Medieval ship costs
Bruce
My main interest is the late period cog (the version with a keel used
for deep water sailing). I've run across a book called "The Ship in
the Medieval Economy", and corresponded with the author, but he tells
me that hard numbers for anything before about 1600 are very rare.
Anybody have any ideas about how to develop an economic model for
shipping costs for the 1400s?
blutz at manticore.mv.com
Matthew Harley
I gather you are interesed in trade rather than war; but if outfitting
war-ships is of interest, try:
Paviot, Jacques, Philippe de Clèves Seigneur de Ravenstein -
L’Instruction de toutes manieres de guerroyer (…) sur mer, Champion,
Paris, 1997.
This work dates from around 1520. I don't think it has figures in money
terms, but even if it had, translating them into modern terms would be
problematic. On the other hand it contains a marvellous description
(with lots of numbers) of what was required to outfit a fleet for war
including food, weapons, etc.; and what was a surprise to me, the
incredible extent of the decoration of war-ships which apparently was
common at the time. (Holywood could not overdo it!)
By the way, Slatkine-Champion have some great stuff for those interested
in history. Their Swiss page with searchable index is here but beware,
there prices are in *****Swiss francs***** not French francs!!
Matt Harley
Abercjohn
In article <6v50er$8i1$1...@pyrite.mv.net>, bl...@manticore.mv.com (Bruce) writes:
>Subject: Medieval ship costs
>From: bl...@manticore.mv.com (Bruce)
>Date: 3 Oct 1998 11:06:03 GMT
>
>I'm trying to find information on the economics of medieval shipping.
>My main interest is the late period cog (the version with a keel used
>for deep water sailing). I've run across a book called "The Ship in
>the Medieval Economy", and corresponded with the author, but he tells
>me that hard numbers for anything before about 1600 are very rare.
>Anybody have any ideas about how to develop an economic model for
>shipping costs for the 1400s?
>
A ship called The Great Michael was built for the Scots navy during
the reign of James IV (1488-1513) and I think there are at least some
figures for its building.
I do not know enough about ships to know if it was a cog.. but perhaps your
book already quotes the info? If not, I could try to see what is in print.
Regards
.
>
abercjohn
John G Harrison
D. Spencer Hines
More precisely, [the] "Great Michael" [N.B. "The" was not part of the
Scottish warship's name.] was built in 1511 at Newhaven, Midlothian. She
was quite the magnificent four-masted ship, with elaborate elevated
forecastle [forward] and poop [aft] decks.
The vessel [N.B. No, it was not a "boat."] was a bit shallow in the keel and
narrow in the beam for all the weight and cross-sectional area [N. B.
remember wind resistance] carried aloft, including impressive multi-level
observation platforms carried on all four masts.
She did not handle particularly well in a moderate to heavy sea or even in a
long swell --- tending to roll rather heavily and yaw, as well as pitching
and side-slipping --- around all three axes.
But, she was the pride of the Scots Navy --- at her best and most
magnificent when safely tied up alongside a long quay with banners and flags
flying --- impressing the simple natives.
Like Abercorn she was designed primarily for show and fun and games --- not
for substance, combat or accuracy to well-crafted nautical detail and
performance.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Ex Tridens Scientia
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "I said in 1992 he's a bright young guy in business, I
might put him somewhere and train him to be a middle manager. Right now I
wouldn't have him third shift in a hamburger stand responsible for cleaning
out the sink after everybody had gone home." --- H. Ross Perot, Texas
billionaire, who spent $65 million of his own money in 1992 defeating
President George Herbert Walker Bush and opening the door to President
William Jefferson Clinton. [9/26/98]
Abercjohn wrote in message <19981003135706...@ngol06.aol.com>...
Tony Jebson
> I'm trying to find information on the economics of medieval shipping.
> My main interest is the late period cog (the version with a keel used
> for deep water sailing). I've run across a book called "The Ship in
> the Medieval Economy", and corresponded with the author, but he tells
> me that hard numbers for anything before about 1600 are very rare.
> Anybody have any ideas about how to develop an economic model for
> shipping costs for the 1400s?
You might want to look at:
_The Good Ship: Ships, Shipbuilding and Technology in
England 1200-1540_, Ian Friel
--- Tony Jebson
Donald Tucker
>I'm trying to find information on the economics of medieval shipping.
>My main interest is the late period cog (the version with a keel used
>for deep water sailing). I've run across a book called "The Ship in
>the Medieval Economy", and corresponded with the author, but he tells
>me that hard numbers for anything before about 1600 are very rare.
>Anybody have any ideas about how to develop an economic model for
>shipping costs for the 1400s?
The sawmill was invented about 1328. Cheaper planks reduced
shipbuilding costs.
Donald ___,__<@~__,___ Pteranodon Visioneering:
/^/^/^[#]^\^\^\ Views on the past, present and future.
logo _/|\_ World history; Alternate history FAQs;
Maps
copyright 1996 " " © http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4123/
Bruce
aber...@aol.com (Abercjohn) writes:
> A ship called The Great Michael was built for the Scots navy during
> the reign of James IV (1488-1513) and I think there are at least some
> figures for its building.
> I do not know enough about ships to know if it was a cog.. but perhaps your
> book already quotes the info? If not, I could try to see what is in print.
The name is familiar, although I can't find it in my notes.
I suspect it is full rigged, and possibly a caravel.
blutz at manticore.mv.com
Bruce
Matthew Harley <matthew...@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> Paviot, Jacques, Philippe de Clèves Seigneur de Ravenstein -
> L’Instruction de toutes manieres de guerroyer (…) sur mer, Champion,
> Paris, 1997.
Thank you for the reply. I'll look into it, but I don't speak french.
