You are on page 1of 13

Egypt Exploration Society

Triremes and the Sate Navy


Author(s): Alan B. Lloyd
Source: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 58 (Aug., 1972), pp. 268-279
Published by: Egypt Exploration Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3856256 .
Accessed: 14/10/2014 09:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Egypt Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(268)
TRIREMES AND THE SAITE NAVY
By
ALAN B. LLOYD
IN Herodotus' discussion of the
reign
of Necho
(610-595 B.C.)
we read the
following
statement:I
1uavadFLevos 8E
Tr]s
StapvXos
o
N?KCSS ETpdaTTETo 7Trpo arpaT7ilas.,
Kal
rpLqJpeES
at
pLeV TC
rrj
Roprfqit
Oacdac
acro
o'7Orlaav
, at 8' ev
rco
Apa/Bt
KO'ATco cm) rT
'EpvOpnj OaAdaar,
v
stL
oL
oXAKOi Eat
S&rjAo&.
Kat
avrrlaL ,e
teXpa7O
E TC
sOVTr
. . .
When he had desisted from the canal Necho turned his attention to
military campaigns,
and
triremes were
constructed,
some for the Mediterranean and others in the Red Sea for
operations
in
the
Erythrian
Ocean.2 The
slipways
of the latter are still to be seen. And these
ships
he
put
to use
when the need arose ...
This
passage
creates a
strong impression
that the Saites were
getting
assistance from
the Greeks in naval matters and that the
copiously
documented
employment
of Greek
military expertise
in their
army
was but one
aspect
of a more
general dependence,
but
this conclusion has
proved distinctly unpalatable
in
many quarters.
De Meulenaere
writes,
'On the basis of the word
rpTjpeEs
in Herodotus Drioton and Vandier take the
view
(L'tgypte,
pp.
554-5)
that the Saite
navy
was of Greek
origin
and was
probably
for the most
part
manned
by foreigners;
this seems to us
very
doubtful' and
'By
the
rptqpeES
mentioned
by
Herodotus we should doubtless understand
kbnt-ships,
a
type
encountered as
early
as the 6th
Dynasty; they
were
large sea-going
vessels which in
the Saite and Ptolemaic Periods were also used as
warships'.3
M. . .Austin
adopts
a
similarly sceptical
attitude. 'From the fact that Herodotus
(2. I59) speaks
of Necho as
having
a fleet of
"triremes",
it is
very
often assumed that Greeks also
helped
to
develop
the
Egyptian
fleet.... But Greek sources never state this .. '4 For these writers the
word
TrpLep?Es
is a
careless,
anachronistic
slip,
the merest
assumption
like the
6tXaval
and iron
tools, which,
according
to
Herodotus,
the
Egyptians
had used in
building
the
Great
Pyramid.5 Despite
this
scepticism
we believe that the obvious
interpretation
is
correct.
Since, however,
many
would
presumably
be
perfectly prepared
to
accept
that
2.
I59.
I.
2 Apadftos
KoATros is used
by
Hdt. when he wishes to
identify precisely
what we call the Red Sea
(cf
2. 2. .
4;
I02. 2; T58. 3; 4. 39. I; 42. 2; 43. 3). 'Epv6p?]
cfdXaaaa is,
in
origin,
a more
general term, being
identical with
7 vor07t OAXaaaa, though
it can be also used both of the Red Sea
(2. 158. 2; 4. 39. I; 42. 3)
and the Persian
Gulf(I.
80o.
I89; 3. 30. 3; 93. 2;
6.
20).
Since there is a clear antithesis in this
passage
between
p Bop-rr)
OaXaaaa,
i.e. the ocean of the northern
part
of the
oIKovU&ev7r,
and D
'EpvOpqj OdAaaaa,
i.e. the ocean of the
southern
hemisphere,
'E. 0. must here be identical with 0 vor5r) daOaaaa
and we
should, therefore,
translate
'Erythrian'
or 'Southern Ocean'.
3
Herodotos over de 26ste
Dynastie. Bibliotheque
du
Musdon, 27 (Louvain, I95I),
60 with n.
49.
4 Greece and
Egypt
in the Archaic
Age. Proceedings of
the
Cambridge Philological Society. Suppl. 2
(1970), 55
5 2.
125.
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TRIREMES AND THE SAITE NAVY
Greek
warships
were used in Necho's
reign
while
baulking
at the difficulties
posed by
the
suggestion
that
they
were
triremes,
it seems
advisable,
in our
attempt
to vindicate
Herodotus,
that we should
approach
the
problem
in two
stages:
I. Did Necho
get
assistance in the construction of
warships
from Greece?
