# Oceanic Galleys



## Aldarion (Jul 27, 2019)

OK, my setting is essentially a "what if Western Roman Empire survived to 15th century" set into fantasy world. I used elements of Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Matthias Corvinus' Hungary and 100 Year War England in worldbuilding... but I ran into problem with ships. My setting does not have gunpowder - I will be writing about why on my blog - so sail-only warships such as carracks, galleons and ships of the line make little sense. At the same time, there are no inner seas such as Mediterranean, which means that warships will be galleys, but will have to be adapted to oceanic conditions. The only such galleys I know of are Viking longships and Irish galleys. Latter seem to have had something akin to an "Atlantic bow" featured prominently on British battleships such as Vanguard.

Discussions I found on Irish galleys:
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/sho...t-coast-Irish-galley-1-24-scale-scratch-built
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19362-irish-galley-c1580-by-deperdussin1910-124-radio-scratch-pof/

Images as to how such a ship might look:
https://static.rcgroups.net/forums/...30 xebec_algerian_1830_captured by France.gif
https://static.rcgroups.net/forums/...is Mercatoria Galley of 32 oars, 2 men on.jpg
https://static.rcgroups.net/forums/...lley Dalmatia 17 to 18c  became Croatia a.jpg
https://static.rcgroups.net/forums/...-122-galley barbary xebec model Le IMAXES.jpg
https://static.rcgroups.net/forums/...38-galley barbary xebec model Le IMAXES 2.jpg

Thoughts?


----------



## CyberWar (Jul 27, 2019)

Seems you have encountered the exact same problem that shipbuilders and sailors encountered in the Middle Ages, i.e., the ill-suitedness of galleys for oceanic travel, which lead to the development of sail-only ships that eventually outclassed the galleys entirely.

One of the main reasons a Mediterranean-style galley (which is what most people associate with that word) is unsuitable for oceanic travel is crew size. A decent-sized galley would typically have 200+ rowers in addition to the rest of the crew and passengers. All of them required provisions, leaving little room for much else, be it cannons or cargo. This wasn't a problem in the Mediterranean, where the journey to the next friendly port generally wouldn't take more than a week, but it certainly became a problem when travelling away from well-charted waters where it was impossible to know when and where the ship could be resupplied again.

Ocean-going "galleys" like the Norse and Irish longships weren't really galleys in the classical sense, relying primarily on wind for propulsion in the open seas, using oars mainly to travel upstream in rivers and maneuver in coastal waters, calm weather or combat. Furthermore, longships were generally designed to carry large amounts of cargo and a relatively small crew (seeing how the primary occupation of most Norse seafarers was trade rather than raiding). This let them carry enough supplies for long journeys, but also limited their upper practical size - asides from technical limitations of longship architecture, a larger ship would require more rowers, leaving less room for supplies and cargo.

For this reason, Medieval trade ships all across Europe were generally either sail-only, or only included a small number of rowers (which in turn limited their size) in order to minimize crew size and maximize cargo capacity. As the trade between Medieval cities grew and expanded, cargo ships became larger in response. Many would begin to have too great draught to travel up most rivers, further rendering the inclusion of rowers pointless along with advances in rigging technology that allowed the wind to be harnessed more effectively. These advances would eventually lead to the evolution of the oceangoing carracks and caravels, both deriving from sail-only cargo ships rather than the traditional galleys. Carracks and their descendants became effective warships as well, because doing away with the hundreds of rowers meant freeing up room to carry more guns and soldiers to man them or fight in boarding actions.

So I think even in a setting without gunpowder, your navies would invariably come to use sail-only ships, simply using mechanical artillery and flamethrowers instead of guns or just relying on boarding actions in combat. They just have too much of advantages over galleys especially out in the open seas.

Furthermore, if you are doing an alt-hist work on a surviving Western Roman Empire, I don't see why they wouldn't have gunpowder in the first place. If anything, the Romans were very keen on technological innovation where it gave them an edge in warfare. Byzantine navy was infamous for their flamethrower-armed war galleys until the technology was eclipsed by guns and lost, no reason to think Western Romans would have fared any worse.


