Ships

[Pharnakes]

Shouldn't ships be buildable as regionals?

After all, if the Celts conquered Greece, they would surley adopt a more Hellenistic theme to thier navy, as their own surley left a lot to be desired.

[blank]

Shouldn't ships be buildable as regionals?

After all, if the Celts conquered Greece, they would surley adopt a more Hellenistic theme to thier navy, as their own surley left a lot to be desired.

Celtic ships were pretty good actually

[Pharnakes]

Hardly up to facing down a Tetrere, though.

[Watchman]

And conversely by what I understand of it most ships designed for the Med, and particularly galleys, by and large suck on the rough seas of the oceans.

[Pharnakes]

True enough.

[Ignopotens]

it's still a a fair point about regional ship-building, though

[Watchman]

True. It'd certainly kind of make sense for a people encountering a whole new type of sea to negotiate to adopt as much of the local tried-and-true practices as possible. Although the Atlantic types as such ought to work well enough in the Med as far as sailing around goes, one can kind of see where such sailing "roundships" dependent upon boarding for their offensive power could soon be found wanting against the ram-festooned galleys...

[QwertyMIDX]

Well during the 1st Punic War boarding tactics won out over ramming so that's not quite so cut and dry.

[Pharnakes]

@Watchman Yes, my thoughts exactly and I'm sure that the mediteranean powers in there turn would adopt something salong the line of long boats if forced to navigate the Atlantic or the Baltic.

@QwertMIDX, Yeah, but that was large, fast galleys boarding large, fast galleys, not slower, low freeboard celtic type boats, the crew of a long boat would surley have quite a hard time getting onto a Tetrere, let alone a well defended one.

[Watchman]

Nevermind now the blunt fact the oared ships, entirely independent of the wind as they now are, can literally run rings around the weather-dependent sailing roundships. Those big Celtic ships might actually be quite a daunting prospect for most galley types to board, but even the little ones ought to have fairly little trouble ramming their waterlines full of holes...

There's good reasons it took a while even after the introduction of cannon that the roundships reached even true parity with the oared types in the Med - and coastal galleys gave British line ships no end of pain in the Baltic archipelagoes as late as Napoleonic times.

[Pharnakes]

Yes, getting caught in calm and forced to endure racking fire from a half a dozen galleys with a brace of 24lbers each can be a harrowing experince to say the least.

Hehe, this thread seems to have caught a hammer disease, so heres a few more:

[Sarcasm]

There's good reasons it took a while even after the introduction of cannon that the roundships reached even true parity with the oared types in the Med - and coastal galleys gave British line ships no end of pain in the Baltic archipelagoes as late as Napoleonic times.

Hmmm...it's true that galleys were more manoeuvrable, but they have a lot inherent disadvantages. And I can say comfortably that Portuguese ships - mainly carracks and three masted caravels [with a galleass bow] - regularly destroyed Turkish, Indian and Malayan fleets many times in size and troop complement throughout the whole 16th century (and the latter part of the 15th) who relied on rowed vessels. Even in river mouths and at port, where sail-dependent ships are at a disadvantage.

[Sarcasm]

Yes, getting caught in calm and forced to endure racking fire from a half a dozen galleys with a brace of 24lbers each can be a harrowing experince to say the least.

Hehe, this thread seems to have caught a hammer disease, so heres a few more:

I think I can find an story on how a Portuguese galleon stood up to around 15 enemy galleys by itself for over a day, after having it's masts taken out only to be rescued by some warships that happened to be in the area.

[Pharnakes]

Of course there are always exceptions, but then they only prove the rule...


And in large fleet engaments, galleys are at an obvious massive disadvantage. But in the right circumstances galleys were still relevant to naval warfare well into the 19th century. And the evolution of the galley, the gun boat was even deadlier, properly used.

[Watchman]

Hmmm...it's true that galleys were more manoeuvrable, but they have a lot inherent disadvantages.

Oh, certainly. The things were logistical and strategic headaches, and their design was ultimately a no-win cul de sac.

And I can say comfortably that Portuguese ships - mainly carracks and three masted caravels [with a galleass bow] - regularly destroyed Turkish, Indian and Malayan fleets many times in size and troop complement throughout the whole 16th century (and the latter part of the 15th) who relied on rowed vessels. Even in river mouths and at port, where sail-dependent are at a disadvantage.

