This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Galley article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Galley is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have put back a paragragh on the reduction in complexity from the most sophisticated galleys associated with the Hellenistic period. Something ought to be said about this, even if someone does not like what I say Iglonghurst 09:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I have eliminated the following statements because 1) How does one prove a negative? 2) Galleys never went away 3) False 4) How do guns along the side point forward?
1) By AD 325 no more galleys with multiple rows of oars existed.
2) Galleys saw a European comeback in the 14th century as Venice expanded its influence in the Mediterranean in response to increased Turkish naval presence after 1470, but medieval triremes used a simpler arrangement with one row of oars and three rowers to each oar
3) which were no longer profitable after the introduction of "round ships" (sailing ships which were the precursor of the galleon type).
4) As converted for military use they were higher and larger than regular ("light") galleys, and mounted a large number (around 50) guns, mostly along the sides interspersed with the oars, and pointing forward. Galleys saw a European comeback in the 14th century as Venice expanded its influence in the Mediterranean in response to increased Turkish naval presence after 1470, but medieval triremes used a simpler arrangement with one row of oars and three rowers to each oar
I am not sure "medieval" is the right adjective in the article's "they forced changes in the design of medieval seaside fortresses." Probably best to just get rid of it or mention the century instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.240.241.5 ( talk) 09:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I really don't want to say anything about things I know nothing about, but the "polyremes" section seems a bit ridiculous to me. The part about a 40-reme having space for 2000 marines in 100s BC seems unlikely, and the section is missing a citation. Should that part be taken out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sswan ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Large high-sided sailing ships had always been very formidable obstacles for galleys. As early as 413 BC defeated triremes could seek shelter behind a screen of merchant ships (Thucydides (7, 41), Needham 4, pt3, p693)
Could someone elaborate why? I don't doubt the claim as such, I'd just like to know the reason.
I see why it's a bad idea to point the longitudinal axis of a slim and fragile but heavily crewed ship at the broadside of a ship of the line and close to point-blank range. But even the thick timbers of the Napoleonic ships-of-the-line wouldn't have been enough to stop a ram with the momentum of a hundred ton ship behind it and it can't have been easy to fix that holes in the middle of a battle. So why would ships that don't have a broadside gun battery be a formidable obstacle? Because galleys attacking them were vulnerable to being attacked themselves by the enemy galleys garding the merchant ships? 82.135.2.210 ( talk) 09:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is Captain Kidd's ship treated as a galley? Is it just because it had oars? Other than that its design looks fairly typical for a circa 1700 oceangoing ship - it has a good broadside and what look to be reasonably high sides. I imagine it had no permanent oarsmen and was under sail power almost all the time. Boris B ( talk) 20:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The term "galley" was used in the late 17th and early 18th century for a sailing ship equiped with a deck of oars. Consider it as a frigate with an extra deck and you're not far out. As you suggest, the oars seem to have been an auxiliary form of propulsion - useful for getting out of a port when the wind dropped. The "Cinque Ports" that took Alexander Selkirk, aka Robinson Crusoe, to Juan Fernandez was a galley, as was Sam Bellamy's "Whydah". -- Boulet rouge ( talk) 15:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This section seems to have much original research, but also shows lack of understanding of how ships work. For example, the statement about how a bow wave constitutes all the drag on a boat is obviously incorrect (I removed it.) That a formal ram "changed the nature of naval warfare" is OR. Of course boats used to ram one another before then...e.g., freighters with no special reinforcement in the bow tried to sink German submarines in WWII by ramming on a regular basis. It doesn't matter whether a ship is "slow" or not -- "staving in its sides" ruins fast boats, too. "Galleys were hauled out of water whenever possible"? What does that mean? They beached them during the night? This isn't quibbling: there's a fair chance they left the boats in the water except when they weren't going to be used for a long time...otherwise the wood might dry out, and leaks would develop.
Finally, and this is more subtle, there's no such thing as a "peak of development" for ships. They're adapted for one purpose or another, built from poor or excellent material depending on economics, and especially, change to match expected need. That boats are technically advanced doesn't mean they were "appropriate technology". They might have been White Elephants. (For example, like the dozens of fighter planes built by the US, Russia and NATO built at colossal expense to dogfight one another, but when events overtook them, they became less useful than expected.)
Piano non troppo ( talk) 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Get rid of it. This well written article is destoryed by the sloppy and interupting citation. Footnote it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.241.86 ( talk) 17:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a long description about the galley in this Wikipedia article and the "design and construction" part of the article is very thorough. The article gives readers a history of the galley and why and how it was used. Though the article does say there are some unknowns about how the galley was made and actually constructed. Also, this portion of the article fails to lack citations. There are only a few citations listed after some sentences and that makes a reader like me skeptical about where the author got this information. The sources that are listed do seem credible and actual good primary and secondary sources. The sources are not just some random website. There are some pictures of early galleys but there are not many showing the actual construction of a galley. Some of the illustrations and picture are interesting and make for the reader to get a better understanding of how the galley looked. The article does cover the subject thoroughly and there does not seem to be are portions of the article that have been marred by frivolous or spurious contributions. This entry, unlike a conventional encyclopedia, could be accessed and updated by just about anyone, making Wikipedia seem always not 100% accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10osloan ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I've had material on hold over at user:Peter Isotalo/galley for over a year now and I felt that it was time to start getting into mainspace. One of the reasons I've held off for so long is because I've tried to figure out how to integrate as much as possible of the old material. I've found this to be very difficult. The previous structure [1] was very much focused on the galleys of antiquity, with even more focus on Greco-Roman terminology (biremes, triremes, etc). I've tried to work around this by splitting the history section into several themes: "(General) history", "Design and construction", "Strategy and tactics" and "Economy".
