Transcriber’s Notes

This e-text is based on the three-volume book ‘Shipbuilding from Its Beginnings,’ from 1895. Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation have been retained; punctuation and typographical errors have been corrected.

Two numerical values are obviously missing in the text; they could not be retrieved from other sources. The missing numbers have been highlighted by triple underscores (___).

The side notes provide links to the corresponding illustrations in volumes II and III. Such links might not be operational in the e-book versions. Footnotes have been moved to the end of the respective section.

PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF

Navigation Congresses

38, Rue de Louvain, 38

BRUSSELS

SHIPBUILDING FROM ITS
BEGINNINGS
VOL. I

SHIPBUILDING
FROM
ITS BEGINNINGS

SHIPBUILDING FROM ITS BEGINNINGS

BY

E. VAN KONIJNENBURG, C.E.,

ENGINEER OF THE RIJKSWATERSTAAT OF THE NETHERLANDS

1895-1905

PUBLISHED

BY

THE PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF

CONGRESSES OF NAVIGATION

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE — OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL

38, RUE DE LOUVAIN, 38

BRUSSELS

VOL. I

Original Title Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

			Page
PREFACE			[11]
Division of Europe according to the shape of vessels: Northern centre—Baltic Sea—Southern centre—Mediterranean Sea.
SOUTHERN CENTRE.
CHAPTER I			[13]
The Egyptians			[13]
The Phœnicians			[17]
The Greeks and Romans			[19]
The Mediterranean in the Middle Ages			[23]
Galleys			[23]
Types of ships in the XVIIIth century			[28]
NORTHERN CENTRE.
CHAPTER II			[33]
Vikings’ vessel			[34]
The Cog			[36]
Influence of the Crusades			[38]
Use of the rudder			[38]
The galley in the Netherlands			[39]
Use of Artillery			[40]
Baertzen			[40]
Krayers and Hulken			[41]
Use of carvel laid planking			[41]
The ship in the XVIth century			[44]
Use of the square-stern ship			[44]
Use of the ports			[45]
The Flyboat			[45]
The Pinnace			[46]
The square-stern ship			[47]
The Flute—the Kuff—the Smack			[47]
Transition of the ship of the XVIth century to that of the XVIIth century			[49]
The war ship (first war navy)			[49]
France			[52]
England			[53]
The Netherlands			[54]
Merchant marine of the Netherlands			[57]
Use of the frigate			[58]
Fireships			[58]
CHAPTER III			[61]
Classification of vessels			[65]
I.—War ships			[65]
[II.—Merchant vessels]		for over seas navigation	[66]
		for the coasting trade	[66]
III.—Ferries			[67]
IV.—Vessels for sundry uses			[67]
V.—Boats intended for the upper rivers (Bovenlanders)			[68]
VI.—Fishing vessels			[70]
CHAPTER IV			[71]
Description of the types of vessels			[71]
The Pinnace			[71]
The Flyboat			[71]
The Katship			[72]
Ship of the Dutch East India Company			[72]
The Boeier			[72]
The Howker			[72]
The Bush			[72]
The Hekboot			[72]
The Straetsvaerder			[73]
The Stokker			[73]
The Frigate			[73]
The Galliot			[73]
The Galeas			[74]
The Koff			[74]
The Smak			[75]
The Smalschip and the Wijdschip			[75]
The Damlooper			[75]
The Tjalk			[76]
The Schuit and the Poon			[76]
The Kaag			[76]
The Steigerschuit			[77]
The Yacht			[77]
The Boeierschuit			[77]
The Pleit			[77]
The Otter			[77]
The Mot			[78]
The Spitsche Mot			[78]
The Ever			[78]
The Bremerkahn			[78]
The Potten and the Pujen			[78]
The Snijboon and the Somp or Pegge			[79]
The Hoogeveensche Praam			[79]
The Praam (pram)			[79]
The Koftjalk			[81]
The Kraak			[82]
The Skiff			[82]
The Ponton			[82]
The Halve Pont or Pijper			[83]
The Gierpont			[83]
The Kabelveerpont			[83]
The Bok			[84]
The Snik			[84]
The Westlander			[85]
The Kaag			[85]
The Utrecht Pram			[85]
The Schouw			[86]
The Trekschuit			[86]
The Yacht			[86]
The Baggeraak			[86]
The Bagger- or Moddermolen			[87]
The Tjotter			[88]
The Laadbak and the Zolderschuit			[88]
The Onderlegger			[88]
THE BOVENLANDERS			[89]
The Rhine			[89]
The Dorstensche Aak			[89]
The Stevenschip			[90]
The Turfijker and the Hagenaar			[90]
The Keen			[90]
The Keenaak			[90]
The Lahnaak and the Slof			[91]
The Meuse			[91]
The The Whalemajol, etc.			[91]
CHAPTER V			[93]
Fishing boats			[93]
The Egmonder Pink			[93]
The Bush			[93]
The Kwee and the Hoekerbuis			[96]
The Hoeker (howker)			[96]
The Haringjager and the Buisconvoyer			[96]
The Sloep (sloop)			[96]
The Logger (lugger)			[97]
The Bom			[97]
The Garnalenschuit			[97]
The Scholschuit or Bazaanschuit			[97]
The Zwartewaalsche Gaffelaar			[97]
The Schokker			[98]
The Haringschuit			[99]
The Punter and the Gondel			[99]
The Hoogaars			[99]
The Steekschuit			[100]
The Hengst			[100]
The Botter			[100]
The Blazer			[100]
The Lemmeraak			[100]
The Bolle and the Knots			[100]
The Jol			[101]
Use of fishing boats on the Zuiderzee			[101]
The Waterschip			[102]
CHAPTER VI			[103]
Belgian craft			[103]
The Tournaisien			[103]
The Chaland			[103]
The Bélandre			[103]
The Pointu			[104]
The Prij			[104]
CHAPTER VII			[105]
Development of the types of vessels in the North-East of Europe in relation to the first inhabitants of the Netherlands			[105]

De scheeps- en sterke bouw

’t heeft ons ’t gebruik geleert,

Dees gaf ons wet en reght

Hoe men de landen heert.[1]

(NIC. WITSEN.)

HOLLAND’S struggle for life has been a constant battle against the invasion of water. If this has been, on the one hand, an enemy to be feared, it has been, on the other, the natural line of communication above all others which has made our ancestors, since time immemorial, a nation of seamen. The boat was a necessity as indispensable as the house.

It is impossible to say who invented the boat; every one has contributed his mite to its building and this has given rise to its gradual development. The discovery that wood would float was due, evidently, to chance.

Use must have been made first of the trunk of a single tree, and afterwards several must have been joined together to make a raft.

Then came the hollowed trunk which was followed, in its turn, by a boat with a framework covered with skins from which the finished boat was born.

Between the floating trunk of a tree and the most complete ship, there have come into existence all sorts of intermediate forms, of which most are still to be found even in our day.

[III 1]

Noah, according to the writers of antiquity, must have been the first shipwright. The old authors enter into circumstantial details on this subject and give various drawings of Noah’s “ark”. Several of these drawings are reproduced in the atlas of this work. The only value of these reproductions of the ark lies in the fact that they probably represent a ship of the time of their author. It must also be noted that the first shipbuilder is as entirely unknown as the first inventor of the boat. That which is beyond any doubt is; that the mutual influences of various nations have been important factors in the evolution of the ship. This latter, on its side, served to bring into contact nations widely separated by water and to open up countries as yet unexplored.

Hence shipbuilding must first have shone forth, under these conditions, among the most civilized races.

Mexico and Peru excepted, it may be said that civilization was developed first among the Chinese in the valley of the Hoang-Ho, then among the Babylonians in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, and among the Egyptians in the valley of the Nile.

The question of knowing whether the Babylonians learned shipbuilding from the Chinese, or the reverse, is one of minor importance. It is certain however that reciprocal influences were at work among the races of Asia Minor and there is no doubt that the Babylonians influenced the Phœnicians, the pioneer shipwrights of the Mediterranean. The Egyptians, who were not a seafaring people do not here enter into consideration.

As the Netherlands lay under the action exercised in Europe, where the development of naval architecture went on about two independent centres, that of the Baltic and that of the Mediterranean, Asia may be set aside in so far as its parts not bordering on the Mediterranean are concerned.

After the Baltic, which will be called the northern centre, had introduced shipbuilding among us, this centre, in so far as over seas navigation is concerned, came into contact with the Mediterranean, which will be called the southern centre, through the movements of commerce and navigation, and finally the two became fused with each other.

