what went on.

Firstly, the archers could not all get to shoot at once. With many men on the ship's deck they could not all rush around to get the best shot or the ship would roll crazily and be unmanageable. On Olympias the movement of one person across the deck would lead to complaints from oarsmen as their strokes were made less effective. Probably individuals would have a station to keep to unless the ships was alongside an opponent and a boarding contest developed. This factor immediately probably more than halves the number of archers that would be able to shot at an oncoming enemy ship.

'Can some of you Johnies kindly move to the other side for a bit ?'

Secondly, the archers were infantry. Unused to being aboard ships, these men had just spent a night at sea in unfamiliar circumstances. In any circumstance in modern situations up to 25% of passengers feel some degree of motion sickness at sea.

Sailors are never sea-sick? Kaiser Bill's men feeding the fishes.

Novice sailors on ancient ships with ancient perceptions may have been more susceptible. And they sailed all night on ships with a monotonous pulsing movement as they moved under oarpower. The approach of deadly combat plus motion sickness would have reduced the number of men able to fight and the efficiency of those who could. On D-Day various accounts state 'most' infantry in landing craft were sea-sick. But they could get to land and recover before continuing to fight. The troops who were put ashore on the island of Psytalea must have kissed the ground when they were set off..before they later realised they were to be isolated and slaughtered as their fleet fled.

Sea sickness can be debilitating...

Thirdly, the trireme is a long narrow warship. It has a ram which is it principle weapon and this is at the bow. The ship is fighting well when it presents its bow to the enemy. If the ship has its bow to the enemy then the fewest number of archers can see or shoot at the enemy ship. 

i's all dotted and Ts crossed

Fourthly, there would not be much time to shoot. At Agincourt each archer could shoot 10 arrows a minute.  A charging trireme moving at 10 knots covers 5 metres per second. A charging trireme would cover the archer's maximum range of 250 metres in about 1 minute . However. the accuracy of shooting in an unusual situation from one moving platform to another on the sea would have drastically reduced the accuracy of the Persians. Add to the equation the degree of protection the oarsmen have- even if quite poor - and it is immediatley apparent that the apparent firepower of the Persian fleet evaporates.

Fifthly, the target is not very good. The target presented by an oncomng trireme with, maybe, hoplites protecting the frontal aspect with their shields is a poor one. Each shot is at a different range and the perpective of the target changes rapidly. Assuming one is placed to take a shot and feels like taking it.

Suddenly,thought Aspathus,the oncoming trireme looked tougher than it had from a distance....

Finally, should a ship find itself on a sticky wicket vis a vis the enemy. e.g. it was rammed or chased or surrounded, can you imagine the panic that would set in with the Persian infantry?! They could not swim. Viking Offshore would not be founded for more than two thousand years. The Greeks did not take prisoners. This is enough to make anyone's aim less than optimal.

These considerations argue for the firepower of the Persian troops onboard their fleet to have been tacically negligible. Unless the combatant ships were moving slowly and close to each other Persian bows would have no role in the battle. 

If we consider the armament of the troops that maritime nations put aboard their ships we can see that they knew this well. According to Herodotos they were overwhelmingly armed as hoplites, a few with javelins and only the Lycians as archers, with flightless arrows for close range shooting.  

Little bit gay maybe but I just can't shoot well in anything tight..

It was the landlubber King of Kings who insisted on trying to use weight of numbers to beat the Hellenes as he had at Thermopylae. The extra flesh aboard his fleet at Salamis would have just slowed his ships, made them more unstable and added an overwhelming stench of puke to the conditions onboard. This burden was added to the basic plan that involved patrolling at night and fighting an enemy whose whereabouts were unknown. Full marks to the Persians who did not just jump overboard in the dark and take their chances.

(Fab digital art by Kostas Nikellis)

OLYMPIAS IN 1/24

Fantastic 1/24 scale model of Olympias by naval architect Richard Braithwaite.