Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Origin of pentere
#1
According to Diodorus of Sicily, the pentere was invented by Dionysius I of Syracuse and used for the first time during the attack on Motya. Then, we read nothing about penteres, until the age of Alexander. I can imagine two explanations:
(a) Dionysius's date is wrong and the pentere was invented later;
(b) the obvious theater where penteres would have been used, the Aegean (Corinthian War, Third Sacred War etc), was too impoverished to afford building penteres.

Anyone any thoughts?
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#2
Hi Jona,
Do you have access to Tarn, Hellenistic Military & Naval Developments? Or even better: Morisson & Coates, Greek and Roman Oared Warships. The latter has extensive discussions on the development on all such ships.

The trouble is that the ancient sources do not agree. For to Diodoros, you have to add our friend Pliny the Elder, NH VII.207-8:

207 longe nave Iasonem primum navigasse Philostephanus auctor est, Hegesias Parhalum, Ctesias Samiramin, Archemachus Aegaeonem, biremem Damastes Erythraeos fecisse, triremem Thucydides Aminoclen Corinthium, quadriremem Aristoteles Carthaginienses,

208 quinqueremem Mnesigiton Salaminios, sex ordinum Xenagoras Syracusios, ab ea ad decemremem Mnesigiton Alexandrum Magnum, ad duodecim ordines Philostephanus Ptolemaeum Soterem, ad quindecim Demetrium Antigoni, ad XXX Ptolemaeum Philadelphum, ad XL Ptolemaeum Philopatorem, qui Tryphon cognominatus est. onerariam Hippus Tyrius invenit, lembum Cyrenenses, cumbam Phoenices, celetem Rhodii, cercyrum Cyprii.

Even more fun, as you surely know Mnesigiton has not survived and is otherwise unknown, so this evidence is uncorroborated.
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#3
How about none of the above?

Was the Penteres superior to either the Trieres or the Tetreres, and would it thus necessarily have been built in large numbers across the Mediterranean world after 499 BC.

I think one might well argue the 5 was either or something of a failure in it original incarnation, or simply not necessarily superior to a 4 or a 3 or both. The very fact that it was often largely rejected by the leading skilled naval powers of the 4th (and even the 3rd century): Carthage, Athens and Rhodes would seem a notable point. The Athenians also seem to have favored the 4, adding far more of them to their fleet up till the Lamain war than 5s, and their contribution to Demetrius’ victorious left wing at Salamis (on Cyprus) was 4s as well. Even the Romans when they decided to field a fleet based of maneuver used 4s, not the 5s they used with the corvus.

Given the success Syracuse had with frontal ramming against the Athenians in 413, I seems possible to suggest that Dionysius’ 5 was designed for frontal ramming (as per W Murray) and to reduce the need for skilled oarsmen. In small numbers or in an open water battles the original 5 might have been rather vulnerable to a well crewed 4 or 3.

Another thing to consider is that very few states appear to have been in the business of building many new hulls unless they had too. Corinth had not much a navy to speak of in the 430’s and her great building effort was something of a one off even she never really repeated on her own. The Megaran 3s were in poor shape at the start of the Peloponnesian wars. Megara was not even building new 3s, let alone experimenting with new ship designs, and that seems likely to me to be the typical state of affairs for most Greek cities. That is unlike say Athens or Carthage; naval hulls were probably more of a one time investment rather than something to be built, graded and disposed when to old in an ongoing process of investment and spending.

Edit:
But how far to trust Pliny, since he cites Thucydides for naming the Corinthians as inventors of the 3, but I don’t think anyone is ready to support Thucydides as really meaning more than just the Corinthians were perhaps the first Greeks to build Trieres.
Paul Klos

\'One day when I fly with my hands -
up down the sky,
like a bird\'
Reply
#4
Diodorus is full of inaccuracies.
Coritnhians were percieved as the first to built triremes.
From what I have heard here my opinion that penteres is a hellenistic and not classical vessel has been reinforced.
Kind regards
Reply
#5
Thanks for all contributions, which will help me phrase one section in my book.
Quote:But how far to trust Pliny, since he cites Thucydides for naming the Corinthians as inventors of the 3,
Pliny often refers to conflicting evidence, but in this particular case does not endorse one view; he cites Thucydides, and does not say that he was right.

