Pyrrhus of Epirus Illustration

[Ceasar Augustus]

Thanks Johnny, anyway to change it to dollars?

[Paralus]

One disagreement there, Paralus. Thucydides implies that both sides tried ramming, but prow-to-prow not in the flanks or against the oars. As ships became stuck or grappled ("it was difficult for them to break away clear") movement probably stopped.

There were four basic tactics for disabling an enemy in ancient naval battle. To wit:

1 ramming head on
2 ramming the flanks or oars of the enemy by clever manoeuvering
3 grappling and boarding
4 (rare) setting your opponent alight with flaming missiles or fire-pots

Yes, it would be a little disingenuous of me to reject the implication. But - and there is always a but - the whole is predicated on the introduction; that is, they were "behindhand" in naval operations. Thucydides is at some pain to stress the numbers of hoplites, javelineers and archers aboard each fleet. That description itself seems of a pair of land armies. The intention, in my view, was always to fight a land battle aboard ship after initial contact - whether they could back water or not. The formations adopted, as Thucydides implies, were not conducive to Athenian style operations. Hence they take the right wing (as well as for the political reasons expounded above).

Agreed on the Athenian preference. Whilst Athenian fleets will never have sailed minus a compliment of marines (ships will become stuck etc) it was rarely the intention to fight close quarters warfare as described at Sybota. Athenian Triremes were not, in fact, designed for such close quarter fighting as the fighting in the closed waters of the Great Harbour at Syracuse so devastatingly points out.

Some might argue those fleets which sailed early in the Archidamnian War carried a strong compliment of hoplites; this misconstrues their mission which was to land same in Peloponnesian territory for harassment.

It is post Syracuse and the unmitigated disaster that Athens adopts your number three as well as tactics resembling Sybota. The contrast between the victories of Phormio and the crushing Athenian victory at the Arginusae Islands is astounding. Indeed I was planning something along those lines for the coming edition of AW but real life, unfortunately, supervened! At Arginusae the Athenians adopt a staggered set of lines. This resembles the Roman maniples (each ship in each line) and is designed to destroy any enemy that sails through the front line. It created a land battle at sea and resulted in a thumping Athenian victory. Phormio though would not have recognised the tactics at all.

This adoption of such tactics didn’t happen immediately though. While ever Athens possessed decent generals with nous and the money to hire rowers of calibre, she displayed exactly that tactical ability that had got it empire in the first place. The victories under Thrasybulus and Alcibiades recall halcyon days. These were though, with Persian darics dropping into Spartan coffers and a flippantly dangerous demos, an illusion.

[Ceasar Augustus]

I note you've disabled comments on your portfolio Johnny - too many backsides??

Pity, I quite like your Battle of Sybota. A difficult thing to capture but you've gone very close (Thuc.1.49):

The fighting was of a somewhat old-fashioned kind, since they were still behindhand in naval matters, both sides having numbers of hoplites aboard their ships, together with archers and javelin throwers. But the fighting was hard enough in spite of the lack of skill shown: indeed it was more like a battle on land than a naval engagement. When the ships came into collision it was difficult for them to break away clear, because of the number engaged and of their close formation. In fact both sides relied more for victory on their hoplites, who were on the decks and who fought a regular pitched battle there while the ships remained motionless.

Thucydides implies that only the Athenian ships employed ramming tactics or anything other than "hoplite" fighting. Greek naval warfare had not progressed one iota from the Persian wars - outside of Athens that is. Something Phormio would so devastatingly demonstrate some six or so years later.

One disagreement there, Paralus. Thucydides implies that both sides tried ramming, but prow-to-prow not in the flanks or against the oars. As ships became stuck or grappled ("it was difficult for them to break away clear") movement probably stopped.

There were four basic tactics for disabling an enemy in ancient naval battle. To wit:

1 ramming head on
2 ramming the flanks or oars of the enemy by clever manoeuvering
3 grappling and boarding
4 (rare) setting your opponent alight with flaming missiles or fire-pots

These were supported by shooting at the enemy marines and deck crew (and the rowers, if the enemy ship wasn't cataphract) but you couldn't defeat an enemy with projectiles alone. In their glory days, I think that the Athenians prefered #2 and their less-experienced enemies #1 and #3.

I can't wait to see the Sybota article and picture, Johnny!

Of those four, I think #4 is the safest and easiest.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Hey Johnny... Know what would be really cool to see? Some Persians. Persian grunts, as well as cataphracts and even nobility/royalty.

[Ceasar Augustus]

Hmmm... that might be interesting.

[Eduorius]

Wow! Great art and the helmet looks fantastic.

[BigRedBat]

Lovely artwork! Laudes!

[virtus]

Hi
The Elephant illustration was made by Richard Hook.
I really enjoy the work of Richard Hook; it demonstrates all what it takes to be a top quality illustrator.