Louie da fly

John, How's it all going? It's been a while and I was wondering how your recovery is progressing. Steven

No worries. Happy to be of help. Steven

Ben, there are a bunch of images of rams from archaeological finds here. You might find them of use in making your spikes. Steven

Sherry, that's an exquisite model. You've set the bar very high for the rest of us duffers (well, me, anyway - from what I've seen there are so many amazingly skilled, patient and painstaking modellers out there in MSW land that I sometimes wonder if my own efforts will be up to the mark. Still, one can but try). Steven

I’ve changed my mind about the midships section – I’m just going to build a “bog basic” section to see if the two banks of oars work together without fouling each other. If so, I can go on with the full dromon with a clear conscience. I may at some future date build the section as well, but I think at the moment doing something that complex is just a distraction from ever starting on the full ship, which is what I intended to do in the first place. I’m having to re-investigate the layout of the ship and may have to re-draw it almost completely, due to the information uncovered by the discoveries at Yenikapi. Though in general these confirm the theoretical reconstruction in Age of the Dromon, there are several important differences between it and the galeai found in Istanbul. Firstly, the reconstruction has the oarports approximately 300mm (1 foot) higher and 300mm forward of the front of the oarbenches. In the only Yenikapi ship (a single-banked galea) with a surviving oarport strake these distances are 400mm and 450-480mm. The discrepancy of height would mean the oars would have to be longer and would reach the water further away from the ship. However, while a dromon has two banks of oars a galea has only one, so the Yenikapi galley had no problems with interference between banks. The nearer the oars are to horizontal to the water surface, the better the mechanical advantage. However, I believe the reconstruction’s oar height is probably closer to the truth, as the shipbuilders would have traded off mechanical advantage against oar-length and height of the upper bank. If a dromon’s lower oars were as long as on a galea, the upper oars would have to be unmanageably long to miss them. And another 100mm (4”) in height would make the dromon that much higher and less stable, and add unnecessary weight. The discrepancy of horizontal offset would mean the oarsmen would have to stretch further to pull on the oars. Without trying this out I don’t know if an extra 150-180mm of reach would be harder on the oarsmen, but as this is something that would have been arrived at after centuries of experiment, I feel it’s likely to be right. Also it appears I've got the midships cross-sectional shape wrong, so I'll have to look at that again and see what I can come up with. I originally believed the mast would have been permanently set in the mast-step, and pivoted above the deck to lower it for battle. However, on consideration I’ve come to agree with Professor Pryor’s evaluation, that it would have been able to be pulled out with sheers. The masts are fairly light (I worked out a rough estimate based on their length and diameter and the density of the wood likely to have been used), so a reasonably small number of mariners should be able to achieve this. The mediaeval sources describe supports for both the masts and the yards when not in use – they have different names and are almost certainly different pieces of equipment. I have to work out how they would have related to each other on the upper deck. As the yards would be lowered first, I expect the yard supports would be lower, and then the masts lowered onto a somewhat higher set of supports. The sources also describe what appear from the description to be catheads – at the bow, and the anchor hangs from them – though exactly what form they’d take I don’t know. Would they be like later catheads, or would they be very different? Would they have sheaves? I think to do a similar job they’d probably have to be fairly similar in form, but that’s just another of the guesses I have to make in designing this model . On the foredeck the ship will need a windlass, a ballista and a siphon for Greek Fire.The sides of the hull near the nozzle had metal plates to protect the timbers. Greek Fire needed favourable conditions – no wind, or a gentle breeze blowing toward the enemy. Otherwise it wouldn’t work, or would be a danger to the operator. It would be nice to have a working Greek Fire unit, but I think that may be a bit foolhardy. I don’t want to set fire to my model by mistake. The spur was mounted at the bow and was apparently used to smash the enemy’s oars –the ram seems to have vanished several centuries earlier as framed ships were too strong to be sunk by ramming. The design in Age of the Dromon shows a spur coming up diagonally from near the waterline, with a chain or perhaps a metal brace supporting it. But this design seems to be based on a picture of dromon from several centuries before, where the spur appears to be built into the hull like a ram. By the time of my own model the spur was removeable, with an iron fitting holding it in place. If so, ramming would impose considerable torque on the spur, which would tend to pivot around the fitting holding it to the hull, and perhaps seriously damage the ship. I believe the spur should be in line with the force of collision (i.e. horizontal) and would probably fit into a socket in the hull, which is possibly where the “fitting” comes in. I’ve put arched supports for the xylokastron (central castle) – not for any reason other than that the ship is Byzantine and they went in for arches in a big way. As a dromon was the prestigious line-of-battle ship of the time, (the Yenikapi galleys, as Imperial navy ships, were all built of high quality timbers, unlike the merchant ships found in the same site which seemed to be cobbled together from whatever came to hand), I think a bit of ostentation would not be out of place. I’ll need to do some research further down the track about lateen rigging – I really don’t know much about it, and it’s complicated by the fact that there’s pretty much no reliable information about 11th century Mediterranean lateen rig. Is it the same as later European lateen rigging or is it very different? Some blocks and toggles have been found, and a paper is being written