"Corinthian triremes - heavy or light?" Topic

I'm refering, when saying heavy or light, to the number of marines and tactical doctrine. Did the Corinthians prefer to ram and use seamanship, or did they prefer to load up with marines and fight a land battle at sea?

Thanks in advance,

James

As far as I can remember they started out using lightly manned ships and the ram but changed to a more mixed tactical methodology. The Athenians are supposed to have considered them their most potent enemy at sea.

At the battle of Sybota in 433, both the Corcyraean and Corinthian ships 'had many hoplites on their decks, and also many archers and javelin-men, because they were still clumsily arranged in the old-fashioned manner. The battle was contested strenuously, but without an equivalent level of skill, and more closely resembled a land-battle.' (Thucydides 1.49). This was just before the Peloponnesian war, and so at the high-point of the use (by the Athenians) of the trireme as a a weapon in its own right rather than as a marine platform. The Corinthians probably had the biggest and best navy in Greece at the time outside Athens – but that was relative.

Having said that, Thucydides may not be being entirely fair to the Corinthians here – at least part of the reason for their ships being packed with troops was probably that they were trying to force a landing on Corcyra…

On the other hand, in 413 at the battle of Erineus (and this is Thuc. 7.34), the Corinthians strengthened the bow-timbers of their ships to give them an advantage in *head-on* ramming with Athenian ships (an innovation shortly adopted by the Syracusans as well, in the classic 'sea battle that was more like a land battle' in the Great Harbour at Syracuse). Again, this was because they were concerned about being out-manoeuvred by the lighter and more skilfully handled Athenian ships. The result of the battle was inconclusive – but the gulf in skill was reflected by the fact that (according to Thucydides) the Corinthians claimed a victory because they hadn't been crushingly defeated (which was what usually happened when they went up against the Athenians with similar numbers), whereas a draw, or even a minor victory, seemed like a defeat to the Athenians.

So, in the fifth century (or at least from say 480 to 405) I'd say that the Corinthians tended to have heavier ships and be more boarding-focussed than the Athenians. That said, the Corinthians clearly did have some highly skilled crews. There also seems to have been something of a trend over time for ships to get 'heavier', even before the 'polyremes' come in in the mid-fourth century. So the answer to your question may be that 'it depends': on when, and in comparison to whom…

EvilBen hit all the key sources. The only additional point I would make is that the Corinthian triremes were often hauled across the isthmus and therefore light hull vessels would be preferable.

Thank you, Evil Ben.

My pleasure.

Agesilaus has a good point – for example, in Polybius (5.101, dealing with 217BC), Philip's cataphract galleys have to sail around the Peloponnese while the lighter ships are hauled across the Isthmus.

The 5th-century references to the use of the diolkos for warships are in Thucydides again: 3.15 and 8.7-8. The former implies that special equipment had to be constructed (by the Spartans) first (and the plan there was not actually put into effect anyway). There has therefore been some suspicion about how routine or frequent such a procedure would really have been in the classical period. The usual argument (since the late 70s/early 80s) has been that the bulk of traffic across the diolkos would have been merchant vessels, not warships. Doesn't mean that the Corinthians didn't take this into account in designing their own triremes, though.