The San Marco mosaic ship c. 1150 by Louie da fly - FINISHED - 1:75

[tartane]

 

When I look at the first posting on this subject, Steve writes that the images of the mosaic depict Latin-rigged ships. But there is no doubt at all that they are square-rigged ships  depicted on it. I don't see any indication that those sails would be triangular. Later in his story, he also shows images of square-rigged ships. It is on that basis that I expressed my surprise at this in order to prevent him from getting stuck in the rigging of his model. It is only meant to help him.

I see it as a mistake and not as ignorance on Steve's part. He builds very accurate.

In numerous descriptions and studies of that time, square-rigged ships appear in particular, which also makes sense when you look at the available images. Mainz in Germany is home to the Museum für Antike Schiffahrt. A large magnificent museum with its own research department. Many ship models are set up to scale there, mainly on the basis of excavations all over the world. I have visited it several times but unfortunately you are not allowed to photograph there, otherwise I could show countless good examples of those ships. Almost without exception, these are square-rigged ships. It's a pity that those models aren't depicted on their website either.

 

Iconic images first and foremost show something about the usually religious event that they are meant to depict. The ships that are depicted are only an afterthought, and often not correct.

 

It is all up to Steve what he wants to do with my opinion.

 

Constant

 

 

[Cristiano]

Hello Steven!

You are building a great model!

Since there is some discussion regarding the sails type, I want to share my informations, that I have found in my books.

 

Type of ship

In all the sources that I have (Italian sources), the "San Marco ships" are all defined ACAZIE (singular ACAZIA).

In some nautical dictionary this type of ship is called also ACAZIO.

One of the possible origin of the name is greek:

"A type of Greek pointed shoe for women in the shape of a curved beak." 

The Acazia was a small commercial ship (which later evolved in a medium size) of bizantine origin. It was widely used by the Venetians in their first centuries of their Republic. 

The type of sails used were different. All the sources write about the fact that the sails used in the origin were latin type and then evolved in squared type.

The ACAZIA in the Adriatic sea later evolved in the TRABACCOLO.

Some Trabaccoli are still existent as historical ships in the Adriatic sea. 

 

Type of sail

The images on the San Marco Mosaic present apparently a square sail type. But the sources that I have checked (all Italian sources) make a reconstruction with a trapezoidal type sails (like the Trabaccolo).

 

Sources

 

Below the main sources (but other ones are present in the web, too)

 

https://libreriaeditricefilippi.com/negozio/levi-cesare-augusto-navi-venete-da-codici-marmi-e-dipinti/

This an anastatic reproduction of the original book published in 1892 by Cesare Augusto Levi. The author was an important historician and researcher of the Venetian history.

 

https://www.amazon.it/DURI-BANCHI-DELLA-SERENISSIMA-421-1797/dp/B00O4YDS9S/ref=sr_1_16?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.CQIl8kQjfcs5H31zAMbEGRDNWdGE1lwAGnQW4QSa6vQkYT-oaKdV7FX-S1mNfB9XNcTWfxCyfFD3Lacj6bj6Vpkwy3H4m1u5pkUErEhzOoEkcVJ5es8JQZn2JCdz5AgmB5i3khbz-AgOQD-4Pi68_nIwXqyoobOsd5vOH1LvT9_xqTSTIh9KVUdUn30ooDZZ0FFVwISx24u_W5c8EGub09fBgJQHvjOBXjqcWUvsHE4.kNycIzatH6oMLZOsFxnKdIvOonpvShMlBbxpAydtfzI&dib_tag=se&qid=1714033030&refinements=p_27%3AGuido+Ercole&s=books&sr=1-16

The author, Guido Ercole has a deep and focused knowledge on the history of the Venetian Navy. He has written several books on that matter. Some of his models are currently on display in the Naval Museum of Venice.

 

https://www.cherini.eu/

The brothers Chierini had made a deep research through their books of the various ships related to the history of the Italian commercial ships during the centuries.

