FOOTNOTES:

[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.

[Illustration: 1]

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.)

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.)

[Sidenote: II 2]

[Sidenote: II 3]

[Sidenote: II 4]

[Sidenote: II 5]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: II 13]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.)

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.)

[Sidenote: 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?

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: II 20]

[Sidenote: 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.)

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: II 17]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.)

[Sidenote: 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).

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: II 54]

[Sidenote: II 59]

In this order of ideas, the _Speronara_ of Malta, which appears in

Paris’s work, Vol. IV, nᵒ 203 (nᵒ 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,

nᵒ 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.

[Sidenote: 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.)

[Sidenote: 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.

1_c_.) 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.)

[Sidenote: II 24]

[Sidenote: II 38]

[Sidenote: II 46]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.)

In order to ground the boats, the bottom of the hull had to be flat

and, as a matter of fact, the centre body of the vessels under

consideration is wide and flat, wider even than that of the vessels

from the North. The beam of these latter was to the length as 1:4,

while in most of the Mediterranean vessels this proportion varies

between 1:2½ and 1:3½ (generally, 1:3).

The Mediterranean boats are pointed toward the stem and the sternpost,

which is the contrary of what exists for the Northern vessels and this

shape gives the former an appearance all their own. Furthermore, the

sides of these ships do not come at all together toward the top; at

most, they are vertical; in other words: the greatest width is at the

top.

Among the old models, some are found which have: 1ᵒ a straight sloping

stem; 2ᵒ a straight vertical stem, and 3ᵒ a curved stem which is convex

or concave at the top.

Alongside of the broad-beamed vessels, there are a few longer ones, of

which the beam is to the length as 1 to 5.

Intentionally, no mention has been made of the sternpost as this has

been modified in most cases by the adoption of the rudder.

[Sidenote: II 48]

Besides, many boats have a flat projection at the stern furnished with

a balustrade,--a detail which is found also on the Greek and Roman

vessels. This position was originally reserved for the helmsmen who

operated the steering oars.

[Sidenote: II 49]

[Sidenote: II 50]

Among the more important types must be counted the _Xebecs_, with

three masts furnished at the beginning with lateen sails. These latter

were replaced later on by square sails. The ship thus modified was

then called a _mystic Xebec_ or a _polacca Xebec_. The _Polacca_ also

existed at this time.

[Sidenote: II 53]

The length of these vessels--about 15 metres--was to the beam as 3½

to 1. The stem, sensibly straight at the top, becomes curved at the

foot and is provided with a ram similar to that of a “Galleon”. The

sternpost is straight but it leans back and the after deck projects.

This type of vessel can be compared to a broad-beamed galley, Astern,

the _Polacca_ more nearly resembles ocean vessels.

All these vessels are originally from the West of the Mediterranean.

(~Paris~, Vol. II, nᵒˢ 78 and 90; _idem_, Vol. I, nᵒ 25.) The

Genoese “pink” can be placed in the same category. (~Paris~, Vol. II,

no. 119.)

[Sidenote: II 35]

[Sidenote: II 37]

[Sidenote: II 40]

[Sidenote: II 39]

There is still found in Tunisia the “Carèbe”, from 12 to 15 metres long

with a beam of one-third of this length. This boat seems to have a

double stem (the plank sheer reenters). Let this type be compared with

the reproduction which appears on the tower of Pisa, etc. (~Paris~,

Vol. IV, nᵒ 201), which also shows a boat with a double stem.

Alongside of the “Carèbe”, are the Arabian “Sandales”, 12 metres long,

2.85 m. wide and 1.30 m. deep. Jal considers this kind of boat as one

of the oldest types.

The Arabian “Sandale” is a very slender vessel, narrower amidships than

most of the others.

[Sidenote: II 54]

[Sidenote: II 60]

The Maltese boats, the “Speronare”, are still more singular; they are

15 metres long, 4.40 m. beam, 1.20 m. draught with a capacity of about

17 tonnes. The stem and the sternpost are vertical. These boats have

sometimes at the stern a flat projection and at the bow a truncated ram.

