Talk:Galley

This article completely ignores
(1) the (West) Highland Galley. There is a Mariner's Mirror article on this: DOI: 10.1080/00253359.2002.10656825 Also a book by Denis Rixson.
(2) the Ship's boat type of galley (yes, the article linked is deficient and needs a re-write). You can find a brief mention of this type of ship's boat in Gig (boat)
(3) the traditional British inshore craft called a galley - examples existed particularly at Deal, but also Selsey (and, of course, the Highland Galley falls into this class).

Given that this article is already overlong, these other vessels that went by the name galley should be covered elsewhere. Does that require a rename of this article, since it is largely about the ship-sized galleys and not the open boats that went by the same name? Any thoughts? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This is thoroughly discussed under "Definition & terminology". After reading quite a lot different sources, I believe it's fairly clear what historians in the field generally include under the category "galley". From what I've read, "galley" is one the one hand a lineage of large rowed vessels of fairly similar purpose, shape and roles, and on the other hand a European historical catch-all term for just about anything with oars, especially in war.

I don't consider that to be a strong argument to describe every imaginable large-ish rowed vessel a "galley". An alternative might be to try to describe rowed vessels in a completely separate article with a different, more generic, name and scope.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a case of an editor deciding to call any vessel a galley - it is the demonstrable fact that the term galley is used to describe vessels other than the ones discussed in the article. Perhaps I should have included the link to West Highland galley. The other two types are discussed in, for instance, Boats of Men of War^[1] and Inshore Craft, Traditional Working Vessels of the British Isles.^[2] Books about Bronze age, classical era and Mediterranean galleys quite clearly are not going to cover other meanings of the word. A broader reading of maritime history shows a broader meaning of the word. This is just a case of Wikipedia being what it is meant to be: an encyclopedia based on its sources. One could argue that this article should make clear that it is limited in its scope. Alternatively, links to the other subjects should be available at an early stage. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

My interpretation of general source is that there's a very relevant distinction between how the term "galley" was used and how it's used to describe a specific lineage of ship type. If you try to include what was at any point in time was described with the word "galley" (or its cognates), you could probably include any slightly larger rowed vessel that has ever existed, from the Southeast Asian kelulus to North American row galleys. If you're looking to create an article like that, using the term "galley" does not seem appropriate since it should focus generally on mode of propulsion, not a specific term of European origin.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I note that even a source used in the article uses a wider definition of "galley", which is somewhat misrepresented in the article:
"Classicist Lionel Casson has used the term "galley" to describe all North European shipping in the Early and High Middle Ages, including Viking merchants and even their famous longships."
(The misrepresentation is that Casson does not apply the term to "all North European shipping", but simply says that there were merchant galleys in northern European waters.)
I really do think that you are arguing against reality. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

If you think part of the Casson reference is irrelevant, by all means adjust it. But as for the general issue of what is or isn't a galley, you have to look a the section as a whole, not simply dissect each source and statement in complete isolation. The point is to try to present a general overview and to balance the usage of the word "galley" with how it's used as a specialized term. If you disagree with the definition of a galley currently in the article, what definition do you propose yourself? Do you believe the article should include summaries of all vessels that have ever, at any point, been called "galleys"?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The referencing in this article means that it is arduous to determine where text is sourced - it is a long article and the only way to track the meaning of, say "Casson 1995", is to have the article open in two tabs and used edit find to locate the work in the bibliography.

Sticking with the example of "Casson 1995", at least two usages of this actually refer to the updated version of Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, which was published in 1995. All the other cites refer to his chapter in The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times - also published in 1995. You can only discover which source is intended by using the page numbers in the reference and seeing which book contains the content that is in the article.

Then we have mixed reference styles, with cite book, cite web and cite news templates being used in the body of the article.

