Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

European naval power from 500-1200

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
gramberto View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 12-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 89
  Quote gramberto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: European naval power from 500-1200
    Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 23:54
1. I was listening to a lecture on the vikings and the professor said that the europeans had no real naval power and could not even attempt to challenge the vikings. Why?
 
2. The vikings had this naval supremacy for 300 years. Why didn't european states try to copy them?
 
3. When did the european naval technology start to improve again?
 
4. What happened to the triremes used in the ancient world. Why did they cease to be used?
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 00:00

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 05:41
A couple of quick answers. I'll think a bit about it.
 
Originally posted by gramberto

1. I was listening to a lecture on the vikings and the professor said that the europeans had no real naval power and could not even attempt to challenge the vikings. Why?
 
2. The vikings had this naval supremacy for 300 years. Why didn't european states try to copy them?
I don't think it was truly naval supremacy. They didn't fight battles at sea. Their boats were essentially long distance troop carriers and landing craft. Moreover, on the whole the Vikings raided. The difficulty in stopping them at sea was that you didn't know where they were or when they were coming. What you needed, and what Alfred and others tried to provide, was ships that could quickly carry your troops to wherever you needed them: any fighting that ensued then was on land.
 
Fighting between ships, when it occurred was through coming alongside and fighting hand-to-hand, which is a great way to get yourself stove in and sunk.
 
Like everything else in the Dark Ages things are pretty obscure, but certainly Alfred paid a lot of attention to building up the English fleet, and earlier English (and even British) kings had fleets available. Alfred is said to have copied his from both Danish and Friesian designs.
 
3. When did the european naval technology start to improve again?
I don't know really what you mean by 'improve again'. Viking technology was no better than anyone else's, and in any case boats didn't fight each other.
 
I don't think there was any major improvement in shipbuilding technology in the period you quote, though boats did get bigger and with more capacity and higher freeboards, as with cogs. They remained clinker-built without solid frames (as the Viking longships themselves were).
 
The next major improvements came with the development of multi-masted, carvel-built vessels, which however was outside your period.
4. What happened to the triremes used in the ancient world. Why did they cease to be used?
 
The situation with regard to 'triremes' is still uncertain, because it is not entirely what ancient writers meant by it all the time. Anyway triremes fell out of favour around the end of the Athens-Sparta wars and were replaced largely by alternative galley types which carried more soldiers, like the dromon.
 
Galleys (oared vessels in general) continued in use in Europe for a long time, certainly throughout the period you are asking about. Oared gunboats were still being used in the Napoleonic wars, as far as I know only in the Mediterranean.
 
However, they weren't much use outside the sheltered (and non-tidal) waters of the Mediterranean although they were successfully used in some coastal waters (including the English channel). Moreover they suffered the considerable disadvantage, as against sailing craft, of having lower freeboard, so that the sailing craft were always firing down on the galleys (whether they were firing arrows or cannonballs it's either way an advantage).
 
Back to Top
gramberto View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 12-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 89
  Quote gramberto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 16:56
were there any attempts by the europeans to copy the viking long boats? if not, why?
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 19:45
European naval power did not at all collapse. From the fall of Rome two main naval powers existed, Byzantium and the Carthaginians. Byzantium established her monopoly in the Med. sea until the Arabs arrived. Even then, her state owned navy, with its range of handy designed and refined Greek fire, proved capable of defending Byzantine interests much of the time and eventually of launching offensive actions once again.

Other navies sprung up in the rest of Europe with the arrival of martial peoples or establishment of strong government. Alfred the Great established an English navy, with the result that the deflected Vikings turned to ravaging France instead. The Rus also had a navy in the Black sea, with which they attempted to attack Byzantium. Spain established her own navy, the Norman kingdom of Sicily certainly had one, Louis IX needed one for his attacks on the Muslim cities of the Med. and the Italian city states had powerful navies from the 10th century onwards.
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 04:41
Constantine XI "Alfred the Great established an English navy, with the result that the deflected Vikings turned to ravaging France instead."
 