2. If
so,
what was the
rating
of the
ships
concerned?
i. Greek assistance
There are excellent reasons for
believing
that the Pharaohs of the
Twenty-Sixth
Dynasty
turned to Greece for
help
in
building up
a fleet:
(a)
It is clear that imitation of
foreign ship design
was
by
no means an
impossibility
for an
Egyptian;
for in the reliefs
depicting
the battle between the
Egyptians
and
the Sea
Peoples
at Medinet Habu the two sides use
ships
which show
striking
similarities.'
Certainly
the hull
designs
are
different,
the
Egyptian being clearly
the traditional Nilotic
type,2
but the deck
upper
works are identical in both fleets
as are the
rigging
and the
fighting tops.
Since the latter are
totally un-Egyptian
in
style,
we must
surely
assume that the
Egyptians
are
imitating
the
example
of
their
neighbours
in the Eastern Mediterranean. This new
style
of
rigging is,
of
course,
both more economical and more efficient but its
adoption may
well have
been
prompted by specifically military considerations,
since loose footed sails
which could be brailed
up
to the
top yard
out of harm's
way
were much more
handy3
than the traditional
system whereby
two
yards
werere
employed,
a fixed
lower and a movable
upper, arranged
in such a
way
that the sail was raised or
lowered
by hoisting
the
upper yard up
or down. Such a scheme could have been
a distinct embarrassment in the
type
of action
depicted
in the reliefs.
(b)
Since the Saite Pharaohs were
using
Greek mercenaries on a
large scale,4
it
would be a natural
step
to
employ
Greek sailors and with them Greek
ships.
(c)
The
Saites,
like
many Egyptian
rulers after the traumatic
experience
of the
Hyksos occupation,
were
deeply
conscious of the
dangers
of their Asiatic
frontier,
as is
clearly
demonstrated
by
the
heavy
concentrations of Greek
mercenaries,
the best
troops they had,
in the
2Tparo'reSa and, later, Daphnae,
in the north-
eastern Delta. It was
not, however, only
the armies of the
Assyrians, Chaldaeans,
or Persians which constituted a threat.
They
had
good
reason to fear naval action
also;
for it would need little
strategic
acumen to realize that the Phoenician fleet
would be at the
disposal
of
any great power invading
from Asia.
Indeed,
joint
I
Nelson et
al.,
Medinet Habu
(Chicago, 1930), I, pi. 36-7.
Cf. our
fig.
I.
2
So
tentatively
but
rightly Landstr6m, Ships of
the Pharaohs: 4000 Years
of Egyptian Shipbuilding.
Archi-
tectura
Navalis,
I
(London, 1970), IIn.
Faulkner
('Egyptian Seagoing Ships', JEA
26
(I940), 9) thought
differently.
3 The position of the
reefing/brailing ropes (Gk. KcaAot)
is not
clearly
indicated but L. is
surely
correct in
comparing
Hdt. 2.
36
and in
making
them run down the inside of the sail
supported
in
rings (Gk. KpiKO&).
For Ptolemaic
representations
of this
rig, perfectly substantiating Herodotus,
see
Chassinat,
Le
Temple d'Edfou
(Cairo, I892-1934), XIII, pls. 470; 471; 508; 530.
4
Parke,
Greek
Mercenary
Soldiers
(Oxford, I933), 4 ff.; Kienitz,
Die
politische
Geschichte
Agyptens
vom
7
bis zum
4
Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende
(Berlin, 1953), 35
ff.
269
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ALAN B. LLOYD
naval and
military operations
were
by
no means unknown in earlier
Egyptian
history,'
and were
certainly
conducted
by
the
Saites,
the Asiatic
campaigns
of
Egyptian Galley
Warships
of the Sea
Peoples
FIG. I
Apries providing
a classic case
(vide
infra, pp. 271 ff.).
It could not have been lost
on them that their enemies
might
do likewise.
Indeed,
such a circumstance did in
fact arise
during
the Persian invasion of
Egypt
which led to the overthrow of the
Saite
Dynasty
in
525
when we find Phoenician
warships operating
from Acre
I
Urk.
I, ioI ff.;
Drioton and
Vandier, L'Agypte4, (Paris, 1962), 435 ff.;
Faulkner CAH
(Cambridge, 1966),
II, Ch. 23, 2 iff.
270
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TRIREMES AND THE SAITE NAVY
in
support
of
Cambyses' army.'
Now Phoenician
warships,
as
early
as c.
700 B.C.,
were two-deckers built for
ramming2
and
by
Necho's time this tactic had
long
been standard in naval
warfare, quite superseding
the old maritime land-battle
such as is
represented
at Medinet Habu. The
design
of native
Egyptian ships,
FIG. 2. Phoenician War
Galley
c.
700
B.C.
however,
was
quite
unsuitable for
fighting
actions of this
type.
