10th-11th century Byzantine dromon by Louie da fly - FINISHED - 1:50

[BANYAN]

Sounds like you have a good grip on the spur now Steven; enough to make a very good 'case/argument' for the iron sheathed spur.

 

Look forward to seeing this fitted.  

 

cheers

 

Pat

[woodrat]

If you hit anything solid with the spur as it is, it would buckle the stem of the dromon like a paper cup. There must be some internal or external strengthening. Maybe, as you say, the upward slope of the spur suggests that it was meant to sweep away the bank of oars of your opponent.

Looking great, by the way. 

Dick

[Mark Pearse]

Hi Dick,

there might need to be some extra strengthening, but I think you are underestimating the strength of the planks & the way they would transfer loads from forwards to the whole hull. 

Mark

[Louie da fly]

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

[Louie da fly]

4 hours ago, woodrat said:

If you hit anything solid with the spur as it is, it would buckle the stem of the dromon like a paper cup. There must be some internal or external strengthening. Maybe, as you say, the upward slope of the spur suggests that it was meant to sweep away the bank of oars of your opponent.

Looking great, by the way. 

Dick

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

Edited August 3, 2018 by Louie da fly
Clarify and add to ramming tactics

[Louie da fly]

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

Edited August 3, 2018 by Louie da fly

[cog]

2 hours ago, Louie da fly said:

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. 

Steven, not to belittle you, but those two galleys seem to be floating on top of the water too, as is often the case in middle age paintings since they didn't understand depth/perspective, so those two "spurs" could be below the surface ... the limitations of a painter's abilities are something to take into account as well

[GrandpaPhil]

The spur might have been an extension of the keel.  That would have ensured structural integrity and distributed the force of the collision throughout the frame of the hull.  There might have been diagonal support beams that would further absorb the blow to prevent the shock from inflicting damage to the ship.  Furthermore, those diagonal supports would also soak up the shear and torsional forces involved.

[GrandpaPhil]

This is a very cool model and I have enjoyed watching it get built.

[druxey]

Ancient galleys had the ram below the waterline: one would want to hole the opposing vessel below the waterline. Much more effective than smashing a few oars and holing the ship above the water!

[cog]

it seems it doesn't get any easier, Steven ...

[Louie da fly]

13 hours ago, druxey said:

Ancient galleys had the ram below the waterline: one would want to hole the opposing vessel below the waterline. Much more effective than smashing a few oars and holing the ship above the water!

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

Edited August 4, 2018 by Louie da fly

[Louie da fly]

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

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Louie da fly

[druxey]

Hmm. Food for thought. Was the above-the-waterline spur a device for locking ships together so that the attackers could board?

[MESSIS]

Steven found in.my biblioteque a book published in 2011 by the Greek Postoffice together with a collection of stamps of ancient ship models. 

 

There is a dromon among them.... a lot of pictures and details and a lot of text pages about dromons. 

Think will be interesting for.you

Christos

Edited August 4, 2018 by MESSIS

[Louie da fly]

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

[druxey]

I wasn't thinking of the spur as a bridge, Steven; just as a locking device to prevent the vessels drifting apart.

[cog]

31 minutes ago, druxey said:

I wasn't thinking of the spur as a bridge, Steven; just as a locking device to prevent the vessels drifting apart.

Like the effect of a heavily barbed ram ... the only problem, it would stick, what happens when the enemy ship sinks ... go down with it ...

[Roger Pellett]

Steven,  Why not one or more breasthooks on the inside of the hull to reinforce?  It seems to me that the intended use of the spur is immaterial.  It would always be knocking into things intended or not so would be heavily reinforced.   “Sailor proofing” cannot be a new idea.

 

Roger

[Roger Pellett]

Steven,

 

The following is from an excellent book Galleys and Gunpowder by John Guilmartin, an expert on 16th Century galley warefare.  Although discussing vessels built 500 years later than your Dromon,  I think that his comments still may be helpful.

 

1. Page 87:  “Finally, the beak of the galley, the “spur” provided a useful boarding bridge for the attackers.  On galleys of most nations it angled upward slightly and had a reinforced,iron-shod tip.  If the spur could be lodged forcefully among the rowing banks of an enemy galley it would ride up over the apostis and give the boarding party an all-important height advantage in launching their assault.”

 

”Many misconceptions have arisen concerning the uses of the spur.  It is generally viewed as a ram, yet its position above the water line makes it abundantly clear that it was not a ram in the classical sense.  The classical parallel for the spur of modern and medieval galleys is the Roman Boarding Bridge not the Greek ram.”

 

2.  Page 222  One final structural detail of Ottoman galleys (at Lepanto) deserves comment.  Although the bows of Ottoman galleys were lower than Christian galleys   the beak or “spur” of Ottoman galleys was particularly stout.  Iron-shod to assist it penetrating light upper planking, it was angled upward to allow it to ride over and break down the apostis of an enemy galley.”

 

I hope that this is helpful.

 

Roger

Edited August 6, 2018 by Roger Pellett

[Louie da fly]

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

[Louie da fly]

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  

[cog]

You could use polystyrene, which comes in tubes, square tubing,, sheets, rods, etc. Althuogh, this looks promising to. Paper is another option for the metal, both can be painted with shadowing and highlights, and in acryllics there are quite some metal colours. I used Vallejo brass on the props of my first destroyer, which turned out rather good if I say so myself. Anaother option is to use brass of course. I just want to say you do nt have to stick to the materials which are obvious to you if it isn't to your liking ... 

[Louie da fly]

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

Edited August 8, 2018 by Louie da fly

[Louie da fly]

The spur dryfitted.

 

 

Steven

 

 

[cog]

 You'll be needing some balast at the rear to counter weigh that trunk of a tree!!!

 

Seems to fit rather snuggly to the bow

[Louie da fly]

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

[Roger Pellett]

Maybe a little shorter?

 

Shortening the spur will also reduce twisting on the stem during an impact.

 

Roger

[BANYAN]

Looks good Daniel.  Where was the stone anchor stowed? (I am assuming stone and expect the usual consequence  )  Might that have been aft and used as a counterweight.  If they drove the bows onto the beach the an anchor aft would make sense?

 

cheers

 

Pat

[cog]

2 hours ago, BANYAN said:

If they drove the bows onto the beach the an anchor aft would make sense?

I would wonder, since they would be anchored forard   or it would be to pull them off, but I find that rather unlikely with a stone ... interesting thought though, Pat