Tuesday, 20 August 2013
More wooden models
Trireme Gallery of Chios, Greece have a blog showing thier collection of trireme models which it is hoped, will form the kernel of a museum.
Tuesday, 13 August 2013
Build your own...
Ideal for wargaming ? But maybe a bit pricey for that..
Dusek Ship Kits make superb scale models of Olympias and a bireme.
At 1/72 perfect for use with plastic toy soldiers.
I will stick to paper for now, perhaps when I retire ?
Dusek Ship Kits make superb scale models of Olympias and a bireme.
At 1/72 perfect for use with plastic toy soldiers.
I will stick to paper for now, perhaps when I retire ?
Thursday, 11 July 2013
Tactics Diagram
The tactics diagram from the Greek maritime museum's website.
1) This shows the concept of the 'periplous'.
This means 'circumnavigation' and is, essentially, an outflanking manouvre at sea.
In this diagram it appears that the manouvre is almost identical to 4) and it also appears that the flanking ship is attacked. Both these similarities are false.
The periplous is executed under view of the flanking ship and it could respond. It is more likely the successful outflanking manoeuvre would proceed along the back of the enemy line and attack targets which had not observed it and had no space to respond.
2) This appears to show a 'rake' whereby a ships steers along the side of another and attampts to brake its oars and thereby cripple its manoeuvreability. Speed is essential for an oar rake to avoid giving the enemy a chance to ship their oars or turn away and to give enough energy to snap a large number of wooden oar-shafts. This diagram appears to show a violent turn as part of the manoeuvre. Turns reduce speed and are thus unlikely as part of a raking attempt.
There is little evidence that this was, in fact, a tactic. It is more liukley that it was an unintended result of a failed diekplous.
3) A 'conventional' ram attack. The attacker has managed to accelerate and turn into the beam of an unexpecting member of the enemy front line. The target has not responded and the attacker manages to hit his beam at an acute angle. A wider angle is better for a ram attack if space allows. If the target observed the attacker he would have turned his ram to meet the attacker head-on or backed water.
It is more likely that ramming was attempted at a better angle of attack than shown here and any collision such as this was a result of a failed or messy diekplous.
4) This appears to show the 'diekplous' or 'crossing' of the enemy line. The attacker rows through a gap and turns to attack an enemy from the rear.
The diagram appears to show the attacker hitting an enemy who is almost his counterpart in the lines. A ship must accelerate to shoot through any gap and a turn is unlikely to be made so tightly as to hit a ship lying opposite in th enemy line. If ships sit at circa one width apart for manoeuvre-room then a tight turn circa two ships length in diameter is not going to allow an attack on the opposite ship.
The manoeuvre of turning about to attack is known as the 'anastrophe'.
There is much discussion as to whether diekplous and periplous are tactics for single ships or groups of ships. There are examples where both are described. The point is the principle involved in the manoeuvre. Essentially they mean 'breakthrough' or 'outflanking', respectively.
My modified version of the same diagram.
1) This shows the concept of the 'periplous'.
This means 'circumnavigation' and is, essentially, an outflanking manouvre at sea.
In this diagram it appears that the manouvre is almost identical to 4) and it also appears that the flanking ship is attacked. Both these similarities are false.
The periplous is executed under view of the flanking ship and it could respond. It is more likely the successful outflanking manoeuvre would proceed along the back of the enemy line and attack targets which had not observed it and had no space to respond.
2) This appears to show a 'rake' whereby a ships steers along the side of another and attampts to brake its oars and thereby cripple its manoeuvreability. Speed is essential for an oar rake to avoid giving the enemy a chance to ship their oars or turn away and to give enough energy to snap a large number of wooden oar-shafts. This diagram appears to show a violent turn as part of the manoeuvre. Turns reduce speed and are thus unlikely as part of a raking attempt.
There is little evidence that this was, in fact, a tactic. It is more liukley that it was an unintended result of a failed diekplous.
3) A 'conventional' ram attack. The attacker has managed to accelerate and turn into the beam of an unexpecting member of the enemy front line. The target has not responded and the attacker manages to hit his beam at an acute angle. A wider angle is better for a ram attack if space allows. If the target observed the attacker he would have turned his ram to meet the attacker head-on or backed water.
It is more likely that ramming was attempted at a better angle of attack than shown here and any collision such as this was a result of a failed or messy diekplous.
4) This appears to show the 'diekplous' or 'crossing' of the enemy line. The attacker rows through a gap and turns to attack an enemy from the rear.
