European naval power from 500-1200
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14248
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 15:45
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: European naval power from 500-1200
Posted By: gramberto
Subject: European naval power from 500-1200
Date 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?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 00:00
|
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_byzantine - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_byzantine -------------  |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 05:41
|
A couple of quick answers. I'll think a bit about it.
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.
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.
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).
------------- |
Posted By: gramberto
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 16:56
| were there any attempts by the europeans to copy the viking long boats? if not, why? |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date 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  ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 05:35
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. ------------- |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 06:27
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.. |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 06:50
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.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 10:49
The point is, so were everyone else's.
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 12:07
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.
 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, http://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/ - click here ! (chose language in upper right corner)
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2006 at 08:44
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
At night, in the North Sea, without a compass? You were quoting maximum speeds not cruising speeds.
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2006 at 11:22
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.
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)
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.
http://kunder.streamworks.dk/vikinger/030326_en/player4.htm - 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)
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.
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
Maybe I, in my eager to express the excellence of these magnificent boats became a tad too colorful in my expressions - but not overly...
 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
Yes - numbers and surprise were essential factors - and speed never harmed any warrior or army.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2006 at 05:58
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
Minor point - as far as I know the major use was actually in harbour defence - and the Spanish used them more than Napoleon.
I tried to do it in my head. I got it wrong.
Yes, that's impressive. Thanks.
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.
I don't disagree with that. My assumption was that most galleys were flat-bottomed too.
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
 )I must say it's good to be discussing boats instead of the interminable armies. ------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2006 at 18:03
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.
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.
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.
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 http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/norse_ships.htm - this page.
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmata
Date 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? |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2006 at 11:05
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.)
That's what I meant by 'like tiny outriggers'. It's what outriggers do essentially.
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.
Thanks. I haven't had time yet, having spent the morning on the wrong end of a gastroscopy  ------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2006 at 19:50
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 http://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk - www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk where you can find loads of more material.
http://kunder.streamworks.dk/vikinger/030326/langskibet.htm - Skuldelev 2s recreation http://kunder.streamworks.dk/vikinger/030326/byggefilm.htm - The Design - part by part http://kunder.streamworks.dk/vikinger/030326/tjaere.htm - Burning the tar http://kunder.streamworks.dk/vikinger/030326/kolsvin.htm - The right piece of wood for the right place. http://kunder.streamworks.dk/vikinger/030326/Planke.htm - The flexible plank http://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/page.asp?objectid=374&zcs=458 - Clik here for pics from the construction. ------------- |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date 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? |
Posted By: tadamson
Date 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.. |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 12:31
|
Very interesting - may I ask a few questions...
Yes - Arent they wonderful? - glad you agree
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.
http://www.nydam.nu/eng/boats.html - The Nydam boat....  It was found in costal area in Angelen - also near Hedeby (Haitabu).
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?
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
------------- |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date 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 ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 08:45
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 11:22
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 |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date 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. |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date 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 ------------- |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date 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. |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date 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 ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 04:09
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date 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 
|
Posted By: Northman
Date 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.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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
.Except for their going around putting poison in each others' ears, which I glean from Hamlet of course.  ------------- |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date 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. |