Since the referencing of the article needs a good overhaul, would it be worth converting to the sfn template, used with the cite book template in the bibliography? This would make it a lot easier for the encyclopaedia user to see where material is sourced. Whatever happens, a substantial bit of fixing is needed. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The citation method suggested would give:
"... there is no evidence that ancient navies ever made use of condemned criminals or slaves as oarsmen ...^[1]
" Merchant galleys in the ancient Mediterranean were intended as carriers of valuable cargo or perishable goods that needed to be moved as safely and quickly as possible.^[2]
This example would resolve the issue of "Casson 1995" referring to different works and, if you scroll so that the references in this talk page section are not visible, you would see the full benefit of the sfn template: hover over the ref number and you get the short reference, hover over that short reference and you see the full reference - all without losing your place on the page. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

References

bibliography

• Casson, Lionel (1995a). Ships and seamanship in the ancient world. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-5130-0.
• Casson (1995). "Merchant Galleys". In Morrison, John S; Gardiner, Robert (eds.). The Age of the galley : Mediterranean oared vessels since pre-classical times. London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0-85177-554-3.

I never used the updated version as far as I can recall. It's not in the bibliography either. They're most likely typos.

Should also note that I'm not favor of the sfn/efn templates. Nothing against applying templates, but I'm not supporting artificially splitting different types of notes. If anyone can point to splitting notes as being proven to benefit readers, I'm ready to reconsider. But as far as I'm concerned it's not a slightly weird standard invented by Wikipedians.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by I never used the updated version as far as I can recall. The example I gave of an ambiguous "Casson 1995" is because there are two works by the same author published in the same year. (Anyway, who knows introduced the ambiguity - there is more than one editor to the article.) Or did you mean something else? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The bibliography only includes one "Casson (1995)" and that's the chapter in Age of the Galley. You're assuming that it refers to a work that isn't actually mentioned.

I recommend checking the version history. I'm responsible for the vast majority of the current article content. This isn't the first major overhaul I've done.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that the issue of the type of referencing being used (with the suggested solution of the sfn template) is the reason you are unaware of the problem with the ambiguity of "Casson (1995)" as a reference. If you take a look at the references for the article, you will see that "Casson (1995)" appears 6 times in the section heading "References". Working through these:
the first instance (numbered 8 at present) is for page 123. Looking at the two sources, this is Conway's History of the Ship publication titled the Age of the Galley, which is listed in the bibliography. (How a user is expected to easily find that in the bibliography is beyond me, as it involves reading the entire bibliography to find the relevant chapter. The sfn template would avoid this problem.)
The second instance is numbered 18 in the current article version, is for pages 57-58. This is clearly not from the Age of the Galley, whilst the content of the 1995 updated and expanded edition of Ships and Seafaring in the Ancient World neatly matches the text in the article.
The last reference (number 173) is for page 325-6 - so clearly is not from the Age of the Galley, as that book does not have that many pages.
I do not understand why I am having to repeat this explanation at greater length.

What is the issue is with you having written 72% of the article? Maybe the remaining 28% is the source of the problem. This is not relevant. The issue is that at present the referencing of the article is about as impenetrable as it could be. I suspect that the guidelines for referencing individual chapters are not being followed accurately (hence the problem in finding the Casson (1995) reference in the Age of the Galley). I have suggested a solution, which seems to have been rejected by one editor on grounds of personal preference of not using a method with greater functionality.

The bibliography does need to have the later edition of Cassons Ships and Seamanship added to it - but I am reluctant to mess with the referencing set-up whilst this discussion is ongoing. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the most constructive approach to this is if you first list the specific notes that you believe are erroneous. I'll start checking them and see where corrections are needed. I think there might be a few instances where author and page numbers have been switched around by accident.