The material available in their website is huge and documented by their bibliography.  

Their website as a source of informations exist till 20 years.

The drawings are presented in a more organic way, drawn by one of the brothers.

 

FINAL NOTES

 

@tartane: don't be so absolutist in your evaluations. I don't know your knowledge regarding the history of sailing ships of the Mediterranean basin, but trust me, the matter is very complex.

There are few absolute definitions and many exceptions in the history of commercial sailing ships of the Mediterranean basin.

 

the Mediterranean basin has been for millennia the center of exchange of cultures and technologies and the complex situation related to names and types of ships reflects this.

The same type of sailing ship can change greatly from Greece to Italy to Spain, but all in the past defined it eventually with the same name.  

There are several hundreds of type of sailing ships that can be considered in the Mediterranean basin, and some of them eventually differ only by name or sail or minor details.

You're right, the ships of the mosaic appears with squared sails, but the history that surround this specific type of ship doesn't follow that path.

 

@Louie da fly: The two odd reinforcement in the bow in my opinion should be kept and have a real purpouse: it is possible that they prevent entanglement of the sail and ropes with the bow during the jibe operations (I don't know the exact term).

 

Images:

 

 

The reconstruction of the hull of the Acazia of San Marco, from one of the books.

 

An hypotesis of the sails type.

 

Various photos of a Trabaccolo: that one is the "Giovanni Pascoli" and is exposed in a floating museum in Cesenatico - Italy.

This is considered the "evolution" of the Acazia, in the Adriatic sea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 25 by Cristiano

[tartane]

Christiano,

Thanks for all the explanations about the ships in the mediterranean. For a long time I have been researching the historical development of the chebec. Its origins, the early chebece, the later chebec and the chebec that was recreated by the French navy. As a result, I build models of Latin-rigged ships. There is also a major development in this, which is always about the ship with the same name. So I understand very well the complexity of these types of ships. They were built for trade purposes as well as for war. Ships that also had to do with this were for example the Tartane and the Venetian/Austrian Galeotta , of which I also built models. In this way I have learned a lot about the rigging of these ships and therefore I would like to advise on the construction of such ship models.   www.constantwillems.nl

I would like to end this conversation because it is no longer about Steve's topic.

Constant

[knightyo]

This build thread is incredibly fun to read.  I can tell that there have been some differences in opinion in within the last page, but I hope that everyone continues to post their thoughts, even if they think they might contradict the information someone else is providing.  I think it's better to have a number of dissenting opinions about something, than NO opinions.  That's the difference between a fun and thought-provoking log, versus a single builder just talking to him or herself.

 

It's also fantastic to see the reference material that people are providing, as that's a gold mine for other builders who follow.   

 

Thank you for sharing your build with everyone Steven; it's one of the most interesting logs on the site right now.

 

Alan

[woodrat]

On 4/25/2024 at 8:10 PM, tartane said:

I would like to end this conversation because it is no longer about Steve's topic.

Again I would disagree. This discussion, for that is what it should have been, bears directly on Steven's build and on the whole subject of mediterranean round ships. There is no doubt that there was a diversity of rigs extant in the Mediterranean during the period of the thirteenth through fifteenth century. This ranges from simple lagoonal and riverine vessels with latin rigs and quarter rudders right through to cog-like vessels and the later evolution of the nave quadra with the northern innovation of square rig and stern rudder. To anyone wishing to read an authoritative momnograph on this subject I would refer to the excellent publication: The art and archaeology of venetian ships and boats by Lillian Ray Martin , Chatham Publishing 2001 . ISBN 1-86176-173-2. This was a major resource for my previous round ship reconstruction.