----------



## Aldarion (Jul 27, 2019)

@CyberWar As I understand it, warships only lost oars after dominance of cannon in naval warfare made maneuverability and boarding less important, plus the fact that it is difficult to mount oars and cannon both. Even so, there were some attempts at rowed frigates even into 18th century - Hemmema for example. So that would suggest that even oceanic navies would use galleys for warfare, unless - as you mention - they had far-away commitments (e.g. colonies). So I am trying to find a form of galley that would be suitable for an oceanic navy. Currently I am favouring Irish longship or something similar to it. As for trade ships, I imagine they would be similar to cogs - which later developed into caravels and carracks, so they indeed would have no oars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cog_(ship)

Reason why I do not want to include gunpowder is basically that its inclusion signals end to your classical medieval warfare. I am not certain yet on how I want technological progression to go, but right now, I am envisioning Greek Fire as primary ship-to-ship weapon, at short range at least.


----------



## CyberWar (Jul 27, 2019)

Arming ships with large numbers of guns only became possible _after _transitioning to sail-only power for the reason I described - the simple lack of space aboard a galley to put them and their crews because of the scores of rowers. While the galley certainly didn't go away for another two centuries after the advent of carracks and caravels, it was gradually outclassed as a warship by gun-bearing sailing ships in pretty much every setting besides shallow island-rich waters like those along the Adriatic and the Aegean (and to a lesser degree, the Baltic)

In naval combat, the galley relies on speed and maneuverability provided by the rowers to swiftly close in on the enemy (preferably from an ambush position, such as behind a small island) and then ram and/or board it. If the boarding failed, the galley could then swiftly withdraw back to safety. For that to happen, the galley must be sleek and relatively shallow-draughted - but that also means there's relatively little room for gunners and marines, limiting the size of combat-effective crew. Making the galley bigger will increase it's width and draught (and therefore drag), negating the advantages provided by the rowers, and putting more rowers aboard the galley to compensate in turn negates the reason of making it bigger (more space for troops). Galleys also generally have a low freeboard in order to keep the ship's center of mass low for stability reasons. This, along with their sleek and elongated form, however, makes them ill-suited for open oceans with large waves which can easily flood or break them in two. Caesar learned this the hard way off the coast of Britanny, consequently adopting the local longship-style boats for his Britanny coast campaign with much better success.

Now, all of the above wasn't much of a problem in an age when everybody used galleys for warfare, the quest for naval dominance largely revolving around making larger galleys (as the monster galleys built during the arms race between the Hellenic states well attests). Even Greek fire wasn't really a game-changer due to its limited range and inherent danger to the operating ships. That, however, changed after it occurred to someone to arm a merchant cog with cannons. Having a much higher freeboard than any galley, the cog was already a difficult target to board - the defenders could shoot and hurl projectiles at boarders from high above, giving them a distinct advantage, and cannons now enabled it to blast apart any galley-borne attacker from a safe distance. The cog's relatively short and rotund hull meant it was much more durable and stable in high seas, and if the galley's initial attack failed to overwhelm it, it could simply sail away to safety as the attacker's rowers got exhausted. Using the galley's sails to give chase in turn negated any advantage having oars gave, meaning the cog and its descendants could fight back on their own terms. With their guns being spaced along the broadsides rather than concentrated in the forecastle, cog-style ships had a much wider field of fire, leaving little options of safe approach for the galley. In fact, to bear it's own forward-pointing guns on the target, the galley had to approach the target head-on, potentially exposing itself to raking fire - which, given the crew density and the ship's reliance on manpower for propulsion, could prove devastating.

For the above reasons, gun-carrying sailing ships were only defeated in combat by galleys if outnumbered or caught by surprise. The reasons why galleys didn't go out of favour for another two centuries have to do mainly with technology and cost. Early cannons were ill-suited for naval warfare, being either large siege bombards or small bronze pieces, neither of which were very practical or effective in naval combat, so naval battles were still fought mainly in the old-fashioned way where galleys were reasonably effective. However, as metalworkers learned to cast larger and more reliable guns at a reasonable cost, it became practical to arm ships with large numbers of cannon. The galley still lingered on, though, because outfitting a war carrack with guns was no small endeavor - a larger warship at the time would often have more cannons than an entire army on land, so building and arming a galley was generally much cheaper. Galleys eventually remained in a niche use (such as your mentioned hemmema hybrid ships) until completely eclipsed by sailing ships.