The hull
profile
was such that at
allperiods
the forward
overhang
made a
killing
blow on the water
line
absolutely impossible (cf. figs.
i and
3
and contrast
2). Furthermore,
and
even more
important, they
had no keel3 and without the
longitudinal strength
imparted by
this feature
ramming
would have been suicidal. The attacker would
simply
have
disintegrated-a
fate which
many
a trireme came near to
suffering
despite
its
rpor7Tm.4
Greek
warships,
on the other
hand,
from a
very early period
had been
fast, highly
manceuvrable
galleys expressly
built for this
style
of
fighting.
It seems
extremely unlikely
that the Saite
kings
would fail to obtain an antidote
to the Phoenician
navy
when such anav obvious
remedy lay
at hand-and
plenty
of
Greeks
likely
to
point
it out !
(d)
There is
another, closely
related
argument. Apries
is known to have
fought
successful naval actions
against
the Phoenicians
during
the
Syrian campaigns
of
Strabo, I6. 2.
25 (C. 758).
That Acre was a naval base is certain:
(a) OdpqrrjpLOV
is
exemplified
in that sense
both
ap.
Strabo and elsewhere
(LSJ9, p. 1253 (b)
s.v.
op1tri jp&ov, II); (b)
it is much too far north to act as a
base of
operations
for the
army. Joint
naval and
military campaigns
were a Persian
speciality, e.g.
the counter-
measures
during
the revolt of Inarus
(D.S.
I 1.
77)
and Xerxes' invasion of Greece.
2
Layard,
Monuments
of
Nineveh
(First Series, London, I853), pl. 7I;
cf. our
fig. 2; Morrison and
Williams,
Greek Oared
Ships (Cambridge, 1968), pl. 22a; Basch,
'Phoenician Oared
Ships',
The Mariner's Mirror
55
(1969), 139
ff. See
Postscript, p. 279.
3
Landstr6m
(op.
cit.
I07)
states that a keel was
employed
in the N.K. but his
only
evidence consists of
ship
models found in the tombs of
Amenophis
II and Tut'ankhamun. This is not
enough:
(a)
In
Egyptology
models cannot be taken as a
guide
for technical details of this sort.
(b)
If the keel were
used,
we should not
expect
a
hogging
truss on the Punt
ships
of
Hatshepsut (fig. 3).
(c)
Evidence from the Pharaonic Period down to modem times indicates essential
continuity
in hull con-
struction on the Nile-and in Nubia
during
the last
century
no keel was
employed (Homell,
Water
Transport, Origins
and
Early
Evolution
[Cambridge, 1946], 215 ff.).
4
Tarn,
Hellenistic
Military
and Naval
Developments (Cambridge, I930), 144.
271
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
c.
589-573
B.C.'
This
proves
that the
Egyptian navy
was able to meet the
Phoenicians with
ships
at least as
good
as
anything
the latter
possessed
and
that,
in
turn, surely, compels
us to admit that
Apries
was
using
war
galleys
built for
ramming.
(e) Finally,
we
may
turn to a
philological point.
In
Egyptian
texts of the Saite and
Persian Period we encounter several times the word T' .a
'kbnt-ship'
in con-
texts which
prove
that it is a
warship: (i)
In the Stele of Year I of Amasis
large
numbers of
kbnt-ships
are mentioned in the same breath as Greek mercenaries
(HIjw
nbw)
as
part
of the forces of
Apries.2 (2)
In the texts on the
Naophorous
Statue of
Wadjhorresne
which dates to the
early
Persian Period we meet the
title im J
kc k my-r
kbnt nsw 'Admiral of the
Royal kbnt-ships',
a
title,
indeed,
which that
worthy
bore under Amasis and Psammetichus
III,3 presumably
to be relieved of it
by
the Persians in accordance with their
policy
of
keeping
the
highest military
commands in Persian and Median hands.4 There is
good
reason to believe that this word denotes
Greek-style
war
galleys,
since
(i)
the kbnt-
ships
of
Apries
are
presumably
the fleet with which he had
previously
defeated
the
Phoenicians,
and that
fleet,
as we have
shown,
must have consisted of war-
ships
built for
ramming. (2)
The title
imy-r
kbnt does not occur before the Saite
Period. In the New
Kingdom
the
expression
for Admiral of the Fleet was
L-,4a
k=ik
-4NJ imy-r
rhrw n nsw.5
Why
should such a
consciously archaizing
body
of men as the Saite rulers introduce or countenance such a novel term?
The answer must be that
something completely
new had
appeared
which needed
a novel
expression
to describe it. Now there are
only
three
ways
of
solving
the
problem
of
naming
a
newly
introduced
object: (a)
take over the
foreign name,
if one
exists; (b)
coin a new
one;
(c) employ
one of the old words of the
language
to refer to it. In this case it is
clearly
the third alternative which has been
employed.