 I bet the French loved him for that one LOL
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 05:35
Originally posted by gramberto

were there any attempts by the europeans to copy the viking long boats? if not, why?
 
As I pointed out, Alfred is said to have copied the Danish and Frisian boats. The 'Vikings' that raided England were mostly from Denmark: The Norwegians tended to go round the top, colonising the Orkneys and Shetlands, then going round to the Isle of Man and Ireland. But all their boats were much the same from the point of view of construction.
 
I don't think the successes of the Vikings had much to do with their boat design.
 
While there may be something in the idea that Alfred's building of the navy deflected some Vikings to France, I'm pretty sure they would have hit France anyway.
 
Moreover it isn't that Alfred held off the Vikings at sea. What his navy enabled him to do was to move his troops around faster to meet the raids on land. Remember that the boats of the period could sail quite a way up even small rivers.
 
What Constantine wrote about the Mediterranean is right, except I'm not sure what he means by 'Spain' in the period, and the 'Norman kingdom' of Sicily is of course a Viking settlement at one remove.
Back to Top
tadamson View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
  Quote tadamson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 06:27
Originally posted by gramberto

1. I was listening to a lecture on the vikings and the professor said that the europeans had no real naval power and could not even attempt to challenge the vikings. Why?
 
2. The vikings had this naval supremacy for 300 years. Why didn't european states try to copy them?
 
3. When did the european naval technology start to improve again?
 
4. What happened to the triremes used in the ancient world. Why did they cease to be used?


In addition to much of the above...

#1 "the vikings"  is a loose term that covers many states and "naval supremacy" switched between many of them.  Inded, England (and in the early stages Wesex  & Mercia) as the richest part of NW Europe was both the primary target and a significant naval power.

#2  ship technology steadily advanced during this period, it never stalled.

#3 triremes were obsolete by 300 BCE a thousand years before the viking era.
rgds.

      Tom..
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 06:50
Originally posted by gcle2003

I don't think the successes of the Vikings had much to do with their boat design.
 
 
Most sources usually state the opposite. The longships were fast and extremely shallow-drafted, able to sail right up to the shore - perfect for raiding. They could hit everywhere and anywhere, without warning, even sailing up most rivers. As such the defending people had warships, they were too slow and deepdrafted - the raiders just entered shallow water and escaped. This was especially a feature of the raids that hit Iberia and the Med. Andalusian Spain did have a navy, but they seldom or never caught the Vikings since they just went close to the shore or ventured up a river, to hit somewhere else.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 10:49
 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Originally posted by gcle2003

I don't think the successes of the Vikings had much to do with their boat design.
 
 
Most sources usually state the opposite. The longships were fast and extremely shallow-drafted, able to sail right up to the shore - perfect for raiding.
 
The point is, so were everyone else's.
They could hit everywhere and anywhere, without warning, even sailing up most rivers. As such the defending people had warships, they were too slow and deepdrafted - the raiders just entered shallow water and escaped. This was especially a feature of the raids that hit Iberia and the Med. Andalusian Spain did have a navy, but they seldom or never caught the Vikings since they just went close to the shore or ventured up a river, to hit somewhere else.
 
Mediterranean warships at the time were pretty well universally galleys. Which are also shallow-drafted, and just as capable of operating in shallow waters and going up river.  English longboats were pretty much the same as the Viking ones.
 
(Don't forget that a couple of hundred years earlier, the Anglo-Saxons were doing the same to Britain as the Vikings were doing to them.)
 
You don't get into deep draft until you need underwater bulk and a keel to balance your sail plan (and you start carrying cannon). Or, possibly, you're specifically building a cargo ship.
 
Offhand, I think the only significant difference between Viking longboats and Mediterranean galleys is that the longboats were double-ended, which might make them easier to handle in rivers (point one way going up, and come back down the other - don't need to turn around).
 
