Military Review

Rowers and oars

112
Rowers and oars



Reply to the article "Roman fleet. Ship type and design"

Even a land hedgehog in the Tambov forest is clear that a ship with three rows of oars will be faster than one. And with five - faster than three. And so on. The same ship with a diesel engine in 3000 hp (other things being equal or close to the parameters) will be faster than with 1000-strong. As I have already said, from the book into the book float, the wave of the wave, the “ancient trireme”, however, for some reason always in the modern image. Not a single “antique” vase, not a single “antique” fresco with a reliable, uniquely interpretable and equally unequivocally dated image of a ship with a multi-tier arrangement of oars, I think, have not yet been able to present. Everything that sources offer us (for example, Shershov A.P., “K stories military shipbuilding "), upon closer inspection, it turns out to be either sculptural compositions of some monuments (triumphal / rostral columns, etc.), or - decorations on dishes or anything else. "Painting on the wine cup", for example.

And, by the way, monumental artists and graphic artists of all times and peoples never considered themselves bound by the need to precisely observe the forms and proportions of the objects depicted. You can abide, but you can also! There is even a term such as “stylization”. And then there is the term "canon." Where did the portraits of Peter the Great and Alexander Suvorov come from, encased in the blued steel of knight armor? Which they never wore? And such a canon was in those days. No more.

Nothing has come down to us that could even be considered a “trireme drawing.” We got pictures. Reached the canon.

Two questions:

1) how canon fit the prototype?

2) when did it originate? If during or after the formation of KVI, then there is simply nothing to talk about. The artist drew not what he saw, but what the history teacher convinced him of.

It would be nice to have an independent, so to speak, “absolute” method of dating all these columns, bas-reliefs, vases and night pots. By the principle - a sensor was attached to the object, the device squeaked, and gave the age of the product. But what is not, is not, which means that these images do not possess any evidential force. However, perhaps, modern historians know better than the Greek eyewitnesses what the Greek trireme looked like. Those of them who are more honorable, and indicate in the captions to the illustrations: "reconstruction".

In the same A.P. Shershov has drawings "trireme" with cuts, where everything is painted in detail. And in the book Dudszus, Henriot, Krumrey. Das Grossbuch der Shiffstipen (Transpress, Berlin, 1983), and in general a sea of ​​other literature on the history of shipbuilding. And everywhere - reconstruction. This can be seen with the naked eye: all these drawings are made according to the modern requirements of GOST. I am not an inventor, not a creator, not even a designer or a reconstructor, but by descriptive geometry I always had a reinforced concrete “five” that was at an institute that was at a military school.

Yes, the plans, “side plates” and cuts are pretty. But it seems to me that the authors of these paper triremes themselves have never tried to flush upwind at least on the standard Navy-6 fleet, a six-weighted lifeboat. Displacement (roughly speaking, weight) of empty - 960 kg. With a full-time team, equipment and supplies of about one and a half tons. At the school I was the captain of the boat crew. So, authoritatively declare: the work of a convict. Especially if the wolf has spread points by four. It is not by chance that “hard labor” is the galleys on which convicted criminals serve their term for the rowers. This is then the maritime term crawled onto dry land while preserving its, so to speak, penitentiary content.

Rowing is very hard work. Firstly, it requires great physical strength in order to at least simply lift and bring in a heavy oar, and secondly, an excellent sense of rhythm. I beg you not to confuse the pleasure boat on the Moscow River with a lifeboat and the more so the gallery! With the height of the freeboard of the “six” of order 40-50, the length of the oar is about 4 m, it is made of ash, a heavy, durable tree, and the roller, the counterweight, is also flooded with lead to facilitate the oarsman to lift the oar from the water.

Think about it. For a six-wheeled boat, a sideboard half a meter is quite sufficient: its full-time team is 8 people, weight is 1500 kg. Suppose our hypothetical trireme has only 10 oars in a row on each side, just 60. Suppose a rower is paddle, plus ten deck sailors, about thirty soldiers, plus bosses and “gunners” - only about 110 people. I emphasize in particular - all my “suppose” are taken not just by the minimum, but below the lower limit, outrageously small, all the calculations here I simplify to the limit and far beyond this limit! But even with such an unrealistic preferential approach, we get the vessel by tonnage in 150 tons. Such a vessel must have a depth of at least one meter, unless, of course, it is not a river barge and not a port scow. It’s a long time to explain why, take it on faith or check with the ship’s engineers. Just do not forget to warn that we are talking about a seagoing vessel.

Now we will build the simplest drawing. Bin Newton is not needed here, it suffices to recall the theorem of Thales. We get the length of the paddle of the bottom row of the order of eight meters! The boat oar weighs about 4-5 kg, I don’t remember exactly, unfortunately. How much will the galley weigh for the bottom row? 8-10? Dudka, 32-40, since the dependency is cubic here, any engineer will confirm this to you, not just the shipbuilder. Is it possible to roll such a paddle alone? Many, many hours in a row? Not. Who doubts - I ask for oars, at least for that very yal. So, we have two paddlers on the paddle, and that is speculative! - who tried? maybe they need three there? - not one by one, which automatically increases our crew from a 110 man to 170. What happens to the displacement? It also automatically increases!

The vicious circle, or rather, the spiral, which at all times has been a curse, is a bugaboo for engineers designing mobile equipment, no matter which wheelchairs or strategic bombers. The power grows - the mass grows, the greater the mass - the greater the required power! Though cry! Therefore, qualitative jumps in this area were achieved only by a sharp increase in the power density of the engines and the efficiency of propulsion. Example: Parsons created a workable steam turbine, and immediately warships significantly increased in speed with a sharp improvement in other martial qualities.

But these are only flowers. After all, we still have two rows of oars.

The height of the tier I take in the 1 meter, which again is not enough, well, God be with him. We assume that all the ancient galleys rowers served slaves, which this space between the decks was quite enough even in the course of many days, and even months-long voyages, although this, in fact, contradicts even the KVI, according to which legionaries were on the victorious Roman galleys free Roman citizens. Accordingly, the paddle of the second tier is obtained by a sixteen-meter length and weighing approximately about 300 kg.

Though kill, it is impossible to roll such a paddle while sitting. Neither the two nor the five of us. No, actually it is possible, but for how long will those rowers be enough? For an hour? For half an hour? For ten minutes? And most importantly: what will be the frequency of that rowing? Ten strokes per minute? Five strokes? One? A little later, I'll come back to this, but now quickly look at the third tier. And here the paddle is a length of 24 meter, a mass of 0,7-0,8 tons. By how many people do you want to plant on the paddle? Five each? By ten? How heavy is the ship after that? This means that we are increasing the aircraft again, the displacement will increase again, the ship will become much wider and more draft; - will those rowers pull him? It is necessary to increase the number of oars in the row, but how much will the size of the ship increase? And the displacement? There is grass in the yard, firewood on the grass ... And the wind in the face and a wave of four points? And God forbid, at six?

And let me ask, will the rowers of the first, second and third tiers synchronize their actions? Again, as a seasoned boat team captain, I report: debugging the synchronous, coordinated work of six oarsmen on a lifeboat is a very difficult thing, and despite the fact that the boat crew are entirely enthusiasts, it’s almost a fight for the right to take the place of the rower in the boat. And on the gallery, sorry, bastards, sir. And they have to (if you believe KVI) multi-day work on oars of completely different mass, therefore, with a completely different moment of inertia, therefore, with a completely different working frequency of rowing, and all this is completely synchronous! I emphasize: absolutely synchronous! Gather at least one rower, and Khan, at best, the trireme will stop, at worst leave the course (crashing into the next one), and will break half of the oars before the fight.

It is impossible to use oars with a different moment of inertia on a rowing vessel. Oars must be close in parameters to each other. It is desirable - generally identical. But any scheme proposed by the “reenactors” implies the presence of oars of different lengths and masses, that is, with a different moment of inertia. (By the way, there are two regular spare oars on Yala, as well as 30% stock. And where can you order 30% stock oars on the trireme? Consider how much and which ones.)

Having reached this point in my reasoning, I, to be honest, I myself began to doubt. In the end, my calculations, whatever you say, sin approximation, because they are based on a simple application of the principle of geometric similarity. Maybe it is not fully applicable in this case? To check, I turned to a professional, metalworker, an employee of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ph.D. Mv Degtyarev, with a request to carry out the appropriate calculation according to all the rules of iron and steel. Mikhail Vasilyevich kindly went to meet me, and this is what happened: in order to get, so to speak, the “right to life”, a twenty-five meter oar should have a diameter of 0,5 m (!) Oarlock and weigh 300 kg - it is provided that it is made of pine . Ash, everyone understands, will be harder. So, it turns out, the principle of similitude let me down? I do not think so. 300 kg or 700 - no difference. Both are equally unsuitable for classic, sit-down rowing. So if I made a mistake, then not much, it does not matter.

And now we look at the pictures and engravings of real galleries, well dated and documented, of the 16th — 18th centuries. Fortunately, the galley as a class of a warship remained in the military fleets of many countries for quite a long time, until the end of the 18th century, where before, where later, it was not forced out by the more sophisticated type of ship of the coastal action, the so-called gunboat ), more successfully combined the paddle, sail and artillery weapons.

And here we have whole herds of galleys: Spanish, Genoese, Venetian, French, Swedish, Peter, Turkish, Arab. One and all with one row of oars. Well, okay, Christians are stupid, like traffic jams, but the Arabs have forgotten how to build tririmas too ?!

To clarify the issue read clever books.

Here is what the same professor A.P. Shershov, just a few pages back painfully trying to recreate the trireme, about the Mediterranean gallery: oars could reach the length of 25 m, the weight of the paddle - 300 kg, the number of paddlers - up to 10 by the paddle. The venerable "Das Grosse Buch der Schiffstipen" reports: oars could reach lengths of 12 m, paddle weight 300 kg. With the height of the galley (galeas - heavy deck galleys) in 1,5-2 m.

As we see, there is inconsistency here. But he should not confuse us. Firstly, he, again, is not of a fundamental nature: all the numbers, whatever one may say, are of the same order. Moreover, it cannot be otherwise. In the cited sources, the characteristics of oars are indicated in meters and kilograms. But meter and kilogram are, strictly speaking, very young units. In the "era of galleys" they were not. In the “era of galleys”, inconsistency and hustle in this area could drive any metrology specialist crazy. All these pounds, pounds, spools, ounces, stones, tour livres, etc., etc., etc., not only differed from each other, but also constantly “fluctuated” here and there, depending on the place and time. use. In addition, they still managed to change their value in principle: for example, a pound and a livre are both a measure of weight and a monetary unit. So if a certain chronicler, well, let’s say, Father Bernard of Saint-Denis, writes that Count Montmorency during the siege of Château-Renault used 60-pounder guns, this does not mean anything at all. Guns cost him the price of 60 English pounds apiece? Or weighed on 60 English pounds? Or 60 pounds - core weight? But then - what pounds? English? Russians? (He could have bought it in Muscovy as well!) Or special “artillery” pounds (see Yu. Shokarev, “History weapons. Artillery")?

