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
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 Topic: European naval power from 500-1200
    Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 20:26
I think mostly because both Hadrada and Tostig were killed at Stamford Bridge, being the only ones who could half-legitimately claim the throne. Other people would have to go the Svein Forkbeard way and conquer the island, whereas Hadrada had some geneological claim. That, and that the Viking army was pretty much annihilated, and when they had it rebuilt the Normans were too much in control and too strong.
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: 12-Sep-2006 at 04:39
Northman is correct and Justinian too for the period he was considering. Later on again of course England became subject to the Danish crown for a while, and in the end it wasn't really until 1066 that the attempt to restore Danish rule petered out with the Conquest.
 
How much that was due to the Normans and how much to do with internal affairs in Denmark/Scandinavia I don't know because I don't know anything about internal affairs in Denmark/Scandinavia Smile.
 
Except for their going around putting poison in each others' ears, which I glean from Hamlet of course. Big smile
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: 11-Sep-2006 at 17:49
While its true when we speak of England, that the years between 789 (and even earlier) to the middle of the 9'th century were dominated by sporadic raids and looting along the coast, there are more to the story.
 
The Norwegians came from the north - Shetland, Orkney and Hebrides - exploring sites for raiding in Scotland and along the coasts of the Irish Sea, whereas the Danes raided  the eastcost from north to south.
Of course, people were upset about these raids, but it was the next half century that really made a difference. A change happened in the behavior of the Danish Vikings, as they now arrived with large armies with the aim of permanent settlement. Combined with "the navy" as bases, higly mobile forces moving fast around the country, attacking the weakest Anglo-Saxon kingsdoms in turn, and exploiting the civil war raging Northhumbria at that time. In 850 they wintered on English soil for the first time.
The following year 350 longboats sailed up the Thames attacking Canterbury and London, and forced Brithwulf, king of the Mercians on the run with his army.  
They primarily moved along the rivers in order to keep close contact to the longboats following them inlands.
In 866 York was captured, and in the following decade up to 880 the lands of Yorkshire, Mercia and East Anglia was taken or willingly submitted to the Vikings.
 
There is a lot more to this tale in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but my point here is just to emphasize the importance of the longboats - not only in the "hit and run" strategy raiding the coast, but also their value as bases when the Vikings ventured inlands.
Without them, it could never have happened. 
 
 
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 14:42
Well its been pretty well covered but I'll just add that the Vikings developed their longboats from their experience of sailing between the Islands of Scandinavia which sheltered the coast from the north sea and that their ships had such a shallow draught that they could sail up rivers where others couldn't follow them or drive their ships right up onto the beach.  As I think gcle2003 said earlier the vikings were raiders: they attacked, looted and left.  The vikings could be beaten dare I say easily if they didn't have suprise on their side.  Of course there were exceptions; I think they stayed on an island in the seine right near paris in the 9th century and the franks couldn't reach them due to their deep draught ships.  It wasn't that the vikings couldn't be challenged it was more that they avoided being challenged, why fight the franks or English if you can steal from them and leave without a scratch.  If the vikings were caught in the act the probabilities of defeating them rose astronomically. 
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

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: 05-Sep-2006 at 04:09
Originally posted by gcle2003

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.


I should not have used the word "Spain", was using it more as a catch all term for the Iberian states of the middle ages. Perhaps most prominent amongst these was Aragon, which made use of its navy to engage in conquests outside Iberia before the reconquista had been completed. The intriguing tale of the Sicilian Vespers could not have occurred without Aragon's navy.

Another navy worth mentioning, now that I think of Iberia, is that which seemed to spring up to carry crusading fleets. Often these were an assortment of royal vessels, some merchant ships and contributions by the Italian states. A cobbling together of English and Flemish vessels was responsible for the transport of soldiers to Lisbon and the unintented (unless you believe my friend's Burgundian conspiracy theory) blockade and capture of the city.
Back to Top
Preobrazhenskoe View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 398
  Quote Preobrazhenskoe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 01:10
Thanks for the info Gun Powder Ma, and do you still have those links you wanted to email to me by any chance?
 