Offsetting that though is that Mediterranean galleys were designed to fight at sea against other ships, using their rams. But of course you first had to catch the enemy before you could fight them.


Edited by gcle2003 - 25-Aug-2006 at 10:51
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4262
  Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 12:07
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
I don't think the successes of the Vikings had much to do with their boat design.
 
While I agree on most everything you say, this specific issue need to be commented.
 
The longboat and the design of them had everything to do with the successes of the Vikings.
Without these ships and their special design, most acheivements would never had happened.
 
Comparing a longboat (Drakkar) to a Galley is like comparing an Aston Martin to a midsized Volvo truck. Wink
 
The normal size for Drakkars seldom exceeded 20 meters (60"), had 20-26 oars, a total of 30 warriors, and was extremely overrigged with the square sail.
They could do a speed at 5-7 knots using the oars, but by sail they did up to 17 knots or more - only because of their design, wich allowed the boat to "surf" the waves (or planing - to use a modern expression).
A Galley wasnt designed for surfing and would never be able to do that.
 
The advantage was first and foremost this speed. NO army on land could follow them. They could hit and raid one place, and before the armies on land could regroup, they went on to hit on the next place.
They could start a raid from Denmark to England on a thursday afternoon
and be home for breakfast on sunday.
Or raid in Northhumbria and Kent a few hours apart.
The advantage of the shallow draft and light weight is already mentioned.
 
They did several seabattles against other Viking fleets - and the success of these longboats outlived the Viking Age by centuries as they still were used as warships in the Royal Navy in the 13'th and for a long time in 14'th century when they were replaced by larger vessels as other have mentioned. But this didnt happen overnight.
Actually - the very same design was used as fishing boats in northern Norway and on the Faroe Island way up in the 20'th century.
 
For their exploring journeys and trade, the Vikings used the Knarr. A similar, but much heavier construction, designed for freight, travels and trade.
A Knarr could load 20 tonne of goods, people, livestock etc. and was extremely seagoing, but not surfing as the Drakkar.
 
For further reading and vast information on design and construction of Drakkar and Knarr's, click here!  (chose language in upper right corner)
 
 


Edited by Northman - 25-Aug-2006 at 12:10
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Aug-2006 at 08:44
Originally posted by Northman

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
I don't think the successes of the Vikings had much to do with their boat design.
 
While I agree on most everything you say, this specific issue need to be commented.
 
The longboat and the design of them had everything to do with the successes of the Vikings.
Without these ships and their special design, most acheivements would never had happened.
That of course is true. However, it wasn't their superiority over other peoples' boats that was the point (in northern waters anyway). One point is they had many more of them. The more important one is that they weren't actually fighting vessels, just very efficient troop transports.
 
They were actually not difficult to defend against, as long as you couldfigure out where they were going to strike. Wherever there are mentions of actual engagements at sea (they were only in coastal waters) the record seems to be about even.
 
 
Comparing a longboat (Drakkar) to a Galley is like comparing an Aston Martin to a midsized Volvo truck. Wink
Depends very much on the galley. The fact that galleys were still being used in the Napoleonic wars while longboats and their descendants faded away after 1250 or so would seem to indicate that Volvo trucks may be more useful than Aston Martins. Smile
 
The normal size for Drakkars seldom exceeded 20 meters (60"), had 20-26 oars, a total of 30 warriors, and was extremely overrigged with the square sail.
They could do a speed at 5-7 knots using the oars, but by sail they did up to 17 knots or more - only because of their design, wich allowed the boat to "surf" the waves (or planing - to use a modern expression).
I wouldn't trust that 17 knots overmuch. With a single simple square sail the wind would have to be pretty well dead astern to get any kind of planing effect, especially given the extra friction that clinker-built hulls have. Modern racing yachts don't do much better than that. And they've got a lot more than one square sail, and they're not carrying a boatload of troops, weapons and supplies.
 
Without planing 7 knots is about the theoretical maximum speed for a 60ft boat however powered. Otherwise the bows go under.
 
