[Illustration: A COMING TYPE OF BATTLESHIP. An interpretation of the
funnel-less ship with internal combustion engines as suggested by Mr.
J. McKechnie, M.I.N.A.]
WARSHIPS AND THEIR STORY
_Uniform with this Volume_
[Illustration]
STEAMSHIPS
AND
THEIR STORY
_By E. Keble Chatterton_
[Illustration]
_CASSELL & CO., LTD., LONDON, E.C._
WARSHIPS
AND THEIR STORY
By
R. A. FLETCHER
Author of “Steam-Ships and Their Story”
WITH COLOURED FRONTISPIECE BY CHARLES DIXON, R.I.
AND 80 FULL-PAGE PLATES
CASSELL AND COMPANY, LTD.
London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne
1911
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PREFACE
To the people of a seafaring nation the story of the growth of the
warship, from the primitive craft of our savage ancestors to the
marvellous fighting machines of the present day, should prove of
endless fascination. In this book I have sought to indicate somewhat
of the lines upon which the development of the world’s warships has
taken place. The amount of information available concerning warships is
virtually inexhaustible, whether the ships are regarded structurally
and comparisons are made of the forms of the hulls, the strains
they may withstand, the speed of which they may permit, and their
modes of propulsion; or whether, sociologically, as evidences of the
stages of the progress of civilisation of the different peoples; or
simply as aids to an appreciation of naval combat, of deeds afloat of
individual and national heroism, of the rise and decline of maritime
powers, and finally as implements in that tremendous struggle, which
has made England what she is, for maritime supremacy. I have not
written this book from any one of these aspects, but to describe in
popular, not technical, language the more important types of warships
favoured at different times in different parts of the world, to show,
where possible, where type has succeeded type, and the main lines of
divergence and development.
Reversing the usual practice of treating the warships as incidental
to the naval battles, I have preferred to treat the naval battles as
incidental to the warships. For that reason I have attempted no word
pictures of the onset of contending fleets, no more or less imaginary
accounts of famous engagements, no descriptions of weird manœuvres and
impossible strategy. Even under the restrictions I have been compelled
to observe, the abundance of material to be dealt with is so vast that
I feel I have done no more than skim the surface, as it were, and have
by no means collected all the cream. The task of deciding what to
insert and what to omit has been no light one. Much that my readers and
critics may think ought to have been included has, perforce, had to be
left out, and the necessity of keeping the book within the limits of
its present dimensions must be my excuse for the sins of omission of
which I shall no doubt be found guilty.
So uneven, or erratic, has been the progress of warship construction,
that in some of the world’s harbours, riding the waters almost
side by side, one may see dug-outs and “Dreadnoughts,” sampans and
submarines, canoes and cruisers, barges and battleships, the vessels
of peace--though in times past they were not always vessels of
peace--resting securely under the protection of the grim and terrible
modern warships.
Every care has been taken to obtain accuracy, but I do not guarantee
the absolute correctness of every detail given, for the simple reason
that the authorities consulted are not themselves always in agreement,
and this applies equally to the warships of the past as to those of the
present time.
Every care, also, has been observed to give credit to other writers
for the assistance derived from their books, and in this connection
I would specially mention the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” Mr. Cecil
Torr’s “Ancient Ships,” Sir W. Laird Clowes’ “History of the British
Navy,” Mr. H. W. Wilson’s “Ironclads in Action,” “The Warships of
Europe” by Chief Engineer J. W. King, U.S.A., “The New American
Navy” by John D. Long, ex-Secretary of the Navy, U.S.A., “Maori Art”
by A. Hamilton, “The New Zealanders” by George F. Angas, “History
of Steam Navigation” by John Kennedy, “The Story of the Submarine”
by Colonel C. Field, “Ancient and Modern Ships” by Sir George C. V.
Holmes, “Submarines and Submersibles” by E. C. Given, M.Inst.C.E.,
“Canoes of the Solomon Islands” by C. M. Woodford, F.R.G.S., “Naval
Architecture” by J. Fincham, “Rise and Progress of the Royal Navy” by
Chas. Derrick, “Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects,”
Appleton’s Cyclopædia of American Biography, “History of the Marine
Architecture of All Nations” by J. Charnock, “Our Ironclad Ships” by
Sir E. J. Reed, “Cyclopedia of Antiquities” by Rev. F. D. Fosbroke,
M.A., and the “Naval,” “Navy League,” and “Fleet” Annuals. A great deal
of information has also been derived from the columns of _Engineering_,
the _Engineer_, the _Times_, _Illustrated London News_, _Marine
Engineer_, _Scientific American_, and other papers, to all of which I
express my deep indebtedness. If it should be found that I have not
acknowledged every item derived from these sources, I trust that this
general admission will cover my shortcomings in this respect.
I have also to thank personally the Chief Librarian of the Colonial
Office for assistance in dealing with some of the canoes; various
officials of the British Museum for valuable suggestions they were
kind enough to offer; Mr. A. J. Dudgeon, M.Inst.N.A. and M.I.M.E., for
his kindness in again lending me his scrap-books; Mr. James A. Smith,
M.Inst.N.A., for revising a portion of the proofs; the Secretaries of
the Institution of Naval Architects and of the Institute of Marine
Engineers for again placing the libraries of those organisations at
my disposal; the Secretary of the Navy at Washington for illustrations
of vessels which achieved fame at the time of the American Civil
War; the Commissioners in this country of the Imperial Japanese Navy
for pictures of the early Japanese warships; the Hon. J. G. Jenkins,
formerly Agent-General in London for South Australia, for New Guinea
illustrations; Mr. Harry J. Palmer, of Paterson, N.J., for information
and assistance in regard to American ships; and many shipbuilders, both
in this country and abroad, for supplying details and illustrations of
the vessels they have constructed. I have also to thank Lord Dundonald
for his courtesy in lending me a picture of the _Rising Star_, probably
the first steam war vessel to be built in this country, which his
ancestor, the famous Admiral Cochrane, commanded in the service of
Chili.
On other pages will be found a list of the illustrations and the
sources whence they have been derived or the names of the gentlemen who
have been kind enough to supply them.