 

I have gone back through the entire log of Steven's build and have extracted all the images which  incontrovertibly show a quadrangular  sail and looked carefully at all other supplied images for evidence of either square rig or settee rig ( a variant of latin sail in which the forward part of the triangular sail is truncated. This is seen well in dhows). Here are the images of square rig:

this is the only image from the Veneziano school (first half 14th C) which shows square rig on a round ship. So it shows that square rig was around and used on some round ships. Most other images in this period show latin rig.

This may be square rig or furled latin or settee but it certainly shows a rope ladder.

Dont know where this image comes from. This is a northern vessel with stern rudder. Note the reefing points (not seen on latin rig) and the foot of the sail tied into a bundle by the reefing points (See my hulc log for details). This is not a round ship and is probably northern european,

Again the sail is quadrangular and probably a settee sail running before the wind. Note the "crows nest aft of the mast and the Jacob's ladder.

This is a cog. Nothing to do with round ships.

Probably settee also running before the wind

To show that latin rig when used on different points of sailing can simulate square rig, here is a section of the 14thC Cocharelli Codex which speaks for itself.

So, there is no doubt that settee rig and maybe even square rig was used alongside latin rig in the Mediterranean Middle Ages. But the overwhelming number of rigs were latin.

To quote the great Fred Dagg : 'I'll get out of your way now'"

Woodrat

[Louie da fly]

I've come across this discussion a bit late, but that's probably a good thing, as I've had the opportunity to read arguments for and against the lateen interpretation.

 

Tartane, I appreciate your input and suggestions, as I do those of the others who've posted on this subject. I've also done a lot of research on the rigging and configuration of lateen sails, not only on this build but on my dromon of some years ago. And though I don't regard myself as an expert by any means, I feel I have a good understanding of the rig. 

 

Of the mosaics I posted at the beginning of this log, only one is actually under sail, and even that is having the sails furled. There are two other ship mosaics of this series in San Marco, plus one from another similar series, but two have the sails completely furled,

  

and the other (from the other series) shows pretty definite triangular sails.

Although the classic image of a lateen sail is triangular, with a sharply angled yard:

The sail can take many configurations, including with the yard all but horizontal, depending on the angle of the ship in relation to the wind:

  

  

and see also 1:23 to 1:30 in this video:

 

 

Though the yards in the mosaics are mostly not far from horizontal, I am nonetheless satisfied that they depict lateen, not square rig. The first picture in my log could be interpreted as almost any type of sail, but the second seems (at least to me) to taper to a point at the bottom - in other words, a triangle. This is supported by the multitude of mediaeval representations of lateen rigged Mediterranean round ships.

 

     

     

I am not trying to claim that all Mediterranean ships in the mediaeval period were lateen-rigged - particularly after the cog began to reach there from the Atlantic - but there is certainly ample evidence for my interpretation of the sails of my Venetian ship to be lateen.

 

Tartane, I do appreciate your posting the picture of the knevel. I had been puzzling over how to  belay the shrouds, and though I've already committed myself now, I find the knevel to be a simple and practical apparatus, and better than what I came up with myself - to the point that I wish I'd seen it earlier as I would have used it on this model. The wooden toggle that joins the shroud to the rope loop has been found time and time again in marine archaeology from ancient times through mediaeval, and is still use on Mediterranean lateeners today.

 

Yes, I'm doing exactly as you pointed out when tacking, that the leeward shrouds are loosened to allow the sail to belly out and take full advantage of the wind. I mentioned this in an earlier post.

 

Steven

 

 

 

Edited April 28 by Louie da fly

[Louie da fly]

After a lively and instructive  debate on rigging, back to build progress, .

 

I've now had the opportunity to add some more of my carved figures, plus the knights are now in place and rigged for the fore and middle masts. I have yet to finalise the halyards, but the tackle at the lower end is sorted.

For the mizzen mast, there is not enough structure below decks to hold a knight, so I've made a block to be fixed to the deck beams instead.