 
A Galley wasnt designed for surfing and would never be able to do that.
 
That seems a bit reckless. Typical galleys had more or less the same sail plan as the Viking boats: why wouldn't they also plane in the right circumstances? The man distinction betweem a Mediterranean  galley and a Viking longboat is that the first is skeleton/carvel-built whereas the second is clinker-built. 
 
If anything that would make the galley faster as well as stouter. 
 
The advantage was first and foremost this speed. NO army on land could follow them. They could hit and raid one place, and before the armies on land could regroup, they went on to hit on the next place.
It was more surprise than speed. English boats were just as fast as Viking ones. What the defence needed was
a) the abilitiy to stay at sea for long periods scouting
b) tall masts with crow's nests so that lookouts' horizons were several miles away
c) reasonably sophisticated signalling systems to raise alarms.
d) telescopes.
It would be centuries before they developed.
 
They could start a raid from Denmark to England on a thursday afternoon
and be home for breakfast on sunday.
At night, in the North Sea, without a compass? You were quoting maximum speeds not cruising speeds.
Or raid in Northhumbria and Kent a few hours apart.
250 miles at even 17 knots is already nearly 15 hours. And the odds against the wind being that favourable all the time are pretty high. More rationally not planing would run out at about 36 hours at best, and I severely doubt that oarsmen coul keep up maximum speed for 36 hours.
 
Again though the real point is that once you vanish from Kent no-one knows where you're going to hit back again.
 
Numbers and surprise were the important factor, not speed.
 
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4262
  Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Aug-2006 at 11:22
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
I don't think the successes of the Vikings had much to do with their boat design.
 
 
Originally posted by Northman

While I agree on most everything you say, this specific issue need to be commented. 
The longboat and the design of them had everything to do with the successes of the Vikings.
Without these ships and their special design, most acheivements would never had happened.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
That of course is true. However, it wasn't their superiority over other peoples' boats that was the point (in northern waters anyway). One point is they had many more of them. The more important one is that they weren't actually fighting vessels, just very efficient troop transports.
 
They were actually not difficult to defend against, as long as you couldfigure out where they were going to strike. Wherever there are mentions of actual engagements at sea (they were only in coastal waters) the record seems to be about even. 
 
They were superior over other boats - The English (if we can call them so at that time) adapted the design of the longboats after they got to know them from the raids.
Other than that - I agree.
 
Originally posted by Northman

Comparing a longboat (Drakkar) to a Galley is like comparing an Aston Martin to a midsized Volvo truck. Wink
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Depends very much on the galley. The fact that galleys were still being used in the Napoleonic wars while longboats and their descendants faded away after 1250 or so would seem to indicate that Volvo trucks may be more useful than Aston Martins. Smile
Ha Ha - nice comeback - but to stay with the maritime terms - the indication is leaking.
Maybe the earliest Galleys could be considered a ship or a boat, but Galleys in the Napoleonic wars was noting but giantic floating bathtubs - hardly comparable to anything else that could float, not to speak of sail.
They were sheated with metal (fireprotection) ie. cupper, tin or lead on the sideboards as well as on decks and ceilings. They were useful to Napoleon, yes - but only  because they carried a number of cannons for attacking ports and other bathtubs. A floating giantic Tank.
 
The maximum speed of a galley is estimated to have been only four knots (7.5 kph/4.5 mph), because only 20% of the rower's effort was effective, and galleys could not be used in stormy weather because of their very low waterline. (where a longboat really could excel)
I think my comparison to the truck CAN hold water.
(pardon my liberty to colorful free expression on this matter)
 
Originally posted by Northman

 
The normal size for Drakkars seldom exceeded 20 meters (60"), had 20-26 oars, a total of 30 warriors, and was extremely overrigged with the square sail.
They could do a speed at 5-7 knots using the oars, but by sail they did up to 17 knots or more - only because of their design, wich allowed the boat to "surf" the waves (or planing - to use a modern expression).
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

I wouldn't trust that 17 knots overmuch. With a single simple square sail the wind would have to be pretty well dead astern to get any kind of planing effect, especially given the extra friction that clinker-built hulls have. Modern racing yachts don't do much better than that. And they've got a lot more than one square sail, and they're not carrying a boatload of troops, weapons and supplies. 
Without planing 7 knots is about the theoretical maximum speed for a 60ft boat however powered. Otherwise the bows go under.
 
