Talk:Galley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Galley article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Top	rated as top-importance on the assessment scale

I have put back a paragragh on the reduction in complexity from the most sophisticated galleys associated with the Hellenistic period. Something ought to be said about this, even if someone does not like what I say Iglonghurst 09:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have eliminated the following statements because 1) How does one prove a negative? 2) Galleys never went away 3) False 4) How do guns along the side point forward?

1) By AD 325 no more galleys with multiple rows of oars existed.

2) Galleys saw a European comeback in the 14th century as Venice expanded its influence in the Mediterranean in response to increased Turkish naval presence after 1470, but medieval triremes used a simpler arrangement with one row of oars and three rowers to each oar

3) which were no longer profitable after the introduction of "round ships" (sailing ships which were the precursor of the galleon type).

4) As converted for military use they were higher and larger than regular ("light") galleys, and mounted a large number (around 50) guns, mostly along the sides interspersed with the oars, and pointing forward. Galleys saw a European comeback in the 14th century as Venice expanded its influence in the Mediterranean in response to increased Turkish naval presence after 1470, but medieval triremes used a simpler arrangement with one row of oars and three rowers to each oar

[edit] Skeptical of 40-reme

I really don't want to say anything about things I know nothing about, but the "polyremes" section seems a bit ridiculous to me. The part about a 40-reme having space for 2000 marines in 100s BC seems unlikely, and the section is missing a citation. Should that part be taken out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sswan (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Against Large Sailing Ships

Large high-sided sailing ships had always been very formidable obstacles for galleys. As early as 413 BC defeated triremes could seek shelter behind a screen of merchant ships (Thucydides (7, 41), Needham 4, pt3, p693)

Could someone elaborate why? I don't doubt the claim as such, I'd just like to know the reason.

I see why it's a bad idea to point the longitudinal axis of a slim and fragile but heavily crewed ship at the broadside of a ship of the line and close to point-blank range. But even the thick timbers of the Napoleonic ships-of-the-line wouldn't have been enough to stop a ram with the momentum of a hundred ton ship behind it and it can't have been easy to fix that holes in the middle of a battle. So why would ships that don't have a broadside gun battery be a formidable obstacle? Because galleys attacking them were vulnerable to being attacked themselves by the enemy galleys garding the merchant ships? 82.135.2.210 (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First, Trieres had about 40 tons (including the crew), not 100 tons. Secondly, there always is a risk of the galley becoming entangled, either by accident, or intentionally. In any case, galleys who are close to large sailing ships are subject to projectiles coming from above - arrows, spears, heavy stones. Given the light build of galleys, they were quite vulnerable to this kind of attack, and offered little shelter to the crew. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. =)

On the displacement: The figures I know are 80 tons. The Olympias is listed as 70 and if that's without crew then 80 with crew sounds about right. Those hundred tons were meant as order of magnitude anyway. 82.135.67.59 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, my copy of Morrison/Coates has 50 tons fully loaded and crewed. I think I have the 40 tons from an old Scientific American article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well trieres were around for a long time and built by dozens of States with differeing philosophies for naval warfare so 40 tons might be a lower limit (in that case a third of your weight would be rowers) while 80-100 tons was the upper limit (because every ton that wasn't rowers or kept the ship from falling apart when ramming was wasted).

Perhaps against an enemy who had mostly bigger and more solid ships like quinquiremes you'd want heavier triremes so they'd have bigger staying power in the kind of close quarters combat you described above. Or conversely you'd want ships as light and as manoeuvrable as possible.

Or heavier ones for power projection and longer stays at sea while the light ones where for shore protection where their lack of seaworthiness wasn't a problem.

Would be interesting to think about those possibilities.

Of course there are the more mundane explanations of lack of data or a conflict between tons displacement and tons burthen or something like that. =) 82.135.67.59 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)