Talk:Hellenistic-era warships

Untitled

By AD 325 there were no more triremes, as the development of Greek fire (a chemical substance that caught fire when wetted) had changed the nature of battle at sea once again.

I'm not sure what to replace this sentence with, but something else must have happened to triremes - Greek fire wasn't invented until the 7th century. Adam Bishop 22:07, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oops, you're quite right. I don't know where I got that from. Now deleted. Gdr 13:06, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

There were war machines in use among the Rhodesian Navy ~200BC-150BC which ejected a burning substance (not Greek fire). The source is Livy to look this up in detail. Wandalstouring 12:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Second Punic war

ROME was the major naval power at the beginning of the second Punic war. Carthage was not able to contact Hannibal nor send reinforcements for a long time, because Rome had a supreme fleet. Who is the one always correcting things the wrong way?

Quintiremes

As far as I can tell, these are just two names for the same type of ship Nik42 03:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean quinquiremes? Some people are not sure about spelling it correctly. Wandalstouring 11:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

real history

they were developed by the greeks, improved by the carthagians and then stolen by the romans.

It is not clear. It is likely that they were developed in Greek Syracuse, but it could also have been Carthage. Both cities were strongly connected via family ties and during the great scientific leap in Syracuse (when the ballista and the pentere made teir appearance in the Greek world) a lot of nations, among them many Punic Carthaginian craftsmen, were involved in the developments. Wandalstouring 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Carthaginians favoured the bireme and the romans used quinquiremeres to assault syracuses docks. That was when archimedes got the greek defenders to refect sunlight from thier shields on to the roman galleys to set them on fire. I don't think that worked but it proves that the romans couldn't "steal" them - 5 June 2007

Types of quinqueremes and some extras

There were in use two types of quinqueremes:

1. 2-deck quinqueremes, with 3 and 2 rowers on each side.

  Used by Phoenician, Carthage, Roman and early Byzantine navies.    

2. 3-deck quinqueremes, with 2, 2 and 1 rowers on each side.

  Used by all of the above plus Syracusians, Macedonians, Seleukids and Ptolemaic Egyptians. 

• Amorgos Naval Battle (322 BC) was a characteristic combat: abour 300 Athenean ships, mainly triremes, versus about 300 Macedonian ships, mainly quinqueremes. After this Athenean defeat, the number of triremes in naval power's fleet started to decreased.
• Some of the greater Byzantine Dromons were in fact 2-deck quinqueremes. Usualy were 2-deck quadriremes (by the archean style naval name system). Some "cheldanes" were 3-deck quinqueremes. or somewhat larger polyremes.
• The larger polyremes used in naval battle were Antonio's and Cleopatra's decaremes.
• Quinqueremes and quadriremes prooved to be the most succesful polyremes in naval compact: Lighter ones weren't powerful enough. Heavier ones were too slow, with too low agility and expensive. They were good enough as armed trasports and at sieges.
• I plan to gather some more with their resourses to add them to the article. I would like someome to help me with the language because English isn't my mother one. If someone wishes, please contact with my talk page.
• Polyremes, as the triremes before them, were temponary transformed to trasporters: The lower rows of rowers was replacing by troops (infantry transports) or even horses (cavalry transports). The same system use in use by Byzantine fleets too. These transports of course were escorded in convoys by standard warships for protection.

--Vchorozopoulos (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

All unsourced material in the article will be challenged and deleted. Please provide sources for your claims. I'm neither convinced that the dromoi should be counted as triremes. Their rowing structure possible derived from the liburnia and is thus a different animal.

I can help you with English and with technical aspects. Speed of a ship was limited by the squareroot of its length and by its rowing power. While the polyremes weren't much longer they had more rowers bringing them closer to the maximum speed possible and had a different accceleration. They were also heavier projectiles enabling them to hit an unarmoured ship frontally. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for offering help. I'll collect together my sources for additions to the article. Only in language I little need help. I read and understand clarly English and American texts, but I have some difficulties in writing them. It's the main reason I have edited/written few articles' parts here. In greek WP I have started over 30 ones since January '08 I started plus over 2,000 editings in others.

I have read the above data. Of course they aren't my idea.

