From the historical evidence as it appears in the writers of the times in ancient times and relying on archaeological finds, it can be seen that in the period under review there were several organizational frameworks that owned and managed fleets and they are: the state framework, the private framework and the semi-private framework
to the first part of the article
discussion
From the historical evidence as it appears in the writers of the times in ancient times and relying on archaeological finds, it can be seen that in the period under review there were several organizational frameworks that owned and managed fleets and they were: the state framework, the private framework and the semi-private framework. The state framework refers to states that had fleets and refers to Egypt, Carthage, Greece and Rome. Here two types of states must be distinguished: one type is of a state in the full scope of the concept such as Egypt and Rome which were states and powers and as such their political horizon was global (as the size of the world was perceived in their eyes, that is from their geographical point of view and not from the modern point of view). Another type is of state cities such as the state cities in Greece and Carthage. The city-states, a common phenomenon in antiquity, were actually mini-states. Even if they became superpowers, it is thanks to the political ability, not only to conquer but also to build coalitions for their political needs. In our reference to Greece, let's not forget that Greece was essentially a cultural empire, unlike Rome, which was a typical military empire. Carthage was indeed a city-state, but since it was a state that was economically based on a commercial orientation, it can be regarded as a city-state in the form of a business company and it would be more accurate to define it as a city-state-firm with a distinct monopolistic character.
In Greece, until the 4th century BC, the fleets were owned by the triarchs - the wealthy families. If we want we can treat them as an early version of business families. Since the families had property and a lot of money, they could build ships and use them for their mainly commercial needs. From a somewhat speculative point of view, it could be that the relative distribution between families that have joint ownership of several ships is equivalent to the holders of shares in maritime companies. In Rome there were also ship owners, but these were merchants with great wealth, some of whom had the ships as private property and some of whom owned ships as part of the wealthy families. In Egypt the temples had their own fleets. Since the temples had a clear connection to the authorities since they were the providers of religious services to the ruling elite and these two elites fed each other, it is likely that the state had something to say regarding the operating policy of these ships. It is therefore possible to treat these fleets as a semi-private framework.
As for military fleets, throughout history they have always been owned by the state. The only exception, and that too for a limited period, were the triarchs - the wealthy families - who had their own warships. But since the political power of the city-state grew stronger, the grip of these families on the ships grew weaker. State ownership was most prominent in Rome, which due to its size was not satisfied with one fleet. It had several fleets including on rivers in the depths of Europe. If we want, we can make a parallel to the naval forces that the USA maintains around the world. Considering that communication channels in ancient times were slow, the commanders of these forces were delegated many military powers including political powers. A fleet commander had to be not only an excellent military man, but also have political and diplomatic skills since he would be in frequent and daily contact with the countries close to him. In terms of the political organizational hierarchy, he was subordinate to the central authorities in Rome. The instructions he would receive were general, to know what the policy was in the area under his control that Rome wanted to implement. The scope of action given to him was large and he had independent action options.
Another type of ships that were in the hands of Rome were the service ships whose role was to bring grain and other products from Egypt and other patron countries to Rome. These are mainly agricultural products for the inhabitants of Rome, which can only grow in warm areas. The maintenance and logistics of these ships, like the military ships, were all in the hands of the state. Rome being a country of a pragmatic nature, the means it adopted for these needs were more sophisticated than in other countries (although no literary findings were found that could describe Rome's organizational rationale). Since Rome itself has extensive geographical dimensions, the organizational structure of these fleets at its disposal was more complex than those of other countries, especially the cities of the country, which were naturally small in terms of population compared to it.
Since the central government in Rome had both military ships and service ships to transport food from its various provinces to the center, Rome used two administrative styles at the time. One tough style where all instructions are given in the form of orders which is typical of a military setting, and another style is softer since the service ships were run by civilians. It should not be forgotten that on the military ships the main manpower was the oarsmen, which required a less compromising approach in order to maintain the organizational framework of the individual ship and its functioning as an organizational unit. There were almost no oarsmen on the cargo ship, most of the personnel are professionals, each in their own field, which requires a lot of coordination between them and a willingness to go towards each other. It is a style of willing cooperation.