---

Long story short, I think you should use cog-like sailing ships for at least your ocean-going fleets even if you eschew gunpowder technology. Open ocean is simply too rough for traditional galleys, and building them like cogs would negate any advantages that having oars gives.

You might even have some of them armed with cannon without ruining your original concept of it being a Late Medieval setting. Early on, guns aboard ships were few in number and not very effective, being fielded mostly by wealthy shipowners as a novelty and a psychological weapon.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 27, 2019)

Cyber: Are you a history professor?
I saw that in awe, not jest. Your responses to historical questions are always deeply fascinating.


----------



## Aldarion (Jul 27, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> Arming ships with large numbers of guns only became possible _after _transitioning to sail-only power for the reason I described - the simple lack of space aboard a galley to put them and their crews because of the scores of rowers. While the galley certainly didn't go away for another two centuries after the advent of carracks and caravels, it was gradually outclassed as a warship by gun-bearing sailing ships in pretty much every setting besides shallow island-rich waters like those along the Adriatic and the Aegean (and to a lesser degree, the Baltic)
> 
> In naval combat, the galley relies on speed and maneuverability provided by the rowers to swiftly close in on the enemy (preferably from an ambush position, such as behind a small island) and then ram and/or board it. If the boarding failed, the galley could then swiftly withdraw back to safety. For that to happen, the galley must be sleek and relatively shallow-draughted - but that also means there's relatively little room for gunners and marines, limiting the size of combat-effective crew. Making the galley bigger will increase it's width and draught (and therefore drag), negating the advantages provided by the rowers, and putting more rowers aboard the galley to compensate in turn negates the reason of making it bigger (more space for troops). Galleys also generally have a low freeboard in order to keep the ship's center of mass low for stability reasons. This, along with their sleek and elongated form, however, makes them ill-suited for open oceans with large waves which can easily flood or break them in two. Caesar learned this the hard way off the coast of Britanny, consequently adopting the local longship-style boats for his Britanny coast campaign with much better success.
> 
> ...



That is what I referred to by the "fact that it is difficult to mount cannon and oars both". But the fact is that sail-only ships existed long before the introduction of cannon, and galleys remained in use long after. Therefore, it seems likely to me that the reason why sailing ships became dominant was the increased sophistication and tactical effect of cannons. But my knowledge of this transition period is mostly limited to Mediterranean; though I had found in my research that English may have used sail-only warships as early as 11th century or so. And in my setting, primary ranged weapons would be ballistae and Greek Fire; there is no cannon (I am even thinking going back to 11th century equipment in general, not just wrt artillery, but for now I still have Gothic plate being used).

So, as far as country with no access to closed seas goes, would a caravel armed with ballistas be better warship than a galley? And would Greek Fire shift balance towards galley or caravel?



> Long story short, I think you should use cog-like sailing ships for at least your ocean-going fleets even if you eschew gunpowder technology. Open ocean is simply too rough for traditional galleys, and building them like cogs would negate any advantages that having oars gives.
> 
> You might even have some of them armed with cannon without ruining your original concept of it being a Late Medieval setting. Early on, guns aboard ships were few in number and not very effective, being fielded mostly by wealthy shipowners as a novelty and a psychological weapon.



The question now is whether to use sailing ships only or a mix of sailing and oared ships. I am currently leaning towards the latter, at least for riverine warships. These would likely be similar to small Byzantine dromonds or else Norse / Irish ships. As for oceanic warships, I had come to agree that a cog-like ship would be better. Currently, I am thinking of caravel type. Cogs evolved from transport ships, but an oceanic maritime power would have developed a much speedier ships for military.

I am aware of cannons being used in medieval times and warships - in fact, one of my favourite Renaissance-era rulers, Matthias Corvinus, relied on gunpowder weapons for both artillery and infantry (his father, Jon Hunyadi, used mostly crossbowmen). Problem with introducing gunpowder weapons is that it sets a ticking clock - gunpowder is a revolutionary concept in warfare, metallurgical advances are evolutionary. If you get gunpowder, then sooner or later you will be getting to pike-and-shot era, and then to line infantry era. I _had_ considered having cannons and hand cannons in army, but as I said... that would mean technological progression, and I am not yet sure whether I want that. It also means the end of military power of all but largest landowners and general centralization - I am not sure whether thematic-like military organization I had designed would work with even early gunpowder army.