• About dromons: The naval name system had changed by this age, but usualy had 2 decks and rows of oars, with 2 men to each. This made them equivalent to quadriremes, not triremes. The number of their crew was also aout equal with this kind of ships too. These were the most typical byzantine dromons. Perhaps the exact term is that they evolved from 2-deck quadriremes. Romans, Carthegenians, Phoenicians and Etrusians, used also 2-deck triremes in earlier time. Some historicians counted the decks and the rows of oars and not the number of rows of oarsmen as it's correct. The total number of crew make a 2-deck trireme equivaent to a 3-deck on. Theoriticaly even 1-deck triremes also could be build. But there is no historical event to refer such case.
• Except speed itself, agility was also important in naval battles. Polyremes were very heavy and expensive. The mean vessels in hellinistic period were quinqueremes and quadriremes. There were havier ones but more for troop transportation and as naval artillery (as you wrote) mainly in sieges. Battle in Actio showed that quinqueremes and quadriremes were more effective than heavier vessels in sea. And battle in Amorgos showed that quinqueremes and quadriremes were more effective than triremes. Combats show the effect ability of each weapon and warrior type. Of course stategy, tactics, human quality of troops, numbers and even just luck has also effect in battles too.
• When I'm ready I'll contact with you to see whwee exactly should be added my extra data about these archean and medieval war galleys.

--Vchorozopoulos (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have access to my books on the topic now because a friend has them, but the dromos can't be linked to the trireme. As I said they are descended from the liburnia which also had two levels of rowers, but in a different arrangement, making it easiser to train crews for rowing the boat. As long as you don't show me a source that explicitly states the dromos descended from the quadrireme, I won't believe you and all such statements will be deleted per WP:OR.

I think your problem is that you don't know about the difference between Hellenistic triremes and earlier triremes. Earlier triremes had one rower per oar and bench and thus 3 decks. For Hellenistic ships this isn't defined any more. Now trireme means 3 men per vertical section on 1 to 3 oars. For example, the reconstructions of Carthaginian triremes based on ship finds of this time have 3 rowers per oar and only one deck.

That one battle showed that one type of ship was superior to another is disputable. Provide sources saying that. There are some tactical advantages for a quinquireme, but a fleet of triremes can outnumber any fleet of quadriremes if they have the same manpower available, so there are also disadvantages. As far as I know the Punic Wars, the fleets were mixed. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wandalstouring. I would also like to note that the predominance of lighter craft in the imperial era is not so much attributable to any "superiority" over heavier vessels, but mostly to tactical and operational considerations, since the imperial Roman navy was, in effect, a police force. On the dromons, it is well-established that they are not descended from the Hellenistic-era quadriremes, but are derivatives of the liburnians, and Byzantine literary sources state clearly that they had one to two banks of oars (three are also a possibility) with one rower per oar, not two. Regards, Constantine �? 10:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fundamental problem

I've always understood the number to be the number of banks of oars; thus, the bireme has one on each side; the trireme 2 on one and 1 on the other; the quadrireme, 2 on each side; the quinquereme, 3 on one and 2 on the others. That is the way the dictionaries present it and that is the way all ship reconstructions I've seen present it. I'm astounded to read of five banks on a side and to see references given for this. Moreover, the article itself is now self-contradictory. The man who supplied the refs says, no, he loaned his books to a friend and does not have them. Oh yeah? I question the whole thing. I'm not ready to work on this article but I thought I would bring this little matter up as did one of the commentators above. All the Roman ship articles were evidently done with the same understanding. I believe they are all wrong. Needs a multi-source lookup. Later.Dave (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to have the same number of rowers on each side, otherwise the ship wouldn't go in a straight line... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B990:300:887:FA9E:F299:ABCB (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

hello cplakidas

Hi there. Someone else got my machine this morning so I could not finish this intro. Liddell & Scott says Herodotus but the big edition does not substantiate it so it appears that Polybius is the first Greek. I had planned to put some etymology in there - I will do that now - it does not mean what you have there in greek - Latin is "5-oar" but no one knows what that means. The Greek is "5-row" or "5-sweep" based in the action not the oars. I will however try to keep what you have just added if that is possible -I need a little time to get the refs in thereDave (talk)