The same type, 5.30 m. long, 1.95 m. beam and 1 metre deep, becomes a

“Tarella”. This boat has no ram. There is no doubt that these are very

ancient forms. (Compare, for example, the “Speronara” with Layard’s

reproduction.)

The “Schifarro” and “Laoutello” of Sicily, with their curved stem

and sternpost, are not less remarkable. These vessels also recall

reproductions of the middle ages which present the same characteristics.

On the East coast of Italy are found the “Tartana”, 17.90 m. long,

4.90 m. beam, and drawing 0.80 m. of water and the “Braca da

Pasca”, 12.20 m. long, 2.30 m. beam and 1.60 m. deep; both of them

flat-bottomed and solidly built. (~Paris~, Vol. II, pl. 85, 86 and 87.)

It should be noted that still other types of flat-bottomed boats are

met with on the Adriatic, among them are the “Rascona”, a very narrow

vessel for its length (1 to 5), and the “Topo”. The former is also

steered with the oar.

Greece and Turkey have between them many points of contact. Two types

are found there: one with a straight sloping stem, the other with a

curved stem: the “Scaphé” and the “Sacobeva”. (~Paris~, 3, nᵒˢ 91,

89 and 88.)

The Arabian Sea, to go no further, gives the “Baggala” and the

“Dungiyah”; the latter has probably now disappeared. These are very old

types with a strongly sloping stem. Allusion has been made above to

Greek figures in which the analogy with these vessels is complete.

Some types have shifted their ground. The best proof of this is the

“Balancella” of Spain which came originally in all probability from

Naples (~Paris~, Vol. II, nᵒ 61) and which resembles greatly the

“Trabocola”.

All these boats, and only the principal ones have been mentioned,

allow the reconstitution of a few fundamental types which are still to

be found now and which were in existence several centuries ago. The

development of trade, expeditions to points further and further away,

which had to be undertaken, have caused the old types to be replaced

long since by others intended for navigation beyond the seas. This

explains why the primitive types no longer exist except in vessels of

small importance. For these latter, it was not necessary to seek new

forms, because the small builders continued to follow traditions and

to work from models. Steel has gained ground very slowly among them,

and insensibly and only as the new generations come to replace the old,

will the types of the primitive boats disappear.

Although several types exist, it follows from what precedes that the

Mediterranean types are broad in comparison to their length, and flat

amidships; besides, they are pointed at bow and stern. With these

data, Fürstenbach’s work, which dates from 1629, acquires more value

in our eyes, because it contains reproductions of a Dutch ship and a

few Mediterranean vessels, in which can be discovered many known types,

although they are called by separate names.

The difference of form between the types of the North and those of

the South, already pointed out before, is shown there clearly; it

appears in all its force when the midship frames of the two boats

are brought together. (Compare “die Mittlere Stamenale”, fig. II,

with “die Stamenale” of fig. 16, as well as the plans of the ships.)

The difference in the height of the stem and sternpost is not less

noticeable, and indeed, the Mediterranean ships really appear higher

than ours. It will be seen further on that, under the influence of the

South (_i. e._ of the Mediterranean) the people of our country began to

make their vessels higher.

It was the South which inaugurated the system of castles which were

built on the ships in the Middle Ages. It is to be noticed that

already, in the Xth century, the Emperor Leo laid down rules concerning

their construction. (~La Croix~, p. 6.) Some castles are found even on

old Roman engravings. Hence, there is every authority for supposing

that these castles rose progressively.

The improvements of the means of defense, and hence the changes in

military tactics, after the invention of gunpowder, contributed a great

deal toward enhancing the importance given to these castles.

It was known in Holland that the Mediterranean vessels were more

pointed than ours, and a proof of it is found in the passage (p.