Halyards temporarily threaded through the sheaves of the fore and middle calcets. I made the halyard double - I couldn't figure out how there'd be two sheaves in the calcet otherwise. Happy to be corrected, but now that I've committed myself I'm not going to change it - not on this model, at any rate, but maybe for future ones.

I think the grab-rings on the hatch covers are still a bit too  shiny, so I'm planning to weather them a bit more.

And just for something cute (and for people inspecting the model to spot and comment on), two crewmen tightening up a shroud - one pulling down on the shroud, the other pulling the lanyard tight. I had to drill tiny holes for the ropes to go through.

  

  

I don't think I mentioned earlier the upper fixing for the shrouds. Based on this carving

and a very instructive picture kindly sent by Woodrat when I was doing my dromon, I've fixed them like this:

  

That's about it for the time being. More to come when I've done a bit more.

 

Steven

 

 

Edited April 28 by Louie da fly

[tartane]

 

Steven 

It's good to see that you're moving forward with your building instructions.

 After all the discussions, I thought it better to stop doing that so as not to block your story about the construction of the model, also because you didn't respond to the discussion. But fortunately, it has all remained understandable and you are now building again.

I wonder what kind of rigging is going to be on it now, I can't quite follow that in your comment.

If you are going to follow the latin rigging, there are a few parts of the rig that you have made which  stand in the way. I mean the halyards needed to hoist the rod. The way you make it, this can only be done at the aft mast.  See the sketch number I. Halyard A can sit well but the halyards B and C will collide with the rod of the aft mast and the rod of the middle mast. On sketch II you can see how it could be done, the halyards are then attached directly behind the masts.

If you're going to rig the model square, it doesn't matter.

I'm showing two more pictures of a chebec that I built where you can see that the halyard goes along the mast and is attached behind the mast foot.

You're building a beautiful ship!

Constant

 

[Doreltomin]

Steven, nice add with those crewmen tightening the shroud... but allow me to disagree there! I remember having seen a photo from the early fifties of the last century with two people doing this job on a small English schooner, much smaller than this one, and they used a small lever to tighten the shrouds. If you have the book "Schooners" by David R MacGregor just look on page 93, down right.

 

I mean, the tension on the shrouds is such that you can't properly do it by hand, and surely not by merely pulling it down with his hands as your guy is doing it!

 

More likely they had the upper pulley attached to a lanyard and used his weight on a strong lever propped to another lanyard tied to the lower pulley to pull it down!

Edited April 28 by Doreltomin

[tartane]

The shrouds are pulled tight by a number of blocks. On a few of my models, I've used all four. Depending on the wind direction, a few are sometimes not used if the sail is broken in such a way that it would rub against the shrouds. The shrouds that are left out are then attached to the leeside.

See the drawing

On port side are all four shrouds in use, on starboard only two. Because of the blocks these are easy to handle.

Constant

[Louie da fly]

Doreltomin, you're probably right. But I'm not going to carve another figure - the mistake will just have to remain for eagle-eyed people like you to spot and comment on 

 

Tartane, thank you for your input, but despite your belief that the halyards in this configuration would foul the sails, that nonetheless seems to be the way they did it. Note the position of the halyards on these two 2-masted ships  - they lead to the black triangle at the top of each mast and around the white dot (the sheave) and back down again.

Zibaldone da Canale  early 14th century

 

And the same applies with these ones

                  

Bestiary Morgan Library ms4 59 fol 18r North Italy c. 1290          1232 - 1261 Bohemund: William of Tyre's Histoire d'Outremer, BL Yates Thompson 12 f.58v

And these 

  

1332 Italy, KBR ms. 9404-05 - Liber secretorum Fidelium Crucis       St Ursula, Church de San Francisco de Palma de Mallorca 1st quarter 14th century

 

And as confirmation that this is not just artistic invention,  multi-masted lateeners and setee-rigged vessels in the 20th century continued to do so:

   

I am quite prepared to believe your contention that chebecs did it differently, but there  is sufficient evidence that this was the way it was done in mediaeval times, and has continued to be done this way in many vessels for centuries in between.