at the moment reconstructing the likely rigging of ships of this time, but it’s not likely to be ready for quite a few years yet. There’s only a fairly narrow access between the oarbenches of the upper deck, and I’ve had a bit of trouble working out where to put the companionway down to the lower deck. I think the most likely place is right by the central mast, but I can’t be certain I’m right. It’s not known for sure how orders were relayed from the captain to the oarsmen, and the lower oarsmen would certainly not be able to hear them directly. On Olympias they used a loudspeaker, but nobody knows what was done at the time. It is recorded that the notes of a flute gave the time to the oarsmen, and perhaps also other commands. Apparently a high-pitched tone carries well among the sounds of a galley under way. However, the sources say this was not done when the ship was going into battle, but they don’t say what method was used. Perhaps messengers sent down to the lower deck to the officers in charge there? Perhaps they used a system of hand signals? Dromons (and all galleys of this type) were poor sailers – their freeboard was so low – a 10 degree heel would put the oarports under the water - and they were so prone to capsize, that they could really only sail before the wind. I think it’s likely that with a following wind the lateen sails of the two masts would have been spread one either side of the centre line, to even up the forces. According to dendrochronology, the galea wreck known as YK4 was perhaps 200 years old when it sank, which is a surprising age for a vessel of this type. It had been repeatedly repaired with different timbers than the ones it had been built from. Hogging was avoided by use of several heavy wales approximately 150x150mm (6”x6”) in cross-section running fore and aft, and all the vessels but YK4 also had stringers running fore and aft fixed to the top of the bottom timbers. A dromon would also have been stiffened by the planking of the upper deck. One problem that hasn’t yet been solved is how enough air got to the lower oarsmen for them to work efficiently. A fully decked vessel just doesn’t have enough airflow. Perhaps the deck was made of gratings, and perhaps there was some kind of lattice construction between the wales above the lower oarport strake. Nobody knows. The performance of a dromon is unknown. The Olympias, a reconstruction of an Ancient Greek trireme, was capable of 7 knots and it’s thought if another one was built today using the lessons learnt from the first it could go even faster. Olympias is capable, at full speed, of turning in twice its own length, an impressive feat. I doubt a dromon could achieve this performance, but it was the racehorse of its day. It was superseded by the more efficient Western European galea (not the same as the Yenikapi galea, from which it got its name), which rowed two banks of oars from a single set of benches. It was lighter and faster than the dromon, and edged it out in little more than a century. To my surprise I discovered that side rudders (steering oars) are more efficient than a stern rudder is. There’s a fascinating paper by Lawrence Mott on the development of the rudder from 100 to 1600 AD at http://nautarch.tamu.edu/pdf-files/Mott-MA1991.pdf which goes over this in great detail. Well worth a read. The only reason I can think of that the stern rudder would have replaced the side rudder is the increasing size of ships which would have needed a steering oar so big it was impossible to handle. Most Mediterranean ships of the time had two steering oars, which could be raised and lowered independently of each other, so the ship could proceed with a single rudder if needed (there were times when this was a better option). They needed to be held down or they’d float upwards out of their proper position. They could also be raised right out of the water when (as was usual with galleys) the ship was beached overnight, aft-first. As I mentioned before I worked out a rack system to hold the upper oars for when the ship went into battle. Each upper oar is a little over 5 metres long and the distance between the oarbenches is a little under a metre. So at any one point there are 5 oars in the rack. It seems to me that placing the oars in the rack would have to be done very systematically, otherwise chaos would ensue, with oars getting mixed up and impossible to extricate later. I think they’d have to be laid “spoon-fashion”, probably starting with the bow-most oar and working down the side of the ship. Picking them up would be done in reverse order. Olympias showed it was vital for oarsmen to take their seats in the proper order, especially for the lower decks, and the same should apply for a dromon. Pulling the lower oars inboard (say when coming alongside an enemy vessel to board) should be reasonably ok – I worked out if you pull the oar inboard on a diagonal there should be room – but there might be problems with the foremost and aftermost oars. Getting the oars below decks down the companionway might also be a problem . There appear to have been two major forms of tactics – starting with a crescent-shaped line abreast facing the enemy, the idea was either to break the centre of the enemy line or to go around the end of their line and attack from the stern. Either way, the idea was to break up their formation and the battle apparently then degenerated into a melee of individual ships. However, as with everything else, the information is so scarce that nobody really knows. It was advised to fight near land – but not your own territory, as the proximity of friendly land made desertion more likely. I’ve worked out that the deck beams need some kind of support part way along their length, as timbers that could cover 4 metres in a single span would have to be far too heavy for a ship of this size. However, a central beam, or perhaps two beams equally spaced, running fore and aft under the deck beams would do the job. Vertical struts at intervals, supported by the ship’s frames or keel would hold up the fore and aft beams. It would be preferable to have two beams, to avoid a line of vertical struts running down the centre of the ship obstructing movement. But if there were two they’d have to be positioned so the struts didn’t get in the way of the oarsmen when they were rowing. Well, that’s the current state of play. I’m looking forward to getting started, but I think it’s going to be a while yet. Steven

