The post Round Shields and Martial Practices of the Viking Age appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>The post Round Shields and Martial Practices of the Viking Age appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>The post New Member of Combat Archaeology: Claes B. Pettersson appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>His bio can be found below and in the members section. Combat Archaeology has been in frequent contact with Claes and has had the pleasure of engaging in many informative discussions with him. Claes has recently written a small article on the Getaryggen 1567 battlefield project for Combat Archaeology which is currently in its final editorial stages – keep an eye open for this on our website!
Claes B. Pettersson
Claes B. Pettersson is an archaeologist, specialized in the Early Modern Period. He holds a BA in Historic Archaeology from the University of Lund, Sweden. Since 2004, he has been based at the Jönköping County Museum in Southern Sweden. His recent research has dealt with the conditions that made the rapid development of the Swedish state and its rise as a military power possible in the early 17th century. Excavations led by Claes includes both the Royal Manufactures (guns and cloth) and the castle, Jönköpings slott, in this once strategically important fortified town. Another project of his is the Getaryggen 1567 battlefield and the Danish campaign led by Daniel Rantzau. Here, excavations and extensive surveys have focused on Scandinavian warfare in the transition between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, its methods and consequences. Claes has published a wide range of articles based on his research and frequently participates in conferences and scientific networks focused on different aspects of conflict archaeology.
To learn more about Combat Archaeology Click Here.
The post New Member of Combat Archaeology: Claes B. Pettersson appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>The post New Member of Combat Archaeology: Claes B. Pettersson appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>His bio can be found below and in the members section. Combat Archaeology has been in frequent contact with Claes and has had the pleasure of engaging in many informative discussions with him. Claes has recently written a small article on the Getaryggen 1567 battlefield project for Combat Archaeology which is currently in its final editorial stages – keep an eye open for this on our website!
Claes B. Pettersson
Claes B. Pettersson is an archaeologist, specialized in the Early Modern Period. He holds a BA in Historic Archaeology from the University of Lund, Sweden. Since 2004, he has been based at the Jönköping County Museum in Southern Sweden. His recent research has dealt with the conditions that made the rapid development of the Swedish state and its rise as a military power possible in the early 17th century. Excavations led by Claes includes both the Royal Manufactures (guns and cloth) and the castle, Jönköpings slott, in this once strategically important fortified town. Another project of his is the Getaryggen 1567 battlefield and the Danish campaign led by Daniel Rantzau. Here, excavations and extensive surveys have focused on Scandinavian warfare in the transition between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, its methods and consequences. Claes has published a wide range of articles based on his research and frequently participates in conferences and scientific networks focused on different aspects of conflict archaeology.
To learn more about Combat Archaeology Click Here.
The post New Member of Combat Archaeology: Claes B. Pettersson appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>The post New Member of Combat Archaeology: Claes B. Pettersson appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>His bio can be found below and in the members section. Combat Archaeology has been in frequent contact with Claes and has had the pleasure of engaging in many informative discussions with him. Claes has recently written a small article on the Getaryggen 1567 battlefield project for Combat Archaeology which is currently in its final editorial stages – keep an eye open for this on our website!
Claes B. Pettersson
Claes B. Pettersson is an archaeologist, specialized in the Early Modern Period. He holds a BA in Historic Archaeology from the University of Lund, Sweden. Since 2004, he has been based at the Jönköping County Museum in Southern Sweden. His recent research has dealt with the conditions that made the rapid development of the Swedish state and its rise as a military power possible in the early 17th century. Excavations led by Claes includes both the Royal Manufactures (guns and cloth) and the castle, Jönköpings slott, in this once strategically important fortified town. Another project of his is the Getaryggen 1567 battlefield and the Danish campaign led by Daniel Rantzau. Here, excavations and extensive surveys have focused on Scandinavian warfare in the transition between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, its methods and consequences. Claes has published a wide range of articles based on his research and frequently participates in conferences and scientific networks focused on different aspects of conflict archaeology.
To learn more about Combat Archaeology Click Here.
The post New Member of Combat Archaeology: Claes B. Pettersson appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>The post The Emergence of Naval Warfare: The Development of Boarding and Characteristics of Naval Battles appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>Through ambushes and main force assaults, mankind has persisted in their violent conceits throughout history. Violent escapades rooted in rivalry and hatred have certainly added their share to the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” For many, the taking up of arms entailed not only opposing a sea of troubles but also coming face to face with the sea itself. Naval warfare is both a fascinating and instructive genre; however, as part of an era when it is preferable to emphasize similarities of people rather than their differences, there is also certain unattractiveness of studying such violence today. But, as has become clear, such studies have much more to teach us than just that people can be violent to one another (Carman 2013: 177). Maritime archaeology, a discipline which preoccupies itself with investigations into humanity’s interaction with waterways, recognizes the significance of naval warfare studies, perhaps as an inherent consequence of the bellicose origins of much of the archaeological material. Although the discipline entails a lot more than sunken warships and cannons, it is certainly evident that much of the research has centered on subjects related to naval warfare. Far from being a narrow field, the research is fueled by a wide range of topics which have been made possible to investigate by the material left behind by the long history of humans causing havoc and mayhem on the seas. With the myriad of topics available within this genre and the fact that warfare has formed such a great part of our knowledge of the past – and, for some, been part of the present – it is not surprising that we have been left with the rather axiomatic notion that warfare has always been waged, both on land and at sea. However, is it possible to pinpoint any more precisely when humans began to bring large-scale combat out to sea? And what was the nature of the methods by which these early seaborne conflicts were carried out?
The Advent of Naval Warfare
The advent of naval warfare is challenging to pinpoint precisely in time and space. Given the ubiquitousness of warfare in both past and present, it is plausible to assume that the world’s oceans have been witness to large-scale violent encounters at least since the employment of watercraft sufficiently stable for hosting hand-to-hand combat scenarios or for the launching of missile attacks. Several finds from Egypt suggest that early naval warfare could have been conducted as early as the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. The oldest depiction of a boat that is more advanced in design than a canoe is a pictograph on a granite pebble found in the Khartoum Mesolithic layer (Usai & Salvatori 2007). The pictograph, however, is rather ambigious and does not allow for an interpretation of the stability of the watercraft in question. Being the only one of its kind, it is also quite the exception. The earliest convincing evidence of the emergence of more stable watercraft appear in the form of depictions on Amratian ceramics from c.3500 BC (McGrail 2001:17; fig. 1). Another important find is the ivory knife-handle from Gebel-el-Arak, dated to c. 3200 BC, on which two types of vessels are depicted in association with battle scenes (McGrail 2001:19; fig 2). However, due to iconographic ambiguity, the precise roles of the depicted vessels remain unclear. In consideration of the tendency for large-scale violence to intensify with increased political complexity and the dating of the aforementioned finds, it is interesting to note in this place – although not wholly surprising – that the development of more stable watercraft coincides with the emergence of nation states.
Fig. 1: Amratian ceramics with boat designs. Naqada II, 3450-3350 BC.
Fig. 2. Ivory handle of the Gebel-el-Arak knife, c. 3200 BC.
Notwithstanding these vindications, the first direct evidence of naval warfare comes in the form of documentary evidence from the Late Bronze Age. Contained in one of the few surviving documents which detail the reign of the last Hittite king, Suppiluliumas II, is a mentioning of a Hittite naval victory in 1210 BC (Gurney 1952: 31). The account simply states that the Hittites were victorious on the sea against an enemy based in Alasiya (modern day Cyprus), offering no further details about the exact identity of the enemy nor how victory was achieved. Despite these shortcomings, the document is commonly accepted as evidence of the first recorded naval battle in history. More information, however, is available about the second naval battle in recorded history, namely the Battle of the Delta which was fought between the Egyptians and the Sea Peoples in c. 1175 BC. Details from this battle are recorded on the reliefs of pharaoh Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu in Luxor, Egypt. The reliefs contain, among other things, detailed battle scene depictions with boarding in which both shipborne archery and hand-to-hand combat forces are fully engaged in intense melee action. The apparent application of grappling hooks and ramming tactics in this battle reflect an advanced and well-established naval institution. Specialized naval technologies and tactics, then, seem to have been in use at least as early as the Late Bronze Age.
Boarding
Much of naval warfare in the past has revolved around boarding and measures to counter such actions and technology, i.e. anti-boarding. Within a combative context, boarding entails a forceful, non-consented entry aboard a ship. Fighting can occur in the process of entering the ship of the opposing force or aboard it. A successful boarding necessitates proper maneuvering towards the ship to be boarded, something which can be particularly difficult in harsh weather conditions. Another prequisite is that the ship of the opposing force is suppressed or that the crew is unaware of the entry. The ship must also be sufficiently stable for the boarding force to leap or climb onto the deck and, if necessary, sufficiently spacious to host a fight. For cultures in possession of such technology, but lacking or improficient in effective shipboard ordnance use, boarding was the primary method by which to conclude a battle at sea. However, boarding actions could also have been undertaken when it was desirable to seize a vessel without destroying it or when the objective was the removal of cargo or persons aboard the other vessel. The ship is a prize in itself but it can also carry valuable people or material, such as food, treasure, weaponry or information that may aid naval intelligence. Thus, while boarding lost some of its importance to navies after the advent of successful heavy ordnance fire, it remained an attractive enterprise, especially to pirates and privateers as well as to forces whose preferred method of attack was conducted under stealthy conditions.
Boarding was the primary means by which to achieve victory on the seas before the late 16th century by which time ordnance fire had been so effectively put to use by means of shipboard gun ports and gun carriages as well as broadside tactics that it had rendered boarding a secondary tactic. As such, naval hand-to-hand combat presents itself as an important aspect in investigations into warfare at sea.
Fig. 3: Relief from Medinet Habu, depicting the Battle of the Delta (adopted from Erman & Ranke 1923: 648; Cornelius 1987).
Fig. 4: Stages in the Battle of the Delta, as identified on the relief from Medinet Habu. E.1 and N.1 depict Egyptians throwing grappling hooks into sails and boarding the vessels of the Sea Peoples (adopted from Nelson 1943: 40-55, fig. 4; Cornelius 1987).
Space does not permit a full review of boarding in naval warfare here but the following should suffice as a general overview of its history and the main developments therein until the age of heavy ordnance fire. The details given here illustrate the veritable importance of hand-to-hand combat in naval warfare since the inception of sea battles and well into the Elizabethan period.
It is likely that the first naval battle in recorded history, the aforementioned battle of 1210 BC, was fought by means of boarding (Grant 2008). This can be inferred from its mere mentioning in the Hittite document, indicating that it was of sufficient scale to be considered noteworthy, and from the general tendency for any serious naval encounter at sea to be decisively concluded by means of hand-to-hand combat, at least before the development of heavy ordnance fire. However, as mentioned, the details of the Hittite victory in this battle are extremely brief and, admittedly, insufficient for such an argument to be made (Bryce 2007: 7; Gurney 1952: 31-32). Thus, although the battle of 1210 BC effectively marks the known beginning of naval warfare, boarding tactics can technically be said (at least with defensible reasons) to have been first employed in the second naval battle in recorded history, the Battle of the Delta in c. 1175 BC.
