Last issue I started a review on Gavin Tovera's set of 1-1 ancient galley warfare rules - Mare Nostrum (Our Sea). While much of the set is good, there are problems and conflicts that players of the rules should be aware. We are a historical newsletter, and by showing the ahistorical aspects of Gavin's rules, it can be "fine-tuned" to provide a true to history simulation. Dolphins Gavin's dolphins are large weights suspended from a warship's mast and spar, used to hole enemy ships that have ranged alongside. He is correct about their existence, but incorrect about their usage. These weights were used, to the best of my research, by merchant ships. There was two reasons for this. First, the merchant ship would have its rig, while a warship stripped for action would not, and second a merchant ship had the storage area for the ammo, while a warship might only carry some stories for ballast. We first hear of dolphins in Thucydides' Peloponnesian War. He mentions that at Syrakuse (413 BC) the Athenians, without a harbor, made one by anchoring merchantmen at intervals with "yardarms fitted as dolphin bearers." Athenian triereis could dash for safety into this makeshift "harbor" while the pursuing Syrakusians ran the risk of having a large weight being dropped on their light hull, while passing the merchant ship. At least one Syrakusian trieres was damaged this way (Thucyclicies 7.38. 2-3.). There are cases of warships carrying weights to be dropped, but this is in the medieval period, and does not count in a Hellenistic study. If Gavin was to add merchant ships to his game, this would give them some punch. (It would also give the Hemolias something to chase.) However, warships should not be equipped with them in our period. Towers The righting tower was the logical extension of land combat. Greek Hoplites were vulnerable to plunging fire as the 3' Hoplon was hard to roil up to protect the head. It was easier to crouch behind the shield. Therefore, Greek walls included towers to station light armed infantry (Psiloi) to pelt the phalanxes with missiles. The Greeks also had a hard time handling missile fire from Phoenician style triercis during the Persian Wars, since they were higher than Greek warships. Yet, righting towers arc reported the first time in a strictly naval action at Chios in 201 BC. (Polybius 16.3.12) Thucydides mentions righting towers on merchantmen in Syrakuse Harbor (Thucydides 7.25.6), but these are used in siege operations. Towers with marines stationed in them are also mentioned by the engineer Athenaeus (5.208b-209c) in his account of the superfighter built by Hiero, the Tyrant of Syrakuse (306-215 BC), but again this is a merchant ship. Livy describes that the Rhodian Admiral had "turrets" on his "Four" at Sides (190 BC) (Livy 37.23.4, 24.6). Nevertheless by the time of the Roman Civil Wars, towers were commonly mentioned in accounts of naval battles. (See Appian's Bcl. Civ. 5.106, 5.12 1, Dio Cassius' Account of Actium, 50.33.4. for examples.) By taking this in all in context it would appear that fighting towers were an idea of a Macedonian or an allied naval officer and were first used in battle against Rhodes and Pergamum at the battle of Chios, 201 BC. The affect of the towers in battle must have impressed the Rhodians -- the foremost seapower in the eastern Mediterranean -- because by Sides they are using them against the Seleucids. The use spread to the Roman fleets during the late Republic. This means that towers cannot be used until 201 BC and then only by Macedonians. After this their use spread and by at least 36 BC, they were a common part of a warship's armament. Fire Pots The Fire Pot was invented by the Rhodian Admiral Pausistratus in 190 BC according to Polybius (Suidas ' 21.7(51). This 'fire bearer" was funnel shaped and was suspended from the ship's bow at the apex of a pair of V shaped poles. By use of an iron chain the bearer could be tipped, and hot embers would cascade onto an enemy's deck (Appian's Syr. 24). There is no written evidence that any other powers used the fire bearers. Fire Fire at sea would horrendous for an ancient galley. So that they could remain fast the ship's wood was dry and would burn readily. Thucydides describes fire ships used in the siege of Syrakuse (7.53.4). but it isn't until Actium (31 BC) that fire is mentioned being thrown by catapults to set another ship afire. The reason for this technological lag must have been that it took a long time to figure out how to carry combustibles aboard a highly flammable vessel safely. (For more about Actium, see Plutarch's, Antony., Dio Cassius, 50.33.4.) The Corvus I do not want to get into a technical discussion about how the Conus (Raven) worked, as there arc many tomes out on the subject (best is by H. Wallinga, The Boarding Bridge of the Romans (Groningen 1956)). What we want to inquire about, does the corvus work as it should in the simulation? One fact that does surface in corvus research is that once the bridge was released, its target was clasped and could not get away. Polybius says about first use at Mylae: "Then. as they came into collision the Carthaginians found that their vessels were invariably held by the "ravens." ... so that any ship which came to close quarters found itself inescapably grappled." (Polybius 1.23.) Note, there is nothing about missing the enemy with the corvus. Polybius uses the words "invariably held. inescapably grappled." But if the corvus was so great a weapon, why did the Romans discontinue their use? A ship with a corvus must have been terrible unstable, especially when 24' high mast that supported the 36' bridge was set up, ready to drop. So the answer must be it was made for a lumbering slow moving "Five" with little maneuverability. It was a short lived innovation and as soon as possible it was removed from Roman hulls, once its purpose was served. When the convus was rigged, the ship was very unstable, and once the crew came proficient at the art of naval maneuverability, the corvus equipment would have been discarded with a sigh of relief. The corvus totally vanishes from history by 255 BC, its carriers being sunk in the great storm at Camarina. It is possible that at Tyndaris, 257 BC, that the consul C. Atilius Regulus' squadron