For some things I might manage to read the language (between spanish
and german guesses) but I'm not sure if that will be enough help for
a technical work.
blutz at manticore.mv.com
Bruce
"D. Spencer Hines" <shi...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> More precisely, [the] "Great Michael" [N.B. "The" was not part of the
> Scottish warship's name.] was built in 1511 at Newhaven, Midlothian. She
> was quite the magnificent four-masted ship, with elaborate elevated
> forecastle [forward] and poop [aft] decks.
>
> The vessel [N.B. No, it was not a "boat."] was a bit shallow in the keel and
> narrow in the beam for all the weight and cross-sectional area [N. B.
> remember wind resistance] carried aloft, including impressive multi-level
> observation platforms carried on all four masts.
>
> She did not handle particularly well in a moderate to heavy sea or even in a
> long swell --- tending to roll rather heavily and yaw, as well as pitching
> and side-slipping --- around all three axes.
>
> But, she was the pride of the Scots Navy --- at her best and most
> magnificent when safely tied up alongside a long quay with banners and flags
> flying --- impressing the simple natives.
>
> Like Abercorn she was designed primarily for show and fun and games --- not
> for substance, combat or accuracy to well-crafted nautical detail and
> performance.
I thought I remembered the name. From the super big, whether it works
or not
period. Thanks for the reference.
blutz at manticore.mv.com
Bruce
Tony Jebson <je...@texas.net> writes:
> _The Good Ship: Ships, Shipbuilding and Technology in
> England 1200-1540_, Ian Friel
This one looks like a keeper, as soon as I can get a copy.
Still, I hope he has some hard numbers.
blutz at manticore.mv.com
Matthew Harley
>
> I'm trying to find information on the economics of medieval shipping.
> My main interest is the late period cog (the version with a keel used
> for deep water sailing). I've run across a book called "The Ship in
> the Medieval Economy", and corresponded with the author, but he tells
> me that hard numbers for anything before about 1600 are very rare.
> Anybody have any ideas about how to develop an economic model for
> shipping costs for the 1400s?
I take it you are interested in the cost of transporting merchandise by
ship rather than the cost of building ships? There would be a
connection between the two but it would be rather difficult, even today,
to establish a reliable relationship. If it is merchandising costs you
are after I still think you will have big problems. Again, even today,
you will find that even for an identical product the costs (per unit) of
shipment vary enormously depending, inter alia, on the volumes
transported, destinations. For example I have heard it said that it
costs less to transport a tonne of grain from Rouen to Shanghai by bulk
tanker that overland by rail to Marseilles.
Can you tell us a bit more about you overall objective? There may be
other ways to get at it.
Matt Harley
Gregory Gidden
See also:
Hutchison, Gillian, Medieval Ships and Shipping
A well preserved cog was excavated near Bremen in the 1960s (IIRC). There are a couple of English-language pubs on it which might be useful:
Fliedner, S. and Pohl-Weber, R. (eds.), The Cog of Bremen
Kiedel, K.P. and Schnall, U. (eds.), The Hanse Cog of 1380
Check P. Dollinger's The German Hanse (London, 1970) as well.
Greg
Bruce wrote:
I'm trying to find information on the economics of medieval shipping.
My main interest is the late period cog (the version with a keel used
for deep water sailing). I've run across a book called "The Ship in
the Medieval Economy", and corresponded with the author, but he tells
me that hard numbers for anything before about 1600 are very rare.
Anybody have any ideas about how to develop an economic model for
shipping costs for the 1400s?
blutz at manticore.mv.com
Bruce
Matthew Harley <matthew...@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> I take it you are interested in the cost of transporting merchandise by
> ship rather than the cost of building ships? There would be a
> connection between the two but it would be rather difficult, even today,
> to establish a reliable relationship. If it is merchandising costs you
> are after I still think you will have big problems. Again, even today,
> you will find that even for an identical product the costs (per unit) of
> shipment vary enormously depending, inter alia, on the volumes
> transported, destinations. For example I have heard it said that it
> costs less to transport a tonne of grain from Rouen to Shanghai by bulk
> tanker that overland by rail to Marseilles.
>
> Can you tell us a bit more about you overall objective? There may be
> other ways to get at it.
What I'm mainly trying to get at is the cost of operating a ship.
Cost of construction would be nice to know, too, but it's secondary.
I have some fair data on crew sizes, and on relative pay rates.
In the period I'm interested in there were basically two pay rates
at sea, captain and everyone else. What I still need is information
on what supplies ship owner/operators had to provide. I have fair
data for food requirements, and for water, but not good lists of all
the other operating expenses.
I know costs change a lot based on the size of shipments, and with
differences in volume to mass ratios, since ships are both volume
and weight limited, but I'm trying to get a reasonable idea of how
much it cost to operate a ship. Also, docking costs and longshoremen
pay rates in relation to seamen.
Once I have enough info I'm going to try and put together a typical
cost model for a typical late model cog. If I can get figures from
a single time and place my hope is that the ratios between costs
will not change much between locations, even if the gross figures
do. (I know that local shortages and surpluses make changes, but
I hope those will roughtly cancel out).
blutz at manticore.mv.com
Bruce
bs...@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald Tucker) writes:
> The sawmill was invented about 1328. Cheaper planks reduced
> shipbuilding costs.
I've read some discussion about differences in strength of saw
versus other cutting method logs that appear to have effected
which source was used for ship timber in some designs. If I
remember correctly saw was preferred for hull planking on
skeleton construction designs because they didn't need as
much strength. I think it has to do with how a saw cut needs
to follow the grain.
blutz at manticore.mv.com
Jgissw
>From: bs...@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald Tucker)
>Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:53:17 GMT
>The sawmill was invented about 1328. Cheaper planks reduced
>shipbuilding costs.
How extensively were sawmills used?. I've read (not authoritative
source) that men in the slums of London had to work in the pits below the log,
pulling a hand saw (what a lumberjack called crosscut) as late as 1800's.
Cheers
John GW
ALAN O. WATKINS
replacement of wood by iron to construct the ships.
