Louie da fly
-
Posts
7,952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Louie da fly
-
Started plating the spur. After some thought I believe they would have used bronze (or as the archaeologists say nowadays, copper alloy) as it's easier to work into thin plates with the technology available at the time than iron, and the thinner (and thus lighter) the plates the better - they don't have to be strong, just cut the effects of flame for a short time to protect the timber underneath. I used foil taken from our cast-off tins of cat food (the tin itself, not the lid, which unfortunately has an embossed pattern). It's thin enough to emboss easily but strong enough to maintain its shape. The cat doesn't seem to mind. Here are the plates for the bottom of the spur, with simulated nails to hold them in place. I noticed from another thread that coppering on a full-size ship's bottom is actually a little indented where the nails are, so I've done it this way on my spur. Each plate is about 1 metre (3 feet) long in scale, but I've made units containing several plates each, embossed to look like separate plates overlapping each other. I'll paint them to resemble weathered bronze when all the plating is done, and make an "iron" point for the business end - haven't yet decided how I'll do that. And for the starboard side. At this magnification they don't look as tidy as they do to the naked eye. Maybe if I'd taken more time I could have got them more precise, but from the archaeology on the Yenikapi finds it seems the Byzantine shipwrights weren't all that precise themselves. Two sides covered. Two more to go. The brass escutcheon pin which was to locate the spur into the hull was rather too short to be secure, so I've replaced it with a longer piece - the shank from a pop rivet. This is fiddly work and I need a break every now and then, so I've started on the deck beams. They are 1mm thick and 2mm deep (equivalent to 50mm (2") thick and 100mm (4") deep. I got the curve template from Wolfram Zu Mondfeld's excellent book Historic Ship Models. To get the deck to run smoothly, I've made beams at intervals about 4-5 beams apart and will then add the intermediate beams to follow the curve outlined by these major beams. Still in progress, and rather more complicated than I'd thought - I've discovered the hard way that the curve has to be measured either side from the centre of the beam, not from one end, and that the top of the beam has to be the same distance above the beam shelf at each end. And as each of the beams is a different length, that means each has to be made individually - no mass production shortcuts, dammit! Still, it's all a learning process, isn't it? Steven
-
This is looking very good, Dick. Precise workmanship, ingenious jigs and a fascinating and beautiful ship. I'm enjoying following this build. Steven
- 263 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- nave tonda
- round ship
- (and 2 more)
-
Yes, it might be - you mean at the lower end of the "chain"? And there's something a bit hook-like at the lower end of the gammoning, as well. Also, notice the guy in the bows of that galley is holding something like a halberd - it's almost certainly a "sickle" designed to cut the rigging of the opposing ship, something which was apparently common practice in maritime combat at the time. By the way, that picture is dated in the source I was using as late 13th century. Looking at the artistic style, if it is 14th, it's very early in the century. So, late 13th, early 14th, I'd say. Steven
-
Thanks for that, Dick. I had a copy of it (it's in my post of 3 August), but not in glorious colour like this one! I agree about the support on the right, but it's a bit hard to be sure exactly what the one on the left is made of. I'd interpreted it as a stylised representation of a heavy cable, taking the double twisted line as representing two strands, but perhaps they are supposed to be the links in a chain. If it is a chain, presumably the ones in the Vergil Aenid picture would be as well. Still trying to tie down details . . . Steven
-
Dick, I was in fact making my spur considerably shorter, then was brought up short (sorry!) by the following from Age of the Dromon (p203): "A contract for the sale of two spurs made of oak (robor), each 10.42 metres long and 0.25 metres wide survives from Genoa in 1267." To me, a written contract is much more reliable information than mediaeval pictures, which unfortunately often used a lot of artistic licence. Western galleys of the 13th century were about a third larger than Byzantine dromons and Prof Pryor has evidently used the relative proportions of the two kinds of vessel to reduce the spur in his dromon reconstruction from over 10 metres to only seven. I really feel I can't go any smaller than that, ithyphallic though it may seem (my spur's bigger than yours!). Looking at the pictures in my posts of August 3 and 4 above, I believe (in those pictures where it's shown at all) the support for the spur seems to be either a heavy cable (shown as two ropes twisted together) or, in other pictures, gammoning such as used on later bowsprits. Do you have any pictures showing a chain? Prof Pryor mentions it as a possibility, but I haven't seen any pictures which look enough like chains for me to think so. Pat, there's no mention of the spur being able to be removed at a moment's notice - or otherwise. Personally, I believe that once installed they would be permanent, if only because surprise attacks did occur - in fact if I recall correctly, the Byzantines lost at least one fleet that way. But there's so little information about such things; All I know of is the quote above and the following two passages. " . . . in the inventory for the Cretan expedition of 949, amongst the equipment to be supplied by the Department of the Vestiarion basilikon [Imperial Household] for 20 dromons, was specified: “20 peronia for the kataprosopa together with their katakorakes” . . . Peronion (pl. peronia) was a diminutive of, or a derivative synonym for, perone, which could mean a pin, or brooch, or buckle. It had many other senses in mechanical engineering, and was derived from peronao, “pierce” or “transfix”. Since only one of these peronia was to be supplied for each dromon, they must therefore have been major pieces of equipment and not pins, or bolts, or buckles. However, peronion in the sense of something that pierces has the right sense for a spur and speronus, one of the two medieval Latin words for the spur, was almost certainly derived from it. Surely peronia were the dromons’ spurs. The specification was that there should be 20 peronia, “for the kataprosopa, together with their katakorakes”. Prosopon had the sense of the front, facade, or face of anything, in particular of a ship, and one of the senses of korax was anything hooked for grappling or holding something. Reading the “kata” prefixes simply in their strengthening sense, we suggest that the real meaning of this specification was: “Twenty spurs for the faces [of the bows], together with their couplings”. Peronion was probably the Byzantine word for the spur and katakorax that for the coupling to the head of the stempost. (Age of The Dromon p207): Imagine 900 years from now trying to work out what a sheet, a tack and a brace were, based only on a list of equipment supplied to a fleet in the 18th century - that's how difficult the task is. Also from Age of The Dromon (p203) "In late antiquity and the Middle Ages spurs were not built as integral parts of the hull, as they were in the Renaissance. Contractsfor the construction of galleys for Charles I of Anjou, King of Sicily, specified neither the provision of spurs nor their dimensions, indicating that the contractors did not have to build them into the galleys." And that's all the information we have, and we should probably be grateful even to have that. There's so little data that we are forced to speculate and fill in the gaps with educated guesses. The reason I keep going on about Age of the Dromon is that it has collected in one place all the information available on dromons up to the 2006 date of publication, and I believe the reconstruction in the book is as close as we're likely to get, qualified only by the Yenikapi finds and possible future finds in the Black Sea. Steven
-
Not at all, Pat. I find the discussions on various aspects of these ships and how they operated very instructive and thought-provoking. There are so many questions we don't know the answers to, and questions and comments such as yours raise even more issues which may never have occurred otherwise, even to academics who specialise in such things. For example, one question I had right from the start was how did they organise toilet breaks? Can a single oarsman just leave his bench when he needs to? Keeping in mind that these were free men, not galley slaves chained to the benches. Turns out that not everybody rowed all the time - for example maybe only the forrard oarsmen rowed, or all those aft of the midships. But apart from that, it turns out (from practical experience in the trireme reconstruction Olympias) that oarsmen sweat so much that toilet breaks aren't needed as often as under normal activities. Who would have guessed that without the benefit of hindsight? And though I'd certainly been aware of the unwieldiness of the spur and the forces involved in ramming with it, until you raised it I'd not thought of the adjustment of the ship's trim necessary because of the weight of the spur forrard. Keep 'em coming! Steven
-
Roger, I agree with all of that, and in fact I started out making it shorter, then discovered documentation that returned me to the 7 metre length (see my posts of August 1). So it looks like I'm stuck with it . . . Pat, I don't know about a stone anchor. Certainly Byzantine ships of the 11th century had iron anchors (see the Serce Limani ship, for example), but they weren't all that heavy. From Prof Pryor's researches, it appears the anchors (called "irons" in the original Greek) were stored in the bow. I don't know if any anchors have been found among the Yenikapi wrecks. As far as I know, Byzantine galleys avoided anchoring, the crews preferring to drag them up onto the beach stern first, if possible at the end of every day. So they had a series of known harbours with available water supply (as the oarsmen consumed water at a huge rate) and "hopped" from one to another, avoiding multi-day voyages if possible. Steven
-
I know - I made it as light as I could, given what's known of the size of these things, but it also had to be hefty enough to support its own weight and to stand up the the force of collision. Not only the spur, but also the Greek Fire projector and the forecastle will have to be compensated for. Probably the stern would be where such things as the water supply would have been kept, to balance the weight at the bow. But who knows? There's just no information available on such things and we're reduced to educated guesswork. I haven't yet made the katakorax, which will connect the spur to the pointy end (technical term 😁) of the ship. Steven