EDIT: I had found that a 250-ton caravel has crew of 35. But what is normal soldier/infantry complement for that size?


----------



## CyberWar (Jul 27, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Cyber: Are you a history professor?
> I saw that in awe, not jest. Your responses to historical questions are always deeply fascinating.



I sure wish I was. I did study history in university for 3 years, but never actually graduated, so I guess that makes me an amateur enthusiast.


----------



## CyberWar (Jul 27, 2019)

Aldarion said:


> That is what I referred to by the "fact that it is difficult to mount cannon and oars both". But the fact is that sail-only ships existed long before the introduction of cannon, and galleys remained in use long after. Therefore, it seems likely to me that the reason why sailing ships became dominant was the increased sophistication and tactical effect of cannons. But my knowledge of this transition period is mostly limited to Mediterranean; though I had found in my research that English may have used sail-only warships as early as 11th century or so. And in my setting, primary ranged weapons would be ballistae and Greek Fire; there is no cannon (I am even thinking going back to 11th century equipment in general, not just wrt artillery, but for now I still have Gothic plate being used).
> 
> So, as far as country with no access to closed seas goes, would a caravel armed with ballistas be better warship than a galley? And would Greek Fire shift balance towards galley or caravel?
> 
> ...



To your first question, the short answer is no, a caravel with ballistas instead of guns would not be more powerful than a war galley. Artillery ships weren't really that common in the Middle Ages or Antiquity, because mounting a siege engine on a ship isn't as straightforward as it might seem. The ones powerful enough to sink a ship were generally mounted in a fixed forward position with limited traverse to avoid unbalancing the ship. Ships mounting such engines also required structural reinforcement to prevent repeated firing from shaking the ship apart.

Now, smaller engines like the Roman scorpions would be a whole different matter, but would have negligible chance of sinking an enemy ship on their own. They would be used primarily in an anti-personnel role akin to later swivel guns, and to shoot fire arrows or incendiary pots at the enemy ship.

With that being said, a caravel without guns would rely primarily on its contingent of marines in combat, the battle being decided in boarding action. This was how naval battles were fought during the Hundred Year War, both sides using cog-style sailing ships similar to later caravels. Facing against a proper war galley, a caravel would actually be at a disadvantage, being a relatively small ship - though it must be considered that caravels were never designed as warships to begin with.

Greek fire certainly could shift the balance in favour of the caravel, provided the weather is right and enemy galley doesn't have it's own Greek fire. One of the main advantages of a galley is that it is extremely maneuverable. In a calm weather, a galley could easily outmaneuver a caravel and deploy Greek fire from windward direction, or in the caravel's path, and quickly stop and reverse itself should the caravel attempt to do the same. However, the caravel would have an advantage over the galley on rough seas.

---

For your other question, a 250-ton ship could carry about 100-150 soldiers in addition to the crew. However, keeping a dedicated contingent of marines aboard a ship was an expensive luxury that even kings couldn't always afford, so most of the time there were no soldiers permanently attached to the ship whatsoever - they would embark the ship either to travel from one place to another and help along in any battles along the way, or embarked specifically to fight a particular battle. Consequently, their numbers could vary wildly. Simply put, the size of the troop complement was dictated by mission rather than any standard practice.

The Spanish Navy in the 16th century was the first to create a dedicated force of naval infantry semi-permanently attached to their ships. In most other cases, the ship's crew had to rely on themselves to defend against pirates and enemies. In those rough times, every sailor was already expected to know his way around a weapon. Men aboard warships and civilian vessels alike would practice regularly during journey, both to keep their fighting skills sharp and simply to pass time. In particularly dangerous waters, the shipowner might opt to hire extra protection if he had the means to. Usually these men were not professional soldiers but regular sailors who could help around the ship while their fighting skills were not needed.