It is easy to see that the influence of the northern centre was preponderant on our naval architecture, hence its importance is capital for us.

The few vessels of ancient times which have been found show us what a high degree of perfection shipbuilding had already reached in almost prehistoric times; the finish of these vessels and the care given to their ornamentation might also be noticed. These observations are not extraordinary, when the large part played by the ship in the existence of nations is borne in mind; the contrary would rather have caused surprise. Nor is it astonishing that the chances of the sea should have been faced with small boats. For are not the valiant fishermen of to-day seen facing the waves of the sea, in still smaller boats than those of the ancients, to ply their rude and perilous trade, and that too during the entire year? For let it not be forgotten indeed, that ocean navigation during the Middle Ages was, as a matter of fact, carried on only in Summer. NIC. WITSEN wrote in 1671, p. 195 of his book, on this subject: “dat men oulinckx in deze landen nimmer ’t zee ging als naer besloten boeken, besproken uiterste wille en met God zich te hebben verzoent: wanneer men het gevaar meer ontzag als heden nu dorst men althans zee kiezen zonder aanzien van tijdt of weer van outs wiert de zee gesloten in de quaetste tijden van het jaar!”[2]

To know what we can do, to know of what we are capable, and, above all, to know what there is still to be learned and even what has to be imitated, are the most important demands of all individual education as they are the fundamental requirements of a race which, after all, is but an unit in the series of the nations.

May this book add its mite to a knowledge of the gradual evolution of shipbuilding; may it also cause to disappear this ridiculous way in which ancient ships used to be represented and, most of all, may it awaken the love for the building of ships.

I am, in this connection, fully of the opinion expressed by WITSEN as follows: “Zoo groot dunkt mij de waerdigheidt dezer wetenschap te zijn dat niemant derzelve hier ten lande, daar de zeevaert de sterkste zenuwe van den staet is, behoorde onkundig te zijn.”[3]

[1] Necessity has taught us naval architecture and the art of war, which give the means by which to dominate the nations.

[2] That, in this country, in former times, when greater fear was felt of the dangers of the sea than is now the case when they are faced in all kinds of weather, people never put off from shore without first having settled their accounts, made their wills and partaken of the Holy Communion. In the old days, the sea was closed during the bad season.

[3] The value of this science seems to me so great that none of my fellow countrymen can afford not to be acquainted with it, as navigation is the nerve and sinew of the nation.

THE Egyptians were not a nation of mariners. Their navigation, at the beginning, was limited to the Nile alone; it was only later that they ventured out to sea, preceded and assisted by the Phœnicians. Their vessels were and continued to be river boats. The question of knowing whether the Egyptians borrowed the art of building them from the Babylonians, or whether their art was developed independently of any other is of little importance here and, furthermore, it cannot be solved by the nautical knowledge which we possess. (ERMANN, p. 679.—Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, pp. 25-33.)

[II 1]

That which is certain is that the Babylonians and the Egyptians had their vessels already in the most remote antiquity; this follows (L’Anthropologie, 1899, Vol. X, p. 517, and HOLMES, 1900, p. 9) from the decorations on ancient vases which are supposed to date from 6000 to 4000 years B. C.

[II 2]

Doubts have arisen at times—but wrongly in my opinion—as to the question of knowing whether the decorations in question really do represent vessels. Although the drawings are too primitive to furnish any data relating to the form of the boats, it can surely be said, however, that only vessels propelled by oars are there shown and that sailing vessels were probably still unknown at this time. The lines at the bottom of the boats, considered sometimes, but wrongly, as indicating fishing apparatus (Recherches sur les Origines de l’Égypte, DE MORGAN, pp. 91 and 92), represent the propelling oars, and the long strokes at the stern of the boat, the steering oars. The boats were not moved forward by oars but by paddles, which is the oldest mode of the propulsion used, as can still be seen by the interrupted line of rowers found again, still later, among the Egyptians.

The reasons for the almost exclusive use of the oar or the paddle for propelling boats are to be sought in the mobility of the bottom and hence in variations of the navigable passages of the Nile. To these should also be added the great changes in the height of the water and the sudden dead calms. Sails were used later, it is true, but rowing and towing still continued to be employed along with the sails.

The shape of the vessel depended upon the use for which it was intended, so that there can be distinguished among the Egyptians: boats for transportation, boats for towing and boats for fishing. It is not known whether they had any war vessels. Pleasure boats and boats used for travelling by persons of rank formed a large flotilla. (Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 25, and Aegypten by ADOLPHE ERMANN, p. 639.)

The Egyptian boats were flat, as a rule, with the bow and stern rising with a slight slope above the water, the stern generally higher than the bow in order, so it seems, to give the steersmen a better purchase. (Aegypten, ADOLPHE ERMANN, p. 637.)

[II 2]
[II 3]
[II 4]
[II 5]
[II 13]

Under the ancient Empire, about 5000 to 3200 B. C., boats were moved by paddles, the boatmen facing the bow. Still, even in these distant times, oars were already employed and, toward the end of this period, they were in general use. This is shown clearly by figures on the monuments of this age, where the rowers no longer face the bow but are turned toward the stern. (HOLMES, p. 13; ERMANN, p. 640; Ancient Ships by CECIL TOR, 1894.) Paddling was kept in use only for boats made of papyrus. When the boats were driven by oars, the latter passed through the side of the vessel or through rings arranged for this purpose. Each oar was worked by a single oarsman. The boat was steered by means of oars, rather larger than the others, and handled also each by a single man. The number of steering oars, as well as the number of steersmen, depended on the number of oarsmen (ERMANN, p. 641.) For example: for eight oarsmen there were at least two steersmen; for fourteen there were three steersmen, and four for twenty-one oarsmen, etc.

[II 13]
[II 14]

Already, under the ancient Empire, the sail is shown alongside of the oar. The mast, placed in the middle of the boat, was composed of two posts placed crossways and fastened together at the top; this form of procedure is characteristic of the time of the old Empire.

The rigging, set in the longitudinal axis of the vessel, was composed of a heavy rope leading forward and of several lighter ones, generally from six to twelve, leading aft.

The sail, which was rectangular in shape, was always attached between two yards, one of which held the head, the other the foot of the sail, a system followed exclusively in Egypt. Two ropes led aft from the upper yard, which was fastened to the top of the mast, so as to give the means to turn the sail to the wind.

Here are a few figures which will give some idea of the dimensions which were in use.

A relatively large boat, 16 metres long, had ordinary oars 3 metres long, steering oars of 6 metres, a mast 10 metres high with a yard of 6 metres. The area of the sail was about 60 to 70 square metres, hence it was higher than it was wide. (ERMANN, p. 639.) In calm weather, which was not infrequent, the vessel was driven by oars or else was towed. The mast was then lowered and wrapped in the sail.

In order to attach the rope which connected the vessel with the towing boat, there was used generally a piece of wood set either in the bow alone, or in the bow and the stern: this was the arrangement especially for freight boats. These latter had no rigging, as a rule; they could scarcely make room for a few oarsmen, because the greater part of the boat was occupied by the cabin.

As a general rule, small rowboats were used for towing.

The art of shipbuilding made a great advance under the middle Empire (B. C. 3200-2100). Except for the small papyrus boat, vessels were all propelled by oars and no longer by paddles. The steering oars, which were difficult to handle, were replaced by a single large rudder which could be worked by one man.

The rigging was also changed. The upper yard no longer rested on the mast; it was attached thereto in such a way that it could be removed. The sail was less high, its width was increased and the mast became relatively shorter; finally, the double mast, which was so characteristic of the ancient Empire, was replaced by a single mast.

[II 8]

Under the new Empire, (inclusive of the interregnum of the Hyksos B. C. 2100 to 1600) B. C. 1600 to 730, the art of shipbuilding made no advance. Luxury only increased, especially for the cabins which had already appeared during the time of the middle Empire.

The special feature of this period was the increasing width of the sail. This width was so great that the yards had to be made of two pieces joined near the mast. The following figures give an idea of this constant increase of the sail. (ERMANN, pp. 643 et suiv.)

[II 18]
etc.

Under the ancient Empire, the mast was 10 metres long and the yard was 6 metres. Under the middle Empire, these lengths were, respectively, 5 and 6 metres, and under the new Empire they were 5 and 10 metres.

As the result of this constant increase of the width of the sail, the rigging became more complicated and a top was placed at the head of the mast in order to handle the lines from there.

[II 4]

The scarceness of wood in Egypt was the cause, from the most distant times, of recourse being had to other materials for the construction of vessels. Papyrus answered this purpose very well. This aquatic plant when cut, dried and made up in bundles, formed the material of which the boats were made.