Medium? That's fine with me - it's pretty much a judgement call. There were heavier ships but they were not practicable. There were lighter ships than the trireme, much lighter. Why don't you think it over and if you change your mind change it. By the way don't get your heart set on 5 banks. Smith goes for the 2-bank, 3-bank, 4-bank, etc and that is easier to justify with the lower numbers but just about most of the other authors I see point out it can't mean that - for one thing there are no ancient representations of more than 3 banks. When you gat into the higher banks that is a physical impossibility. This is why it needs some etymology, but very likely as this article already points out the term need not mean the same thing in all periods. Later.Dave (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I though the Herodotus reference was very odd... After all, the quinquiremes were invented about a century later... As for the etymology, the meaning "five banks of oarsmen" is well accepted not on the basis that there were five rows of oars, but five groups of oarsmen on each side, arranged in different ways, e.g. 2-2-1, or 3-2 etc. It is well-accepted that the max. number of oar banks was three. As for "medium", you understood correctly what I meant: compared with the heavy Hellenistic polyremes, the quinquiremes were so to speak the middle-weight main warship, complemented by the trireme and lighter vessels, such as the lemboi, hemioliae, etc. I have some good books on the subject, and will add some stuff. Cheers, Constantine �? 14:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well hello Constantine, so it is you. I have to agree with the 3 banks and 5 rows myself, but looking through these articles I see there is a problem with interpretation. Some think there would have been 6 banks of oars for a trireme, 3 on a side, 5 on a side, 10 in all, for a quinquereme. What I want to do is put that idea to rest. It is common, I dare say. The main classical encyclopedia of the 19th century, by Smith, promulgates that idea. I noticed the inconsistent ideas in the articles, which is why I am here. I think your use of "bank" is still a little confusing: in English we don't have banks of people unless they work in a bank. As "bank" is not in the etymology I suggest you use "row" of oarsmen like everyone else. I see you cut out my refs. What did you do that for? The public might like to see those dictionary entries! I don't think that is according to policy but I see we do agree on some major points and the overall summary still says the same. So I have two choices. I can fight you for the refs or I can let you fix the inconsistencies, since we agree over all. My inclination is, since we agree generally, I'm going to let you fix the inconsistencies. Then later I will make suggestions with the fact tag if warranted. In summary here is what I would like. 1) Make sure the 5 rows of people is clear. 2) Try to present your theories as theories and not as definitively established fact. You don't have to agree with the other theories but they ought to be mentioned. 3) Back up more of your constructional and other ideas with refs from some of those great books you have. 4) Especially, put some pictures in, will you? 5) As a final desideratum, when you get this article fixed, do go on to trireme, will you? And then there is bireme, etc. None of them are too good. Are you interested in ships? If there is any bottom-line critique of what you are doing, I would say, don't be quite so arbitrary and don't use language that is arbitrary unless it is for facts proven beyond a doubt. So until later, ciao, and have fun. The next you will see of me will probably be suggestive tags unless you are in the mood to discuss.Dave (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am always in the mood to discuss :) I was indeed a bit heavy-handed (sorry about that) because I was working on a version of the article at the same time as you were, and ran into the dreaded "edit-conflict", in which cases I tend to be less discriminate than usual (a bad trait, alas). I am perfectly willing to re-incorporate any and all citations that are necessary, and agree with you about the need to make the "bank" vs "row" issue clear. On the first, there were several issues: a) the lead needed to be rewritten, per MOS, as to present a summary of the article, so the fact of the trireme's disappearance or the etymology and the list of writers who mention the terms were a bit too much there (it can however be added elsewhere in the article) and b) the incorporation of refs in the lead section is generally to be avoided, if the same point is made (and properly cited) in the main body of the text. On the latter, most scholars still use both interchangeably, and I tend to follow their usage (I'll try to be more consistent though). Second, they are not "my" theories, but the theories of people who have studied naval history and architecture a lot more than I hope to ever do... Third, pics will indeed be useful, but copyright is the killer. I recently brought the Byzantine navy to FA, and am working on the Greek fire article, and the lack of suitably-licensed images is one of the biggest problems... So if you have any, please either upload them or link to them. Fourth, I know about the trireme article, since I wrote most of that myself in earlier days. Anyhow, any comments, additions and/or criticism are more than welcome. As for the etymology section, I leave it to you entirely, and you can freely re-introduce the refs there. Regards, Constantine �? 17:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