Arent you using the same formula as me - this one:
Speed in knots = 1.34 x sqrt(LWL)  ....LWL(waterline) in feet
This will equal 10 knots for a 60' boat.
 
You will be as much surprised as the scientists did, when they actually tested and found out how close a longboat could go to the wind.
Of course for planing you will need a wind within 90 degree of dead astern.
Check this video, and please notice the position of the sail - not perpendicular, but aligned along the boat, almost like a modern bermuda rig.
 
And 17 knots is not exaggerated, on the contrary. I have looked for the source, but cant find it right now - but a Vikingship (using this expression since I'm not sure of the type) is proven to have maintained an average speed of 15 knots over 24 hours in the Atlantic. 
(I will provide the source when I find it)
 
Originally posted by Northman

 
A Galley wasnt designed for surfing and would never be able to do that.
 
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
That seems a bit reckless. Typical galleys had more or less the same sail plan as the Viking boats: why wouldn't they also plane in the right circumstances? The man distinction betweem a Mediterranean  galley and a Viking longboat is that the first is skeleton/carvel-built whereas the second is clinker-built. 
 
If anything that would make the galley faster as well as stouter. 
 
The sail plan or shape has little if anything to do with planing, whereas the shape of the hull is the determing factor of whether a boat can plan or not.
Rather than cutting through the waves like a traditional deep V-shaped hull or vessels with a keel (like most Galleys), creating alot of draft, the flatbottomed boat like the longships simply sat on top of the water and rode the swells and dips of the waves. Of course this would result in some deviation, but the speed makes plenty up for that.
 
For sea- and oceangoing vessels, the clinkerconstruction is superior to carvelconstruction. The clinkerconstruction makes a much more ridgid vessel. Ridgid in the sense - it wont lean over as much due to windpressure, resulting in ability to use larger sails.
If this (ridgid) is what you call stouter, your assumption is wrong.
The clinkerbuilt has more horizontal surfaces to meet the water than a carvelbuilt.
 
Originally posted by Northman

 
The advantage was first and foremost this speed. NO army on land could follow them. They could hit and raid one place, and before the armies on land could regroup, they went on to hit on the next place.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
It was more surprise than speed. English boats were just as fast as Viking ones. What the defence needed was
a) the abilitiy to stay at sea for long periods scouting
b) tall masts with crow's nests so that lookouts' horizons were several miles away
c) reasonably sophisticated signalling systems to raise alarms.
d) telescopes.
It would be centuries before they developed.
 
Yes - of course you are right - the hit and run strategy was essential and I should have mentioned that as well.
Yes - English boats became as fast as the Viking ones - after they adapted the design Smile
 
Originally posted by Northman

 
They could start a raid from Denmark to England on a thursday afternoon
and be home for breakfast on sunday.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
At night, in the North Sea, without a compass? You were quoting maximum speeds not cruising speeds.
 
Originally posted by Northman

 
Or raid in Northhumbria and Kent a few hours apart.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
250 miles at even 17 knots is already nearly 15 hours. And the odds against the wind being that favourable all the time are pretty high. More rationally not planing would run out at about 36 hours at best, and I severely doubt that oarsmen coul keep up maximum speed for 36 hours. 
Again though the real point is that once you vanish from Kent no-one knows where you're going to hit back again. 
Numbers and surprise were the important factor, not speed.
 