[II 5]

The papyri were laid side by side and a whole was made of them by ties placed at close intervals. (ERMANN, p. 593; NICOLAS WITSEN, p. 6; Archéologie navale, by A. JAL, Vol. I, p. 91.)

Several drawings found on old monuments show us the Egyptians engaged in this work.

The papyrus barks formed a sort of rafts of reeds, judging by these drawings which represent the oarsmen standing upright on the boats.

These latter were small; attempts made later to build them of larger size appear to have failed. As a general rule, the wood intended for the construction of the larger vessels had to be imported.

The many pictures on monuments and the large number of models found, enable a very fair idea of the shape of the ancient Egyptian ship to be formed, and it can be seen at the same time that these shapes were little changed.

Before describing these models, it will be rather interesting to note that, as a general rule, the oldest ones are not reproduced in accordance with the proportions adopted in practice; they are too high and too broad for the length. Taken by themselves, the stem and the sternpost are well shown, but the intermediate body is too short. The cause of this must be sought in the fact that these models are made from nature and not by taking the dimensions of the boats from carefully prepared drawings. Proceeding in this way, it is very difficult to give exactly the relative dimensions of the boats, especially in the relations between length and breadth. This is why the vessels are drawn so often with too little length. So, many old models must be accepted with the necessary reserves.

The vessels shown in mural paintings are generally much better proportioned than those represented by models. In the mural paintings, when the boat is shown in profile, there was no reason to consider the beam; all the same, the figures are often too large.

According to BELGER (“Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde”, XXXIII, p. 24), the models which have been found should be placed in two classes:

a) solid models made from a massive piece of wood, and

b) hollow models which are, evidently, a more faithful reproduction of the ship.

Belger also shows that, in group a, the parts painted white must be considered as not existing, while those painted brown really do exist.

It appears, generally, from the examination of these models that the Egyptian boats were not of deep draught; they had, necessarily, to draw but little water on account of the small depth and the frequent changes in the navigable portions of the river. The mural paintings, on their side, show that the bottom length was one-third of the total length. (ERMANN, p. 637; BELGER, p. 25, XXXIII-1895, et id. p. 26.)

[II 8]

The boats were flat-bottomed with very low sides, so that, in order to prevent the water from coming in, movable upper sides were often used. The outside planking was smooth (all the models are worked in this way) and the boats were finished with neither stem nor sternpost. The keel, in like manner, was not shown on the models, but this would not allow us to say, however, that it never really existed.

How then could the vessel have sufficient strength under these conditions?

[II 10]

This explanation is given by the representation of an ancient boat, exhumed about eleven years ago, shown in “Wassersport” of January 4, 1906, (No 1). The form of this boat shows that there were neither frames nor keel; but, on the other hand, the planking is very thick (36 millimetres) and is formed of joists close laid and dovetailed together; the middle joist which takes the place of the keel is, besides, thicker than the others but it does not project below the hull of the boat. The latter is therefore perfectly smooth on the outside. The keelson forms a whole with the floor and follows up to the very ends of the bow and stern.

The benches for the rowers served as braces for the sides of the vessel; and when this was quite large, the sides, by reason of their greater length, were supported near the middle by a timber laid in the longitudinal axis of the vessel.

At the point where the mast was put up, this timber was made double and embraced the foot of the mast to which it gave the required support. In smaller boats, where this beam is not met with, the support for the mast was formed by a special arrangement which is found in the models.

The bow and stern are always shown to be solid (painted brown), which allows it to be supposed that there were decks at the two ends.

The benches for the rowers passed through the planking and gave greater stiffness to the boats; these benches are indicated on most of the reliefs by small squares on the sides of the vessel. The steering oar was supported, on the other hand, by a beam which passed across the boat and which is shown by a small rectangle.

It has been sometimes believed, but wrongly, in my opinion, that these rectangles were windows in the cabin. (See Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 22.)

A very nearly identical method of proceeding can be noted in the barks formerly used by the Arabs of the Black Sea, and reproduced in PARIS’s work, Vol. I, No 59 (see also the models from the Dutch East Indies which appear in the collection of the Technical University at Delft).

This wholly original mode of construction, which was never in use in the North of Europe, bears witness to the fact that the art of shipbuilding in Egypt was more closely related to that of Asia (India and China) than to that of Northern Europe. But this should not be a matter of astonishment.

[II 11]

The proof that these little rectangles, just mentioned, do not represent windows is given by a figure, found in the temple of Dês-el-Bahari (Ancient and Modern Ships, HOLMES, p. 20), which reproduces a boat carrying an obelisk. In the side of this vessel, there are not one, but three superposed rows of these little rectangles. This ship was made exceptionally strong, in proportion to the loads which it had to carry. It would be hard to admit that the side would have been pierced by three superposed rows of windows. An endeavor rather has been made to put in a suitable cross bracing. In the boat which tows the larger vessel, furthermore, there is but one row of rectangles, and these are placed below the gunwale, at the points where the rowers sit. Here it has been considered enough to let the benches of the oarsmen pass through.

Boats intended for carrying freight were a little shorter and more round than the others and were towed, as a rule. They had generally a towing bitt at the top of the bow and sometimes even a second one at the top of the stern. A few had sails and rigging, but generally they could also be propelled by oars. The free space on deck was occupied ordinarily by a cabin (made of laths and covered with cloth). Rather flat at the bow, these boats rose sensibly toward the stern.

[II 20]

As has been said already, it is not known whether the Egyptians had any vessels built exclusively for military purposes. It would seem not, if it be remembered that most of the actions between vessels had no other scene than the river. Furthermore, only one single representation of a naval fight at sea is found, it having taken place under Ramses III (B. C. 1180-1150). Here is another proof that the Egyptians were not a race of seamen, and this is all the more marked as the war ships seen are not of pure Egyptian type. The subject will be taken up again.

JAL gives in his celebrated work, Archéologie navale, p. 68, a few figures about the size of Egyptian boats. According to this author, the largest boats were not more than 39.00 m. long nor more than 5.19 m., or say 5.20 m. wide. The width was to the length, therefore, as 1 to 7.5, a proportion which was maintained for vessels with oars up to the middle ages.

In the matter of the speed of ships, the same author puts it at about 9 kilometres an hour (p. 110). In order to reduce the speed at the rapids of the rivers, there was attached to the boat a rope of which the free end was made fast to a block of stone. This stone slid along the bed of the river and offered a sufficient resistance; although the anchor was not known to the Egyptians, they were, as a matter of fact, its inventors. (JAL, Archéologie navale, p. 103.)

Before ending this chapter, a few more remarks will be made which are applicable to nearly all Egyptian vessels.

The benches for the oarsmen were always perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the boat, this being necessary in view of the special construction of the vessels.

Under the Middle Empire, small extra elevations supplied with a hand rail were erected on the forecastle and poop decks. They were, respectively, the posts of the captain and helmsman.

[II 20]

The mast, erected near the middle of the ship, was movable on all vessels. The double mast under the Old Empire rested in two shoes set on either side of the longitudinal axis. The single mast (under the Middle and New Empires) went down to the bottom of the hold and rested against the beams which held up the rowers’ benches; it was also fixed by ropes (this appears clearly on several reliefs), either directly or by means of a step, as is shown on the model at Berlin. (See BELGER, pp. 27-29.) In this latter case, the mast was fastened to the step itself, a manner of consolidating which is still applied even now. In this respect, a relief coming from a mortuary chamber and now at the museum of Gizeh offers a great deal of interest. This relief shows a mast being let down, and Belger, the author already quoted, calls attention, in this connection, to the fact that the sculptor let the extreme part of the mast fall behind the coat of the man who is occupied with the task, probably because he did not know what to do with it. Then too only two of the five oarsmen of this style of boat appear in this reproduction, whereas, if the drawing were well made, it would follow therefrom that the brackets shown on sundry models abaft of the benches of the rowers, were only to serve as a support to the backs of these last. The great length of the boats and their relatively small immersed length, required special precautions against the hogging of the ship. A rope was stretched from bow to stern along the longitudinal axis of the vessel. This rope was supported on forks and was fastened bow and stern to a cable which ran around the boat. (Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 32.)