Now there is one essential
precondition
without which such a semantic
development
cannot take
place, viz.,
that the new
object
or idea which
requires
a name must bear some
general similarity
to the
object
or idea whose
appellation
it is
borrowing. Applied
to the case in
point
this
principle suggests
that the
novelty
which we are
trying
to
identify
will bear some
general
resemblance to
the old
Egyptian
kbnt,
i.e. it must resemble what
Sive-Soderbergh
defines as a
'fast-running galley'.6
Would not Greek war
galleys
fill the bill
admirably? (3)
In
the Persian Period we find that triremes were
being employed
on a
large
scale
in the
Egyptian navy. According
to Herodotus the
Egyptians
sent a
contingent
of 200
ships
of this class as their contribution to the Persian fleet which
fought
Herodotus,
2. i6i.
2;
D.S. I. 68. i.
2
Daressy,
'Stele de 1'An III
d'Amasis',
RT 22
(1900),
I
ff.;
11.
3
and 12.
Jelinkova-Reymond ('Quelques
Recherches sur les Reformes
d'Amasis',A
SAE
54 (I957), 263 ff.)
and Posener
('Les
Douanes de la Medi-
terranee dans
1'Egypte Saite',
RdPh 21
(1947), I29)
show that the date is Year i.
3
Posener,
La Premiere Domination Perse en
Egypte. Bibliotheque d'Stude, II, (Cairo, 1936), 9.
4
Gray,
CAH
(1926), Iv, I90 ff.; Olmstead, History of
the Persian
Empire (Chicago, 1959 [1948]), 237
ff.
5
Save-S6derbergh,
The
Navy of
the
Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty (Uppsala,
Universitets
Arsskrift, 6, 1946,
88 ff.
6
On the
kbnt-ship
see
SaIve-S6derbergh, op.
cit.
48
ff.
ALAN B. LLOYD
272
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TRIREMES AND THE SAITE NAVY
at Salamis
(7. 89)
and we are further told that
they distinguished
themselves
mightily
therewith at the Battle of Artemisium
(8. I17).
In the next
century
Achoris
(393-380 B.C.)
sent no fewer than
fifty
triremes to the assistance of
Evagoras
of
Cyprus.'
The
Egyptians
would
require
a name for these vessels
and,
as we have
FIG.
3. Eighteenth-Dynasty kbnt-ships.
already shown,
the obvious candidate is kbnt.
Certainly,
it is true that the word
does not occur in the
required
context at this
period,
but that
may simply
be because the office and title
imy-r
kbnt were no
longer
held
by
an
Egyptian
(vide
supra,
p.
272) and, therefore, kbnt-ships
do not
figure
on the monuments.
(4) Although
it has
apparently
never been
noticed,
the word kbnt is
certainly
used
of Greek war
galleys
in the Ptolemaic Period. In an official document of
Ptolemy,
son of
Lagus, dating
from the
7th
Year of Alexander II
(3
I I
B.C.)
we
read, amongst
other
things,
the
following passage referring
in
general
terms to the victorious
campaigns
which he had
waged against Laomedon, Antigonus,
and Demetrius.
The text concentrates on the
military campaigns
in
Syria
between
320
and
I
Theopompus, FgrH II5,
F.
103;
D.S.
15.
2.
4. Gyles,
Pharaonic Policies and Administration, 663 to
323
B.C.
(James Sprunt
Studies in
History
and Political Science
4I, Chapel Hill, I959), 43
claims that
Nepherites
(399-393 B.C.)
sent the
Spartans
100 triremes.
Justin says
so
(6.
2.
2)
but D.S. states
(14. 79. 4)
that it was
only
the
equipment (aKEv ')
for that number. The
authority
of D.S. is little
enough,
but that of
Justin
is still less
on such a matter. We
should, therefore, prefer
the older writer.
C 8219 T
273
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ALAN B. LLOYD
312
B.C. but it also hints at the
wide-ranging
and
highly
successful naval
opera-
tions conducted
by Ptolemy
in the Eastern
Mediterranean.'
'He mustered the Greeks in
great
numbers
together
with their horses and
many
kbnt-ships
with their crews. He marched with his
army
against
the land of
Syria.
They
[sc.
the
Syrians] fought against
him when he entered
amongst them, his
5e ? hm + ' -
OX/
-- eS0 --
:5P<-
^^
hips and their treasures.'
of Ptolemy. Since they are the only naval vessels mentioned, we must assume
that they are theFIG. 4. Sat imporap St element, indeed the backbon4-6,e of his fleet,-
heart
being
stout like a falcon i nbw. Now the operations in questi he con
wquered
thmcon-
ducted again one battle. He
brought
back to
Egypt
all their
chiefs,
their horseops, their kbxcellent
commships
and their tresuch asure Antigonus and Demetrius and large, practised naval forces.'
whicKbnt-ships
are mentioned trawie,
in the firbest principles of fourth-century militaryces
siof
Ptolemynce.