Carthage also used two management styles at the same time. Although here a military naval framework and a civilian naval framework operated side by side, but these styles were fundamentally different from those of Rome. Carthage was not a military power but an economic power. Being a sort of commercial company most of its ships were merchant ships and the military ships were mainly defense ships. These ships were designed to protect the commercial ships and trade routes. The thinking pattern of the military wing of the Carthaginian navy was defensive and this is probably what the soldiers and commanders of the military ships were trained to do. Civil Navy ships were basically cargo ships and the design of the ships was such that it was intended to transfer a maximum of goods from one destination to another, when it was occasionally necessary to reach the home port for repairs and renovations. The approach of these ships' crews was economic. Different professionals worked in these ships as well and it is reasonable to assume that their orientation was different from the Roman service ships. The main goal was profitability and therefore the discipline had to be tighter. But due to the fact that these are civilians and not military personnel, it may be that the strength of organizational discipline was something in the middle between service ships and military ships.
As for Egypt, it seems that it had three fleets. Two small fleets, one in the western Indian Ocean and one in the eastern Mediterranean. The main fleet was the one that operated along the Nile. The fleet was civilian in nature. Even the ships used by the army were actually transport ships intended to take the warriors to the battlefield and were not built for naval warfare.
In terms of financing and fundraising for fleet construction, three financing methods are used. One way was the allocation of funds by the state and it does not matter if it is Egypt, the state cities of Greece, Carthage and Rome. This is the case with regard to the maintenance of the military fleets and in Rome. This was probably also the case with the cargo ships that brought raw materials and food to Rome itself from around the empire.
As for Greece, it appears from the writings that the state did not always have the funds required to raise the necessary capital, and therefore the officers were given the option to also turn to the private market to obtain the funds, although this was provided while providing collateral mainly from the officers' private property. Merchant ships were funded by the private capitalists. Here the accepted market principles worked. Funds that came from the sources of income were used to build the required ships. As for Carthage, two sources of recruitment seem to have operated here. One source is the taxation mechanism, a mechanism that already operated in many of the countries of antiquity and the second mechanism is the revenues that came to Carthage, being a country that was based mainly on trade. Regarding the temples in Egypt, since they were part of the elitist establishment of the state, it is possible that they were semi-independent and therefore their capital came partly from the private income of each and every temple and partly from the allowances of the state. A special form of raising capital that was common in the state cities in Greece was the imposition of special taxation on state cities that are members of various alliances and the robbery of capitalists and the various state cities. From all of this it is possible to understand that the financial management (to the extent that this expression is true for ancient times) was given different characteristics according to the type of taxation that was used. It seems that the use of plunder was indeed common, but the frequency of its exploitation was only for those cases of emergency where the people who needed it did not have any financial reserves at their disposal.
Although the ships of ancient times were fundamentally different from the ships operating today, a great deal of professional knowledge was required and we saw this in the detail we required in relation to the raw materials needed for the construction of the ships, the way these materials were stored and the maintenance of warships between battles in order to maintain their integrity and readiness to go into battle. Although the ships were built mostly of wood, a lot of knowledge was needed about the different types of wood, what kind of wood was good for one purpose and what kind of wood was good for another purpose. From the point of view of the fleet owners, it was essential to maintain a close relationship with the wood suppliers. The owners of the fleets had to prepare for themselves schedules in which the ordered ships would enter into operational service, which necessitated the signing of contracts with the shipbuilders, including their engineers, and with the suppliers of the good and cheap raw materials. They were actually required to conduct market surveys (using the analytical tools at their disposal), how long to prepare trees for dry storage (drying trees after cutting them) and from when trees were removed from this storage for construction, when to start pushing new trees into this storage. It may be that concepts such as safety stock, delivery dates and target dates were familiar to them (perhaps in a different nomenclature than modern concepts). Since most of the raw materials they used were of organic origin, their wear and tear was fast, and whatever was provided before - they would use it. Intuitively at least it seems that they used the concept of First In First Out. Naturally, warships would wear out faster than merchant ships and therefore it was necessary to have a larger inventory of spare parts to repair these ships. We saw that some of the ships had the function of a maintenance man who dealt with current problems that arose during the voyage, which means that he had repair equipment and a small warehouse (depending on the size of the ship) of spare parts at his disposal. Not every repair could be done on board the ship, and in cases of serious malfunctions it was necessary to get to the nearest port as quickly as possible to carry out these repairs. From this it can be concluded that there was actually a repair procedure established by the ship owners or the state. This procedure determined which level A repairs were allowed to be carried out on ships and level B repairs that required the use of port services, and which ports were reached. There were two options: one option was to go to a friendly port known for the quality of the service it provides and its affordable prices. A second option was to return to the home port, if the situation allowed it.