Fig. 5: The Athlit ram, found in 1980 off the coast of Israel near Atlit, is an example of an ancient ram used in battles such as that of Battle of Salamis. Carbon 14 dating of timber remnants date it to between 530 BC and 270 BC (Zemer 2015).
Although the general concept of boarding appears to have remained the same throughout the age of the galley, boarding tactics underwent several notable developments in the major periods of the classical and medieval world. While incendiary devices were occasionally used, the Greek and Persian tactics emphasized both boarding and ramming, and constructed ram-equipped warships which were successfully employed in the context of both smaller skirmishes and large-scale battles, e.g. in the Battle of Salamis (480 BC) (fig. 5). Later, the early Roman development of the corvus (a boarding ramp) proved to be advantageous in sea battles – such as in the Battle of Mylae (260 BC) – which allowed the renowned Roman land army to effectively engage in more or less regular terrestrial battle at sea. This, along with the harpax or harpago (a catapult-shot grapnel) brought focus back to boarding and away from ramming tactics (Dickie et al 2009: 55 ff.).
Fig. 6: Viking longships lashed together in anticipation of a naval battle as, for instance, was done in Battle of Nesjar (1016 AD) (adopted from Hjardar & Vike 2013: 86).
Fig. 7: Detail from the Madrid Skylitzes codex from the 12th century (Bibliteca Nacional de Madrid, Vitr. 26-2, Bild-Nr. 77, f 34 v. b.), showing Greek fire in use against the fleet of the rebel Thomas the Slav (adopted from Pászthory 1986: 31).
The desire of transforming a naval battle into one with properties more reminiscent of terrestrial battles appears to have been prevalent also in the medieval period. When fighting at sea, the Vikings occasionally lashed their ships together in order to provide a more stable platform for fighting and boarding (fig. 6; Hjardar & Vike 2013: 83-87). At this time, Greek fire, a new incendiary weapon, was also employed in naval warfare by Byzantium against the Arabs, and, according to Oddr Snorrason, even against the Vikings (fig. 7; Oddr Snorrason 2005: ch.5). The invention of this technology led to the production of a new warship, the siphonophore, making Byzantium less dependent on boarding than other contemporary powers, though it was still a common procedure (Dickie et al 2009: 56-60).
Fig. 8: Detail of Battle of Sluys from Jean Froissart’s Chronicles from the 14th century, contained in Bibliotheque Nationale MS Fr. 2643.
Another major development in warfare at sea was the emergence of ship types with high freeboards and elevated platforms from which archers could fire projectiles and repel attacks. On these ships, both fore and aft castles could be added for defense, making boarding an exceedingly difficult and dangerous undertaking. An early use of such a type in naval warfare was the cog. Though mentioned in literary works as early as the 9th century AD, the archaeological and historical evidence suggests that the cog was not fully integrated into naval warfare in the form of the floating fortress that gained a near hegemony over the northern seas until the 13th or 14th century (Hattendorff & Unger 2003: 41-43). The Norwegian Speculum Regale, written between AD 1240 and 1263, indicates an early Scandinavian use of martial cogs that had not only castles in the bow and stern but also crow nests in the mast top (ibid: 45). In England, the cog accounted for about 57% of the 1300 ships attested for military service during the years AD 1337-1360 (ibid: 43), proving itself as an effective engine of war in several major naval battles, including the Battle of Sluys in AD 1340 (fig. 8; Dickie et al. 2009: 64-70). Other successful developments within naval warfare- such as the carrack – were later built with the same considerations in mind. The carrack, of which Mary Rose (AD 1545) is an example, developed in the 15th century and was considerably more stable and spacious than the cog. The Battle of Lepanto (AD 1571) may be considered the climax of the chapter on naval warfare which emphasized boarding tactics. The galleys in this battle carried up to 400 men. The 400 galleys fighting at Lepanto may therefore have carried in total some 160, 000 men, making it the largest battle fought in 16th century Europe (Parker 1988: 89).
While naval technologies, tactics and strategies have been in perpetually development from the inception of naval warfare, there can be no doubt that the increased employment of naval artillery in the 15th and 16th centuries had an unrivalled impact on the nature of naval warfare, demanding considerable and constant adjustments to the new challenges faced by the evermore effective ordnance fire. These truly revolutionary steps greatly influenced the methods by which naval warfare was conducted, particularly with regards to the boarding traditions of the preceding ages.
From Battles to Sea Battles: the Phenomena and their Characteristics
Being a cultural choice, there is nothing that compels us to wage warfare in a specific way. There are many forms of institutionalized combat and violent means of achieving political goals. All forms of warfare, although often purely pragmatic in appearance, are inextricably bound up with cultural discourse and thus also a wide array of ideological assumptions and social considerations that guide warfare. However, while cultural discourse influence the conduct of warfare, it is also evident that certain external circumstances – such as the environment and availability of resources – has the potential to either encourage or facilitate certain actions and to restrict, or otherwise discourage, others.
To reach a more developed understanding of the phenomenon of naval warfare and the conditions by which sea battles operate, it is first necessary to place it within the wider context of warfare and battles in general. Naval warfare is not a unanimous phenomenon and expresses itself in variegated ways, each of which is characterized by a set of distinctive properties. In fact, warfare in general can take many different appearances, such as sieges, guerilla warfare, terrorism, battles etc. At their base, however, all forms of warfare, whether manifested in terrestrial, maritime or aerial form, are what can be termed “instrumental violence”, standing in contrast to “impulsive violence.” (James 2013:203). While impulsive violence is chiefly guided by emotions – such as rage, where a rational course of action is impossible – instrumental violence is more dependent upon the cognitive processes of the agent and has much less to do with emotional aggression (Panksepp & Biven 2012: 161). Instrumental violence entails highly calculative courses of action which are undertaken for the purpose of some gain. The rational and critical resources have been deployed in order to calculate the net benefit and weigh it against the risks involved in such undertakings, not least the consequences of passive action. It is, as Clausewitz eloquently described the nature of war, “Politics by other means” (Clausewitz 1832: book one, chapter 1, section 24). The demands of warfare, moreover, incline the belligerents to manipulate and control physical elements contained within the combative scenario for the purpose of gaining some advantage. Such undertakings likewise reflect, in varying degrees, a high cognitive ability in as far as this not only entails knowledge of each of the tactical elements but also of the underlying principles that govern the proceedings and various stages of warfare. The successful application of knowledge in a hectic milieu – such as that produced by combat and warfare – is challenging, to say the least. Rather paradoxically, then, the propagation of the ultimate chaos of human affairs, warfare, expresses itself in history conjointly with an attempt of introducing order into chaos.
The distinctive properties of battles, being an extreme case of instrumental violence, are especially interesting in relation to naval warfare. Battles are said to be “one of the most organized, premeditated, regimented and patterned forms of human behavior” (Staniforth et al 2014: 79, author’s emphasis). However, what distinguishes battles from virtually all other forms of warfare is the desire or willingness to meet on a battlefield for a single, massive clash between armed men for the purpose of mass killing, perhaps, but not necessarily, with some other ultimate end in mind. What is wanted is the completion of a mission goal through a coordinated main force assault which is to be undertaken by a large number of cooperative individuals.
In view of the characteristics of battles outlined above, it is not surprising that a great deal of naval warfare in the past – at least before age of heavy ordnance fire – has taken the form of sea battles. There are several consequences of employing fighting platforms at the sea. Most importantly, the appertaining environmental conditions of naval warfare are particularly influential in relation to the way warfare is conducted at sea. It is well-known that seafaring is in itself a hazardous undertaking. The belligerents are already in danger before the commencement of any battle; thus, the warship, although a powerful technology, can also be understood as a rather fragile sanctuary. These floating and mobile battlefields, essentially consisting of structured assemblages of floating wood, separate the crew from imminent danger but are vulnerable to external conditions, wherefore the significance of gales, waves and fire are also amplified in the case of naval warfare. In view of this, although a ship may be assisted or accompanied by other ships, it can generally be considered an isolated unit which is severely lacking in friendly entry and exit routes. This has often been carefully exploited by the enemy, not least by friendly forces, as illustrated by Alonso de Contreras’ (1582-1641) vivid account from the early 17th century:
“Our Captain then applied a refined stratagem: he allowed only a few people on deck, and had all the hatches carefully fastened down, so that people either had to fight or jump into the sea. It was a bloody confrontation.”
(Kirsch 1990: 67, quoting de Contreras 1961: 84-86).
As a result, naval warfare is rather reminiscent of island warfare, characterized by a limited amount of resources and a spatially confined combative arena. These circumstances, moreover, incline hand-to-hand combat aboard ships to be extremely intense since it is difficult to disengage from the fight and little chance of escape. The fighting forces are, quite literally, in the same boat. Hand-to-hand combat naval battles – as opposed to skirmishes, firefights and other smaller engagements –can thus be conceived as a form of fighting that is an inherent consequence of the aforementioned maritime conditions. Battles have long been considered to be an inherited legacy from the ancient Greek hoplites (Hanson 2009) or as a practice that begins with the Battle of Megiddo (1469 BC) (Carman 2009: 40). But, given the above, it may be necessary to look for the origins of battles on different grounds, perchance on no grounds at all but on the seas. At the very least, it would be neglectful not to acknowledge the significance of naval warfare in the context of the emergence of battles and its role in the development of warfare in general.
Conclusion
As witnessed, this enquiry into the emergence of naval warfare is composed of several different facets, each of which have varying connections with the subject and which have the potential to address the issue from several historical-archaeological and anthropological viewpoints. Despite the multifarious methods by which to approach the subject, the emergence of naval warfare remains a challenging topic to investigate, preeminently as a result of the lack of written sources and ambiguous lines of evidence. A certain level of unclarity surrounds even some of the most fundamental questions concerning the early beginnings of naval warfare. The earliest convincing evidence of naval battles, as a distinct method of waging war, comes from the Late Bronze Age. It is worth noting, however, that the early construction of stable watercraft coupled with the tendency of bellicose use of technology suggests an earlier date for naval warfare phenomena. These early seaborne conflicts, moreover, appear to have been conducted by way of boarding and anti-boarding tactics, this being the primary way of waging naval warfare until the 16th century. Admittedly, the tactical and technological developments treated in the course of these pages do not offer a full picture of the subject; they do, nonetheless, illustrate how many of these were specifically directed towards achieving victory on the seas in the form of battles. In examining the characteristics of battles and the inherent properties of naval warfare, it is apparent that many early seaborne conflicts have been fought out in the form of battles as a consequence of the maritime conditions. Far from being a definite work on the emergence of naval warfare and boarding, the pages presented here offer a general overview and introduction to the subject, and have served to bring out a number of new aspects and topics for archaeological and anthropological investigations. Naval warfare studies cover a broad range of interesting topics and it is easy to permit some of the most fundamental questions and issues sink into oblivion or complacency. Lest we forget, warfare has not always been waged on the seas nor is it a merely pragmatic phenomena arising from a social vacuum. Naval battles, although often purely functional in appearance, are inextricably bound up with cultural discourse and a wide range of ideological assumptions and social considerations that guide the ways of warfare.
References:
Bryce, T. 2007. Hittite Warrior. Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd.
Carman, J. 2009. Ancient Warfare. History Press Limited.
Carman, J. 2013. Past War and European Identity: Making Conflict Archaeology Useful. Ch. 9 in S. Ralph ((ed.), The Archaeology of Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches: pp. 169-179. Albany: State University of New York Press.
von Clausewitz, C. 1976 [1832]. On War. Trans. and ed. by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
de Contreras, A. 1961. Trans, by Steiger Arnold. Das Leben des Capitán Alonso de Contreras von ihm Selbst erzählt. Zürich: Manesse Bibliothek der Weltliteratur.
Cornelius, I. 1987. The Battle of the Nile – Circa 1190 B.C. Military History Journal, 7(4). Available at: http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol074ic.html [Accessed: 13 Jan 2014].
Erman, A. & Ranke, H. 1923. Aegypten und aegyptisches Leben im Altertum. Mohr.
Dickie, I., Amber Books, Phyllis Jestice, Christer Jörgensen, Rob S. Rice, Martin J. Dougherty. 2009. Fighting Techniques of Naval Warfare: Strategy, Weapons, Commanders, and Ships: 1190 BC-Present, vol. 6. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.
Grant, R.G. 2008. Battle at Sea: 3,000 Years of Naval Warfare. DK Publishing.
Gurney, O.R. 1952. The Hittites. London: Penguin Books.
Hanson, V.D. 2009. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. University of California Press.
Hattendorff, J. & Unger, R. (eds.). 2003. War at Sea in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Woodbridge and Rochester: Boydell Press.
Hjardar, Kim, and Vegard Vike. 2011. Vikinger i krig. Oslo: Spartacus.
James, S. 2013. Facing the Sword: Confronting the Realities of Martial Violence and Other Mayhem, Past and Present. Ch.5 in S. Ralph (ed.), The Archaeology of Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches: pp. 98-115. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kirsch, P. 1990. The Galleon: The Great Ships of the Armada Era. London: Conway Maritime Press Ltd.
McGrail, S. 2001. Boats of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Panksepp, J. & Biven, L. 2012. The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human
Emotions. New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company.
Parker, G. 1988. The Military Revolution: Military innovation and the rise of the West, 1500-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pászthory, E. 1986. Über das ‘Griechische Feuer. Die Analyse eines spätantiken Waffensystems, Antike Welt 17 (2): 27–38.
Snorrason, O. 2005 [c.1190 ]. Translated by Peter Tunstall. The Saga of Olaf Tryggvason. Available at: http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/Yngvar.html [Accessed: 23.08.2014].
Staniforth, M., Kimura, J. & Sasaki, R. 2014. Naval Battlefield Archaeology of the Lost Kublai Khan Fleets. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 43 (1): 76-86.
Usai, D. & Salvatori, S. 2007. The Oldest Representation of a Nile Boat. Antiquity, 81(314).
Zemer, A. 2015. The Athlit Ram. Haifa Museums. Available at: www.nmm.org.il/eng/Exhibitions/468/The_Athlit_Ram [Accessed: 02 Nov 2015].
To learn more about Combat Archaeology Click Here.
The post The Emergence of Naval Warfare: The Development of Boarding and Characteristics of Naval Battles appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>The post The Emergence of Naval Warfare: The Development of Boarding and Characteristics of Naval Battles appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>Through ambushes and main force assaults, mankind has persisted in their violent conceits throughout history. Violent escapades rooted in rivalry and hatred have certainly added their share to the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” For many, the taking up of arms entailed not only opposing a sea of troubles but also coming face to face with the sea itself. Naval warfare is both a fascinating and instructive genre; however, as part of an era when it is preferable to emphasize similarities of people rather than their differences, there is also certain unattractiveness of studying such violence today. But, as has become clear, such studies have much more to teach us than just that people can be violent to one another (Carman 2013: 177). Maritime archaeology, a discipline which preoccupies itself with investigations into humanity’s interaction with waterways, recognizes the significance of naval warfare studies, perhaps as an inherent consequence of the bellicose origins of much of the archaeological material. Although the discipline entails a lot more than sunken warships and cannons, it is certainly evident that much of the research has centered on subjects related to naval warfare. Far from being a narrow field, the research is fueled by a wide range of topics which have been made possible to investigate by the material left behind by the long history of humans causing havoc and mayhem on the seas. With the myriad of topics available within this genre and the fact that warfare has formed such a great part of our knowledge of the past – and, for some, been part of the present – it is not surprising that we have been left with the rather axiomatic notion that warfare has always been waged, both on land and at sea. However, is it possible to pinpoint any more precisely when humans began to bring large-scale combat out to sea? And what was the nature of the methods by which these early seaborne conflicts were carried out?
The Advent of Naval Warfare
The advent of naval warfare is challenging to pinpoint precisely in time and space. Given the ubiquitousness of warfare in both past and present, it is plausible to assume that the world’s oceans have been witness to large-scale violent encounters at least since the employment of watercraft sufficiently stable for hosting hand-to-hand combat scenarios or for the launching of missile attacks. Several finds from Egypt suggest that early naval warfare could have been conducted as early as the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. The oldest depiction of a boat that is more advanced in design than a canoe is a pictograph on a granite pebble found in the Khartoum Mesolithic layer (Usai & Salvatori 2007). The pictograph, however, is rather ambigious and does not allow for an interpretation of the stability of the watercraft in question. Being the only one of its kind, it is also quite the exception. The earliest convincing evidence of the emergence of more stable watercraft appear in the form of depictions on Amratian ceramics from c.3500 BC (McGrail 2001:17; fig. 1). Another important find is the ivory knife-handle from Gebel-el-Arak, dated to c. 3200 BC, on which two types of vessels are depicted in association with battle scenes (McGrail 2001:19; fig 2). However, due to iconographic ambiguity, the precise roles of the depicted vessels remain unclear. In consideration of the tendency for large-scale violence to intensify with increased political complexity and the dating of the aforementioned finds, it is interesting to note in this place – although not wholly surprising – that the development of more stable watercraft coincides with the emergence of nation states.
Fig. 1: Amratian ceramics with boat designs. Naqada II, 3450-3350 BC.
Fig. 2. Ivory handle of the Gebel-el-Arak knife, c. 3200 BC.
Notwithstanding these vindications, the first direct evidence of naval warfare comes in the form of documentary evidence from the Late Bronze Age. Contained in one of the few surviving documents which detail the reign of the last Hittite king, Suppiluliumas II, is a mentioning of a Hittite naval victory in 1210 BC (Gurney 1952: 31). The account simply states that the Hittites were victorious on the sea against an enemy based in Alasiya (modern day Cyprus), offering no further details about the exact identity of the enemy nor how victory was achieved. Despite these shortcomings, the document is commonly accepted as evidence of the first recorded naval battle in history. More information, however, is available about the second naval battle in recorded history, namely the Battle of the Delta which was fought between the Egyptians and the Sea Peoples in c. 1175 BC. Details from this battle are recorded on the reliefs of pharaoh Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu in Luxor, Egypt. The reliefs contain, among other things, detailed battle scene depictions with boarding in which both shipborne archery and hand-to-hand combat forces are fully engaged in intense melee action. The apparent application of grappling hooks and ramming tactics in this battle reflect an advanced and well-established naval institution. Specialized naval technologies and tactics, then, seem to have been in use at least as early as the Late Bronze Age.
Boarding
Much of naval warfare in the past has revolved around boarding and measures to counter such actions and technology, i.e. anti-boarding. Within a combative context, boarding entails a forceful, non-consented entry aboard a ship. Fighting can occur in the process of entering the ship of the opposing force or aboard it. A successful boarding necessitates proper maneuvering towards the ship to be boarded, something which can be particularly difficult in harsh weather conditions. Another prequisite is that the ship of the opposing force is suppressed or that the crew is unaware of the entry. The ship must also be sufficiently stable for the boarding force to leap or climb onto the deck and, if necessary, sufficiently spacious to host a fight. For cultures in possession of such technology, but lacking or improficient in effective shipboard ordnance use, boarding was the primary method by which to conclude a battle at sea. However, boarding actions could also have been undertaken when it was desirable to seize a vessel without destroying it or when the objective was the removal of cargo or persons aboard the other vessel. The ship is a prize in itself but it can also carry valuable people or material, such as food, treasure, weaponry or information that may aid naval intelligence. Thus, while boarding lost some of its importance to navies after the advent of successful heavy ordnance fire, it remained an attractive enterprise, especially to pirates and privateers as well as to forces whose preferred method of attack was conducted under stealthy conditions.
Boarding was the primary means by which to achieve victory on the seas before the late 16th century by which time ordnance fire had been so effectively put to use by means of shipboard gun ports and gun carriages as well as broadside tactics that it had rendered boarding a secondary tactic. As such, naval hand-to-hand combat presents itself as an important aspect in investigations into warfare at sea.
Fig. 3: Relief from Medinet Habu, depicting the Battle of the Delta (adopted from Erman & Ranke 1923: 648; Cornelius 1987).
Fig. 4: Stages in the Battle of the Delta, as identified on the relief from Medinet Habu. E.1 and N.1 depict Egyptians throwing grappling hooks into sails and boarding the vessels of the Sea Peoples (adopted from Nelson 1943: 40-55, fig. 4; Cornelius 1987).
Space does not permit a full review of boarding in naval warfare here but the following should suffice as a general overview of its history and the main developments therein until the age of heavy ordnance fire. The details given here illustrate the veritable importance of hand-to-hand combat in naval warfare since the inception of sea battles and well into the Elizabethan period.
It is likely that the first naval battle in recorded history, the aforementioned battle of 1210 BC, was fought by means of boarding (Grant 2008). This can be inferred from its mere mentioning in the Hittite document, indicating that it was of sufficient scale to be considered noteworthy, and from the general tendency for any serious naval encounter at sea to be decisively concluded by means of hand-to-hand combat, at least before the development of heavy ordnance fire. However, as mentioned, the details of the Hittite victory in this battle are extremely brief and, admittedly, insufficient for such an argument to be made (Bryce 2007: 7; Gurney 1952: 31-32). Thus, although the battle of 1210 BC effectively marks the known beginning of naval warfare, boarding tactics can technically be said (at least with defensible reasons) to have been first employed in the second naval battle in recorded history, the Battle of the Delta in c. 1175 BC.
Fig. 5: The Athlit ram, found in 1980 off the coast of Israel near Atlit, is an example of an ancient ram used in battles such as that of Battle of Salamis. Carbon 14 dating of timber remnants date it to between 530 BC and 270 BC (Zemer 2015).