ThSince
they
are the
only
naval vessels
mentioned, we must at thssume
that thvery least, since ships of this rating were
sta,
indeeard from the backbonttle of Amorgohis
fleet,in
See
Bevan,
The House
of Ptolemy (revised edn., Chicago, i968), 23 ff.; Volkmann, RE, 23 2,
s.v. Ptolemaios
I
Soter, I6II ff.; Will,
Histoire
politique
du monde
hellenistique (Nancy, 1966), I, 39
ff.
274
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TRIREMES AND THE SAITE NAVY
322
B.C. down to Actium.
Indeed,
since we find the Phoenicians
building E7TrrIpeIs
for Demetrius
probably
in
314
and since such
warships
were
actually
used at
Salamis in
306,I
the Ptolemaic
navy clearly
had to deal with even more formidable
opponents
than
quinqueremes.
This threat the
Lagid
fleet was not
only
able to
face but to check
quite effectively
for several
years, capturing Cyprus
in
3 5
and
dominating
the Eastern Mediterranean until
306.
It could not have been one
jot
inferior. These
circumstances,
taken
together
with the
pride
of
place
accorded to
the kbnt in our
text,
create a
very strong presumption
that in the latter we are
faced with
nothing
other than the Ptolemaic battle fleet of Greek war
galleys.
This conclusion is
considerably
reinforced
by
the second occurrence of the word.
The kbnwt which were
captured during
these
campaigns
were
certainly
not
Egyptian ships.
The word has
clearly
been
applied
to a
foreign type equivalent
to
Ptolemy's ships-surely
elements of the fleet of his Macedonian rivals in
Syria,
i.e.
probably quinqueremes, certainly
war
galleys.
^^iSj
J i^5^ ?
II, 23 9 II, 77- I5 II, I79. 7
FIG.
5.
These
growing suspicions
are transmuted into absolute
certainty by writings
of the word kbnt elsewhere in Urkunden ii. The three determinatives cannot
by
any
stretch of the
imagination
be
regarded
as
representing
an
Egyptian ship.
The
hull
design
and ram of all
three,
the double mast on the first and the absence of
a mast on the third
(mast unshipped
cleared for action
?)
all indicate
unmistakably
that the
ships
in
question
are Greek war
galleys.
There
can, therefore,
be no
doubt whatsoever that in the late fourth
century
the old word kbnt was used to
denote such vessels.
What, then,
does this
philological
argument
amount to ? In the
reign
of Amasis
the word kbnt is used of a fleet
which,
we have reason to
believe,
was
composed
of war
galleys,
built for
ramming. Slightly
later we encounter a new naval
title,
viz.
imy-r kbnt, embodying
the word kbnt which semantic considerations
suggest
must denote a novel
type
of war
galley. Furthermore,
we find the need for
just
such a word
imperatively present
in the Persian Period when the
Egyptians
were
certainly using
triremes.
Finally,
the word in
question
is known to
apply
to
Greek
galleys
in the fourth
century.
The reasonable conclusion to draw from
all this is that kbnt was not
given
this new
meaning
in the time of
Ptolemy
I but
had
acquired
it as
early
as the Saite Period and that
imy-r
kbnt
may
be
translated,
or rather
paraphrased,
'Admiral of
Greek-style
War
Galleys'.
Tarn, op.
cit. 122
ff., though
his
explanation
of what triremes and
quinqueremes actually
were is
quite
unacceptable (cf.
Morrison and
Williams, op.
cit.
154 ff.; 170 ff.; 289 ff.).
275
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ALAN B. LLOYD
Let us now summarize the conclusions of the first
phase
of our
argument: (I)
it is
clear that the
Egyptians
had the
precedent, motive,
and
opportunity
to make naval
borrowings
from the Greeks.
(2)
The naval
history
of the
reign
of
Apries
can
only
be
explained
if he
employed warships
of a
totally un-Egyptian type
built for
ramming.
(3)
It is
well-nigh
certain that we have identified the word used
by
the
Egyptians during
the Saite Period to denote
Greek-style
war
galleys employed
in their own fleet. In the
light
of such evidence we have no alternative but to
accept
that the Saites did make use
of such vessels?I
2.
Rating
For the time of Necho we need discuss
only
two
possibilities-pentaconters
and
triremes,
both of which were built for
ramming,
a
technique
of naval warfare identi-
fiable in Greece from the first half of the second millennium B.c.2 and
absolutely
stan-
dard
by
the
period
in
question.