----------



## Aldarion (Jul 28, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> To your first question, the short answer is no, a caravel with ballistas instead of guns would not be more powerful than a war galley. Artillery ships weren't really that common in the Middle Ages or Antiquity, because mounting a siege engine on a ship isn't as straightforward as it might seem. The ones powerful enough to sink a ship were generally mounted in a fixed forward position with limited traverse to avoid unbalancing the ship. Ships mounting such engines also required structural reinforcement to prevent repeated firing from shaking the ship apart.
> 
> Now, smaller engines like the Roman scorpions would be a whole different matter, but would have negligible chance of sinking an enemy ship on their own. They would be used primarily in an anti-personnel role akin to later swivel guns, and to shoot fire arrows or incendiary pots at the enemy ship.
> 
> ...



That is actually the role I envisioned for naval artillery in the setting - shooting pots of Greek Fire at enemy ships. And the weather problem is the biggest, in fact only, issue I have with galleys: how often will an ocean have good enough weather - even close to the shore - that galleys can be used? I certainly see galleys used for riverine and maybe coastal warfare, but as I mentioned - none of principal countries in my setting have access to closed seas such as Mediterranean.



> For your other question, a 250-ton ship could carry about 100-150 soldiers in addition to the crew. However, keeping a dedicated contingent of marines aboard a ship was an expensive luxury that even kings couldn't always afford, so most of the time there were no soldiers permanently attached to the ship whatsoever - they would embark the ship either to travel from one place to another and help along in any battles along the way, or embarked specifically to fight a particular battle. Consequently, their numbers could vary wildly. Simply put, the size of the troop complement was dictated by mission rather than any standard practice.
> 
> The Spanish Navy in the 16th century was the first to create a dedicated force of naval infantry semi-permanently attached to their ships. In most other cases, the ship's crew had to rely on themselves to defend against pirates and enemies. In those rough times, every sailor was already expected to know his way around a weapon. Men aboard warships and civilian vessels alike would practice regularly during journey, both to keep their fighting skills sharp and simply to pass time. In particularly dangerous waters, the shipowner might opt to hire extra protection if he had the means to. Usually these men were not professional soldiers but regular sailors who could help around the ship while their fighting skills were not needed.



From what I have read, Byzantine dromonds in 10th century also had dedicated naval infantry. It is mentioned in Age of Dromond, 261: _"In the inventory for the 911 expedition to Crete, the crewsspecified for the dromons of the imperial fleet and also for those ofsome provincial themata had 230 oarsmen, a[ndre" kwphlavtai (andresko2pe2latai) and 70 marines, polemistaiv (polemistai)"_. However: _"It is important toappreciate here that 230 men of the ships for the expedition of 949were described as “oarsmen, that is soldiers” (ploimoi ko2pe2latai e2toikai polemistai).332 They could double in both roles."_ This means that a heavy dromond had 230 oarsmen, 70 marines, but a total of 300 armed/fighting men. That was in fact one of things that decided battle of Lepanto: Christian rowers doubled as soldiers as well, Ottoman rowers were slaves.

This may actually be advantage for the galley, unless galley cannot reach the battlefield at all.

What were complements for Spanish caravels?


----------



## CyberWar (Jul 29, 2019)

I would think ballistas shooting large fire arrows wrapped with rags doused in Greek fire would be more practical than shooting pots of fire, mainly for the extreme fire hazard that a clay pot accidentally shattering upon firing would present. Ballistas are also more accurate and easier to aim than anything able to safely hurl a decent-sized pot. Smaller incendiary charges could be thrown at closer ranges with staff slings. Mind that the focus of combat would still be boarding, the objective of battle being to capture the enemy ship if possible rather than sink it outright. A warship was a very valuable prize, so an attacker would generally attempt to seize it intact whenever possible.

I would say one thing better than having rowers double as soldiers is having no rowers in the first place, leaving more room for dedicated fighters undistracted by having to man the ship. Also, armed rowers would only be useful on the defense, repelling enemy boarders - during offensive action, they'd still have to maneuver the ship.

---

As for the complement of caravels, I already pointed out earlier that it would strongly depend on the mission. To start with, caravels were no warships - they were built and owned primarily by private entrepreneurs, meaning their complement would be whatever the owner needed and could afford to hire. There wasn't even a set standard to what constituted a caravel beyond general size and design features - each ship was built to individual specifications, so no two caravels were the same. Western Europeans were generally lazy about observing any set manufacturing standards until about 17th century.