Maybe I, in my eager to express the excellence of these magnificent boats became a tad too colorful in my expressions - but not overly...  LOLLOLLOL
 
They might have been able to make it for breakfast like I said, but only in very good conditions, but that wasnt how they operated anyways Smile
 
Yes - numbers and surprise were essential factors - and speed never harmed any warrior or army.
 
 
  


Edited by Northman - 29-Aug-2006 at 11:36
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2006 at 05:58
Originally posted by Northman

 
They were superior over other boats - The English (if we can call them so at that time) adapted the design of the longboats after they got to know them from the raids.
Other than that - I agree.
 
Yes, but if I remember the long-ago question that started this, it was why didn't the other countries copy the vikings. The answer is they did (at least England did), but because they did, their boats were just as good as the vikings
  
Originally posted by Northman

They were useful to Napoleon, yes - but only  because they carried a number of cannons for attacking ports and other bathtubs.
 
Minor point - as far as I know the major use was actually in harbour defence - and the Spanish used them more than Napoleon.
 
 
Arent you using the same formula as me - this one:
Speed in knots = 1.34 x sqrt(LWL)  ....LWL(waterline) in feet
This will equal 10 knots for a 60' boat.
 
I tried to do it in my head. I got it wrong.
 
You will be as much surprised as the scientists did, when they actually tested and found out how close a longboat could go to the wind.
Of course for planing you will need a wind within 90 degree of dead astern.
Check this video, and please notice the position of the sail - not perpendicular, but aligned along the boat, almost like a modern bermuda rig.
 
Yes, that's impressive. Thanks.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
That seems a bit reckless. Typical galleys had more or less the same sail plan as the Viking boats: why wouldn't they also plane in the right circumstances? The man distinction betweem a Mediterranean  galley and a Viking longboat is that the first is skeleton/carvel-built whereas the second is clinker-built. 
 
If anything that would make the galley faster as well as stouter. 
 
The sail plan or shape has little if anything to do with planing, whereas the shape of the hull is the determing factor of whether a boat can plan or not.
Rather than cutting through the waves like a traditional deep V-shaped hull or vessels with a keel (like most Galleys),
 
I didn't think galleys had keels in the full sense (they did of course need a 'spine' for their skeleton). With no significant sail pressure to counteract you don't need much of a keel.
creating alot of draft, the flatbottomed boat like the longships simply sat on top of the water and rode the swells and dips of the waves. Of course this would result in some deviation, but the speed makes plenty up for that.
 
I don't disagree with that. My assumption was that most galleys were flat-bottomed too.
 
For sea- and oceangoing vessels, the clinkerconstruction is superior to carvelconstruction. The clinkerconstruction makes a much more ridgid vessel. Ridgid in the sense - it wont lean over as much due to windpressure, resulting in ability to use larger sails.
If this (ridgid) is what you call stouter, your assumption is wrong.
 
The clinkerbuilt has more horizontal surfaces to meet the water than a carvelbuilt.
I would call that 'stiffer'. By 'stouter' I meant literally less likely to break up. I've never seen it suggested before that clinker vs carvel made any difference to stiffness. However I can see that the extra horizontal surfaces could give extra stiffness (like tiny outriggers).
 
By the same token though they must slow the boat up - more drag.
 
As a final point though I'll throw in that apart from surprise, numbers and speed the Vikings had the further advantage of being better sailors. (At that time Smile)
 
I must say it's good to be discussing boats instead of the interminable armies. 


Edited by gcle2003 - 30-Aug-2006 at 06:02
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4262
  Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2006 at 18:03
Originally posted by gcle2003