PS, what would you think about renaming the article to "Polyremes" or "Hellenistic warships", so that we could include the other ships (fours, sixes, etc) as well? It would not serve any purpose to start small articles with what little we know of each of them. The "design" section of the quinquireme, as it stands know, really sums up our current state of knowledge, and there is, if anything, less to go on with the rest. On the other hand, they all share many common characteristics, be it construction, the oar numbers controversy, or the tactics (missile fire & boarding) which they exemplified. PS2 would you care to clarify your comment in the section above? I don't really understand what you mean by the trireme having one row on one side and two on the other, etc.... Cheers, Constantine �? 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OR?

I still express my doubts that Carthage's and Rome's navies can be handled in an article about Hellenistic warships. Yes, the Hellenistic powers built big ships, but the great fleets were not by Hellenistic powers, but Rome and Carthage(over 300 each during the I.PW), giving them more weight. As long as you don't proof that Carthage copied the Hellenistic designs it's OR to group them together with the Hellenistic warships. I'll do some research in Scientific American, they have the reconstruction of a Carthaginian warship with intermediate oardecks. I don't know of this feature in Hellenistic ships. For this reason I object to the current article title because Rome and Carthage are different animals(also mentioned in another source I'll retrieve) and together with the Hellenistic warships they could be covered under the better title "polyremes". However, the idea to cover the Hellenistic navies isn't a bad one and I would opt that you spare your intended material for such an article about the different fleet philosophies of the great and small Hellenistic powers. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I agree with you? How can I say it more clearly? The term is not entirely satisfactory, and I remain very much open to proposals for a more satisfactory heading ("Ancient Mediterranean galleys"? too generic). However it must be noted that the Romans at least used a lot of Hellenistic designs (their sixes at least, not to mention the liburnians, were built with outriggers, not in the fashion of the Punic five), and the Punic design is at least partly derived from Phoenician (i.e. Eastern Mediterranean) origins. My objections to "polyremes" have already been stated, and the present title at least has the virtue of being used by a major scholar of the field like John Morrison (thus it is not exactly OR)... As for the "great fleets", Egypt and the Seleucids also fielded hundreds of warships; "big fleets" were not a Roman or Punic privilege. If however we decide to split the article, how should we proceed? There will be an article "Hellenistic navies", covering organizational aspects as well, but under what heading do you intend to group the Punic five (which, given our sources, seems to be a one-off exception)? Only a full article on the Carthaginian navy could cover it adequately. Constantine �? 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Carthaginian shiptypes were copied by the Romans, possibly with some Greek influences because the prototype for the fives belonged to Hannibal the Rhodian. Other ship types were rare in the Roman navy(until Agrippa), however, not excluded. Thus we have shiptypes of the Western and of the Eastern Mediterranean. The eastern types were Illyrian(lemboi) and Hellenistic, the western were Carthaginian (with some Greek fleets that played a minor role). Polyremes excludes the lemboi, Hellenistic warships excludes Carthage and the Romans. So I favour a two article solution. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I very much doubt that the two halves of the Mediterranean were as much isolated as you imply. The Romans, who after all were in the middle, used Hellenistic designs quite often (hemiloliai, for example, as transports, during the Punic Wars) and given their eventual dominance of the entire Mediterranean, Greek-type ships also appeared in the West. Also, Syracuse, which invented the fives and sixes, was a Greek state located in the Western Med... The period covered here is ca. 400 BC to around Actium, and we shouldn't let the Punic Wars, no matter how important they were, determine the entire scope of the article. Furthermore, a quinquereme, whether it was Greek-type or Punic-type, fulfilled the same operational role. Just as there were differences of construction between German and British battleships for example, it doesn't mean that they did not belong in the same category of warships (plus, the different Punic type only appears in the mid-3rd century). Granted, the relative absence of heavier warships in the West is a major difference, but this article, as it stands, deals with the ships, not with the naval philosophies of the Mediterranean powers. Either way, the basic operational philosophy (boarding & missile fire vs ramming) is common for both East and West. Also, if the fours, fives, sixes etc are an evolution of the trireme, so is the trihemiolia, and so are the sevens, eights etc, and they belong together. In conclusion I am strongly in favour of keeping the ship types in a single article, simply because they represent a single chapter of naval technology (AFAIK, this is how they are treated by the overwhelming majority of scholarly works on the subject). I remain always open to a more inclusive naming proposal, which I feel would solve our problem. Constantine �? 18:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you name me a few sources for your claim that Punic and Greek ship can be handled together as Hellenistic warships. That's rather new to me. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, to clarify, I didn't say that Punic and Greek warships are handled together as Hellenistic warships, I merely said that they are usually handled together as belonging to the same chapter in maritime technology. You can check Meijer, the Cambridge history, Casson or Morrison and Coates. In all of them, the warships of the 4th to 1st centuries BC are handled together, whether they were of Punic or Greek type, which is quite natural, as explained above. For the Hellenistic , I agree it is not very accurate, but Morrison at least has written a chapter "Hellenistic Oared Warships, 399–31 BC" in AGE OF THE GALLEY in which he includes both Western and Eastern Mediterranean ships. Perhaps a more accurate title for our article would be "Hellenistic-era warships" which emphasizes the period and not the culture? Given that the Hellenistic era lasted all the way to the battle of Actium, it would also fit the article's scope. Constantine �? 13:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hellenistic-era warships" is OK (Rome and Carthage were both under Greek influence, same for the Phoenicians and Illyrians). I've some problems retrieving the image of the Carthaginian trireme with intermediate decks. It isn't where I thought it was. I'll do some more research. There aren't so many resources for colourful photos of recontructed ship models. Of course, I could sent you a copy out of my photographic memory to show you what I mean. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! Glad we could reach a satisfactory solution! :) Proceeding with moves & redirect fixing ASAP. As for colourful images, I will be in Crete for Easter, and the Naval Museum of Chania (reputed to be rather good) may have something interesting... Cheers, Constantine �? 16:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Have fun, if you need some advice you can ask User:Durova about achieving high quality images, she's our specialist on photography. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Construction