[II 12]

The operation of putting up some of these forks is seen in a number of the pictures. Ermann calls attention to the fact, but wrongly in my opinion, that in one of these figures, the crew is occupied in stretching the rope in order to give to the boat the desired curve. (ERMANN, p. 604.) That this is not so comes out clearly, for me, first from the fact that the boat is already shored and hence has already received its final shape. In the second place, the shores would not be kept in position if the form of the ship were being modified; hence, they would not have been drawn. Finally, it is hard to admit that some of the hands should continue to work quietly on the ship, as shown in the picture, while others are, so to speak, in the act of strengthening its curve; because the sides must have spread, necessarily, during this latter operation. Consequently the men are employed merely in setting up the fork which is to carry the rope. It is easy to understand, besides, that this should be done before the shores are removed because after they are taken away the rope would have become properly taut at the least bending of the ship.

[II 17]
[II 19]

It follows, from what precedes, that the Egyptian boat was not a sea craft. Even the boats which went as far as Phœnicia, situated on the Red Sea, and must have been real sea vessels, are represented in the figures in absolutely the same way as are the ordinary river craft.

When King Necho (B. C. 612 to 596), who encouraged commerce, felt the need for possessing a fleet, he applied to some Greeks for the construction of sea-going ships, and Phœnicians, not Egyptians, were employed for great maritime expeditions. (ERMANN, p. 646; HOLMES, p. 26; Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN p. 39; G. MASPORO, Histoire Ancienne des Peuples d’Orient, 1893, pp. 536 and 537.) It was the Phœnicians, and not the Egyptians, who thus became the pioneers of shipbuilding in the Mediterranean.

It is a general phenomenon to see nations, who enter into reciprocal relations, copy very quickly, from each other whatever pertains to the art of shipbuilding. And, could it be otherwise? The struggle for life produces this phenomenon in a perfectly natural way both in military and commercial affairs. When a fleet was not able to stand up against that of the enemy, vessels similar to those of the adversary or even stronger were built. So it was formerly, so it is to-day. But the special features which in the past characterized the ships of the different peoples have passed away, and at the present time the nationality of vessels can no longer be recognized save by the flags which they fly. It is not surprising, therefore, that the different nations, which used to dwell on the shores of the Mediterranean and which reached their prime almost simultaneously, or shortly after one other, did not each have a type of boat belonging especially to its own country.

Alas! little remains of the vessels of antiquity and most of the pictures which have been found, are much less clear than are those of the Egyptians. The sculptors devoted their attention more to the beautiful lines of the ship than to the necessity of giving an exact idea of its construction. Writers, on the other hand are distinguished by exaggeration and emphasis when it is a question of the size of vessels.

There is nothing certain known in regard to dimensions, to the form of ships or to the number of oars. It is not likely that ships of extraordinary dimensions existed. JAL expresses this so well, when he says in his work already mentioned the “Archéologie navale”: “I do not believe any more in the ‘quadraginta ordinum’ galley, 143.43 m. long, 15.27 m. wide and 23.38 m. high above the water than I believe in the long horse which carried the four sons of Aymon“ (p. 117.) (See also Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines, part 36, p. 24; Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 62; JAL, Archéologie Navale, 1840, Vol. I, p. 110.)

The art of shipbuilding was developed in the beginning among the Phœnicians and allied peoples, but it is not possible to say exactly which of these nations was its true promoter. The most primitive forms were found at that time side by side with more perfect models. So it is that Herodotus tells us that the peoples of Asia Minor (Armenians) came down the river toward Babylon in small boats having a hull made of linden branches covered with skins. (See WITSEN, pp. 9 and 16; Livre d’Hérodote, I, 194; Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 27; A. JAL, p. 88.) Straw was laid on the bottom of the boat and one or two asses were carried in addition to the cargo. Arrived at Babylon, the boatmen sold their cargo, as well as the straw and the timbers of their boat, and, with the skins loaded on the backs of the asses, made their way back home. The current of the river was too strong to allow taking the boats up stream.

[II 21]

At this same time more perfect boats were navigating the Mediterranean. The oldest picture of boats of a certain tonnage dates from B. C. 1150 and shows the sea fight between the Egyptians and the Barbarians to which allusion has already been made. (See, ROSSELLINI; JAL, Archéologie navale, 1845, Vol. I, p. 65; Jahrbuch des Kaiserlichen Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Vol. VII, 1892, p. 44.) So far as the shape of the boats is concerned, this picture tells little. It merely lets us see that the vessels of the belligerents differed from each other. Moreover, it is seen at once that the Egyptian ships were propelled by oars and that the others were not. Certain authors have deduced from this fact that the vessels of the Barbarians were sailing ships, which, from my view, is not evident. The Egyptians are, in fact, armed with bows and arrows, and the Barbarians with swords. If the former sought their might in quick movements, the latter could only do battle by boarding; under these conditions, the oarsmen could only have been in the way and this explains their absence, or else they also swung the sword; whereas, among the Egyptians, the vanquished had, probably to act as oarsmen and remained at their oars. (See JAL, Archéologie navale, Vol. I, pp. 52 et seq.) It is probable that the sculptor wished to show that the Egyptians fought differently from the other nations. Finally, the Egyptian vessels in question differed sensibly from those described at the beginning of this work. It is more than likely that these vessels were not Egyptian ships of war, but ships built by more northern nations like the Phœnicians or copied from their models. The rigging is not Egyptian; the sail has but one yard.

Let it be mentioned here that there is in the British Museum at London an amphora coming from the Polledrara (the tomb of Vulci), which Munay (Journal of Hell. Stud., 1889, p. 247) causes to date from the second half of the VIIth century B. C., and on which is a drawing of a Greek ship with Egyptian rigging; the sail is fastened to two yards, a custom which is characteristic of Egypt. (Jahrbuch des Kaiserlichen Deutschen Archeologischen Instituts, Vol. VII, 1892, p. 42.)

The Phœnicians had several kinds of boats and appear to have had more pronounced ships of war. These latter were long and narrow for quick movements; the others, on the contrary, were short and broad for large cargo capacity. (Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN-HOLMES, p. 26.)

[II 23]

There are few data about the primitive Phœnician ships. The oldest reproduction is the one given in Layard’s work. It is a drawing made from a bas-relief preserved in the palace of Sennacherib (about B. C. 700). But this drawing is rudimentary and the dimensions are out of proportion, the drawing is exaggerated. It also contains some apocryphal additions. Consequently, but little importance can be attached to it.

This reproduction is remarkable under only two respects: in the first place, because it represents biremes, although it may be doubted whether the two banks of oars were used at the same time; secondly, the ships have rams. This peculiarity differentiates the Phœnician ships sensibly from those of the Egyptians. (Dictionnaire des Antiquité grecques et romaines, p. 25; Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 30.) It is the oldest reproduction known of boats having rams.

The Phœnicians, by their expeditions along the shores of the Mediterranean, toward Greece, Italy, Africa and even as far as England, according to some authors, while others take them even to the Baltic Sea, exerted a great influence on the art of shipbuilding as it was practised on the Mediterranean. This influence must have made itself felt in the colonies which they founded, and among which Carthage was the most important. There is no doubt that the naval architecture of the Phœnicians differed little from that of the Greeks and from that of the Romans. Let it be remembered, in this connection, that the old models of ships in the Netherlands, for example, remained unchanged for many centuries and that the same fact has been found everywhere else. It is permissible, then, to assume that the types of boats which existed in the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages do not depart greatly from those which date from the time of the Romans.

If the progressive development of the ship through the ages be considered, it is unlikely that the ancients built ships of fabulous dimensions; on the contrary, their vessels must have been rather small.

The first important changes effected in ships were the consequence of the invention of gunpowder, and are not directly related to the evolution of nations. The new direction given to the art of shipbuilding does not coincide therefore with the end of Ancient History and the beginning of the History of the Middle Ages. It seems, then, inexact, under these conditions, to speak of the art of the ancients as of something which forms an isolated whole.

If, judging by the models exhumed, the Egyptian ship had already reached a high degree of perfection, the Egyptians were still having recourse to the lights of the Phœnicians, it is evident that the Phœnician ship must have been the better. Therefore, all the old reproductions, without distinction, leave much to be desired, the result, doubtless, of the incapacity of the sculptor or the painter, which still happens very often in our own time.

Layard’s reproduction shows that biremes have existed since the earliest times. It must not be forgotten, in this connection, to invite attention to the Greek “Dipylon” vases on which two banks of superposed oarsmen are shown. These reproductions are, however, so primitive that it seems to me hazardous to deduce any conclusions from them. As a matter of fact, it may be assumed up to a certain point that the upper bank of oarsmen represents the after bank and that, instead of being superposed, one set of oarsmen followed after the other.

The oars of the upper bank are not drawn in full, which shows that the rowers followed one another and were not placed the ones above the others. It is deduced from this that all these drawings should be accepted with the greatest circumspection.