I meant literally less likely to break up.
On the contrary. One of the main reasons for the longboats excellent qualities as seagoing vessels, is the flexibility of the hull, due to the clinkerconstruction. A "stout" construction wont last as long is severe weather conditions, but eventually "break" somewhere when hit by large waves repeatedly.
It also makes the boat extremely light, as each plank is supported by the two neighboring planks by rivets - resulting in much less demands for a supporting construction (skeleton) compared to carvelconstructions.    
I've never seen it suggested before that clinker vs carvel made any difference to stiffness.
If you ever experience the difference to sail in two dinghy's - one clinker and one carvel, you will instantly feel the difference. Its considerable. 
However I can see that the extra horizontal surfaces could give extra stiffness (like tiny outriggers).
Not only that...hmmm - let me see if I can explain. When the clinkerbuilt boat is in motion forward and pressed leeward, each angle in the clinker will serve as a tiny finn, carving through - and trying to keep its level in the water, hindering the leeward side of the boat to go deeper.
By the same token though they must slow the boat up - more drag.
I'm not so sure. For many years, racingboats has been polish to have a glossy surface, obviously to reduce drag.  Now they make them rough instead to produce a small turbolence along the hull, reducing the drag even more.
This could counterpart the assumption - but I dont know.
 
In support of my statements above - and for you to spend a few minutes of interesting reading, allow me to suggest a visit to this page.
 
 


Edited by Northman - 30-Aug-2006 at 18:19
Back to Top
Sarmata View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 314
  Quote Sarmata Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2006 at 03:49
I think Croatie had a pretty strong navy in around the 8th century, am I wrong? rule of Tomislav?
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2006 at 11:05
 
Originally posted by Northman

Originally posted by gcle2003

I meant literally less likely to break up.
On the contrary. One of the main reasons for the longboats excellent qualities as seagoing vessels, is the flexibility of the hull, due to the clinkerconstruction. A "stout" construction wont last as long is severe weather conditions, but eventually "break" somewhere when hit by large waves repeatedly.
It also makes the boat extremely light, as each plank is supported by the two neighboring planks by rivets - resulting in much less demands for a supporting construction (skeleton) compared to carvelconstructions.    
 
You can't really have carvel construction without a skeleton, not for anything but dinghies anyway. With a holed skeleton-carvel hull you only have to repair the hole. With clinker-built the damage spreads more easily.
 
(I've been assuming so far by 'carvel', not just that the planks are butted, but that they're laid down on a skeleton, and by 'clinker' not just that the planks were overlapped, but that there was no skeleton, which, as I understand it was the situation in the Middle Ages. There is of course no theoretical reason why you couldn't overlap the strakes on a skeleton, which I would agree would be stouter.)
I've never seen it suggested before that clinker vs carvel made any difference to stiffness.
If you ever experience the difference to sail in two dinghy's - one clinker and one carvel, you will instantly feel the difference. Its considerable. 
However I can see that the extra horizontal surfaces could give extra stiffness (like tiny outriggers).
Not only that...hmmm - let me see if I can explain. When the clinkerbuilt boat is in motion forward and pressed leeward, each angle in the clinker will serve as a tiny finn, carving through - and trying to keep its level in the water, hindering the leeward side of the boat to go deeper.
That's what I meant by 'like tiny outriggers'. It's what outriggers do essentially.
By the same token though they must slow the boat up - more drag.
I'm not so sure. For many years, racingboats has been polish to have a glossy surface, obviously to reduce drag.  Now they make them rough instead to produce a small turbolence along the hull, reducing the drag even more.
This could counterpart the assumption - but I dont know.
 
Not unrelatedly some years ago I was talking with some aerodynamics people about why a shiny table tennis ball swerves more than a rough tennis ball but a rough tennis ball swerves more than a polished cricket ball.
 
The answer it appears is that a wooly tennis ball (and a dimpled golf ball) traps a layer of air that spins with the ball, and it is that layer of air that has the 'shiny' surface. I guess it is possible that something similar is involved here.
 
 
In support of my statements above - and for you to spend a few minutes of interesting reading, allow me to suggest a visit to this page.
 