There are more questions than answers. Therefore, there is not and cannot be any unambiguous translation of old mass-dimensional parameters into modern ones. Speech can go only about approximate, plus-minus bast, translation. So disagreement will be - this is natural. But he will not - and not eat - the principal. Indeed, my calculation is rather rough, the calculation of Degtyarev is engineering-accurate, the reports of historians (based on reliable documentation of the Renaissance) fit very close to one. Nowhere is there a scatter of even an order of magnitude.

Head over to the other side. Thirty years ago, so-called replicas came into fashion, copies of various ancient techniques, made as close as possible to the historical prototype. They copy everything: from Egyptian papyrus boats to the First World War fighters. Including, copy and rowing-sailing vintage ships. For example, in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, a great many replicas of drakkar and Viking ships have been built. All - single row! Englishman Tim Severin created replicas of the Irish rowing-sailing vessel and - oh happiness! - Greek galleys, the notorious "Argo". But you need to: both that and the other - single row!

But maybe no one has yet simply reached the reproduction in nature of the formidable battle trireme? The answer to this question is astounding! The fact of the matter is that “they have come down”. Have tried. And nothing happened!

In the late fifties and early sixties, Hollywood swept another fad: the fashion for films from ancient history. Many of them even became world classics: here are Ben-Hur, Spartak, and Cleopatra. Their budgets, even in modern times, were frantic, especially since the dollar at that time was much more expensive. Producers spared no money, the scale of extras and scenery surpass any imagination. And so, in addition to everything, for the sake of heightened entourage, it was decided to order full-fledged replicas-replicas of antique stone-throwing machines and the same antique trirides. About catapults it is discussed below; this is a separate and very interesting topic, here it is about ships.

So, bad luck came out with a trireme: a matter that seemed so familiar to ancient shipbuilders, it suddenly turned out to be inappropriate for the ship engineers of the mid-twentieth century. I foresee an instant response, the objection of KVI defenders: the ancient shipbuilders possessed "special techniques", magic and hermetic, which allowed them to solve technically impossible tasks now. And then came the unknown nomads, masters chopped into cabbage, and burned scrolls with magic spells. And ends in the water.

No, except for jokes. At the place of custody trad. I would have erected a Monument to the Unknown Nomad in front of each humanitarian university. Truly, if it were not for this omnipresent and elusive guy of uncertain appearance and mysterious origin, it would be much more difficult to hide the ends in water.

And if you remain realistic, then it is clear: the “ancient Greek” carpenter did not know and could not even know a thousandth part of what is known to modern specialists in materials science, mechanics, ship architecture, etc. There were neither aluminum-magnesium alloys, nor titanium, nor ultra-light carbon plastics. If this were not the case, we would all speak Greek now and would have led the colonization of Jupiter’s satellites at an accelerated pace.

In general, filmmakers had to shoot triremes in the pavilion, making them from foam and plywood. With a frame made of duralumin pipes, or I don’t know what. Well, yes they are not used to.

George Kostylev "Rowers and paddles"


***

CONCLUSION. Neither the Greeks, nor the Romans built any two-, three- or more longline ships, because, unlike the historians, they were friends with the head. Opinion about the existence of antiquity "Birem", "trireme", etc. there is a misunderstanding that arose either:
a) due to the complete misunderstanding by the authors of ancient texts about what they write about;
b) due to problems with translation and interpretation. It is very likely that Pliny had a good idea of ​​what he was talking about with Diodorus, but when writing the originals of his works, they used some kind of maritime terminology that had not come down to us, which was customary and common in their time. They couldn’t even think of putting a glossary at the end of the scroll. Then the translator - as usual, through the land shtafrika, besides, perhaps, not a first-class expert on the language, without understanding some kind of speech circulation and not penetrating into the subject, created (on paper) "trireme", "quadrireme", etc. .

And then the original was lost. And that's the cover of truth.

Another option: the author wrote a science fiction novel. Today we have ships with one row of oars. Let's dream up how many enemies we will scare and drown if we have a court - hoo! - with two, three, ... fifteen rows of oars.

The third option: the authors, under the terms containing numbers, meant something else, some other characteristic feature that makes it possible to distinguish ships of one type from another. Which one? Here's an option. All terms with a numeral do not denote the number of rowing lines, but the number of rowers per row. If this condition is met, even an incredible decera may acquire the right to life. Interesting: in the absolutist and early bourgeois fleets the criterion for the distribution of warships by rank was something similar, namely the number of guns. Note, not the number of battery decks, but the number of guns! That is, it turns out that the trireme is a medium-sized galley, single-row, of course, with three oarsmen per oar. A pentirema or decera is a large rowing and sailing ship, on which oars, of course, are more massive, as a result of which more rowers are required.

Again we re-read the description of medieval galleys and their “sisters” from the New time. What do we see ?! The number of paddlers on the paddle reached ten people !! In this case, the rowers did not sit on the banks, benches, but continuously walked along the deck back and forth. Here it is! Indeed, with this method of rowing, you can put ten people on the oar, and they will work with about the same efficiency. It’s just that the outermost rower will take one or two steps, and the outermost rower will take five to six. If you put at least five oarsmen on the banks, the outermost one will only slightly move his arms, and the outermost will dangle at the end of the oar, like a rag on a pole. Absurd! From three to ten people to one oar can be put ONLY in the STANDING POSITION.

But then again, no multi-row ships are out of the question: if this is the first row, then what will be the oars of the second, or, Lord, protect the third row, considering that the height of the tier we automatically jumped to at least two meters, oarsmen after all in growth stand!

As for the galleys of Northern Europe, for example, Swedish or Petrovsky identical to them, then this is another shipbuilding tradition, coming from the Viking draccars. Its formation was influenced by the harsh conditions of navigation in the Baltic, the North and the Barents seas. Rowing there is exclusively sedentary, no more than two people at the oar, and the oars, respectively, and in short, and easier. By the way, the Mediterranean galleys and galeasy in the inhospitable northern waters felt very uncomfortable and lost to the ships of the northern European type.

I do not claim that rights are unconditional and unequivocal. Perhaps someone can offer a more elegant explanation. What is important now is that the "ancient" sailors did not and could not have multideck rowing ships, but there were ordinary galleys. Some are larger, others smaller, but generally similar in type and all, naturally, with one row of oars.

d_trader
112 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 29 July 2013 07: 26
    +7
    from the Don.
    To the author - +. It is logical !!!
  2. dievleha
    dievleha 29 July 2013 08: 08
    +4
    http://www.xlegio.ru/navy/ancient-ships/the-trireme-sails-again/."В ИЮНЕ 1987 г. вблизи древнего афинского порта Пирей был спущен на воду полностью восстановленный греческий военный корабль, называемый триремой. Последний корабль такого типа был построен более 2000 лет назад. При испытании нового корабля в открытом море команда из 170 гребцов различных национальностей, имеющих разную физическую подготовку, развила на «Олимпии» (так назвали это судно) поистине спринтерскую скорость в 7 узлов (13 км/ч). Радиус поворота корабля при полной скорости оказался равным 1,25 длины его корпуса, или около 46 м"Там же все об устройстве и расположении гребцов,поэтому поставил минус статье
    1. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 29 July 2013 10: 25
      0
      The d_trader article is interesting, but the facts are the facts.
    2. Gari
      Gari 29 July 2013 12: 29
      +3
      Quote: dievleha
      "IN JUNE 1987, near the ancient Athenian port of Piraeus, a fully restored Greek warship called the Trireme was launched.

      Having conducted a unique experiment, the “AYAS” Club of Marine Research of Armenia completed the construction of a XNUMXth-century Armenian Cilician sailboat restored from medieval miniatures and manuscripts.
      The Cilician Armenian state - the Armenian feudal principality, and then the kingdom that existed in Cilicia, the Mediterranean Sea from 1080 to 1375, the lowland Cilicia - until 1515 before the conquest of the Ottoman Turks.
      The construction of the ship began in 1988-89s. under the leadership of the president of the Ayas Marine Research Club, Karen Balayan. The basis was taken from ancient manuscripts and miniatures stored in Matenadaran. In May 2002, the construction of the vessel was completed, and it was transported to Sevan, where it was tested until November 2003.
      All details of the ship are similar to those from which the XNUMXth century sailboats were built, the only modern detail is the anchor. The seafarers ’clothing, food, lifestyle, navigation methods and navigation devices are also the same as those of medieval Cilician merchants.
      length, width, draft 20 m, 5 m, 1,5 m, mast height 14 m, displacement / loading capacity 50/20 t, sail area 100 m, max. speed 7 knots, team 12-14 people, capacity 50 people, material-oak, pine, 10 tons of copper nails
      Construction costs (material only) 75-80 thousand dollars
      In June 2004, the sailboat set sail for the first time. It took place in three stages. The first stage: June 2004, Poti - autumn 2004, Venice; second stage: May 2005, Venice - August 2005, Portsmouth; third stage: Portsmouth - St. Petersburg, then along the rivers of Russia to the Black Sea.
      Cilicia visited the following cities:
      By land from Yerevan to → Poti → Sochi → Tuapse → Novorossiysk → Yalta → Constanta → Varna → Tsarevo → Istanbul → Athens → Rhodes → Larnaca → Beirut → Latakia → Iskenderon → Ayas → Korikos → Anamur → Rhodes → Piraeus → Kerkyra → Dubrovnik → Venice → Trieste → Fano → Ancona → Brindisi → Syracuse → Valletta → Lipari → Naples → Ostia → Portoferraio → Livorno → Genoa → Nice → Marseille → Barcelona → Malaga → Gibraltar → Cadiz → Sines → Lisbon → A Coruña → Brest (France) → Portsmouth → Coase → London → Calais → Antwerpen → Amsterdam → Bremerhaven → Sassnitz → Gdansk → Klaipeda → Stockholm → Tallinn → Helsinki → St. Petersburg → Nizhny Novgorod → Saratov → Volgograd → Rostov-on-Don → Novorossiysk → Sochi → Batumi → Poti → by land to Yerevan.
    3. Kazakh
      Kazakh 29 July 2013 12: 50
      +3
      Quote: dievleha
      When testing a new ship in the open sea, a team of 170 rowers of various nationalities with different physical training developed a truly sprint speed of 7 knots (13 km / h) at Olympia.
      How many kg of food and other cargo did they bring with them? Reliably and close to the original only RA and KONTIKI in my understanding
    4. mejik
      mejik 29 July 2013 13: 38
      +1
      by the way in the photo on your link to "Olympia" one row of oars. so that set the minus yourself. atoms on my android device do not display the "-" and "+" icons, so I accidentally pledged you. Consider it a MINUS! And the article is definitely a plus.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Lee
        Lee 29 July 2013 14: 30
        +2
        Eyes let you down
  3. Son
    Son 29 July 2013 08: 33
    +2
    Informative and logical ... Thank you.
  4. Prometey
    Prometey 29 July 2013 08: 59
    14
    On one of the "historical sites" istorichka.ru, it seems, site visitors tried to debate about G. Kostylev's theses, including about ancient triremes. But since the site itself is poor and if the opinion of the guests differs from the opinion of the administration and representatives of the administration of the site, most of the discussion boiled down to direct insults and even "banning" of those who tried to consider the absurdity of the existence of courts with three rows of oars.
    In confirming the conclusions of Kostylev, I would like to say - why during the existence of rowing fleets (and this is like more than 1500 years) no one tried to recreate ships with more than one row of oars? Yes, for the same reason - why should a cart attach a fifth wheel. Most likely, because they never existed and their whole design was invented later. Arguments like the fact that after the fall of Rome, shipbuilding degraded and the "wild" barbarians did not have the technology capable of producing triremes-type ships - seem to put it mildly frivolous.
    As for Olympia. Well, it seems like they finally built a ship with three rows of oars, which even sailed. But the seaworthiness of the newly appeared triremes leaves much to be desired. For its construction, precise mathematical and physical calculations were used (hello to the ingenious ancient Greeks). The construction of "Olympia" cost 700 thousand dollars and took 2 years (it is worth marveling at the "powerful" polis economy of the Athenian village, which stamped triremes in hundreds within 1-2 years).
    1. avt
      avt 29 July 2013 09: 38
      11
      Quote: Prometey
      For its construction, precise mathematical and physical calculations were used (hello to the ingenious ancient Greeks). The construction of "Olympia" cost 700 thousand dollars and took 2 years (it is worth marveling at the "powerful" polis economy of the Athenian village, which stamped triremes in hundreds within 1-2 years).