*shrug* That's the fully developed Atlantic shipping plus cannon for ya. It took a very long time and lots of lives lost to the Atlantic for those to develop, but once they did the Europeans by and large ruled the oceans. Do recall that the Baltic coastal galleys were essentially light and cheap "gunships" that had grown out of the selfsame maritime tradition that birthed the ocean-going sailing ships; I'm pretty sure they didn't share too much common ancestry with their Mediterranean cousins.

Although... Indian ? I would think the Indian Ocean wasn't much more forgiving to oared ships than any other ocean, and the warships there were primarily sailing ships ? Can't say I'm terribly familiar with the naval history of the subcontinent of course.

I think I can find an story on how a Portuguese galleon stood up to around 15 enemy galleys by itself for over a day, after having it's masts taken out only to be rescued by some warships that happened to be in the area.

Quite credible; the big roundships could take obscene amounts of punishement without sinking, not counting being set on fire or blowing up through magazine ignition. It's not like the ship itself actually suffered that much on the short term from having holes busted all around its hull after all. That's one reason boarding tactics were popular in some circles - when succesful they gave you decisive victory quickly without all that unpleasant and rather frustrating firefighting which could go on for a day without anything more happening than lots of crewmen dying messily and both ships getting increasingly damaged.
It's a different story entirely if the ship was anything more than a crippled, floating abattoir of course...

[Sarcasm]

Oh, certainly. The things were logistical and strategic headaches, and their design was ultimately a no-win cul de sac.

*shrug* That's the fully developed Atlantic shipping plus cannon for ya. It took a very long time and lots of lives lost to the Atlantic for those to develop, but once they did the Europeans by and large ruled the oceans. Do recall that the Baltic coastal galleys were essentially light and cheap "gunships" that had grown out of the selfsame maritime tradition that birthed the ocean-going sailing ships; I'm pretty sure they didn't share too much common ancestry with their Mediterranean cousins.

I wouldn't say that it took a fully developed Atlantic shipping or even cannon for that matter. After all a great many battles were won before there was even a standardizing of cannon calibres, and in fact some of the bigger ones were even shooting stone-shots as late as the 1590's (and also considering that the first Atlantic expansion was the Portuguese one that started in 1415).

Although... Indian ? I would think the Indian Ocean wasn't much more forgiving to oared ships than any other ocean, and the warships there were primarily sailing ships ? Can't say I'm terribly familiar with the naval history of the subcontinent of course.

Heh, yeah the only areas where the galley resisted as the primary ship were in fact the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, Eastern coast of India and Ceylon and then around the Malaysian straits and the myriad of islands after it. The thing is, naval warfare at that age could only be efficiently carried out outside of the monsoon season (often the loading the shipments bound for home and getting them out of the area before the season hit was the foremost preoccupation of any Vice-Roy), so the weather wasn't much of a preoccupation outside that particular time.

There were of course tallships in the area, but those where usually either a sort of big Dhow with castles on each end, Turkish vessels and even Venician built ones, but the main types used by the natives were galleys, galliots or fustes. Not counting the swarms of the even smaller paraus.

Curiously the Portuguese had pretty much phased out galleys by the time they reached those areas, only keeping a few to counter piracy along the straits of Gibraltar (a function galleys really shine in) and as part of the forces that held the North African cities from the Muslims. However they quickly found that they were of use on the other side of the world in a similar role, but there was the problem on how to get them there before there were actual shipyards in their power...the solution was really simple - disassembled and carried by in numbered pieces by carracks.

Quite credible; the big roundships could take obscene amounts of punishement without sinking, not counting being set on fire or blowing up through magazine ignition. It's not like the ship itself actually suffered that much on the short term from having holes busted all around its hull after all. That's one reason boarding tactics were popular in some circles - when succesful they gave you decisive victory quickly without all that unpleasant and rather frustrating firefighting which could go on for a day without anything more happening than lots of crewmen dying messily and both ships getting increasingly damaged.
It's a different story entirely if the ship was anything more than a crippled, floating abattoir of course...