Eric
Back to Top
Gun Powder Ma View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Gun Powder Ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 08:43
Well, as I was refering to our topic Europe, of course.

As you said the first clear reference to a floating magnetic needle used for navigational prurposes comes from early 12th century China.

But the true mariner's compass, that is the compass as we know it today (pivoting needle with a windrose), seems to be an entirely European innovation. Peter Peregrinus, a friend of Roger Bacon, has left us a work where he describes experiments with three different compasses, all with a pivoting needle (1269). Then there is a strong tradition crediting Amalfi with the introduction of the dry compass for navigation around 1300. The first literary reference to the pivoting compass for sailing is then in Dante's work around 1380.

In China, there is no mention at all of the true mariner's compass until late in the 1500s - after the Portuguese had arrived.

All subsequent major developments, the liquid compass and the electromagnetic compass, were also made by European mariners.


Back to Top
Preobrazhenskoe View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 398
  Quote Preobrazhenskoe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 12:40
"The first clear reference to the floating magetic needle (the early compass) and the stern mounted pidgeon and  pintle rudder come from the second half of the 12th century."
 
The earliest reference to a compass ever comes from a 4th century BC Chinese book called Book of the Devil Valley Master, and back then it was a simple loadstone (highly magnetized magnetite) basin placed with a metal ladle spoon, and it was used largely for purposes of geomancy, including pointing one's house in the southern direction because the Chinese believed this was most auspicious to the designs of feng shui. In the Dream Pool Essay, written by the Northern Song Dynasty era scholar Shen Kua in 1086 AD, gives detailed descriptions of how a magnetized loadstone needle with a single strain of silk with a bit of wax attached to the end hung the needle, and when the needle was hung this way, it could point either north or south. However, the first evidence in Chinese records of a compass used for navigation, Zhu Yu's book the Pingzhou Ke Tan, or the Pingzhou Table Books of 1127 AD, predates both Arab and European documentation of a magnetized compass used for navigation (Yemeni Sultan al-Ashraf in 1290, although use of the compass could have come earlier, and with Europe, Alexander Neckham's De Naturis Rerum, or the Natures of Things). There is speculation that the magnetic compass was both an indigenous invention of China and the West, considering that the Chinese usage of the compass was to point south, and for Europe it was to point north. However, there is also equal speculation that the idea of the magnetized compass spread from China to Europe since the Chinese compass predated the latter and since seafaring trade links between the seafaring Chinese to Indians, Persians, Arabs, Africans of the Southern Song Dynasty in China to the Indian Ocean could easily have transfused such an idea by way of constant communication of China to the West (hell, it could even have been transported via the silk road, as many things were). As for the astrolabe, you are correct about the ancient Greeks (Hipparchus), and the Arabs employing its use that would later transfuse back to Europe by the 11th century, although it wasn't widespread in use again in Europe until about the 13th century. The first armillary sphere, the spherical astrolabe, was invented by the Greek Eratosthenes in the West in 255 BC, while the first Chinese invention of the armillary sphere dates to 52 BC with the astronomers Geng Shou-chang and Luo-xia Hong. The first water-powered celestial globe is accredited to the 2nd century Chinese genius Zhang Heng, who was quite easily the equivalent of Archimedes to Western technological invention, math, and science. As for Jacob's staff, this came long after the compass was already introduced to Europe, as it is accredited to either the Jewish mathematician Levi Ben Gerson (lived 1288 - 1344) or Georg Purbach (1423 - 1461), the famous Austrian astronomer and mathematician.
 