      Well, after all, the technology that the Olympic gods handed over to people was lost, they were taken back with the adoption of Christianity by the Romans. laughing laughing
      1. old man54
        old man54 29 July 2013 15: 33
        0
        Quote: avt
        Well, after all, the technology that the Olympic gods handed over to people was lost, they were taken back with the adoption of Christianity by the Romans. laughing laughing

        much earlier, more than 4,5 thousand years ago, since the fall of the Jewish people!
    2. dievleha
      dievleha 29 July 2013 09: 57
      +2
      As for the cost, this is not an argument at all, to compare the cost of the prototype and the production model, to put it mildly, is not correct. As for the technologies, all the technologies used in the construction are confirmed by archeology, although they were equilibrium, but it was used, that is, the ship exists, judging by the same site, the rowers were judged by the photo, there were women who weren’t possible in the Greek Navy. After 25 hours of training, he developed a speed of 9 knots, which is still necessary for proof
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. unclevad
        unclevad 29 July 2013 10: 43
        +4
        Most likely multi-deck galleys were not technologically advanced for the ancients. It is much easier and cheaper to build ships with one deck for several people behind the oar than to fence "hanging gardens" on the side, worsening their strength with holes in the side. After all, no one tested the seaworthiness of the Olympia in a storm.
        1. Prometey
          Prometey 29 July 2013 10: 57
          +8
          Quote: unclevad
          After all, no one tested the seaworthiness of the Olympia in a storm.

          Volunteers, I think, will not be found.
          1. old man54
            old man54 29 July 2013 15: 36
            +1
            Quote: Prometey
            Quote: unclevad
            After all, no one tested the seaworthiness of the Olympia in a storm.

            Volunteers, I think, will not be found.

            in the previous article in the forum posted a video about the sea trials of "Olympia". I would be on it even at 4 points in the open sea, and even far from the coast, I would be very careful to go out. It is for transitions between the Aegean Sea regions or coastal (coastal, literal) Apennine campaigns.
      3. Prometey
        Prometey 29 July 2013 10: 49
        +7
        Quote: dievleha
        After 25 hours of training, he developed a speed of 9 knots, which is still necessary for evidence.

        Well, yes, I did. Judging by the photograph of the ship, the question is tormenting - where did the Romans place their marines, which famously cut out the crews of the enemies? Oh yes, they still needed sites, as they say, for catapults and other ballistas.
      4. old man54
        old man54 29 July 2013 15: 44
        +2
        Quote: dievleha
        judging by the same site, the rowers were recruited from the bulldozer, judging by the photo, there were women that it was not possible in the Greek Navy. After 25 hours of training, he developed the speed of 9 knots, which is still necessary for evidence

        Bullshit, sorry! You and the author of this article, in comments to the past, argue that rowing on multi-weighted vessels is not a simple matter; he himself went to yals, rower, more than once. In addition to physics and endurance, coherence and the overall worked out sense of rhythm is important there! Due to one negligent rower or his mistake, a complete failure and a loss of rhythm are coming! And then there is such a quantity of oars and, moreover, such mass and type in several rows! lol
        It is clear that rowers were recruited for the tests of Olympia, both active and in the past, therefore they took women, it is clear from the physical form of the rowers in the video that not tourists from the beaches came (it was immediately clear to me, for example). And that is why they were able to work together in one team so relatively quickly, because huge rowing experience behind them! Am I the only one who understands this, huh? request
    3. tlauicol
      tlauicol 29 July 2013 10: 28
      +4
      Athens military spending during the Peloponnesian war 431-401 BC.
      The fleet of the Athenian Maritime Union totaled up to 200 triremes and the Athenians built 20 new ships each year (Plutarch. Cimon. 12). There were 188 sailors on each trier, each of whom received 210 drams per season in 70 days. The sailors of each trireme received 13 thousand 160 drams per season. The cost of the entire fleet amounted to 2 million 632 thousand drams, i.e. 439 talents. Thus, the initial foros of 460 talent could cover the expenses of the allies in maintaining the fleet (Plutarch. Themistocles. 10). After the Kalliev of the world (449 BC), when the burden of military spending eased, Athens began to build 10 instead of 20 former ships.
      By the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, Athens had a total of 9 thousand 700 talents (Thucydides. History. II. 13.3). Of these, 2 thousand talents took the siege of Potidea (Thucydides. History. II. 70.2). The Athens fleet consisted of 300 triremes (Thucydides. History. II. 13.9), and later was increased to 400 triremes (Xenophon. Greek history. III. 4), where at least 20 thousand people regularly received payments. In 421 BC, after the conclusion of peace, the Athenians decided to create an unreasonable fund of 1 thousand talents, and to cover military expenses from other resources (Thucydides. History. II. 24.1; Xenophon. Anabasis. VII. 1.27).
      Greek state spending
      Athens construction costs in 447 - 425 years. BC.
      By decree from 449 BC part of the funds from the reserve fund of 5 thousand talents of the Athenian Maritime Union went to the restoration and construction of new temples in Athens and Attica: the temple of Hephaestus and Athena, the Parthenon with a chrysoelephantine statue of Athena. This temple of Athena Parthenos was a very expensive building: up to 32 talents were spent on its construction per year, which equaled the maintenance of 12 triremes for 5 months (!!!). In addition, the Parthenon was built entirely of marble and in a fairly short time, while, for example, funds for the construction of the temple of Zeus in Olympia (completed in 456 BC) were collected by all Greek states for 100 years. The huge temples of Great Greece (southern Italy and Sicily) were built by states rich in antique standards (Selinunte, Metapont, Akragant, Segesta, etc.) and from ordinary stone; Temple of Athena Victory in honor of the victory of the Delos Union over the Persians (448 BC); Erechtheion on the Acropolis, Odeon, Propylaea, Long Walls connecting Athens with Piraeus and others; the temples of Poseidon in Sounia, Ares in Acharn, Nemesis in Rhamnunt.

      Year BC Weight in talents Amount in drams Construction
      447 - 432 700 Parthenon
      1000 6 Athena statues in gold and ivory
      400 2 400 000 Propylaea
      3 000 18 000 000 Odeon, hangars for storage of ships, expansion of docks
      200 1 200 000 2 golden statues of Nicky
      433 - 425 2 700 16 200 000 Temple of Nicky; completion of the Parthenon
      In total for 447 - 425 8 000 48 000 000
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 29 July 2013 10: 54
        +4
        About architectural structures in general a separate conversation. I suppose, apparently, the Greeks in antiquity overstretched very much that throughout the subsequent history up to our days they remain a poor, shabby state. They cannot even contain a single trireme recourse
        1. Rider
          Rider 29 July 2013 13: 03
          +2
          Quote: Prometey
          About architectural structures in general a separate conversation.


          eeetttooooo.

          since there has long been an opinion (and not only mine) that Greek temples were not built by the Greeks at all.

          and it’s not at all worth equating modern Greeks with epic Achaeans.
          (actually, like Italians to the Romans)

          by the way, the consonance of self-names is very interesting; andхher - andрthe eggs
          1. Prometey
            Prometey 29 July 2013 14: 22
            +2
            Quote: Rider
            since there has long been an opinion (and not only mine) that Greek temples were not built by the Greeks at all.

            Just like - who built collisions and for what purpose?
            1. Rider
              Rider 29 July 2013 14: 37
              +1
              Quote: Prometey
              Just like - who built collisions and for what purpose?


              so colosseum, it's like bee - Rome.

              no ?
    4. nerd.su
      nerd.su 29 July 2013 15: 34
      +2
      Quote: Prometey
      Well, yes, it seems they finally built a ship with three rows of oars, which even sailed. But the seaworthiness of the newly-found Trier leaves much to be desired.

      So depending on what to compare. If with modern destroyers or bulk carriers, then yes, seaworthiness leaves much to be desired. And if with a dugout boat, then vice versa ...

      Quote: Prometey
      For its construction, exact mathematical and physical calculations were used (hello to the brilliant ancient Greeks).

      Addition, subtraction, division and multiplication were known to the ancient Greeks, and the integrals in the calculations were replaced by practice.


      Quote: Prometey
      The construction of "Olympia" cost 700 thousand dollars and took 2 years (it is worth marveling at the "powerful" polis economy of the Athenian village, which stamped triremes in hundreds within 1-2 years).

      Well, you are like a child, by golly! I think the value of the forest in ancient and modern Greece is significantly different. In addition, the rollbacks and cuts of the budget are not typical for those old years, these are signs of bourgeois society, and not slave-owning.
      And do not forget the difference in the cost of piece pilot production and large-scale.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 29 July 2013 21: 45
        0
        Quote: bot.su
        Addition, subtraction, division and multiplication were known to the ancient Greeks, and the integrals in the calculations were replaced by practice.

        When the Greeks built triremes, the law of Archimedes was not yet familiar to them.
        Quote: bot.su
        I think the value of the forest in ancient and modern Greece is significantly different.

        Believe? Greece, historians claim, has never seemed to be rich in timber.
        Quote: bot.su
        In addition, the rollbacks and cuts of the budget are not typical for those old years, these are signs of bourgeois society, and not slave-owning.

        If you look at the traditional history of Rome, then the corruption there was to the envy of the capitalists, which was worth one penny system of collecting taxes from the province. Human greed has been indestructible since time immemorial.
        1. nerd.su
          nerd.su 29 July 2013 23: 01
          0
          Quote: Prometey

          When the Greeks built triremes, the law of Archimedes was not yet familiar to them.

          And in order to build rowing ships, you do not need to know the law of Archimedes. Even cannon ships were built for several centuries without using this law. Stupidly chopped cannon ports after launching. Practical experience is quite capable of replacing the theory in the construction of rowing ships.

          Quote: Prometey

          Believe? Greece, historians claim, has never seemed to be rich in timber.