R. A. FLETCHER.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION XV
CHAPTER
1. FROM ANCIENT EGYPT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF
ARTILLERY 1
2. WAR CRAFT OF THE FAR WEST, CENTRAL AFRICA,
THE FAR SOUTH, THE PACIFIC AND THE FAR
EAST 21
3. THE INTRODUCTION OF ARTILLERY AND THE DEVELOPMENT
OF WARSHIPS TO THE APPLICATION OF
STEAM FOR NAVIGATION 39
4. STEAM AND WARSHIPS 78
5. IRON SHIPS OF WAR. FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF
IRON ARMOUR TO BROADSIDE AND TURRET
SHIPS 105
6. IRON SHIPS OF WAR (_continued_) 144
7. ARMOURED SHIPS IN ACTION 197
8. BATTLESHIPS AND CRUISERS 241
9. GUNS, PROJECTILES, AND ARMOUR 265
10. WARSHIPS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY 285
INDEX 333
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
A Coming Type of Battleship (_Colour_) _Frontispiece_
Greek Bireme _Facing page_ 6
Greek War Galleys ” ” 6
An Ancient Bireme from Basius ” ” 10
One of the Ancient Liburni or Galleys ” ” 10
Roman Galley ” ” 10
Viking Ship found at Gokstad ” ” 14
Fleet Attacking a Fortified Town ” ” 18
Galley of the Knights of Malta ” ” 20
Mediterranean Galley ” ” 20
War Canoes of Indians of the North-West ” ” 22
A “Dug-Out” Canoe of New Guinea ” ” 24
New Guinea Canoes ” ” 24
Stern-posts of Maori War Canoe ” ” 26
A Maori War Canoe ” ” 26
A Lakatoi nearly completed ” ” 28
A Lakatoi under Sail ” ” 28
Canoe from Shortland Island ” ” 30
Diagram of Shortland Island Canoe ” ” 30
War Canoe (Teste Island, New Guinea) ” ” 30
Head-Hunting Canoe from Ysabel ” ” 32
Head-Hunting Canoe from Ysabel: Detail of Bow ” ” 32
The Famous old Chinese Junk _Whang Ho_ ” ” 34
Malay Pirate Proa ” ” 34
Pictures of War Galleys and a Protected Galley,
_Kikkosen_ ” ” 36
The _Ataka Maru_ ” ” 36
Sixteenth Century French Ships ” ” 40
A Mediterranean War Galley ” ” 42
Ship of War, 1486-1520 ” ” 42
Embarkation of Henry VIII on the _Great Harry_ ” ” 46
Breech-loading Gun recovered from the wreck of
the _Mary Rose_ ” ” 50
The _Ark Royal_ ” ” 52
The _Sovereign of the Seas_ ” ” 54
The _Prince Royal_ ” ” 54
Line of Battleship, 1650 ” ” 58
The _Dreadnought_, 1748 ” ” 60
The _Juno_, 1757 ” ” 60
The _Cornwallis_, 1812 ” ” 64
Guns of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries ” ” 72
Ancient Double Gun ” ” 72
Carronade of Six Diameters ” ” 74
Carronade ” ” 74
Carronade and its Carriage ” ” 74
The _Rising Star_ ” ” 86
The Trial of Screw _v._ Paddle--H.M. Sloops _Rattler_
and _Alert_ towing Stern to Stern ” ” 98
Sectional Model of Russian Man-of-War, 1854 ” ” 106
H.M.S. _Centaur_, _Bulldog_ and _Imperieuse_ engaged
with six Russian Gunboats off Cronstadt, 1855 ” ” 106
H.M.S. _Warrior_ ” ” 110
The _Terror_ ” ” 110
H.M.S. _Black Prince_ ” ” 122
The _Bangor_ ” ” 122
The _Merrimac_ before Conversion ” ” 126
The _Merrimac_ as Converted into an Ironclad ” ” 126
The _Monitor-Merrimac_ duel ” ” 130
The _Monitor_ and _Albemarle_ ” ” 134
Federal Gunboat _St. Louis_ ” ” 134
Capture of New Orleans: Attack on Fort Phillip ” ” 142
The _Prince Albert_ as Converted to a Turret Ship ” ” 146
H.M.S. _Minotaur_ ” ” 146
The Foundering of the _Affondatore_ in the Harbour
of Ancona ” ” 152
The Wreck of the _Captain_ ” ” 152
H.M.S. _Devastation_ ” ” 162
The Old _Dreadnought_ ” ” 170
The Big Guns of the Old _Dreadnought_ ” ” 170
H.M.S. _Inflexible_ ” ” 176
Russian Circular Monitor _Novgorod_ ” ” 186
The French Iron-plated Ship _Magenta_ ” ” 186
Duel between the _Vesta_ and the _Assar-I-Tewfik_ ” ” 214
Russian Torpedo Boats on the Danube in the Russo-Turkish
War ” ” 214
U.S. Ram _Katahdin_ ” ” 222
The U.S. Dynamite-Gun Boat _Vesuvius_ ” ” 224
The _Maine_ entering Havana Harbour ” ” 224
The Spanish Battleship _Pelayo_ ” ” 230
U.S. Battleship _Texas_ ” ” 232
U.S. Battleship _Iowa_ ” ” 232
The Russian Battleship _Tsarevitch_ after the Fight
off Port Arthur ” ” 236
Effects of Japanese Shells on the _Gromoboi_ ” ” 236
The Japanese Battleship _Asahi_ ” ” 240
The Russian Battleship _Navarin_ ” ” 240
H.M.S. _Victoria_, Firing 110-ton Gun ” ” 244
H.M.S. _Victoria_, Showing 110-ton Guns ” ” 244
H.M.S. _Majestic_ ” ” 248
H.M.S. _King Edward VII_ ” ” 250
H.M.S. _Lord Nelson_ ” ” 250
The German Dreadnought Cruiser _Von der Tann_ ” ” 254
Russian Cruiser _Rurik_ ” ” 258
Russian Cruiser _Rossia_ ” ” 258
H.M. Cruiser _Indomitable_ ” ” 260
H.M.S. _Liverpool_ ” ” 260
French Cruiser _Ernest Renan_ ” ” 262
French Cruiser _Danton_ ” ” 262
4-inch Breech-loading 40-Calibre Gun and Mounting
for Torpedo Boat Destroyers ” ” 266
12½-pounder Quick-firing 50-Calibre Gun and
Mounting ” ” 266
Heavy Gun unmounted ” ” 270
6-inch Breech-loading 50-Calibre Gun completed
and with Mounting ” ” 270
Projectiles and Charges used in the British Navy ” ” 274
12-inch Breech Mechanism (Closed and Open) ” ” 278
Interior of a Barbette showing 12-inch Gun, H.M.S.