355) from van Yk’s well known work, where this author tells us that

the special qualities of our ships as sailers was attributed to the

greatly curved stern and hence to the full bow. And it is surely not

uninteresting, then, to read further on (p. 85~A~) that the father of

the author of the work, accompanied by his three sons, went to Genoa to

build vessels able to advance even against the wind, something unknown

until then in that city. Hence the art of tacking was not known at

Genoa at that period, a manœuvre, furthermore, which the lateen sails

did not allow. It was not until later that these sails were replaced

by square sails. Hence it was not at all strange that ships with oars

remained so long in use on the Mediterranean. On the other hand, it may

be considered as proved that, from the earliest times, there existed

broad vessels alongside of the long craft fitted with oars. (~Jal~,

_Glossaire nautique_, p. 1049.)

Still, the few ancient boats which have been exhumed, seem to have

reached such a high degree of perfection, that naval architecture must

have attained a wonderful development even in the most distant ages.

This should not surprise us, however, when we see the masterpieces left

by the Mediterranean races, masterpieces which bear witness to their

esthetic and practical sense.

As the progressive developments of the ship in the middle ages are

studied and as the dimensions of docks and other installations among

the Greeks and Romans are considered, it can be stated positively

that giant ships were unknown to Antiquity and that the descriptions

given thereof should be examined in the light of the conditions which

dictated them to the author. Just, for example, as the importance

of the city of Babylon, and the excavations made there show, it was

singularly exaggerated by the ancient writers. Besides, do we not daily

read communications about the extraordinary sizes of ships and engines,

sizes which, after a little while, are surpassed by others still more

extraordinary? And so will it ever be.

In conclusion, let it be said that the ancient models are still to be

found in small wooden vessels and in fishing smacks. These models have

come down through the course of the centuries without other changes

than those wrought by the rudder and by decoration.

If then an exact idea of the types of the ships of the Ancients be

desired, thorough investigations should be started so soon as possible

in order to find them, to measure them and to make of them drawings

with dimensions, as has been done for the Netherlands.

This rapid comparative study allows the mutual relations which exist

between the nations to be established and to show that the ancient

types special to Southern France, to Spain and to Portugal all belong

to the Mediterranean family, that is to say: to the Southern centre.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration: 2]

Het varen met weynig volk, het nauw en zober behelpen in leeftocht en

ons ingeboren zindelijkheid, die de schepen langdurend macht, doet

den Nederlantschen scheepvaart bloeyen, en niet het scheepsfatzoen.

~Nicolas Witsen~, 1671.[4]

These remarkable words are characteristic and show that something

else than the determined forms of ships is necessary to make a people

prosperous and great. If this were not so, our types of vessels, says

Witsen, would have been copied immediately by other nations.

Sobriety and cleanliness are two capital virtues of the Dutch race,

but, beside these virtues, our ancestors possessed one other important

quality: they were builders of economical ships and our present

builders have preserved this quality.

Let us hope, with full confidence, that this will always be so in the

future.

Witsen maintained--and this fact acquires a certain significance if it

be compared with what goes before--that foreigners who have come to

Holland to learn our art of shipbuilding, could not after returning

home, imitate our processes. I am not surprised, therefore, to see

these foreigners write that they could not use our architecture or our

measures.

Many a ship, says the author mentioned, has been analyzed and measured

abroad, but never has it been imitated; nor have our builders ever

harvested any praise for their work.

What Witsen then says about the English is quite characteristic: “In

deze braveeren zy (de Engelschen) opentlyk allen Landaert en wanen

niemant huns gelyk in deze konst te hebben”[5]. He imputes this

unfavorable judgment on the Dutch to the fact, that nothing relating

to naval architecture has ever been published in the Netherlands. It

will be seen, further on, that, as a matter of fact, people abroad hold

another opinion.

Data, which may not be doubted, teach us that, even in the highest

antiquity, the peoples living on the shores of the Mediterranean were

acquainted with navigation. Again, at the present time, the most

savage, the least civilized nations, settled by the banks of rivers,

had their boats, however primitive their forms may have been. Several

ancient ships were exhumed in Northern Europe during the second half

of the last century. It may be concluded from this that the people who

lived near the water were familiar with navigation from the earliest

times.