          Everything in the world is relative. There were more forests than now, just their restoration did not keep pace. In addition, there is near Macedonia, it is richer. Rafts, I think, were able to build already at that time.

          Quote: Prometey

          If you look at the traditional history of Rome, then the corruption there was to the envy of the capitalists, which was worth one penny system of collecting taxes from the province.

          The levy system of collecting taxes at that time was legal and, therefore, was not corruption.
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 31 July 2013 10: 51
        -2
        In addition, for those old years, budget rollbacks and cuts are not typical, these are signs of bourgeois society


        Thanks, neighing. In those days, corruption was almost legalized.
        1. nerd.su
          nerd.su 31 July 2013 12: 08
          +2
          Quote: Avenger711
          Thanks, neighing. In those days, corruption was almost legalized

          Yes, most of what is now related to corruption was legal in those days. At first, the Romans considered corruption to be bribery of judges and change of testimony in court for money. And everything else was completely legal, for example, a levy tax collection system. And since it was legal, then what are we laughing at?
  5. avt
    avt 29 July 2013 09: 12
    +9
    good Plus - quite concretely and intelligibly and confirmed by time, as I have already said - single-row rowing vessels held out almost until the steam era. Even small sailing ships up to and including the frigate had a set of oars and were used for their intended purpose - the same glorious brig "Mercury".
    Quote: dievleha
    On JUNE 1987, a fully restored Greek warship called the trireme was launched near the ancient Athenian port of Piraeus. The last ship of this type was built over 2000 years ago.

    But is there any other kind of information. The fact that they spent the swim - here, in general, there are no special doubts. And did they try to conduct at least a small trip ala Greeks? How is Tour Heerdahl? Well, or how are those guys that simulated the Argonaut campaign? Rowing - it is the fastest, in open water, but that's why in the sea on such boats even do not conduct competitions.
    1. dievleha
      dievleha 29 July 2013 10: 12
      +1
      . In 2004, Olympia participated in the relay of the Olympic flame transfer from the port of Keratsini to the port of Piraeus, from the very beginning it was on the balance of the Greek Navy, due to financial problems it is used as an exhibit
    2. old man54
      old man54 29 July 2013 15: 47
      +1
      Quote: avt
      good Plus - quite specifically and intelligibly and confirmed by time. As already said - single row rowing boats lasted almost until the steam era ...
      And did they try to conduct at least a small trip ala Greeks? How is Tour Heerdahl? Well, or how are those guys that simulated the Argonaut campaign? Rowing - it is the fastest, in open water, but that's why in the sea on such boats even do not conduct competitions.

      You "+" to the point! good
  6. Igarr
    Igarr 29 July 2013 09: 16
    +8
    Good point.
    ".. If you put at least five rowers on the banks, then the outermost one will only slightly move his hands, and the outermost one - dangle at the end of the oar, like a rag on a pole."
    ...
    Does anyone seriously believe that an offsite rabble can be made to work in such a consistent rhythm?
    Then on each pair you need to put overseers. Okay, for every oar.
    And for every couple of overseers, there’s another supervisor. Well and so .. all higher and higher.
    Therefore, the number of loafers on board will be equal to or higher than the number of rowers. Again plug.
    ..
    You can of course easily and beautifully circumvent the restrictions on the length of the oars. Make them a letter - Г.
    But, frankly, I myself have never tried to row with such an oar in my life, for half a century.
    Maybe the ancients were cunning ... made. Or their hands were - the letter ZY. And the legs with the wheel.
    Then yes.
    ...
    A well-trained rower on the yale is quite capable of breaking a roll oar. Academic breakdown is almost impossible, due to technology.
    Imagine .. ten snouts in a single fit fell on a paddle weighing 300 kg. A second - and ... there is no oar, and all these 10 snouts from all the dope burst into the next 10 snouts, in the order of the crew.
    And there you go ... ghoul.
    ...
    I say ... somewhere in the ruins of the Coliseum are drawings of hectodecyrema. And routings on her.
    Find would.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 29 July 2013 10: 01
      +1
      everything is much easier http://flot7.narod.ru/greki/14.htm
      1. Ivan_Ivanov
        Ivan_Ivanov 29 July 2013 11: 01
        +4
        The picture is blurry. This trough can move with grief on the floors. The oars of water barely touch. Efficiency is minimal. But here are the questions:

        1. Where to place the weapon? Ballista, catapults and more.
        2. Where to place the soldiers? The carabiner is already jammed to the eyeballs.
        3. How to feed and drink this horde? There are a lot of rowers. Therefore, a lot of stocks are needed.
        1. Igarr
          Igarr 29 July 2013 11: 28
          +2
          The picture just demonstrates several .. sayings and one FACT:
          1. Hunting is more than bondage;
          2. It is easier to beat with a herd and dad, or Together we are strength;
          3. Freedom - the will, fools - paradise.
          ..
          But the fact is the simplest.
          The current development of technology and engineering allows you to build arbitrarily fantastic products.
          Except - perpetuum mobile, unfortunately.
          ...
          Do we seriously believe that the ancient Romans were taller than the head of a modern shipbuilder?
          This bookcase on the water does not strongly resemble a trireme, as it is shown in a classic form.
          You can do multi-story attic rowing decks. But this is a little bit not what I would like.
          If you wish, you can pile up a kayak into the academic eight - you get an academic BIREMA.
          Sorry, damn it, no competitions are held.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 29 July 2013 12: 07
            +4
            the picture for a start demonstrates that no 300-700kg oars of 25 meters in length are required; there are no standing rowers hanging on oars - i.e. the article, to put it mildly, is a doodle.
            as for the rowers - I laid out the wages above - the rowers are hired and uncles with a whip and shackles are not needed, they train and fight for money. the article is disingenuous from the very beginning, and having lured can no longer stop, counting the mass of gigantic oars and a horde of rowers on board
            1. Horde
              Horde 29 July 2013 19: 54
              -2
              Quote: Tlauicol
              the picture for a start demonstrates that no 300-700kg oars of 25 meters in length are required; there are no standing rowers hanging on oars - i.e. the article, to put it mildly, is a doodle.
              as for the rowers - I laid out the wages above - the rowers are hired and uncles with a whip and shackles are not needed, they train and fight for money. the article is disingenuous from the very beginning, and having lured can no longer stop, counting the mass of gigantic oars and a horde of rowers on board


              I think that on this site someone else is lying,
              Naturally, oars made using modern technologies came out easier than those used by Heracles-Irakli, the blade is visible with the naked eye, NOT WOODEN, the oars were tiny-false.
              What did the DEMONSTRATORS want to say with this Olympia? That there is no limit to the perverted fantasies of the trades? So we already know this, you can’t try to adhere to the influence of seeds of doubt in your story already give good shoots.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 30 July 2013 06: 08
                -1
                oars length 25 meters? and they are wooden
              2. tlauicol
                tlauicol 30 July 2013 07: 26
                +1
                (C) "WHAT did the DEMONSTRATORS want to say with this Olympia?" - the article is lying!
                what you don’t need to broadcast with foam at the mouth about huge 700kg and 25m oars, about the standing placement of rowers running around the deck or hanging out in the air. the fact that it is maneuverable - a turning radius of 48 m, then that after 25 hours of training they were able to control the triera and dispersed it to 7 knots with short pine oars.
            2. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 30 July 2013 14: 10
              +1
              I will add that in Athens it was an honor to be a rower in the navy and, at that time, quite well paid. The description of these facts is easy to find. But the author is "difficult", and most likely lazy.
        2. nerd.su
          nerd.su 29 July 2013 16: 07
          +2
          Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
          1. Where to place the weapon? Ballista, catapults and more.

          And where are the ballista? Have you read the science fiction? The main methods of naval combat were ramming and boarding.

          Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
          2. Where to place the soldiers? The carabiner is already jammed to the eyeballs.

          There is enough space on the upper deck.

          Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
          3. How to feed and drink this horde? There are a lot of rowers. Therefore, a lot of stocks are needed.

          The Greeks did not make ocean voyages. When moving between the islands and along the coast, the main thing is to have a good pilot. Then it is possible to replenish the water supplies on the way and to fill up the boar.
          1. Prometey
            Prometey 29 July 2013 21: 54
            0
            Quote: bot.su
            And where are the ballista? Have you read the science fiction? The main methods of naval combat were ramming and boarding.

            I agree about boarding. But rams seem to have been used massively only in the battle of Salamis (if there was one). After that, apparently, they are moving away from ramming tactics. The Romans chopped boogies with punas, occasionally resorting to rams, and then a smart one dragged a ballista to the vessel (as it is written in these ancient sources, either from Vegez or from Plutarch) and began to shoot at the ships with stones and burning arrows. What could come of this can be read from the same Kostylev.
            1. nerd.su
              nerd.su 30 July 2013 01: 03
              0
              Quote: Prometey
              But rams seem to have been used massively only in the battle of Salamis (if there was one). After that, apparently, they are moving away from ramming tactics.

              Do you yourself believe that rams were used in one battle? Ram was used long before the construction of the trireme and long after the Punic wars. But the Romans, yes, brought the fleet to another level.
              1. Prometey
                Prometey 30 July 2013 08: 17
                -1
                Quote: bot.su
                Do you yourself believe that rams were used in one battle?

                Let's just say - I do not believe that they were used at all.
                1. nerd.su
                  nerd.su 30 July 2013 10: 18
                  0
                  Quote: Prometey
                  Let's just say - I do not believe that they were used at all.

                  Here's how ... And why are they then provided for in the design? And then the only trick of naval combat is boarding? Or there were aircraft carriers from which Dedalov and Icarus were launched?
                  1. Prometey
                    Prometey 30 July 2013 11: 30
                    0
                    Quote: bot.su
                    Here's how ... And why are they then provided for in the design?

                    Present at least one present, then you can talk further.
                    Quote: bot.su
                    And then the only trick of naval combat is boarding?

                    In the era of rowing and sailing ships before the appearance of battleships - yes.
                    1. nerd.su
                      nerd.su 30 July 2013 16: 45
                      0
                      Quote: Prometey
                      Present at least one present, then you can talk further.

                      Only after you present a raven or an ancient Greek boarding hook.

                      Quote: Prometey
                      In the era of rowing and sailing ships before the appearance of battleships - yes

                      Sailing - yes. In the military rowing ships of the antique Mediterranean, ramming was one of the main methods of battle, until the Romans decisively stopped this squandering of slaves and property. This is evidenced by the appearance of the trireme. If the main method was boarding, then the appearance of the ships would resemble drakars or lodges.
                      1. Prometey
                        Prometey 31 July 2013 07: 31
                        0
                        Once again I will ask for the ancient image of the trireme - all that we see in the paintings is a representation of contemporary artists. By the way, if battering ram was an effective means of naval combat, why it was not made on medieval galleys and galeases - also rowing and relatively maneuverable vessels, and their design was stronger.
                      2. abrakadabre
                        abrakadabre 31 July 2013 10: 32
                        +1
                        By the way, if battering ram was an effective means of naval combat, why it was not made on medieval galleys and galeases - also rowing and relatively maneuverable vessels, and their design was stronger.
                        1. From the ram, as the main method of battle, the Romans already departed. They were worse navigators, but the infantry were very strong. So they moved the priority to boarding. And the design of the ships has become more sharpened by this: the Roman trireme is more massive than the Greek trireme, carries more infantry for boarding, has more extensive platforms for accommodating warriors. Do not forget. that a battering ram is most effective in positioning with its nose to the side of the enemy. To do this, you need to decently maneuver. And to maneuver at a distance, then to have a place for ramming dispersal. And for boarding, a fairly straight-line tangential approach is sufficient, head-to-head from the usual linear construction of the fleet. It doesn’t even matter if the opponents have time to pull in the oars or they’ll be cut off by the blow of your ship. Ships hooked by boarding hooks and the victory goes to those who have more warriors on board.