Although the general concept of boarding appears to have remained the same throughout the age of the galley, boarding tactics underwent several notable developments in the major periods of the classical and medieval world. While incendiary devices were occasionally used, the Greek and Persian tactics emphasized both boarding and ramming, and constructed ram-equipped warships which were successfully employed in the context of both smaller skirmishes and large-scale battles, e.g. in the Battle of Salamis (480 BC) (fig. 5). Later, the early Roman development of the corvus (a boarding ramp) proved to be advantageous in sea battles – such as in the Battle of Mylae (260 BC) – which allowed the renowned Roman land army to effectively engage in more or less regular terrestrial battle at sea. This, along with the harpax or harpago (a catapult-shot grapnel) brought focus back to boarding and away from ramming tactics (Dickie et al 2009: 55 ff.).
Fig. 6: Viking longships lashed together in anticipation of a naval battle as, for instance, was done in Battle of Nesjar (1016 AD) (adopted from Hjardar & Vike 2013: 86).
Fig. 7: Detail from the Madrid Skylitzes codex from the 12th century (Bibliteca Nacional de Madrid, Vitr. 26-2, Bild-Nr. 77, f 34 v. b.), showing Greek fire in use against the fleet of the rebel Thomas the Slav (adopted from Pászthory 1986: 31).
The desire of transforming a naval battle into one with properties more reminiscent of terrestrial battles appears to have been prevalent also in the medieval period. When fighting at sea, the Vikings occasionally lashed their ships together in order to provide a more stable platform for fighting and boarding (fig. 6; Hjardar & Vike 2013: 83-87). At this time, Greek fire, a new incendiary weapon, was also employed in naval warfare by Byzantium against the Arabs, and, according to Oddr Snorrason, even against the Vikings (fig. 7; Oddr Snorrason 2005: ch.5). The invention of this technology led to the production of a new warship, the siphonophore, making Byzantium less dependent on boarding than other contemporary powers, though it was still a common procedure (Dickie et al 2009: 56-60).
Fig. 8: Detail of Battle of Sluys from Jean Froissart’s Chronicles from the 14th century, contained in Bibliotheque Nationale MS Fr. 2643.
Another major development in warfare at sea was the emergence of ship types with high freeboards and elevated platforms from which archers could fire projectiles and repel attacks. On these ships, both fore and aft castles could be added for defense, making boarding an exceedingly difficult and dangerous undertaking. An early use of such a type in naval warfare was the cog. Though mentioned in literary works as early as the 9th century AD, the archaeological and historical evidence suggests that the cog was not fully integrated into naval warfare in the form of the floating fortress that gained a near hegemony over the northern seas until the 13th or 14th century (Hattendorff & Unger 2003: 41-43). The Norwegian Speculum Regale, written between AD 1240 and 1263, indicates an early Scandinavian use of martial cogs that had not only castles in the bow and stern but also crow nests in the mast top (ibid: 45). In England, the cog accounted for about 57% of the 1300 ships attested for military service during the years AD 1337-1360 (ibid: 43), proving itself as an effective engine of war in several major naval battles, including the Battle of Sluys in AD 1340 (fig. 8; Dickie et al. 2009: 64-70). Other successful developments within naval warfare- such as the carrack – were later built with the same considerations in mind. The carrack, of which Mary Rose (AD 1545) is an example, developed in the 15th century and was considerably more stable and spacious than the cog. The Battle of Lepanto (AD 1571) may be considered the climax of the chapter on naval warfare which emphasized boarding tactics. The galleys in this battle carried up to 400 men. The 400 galleys fighting at Lepanto may therefore have carried in total some 160, 000 men, making it the largest battle fought in 16th century Europe (Parker 1988: 89).
While naval technologies, tactics and strategies have been in perpetually development from the inception of naval warfare, there can be no doubt that the increased employment of naval artillery in the 15th and 16th centuries had an unrivalled impact on the nature of naval warfare, demanding considerable and constant adjustments to the new challenges faced by the evermore effective ordnance fire. These truly revolutionary steps greatly influenced the methods by which naval warfare was conducted, particularly with regards to the boarding traditions of the preceding ages.
From Battles to Sea Battles: the Phenomena and their Characteristics
Being a cultural choice, there is nothing that compels us to wage warfare in a specific way. There are many forms of institutionalized combat and violent means of achieving political goals. All forms of warfare, although often purely pragmatic in appearance, are inextricably bound up with cultural discourse and thus also a wide array of ideological assumptions and social considerations that guide warfare. However, while cultural discourse influence the conduct of warfare, it is also evident that certain external circumstances – such as the environment and availability of resources – has the potential to either encourage or facilitate certain actions and to restrict, or otherwise discourage, others.
To reach a more developed understanding of the phenomenon of naval warfare and the conditions by which sea battles operate, it is first necessary to place it within the wider context of warfare and battles in general. Naval warfare is not a unanimous phenomenon and expresses itself in variegated ways, each of which is characterized by a set of distinctive properties. In fact, warfare in general can take many different appearances, such as sieges, guerilla warfare, terrorism, battles etc. At their base, however, all forms of warfare, whether manifested in terrestrial, maritime or aerial form, are what can be termed “instrumental violence”, standing in contrast to “impulsive violence.” (James 2013:203). While impulsive violence is chiefly guided by emotions – such as rage, where a rational course of action is impossible – instrumental violence is more dependent upon the cognitive processes of the agent and has much less to do with emotional aggression (Panksepp & Biven 2012: 161). Instrumental violence entails highly calculative courses of action which are undertaken for the purpose of some gain. The rational and critical resources have been deployed in order to calculate the net benefit and weigh it against the risks involved in such undertakings, not least the consequences of passive action. It is, as Clausewitz eloquently described the nature of war, “Politics by other means” (Clausewitz 1832: book one, chapter 1, section 24). The demands of warfare, moreover, incline the belligerents to manipulate and control physical elements contained within the combative scenario for the purpose of gaining some advantage. Such undertakings likewise reflect, in varying degrees, a high cognitive ability in as far as this not only entails knowledge of each of the tactical elements but also of the underlying principles that govern the proceedings and various stages of warfare. The successful application of knowledge in a hectic milieu – such as that produced by combat and warfare – is challenging, to say the least. Rather paradoxically, then, the propagation of the ultimate chaos of human affairs, warfare, expresses itself in history conjointly with an attempt of introducing order into chaos.
The distinctive properties of battles, being an extreme case of instrumental violence, are especially interesting in relation to naval warfare. Battles are said to be “one of the most organized, premeditated, regimented and patterned forms of human behavior” (Staniforth et al 2014: 79, author’s emphasis). However, what distinguishes battles from virtually all other forms of warfare is the desire or willingness to meet on a battlefield for a single, massive clash between armed men for the purpose of mass killing, perhaps, but not necessarily, with some other ultimate end in mind. What is wanted is the completion of a mission goal through a coordinated main force assault which is to be undertaken by a large number of cooperative individuals.
In view of the characteristics of battles outlined above, it is not surprising that a great deal of naval warfare in the past – at least before age of heavy ordnance fire – has taken the form of sea battles. There are several consequences of employing fighting platforms at the sea. Most importantly, the appertaining environmental conditions of naval warfare are particularly influential in relation to the way warfare is conducted at sea. It is well-known that seafaring is in itself a hazardous undertaking. The belligerents are already in danger before the commencement of any battle; thus, the warship, although a powerful technology, can also be understood as a rather fragile sanctuary. These floating and mobile battlefields, essentially consisting of structured assemblages of floating wood, separate the crew from imminent danger but are vulnerable to external conditions, wherefore the significance of gales, waves and fire are also amplified in the case of naval warfare. In view of this, although a ship may be assisted or accompanied by other ships, it can generally be considered an isolated unit which is severely lacking in friendly entry and exit routes. This has often been carefully exploited by the enemy, not least by friendly forces, as illustrated by Alonso de Contreras’ (1582-1641) vivid account from the early 17th century:
“Our Captain then applied a refined stratagem: he allowed only a few people on deck, and had all the hatches carefully fastened down, so that people either had to fight or jump into the sea. It was a bloody confrontation.”
(Kirsch 1990: 67, quoting de Contreras 1961: 84-86).
As a result, naval warfare is rather reminiscent of island warfare, characterized by a limited amount of resources and a spatially confined combative arena. These circumstances, moreover, incline hand-to-hand combat aboard ships to be extremely intense since it is difficult to disengage from the fight and little chance of escape. The fighting forces are, quite literally, in the same boat. Hand-to-hand combat naval battles – as opposed to skirmishes, firefights and other smaller engagements –can thus be conceived as a form of fighting that is an inherent consequence of the aforementioned maritime conditions. Battles have long been considered to be an inherited legacy from the ancient Greek hoplites (Hanson 2009) or as a practice that begins with the Battle of Megiddo (1469 BC) (Carman 2009: 40). But, given the above, it may be necessary to look for the origins of battles on different grounds, perchance on no grounds at all but on the seas. At the very least, it would be neglectful not to acknowledge the significance of naval warfare in the context of the emergence of battles and its role in the development of warfare in general.
Conclusion
As witnessed, this enquiry into the emergence of naval warfare is composed of several different facets, each of which have varying connections with the subject and which have the potential to address the issue from several historical-archaeological and anthropological viewpoints. Despite the multifarious methods by which to approach the subject, the emergence of naval warfare remains a challenging topic to investigate, preeminently as a result of the lack of written sources and ambiguous lines of evidence. A certain level of unclarity surrounds even some of the most fundamental questions concerning the early beginnings of naval warfare. The earliest convincing evidence of naval battles, as a distinct method of waging war, comes from the Late Bronze Age. It is worth noting, however, that the early construction of stable watercraft coupled with the tendency of bellicose use of technology suggests an earlier date for naval warfare phenomena. These early seaborne conflicts, moreover, appear to have been conducted by way of boarding and anti-boarding tactics, this being the primary way of waging naval warfare until the 16th century. Admittedly, the tactical and technological developments treated in the course of these pages do not offer a full picture of the subject; they do, nonetheless, illustrate how many of these were specifically directed towards achieving victory on the seas in the form of battles. In examining the characteristics of battles and the inherent properties of naval warfare, it is apparent that many early seaborne conflicts have been fought out in the form of battles as a consequence of the maritime conditions. Far from being a definite work on the emergence of naval warfare and boarding, the pages presented here offer a general overview and introduction to the subject, and have served to bring out a number of new aspects and topics for archaeological and anthropological investigations. Naval warfare studies cover a broad range of interesting topics and it is easy to permit some of the most fundamental questions and issues sink into oblivion or complacency. Lest we forget, warfare has not always been waged on the seas nor is it a merely pragmatic phenomena arising from a social vacuum. Naval battles, although often purely functional in appearance, are inextricably bound up with cultural discourse and a wide range of ideological assumptions and social considerations that guide the ways of warfare.
References:
Bryce, T. 2007. Hittite Warrior. Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd.
Carman, J. 2009. Ancient Warfare. History Press Limited.
Carman, J. 2013. Past War and European Identity: Making Conflict Archaeology Useful. Ch. 9 in S. Ralph ((ed.), The Archaeology of Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches: pp. 169-179. Albany: State University of New York Press.
von Clausewitz, C. 1976 [1832]. On War. Trans. and ed. by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
de Contreras, A. 1961. Trans, by Steiger Arnold. Das Leben des Capitán Alonso de Contreras von ihm Selbst erzählt. Zürich: Manesse Bibliothek der Weltliteratur.