The diagram appears to show the attacker hitting an enemy who is almost his counterpart in the lines. A ship must accelerate to shoot through any gap and a turn is unlikely to be made so tightly as to hit a ship lying opposite in th enemy line. If ships sit at circa one width apart for manoeuvre-room then a tight turn circa two ships length in diameter is not going to allow an attack on the opposite ship.
The manoeuvre of turning about to attack is known as the 'anastrophe'.
There is much discussion as to whether diekplous and periplous are tactics for single ships or groups of ships. There are examples where both are described. The point is the principle involved in the manoeuvre. Essentially they mean 'breakthrough' or 'outflanking', respectively.
My modified version of the same diagram.
Sunday, 7 July 2013
Saturday, 6 July 2013
APOLLONIAN ANCHORS
I had never given much thought to ancient anchors before visiting Apollonia Pontica (Sozopol) a Megaran colony on the Thracian coast.
The place was littered with ancient anchors dredged up by fishermen.
Two main types : one with a wooden shaft and flukes and a stone or usually lead stock. Maybe for more prestigious vessels.
Stock as found.
As fitted into anchor.
and one with less wood involved - basically a flat slab of stone with three holes. Two for pales which act as flukes and one to secure the anchor cable to. Simple and cheap but effective.
Slab as found:
As fitted for an anchor.
The sheer number of these things : I saw tens of them : which date back to the centuries B.C. gives pause for thought as to how many vessels sailed the Pons Euxinus in the era of the galley.
The coins of Apollonia and nearby Messembria show anchors of the complex type.
Sadly, the only other evidence for galleys was a single illustration in the archaeological museum ....
and the local traditional fishing boat, the 'alaman' which had eight oars and a small sail but has no heritage older than c.1700.
On a more sci-fi note I got a trip on a Kometa-class hydrofoil as constructed in 1983 in Ukraine SSR. 35 knots ! excellent.... When I was a lad this is how ships of the future should have looked.
The place was littered with ancient anchors dredged up by fishermen.
Two main types : one with a wooden shaft and flukes and a stone or usually lead stock. Maybe for more prestigious vessels.
Stock as found.
As fitted into anchor.
and one with less wood involved - basically a flat slab of stone with three holes. Two for pales which act as flukes and one to secure the anchor cable to. Simple and cheap but effective.
Slab as found:
The sheer number of these things : I saw tens of them : which date back to the centuries B.C. gives pause for thought as to how many vessels sailed the Pons Euxinus in the era of the galley.
The coins of Apollonia and nearby Messembria show anchors of the complex type.
Sadly, the only other evidence for galleys was a single illustration in the archaeological museum ....
On a more sci-fi note I got a trip on a Kometa-class hydrofoil as constructed in 1983 in Ukraine SSR. 35 knots ! excellent.... When I was a lad this is how ships of the future should have looked.
Wednesday, 19 June 2013
SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
The rams from the Egadi battle site give a nice confirmation of the violence and effectiveness of ramming tactics. 10 rams from sunken ships (probably Carthaginian triremes) have been found along with helmets from Roman marines.
The amazing thing about the rams is that 4 of the ten show evidence of dramatic use in action.
Ram 3 shown here has evidence of heavy impact against another ship's heavy metal fittings i.e. ram.
That is 2 of 10 rams show damage from ram-ram impact.
Rams 2 and 6 had wood remains trapped in the rams fins - evidence for successful impacts on unprotected wooden hulls.
4 out of 10 ships (that ended their days on the seabed!) had direct evidence of aggressive combat. Quite a monument to the violence of an ancient naval battle. Also supporting the idea that in 241b.c. agile ramming tactics were still practiced rather than a universal slogging match at sea.
Read more at RPMNF website HERE.
The amazing thing about the rams is that 4 of the ten show evidence of dramatic use in action.
Ram 3 shown here has evidence of heavy impact against another ship's heavy metal fittings i.e. ram.
That is 2 of 10 rams show damage from ram-ram impact.
Rams 2 and 6 had wood remains trapped in the rams fins - evidence for successful impacts on unprotected wooden hulls.
4 out of 10 ships (that ended their days on the seabed!) had direct evidence of aggressive combat. Quite a monument to the violence of an ancient naval battle. Also supporting the idea that in 241b.c. agile ramming tactics were still practiced rather than a universal slogging match at sea.
Read more at RPMNF website HERE.
Monday, 17 June 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)