As to the reliability of Diodorus, last week, Christopher Tuplin wrote this nice piece. I think we must start to revaluate him. Of course, Diodorus is often inaccurate when he has no good source (e.g., choosing Ctesias as source for Near-Eastern history was an error), but Diodorus' choice of Ephorus was not a bad one. And when he's talking about Sicily, I think that the burden of proof rests with those who disagree with Diodorus.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#6
Quote:And when he's talking about Sicily, I think that the burden of proof rests with those who disagree with Diodorus.
(Just being difficult) Good knowledge about Sicily does not exclude the possibility that he missed the information from Cyprus (at least, I assume it's that Salamis Pliny means).
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#7
About Quinquerremes, they are listed in great numbers in the Punic wars, especially in the first one, but I think that today most scholars agree that Fabius Pictor reported avery warship as a quinquerreme if anything.
About how fleets were managed, I think that data form the galley fleets of the XV and XVI centuries are a good indication, in those times some points were clear
Hulls were if anything the cheapest part of equipment, rigs and sails were more costly, and of course the main cost was crews. Fleets many times just remained for months in port waiting for a mission, then in few days crews were recruited and ships manned for an specific mission, be it a raid, or facing an invading fleet, whatever, and after that was accomplishedships returned to port and crews were disbanded except for a cadre.
AKA Inaki
Reply
#8
Quote: Pliny often refers to conflicting evidence, but in this particular case does not endorse one view; he cites Thucydides, and does not say that he was right.

As to the reliability of Diodorus, last week, Christopher Tuplin wrote this nice piece. I think we must start to revaluate him. Of course, Diodorus is often inaccurate when he has no good source (e.g., choosing Ctesias as source for Near-Eastern history was an error), but Diodorus' choice of Ephorus was not a bad one. And when he's talking about Sicily, I think that the burden of proof rests with those who disagree with Diodorus.

I just saw that review the other day, good for Diodorus he deserves a full court press defense, he may not be Thucydides but I think he gets all too many off-the-cuff attacks as inaccurate or careless or etc…

But going back to your original point question doesn’t Diodorus also put 5s in the fleet of Sidon during the Satraps revolt, earlier than what I would call the Age of Alexander?
Paul Klos

\'One day when I fly with my hands -
up down the sky,
like a bird\'
Reply
#9
Quote:earlier than what I would call the Age of Alexander?
What I meant was "the Aegean in the age of Alexander". :oops:
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#10
Quote:Diodorus is full of inaccuracies.
Coritnhians were percieved as the first to built triremes.
From what I have heard here my opinion that penteres is a hellenistic and not classical vessel has been reinforced.
Kind regards

Greetings, my dear Stefane.

Let me ask you something... You, several times, as much as this buddy with that FINE "Dendron" armor (sorry, I can't recall his name), you both saying... "This writter is full of inaccuracies... Your books are not good, they not having good & accurate infos...", etc.

With which measure, you or this nice fellow, are you making this statements?

Most of us (or I shall speak for myself), reading books as much as you. I'm reading ancient writters/historics, among with modern ones...
Why ALL these are wrong or they writting inaccuracies and you are reading the right books, from the accurate writters?
Or, if you ARE right, why don't you giving us the bibliography of your research (as you asking, several times...), so we (ehm, sorry, me...) to have the chance to read and update our theories?

Because... ALL these are theories and speculations. As I said before, SINCE that we CAN'T travel back to time and see with our own eyes the REAL things/facts/people/life/etc., we ALL making theories... All! Historics, professors, reaserchers, readers (like we are),... everybody are reading, researching, CHOOSING what it "fits" to their personal opinion/mind and they are doing... speculations.

All these was just a thought of mine... Nothing more, nothing less.

Regards.
aka Romilos

"Ayet`, oh Spartan euandro... koroi pateron poliatan... laia men itin provalesthe,
...dori d`eutolmos anhesthe, ...mi phidomenoi tas zoas. Ouh gar patrion ta Sparta!
"
- The Lacedaimonian War Tune -
Reply
#11
My friend Romylos.
It does good to the credibility of any ancient writer to be "confirmed" by other contemporaries and ideally by archeology.

Usually Diodoro's account is considered more credible when he uses Eforos as a source. Perhaps not all his work is inaccurate but sertein segemnts are.

Diodorus for instance is the one who claims that Celts sacked Delfi in 279 B.C. but archeology has put all violent distructions of the place after 300 A.D.

Kind regards
Reply


Forum Jump: