Comments on: Toward an Archaeology of Boarding: Naval Hand-to-Hand Combat Tactics in Northwestern Europe in the 16th Century

By: Rolf W. Fabricius

Rolf W. Fabricius — Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:14:28 +0000

Hi Stanislaw,
Your observations regarding wood splinters is an important one – it remained one of the most dangerous elements of naval warfare until the advent of ironclad warships. The main point here, however, was that there now was an increased tendency to target the ship itself. The splinters generated was the result of aiming at the ship, not the personnel. Certain stages of battle – in some cases the entire battle – took place from such distances that it can most appropriately be called impersonal warfare, standing in stark contrast to hand-to-hand combat.

While the heavy ordnance types of the 16th century certainly were not as efficient as guns of the 19th century, there was undoubtedly a focal shift towards anti-ship combat in naval warfare of the 16th cenury. Granted, this is a very early stage for said development, but there are, nonetheless, several reported cases in which ships had been sunk from a distance, e.g. the battle off Bornholm 9 June 1935, several battles of the Nordic Seven Years’ War- such as the battles of Öland in August 1564 and June 1566 – and Battle of Gravelines (1588). The historical sources also reveal that clear orders of battling the ships from a distance were given to the admirals and naval officers of the time. Erik XIV’s instructed that his great warship, Mars Makalös, was to decide the battle by taking advantage of its superior ordnance firing capabilities. It is clear, too, that schematic tactics for battling from afar developed in the end of the 16th century, as illustrated by the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Statistical data, showing an increased tendency to employ long range ordnance types to the detriment of short range ordnance, is also in congruency with this. Finally, in addition to the many fantastic anti-ship shots contained in Rudolf Dewenter’s work from 1585, Berich von Pulver und Feuerwerken, there are of course a large number of shot types for damaging rigging and other parts of the ship from this period which have been recovered.

By: Stanislaw

Stanislaw — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:33:49 +0000

In fact, the early cannons were by far not an efficient anti-ship weapon, as they did very little damage to the ship’s hull. Even the smaller ships, e.g. sloops, could take hundreds of cannonball hits and stay afloat & ready for battle. Ships-of-the line could take thousands of hits, including hundreds below the waterline. They were usually burnt down, captured or sank by their own crew or the prize crew, not gunfire.

The emphasis of naval battles was still on killing the enemy ship’s crew, albeit with cannonballs, buckshot and wood splinters instead of swords and arrows. Small-caliber, lightweight cannon balls were just as much an anti-personnel weapon as bows and crossbows. The only major difference was that cannons, unlike bows, were sufficiently efficient in this role to make boarding redundant in most cases – why risking a hand-to-hand engagement if you can just kill everyone inside the enemy ship’s hull with cannonballs and then capture she ship.

The transition towards purely anti-ship warfare in fact happened after the invention of explosive artillery shells and shell guns (Paixhans guns and the like) in as late as 1820s. Which was closely followed by the advent of steam power and ironclad warships to counter this new method of naval warfare.

By: Edwin

Edwin — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:59:34 +0000

Interesting take on boarding with the activities of the Buccaneers, later pirates, in the Caribbean, who would work up the size of ships they used by boarding tactics. Initially starting from pirogues they would try to disable the helmsman by musket shot before swarming aboard. As an aside this tells us that in the hands of an expert the musket was a good deal more accurate than conventional histories tell us. Much the same technigues used of course today by pirates from Somalia and elsewhere.

By: B.Crawfurd

B.Crawfurd — Sun, 19 Oct 2014 17:47:34 +0000

Indeed, you are right in your opinion about the past!

By: Toward an Archaeology of Boarding: Naval Hand-to-Hand Combat Tactics in Northwestern Europe in the 16th Century. | My Blog

Wed, 15 Oct 2014 23:41:00 +0000

[…] explores the forgotten side of naval combat: hand-to-hand boarding action. Originally published at: http://moocs.southampton.ac.uk/shipwrecks/2014/10/13/toward-archaeology-boarding-naval-hand-hand-com… Much research has been undertaken over the years to illuminate the use of naval power in European […]

By: Cathy

Cathy — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 04:08:25 +0000

I’m interested in how these findings relate to the world as it is today. We can learn quite a few things from studying the past.

By: Rolf W. Fabricius

Rolf W. Fabricius — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:21:47 +0000

Indeed! And in addition to the prize money for the captured ship, boarding was of course also perpetuated by those who entertained hopes of capturing people or valuable cargo, such as food, treasure, weaponry and, in particular, information that may have aided naval intelligence, These are all very interesting factors to explore in explaining why boarding remained an attractive enterprise even after the advent of successful heavy ordnance fire tactics.

By: Edwin

Edwin — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:01:31 +0000

Of course, but there was the reward of prize money for ship capture as an inducement. “She strikes” must have been welcome because of the avoidance of a messy hand to hand engagement.

By: Rolf W. Fabricius

Rolf W. Fabricius — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:51:47 +0000

Hi Edwin,
As you imply, missile attacks played an important role in naval battles even before the 16th century, e.g. in the Battle of Sluys. However, I would argue that what distinguishes the post-medieval role of missile attacks at sea from those of earlier dates is exactly that post-medieval ships did not need or perhaps did not desire to capture ships to defeat them. Although missile attacks, both archery and cannon (one of the earliest recorded uses of naval ordnance in a European battle), were employed in Battle of the Sluys, the purpose was to weaken the enemy before or during boarding. The missile attacks, in other words, were anti-personnel focused. As naval technology developed in the course of the 16th century, it became possible to take more of an anti-ship focus and determine the outcome of naval battles without boarding action.

By: Edwin

Edwin — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:03:05 +0000

Interesting topic. I confess that at least from the Battle of Sluys. I thought that the English emphasis was on missile attacks on enemy ships with archery giving way to cannon. Of course, as on the land, territory or ships, can only be captured by boots on the deck.