Moreover, it is evident that the long, narrow “canoe” obtained from the

hollowed out trunk of a tree was the oldest form of boat. The pole,

which was the primitive mode of propulsion, was soon replaced by the

paddle and the oar.

Man, by nature, seeks his ease; hence there is no cause for

astonishment that he should from the beginning have called the wind to

assist him in moving over the water. This accessory means soon became

the principal agent of propulsion.

The oldest inhabitants of the Netherlands were acquainted with

navigation, long before the Roman domination, and it is to be supposed

that they could only have reached the various points of their territory

by water.

Cæsar tells us (~Holmes~, p. 52) that the Britains used very light

vessels composed of a frame of linden branches covered with skins.

On the other hand, Pope Marcellinus (A. D. 293-304) relates to what

an extent the Saxons were to be feared because of their agility and

adds that their boats were made of buffalo skins stretched tight over

flexible wood.

By the side of the long vessels with oars, there must have existed very

soon broader and less swift boats. These boats were propelled by sails

and finally they wholly displaced the ships with oars.

Nothing concerning these primitive boats has been preserved.

It is well known that the oldest inhabitants of our country came from

the East. They, doubtless, were acquainted with the art of shipbuilding

and they must have adapted their types to the necessities forced upon

them by the state of the navigable highways of our low-lying lands.

It can be assumed that the cradle of the naval architecture of the

Netherlands was in the Baltic Sea. So, let us turn our eyes first

in that direction where, from the most distant times, the art of

shipbuilding must have reached a high degree of perfection. This

follows not only from the vessels of the time of the Vikings which

have been found, but also from the researches made in late years.

These researches have authorized the conclusion that, even in ancient

times, the peoples of the North seem to have crossed the North Sea. The

Swedish archeologist Montelius even assumes that there were already

continuous relations between the West coast of Sweden and the East

coast of England at the close of the age of stone.

Long before the expeditions, properly so called, made toward the South

by the Vikings, the latter crossed the sea, and it is settled beyond

question that they were given to navigation at the beginning of our

era. Tacitus speaks of the powerful fleets of the Swedes which, in

his time, did not use sails but only oars. The author of the work

_Vesterlandenes indflyelse poa Nordboenes og saerlig Nordmaennenes ydze

kulture leveesat og simfundfs Jorhold i Vickingetiden_ af ~Alexander

Bugge~[6] 1905, seems authorized, under these conditions, in saying

that the navigation of the North owes its origin to the Suevi and the

Goths settled on the shores of the Baltic, whence it passed later to

the Norsemen and the Danes. It may also be added, we believe, that

the same was the case with regard to the Netherlands, Great Britain,

Belgium and a part of the North of France.

The celebrated German philologist and archeologist, Professor H.

Zimmer, supposes that the Norsemen visited the Shetland Islands between

the years 590 and 644. This supposition has been confirmed by the

researches of Dr. Jacob Jacobsen, who lived for a long time in these

islands in order to study there the Norse names of the villages and

to pick up still other traces of the Norse language. This savant also

concluded that the Norsemen must have already visited the Shetland

Islands about the year 700.

[Sidenote: II 75]

If these facts be compared with what used to be done on the

Mediterranean, where the endeavor was always made to land at night, it

is impossible to repress a sentiment of admiration for the Norsemen

who crossed the sea fearlessly as far as Iceland and Greenland. Their

naval architecture must even then have reached an extraordinary degree

of perfection, full proof of which is found in the construction of

the superb ships “Oxberg” and “Gokstad”, found in the neighborhood of

Sandefijord (Christiania Museum of Antiquities).

Hence it is scarcely probable that the peoples of the North should have

learned anything at all about shipbuilding during their expeditions

across Western Europe. On the contrary, this part of Europe, including

the Netherlands, must have borrowed the art of shipbuilding from them.