Yes, unfortunately the information about the patterns and colours on Viking shields is very thin on the ground, as so few shields have bee recovered. Even the colours on the Gokstad shields have now vanished, as the science of archaeological conservation was only in its infancy when the ship was discovered over 100 years ago. And even then, the Gokstad ship was apparently a pleasure vessel rather than a warship, and as far as I know it's the only one that's ever been found with shields along the sides. So did warships have them? Not sure - perhaps the sagas mention them, but even the sagas weren't written down till centuries after the Viking period. The Bayeux Tapestry shows William the Conqueror's ships with shields along the sides, and some contemporary images of Viking ships (at https://www.google.com.au/search?q=viking+ships&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=685&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=cshqVeizJ4_m8AWp7oPIAw ) have them. Really, your guess is as good as anyone else's. All you can do is look at the available evidence and judge for yourself what's right to put on your ship. At least if you do that, nobody can tell you you're wrong . . . Best wishes, Steven

Jerry, you can find probably the definitive information about the patterns on Viking shields at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/shield/shield.html The Gokstad ship's shields were alternating solid yellow and black - i.e each second shield was either yellow or black. The main site this comes from is http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/and has a lot of stuff on the Vikings which might be of help to you. Regarding the rigging of Viking ships, nobody knows for certain, as all that's been found are various wooden artefacts which are probably blocks, and some which MIGHT be deadeyes. Nothing was found in position, no ropes, no sails. Contemporary pictures also give some indication, but it's really only conjecture and best guess as to what the rigging layout really was. There have been quite a number of reconstructed Viking ships built and sailed, and it's possible a lot was learnt from them as to what is a workable rigging plan based on what was found in the ground. But it's still only educated guesswork. Steven

There are also many other ancient Greek sources, such as the Odyssey and perhaps the Iliad, as well as Thukydides (is that spelled right?) and other contemporary historians. Even with the fictional stories such as the Jason and the Argonuts, and the Odyssey, the author was writing for an audience who knew whether people wrote names on their ships, carried shields on board etc, so the information would probably be fairly reliable. You may find also that if you contact the people who built the Argo reconstruction they might be able to help you. I think the article I linked to in my last post contains a contact section. Steven