The typical caravel crew would range between 20-40 men. The captain was usually either the merchant who owned or rented the ship, or a lesser nobleman in the employ of the shipowner. The second man on the ship was the navigator, usually a literate man who could read charts and use navigation instruments. He would plot the ship's course and relay instructions to the helmsman. In smaller crews, the helmsman who was invariably a veteran sailor also performed the duties of the navigator. 

Every crew had some men-at-arms whose primary duty was security and combat. These were usually lesser noblemen who would serve as officers to the rest of the crew in combat, and would number around 4-10 depending on crew size. If the expedition was expecting to run into trouble, additional soldiers would be hired or attached by the mission's sponsor. While a larger caravel could carry as many as 150 troops in addition to the regular crew, this wasn't common and was usually done on short-range journeys where battle was almost certainly expected. The crew was also armed and would partake in fighting as necessary. When exploring new shores, most of the men would land ashore and leave behind a skeleton crew to keep the ship ready for departure in case things went afoul.

Each ship had at least one carpenter, usually with several assistants, to carry out any necessary repairs. There was the ship's doctor - more often a barber who doubled as a surgeon than a university-trained physician, and a priest - for the deeply-religious Spanish and Portugese seamen, it would have been almost unthinkable to embark on a long and dangerous journey into the unknown without a representative of the Church aboard to tend to their souls. These ship priests were often from rural backgrounds and poorly educated, deemed unfit to be granted their own parish, though what little formal schooling they had still put them above most of the day in terms of literacy. Obviously, another important person on the ship was the cook. If the captain was a man of some means and refined taste, he could bring along a professional cook with assistants for the expedition. Most often, however, the meals were prepared by one of the sailors who was deemed to be the most competent at the task. With the proliferation of cannons, ships would also begin to employ a master gunner, who was responsible for the maintenance of the ship's artillery and the training and organizing of its crew.

A special position in a caravel's crew was the interpreter. This was usually a native slave, taken from around the region the expedition was headed to and fluent in Portugese/Spanish as well as one or more of the local languages. His job was to parlay with native leaders and secure safe passage and/or trade to his masters. In Portugal, there existed the custom of releasing the interpreters after four successful expeditions. Since slaves were one of the primary commodities the Portugese sought in their expeditions, and interpreters were traditionally rented from their masters for a promise of a new slave from those taken during the expedition, the interpreters were motivated with the promise of freedom in exchange of four new slaves to take their place.

The rest of the crew were ordinary sailors, divided according to their skill and experience. They were responsible for the everyday operation of the ship, and would serve in shore parties and combat alongside professional men-at-arms when necessary. With the advent of guns, some of the sailors would serve in gun crews during battle.


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 2, 2019)

@CyberWar So for a country with only oceanic shores, cogs / caravels / carracks would be better? Were such ships introduced because they were better for warfare in oceanic conditions, or because they were all that was available at the time due to - as you point out - there not being organized state similar to Roman (Byzantine) Empire on Atlantic until well after the aoption of cannon in naval warfare?

Thanks, nice read.


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 2, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> I would think ballistas shooting large fire arrows wrapped with rags doused in Greek fire would be more practical than shooting pots of fire, mainly for the extreme fire hazard that a clay pot accidentally shattering upon firing would present. Ballistas are also more accurate and easier to aim than anything able to safely hurl a decent-sized pot. Smaller incendiary charges could be thrown at closer ranges with staff slings. Mind that the focus of combat would still be boarding, the objective of battle being to capture the enemy ship if possible rather than sink it outright. A warship was a very valuable prize, so an attacker would generally attempt to seize it intact whenever possible.



Greek Fire is more about delivery system than about substances. I am not sure fire arrows would be effective at setting fire to ships - to sails, maybe, but hulls? You need either clay pots or flamethrowers for the latter. Though I agree about boarding; OTOH, Byzantines didn't care about that once Arabs came knocking on Constantinople, they just burned them.



> I would say one thing better than having rowers double as soldiers is having no rowers in the first place, leaving more room for dedicated fighters undistracted by having to man the ship. Also, armed rowers would only be useful on the defense, repelling enemy boarders - during offensive action, they'd still have to maneuver the ship.