It was also only very much later that a navy and fleet were spoken of

in England. (See ~Holmes~, _Ancient and Modern Ships_, 1900.)

Afterwards, the Norsemen extended their excursions more and more toward

the South; they settled in Normandy and took possession of England.

It was in the course of these expeditions that they became acquainted

with the naval architecture of the Mediterranean. It is needless to say

that they must then have appreciated the perfection which the latter

had reached. Furthermore their interest demanded it. They borrowed, in

particular from the nations of Southern Europe the anchor which these,

in their turn, had learned from the Greeks. The Norse word “akkeri”,

which means _anchor_, seems to be borrowed from the Anglo-Saxon “ancor”

which owes its origin to the Latin word “ancora”. The word “forkr”,

meaning a boathook, is also of foreign origin; it comes from the

Anglo-Saxon “forca” and from the Latin “furca”.

The types of the Norse vessels have, however, not been changed as the

result of contact with the South. The extraordinary life of the Vikings

and their continual piracies justify the conclusion that the merchant

ship was not improved among them, but rather among the peoples engaged

in a more regular trade. There is really, in my opinion, no cause

for astonishment that this development should have taken place in the

North-Western part of Europe. There are some even who claim that the

vessel “busse”, generally in use during the Middle Ages, came to us

from Normandy and dates from the beginning of the XIth century. In

order to support this claim, they take their stand on the fact that the

word “busse” appears first at about this time in the Chronicles.

J. Steenslup has called attention to a people of seamen called the

“Butsecarlas” (mentioned in the old Anglo-Saxon Chronicles of the year

1066 and in the book of Florent Wigorniensis, dating from 1052), who

occupied the coasts of Hasting and Yorkshire. This writer also calls

attention to the second part of the word, which belongs to the Norse

tongue, while the word “buza” occurs frequently in the Old Norse and

the Old Swedish, near the XIIIth century, and means a boat of sharply

curved form. This word, however, is of Romana origin: it corresponds,

so it said, to the Old French _buse_ or _buce_ (dating from about

1080); hence it is considered that the vessel “buce” is originally from

Normandy.

This, however, does not seem to be so sure. It has been shown, as a

matter of fact, that the same shapes of ships have been preserved for

ages even though under other names.

The fact that the word _buse_ is used for the first time about the year

1050 is, therefore, no proof that the type of vessel in question only

appeared at this time. I am rather inclined to think that the type

under consideration was already in existence, but that it was named

_buse_ or _buze_ in Normandy only toward 1050 and, probably, after

having undergone a few unimportant changes.

Shipbuilding was imported from the Baltic into the Netherlands by the

most ancient inhabitants of this country, the Frisians and the Saxons,

who then developed it aside from any foreign influence.

In this respect, the quotation from Witsen, which appears on page 47 of

his well known work, becomes really important: _De Vriezen komt de lof

toe van de herstelde scheepsbouw in Nederland, zoo de meeste schryvers

willen_[7]. The question is, indeed, that of a development of its own

in the North-Western part of Europe; the special and identical forms,

still found to-day, to a great extent, from Denmark to Belgium, are

sufficient proof of the fact.

This is why the Baltic may be spoken of broadly as the Northern centre,

in opposition to the Mediterranean Sea as the Southern centre. The

development of shipbuilding had this Northern centre as its starting

point and finally reached its highest mark in the Netherlands. France

and England came later.

The art of shipbuilding spread gradually through the Netherlands, which

continued to go forward until the time when France dominated all by the

continental blockade.

[Sidenote: II 72]

Let us return now to the types of ships. It has been said, that several

boats of the Vikings have been found. One, especially, was discovered

at Haugen in 1867, and another at Gokstad in 1880. Before that, in

1865, three had already been found in Jutland three specimens which

seemed to date from the Vth century. The largest of these was 70 feet

long.

[Sidenote: II 74]

A Viking vessel was also discovered at Charbuw, near Pommeren. The last

discovery was made in the suburbs of Oxenberg, near Christianiafjord,

Norway, in 1904.

