First posted on Amazon.co.uk on 3 February 2012
Contrary to what its title may suggest, this book is about BIG warships, rather than about the Hellenistic navies per se. The story it tells is a fascinating one, even if general readers that do not have a particular interest in naval archeology or warships in Antiquity may become a bit dismayed or even bored by the first 60-70 pages, and its detailed discussion about frontal ramming. These first few chapters may seem tedious to some, although reading them is essential to understand the important points that the author has to make.
I found this book very valuable because the author does provide some plausible answers to several questions that I have been wondering about for a while, such as:
- why were the Athenians beaten in naval battles at Syracuse in 413 BC and then crushed with such apparent ease by the Macedonians in 322 BC?
- where did this big ship phenomenon really originate from and why did it catch on so much among the Diadochoi?
- what were the purposes of these ships and were they really effective?
- why did it really disappear after Actium?
As William Murray makes out, the traditional explanation for having such ships and explaining the "naval arms race" betwen the Diadochoi what a mixture of prestige and belief that these larger ships gave their owner an overwhelming advantage in set piece naval battles. Murray's merit is to show, based on the historical evidence, that the reality is both somewhat different and much more complex than that.
Another merit of this book is to show the limits of our knowledge regarding these Titans and the reasons for these limits. Since the phenemenon disappeared and was disparaged by the Romans ownwards, starting with Augustus, many or even most of the sources that mention them fail to show precisely how these super-warships were built and operated. In addition, some of what has been preserved (such as summaries of Ancient authors' done during the 9th century by the Byzantines) is often misleading and confusing. So, while we know how warships called "fours" and "fives" were, and how there rowers were disposed, there is uncertainty for anything larger. For instance, was a "six" made up with two or three banks of oars on either side with three (or two) rowers per oar? Alternatively, did a "six" mean six rowers per side, with a similar meaning as for a four or a five, or did it mean six rowers per oar, which would have meant a much wider ship and a hugely expensive one?
One issue is the author's tendancy to be repetitive, as he feels obliged to almost systematically summarize the points he has just made over the past few pages. You may feel that the points made, however interesting they may be, are being somewhat belabored and you may find this mildly annoying (At times, I caught myself thinking something along the lines "come on, get on with it!").
Anyway, this book is well worth reading because it is so much of an "eye-opener", despite being somewhat "technical"...