 

Steven

 

[tartane]

Most of the pictures you show are fanciful representations of something an artist saw. I can't clearly distinguish the halyards anywhere and mainly see the shrouds.

The photos are clear. These are Ghanjahs sailing east of Africa, and they still look as they did when they were designed in the nineteenth century. The youngest were built around 1955 and are still sailing. There you can indeed see the halyards far back, but because this is a ship with two masts, the aft sail was much smaller mainly used to steer more than to provide propulsion. As a result, the sail is also much more manoeuvrable and can be guided over a halyard. In ships with three masts, it is certainly the case that all three sails are used for propulsion, and they are about the same size and then a halyard guided backwards gets in the way. But above all….., you have to make it the way you see it.

But may I conclude from this that you are going to use Latin sails? That is not entirely clear to me yet.

 

Constant

[Mark Pearse]

12 hours ago, Louie da fly said:

the mistake will just have to remain

Hi Steven,

 

I hope you don't mind my adding to the discussion, but I don't agree that this is an error - if the shrouds were on the leeward side then they won't have a lot of load on them. A helmsman could intentionally sail an angle to de-load a shroud so it can be worked on. 

 

 

[Louie da fly]

Why thank you, Mark. Unfortunately, they are going to be on the weather side, so I think Doreltomin's point stands. However, perhaps a flick of the rudder(s) could take the load off for a short time even if they were weather shrouds. [And of course if they were just completing a tack and hadn't yet got under way, these guys tightening the last weather shroud could well be believable].

 

Tartane, yes, I'm still going to be using lateen sails. I've looked carefully at your arguments and they aren't convincing enough to make me change. I realise that you have the best intentions in making your suggestions, but I have done plenty of research of my own and I'm satisfied that I'm making the right decisions. What may have been the practice for a chebec in the 18th/19th century is by no means necessarily what was done in the 12th century, and I believe I have ample evidence to back me up.

 

Theoretical reconstructions will always be a matter of interpretation of the available evidence, and our interpretations are different. I think the best policy is for us to agree to disagree. I'm not really willing to engage in any further discussion on these points, as I find it's distracting me from the build.

 

Steven

Edited April 30 by Louie da fly

[tartane]

 

Steven

 

I understand that you want to continue building and that this discussion hinders you in the construction of your model.

Finally, I would like to state one thing to complete  the story.

You came up with the photos of a Ghanjah, noting that the halyard went backwards at an angle and could therefore interfere with the latin sail of the aft mast. With a Ghanjah, and with several types in the extended family of Dhows, it is customary that when the ship is on the beach for maintenance, the mainmast is lowered. It then falls backwards into a trench that was kept free for this purpose. As a result, it is impossible to attach the halyard to the base of the mast, and the halyard must be attached further back. In the accompanying pictures you can see a Ghanjah, or a Baghla, or a Kotia, these are the three largest types of the family, which has lowered the mast to the rear. In the picture of the deck you can see that trench in front of you, covered by a plank, before the mast, so without facilities for hoisting the rod, that was not possible. You can also see the capstan on the side, to give space for the mast. I think the crew takes it for granted that the latin sail of the aft mast sometimes gives problems when tacking, which is caused by the possibility of tilting the mast.

I wish you success in the further construction and I will follow you with interest.

Constant

[Cathead]

While I've enjoyed this discussion as a novice in this area, I think Steven nails it at one point in observing that some small details that may or may not be in error act as discussion points for the knowledgeable and will not be noticed by the casual viewer. I certainly have a few on my models and it's actually a thrill when someone notices one in person and it sparks an informed discussion. Well done Steven and carry on!

[Louie da fly]

Thanks, Eric. I'm afraid I'm a bit of a show pony in that regard. I enjoy trying for a bit of extra interest in my builds to spark the attention of those in the know.