I decided to be a bit more bold and start zapping content that was already explained elsewhere or with different sources. I don't know if I zapped too much, but I do feel that the old content was rather unstructured, speculative or overly focused on minor details. I'm very much open to discussion if anyone feels any particular info should be kept or returned. However, I believe that direct use of ancient primary sources like Pliny and Herodotus, without an intervening interpretation by professional historians, should be avoided. It can easily lead to editorial interpretations (basically original research) and will not take into account contradictory evidence or consensus among modern historians.
Peter Isotalo 19:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I've done a little bit of bridging work to fill the gap between ancient and early modern galleys in the section rowers. It occurred to me that this is in the wrong place - it fits under propulsion, perhaps? But then I thought again and perhaps we should have a section on crews. Galley crews were basically split into three parts;rowers, sailing crew and fighters (there were overlaps of course, especially in the Middle Ages)- should we have a subsection considering each? It would also be a place to consider galley logistics. The strategic employment of galleys is heavily limited by the need to feed and water the crew. Alas, while I know the basics of this from my reading, I don't feel able to do the subject justice. Can anyone help? Monstrelet ( talk) 08:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I have semi-protected the article due an ongoing edit war including IP 114.75.*. The changes you made to this article have been contested but you kept reinserting them. Wikipedia articles are built on consensus which is established by discussing controversial edits. IP 114.75.*, you are still able to edit this talk page, so please engage in a constructive discussion and explain your proposed changes to the article so other editors may understand your motivation. De728631 ( talk) 13:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
On of the references in this article is to Landström, and he's even cited inline in the article. I presume this reference refers to "Björn Landström: "Das Schiff" (German Edition, the Library of Congress lists the following data: Landstrom, Bjorn: Skeppet. English Title: The ship, an illustrated history, written and illustrated by Bjorn Landstrom. [Translated by Michael Phillips])."
I wonder if this was in the article previously and had been removed or whatever, but right now there's an incomplete reference in the article. Hope someone can fix this; thanks.-- 65.51.177.162 ( talk) 13:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Given the growing significance of the finds from the Battle of Egadi Islands in discussions of the construction of Roman and Carthaginian galleys, should the article mention of it? If so, in which section? If someone would like to put something in as appropriate, there is a good academic reference here http://www.journalofromanarch.com/samples/v25.Royal.pdf Monstrelet ( talk) 08:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the merit of the content under the heading of "Southeast Asia". I've checked Reid (2012), and it's quite clear that these aren't Mediterranean-type galleys. Reid quite specifically refers to "galley-type" vessels and in captions puts "galley" in quotes. That Europeans referred to oared ships with similar function as the galleys they were familiar with does not actually mean that they are galleys.
If it's cleaned up or shortened, I believe some of the content is very relevant under "Definition and terminology". There's a pretty extensive discussion there on how even Europeans used "galley" to refer to all forms of rowed vessels.
Peter Isotalo 21:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This article completely ignores
(1) the (West) Highland Galley. There is a Mariner's Mirror article on this: DOI: 10.1080/00253359.2002.10656825 Also a book by Denis Rixson.
(2) the
Ship's boat type of galley (yes, the article linked is deficient and needs a re-write). You can find a brief mention of this type of ship's boat in
Gig (boat)
(3) the traditional British inshore craft called a galley - examples existed particularly at Deal, but also Selsey (and, of course, the Highland Galley falls into this class).
Given that this article is already overlong, these other vessels that went by the name galley should be covered elsewhere. Does that require a rename of this article, since it is largely about the ship-sized galleys and not the open boats that went by the same name? Any thoughts? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 20:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
References
The referencing in this article means that it is arduous to determine where text is sourced - it is a long article and the only way to track the meaning of, say "Casson 1995", is to have the article open in two tabs and used edit find to locate the work in the bibliography.
Sticking with the example of "Casson 1995", at least two usages of this actually refer to the updated version of Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, which was published in 1995. All the other cites refer to his chapter in The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times - also published in 1995. You can only discover which source is intended by using the page numbers in the reference and seeing which book contains the content that is in the article.
Then we have mixed reference styles, with cite book, cite web and cite news templates being used in the body of the article.
Since the referencing of the article needs a good overhaul, would it be worth converting to the sfn template, used with the cite book template in the bibliography? This would make it a lot easier for the encyclopaedia user to see where material is sourced. Whatever happens, a substantial bit of fixing is needed. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
References
I never used the updated version as far as I can recall. The example I gave of an ambiguous "Casson 1995" is because there are two works by the same author published in the same year. (Anyway, who knows introduced the ambiguity - there is more than one editor to the article.) Or did you mean something else? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Whilst I hate to drone on about the subject, I am still concerned about the reference to pages 325-326 of Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the section Galley slaves. I only have one copy of this book, the 1995 edition, so am unable to check this precisely. The later edition, described by the publishers as having "new material", still has the text that supports the article content at pages 325-326. Given that this is a substantial distance through the book, the "new material" must either be particularly concise or located after page 326 for the page numbers in the 1995 edition to match those of the 1971 version. If any editor has the first edition available, it would take just a moment to check whether the page numbering still matches in that edition, thereby confirming that the page numbering for that reference in the article is correct. If it is not, then the 1995 edition must have been used as a source for that part of the article.