Then we can try to tackle the formatting issue and try to find a workable consensus.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I have highlighted the errors that I have detected. Whether there are any others is very laborious to determine due to the citation method used in the article. I have even pointed out that the revised version of Casson's Ships and Seafaring should appear in the bibliography. I have also suggested that the method of listing the various chapters of the Age of the Galley in the bibliography does not fit with the style guide for referencing, as the primary identifier of each of these chapters is the author of the chapter. This would put the entries in an order which enables the reader to find an item in the bibliography (and also highlights to the editor that the problem raised here is present). I am not sure what else I can do without making the corrections myself - which I resist as I think the citation method should change so that this article is a better read for the user. This is the original point that started this thread. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe the specific issues have been fixed now:

• I corrected two instances of Casson (1995) which were simply supposed to be Casson (1971). The issue was never that someone used the revised version and forgot to include it in the reference section. It's simply that "1995" and "1971" were switched around by mistake. I checked the history and as far as I can tell, the error was mine.
• Listing the individual chapters of The Age of the Galley was an attempt to make the notes less burdensome to read. I've now converted this to the standard format of <Author, "Chapter Title" in Editor & Editor (YEAR)> instead.

The use of sfn really has nothing to do with these two issues. I welcome the use of templates, but I oppose having "extended" notes separate since I don't consider this the least bit helpful to readers.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Whilst I hate to drone on about the subject, I am still concerned about the reference to pages 325-326 of Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the section Galley slaves. I only have one copy of this book, the 1995 edition, so am unable to check this precisely. The later edition, described by the publishers as having "new material", still has the text that supports the article content at pages 325-326. Given that this is a substantial distance through the book, the "new material" must either be particularly concise or located after page 326 for the page numbers in the 1995 edition to match those of the 1971 version. If any editor has the first edition available, it would take just a moment to check whether the page numbering still matches in that edition, thereby confirming that the page numbering for that reference in the article is correct. If it is not, then the 1995 edition must have been used as a source for that part of the article.
Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If you don't believe that I was the one who added the content based on the 1971 source, feel free to check the edit history regarding who added the content originally. If you disagree with the interpretation of the source, or if you think the 1995 version has more relevant content (or whatever), then just correct the article and adjust the referencing.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Galleys rely on rowing, but the article has no date for its invention. Casson gives a date of 2400 BC for the introduction of rowing on all larger craft on the Nile (pg 18. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World). Do other sources give a date? Presumably the Nile is the location of this invention (as far as anyone can tell). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall "the invention of rowing" as a concept that was discussed in sources on galleys. I'm guessing it's very hard to nail down and historians probably prefer to focus on when specific types of vessels first appeared.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Rowing versus paddling is discussed in the first chapter of Conway's History of the Ship volume titled The Age of the Galley. It is broadly consistent with Casson, though a little light on being clear on the dates intended. Casson is so widely cited that I think we can take him to be a good source. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Galleys are very advanced technical applications of the concept of rowing. I'm assuming that between the invention of rowing and the invention of galleys, there are quite a lot of intermediate technical innovations. I think it might be more relevant to expand on the history of rowing in the article about rowing.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The comment is simply that we have an article about a subject that relies on a particular invention, but without saying anything about that invention. The guidance on whether or not to mention it comes from sources - notably Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World and the Conway Age of the Galley. I suggest that these are both key sources in the subject.

Compare this article with, for example, Chariot, which mentions the invention of the spoked wheel in the lead and more general content on the invention of the wheel in the body of the article. Just as chariots would not exist without wheels, galleys would not exist without rowing. I think the remark Galleys are very advanced technical applications of the concept of rowing is not a sensible argument. In their later forms, of course they are developed. The early single banked galleys were still galleys, but did not have the sophistication of more developed types. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I am currently trying to untie the knot of whether or not heavy gunpowder artillery was carried on broadside aboard sailing ships as the first commonplace / successful application of the technology aboard warships. I thought I'd quickly check what this article has to say on the matter of when black powder artillery first appeared aboard galleys. But the section regarding this aspect seems to be a discussion of relative tactical merits of different warship types.

I read through four paragraphs until, in the fifth paragraph I found this: "The ordnance on galleys was heavy from its introduction in the 1480s". To me, that seems like a long trawl in a section about the introduction of the weapon. Would it be possible to impose some sort of brief historical timeline at the start of the section? Or does this, perhaps, warrant becoming a little article in its own right? Perhaps the whole subject of gunpowder artillery afloat?