_Cæsar_ ” ” 278
The 12-inch Guns of H.M.S _Neptune_ ” ” 282
A Torpedo, discharged from a Destroyer, travelling by
its own Engines towards an Armoured Battleship ” ” 286
The Holland Submarine ” ” 290
The Goubet Submarine ” ” 290
British Submarine A.13 ” ” 296
The British Submarine C.22 ” ” 296
Submarine D.1 with Wireless Telegraph Mast ” ” 298
Launch of U.S. Submarine _Narwhal_ ” ” 298
French Submarine “X” ” ” 298
The _Transporter_ ” ” 300
U.S. Gunboat _Paducah_ ” ” 300
First Torpedo Boat Built for the Norwegian Government ” ” 302
H.M. Torpedo Boat _Lightning_ ” ” 302
H.M. Torpedo Boat No. 79, Built in 1886 ” ” 302
H.M.S. _Vulcan_ ” ” 302
High Speed Sea-going Torpedo Boat Propelled by
Internal Combustion Engines ” ” 304
U.S. Destroyer _Lawrence_ ” ” 304
Stern View of H.M.S. _Sylvia_ ” ” 306
H.M.S. Torpedo Boat Destroyer _Swift_ ” ” 308
H.M.S. _Wear_ ” ” 308
H.M.S. Torpedo Boat Destroyer _Tartar_ ” ” 310
H.M. Torpedo Boat Destroyer _Maori_ ” ” 310
U.S. Scout _Salem_ ” ” 312
U.S.S. _Maine_ ” ” 312
H.M.S. _Dreadnought_ ” ” 314
H.M.S. _Neptune_ ” ” 318
H.M. Super-Dreadnought _Colossus_ ” ” 318
The Brazilian Battleship _Minas Geraes_ ” ” 322
U.S.S. _North Dakota_ ” ” 324
INTRODUCTION
When or where the first warship was built is unknown, so also is
the campaign in which it was employed. A war with naval usages of
any sort cannot have been fought until the aggressor had some means
of transporting the spoil across the water. From the raft to the
fire-hollowed canoe was but a step, and having accomplished so much,
the ingenuity of the naval architects of the period found scope in
making improvements, gropingly, slowly, but none the less surely. The
development of ships used for warlike purposes, as well as of ships
designed as implements for fighting, forms a most attractive branch of
study in its relation to the evolution of empires, no less than that
of civilisation. Nor is the interest any the less if the attention be
confined simply to the consideration of the development of the ships as
ships of war.
In this book I am endeavouring to describe, clearly and briefly, the
main features of the progress in warship building among the different
peoples of the world, from the earliest recorded times onward. The
greater attention is paid to modern warships, and the story of their
development is narrated with an avoidance of abstruse technicalities,
so that any reader of average intelligence and education may be able
to obtain a clear understanding of the steps by which that wonderful
creation, the modern navy, and especially the British Navy, has come
into being.
Whether my readers belong to the bluest of the “blue water” school;
whether they advocate two British keels to one possessed by any
possible combination of foreign powers as the irreducible minimum below
which the British fleet shall not go; whether they take a more moderate
view, founded, as they believe, on the power of the nation to pay for
its fleet, and the ability of other nations to pay for their fleets, in
which case the ability of some other nations to borrow money to have
their best vessels built in British yards must not be lost sight of;
or whether my readers belong to the other extreme and believe that any
and every British fleet is too powerful and that the time is coming
when the Imperial cheek shall be turned to the envious smiter: whatever
be their political and social faiths, the fact remains that the fleet
in being is the sole guarantee of this nation’s safety, and that the
payments for the several warships and the personnel of the Navy are
but so many premiums for insuring the defence of the country and the
maintenance of the inviolate integrity of these islands. Whether the
money has always been spent to the best advantage is a point upon which
experts differ, and is outside my intention to consider. But I hope to
show something of the types of vessels provided, and, incidentally, to
indicate how engineering skill and profound science have been devoted
to the evolution of the modern ship of war.
* * * * *
The earliest known employment of a warship dates back, according to the
present computations of Egyptologists, some six thousand years B.C.;
but discoveries yet to be made may cause that estimate to be revised,
for the more the scientific investigation of ancient Egypt is pursued,
the greater is the tendency to date events more remotely still. All
that is known of this ship is that it existed, and that it saw service
as escort to a trading expedition on the Nile.
The first naval engagement of which we have any definite knowledge was
fought near the mouth of the Nile about 1000 B.C. The ships held only a
few men each and were propelled by rowers, and so little dependence was
placed on their sails that the latter were furled to be out of the way
during the actual fighting.
For hundreds of years oars were the chief means of propulsion, the
sails only being availed of when the wind was very favourable. To
increase the speed of the vessels, bank after bank of oars was added
until ships carrying as many as eighteen banks are averred to have been
constructed--though the evidence of the correctness of the statement is
a long way from being conclusive--and one historian even goes to the
length of asserting that a ship having forty banks of oars was built,
but this may be disbelieved. For the most part, ships having two,
three, or four banks were preferred for war purposes, because of their
handiness.
Greater ships were afterwards built and improvements made in the shape
and size of the sails and spars used, and the number of masts was
increased.
* * * * *
Meanwhile in the Far North a seafaring nation was proving its worth.
The wild men of the wilder North, the Danes, the Scandinavian
Vikings--turbulent, adventurous and fierce, to whom fear was a word
unknown--animated by the virile yet mystic mythology of the North, and
inspired by the love of conquest and travel, now began to play their
part in the world’s naval history. The Vikings produced the “long
ship,” the “serpent,” daring in conception, marvellous in construction,
possessing wonderful qualities as a sea-boat, fast under sail or oar,
and of a beauty of outline and shape hardly to be excelled even now.
Such were the vessels in which the Danes invaded England, and by
building vessels as good as those of the Danes, and some rather better,
King Alfred repulsed the invaders and implanted in the English that
“habit of the sea” they have never lost. But the lesson of the Norsemen
was destined to lie dormant for many a long year. Although the Romans
had introduced the “long ship” for war purposes--so-called because
it was longer in proportion to its beam than the merchant ships--the
Mediterranean shipbuilders preferred as a whole to retain the heavy
hull, and the form they believed best suited to their needs upon the
tideless sea. Slave power was cheap, and was to be had for the trouble
of capturing, and for many centuries oar-driven galleys were preferred
over any vessel dependent upon sails only, and were to be found in the
Mediterranean as late as the beginning of the nineteenth century.
As ships of greater size were provided in the Middle Ages, huge
erections in the shape of castles were added at the bow and stern:
great, unwieldy craft which contemporary historians likened to floating
islands. The Venetian and Genoese republics elevated the art of
constructing oared galleasses to its highest, and ere long Spain took
the lead in producing warships with dimensions and power of armament
which made her the chief maritime power of the world.