                        2. Medieval ships were more than Roman adapted for both coasting and offshore sailing. Hence the need for greater strength, a greater height of the sides (for galeases), a larger sail area, and so on.

                        3. To disperse a more solid, and therefore more massive carcass of a medieval ship is more difficult. And most importantly, to do this with significant acceleration so that the enemy does not have time to minimize the danger with his counter-maneuver.

                        4. Medieval military fleets, compared with the Roman heyday, were in the pen. The main strong fleets, unlike the Roman ones, were not in the Mediterranean marine zone, but in the Atlantic - Atlantic. Accordingly, the design of the ship has its own specifics.

                        5. The heyday of medieval battle fleets came in the era of gunpowder. Therefore, artillery has become the main battlefield at sea.
                      3. Prometey
                        Prometey 31 July 2013 11: 21
                        0
                        Quote: abrakadabre
                        Do not forget. that a battering ram is most effective in positioning with its nose to the side of the enemy. To do this, you need to decently maneuver.

                        Opponents, in principle, are also not suckers and will not look calmly at this disgrace.
                        Quote: abrakadabre
                        The heyday of medieval battle fleets came in the era of gunpowder. Therefore, artillery has become the main battlefield at sea.

                        The Battle of Lepanto - 1571 - cutting and boarding. Artillery is an aid. Although gunpowder has been present on the battlefields for 200 years.
                        The first apparently naval battle with large-scale use of artillery - the battle of the British with the Spanish Invincible Armada.
                      4. abrakadabre
                        abrakadabre 31 July 2013 11: 40
                        0
                        I do not see a contradiction. We are talking about a general trend in the development of fleets. Just what it is about - boarding taxied in the Middle Ages. This does not abolish the possibility of rams, but this tactical technique at this time is not basic. And the design of the MEDIEVAL vessels is not at all for a battering ram. But this was true already for Ancient Rome. Evolution in action however.
                        During the capture of Constantinople, the Turks also tried to defeat the remnants of the Venetian ships by boarding. But since the design of the Venetian ships is higher-breasted, and the skill of the Venetians at sea is higher, the success of the Turks at sea was much more modest than on land - the ships were able to fight back and break through. If ramming tactics were dominant, with the overwhelming number of Turkish ships, the Venetians would get a bunch of holes on each side and sink.

                        The general tendency of the pre-powder evolution of military fleets: only the transport function for very ancient societies -> mainly archery with possible boarding of demoralized opponents among the Cretans -> a ram with possible boarding among the Greeks and Carthage -> boarding among the Romans and subsequent societies. The Byzantines with their flamethrower delights are a little knocked out.
                        There is a gradual transition to more and more energetic actions during the battle.
                      5. Prometey
                        Prometey 31 July 2013 12: 01
                        0
                        Quote: abrakadabre
                        And the design of the MEDIEVAL vessels is not at all for a battering ram. But this was true already for Ancient Rome. Evolution in action however.

                        So I wrote about the same thing initially, that the Romans abandoned ramming tactics and used boarding as the main means of fighting at sea. The stem was remembered only in the second half of the 19th century, and even several times it was successfully used. Although the most successful ram at sea was associated with the "Titanic" winked
                      6. abrakadabre
                        abrakadabre 31 July 2013 12: 15
                        +1
                        My detailed answer was to replica By the way, if the ram was an effective means of naval battle, why it was not done on medieval galleys and galeases
                        Unless I misplaced it. It turned out as if I oppose you.
                        hi
                      7. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 31 July 2013 12: 57
                        0
                        Quote: Prometey
                        So I wrote about the same thing from the very beginning that the Romans abandoned ramming tactics and used boarding as the main means of fighting at sea.

                        But this does not mean that this tactic was not widely used by the Greeks, Phoenicians, and Carthaginians.

                        Quote: Prometey
                        They remembered about the stem only in the second half of the 19th century and even successfully applied it several times.

                        Yes, during the period of the Middle Ages, when Mediterranean pirates used galleys, they constantly used ramming. Only it was surfaced and was also used as a boarding bridge and a boarding "hook" if it was possible to pierce the side and get stuck in it. And using the stem is a necessary measure. And on sailing ships it is also a loss of speed, because the bowsprit will break. In general, the advanced sailing armament made the ram impossible.
                      8. abrakadabre
                        abrakadabre 31 July 2013 13: 34
                        +1
                        But this does not mean that this tactic was not widely used by the Greeks, Phoenicians, and Carthaginians.
                        The result of this - the empire known to us was called Roman, and not Carthaginian, Phoenician or Greek. And the invasion of all these countries did not take place in a circular way by land. The Roman tactics of using the fleet defeated the purely ramming of the listed peoples with developed shipping.
                      9. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 31 July 2013 13: 56
                        0
                        Quote: abrakadabre
                        The Roman tactics of using the fleet defeated the purely ramming of the listed peoples with developed shipping.

                        So yes, I do not argue with that. I argue with allegations that the ram was not used (it was widely used only in the Battle of Salamis, as some claim, in particular Prometey), and there were no multi-tiered rowing ships.

                        By the way, the Phoenician (and Carthage-Phoenician colony) empire existed for a long time and spoiled the blood of the Romans. And if the Romans did not fill the place where Carthage stood with salt, then it would still exist.
                    2. Prometey
                      Prometey 31 July 2013 14: 44
                      0
                      For the most part, in order to identify the effectiveness or inefficiency of all this, it is necessary to carry out a historical reconstruction. And so I am still more interested in the question - why did the ancients try to complicate everything by building all these biremes, triremes, whose seaworthiness has not yet been proven. Although practice later showed that vessels with one row of oars are the most suitable option.
                    3. nerd.su
                      nerd.su 31 July 2013 16: 57
                      +1
                      Quote: Prometey
                      And so I am still more interested in the question - why did the ancients try to complicate everything by building all these biremes, triremes, whose seaworthiness has not yet been proven.

                      From our point of view, they complicated it.
                      What do you mean by seaworthiness?
                      Given that the tactics of naval combat were sharpened under a ram, everything falls into place. With this arrangement of rowers, the ship, without increasing the length, and therefore maintaining a small radius of circulation, significantly won in speed and power ratio. That is, the speed and dynamics of its recruitment and, accordingly, maneuverability are growing significantly. Plus, his ship became more protected, as the enemy, going into a ram, was forced to overcome the resistance of three times as many oars that could be put on his nose. The same trend as with an increase in the depth of the phalanx and the length of the spears for the back rows of hoplites. Socio-economic factors - triremes and other multi-tiered ships could only build large and wealthy cities, providing themselves with a military advantage. Indeed, even now, Angola, for example, does not buy and build nuclear submarines. But Russia is building.
                      In the Aegean Sea, and in general in the eastern Mediterranean, a bunch of islands, a bunch of bays on the coast. In the morning I sailed from one island, and you have dinner and sleep on the other, if not laziness, then you can have lunch on the third. We had to sleep, eat and relieve ourselves on the shore.
                      The Romans were worse in the western Mediterranean, smaller islands, so they began to increase the width of the ships, increasing the displacement and, accordingly, the supply of food and water and the number of marine corps. Well, the number of rowers, so as not to lose in speed.
                      Quote: Prometey
                      Although practice later showed that vessels with one row of oars are the most suitable option.

                      Practice has shown not this. Practice has shown that the development of sailing weapons is more effective, the appearance of slanting sails has increased the possibilities for maneuver and the oars have gradually turned into an auxiliary propulsion. Plus the crushing of the Roman Empire, and a small state does not pull big ships. The general technological decline in the dark ages.
                    4. abrakadabre
                      abrakadabre 1 August 2013 10: 56
                      +1
                      It can be added that an increase in the number of rowers, that is, thrust-weight ratio, allowed for faster acceleration over short sections compared to a slower enemy. For example, to take the most advantageous position for the ram and for the subsequent jerk during the ram itself.
                      The inevitable increase in ship mass with an increase in the number of rows of oars was also useful for two reasons: ramming force increases and ramming effects for the ship itself performing this combat technique are reduced.
                      Regarding the high cost of maintaining the fleet. After eliminating strong opponents from the Mediterranean, the Roman Empire itself, although it was able to contain a large fleet, tried to minimize its costs. The number of ships has decreased. The lineup is also much easier. If in the last Punic, the main battleships were penters, then in the late empire, ships larger than trireme were rare.
      2. nerd.su
        nerd.su 31 July 2013 12: 40
        +1
        Quote: Prometey
        Once again I will ask for the ancient image of the trireme - all that we see in the paintings is a representation of contemporary artists.

        Did Google ban you? Look for images of triremes on ancient amphoras or, for example, a request / Fragment of the mural - The Isis Ship /
        You can see the ram there. Plus descriptions of sea battles, descriptions of the design of ships, fragments found in the sea and beyond.
        However, you do not care, we will not convince each other.

        Quote: Prometey
        By the way, if the ram was an effective means of naval battle, why it was not done on medieval galleys and galeases

        It was applied. Only predominantly surface, although not only. Changed goals and, accordingly, tactics. The main thing was the seizure of the vessel and property, and not its destruction.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 31 July 2013 11: 20
      0
      If the main method was boarding, then the appearance of the ships would resemble dracars or lodges
      Ha ha ha ha! Drakkars and lodges have never boarded ships. Just like the boats of the current Somali pirates. The only thing Somali pirates stand out with is the presence of an automatic firearm and grenade launchers. What is forbidden to have and use the teams of modern merchant ships.
      When both sides are not embarrassed to use weapons and weapons of comparable effectiveness, the drakkars and lodges together suck ... oh, they lose to high-class military courts. And they will not be contacted with low-sided military alone - it is better to rob a coastal village. After all, the meaning of the campaign is to rob and cash in, and not to fight with a dubious ending. An extra meter and a half height in a defensive position in hand-to-hand armed combat is a very big bonus.
      Rob the merchant ship is quite real. Since his team is much smaller than the dragrak crew.
    3. nerd.su
      nerd.su 31 July 2013 12: 19
      0
      Quote: abrakadabre
      Drakkars and lodges have never boarded ships.