Just trying to highlight this in an effort to help. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:3063:2CFA:2CBB:6B4C (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

An illustrated timeline would be most welcome, for example as a picture. I'm not very good at that myself.

Just want to clarify article is about galleys, though, not gun powder artillery. The place to find this kind of info more quickly would be in naval artillery.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The article starts with
A galley is a type of ship that is propelled mainly by oars. The galley is characterized by its long, slender hull, shallow draft, and low freeboard (clearance between sea and gunwale). Virtually all types of galleys had sails that could be used in favorable winds, but human effort was always the primary method of propulsion.
These two statements that oars are the main or primary method of propulsion are contradicted by some of the sources used in the article. For instance, Rodger, in his Safeguard of the Sea, discusses this in text starting

He goes on to say that "Usually galleys sailed". He also mentions the increase in drinking water requirements if rowing was extensive, which in turn demands stops for water to be collected. The question of drinking water logistics for galleys is raised in chapter 4 of Sailing into the Past. Here we also learn that the sailing performance of the experimental archeology replica was "impressive".^[1]

It really seems that the sources do not support the idea that rowing was the primary method of propulsion. (We are perhaps looking at something more similar to the early steam powered warships, that sailed as much as possible to save coal for use in battle.) At the very least, the absolute and confident statement of the article's opening needs a substantial rewrite. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking for a simple definition from knowledgeable sources, I find McGrail defining a galley as
"a vessel capable of being propelled by oars and by sail"
This is given in the glossary to his Boats of the World from the Stone Age to Medieval Times.^[2] ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the article. If you think the lead is off or misleading, compare it with the article content and see if you think anything should be adjusted.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There is still a problem with the assertion in the lead that the galley was the most common warship in the Atlantic (as seen in the revert by User:Peter Isotalo). The article text in the section "Middle Ages" says A transition from galley to sailing vessels as the most common types of warships began in the High Middle Ages. This does not specifically refer to the Atlantic. The reference supporting the section does not make this point about Atlantic warships either.

It may be that the problem is one of interpretation of another source that says that vessels built specifically as warships were galleys – but that is because of all the vessels that could be used as warships, only galleys were not dual purpose. Therefore kings tended to build a few galleys and commandeer sailing ships as warships as the need arose.

The tag in the lead has not been satisfactorily resolved. I am not going to edit war on this, but it should be reinstated unless a more useful explanation can be provided. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

As I noted above, I believe you would gain more by focusing on matching the lead to the article as a whole. The point of the lead is to "summarize" content and to give it "appropriate weight". There's plenty of leeway to paint with a broad brush in a lead, and sometimes it might be better to simply reword certain statements rather than debating whether they are "right" or "wrong".

Regarding the matter of most common warships, my takeaway from the sources used in the article about the Middle Ages is that galleys (and other oared vessels) were the most common fighting vessels. If you think this is wrong, consult the sources.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I presume that I have not made the problem clear. In the lead, we find a sentence that starts: Galleys were the most common warships in the Atlantic Ocean during the Middle Ages.... This refers to a place (the Atlantic Ocean) and a time (Middle Ages). I do not see a cited source, in the lead or in the article, that says that galleys were the most common warships in this place and time. This is a simple question of verifiability. I fully understand that the lead is a summary of the main body of the article, so that is where I have looked for supporting references, but without finding any. The sources do show that galleys were the most common warships in the Mediterranean during the Middle Ages, but that is not the issue here. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The section that describes the transition from sailing vessels as the most common warship is in the first section of "Middle Ages". This is referenced to Rodger (1997) pp. 64-65. Have you consulted this citation?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The section headed "Middle Ages" has, as its first sentence: A transition from galley to sailing vessels as the most common types of warships began in the High Middle Ages (c. 11th century). This is not limited, in the article, to any particular place, so does not support the lead's mention of the Atlantic.