We do have actual ship finds of Punic warships at Marsala and they are very much different from the Greek design. Please correct your statements. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I haven't yet gotten around to writing fully on either ship construction or tactics and weaponry, as opposed to general characteristics and oar arrangement. Please be patient, or, better yet, be bold and add the information yourself. :) Constantine �? 14:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Language

This is the E N G L I S H wikipedia. You can't assume that everybody visiting this site speaks or reads ancient Greek fluently. Please render all terms in Latin letters. You can additionally provide Greek letters, but only as an add on. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed, thank you. You can be a bit more polite, you know. :) Constantine �? 14:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you perceived this as impolite, but I wanted to stress this still very much neglected fact. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

ill suited article structure

The article is too heavily structured around minor differences and lacks important innovations like katamaran ships. I advice to totally restructure it around groups of light, medium, heavy and superheavy ships and not so much into hardly relevant subsections. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm using Casson, Ancient seamanship, pages 97-140. Light is anything up to the trireme, excluding that ship that was still in use in Hellenistic times and is excluded from your list. Futhermore there were also improvements to this shiptype that was one of the main types of these times. Superheavy is anything above the 16 according to Casson(this means according to my source a katamaran construction and shifts the emphasize from ramming to the use of marines). The remaining problem is that you can hardly group together triremes and 16-polyremes. According to Polybius in the Battle of the Aegates Islands the triremes were in the middle of the Punic formation between the heavy ships and the light ships and they carried out a special maneuver sinking 30 Roman ships in pursuit. We could use that to establish them as a class of their own that is in between heavy and light, but what to include or exclude? I'm open to suggestions that aren't OR. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To make things clear: the article is in no way perceived by me to be complete. I intend to expand greatly on architecture and armament and tactics, but won't have the necessary time for meaningful additions until July, at least. So if you want, go ahead and add stuff. I certainly do not own not want to monopolize the article. The catamarans are mentioned in the "larger polyremes" section, but again, it is something best left for elaboration in the "construction" section. As for the trireme, I agree it must be included. IMO, I would include it in the light ships, as its tactical role was mostly auxiliary to the bigger vessels in this era. As for the structure, I tried to explain the names of various ships, and how they differed from each other. Again, if you have more info or a better idea on how to restructure the article, go ahead and improve it, I'll be more than happy if you do. :) Best regards, Constantine �? 20:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Jarring"

The following sentence makes me a bit weary: "This system [several men per oar, a scaloccio] was also in use in Renaissance galleys, but jars with the evidence of ancient crews continuing to be thoroughly trained by their commanders."