 

Steven

[Roger Pellett]

Steven,

 

1150 borders on prehistory, a long, long, time ago.  Short of digging up a well preserved vessel no one can really say how these vessels were built and sailed.  Likewise, no one can really say if details known to exist on much later lateen rigged vessels were used in 1150.  The best anyone can do is to make use of contemporary information available, which you are doing.  Keep up the good work, while realizing that this is a difficult subject.

 

Roger

[Louie da fly]

Thanks Roger. That's my opinion entirely. A lot of this is educated guesswork based on (extremely!) inadequate source material. Of course we can't be sure it's all correct, but a lot of the fun is in the investigation of source material and speculation as to how it could be done, given the pictorial evidence (often affected by artistic licence), the archaeological evidence (often frustratingly incomplete) and the practicalities of sailing a wooden vessel.

 

And if later evidence proves one of the guesses wrong, one still has the satisfaction of having done the best one could with the information that was available at the time.

 

So, on to current progress. Shrouds and halyards in place, but only the foremast shrouds have been finalised.

I really do need to clear my workdesk before I take photos!

 

I made new silkspan sails - I wasn't happy with the first iteration. This time I made them oversize and folded the edges over instead of gluing strips of silkspan to the edges. The cross was painted on with Tamiya acrylic paint. I needed two coats for the "face" side and one for the other side. Considerably happier with the second version.

And I've added the blocks to the yards - for the tacks at the lower ends and the vangs at the upper.

Druxey, if I might pick your brains - how did you attach the bolt ropes to your silkspan sails (they look particularly good)? And the robands?

 

Steven

 

 

 

Edited May 4 by Louie da fly

[Jim Lad]

Very nice looking sails, Steven.

 

As for the historical accuracy of the model - "based of the best available information at the time of building." 

 

John

[Louie da fly]

Adding the bolt ropes to the edges of the sails. Glued to the edge of the sail with matt acrylic varnish. Much more fiddly than I'd expected. I had to do a short section, let it dry and then do another until I'd gone all around the outside. I discovered the assembly would then stick to the cutting board, so I needed to peel the section of sail and bolt-rope off each time I did this, otherwise it would stick fast and tear as I removed it. And I had to go back over it to repair the places where the rope hadn't adhered properly to the sail.

Now that's complete, I've started adding the mizzen sail to the yard with robands made of cotton sewing thread, using a needle to pierce holes in the sail and then tying a reef knot in each individual roband.

It turned out that I needed to glue the first thumb knot together and to the yard, then come back later and do the other half of the knot and glue it in place. Otherwise it would all come loose and untie itself. And by that time I'd forgotten which way I'd done the first part, so I think I ended up with a decent number of granny knots. Not to worry, though. At this scale you can't tell anyway.

I used a cunning mechanism (a clothes peg) to keep the top of the yard facing upwards so all the knots ran along the top.

Still in progress. Once they're all done I'll go back and trim the free ends back close to the knots.

And I'm just getting into designing the anchors. Though there are plenty of contemporary representations of anchors from the 14th century, I've been able to find only a single one from the 12th - in another mosaic in San Marco which appears to have been done about the same time. It shows three anchors at the bow - the arrow is pointing to the foremost one. I've worked out how big they would be and their proportions, but the shank looks terribly short to me.
   

What do the rest of you think? Should I lengthen the shank? And also add flukes - it is, after all, pretty difficult to portray these on a mosaic - and for the same reason perhaps taper the stock as well?

 

Steven

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

I apologise for the tardy response ( to post #409), Steven, but I've been under the weather for most of the past month and am only just now catching up with you. You figured out what I used, I see; acrylic matt medium. If you need to dampen the sail to shape it, the bolt rope won't come undone like it woudld if you had used PVA.

 

Great progress since I last looked in, and it was nice to see a civilised discussion and gentlemanly disagreement, unlike some other threads I've seen elsewhere!