Looking at pages 64-65 of The Safeguard of the Sea, I can find nothing that supports the text in the lead. Subjects covered in these pages include the windward sailing abilities of the single-masted sailing vessels of the time, the skeleton-first construction sequence of Mediterranean galleys, the theoretical short-duration maximum speed of Medieval or Renaissance galleys, the short voyaging capability of war galleys, and the way galleys were outmatched in fighting by sailing vessels (due to the greater height of the latter's hulls). None of this mentions the relative commonness of galleys versus other types of warship.

What this adds up to is: (1) a statement in the lead that is not supported by the rest of the article; (2) a section of text ("A transition from galley to sailing vessel...") which, though not something I would dispute for accuracy, is not supported by the reference given; (3) no mention in this source of, specifically, the ratios of the types of warships to be found in the Atlantic area. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I reread the pages after your comment and I agree that those particular pages don't cover the issue succinctly. They cover part of the technical development and the differences in building styles for 1066-1455, as does all of chapter 5. However, if you look at the rest of the chapters relating to the period before 1509 (especially 4, 6, 7-8), it's clear that galleys or oared vessels dominate a lot of the operations and that war fleets based on the Atlantic coast, or sent to Atlantic waters by Mediterranean powers, are very heavy on oared vessels. This is also very much something reflected in other sources, like Rose 2002 (p. 27). Larger sailing vessels ("round ships") start being used more in warfare in the north around the 1300s. My view is that sources like Hattendorf & Unger (2003), Anderson (1962) and Rodgers (1940) overall say the same thing and I'm not aware of any contradicting sources.

So the point of the statement in the lead is basically to underline the fact that sailing warships, even in the Atlantic, weren't really a thing until at the very end of the Middle Ages. I think this is pretty important to point out, because people tend to default to the idea that warfare at sea before the advent of steam was all about sailing vessels. At the very least, naval warfare (both sea battles and amphibious operations) was very much an oared affair since sailing ships were suitable for transports, but not warfare as such. With this in mind, would you like to suggest any changes to the lead?

Peter ^Isotalo 18:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I am still mulling over a full answer to the above (some further reading is needed), but it seems sensible to give an interim response.

(1) (a) On reading quite a lot of Safeguard of the Sea, whilst it is clear that English kings had galleys available, there is only one remark that suggests how common they were relative to other vessels. That is (page 51), talking about King John having the "most impressive squadron since the conquest": "By 1211 he had more than fifty vessels, including twenty galleys, in service." Twenty out of fifty is forty per cent – presuming all the others were used as warships of some description.
(b) Looking quickly at Rose 2002, the account of the fighting off Flanders in 1304 talks about one fleet being made up of two squadrons. One is of sailing ships. The other consists of 12 hired Genoese galleys. Whilst we do not know the relative numbers of sailing and oared ships in that fleet, it is of note that the galleys came from the Mediterranean. One must suspect that locally built and manned galleys were not available.

(2) Anderson (1962) and Rodgers (1940) seem quite dated sources, which really should only be used with care by later sources. Knowledge of the subject has grown over the past sixty (or more) years and whilst books of this age may hold correct information and be cited by others, I don't think they make an RS for Wikipedia. (A good example of the risks of aged sources that are still cited in the field is Hourani, George F. Arab Seafaring Princeton University Press, which has been completely superseded on the origin of the lateen rig but is still good for others maritime historians to use other information that they know is still correct.)

(3) The lead has just one sentence about Mediterranean galley use after the classical period. This seems a little odd as it surely requires a little more emphasis than that. Altogether the whole lead might benefit from a reappraisal. This may break the guidelines for a lead, but four sections covering (a) introduction and definition (b) classical and pre-historic (c) Mediterranean in middle ages and renaissance (d) Northern waters and elsewhere. The need to break the guidelines on the numbers of paragraphs in the lead really comes from the length of the article, which is about 50% bigger than the recommended maximum for an article.

I will put some further research and thinking into this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is about 50% bigger than the maximum guide size. As it stands right now, the main text of the article (excluding footnotes) is 15,221 words. The recommended maximum article size for readability is around 10,000 words (WP:CANYOUREADTHIS). So this article is 50% over-size.