All these boats are for oars; still sails could be used, they being

attached to the mast put up in the centre of the vessel. Considering

their beam, these ships are not so long as the vessels for oars of the

Mediterranean; in fact, their breadth is to their length as 1:5. They

are full near the middle and become narrower at the bow and stern. The

stem and the sternpost, which are both curved, rise very high above the

water. An oar attached to the stern was used as a rudder.

Their construction differed also from that of the Mediterranean

vessels; here, only ships having smooth sides are met with, whereas the

Viking boats are clinker built.

The “Gokstad” is one of the most beautiful specimens of this type.

~Holmes~ has described it in detail, in his fine work _Ancient and

Modern Ships_, pp. 55 _et seq._ This vessel is 77 feet and 11 inches

long, 16 feet and 7 inches broad and 5 feet and 9 inches deep; it is

also clinker built and rivetted.

[Sidenote: II 76]

[Sidenote: II 80]

Turning now toward Norway, let the fishing boats still in use there

to-day be considered; the resemblance of these boats to the Viking ship

will be found striking both in shape and structure. It is this which

makes ~Holmes~ say (p. 60): “Such an instance of persistency in type

is without parallel in the history of shipbuilding”.

It has been seen that this fact occurs not only in Norway but among all

nations. There is nothing to cause astonishment in again finding the

most ancient models in fishing boats. No class is more conservative

than are fishermen, who build their barks as their forefathers did and

on whom necessity alone can force new forms.

[Sidenote: II 103]

Aside from the specimens discovered in the North, little is left of

the oldest types of ships. There is nothing left of them save a few

vague descriptions and imperfect reproductions. In this order of ideas,

the coat of arms of the city of Amsterdam is the best known document

which the Netherlands supplies. ~Witsen~’s work contains, on page 362,

several reproductions of these arms dating from different epochs.

[Sidenote: II 112]

[Sidenote: II 105]

[Sidenote: II 110]

~Holmes~ reproduces, besides, the ships which figure on an old Bayeux

tapestry (1066), as well as the “Sandwich Seal” of 1238, the “Dover

Seal” of 1284 and the “Pool Seal” of 1325 (pp. 67 and 68). These three

seals agree with the oldest of the arms of Amsterdam and the ship which

they carry is, in every respect, similar to that of the said city. Too

much importance cannot be attached, however, to this detail, because,

just as the lion of heraldry is very little like a real lion, it is to

be supposed that the heraldic ship is not a faithful reproduction of

the real type.

The old illustrated Bible of 1200-1220, preserved in the Royal Library

of The Hague, and which seems to have come from Northern France,

contains also a remarkable reproduction; the type of boat which it

gives is also like the preceding ones.

[Sidenote: II 112]

The identity of all these figures allows it to be supposed that a

single type of ship ruled in Western Europe; while the clearly pointed

out timbers of the planking shows clinker built work.

[Sidenote: II 78]

The reproduction of the Bayeux tapestry shows, besides, that the sail

was very early in use; the pilot of one of the ships shown there

holds the sheet in his hand. Besides--and this fact is worthy of

notice--these vessels all have sensibly vertical stems and sternposts,

just as they are still found in our times on a few Norwegian fishing

boats.

The “cog”, the vessel in the arms of Amsterdam, is a very well known

mediæval type, of which the importance becomes marked in Western and

Central Europe from and after the XIIIth century, when the Hanse towns

and the Frisians improved it greatly.

This ship, which was very broad for its length, was hard to board,

whence its usefulness in time of war.

The “cog” seems to date back further than the institution of the

Hanseatic league (1250) judging by the fact that its name was known

well before this date. Thus, the inhabitants of the Netherlands had to

equip several cogs wherewith to fight the invasions of the Norsemen

(810-1010). It was the application of the feudal system to navigation.

(See ~La Croix~, p. 88.) It is known that this policy was finally

established under Charlemagne who subjugated the Frisians in 785 and

the Saxons in 804. (Mr. ~J. C. de Jonge~, _History of the Navy of the

Netherlands_, Vol. 1, p. 6.)