The
pentaconter,
rowed
by fifty men,
was the standard
capital ship
in the Greek world from the seventh
century
and retained this
position
well
into the sixth until the time of
Polycrates
of
Samos,
when it was
being relegated slowly
but
surely
to the rank of the
frigate
in an
eighteenth-century European navy, though
it formed the backbone of second-rate navies such as those of Athens and
Aegina
down to the Persian Wars.3
Pentaconters, then,
were
clearly
available to Necho but
triremes are a different
matter,
for it is
generally
assumed that
they
had not been
invented
by
Necho's
reign.
We believe this
opinion
to be mistaken. The evidence is as
follows:
(a)
The earliest extant reference to a trireme occurs in
Hipponax
in the
early
second half of the
sixth
century.4
(b)
The earliest extant
representation
is found in the second half of the fifth
century.5
(c)
Our
passage implies
that triremes were available in the
reign
of Necho
(610-595 B.C.).
It
may
be a
guess
and then
again
it
may
not. A decision on that
question
must
depend
on our other
evidence.
(d) Thucydides, I. I3. I-4.
The
interpretation
of this
passage
has been bedevilled
by
scholars
who,
in the interests of their own
preconceived
ideas,
have
attempted
to distort its obvious
meaning.
Two
points
need discussion:
(I)
Kal
Tpnpew
e'v
KoplvO0 rrpwTrov rTs
'EA?d$os
vavrrfqyqOrvat.
Torr
regarded
this as
entirely
parenthetical. Having
once
thought
of the naval innovation of
Corinth, Thucydides naturally
switches to another Corinthian first which has no
chronological
links with the
surrounding
passage.6
This idea is
designed
to remove all association of the
passage
with Ameinocles and
the late
eighth century
B.C. and is based
entirely
on Torr's distaste for the idea of
eighth-
century
triremes.
Steup7
is
obviously right
that the trend of the
passage,
'wenn man ihn
unbefangen
betrachtet' is
opposed
to such an
interpretation.
The Kat and the infinitive con-
struction
join
the clause too
closely
with what
precedes
for
any
other alternative to be
possible.
It would be
gratifying
if I could
accept
that the Louvre
jewel
boats
(E I0687) represented
Necho's Greek
galleys,
as is
usually
claimed.
Unfortunately, they
almost
certainly
do not
(see my
n.
pp. 307 f.).
2
Morrison and
Williams, op. cit.
37
ff.
3
Thucydides,
I.
I4.
In
general
Morrison and
Williams, op.
cit. I28 ff.
4
Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica
Graeca (3rd edn., Leipzig, 1952),
Fasc.
3, 94,
F.
45.
s Morrison and
Williams, op.
cit.
I69.
6 Ancient
Ships (Chicago, I964), 4
n. 8.
7
ap. Classen, Thukydides (Berlin, 1963), I, 50,
n. ad loc.
276
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TRIREMES AND THE SAITE NAVY
(2)
9atvErat
e Kat
2atLoLts
AULELVOKA7sg
Koplvtos av7rrr-yoS vavS 7roiq'aaS Te'EaapaS
. Morrison
and Williams
point
out that Ameinocles is not stated to have built triremes for the
Samians,
simply vavs
re'aaapas.'
That is
true,
but in the context the natural
assumption
is that
Thucydides
means triremes and were
it
not for the
chronological
difficulties we
may legiti-
mately
doubt that
anyone
would ever have
questioned
it. We therefore
paraphrase Thucy-
dides'
meaning
as
follows.
With the rise of wealth in Greek states after the
regal period
tyrannies
were established and in these circumstances the Greeks took more interest in naval
affairs and
seafaring.
The Corinthians were the first to make naval
arrangements
similar to
those of
Thucydides'
own time2 and were the first
people
to build triremes in Greece. There
was reason to believe that Ameinocles went to Samos and there built four of these vessels for
the
Samians,
an event which took
place
about
300 years
before the end of the
Peloponnesian
War. The
difficulty
here is
clearly chronological. Thucydides
first talks of the
tyrannies
and the
considerable increase in revenues at that
period,
but then
goes
on to discuss Corinth and her
naval innovations which must date at the
latest,3
on his
chronology,
earlier than the known
date of the
Cypselid tyranny (second
half of the seventh
century B.C.).4
Something
has
obviously gone badly wrong somewhere,
but it is
possible
to isolate the area in which the
mistake must lie.
Only
two
possibilities
exist: either the association of the naval
developments
with
tyranny
is
wrong,
or the dates of Ameinocles and the
vavtaXtla
between Corinth and
Corcyra
are incorrect. The second is the obvious answer since
(a)
on
general grounds, given
the nature of the human
mind,
we
may say
that the association of two
phenomena
is more
likely
to be
correctly
transmitted than their
date; (b)
not
only
were the
construction,
main-
tenance,
and
manning
of triremes
extremely expensive,
but the other naval reforms mentioned
would
require
considerable
resources,
in
finance, man-power,
and technical
skill,
as well as
the means to concentrate these resources for one
particular
task. A
tyranny
would
provide
the
perfect
conditions.
