I CAN SEE FOR MILES AND MILES AND MILES ...........

Xenophon is criticised for historical inaccuracy or even wilful omission (witness his tantalisingly brief description of the battle at Leuctra). However, he was an experienced soldier and his knowledge, even if not always direct, can be counted on in the case of military details when he chooses to record them for us. Maybe he was not a sailor but he was a contemporary of leading commanders who directed naval operations.

Thalassa! Thalassa!

In reference to intelligence, surveillance and observation - current theme of interest - we are lucky because one of Xenophons heroes was Iphikrates. Iphikrates was an able and innovative Athenian commander who excelled in warfare both on land and at sea. Xenophon was more than glad to sing Iphikrates praises and we can benefit from the details he gives to show how thorough and skillful his hero was.

Genius, but nevertheless a Steve Reeves fan

In 373BC the Athenians sent a force led by Iphikrates to support their allies the Kerkyrans against the active and threatening Spartan commander Mnasippus who had besieged their city.


When the force was on land ,over-nighting, re-supplying or eating, he had a scheme for look-outs to ensure his command could not be surprised by the enemy. Around about their location were look-outs on land who presumably found suitable points to survey the surroundings. In addition, he had the masts of his ships raised, or at least, some of  them and had men sent up to keep watch from their tops. Thanks to these precautions, Iphikrates could give his men a chance to eat on enemy territory but opposing forces could never arrive in time to confront them.

Concerning the mast-top look-outs it is interesting to note that this is a unique reference from Xenophon to what could have been a common practice. It is such a simple practice. Or, maybe it was so unusual that this degree of attention-to-detail was what set better commanders apart from the flock and made it worthy of mention.During the Peloponnesian War there are many instances of what today seems an extremely amateur approach to warfare leading to disaster or harm viz. Aegesopotami . Failure to post sufficient look-outs or take precautions against surprise are errors of criminal negligence in the modern era but in the days of a dilettante military - a climate that also prevailed at other times and places  in history - they happened repeatedly. 

Charming view....Sirenity

One of the surprising things about the Spartan dominance in matters military is revealed by reading what we have recorded of their military institutions and practices. There is no secret rocket science. There are no gnomic principles revealed only to the initiated. What there is is basic military common sense, systems following the not-so-modern-as-you-think concept of 'keep it simple stupid' and an institutionalised discipline which ensures the aforesaid are adhered to. 

There is beauty in simplicity. But not here.

Whether it was their democratic principles or not, the Athenians usually had a far less rigorous approach to warfare than their opponents. Which, coming back to Iphikrates, may be why Xenophon chooses to laud him with such a detailed account of his leadership. Iphikrates was acting in a most Lacedaimonian and archetypically Hellenic manner.

Is my  hero's shoulder  hurting ? Here..or here ?

The masts of a trieres weredismounted and laid down, perhaps into a slot in the deck, when not in use. For a military operation they could be left ashore and retrieved later. This slightly obscure behaviour is explained by the performance characteristics of a trieres. In battle it was the oars which provided propulsion. On a passage the oars could supplement the sail in some conditions but the sail provided most of the motive power on longer voyages.

Olympias: showing main mast and foremast with yards and sails

 In addition, the masts and sails must have been a considerable weight to dispense with. We know that, at least in the fourth century BC, trieres did have a light sail and a  (light) mast aboard for escape from battle but this seems not to be the usual main mast and main sail. Iphikrates did not take his heavier sailing equipment with him at all on his voyage to Kerkyra. All the better to force his men to row and get in condition! In a battle the mast and yard would raise the ship's centre of gravity, making it less stable, and be a possible means of capsize if an enemy could get a line onto them.

Getting up to the top of the mast for observation does not seem like such an important thing but a quick examination of the geometry of keeping a look out at sea makes the case for it obvious.

The distance one can see on a curved surface like the globe of the earth is limited by its degree of curvature and the height of the observer. The ancient mariners knew the world was round and the surface curved. Simple experience would tell mariners this fact notwithstanding Victorian idiocies about flat earth myths.


The old rule of thumb is that the distance to the horizon is
            'seven times the height in feet of the observer 
             is four times the square of the distance to the horizon in miles.'
 R. Langton Cole, “Distance of the visible horizon,” Nature 92, 425 (1913).

 You can try a simple calculator program HERE

Notwithstanding marked variations given by atmospheric conditions which should be allowed-for, one can quickly see that being on the deck of a ship at 6 feet above sea level or being up the mast at a height of  circa 54 feet (Olympias' mast is 16.08m) gives an increased observation distance with an horizon at 3 and 9 miles respectively. This extended observation distance gives warning time and a chance for Iphikrates men to pack and leave before the oncoming pursuers have even spotted them.

Now, as Iphikrates progressed on his circumnavigation of the Peloponnese he got word that Mnasippus was dead. Here again we have an indication of the clear thinking of a genius like Iphikrates. he did not assume that this was true intelligence because whoever informed him was not an eye witness. Perhaps it was a final courier in a chain started in Kerkyra after the happy event and could even have been a deception. Not until he arrived at a friendly port which could confirm the news did Iphikrates allow his regime of surveillance and mobility slacken. Only then could the hyperesia relax from the fear of being sent up top.(But in my experience the mast monkeys usually like being up there anyway !)

The last bit is always the trickiest !

Exceedingly small irritations

Having taken the plunge, received a flock of minute trieres from Outpost Wargame Services.

The initial impression was that I had given up detailed card models for something that was really a marker rather than a model. Closer inspection proved this to be a false impression.
(Note to card/paper wargaming skeptics : I am still determined to produce the card models for larger scale gaming !)

The whole fleet of 150 trieres cost a satisyingly slight 300 Kr - 28 pounds.

Outpost fleet of 150 trieres.

 Under examination by eye I still thought the detail was slight and these would be little better than counters.

 I undercoated them with a thin wash of acrylic white with a touch of brown. Then looked agian.
This time the details hidden by the metallic sheen were clear. Suprisingly much detail !
 Each ship is  12mm long and so in terms of scale  1/3066 if the miniature is taken from Olympias, which it appears to be , but no problem for the nominal  scale 1/3600.

You can see below how much detail they have managed to put onto this small miniature.

 

I painted them with acrylics and a size 1 brush, using a magnifier. Maybe smaller brushes would allow more detail but I want to paint a load quickly. It is also difficult to see very small details on the finished item - especially with my eyes - so excessive detailing is wasted.

Only 9  passes painted 20 in a couple of hours.

undercoat of light wood
a dark line either side of upper hull.
bow and stern in burnt sienna
deck level in darker wood
ram flecked in with gold
sea base is white with cobalt blue swirled into it.
white oar tracks - not so realistic but give impression of movement and point to rear, helpfully.
whole gloss varnished
washed with black ink diluted 66% with water

The results are fine. Individual ships may not bear close inspection, but not many play a game with magnifying spectacles on !

 En masse they look great. I normally use bases of acetate. Thicker than a photocopy transparency but not as thick as perspex. When the light does not reflect too harshly they look fantastic, he said humbly.

Outpost's little model is great. I will be trying the others for the Hellenistic and Punic Wars battles.
Now I have admitted the scale of 1/3000 is necessary for doing 1:1 battle refights these miniature seem ideal. Others I will try are TUMBLING DICE with 1/2400 ships that may still fit on my bases and allow a more detailed paint job that is more visible.

Column versus Line 1/3000

Finally, 1:1 fleet battles almost at hand!

Wargame blogger STEEL ON SAND also has a review of more of Outpost's galleys.

FEAT OF CLAY ?

 The terracotta model that is in the Danish National Museum and known as the 'Erment Model' was fuel for a debate in the long-running saga af the ancient galley.