There is a superb evocation of the workman's life in a saw pit in the
Wooden Walls exhibition at Chatham Historic Dockyard - supposedly based on
the fictitious diary of a young apprentice during the construction of a
ship in the 1760s (when VICTORY was being built at the yard).
AOW
Jgissw <jgi...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981005092336...@ng104.aol.com>...
Peter Fox
>What I'm mainly trying to get at is the cost of operating a ship.
>Cost of construction would be nice to know, too, but it's secondary.
>I have some fair data on crew sizes, and on relative pay rates.
>In the period I'm interested in there were basically two pay rates
>at sea, captain and everyone else. What I still need is information
>on what supplies ship owner/operators had to provide. I have fair
>data for food requirements, and for water, but not good lists of all
>the other operating expenses.
& profits) and crew (pay)? This is certainly common in later times
and noticable in fishing craft to the present day.
>Once I have enough info I'm going to try and put together a typical
>cost model for a typical late model cog. If I can get figures from
>a single time and place my hope is that the ratios between costs
>will not change much between locations, even if the gross figures
>do. (I know that local shortages and surpluses make changes, but
>I hope those will roughtly cancel out).
Where did this financial muscle come from? For a comparison I can
see, say a religious house generating income through ownership of
rights to hold fairs and various rents, and being able to build up its
assets gradually. But does this picture of land-bound magnates fit
in with big bucks, cash down? What I'm really asking is: a) Were
the merchant capitalists a distinct class? and b) How sophisticated
were financial (eg loan) arrangements?
--
PETER FOX Not the same since the poster business went to the wall
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex. pe...@eminent.demon.co.uk
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>
David Read
<jgi...@aol.com> writes
>
>>From: bs...@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald Tucker)
>
>>Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:53:17 GMT
>
>>The sawmill was invented about 1328. Cheaper planks reduced
>>shipbuilding costs.
>
> How extensively were sawmills used?. I've read (not authoritative
>source) that men in the slums of London had to work in the pits below the log,
>pulling a hand saw (what a lumberjack called crosscut) as late as 1800's.
That's an interesting question. I remember that William Cobbett, the
early 19th English radical, recorded in his travel book _Rural Rides_
seeing labourers being employed to _dig_ fields because it was cheaper
to use them than employ horse and plough.
One might imagine suppose that during times of labour shortage, such as
after the devastation of the Black Death, machines like the sawmill
really came into their own. In times of economic depression, with labour
surpluses, they would have been less used.
Any more examples, or evidence ?
cheers,
--
David Read
Abercjohn
In article <9LniUFAI...@dreadful.demon.co.uk>, David Read
<da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Subject: Labour costs & technology: was Medieval ship costs
>From: David Read <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk>
>Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 19:03:52 +0100
It may not be quite such a simple equation in all cases. Spade
agriculture actually turns the earth more efficiently than most early
ploughs and the result is higher yields -- both per unit area and
per unit of grain sown. Martin Martin, writing about 1700, suggests
returns of as much as 17:1 on grain sown, compared with 3:1 or even
less for the plough. It was certainly widespread in the Highlands
and Islands, where self-sufficiency was the aim and units were small,
till the quite recent past. A spade is also a lot cheaper than a plough
and draught animals.
Also there would be issues about how much wood was to be sawn,
how the wood was to be got to the mill (long rivers, raft it downstream; short
rivers, the timber is worked out too soon to justify the cost?).
Norway used sawmills early; Scotland did not and, indeed, imported
Scandinavian sawn timber when there were still unexploited Highland woods.
Regards
abercjohn
John G Harrison
David Read
<aber...@aol.com> writes
>It may not be quite such a simple equation in all cases. Spade
>agriculture actually turns the earth more efficiently than most early
>ploughs and the result is higher yields -- both per unit area and
>per unit of grain sown. Martin Martin, writing about 1700, suggests
>returns of as much as 17:1 on grain sown, compared with 3:1 or even
>less for the plough. It was certainly widespread in the Highlands
>and Islands, where self-sufficiency was the aim and units were small,
> till the quite recent past. A spade is also a lot cheaper than a plough
>and draught animals.
In Wiltshire in 1826 William Cobbett thought the practice was
scandalous. The poor labourers were discarded spinners and weavers
thrown on hard times. He seems to agree with Martin Martin's assessment
of the productivity of fields turned by spadework rather than by plough.
It worked out at 20 shillings an acre, and that was "_as cheap_ as
ploughing and _four times as good_." [Cobbett's italics].
Digression:-
Whilst hunting for this passage in _Rural Rides_ I came across several
Cobbett references to the _dark ages_. Cobbett, in his inimitable
caustic and witty style, obviously believes the name as applied to the
Middle Ages is a misnomer, and would rather apply it to his own age.
Here's one good example:-
"There is a _market cross_, in this town, [Malmesbury] the sight of
which is worth a journey of hundreds of miles. TIME with his scythe, and
'_enlightened_ Protestant piety', with its pick-axes and crow-bars;
these united have done much to efface the beauties of this monument of
ancient skill and taste, and proof of ancient wealth; but, in spite of
all their destructive efforts, this Cross remains a most beautiful
thing, though possibly, and even probably, nearly, or quite, a thousand
years old. There is a _market-cross_ lately erected at DEVIZES, and
intended to imitate the ancient ones. Compare this, and, then you have,
pretty fairly, a few of the differences between US and our FOREFATHERS
of the '_dark ages_'."
_Rural Rides_ has long been my _Desert Island_ book of choice.
These 1820's references to the Dark Ages, (and there are several more in
the book), raise an interesting question. If the term was coined by 19th
English historians, it must have been pretty early in the century and is
perhaps traceable to a certain individual. The relish with which Cobbett
uses the term, and turns it on its head, praising the Medievals whilst
condemning the bad practices of his own age, perhaps suggests that it
was of very recent introduction into the English language in the 1820's.
cheers,
--
David Read
Paul J. Gans
>Digression:-
I've left the bulk of David's post since it is most interesting.