Ships of a different type, which were prone to high wear and tear, are ships designed to transport marble, a transport that was particularly common in the Roman period. These stones were large and very heavy and ships had to be designed especially for this purpose. These ships had to be relatively low to maintain their stability. They were probably built of heavy wood and the weight of their keel was large in order to minimize shaking during the voyage. Most likely, the planning and manner of placing the sails was done accordingly. Special professional and engineering knowledge is required here that not every ship planner in ancient times needed, which can testify to the high payment these planners received. From this point of view the economic mechanism that operated here was a market of workers. It is these planners who set the price of their employment. Since the marble was transferred to the various imperial provinces of Rome by the state itself for its political needs, the interrelationship was between the authorities and the professionals. It is hard to believe that a private entity could meet the prices they demanded and if there were private entities that were involved in this, they were very few. In any case, the high wear and tear of these ships requires frequent repairs. It is fairly likely that just as ordinary cargo ships moved in the summer, so did these ships. No one was willing to risk the loss of a ship with such a valuable cargo on board, what's more the professionals operating a ship of this type were relatively rare in the market. The country could not afford the sinking of these ships at sea during a winter voyage.
Another nature of wear and tear frequency is that of ships that sailed on rivers. These ships withstood a smaller range of shaking than that of naval ships. They should have faced less storms. Even if storms were to occur in wide rivers such as the Nile, the Danube and the Rhine, their intensity is less and the danger they face is limited. Furthermore, if a ship were to sink for any reason, the chances of being rescued were better than at sea, since the depth of the rivers is less than that of the seas, and divers had a greater amount of time at their disposal. They can perform a greater number of dives with many time intervals between dives. The rescue of these ships had another importance and that is to prevent clogging of rivers. If malfunctions were to occur, the availability to the shores made it possible to carry out faster repairs than on seagoing ships. It is also possible to accept as a reasonable assumption that along most of the rivers there were various stations for docking and carrying out the necessary repairs.
Since ships would pass a certain threshold (which we do not know) of the scope of repairs due to ship age and high wear and tear, other ships would be put into service to replace them, which can indicate a work routine of scrapping ships and building new ships. It is likely that the scrapped ships were not thrown away, but dismantled and the good parts recycled, either as spare parts or as raw materials.
There was a production work routine, but there were cases when a large number of ships were required and in this case the shipyards had to work at a frantic pace in order to meet the demand. This was especially typical during wars when ships were worn out quickly and a large number of ships had to be supplied quickly, such as the case mentioned by Xenophon. In 406 BC, 110 ships were built and 18,700 oarsmen had to be recruited quickly (Cabrielsen 1994: 107). This kind of urgency would have quickly reduced the warehouse stock of all raw materials, which necessitated the rapid production of these materials and spare parts in order to quickly return to the normal post-war routine. It is also possible to learn from the fact that the fleets of ancient times had work practices for normal days and emergency days. These procedures were especially critical in Rome, which had to have a high technical naval ability to maintain its permanent control of the Mediterranean Sea.