of 10 ships were not corvus equipped as they fought the Punics on equal terms (Polybius 1,25, 5) and he lost 8-9 ships sunk, none captured. When the rest of the Roman fleet finally engaged with superiority of numbers, they drove off the Carthaginians, taking 10 ships and sinking 8. Yet this is the first we hear of Punic ships sunk, the Romans apparently are starting to use the ram offensively. So perhaps, the fleet could now be split into green and veteran. As the Romans added ships or refitted captures, those crews would be green, and they were filled will the corvus. As they got experienced they discarded the corvus, and depended on the ram, rather than entirely on the boarding school of tactics. What does this tell us about ships with corvi? First, the ship has to be a "5'' or larger. (Romans had two "6s" at Ecnomus, 2 56 BC.) Threes and fours were not robust enough to carry the bridge. Second a ship with a corvus was slow and unwieldy, easily outmaneuvered. Third, once the corvus was "dropped." its weight would force the "beak" at the end into the wood of the hull of the enemy and hold him. Once the ship was caught, the only way to remove the corvus was to capture the tower, this why once the "raven" was dropped it was hard to retrieve and even harder to destroy. It must have taken many crew, much time to dislodge and reset the bridge. It was during this period that the Roman ship would be most vulnerable. But perhaps it could be jettisoned, and the ship could free to fight again. (Although it still could be outmaneuvered by the Carthaginians.) Light and Heavy Ships In ancient literature the terms light and heavy decked and undecked ships are used repeatedly. Undecked ship (Ataphracts) have their rowers in the open where they can receive damage from missiles while decked (Calaphracts) have the rowers protected. This has nothing to do with a light or heavy ship. This apparently refers to the number of marines (Epibatai) carried into battle. Athenian light trieres were decked, yet only carried 14: 10 marines and four archers. Corinthian - "3s" were decked ships but their marine complement was closer to 40 men. Xerxes added 30 men to each Persian and allied trieres. (See Herodotus 7.96.) As men and armor are added, each additional marine's average weight would be about 210 lbs. This would effect the ship's performance. Athen's 1st rank ships had excellent performance because its ships were kept dry, were not waterlogged carried only enough marines to keep the ship from being boarded if the ram hung up and the ship couldn't withdraw. The ship was "light" in displacement, not "heavy" like its enemies from the ship boarding school. The Rhodians continued this practice with their "light" 4s. The number of marines were less than that of a "heavy" 4, 19, compared to 50. There were 6 archers, and 2 catapult operators (Segre, Dedica 231-33). The Carthaginians were the last to use "light" ships in the Hellenistic age. (For more on the "fast" Carthaginian 5, see Polybius 1. 4647 and 51.) A Carthginian 5 would have 30 marines, with a proportion being archers, a Roman 5 carried 120 marines (two centuries?). There is no mention of archers except' in sieges. (See Thiel's Studies, 119) Presumably, both carried catapults, though they are not mentioned by Polybius (Polybius 6,19). At the final battle of the first Punic War off the Agates Insulae, the Romans with their new model "light" 5 copied from the Carthaginians, rowed rings around the overladen Punic fleet. The positions were reversed, with his trained and drilled oarsmen the Consul Lutatius' fleet was superior to the Carthaginians' hastily trained oarsmen and untrained marines. Perhaps the Roman General only took into battle the 40 marines that make up a "5's"permanent garrison, but we will never know (Polybius 1.61). The battle was a rout, the Carthagians did not have a corvus to redress the balance, but even if they did, the did not have the material to achieve success with it. The lack of "fast" or "light" ships is the biggest single omission in these rules. I would suggest including the following added to Mare Nostrum: Special rules: Fast ships always have Ex. or Good Rowers. (Ex. is preferred.) Fast ships do not have to halt to move forward after backing water. Instead they move forward at 1/2 cruise speed. They must roll for rower fatigue as this is the same effect on the rowers as moving full speed. Their turn mode is the same is cruise speed. Quads. keep the same turn mode as triremes. Other rules: Allow the ships with bad and poor rowers to move at ramming speed once in the game. It was that not difficult to get up to ramming speed, it was maintaining it for long periods. If a ship rams a target while moving at ramming speed, an extra D-6 should be added to the ramming dice to represent the additional impetus. THE NEW SHIPS Light Trireme (8 hull points) Speed: Ram: 28" Full: 22" Cruise: 16" Reverse: 10" Light triremes could move backward as fast a heavy triremes could move forward. Crew: Marines and archers 14. Die damage +4 to result. (Better maneuverability meant better ram damage.) Light Quadrireme (10 hull points) Speed: Ram: 26" Full: 20" Cruise: 15" Reverse: 10" Marines and archers 26 Only 1 catapult. Costs 5 marines to add. Die damage: Use Trireme table +6 to restart. Light Quinquereme (12 hull points) Speed: Ram: 22" Full: 18" Cruise: 12" Reverse: 8" Marines and archers: 40 men. Up to 3 catapults may be carried Cost 5 marines per catapult. Die Damage +4 to result Heavy Quadrireme (10 hull points) Speed: Ram: 22" Full: 18" Cruise: 12" Reverse: 6" Marines and archers: 50 men. Only 3 catapults. Costs 5 marines per catapult. Die damage: Use trireme table and add 2 to the result. The rules and 15mm ships am available from: Gavin B. Tovrea 1519 Pen Hollow CT 89030 I wish to convert Gavin's rules to 1:1200 scale I believe it could be done with a little effort. More on this concept, later I sure there I will be writing more about adding additional ship types to these rules in a later issue. -Stephen Phenow Back to Table of Contents The Messenger June 1995 Back to The Messenger List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1995 by HMGS/PSW. This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com