With regard to the date of the introduction of the term "dark
ages", there seems to be a misunderstanding. It was coined
early on (I don't have the exact dates) but 17th or 18th century
seems to occur to me.
But, the real development of the history of the Middle Ages in
English did not occur until the early 1800's (along with
similar developments elsewhere.) Prior to this the English
had been curious in an antiquarian sort of way (and were
well ahead of the French in the preservation of some records).
Each age has fashioned history in its own way. That will
doubtless continue into the future as the meaning and
importance of events and artifacts are continually debated.
The view of the Middle Ages in the last century was a view
of almost unlimited gloom, hence dark. English history
was seen (and had been seen for quite a while) as an
unending battle for good against the dark. That view
still colors much modern medieval fantasy.
So while the term "dark ages" is much older, it became
a popular term in the 19th century, or at least so I've
read.
There was, of course, another refashioning of history in
mid-century and yet another toward the century's end.
Several refashionings have occured in this century, a
process that is still going on.
The optimists among us (of which I am one) hope that this
process tends eventually to converge on a better and better
understanding of the past. But I know others, including
many professionals, who think that while the store of
our knowledge increases, our understanding does not.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
ALAN O. WATKINS
Have you read "Shipowning in England c. 1450-1550", a paper presented to
the Royal Historical Society in 1961 by G V Scammell?
It gives specific examples of costs for ships etc?
If not, let me know and I'll send a copy.
AOW
Bruce
"ALAN O. WATKINS" <alan-o-...@easynet.co.uk> writes:
> Have you read "Shipowning in England c. 1450-1550", a paper presented to
> the Royal Historical Society in 1961 by G V Scammell?
Haven't heard of it, but sounds like something I'd be very interested
in. Thank you.
blutz at manticore.mv.com
Jfdunnigan
For shipping costs try the online book at www.hyw.com. We dug up some shipping
cost numbers from that period.
Donald Tucker
Bruce (bl...@manticore.mv.com) writes:
>
> What I'm mainly trying to get at is the cost of operating a ship.
> Cost of construction would be nice to know, too, but it's secondary.
> I have some fair data on crew sizes, and on relative pay rates.
> In the period I'm interested in there were basically two pay rates
> at sea, captain and everyone else. What I still need is information
> on what supplies ship owner/operators had to provide. I have fair
> data for food requirements, and for water, but not good lists of all
> the other operating expenses.
>
> differences in volume to mass ratios, since ships are both volume
> and weight limited, but I'm trying to get a reasonable idea of how
> much it cost to operate a ship. Also, docking costs and longshoremen
> pay rates in relation to seamen.
>
> cost model for a typical late model cog. If I can get figures from
> a single time and place my hope is that the ratios between costs
> will not change much between locations, even if the gross figures
> do. (I know that local shortages and surpluses make changes, but
> I hope those will roughtly cancel out).
A very interesting project.
Ships have traditionally been categorized as being a ship of
"x" tons (or tonnes for the metrically minded). Average ship size
increased progressively from the the northern cog/Venetian lugger
era of the 14th century to the multi masted ships of the 18th
century. This data might be in your reading references.
You could then work out both the total cost per ship
a typical late model cog (which you identify as your target)
and the cost per ton.
Have you checked to determine whether invoices or payment records
have survived from any shipbuilders or persons who commissioned
construction of a ship? This may be mentioned in some of your
reading references. Perhaps you might check some archive lists
of 14th century documents.
Charles Norrie
>early 19th English radical, recorded in his travel book _Rural Rides_
>seeing labourers being employed to _dig_ fields because it was cheaper
>to use them than employ horse and plough.
>
For example, in building the Channel Tunnel (mainly by machine), it was
cheaper to build the various cross passages by more manual methods -
setting up the machinery would have been uneconomic. Perhaps the fields
Cobbett saw where those too small, awkwardly shaped or graded or
inconveniently located for horse and plough.
--
Charles Norrie
David Read
<Cha...@geodeon.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>Isn't that the sort of anecodotal evidence one should be careful with.
>For example, in building the Channel Tunnel (mainly by machine), it was
>cheaper to build the various cross passages by more manual methods -
>setting up the machinery would have been uneconomic. Perhaps the fields
>Cobbett saw where those too small, awkwardly shaped or graded or
>inconveniently located for horse and plough.
Umm, no, not really. Cobbett was one of the leading agriculturalists and
agronomists of his day. I have no doubt that he knew what he was talking
about.
cheers,
--
David Read
Bruce
Peter Fox <pe...@eminent.demon.co.uk> writes:
> A ship would require a big capital investment in a short time.
> Where did this financial muscle come from? For a comparison I can
> see, say a religious house generating income through ownership of
> rights to hold fairs and various rents, and being able to build up its
> assets gradually. But does this picture of land-bound magnates fit
> in with big bucks, cash down? What I'm really asking is: a) Were
> the merchant capitalists a distinct class? and b) How sophisticated
> were financial (eg loan) arrangements?
Governments tended to take a hand. Venice was very interested in
encouraging ship building and subsidized ships for part of its
history (if I remember correctly). Pre-1400 (IIRC) there were
no specialized warships, and war fleets were acquired by hiring,
or arresting merchant ships. (The English crown actually sold
its fleet twice to pay off dates. Sale was to commercial shippers.)
blutz at manticore.mv.com
Dick Wisan
>
> ...Venice was very interested in
>encouraging ship building and subsidized ships for part of its
>history (if I remember correctly). Pre-1400 (IIRC) there were
>no specialized warships, and war fleets were acquired by hiring,
When did Venice (or anyone) take up the use of galleys? That's a
design which has very little use except as a warship. I could
imagine a scheme where private parties were expected to build
them (didn't the Greeks do that? Rich men would build a galley
& probably command it in action). I really can't imagine a scheme
where they'd be routinely built as merchant ships.