 

As for anchor design; would there have been much if any change between the 12th and 14th centuries? My instinct is to use the slightly later design as your starting point.

[Baker]

First of all, I have little or no knowledge of ships from this period.
But, the stones of the mosaic all seem to be the same size.
So the poor guy who placed the mosaic has little room to make something as small as the stock taper.
There is also a chance that he knew more about laying mosaics than about ships.
I wouldn't rely on just this mosaic as a basis for your anchor.

[Louie da fly]

Thanks everybody for the likes.

 

Druxey, thanks for that. I'm still heart-in-mouth about dampening and shaping the sail. I'll try it with the mizzen (the most disposable and easily replaced) before I try it with the other two.

 

10 hours ago, druxey said:

As for anchor design; would there have been much if any change between the 12th and 14th centuries? My instinct is to use the slightly later design as your starting point.

Certainly the 14th century representations seem more reliable

  

I'm inclined to go with the longer shank - and the flukes. Interestingly, neither of the examples above show the stock (perhaps it was only put in place when they were planning to drop anchor, as otherwise it would get in the way?), and both have a ring at the lower end (presumably for fishing the anchor). But the stock on the San Marco example is definitely there, so I'll be following that.

 

3 hours ago, Baker said:

But, the stones of the mosaic all seem to be the same size.
So the poor guy who placed the mosaic has little room to make something as small as the stock taper.

My thought exactly.

 

Steven

[Mark Pearse]

Hi Steven

 

My only comment on the anchor is that the stock needs to be perpendicular to the curved hooking part, to encourage the hooked ends to bite into the sea floor. Apologies if you already were aware of this, I understand your drawing might have been just to get the proportion right. 

 

Noting that it would have been straightforward to make the stocks so they can be parallel to the hooked part when sitting against the ship's hull, & perpendicular when the anchor is deployed.

Edited June 3 by Mark Pearse

[Louie da fly]

11 hours ago, Mark Pearse said:

My only comment on the anchor is that the stock needs to be perpendicular to the curved hooking part

Oh, yes. I was assuming that. As you correctly surmised the diagram was just to work out proportions.

 

Steven

[woodrat]

On 6/4/2024 at 6:55 AM, Mark Pearse said:

Noting that it would have been straightforward to make the stocks so they can be parallel to the hooked part when sitting against the ship's hull, & perpendicular when the anchor is deployed.

Yes I think it would be reasonable to show a sliding metal stock such as this. Please note that the round ship would have anchors at each quarter of the ship and probably a number of spare anchors stored maybe on deck.

 

Dick

[Louie da fly]

Yes, anchors of the time had to be made in pieces by hand and hand-forged together by a blacksmith. They weren't terribly big at this time (as evidenced by anchors found in archaeology from the period) and a ship would have had to carry quite a large number (such as the 11th century Serce Limani wreck, which had 8 of them). The picture in post #414 above shows two anchors each side - one at the bow and one at the quarter, and I'd be very surprised if they didn't have more than that.

 

Regarding the sliding stock, I'll have to think about that a bit. My interpretation of the mosaic picture is that as the stock is shown (unlike in the pictures in post #414) it was more likely to be a permanent stock at right angles to the arms.

 

Steven 

[Ferrus Manus]

1 minute ago, Louie da fly said:

Yes, anchors of the time had to be made in pieces by hand and hand-forged together by a blacksmith.

The funny thing about this post right here is I just PM'ed you about late medieval anchors just now, before having read this post. 

Cheers!

[Ferrus Manus]

2 minutes ago, Louie da fly said:

it was more likely to be a permanent stock at right angles to the arms.

 

Also remember how hard iron was to forge in the Middle Ages. If they didn't absolutely need it, they would have gone with wood. If I remember correctly, sliding stocks weren't seen until well into the 18th century. I would suspect anchor designs hadn't changed much from Roman times by that point, especially considering the fact that the aforementioned anchors were so time and labor intensive to make.