It
is, then,
evident that
Thucydides firmly
believed that the trireme was invented at
Corinth in the time of the
Cypselids,
but was
hopelessly
confused on the
question
of
their date. This is not as
disturbing
as it
might
seem at first
sight
when once we
begin
to
inquire
how
Thucydides
obtained these
figures.
For such an
early period
it is
unlikely
that he had
any
source other than
genealogies.S
That such existed both for
legendary
and historical times is
certain,
and absolute dates could
only
have been
obtained from them
by relating
one's own time to the
genealogical
scheme and then
converting
the
genealogy
into
years
on the basis of a fixed
generation length.
Now the
length
of the
generation,
like most
things
in
Greece,
was not a matter of common
agreement.
We know
of
40 years, 30 years,
and the Herodotean scheme of
3 yeveat
to
Ioo
years, only
the last two of which
are,
for a Greek
context, statistically
near the truth.
Thus,
whenever we have a
year figure
of this
type
for
early
Greek
history
we must
accept
that it is at best
approximate
and
may
be much too
high
if it is based on a
40-year
Op.
cit.
158. 2
Trpj2TOL
Se
KoplvOtoL AEyovral
eyyvTraa
TOV
VVv TrporoV LETaXeplaal
Ta
7repl ras vavs.
3
According
to the view we take of
reAEVT)r TOVSE
TOV
1IroAiEtov. Is it the Peace of Nicias or
404?
I believe
the latter.
4
According
to the Traditional
(Apollodoran) Chronology
the date was
657-584/3
B.C.
(evidence Will,
Korinthiaka, Paris, 1955, 363 ff.).
The Low
Chronology (c. 620-550 B.C.) championed by
Will
(op.
cit.
366 ff.)
et
al.
is
surely placed
out of court
by epigraphic
evidence
(Meiggs
and
Lewis,
A Selection
of
Greek
Historical
Inscriptions, Oxford, I969, p.
i
).
5 Gomme, Commentary
on
Thucydides (Oxford,
I945,
repr. 966), I, I22,
n. ad
loc.,
thinks
along
the same
lines and considers that the
figure
was deduced like that in
Herodotus,
2.
53.
2.
277
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ALAN B. LLOYD
generation.
If such
figures
are to be of
any use,
all we can do is to
try
to determine what
the number of
yeveal
behind them
happened
to
be,
i.e. what
generation-length they
were
based
upon.
Now that this is a hazardous business we should
readily admit,
but worth-
while results can be obtained if we observe one
elementary
and
oft-ignored principle.
We should
try,
first of
all,
to
obtain,
on
general grounds,
a
picture
of the natural course
of events and their interrelations and then deal
empirically
with the
year-figures
in an
attempt
to
identify
them with a
chronological relationship
which fits. Where this is im-
possible
we have no basis for
analysis
and the
figures
must be left to their own devices.
In the
present
case, fortunately,
we are not in such
desperate
straits. It has
already
been demonstrated that there is excellent reason to
accept
that the
phenomenon
in
question
was connected with the
Cypselids
who are known to date to the latter half
of the seventh
century.
Now
Thucydides gives
us two
figures.
Ameinocles is dated
c.
300 years
e'
-rjv
TEAev7v
rvrov8 TO roAov = 7 generations at
40 years per genera-
tion and the
vaviaXia
is dated c.
250 years
before the same
point
= 61
generations
at
the same
rate, exactly
one
generation
later.I If we take the
reAEvr7j
rov&e rovi
7VroA4tov
as
404
B.C. and convert at the rate of
3 generations per
Ioo
years2
we obtain as a date
for Ameinocles c. 2 X
I00+404 years
=
c.
654
B.C. and a date for the
vavuaXxia
one
generation
later. This fits what the
general
considerations mentioned above would lead
us to
suspect
and harmonizes with two other considerations:
I.
The
period
of the
Cypselids
saw the rise of
Aegina
as a threat to Corinthian
commercial
supremacy
and was also a
period
of considerable overseas
expansion,
sometimes,
as at
Potidaea,
at the
expense
of other Greek states
3
Such a situation
might
well have
provided
a marked stimulus to
experimentation
in naval matters
at Corinth.
2. It is
probable
that
hoplite
tactis were invented some time in the middle of the
seventh
century B.C., though hoplite equipment
had been available since the latter
part
of the
eighth.4
The earliest certain
representation
of a
phalanx
occurs c.