The ancients used galleys (for war). Was their use continuous or
did they disappear (when?) and get revived later?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@hartwick.edu
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Gregory Gidden
vessel, than the ancients, at least in the Mediterranean, used galleys both
for commerce and warfare. If, instead, you are referring to the ship type
employed by most of the Italian maritime republics, than, yes, these were
*principally* used for military purposes. The oar-powered galley was
favored for several reasons in the Meditteranean. Capricious winds made any
vessel relying exclusively on sail a poor choice as a warship. Their long,
sleek design (with a length-to-beam ratio of up to 1:8, as opposed to a
merchant "round ship" with a ratio of as little as 1:3), and the superior
maneuverability and speed of oar power made them formidable weapons in an
era in which relatively short-range ballistic weapon (mangonels, catapults,
ballistae, etc.) attacks, ramming, and hand-to-hand fighting were still the
principal tactics of naval combat.
This galley emerged in the late ninth century and soon became the principal
unit in all Mediterranean fleets. Its antecedents go back to the classical
period. The Roman liburnian, which began principally as a pirate raider,
heavily influenced its design. The Byzantine dromon, also influenced the
development of the medieval galley. Like the dromon, a lateen rig,
preferred for the superior maneuverability it provided, was used to propel
the vessel when winds were favorable. Unlike the liburnian and dromon, the
early Italian galley had but a single bank of oars. Two or three (or as
many as five in later periods) oarsmen per bench pulled independent oars.
Over time the galley increased in length, breadth, and, especially, in
weight in order to accommodate more marines and armament - from a length of
130 feet and beam of just over 12 feet in the late 13th c., to a length of
180 feet and beam of over 20 feet in the 17th c. The far greater size and
weight of the later galley, or galliass, necessitated much longer oars and
more pulling power. This led to the adoption of a rowing plan in which five
or more (and as many as eight) men sat at a single bench pulling one large
oar.
The investment required for the construction and operation of these vessels
was enormous and would have been beyond the means of any but a handful of
the wealthiest patricians of the Italian republics. In Venice, the
construction and maintenance of the galley fleet was the responsibility of
the Arsenal, the state-run naval yards. A pretty remarkable example of
resource and labor management, the Arsenal was the envy of friend and foe
alike. Employing an assembly-line system of various storerooms and
workshops set up along canals, the Venetians were able to take a stripped
down hull from storage and have it completely rigged and outfitted in a few
hours. In such a fashion the fleet could be rapidly expanded or mothballed
to the suit the present needs of the state.
I do not know if wealthy aristocrats ever personally contributed the funds
for construction of the galleys. The importance of these vessels was such
that command of the Venetian galliasses was restricted to members of the
great patrician families, who gave the name of their house to the ship they
commanded. Commanders swore an oath to fight, if necessary, as many as five
enemy galleys - single-handedly.
In classical Greece, a wealthy man might be obligated as part of his service
to the state to fund the operational and maintenance costs of a trireme (he
would be called a trierarchos) for a year. In the 5th c. he probably did
command the vessel. These benefactors, who were chosen for wealth not
seamanship, were later replaced by professional naval officers as commanders
of the warships. The Rhodian navy, however, maintained the earlier
tradition much longer.
BTW, the Venetians did build merchant galleys, just as the ancients had, and
for principally the same purposes. Larger and broader than the war galleys,
with a length-to-beam ratio of 1:6 rather than 1:8, they were employed for
carrying passengers, often pilgrims to the Holy Land, and for carrying
small, precious cargoes. Merchant galleys also carried a lateen rig on at
least two masts (the size and placement of the masts changed repeatedly) and
used sail power as their principal propulsion. Given inconsistant winds
during the summer sailing season, however, they were faster and more
reliable than the "round" sailing ships.
Greg
Dick Wisan
>
>One must really define galley. If, by galley, you mean an oar-driven
>vessel, than the ancients, at least in the Mediterranean, used galleys both
>for commerce and warfare. If, instead, you are referring to the ship type
>employed by most of the Italian maritime republics, than, yes, these were
Thanks for the generous helping of information. By "galley" I meant a
long, light ship with a bank (or several banks) of oars along the whole
side for speed &, I suppose, maneuverablility. The paradigm I had in
mind would be the Greek trireme, but, of course, there were other types,
before and after. I wouldn't count, however, a ship which merely had
a small number of oars for auxiliary propulsion.
>BTW, the Venetians did build merchant galleys, just as the ancients had, and
>for principally the same purposes. Larger and broader than the war galleys,
>with a length-to-beam ratio of 1:6 rather than 1:8... ...and
>used sail power as their principal propulsion. Given inconsistant winds
>during the summer sailing season, however, they were faster and more
>reliable than the "round" sailing ships.
That's what I had in mind. Basically, oars for war; sails for commerce.
I guess I considered a "galley" to be a primarily oared vessel. Once
such a type is established, the distinction between war and merchant
ships is pretty clear. But, I see you're pointing to a sort of inter-
mediate galley-like sailing merchant ship.
Lars Arnestam
(first part cut)
> This galley emerged in the late ninth century and soon became the principal
> unit in all Mediterranean fleets. Its antecedents go back to the classical
> period.
An aside:
The galley experienced a last renaissance in the Baltic Sea in the 18th
century. The main reason for this was that the coasts of Sweden and Finland to
a large extent are surrounded by vast archipelagoes, with litterally tens of
thousands of islands and skerries. Under these conditions oar propelled ships
can be used where large fleets of sailing ships are unable to maneuver.
The use of galleys for coastal warfare was begun by Peter the Great during the
Great Northern War - he started to build up a fleet of galleys as soon as he had
got access to the coast in 1703. This forced Sweden, too, to build up a similar
force. The battle of Gangut in 1714, which is often referred to as the first
victory of the Russian fleet, was fought (almost) entirely between galleys - the
large Swedish high seas fleet was never involved. The battle of Svensksund in
1790 - the last time that Sweden managed to decisively defeat the Russians - was
also fought almost entirely between oar propelled ships. These battles were
mainly fought with gunfire, not boarding or ramming.
Large fleets of oar propelled vessels were maintained by both Sweden and Russia
until the 1850's, although the galley lost importance to smaller vessels - gun
sloops or gun yawls - which were more economical when you look at the ratio of
men per gun, and also more maneuverable than the long galleys.
Lars Arnestam
David C. Pugh
Lars Arnestam wrote in message <361DCA7D...@etx.ericsson.se>...
(....)
>The galley experienced a last renaissance in the Baltic Sea in the 18th
>century. The main reason for this was that the coasts of Sweden and
Finland to
>a large extent are surrounded by vast archipelagoes, with litterally tens
of
>thousands of islands and skerries. Under these conditions oar propelled
ships
>can be used where large fleets of sailing ships are unable to maneuver.
>
>The use of galleys for coastal warfare was begun by Peter the Great during
the
>Great Northern War - he started to build up a fleet of galleys as soon as
he had
>got access to the coast in 1703. This forced Sweden, too, to build up a
similar
>force. The battle of Gangut in 1714, which is often referred to as the
first
>victory of the Russian fleet, was fought (almost) entirely between
galleys - the
>large Swedish high seas fleet was never involved. The battle of Svensksund
in
>1790 - the last time that Sweden managed to decisively defeat the
Russians - was
>also fought almost entirely between oar propelled ships. These battles were
>mainly fought with gunfire, not boarding or ramming.
>
Same kind of thing on the Norwegian coast, where in the war of 1807-14 I
seem to remember British brigs being mauled by swarms of row-boats, each
with a cannon in the bows. Not big enough to be called galleys, though.
David
Donald Tucker
Dick Wisan (wis...@hartwick.edu) wrote:
> In article <361D1167...@earthlink.net>, mor...@earthlink.net says...
>>
>>vessel, than the ancients, at least in the Mediterranean, used galleys both
>>for commerce and warfare. If, instead, you are referring to the ship type
>>employed by most of the Italian maritime republics, than, yes, these were
...
>
> That's what I had in mind. Basically, oars for war; sails for commerce.
> I guess I considered a "galley" to be a primarily oared vessel. Once
> such a type is established, the distinction between war and merchant
> ships is pretty clear. But, I see you're pointing to a sort of inter-
> mediate galley-like sailing merchant ship.
During the 16th century the hybrid oar and sail vessel was used by
Spain as a warship and a means of rapid travel. Spanish VIPs used such
ships for trips to England. IIRC the name was "galleas" [phonetic
spelling].
Donald ____,__==@~~__,____ Pteranodon Visioneering:
logo ^^^\#\#[#]#/#/^^^ Views on the past, present and future.
copyright _/|\_ History: World, Alternate etc, FAQs; Maps
1996-98 " " © http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4123/
soon: 1350 to 1825 Year by Year, from Mongol to Western dominance.
Dick Wisan
>
>
>Dick Wisan (wis...@hartwick.edu) wrote:
>> In article <361D1167...@earthlink.net>, mor...@earthlink.net says...
>>>
>>>vessel, than the ancients, at least in the Mediterranean, used galleys both
>>>for commerce and warfare. If, instead, you are referring to the ship type
>>>employed by most of the Italian maritime republics, than, yes, these were
>> That's what I had in mind. Basically, oars for war; sails for commerce.
>> I guess I considered a "galley" to be a primarily oared vessel. Once
>> such a type is established, the distinction between war and merchant
>> ships is pretty clear. But, I see you're pointing to a sort of inter-
>> mediate galley-like sailing merchant ship.
>
>During the 16th century the hybrid oar and sail vessel was used by
>Spain as a warship and a means of rapid travel. Spanish VIPs used such
>ships for trips to England. IIRC the name was "galleas" [phonetic
>spelling].
That's so. I believe there was at least one galleass [per Webster --had
to look it up] with the armada of 1588. I had the impression it wasn't
an altogether successful type, but perhaps it's only that it wasn't
successful outside the Mediterranean.
About the difference between Mediterranean and Atlantic types, BTW, I've
heard it said that the reason is that winds in the Atlantic are "heavier"
than in the Mediterranean, but I'm not quite sure what that means.
Stronger, perhaps --the difference between a breeze and a gale? Or is
it a matter of moisture? I suppose, at any given velocity, air full of
moisture would give a stronger push than dry air would.
I don't _think_ we're getting too far off topic: put the question, why
fore-and-aft rig became popular in the Med so much earlier than in the
Atlantic.
Bruce
bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Tucker) writes:
> > That's what I had in mind. Basically, oars for war; sails for commerce.
> > I guess I considered a "galley" to be a primarily oared vessel. Once
> > such a type is established, the distinction between war and merchant
> > ships is pretty clear. But, I see you're pointing to a sort of inter-
> > mediate galley-like sailing merchant ship.
>
> During the 16th century the hybrid oar and sail vessel was used by
> Spain as a warship and a means of rapid travel. Spanish VIPs used such
> ships for trips to England. IIRC the name was "galleas" [phonetic
> spelling].
>
> Donald ____,__==@~~__,____ Pteranodon Visioneering:
Actually, if you go back to an early enough period, galleys were used
for
commerce. They were fast, and the large crew discouraged pirates.