In the Middle Ages, there were several oarsmen to an oar; more reliance was placed on a more rapid movement of the oars than on the increase of their numbers, to obtain a greater speed.

It cannot be said exactly when the transition was brought about. But the oldest method of propulsion is, in any case, the one in which each oar was worked by a single man for a single oar; it was taken, so it would seem, from the boats using paddles, each paddle being handled by one man.

The relative positions, which might be taken by the rowers who worked superposed banks of oars, have given rise to many suppositions which it is superfluous to examine in detail.

Nothing more will be done than to recall the trials of propulsion by oars, undertaken on the initiative of the Emperor Napoleon III, on a galley built especially for these experiments. It was shown that the trireme was a possible thing but, that a boat of this sort was so encumbered by rowers that no space was left for the cargo. (See the work Le Musée du Louvre, “Constructions navales dans l’Antiquité.”)

The result of the researches made may be stated as follows:

All the ideas put forth in regard to the number of banks of oars and to the respective places occupied by the oarsmen rest only on hypotheses. There have been more than one bank of rowers, but it is probable, however, that it was exceptional when there were more than two. Each oar at the beginning was handled by a single man. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th Edition, p. 806; HOLMES, p. 44; TORR, p. 18; WITSEN, p. 13.)

As a general rule, vessels moved by oars underwent little change after the invention of gunpowder. The propelling force could not be developed because it was not possible to increase the number of oars without trouble (Archéologie Navale, A. JAL, Vol. I, p. 50; Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines, p. 40; idem p. 30).

So, JAL, in the “Archéologie Navale”, refuses to admit that there were ships as large as the “Great Eastern” in the times of the Greeks and Romans.

According to the monument of Prora of Samothrace, thole pins may already have been known to the ancients. Dr. ASSMANN gives much information on this point (Baumeister Denkmälen Seewesen, p. 1632, fig. 1693).

[II 24]

The habit, not yet wholly given up, of painting an eye at the bow, on each side of the stem, proves how long old customs may last. It was already a habit of the Phœnicians, the Greeks and the Romans, and it is still found on a few Italian and Portuguese vessels (See: Das Seewesen, der Griechen und Römer by Dr. EMIL LÜBECK, 1890, p. 43; ASSMANN, Seewesen, p. 1597; Jahrbuch des Deutsch. Archeol. Instituts, 1889, p. 99; Archéologie Navale, JAL, p. 105; Ancient Ships by TORR, p. 69).

These eyes were a symbol: they were intended to show that the ship was seeking its own path, they have been considered sometimes, but wrongly, to be hawse holes.

Old forms have also been long preserved, and among these the ram is the most remarkable.

[II 54]
[II 59]

In this order of ideas, the Speronara of Malta, which appears in Paris’s work, Vol. IV, n^o 203 (n^o 164, etc.) is the most interesting example of the Mediterranean. The stem of this boat rises vertically from the water and is provided with a ram; even the eyes too are there.

Maltese boats without a ram are to be seen in the same figure, but these vessels differ little from the Speronara.

By bringing Layard’s drawing above mentioned close to this one, there will be seen in each some boats having a ram and a mast while others have none, but have stems which rise vertically above the water.

It can be concluded from this that, as far back as the times of the Phœnicians, ships already presented these same differences.

Hence there is no doubt that the Speronara represents a Phœnician type of boat, in which the steering oar is replaced by a rudder.

There is no entire agreement as to the place occupied by the ram. Some persons place it above, others below the load-water line. Be this as it may, it is found on all the ancient models and, in most cases, the bottom line of the ship is prolonged in a straight or a slightly curved line as far as the ram.

The constant presence of this latter element in the reproductions, allows the conclusion that it was placed not below but above the water. If the contrary had been the case, the ram could not have made so great an impression on the painters and sculptors. As for the rest, all the ancient types, on which traces of a ram are found, carry this element above the water line.

The fact that the bottom line ended in the ram, does not prove that this latter was below the water, for this line was invisible, and the draughtsmen, who were uninitiated in the art of shipbuilding, not knowing any other means for representing it, cut the ship off at the water line; but as the drawing then appeared rather strange, they added a curved line joining the ram to the sternpost.

If several of the old pictures be considered from this standpoint and if the curious bottom lines drawn by the draughtsmen be covered by better lines borrowed from the Speronara or from ancient galleys, these reproductions acquire a wholly different meaning.

If little be known about the ancient Phœnician boat, a more thorough knowledge of the Greek or Roman ship has been reached, through researches, especially in the matter of dimensions.

It is settled that the Ancients had dock yards containing sheds for the shelter of vessels from which the running rigging had been removed while the standing parts were left. (See: Das Seewezen der Gr. und R. by Dr. EM. LÜBECK, 1890, p. 2.) These sheds give an idea of the sizes of their ships.

The excavations made by Lieutenant von Alten (Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., p. 5), attached to the Imperial German Archeological Institute (1876-1877), have shown that the figures given by Graser are inaccurate. The dimensions of eight docks could be measured at Munichia, and these structures were 6.25 m. wide by 21.20 m. long.

Later excavations brought to light at Zoa some docks 5.50 m. wide and about 40 metres long, measured along the bank. (Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., idem p. 6.)

The dimensions of the ships must, therefore, have been relatively small.

It is generally granted that the beam of the Greek ship propelled by oars is less than that of the galleys of the Middle Ages.

According to JAL (Archéologie Navale), the ratio of the beam to the length, in the middle ages, was for war vessels: 1 : 8; for merchant ships it was 1 : 7. Graser found that among the Greeks this ratio was 1 : 8¼, and according to SERRE (La Marine de guerre de l’Antiquité, p. 33) and LEMAÎTRE (Revue archéologique 1833, Vol. 8, pp. 149 et seq.) its value was 1 : 9.

Hence the vessels were narrow as compared with their length, which increased their degree of mobility.

Besides, the depth of the docks discovered shows that the boats drew but little and, consequently, that the ships slid along in a way, on the water.

In this respect too, the ancient boats did not differ much from those of the Middle Ages. Neglecting this detail, among others, Graser reaches a type of ship having far too great a draught.

Alongside of the war vessels, naves longæ, there were the merchant vessels, naves onerariæ. It was natural that great mobility should be sought for the former; it is this which explains the lengthened shape of these boats, whereas the merchant ships were shorter and had more beam.

Later, but still several centuries B. C., when the power of Rome was developed, when its population increased and when the importation of wheat and other provisions became more and more important and had to be made more and more quickly, the ship with oars was used as a merchant vessel in addition to the short, wide boat.

The Roman freight galleys seem, further on, to have been made broader, like those of the Middle Ages, with a view to increasing their capacity. But no new type followed from this; it was merely a new application of existing types.

It can be certified that no new type of boat was created later all at once, and that this change was due not to the shifting of lines of trade or to the construction of new ports. This latter condition could, at most, have modified the accepted dimensions.

The different types of antiquity remained in use for centuries and are still to be found to a great extent.

Nothing more will be done than to attract attention to certain ancient pictures where are seen ships having rounded stems. A short time ago, this peculiarity was still to be found in “la Muleta” a boat of the Tagus, now disappeared. (Compare PARIS, Vol. V, fig. 268; and Jahrbuch der Deutsch. Archeol. Inst., 1889, p. 91.)

The size of boats changed little. In order to develope more force, the number of rowers was increased and, as the length of the ship was reduced, the rowers had forcedly to be placed in banks, one above another.

JAL considers that a triple bank of oars must have been an exception, and that the lowest bank must have been separated from the other two by a deck. The celebrated trireme, built at Asnières in 1860, under orders from Napoleon III, was carried out in accordance with this conception; but, as has been said, the experiment tried with this boat did not give satisfactory results. (See, Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., Dr. LÜBECK, p. 49.)

If, however, the experiment did not solve the question of the position of the rowers, it showed sufficiently that, in the trireme, the ship was filled up with rowers.

The ancient vessel had little space for provisions. Care was taken consequently so to arrange matters as to be able to land every evening, and it can be understood from this that most naval battles were fought close to the shore.

But, in order to land everywhere, a small draught of water was necessary. This, according to Assmann and Lemaître, must have been about one metre. (Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., Dr. EMIL LÜBECK, p. 10, note 5.)

The disposable space on board was so restricted that, when it was not possible to go ashore at night, the oarsmen could only sleep in gangs. While the boat was in motion they had, in order not to interfere with each other, to make their movements absolutely together, and even when coming on board a certain order of succession had to be observed. (Das Seewesen, idem p. 10.)