Who says there's a contradiction here? Is it de Souza or whoever wrote the sentence? I don't even see that there should be any apparent contradiction. Even if rowing a scaloccio (the Italian term for more than one per oar), we're still talking about a quite complicated process of synchronization with various maneuvers that need to be mastered. I've recently read about French 17th century galleys, which employed huge numbers of penal convicts, and their captains also stressed the need for constant exercise and training.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Quadriremis.Roman.BCE31.001.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Quadriremis.Roman.BCE31.001.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Split proposal

It seems from previous comments there is a consensus to split this page. For what it's worth, I just turned up looking for information on quadriremes (currently redirects here) in the context of the Venetian 16th century naval architect Vettor Fausto. Absolutely nothing in here really applied, and he also built quinqueremes. I am therefore proposing a split. Feel free to discuss and adjust the suggested destination articles. I believe we can run with:

• Leave Hellenistic-era warships as a sort of temporally-defined overview article
• Add separate (Political entity) warships (or use existing similar political entity specific navy or military-oriented) articles with full details, linked from sections in the above overview article with Main article: (Political entity) warships
• Add a polyreme article.
• Add separate articles on quadriremes, quinqueremes, etc. including images, plain English understandable comparisons to other designs, and links to appropriate articles from the above

I will go ahead and do this myself in a while if there's no substantive discussion, since it's clear there's consensus for change. prat (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! The reason I lumped all these ships together back then was because they all represented a specific age of maritime technology and naval warfare, which stands out form what came before or after. So while I have no problem with creation of dedicated articles for the subjects where enough material exists (e.g. quinquereme), I'd be very cautious about splitting for splitting's sake. The octeres/enneres/deceres for instance are AFAIK practically unknown except for some literary references, and what information there is has already been included here. I also fail to see what late medieval/Renaissance Venetian warships have in common with the subject of this article. Mediterranean galleys of this era were very, very different from the Hellenistic warships in design, construction and role. Otherwise, feel free to work on the subject as you see fit. Constantine ✍ 07:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Good work so far, yes. I understand how the current structure came to be. It's just that currently people looking for info on some of the touched-on subjects, which span other time periods as well (eg. 15th/16th century Venetian navy) wind up here due to redirects. This needs to be resolved, and the most obvious way to do so seems to be by splitting. If you have any other suggestions, I'm all ears. I think fundamentally a good reason not to lump lots of content in this page is that 'Hellenistic Era' is not that well defined temporally or geospatially, it doesn't have a monopoly on the technologies discussed (and presently redirected here). Furthermore, the combined notion of 'warships' is perhaps better contextualized in '(Political entity) navy' pages since other elements of their operation (chiefly naval formation, training, build materials and quality, opposition technologies faced, sociopolitical context of rowers vs. soldiers vs. commanders) were from the limited sources I have access to rather more important to leveraging the designs successfully or otherwise than in latter (eg. modern-day) technology-centric warships. prat (talk)

OK, question (I'm too lazy to check): which subjects referring to the 15th/16th century Venetian navy redirect here? If there are any, they should be redirected away immediately, because other than the fact that there were oared warships in both periods, there is literally nothing in common between the two subjects. As for 'Hellenistic Era' not being that well defined temporally or geospatially, I respectfully disagree: it is usually held to encompass everything between Alexander and Actium, and in terms of maritime technology/naval warfare it encompasses the entire Mediterranean, including Carthage, Rome and the Greek states of Italy and Sicily. Constantine ✍ 11:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Hellenistic-era_warships has a list of what links to the article. (Just click 'What links here' under 'Tools' in the left section of the article page. Sorry I wasn't aware of that definition of Hellenistic Era... I only studied Latin, then moved to China :) Classicism is not my forte. Things that directly 'redirect' here are as follows...