The breakdown tended to be passengers and high value cargo went by
galley, while bulk cargo went by sail. Later the galley became more
specialized to war as sailing ships improved.
blutz at manticore.mv.com
Gregory Gidden
Your question about the fore and aft rig is interesting. I don't have a difinitive answer, but I think there are several factors which influence the choice of one rig over the other. The lateen rig can be used in wind conditions in which the square rig can not, but it requires more manpower to operate. Other examples of fore and aft rigging were present in the ancient Med. Pictographic evidence of lateen, spritsail, gaff, and lugsail rigs exists, especially for smaller, coastal vessels. The origin of the lateen rig on larger vessels is disputed, but it certainly was quite common, even prevalent, in the Mediterranean within the first two centuries after the Arab conquests. Why didn't the Northern Europeans adopt a fore and aft rig earlier? I guess they determined that a square rig was better suited for their vessels, the ways in which they used them, and the conditions under which they were operating.
Interestingly, the appearance in the 12th and 13th c. in the Med of the big Northern European cogs, square-rigged vessels with a stern rudder, helped to precipitate major changes in ship design. The carracks and caravels of the 15th century, in which Europeans would spread across the world, carried a combination of fore and aft and square sails, enabling them to take advantage of both systems.
Greg
Dick Wisan wrote:
In article <6vkjeh$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...
>During the 16th century the hybrid oar and sail vessel was used by
>Spain as a warship and a means of rapid travel. Spanish VIPs used such
>ships for trips to England. IIRC the name was "galleas" [phonetic
>spelling].
That's so. I believe there was at least one galleass [per Webster --had
to look it up] with the armada of 1588. I had the impression it wasn't
an altogether successful type, but perhaps it's only that it wasn't
successful outside the Mediterranean.
About the difference between Mediterranean and Atlantic types, BTW, I've
heard it said that the reason is that winds in the Atlantic are "heavier"
than in the Mediterranean, but I'm not quite sure what that means.
Stronger, perhaps --the difference between a breeze and a gale? Or is
it a matter of moisture? I suppose, at any given velocity, air full of
moisture would give a stronger push than dry air would.
I don't _think_ we're getting too far off topic: put the question, why
fore-and-aft rig became popular in the Med so much earlier than in the
Atlantic.
--
ALAN O. WATKINS
during
> the
> >Great Northern War - he started to build up a fleet of galleys as soon
as
> he had
> >got access to the coast in 1703.
I disagree. On the 7 October 1571 more than 30,000 men lost their lives
when the Holy League and the Ottoman Empire fought in a battle in the Bay
of Lepanto. One consequence of that battle was that the Mediterranean
countries became Christian rather than Moslem.
Read Jack Beeching's "The Galleys of Lepanto" (1982, ISBN 0 684 17918 0).
My edition was published in the USA.
The battle flag of the Ottoman forces is still preserved in the Doge's
palace in Venice, I think with a war galley.
Alan Watkins
Lars Arnestam
> > >The use of galleys for coastal warfare was begun by Peter the Great
> during
> > the
> > >Great Northern War - he started to build up a fleet of galleys as soon
> as
> > he had
> > >got access to the coast in 1703.
>
> I disagree. On the 7 October 1571 more than 30,000 men lost their lives
> when the Holy League and the Ottoman Empire fought in a battle in the Bay
> of Lepanto. One consequence of that battle was that the Mediterranean
> countries became Christian rather than Moslem.
I may not have expressed myself clearly enough. My posting was strictly
concerned with the use of galleys in coastal warfare in the Baltic Sea, which
begun with Peter the Great in the early 18th C. I am quite aware that
galleys have been used in the Mediterranean since pre-classical times - my
posting was a comment to a previous posting on the very subject of medieval
mediterranean galleys.
Lars Arnestam
Alex Milman
ALAN O. WATKINS wrote:
> > Lars Arnestam wrote in message <361DCA7D...@etx.ericsson.se>...
> >
> > (....)
> > >
> > >The use of galleys for coastal warfare was begun by Peter the Great
> during
> > the
> > >Great Northern War - he started to build up a fleet of galleys as soon
> as
> > he had
> > >got access to the coast in 1703.
>
> I disagree. On the 7 October 1571 more than 30,000 men lost their lives
> when the Holy League and the Ottoman Empire fought in a battle in the Bay
> of Lepanto. One consequence of that battle was that the Mediterranean
> countries became Christian rather than Moslem.
IIRC, both sides at Lepanto had galleys but League side got at least some
advantage from using the heavier ships (galeons?) besides galleys.
Which is quite opposite to the Peter's experience because he was using
galleys to fight (with a considerable success) heavier ships in the very
shallow
coastal waters, support landings into enemy's territory, etc..
The question (IMHO) remains, was Lepanto an example of a "coastal warfare"
Lars had in mind? Battle in the bay does not automatically qualify (otherwise
Aboukir,
Copengagen, Navarin and quite a few other sea battles are examples of a
"coastal
warfare").
franz
>advantage from using the heavier ships (galeons?) besides galleys.
I think you mean galleasses. They were hybrid craft, part sailing ship,
part oar powered galley. Large ships. They had impressive firepower and
size in their favor when compared to a standard galley. While not as
maneuverable as a standard galley, they did well in the engagement.
They were deployed ahead of the Christian line on the left wing and center.
Doria and the attached galleasses of the right were wing were racing to out
to sea to prevent Ulrich Ali from outflanking the Christian fleet and their
galleases were not in position in time.
In the Turkish right wing (landward), a number of Mehmed Suluk's galleys had
great reason to despair combat with these high-built, heavily gunned ships.
By the time the Turkish left wing made contact with the Venetian galleys,
they were already disorganized with many ships damaged by ball, grape and
chain shot from the galleasses. The Turks fought hard; but Venetian
harquebus fire and the defensive precautions taken of bolstering their bows
with barricades against Turkish arrows paid off. The Venetian galley
contingent made short work of them in the shallows. It was the first part
of the engagement to begin and end.
Franz Stultz
http://franz.home.texas.net
http://card-net.org
ALAN O. WATKINS
I was trying to stimulate some discussion about the broader issues.... you
had this line of converdsation going with the perfect paragraph to take out
of context (see below). I suppose I should have started a new subject
heading.
The question that galleys raises in my mind is the "when, how and why" type
- When/how/why did galleys evolve?
