Talk:Ships of ancient Rome: Difference between revisions
→Günther quotation: Adding snippet. |
→Expanding article scope: new section |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
The Livy comment that Günther quotes above is at [https://books.google.com/books?id=FNtOAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA97 Livy XXI]:<blockquote>"The {{lang|la|navis actuaria}}, 'pinnace', was worked by sails and at least 18 oars, and as many as 30 (cf. 25, 30, 10), (distinguished from the ''onerariae'', which had only sails). They were used as transports, and for active service".</blockquote> |
The Livy comment that Günther quotes above is at [https://books.google.com/books?id=FNtOAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA97 Livy XXI]:<blockquote>"The {{lang|la|navis actuaria}}, 'pinnace', was worked by sails and at least 18 oars, and as many as 30 (cf. 25, 30, 10), (distinguished from the ''onerariae'', which had only sails). They were used as transports, and for active service".</blockquote> |
||
Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
||
== Expanding article scope == |
|||
I'd recommend renaming this along the lines of [[classical ancient ships]] so that it corresponds with [[medieval ships]]. Limiting it to just the Roman Empire would make for a very abrupt and artificial cut-off points at exactly 27 BC and (possibly) 330 AD. It would kinda exclude any non-Roman seafaring entities before they were gobbled up by the Romans. [[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 01:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:32, 13 July 2023
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Other types
Noting some types listed in Ematinger-2015: navis aperta, moneris, navis longa, navis tecta, navis strata, navis constrata, or liburna. Mathglot (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Günther quotation
Cross-posting the translated quotation (diff) from Günther-2007, because it may be useful here:
Strikingly, the term aktuaria, which is encountered again and again in the written record, according to Isidor von Sevilla is to be assigned to the class of oared sailing ships. It is sometimes even used as a synonym for this type of ship, as can be seen from a remark by jurist Vulpius Marcellus (mid-second century AD). Regarding the question of whether or not a given class of ships in the empire can claim postliminium or not (Dig. 49, 25,3), only four categories count for him: the navis longa (long ship = warship), navis oneraria (= cargo sailor), navis piscatoria (= fishing boat), and the navis actuaria.
According to Livy, naves actuariae could be manned by up to 30 oarsmen (remiges), which according to the usual thwart spacing on ancient rowing ships suggests hull lengths of over 20 m, but they also operated in much smaller versions as so-called actuariolae. The ship marked as actuaria on the Althiburos mosaic shows a galley equipped with a large square sail and a small artemon sail (headsail), which has a very peculiar front contour with a nose tapering directly above the waterline and a bow parapet swinging back concavely above it and at the same time diverging in a V-shape. These features can be observed in a number of other representations of ships in the Mediterranean region, some of which offer clear indications of cargo (e.g., amphorae) and function (such as for transporting wild animals). The bow shape just described probably also made it possible when the need arose to quickly equip vessels of this type with a ramming device and to use them for naval combat.
The Livy comment that Günther quotes above is at Livy XXI:
"The navis actuaria, 'pinnace', was worked by sails and at least 18 oars, and as many as 30 (cf. 25, 30, 10), (distinguished from the onerariae, which had only sails). They were used as transports, and for active service".
Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Expanding article scope
I'd recommend renaming this along the lines of classical ancient ships so that it corresponds with medieval ships. Limiting it to just the Roman Empire would make for a very abrupt and artificial cut-off points at exactly 27 BC and (possibly) 330 AD. It would kinda exclude any non-Roman seafaring entities before they were gobbled up by the Romans. Peter Isotalo 01:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)