* * * * *
In England, owing to alternate periods of stimulation and neglect
by the authorities, the progress of shipbuilding was spasmodic. The
roughness of the waters round our coasts, and along the Atlantic
coasts of France, the Low Countries and North Western Europe, caused
greater dependence to be placed in small vessels having good sea-going
qualities and using sail whenever possible. The _Great Harry_ was begun
in the reign of Henry VII. and finished in the reign of his uxorious
successor, and is interesting as indicating that shipbuilders in
England were even then able to turn out a sea-going vessel superior
to anything afloat. Henry VIII. established royal shipbuilding yards
at Woolwich and Deptford, and thus founded the modern navy, but few
warships for the King’s service were built there in his time, and
during his reign and for many a long year after it was the custom
to hire merchant vessels and arm them--if they were not already
armed to protect themselves against pirates--to augment the national
fleet. Religious, no less than national, rivalry contributed, albeit
unconsciously, to the development of the efficacy of the warship as
a fighting unit. The enmity between Britain and Spain culminated,
in Elizabeth’s reign, after a series of daring attacks by reckless
Englishmen upon the Spanish fleet in preparation for the great attack
upon England, in the dispatch of the Armada. Hawkins and one or two
others foresaw that the advantage would lie with the fleet which could
be most effectively manœuvred. The disparity between the Armada and
the British fleet was not so great as many writers have represented,
either in the size or number of the vessels; but the British vessels on
the average were smaller, faster, and better handled; in other words,
efficiency told against sheer weight of numbers. This was the last
great sea-fight on the ocean in which oared ships took part; they were
no match for their smaller and more speedy sailing antagonists.
Structurally, most of the vessels of this time, the larger especially,
were disfigured by high sterncastles, but early in the seventeenth
century this encumbrance and many others had disappeared. Thence to
the nineteenth century the development of warships was marked mainly
by continual increases in their size, improving their form of hull
and, consequently, their speed and buoyancy; augmenting their sail
area and perfecting the square-rigged system; and adding to the number
of gun decks and the number of guns carried; until the grand wooden
three-deckers swept the seas in all their ponderous pride and majesty.
Ships of the line of various ratings played their part, and were ably
seconded by frigates, brigs, cutters, sloops and bomb-ketches. All
these were in vogue less than a century ago, and though not forgotten,
are looked upon as historical and romantic and interesting curiosities.
* * * * *
In the weapons, no less than in the ships, the changes have been
marvellous. For many centuries after ships were adopted for war, the
fighting was done by soldiers carried aboard them. The human machines,
the rowers, had to attend exclusively to their oars, for on them the
safety or success of the fighting men depended. The main idea was to
get to close quarters and fight hand to hand with javelin or sword,
spear or battleaxe; bows and arrows were used when possible, and
missiles hurled by hand were not despised. The ram, in various forms,
affixed to the bows in such a manner as to strike the enemy’s ship
below or above the water-line, or both, was used with fearful effect in
many a stubbornly fought engagement.
The introduction of artillery in the fourteenth century marked the
beginning of the first great revolution in naval warfare, and the
changes in the projectiles have been no less extraordinary than those
in the guns.
* * * * *
The next great revolution was the introduction of the steam-engine. Its
adoption in the British Navy in 1832 marked the beginning of the end of
the sailing warship. Her last grim battle against inexorable fate was
fought with the same doggedness which had distinguished her in many an
encounter with her nation’s enemies; but the superiority of steam over
sail was recognised. Temporising measures, a patched-up peace, as it
were, lasted for a few years while the steam engine was employed as an
auxiliary. Sail power, however, had reached its apotheosis so far as
warships were concerned. Engineers, animated by practical common sense
and ignoring romantic associations, improved their engines, so that the
steam power was no longer the assistant of sail, but its associate,
and was quick in attaining the position of chief partner and showing
that sails could be dispensed with altogether. The Crimean War sounded
the knell of the wooden battleship as well as of the paddle-wheel war
steamer. The former gave place to the iron-clad vessel, and the latter
was supplanted by the screw-propelled ship. The power of artillery
had shared in the application of scientific knowledge and benefited
accordingly. The great battle between the maker of armour plates and
the maker of guns and projectiles had begun. Iron, the conqueror of
wood, had but a short reign. Where iron was used a few years ago, steel
is now invariably employed. The thoroughness of the victory is shown by
the fact that in the whole of the British Isles not one iron vessel,
large or small, was built in 1909 for war or commerce.
* * * * *
The years 1905 and 1906 saw two of the most important steps forward in
the history of warships, for they included the adoption of the turbine
principle of warship propulsion and the “Dreadnought” principle of
armament. The progress of the last fifty years, culminating in the
_Dreadnoughts_, has been wonderful; already designs of vessels intended
to relegate them to second place are under consideration.
Type after type of battleship, cruiser, scout, gunboat, destroyer and
torpedo-boat has followed in rapid succession of late years, and
submarines have become an accomplished fact. He would be a foolish man
who would prophesy that the end is in sight.
There is nothing more marvellous in the world’s history than the
tremendous development in marine engineering, in warship construction,
in explosives, in armament, and in projectiles that has taken place in
the latter half of the nineteenth century, and especially in the last
twenty-five years.
WARSHIPS AND THEIR STORY
CHAPTER I
FROM ANCIENT EGYPT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF ARTILLERY
When did man first entrust himself afloat for purposes of war? and what
was the type of vessel he employed? are questions which take us back
almost to the earliest stages of historical human progress, concerning
which all the knowledge of the antiquaries is but conjectural, a stage
so remote that scientists have not yet determined how many thousands of
years ago it existed. The earliest vessels thus employed must have been
transports, and nothing else; but if employed as aids to aggression
when the kings of the earth took counsel together and, impelled by
avarice or a desire to assist in one another’s turbulent love affairs,
or, for their own safety, convinced of the necessity of finding an
outlet for the energies of their restless subjects, invaded the
territories of their neighbours, the ships, whatever their nature, will
have been of a size sufficient to receive any spoil or any prisoners
worth the trouble of carrying back again.
So far, however, as research has disclosed in those parts of the Near
East where civilisation was cradled, there is no indication that man
fought afloat--boat against boat, or fleet against fleet--until after
a comparatively high stage of civilisation had been attained and
shipbuilding had made enormous advances.
Evelyn remarks: “Concerning men of war, fleets, and armadas for
battel, that Minos was reported to be the author, which shows that
manner of desperate combat on the waters to be neer as antient as men
themselves, since the deluge.” Minos, he adds, disputed the empire of
the seas with Neptune, but “these particulars may be uncertain.”[1]
Among the legendary expeditions, those of Ulysses and Jason are the
best known. Possibly they took place, but the adventurers never did
or saw half the wonders narrated of them. Herodotus, describing the
type of ship attributed to Ulysses by Homer, states that such ships
were made of acacia, of “planks about two cubits in length,” joined
together like bricks, and built in the following manner: “They fasten
the planks round stout and long ties: when they have thus built the
hulls they lay benches across them. They make no use of ribs, but caulk
the seams inside with byblus. They make only one rudder, and that is
driven through the keel. They use a mast of acacia and sails of byblus.
