Arsenal: Arsenal. sailing ships

Ships of the 15th and 16th centuries

At the beginning of the 15th century, they began to build two-masted coggs. Further development world shipbuilding was marked by the transition in the middle of the 15th century to three-masted ships. For the first time this type of vessel appeared in the north of Europe in 1475. Its fore and mizzen masts are borrowed from Mediterranean Venetian ships.

The first three-masted ship to enter the Baltic Sea was the French ship La Rochelle. The skin of this ship, which had a length of 43 m and a width of 12 m, was not laid flat, like tiles on the roof of a house, as was done before, but smooth: one board close to another. And although this method of sheathing was known before, nevertheless, the merit of his invention is attributed to a shipbuilder from Brittany named Julian, who called this method "carvel" or "craveel". The name of the plating later passed into the name of the type of ships - "caravel". Caravels were more elegant than coggs and had better sailing equipment, so it was no coincidence that medieval discoverers chose these strong, fast and roomy ships for overseas campaigns. Characteristics caravel - high sides, deep deck sheer in the middle part of the vessel and mixed sailing equipment. Only the foremast carried a square straight sail. Latin sails on the slanting yards of the main and mizzen masts allowed ships to sail steeply into the wind.

In the first half of the 15th century, the largest cargo ship (perhaps up to 2000 tons) was a three-masted, two-deck karakka, probably of Portuguese origin. IN XV-XVI centuries on sailing ships composite masts appeared, which carried several sails at once. The area of the topsails and kruysels (top sails) was increased, which made it easier to control and maneuver the ship. The ratio of body length to width ranged from 2:1 to 2.5:1. As a result, the seaworthiness of these so-called "round" vessels improved, which made it possible to make safer long-distance voyages to America and India and even around the world. A clear distinction between sailing merchant and military ships did not exist at that time; for a number of centuries, only a rowing galley was a typical warship. The galleys were built with one and two masts and carried Latin sails. Significantly larger ships than galleys were galleasses: they had three masts with latin sails, in the stern there are two large steering oars, two decks (lower for rowers, upper for soldiers and guns), in the bow of a surface ram. These warships proved to be durable: as late as the 18th century, almost all maritime powers continued to replenish their fleets with galleys and galleasses. During the 16th century, the appearance of a sailing ship was formed as a whole, which was preserved until the middle of the 19th century. Ships increased significantly in size, if for the 15th century ships of more than 200 tons were rare, then by the end of the 16th century there were single giants reaching 2000 tons, and ships with a displacement of 700-800 tons were no longer rare. From the beginning of the 16th century, European shipbuilding increasingly began to use oblique sails, at first in their pure form, as was done in Asia, but by the end of the century, mixed sailing rigs spread. Artillery was improved - bombards of the 15th and culverins of the early 16th centuries were still not very suitable for arming ships, but by the end of the 16th century the problems associated with casting were largely resolved and a familiar-looking naval gun appeared. Around 1500, cannon ports were invented, it became possible to place cannons in several tiers, and the upper deck was freed from them, which had a positive effect on the ship's stability. The sides of the ship began to fill up inward - so the guns of the upper tiers were closer to the axis of symmetry of the ship. Finally, in the 16th century, in many European countries there were regular navies. All these innovations gravitate towards the beginning of the 16th century, but, given the time required for implementation, spread only towards its end. Again, shipbuilders also had to gain experience, because at first the ships of a new type had an annoying habit of capsizing immediately when leaving the stocks.

During the 16th century, the appearance of a sailing ship was formed as a whole, which was preserved until the middle of the 19th century. Ships increased significantly in size, if for the 15th century ships of more than 200 tons were rare, then by the end of the 16th century there were single giants reaching 2000 tons, and ships with a displacement of 700-800 tons were no longer rare. From the beginning of the 16th century, European shipbuilding increasingly began to use oblique sails, at first in their pure form, as was done in Asia, but by the end of the century, mixed sailing rigs spread. Artillery was improved - bombards of the 15th and culverins of the early 16th centuries were still not very suitable for arming ships, but by the end of the 16th century the problems associated with casting were largely resolved and a familiar-looking naval gun appeared. Around 1500, cannon ports were invented, it became possible to place cannons in several tiers, and the upper deck was freed from them, which had a positive effect on the ship's stability. The sides of the ship began to fill up inward - so the guns of the upper tiers were closer to the axis of symmetry of the ship. Finally, in the 16th century, regular navies appeared in many European countries. All these innovations gravitate towards the beginning of the 16th century, but, given the time required for implementation, spread only towards its end. Again, shipbuilders also had to gain experience, because at first the ships of a new type had an annoying habit of capsizing immediately when leaving the stocks.