My reconstruction of the 'Erment Model'

Lucien Brasch argued in 1969(1)  that the model supported the idea that there was more than one type of trieres. His reasoning was that the Greeks had their own interpretation of an original idea by the Phoenicians. The model was found in Egypt and must represent a trieres tradition from the eastern Mediterranean which differed from the Hellenistic variety.

Just how one could make an alternative trireme is a  bit of a puzzle but not beyond ingenuity. We have today the advantage of having seen a working trieres in the form of Olympias  (2) and must admit that this colours our vision. Notwithstanding this, there are still critics such as Alec Tilley(3) who have alternative suggestions for how a trieres could be constructed on other lines.

The '3' is here three men sitting side-by-side

Tilley would have the oarsmen on the same level - ergo Erment cannot be a trieres

 Tilley thinks the Erment model could therefore be a hexeres !(x) With two men on each oar because only with such a large number of men and oars would  tiers be necessary.

After Brasch the Erment model is seen as supporting a version of the trieres which is first seen on the Sennacherib stela from Nineveh and that show the flight of Luli from Sidon.

Nineveh stela c.701.bc.

 It is narrow and high, with no apparent outrigger - the parexereisea. Even 'The Athenian Trireme' supported the idea that there is a an unused tier of oarplaces in these reliefs. Odd. If one is fleeing why not use full speed? A rather unbelievable illustration of these ships was given in the Osprey New Vanguard 196 'Warships of the Ancient  World' book.

 In 1975 Alan Lloyd(4)  pretty much knocked the 'Phoenician trieres' theory into touch with his thorough-going rebuttal of Brasch's paper. It includes a quote from R.C. Anderson's 1962 paper(5) which is rather damning. viz.

'It may be made for a trireme, but there is nothing whatever to be learnt from it.'

Subsequently, an expert on specifically Egyptian Hellenistic terracottas  remarked (6)

'Technically Græco-Egyptian terracottas are clumsy work, made with few moulds and the minimum of effort.'

Lloyd's conclusion/broadside...

'M.Brasch may well be right in claiming that the craftsman had in mind a Phoenician trireme but it seems hazardous in the extreme to use such an object to prove that the ship did not possess a parexeiresia, was not equipped with wales - neither of which occur  on Egyptian ships and may well have fallen outside the potter's experience - and had a hull whose proportions differed fundamentally from its Greek counterpart.'

Erment/Phoenicia to the left,: Olympias/Greece to the right

The model has also been used as a possible blueprint for an eastern Mediterranean penteres (7) which is supposed to differ from the Syracusan version by, again, having no outrigger and with double-manned upper oar-tiers.

Straight.sided penteres(removing hanging oarbox

Making the model gave me a little insight into the potter's task. Forgetting any high ideas about an accurate scale model - the concept of which was probably some way ahead in history from when the clay ship was produced.

As any clay structure is built up it tends to sag under its own weight. One can avoid this by a) avoiding overhangs and b) ensuring all points are supported from beneath c) making the structure lighter in the top.

I think the Erment model has its final shape because of these factors. The original profile of a trieres is almost impossible to make in a model of this size if one is not going to take time-consuming steps to support it and let it dry progressively as one builds.

Looks Ementish but WRONG. From Napoleon III's reconstruction of 1882 by Admiral Serre. A classic failure.

Still wrong profile - perfectly round is BAD (puking imminent)

Profile of Olympias by John Coates. Too broad for a clay model.

This is no problem for some smaller, more primitive ship models. Pottery has alway sbeen a lowly trade and pot items very cheap. The idea of taking an inordinate amount of time on a cheap votive item is unlikely.

I also  think the Erment model does have an outrigger but it is misunderstood by the maker. AND transformed so that it fits with the clay's characteristics.

Instead of the oar tiers being set further outboard as in the real thing, the model has them set over each other for the sake of constructing something easily from clay.