These vessels are unable to sail up the stream, but are towed from the
shore.”[2] Book II. of the _Iliad_ mentions, in the famous catalogue,
hollow ships, well-benched ships, swift ships, and dark ships, and that
Ulysses had twelve red ships, but Homer, being a poet and a landsman,
did not describe their differences.
Recent excavations and discoveries in Egypt have revealed the existence
of boats of considerable size, so remote in history that their period
is only guessed at, though they are estimated to date from about 5000
to 6000 years B.C. If the interpretation of the designs on the pottery
recording these old ships be correct, they were propelled by over a
hundred oars or paddles, were steered by three paddles at the stern,
and had two cabins amidships. They were, moreover, very high out of
the water at the ends, having very long, overhanging bows and counters,
and were shallow and flat-bottomed.
Even at this period the art of shipbuilding was in a comparatively
advanced stage; vessels such as those depicted would be quite as
capable of use in war for carrying warriors or stores, or both, as in
commerce for conveying merchandise. Egypt has many historical secrets
yet to reveal, and, judging by the constant reassignment of dates
in all matters connected with Ancient Egypt which exploration has
entailed, it is not too much to expect that the dates quoted, assigned
approximately by Egyptologists, may be revised and events placed more
remotely still.
Another hieroglyph, discovered in a tomb, ascribed to the year 4800
B.C., shows enormous progress in shipbuilding and also in the art of
representing a ship pictorially.
During the Sixth Dynasty, a certain Un’e, who was a person of note
under three kings, sent, while the second, Pepi I., was on the throne,
an expedition to the quarries of Syene or Assouan, to fetch stone for
his master’s pyramid.
Another expedition, on behalf of Pepi’s successor, merits attention,
as the fact is emphasised on the inscription on the tomb as most
remarkable, and as never having occurred before “under any king
whatever,” that Un’e had to employ twelve ships for freight and but one
warship.[3] The flotilla consisted of “six broad vessels, three tow
boats, three rafts, and one ship manned with warriors.”[4]
The Egyptians evidently had experience of some sort of fighting afloat,
for there has been discovered at Gebel Abu Faida a tomb with a painting
showing a boat with a triangular mast, and a stem extending forward
below the surface of the water and presumably intended to be used to
damage an enemy’s boat by ramming it.[5]
The first sea-fight of which a pictorial representation is known to
exist was fought off Migdol, at the mouth of the Nile, in the time of
Rameses III., first king of the Twentieth Dynasty, which began about
1180 B.C., and lasted to about 1050 B.C. Egypt was invaded from the
East by “warships and foot soldiers,” and the Egyptian monarch mustered
a fleet and attacked them.
[Illustration: ANCIENT EGYPTIAN WARSHIP.]
“The ships on both sides,” says the historian[6]--“we can recognise
the Egyptian by the lion heads in the bows--have reefed their sails
in order not to interfere with the men who are fighting; the bracket
at the mast head has been removed to make room for the slinger. The
Egyptians understood how to pull round the ships of the enemy with
their grappling irons, so as to bring them to close quarters; in
fighting also they have the better of their opponents, for they all
carry bows, whilst the barbarians with their short swords can only
fight in a hand-to-hand medley. This battle is almost the only naval
engagement in Egyptian history, for though in the wars with the Hyksos
we certainly hear of fighting on the water, yet in the latter case
the Nile was the scene of action.... The ships had their individual
names, such as _Battle Animal_, or _Glorious in Memphis_. The _Ship of
Pharaoh_ was also called _Beloved of Amon_.”
A remarkable difference between the ships of the Egyptians and those
of the Asiatics is that the latter had no rowers, if the bas-relief is
accurate. Possibly the Asiatics, Phoenicians probably, had discovered
how to manage the sails of their warships and dispense with rowers.
The example set by the Asiatic fleet does not seem to have been
followed, for as the need of greater ships became manifest the
problem of their propulsion was met by placing one bank or tier of
oarsmen above another. Then, as now, the propelling power was vital
to the efficiency of the ship, and means had to be devised for the
preservation, or at least protection, of the oarsmen. The single-banked
ships had planks placed round the gunwales, forming a parodus, or
gangway, which served also to guard the rowers from missiles. Later,
the upper tier was in an open superstructure, and still later, planks
were carried which could be adjusted for the protection of the oarsmen
when necessary.
The ram, employed by the Egyptians--who seem to have retained for their
sea-going craft the long, overhanging stem and stern so suitable to
their river vessels--was a metal head, which added a finishing touch to
the projecting bows, and was high above the sea level. At the time of
the battle of Migdol, and possibly also of the sea-fights in the reign
of the preceding Rameses, who is known to have conducted a naval war,
though of this campaign no illustrations have yet been discovered, the
captain of the warship was placed in a sort of crow’s nest on top of
the double or ⋀-shaped mast.
Then comes a long gap in the history of Egyptian shipping. The
Phœnicians became the leading maritime people of the world, but the
little that is known of them is derived, not from discoveries in
their own cities of Tyre and Sidon, but from the records preserved at
Nineveh. Sennacherib’s conquest of Phœnicia was commemorated by mural
tablets, on which are the only known records of Phœnician war galleys.
The Phœnicians are stated to have invented biremes, or vessels carrying
two banks of oars on each side. Perhaps for lightness, and in order
to reduce the top weight as much as possible, these galleys had the
upper bank of oarsmen unprotected. The prow, differing from that of
the earlier Egyptian ships, curved forward at a point slightly above
the water line, and continued to do so under the water, thus forming a
formidable snout or ram which could inflict considerable damage to the
most vulnerable parts. The beaks were generally carved to represent
the head of some animal. The vessels also had a parodus placed outside
the vessel and extending the whole length of the sides above the oars.
The contrivance was probably copied from the Egyptians, who introduced
it to enable the warriors to fight at close quarters when drawing
alongside an enemy, or to run to either end of the ship as occasion
might require without impeding, or being impeded by, the rowers.
[Illustration: GREEK BIREME. _From a Vase in the British Museum, found
at Vulci._]
[Illustration: GREEK WAR GALLEYS. _From a Vase in the British Museum
found at Vulci._]
_Cancelli_, or shields of basket work, were placed along the sides
of the ships at such a height that the heads of those on board are
just visible. The _cancelli_ bore a striking resemblance to the
circular basket-work boats still to be found on the upper Euphrates;
this supports the supposition that the _cancelli_ may have been used
for other purposes, particularly if they were made comparatively
watertight, as the function of a shield was not only to protect a
warrior in battle, but to help to keep him dry when on shipboard by
being disposed along the sides to prevent the spray from entering the
ships. A forecastle was constructed upon these ships, and upon each
forecastle a look-out man was stationed; and when these structures came
to be built of larger dimensions they served to accommodate a number
of fighting men who, from their superior position, could throw their
missiles with greater effect. The forecastle had the further advantage
of serving as a stronghold in the event of an attempt being made to
capture the ship by boarding it.