In the first half of the 16th century, a ship appeared with fundamentally new properties and a completely different purpose than the ships that existed before. This ship was intended to fight for supremacy at sea by destroying enemy warships on the high seas with artillery fire and combined significant autonomy for those times with the strongest weapons. The rowing ships that existed up to this point could only dominate a narrow strait, and even then, if they were based in a port on the shore of this strait, in addition, their power was determined by the number of troops on board, and artillery ships could act independently of the infantry. A new type of ships began to be called linear - that is, the main ones (like "linear infantry", "linear tanks" the name "linear ship" has nothing to do with lining up - if they were built, then just in a column).

The first battleships that appeared on the northern seas, and later on the Mediterranean Sea, were small - 500-800 tons, which approximately corresponded to the displacement of large transports of that period. Not even the biggest ones. But the largest transports were built for themselves by wealthy merchant companies, and battleships were ordered by states that were not rich at that time. These ships were armed with 50-90 guns, but they were not very strong guns - mostly 12-pounders, with a small admixture of 24-pounders and a very large admixture of small-caliber guns and culverins. Seaworthiness did not stand up to any criticism - even in the 18th century, ships were still built without drawings (they were replaced by a layout), and the number of guns was calculated based on the width of the ship measured in steps - that is, it varied depending on the length of the legs of the chief engineer of the shipyard. But this was in the 18th, and in the 16th, the correlation between the width of the vessel and the weight of the guns was not known (especially since it does not exist). Simply put, ships were built without a theoretical basis, only on the basis of experience, which was almost non-existent in the 16th and early 17th centuries. But the main trend was clearly visible - guns in such a quantity could no longer be considered as auxiliary weapons, and a purely sail design indicated a desire to get an ocean-going ship. Even then, battleships were characterized by armament at the level of 1.5 pounds per ton of displacement.

The battleships of the 16th century still had inadequate sailing equipment for sailing in the Mediterranean Sea (especially in its eastern part) and the Baltic. The storm jokingly blew the Spanish squadron out of the English Channel.

Already in the 16th century, Spain, England and France together had about 60 ships of the line, with Spain more than half of this number. Sweden, Denmark, Turkey and Portugal joined this trio in the 17th century.

Ships of the 17th and 18th centuries

In the north of Europe at the beginning of the XVII century appears new type a vessel similar to flutes - a three-masted pinasse (pinasse). The same type of ships also includes the galleon that appeared in the middle of the 16th century - a military ship of Portuguese origin, which later became the basis of the fleets of the Spaniards and the British. For the first time, guns were installed on the galleon both above and below the main deck, which led to the construction of battery decks; guns stood on the sides and fired through the ports. The displacement of the largest Spanish galleons of 1580-1590 was 1000 tons, and the ratio of the length of the hull to the width was 4:1. The absence of high superstructures and a long hull allowed these ships to sail faster and steeper to the wind than "round" ships. To increase the speed, the number and area of sails were increased, additional sails appeared - foxes and underliesels. At that time, jewelry was considered a symbol of wealth and power - all state and royal courts were luxuriously decorated. The distinction between warships and merchant ships became more distinct. In the middle of the 17th century, frigates began to be built in England, which had up to 60 guns on two decks, and smaller warships, such as a corvette, sloop, bombard, and others.

Türkiye also began to build battleships from the end of the 16th century. But they still differed significantly from European models. Especially the shape of the hull and sailing weapons. Turkish battleships were significantly faster than European ones (this was especially true in the Mediterranean), carried 36-60 guns of 12-24 caliber pounds and were weaker armored - only from 12-pounder cores. Armament was a pound per ton. The displacement was 750 -1100 tons. In the 18th century, Türkiye began to lag significantly behind in terms of technology. Turkish battleships of the 18th century resembled European ones of the 17th century.