Pidgeon? Did you mean pintle and gudgeon (although I have heard it been called as a pidgeon before)? Anyways, once again with the sternpost-mounted rudder, there is speculation that it could be both Chinese and European inventions separately, and equal speculation that the idea was transfused from China to Europe. This is brought about by the idea that in the Middle Ages, ships had adopted a quarter-rudder to placed at the stern of the ship, which aided the steering used by rowing power of oarsmen. By the late 12th century, the quarter rudder began to be replaced by the better advantage of the pintle and gudgeon rudder mounted at the sternpost, but even the quarter rudder persisted in use well into the 14th century (The Development of the Rudder, by Lawrence V. Mott, 1997). But to the point of the idea of the mounted sternpost rudder coming from China to Europe, the first use of a rudder in Europe is in stark contrast to the first of Chinese rudders, evidence of which stems back to the Eastern Han Dynasty (23 - 220 AD), where a clay model of a Chinese "junk" ship dated to that era had mounted at the stern a steering rudder. Throughout the centuries to follow, Chinese chronicles extensively record the use and evolution of the sternpost rudder to better-adapted models, employing techniques such as hole-drilling to decrease the amount of water friction in order to steer faster, etc. In the late 4th - early 5th century (399 - 422 AD), the Chinese Buddhist Monk Fa Xian was the first Chinese to sail in a junk all the way to India across the eastern half of the Indian Ocean. From that point on, the Chinese used not only land routes like the Silk Road stretching from the Tarim Basin all the way to Eastern Europe, but relied heavily on oceangoing trade, from ports in east and southern China (like Quanzhou and the like), and sailed all the way to India, Persia, Arabia, and East Africa during the Tang Dynasty (618 - 907 AD), as it was the Muslim Prophet Muhammad himself who allowed some of his lineage (an uncle Waqqas) to travel to China during the reign of Emperor Gaozu of Tang, and is accredited for having spread Islam to China. It wasn't until the Song Dynasty (960 - 1279), though, that the Chinese relied heavily on massive oceangoing navies (before this point, large Chinese navies were lake and riverine based) to escort their merchant fleets and defend them, no longer relying on Arabs or Indians to do all the middle-men trekking or commerce.        
 
Eric 


Edited by Preobrazhenskoe - 02-Sep-2006 at 14:09
Back to Top
Gun Powder Ma View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Gun Powder Ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 11:45
As for technology itself:

The first clear reference to the floating magetic needle (the early compass) and the stern mounted pidgeon and  pintle rudder come from the second half of the 12th century.

Carvel had been used in the Mediterranean since antiquity and quickly replaced clinker after its introduction into northern Europe in the second half of the 15th century, but not because it was better as such, but because bigger ships could be built with carvel technique.

The first mention of the true compass, that is the compass we know totay with a free moving dry magnetic needle, was in the early 14th century and was soon adopted by the Arabs and probably also the Chinese.

Lateen sails were already known in late antiquity - Belisar's flag ship probably had one in the attack on the Vandal Empire -, but are, as far as I know, rather absent on contemporary depictions. The Arabs certainly used them on their dhows as standard. At latest on the Portuguese caravel they became standard in combination with square rig(s).

Multi-masted ships were, as fas as I remember, only introduced in the 14th-15th century, and then by the Portugese who first experimented with these ships on a large scale.

Another, very important features of Mediterranean navigation, were the astrolab, already known by the Greeks and widely employed by the Arabs, and the so-called baculus jacob, the staff of Jacob, which was an indigenous European invention. Especially the later was in fact more widely used than the compass, whose importance for medieval navigation everywhere is sometimes exaggerated.

European navigation was also quite advanced in terms of cartography and knowledge of currents. Columbus not only recorded latitudes, but also longitudes in his diary, if I am not mistaken.

The pinnacle then were the systematic, state-sponsored explorations of the Portuguese which were a revolutionary new feature of navigation. That was the first time that the state (in the person of Henry the Navigator) invested systematically in a long term goal (the discovery of the sea route to India), hiring the best scholars and scientists (Christians, Jews and Muslims alike) and making use of all relevant disciplines (astronomy, cartography, ship building, ethnography).

It was only through this modern central planning that the Portuguese almost immediately on their arrival eliminated the competition of long established Muslim trade states in Arabia, India and SE Asia, despite numerically being outnumbered 100 to 1 or so.


Edited by Gun Powder Ma - 02-Sep-2006 at 11:49
Back to Top
Gun Powder Ma View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Gun Powder Ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 11:22
Originally posted by gramberto

 
3. When did the european naval technology start to improve again?


Looking at the effects of Latin European naval technology it must have been in the 11th century, because by then the Italian city-states (first Pisa and Amalfi, later Venice and Genoa) had gone firmly into the offensive against the Muslim. At the first crusade (1096-99), their fleets already blew away the Fatimid fleet almost at will. Without their sea supremacy it would have not been possible for the crusaders to sack one Muslim stronghold after another at the Syrian-Palestine coast. After that, the Mediterranean trade rested in the hands of the Italians practically until the 16th century.