Thanks,
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk)
22:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Galleys rely on rowing, but the article has no date for its invention. Casson gives a date of 2400 BC for the introduction of rowing on all larger craft on the Nile (pg 18. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World). Do other sources give a date? Presumably the Nile is the location of this invention (as far as anyone can tell). ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Galleys are very advanced technical applications of the concept of rowingis not a sensible argument. In their later forms, of course they are developed. The early single banked galleys were still galleys, but did not have the sophistication of more developed types. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I am currently trying to untie the knot of whether or not heavy gunpowder artillery was carried on broadside aboard sailing ships as the first commonplace / successful application of the technology aboard warships. I thought I'd quickly check what this article has to say on the matter of when black powder artillery first appeared aboard galleys. But the section regarding this aspect seems to be a discussion of relative tactical merits of different warship types.
I read through four paragraphs until, in the fifth paragraph I found this: "The ordnance on galleys was heavy from its introduction in the 1480s". To me, that seems like a long trawl in a section about the introduction of the weapon. Would it be possible to impose some sort of brief historical timeline at the start of the section? Or does this, perhaps, warrant becoming a little article in its own right? Perhaps the whole subject of gunpowder artillery afloat?
Just trying to highlight this in an effort to help. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:3063:2CFA:2CBB:6B4C ( talk) 00:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The article starts withA galley is a type of ship that is propelled mainly by oars. The galley is characterized by its long, slender hull, shallow draft, and low freeboard (clearance between sea and gunwale). Virtually all types of galleys had sails that could be used in favorable winds, but human effort was always the primary method of propulsion.
These two statements that oars are the main or primary method of propulsion are contradicted by some of the sources used in the article. For instance, Rodger, in his Safeguard of the Sea, discusses this in text starting
Human muscle-power is an extremely inefficient method of moving so large a body as a ship; it has been calculated that sixteenth-century galleys developed less than twenty horsepower at most, to move a hull of about 170 tons.
He goes on to say that "Usually galleys sailed". He also mentions the increase in drinking water requirements if rowing was extensive, which in turn demands stops for water to be collected. The question of drinking water logistics for galleys is raised in chapter 4 of Sailing into the Past. Here we also learn that the sailing performance of the experimental archeology replica was "impressive". [1]
It really seems that the sources do not support the idea that rowing was the primary method of propulsion. (We are perhaps looking at something more similar to the early steam powered warships, that sailed as much as possible to save coal for use in battle.) At the very least, the absolute and confident statement of the article's opening needs a substantial rewrite. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 19:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
References
There is still a problem with the assertion in the lead that the galley was the most common warship in the Atlantic (as seen in the revert
[3] by
User:Peter Isotalo). The article text in the section "Middle Ages" says A transition from galley to sailing vessels as the most common types of warships began in the High Middle Ages
. This does not specifically refer to the Atlantic. The reference supporting the section does not make this point about Atlantic warships either.
It may be that the problem is one of interpretation of another source that says that vessels built specifically as warships were galleys – but that is because of all the vessels that could be used as warships, only galleys were not dual purpose. Therefore kings tended to build a few galleys and commandeer sailing ships as warships as the need arose.
The tag in the lead has not been satisfactorily resolved. I am not going to edit war on this, but it should be reinstated unless a more useful explanation can be provided. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 12:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Galleys were the most common warships in the Atlantic Ocean during the Middle Ages....This refers to a place (the Atlantic Ocean) and a time (Middle Ages). I do not see a cited source, in the lead or in the article, that says that galleys were the most common warships in this place and time. This is a simple question of verifiability. I fully understand that the lead is a summary of the main body of the article, so that is where I have looked for supporting references, but without finding any. The sources do show that galleys were the most common warships in the Mediterranean during the Middle Ages, but that is not the issue here. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 19:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
A transition from galley to sailing vessels as the most common types of warships began in the High Middle Ages (c. 11th century).This is not limited, in the article, to any particular place, so does not support the lead's mention of the Atlantic.
This article is about 50% bigger than the maximum guide size. As it stands right now, the main text of the article (excluding footnotes) is 15,221 words. The recommended maximum article size for readability is around 10,000 words ( WP:CANYOUREADTHIS). So this article is 50% over-size.
This leads into general readability. See the talk page criticism "Introduction of gun armament on galleys" on this talk page (above). This is where another editor has commented that it is difficult to find expected content in the article. I think this is a very real criticism. The content could do with being more tightly organised.
Having complained about article length, there seem to be some astounding omissions. There is (unless I have missed it) no mention of the logistical problem of providing, in a shallow draft, narrow hull, a large supply of drinking water for the rowers. Nor is there any mention of biscotti, the "hard baked bread" described by, among other historians, Susan Rose in Medieval Naval Warfare 1000-1500 (p. 6). This was a fundamental component of galley operation in the Mediterranean, supplying "many of the calories needed by men expected to row for long periods". As the narrative of Rose explains, insufficient supplies of biscotti could stop a fleet of galleys going to sea. (Other mentions include pg 19, 106 and 113 - all of which give emphasis to the need for this type of food.)