The strips supporting the upper two tiers are there because they look like they should be there when one looks at a real trieres but they are also necessary to support the oars in the model. They cannot be set out from the hull or the thing will sag and break so they are set over each other. They show a gunwale and an outrigger but they cannot be set out from the hull or the whole lot will collapse.

The parexeiresia is beneath the upper oars but squished inboard

The epibatai (which could aequally have been the hyperesia) must be set on last. When the decks have dried a little and gained some strength the figures and shields can be glued -on with slip without fear of collapse.

The ship's profile is explained by these factors also. It is flat-bottomed because it must stand solidly as it is built. It is high and stright-sided because an open, low form will collapse unless a time-consuming process is adopted for construction.

I would say the modeller wanted to give a good impression of a trieres and he does. It is a slim, sleek ship with many oars. It has a fierce prominent ram and efficient prominent pedalia which look like they can really affect the ship's progress.

Version 2 may be painted to look a little less like Sonic the Hedgehog!

 Along with the many odd-shaped clay ships i think the Erment model has to be considered just that. In the broadest sense of the word. It is not a scaled-down copy of any ship, penteres, hexeres nor trieres but it is a representation interpreted by the non-sea-going potter and made within the limits of the chosen material. This trieres really does have feet of clay.
It's awful, but I like it.....
(Ref.list to follow)

SIZE MATTERS IN ANOTHER WAY

 

The rules for trieres battles I have been developing for some time have a horrible tendency to lead themselves over a cliff now and again. Some logical progression results in undermining the basic principles they are built upon.
 
From the beginning I was using Hotz models at circa 1/300 scale. This resulted in problems with time and space which were unsurmountable. It is ok to fight a skirmish with a handful of Roman liburnæ versus a handful of 'Saxon'pirates. A full fleet action with fifty or more ships becomes impossible, however.

Congestion

This is a problem for other sets of rules too, for example 'Naumachia'. Some rules go for allowing large numbers of ships from the start , such as 'Corvus' but the problem one then hits is that the colour and atmosphere of the game is somewhat bleached out.

I think I have a good handle on what trieres combat was all about and one thing it requires is space. Even with my card models at 1/400 down to 1/500 they struggle to allow large numbers on the table without a whole set of special provisions for leaving and reentering the area of combat.
 

Where will it end ?

This problem of space applies only to the golden age of the trieres. Many battle even at this time and most later, took place in restricted areas or even harbours with a style of combat which hinged on deck combat or involved fewer ships-often larger but
triereis need space !

A concomitant problem is the length of the rule book. My brain rebels at the sight of long chapters on each aspect of how to have a game just as much as my wallet rebels against buying tomes including a lot of padding and data I can get un-pre-digested from original sources. Before I become guilty of the same sins it is time to slash and burn.

 My decision over the last months has been to extract the key concepts and rules and produce a new one. But not to throw the old one away. Frustratingly, the decision to acknowledge that trieres warfare was very special also forces acknowledgement of the need to make a very special rules set for them. This does not mean the two sets would be totally distinct. The trieres rules should be a basis for the others which also include more detail, suitable for the later battles. 

Size became an issue again. Larger trieres battles cannot be fought at scales below about 1/3000 I have decided. Smaller tabletops result in very short game turn durations and limited manoeuvre room. I needed 5 minute turns and space for fleets to make their evolutions. In addition, the usual problem of having to scale the numbers involved down can give way to the possibility at this scale for representing every vessel !
 




I now have 'Triereis of the Gods' for 1/3000 games and 'Blood-Dark Sea' for 1/450.





As a start I have made some attempts at models in this scale.

1/3000 triereis, 6mm Perians, Top-Down Squadron 1/6000(!)

 Outpost Wargame Services also have models available at 1/3600 which look suitable.

In the meantime, top-down prints and matchsticks are standing-in.

Frustration at diverting again from my original aim to field lots of card models is not total, though. A good realistic triereis battle will be something novel and a good game I think. And, a set of rules for using the card ships in moderate numbers in dense ship melees will also be fun!.

ad infinitum?