-
Spur made and a 'trial' for the katakorax made out of card from a cereal packet. This isn't complete - just one side made, but it could be the way to go so long as I can get it to look like metal. Thanks for the suggestion Carl. A hole drilled in the spur and a corresponding hole in the stempost, to fit a rod (a cut-off escutcheon pin) to enable the two pieces to engage with each other. Having a bit of trouble finding foil of the correct thickness to simulate the metal cladding. My wonderful wife suggested the foil seal you get on the top of a tin of Milo (like Ovaltine, only Australian). Looks like I'll just have to grit my teeth and force myself to drink Milo (it's a rubbish job, but somebody has to do it 😉 ) Steven
-
I've been working on the spur, doing test pieces for the katakorax (connector) and the protective metal cladding. Here are a couple of ideas for the katakorax, both made of balsa. The left hand one is carved out of a single block to take the shape of the bow, with the idea of then carving the outside to make the katakorax itself. The right hand one is made of individual pieces glued together. If successful, I'd then use pear wood and I'd probably then have to cast them to make them look like metal. I'm not terribly happy with either one, and I'm thinking of making it out of sculpy instead. Once done it should already look like metal. The reason I haven't tried it in brass is that I'm no good at soldering. And here's my test piece for the metal cladding. A bit rough and ready, but it was just to see if it could be done. I've used the foil packaging the No. 11 scalpel blade comes in. It's thicker than kitchen foil, but does have the disadvantage of having to smooth out embossed lettering and the outline of the paper behind the scalpel blade. If I can get "virgin" foil to this thickness I'll be a lot happier. Steven
-
Thanks for all the likes. Druxey, yes, having the ram holding the ships together would certainly facilitate boarding. Cog, as the spur isn't on the waterline it's not likely to sink the enemy ship. The only circumstance I can think of where the enemy ship would sink is where the spur rides up and over it to capsize it. And unless it goes through the upper works rather than over them, that shouldn't be a problem. However, if it did get caught in the upper works as the enemy ship rolled . . . Roger, I'd heard the term "breast hook" but never bothered to find out what they were. I think they must certainly have been used in a design like this. Thanks for the tip. And yes I agree a spur would have been rather unwieldy, just in normal sailing. In fact one of the reasons I'm in favour of the higher spur rather than waterline is the idea of what a 10 metre spur (or even 7 metres) sticking out at water level would do to the handling of the ship. Thanks also for the quotes. Whether the spur was used as a boarding bridge, if it was resting on (or protruding through) the enemy's upper works after ramming, it would make boarding much more advantageous. It's been determined pretty much for certain that a galley of the 10th to 12th centuries didn't have an apostis, but the principle is the same. Steven
-
Very nice work, Radek. I used to have the book "The Voyage of the Mayflower II". Very enjoyable, but got lost sometime during one of my housemovings. A pity; I used to re-read it every so often. The 1957 reconstruction and voyage are a saga in their own right. You'r doing a very good job of her. Steven
-
Interesting idea, Druxey. This is not specifically mentioned in the sources, though it appears the main tactic was to kill of as many of the enemy as possible with missile weapons and then take the ship by boarding. Whether the spur would be the most effective “bridge” is another question, especially as the forecastle and the side castles were higher than the enemy deck. Messis, this is an interesting interpretation. However, the model was made quite a long time ago and more recent discoveries and developments have modified ideas of how a dromon appeared. Many of the features described in the Byzantine sources appear on this model - the only major thing that I’d disagree with is that this vessel would have been far too heavy for oarsmen to row. There are a huge number of ways to combine the known features of a dromon to make a reconstruction. Age of the Galley alone contains three reconstructions by three different people – all very different from each other - and I know of at least two others apart from the one you’ve posted. In my opinion the reconstruction in Age of the Dromon puts them together in the most believable (and beautiful!) configuration – but even that now has to be modified by the Yenikapi wrecks discovered in the old Harbour of Theodosios in Constantinople/Istanbul. This always the problem with speculative reconstructions. New discoveries can so easily make them out of date. And if a dromon is discovered among the wrecks found in the Black Sea, I expect my own reconstruction will immediately become out of date. Such is life. Steven
-