It seems that the article needs either a hard-hearted slimming down to a more concise version (at the same time checking for and including any glaring omissions) or alternatively to be split – the obvious option would be to cover galleys up to the end of Classical antiquity in one article and everything thereafter in another. In fact, it possibly needs the application of both disciplines.
I appreciate that all the above may appear to be passing criticism. However, since posting the previous comments about this article, I have been diligently reading through reference material as quickly as I can gather it, so that I can make further input. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 20:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Monstrelet:, @ Intothatdarkness:, you've suggested moving content. Can you provide concrete suggestions for target articles? Could be either new or existing ones. Doesn't have to be stubs either.
Just want to underline that I've seen my fair share of splits and "exports" of entire sections over the years. When the purpose is simply to get below an arbitrary number of prose kB, the results are often very bad; the source article is left with a rump of a few sentences and the target article reads like it's obviously disjointed and isolated. I believe it's much better to first identify relevant target topics and then identify content that can be moved. Peter Isotalo 11:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Having been drawn back to this article by the length discussion, while considering ways in which the article might be split, I noticed some issues with the construction section. As these don't bear on the length debate, I've separated them. I could do a bold edit but, given the potential for contention, I'll mention them first.
The main issue is an inconsistency of how the section is divided - is it by era or ship type? It could be either. So we could have early galleys, triremes, polyremes and liburnians, dromon and galea, gallea sottil. Or Early Mediterranean, Classical, Hellenistic and Roman, Early Medieval, Medieval and Renaissance. Note this won't change the content, or the length, as they are alternative headings to the existing ones.
The other issue is that the first paragraph under Middle Ages is in the wrong place chronologically. It actually belongs in the current section "Standardisation", as it is a detailed description of the type introduced there, the galea sottil (which it actually says).
I don't think the second is contentious, but the first would need a decision which way to jump. Monstrelet ( talk) 12:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The explanation of rowing geometry is not that simple, but it is well handled in McKee's The Working Boats of Britain. There are a number of issues that all have to come together to work. There are matters like the length of the oar either side of the pivot point. Then there is the angle of the rower's body to the vertical: the feet cannot be underneath the rower's centre of gravity or only limited power can be applied to the oar. More fundamental is the fit of the typical rower's body within the space around the loom of the oar. It must be possible to get the oar into the water without having to lift the loom excessively high: if it is at head height when power is applied, this is inefficient. Then on the recovery stroke, the blade must be lifted clear of the tops of the waves. To do this, the loom is lowered, but it must clear the tops of the thighs of the seated rower. It is these two last points that are crucial in requiring low freeboard. A relatively unsatisfactory solution is to have the oars operate at a steeper angle to the water, but you need shorter oars to do this. That is why low freeboard is required.
I suggest that the to allow the oars to be as parallel to the surface of the water as possible
is more of a rule of thumb than a true explanation of the reason for low freeboard. I am not sure if McKee's explanation was available for this edit
[4]. I do not think it really does the subject justice – and nor should it because the explanation belongs in
Rowing. All this article needs to do is state that issues of rowing geometry require a low freeboard. I think most people with any mechanical sense will get a clue about what is going on. Those who don't will, in due course of time, have a link to the yet-to-be-written section in the rowing article.
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk)
22:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The lateen rig was more complicated and required a larger crew to handle than a square sail rig, but this was not a problem in the heavily manned galleys
The lateen rig is not so much complicated as heavy – so needing a good size crew to shift the sail when tacking. The whole object of replacing the Mediterranean Square Sail with the lateen was to have a rig with fewer component parts (and so lower cost, both building and maintenance cost). So the word complicated is inappropriate.
[1]
To change tacks, the entire spar had to be lifted over the mast and to the other side.
I am not quite sure what this is intended to mean. There are three possible ways of tacking a lateen. One is to bring the sail close in to the mast, possibly raising the yard with the halyard so that it clears the deck, and then pass the sail round the front of the mast so that it can be set on the other side. In appearance, the yard goes vertical and the sheet is slackened, the sail is moved and then the yard returned to its normal angle. This might be assisted by the "umbrella handle" top to the mast that was present until
c. 12th century AD. The next method is to pass the yard behind the mast. This is presumed to have been done with later vessels, such as some Venetian galleys.
[1]. The last method is to lower the sail completely and manhandle the whole arrangement (yard and sail) aft and then forward on the other side. In any situation, I do not see how this is lifting the spar over
the mast.
Ancient and medieval galleys are assumed to have sailed only with the wind more or less astern with a top speed of about 15 km/h (9 mph) in fair conditions.
I note that this is based on a reference that was written before any of the findings from the Olympias were well known. However, this "floating hypothesis" actually sailed quite well and achieved 65 degrees off the wind, which is certainly not more or less downwind
.
[2]: 89 This article content does not seem appropriate in the light of these comments.