It is not known exactly when the old method of propulsion, each oar handled by a single man, gave place to the new in which heavy oars were worked by several men. It appears however that the Liburnians already had heavy oars of which the use seems to have been a consequence of the battle of Actium, fought B. C. 31. (Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., Dr. EM. LÜBECK, p. 21.)

As has been seen, there were, alongside of the ships of war or naves longæ, merchant ships or freight vessels, naves onerariæ. The dimensions of these latter were also rather small; as can be judged by their capacity. Their cargo, as shown by ancient documents, was stated in Greek talents or in Roman amphora (1 amphora = 26.50 m.), and later also in midimnes of Attica (1 midimne = 42.50 m.). (Das Seewesen der Gr. mid R., Dr. EM. LÜBECK, p. 22.)

According to an arrangement regulating the size of merchant vessels, made in the year B. C. 218, the boats which brought goods from the senatorial possessions in Sicily and Sardinia to Rome, had a cargo space of only 786 cubic feet. It is true that descriptions of much larger vessels are found. These ships, from calculations made by Assmann and other authors, must have had a capacity of 26,000 to 200,000 cubic feet. Graser even goes so far as to say, from the quantity of freight carried, that the ship “Alexandreia” belonging to Hiero of Syracuse must have had a capacity of 240,000 cubic feet. Mention is even made of one ship having a length of 120 ells, while for another a depth of 29 ells is given.

All these dimensions are not to be despised even now, but, considering the small size of the ports and navigable highways of those days as well as their lack of depth, they must have been an impossibility. Furthermore, all these numerical data rest only on hypotheses, and cannot be exact.

The short, bluff merchant ship of the Ancients was certainly not longer than the vessel with oars and its average size does not seem to have exceeded that of a “tialque”.

The progress of shipbuilding was gradual throughout Western Europe, and as the same may be said of the Mediterranean, since the Middle Ages, what reason is there, then, for supposing that the vessels of Antiquity were of extraordinary dimensions?

In this order of ideas, the Prora of Samothrace, discovered in 1863 and dating from B. C. 306, gives an exact idea of the war ship of the Ancients and proves that this vessel differed little in shape and size from the ships of the Middle Ages.

The bottom was slightly curved near the middle and the hull was made slender toward the ends. The mean draught of water was one metre, while that of the largest vessels scarcely exceeded 1.50 m. (ASSMANN, Seewesen, p. 1597, etc.) The stem and the sternpost were ornamented with signs which are unimportant for this study.

Ships with oars of which the stern was rounded at the level of the water line, carried at the bow a ram, which was used to sink the enemy’s ships and to smash their oars. A heavy block of wood, ornamented with the head of a ram, prevented the ram from penetrating too far into the side of the ship which it attacked.

The arrangements of the ram varied a good deal as is shown by the figures, but the form of the vessel itself was not influenced thereby. This element was the emblem of power and was meant to inspire terror. There is nothing astonishing then that, in most of the old drawings, the draughtsman should have dwelt rather on this detail than on the ship itself, thus causing the shape of this latter to become an accessory.

The ram, which was already in use among the Phœnicians, did not appear among the Greeks until B. C. 536. (Dr. EM. LÜBECK, p. 13.) Whence it follows, and it cannot be repeated too often, that the art of shipbuilding had reached a higher degree of perfection with the Phœnicians than among the Greeks and that the former exercised a preponderating influence over the peoples dwelling along the shores of the Mediterranean.

Hence, the thesis of uniformity of the boats of the Mediterranean could be sustained, but this would not imply that each people had known but one type of vessel. Boats of sundry types existed at the same time; there were the short bluff merchant ships side by side with the long vessels driven by oars, and perfected types were crowded against the primitive.

History tells us, that Cæsar put to sea with a fleet thirty days after the cutting of the wood to be used in its construction. (NICOLAS WITSEN, p. 12, col. 1.) It would be hard to grant that the boats which composed this fleet were well finished ships moved by oars. They were, doubtless flat bottomed vessels, of the type which is still found in the Adriatic and which is so well reproduced in the “Rascona”. (PARIS, Vol. II, and Das Seewesen der Gr. und R. by Dr. EM. LÜBECK, p. 39.)

The rapid construction of the fleet in question furnishes one proof more in favor of the point raised regarding the small size of ships.

In order to show more clearly what is meant by uniformity in the shape of vessels, attention will be called to the “tialque” type of the Netherlands, which is found, with slight changes and under other names, from Denmark to Belgium. All the boats of this type have a common fundamental character; but with the tialque are met still other types which are also found elsewhere.

So, from Denmark to Belgium, there is a series of well defined fundamental types and hence we can speak of common forms.

This remark applies also to the Mediterranean (Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines, 36th part, p. 24; Navis), where these fundamentals have been preserved for centuries: the old types of wooden vessels to be met with at the present time still give an exact idea of them, save in what relates to the rudder and rig.

Sundry types have evidently been set aside or have undergone changes demanded by local conditions, so that, in order to find among them the fundamental characters belonging to a given country, it is often necessary to seek elsewhere.

So, for example, there are found in Holland, at ’s Gravenmoer (North Brabant), an old Rhenish type; in Portugal, small fishing boats which resemble greatly the ancient Egyptian vessels and, in the Arabian Sea, a ship which, aside from the rudder and rigging, resembles, to an astonishing degree, the primitive Roman vessel. And the Arabs claim that they have the oldest and best ships (compare PARIS, Vol. III, n^o 135, with the relief of the “port of the Tiber” which appears in BAUMEISTER, Denkmäler des Klassischen Altertums, fig. 1688).

If vessels moved by oars underwent no changes as the result of the invention of gunpowder, the cause must be sought in the slenderness of their construction required by the small motive power which they could put forth. The number of oarsmen was limited and very soon a maximum was reached which could not be exceeded.

In view of the fact that a practical vessel having more than three banks of rowers could not be constructed, and that the old reproductions which are known never show more than three, it seems permissible to conclude that the ancient writers who speak of four banks of oars and more, have allowed their imaginations to run away with them or, which appears more exact, that they had a way of counting other than the one adopted in our time? Doubtless, it was desired to designate the number of oars which passed in banks through the side of the ship.

Huys’s drawing, according to Breugel (dating from the middle of the XVIth century), shows oars grouped thus in sets of threes, and the same process is found in other old pictures; if these pictures show triremes, the question would be simple to explain.

A reproduction of the trireme, often referred to, is that of the bas-relief of the Acropolis at Athens. (Baumeister Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums, fig. 1689.) Copies of it are found in all the works, but they do not always agree and hence can offer nothing certain. (Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 62.)

Let a few more words be said now about merchantmen.

[II 26]

For these, the most beautiful drawing known is certainly the aforementioned relief of the port of the Tiber, preserved in the Torlonia Museum. In this is seen a large merchant ship with inclined stem and rounded stern. At about two-thirds of the length of the ship from the bow, the gunwale projects so as to give a support to the steering oar. This mode of construction is still found on several Indian boats, etc. The ordinary mast, set up near the middle of the vessel and provided with a stay, is secured by strong ropes. The square sail can be lowered by means of ropes running through rings fastened thereto. Then the mast carries but a single yard; a jib is attached to its upper end.

A mast called “dolon” stands forward; it was used, in the beginning, to hoist in a small life boat. It is still called the “boat mast” probably for this reason.

The cabin occupies all the available space aft of the mast.

The sails were generally square; they were sometimes of rectangular shape on the Alexandria freight ships.

War ships, like important freight vessels, always had two masts. (Dr. BREUSING, Die Nautik der Alten, p. 56.) In action, the sails were furled and the masts lowered, in order to save them from being reached by the ram of the enemy’s ships. (Dr. BREUSING, p. 71.)

[II 31]

Attention should not bear alone on large ships, but also on the small merchant vessels. The most beautiful picture of this sort of boat is, unquestionably, the old relief of the Cathedral at Salerno. (Jahrbuch des Kaiserlichen Deutschen Archeol. Instituts, Vol. IV, p. 103, fig. 1c.) Aside from the question of the rudder, the vessel there shown would easily pass for a modern craft.

This boat is in course of being discharged; the bridge is lowered and the forward panel is raised. The mast which is down had to be taken from its step for this purpose; this method was still much in use in our country in the XVIIIth century. The steering oars hang alongside of the vessel, resting against the projecting side.

The boat itself is completed by a stem and a sternpost. The step of the mast is about one-third of the length of the boat from the bow, and abaft this is seen the hold. This last, as in our present river boats, is closed by means of panels. Even the grooves (half-rounds), into which the panels are set, can be made out and, in these grooves, even the openings to let the water run off (shown by little marks) are to be seen.