If we refer to an overall characterization of ship wear and tear as a function of the type of country that uses them, it seems that three types of characterization can be distinguished. One type of low attrition frequency is that of Egypt, since it had small fleets at its disposal (how small these fleets were it is difficult to know since the relevant information available to researchers today is limited). In the comparison between seagoing ships and river ships, wear and tear of seagoing ships was dominant. Greece and Carthage had naval ships because they had to move across the sea for commercial purposes. Greece - because its population was scattered not only in the Greek peninsula but also in the islands of the Aegean Sea, in Asia Minor and to some extent in the western wing of the Mediterranean Sea. Carthage - being commercially oriented was mainly based on cargo ships to transfer cargo. The military fleet is designed more for defensive purposes and naturally the wear and tear of defensive ships is different from that of battleships. Defensive ships are supposed to take more hits than the ramming rams of battleships, so their attrition potential was greater. Rome, which was the greatest power, had both naval and river ships and the extent of wear and tear on its ships was the greatest. This typology could imply a policy of shipbuilding and repair. The bigger the country was and the more military it was, the more warships it needed. Although it had many cargo ships at its disposal, the ratio between the total number of warships and the total number of civilian ships leaned more in the direction of the military ships. In an economically oriented power such as Carthage, the attitude was more towards civilian ships. The meaning derived from this is the establishment of spare parts warehouses with different designations. Warships had a greater need for wood to build oars and metals for ramrods, and sailing ships had a greater need for flax, papyrus and palm fiber to make sails and ropes.
As for the internal structure of ships, there was a difference between warships and civilian ships. In warships, the bulk of the ship's volume is intended for the preparation of seating berths for rowers, whether it is a Birma or a trimera. Very little, if any, space is dedicated to cargo. The main cargo is intended for storing food for the crew. In civilian ships, the interior design policy was completely different. Since ships could be used for both passenger and cargo transportation or both, it is likely that the functional design was completely flexible. It was necessary to change the internal division quickly according to the destination and purpose of the voyage. If they were transporting people, it was necessary to adapt the ships to the standard of living they were used to, taking care of their great comfort and giving the ship a luxurious appearance, if we were talking about the upper class. If the destination was the transport of cargo, it was necessary to install different partitions according to the type of cargo intended for shipment. There is therefore a possibility that these ships had rails on the sides for the installation of the partitions. If there were indeed rails, they should have been built so that the partitions could be quickly installed and removed. It may be that the efficient use of these rails and partitions required some kind of minimal knowledge in the field of human engineering, although this concept was not known to shipbuilders in antiquity.
As for the recruitment policy of the manpower for the fleets, the historical information about it refers only to Greece and Rome. There is no information from primary sources about Egypt and Carthage. Regarding Greece and Rome, there is relatively detailed information, although not chronologically continuous, and it can be seen that this policy was based on two concepts, and they are the state concept that took care of recruiting people on the basis of mandatory service and volunteers, and the second concept that was based on market mechanisms - recruiting people on the basis of negotiations with adequate compensation of professionals. With regard to Egypt, it can be assumed that recruitments were on a state basis and Carthage, being a country with commercial characteristics, was based on market mechanisms, especially when it comes to its merchant fleet. Its military fleet relied on conscription and slaves. What was the ratio between the number of conscripts and the number of slaves is difficult to know since no documents have survived that could give any indication of this. It may be, and this is said very carefully, that warships had a large number of slaves who served as oarsmen and this is based on the fact that the oarsmen in the Greek and Roman warships were mostly slaves.
From an organizational point of view, the only written information is at the level of the individual ship. From the descriptions given in the Greek and Roman scriptures it is possible to clearly describe the chain of command from the person in charge of the ship to the last of the rowers. Know who is responsible for whom and what the role definition of everyone on the ship is. As for the systemic level, the information is lacking. Rome is the only country for which there is additional information, albeit to a meagre extent regarding the military fleet as a whole. As we have seen, Rome had several fleets due to its wide geographical spread, which necessitated a wide strategic vision and due to the need to respond immediately when it deemed appropriate. This knowledge makes it possible to estimate with high probability the configuration of the organizational structure of the Roman military fleet. At the top of the pyramid stood the commander of the fleet as a whole corresponding to the function of the commander of the navy and below him the commanders of the fleets. Regarding more junior commanders, if there were commanders of smaller parts of the fleet it is difficult to know. As for Greece, it is hard to believe that it had such a wide organizational deployment of the fleet since Greece was not united as a single political unit. The main maritime activity was in the Aegean Sea and in the section of the Mediterranean Sea between the eastern coasts and Syracuse. Egypt, which operated both in the eastern Mediterranean and in the Red Sea, as we have seen, had two fleets, but these were small in scope and therefore their organizational layout was also limited. Carthage, being an economic and non-imperial power like Rome, did not need military fleets that came to secure strategic defense lines based on garrison forces, including local military fleets. The only place in the Mediterranean where Carthage probably had a strategic interest is the island of Sicily. Carthage saw its rule in western Sicily as the main guarantee for the existence of its commercial empire (Herman 1963: 332), and here it is likely that it maintained a permanent branch of its military fleet. It is likely that military obedience, being of a mainly defensive nature (securing merchant ships and trade routes) was of a more diffuse nature. Carthage had a military commander but without many intermediate ranks and the organizational distance between him and the ship commanders was relatively small. In cases of emergency, the organization would change and the reference is mainly to the Punic Wars when it was necessary to fight on several fronts with the army of Rome.
As for the international trade, it is known that part of it was done using merchant ships that were sometimes also used to transport passengers. There is relatively much information about the goods that were transported on these ships and about the maritime trade routes. Very little is known about the organizational characteristics. Although it is known that there were frameworks reminiscent of family businesses, there is no information about the number of ships in each such business, so it is extremely difficult to draw general conclusions regarding their organizational structure. Also regarding the division of duties and who is responsible for whom at the level of the individual ship, the information is limited. If we nevertheless try to characterize the organizational nature of a merchant fleet, it will be only a guess. Assuming that each family business has several ships, the head of the family is also the CEO of the company, while the other family members play various administrative roles, taking care of the overall logistics of the fleet as a whole, and the captains of the ships are obliged to report to the heads of the family regarding the movement of the ships, their function, the status of the personnel, Expenses, revenues, profit and loss. For this they had to prepare detailed reports and indeed we saw that in Rome there was an accurate record regarding the ships and the goods transported in them. If we wish, this can be seen as the first evidence of the existence of databases. Most probably also in Egypt, Greece and Carthage a record was made regarding the activity of ships and the type of operations carried out in them, although there is no information to testify to this. Assuming that this was indeed the case, a registration of this kind would have been required by reality in Carthage as well, due to the fact that Carthage has a clear commercial-business orientation.
Summary
The body of knowledge that has reached us regarding the naval activities of Egypt, Carthage, Greece and Rome does not compare to the body of knowledge that we have regarding modern fleets and fleets in recent centuries. But this scope also enables an understanding of their methods of operation and function. It turns out that the management of these fleets was quite complex and required a lot of professional knowledge, including engineering knowledge, whether it is the planning and manufacturing of the ships or whether it is their ongoing management, both at the individual ship level and at the systemic level. A lot of knowledge was required in relation to their logistical management, schedules in relation to when the ships were launched and when they arrived at their destination ports. Sometimes fleets, in particular military fleets, included hundreds of ships, which required a very high level of management ability, considering the means of communication of the time, which did not allow the transfer of information in real time. On the face of it, the superiors of the fleets did not have theoretical knowledge regarding the ways available to them to manipulate these organizational systems, but they well understood the importance of areas such as logistics, storage methods, wear and tear, routine maintenance, repair levels, information registration, recruitment and training of employees, and financing.
This is a body of knowledge that, according to the scriptures that have come down to us, does not appear in the writings of the recorders of the times in a methodological and systematic format, but it is possible that there was literature in which this knowledge did appear in this format, if only for the reason that the various professionals who worked in their services on these fleets had to be trained. In any case, the impression received is that these professionals could serve in modern navies in their areas of professional specialization.
Sources
1. Brasted H. - Chronicles of Egypt, Friedman Publishing 1963, volumes XNUMX, XNUMX.
2. Herman C. - Man and the sea, from ancient caves to the kingdom of the sea, Moran publishing house 1979.
3. Herman C. - Carthage the naval power, published by Masada 1963.
4. Lotwak A. - The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, Publishing Systems 1982.
5. Tacitus k. - The Books of the Years, Bialik Institute 1962.
6. Tacitus k. - Chronicles, Mossad Bialik Publishing House 1965.
7. Plutarch - The Greats of Rome, Seferi Zehav Publishing. There is no year of issue.
8. Sherl Pickard Z. K. - Chai Yom Yom Yom Yom Karta Hachat, published with the book 1964.
9. Cabrielsen V. – Financing the Athenian Fleet John Hopkins University Press 1994.
10. Casson L. – Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton University Press 1971.
11. Rouge J. – Ships and Fleets in the Ancient Mediterranean, Weslegama University Press 1981.
