Armageddon Reef

> >
> > What are we talking about here? There is the 'Caligula's
> > Giant Ship' about 95 metres long, but that is a barge
> > thought to have been built to carry an obelisk from Egypt
> > to Rome.
> >
> > Doug
>
> "The largest oar-powered ships ever were built appeared during
> the reign of Ptolemy IV of Egypt in the second century BC.
> These super ships had a catamaran hull, with two hulls full of
> rowers and a large deck extending over both hulls like a modern
> aircraft carrier's deck. The writer Athenaeus reports this ship
> was 420 feet long and 57 feet wide. The third level oars were 57
> feet long. It carried 4000 rowers, 400 other crewmen, and 2850
> marines. It was the largest warship the world would see until
> the twentieth century. Ancient Superships reveals more of the
> amazing ship-building techniques from Antiquity."
>
> http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/An
> cient_history/programme_62.php
>
4000 rowers -- I don't think so!!
That works out to 1000 rowers a side, even stacking them there simply is not
enough room for that many men in a ship that size!! Impossible even in
science fiction.
Quintirirem is about the largest oar powered ship built and it was largely
for show, certainly it wasn't good for much else. Too hard to maneuver and
coordinating all those rowers becomes difficult completely impractable as a
warship, couldn't stay at sea for very long, as it simply could not carry
supplies for all that crew.
Once you get above three levels of rowers the length of the oars becomes
impractale, don't forget that the rower had to lift them out of the water
and all those rowers had to be in sync or the vessel went nowhere. Then
there was the problem of loading. How long do you think it took for all
those rowers to take their seats?

Don't believe everything you see on the History Channel -- or for that
matter read on the internet!
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:29:47 -0500, "Spacy Bickerson"
<somebody.RemoveThis@microsoft.net> wrote:

>> >
>> > What are we talking about here? There is the 'Caligula's
>> > Giant Ship' about 95 metres long, but that is a barge
>> > thought to have been built to carry an obelisk from Egypt
>> > to Rome.
>> >
>> > Doug
>>
>> "The largest oar-powered ships ever were built appeared during
>> the reign of Ptolemy IV of Egypt in the second century BC.
>> These super ships had a catamaran hull, with two hulls full of
>> rowers and a large deck extending over both hulls like a modern
>> aircraft carrier's deck. The writer Athenaeus reports this ship
>> was 420 feet long and 57 feet wide. The third level oars were 57
>> feet long. It carried 4000 rowers, 400 other crewmen, and 2850
>> marines. It was the largest warship the world would see until
>> the twentieth century. Ancient Superships reveals more of the
>> amazing ship-building techniques from Antiquity."
>>
>> http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/An
>> cient_history/programme_62.php
>>
>4000 rowers -- I don't think so!!
>That works out to 1000 rowers a side, even stacking them there simply is not
>enough room for that many men in a ship that size!! Impossible even in
>science fiction.
>Quintirirem is about the largest oar powered ship built and it was largely
>for show, certainly it wasn't good for much else. Too hard to maneuver and
>coordinating all those rowers becomes difficult completely impractable as a
>warship, couldn't stay at sea for very long, as it simply could not carry
>supplies for all that crew.
>Once you get above three levels of rowers the length of the oars becomes
>impractale, don't forget that the rower had to lift them out of the water
>and all those rowers had to be in sync or the vessel went nowhere. Then
>there was the problem of loading. How long do you think it took for all
>those rowers to take their seats?
>
>Don't believe everything you see on the History Channel -- or for that
>matter read on the internet!
>
with 420' of hull allowing a fairish chunk of no rower length at the
bow that's still only a density of 3 rowers per linear foot of hull
side. given there are 3 banks of rowers and multiple men per oar they
should have been able to manage that many oarsmen.

as for it being the largest warship ever built pre modern times the
chinese are supposed to have built some real whoppers before they
closed down their exploring the world.
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