The panels are on a slope, as shown by the upper lines.

The meaning of these little half-circles was not understood by the author of the Jahrbuch afore-named. (Jahrbuch des Kais. Deutsch. Arch. Instituts, Vol. IV, 1889, p. 103.)

Two mooring bitts are seen near the bow and four near the stern; their special form allows it to be assumed that they were to be used as a support for oars, which gave the means for going ahead in a calm.

The mast, which is short and thick, is provided with cleats throughout its entire height, hence it may be supposed that these pieces of wood were placed there for climbing the mast. Hence it is probable that this boat did not have rigging sufficiently strong for this purpose. It is true that no ropes are seen in the figure in question, but it cannot be concluded, however, that the vessel had none.

It is my opinion that this boat could not have been larger than a small “tialque”. Here is another proof in support of the argument that, in the course of ages, boats have been but little changed and that their construction soon reached a high degree of perfection. There is nothing surprising to be found in this assertion, if the masterpieces bequeathed to us by the Greeks and Romans be considered.

It is matter of regret that no positive data exist in regard to the position of the oarsmen among the Ancients, because it is just on this point that vessels propelled by oars were modified in the Middle Ages. It was at this period that the oars handled by one man, according to the primitive fashion, gave place to a single bank of heavy oars each of which was worked by several rowers.

This transition was not coïncident with the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476). In fact, the Emperor Leo (886 to 911) advised the construction of “dromon” biremes (LA CROIX, p. 75), and even in the XIth century, a writer is seen to speak of a chélandre or sélandre, to which he attributes a very high speed and which had two banks of oars superposed. (LA CROIX, pp. 75 and 79.)

The change came about gradually, in all probability.

In the XIIIth century, only vessels with one bank of oars, galleys, are mentioned. (See, for banks, VAN YK, p. 11; TORR, Ancient Ships, pp. 19 et seq.)

Meanwhile, the rudder arose and its appearance brought about changes in the stern of the vessel.

As a general rule, little is known about the condition of the art of shipbuilding at the beginning of the Middle Ages. All the same, however, this period must have seen an important marine on the Mediterranean and, consequently, the art of shipbuilding must have been flourishing. There is no doubt that the Crusades (1096-1291) had a great influence on the old state of affairs. Venice became the centre of progress and Genoa followed closely.

The importance of the navy at this time is attested by the famous navy yards at Venice and by a great number of edicts which relate to the construction of ships. Thus, there is found in the XIIIth century an edict which determines the water line for the vessel loaded and for the vessel empty. (JAL, p. 267, article 4.)

In regard to the construction of ships with oars, it is only necessary to refer to the edicts of the Emperor Leo which were observed, even to the Xth century. This Emperor ordered that the galleys should be sufficiently strong and swift, involving thus great length and little beam, but the latter was to be, however, proportioned to the length. These edicts were simple, but categorical.

Later on, people were no longer free to build as they pleased. They had to follow the rules laid down regarding the form of the ships which bore a certain relation to the capacity and to the trips to be made.

The length of the boats was not extraordinary: JAL gives, for example, a length of about 44 metres for vessels propelled by oars. This figure, as one can see, differs little from that of the vessels of antiquity, and was little exceeded later on.

Just as in the times of the Greeks and the Romans, the Middle Ages had their galleys, and their merchant vessels of more rounded form. Thus, for example, the city of Genoa sent to Pisa, in 1284, a fleet of eight galleys and caravels. (JAL, p. 250.)

The galleys, however, were not used exclusively as vessels of war; they also served generally, in the XIVth century, as merchantmen. (JAL, p. 250.)

We have from the Middle Ages no drawings or pictures which give the means of deducing with any certainty the shape of the ships. The oldest picture comes to us from Pietro Laurentini, an artist of the XIVth century; then there exists another by the hand of Raphaël (1483-1520), and dating from the beginning of the XVIth century.

These two reproductions appear in JAL’s work (Archéologie navale), but their small scale almost destroys their value. They are remarkable however from this that the first shows the double mast of the Ancients and the cabin on the after deck, while Raphaël’s carries a castle at the bow and stern, as well as the vessel’s rudder.

It follows from a comparative examination of old coins that the rudder had come generally into use in the XIIIth century. It is superfluous, however, to recall that, nevertheless, the steering oar was still used on many vessels as a rudder.

The invention of gunpowder, near the middle of the XIVth century, made no changes in the structure of the galleys, because the propelling force was still limited to the strength of the rowers, which made a slender shape a prime necessity for the boat and prevented the mounting of any large number of guns on board.

The galleys reached their apogee in 1600. Shortly afterward, they began to lose their value as war ships by reason of the increasing power of the big, rounded sea-going vessels.

A striking example of the fighting inferiority of the galleys is found in the naval action between the French ship “Le Bon” and 36 galleys, on July 10, 1684. (PARIS, Vol. III, no. 126.) This vessel was only 41.41 m. long from bow to stern, with a total width of 11.04 m. and a depth of 5.03 m.; the keel was 37.03 long.

The galleys, on the other hand, were 48.77 m. long over all, 21.20 m. on the keel, with a breadth of 5.90 m. on the deck (8.47 m. between the apostis); the oars were 2.5 metres long.

The higher position of the artillery on “Le Bon”, as well as its more solid frame and thicker planking, allowed this ship to hold the enemy at bay and to escape when the wind rose.

If the strength of the crews be examined, the fighting inferiority of the galleys stands out still more clearly; while the French ship carried only 600 to 800 men, the galleys had on board from 12,000 to 14,000 all told. Consequently, from as far back as the XVIIth century, the galleys were used in France almost exclusively for towing. Thus we read that in 1688, the wind having fallen, Duquesne had his ships brought by galleys under the walls of Algiers in order to bombard that city.

The galleys continued to appear nevertheless in the French navy until 1773.

It was at the battle of Zierikzee, in 1302, where the Flemings fought against the French, the Dutch and the Genoese, that, according to the old Florentine historian Villani, the superiority of the broad-beamed vessels of the North Sea, over the galleys, was first felt. The Count of Flanders had fitted out, for this battle, eighty ships or “coques”, built in accordance with the maritime demands of the place. (Villani says: ottantia navi, overo cahi, al medo di quello mare.) According to this historian it was also the first time that vessels of this kind had to be fought.

The battle of Zierikzee was the cause, from this time on, of giving more and more attention, in the Mediterranean, to the building of broad-beamed ships. Besides, necessity forced it. The Crusades brought about more frequent relations with the peoples of the North against whom defense must needs be had.

In the beginning, the people from the North called upon the Genoese and others along the shores of the Mediterranean to transport the Crusaders to Palestine. The route by the Mediterranean became thus known to them; but they very soon undertook to build ships themselves so as to escape from the exorbitant transportation charges of the Italians. Nevertheless, Venice, Genoa, etc. remained the principal warehouses; and many ships were still built there, especially for France. Philip the Handsome, in his struggle against Edward I of England, in 1295, and Philip of Valois, in his war against Edward III, in 1337, both made use of Genoese vessels. (LA CROIX, p. 92.)

Furthermore, as JAL has written (Archéologie Navale, Vol. II, p. 352), it can be granted with certainty that the vessels built in the French ports of the Mediterranean, were identical with those used in Italy. The mutual relations between maritime peoples and their common interests inevitably brought about these imitations. Venice yielded nothing to Genoa; Genoa was close on the heels of Pisa and, in the improvements made in shipbuilding, this last city did not allow herself to be out-done by Barcelona, Marseilles or Constantinople.

Under these circumstances, the writer just quoted was right, then, in saying: “The basin of the Mediterranean had, therefore, but one navy, at least so far as the principal vessels were concerned; it is so to-day and it was certainly so in ancient times.” I add also for my part that the characteristic differences offered by types of vessels among themselves, have undergone no change in the course of ages and this applies not only to the basin of the Mediterranean, but to shipbuilding in general.

These old types, however, are not to be sought among the large vessels, but rather among the small ones and, particularly, among fishing smacks.

Among all nations, even among all seafaring people, fishermen have most preserved their ancient character and modified their manners and customs least. The exercise of their hard calling on the sea has made them hostile to any innovation coming from the shore and has been unable, except in passing over their bodies, to make them give up the old types of ships, the issue of tradition and usage. Hence, fishermen have kept longest the antique forms and it is to them that we must go to find them. Thus there are seen in Norway fishing boats which, aside from the rudder, reproduce almost completely the ancient “Viking ship”. The Dutch “Bom” is, in like manner, a remnant of the “cog”, and Portugal offers barks which call to mind the old mural paintings discovered in Italy.