During the 18th century, the growth in the size of ships of the line continued uninterrupted. By the end of this century, battleships had reached a displacement of 5,000 tons (the limit for wooden ships), armor was strengthened to an incredible degree - even 96-pound bombs did not harm them enough - and 12-pound half-guns were no longer used on them. Only 24 pounds for the upper deck, 48 pounds for the two middle decks, and 96 pounds for the bottom deck. The number of guns reached 130. True, there were also smaller battleships with 60-80 guns, with a displacement of about 2000 tons. They were more often limited to 48-pound caliber, and they were also protected from it. Incredibly increased the number of battleships. England, France, Russia, Turkey, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and Portugal had battle fleets. By the middle of the 18th century, England had almost undivided dominance at sea. By the end of the century, she had almost a hundred battleships (including those that were not in active use). France scored 60-70, but they were weaker than the English. Russia under Peter stamped 60 battleships, but they were made in a hurry, somehow, carelessly. In a rich way, only the preparation of wood - so that it would turn into armor - should have taken 30 years (in fact, Russian ships and later were built not from bog oak, but from larch, it was heavy, relatively soft, but did not rot and served 10 times longer than oak). But their number alone forced Sweden (and the whole of Europe) to recognize the Baltic Sea as Russian inland. By the end of the century, the size of the Russian battle fleet even decreased, but the ships were brought up to European standards. Holland, Sweden, Denmark and Portugal had 10-20 ships each, Spain - 30, Turkey - also about that, but these were already ships of a non-European level.

Even then, the property of battleships was manifested that they were created most of all for numbers - so that they were, and not for war. It was expensive to build and maintain them, and even more so to equip them with a crew, all kinds of supplies and send them on campaigns. They saved on this - they did not send it. So even England used only a small part of her battle fleet at a time. Equipment for a campaign of 20-30 battleships was also a national task for England. Russia kept only a few battleships on alert. Most of the battleships spent their entire lives in the port with only a minimal crew on board (capable, in case of urgent need, to overtake the ship to another port) and unloaded guns.

The next ship in rank behind the battleship was the frigate, designed to capture body of water. With the incidental destruction of everything (except battleships) that was available in this space. Formally, the frigate was an auxiliary ship in the battle fleet, but, given that the latter was used extremely sluggishly, frigates turned out to be the most popular of the ships of that period. Frigates, like later cruisers, could be divided into light and heavy ones, although such a gradation was not formally carried out. The heavy frigate appeared in the 17th century, it was a ship with 32-40 cannons, counting the falconets, and displacing 600-900 tons of water. The guns were 12-24 pounds, with the latter predominating. The armor could withstand 12-pound cannonballs, the armament was 1.2-1.5 tons per pound, and the speed was greater than that of a battleship. The displacement of the latest modifications of the 18th century reached 1500 tons, there were up to 60 cannons, but usually there were no 48-pound ones.

Light frigates have been common since the 16th century, and in the 17th they made up the vast majority of all warships. Their production required a significantly lower quality wood than for the construction of heavy frigates. Larch and oak were considered strategic resources, and pines suitable for making masts in Europe and the European part of Russia were counted and taken into account. Light frigates did not carry armor, in the sense that their hulls withstood wave impacts and mechanical loads, but they did not claim more, the skin thickness was 5-7 centimeters. The number of guns did not exceed 30, and only on the largest frigates of this class were 4 24 pounds on the lower deck - they did not even occupy the entire floor. The displacement was 350-500 tons.

In the 17th and early 18th centuries, light frigates were simply the cheapest warships, ships that could be made a whole cloud and quickly. Including by re-equipment of merchant ships. By the middle of the 18th century, similar ships began to be specially produced, but with an emphasis on top speed- corvettes. There were even fewer cannons on corvettes, from 10 to 20 (there were actually 12-14 cannons on 10-gun ships, but those that looked at the bow and stern were classified as falconets). The displacement was 250-450 tons.