>>4000 rowers -- I don't think so!!
>>That works out to 1000 rowers a side, even stacking them there simply is
>>not
>>enough room for that many men in a ship that size!! Impossible even in
>>science fiction.
>>Quintirirem is about the largest oar powered ship built and it was largely
>>for show, certainly it wasn't good for much else. Too hard to maneuver and
>>coordinating all those rowers becomes difficult completely impractable as
>>a
>>warship, couldn't stay at sea for very long, as it simply could not carry
>>supplies for all that crew.
>>Once you get above three levels of rowers the length of the oars becomes
>>impractale, don't forget that the rower had to lift them out of the water
>>and all those rowers had to be in sync or the vessel went nowhere. Then
>>there was the problem of loading. How long do you think it took for all
>>those rowers to take their seats?
>>
>>Don't believe everything you see on the History Channel -- or for that
>>matter read on the internet!
>>
> with 420' of hull allowing a fairish chunk of no rower length at the
> bow that's still only a density of 3 rowers per linear foot of hull
> side. given there are 3 banks of rowers and multiple men per oar they
> should have been able to manage that many oarsmen.
>
> as for it being the largest warship ever built pre modern times the
> chinese are supposed to have built some real whoppers before they
> closed down their exploring the world.

We are talking oar powered ships or galleys, which the Chinese did not
build -- at least not as ocean going vessels.
But - the argument is that this size of vessel would simply be impractical -
consider:

It would have taken an impractically long time to seat the rowers even free
rowers who did not have to be chained

You don't think that whenever an oarsman had to take a dump or pee that he'd
be excused to go to the head do you?
With that many men sitting at the oar benches the bilge would soon have
become the largest porta-potty ever made!

The oarsmen had to be given fresh water at regular intervals and that many
men would have required hundreds of gallons per hour otherwise they would
have fainted from dehydration and then where would you be?

The oarsmen had to be fed occasionally - if not on the ship then before
embarking and the result would be as suggested above. If on the ship where
would all that food be stored, and don't suggest the hold because galleys
didn't have holds.

The Greek Navy has sponsored the building and crewing of a galley, only one
bank of oars. Look it up on the internet, the part about the crew taking its
seats is quite interesting.
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:40:05 -0500, "David Rorer" <drorer.DeleteThis@fuse.net>
wrote:

>
>>>4000 rowers -- I don't think so!!
>>>That works out to 1000 rowers a side, even stacking them there simply is
>>>not
>>>enough room for that many men in a ship that size!! Impossible even in
>>>science fiction.
>>>Quintirirem is about the largest oar powered ship built and it was largely
>>>for show, certainly it wasn't good for much else. Too hard to maneuver and
>>>coordinating all those rowers becomes difficult completely impractable as
>>>a
>>>warship, couldn't stay at sea for very long, as it simply could not carry
>>>supplies for all that crew.
>>>Once you get above three levels of rowers the length of the oars becomes
>>>impractale, don't forget that the rower had to lift them out of the water
>>>and all those rowers had to be in sync or the vessel went nowhere. Then
>>>there was the problem of loading. How long do you think it took for all
>>>those rowers to take their seats?
>>>
>>>Don't believe everything you see on the History Channel -- or for that
>>>matter read on the internet!
>>>
>> with 420' of hull allowing a fairish chunk of no rower length at the
>> bow that's still only a density of 3 rowers per linear foot of hull
>> side. given there are 3 banks of rowers and multiple men per oar they
>> should have been able to manage that many oarsmen.
>>
>> as for it being the largest warship ever built pre modern times the
>> chinese are supposed to have built some real whoppers before they
>> closed down their exploring the world.
>
>We are talking oar powered ships or galleys, which the Chinese did not
>build -- at least not as ocean going vessels.
>But - the argument is that this size of vessel would simply be impractical -
>consider:
>
>It would have taken an impractically long time to seat the rowers even free
>rowers who did not have to be chained
>
>You don't think that whenever an oarsman had to take a dump or pee that he'd
>be excused to go to the head do you?
>With that many men sitting at the oar benches the bilge would soon have
>become the largest porta-potty ever made!
>
>The oarsmen had to be given fresh water at regular intervals and that many
>men would have required hundreds of gallons per hour otherwise they would
>have fainted from dehydration and then where would you be?
>
>The oarsmen had to be fed occasionally - if not on the ship then before
>embarking and the result would be as suggested above. If on the ship where
>would all that food be stored, and don't suggest the hold because galleys
>didn't have holds.
>
>The Greek Navy has sponsored the building and crewing of a galley, only one
>bank of oars. Look it up on the internet, the part about the crew taking its
>seats is quite interesting.
>
>