Following the Phœnicians, the Greeks are thought to have begun to build
their own warships about 700 B.C., perhaps earlier, but it was about
that time that the first three-banked warship was launched at Corinth.
The three-banked ships were for many years the largest in existence.
During the fourth century B.C. shipbuilding was practised extensively,
four-banked ships being built at Chalcedon, five-banked at Salamis,
and six-banked ships at Syracuse. Ships of ten banks, according to
Pliny, were ordered by Alexander the Great, and about 300 B.C. ships
having twelve banks are said to have been built for Ptolemy, and
fifteen-banked ships for Demetrios, for a battle near Cyprus.
Ptolemy Philopater, who ruled in Egypt from 222 to 204 B.C., is alleged
to have had a forty-banked ship of a length of 280 cubits or, reckoning
the cubit at 18 inches, of 420 feet, and a beam of 57 feet.
While increasing the size and number of oars, it would, nevertheless,
be impossible to augment to any appreciable extent the speed at which
these ships could be rowed, and the more unwieldy would they become,
and the more difficult would it be to keep steering way upon them.
Again, the assertions of the historians are so contradictory that it is
a thankless task to attempt to reconcile all their stories, especially
as they depended much upon hearsay for their information. For that
reason, therefore, a great deal that has been recorded as to the early
ships and their numerous banks of oars is not to be accepted without
careful inquiry and verification.
It has never been established beyond question what is meant by banks
of oars, or whether the Greek text has been interpreted correctly
when it is taken to express forty superimposed banks of oars. From
constructional reasons it may be assumed that a ship having forty
superimposed banks of oars never existed, and it is very doubtful
whether ships having more than a fourth of that number of banks passed
beyond the imaginations of their inventors. In any case they were
soon dispensed with, and in course of time it was found that the best
results were obtained with galleys having two or three banks of oars.
It is not definitely known how the rowers were disposed in the ships of
anything over seven or eight banks. If any vessels had forty banks of
oars, the upper rows must have been of an absolutely unwieldy length.
Assuming the oars to have been weighted with lead so that the inborne
and outborne portions were equally balanced, they must nevertheless
have been exceedingly difficult to row even by a number of men, and
it was impossible for any rowers to have moved these great oars at
the same speed as the men at the lower banks moved their lighter
and shorter ones. That some such difficulty was experienced, even
in biremes and triremes, is shown by the arrangement of the oars,
whereby all in a bank were not of equal length, but were graded so
that those nearer the ends of the banks were longer in order that all
the blades might enter the water in a straight line. Each row above
must have had its own line in the water a little farther away from
the side of the ship than the row beneath it, or the blades would
have interfered with each other and the rowers thrown into hopeless
confusion. The tremendous amount of lead that would have to be carried
to counterbalance the outborne portions of several hundred oars would
add materially to the dead weight to be propelled, and, much of it
being placed high above the water, the stability of the vessel would be
lessened.
The Athenians used leather or skin aprons or covers over the oar holes
to prevent the water entering, the oar passing through a hole in the
leather, and the apron was bound to the oar in such a way as to be
watertight. This contrivance was widely adopted later. The oar ports
were constructed between the ribs, but the oars instead of being rowed
against the ribs were pulled against thongs fastened to the next rib,
thus minimising the strain upon the ship’s structure and preventing the
oars being lost overboard. One man one oar was apparently the general
rule at that time.
In his most painstaking study of “Ancient Ships” Mr. Cecil Torr has
gone very closely into the subject of the oar equipment of the galleys.
An Athenian three-banked ship would carry two hundred oars, of which
thirty were worked from the upper decking, sixty-two on the upper bank,
and fifty-four to each of the lower. The earliest two-banked ships had
eighteen rowers. An Athenian four-banked ship might carry two hundred
and sixty-six oars. The Roman and Carthaginian five-banked ships in use
about 256 B.C. had three hundred rowers besides the combatants. The
statement is made by an early historian that in 280 B.C. the Heraclean
fleet on the Black Sea included an eight-banked ship with a hundred
rowers on each file, or one thousand six hundred rowers in all. As
usually the fighting men carried exceeded the rowers in number, the
ship must have had close upon three thousand five hundred men aboard.
Warships of all the early Eastern nations were strengthened by cables
passed longitudinally round them in order to keep the timbers in place
and prevent them from being started under the strain occasioned by
the shock of ramming. Egyptian ships of about 1200 B.C. had cables
stretched from stem to stern and passing over the top of the mast
and other posts, but this contrivance was to prevent the vessel from
drooping at the ends, a weakness known as “hogging.” The shock to
the ramming vessel was scarcely less severe than that to the vessel
receiving the blow. To take up the strain and add to the power of
the blow the bows were strengthened by means of waling pieces which
supported the ram proper. The Greek ships were built with the keel,
the stempost, and the lower pair of waling pieces converging to hold
the ram, while higher up the stem was a smaller ram which in its turn
was buttressed by another pair of waling planks. The catheads, or
beams projecting from the bows on either side by which the anchors
were raised, were so placed on a level with the gangway and gunwale
that they would sweep the upper works of an enemy’s ship and smash its
gangway and hurl into the sea or the hold all the fighting men upon it.
Ships of more than three banks are believed to have carried another
ram level with the catheads, and to have had a ram for every pair of
additional waling beams. The ram heads were generally of bronze and
weighed 170 lb. or more.
[Illustration: “AN ANCIENT BIREME, FROM BASIUS, HAVING ONE TIER OF OARS
ONLY.”]
[Illustration: “ONE OF THE ANCIENT LIBURNI, OR GALLEYS, HAVING A SINGLE
TIER OF OARS, ACCORDING TO BASIUS.”]
[Illustration: AN ANCIENT TRIREME, ACCORDING TO BASIUS. _From
Charnock’s “History of the Marine Architecture of all Nations.”_]
The later rams varied considerably in shape. The triple ram was
sometimes made with the teeth pointing slightly downward, while others
had an upward tilt. The lowest ram often extended farther forward
than those above, the idea being that it would inflict severe injury
about or below the water line, and that the upper rams, besides causing
damage, would push the stricken vessel off the lower ram and let her
sink without the assailant being dragged down by the head with her.
The build of the ships rendered it necessary that an engagement should
be fought on a calm sea, and daylight was preferred in order that the
combatants could see what they were doing. As the fleets approached
one another the commanders of the different vessels decided upon
their individual opponents. Much skilful manœuvring ensued to ram the
enemy or avoid a blow. The slaves strained at the oars while their
taskmasters ran between the files of rowers and, with unmerciful blows
from heavy sticks and whips, stimulated them to still greater exertions
if possible.