Above are all interim notes, as much for me as for others. Comments are welcome but I hope to come up with some altered article text shortly, but out of time now. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
References
Does this article need an American English tag on it – that is the version it is written in. (I am presuming that is what is intended.) ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 19:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Galley article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Galley is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have put back a paragragh on the reduction in complexity from the most sophisticated galleys associated with the Hellenistic period. Something ought to be said about this, even if someone does not like what I say Iglonghurst 09:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I have eliminated the following statements because 1) How does one prove a negative? 2) Galleys never went away 3) False 4) How do guns along the side point forward?
1) By AD 325 no more galleys with multiple rows of oars existed.
2) Galleys saw a European comeback in the 14th century as Venice expanded its influence in the Mediterranean in response to increased Turkish naval presence after 1470, but medieval triremes used a simpler arrangement with one row of oars and three rowers to each oar
3) which were no longer profitable after the introduction of "round ships" (sailing ships which were the precursor of the galleon type).
4) As converted for military use they were higher and larger than regular ("light") galleys, and mounted a large number (around 50) guns, mostly along the sides interspersed with the oars, and pointing forward. Galleys saw a European comeback in the 14th century as Venice expanded its influence in the Mediterranean in response to increased Turkish naval presence after 1470, but medieval triremes used a simpler arrangement with one row of oars and three rowers to each oar
I am not sure "medieval" is the right adjective in the article's "they forced changes in the design of medieval seaside fortresses." Probably best to just get rid of it or mention the century instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.240.241.5 ( talk) 09:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I really don't want to say anything about things I know nothing about, but the "polyremes" section seems a bit ridiculous to me. The part about a 40-reme having space for 2000 marines in 100s BC seems unlikely, and the section is missing a citation. Should that part be taken out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sswan ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Large high-sided sailing ships had always been very formidable obstacles for galleys. As early as 413 BC defeated triremes could seek shelter behind a screen of merchant ships (Thucydides (7, 41), Needham 4, pt3, p693)
Could someone elaborate why? I don't doubt the claim as such, I'd just like to know the reason.
I see why it's a bad idea to point the longitudinal axis of a slim and fragile but heavily crewed ship at the broadside of a ship of the line and close to point-blank range. But even the thick timbers of the Napoleonic ships-of-the-line wouldn't have been enough to stop a ram with the momentum of a hundred ton ship behind it and it can't have been easy to fix that holes in the middle of a battle. So why would ships that don't have a broadside gun battery be a formidable obstacle? Because galleys attacking them were vulnerable to being attacked themselves by the enemy galleys garding the merchant ships? 82.135.2.210 ( talk) 09:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is Captain Kidd's ship treated as a galley? Is it just because it had oars? Other than that its design looks fairly typical for a circa 1700 oceangoing ship - it has a good broadside and what look to be reasonably high sides. I imagine it had no permanent oarsmen and was under sail power almost all the time. Boris B ( talk) 20:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The term "galley" was used in the late 17th and early 18th century for a sailing ship equiped with a deck of oars. Consider it as a frigate with an extra deck and you're not far out. As you suggest, the oars seem to have been an auxiliary form of propulsion - useful for getting out of a port when the wind dropped. The "Cinque Ports" that took Alexander Selkirk, aka Robinson Crusoe, to Juan Fernandez was a galley, as was Sam Bellamy's "Whydah". -- Boulet rouge ( talk) 15:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This section seems to have much original research, but also shows lack of understanding of how ships work. For example, the statement about how a bow wave constitutes all the drag on a boat is obviously incorrect (I removed it.) That a formal ram "changed the nature of naval warfare" is OR. Of course boats used to ram one another before then...e.g., freighters with no special reinforcement in the bow tried to sink German submarines in WWII by ramming on a regular basis. It doesn't matter whether a ship is "slow" or not -- "staving in its sides" ruins fast boats, too. "Galleys were hauled out of water whenever possible"? What does that mean? They beached them during the night? This isn't quibbling: there's a fair chance they left the boats in the water except when they weren't going to be used for a long time...otherwise the wood might dry out, and leaks would develop.
Finally, and this is more subtle, there's no such thing as a "peak of development" for ships. They're adapted for one purpose or another, built from poor or excellent material depending on economics, and especially, change to match expected need. That boats are technically advanced doesn't mean they were "appropriate technology". They might have been White Elephants. (For example, like the dozens of fighter planes built by the US, Russia and NATO built at colossal expense to dogfight one another, but when events overtook them, they became less useful than expected.)
Piano non troppo ( talk) 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Get rid of it. This well written article is destoryed by the sloppy and interupting citation. Footnote it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.241.86 ( talk) 17:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a long description about the galley in this Wikipedia article and the "design and construction" part of the article is very thorough. The article gives readers a history of the galley and why and how it was used. Though the article does say there are some unknowns about how the galley was made and actually constructed. Also, this portion of the article fails to lack citations. There are only a few citations listed after some sentences and that makes a reader like me skeptical about where the author got this information. The sources that are listed do seem credible and actual good primary and secondary sources. The sources are not just some random website. There are some pictures of early galleys but there are not many showing the actual construction of a galley. Some of the illustrations and picture are interesting and make for the reader to get a better understanding of how the galley looked. The article does cover the subject thoroughly and there does not seem to be are portions of the article that have been marred by frivolous or spurious contributions. This entry, unlike a conventional encyclopedia, could be accessed and updated by just about anyone, making Wikipedia seem always not 100% accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10osloan ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I've had material on hold over at user:Peter Isotalo/galley for over a year now and I felt that it was time to start getting into mainspace. One of the reasons I've held off for so long is because I've tried to figure out how to integrate as much as possible of the old material. I've found this to be very difficult. The previous structure [1] was very much focused on the galleys of antiquity, with even more focus on Greco-Roman terminology (biremes, triremes, etc). I've tried to work around this by splitting the history section into several themes: "(General) history", "Design and construction", "Strategy and tactics" and "Economy".