• Aphract
• Polyreme
• Hexareme
• Hexeres
• Sexireme
• Lembos
• Lemboi
• Octeres
• Quadreme
• Quadrireme
• Quadriremes
• Tetreres
• Penteres
• Quinquereme
• Quinqueremes
• Quinquireme
• Quinquiremes
• Quinterimes
• Septireme
• Trihemiolia

They should all probably be in other articles... -- prat (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, none of these terms has anything to do with late medieval/Renaissance galleys, so that is done with. As to which terms should have articles of their own, I repeat what I said above: if you can find sufficient material to develop them further, feel free to do so. I am certain that for the quinquereme at least, there should be enough material. But splitting off for the sake of splitting off makes no sense. Constantine ✍ 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies but I must inform you that from my sources you are incorrect on that point... some of these types were built in later periods. As mentioned I learned this by reading The Venetians then coming here and searching for further information via Fausto's identity. I added a relevant and explanatory quote over here at Wiktionary if you are interested to learn more. prat (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Solution just proposed

It seems to me the above discussion of prat and Constantine actually does propose a solution. You just have to consider it. On the one hand this is a really super article. It explains the matter of the banks of oars totally lucidly. I would hate to see that go anywhere else. On the other hand expansion is needed for the special types of vessel. More could be put in: the inventor, some main battle, changes over the ages, what not. The two approaches can be combined simply by the use of the "main" template. So, each type would have a brief introduction here and a full article somewhere else linked by "main". That article would have a "see also" leading to here. I believe that is the way it is done. I therefore vote for that solution. I think I will put in a few "main"s to try it out. I'm not really working on ships right now. If we go for this solution then the proposal tag should be removed.Botteville (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, all right, I misunderstood the situation a little. Links have already been set up on those topics to here. I'm going to butt out. But before I do, I recommend, not splitting this article up as is, but creating new, expanded articles on each of those topics. That is a lot of work, I know. Once the decision is made the tag should come out, as it is an obstacle to further work. Nobody will create the articles until the matter is "decided."Botteville (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Your approach of making more articles and summarizing in relevant context articles seems to be the de-facto wiki way ... it makes sense to me and seems to be similar to what I was proposing. By the way I don't think anyone can block creating new articles ... that's just not how Wikipedia works. See also the quote I link to above to refute the false assertion that all this stuff belongs in some ancient, nation-state centric era out of classical studies. prat (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hellenistic-era warships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013221811/http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/ships.pdf to http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/ships.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

deceres - a typo?

deceres seems to be a typo but it is not obvious what it should be - can anyone figure out what it should be? (from Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click)

Different explanation of hemiolia

The current explanation of the term “hemiolia” (ἡμιολία) has a weak point: The notion of “one and a half files of oarsmen” doesn't make immediate sense. A different explanation can be found in Benselers Griechisch-Deutsches Schulwörterbuch, Leipzig and Berlin 1931: „Es war nur zur Hälfte mit Ruderern besetzt (daher sein Name), um für die Kämpfer Raum zu behalten.“ (“It was only manned by half the number of oarsmen (hence its name) to make room for the fighters.”) A weak point of that is that the meaning “half” can't be directly derived from that of the adjective, although its female form “ἡμιόλια” looks suggestively similar. So I won't change it, but I'm submitting it for the consideration of the editors of this article. ◅ Sebastian 13:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: please go ahead and add it to the article as an alternative interpretation. Constantine ✍ 19:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I'll do that. ◅ Sebastian 01:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. One thing I noticed that appears to be a mistake in the citation of Morrison 2004: Our article first says “they would have had 15 oars on each side, with a full file of ten and a half file of five” but then goes on to explain that there may have been only one file of oars, citing the same source. Can someone with access to the source please check which of these contradicting statements is actually in the source? ◅ Sebastian 02:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

For now, I merged the two contradicting statements as if they were both in the source, so that at least the wording in our article is consistent. Still, as per the above, it needs to be checked by someone with access to the source. ◅ Sebastian 02:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)