Cornelius, I. 1987. The Battle of the Nile – Circa 1190 B.C. Military History Journal, 7(4). Available at: http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol074ic.html [Accessed: 13 Jan 2014].
Erman, A. & Ranke, H. 1923. Aegypten und aegyptisches Leben im Altertum. Mohr.
Dickie, I., Amber Books, Phyllis Jestice, Christer Jörgensen, Rob S. Rice, Martin J. Dougherty. 2009. Fighting Techniques of Naval Warfare: Strategy, Weapons, Commanders, and Ships: 1190 BC-Present, vol. 6. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.
Grant, R.G. 2008. Battle at Sea: 3,000 Years of Naval Warfare. DK Publishing.
Gurney, O.R. 1952. The Hittites. London: Penguin Books.
Hanson, V.D. 2009. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. University of California Press.
Hattendorff, J. & Unger, R. (eds.). 2003. War at Sea in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Woodbridge and Rochester: Boydell Press.
Hjardar, Kim, and Vegard Vike. 2011. Vikinger i krig. Oslo: Spartacus.
James, S. 2013. Facing the Sword: Confronting the Realities of Martial Violence and Other Mayhem, Past and Present. Ch.5 in S. Ralph (ed.), The Archaeology of Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches: pp. 98-115. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kirsch, P. 1990. The Galleon: The Great Ships of the Armada Era. London: Conway Maritime Press Ltd.
McGrail, S. 2001. Boats of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Panksepp, J. & Biven, L. 2012. The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human
Emotions. New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company.
Parker, G. 1988. The Military Revolution: Military innovation and the rise of the West, 1500-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pászthory, E. 1986. Über das ‘Griechische Feuer. Die Analyse eines spätantiken Waffensystems, Antike Welt 17 (2): 27–38.
Snorrason, O. 2005 [c.1190 ]. Translated by Peter Tunstall. The Saga of Olaf Tryggvason. Available at: http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/Yngvar.html [Accessed: 23.08.2014].
Staniforth, M., Kimura, J. & Sasaki, R. 2014. Naval Battlefield Archaeology of the Lost Kublai Khan Fleets. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 43 (1): 76-86.
Usai, D. & Salvatori, S. 2007. The Oldest Representation of a Nile Boat. Antiquity, 81(314).
Zemer, A. 2015. The Athlit Ram. Haifa Museums. Available at: www.nmm.org.il/eng/Exhibitions/468/The_Athlit_Ram [Accessed: 02 Nov 2015].
To learn more about Combat Archaeology Click Here.
The post The Emergence of Naval Warfare: The Development of Boarding and Characteristics of Naval Battles appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>The post The Emergence of Naval Warfare: The Development of Boarding and Characteristics of Naval Battles appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>Through ambushes and main force assaults, mankind has persisted in their violent conceits throughout history. Violent escapades rooted in rivalry and hatred have certainly added their share to the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” For many, the taking up of arms entailed not only opposing a sea of troubles but also coming face to face with the sea itself. Naval warfare is both a fascinating and instructive genre; however, as part of an era when it is preferable to emphasize similarities of people rather than their differences, there is also certain unattractiveness of studying such violence today. But, as has become clear, such studies have much more to teach us than just that people can be violent to one another (Carman 2013: 177). Maritime archaeology, a discipline which preoccupies itself with investigations into humanity’s interaction with waterways, recognizes the significance of naval warfare studies, perhaps as an inherent consequence of the bellicose origins of much of the archaeological material. Although the discipline entails a lot more than sunken warships and cannons, it is certainly evident that much of the research has centered on subjects related to naval warfare. Far from being a narrow field, the research is fueled by a wide range of topics which have been made possible to investigate by the material left behind by the long history of humans causing havoc and mayhem on the seas. With the myriad of topics available within this genre and the fact that warfare has formed such a great part of our knowledge of the past – and, for some, been part of the present – it is not surprising that we have been left with the rather axiomatic notion that warfare has always been waged, both on land and at sea. However, is it possible to pinpoint any more precisely when humans began to bring large-scale combat out to sea? And what was the nature of the methods by which these early seaborne conflicts were carried out?
The Advent of Naval Warfare
The advent of naval warfare is challenging to pinpoint precisely in time and space. Given the ubiquitousness of warfare in both past and present, it is plausible to assume that the world’s oceans have been witness to large-scale violent encounters at least since the employment of watercraft sufficiently stable for hosting hand-to-hand combat scenarios or for the launching of missile attacks. Several finds from Egypt suggest that early naval warfare could have been conducted as early as the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. The oldest depiction of a boat that is more advanced in design than a canoe is a pictograph on a granite pebble found in the Khartoum Mesolithic layer (Usai & Salvatori 2007). The pictograph, however, is rather ambigious and does not allow for an interpretation of the stability of the watercraft in question. Being the only one of its kind, it is also quite the exception. The earliest convincing evidence of the emergence of more stable watercraft appear in the form of depictions on Amratian ceramics from c.3500 BC (McGrail 2001:17; fig. 1). Another important find is the ivory knife-handle from Gebel-el-Arak, dated to c. 3200 BC, on which two types of vessels are depicted in association with battle scenes (McGrail 2001:19; fig 2). However, due to iconographic ambiguity, the precise roles of the depicted vessels remain unclear. In consideration of the tendency for large-scale violence to intensify with increased political complexity and the dating of the aforementioned finds, it is interesting to note in this place – although not wholly surprising – that the development of more stable watercraft coincides with the emergence of nation states.
Fig. 1: Amratian ceramics with boat designs. Naqada II, 3450-3350 BC.
Fig. 2. Ivory handle of the Gebel-el-Arak knife, c. 3200 BC.
Notwithstanding these vindications, the first direct evidence of naval warfare comes in the form of documentary evidence from the Late Bronze Age. Contained in one of the few surviving documents which detail the reign of the last Hittite king, Suppiluliumas II, is a mentioning of a Hittite naval victory in 1210 BC (Gurney 1952: 31). The account simply states that the Hittites were victorious on the sea against an enemy based in Alasiya (modern day Cyprus), offering no further details about the exact identity of the enemy nor how victory was achieved. Despite these shortcomings, the document is commonly accepted as evidence of the first recorded naval battle in history. More information, however, is available about the second naval battle in recorded history, namely the Battle of the Delta which was fought between the Egyptians and the Sea Peoples in c. 1175 BC. Details from this battle are recorded on the reliefs of pharaoh Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu in Luxor, Egypt. The reliefs contain, among other things, detailed battle scene depictions with boarding in which both shipborne archery and hand-to-hand combat forces are fully engaged in intense melee action. The apparent application of grappling hooks and ramming tactics in this battle reflect an advanced and well-established naval institution. Specialized naval technologies and tactics, then, seem to have been in use at least as early as the Late Bronze Age.
Boarding
Much of naval warfare in the past has revolved around boarding and measures to counter such actions and technology, i.e. anti-boarding. Within a combative context, boarding entails a forceful, non-consented entry aboard a ship. Fighting can occur in the process of entering the ship of the opposing force or aboard it. A successful boarding necessitates proper maneuvering towards the ship to be boarded, something which can be particularly difficult in harsh weather conditions. Another prequisite is that the ship of the opposing force is suppressed or that the crew is unaware of the entry. The ship must also be sufficiently stable for the boarding force to leap or climb onto the deck and, if necessary, sufficiently spacious to host a fight. For cultures in possession of such technology, but lacking or improficient in effective shipboard ordnance use, boarding was the primary method by which to conclude a battle at sea. However, boarding actions could also have been undertaken when it was desirable to seize a vessel without destroying it or when the objective was the removal of cargo or persons aboard the other vessel. The ship is a prize in itself but it can also carry valuable people or material, such as food, treasure, weaponry or information that may aid naval intelligence. Thus, while boarding lost some of its importance to navies after the advent of successful heavy ordnance fire, it remained an attractive enterprise, especially to pirates and privateers as well as to forces whose preferred method of attack was conducted under stealthy conditions.
Boarding was the primary means by which to achieve victory on the seas before the late 16th century by which time ordnance fire had been so effectively put to use by means of shipboard gun ports and gun carriages as well as broadside tactics that it had rendered boarding a secondary tactic. As such, naval hand-to-hand combat presents itself as an important aspect in investigations into warfare at sea.
Fig. 3: Relief from Medinet Habu, depicting the Battle of the Delta (adopted from Erman & Ranke 1923: 648; Cornelius 1987).
Fig. 4: Stages in the Battle of the Delta, as identified on the relief from Medinet Habu. E.1 and N.1 depict Egyptians throwing grappling hooks into sails and boarding the vessels of the Sea Peoples (adopted from Nelson 1943: 40-55, fig. 4; Cornelius 1987).
Space does not permit a full review of boarding in naval warfare here but the following should suffice as a general overview of its history and the main developments therein until the age of heavy ordnance fire. The details given here illustrate the veritable importance of hand-to-hand combat in naval warfare since the inception of sea battles and well into the Elizabethan period.
It is likely that the first naval battle in recorded history, the aforementioned battle of 1210 BC, was fought by means of boarding (Grant 2008). This can be inferred from its mere mentioning in the Hittite document, indicating that it was of sufficient scale to be considered noteworthy, and from the general tendency for any serious naval encounter at sea to be decisively concluded by means of hand-to-hand combat, at least before the development of heavy ordnance fire. However, as mentioned, the details of the Hittite victory in this battle are extremely brief and, admittedly, insufficient for such an argument to be made (Bryce 2007: 7; Gurney 1952: 31-32). Thus, although the battle of 1210 BC effectively marks the known beginning of naval warfare, boarding tactics can technically be said (at least with defensible reasons) to have been first employed in the second naval battle in recorded history, the Battle of the Delta in c. 1175 BC.
Fig. 5: The Athlit ram, found in 1980 off the coast of Israel near Atlit, is an example of an ancient ram used in battles such as that of Battle of Salamis. Carbon 14 dating of timber remnants date it to between 530 BC and 270 BC (Zemer 2015).
Although the general concept of boarding appears to have remained the same throughout the age of the galley, boarding tactics underwent several notable developments in the major periods of the classical and medieval world. While incendiary devices were occasionally used, the Greek and Persian tactics emphasized both boarding and ramming, and constructed ram-equipped warships which were successfully employed in the context of both smaller skirmishes and large-scale battles, e.g. in the Battle of Salamis (480 BC) (fig. 5). Later, the early Roman development of the corvus (a boarding ramp) proved to be advantageous in sea battles – such as in the Battle of Mylae (260 BC) – which allowed the renowned Roman land army to effectively engage in more or less regular terrestrial battle at sea. This, along with the harpax or harpago (a catapult-shot grapnel) brought focus back to boarding and away from ramming tactics (Dickie et al 2009: 55 ff.).
Fig. 6: Viking longships lashed together in anticipation of a naval battle as, for instance, was done in Battle of Nesjar (1016 AD) (adopted from Hjardar & Vike 2013: 86).