I decided to be a bit more bold and start zapping content that was already explained elsewhere or with different sources. I don't know if I zapped too much, but I do feel that the old content was rather unstructured, speculative or overly focused on minor details. I'm very much open to discussion if anyone feels any particular info should be kept or returned. However, I believe that direct use of ancient primary sources like Pliny and Herodotus, without an intervening interpretation by professional historians, should be avoided. It can easily lead to editorial interpretations (basically original research) and will not take into account contradictory evidence or consensus among modern historians.
Peter Isotalo 19:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I've done a little bit of bridging work to fill the gap between ancient and early modern galleys in the section rowers. It occurred to me that this is in the wrong place - it fits under propulsion, perhaps? But then I thought again and perhaps we should have a section on crews. Galley crews were basically split into three parts;rowers, sailing crew and fighters (there were overlaps of course, especially in the Middle Ages)- should we have a subsection considering each? It would also be a place to consider galley logistics. The strategic employment of galleys is heavily limited by the need to feed and water the crew. Alas, while I know the basics of this from my reading, I don't feel able to do the subject justice. Can anyone help? Monstrelet ( talk) 08:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I have semi-protected the article due an ongoing edit war including IP 114.75.*. The changes you made to this article have been contested but you kept reinserting them. Wikipedia articles are built on consensus which is established by discussing controversial edits. IP 114.75.*, you are still able to edit this talk page, so please engage in a constructive discussion and explain your proposed changes to the article so other editors may understand your motivation. De728631 ( talk) 13:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
On of the references in this article is to Landström, and he's even cited inline in the article. I presume this reference refers to "Björn Landström: "Das Schiff" (German Edition, the Library of Congress lists the following data: Landstrom, Bjorn: Skeppet. English Title: The ship, an illustrated history, written and illustrated by Bjorn Landstrom. [Translated by Michael Phillips])."
I wonder if this was in the article previously and had been removed or whatever, but right now there's an incomplete reference in the article. Hope someone can fix this; thanks.-- 65.51.177.162 ( talk) 13:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Given the growing significance of the finds from the Battle of Egadi Islands in discussions of the construction of Roman and Carthaginian galleys, should the article mention of it? If so, in which section? If someone would like to put something in as appropriate, there is a good academic reference here http://www.journalofromanarch.com/samples/v25.Royal.pdf Monstrelet ( talk) 08:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the merit of the content under the heading of "Southeast Asia". I've checked Reid (2012), and it's quite clear that these aren't Mediterranean-type galleys. Reid quite specifically refers to "galley-type" vessels and in captions puts "galley" in quotes. That Europeans referred to oared ships with similar function as the galleys they were familiar with does not actually mean that they are galleys.
If it's cleaned up or shortened, I believe some of the content is very relevant under "Definition and terminology". There's a pretty extensive discussion there on how even Europeans used "galley" to refer to all forms of rowed vessels.
Peter Isotalo 21:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This article completely ignores
(1) the (West) Highland Galley. There is a Mariner's Mirror article on this: DOI: 10.1080/00253359.2002.10656825 Also a book by Denis Rixson.
(2) the
Ship's boat type of galley (yes, the article linked is deficient and needs a re-write). You can find a brief mention of this type of ship's boat in
Gig (boat)
(3) the traditional British inshore craft called a galley - examples existed particularly at Deal, but also Selsey (and, of course, the Highland Galley falls into this class).
Given that this article is already overlong, these other vessels that went by the name galley should be covered elsewhere. Does that require a rename of this article, since it is largely about the ship-sized galleys and not the open boats that went by the same name? Any thoughts? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 20:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
References
The referencing in this article means that it is arduous to determine where text is sourced - it is a long article and the only way to track the meaning of, say "Casson 1995", is to have the article open in two tabs and used edit find to locate the work in the bibliography.
Sticking with the example of "Casson 1995", at least two usages of this actually refer to the updated version of Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, which was published in 1995. All the other cites refer to his chapter in The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times - also published in 1995. You can only discover which source is intended by using the page numbers in the reference and seeing which book contains the content that is in the article.
Then we have mixed reference styles, with cite book, cite web and cite news templates being used in the body of the article.
Since the referencing of the article needs a good overhaul, would it be worth converting to the sfn template, used with the cite book template in the bibliography? This would make it a lot easier for the encyclopaedia user to see where material is sourced. Whatever happens, a substantial bit of fixing is needed. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
References
I never used the updated version as far as I can recall. The example I gave of an ambiguous "Casson 1995" is because there are two works by the same author published in the same year. (Anyway, who knows introduced the ambiguity - there is more than one editor to the article.) Or did you mean something else? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Whilst I hate to drone on about the subject, I am still concerned about the reference to pages 325-326 of Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the section Galley slaves. I only have one copy of this book, the 1995 edition, so am unable to check this precisely. The later edition, described by the publishers as having "new material", still has the text that supports the article content at pages 325-326. Given that this is a substantial distance through the book, the "new material" must either be particularly concise or located after page 326 for the page numbers in the 1995 edition to match those of the 1971 version. If any editor has the first edition available, it would take just a moment to check whether the page numbering still matches in that edition, thereby confirming that the page numbering for that reference in the article is correct. If it is not, then the 1995 edition must have been used as a source for that part of the article.