Alan Watkins
Lars Arnestam <lars.a...@etx.ericsson.se> wrote in article
<3621AF67...@etx.ericsson.se>...
> ALAN O. WATKINS wrote:
>
> > > >The use of galleys for coastal warfare was begun by Peter the Great
> > during
> > > the
> > > >Great Northern War - he started to build up a fleet of galleys as
soon
> > as
> > > he had
> > > >got access to the coast in 1703.
> >
> > I disagree. On the 7 October 1571 more than 30,000 men lost their lives
> > when the Holy League and the Ottoman Empire fought in a battle in the
Bay
> > of Lepanto. One consequence of that battle was that the Mediterranean
> > countries became Christian rather than Moslem.
>
Lars Arnestam
> Sorry , Lars.
>
> I was trying to stimulate some discussion about the broader issues.... you
> had this line of converdsation going with the perfect paragraph to take out
> of context (see below). I suppose I should have started a new subject
> heading.
>
No harm done. My posting was really off-topic for this group. Since the rest
of this posting is, too, I'll crosspost it to soc.history.war.misc, and suggest
that any follow ups should be made there.
> The question that galleys raises in my mind is the "when, how and why" type
> - When/how/why did galleys evolve?
>
> Alan Watkins
I don't know enought to have any strong opinions on the distant, first origins
of the type, although I imagine that large war canoes may have evolved into the
first, primitive galleys? So this is only a little about the galley's last
career, in the Baltic:
The origin of the Baltic galley was no doubt Peter the Great's wish to build up
a naval presence in the Baltic as fast as possible after he had gained access
to the coast. To build up a traditional battle fleet (he started to do that,
too) takes a very long time, both building the ships and acquiring the
necessary skill at handling them. The galley was a well known type which,
IIRC, had already been used by the Russians against the Turks on the Volga. It
was easy to build and could be built by relatively small yards, also up the
rivers, it did not require a large crew of skilled sailors (who must have been
in very short supply in Russia at that time), and it had the extra bonus of
being able to operate in the narrow waters of the large Finnish and Swedish
archipelagoes, where the Swedish traditional battle fleet could not offer an
effective threat.
As it was, the introduction of oarpropelled ships gave an added dimension to
Baltic warfare, with the result that both Russia and Sweden maintained two
Baltic fleets - one traditional battle fleet and one oarpropelled "archipelago
fleet" - until the introduction of steamships. But the galley was not the
ideal type for this role. It had been introduced, no doubt, because it was a
ship-type known since far back (although it had never been used in the Baltic
earlier). But it was really too long to maneuver well in the most narrow
waters. And, above all, it carried very few guns in relation to the large
crews (admittedly of mostly unskilled people) that were necessary to handle it.
Both its classical and its medieval forms had been designed for close combat,
and this way of fighting still remained, more or less, at the time of Lepanto.
But in the 18th century battles were fought at a distance, with gunfire, and
the galley normally carried only three or four guns at the prow, and the same
number at the stern.
In the 1770's and -80's Sweden built up a new oarpropelled fleet. The fleet
that fought at Svensksund in 1790 still contained a fair number of galleys.
But the major part of the fleet consisted of a great number of small vessels:
Gun sloops, which carried two guns each, and gun yawls, which carried only
one. These vessels were very cheap, and could easily be turned out in great
numbers within a very short time. They required small crews in relation to the
fire power they carried. They were very easy to handle, could be regrouped very
easily, and were designed so they could be used for both naval battles and
amphibious operations. To add a punch to this fleet, there were also a number
of much heavier units, really small frigates with heavy guns (24 pdrs), which
were normally sailed, but which could be rowed if necessary. Experiments were
also made with twin decked galleys, with guns mounted on swivel mountings along
the center line of one of the decks, but only a few such ships were built.
The Russians, too, experimented with new types, but I know very little about
them, except that they differed from the Swedish. Perhaps someone else?
Lars Arnestam
ism...@rococo.ele.cie.uva.es
bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Tucker) wrote:
>
> Dick Wisan (wis...@hartwick.edu) wrote:
> > That's what I had in mind. Basically, oars for war; sails for commerce.
> > I guess I considered a "galley" to be a primarily oared vessel. Once
> > such a type is established, the distinction between war and merchant
> > ships is pretty clear. But, I see you're pointing to a sort of inter-
> > mediate galley-like sailing merchant ship.
>
> During the 16th century the hybrid oar and sail vessel was used by
> Spain as a warship and a means of rapid travel. Spanish VIPs used such
> ships for trips to England. IIRC the name was "galleas" [phonetic
> spelling].
Their name in Spanish is "galeaza" (pronounced ga-le-a-za), plural "galeazas"
Ismael
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Emmanuel Gustin
>outmatched by the large sailing vessels in terms of fire power.
the galliasses (a long time ago, I admit) indicated strong firepower: Almost
as many guns as the most powerful galleons, perhaps lighter guns because of
their structure. AFAIK the weaknesses of the galliases were their lighter,
"Mediterranean" structures, not very suitable for the big waves of the North
Sea; and perhaps the added vulnerability of the rowing ports. Also, the
presence of a large number of rowers makes large demand and food and water
supplies.
>earlier? I guess they determined that a square rig was better suited
for >their vessels, the ways in which they used them, and the conditions
>under which they were operating.
This is "guessing mode", but my understanding is that a fore-and-aft rig
is better suited to beating up against the wind than a square rig; and that
might be important for coastal vessels and perhaps in general for vessels
operating in a land-locked sea. A square rig might do better for blue-water
sailing on the Atlantic, with more room to manoevre and steadier winds.
Also, doesn't a fore-and-aft rig require less manpower to operate than a
square rig? I seem to remember that this was the reason why some preserved
large sailing ships were converted to carry barquentine (spelling?) rigging
instead of their original full set of square sails.
Emmanuel Gustin