 
 
Thanks. I haven't had time yet, having spent the morning on the wrong end of a gastroscopy Unhappy


Edited by gcle2003 - 31-Aug-2006 at 11:08
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4262
  Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2006 at 19:50
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by Northman

Originally posted by gcle2003

I meant literally less likely to break up.
On the contrary. One of the main reasons for the longboats excellent qualities as seagoing vessels, is the flexibility of the hull, due to the clinkerconstruction. A "stout" construction wont last as long is severe weather conditions, but eventually "break" somewhere when hit by large waves repeatedly.
It also makes the boat extremely light, as each plank is supported by the two neighboring planks by rivets - resulting in much less demands for a supporting construction (skeleton) compared to carvelconstructions.    
 
You can't really have carvel construction without a skeleton, not for anything but dinghies anyway. With a holed skeleton-carvel hull you only have to repair the hole. With clinker-built the damage spreads more easily.
 
(I've been assuming so far by 'carvel', not just that the planks are butted, but that they're laid down on a skeleton, and by 'clinker' not just that the planks were overlapped, but that there was no skeleton, which, as I understand it was the situation in the Middle Ages. There is of course no theoretical reason why you couldn't overlap the strakes on a skeleton, which I would agree would be stouter.)
 
Maybe we are misunderstanding each other a bit...
A longship also had some skeleton - but very lightweight and flexible.
You mention a hole as example of damage. I meant the constant hammering of huge waves causing the carvel planks to loosen from the construction as the biggest risk. Anyways, its details.
 
You may enjoy these videos and pictures from the latest re-construction of a 90" longship " The Seastallion from Glendalough" (launched 2004)
If you need to prioritize what you want to see - check out The Design (3D animation) - the 2'nd link.  
I stole the links from www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk where you can find loads of more material.

Skuldelev 2s recreation
A movie about the excavation and recreation of the longboat.

The Design - part by part
3D animation showing the wood construction.

Burning the tar
Tar from wood was used to preserve the woodwork. 

The right piece of wood for the right place.
Construction of the keelpig - the big block of curbed wood, supporting the mast. 

The flexible plank
The process from tree to a sideboard.

Clik here for pics from the construction.

 
 
 
Back to Top
Timotheus View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 478
  Quote Timotheus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 00:00
Do recall that the Swedes decided twice to come down through Russia and drop in on Constantinople for a little raiding party. Both times, by extreme misfortune, the Byzantine fleet was off elsewhere. So the first one was a complete wash, the Vikings carried all the honours of the day. The second time, however, there was a tiny bit of advance warning and a few galleys were left lying around. Greek fire speedily despatched the Viking fleet with most of the Vikings in it. A few survived, made it to the city, and formed the core of the Varangian Guard. After all, who wants to walk all the way back to Sweden when your boats are gone and there's glory, adventure, and cold hard cash to be won down here?
Back to Top
tadamson View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
  Quote tadamson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 08:56
For those who are following the "Viking boats are wonderful" thread....

There is a clear North Sea ship development path..

North German dugout canoes develop to board sided vessels.
Romans bring medeterranian style galleys to area

Romans, Franks, Saxons develop a hybrid design, light skeleton, clinker built, solid keel, with a residual ram shaped bow (so it looks like a proper Roman warship), single stepped mast, 10-20 benches.  These are fast and manouverable.  The Roman fleet units still maintain a few Medeterranian style galleys for naval supremacy (they are bigger, faster, carried bolt shooting artillery, much bigger crews and in a fight massivly outclassed the raiding boats).

As the empire withdrew, raiding and piracy expanded, Saxons etc took over the formal naval system of forts, harbours, signal stations etc built in Britain etc...

In Norway, local shipbuilders exploited very tall fir trees to design bigger, longer ships that became the 'longships' (both Drakkar and trading Knorr), but many regions (Hebrides, Pictland, Sweeden, Finland) maintained large numbers of much smaller boats (8-10 benches), with only a few longships.
The Danes attacked England in fleets of mid size ships (typically 14 benchers), interestingly the English stuck to larger 20 bench ships throughout the period.  An interesting episode was when Knut as King of England and Denmark attacked and conquered Norway, his fleet was based round 50 large English ships, as these outclassed the Norwegian ones.
rgds.

      Tom..
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.