Thanks,
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk)
22:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Galleys rely on rowing, but the article has no date for its invention. Casson gives a date of 2400 BC for the introduction of rowing on all larger craft on the Nile (pg 18. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World). Do other sources give a date? Presumably the Nile is the location of this invention (as far as anyone can tell). ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Galleys are very advanced technical applications of the concept of rowingis not a sensible argument. In their later forms, of course they are developed. The early single banked galleys were still galleys, but did not have the sophistication of more developed types. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I am currently trying to untie the knot of whether or not heavy gunpowder artillery was carried on broadside aboard sailing ships as the first commonplace / successful application of the technology aboard warships. I thought I'd quickly check what this article has to say on the matter of when black powder artillery first appeared aboard galleys. But the section regarding this aspect seems to be a discussion of relative tactical merits of different warship types.
I read through four paragraphs until, in the fifth paragraph I found this: "The ordnance on galleys was heavy from its introduction in the 1480s". To me, that seems like a long trawl in a section about the introduction of the weapon. Would it be possible to impose some sort of brief historical timeline at the start of the section? Or does this, perhaps, warrant becoming a little article in its own right? Perhaps the whole subject of gunpowder artillery afloat?
Just trying to highlight this in an effort to help. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:3063:2CFA:2CBB:6B4C ( talk) 00:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The article starts withA galley is a type of ship that is propelled mainly by oars. The galley is characterized by its long, slender hull, shallow draft, and low freeboard (clearance between sea and gunwale). Virtually all types of galleys had sails that could be used in favorable winds, but human effort was always the primary method of propulsion.
These two statements that oars are the main or primary method of propulsion are contradicted by some of the sources used in the article. For instance, Rodger, in his Safeguard of the Sea, discusses this in text starting
Human muscle-power is an extremely inefficient method of moving so large a body as a ship; it has been calculated that sixteenth-century galleys developed less than twenty horsepower at most, to move a hull of about 170 tons.
He goes on to say that "Usually galleys sailed". He also mentions the increase in drinking water requirements if rowing was extensive, which in turn demands stops for water to be collected. The question of drinking water logistics for galleys is raised in chapter 4 of Sailing into the Past. Here we also learn that the sailing performance of the experimental archeology replica was "impressive". [1]
It really seems that the sources do not support the idea that rowing was the primary method of propulsion. (We are perhaps looking at something more similar to the early steam powered warships, that sailed as much as possible to save coal for use in battle.) At the very least, the absolute and confident statement of the article's opening needs a substantial rewrite. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 19:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
References
There is still a problem with the assertion in the lead that the galley was the most common warship in the Atlantic (as seen in the revert
[3] by
User:Peter Isotalo). The article text in the section "Middle Ages" says A transition from galley to sailing vessels as the most common types of warships began in the High Middle Ages
. This does not specifically refer to the Atlantic. The reference supporting the section does not make this point about Atlantic warships either.
It may be that the problem is one of interpretation of another source that says that vessels built specifically as warships were galleys – but that is because of all the vessels that could be used as warships, only galleys were not dual purpose. Therefore kings tended to build a few galleys and commandeer sailing ships as warships as the need arose.
The tag in the lead has not been satisfactorily resolved. I am not going to edit war on this, but it should be reinstated unless a more useful explanation can be provided. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 12:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Galleys were the most common warships in the Atlantic Ocean during the Middle Ages....This refers to a place (the Atlantic Ocean) and a time (Middle Ages). I do not see a cited source, in the lead or in the article, that says that galleys were the most common warships in this place and time. This is a simple question of verifiability. I fully understand that the lead is a summary of the main body of the article, so that is where I have looked for supporting references, but without finding any. The sources do show that galleys were the most common warships in the Mediterranean during the Middle Ages, but that is not the issue here. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 19:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
A transition from galley to sailing vessels as the most common types of warships began in the High Middle Ages (c. 11th century).This is not limited, in the article, to any particular place, so does not support the lead's mention of the Atlantic.
This article is about 50% bigger than the maximum guide size. As it stands right now, the main text of the article (excluding footnotes) is 15,221 words. The recommended maximum article size for readability is around 10,000 words ( WP:CANYOUREADTHIS). So this article is 50% over-size.
This leads into general readability. See the talk page criticism "Introduction of gun armament on galleys" on this talk page (above). This is where another editor has commented that it is difficult to find expected content in the article. I think this is a very real criticism. The content could do with being more tightly organised.
Having complained about article length, there seem to be some astounding omissions. There is (unless I have missed it) no mention of the logistical problem of providing, in a shallow draft, narrow hull, a large supply of drinking water for the rowers. Nor is there any mention of biscotti, the "hard baked bread" described by, among other historians, Susan Rose in Medieval Naval Warfare 1000-1500 (p. 6). This was a fundamental component of galley operation in the Mediterranean, supplying "many of the calories needed by men expected to row for long periods". As the narrative of Rose explains, insufficient supplies of biscotti could stop a fleet of galleys going to sea. (Other mentions include pg 19, 106 and 113 - all of which give emphasis to the need for this type of food.)