More spurs above water level; all West European, all somewhat later than the period in question, but indicative that spurs above water level were what was used. Unfortunately there are no surviving representations of galleys with their spurs from the 10th or 11th century, neither Byzantine nor any other. However, beginning with the 1993 Maritime Mirror article by Frederick van Doornick Jr and expanded on by Prof Pryor, first in Age of the Galley and later at more length in Age of the Dromon, it has been firmly established that Byzantine dromons had raised spurs, not waterline rams. From the Liber ad Honorem Augusti, late 12th/early 13th century Italian. And here is my first draft of how the katakorax might have fixed the spur to the bow of a dromon. Theoretical only, and I'll have to make it in 3D (probably in plasticiene) to check that it would work. In real life it could have been constructed of wrought iron, but it might have been easier to cast it in bronze. I'd meant to draw nails/rivets through the "knees" into the wales, but forgot. Perhaps it should also have a solid back to it and extend further forward as a socket for the spur rather than have the spur directly against the stempost , but this is after all a first draft. By the way, the pictures above have inspired me to reconsider the height of the forecastle. I realise the proportions on mediaeval pictures can't be totally relied upon, but all of the forecastles shown are lower than the one I've worked up for the dromon. On the other hand, these don't have to allow room below the forecastle for the Greek Fire apparatus. Still thinking about it. Steven
-
That's true, Druxey, but by the time of the dromon shipbuilding had changed. The Ancients built plank first - or perhaps even plank only - with the planks held together edge to edge by "coaks" - small tenons recessed into mortises in the edges of each adjoining plank at close intervals. The waterline ram of the Ancients was able to either break the coaks or rip the mortises out of the planks, resulting in either the planks separating, or split the planks themselves - either way catastrophic failure. Once framed construction came in, ships were too strongly built for this to work any more, and the spur came to replace the waterline ram. GrandpaPhil, the earlier spurs do seem to have been built as an extension of the keel (see the first picture in my post above) but later the fixing point seems to have risen, till by the period I'm dealing with it was about halfway up the stem. By the way, here's another picture of a galley with a spur held from above (Spanish, 13th century - the Cantigas de Santa Maria.) The spur is on the left of the picture. Steven
-
You can always come to sunny Ballarat, Carl. Tonight it will 3 degrees C, 12 degrees tomorrow. Just make sure you come in winter! (It gets up to 35 or even 40 in summer.) Of course, Greg lives in Canberra. Brrrr! Steven
- 292 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- g class destroyer
- trumpeter
- (and 4 more)
-
Roter Löwe 1597 by Ondras71
Louie da fly replied to Ondras71's topic in - Build logs for subjects built 1501 - 1750
Beautiful work, Ondras! -
Here are two illustrations of the diagonal support for a spur: one from the fifth century AD Aenid of Vergil in the Vatican Library (Cod. Lat. Vat. 3867, fol. 77r). The spurs on the two galleys are definitely above water level, and each is supported by what appears to be a rope running from the outer end of the spur to a figurehead at the top of the stempost. The other is from a late 13th century painted beam in the Museu Nacional de Arte de Catalunya (catalogue reference 15839). The first image is the far left of the picture, and the spur has unfortunately been cut off - but you can see it on the left hand side of the second image, as well as the spur from a second galley which is shown in full in the third image. The left hand spur seems to be supported by a rope from the stempost, while the right hand spur's support might be a lashing(?), or possibly something more solid. Though both these pictures appear in Age of the Dromon, I have only just (today) obtained high resolution copies, and it is now clear that whatever else the supports are, they don't seem to be chains. In both cases, though their form is different, the head of each spur is at about the same level - approximately half-way between the waterline and the gunwale - the perfect location to smash up oars or the side-rudder. Note that the first picture dates from 5 or 6 centuries before the ship I am modelling, and the second from 2 to 3 centuries after it. Interpolation is always dangerous, particularly as one is from Rome and the other from Spain, but it does suggest that the method of support in these two pictures may have been used in Byzantium through the 10th and 11th centuries. Steven
-
That's one of the main problems I'm up against, Dick. The main strengthening items I see on this are the wales - the gunwale and the two lower wales. As I see it the spur would butt against the stempost and transfer the forces of collision to the wales, which should be strong and flexible enough to cope with them. Because they run fore and aft they should also support the stempost from collapsing backward under the forces. I'd also thought of further transferring the forces from the spur with some sort of diagonal bracing from the spur (maybe halfway along) back to the wales at the cheeks of the bow, but I'm still thinking about that - it may not be practical and there's no contemporary image to support the idea, unlike the chain or whatever that supports it from above. There's no 10th-11th century evidence that the spur was angled upwards - all the evidence for this is from centuries earlier (and of spurs that seem to be built into the hull). 