Giant Ships of Rome

[Dardanus Lupus]

But there are quite reasonable doubts if Nemi ships ever existed and obelisk ship too, there are too many unaswered questions. Some people even believe that Nemi ships were fascits' forgery.

Some people even believe that the moon landing was a forgery.

I know the importance of playing the Devils' Advocate, but consider that the history of the Nemi ships, including the whole process of empyting the lake and preservation of the wrecks, has been extensively documented. Statuary finds are displayed in museums. I find it hard to stomach such incredulousness in front of such evidence.

The obelisk carriers are a harder case. Back in the 1800s many refused to believe that romans could have built such a ship and many continued to think so until the Nemi ships were unearthed. Recently a new and quite original theory about the obelisk carriers have been proposed by A. Wirsching in "Die Obelisken auf dem Seeweg nach Rom" (2002) RM 109, 141-156. Abstract:
"The erection of two obelisks at Rome before 10 B.C. must be considered in connection with the erection of two obelisks at Alexandria 13-12 B.C. The comparison of all activities around these events indicates, that a close co-operation of Romans and Egyptians took place from 15 B.C. onward. Before the first obelisk transport to Rome, Roman engineers and shipbuilders had the opportunity to study the Egyptian transport technology on the Nile. Based on these experiences, the Roman navy was capable of constructing an appropriate ship for the transport of obelisks across the Mediterranean. Until now it was believed, that heavy, granite objects were laid on top of ships at the stone quarries near Aswan and then brought northward. This assumption can no longer be upheld. Instead columns and obelisks were transported hanging in water between the two hulls of a double-ship. The loading of a double-ship was easy and without using any power. The Roman obelisk-ship was composed of three interconnected ships. Two ships supported the obelisk, which hung between them in the water, and the third ship was centred between their bows. The ship in front provided the streamlined water flow necessary at open sea, and also the propulsion. Of all Roman ship types the trireme appears best suited to be adapted to this role as an integral part of the obelisk-ship. As the result of this investigation every detail contained in reports of Pliny, Suetonius and Ammianus corresponds to the construction of the hypothetical Roman obelisk-ship. Definite clues about the Roman double-ship technology give remarks on the sinking of Caligula's obelisk-ship in the Portus near Ostia. A part of the former western mole, which consists of pozzolana concrete has to be interpreted as a platform built up on pillars above the obelisk-ship."

Here are some questions:
-propelling such a big ships by oars deemed impossible
-too big sails (doubtful to handle) how many men would be needed to hoist yard with sail? (both on obelisk carrier and Nemi ships) if we consider that some 30 men needed to hoist the frigate President topsailyard
-lake Nemis is very small (1.67 square km) such ships were probably not expected to sail (lake is surrounded by hills) but build solely sacred to deity?
-areas of rudders are very small, presumably insufficient to steer the vessel
-strange damage of ships at the end of the WW II.

- Question about the sail size is adequate. I'm no nautical expert myself, but I reckon it was discussed in length in Lionel Casson's Ships and Seamanship. To the best of my knowledge, there is no physical reason why these ships could not be propelled.

- Lake Nemi ships were not intended to be moved. Actually, they weren't built to be seaworthy. In my view they were nearly stationary pieces of religious architecture. They make perfect sense in connection with the mysteries of Isis, where ships played an important part.

- As far as I know, nobody knows exactly how the Nemi ships were burned and why. Museum staff found the site all burned down after german artillery had retreated from the hills (which were under allied artillery barrage) and it was occupied by american troops. A museum official who inspected the site during the battle later told that german artillery tractors had caused damage to the museum yard and a few colums were knocked down, but the ships were still intact. Nazis were blamed for the act of course, but I've failed to found any concrete evidence in this case. It is perfectly possible that some disgruntled artilleryman had torched the ships for some horrendously stupid reason, but: We don't know. Maybe it counts as a mystery.