it would certainly seem to be a highly impractical thing as a working
ship. as an exercise in ego pumping though it seems possible enough.
out once or twice a year for the symbolic "aren't i scary" trips
around the harbour and the rest of it's life tied up to the dock to
impress the neighbours.
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

"Brian McDonald" <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:d1c7q3ps066374sfis97lpn6p95es2s5ap@4ax.com...
>>
>>You don't think that whenever an oarsman had to take a dump or pee that
>>he'd
>>be excused to go to the head do you?
>>With that many men sitting at the oar benches the bilge would soon have
>>become the largest porta-potty ever made!
>>
>>The oarsmen had to be given fresh water at regular intervals and that many
>>men would have required hundreds of gallons per hour otherwise they would
>>have fainted from dehydration and then where would you be?
>>
>>The oarsmen had to be fed occasionally - if not on the ship then before
>>embarking and the result would be as suggested above. If on the ship where
>>would all that food be stored, and don't suggest the hold because galleys
>>didn't have holds.
>>
>>The Greek Navy has sponsored the building and crewing of a galley, only
>>one
>>bank of oars. Look it up on the internet, the part about the crew taking
>>its
>>seats is quite interesting.
>>
>>
>
> it would certainly seem to be a highly impractical thing as a working
> ship. as an exercise in ego pumping though it seems possible enough.
> out once or twice a year for the symbolic "aren't i scary" trips
> around the harbour and the rest of it's life tied up to the dock to
> impress the neighbours.

That's probably what the fate of the quintireem was - twice around the
harbor - in calm weather only - then back to the slips to be used as a
floating banquet hall - after the bilges were cleaned of all that waste!
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

Spacy Bickerson wrote:
>>> What are we talking about here? There is the 'Caligula's
>>> Giant Ship' about 95 metres long, but that is a barge
>>> thought to have been built to carry an obelisk from Egypt
>>> to Rome.
>>>
>>> Doug
>> "The largest oar-powered ships ever were built appeared during
>> the reign of Ptolemy IV of Egypt in the second century BC.
>> These super ships had a catamaran hull, with two hulls full of
>> rowers and a large deck extending over both hulls like a modern
>> aircraft carrier's deck. The writer Athenaeus reports this ship
>> was 420 feet long and 57 feet wide. The third level oars were 57
>> feet long. It carried 4000 rowers, 400 other crewmen, and 2850
>> marines. It was the largest warship the world would see until
>> the twentieth century. Ancient Superships reveals more of the
>> amazing ship-building techniques from Antiquity."
>>
>> http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/An
>> cient_history/programme_62.php
>>
> 4000 rowers -- I don't think so!!
> That works out to 1000 rowers a side, even stacking them there simply is not
> enough room for that many men in a ship that size!! Impossible even in
> science fiction.
> Quintirirem is about the largest oar powered ship built and it was largely
> for show, certainly it wasn't good for much else. Too hard to maneuver and
> coordinating all those rowers becomes difficult completely impractable as a
> warship, couldn't stay at sea for very long, as it simply could not carry
> supplies for all that crew.
> Once you get above three levels of rowers the length of the oars becomes
> impractale, don't forget that the rower had to lift them out of the water
> and all those rowers had to be in sync or the vessel went nowhere. Then
> there was the problem of loading. How long do you think it took for all
> those rowers to take their seats?
>
> Don't believe everything you see on the History Channel -- or for that
> matter read on the internet!
>
>
You are missing a few points. Ramming this thing wasn't going to work.
You had to take what amounted to a floating island fortress that held a
large number of troops. The rowers were normally free men and took part
in combat. A lot of supplies and the kinds of weapons normally used in
siege warfare.