12th century Byzantine, and 12th and 13th century Western illustrations of galleys show them with horizontal spurs . This would transfer the forces of collision in such a way that the spur would be less likely to rotate about the connection point with the hull, which I think is an important consideration. [edit]In his Navmachika Leontos Basilios Emperor Leo VI describes " tag-team" tactics for one dromon to grapple an enemy ship while another rams from the side but Prof Pryor demolishes this as impractical and describes it as "very much like the fireside musings of the Emperor himself". However Prof Pryor cites an illustration in the Madrid copy of John Skylitzes Synopsis Historicon of a direct, side-on collision capsizing an enemy ship. In this case the idea would be to hit her upperworks and even ride up over the hull. [/edit] Otherwise the aim would have been to attack from the stern, to disable the steering oar and the motive oars (and oarsmen). Mark, I'm sure the planking would add to the strength the wales provide - I was pretty impressed with how the planks stiffened the hull as I added them. But I think the wales would be the major factor. The contemporary records make mention of a coupling (katakorax) for the spur, presumably between it and the hull, and I'm working on what form it would take. Steven
-
As I understand it, her crew referred to her as "Eggs and Bacon". You're certainly making very good progress on her. Steven
-
I've now added the mast partners for the fore and middle masts. These are the crossbeams to which the masts are lashed, above the mast step but immediately below deck level, to keep the mast in position. Sorry for the fuzzy photos - taken with my phone at night time - not terribly good lighting. Unfortunately I'd already put the beam shelf in and as the mast partners are fixed to the wales on each side they were a bit too long to fit past the beam shelf. With great trepidation I pulled the sides of the ship apart so the partners could go in. No nasty cracking or snapping sounds, so it was successful. In fact I had to do it about three times with the midmast partner because it was too long even to fit between the wales, so it ended up a little bowed. So I had to cut it shorter and go through the whole nerve-wracking procedure again. It worked, though. So that's all for the masts for the time being. I'm putting them to one side and concentrating on other things. Almost time to do the deck beams. But first I want to tie down the details - and particular the fixing - of the spur. Steven
-
Pat, The local library has "Age of the Galley" and I photocopied the section "From Dromon to Galea" about three years ago - in fact it was what inspired me to begin this build! Looking back at this quote I see that the original Greek passage says "Moreover, hides should be fastened to them [the dromons] against the ram [spur] of the enemy, so that the iron glances off in reaction and does not take hold . . ." I'd argue against the whole spur being made out of iron. First, making something seven metres long entirely out of iron could be done, but would be very difficult with the technology of the time, and anyway it isn't necessary - an oak spur, sheathed with iron would be considerably stronger. Wrought iron, made by hand, would be full of faults and inclusions of slag - the difficulty of making a sword at the time testifies to this. And wrought iron is pretty "bendy" - and far heavier than timber. I wouldn't use it as a spur. It's my belief that the "iron" in the above quote is an iron-sheathed point. A spur would have no need for any more iron than this if you weren't trying to protect the spur from the flames of the siphon. And as only the Byzantines had Greek Fire, enemy ships didn't need to protect their spurs against it. But as the Byzantines did have it, one would expect them to have metal sheathing and perhaps it was iron. It wouldn't have to be strong, just cover the wood of the spur. No, I don't have the MM article but I'd be very grateful for it. I'll PM you. Many thanks. Steven
-
Mark, there are certainly no references to this in the contemporary records, and as far as I can see this was not part of the tactics used. The spur seems to have been used to smash your opponent's oars and preferably steering oar and allow your marines to attack from the relatively unprotected stern, and perhaps even capsize the opposing ship. As usual, most of this is speculation, as contemporary evidence is either lacking or untrustworthy. Steven
-
Thanks Steve, Patrick and Pat. Another reason for the idea of iron plating on the spur is that Prof Pryor mentions a reference in the early 13th century Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta Ricardi Regis (Itinerary of the pilgrimage and deeds of King Richard) to a (probably Italian) galley with a "rostris ferratis" ["ironed" spur]. (Age of the Dromon, p. 203) However, in this case the iron plating could not have been to protect the spur from the effects of Greek Fire, as this weapon was a closely guarded Byzantine secret. Perhaps it simply means that the spur had an iron point. In the Byzantine case, any metal would have been sufficient to protect the spur, at least temporarily. It would probably come down to which was easiest to get and/or apply. Lead would also be possible, but might be inappropriate because of its weight. Bronze or copper were probably easiest to get hold of and to work, so bronze might well have been used. This is all speculation anyway; we don't know it was done, merely that it would seem to be needed. Steven
Our Emblem ®