Naturally many types have disappeared already, and their number is constantly increasing through the use of steel in shipbuilding. Thus it is that there now no longer exist any but a few rare specimens of the galleys and they are used merely for festive occasions (examples: the galley utilized for the naval review of the Hollandsche-Diep, and that used in Portugal on certain holidays).

The oldest work which treats of galleys is called: “Fabbrica di galere”. (JAL, Archéologie Navale, Vol. II, pp. 6 et seq.) The first complete information about them dates from the time of Louis XIV and is given by the Chevalier Barras de la Penne (1698). Nor should the work of Fürstenbach, dating from 1623, be passed by in silence. (WITSEN, p. 186.)

[II 24]
[II 38]
[II 46]
[II 47]

Although the galleys are sufficiently known, a few more words may still be said about them. These boats were long and narrow and rose but little above the water. Their beam was generally one-seventh or one-eighth of their length and the part out of water rose to only 1 m. to 1.50 m. in height. A galley 40.60 m. long, for example, had a beam of only 5.27 m. The total length of the stem was 3.28 m. and of the sternpost it was 3.62 m. The main frame was placed at three-sevenths of the length of the vessel and was flattened on the under side. The vessel narrowed forward and aft and the deck covered its entire length. Near the middle was built the corsia (guard bridge) into which were let the benches of the rowers. On each side, close by the planking and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vessel, were the apostis, heavy timbers into which were let the thole pins. The oars, arranged in a single bank, were each worked by four or five men who rose from their bench as they pushed forward on the loom of the oar, to prepare for a stroke, and fell back on it as the stroke was completed. The oarsmen were stark naked at this work. A man of average strength could stand it, as a rule, for an hour, and yet this work had sometimes to go on for twelve consecutive hours in time of war. What a painful situation, when it is considered that these men were exposed to the inclemencies of the air and to the fire of the enemy!

In order to strengthen the rowers at their work, bread steeped in wine was put into their mouths. If they fell exhausted, they were mercilessly flogged by the boatswain who walked up and down the bridge, and if they did not rise, death awaited them: they were thrown overboard.

If it be borne in mind, furthermore, that the rowers were rivetted to the ship by irons which were rarely removed; that they generally lived and died on their benches, it will be understood that the galleys were a terror and a shame for the seafaring peoples.

It was rare to meet with volunteers for this trade which included, for the matter of that, only slaves and prisoners of war. Still, the rowers were not all equal; they were divided into three distinct classes: 1º those condemned to the galleys, their hair and beard being shaved; 2º the slaves, among whom were Turks, Moors and Negroes, these last considered to be the best rowers, their distinctive mark was a tuft of hair on the head; 3º the “benevoglie” or volunteers among whom were men who had served their time and been liberated, but who were not able to find a place and so sought a refuge on the galleys, as well as bandits and others who no longer had anything on which to live.

The clothing of the rowers was very simple: they received every year two shirts, two pairs of breeches, a red cloth jacket a sou’wester for winter, a red cap and two blankets per bench of oarsmen.

Rations were issued to them, but they could buy more if the food supplied were not enough.

The part of the hold not occupied by ammunition was reserved for provisions; it also included a bit of a cabin for the captain and officers.

When the galley stopped, a large sail was stretched above and across the ship, one side being raised so as to let the air enter.

Their slender build did not give the galleys sufficient stability at sea, consequently the rowers were often very much tried by the waves.

The armament was simple: three guns were placed at the bow, the principal one of which was in the middle (set in the longitudinal axis of the ship); on the large galleys, there were found, as a rule 18, 48 and 12 pounders and, on the small ships, there were one 12-, one 24-and one 8-pdr.

The fighting value was measured by the amount of iron which could be thrown at once and per man. Take, for example, a galley throwing 44 kilogrammes of iron at once and carrying a crew of about 400 men. There would be hurled, then, 0.110 m. per man. A galley cost 400,000 francs, or 9090 francs per kilogramme of iron.

Compare this galley with an ordinary war ship, carrying 55 pieces of artillery with a crew of 1100 men and able to throw 1000 kilogrammes at once (or 0.910 m. per man), and assume its cost to be 3000 francs per kg. The lower fighting efficiency, of the galleys and their much greater relative cost can be clearly seen. This ordinary war ship throws at once nine times more iron per man while its cost is less than that of the galley considered.

In conclusion, it will be stated that the speed of the galleys was 2.50 m. per second or 5.6 miles per hour, and that sails were available in addition to the oars. They carried two masts, one at the bow and the other about midship, both provided with lateen sails (JAL, Clos. nautique, p. 749), which were furled while the vessel was in action.

[II 43]

No further demonstration is necessary to show that the galley was not suited to take the Ocean, which was more and more frequented. The invention of gunpowder soon brought out this vessel’s inferiority for fighting. Hence endeavors were made to improve it.

[II 45]

Thus there is seen to arise in the XVIth century a ship, the “galliass”, of which the bow and stern recall the boats of broad beam, and of which the intermediate part brings the galleys to mind. This ship had more beam than the galleys; its breadth being to its length as 1 to 5½.

With a length of 50.01 m., the galliass had a beam of 9.01 m. and drew 3.35 m.; its greatest depth was 6.52 m. There were 25 oars on each side and the benches of the rowers were 1.30 m. apart. The oars were handled at times by 7 or 8 men and as the sides were higher above the water than those of the galleys, the rowers were better protected against waves.

The galliass carried generally from 700 to 1000 men. Fifty guns were mounted in the towers and between the benches of the rowers.

The galliass was more stable on the water than the galley, protected the rowers better and carried more guns; but, just on account of these advantages, it was less agile as its propelling force was limited by the restricted number of rowers.

The galliass, like the galleys carried three masts furnished with lateen sails. These were very hard to work, so that in violent winds the large sails were replaced by others of smaller size.

It is not astonishing that even the galliass should have been inferior to the broad-beamed ships. Furthermore, they were never numerous; at the end of the XVIth century, in the naval battle of the allied powers against the Turks at Lepanto, only six of them could be assembled. (JAL, Archéologie Navale, p. 394.) It is therefore very doubtful whether the invincible “Armada”, the famous fleet of 1588, included a division of twenty-two galliass; the greater part of these vessels were undoubtedly galleys.

In the same way, there existed among the Ancients, beside the naves longæ, broad beamed ships which were used in the beginning solely for commerce and transportation.

The invention of gunpowder, and still more the closing by the Turks of the old route to the Indies, at the end of the XVth century, made a change in this situation. From this time, trade moves toward the ocean; a new route to the Indies is sought and the New World is discovered.

Then too, the nations of the North greedy for riches and no longer content with the Baltic Sea, take their chances toward the South.

All these circumstances brought in a turning point for the history of the naval architecture of the Mediterranean. In spite of the efforts made to preserve the supremacy of the old types of ships, by building larger vessels with oars, such as the galliass etc., it was necessary to retreat, not only in Italy but also in Spain and Portugal before the more powerful fleets of the peoples of the North.

Hence it can be said, in the order of the ideas already expressed in speaking of the battle of Zierikzee, which occurred in 1302, that the XIVth and XVth centuries saw the naval architecture of the Ocean make its way into the Mediterranean. On the other hand, the art of the Mediterranean was not without its influence on the former.

It is not easy to reconstitute the types of ships inherent to the Mediterranean; indeed, but few data remain concerning these vessels. All that can be done is to refer to the contracts above mentioned of Louis IX. The first reliable information dates from a period subsequent to the middle ages, and notably from the XVIIth century.

All the old drawings known at present leave something to be desired and are always out of proportion. The only conclusion to be drawn from them is that there were several kinds of boats.

It is really to be regretted, as JAL says, that we have no more exact information. There is no doubt, however, that, even in the middle ages, there were good broad-beamed ships (JAL, Clos. naut., p. 1057; LA CROIX, p. 86; idem, p. 96) which allowed at least five hundred fighting men to be carried. (JAL, Archéologie Navale, p. 380, 2d part, note.) Even horses were loaded on board. (JAL, Archéologie Navale, p. 386, etc. HOLMES, p. 68.)

In order to reconstitute the types inherent to the Mediterranean, it is necessary to find out, first of all, what models were still existing at the end of the XVIIIth century, at the time when wooden vessels exclusively were used.

It will be remarked, before beginning this examination, that boats were constantly beached when not under way; let it also be noted that the waters of the Mediterranean were calm, when compared with those of the Ocean. This latter point especially explains why vessels with oars were there so long in use. (PARIS, Vol. IV, p. 206.)