This leads into general readability. See the talk page criticism "Introduction of gun armament on galleys" on this talk page (above). This is where another editor has commented that it is difficult to find expected content in the article. I think this is a very real criticism. The content could do with being more tightly organised.

Having complained about article length, there seem to be some astounding omissions. There is (unless I have missed it) no mention of the logistical problem of providing, in a shallow draft, narrow hull, a large supply of drinking water for the rowers. Nor is there any mention of biscotti, the "hard baked bread" described by, among other historians, Susan Rose in Medieval Naval Warfare 1000-1500 (p. 6). This was a fundamental component of galley operation in the Mediterranean, supplying "many of the calories needed by men expected to row for long periods". As the narrative of Rose explains, insufficient supplies of biscotti could stop a fleet of galleys going to sea. (Other mentions include pg 19, 106 and 113 - all of which give emphasis to the need for this type of food.)

It seems that the article needs either a hard-hearted slimming down to a more concise version (at the same time checking for and including any glaring omissions) or alternatively to be split – the obvious option would be to cover galleys up to the end of Classical antiquity in one article and everything thereafter in another. In fact, it possibly needs the application of both disciplines.

I appreciate that all the above may appear to be passing criticism. However, since posting the previous comments about this article, I have been diligently reading through reference material as quickly as I can gather it, so that I can make further input. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the size, the article is shorter than a lot of narrower FA topics. Counting kBs is not a constructive way to determine the optimal article size since topics are more or less narrow. You should just work directly with the existing text and cut down on details if you think that's relevant. I'm not sure I agree with the "gun armament" critique, but I'd happy to see someone take a stab at trimming the fat off the prose.

But overall, if you want to contribute to the article, work more with the article content. And please lay off the tagging. Your complaints aren't serious enough to merit them.

Regarding galley logistics, why not start writing about it? There's more info about it in Age of the Galley if you want to get more in depth than just hardtack.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

2 points. I don't get the resistance on article size. WP:TOOBIG is quite specific. Just because there are examples that break the rules does not mean this article is exempt from complying. Where a featured article is long, I suggest that is because it has a carefully developed structure that assists with its readability.
Secondly, I am still seriously reading my way into the subject – it is taking a while to track down sources and then do the physical reading thereof. I will work on the article once I feel I have this done to a useful level. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that the guideline in question is "specific" on this point and it is not to be "complied" with based solely on your opinion. I've explained quite very clearly why I disagree otherwise. The article is not up for review and you're obliged to seek consensus for these things.

Take my complaint about your tagging seriously, please. Focus on constructive content edits instead.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have sought opinions on the length of the article at Wikipedia Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest also notifying MilHist. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

MilHist: notified. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• The article is far too long and would benefit from splitting. The split proposed seems as sensible a one as any and I support it. (In addition the article could do with a thorough copy edit to prune extraneous material and get it into a more summary style. Further down the road possibly a further split into an over-arching Galley article with sub-articles on early classical, Roman era and Medieval galleys? Just a thought.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Not being well-read on the topic, I have no opinion on how to handle issue (i.e. whether to split, further summarize, or both), but at 13,753 words of readable prose (per the page size tool), something clearly needs to be done. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Article is clearly too long. I'd suggest a split based on historical eras or periods. There are a number of topics buried in the article, and the section on tactics seems to rehash what's in the actual galley tactics article (to give one example). Why not just link to it with a very short summary here? Intothatdarkness 16:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• I don't have a strong view of splitting the article. Yes, it's long but there is an advantage to having the whole tale in one place. If it is decided to divide it, the historical split, logical though it seems, is actually more complicated than it appears, as the technical sub-categories are somewhat intermixed and unpicking them would be tricky. Are there other overarching classes (e.g. of ships) which are subdivided and can that offer any help here? Monstrelet (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Having been drawn back to this article by the length discussion, while considering ways in which the article might be split, I noticed some issues with the construction section. As these don't bear on the length debate, I've separated them. I could do a bold edit but, given the potential for contention, I'll mention them first.