It is needless to say that everything was soon put to work to escape

it. A charter of the Roman King Otho I (936-973) calls for a tenth

of a “cog” (Kogschult) of which the product came to the bishop of

Utrecht. It was the commutation for the obligation to serve the prince

with cogs. This obligation seems, in principle, to have struck more

especially the countries lying along the present Zuyder Zee. (Mr. ~de

Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 7.)

The “cog” only appears for the first time in Germany in 1211, when

the Emperor Otho IV allowed the inhabitants of Wismar to maintain two

“cogs” (Cogken), and as many small vessels as they desired.

There are some who claim that the word cog, “Kuggr” in old Norse,

comes from the Italian “cocca”, the Spanish “coca” or the old French

“coche” and, consequently, they believe that the word is of Romance

origin. This does not seem likely; the “cog” is a type of vessel copied

from the old Viking boat and adapted to the special conditions of the

navigable highways in the low lands of the North-West of Europe. Hence

it was robust and full to facilitate grounding.

In reality, the “cog” was unknown in the Mediterranean; this follows

from what the Florentine historian Villani relates in connection with

the battle of Zierikzee. If this vessel had been a Mediterranean type,

the author would not have directed especial attention to this form of

ship. Hence the “cog” really belongs to Northern Europe and owes its

perfecting to the Frisians and most of all to the Flemings.

[Sidenote: II 103]

[Sidenote: II 97]

[Sidenote: II 98]

The “cog” was generally in use in the XIIIth century and it may be

assumed that the Norsemen already knew it in the time of the Vikings.

Unfortunately, very little concerning it has come down to us. The

oldest reproductions which we possess are those of the seals of

Amsterdam and Harderwijk. But the ship which figures in the arms

of the former city has undergone many changes in the course of the

ages. Witsen says that it is an ill drawn figure and he imputes this

defective work to the ignorance of the engravers. (~Witsen~, p. 363.)

[Sidenote: II 108]

The arms of Harderwijk agree with those of Damme (~Jal~, _Gloss.

nautique_, p. 1051); there is no doubt that the two seals show the

same ship (the only difference being that the Damme boat carries two

towers). If then the Harderwijk ship represents a “cog”, as is claimed

by ~Witsen~ (p. 364, 2d column), the same must be the case with the one

of Damme.

In so far as the Amsterdam seals are concerned, Witsen further remarks,

that the oldest could not date before the year 1200, as Amsterdam did

not rank as a city before that time. He adds that it is clearly seen

from these arms “hoe het met de bouwery der Kogschepen oulinx heeft

gestaen en hoe haer gestalte steeds is veranderd met den tyt, gelyck

men ook hedens-daegs (dus ten tyde van dien schryver) de gestalten der

schepen steeds verandern ziet” (bl. 364.)[8].

The cogs were clinker built.

Most of the reproductions show only a rounded bow. It can therefore

be deduced that the boat which appears in the arms of Harderwijk is a

variation of the ordinary “cog”. It should be noticed that all the old

types of Dutch ships show, like the “cog”, a slightly rounded bow with

no beak.

[Sidenote: II 124 etc.]

Although the old Flemish engravings of the XVth century show different

types of ships, it is to be remarked that none of these latter is

called a “cog”. Still all these engravings show thick-set boats, with

a rounded bow, which must certainly have been derived from the “cogs”

which have been scarcely changed.

[Sidenote: II 190]

There is even a reproduction which dates from the beginning of the

XVIth century and which shows a Zeeland “cog”. The bow and stern seem

there to be identical in shape; it is to be assumed however, judging

by the position of the mast which is at about one-third the length of

the ship abaft the stem, that the bow was fuller than the stern. The

stem is curved as is also the sternpost; the tiller passes through a

_statie_[9]. The mast rakes a great deal, as was required by the use of

the old sprits; the vessel is also provided with lee-boards.