You are also ruling out things like counter balanced oars with more than
one person pulling on them and I would not count on the Greeks having
figured out some way to use more than one person on an oar. They were
getting good with complex machines.
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

David Rorer wrote:
> "Brian McDonald" <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:d1c7q3ps066374sfis97lpn6p95es2s5ap@4ax.com...
>>> You don't think that whenever an oarsman had to take a dump or pee that
>>> he'd
>>> be excused to go to the head do you?
>>> With that many men sitting at the oar benches the bilge would soon have
>>> become the largest porta-potty ever made!
>>>
>>> The oarsmen had to be given fresh water at regular intervals and that many
>>> men would have required hundreds of gallons per hour otherwise they would
>>> have fainted from dehydration and then where would you be?
>>>
>>> The oarsmen had to be fed occasionally - if not on the ship then before
>>> embarking and the result would be as suggested above. If on the ship where
>>> would all that food be stored, and don't suggest the hold because galleys
>>> didn't have holds.
>>>
>>> The Greek Navy has sponsored the building and crewing of a galley, only
>>> one
>>> bank of oars. Look it up on the internet, the part about the crew taking
>>> its
>>> seats is quite interesting.
>>>
>>>
>> it would certainly seem to be a highly impractical thing as a working
>> ship. as an exercise in ego pumping though it seems possible enough.
>> out once or twice a year for the symbolic "aren't i scary" trips
>> around the harbour and the rest of it's life tied up to the dock to
>> impress the neighbours.
>
> That's probably what the fate of the quintireem was - twice around the
> harbor - in calm weather only - then back to the slips to be used as a
> floating banquet hall - after the bilges were cleaned of all that waste!
>
>

Sounds good except being in front of quintireem in a three banked galley
would have been a bad thing if you are supposed to stop it. The bigger
ship could carry catapults and such. It could fire down on you and it
had a lot more troops on board. You weren't going to do much damage by
ramming it from the front either.

You might be faster and more agile but if you were in what DW calls a
wall of battle sent to stop them this isn't going to do you that much good.
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

> Sounds good except being in front of quintireem in a three banked galley
> would have been a bad thing if you are supposed to stop it. The bigger
> ship could carry catapults and such. It could fire down on you and it had
> a lot more troops on board. You weren't going to do much damage by ramming
> it from the front either.
>
> You might be faster and more agile but if you were in what DW calls a
> wall of battle sent to stop them this isn't going to do you that much good

Suggest you do some reading up on ancient navy's. Bigger is not always
better!
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

David Rorer wrote:
>> Sounds good except being in front of quintireem in a three banked galley
>> would have been a bad thing if you are supposed to stop it. The bigger
>> ship could carry catapults and such. It could fire down on you and it had
>> a lot more troops on board. You weren't going to do much damage by ramming
>> it from the front either.
>>
>> You might be faster and more agile but if you were in what DW calls a
>> wall of battle sent to stop them this isn't going to do you that much good
>
> Suggest you do some reading up on ancient navy's. Bigger is not always
> better!
>
>

True but being small and fast doesn't always work either. They weren't
spending all that money just for show. They had every reason to think
they were going to get their money's worth at least on the military
construction. Of course tactics and luck still made a huge difference.

I very carefully stated some circumstances under which they did get
their money's worth.

Where they the fastest thing afloat or cheap to make and support? No but
under the right circumstances they could force anything that could out
run them to turn away and run for safety or die.

Sort of like an Abrams tank. Way way overpriced unless of course you are
having a hot war.
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef