We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
This paper is the sequel to one dealing with the chronology of the battles of Andres and Cos, published in the last number of this Journal: in it I propose to consider such information as we have about a great ship belonging to Antigonus Gonatas, which may throw some little additional light on these two battles. It is perhaps unnecessary to recall the fact that the third century B.C. was distinguished by a colossal series of experiments in the building of large warships, and that the limits of the effective history of these in action, so far as known to us, coincide pretty well (omitting Antony's revival) with those of the effective action of the Antigonid dynasty at sea: that is to say, ships larger than hexereis are not heard of in action earlier than the time of Antigonus I. or later than the time of Philip V. I make one assumption in this paper, if it be an assumption and not an axiom: I shall suppose that what is true alike of the earliest flint axes and of the modern battleship was true of the naval war-machines of the third century B.C., and that the advances made in building, dimly as we can distinguish them, were due, not to this or that chance or whim, but to a linked process of development.
1 Both consuls at Ecnomus, Polyb. i. 26, 11; Scipio in 205, Livy xxix. 9; Sextus, Pompey, App. b.c. v. 71Google Scholar; Octavian in 36, against Sextus Pompey, and in 31 against Antony.
2 Dittenb., O.G.I. 39Google Scholar; Athen, v. 203 d.
3 Plut., Dem. 43, in 289Google Scholar. In 301 Demetrius' largest vessel was a τρισκαιδεκήρης ib. 31, 32.
4 None are heard of earlier, and Ptolemy I. had nothing larger than quinqueremes at Salamis in 306 (Diod. xx. 49, 2).
5 Diod. xix. 62, 7–9.
6 Diod. xx. 50, 2; 52, 1.
7 Ath. v. p. 203 d; ἐννήρεις λ᾿ ἐπτήρεις λζ all the other numbers being far smaller. The actual numbers may be exaggerated, but the substance cannot be far wrong, seeing that the beginning of the catalogue has been confirmed by an inscription.
8 See n. 48.
9 It might be more accurate to call them a Phoenician invention; for the first that we hear of (Antigonus in 315, Diod. xix. 58, 4; 62, 7–9), and the last that we hear of (fleet of Antiochus III. at Side, Livy xxxvii. 8, 3; 23, 5), are alike built in Phoenicia.
10 Apart from the other evidence, the unexplained story in Plut. Dem. 25, that Demetrius' friends called the other kings mere officials of Antigonus and Demetrius, and (among them) nicknanied Agathocles his νησιάρχης bears on this. This rare word (in the form νησίαρχος) is found once in the fourth century (Antiphanes ap. Ath. viii. 342 e) in the plural, where it can hardly have a technical meaning; but apart from this, and from the imitation of Plutarch's story in Dion Cassius (58, 5), the word I believe only occurs in the well-known inscriptions of Philadelphias' reign referring to the nesiarch of the League of the Islanders, who seems to have been appointed by Ptolemy and not by the League (Delamarre, J., Rex. Phil. xx. 111)Google Scholar. Obviously, therefore, Demetrius' νησίαρχος can hardly have been anything but the nesiarch of the League, a valuable piece of evidence for the existence of the League, under Demetrius' control, in or about 303 B.C.
11 Plut., Dem. 43Google Scholar.
12 Plut., Dem. 20Google Scholar.
13 Memnon xiii. (F.H.G. iii. 534).
14 For an ordinary octeres, Polyb. xvi. 3, 2. So Attalus' flagship at the tattle of Chios, Polyb. xvi. 6, 6; the τεσσερακοντήρης Callixenus ap. Ath. v. 204 b.
15 Lysimachus' inspection of Demetrius' ships seems to belong to Demetrius' Cilician campaign of 300 or 299 (Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. III. i. 221Google Scholar, n. 5), at which time Demetrius' largest vessel was the τρισκαιδεκήρης (Plut., Dem. 31, 32)Google Scholar. The ἐκκαιδεκήρης was built for the war against the coalition (Plut., Dem. 43)Google Scholar.
16 Memnon xiv. can allude to Gonatas as [ὁ] ἡττηθεἰς τῷ ναυτικῷ
17 Lucian, πλοῖον 14; cf. ψευδόλογοσ 27. See Cook, A. B., art. ‘Ships,’ in Whibley's, Companion to Greek Studies, p. 485Google Scholar.
18 This last must follow as a matter of course, if the view that in their oarage these vessels were analogous to galleys a scaloccio, which I have taken (J.H.S. xxv. 1905, pp. 137, 204), be correct. See further n. 65.
19 See n. 65.
20 Ap. Athen, v. 209 e. παρέλιπον δ᾿ ἐκὼν ἐγὼ τὴν ᾿ Αντιγόνον ἱερὰν τριήρη ᾔ ἐνικησε τοῦς Πτολεμαίου στρατηγούς περὶ Λεύκολλαν τῆς Κῷας ἐπειδἠ καὶ τῷ ᾿ Απόλλωνι αὐτὴν ἀνέθηκεν Nothing of course turns on the word τριήρη
20a It has been suggested to me, whether ἐπειδὴ καὶ could mean ‘when,’ i.e. ‘after which.’ This is the sense one wants, but I do not know if it is possible, ἐπειδὴ γε καὶ occurs Thuc. 6, 18, but in the sense of ‘especially since.’
21 By Benndorf, Otto in Conze, , Hauser, and Benndorf, , Archaeoloyische Untersuchungen auf Samothrake, vol. ii. p. 84Google Scholar.
22 There is only one instance even of the dedication of a complete vessel taken from the enemy, viz. after Salamis (Herod, viii. 121). The practice was to dedicate the beaks only, or the ἀκρωτήρια so in the Treasury of the Athenians at Delphi (Paus. x. 11, 5), and on the Roman co.unmae rostratae; cf. the ships' beaks in the Delian inventories, and Dar. Sagl. Donarium.
23 J. H. S. xxix. pp. 273–4.
24 The inscription from Cos in honour of Cephisophon (Dittenb., O.G.I. 42Google Scholar; see Herzog, , Koische Forschungen und Funde, 1899, pp. 1–10Google Scholar) mentions a letter of Ptolemy II. to the people of Cos about some offerings which he had sent τῶι τε [᾿ Α]σκλαπιῶι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις θεοῖς Dr. Herzog points out that the ἀ᾿λλοι θεοί must be those who were θύμβωμοι σύνναοι or σύνοικοι of Asklepios; and the list of these, known to us from Herondas iv. 1 seq. , comprises Coronis, Apollo, Hygieia, Panace, Epio, laso, Podalirius, Machaon, χὤσοι θεοὶ σὴν ἐστὶην κατοικεῦσιν
25 Paton and Hicks, xxxii.= Newton, Gr. Inscr. in B.M. No. 247 = Collitz-Bechtel, 3611 = No. 6 in Delamarre, J., Rev. Phil. (1902) xxvi. 301Google Scholar: attributed to Doson's reign.
26 Tetradrachm of Antigonus Gonatas; Imhoof-Blumer, , Monnaies Grecques, 127Google Scholar; Head, , H. N. 204Google Scholar; Hill, G. F., Historical Greek Coins, 129Google Scholar.
27 Kaibel, , Epigr. 781Google Scholar = Newton, Inscr. in B.M., Cnidus, Halicarnassus, Branchidae, No. 797. See Usener, in Rhein. Mus. xxix. 1874, p. 36Google Scholar.
28 Herod, i. 144.
29 Schol. on Theocr. xvii. 61.
30 Do. on Thtoor. xvii. 67.
31 καλεῖται δὲ Δώριος ὁ ἀγών Dittenb., Syll. 2677Google Scholar (from Cos) Δώρεια τὰ ἑν Κνίδωι 679 (from Halicarnassus) both of Augustus' time.
32 That Prof.Bouché-Leclercq, calls it a tetiadraehm of Cuidus (Hist. des Layidcs, i. 194)Google Scholar must be a mere slip of the pen.
33 Strabo. xiv. pp. 653, 656.
34 Theocr. xvii. 68.
35 See in particular the Delian inventories of Hypsocles' year (279 B.C. Homolle, ; B.C.H. xiv. 1890, p. 389Google Scholar = Michel 833), and of Sosisthenes' (250 B.C. Homolle, ; B.C.H. xxvii. 1903, p. 62)Google Scholar. The Coan theoriai have been collected by Herzog, op. cit. 153
36 Theocr. xvii. 68–70. von Prott, H. in Rhein. Mus. 53, p. 476Google Scholar, has got this curiously upside down. The cult cams to Philadelphus through his mother. See Appendix.
37 πρὸς φιλίου τέμενος ἤρωος ᾿ Αντιγόνου καὶ γὰρ ὰοιδοῖσιν θνμέλη καὶ σηκὸς ὑ[π] ἄγκει ἄγκει τῷ ᾿ Επιγόνου κούρῳ ξυνὸς ὁμευνέτιδος κ.τ.λ.
38 The title of the history of Nymphis of Heraclea (temp. Ptol. Euergetes I.), as given by Suidas, was περὶ ᾿ Αλεξάνδρου καὶ τῶν διαδόχων καὶ ἐπιγόνων Earlier still, the second part of the Histories of Hieronymus of Cardia, written about 260–250 B.C., seems to have been called περὶ τῶν ἐπιγὁνων Reuss, , H. von Kardia, p. 6Google Scholar. For later dates, Diod. i. 33; Strabo, xv. p. 736; Dionys., Hal. Ant. Rom. i. 6Google Scholar.
39 Holleaux', M. conjecture in the decree of the Telmessians in favour of Ptolemy, son of Lysimachus (B.C.H. 1904, p. 408Google Scholar = Dittenb., O.G.I. 55)Google Scholar, Πτολεμαῖον ἐπίγ[ονο]ν in the sense of ‘son of the Diadoclms Lysimachus,’ is based expressly on this epigram, and seems open to precisely the same objections. If the missing word must be a surname, it may be one quite unknown to us; who, in similar circumstances, could have correctly restored ‘Gonatas’?
40 See e. g. Panly-Wissowa, s. v. and the indices to I.G. xii.
41 I.G. xii. 7, 247:—from Minoain Amorgus.
42 Paus i. 29, 1: τοῦ δὲ ᾿ Αρείου πάγου πλγσίον δείκνυται ϝαῦς ποιηθεῖσα ἐς τὴν τῶν Παναθηναίων x03C0;ήν. καὶ ταύτην μὲν ἤδη πού τις ὑπερεβάλετο τὸ δὲ ἐν Δήλῳ πλοῖον οὐδένα πω νικήσαντα οἶδα καθῆκον ἐς ἐννέα ἐρέτας ἀπὸ τῶν καταστρωμάτων
43 Attisches Seewesen, p. 77.
43a Even if I am wrong on tins point, it does not affect the argument that the Delos ship was that of Gonatas.
44 Waldstein, C., Amer. Journ. Archaeol. i. pp. 10, 16Google Scholar; see Harrison, J., Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens, 565Google Scholar.
45 Plut., Theseus 23Google Scholar; An seni sit rcsp. ger. 6.
46 Plato, , Phaedo 58Google Scholar A, B.
47 Colin, G. in B.C.B. xxiii. 85Google Scholar; von Schoeffer, Delos, in Pauly-Wissowa, col. 2500.
48 No doubt there is a relationship between this ἐννήρης and the great number of ἐννήρεις in Philadelphus' navy, just as his ἐπτήρεις must bear a relation to Demetrius' flagship at Salamis.
49 Philostratus, , Vit. Soph. ii. 1, 7Google Scholar.
50 Plut., Theseus 23Google Scholar. We are never expressly told that it became a trireme. See Boeckh, , Attisches Seewesen, p. 76Google Scholar.
51 Himerius, , Or. iii. 12Google Scholar.
52 Refs. in Frazer ad Paus. i. 29, 1. See, however, a totally different explanation of the Smyrna ship in Dr.Farnell's, Cults of the Greek States, v. 192Google Scholar.
53 It cannot come before the war (J.H.S. xxix. 281) ; and it must come soon enough after to allow of Ptolemy II., before his death, building various ships larger than a πεντεκαιδεκήρης
54 J.H.S. xxix. p. 267.
55 Plut., De seips. laudando, p. 545 BGoogle Scholar: ᾿Αν τίγονος ὁ δεύτερος τᾶλλα μὲν ἦν ἄτυφος καὶ μέτριος ἐν δὲ τῇ περὶ Κῶν ναυμασία τῶν φίλων τινὸς εἰπόντος οὐς ὁρᾶς ὅσαι πλείους εἰσὶν αἱ ἀντιτάττετε Almost verbally repeated in Apophthegm, regum, p. 183c, except that the κυβερνήτησ puts the question, and Antigonus answers ἐμὲ δὲ ἔφη αὐτὸν παρόντα πρὸς πόσασ ἀντιτάττεις Plut. Pelop ii.: ᾿ Αντίγονος ὁ γέρων ὄτε ναυμαχεῖν περὶ ᾿´ Ανδρου ἔμελλεν εἰπόντος τινὸς ὡς πολύ πλείους αἰ τῶν πολεμίων νῆες εἶεν ἐμὲ δὲ αὐτὸν ἔφη πρὸς πόσας ἀντιστήσεις
56 I may remark here that the dedication of the ship at Delos shows, even more strongly than the building of the portico, that Gonatas expected no further trouble, and therefore confirms what I before deduced, that the war must have ended in a definite treaty, which gave him Delos and the Cyclades.
57 Qiiaest. Conv. v. 3, 2, p. 676 D: ἔτι τοίνυν ἡ ᾿ Αντιγόνου ναυαρχίς ἀναφύσασα περὶ πρύμναν αὐτομάτως σέλινον Ισθμια ἐπωνομάσθη
58 Diod. xix. 74, 2.
59 Diod. xx. 103, 1; Plut., Dem. 25Google Scholar.
60 Plut., Dem. 25Google Scholar.
61 Diod. xx. 37, 1–2; Suidas, Demetrius. See Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. iii. 1, 150Google Scholar.
62 Ath. v. p. 201 d. Cf. Delamarre, J., Rev. Phil. xx. p. 114Google Scholar; Kaerst, J., Gesch. des hellenistischen Zeitalters, II. i. p. 401Google Scholar.
63 As there are a number of parallels between this ship and that of Theseus, we may wonder if this story has any connexion with the πρύμνα ἐστεμμένη of the latter when starting for Del s (Plato, , Phaedo 58 A)Google Scholar. In the war against Philip V., in 199, the proconsul P. Sulpicius apparently copied Gonatas' ‘omen’ (Livy xxxii, 1, 12 lauream. in puppi navis longae enatam); but the sole and perhaps unexpected result was the decreeing of a supplicatio.
64 Dittenb., O.G.I.S. 56, 1. 13Google Scholar; Niese ii. 196; Bouché-Leclercq, , Hist, des Lagides, i. 253Google Scholar.
65 εἰκόσορος (Ath. v. 207 c) τριάροδος δέ εἰκόσορος is the round merchant ship; Hom., Od. 9, 323Google Scholarφορτίδυς εὐρείης Hesych. φορτηγοῦ τελείας No doubt it also meant a ship of twenty oars, as the lexicographers say, and see Pollux 1, 82; but the Syrakosia was not rowed by twenty two-handed oars. πριπάροδος is clearly shewn by the description (whatever πάροδος means elsewhere) to be used here for a three-decker. This supports the view that τριάρ μενος means three-decker. We meet a round ship, armed and with a beak, in action against a galley, on a sixth century vase (Torr, Anc. Ships, Fig. 16). At a latertime we have explicit mention of warships of a mixed type; App., b.c. v. 95Google Scholar, Octavia presents her brother with δέκα φασήλοις τριηριτικοῖς ἐπιμίκτοις ἐκ τε φορτίδων νεῶν καὶ μακρῶν half round ship, half galley. Such must have been the nature of Gonatas' ship; on the one hand it was rowed, while Hiero's was not; on the other, it must have been of comparatively heavy tonnage, if timber enough for some fifteen quadriremes was built into it (Ath. v. 206 F compared with 209 E), while τριάρμενος was used later of heavy merchant vessels (u. 17). The extra height would be partly for the sake of catapult range (Ath. v. 208 c), but also for fighting at close quarters; and the armament of Hiero's ship, of which only the extra large catapult was Archimedes' invention, may well give a clue to that of Gonatas; towers, grapnels, and yards fitted for dropping stones on the enemy. It is conceivable that the ἐκκαιδεκήρης of Philip V. (Liv. xxxiii. 30 inhabilis prope magnitudinis) was of this type carried to an extreme, and was by no means the same as the very efficient ἐκκαιδεκήρης of Demetrius I. (Plut., Dem. 43)Google Scholar. Gonatas may have beaten Egypt by much the same methods as Rome, getting Corintho-Macedonian ideas through Sicily, employed against Carthage in the first Punic war.
66 Though this is the feminine of ᾿ Αλεξανδρεύς (Etym. Mag. 389, 15), may it not refer to the festival of Alexander's worship rather than to the city ?
67 Head, , H.N. p. 339Google Scholar; period circ. B.C. 338–243. Dr. Head himself gives the comparison. The same type of Poseidon appears on other coins of Gonatas (Head, , H.N. 203, 204)Google Scholar: in the case of the Isthmian Poseidon this is only to be expected.
68 The resemblance to the coins of Corinth seems to me to dispose of several alternative views, such as: (a) that Poseidon can refer to Triopia; (b) or to Delos, where his worship was active, including perhaps (Dürrbach, F. in B.C.H. 1905, p. 524Google Scholar, No. 179, 1. 10) a naval sham fight at the Poseideia; (c) or is merely a reminiscence of Demetrius' coinage after Salamis, typifying naval victory in general: if indeed Demetrius' Poseidon of the second series (Head, Fig. 144) do not refer to the Isthmian congress, one of the fruits of victory, as much as to the victory itself.
69 Paus. ii. 2, 3. The statue actually seen by Pausanias may have replaced one there before the destruction of Corinth.