Poor slaves, mostly prisoners of war, their prospects were gloomy in
the extreme! If their ship were rammed some of them were sure to be
injured, and if she sank they went down with her, fastened to their
places and having no chance of escape. If the oars were disabled in the
collision between the ships the rowers were bound to receive violent
blows from the inboard end of the oars, or to be cruelly pierced by
splinters of wreckage. Showers of missiles from the opposing ship fell
upon the helpless wretches. In later years, when the terrible Greek
fire was added to the means of attack and defence, it contributed
the prospect of being burnt alive to the other horrors of their
situation. Victory meant no rejoicings for them. The wounded were of
little account and could be dispensed with when slaves were to be
had for the capturing, and it was easy to put them overboard to die
the more quickly. Those who survived the battle unhurt or not too
severely injured to recover rapidly, were retained. If their ship were
vanquished they might look forward to greater cruelties as a punishment
for their share of the defeat. If they belonged to the victors, they
had only more battles, the torturing whips of their drivers, and
insufficient food as their portion in life. Death came as a welcome
relief to the slaves of victor and vanquished; in it lay their only
hope of peace.
When the Roman navy was at its best the ships were painted a colour
which matched the waves, and the hulls were made as watertight as
possible with tar. Occasionally in the later Roman ships layers of
tarred cloth were placed outside the outer planking, and the hull was
then lead-sheathed. Bronze nails and wooden pegs were used in fastening
the timbers together, and some ships were so built that they could be
taken to pieces and transported overland if necessary. Ships of three,
four and five banks were even conveyed from the Mediterranean to the
Euphrates.
The facility with which the Liburnians handled the two-banked ships
in their Adriatic campaign induced the Romans to adopt these vessels
as models for their own two-banked ships, and in course of time they
adopted the name of _liburna_ for all war-vessels of from one to five
banks.
If some of the historians may be believed, anything that could be
piled upon the ancient ship and did not capsize it was permissible.
One is said to have had a tower at the stern and another at the prow.
Another bore “a large tower of masonry with a great gate. Here appear
some vases, probably filled with combustibles.” Another _libernus_ has
a mast or yard, suspended perpendicularly by the side of the forward
tower, and having at each end a crossbeam. Yet another _libernus_,
besides carrying a protector for the helm at the stern, is said to
have had six round towers; the largest, of embattled masonry, was
at the prow, two others, also of masonry, surmounted by domes, and
connected by a bridge, were near the stern, and the other three were
nearer the fore part of the ship, were roofed, and two of them had
windows.
Shipping in the Mediterranean extended with extraordinary rapidity
in the recovery after the stagnation caused by the fall of the
Roman Empire and the relapse into semi-barbarism which followed the
successful invasion of Italy by the wild tribesmen of the North. The
advent and rise of the Moslem power caused a series of struggles in
which every state was in a more or less constant condition of warfare
against its neighbour, and the Crusades served but to add fuel to the
fire of internecine and religious conflict. Some immense ships are
stated to have been employed up to and at the fall of Constantinople.
The early centuries of the Christian era saw the evolution of a
flat, shallow vessel, fitted with one or two masts carrying sails,
from which the lateen rig developed, equipped with a long ram above
the water line, with two or at most three banks of oars. It appears
from illustrations that some of these boats carried a superstructure
extending beyond the beam on either side. War vessels of this type
became common throughout the length and breadth of the Mediterranean,
and remained in use long after the introduction of firearms.
Before the discovery of Greek fire, flaring missiles of some kind
had been devised. Frontinus mentions fire-ships, or hulls carrying
combustibles and allowed to drift with wind and tide upon the enemy’s
ships: stinkpots, to nauseate the enemy, though how the others escaped
the smells except by keeping to windward does not appear; and Evelyn
adds, “Nay, snake pots, and false colours.” The Greek fire, however,
was the most terrible of the weapons employed at that time. By some
means by which a fair amount of power was exerted, the liquid was
squirted--or vomited, to use one historian’s phrase--through copper
pipes upon an enemy’s ship, and as the liquid had the peculiar property
of igniting upon exposure to the air and was inextinguishable by water,
it was a most formidable engine of destruction. Small vases filled
with the liquid and sealed airtight were used as hand grenades and
flung at opposing ships and, breaking, set them on fire. Heavy arrows
carrying balls of flax soaked in the liquid were used both in land and
sea warfare, as also were hand-flung javelins similarly equipped, and
the flights of these masses of inextinguishable flames must have been
equally demoralising to the combatants against whom they were directed
and destructive to the ships and inflammable buildings upon which they
fell. This composition is thought to have been invented in the seventh
century; the first occasion on which it was employed on an extensive
scale was in the great battle between the fleets of Constantine and the
Saracens, when the latter, through its agency, lost practically their
whole fleet and thirty thousand men killed. After that both sides used
Greek fire whenever possible.
Up to the introduction of gunpowder and artillery the methods of
fighting varied but little. The sea-fights of the Crusades were
conducted on the lines which had been recognised as the best for a
couple of thousand years or more, viz., ram the enemy and board him.
Greek fire added this rule: Burn him also if you can.
The countries along the northern and southern shores of the
Mediterranean had attained a high degree of civilisation when the
inhabitants of Western Europe and the British Islands were still more
or less savage. What may be regarded as circumstantial evidence in
support of the contention that the Phœnicians voyaged to Cornwall and
Ireland is the similarity which exists in shape between the wicker
shields, such as the Phœnicians are known to have used, and the wicker
coracles which the Britons employed at the time of the invasion by
Julius Cæsar. There must have been considerable intercourse between
the Phœnicians and the dwellers in the valley of the Euphrates before
the latter conquered the former; but whether the dwellers in Nineveh,
or those by the sea, invented wicker boats, or whether both derived
their knowledge of wicker boats from other sources, are points of no
immediate importance. But what is of interest is that the British
wicker coracles were covered with hides to make them watertight, that
they had keels and gunwales, and that they were small enough to be used
as shields if necessary, their dimensions being rather over 4 feet in
length, with a breadth of about 3 feet, and a depth of a trifle over
12 inches. They were big enough to carry one man of average size.
There are on the Euphrates to this day boats or rafts of proportionate
dimensions, up to a maximum length of 40 or 50 feet over all, which
are constructed with a light framework of wicker and timber, over
which skins are stretched to keep them watertight. These boats, when
laden, drift down the river with the current, and, on reaching their
destination, their cargo and skins are sold and the framework is made
up into a package and returned upon the back of an ass to the port of
departure. These cargo boats have been humorously referred to at a
meeting of the Institute of Marine Engineers as of “one ass-power.”
So far as Britain is concerned, the shipping of each coast seems to
have developed under the influence of the foreign shipping with which
it mostly came in contact. The east coast was largely concerned with
the Danes, and the south coast with its neighbours across the Channel.