The main issue is an inconsistency of how the section is divided - is it by era or ship type? It could be either. So we could have early galleys, triremes, polyremes and liburnians, dromon and galea, gallea sottil. Or Early Mediterranean, Classical, Hellenistic and Roman, Early Medieval, Medieval and Renaissance. Note this won't change the content, or the length, as they are alternative headings to the existing ones.

The other issue is that the first paragraph under Middle Ages is in the wrong place chronologically. It actually belongs in the current section "Standardisation", as it is a detailed description of the type introduced there, the galea sottil (which it actually says).

I don't think the second is contentious, but the first would need a decision which way to jump. Monstrelet (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph under "Middle Ages" was added way back in August 2006. It got an awkward hanger-on statement referencing what I assume is Björn Landström but without specification to any specific work. I removed the hanger-on just now because it doesn't seem to actually have anything to do with the highly detailed specification.

Regarding the specification itself in the first paragraph, it's really hard to verify and I don't find it very informative to begin with. The level of details is dubiously specific. The original medieval measurements were obviously not metric and the original units are missing. I'm for zapping the paragraph altogether. Peter ^Isotalo 15:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

While not arguing with the trimming, we do have details for Charles of Anjou's galleys. See for example https://www.academia.edu/4129316/The_tersane_at_Alanya_and_the_galleys_of_Charles_d_Anjou (p.186) which gives them in their original units. Monstrelet (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Trimmed the measurements in this edit. I don't mind someone incorporating that again but it should include the original measurements and should be in a format that's easier to digest, for example a summary table (as in Pryor 1988).

I've attempted a fairly extensive overhaul of the structure of the "History" section. To make it clearer, I've tried to clarify it as being more about usage, and split into different types of usage. Thoughts? Peter ^Isotalo 12:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The explanation of rowing geometry is not that simple, but it is well handled in McKee's The Working Boats of Britain. There are a number of issues that all have to come together to work. There are matters like the length of the oar either side of the pivot point. Then there is the angle of the rower's body to the vertical: the feet cannot be underneath the rower's centre of gravity or only limited power can be applied to the oar. More fundamental is the fit of the typical rower's body within the space around the loom of the oar. It must be possible to get the oar into the water without having to lift the loom excessively high: if it is at head height when power is applied, this is inefficient. Then on the recovery stroke, the blade must be lifted clear of the tops of the waves. To do this, the loom is lowered, but it must clear the tops of the thighs of the seated rower. It is these two last points that are crucial in requiring low freeboard. A relatively unsatisfactory solution is to have the oars operate at a steeper angle to the water, but you need shorter oars to do this. That is why low freeboard is required.

I suggest that the to allow the oars to be as parallel to the surface of the water as possible is more of a rule of thumb than a true explanation of the reason for low freeboard. I am not sure if McKee's explanation was available for this edit. I do not think it really does the subject justice – and nor should it because the explanation belongs in Rowing. All this article needs to do is state that issues of rowing geometry require a low freeboard. I think most people with any mechanical sense will get a clue about what is going on. Those who don't will, in due course of time, have a link to the yet-to-be-written section in the rowing article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I realize that we both need to start focusing on is to "identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". That's the sole purpose of the lead. So rather than debating this or that wording, what's the "appropriate weight" here in relation to how galleys were generally built? Peter ^Isotalo 22:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. That was behind the thinking of relying on a link to a new section of Rowing that deals with rowing geometry and mechanics.

But thinking on this further, this article does not have a "General characteristics" section that discusses the various design and performance consideration of galleys. That could include all the discussion of length to breadth ratios, freeboard (with explanation of the consequences for fighting against other types of vessel) and the problems of rowing geometry (including the spacing of rowers in the trireme floating hypothesis) and the unknown (as far as I am aware) issue of how the oars were manned in a balinger, etc. A general characteristics section would allow some of the existing article content to be removed or reduced, so it should not add significantly to article length. It might also make things easier for the typical Wikipedia reader, as it could group summary content early in the article (we all know that many articles in Wikipedia are rarely read from one end to the other). I am not sure this is a total solution, but it seemed wise to float the idea for consideration. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think content under "Design and construction" and "Propulsion" could be included under such a heading like "General characteristics". Starting such a section with some very broad outlines would address what you're getting at here, I believe.