At this point I am inclined to agree.



> As for the complement of caravels, I already pointed out earlier that it would strongly depend on the mission. To start with, caravels were no warships - they were built and owned primarily by private entrepreneurs, meaning their complement would be whatever the owner needed and could afford to hire. There wasn't even a set standard to what constituted a caravel beyond general size and design features - each ship was built to individual specifications, so no two caravels were the same. Western Europeans were generally lazy about observing any set manufacturing standards until about 17th century.
> 
> The typical caravel crew would range between 20-40 men. The captain was usually either the merchant who owned or rented the ship, or a lesser nobleman in the employ of the shipowner. The second man on the ship was the navigator, usually a literate man who could read charts and use navigation instruments. He would plot the ship's course and relay instructions to the helmsman. In smaller crews, the helmsman who was invariably a veteran sailor also performed the duties of the navigator.
> 
> ...



Thanks.

EDIT:
It seems that galleys actually _gained_ advantage over sailing ships thanks to introduction of cannon - pg 7.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/15602743.pdf


----------



## CyberWar (Aug 2, 2019)

Aldarion said:


> @CyberWar So for a country with only oceanic shores, cogs / caravels / carracks would be better? Were such ships introduced because they were better for warfare in oceanic conditions, or because they were all that was available at the time due to - as you point out - there not being organized state similar to Roman (Byzantine) Empire on Atlantic until well after the aoption of cannon in naval warfare?
> 
> Thanks, nice read.



The cog and its derivatives weren't really "introduced", as in being intentionally designed and adopted in anything resembling a deliberate effort. Rather, they evolved naturally to meet new economic and military challenges within their particular environment. The absence of a highly-centralized state in Western Europe certainly affected the rate at which new ship designs were introduced and proliferated, but the emergence of such vessels was essentially an inevitable outcome of economic development during the Middle Ages.


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 4, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> The cog and its derivatives weren't really "introduced", as in being intentionally designed and adopted in anything resembling a deliberate effort. Rather, they evolved naturally to meet new economic and military challenges within their particular environment. The absence of a highly-centralized state in Western Europe certainly affected the rate at which new ship designs were introduced and proliferated, but the emergence of such vessels was essentially an inevitable outcome of economic development during the Middle Ages.



Would they have appeared had Western Empire not fallen?


----------



## CyberWar (Aug 4, 2019)

I think something very similar would have evolved several centuries earlier than they did if the Western Empire had remained.

The Romans had fairly little maritime trade of their own going on in the northern provinces, at least compared to the Mediterranean. Their only neighbors in the north were uncivilized tribes of Celtic and Germanic barbarians who had little of interest to Romans to offer, so much of the trade flow was directed from the south up and outwards. Consequently, most trade goods were delivered overland or by river barges rather than across the sea and were mostly intended for domestic consumption, those destined for abroad being collected by barbarian merchants in trading posts near the border. English Channel was the only major sea obstacle to get goods across from the continent to Roman Britain.  For this reason, Romans could make do with what ships they had, even though Caesar's experience on Britanny coast had attested the inadequacy of Roman galleys in the Atlantic. That, however, would no longer be the case if new prospective trading partners appeared in the north.

The Western Empire would have to survive the Great Migration, which was also largely inevitable, set in motion by climate change in East Asia. Provided it did happen, we would see a whole lot of new barbarian kingdoms emerge in Germany along the Roman border. These kingdoms would sooner or later adopt aspects of Roman culture and civilization, as happened historically, to stay competitive with their Roman neighbors and each other. As civilization would spread, tribal federations forming into centralized states, trade in the north would intensify as well, leading to advances in ship design suitable for the northern seas.

Now, that's obviously just a "what if" speculation, but I think that these new seagoing ship designs could actually first appear in one of the barbarian kingdoms rather than Western Rome, Romans only reacting and starting to build their own improved versions. Innovations generally happen where there's competition, and the fiercest competition in such a setting would most likely be between the barbarian kingdoms themselves rather than against Rome that outclassed them all combined. Rome's contribution to this could be the mass adoption and some degree of standardization of the designs.


----------