The Danes and Vikings developed a type of vessel peculiarly their own.
The best specimen yet brought to light is that known as the Gokstad
ship.
[Illustration: AN ANGLO-SAXON SHIP OF ABOUT THE NINTH CENTURY. (_From
Strutt._)]
The Viking ships must have walked the waters almost with the grace of
motion of a modern yacht, and when the great square sail was hoisted,
bearing the escutcheon of some dread sea-rover, they must have been
fascinating emblems of human skill and power no less than of the
noblest and the basest passions of mankind.
The large rowing and sailing galleys of the Mediterranean were
fine-weather ships, it being the custom to suspend merchant voyages,
naval expeditions, and piracy in that sea during the winter months.
Obviously, such vessels were wholly unsuited to the Atlantic coasts
of Western Europe. The western coasts of Spain, France and Portugal
produced a ship, short and broad, and strong enough to be beached even
when a moderate sea was running. This model was seemingly copied
by the English of the south coast, and vessels of this type, built in
the eighth century, were planked and carried high, erect stemposts and
sternposts. The vessels were single-masted and fitted with a yard and
square sail, and the steering was effected by a large oar at the stern.
They were not unlike the Viking ships in some respects, but they were
of less average length and broader in proportion, having bluffer bows,
a less fine entry, and a long flat floor extending farther aft than did
that of the northern ships. Some also had a ram.
[Illustration: VIKING SHIP FOUND AT GOKSTAD, SOUTH NORWAY. _Photograph:
O. Vaering, Christiania._]
What may be regarded as the first great national step in British
shipbuilding was inaugurated in the latter part of the ninth century,
when King Alfred saw that in order to beat the Danes he must meet
them with ships superior in size and strength to their own. His war
galleys were virtually double the size of those of the invaders, and
in some instances almost double their length. The Gokstad ship, by
no means one of the largest of its type, had sixteen oars a side. If
Alfred’s boats had thirty oars or more a side, as is stated, and were
double-banked--that is, two men to each oar--like those of his foes,
the fighting strength of the individual ships of his navy must have
been very great.
By the eleventh century the Norsemen had taken to painting their
vessels externally, besides making them larger and giving them decks.
The stempost and sternpost were more ornately decorated, gilded
copper being the material used for this purpose. Svend Forkbeard’s
own ship, the _Great Dragon_, is said to have been in the form of
this legendary beast, but what the historian most likely meant is
that the stern decoration or the design on the sail may have shown a
fantastic representation of the fearsome animal; the Vikings were too
good seamen to have built the ship in any form likely to be inferior
to the shape they had learned to appreciate so highly. The _Long
Serpent_, which appeared in that century, is said to have been 117
feet in length, and decked, and to have carried six hundred men. This
is the first war vessel in the Western seas known to have been decked
throughout,[7] and in which cabin accommodation was provided for the
principal fighting men. Beneath the deck the hull was divided into five
cabins or compartments; the foremost was the _lokit_, in which, in a
royal vessel, the king’s standard bearers were quartered; next, the
_sax_ or storeroom; then the _kraproom_, where sails and tackle were
kept; the _foreroom_, containing the arms chest, and forming the living
room of the warriors; and astern of all was the _lofting_, or great
cabin, devoted to the commander. For the comfort of the rank and file
of the fighting men at night in port an awning was spread, supported
by a ridge pole on pillars. At other times they would seem to have had
to put up with sleeping on deck and making the best of it; they would
certainly be no worse off than in the old days of the open ships, and
being somewhat higher above the water would be less exposed to the
spray. At the end of the twelfth century King Sverre Sigurdsson had
some merchant ships cut across amidships and lengthened, and then used
them as war ships.
[Illustration: FLEET ATTACKING A FORTIFIED TOWN. _MS. Harl. 326._]
William the Conqueror’s fleet in the eleventh century is estimated at
anything between six hundred and ninety-six vessels and three thousand;
a manuscript in the Bodleian Library gives the number as one thousand.
Most of the vessels were small, if the illustrations on the Bayeux
tapestry are to be accepted. The type of ship is no doubt represented
with a fair amount of accuracy, but in certain other respects the
efforts of the weavers of the tapestry are only less grotesque than
the so-called ships which appear on some of the medals of the ports,
but which nevertheless have been accepted as correct representations
of the ships of the times, whereas they should be regarded as
indicating approximately the type of vessel then in vogue. With the
exception that a few ships were built of rather greater dimensions--the
largest in the invading fleet can hardly have been more than 80 tons
burthen--shipbuilding shows but little development on the Atlantic
coast until after the introduction of artillery.
[Illustration: WARSHIPS OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. (_After Harleian
MS.--1319. fol. 18._)]
A battle between a Cinque Ports fleet under Hubert de Burgh and a
French fleet under Eustace is chiefly remarkable by reason of the
English manœuvring to secure the windward position, this being the
first occasion on which this manœuvre is recorded, and the attack
on the French rear ended in a signal English victory. The fame of
the English archers was great, and they added to their laurels by
playing no small part in the battle. From their positions in the
tops and on the forecastles they kept up a steady flight of arrows
upon the French. The arrows carried flasks of unslaked lime which
broke on striking the French ships, and the lime dust, borne on the
wind, entered the eyes of the enemy and blinded them, the defeat of
the French following. The ships of that period were provided with
platforms, elevated on wooden pillars, at the bow and stern. The
erections were the forerunners of the immense structures which were
added in later years and did so much to render ships unstable.
A Venetian ship constructed for Louis IX. of France in 1298, and named
the _Roccafortis_, was 70 feet long on the keel and 110 feet over all,
with a width at prow and poop of 40 feet. She is stated to have had two
decks and a fighting castle at each end. Possibly the weight of the
_bellatorium_, as the castle was called, may have necessitated such an
extraordinary beam near the bows and stern, but she could never have
been built with such dimensions to be other than a floating fortress.
In the Mediterranean, however, great activity prevailed. The Crusades
gave a tremendous impetus to the shipping of the Middle Sea. Christians
and Saracens vied with each other in the production of ships of war.
The larger “busses” sent to the Levant in the fleet of Richard Cœur de
Lion carried, according to Richard of Devizes, a captain and fifteen
seamen, and forty knights with their horses, forty footmen, fourteen
servants, and twelve months’ provision for all. Some vessels are said
to have carried double this complement and cargo. A Saracen ship, of
which little is known, was encountered off the Syrian coast, of so
great a size that it could not be subdued until the Christian galleys
charged in line abreast and smashed in her side so that she went down
with nearly all of her one thousand five hundred men.
[Illustration: A GALLEY OF THE KNIGHTS OF MALTA. _From the Model in the
Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: MEDITERRANEAN GALLEY. _From a Model in the Museum of the
Royal United Service Institution._]