Regarding the "typical Wikipedia reader", you need to check out the discussion here. Published research seems to show that an average reading session is about 45 seconds. Another published article shows readers actually navigate the table of contents quite selectively.

Regarding total article length, as long as someone gives specific examples for this article topic, I'm more than willing to both discuss and act on critique of length. I believe the size guideline is problematic as it is, though, and if anyone insists on invoking MOS as their only argument or a random number of printed pages (or whatever) my position is "anything below 100 kB of prose is fine". Peter ^Isotalo 10:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The lateen rig was more complicated and required a larger crew to handle than a square sail rig, but this was not a problem in the heavily manned galleys The lateen rig is not so much complicated as heavy – so needing a good size crew to shift the sail when tacking. The whole object of replacing the Mediterranean Square Sail with the lateen was to have a rig with fewer component parts (and so lower cost, both building and maintenance cost). So the word complicated is inappropriate.^[1]

To change tacks, the entire spar had to be lifted over the mast and to the other side. I am not quite sure what this is intended to mean. There are three possible ways of tacking a lateen. One is to bring the sail close in to the mast, possibly raising the yard with the halyard so that it clears the deck, and then pass the sail round the front of the mast so that it can be set on the other side. In appearance, the yard goes vertical and the sheet is slackened, the sail is moved and then the yard returned to its normal angle. This might be assisted by the "umbrella handle" top to the mast that was present until c. 12th century AD. The next method is to pass the yard behind the mast. This is presumed to have been done with later vessels, such as some Venetian galleys.^[1]. The last method is to lower the sail completely and manhandle the whole arrangement (yard and sail) aft and then forward on the other side. In any situation, I do not see how this is lifting the spar over the mast.

Ancient and medieval galleys are assumed to have sailed only with the wind more or less astern with a top speed of about 15 km/h (9 mph) in fair conditions. I note that this is based on a reference that was written before any of the findings from the Olympias were well known. However, this "floating hypothesis" actually sailed quite well and achieved 65 degrees off the wind, which is certainly not more or less downwind.^[2]: 89 This article content does not seem appropriate in the light of these comments.

Above are all interim notes, as much for me as for others. Comments are welcome but I hope to come up with some altered article text shortly, but out of time now. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed the wording regarding the first two statements and added a pic that shows actual lateen rig tacking. It was mainly a matter of clarity and wording rather than anything factual.

Regarding whether Pryor's estimates are accurate or not, does Rankov 2009 actually say anything about this estimate being off? Are there conflicting estimates?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

A nice clear description of changing tack (by wearing) in Arab lateen rigged vessels is to be found at ^[3]. This describes the sail (and yard) being taken round the front of the mast. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Just catching up with reality – the picture now added to the article is a great find. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I got pretty excited when I found it! It must've been a pretty delicate operation overall considering that the spar with sail could might weigh a ton or more.

Despite my naval history interest, I'm a bit of a landlubber with mediocre spatial intelligence. Describing the mechanics of sails and rigging is not my strongest suit. If you find weird wording regarding the practical stuff, it's more often me getting it wrong from perfectly good soruces.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The worst bit of wording ("over" the mast) is almost exactly what Unger says ("over the masthead", pg 49). He should have known better. Incidentally, that entire section of his book, talking about why lateen replaced square rig, is entirely superseded. That one is not so much his fault, as there are still many maritime historians who persist with the myth that lateen (as well as other fore and aft rigs) gave significantly better windward performance than square rig.

Re Rankov's comments on the sailing performance of the trireme floating hypothesis – I think he shows a polite silence on comments from those in the field who did not have the benefit of the results of their experiments. This is just another example of how assumptions get overtaken by detailed analysis. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Does this article need an American English tag on it – that is the version it is written in. (I am presuming that is what is intended.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Go for it. Peter ^Isotalo 08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)