      That was the only possible method of sea battle of their teams was boarding. Well, still shoot from a bow or spear with axes to leave. And quickly flush away whenever possible smile
      And the fact that the board is low, such technologies were. Yes, and to carry lodges or ears in the Dnieper rapids or ditches of the north is more convenient than galeases.
    4. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 31 July 2013 13: 17
      0
      The main military technique of the Vikings was a raid on the coast. Moreover, it is desirable that there was no armed lads nearby of all local barons, counts, and so on. Therefore, the raid is fleeting.
      The sea battle for them was attractive mainly against merchant ships. Relatively weaker.
      Similarly, Somali pirates boarded tankers and bulk carriers. But something does not pull them on cruisers and patrol boats. Yes, and the meeting of a merchant ship with PMC representatives on board dramatically reduces combat ardor.
      Despite the fact that theoretically 1000 armed motor boats at the cost of inconceivable losses will be able to take a small military vessel. The ammunition stupidly runs out and while firing in one direction from the other they are already climbing on board. But which pirates need such heroism? Piracy is a commercial activity. Here you need income, albeit associated with risk. The Vikings also did not need excessive heroism.
      Massive incursions such as the capture of Paris, or England, fall out of this widespread practice. But here we can already talk about the level of state proportions.
      And I don’t remember about the sea battles of the Normans with warships or even fleets offhand. This was certainly not a mass phenomenon.

      About the side: for large knorrs - cargo ships of the Scandinavians of the Viking era, the sides could be quite high. Although the small ones practically did not differ in this from the Drakkars
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 31 July 2013 14: 23
    0
    There are not so many naval battles comparable in numbers to the battle of Salamis in the ancient world. The Romans were just able to impose on Carthage the mass of boarding combat. And they themselves emphasized its development. At the initial stage of the confrontation between the fleets, while the ramming tactics prevailed, the Carthaginian fleet had them in the tail and mane. Which is completely natural for their great traditions of navigation in general and the use of the navy in particular.
    In general, the economy determines the stability of a country in a war. Carthage had a larger share of the trading component than the Roman. So it was more vulnerable during the long war of attrition. The income from trade fell due to heavy hostilities, and the opportunities for manning the army and navy fell.
    Well, the factor of chance has not been canceled. Who knows what story we would study, siege Ganibal Rome? Or if the top of Carthage would fully support Hanibal and give all the reserves to him? And not in every way prevented him from envy and fear of his excessive exaltation. After all, he had been swaggering around Italy not a day or two, for years.
    But, but, but ... this is already a subjunctive mood. History does not like him.
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 30 July 2013 14: 08
    +1
    1. There were not very many of them on such ships. You are confused with dreadnoughts and missile cruisers :)
    2. See paragraph 1. There were few soldiers on Greek ships. On the Roman more, but their seaworthiness was lower.
    3. There are supply vessels for this. The fleet was moving at the speed of these ships. Warships in this regard are freed to the limit of all unnecessary. Just to be fast and maneuverable at the time of battle. The rest of the time, it was quite possible to sail, along with the rest of the vessels, very spacious, but extremely slow. Do not forget that all antique ships are coastal. Offshore swimming is rather an exceptional swimming mode.
  • Djozz
    Djozz 29 July 2013 09: 33
    +6
    About myths. Learn to "build" ships from the Chinese! This is where there is no limit to the "extraordinary lightness of thought" .. In the 15th century, their "admiral" and part-time shipbuilder Joe He made 300 ships with a displacement of 3 thousand tons each, 140 m long and 50 m wide. The ships were flat-bottomed without a keel, carried 9 masts and accommodated 2900 crew. With this "armada" Joe He sailed to Africa on the way in the Malacca Strait, defeated the pirates and took 5 thousand prisoners, according to the "ancient" Chinese chronicles. By the way, the ships already "had" wooden water supplies. bulkheads.
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 29 July 2013 10: 56
      +2
      Quote: Djozz
      With this "armada" Joe He sailed to Africa on the way in the Malacca Strait, defeated the pirates and took 5 thousand prisoners, according to the "ancient" Chinese chronicles

      So that's who the way around Africa Vasco da Gamma pointed laughing
      1. Djozz
        Djozz 29 July 2013 11: 31
        +2
        And not only, he discovered Australia together with Oceania and got to Madagascar, in general he made 7 long journeys. The history and strength of materials are crying. did not "zarezal" - I swear by my mother!
        1. Prometey
          Prometey 29 July 2013 11: 49
          +2
          Quote: Djozz
          Recently, on one thread dedicated to Chinese technological "achievements", one "advanced" Sinologist almost practically "overreached" me - I swear by my mother!

          The same intersected with such. Unfortunately, paranoia makes it difficult to think normally.
        2. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 30 July 2013 14: 18
          +1
          Sopromat is unshakable ... unshakable.
          wassat
          Indicated 70-90 meters as limit. valid for layouts with high elongation and relatively low height from keel to deck. What is never observed in Chinese ships. To illustrate this, compare the wooden staircase flat (bends and plays) and its same set on the edge (to hell with you, and not deflection)
          smile
    2. Rider
      Rider 29 July 2013 13: 10
      +2
      Quote: Djozz
      In the 15th century, their "admiral" and concurrently shipbuilder Joe He made 300 ships with a displacement of 3 thousand tons each, 140 m long and 50 m wide. The ships were flat-bottomed without a keel, carried 9 masts and accommodated 2900 crew. With this "armada" Joe He sailed to Africa on the way in the Malacca Strait, defeated the pirates and took 5 thousand prisoners, according to the "ancient" Chinese chronicles


      verily, fabulous Hellenes ... uh, Chinese.

      wink
    3. kirpich
      kirpich 29 July 2013 14: 13
      +1
      PANCAKE!!! So, it turns out that Somali pirates have been hunting in the Strait of Malacca since the 15th century !!! Oh woe to us!

      Quote: Djozz
      About myths. Learn to "build" ships from the Chinese! This is where there is no limit to the "extraordinary lightness of thought" .. In the 15th century, their "admiral" and part-time shipbuilder Joe He made 300 ships with a displacement of 3 thousand tons each, 140 m long and 50 m wide. The ships were flat-bottomed without a keel, carried 9 masts and accommodated 2900 crew. With this "armada" Joe He sailed to Africa on the way in the Malacca Strait, defeated the pirates and took 5 thousand prisoners, according to the "ancient" Chinese chronicles. By the way, the ships already "had" wooden water supplies. bulkheads.

      I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. What is not a phrase is nonsense.
      1. Djozz
        Djozz 29 July 2013 14: 25
        +3
        Last week the Kultura TV channel devoted a whole hour to Admiral Joe Hee. All that I wrote was there. And I wrote about the pirates of the Strait of Malacca, and the pirates of Somalia! If you have something to object to the merits, work hard, everything else is emotion.
        1. Djozz
          Djozz 29 July 2013 16: 06
          +1
          Explain what is the minus?
          1. aleshka1987
            aleshka1987 29 July 2013 16: 39
            0
            I put for the TV channel "Culture"
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 30 July 2013 14: 25
        +1
        If the well-known facts are new to you, then alas ... to you in the library.
    4. Mika712
      Mika712 29 July 2013 16: 34
      +5
      In 1000 years, archaeologists will find an old book about Russia: "People lived then richly, they had oil before ... uh ... well, you will be up to your waist." And holivar will begin that the oil is poisonous and wetting your feet in it is unhealthy.

      If a Chinese person writes: 10 thousand things, this is not 10 thousand things. This is what I wrote above.

      If a respected Chinese man built a ship, the ship will be 10m long. If the ship was built by a VERY respectable Chinese, the ship will be 100m long. The length of the ship only speaks of the degree of respect for the comrade described.
  • Mhpv
    Mhpv 29 July 2013 12: 09
    +3
    Well, this is probably from the same category, if now on ships make two or three tier propellers, what the result will be, I think is understandable. hi
  • Hort
    Hort 29 July 2013 12: 23
    0
    And if you remain realistic, then it is clear: the “ancient Greek” carpenter did not know and could not even know a thousandth part of what is known to modern specialists in materials science, mechanics, ship architecture, etc. There were neither aluminum-magnesium alloys, nor titanium, nor ultra-light carbon plastics. If this were not the case, we would all speak Greek now and would have led the colonization of Jupiter’s satellites at an accelerated pace.

    But I wonder why now no one has managed to build a full-fledged Viking Drakkar or Lodya, despite modern knowledge and technology? For a long time I watched a documentary about the Vikings, and so one interesting thing was told there: several modern drakkars, rebuilt according to the surviving drawings, could not withstand the loads under strong waves and broke. Then they understood the reason - the timber at the base of the ship's hull, which goes through the bottom from bow to stern (I am not a shipbuilder, so I don’t know the correct terminology :)), the "original" drakkars were not made of a solid piece of wood, but glued in several layers, which allowed him to withstand various loads during high seas and storms. But the exact technology of its manufacture today seems to have been lost, and such things cannot be recreated from modern materials.

    Again, it turns out that the ships of the northern peoples and Slavs were more perfect than the Mediterranean ones, since they allowed them to go on the open sea and in the northern seas (did the Greeks and Romans go along the coastline)?
    1. Djozz
      Djozz 29 July 2013 12: 53
      +1
      About the glue and the method of making it by the Vikings, I ask for more details. Perhaps they "invented" epoxy?
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 29 July 2013 14: 22
        +3
        Not great at all.
        Tour Heyerdahl ... twice or thrice ... replicated the ancient Egyptian boat. Which RA - called.
        Nothing, a third time even rode. Until the middle of the Atlantic.
        Then he created, by eye - Kon-Tiki ... a raft of the legendary "white gods" of the Indians of South America.
        As a noble, hereditary Viking, taking into account the technology of northern sailors - even without nails. Some cork trees, balsa and vegetable lace-ropes (along the sea - a line and rigging with a mast).
        Also successful, the raft even crawled ... to the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
        In general, if they want to do something, they do it.
        They don’t want to - they talk about the amazing technologies of the ancients. Moreover, technologies - which the last cross-eyed, krivoruky, hydropodic kid from the Viking camp should have known.
        The Germans, their glue Heikelovskoy firm - planes glue. Try to apply on your fingers, but do not spread your fingers on time.
        And here - to make glued keel - a problem.
        ...
        I see the point is different. As far as we know, the Vikings were such a people, funny, say.
        Hallucinogens are cracked - and all without exception - berserkers. Reckless.
        Were they bothering - holding the keel wave, not holding?
        One figs will get to Valhalla. It was simply necessary to plant an ax in the head off before drowning a neighbor. And he, as a reciprocating courtesy, will reveal a skull to you.
        And, come to the godfather to admire - sit in the evening for a couple in the chambers of Odin, ale crack.
        .
        They found a strange aggregate in Iraq during archaeological excavations. Exceptionally similar to a primitive battery, the Volta cell. Allegedly, vinegar was poured into it - and this unit even began to generate current.
        Believe not?
        Here you are reading "On the Edge of the Oikumene" by Ivan Efremov. And he so casually informs that the technology of processing marble statues of the era of Ancient Greece seemed to suggest the possibility - softening stone.
        Ivan Efremov, for me, for example - authority. This is a prominent paleoanthologist, creator of a new direction. And in - softening the stone - I can’t believe it.
        What to do?
        Maybe it’s just my brain softening?
        Ancient scriptures of the Indians avidly describe the "drink of the gods" - soma. Which gives oblivion, and enlightenment, and stupidity, and elevation.
        And, any collector of poppy tar - will tell - here it is - catfish. You can dilute, you can not dilute. But - the parish - is provided unambiguously.
        And all ... ancient, secret .. technology.
        ...
        Let's talk about crystal skulls. This is technology.
        1. Djozz
          Djozz 29 July 2013 14: 35
          0
          And what about gutar turtles, remakes of the late 19th century, is proven. the source is the Nistori channel, and about Henkel's glue is a technology of the 20th century, and the Vikings cooked it, apparently from fly agarics!
          1. Hort
            Hort 30 July 2013 06: 25
            0
            in general, the glue was not glue, but the keel bar was so articulated that they could withstand longitudinal loads and the design of the ship as a whole provided minimal bowing. But Russian rooks rocked in all directions, but they were more maneuverable (I climbed yesterday on the sites of all historians-reconstructors :)) and had a deck and a hold (some in any case).
        2. nerd.su
          nerd.su 29 July 2013 15: 43
          +1
          Quote: Igarr
          And he so casually reports that the technology of processing marble statues of the era of Ancient Greece seemed to suggest the possibility of softening the stone.