This was a rather remarkable feat, considering that in the Indic and Pacific the Muslims fleets still controlled the trade, making the Mediterranean thus the only sea where Muslim trade and navies were relegated to second place
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: 02-Sep-2006 at 08:45
 
Originally posted by Northman

 
Are there any sources providing more facts about galleys in the North Sea?
I've never heard of these hybrids before, nor have I heard of any ships like Galleys found on the continental side of the North Sea. 
Any UK finds?
 
Not I think in the time you're talking about. In the 12th - 14th centuries yes. Grimaldi and Doria both led Genoese fleets in the service of the French against England (and burnt down my home town, Southampton, in 1338 - not that I was living there at the time).
 
The English kings all built their fleets, such as they were at the time, around 'galleys' but they weren't true Mediterranean galleys[1]: the word came to be used for any type of oared vessel.
 
[1] Skeleton- built with outriggers and a spur in the bows. The northern 'galleys' were still shell-built and I don't think had the outriggers and the spur.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 02-Sep-2006 at 08:49
Back to Top
Preobrazhenskoe View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 398
  Quote Preobrazhenskoe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 02:41

"When did the european naval technology start to improve again?"

Clearly in the 12th century, when Europeans discovered the essential steering rudder for the stern of the ship (instead of steering by row power), as well as the magnetic compass for navigation. Of course both these were items concieved long before-hand in ancient and medieval China (Han China and then Song China with the latter, although the Chinese statesman Ma Jun of the 3rd century AD invented a directional compass employing differential gears, not magnetism), and after a period of time, were both transfused to the Western world, along with other Eastern-originated inventions, but I won't bother listing them, since they don't have anything to do with influencing seafaring and naval power of Europe. In retrospect, the ancient Athenians who headed the Delian League, the powerful Hellenistic Kings, and obviously the friggin Romans held sway over the Mediterranean, but they weren't the first (Egyptians, Phoenicians, Minoans, etc.), nor were they the last. Although Italian city-states like Genoa and Venice were big players during the Medieval period, by the 16th century, with exploration of the globe, as well as such megalith naval battles like the Battle of Gravelines (English fleet vs. Spanish Armada), or the Battle of Lepanto (with the European Holy League vs. Ottoman Turks), it was quite clear that Europe had once again achieved its naval glory once achieved when Rome dominated the Mediterranean, and quite frankly surpassed that earlier glory.
 
Yeah, I think alot. But it doesn't make me sexy. My cock does. Lol.
Eric
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: 01-Sep-2006 at 12:31
Very interesting - may I ask a few questions...
 
Originally posted by tadamson

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
 
Yes - Arent they wonderful? - glad you agree Smile
 
I'm not sure what you mean by North German - or what period of time we are talking here.
The oldest larger boat excavated (to my best knowledge) in that region, is the Nydam boat from 320 AD, found in South Denmark, and is considered the natural "father" for longboats, and probably the type of boat used by the Anglo-Saxons migrating to England. 
 
 
It was found in costal area in Angelen - also near Hedeby (Haitabu).
 


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).
 
Are there any sources providing more facts about galleys in the North Sea?
I've never heard of these hybrids before, nor have I heard of any ships like Galleys found on the continental side of the North Sea. 
Any UK finds?
 


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.
 
Yes - the Norwegians very often used "fir" as you say, whereas the Danes very often used oak throughtout the whole construction (except for mast/rig of course)
Very early, the Danish kings planted woods of oak for their fleet, and actually most of out oakwoods today was plantet for that purpose. But the development of steelships suddenly made them useless for this purpose - so now we have a lot of old oaktrees.
 
There are no Danish sources that describes this in details (Knut and his fleet) - maybe you can direct me to English ones.
 
Thanks
 


Edited by Northman - 01-Sep-2006 at 12:36
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
 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 0.125 seconds.