Fig. 7: Detail from the Madrid Skylitzes codex from the 12th century (Bibliteca Nacional de Madrid, Vitr. 26-2, Bild-Nr. 77, f 34 v. b.), showing Greek fire in use against the fleet of the rebel Thomas the Slav (adopted from Pászthory 1986: 31).
The desire of transforming a naval battle into one with properties more reminiscent of terrestrial battles appears to have been prevalent also in the medieval period. When fighting at sea, the Vikings occasionally lashed their ships together in order to provide a more stable platform for fighting and boarding (fig. 6; Hjardar & Vike 2013: 83-87). At this time, Greek fire, a new incendiary weapon, was also employed in naval warfare by Byzantium against the Arabs, and, according to Oddr Snorrason, even against the Vikings (fig. 7; Oddr Snorrason 2005: ch.5). The invention of this technology led to the production of a new warship, the siphonophore, making Byzantium less dependent on boarding than other contemporary powers, though it was still a common procedure (Dickie et al 2009: 56-60).
Fig. 8: Detail of Battle of Sluys from Jean Froissart’s Chronicles from the 14th century, contained in Bibliotheque Nationale MS Fr. 2643.
Another major development in warfare at sea was the emergence of ship types with high freeboards and elevated platforms from which archers could fire projectiles and repel attacks. On these ships, both fore and aft castles could be added for defense, making boarding an exceedingly difficult and dangerous undertaking. An early use of such a type in naval warfare was the cog. Though mentioned in literary works as early as the 9th century AD, the archaeological and historical evidence suggests that the cog was not fully integrated into naval warfare in the form of the floating fortress that gained a near hegemony over the northern seas until the 13th or 14th century (Hattendorff & Unger 2003: 41-43). The Norwegian Speculum Regale, written between AD 1240 and 1263, indicates an early Scandinavian use of martial cogs that had not only castles in the bow and stern but also crow nests in the mast top (ibid: 45). In England, the cog accounted for about 57% of the 1300 ships attested for military service during the years AD 1337-1360 (ibid: 43), proving itself as an effective engine of war in several major naval battles, including the Battle of Sluys in AD 1340 (fig. 8; Dickie et al. 2009: 64-70). Other successful developments within naval warfare- such as the carrack – were later built with the same considerations in mind. The carrack, of which Mary Rose (AD 1545) is an example, developed in the 15th century and was considerably more stable and spacious than the cog. The Battle of Lepanto (AD 1571) may be considered the climax of the chapter on naval warfare which emphasized boarding tactics. The galleys in this battle carried up to 400 men. The 400 galleys fighting at Lepanto may therefore have carried in total some 160, 000 men, making it the largest battle fought in 16th century Europe (Parker 1988: 89).
While naval technologies, tactics and strategies have been in perpetually development from the inception of naval warfare, there can be no doubt that the increased employment of naval artillery in the 15th and 16th centuries had an unrivalled impact on the nature of naval warfare, demanding considerable and constant adjustments to the new challenges faced by the evermore effective ordnance fire. These truly revolutionary steps greatly influenced the methods by which naval warfare was conducted, particularly with regards to the boarding traditions of the preceding ages.
From Battles to Sea Battles: the Phenomena and their Characteristics
Being a cultural choice, there is nothing that compels us to wage warfare in a specific way. There are many forms of institutionalized combat and violent means of achieving political goals. All forms of warfare, although often purely pragmatic in appearance, are inextricably bound up with cultural discourse and thus also a wide array of ideological assumptions and social considerations that guide warfare. However, while cultural discourse influence the conduct of warfare, it is also evident that certain external circumstances – such as the environment and availability of resources – has the potential to either encourage or facilitate certain actions and to restrict, or otherwise discourage, others.
To reach a more developed understanding of the phenomenon of naval warfare and the conditions by which sea battles operate, it is first necessary to place it within the wider context of warfare and battles in general. Naval warfare is not a unanimous phenomenon and expresses itself in variegated ways, each of which is characterized by a set of distinctive properties. In fact, warfare in general can take many different appearances, such as sieges, guerilla warfare, terrorism, battles etc. At their base, however, all forms of warfare, whether manifested in terrestrial, maritime or aerial form, are what can be termed “instrumental violence”, standing in contrast to “impulsive violence.” (James 2013:203). While impulsive violence is chiefly guided by emotions – such as rage, where a rational course of action is impossible – instrumental violence is more dependent upon the cognitive processes of the agent and has much less to do with emotional aggression (Panksepp & Biven 2012: 161). Instrumental violence entails highly calculative courses of action which are undertaken for the purpose of some gain. The rational and critical resources have been deployed in order to calculate the net benefit and weigh it against the risks involved in such undertakings, not least the consequences of passive action. It is, as Clausewitz eloquently described the nature of war, “Politics by other means” (Clausewitz 1832: book one, chapter 1, section 24). The demands of warfare, moreover, incline the belligerents to manipulate and control physical elements contained within the combative scenario for the purpose of gaining some advantage. Such undertakings likewise reflect, in varying degrees, a high cognitive ability in as far as this not only entails knowledge of each of the tactical elements but also of the underlying principles that govern the proceedings and various stages of warfare. The successful application of knowledge in a hectic milieu – such as that produced by combat and warfare – is challenging, to say the least. Rather paradoxically, then, the propagation of the ultimate chaos of human affairs, warfare, expresses itself in history conjointly with an attempt of introducing order into chaos.
The distinctive properties of battles, being an extreme case of instrumental violence, are especially interesting in relation to naval warfare. Battles are said to be “one of the most organized, premeditated, regimented and patterned forms of human behavior” (Staniforth et al 2014: 79, author’s emphasis). However, what distinguishes battles from virtually all other forms of warfare is the desire or willingness to meet on a battlefield for a single, massive clash between armed men for the purpose of mass killing, perhaps, but not necessarily, with some other ultimate end in mind. What is wanted is the completion of a mission goal through a coordinated main force assault which is to be undertaken by a large number of cooperative individuals.
In view of the characteristics of battles outlined above, it is not surprising that a great deal of naval warfare in the past – at least before age of heavy ordnance fire – has taken the form of sea battles. There are several consequences of employing fighting platforms at the sea. Most importantly, the appertaining environmental conditions of naval warfare are particularly influential in relation to the way warfare is conducted at sea. It is well-known that seafaring is in itself a hazardous undertaking. The belligerents are already in danger before the commencement of any battle; thus, the warship, although a powerful technology, can also be understood as a rather fragile sanctuary. These floating and mobile battlefields, essentially consisting of structured assemblages of floating wood, separate the crew from imminent danger but are vulnerable to external conditions, wherefore the significance of gales, waves and fire are also amplified in the case of naval warfare. In view of this, although a ship may be assisted or accompanied by other ships, it can generally be considered an isolated unit which is severely lacking in friendly entry and exit routes. This has often been carefully exploited by the enemy, not least by friendly forces, as illustrated by Alonso de Contreras’ (1582-1641) vivid account from the early 17th century:
“Our Captain then applied a refined stratagem: he allowed only a few people on deck, and had all the hatches carefully fastened down, so that people either had to fight or jump into the sea. It was a bloody confrontation.”
(Kirsch 1990: 67, quoting de Contreras 1961: 84-86).
As a result, naval warfare is rather reminiscent of island warfare, characterized by a limited amount of resources and a spatially confined combative arena. These circumstances, moreover, incline hand-to-hand combat aboard ships to be extremely intense since it is difficult to disengage from the fight and little chance of escape. The fighting forces are, quite literally, in the same boat. Hand-to-hand combat naval battles – as opposed to skirmishes, firefights and other smaller engagements –can thus be conceived as a form of fighting that is an inherent consequence of the aforementioned maritime conditions. Battles have long been considered to be an inherited legacy from the ancient Greek hoplites (Hanson 2009) or as a practice that begins with the Battle of Megiddo (1469 BC) (Carman 2009: 40). But, given the above, it may be necessary to look for the origins of battles on different grounds, perchance on no grounds at all but on the seas. At the very least, it would be neglectful not to acknowledge the significance of naval warfare in the context of the emergence of battles and its role in the development of warfare in general.
Conclusion
As witnessed, this enquiry into the emergence of naval warfare is composed of several different facets, each of which have varying connections with the subject and which have the potential to address the issue from several historical-archaeological and anthropological viewpoints. Despite the multifarious methods by which to approach the subject, the emergence of naval warfare remains a challenging topic to investigate, preeminently as a result of the lack of written sources and ambiguous lines of evidence. A certain level of unclarity surrounds even some of the most fundamental questions concerning the early beginnings of naval warfare. The earliest convincing evidence of naval battles, as a distinct method of waging war, comes from the Late Bronze Age. It is worth noting, however, that the early construction of stable watercraft coupled with the tendency of bellicose use of technology suggests an earlier date for naval warfare phenomena. These early seaborne conflicts, moreover, appear to have been conducted by way of boarding and anti-boarding tactics, this being the primary way of waging naval warfare until the 16th century. Admittedly, the tactical and technological developments treated in the course of these pages do not offer a full picture of the subject; they do, nonetheless, illustrate how many of these were specifically directed towards achieving victory on the seas in the form of battles. In examining the characteristics of battles and the inherent properties of naval warfare, it is apparent that many early seaborne conflicts have been fought out in the form of battles as a consequence of the maritime conditions. Far from being a definite work on the emergence of naval warfare and boarding, the pages presented here offer a general overview and introduction to the subject, and have served to bring out a number of new aspects and topics for archaeological and anthropological investigations. Naval warfare studies cover a broad range of interesting topics and it is easy to permit some of the most fundamental questions and issues sink into oblivion or complacency. Lest we forget, warfare has not always been waged on the seas nor is it a merely pragmatic phenomena arising from a social vacuum. Naval battles, although often purely functional in appearance, are inextricably bound up with cultural discourse and a wide range of ideological assumptions and social considerations that guide the ways of warfare.
References:
Bryce, T. 2007. Hittite Warrior. Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd.
Carman, J. 2009. Ancient Warfare. History Press Limited.
Carman, J. 2013. Past War and European Identity: Making Conflict Archaeology Useful. Ch. 9 in S. Ralph ((ed.), The Archaeology of Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches: pp. 169-179. Albany: State University of New York Press.
von Clausewitz, C. 1976 [1832]. On War. Trans. and ed. by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
de Contreras, A. 1961. Trans, by Steiger Arnold. Das Leben des Capitán Alonso de Contreras von ihm Selbst erzählt. Zürich: Manesse Bibliothek der Weltliteratur.
Cornelius, I. 1987. The Battle of the Nile – Circa 1190 B.C. Military History Journal, 7(4). Available at: http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol074ic.html [Accessed: 13 Jan 2014].
Erman, A. & Ranke, H. 1923. Aegypten und aegyptisches Leben im Altertum. Mohr.
Dickie, I., Amber Books, Phyllis Jestice, Christer Jörgensen, Rob S. Rice, Martin J. Dougherty. 2009. Fighting Techniques of Naval Warfare: Strategy, Weapons, Commanders, and Ships: 1190 BC-Present, vol. 6. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.
Grant, R.G. 2008. Battle at Sea: 3,000 Years of Naval Warfare. DK Publishing.