          If the ancients knew vinegar, then such a technology is more than likely.
          1. Mooh
            Mooh 30 October 2013 03: 07
            0
            But they knew. Acidified wine turns into vinegar over time.
      2. Hort
        Hort 29 July 2013 14: 42
        0
        maybe there was some kind of analogue ...
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 30 July 2013 14: 26
      0
      But I wonder why now no one was able to build a full-fledged Viking drakkar or lodge, despite modern knowledge and technology?
      Your information is incorrect. For a long time, everything was built and tested at sea. With detailed observance of known historical facts about its structure.
      Do not find it difficult to list the reconstructed dragrakars and how many, when one of them broke from the wave load. Or at least give a reference to the coverage of this fact.
      1. Hort
        Hort 31 July 2013 12: 22
        0
        Well then my information is outdated;)
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 31 July 2013 12: 50
          0
          The bourgeois even shot documentaries more than once for all kinds of television channels. For example, one of the freshest ones about the transition from Scandinavia to England in a historical replica of a drakkar. Autonomy across the North Sea.
          It was funny to look at the fashionable and politically correct crew.
          Only the super-fashionable European LGBT theme of the last couple of years has not been highlighted there.
    3. nerd.su
      nerd.su 30 July 2013 16: 28
      +1
      Quote: hort
      that the ships of the northern peoples and Slavs were more perfect than the Mediterranean, since they allowed them to go on the open sea and in the northern seas (did the Greeks and Romans go along the coastline)?

      The Slavs and Vikings, too, were not particularly far from the coast, however. There was no compass, fresh water supplies are not unlimited.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 31 July 2013 10: 45
        +1
        The Slavs and Vikings, too, were not particularly far from the coast, however.
        You tell this to the discoverers of Iceland and Greenland.
        The same Vikings, in addition to fighting dragcars, had a bunch of varieties of relatively capacious cargo ships. They just are not so famous. Drakkars with all their wonderful seaworthiness are very convenient only for raids. The Vikings became famous as sailors. But never in naval battles. While in Europe there was a strong centralized power (the same Charlemagne). They successfully coped with the Vikings. But when everything collapsed into fragmentation ... Then the suit of the northern robbers and rolled.
        For comparison: at that time in Russia there was great stability and centralization. And so the Vikings were more willing to trade than rob. Because they quickly and effectively received zvizdyuley in response to the slightest misunderstanding of the moment.
        1. nerd.su
          nerd.su 31 July 2013 13: 02
          0
          Quote: abrakadabre
          You tell this to the discoverers of Iceland and Greenland.

          Well, if they could easily make such voyages, the first colony in Iceland would not die out so mysteriously. Well, swim there for two weeks, so it’s also not a transatlantic journey ...
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 31 July 2013 13: 41
            0
            1. Easy or not easy, but performed regularly.
            2. Definitely not transatlantic? Take a look at the map. I agree that it is not equatorial-transatlantic.
            What other nations in the same historical time made such distant transitions in the open ocean? Offhand I can name only the Polynesian colonization of the Pacific Islands. I can not judge about the Arabian oceanic (but not coastal) sailing to the eastern shores of equatorial Africa. I don’t have enough data. By the way, it’s interesting to read about it.
  • Mika712
    Mika712 29 July 2013 12: 41
    +3
    On all sites where a respected author places this article, he is pointed out to the same errors in his reasoning:
    1. The author plants rowers vertically and gives the long rowers the upper rowers. From here, trying to draw conclusions. At Olympia, it can be seen that the rowers sit with a shift and stick the oars into the water at different angles. The length of the oars is the same and not so long.
    2. The author considers keel galleys with a heavy frame. On the trireme there is a light supporting shell such as an egg shell, recruited from thin plates. You don’t really ride in such a vessel in a storm. So the Greeks walked along the coast and hid in the bays. But easy.
    3. The author considers the ramming strike again of two heavy ships. Like what will happen if the tank collides with another tank. The body of the trireme is like a shell from an egg, a directed blow will open it, like a tin can knife. Therefore, you need to compare with the aircraft ram of WWII times.
    4. The Persians on the oars were slaves, the Greeks and the Vikings - free. Remember the Argonauts - rowing ourselves, our own marines. Where there are slaves, they really need shackles, overseers, individual soldiers.
    1. Rider
      Rider 29 July 2013 13: 19
      +5
      Quote: Mika712
      to the same mistakes in his reasoning:


      but do not you think that your point 2 is contrary to your point 3?

      here personally, in my opinion, a light shell, simply can not deliver a ram blow without falling apart itself.

      and I would like to know how she has maneuverability.
      since it is painfully long and narrow.

      although, without a doubt, the watch is beautiful.

      and by the way. > Due to lack of time, we were unable to solve some of the problems that arose when using these ropes on a life-size model, so we temporarily used steel ropes.
      (from the explanations of the builders of the trireme)

      In other words, without steel ropes, sailing on this joke is even dangerous - it strives to split. I wonder what will happen if such a hull embed with all the dope on another ship?

      http://gorod.tomsk.ru/index-1211801900.php


      and your point 4 ourselves rowing, our own marines

      did you see the video provided above?
      how much did they rake there?
      10minute
      30?
      an hour?
      and after that they still wave axes?

      I’m telling you as a machine operator, sometimes you’ll so sway a sledgehammer that a cigarette slips out of your fingers.

      laughing
      1. Mika712
        Mika712 29 July 2013 14: 34
        -1
        Dear Rider!

        > sometimes you use a sledgehammer

        Have you ever stood in a low pile? This is when the hips are parallel to the floor, hands in front of you. At first, you will stand for 5-10 minutes - and that’s it, rest in the corner. And the Chinese since childhood are so hasty. And on the exam they defend for 2 hours as two fingers on the asphalt.
        You and I, dear Rider, have studied at the school for 10 years at a school desk, studied the mind, the integrals with the gerund passed. And the guys in Greece from childhood on physical education leaned on. Moreover, the correct, gaining the necessary muscles and efforts.
        Here is the archer. He has been pumped since childhood in the right skills. He can pull the onion 3 pounds with 60 fingers. But the blacksmith cannot. The blacksmith has some muscles, and the shooter has the other muscles.

        In the video, some volunteer teapots were rowing. 10 minutes of rowing, 10 minutes would stand in the pile. If the proportion with the Chinese is respected, then a Hercules-class hulk could row for a couple of hours and not even sweat. In addition, people rowed for 10 minutes at maximum speed. The record was set. It's like an afterburner fighter - it flies quickly, but not for long.

        > a light shell, it simply cannot strike without falling apart.

        So a light fighter is made from about the same thing as a trireme. If they simply collide in the air, there will be everything as you described. And if it’s a screw on the tail of a bomber, it’s not working like that. Or do you also not believe in the ramming blow of the Second World War?

        The guys from the BBC decided to check what would happen if the Triceratops in the run would stick their horns in the side of a tyrannosaurus. It turned out: the bones of the skull of Triceratops are so fragile that from such a ramming blow, the triceratops skull will fall apart. But did Triceratops use the horns somehow? They found the tyrannosaurs they killed. So, you do not have to run about the cart, but carefully.

        Take the egg. Cross the egg, less durable than along: try to hit the other end with the end of the egg. Which one will fall apart?

        The egg, by the way, is a very sturdy construction for its thickness. It’s difficult to crush an egg with palms, but it’s easy to break a nail with a clove.

        The trireme has its own carnation, in the sense of a ram, attached to the nose. I don’t know how correctly the reenactors attached it. Maybe there were tricks too.

        I agree with the cables, while the reenactors have not mastered this task. Well, Heyerdahl did not immediately learn how to weave his ships. There will be time - they will figure it out.
        1. Rider
          Rider 29 July 2013 14: 45
          +1
          Quote: Mika712
          Have you ever stood in a low pile?


          you know Michael, they did not convince.
          I watched a rowing competition for a long time.
          they had distances there were 3 roofing felts, 5 km roofing felts.
          so after the finish many HELPED to get out of the boat.
          and this, you know, PROFESSIONAL athletes.
          they have training and regimen, and nutrition.
          and nobody forces axes to wave.
          wink

          and by the way, do you think that if you work with the paddle "not strained" then you will not get a bit tired 7

          about ramming "lightly" is also somehow unconvincing (especially in comparison with aviation)
          since for guaranteed breaking the side of the adversary, you need a BLOW, not a slap in the face.
          And THE MOST ESTABLISHED, then you need to quickly move away from the enemy ship, so as not to be pulled along.
          so it turns out that the rowers NU CAN NOT take part in the fight, because they are needed for something completely different.

          I agree with the cables, while the reenactors have not mastered this task. Well, Heyerdahl did not immediately learn how to weave his ships. There will be time - they will figure it out.

          you read the reference, there, after all, not only about the cable
          1. Mika712
            Mika712 29 July 2013 16: 02
            +3
            > they had distances there were roofing felts 3, roofing felts 5 km.
            so after the finish many HELPED to get out of the boat.

            So I watched 100m running competitions, there even sweaty blacks came running.
            Google "Rowing" for 160 km.

            There is a sail, there is a change of rowers (she is a boarding team). The sea around Greece is affectionate, there are many islands / bays.

            > if you work with the paddle "not in tension" then you will not get a bit tired 7

            Are you tired. But in moderation. There is measured work, breathing does not go astray, extra forces are not wasted. Ecology is good, meat is fresh, wine is diluted.

            We constantly forget: the dishes are light.

            > for guaranteed breakage of the foe's side, you need a BLOW, not a slap in the face.

            In your opinion, in order to blow up a bridge or a house you need to tie a ton of TNT to each brick? Or do you need the right places to know where a light click is enough?

            The ancient Greeks also tryndels in their forums: it is impossible to park the chariot backwards, the horse cannot ride back.

            > then you need to quickly move away from the enemy ship, so that it is not dragged along.

            Again we confuse warm with soft. This is not an armadillo, not a log. This figovina is assembled from boards connected by ropes. And they beat her aboard with a sharp bronze knife. He went in there, so he went out of there. I won’t be surprised if after such a blow you don’t need to pull anything out - the enemy ship fell to pieces.