It seems that the article needs either a hard-hearted slimming down to a more concise version (at the same time checking for and including any glaring omissions) or alternatively to be split – the obvious option would be to cover galleys up to the end of Classical antiquity in one article and everything thereafter in another. In fact, it possibly needs the application of both disciplines.
I appreciate that all the above may appear to be passing criticism. However, since posting the previous comments about this article, I have been diligently reading through reference material as quickly as I can gather it, so that I can make further input. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 20:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Monstrelet:, @ Intothatdarkness:, you've suggested moving content. Can you provide concrete suggestions for target articles? Could be either new or existing ones. Doesn't have to be stubs either.
Just want to underline that I've seen my fair share of splits and "exports" of entire sections over the years. When the purpose is simply to get below an arbitrary number of prose kB, the results are often very bad; the source article is left with a rump of a few sentences and the target article reads like it's obviously disjointed and isolated. I believe it's much better to first identify relevant target topics and then identify content that can be moved. Peter Isotalo 11:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Having been drawn back to this article by the length discussion, while considering ways in which the article might be split, I noticed some issues with the construction section. As these don't bear on the length debate, I've separated them. I could do a bold edit but, given the potential for contention, I'll mention them first.
The main issue is an inconsistency of how the section is divided - is it by era or ship type? It could be either. So we could have early galleys, triremes, polyremes and liburnians, dromon and galea, gallea sottil. Or Early Mediterranean, Classical, Hellenistic and Roman, Early Medieval, Medieval and Renaissance. Note this won't change the content, or the length, as they are alternative headings to the existing ones.
The other issue is that the first paragraph under Middle Ages is in the wrong place chronologically. It actually belongs in the current section "Standardisation", as it is a detailed description of the type introduced there, the galea sottil (which it actually says).
I don't think the second is contentious, but the first would need a decision which way to jump. Monstrelet ( talk) 12:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The explanation of rowing geometry is not that simple, but it is well handled in McKee's The Working Boats of Britain. There are a number of issues that all have to come together to work. There are matters like the length of the oar either side of the pivot point. Then there is the angle of the rower's body to the vertical: the feet cannot be underneath the rower's centre of gravity or only limited power can be applied to the oar. More fundamental is the fit of the typical rower's body within the space around the loom of the oar. It must be possible to get the oar into the water without having to lift the loom excessively high: if it is at head height when power is applied, this is inefficient. Then on the recovery stroke, the blade must be lifted clear of the tops of the waves. To do this, the loom is lowered, but it must clear the tops of the thighs of the seated rower. It is these two last points that are crucial in requiring low freeboard. A relatively unsatisfactory solution is to have the oars operate at a steeper angle to the water, but you need shorter oars to do this. That is why low freeboard is required.
I suggest that the to allow the oars to be as parallel to the surface of the water as possible
is more of a rule of thumb than a true explanation of the reason for low freeboard. I am not sure if McKee's explanation was available for this edit
[4]. I do not think it really does the subject justice – and nor should it because the explanation belongs in
Rowing. All this article needs to do is state that issues of rowing geometry require a low freeboard. I think most people with any mechanical sense will get a clue about what is going on. Those who don't will, in due course of time, have a link to the yet-to-be-written section in the rowing article.
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk)
22:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The lateen rig was more complicated and required a larger crew to handle than a square sail rig, but this was not a problem in the heavily manned galleys
The lateen rig is not so much complicated as heavy – so needing a good size crew to shift the sail when tacking. The whole object of replacing the Mediterranean Square Sail with the lateen was to have a rig with fewer component parts (and so lower cost, both building and maintenance cost). So the word complicated is inappropriate.
[1]
To change tacks, the entire spar had to be lifted over the mast and to the other side.
I am not quite sure what this is intended to mean. There are three possible ways of tacking a lateen. One is to bring the sail close in to the mast, possibly raising the yard with the halyard so that it clears the deck, and then pass the sail round the front of the mast so that it can be set on the other side. In appearance, the yard goes vertical and the sheet is slackened, the sail is moved and then the yard returned to its normal angle. This might be assisted by the "umbrella handle" top to the mast that was present until
c. 12th century AD. The next method is to pass the yard behind the mast. This is presumed to have been done with later vessels, such as some Venetian galleys.
[1]. The last method is to lower the sail completely and manhandle the whole arrangement (yard and sail) aft and then forward on the other side. In any situation, I do not see how this is lifting the spar over
the mast.
Ancient and medieval galleys are assumed to have sailed only with the wind more or less astern with a top speed of about 15 km/h (9 mph) in fair conditions.
I note that this is based on a reference that was written before any of the findings from the Olympias were well known. However, this "floating hypothesis" actually sailed quite well and achieved 65 degrees off the wind, which is certainly not more or less downwind
.
[2]: 89 This article content does not seem appropriate in the light of these comments.
Above are all interim notes, as much for me as for others. Comments are welcome but I hope to come up with some altered article text shortly, but out of time now. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
References
Does this article need an American English tag on it – that is the version it is written in. (I am presuming that is what is intended.) ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 19:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)