Gurney, O.R. 1952. The Hittites. London: Penguin Books.
Hanson, V.D. 2009. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. University of California Press.
Hattendorff, J. & Unger, R. (eds.). 2003. War at Sea in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Woodbridge and Rochester: Boydell Press.
Hjardar, Kim, and Vegard Vike. 2011. Vikinger i krig. Oslo: Spartacus.
James, S. 2013. Facing the Sword: Confronting the Realities of Martial Violence and Other Mayhem, Past and Present. Ch.5 in S. Ralph (ed.), The Archaeology of Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches: pp. 98-115. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kirsch, P. 1990. The Galleon: The Great Ships of the Armada Era. London: Conway Maritime Press Ltd.
McGrail, S. 2001. Boats of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Panksepp, J. & Biven, L. 2012. The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human
Emotions. New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company.
Parker, G. 1988. The Military Revolution: Military innovation and the rise of the West, 1500-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pászthory, E. 1986. Über das ‘Griechische Feuer. Die Analyse eines spätantiken Waffensystems, Antike Welt 17 (2): 27–38.
Snorrason, O. 2005 [c.1190 ]. Translated by Peter Tunstall. The Saga of Olaf Tryggvason. Available at: http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/Yngvar.html [Accessed: 23.08.2014].
Staniforth, M., Kimura, J. & Sasaki, R. 2014. Naval Battlefield Archaeology of the Lost Kublai Khan Fleets. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 43 (1): 76-86.
Usai, D. & Salvatori, S. 2007. The Oldest Representation of a Nile Boat. Antiquity, 81(314).
Zemer, A. 2015. The Athlit Ram. Haifa Museums. Available at: www.nmm.org.il/eng/Exhibitions/468/The_Athlit_Ram [Accessed: 02 Nov 2015].
To learn more about Combat Archaeology Click Here.
The post The Emergence of Naval Warfare: The Development of Boarding and Characteristics of Naval Battles appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>The post Gribshunden: Significance and Preliminary Investigations appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>
Fig. 1: Gun carriages salvaged from Gribshunden on display at Blekinge Museum (photo by Mattias Mattison, adopted from Svensson 2015).
Introduction
Within the sheltered waters of Ronneby archipelago near the island of Stora Ekön, southeastern Sweden, lies the remains of a rather disjointed but well-preserved wooden wreck. The wreck, previously known as the Stora Ekö or Ekö wreck, was already discovered by local sport divers in the 1970s. However, it was only in 2001, when strange artefacts had been uncovered on the site, that archaeologists were made aware of its location (Einarsson 2008). A wooden sample was promptly taken from one of the timbers, revealing that the ship had been constructed of oak wood felled in the winter of AD 1482-83. The Museum of Kalmar County (Kalmar Läns Museum) subsequently entered into collaboration with the local dive club, “Doppingarna”, to undertake further investigations of the wreck. Several extraordinary artefacts, which had been preserved in the muddy sediment, were salvaged from the site, including nine gun carriages for breech-loading iron guns, mail armor fragments and a capstan (now exhibited in Blekinge Museum; fig. 1). The collaborative fieldwork efforts, moreover, yielded valuable information about the ship construction itself. Most importantly, it was quickly observed that ship had been built by use of carvel planking, i.e. the hull planks had been laid flushed and fastened edge-to-edge (fig. 2). As such, the Ekö wreck is the oldest carvel built shipwreck discovered in Nordic waters, standing in contrast to the traditional Nordic clinker built watercraft (in which the hull planks overlap). Further investigations were carried out on the site in 2013 by MARIS under the general direction of Professor Johan Rönnby as a part of the “Ships at War” project, a larger archaeological-historical study including other significant Baltic shipwrecks, such as the Mars (1564). A collaboration between MARIS, Blekinge Museum and Kalmar County Museum resulted in a new investigatory expedition which was undertaken in June 2015. Other participants in the renewed project efforts include University of Southampton, notably Professor Jon Adams, the company Marin Mätteknik AB and Combat Archaeology.
Fig. 2: Simplified constructional comparison between a clinker and a carvel-built vessel (adopted from Yachtpaint.com 2015).
Identification
The wreck has tentatively been identified as the Gribshunden (1495). Danish historical sources offer detailed descriptions of the loss of Gribshunden off Stora Ekön by “Rendebye” (Ronneby). The size of the ship, its carvel construction and the dendrochronological dating of the wreck as well as the gun carriages is in accordance with the information gathered from the historical sources (Sjöblom 2013; forthcoming). Lime mortar, which had been recovered from the hold of the wreck, offered further indications of the same after it was established that the lime originated from Saltholmen near Copenhagen.
Gribshunden, also known as Gripshunden and Griffen, was a large Danish warship employed in the fleet of King John (Danish: kong Hans), who reigned in Denmark from 1481 to 1513. Gribshunden appears in some of the earliest Danish fleet records as well as in royal letters written aboard the ship which attest the presence of the king (Barfod 1990:80-81). In fact, she appears to have served as the king’s flagship.
Historical Context and Significance
Gribshunden merits special attention not only due to the implications of this distinguished naval role but also because of the historical context of which she was a part as well as her role in the unfolding of important historical events. Gribshunden’s last mission, which resulted in her loss, was perhaps her most important one.
King John and his fleet set sail for Kalmar, Sweden, in the summer of 1495. The purpose of the voyage was to meet with regent Sten Sture the Elder and the Swedish council, probably to discuss details regarding the Kalmar Union (ibid). The Kalmar Union was established at a meeting in Kalmar in 1397 as a personal union that brought together the three kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden under the rule of a single monarch. The Swedes, however, became increasingly dissatisfied with Danish dominance in the union in the course of the 15th century and managed to extricate themselves from the grasp of the union to a considerable extent, especially during the lifetime of Sten Sture. He had attained significant political and military power in the second half of the 15th century and, although the Swedish high nobility was ready to confirm the new Danish king John as true king in 1483, Sture succeeded in maintaining power and thereby continued to act as independent regent in Sweden (Bain 1911: 1051-1052; Scocozza 1997: 563-564). King John’s journey of 1495 was therefore of utmost political importance.
As the king’s flagship, Gribshunden assumed a particularly meaningful role within the setting of this political turmoil. It has long been recognized that the design, building and use of warships in the past included many more considerations than their prosaic function as instruments of power in battles. Large warships were martial engineering marvels, acting as power enhancers and status symbols as well as symbols for how a society should function (Lemée 2006:71; Rönnby & Adams 1994:68; Adams 2013: 29). In this sense, then, Gribshunden was not merely an instrument of military force but also a status symbol, serving as a material expression of the power of the Kalmar Union monarch. Ultimately, given the political nature of the voyage, Gribshunden’s primary mission was to instill confidence into the Swedes that King John was the rightful and supreme leader of all of Scandinavia.
Unfortunately, King John’s “great carvel” never reached Kalmar. While anchored at the natural harbor off Ronneby on his way to Kalmar, the king’s Gribshunden suddenly caught fire and sank, killing many of the men aboard (Barfod 1990: 81-81, 203). By chance, King John himself was not aboard Gribshunden at this time but witnessed the flames engulf his flagship from a distance in a ship’s boat. He promptly terminated the Kalmar expedition after this disastrous event (Rönnby forthcoming). Not until 1497, two years after the expedition, was King John crowned king of Sweden (as King John II) after Sten Sture had lost much of his support and subsequently been defeated at the Battle of Rotebro by this Danish king the same year (Scocozza 1997:564). King John thereby succeeded in re-incorporating Sweden into the Kalmar Union, of which it would be a part until 1501 when Sten Sture again had gained political power, resulting in another break and a longer intermission from inclusion in the union.
The imaginative mind cannot help but wonder how differently history would have unfolded if King John arrived at Kalmar with his fleet and Gribshunden in 1495. Could King John and the Swedish council have reached some satisfactory conclusion already at this meeting? Or could the Danish king have gained considerable support, and undermined the authority of Sten Sture, as a direct result of the meeting and his display of royal power, particularly through his mighty fleet? Perhaps further bloodshed could have been avoided in this manner. Most interestingly, if Sten Sture would have been halted at this point, the Swedish separatist political movement could conceivably have suffered a severe setback, ultimately resulting in that persons such as Gustav Vasa I never would have gained the necessary political foothold for the definitive break with the Kalmar Union in 1523. These were politically dynamic times and the pivotal role of Sten Sture the Elder in relation to Swedish independence cannot be underestimated.
These were also militarily dynamic times and Gribshunden should at once be understood as the apex of naval technology of the period and as a foreshadowing of the military developments of the 16th century. The 15th century was a period of transition for larger ships (Rönnby forthcoming). Being a large and modern carvel-built ship, Gribshunden was at the forefront of the technological naval developments in Scandinavian waters. It is also worth remembering that King John officially established a permanent Danish navy in 1510. His ambitions to build up a strong naval power, however, were present from the earliest years of his reign (Barfod 1990: 119-138). In the light of this, Gribshunden is a clear material expression of King John’s important naval initiatives that would ultimately culminate in the founding of the Royal Danish Navy. The establishment of permanent navies would have grave consequences in the future, intensifying naval technological advancements and naval engagements considerably in the 16th century (Mortensen 2002). Renaissance state formation strategies were seemingly well underway already during the lifetime of Gribshunden.
The Wreck Site – New Investigations and Discoveries
The remains of Gribshunden lies at a depth of 10 m outside the island of Stora Ekön. The wreck is oriented roughly N-S with the stem in the south, facing Stora Ekön. The site is complex and much of the wreck remains buried in the sediment. Several frames, however, protrude high above the sediment and many other structural features are discernible on the site, including stem and sternpost, cohesive hull planking, deck beams and a hawse (fig. 3).
Fig. 3: Professor Jon Adams recording the massive hawse towards the bow (photo by Professor Johan Rönnby)
An intensive survey of the wreck was conducted in June 2015 under the general direction of Professor Johan Rönnby. The aim was to compile an overview and plan of the site by means of underwater photography and Blueview scanner (Rönnby forthcoming). Significant constructional features – hereunder stempost, rudder and hawse – were also recorded in detail, notably by, but not limited to, meticulous underwater sketches produced by Professor Jon Adams and Niklas Eriksson. Based on measurements taken from the stern to the stempost, the ship may be estimated to have had a length of at least 35 m. The deck beams, moreover, reveal that the ship had a beam of at least 7.5 m. The deck beams vary in length and more detailed recordings of the timbers may reveal intricate details about the decks and hull shape in the future (J. Rönnby 2015, pers.comm., 14 June).The ship had most likely been equipped with fore and aftcastle which, seemingly, were constructed in clinker fashion. Stringers and fastenings in the hull indicate where the breech-loading wrought iron guns would have been positioned (Rönnby forthcoming). Three led shot (approx. 5 cm in diameter) were discovered amidships (fig. 4), highlighting further the ship’s martial function along with the mail armor fragments and crossbow bolts which had been found on the site in the previous years. Another two gun carriages (measuring approx. 2.55 m in length) were discovered towards the stern. The site may also contain what can be tentatively identified as fragments of medieval polearms shafts, though this remains to be confirmed. Charcoal traces were observed on the site, offering further confirmation of the ship’s identity and her reportedly violent end.