650
B.C.5
though
it is
possible,
if
undemonstrable,
that this tactical unit had been
invented
by
Pheidon of
Argos
some decades before.6 Such an innovation consti-
tuted a revolution in Greek
warfare,
the
passing
of the individual
champion,
and
the rise of the citizen
army
which functioned as a
single,
coherent
body.
In such
an
atmosphere
of
upheaval
in
military thinking
it would be
likely enough
tlat
some
agile
mind would turn its
thoughts
towards
making corresponding
innova-
tions in naval
techniques.7
Forrest,
'Two
Chronographic Notes', CQ 19
(I969), ioo, interprets
the
figures
in the same
way though
he
uses them for a different
purpose.
2
This is the Herodotean scheme. It is
statistically
more or less
right
and we use it for that reason
only.
3
Andrewes,
The Greek
Tyrants (London, 1956), 49
ff.
4
Snodgrass, Early
Greek Armour and
Weapons (Edinburgh, I964), 195 ff.,
has demolished the old view that
the introduction of
hoplite equipment
and
hoplite
tactics must be
contemporaneous.
He demonstrates
beyond
all doubt that there is a considerable time
lag
between the two.
5 The
Chigi-
Vase c.
650
B.C.
(Lorimer,
'The
Hoplite Phalanx',
BSA
42 [I1947], fig. 3; Snodgrass, op.
cit.
I97 ff.). 6
Andrewes, op. cit.
39.
7 If Andrewes is correct in
believing
that Pheidon was the inventor of
hoplite tactics,
the
impact
of the
invention
may
have been
particularly strong
at Corinth because Pheidon was
certainly
active in Corinthian
278
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TRIREMES AND THE SAITE NAVY
We
submit, therefore,
that
Thucydides,
or his
source,
knew a tradition that an
Ameinocles had built triremes at
SamosI
7i generations
before
404
and that these
ships
had been invented in Corinth some time about the middle of the seventh
century
B.C.2
Let us now sum
up.
The evidence here
presented suggests
that triremes were invented
in the latter
part
of the seventh
century
at Corinth and that Ameinocles was one of the first
exponents
of the art of
building
them.
During
the sixth
century they spread slowly,
for lack of
builders, crews,
and
money,
and doubtless also the innate conservatism
of the
military mind,
until
they
were
found,
if
sporadically,
in the Eastern and Western
Mediterranean. The rise of the
tyrants
in the west
provided
ideal conditions for the
construction of
large
fleets about the turn of the sixth
century
and their
example began
to be followed in the homeland
during
the first half of the fifth
century
B.C.
Given this
picture
we have no reason to
reject
the
possibility
that triremes were built
for
Necho,
especially
since
Egyptian
relations with Corinth
appear
to have been close.
Indeed,
Periander's
nephew
was
actually
called Psammetichus.3 If Ameinocles could
go
to Samos in the seventh
century
it is
perfectly possible
that the wealth of Pharaoh
would attract later
shipwrights
to
Egypt
in order to build this new
type
for him.
Conclusions
There is a
strong
case on historical and
linguistic grounds
in favour of the thesis that
Greek war
galleys
were in use in
Egypt during
the Saite Period.
Furthermore,
there is
good
reason to believe that triremes were available and that the Saites were in touch
with the
city responsible
for their
development.
Even
by
itself the evidence
presented
amounts to the most
compelling
circumstantial case. If we add to it Herodotus'
express
statement,
we should be
guilty
of the merest
perversity
if we denied that in the
reign
of
Necho triremes were constructed for the
Egyptian navy.
Postscript
When this article was
already
in
proof
there came to
my
attention an
extremely interesting
study by
Lucien Basch entitled 'Phoenician Oared
Ships'
(The Mariner's Mirror
55 (I969), I39
ff.,
227 ff.)
in which it is
argued
that Necho's triremes were
Phoenician,
not Greek in
origin.
This
view finds a
willing champion
in
Casson, Ships
and
Seamanship
in the Ancient
World, Princeton,
I971,
8I n.
I9.
Exciting though
this thesis
may be,
I find it
unconvincing
and
hope
to
reply
at a
later date.
politics and,
since he is said to have been killed
there,
this action
may
well have had a
military
character
(cf.
Forrest,
The
Emergence of
Greek
Democracy (London, 1966) 116 ff.).
I
In the
development
of the trireme it was the
rTapeetlpeata, 'outrigger',
which was the crucial
step (K6ster,
Das antike Seewesen
[Berlin, 1923], I05 ff.). Presumably
Ameinocles invented this device and then added a
third bank to the biremes which had
already
been in existence tor some time.
2
Cf. Morrison and
Williams, op.
cit.
I29. 3 Nic.
Dam., FgrH go,
F.
59.
279
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like