Indeed. But mind you that these were not the galleons that appeared a decade after the great armada against Britain. These were actually one of the first purposely built warships in the world (more in the spirit of the British light galleons but larger, and slower) and along with the Galleasses, provided by the kingdom of Naples, the only thing that kept the Armada from being completely destroyed. They actually made an inventory of the amount of ammunition carried by each ship before and after the mission and they were pretty much dry, unlike the common misconception that all the ships in the fleet didn't shoot as much as the English, when in fact they did, and often single Portuguese galleons (they were not Spanish) fought rearguard actions against 3 or 4 English galleons at a time. Fact is the majority of the ships involved in the operation were not built for war nor the crew trained to fire in a full-pitched battle.

Most galleons survived the battle, and only none were sunk by gunfire, some were beached after the fight took their masts away, while others shipwrecked in the trip around the islands. Oh and all 4 galleys involved shipwrecked on the way there you'd figure they'd know that doing that sort of operation with a galley would be disastrous. And they were volunteers, how strange was that?

And I just realized how big the rant was... sorry, I'm interested in the subject, can you tell?

[MiniMe]

arrrrrgh...
Western european naval warfare history is the thing I constantly envy and regret that we, Ze Russians, don't have such one, at least, of that scale and importance.
I'm great fan of Patrick O'Brian novels, "Master and commander" and the rest of them.

[keravnos]

Just a random factoid for you, naval wargamers. Recently the team trying to read Archimedes' Palimpseston,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Which was written in a papyrus then erased with prayers being written over, and that was in an Orthodox monastery until recently, when various techniques borrowed from Sattelite imagery and other advancements made possible the reading, little by little of the Palimpseston, and other works on that papyrus

made an exciting discovery...

Greek ships at Salamis were quoted as 220. Already, the Historical dept. of the Greek Navy is trying to reconstruct the sea battle and figure out the size of Persian forces. Another quote on that papyrus was that Alexander won at Cheronia by blind luck not strategy, but that was an Athenian speaking so...

[mAIOR]

Well, I recall chapter in russian naval warfare. It was in 1905 :)... Sorry had this urge to do it.
The war only ships would be 60 gunners I believe and the uniformization of calibers was introduced much later on.
And the better example of Portuguese ships efficiency was I belive in the battle of Cape Matapao in wich we sent the Turkish fleet to meet Davy Jones...

Cheers...

[MiniMe]

Well, I recall chapter in russian naval warfare. It was in 1905

yep =/
1905 was bad year for russia by all means... some historians consider 1905 events to be the trigger for 1917

[keravnos]

Hey, don't hit the Russians.
Had it not been for a small sea battle in Navarin 1828, that Russian, French and English ships took part in, I wouldn't be here.

[Redmeth]

What do you mean, did your great-great-grandparents meet after the battle or something? The classic injured soldier/girl who nurses him story?

[MiniMe]

Right, russia and turkey relations have a long story =)
1676-1680, 1686-1690, 1771-1713, 1735-1739, 1768-1774, 1787-1791, 1806-1812, 1828-1829, 1853-1856, 1877-1878

sorry for going offtop =)

[keravnos]

What do you mean, did your great-great-grandparents meet after the battle or something? The classic injured soldier/girl who nurses him story?

He he he, nope. I just think that there would be no Modern Greece, had it not been for Navarin, thus, had I been around, I might not have been Greek, or 10.000 other things might have happened.

[blank]

i don't know what all the talk about medieval ships is about, but i recall reading from a unit description that the Celtic ships were really quite good, and Caesar was unable to beat them by normal means with his ''superior'' ships (ramming and boarding, probably), so he had to devise other tactics (fire arrows etc). Also, didn't the Gauls also sail in the western Meditarranean?

[Watchman]

I'm pretty sure Caesar didn't exactly have proper Mediterranean war-fleets at his disposal when dealing with the Veneti you know.

[Pharnakes]

Yes exactly, and anyhow, the point is he still won, even if with slightly unconventional tactics.

[Kralizec]

i don't know what all the talk about medieval ships is about, but i recall reading from a unit description that the Celtic ships were really quite good, and Caesar was unable to beat them by normal means with his ''superior'' ships (ramming and boarding, probably), so he had to devise other tactics (fire arrows etc). Also, didn't the Gauls also sail in the western Meditarranean?

I think the relevant description also mentioned that they were not the largest ships used by the Gauls. Will there be another ship level for the Celts or at least the Adeui and Arverni?