Fig. 4: Three led shots (approx. 5 cm in diameter) were found amidships (photo by Professor Johan Rönnby).
A Medieval Figurehead
Fig. 5: The figurehead laying upside down and partially buried in the sediment (photo by Professor Johan Rönnby).
An extraordinary find, which immediately attracted mass media attention, was found in the stem. The find in question, a large timber functioning as central support for the triangular forecastle, had already evoked suspicions last season (N. Eriksson 2015, pers. comm., 15 June). The timber featured peculiar indentations in one of its ends and it soon became clear upon closer inspection that these actually were decorative carvings. It was, in fact, a sculpture which had been discovered – a figurehead from the 15th century! As such, it is exceptionally unique, being the world’s oldest known in existence. The sculpture (c. 100 cm in length and 30-35 cm in width) is partially buried in sediment but it is already clear that one of its sides features a carefully carved ear and a mouth full of sharp teeth (fig. 5). A carved feature protrudes from the mouth of the beast but what it represents cannot be precisely determined at present. The side of the sculpture buried in the sediment is expected to be even better preserved than the exposed timber and may reveal additional details regarding this feature. A detailed sketch of the exposed timber was produced by Professor Jon Adams (fig. 6).
Fig. 6. Underwater drawing of the figurehead by Professor Jon Adams.
The sculpture has, in fact, a rather dog-like appearance, wherefore it has been referred to Gribshunden itself. Gribshunden can literally be interpreted as “Griffin-Hound” but it is also possible that the name refers to a specific dog breed. In particular, in a letter dated May 16 1486, King John writes “In navi nostra Griffone” (Barfod 1990: 81). “In…Griffone” would imply nominative “griffo” which linguistically can be considered as an alternate form of “gryps” or “gryphus” (griffin) (A. Ijäs 2015, pers. comm., 27 June). While this may offer an explanation to the absence of a beak on the sculpture, it should be noted that the unidentifiable feature protruding from the mouth of the beast might well be a bird’s head (fig. 7). Griffin-Hound or not, the beast is a fear-provoking sculpture. It stands in stark contrast to the delicate line and angle symmetry revered in the Renaissance and is instead rather reminiscent of Gothic art in all its earthly complexity and mythic absurdity.
Fig. 7. Same as figure 5. The photo has been inverted and effects added to bring forth the protruding feature more clearly.
While the find is unique and certainly fits well with the canine-associated profile, the sculpture prompts the question of what figureheads actually looked like during this period in general. The subject, which hitherto remains largely unexplored, warrants detailed analyses of contemporary iconography and historical sources which are beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say in this place that preliminary observations of roughly contemporary iconographic material suggests that dog-like figureheads were not uncommon in this period. Exemplary evidence can be found on the continent in ex-voto iconography at the church of St. Peter in Zumaia, Spain, in a painting by Hans Holbein the Younger and on the Mataró ship model dated to the mid-fifteenth century (figs. 8-10) .
Fig. 8: Detail taken from the ex-voto showing the Zumaia, flagship of Martínez de Mendaro’s fleet (adopted from Lopez 2015).
Fig. 9: Painting by Hans Holbein (adopted from Blekinge Museum 2015).
Fig. 10: The Mataró ship model dated to the mid-fifteenth century (adopted from Lopez 2015)
Closer parallels are perhaps the dog-like figureheads that appear on several contemporary carvings contained in Sæby Church in Denmark. If we are to consider the carvings as representative and judge from their estimated age and relative size, it may even be possible that one or two of the depictions in this church is that of Gribshunden, though a validation of this requires further historical studies into the sizes of contemporary ships in Denmark (fig. 11).
fig. 11: Carving of a ship from Sæby Church in Denmark. The carving possibly dates to the turn of the 16th century or early 16th century. The carving also features anti-boarding netting, shown by the lines which are penetrated by the masts (adopted from Christensen 1969: 87).
Conclusion
As can be gained from the above, Gribshunden is an extraordinarily unique find. Future studies of the site will doubtlessly make significant contributions to knowledge of Late Medieval life, especially in relation to seafaring and naval warfare. The wreck is the best preserved example of the carvel construction technique of this period and of the new ship type that would develop (Rönnby forthcoming). It is also from a period where naval engagements were strictly dominated by boarding tactics, given that effective use of naval ordnance fire had not yet developed (Warming 2014, forthcoming). The material, therefore, is a particularly instructive topic of investigation for the study of the development of naval warfare, offering an insight into the navy’s first steps towards extricating itself from the medieval bind of determining naval battles by boarding action. The focal shift towards naval heavy ordnance fire is an important stage in the history of warfare, for out of it emerged purely impersonal warfare (Warming 2014). The violence, now generated in a detached and distant way, was something new, having interesting psychological repercussions that are known to result in that the violence becomes more extreme (Shalit 1988: 77). Gribshunden, when coupled and contrasted to other wrecks – such as Mary Rose (1545), Elefanten (1564), Mars (1564), Vasa (1628) and Kronan (1676) – has the potential to reveal incredible insights concerning the overall trajectory of the development of warfare at sea, not least the underlying social institutions that both governed and were influenced by these technological advancements.
Much has already been gained from the few investigations that have been undertaken and many new details await to be discovered. The data collected during the last investigations is currently being processed and treated (Eriksson, Rönnby, Sjöblom forthcoming). With this new knowledge – it is to be hoped – it will be possible to return to the wreck site in the near future to undertake a larger fieldwork project, perhaps with the salvaging of the figurehead as one of its aims. Until then, the menacing Danish dog will remain there on the seabed, guarding its ship and grinning mockingly.
A happy team appeared at the press conference after the expedition. Some members featured here. From the left: Professor Jon Adams, who made the drawing in the picture, Marcus Sandekjær (director of Blekinge Museum) and Rolf Warming (Combat Archaeology) (photo by Stina Pettersson, Commersen).
References:
Adams, J. 2013. A Maritime Archaeology of Ships: Innovation and Social Change in Medieval and
Early Modern Europe. Oxford: Oxbow books.
Adams, J. & Rönnby, J. (eds.). 2013. Interpreting Shipwrecks: Maritime Archaeological
Approaches. Södertörn Academic Studies 56, Southampton Archaeology Monographs New
Series No. 4. Southampton: Highfield Press.
Bain, R. 1911. “Sture”. In Chisholm, H. (ed.), Encyclopædia Britannica 25 (11th ed.): 1051-1052. Cambridge University Press.
Barfod, J. 1990. Flådens Fødsel. Marinehistorisk Selskabs skrift nr. 22. København: Gyldendal.
Blekinge Museum. 2015. Ett skeppsvrak i Ronneby Skärgård. Available at: www.blekingemuseum.se/pdf/katalog_gribshunden.pdf.
Christensen, A.E. 1969. Skibsristninger i Sæby kirke. Handels-og søfartsmuseet på Kronborg Årbog 3. Available at: http://www.mfs.dk/sites/default/files/documents/1969Skibsristningene82-100.pdf.
Lemeé, C. 2006. The Renaissance Shipwrecks from Christianshavn: An archaeological and architectural study of large carvel vessels in Danish waters, 1580-1640. Ships and Boats of the North, vol. 6. Roskilde.
Einarsson, L. 2008. Ett skeppsvrak i Ronneby skärgård. In Ale: 2.
Eriksson, N. Forthcoming. Skeppsarkeologisk analys av Gribshunden (1495). Report.
Lopez, J. 2015. Fifteenth century. Bertan 23. Available at: bertan.gipuzkoakultura.net/23/ing/10.php.
Sjöblom, I. Forthcoming. Kung Hans kravel. Identifieringen av Gribshunden (1495). Report.
Rönnby, J. 2013. The Archaeological Interpretation of Shipwrecks. Ch. 2 in Adams, J. & Rönnby, (eds.), Interpreting Shipwrecks: Maritime Archaeological Approaches: 9-24. Södertörn Academic Studies 56, Southampton Archaeology Monographs New Series No. 4. Southampton: Highfield Press.
Scocozza, B. 1997. Politikens bog om danske monarker. København: Politikens Forlag.
Shalit, B. 1988. The Psychology of Conflict and Combat. New York: Praeger.
Svensson, J. 2015, June 2. Klartecken till dykningar vid Gribshunden. Sydöstran. Retrieved from: http://www.sydostran.se/ronneby/klartecken-till-dykningar-vid-gribshunden/.
Warming, R. 2014. Towards an Archaeology of Boarding: Naval Hand-to-Hand Combat Tactics in Northwestern Europe in the 16th Century. MA Dissertation. University of Southampton.
Yachtpaint.com. 2015. What us the difference between Clinker and Carvel construction? Retrieved from: www.yachtpaint.com/usa/diy/ask-the-experts/what-is-the-difference-between-clinker-and-carvel-construction.aspx.
To learn more about Combat Archaeology Click Here.
The post Gribshunden: Significance and Preliminary Investigations appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>The post New Member of Combat Archaeology: Thit Birk Petersen appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>Her bio can be found below and in the members section. Thit has recently written a small article on the subject of Refshaleborg Castle for Combat Archaeology which can be found here.
Thit Birk Petersen
Thit Birk Petersen holds an Mag. Art. degree in Prehistoric Archaeology from the University of Copenhagen and has studied Battlefield and Conflict Archaeology at the University of Glasgow. She has specialized in medieval castles and manipulated landscapes, particularly focusing on the impact of castles on the surrounding landscape, both in war and periods of peace. She has 19 years of experience with experimental archaeology and re-enactment via the Middle Age Centre in Nykøbing F. and is a decent longbow archer. She has participated in gunpowder experiments and longbow experiments. Her current research focuses on the bow from prehistory to the Middle Ages. She is currently employed at Museum Lolland-Falster as an archaeologist, responsible for everything concerning photography at the Femern-project.
To learn more about Combat Archaeology Click Here.
The post New Member of Combat Archaeology: Thit Birk Petersen appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>The post New Member of Combat Archaeology: Thit Birk Petersen appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>Her bio can be found below and in the members section. Thit has recently written a small article on the subject of Refshaleborg Castle for Combat Archaeology which can be found here.
Thit Birk Petersen
Thit Birk Petersen holds an Mag. Art. degree in Prehistoric Archaeology from the University of Copenhagen and has studied Battlefield and Conflict Archaeology at the University of Glasgow. She has specialized in medieval castles and manipulated landscapes, particularly focusing on the impact of castles on the surrounding landscape, both in war and periods of peace. She has 19 years of experience with experimental archaeology and re-enactment via the Middle Age Centre in Nykøbing F. and is a decent longbow archer. She has participated in gunpowder experiments and longbow experiments. Her current research focuses on the bow from prehistory to the Middle Ages. She is currently employed at Museum Lolland-Falster as an archaeologist, responsible for everything concerning photography at the Femern-project.
To learn more about Combat Archaeology Click Here.
The post New Member of Combat Archaeology: Thit Birk Petersen appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.
]]>