            Even if stuck. There are no heavy guns / cores / armor on the enemy ship. Ballast is already drowned through a hole in the hull. The bottom will not pull.

            There are not many ropes / cables / ropes in which you can get tangled, tea is not a tea clipper. They took axes, chopped off the boards, pushed off with oars + turned on the reverse. And what's the problem?

            > you read the link, it's not only about the cable

            I read the reference and not the first time. How many times I read this article on different sites, so many times I read and a reference;)

            Here are the scientists. They read books, scratched their turnips. They made a trireme. But something did not master.

            But the ancient Romans. They read books, scratched turnips, prayed to the gods. They tried to make a ship. And nothing happened. Until several Carthaginian ships were thrown ashore. The Romans, like real Chinese, dismantled the cogs, examined all the know-how. Made their own. Only after that they piled on Carthage.

            High tech, however. This is not for you to come up with oars of 300 meters;)
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 30 July 2013 14: 41
        +1
        here personally, in my opinion, a light shell, simply can not deliver a ram blow without falling apart itself.
        It all depends on the direction of the strike with respect to the axis of the ship. For example, you can try to hit on ... well, on a stretched durable plastic bag with a long wooden glazing bead like a saber, and then poke like an awl.
        Feel the difference ?!
        how much did they rake there?
        And the ancients did not need to depict the motor tray for many hours in a row. Only during short jerks during the battle. And at another time, there is wind - set sail, no or not that direction - for a long time but relatively leisurely on the oars. Otherwise, I agree with Mika712 about training and endurance.
        And even before the development of railways and ships, the concept of what a great speed, including in the Navy, significantly differed from the modern ones. We are very spoiled in this regard.
    2. Mhpv
      Mhpv 29 July 2013 13: 55
      +3
      Quote: Mika712
      1. The author plants rowers vertically and gives the long rowers the upper rowers. From here, trying to draw conclusions. At Olympia, it can be seen that the rowers sit with a shift and stick the oars into the water at different angles. The length of the oars is the same and not so long.

      For starters, you try to row on a six-row boat to understand what rowing is together, and here are several tiers of different people according to their physical capabilities, and if they are shown in the movies, they are rowing slaves who are poorly fed and even beat while rowing so they are here and hang on these oars like a roach.
      1. Mika712
        Mika712 29 July 2013 15: 14
        +1
        1. Rowing.
        2. Not slaves, free people (Greece). We read the history textbook.
        3. Do not beat because free people (Greece, Vikings). Argonauts are asked Orpheus to sing to raise their tone.
        4. This is a crew, not a crowd. People are selected according to their physical qualities.
        5. They feed well, because the soldiers are rowing. Did any of the Argonauts starve?

        The Persians had slaves, they beat them and did not feed them. As a result, they lost to the Greeks.
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 30 July 2013 14: 49
        0
        In the Roman and Greek fleets, rowing was not slaves. They did not need to be beaten. Synchronization is quite achieved by training. In my opinion, it is much more difficult to achieve the absolute synchronism of many tens of people, for example, in the dance show “Lord of the Dance” or “Riverdance”. And do nothing.
      3. nerd.su
        nerd.su 30 July 2013 16: 59
        0
        Quote: mhpv
        First, you try to row on a six-row boat to understand what rowing is together, and here are several tiers of different people according to their physical capabilities

        And what, the ancient Greeks did not know what training? They invented the Olympic Games, if that. Drill training was also on top, otherwise the phalanx was useless. And you did not guess to train the rowers? recourse
  • d_trader
    29 July 2013 14: 28
    +3
    Good to all. I apologize, but the moderators put my signature on the article. This is not true since the conclusion made under the text does not belong to me either. In the comments I skipped about the Korean who built the .. fleet, there will be free time to find the info and with the permission of the site administration I will post an article about this miracle. This is how a thing is heated in itself, science fiction smokes bamboo, and historians have something else!)
    1. Djozz
      Djozz 29 July 2013 14: 37
      +1
      Cho run far, infa about the Chinese channel "Culture" last week.
    2. d_trader
      29 July 2013 14: 48
      +2
      There was in ancient times another pepper Mongol Ubilai Khan who built a fleet and sailed to conquer Japan. This thing deserves a separate article. on zomboyaschiku I have not seen this to be honest. Maybe because I don’t look?
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 29 July 2013 15: 03
        +2
        Exactly..
        and the Japanese built a giant fan of rice straw and swept this fleet.
        And the fan was called - "Divine Wind" - kamikaze ... in a different way.
        1. Djozz
          Djozz 29 July 2013 15: 08
          +1
          And filled the sails of these ships, gases from Zh.O.P. great conquerors.
      2. avt
        avt 29 July 2013 19: 34
        +1
        Quote: d_trader
        There was in ancient times another pepper Mongol Ubilai Khan who built a fleet and sailed to conquer Japan.

        There was a deal, a lot was sunk.
        Quote: Igarr
        and the Japanese built a giant fan of rice straw and swept this fleet.
        And the fan was called - "Divine Wind" - kamikaze ... in a different way.

        The tale is a lie, but one stubborn Japanese was diving in the place of the sinking of the wreckage ships, and then in the archives they found the most interesting documents. It turns out that the Chinese, in short, did not build new sea junks, but collected a bunch of river junks and appropriated to them, as in modern times, the "sea register", mastered the shipbuilding budget laughing . Here the wind blew - the punts drowned with ordinary soldiers, but the noble bar clearly got the case back and then sailed to the sea. This is such a kamikaze, understand laughing Well, exactly like ours - remember how Soviet-built river ships in the Sea of ​​Azov broke in a storm? Journalists ached - the element! And the casket just opened - the hutsuk river ships, supposedly after repair, were transferred to the river-sea category.
    3. Rider
      Rider 29 July 2013 15: 06
      0
      Quote: d_trader
      I will find free time


      http://gorod.tomsk.ru/index-1212444902.php

      the latest versions.
      1. Djozz
        Djozz 29 July 2013 15: 39
        +1
        Thank you, I laughed as much as I wrote about the fleet of the Chinese admiral JoHe, this is more abrupt than the "flight" of the Americans to the moon.
  • Volkhov
    Volkhov 29 July 2013 15: 05
    +2
    The cruising engine of ancient ships was a "dragon's head" on the bow with a small fusion reactor, which gave field thrust, and the oars were shunting devices. When they forgot how to make reactors, they had to row all the time, but they left the "head" out of habit and for fear to the enemies - let them think that they were real and be afraid (it was possible to remove the radiation beam and burn the enemy like a club).
  • Nirag013
    Nirag013 29 July 2013 17: 38
    +4
    Article - definitely "+"! Most commentators who are trying to prove the possibility of a multi-tiered arrangement of rowers on ancient ships, not only have NOT rowed themselves, but, it seems to me, the sea was mainly seen in the picture. The video above shows very clearly that all three rows of oars, working with their blades in approximately the same zone, for the most part simply uselessly foaming water. Those. The efficiency of such rowing is very, very low. I do not mean the efficiency of the rowers themselves, but the efficiency of the oar blade as a propeller. One should not think that the ancient sailors, even from purely practical experience, could not understand this despite their lack of knowledge in our contemporary volume. And it is not only triremes that can be "reconstructed" and adjusted to fit your speculative theories at the current level of technology.
    PS: In addition, the article quite correctly poses the question of the carrying capacity of the "reconstructed" trier. Or did the ancient Greeks also build them for races and records?
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 31 July 2013 10: 57
      +1
      The video above shows very clearly that all three rows of oars, working with their blades in approximately one zone, for the most part simply froth water uselessly. Those. The efficiency of such rowing is very, very low.
      Nevertheless, a team of motley rowers, and there are girls on the video, and even some pensioner flashed, after a relatively short training session showed a very impressive result in speed, coherence, and maneuverability.
      Efficiency is a very new and unknown concept. They still had nothing else but oars and no sail. So leave this argument to yourself.
      And it is not only triremes that can be "reconstructed" and adjusted to fit your speculative theories at the current level of technology.
      The reconstruction of Olympia and its sea trials are more believable than yours or the author of the article speculative condemnations and the absence of any real reconstructions in principle
      smile
      Sorry for the directness.
  • Djozz
    Djozz 29 July 2013 18: 01
    +1
    There was a ship of this size in nature, but it was in ancient Rome and it was built by Caligula's order for the gaiguev and the emperor's pancake, but the fact is that he sailed on a small lake and I dare not speak of his outstanding seaworthiness. Mussolini raised it in the 30s, draining the lake and making a museum of "Roman pride" out of the ship, but the Germans bastards, not understanding the lofty feelings of the "noble" Romans, showed Aryan rudeness and burned him to some kind of mother. At Barbara's!
  • Kir
    Kir 29 July 2013 21: 09
    0
    You can believe or not believe the technology of the ancients that are now lost but the facts say the following:
    1 The legendary Chinese red varnish, like in China, always boasted that they honor and remember, but the Red varnish of the MIN dynasty and the current one are not 100% one-on-one (although nothing has passed for about 600 years !!!) and the plant served the basis is Tung Ford, which is also the Chinese Tung tree, which is still growing today. But no, that old one was better than the present !!!
    2 Anosovsky ......? Damascus? or your own unique? And now that not forged blade so immediately Damascus Damask steel and more!
    And then the products of Stradevari and so on and so forth.

    Now, according to the Norwegian Tur, well, first of all, the Ra-1 almost fell short, for some reason (though I repeat myself), it seems as if they considered the bend of the stern as a decorative element, the "string" was not pulled, but it turned out that thanks to her the stern was like a spring (there in general the whole boat was spring loaded !!!), and indeed the whole boat had an enviable seaworthiness, contrary to the opinions of skeptics, the Ra-2 started from the place of the emergency to complete.
    Now on "Kon-Tiki" pure balsa is, for some reason, the ingenious system of retractable keels has been ignored, the purpose of the expedition is the Easter Island area, by the way, according to the temporary dating of the experiments, it is older, but in general it is a single whole. the coast of South America and then after staying there and leaving the code of laws and some knowledge (the calendar attributed to the Maya is taken from the Almateks) departed further to the Polynesian Region in general, anyone interested in all this is in Russian translation (only 7 (if not beguiled) of his books came out with us , and so everything else is only in the language)

    Now, according to the article entirely on the side of the Author about how and by whom it was translated, the translators very often do translators (I would call them naked) who are not completely or completely off topic, not for nothing that even in Oboronka they tried to send a specialist with knowledge of the language to translate which translator were not in the state, a whim? there’s just no knowledge of how humanities will translate without knowing the profile they will become !!!
  • maxvet
    maxvet 30 July 2013 09: 11
    0
    Quote: Djozz
    And filled the sails of these ships, gases from Zh.O.P. great conquerors.

    so soy however
  • realse
    realse 30 July 2013 18: 23
    0
    Horoshaja statja.
  • kirpich
    kirpich 31 July 2013 11: 36
    +1
    Quote: Djozz
    And I wrote about the pirates of the Strait of Malacca, and moreover, the pirates of Somalia


    I apologize. My head is still confused after the day of the Navy. I mixed up everything.
    1. Djozz
      Djozz 1 August 2013 10: 40
      +1
      I accept the apology