Pasanax, have you seen the Youtube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s_0bwC7Hi8 of the reconstruction and sailing trip of Jason's 50-oared Argo? There's an article about her at http://www.argonautes2008.gr/en/argo-ship/new-argo-ship.html The reconstruction looks very good to me - the construction method is correct, using tenons between the planks, so I think the research for her shape and layout was probably also correct. I don't know the answers o the questions in your first post, but I've never herd of a drum being used on a Greek galley. I expect the oarsmen would have had spears and shields, though I don't remember seeing them on any contemporary pictures of the ships, so perhaps they were stored out of sight somewhere. I've also never heard of an ancient Greek galley's name being written anywhere on the ship - you might try reading such things as the story of Jason and the Argonauts and historical descriptions of voyages to see if it's mentioned. If not, I think you're safe leaving it off. Best wishes, Steven

Well, here's the amended drawing of the midships section. I've exaggerated the distance between the frames for clarity - with this you can see the alternating bottom timbers and half-frames. I haven't yet sorted out some of the issues, such as how the lower benches are supported at the inboard end - the outboard end is set into a mortise in the wale, and the inboard end of the upper ones rests on the deck, but I have to work out how to support the ower ones - presumably they'll be supported by the frames. I'm pretty happy with this layout, and I'll probably also see if I can find space to fit such items as water barrels (galley crews needed a LOT of water) within the hull. Prof Pryor's book shows possible places to store stuff, and I have the opportunity to test the theory out in the real world. The house renovations are nearly complete. I'm hoping that will give me the opportunity to get something started fairly soon - but of course life often gets in the way, so we'll just have to see how it goes. Steven

Ben, I just caught your video. That's totally amazing! Such maneuvrability! Much better than the previous videos I've seen of model galleys in action. I take my hat off to you, sir. Stven

Curioser and curioser - On re-reading the archaeological report of the Yenikapi galleys, I've discovered I'll have to amend my cross-section drawing yet again. It seems the frames in mediaeval (and earlier) Mediterranean ships in general, and in the Yenikapi galleys in particular, followed a . . pattern of alternating floor timbers and paired half-frames . . . Floor timbers span the bottom of the ship, with their extremities extending just to the turn of the bilge [on each side of the ship]; in contrast, half-fames span the width of the keel and extend up one side of the ship, through the turn of the bilge to, or just beyond, the first wale . . . At each frame station, floor timbers and half-frames are paired with futtocks placed adjacent to, but not fastened to, the floor timber or half-frame, with ends overlapping by the width of one or more planks. The bit in square brackets is my addition, to clarify that the floor timbers reach right across the bottom of the ship, from side to side. I can't do it at the moment, but I'll amend the drawing to reflect this framing pattern when I get the chance. Steven

I just came across a very interesting video on Youtube of a reconstruction of Jason's Argo under construction and then in action. Shows the "shell-only" (i.e. frameless) construction of the ship, using coaks between the planks - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s_0bwC7Hi8 Steven

I just came across a very interesting video on Youtube of a reconstruction of Jason's Argo under construction and then in action. Shows the "shell-only" (i.e. frameless) construction of the ship, using coaks between the planks - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s_0bwC7Hi8 Steven

And there are several other videos of Olympias in action on youtube, as well as a really fascinating one of a reconstruction of Jason's Argo being built, and then in action. They're in the column on the right hand side. If you hit the Argo link it leads also to other Olympias ones. Steven

If you type into Youtube "sea trials of Olympias" you can see a video of Olympias in action in 1990. Thought you guys might be interested. It answered a lot of questions for me. Steven.

Yes indeed, Ben. In fact Fitch ran the first steam powered passenger service up and down the Hudson River for a considerable time and had a long-running battle with Fulton (of Clermont fame) as to who had the right to do so, and who had stolen the idea of the steamboat from whom. He used lever-driven paddles because Benjamin Franklin had told him paddle-wheels were never going to work. Fulton won in the end, but I have a lot of sympathy for Fitch - an original mind, but with the odds stacked against him because of his origins and lack of education. I found about him from a book called Steam by Andrea Sutcliffe, which my son gave me for a birthday present. It's fascinating, and I'm very grateful to him for it.

That sounds like the best way to go, Ben. I was wondering if that'd be an option. I wish you the greatest success with it. By the way, there are other intersting "oar-powered" vessels out there which would lend themselves to RC. The most interesting in my book is the steamboat built by the American John Fitch in the 18th century - see http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/mssc/steamboats/player_fitch2.htm . The clearest representation I've seen of the boat is below. Thought you might be interested. Steven

Thinking about Dick's question regarding the relationship of the frames to the lower oarports, I've come up with what is probably a workable answer. Working on a spacing of 0.96 metres between benches (as this seems to be pretty much the average found at Yenikapi), that would also mean 0.96 metres between oarports. The average spacing between frames found at Yenikapi seems to be between 200 and 230mm, which is between 1/4 and 1/5 of that distance. If I spaced the frames at 240mm centres, there would be exactly four of them between adjacent lower oarports, and there would be no need to modify the frame spacing to allow for them. With the Yenikapi ships the shipwrights had no need to worry about this issue because those had only a single bank of oars. YK16 had two upper wales with a 55mm strake between them (and I believe YK4 is similar) with the benches mortised into the lower wale, and it appears the thole supports were fixed to the upper wale. As the frames end at the top of the upper wale, there would have been no need to take them into account when spacing the frames. Another point is that this was a time of transition when ships were being built "shell-first" - that is, the keel was laid and the planks fixed in place before the frames were added. This would have given the shipwright more freedom when deciding on spacing of both oarports and frames. I'm sure when it came to building dromons the shipwrights with several hundred years of experience behind them would have worked out in advance how to place the frames so the oarports would not cause problems. However, as no dromons have ever been found, we can only speculate and use what's been found on the Yenikapi ships as a basis for a 'best guess' design. Steven

Thanks everybody for the "likes". They are much appreciated. Dick, I'm using AutoCad LT 2006, which I use in my 'real world' business designing houses. I find it very helpful, but it's only in 2 dimensions (3D AutoCad is prohibitively expensive). I take your point about frame positions, and for the midships section I'll probably come up against this if I decide to do it in full. However, the Yenikapi ships show considerable variation in the spacing of their frames, benches and oarports, and the spacings quoted are only averages. So I might be able to "tweak" the spacings to allow the oarports to go between the frames without playing around too much with the frames themselves. Additionally, there are quite a few frames on each of these ships where the different frame members are next to each other instead of in the same line, so that could be done as well without feeling I'm departing too much from what was actually done. This has turned out to be quite a challenging build, and I haven't even picked up a piece of wood yet! Steven

John, sorry to hear about the accident. Life does get in the way of the important things like modelling, doesn't it? I hope you have a full and satisfctory recovery. Steven

Oh, I wasn't proposing that all the oars would be stored inboard; only the upper bank, and only immediately before and during battle, at which time the masts were also lowered, and the uppr oarsmen became fighters - the lead oarsman on one side becoming (and I love this name) the siphonator, operating the Greek Fire apparatus. As you say, the lower bank would be needed for manoeuvring, and yes, you're right, there's a case on record where the upper deck was overrun and the lower oarsmen weren't, though there are various versions of the story, including one where the lower oarsmen rowed in the opposite direction to the (enemy) oarsmen of the upper bank. This is covered in Age of the Dromon, but Prof Pryor doesn't believe it's physically possible, and that instead the chronicler embroidered the orginal story. Another reason to store the upper oars inboard is that they would otherwise, particularly if fixed in the same way as those in renaissance galleys (see below), get in the way of missiles being fired at the enemy vessel. The lower oars would certainly help provide lateral stability, which would be very important in a vessel as inherently unstable as these. By the way, I'm amending my earlier post to replace the drawing I attached with one which I hope more accurately depicts what I have in mind, including getting the oars and shields in the right relationship to each other, and adding the leather thongs to the thole pins. Steven PS: Kees, I'd also thought that galleys were always rowed by slaves. It took reading The Age of the Galley to change my mind about that.

Dick, you make a good point, and certainly renaissance galleys had their oars at "rest" angled upward but supported in their rowlocks. However, they were used in a very different kind of fighting where a galley's function was to sink other vessels with gunfire. They also had only a single bank of oars, which they kept in use during a battle. Mediaeval galleys' crews relied on attrition of the enemy's crew with missile fire, followed by boarding, and after a lot of thought about this, I believe the upper bank oarsmen would have been most likely to put their oars in "storage" to give them the greatest freedom of action. But my proposal is that they are stored running fore and aft right next to the sides of the ship. In this way they shouldn't restrict mobility on board. You're right, though - the approved tactic seems to have been to try to attack an enemy vessel from the quarter, preferably smashing up their oars with the bow-mounted spur, followed by boarding. I can only think the lower oarsmen must have pulled their own oars inboard (they were shorter than the upper ones) just before impact, but the information available is so thin on the ground that we really know nothing for certain. Even the replacement of the ram with a spur is still not fully accepted by academics, let alone a lot of the other information we have on battle tactics. Much of the contemporary battle advice, such as the treatise of Emperor Leo VI, seems to have been written from the comfort of an armchair by someone who'd never been to sea. The flare of the upper works is in fact what Prof Pryor believes is the only possible solution to the problem of clashing oars. He devotes a whole chapter of Age of the Dromon to this problem, but he acknowledges that it's still only theory till it's tested in the real world. Kees, the oarsmen in galleys of antiquity and the middle ages were free men, and galley slaves don't seem to have been introduced until the renaissance, as a response to a shortage of skilled oarsmen and freemen willing to work at the oars. Rowing a galley was a skilled activity, and good oarsmen were valuable. The most valuable on a dromon were the upper oarsmen, as they doubled as fighting men, and Leo VI recommends that the less brave of the oarsmen be placed on the lower bank. Steven

I don't know how much of the ship was below the floor planking, but there are cross sections at http://nautarch.tamu.edu/class/316/oseberg/ and at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33098/33098-h/33098-h.htm#f22 which might let you know if it's enough to fit your radio control equipment below it. Hope that helps, Steven

Here’s a drawing of the proposed midship section for the dromon, to be built at a scale of (probably) 1:20, and intended to sort out whether the upper and lower banks of oars will successfully avoid fouling each other when in action. I haven’t decided how detailed to make it – just a basic mechanical construction to test out the above question, or something fully detailed? After all, the dromon itself is the main goal, but in the meantime I’ve drawn the section in full, in case I choose to do it that way.. Though for the full model I’ve followed Professor Pryor’s lead in having the oar benches angled at 18.4 degrees to an athwartships line , I’m still in two minds about it, and I’ve shown the benches in this section as being directly athwartships (i.e. at right angles to the keel). Interestingly, a thole and its “housing” were found in one of the Yenikapi wrecks, but the housing only contained a single hole. Experience with the Olympias reconstruction showed that most of the force expended by the oars at the fulcrum was taken not by the thole pins themselves, but by the leather thong which tied the oar to them. I've now shown the thongs on the drawing, but I haven’t yet added the leather sleeves for the lower oarports, designed to keep water out. As the upper oarsmen doubled as marines during sea-battles, and fought the ship rather than rowing - I've had to figure out what did they do with the oars. The dromon is 4.4 metres wide at its widest point, but the upper oars are over 5 metres long. You can’t pull them inboard – they’d stick out by about a metre either side, making it impossible to come alongside and grapple the enemy (and expose the delicate ends of the oars to damage). Not only that, but it would be murder trying to clamber over them to get from one part of the ship to another – an important consideration during a battle. If you lay the oars fore-and-aft along the deck inboard of the benches, they obstruct access to the benches themselves (the benches are only about a metre apart, so you’d have a stack of oars rolling around getting in the way). The best solution I've been able to come up with – and I’m aware it can’t be proven to be correct – is to have a row of uprights sticking up out of the benches about three oars’ thickness in from the side of the ship. The oars can be racked between these uprights and the side, two or three high, with very little obstruction either for access to the benches or for crew fighting at the side of the ship. Another question I have yet to resolve – was there a catwalk for the oarsmen of the lower bank, or did they simply walk along the tops of the frames? I believe the frames would be close enough together (200-230mm or 10-11 inches) and sturdy enough to be walked on, so a catwalk would be unnecessary. You’ll note the ship has several heavy wales – about 150mm (6 inches) square, to help prevent hogging, and a stringer running along the bottom for the same purpose. These have been found on the Yenikapi galleys, and on a dromon the deck would strengthen the vessel further. There are shields along the sides to protect the upper oarsmen, and it’s mentioned in contemporary accounts that they fought from behind them. The shields are supported by a rail known as a pavesade, probably hung from the pavesade uprights by the enarmes – the leather or rope straps by which the warrior carries his shield in battle. At sea the shield would also have to be tied down further so it wouldn’t flap around with the movement of the ship. Steven PS: The attached drawing has now been amended to show (I hope) the proper relationship of oars, shields etc.