The number of frigates in the 18th century was significant. England had little more than ships of the line, but still got a lot. Countries with small battleship fleets had several times more frigates than battleships. The exception was Russia, which had one frigate for three battleships. The point was that the frigate was intended to capture space, and with it (space) in the Black and Baltic Seas it was a bit tight. At the very bottom of the hierarchy were sloops - ships designed to carry out sentinel service, reconnaissance, combat piracy, and so on. That is, not to fight other warships. The smallest of them were ordinary schooners of 50-100 tons in weight with several guns less than 12 pounds in caliber. The largest had up to 20 12-pounder guns and a displacement of up to 350-400 tons. Sloops and other auxiliary ships could be any number. For example, Holland in the middle of the 16th century had 6,000 merchant ships, most of which were armed. By installing additional guns, 300-400 of them could be turned into light frigates. The rest are in sloops. Another question is that the merchant ship brought profit to the Dutch treasury, and the frigate or sloop consumed this profit. England at that time had 600 merchant ships. How many people could be on these ships? A is different. In principle, a sailboat could have one crew member for every ton of displacement. But this worsened habitability and reduced autonomy. On the other hand, the more numerous the crew, the more combat-ready the ship turned out to be. In principle, 20 people could manage the sails of a large frigate. But only in good weather. They could do the same in a storm, simultaneously working on the pumps and battening down the port covers knocked out by the waves, they could do it for a short time. Most likely, their strength would have ended earlier than the wind. To conduct a battle on a 40-gun ship, a minimum of 80 people were required, - 70 load the guns of one side, and another 10 run around the deck and lead. But if the ship performs such a complex maneuver as a turn, all gunners will have to rush from the lower decks to the masts - when turning, the ship will certainly have to move tacks against the wind for some time, but for this, it will be necessary to tightly reef all direct sails, and then, naturally, open them again. If the gunners need to either climb the masts, then run into the hold for the cannonballs - they won’t shoot much. Typically, sailboats designed for long passages or long cruising had one person on board for 4 tons. This was enough to control the ship and for combat. In the event that the ship was used for landing operations or boarding, the crew could reach one person per ton. How did they fight? If two roughly equal ships met in the sea under the flags of the warring powers, then both of them began to maneuver in order to take a more advantageous position from the side of the wind. One sought to go into the tail of the other - so it was possible at the most interesting moment to take away the wind from the enemy. Considering that the guns were guided by the hull, and the maneuverability of the ship was proportional to its speed, no one wanted to move against the wind at the time of the collision. On the other hand, having too much wind in the sails, it was possible to slip forward and let the enemy pass to the rear. All these dances were original in the sense that it was practically possible to maneuver only by direction. The speed maneuver was carried out indirectly, by taking a more or less advantageous position in relation to the wind. It took a long time to maneuver, lowering and raising the sails, but it was necessary. Each ship sought to aim its guns at the enemy, but in such a way as to avoid a return volley. Or substitute your ship for this volley in the smallest projection. In the simplest case, the ships simply moved in parallel courses from time to time firing volleys from a long distance. The winner was the one who maneuvered better, or who had more guns. But often such a confrontation turned out to be fruitless - after several hours of battle, either the cores ran out, or one of the ships got tired of everything and sailed away. It turned out more interesting if the ships converged at 100-150 meters. The number of hits and their strength increased many times over. The role began to play the speed of loading guns. From such a distance, buckshot and chains could be used to destroy the rigging. If one of the opponents lost masts (especially the bowsprit) and sails (especially slanting on the bowsprit), he was completely at the mercy of the other, who, for example, could go along the stern almost back to back and unload the guns point-blank. A ship with no speed could only hope that the enemy himself would slip under his guns. At a distance of 100-150 meters, falconets were also used. Since from such a distance one volley could decide the outcome of the battle, the one who managed to fire it first won. If it hit, of course. The battle was especially cruel if the ships converged on a pistol shot - that is, just so as not to grapple with the rigging. In this case, each gun acted for itself. As soon as an enemy port appeared a few meters from her muzzle, she fired. Well, since there was also a cannon in that port, the gunner had every chance to get the core right in the eye. Although no projectile was required from such a distance, one shock wave from the shot was enough. At this point - who will play a point first. In addition, the fact that the hull of such and such a ship withstood such and such cores did not mean that it would withstand them at close range. From terrible blows, the masts loosened, the yards collapsed, the sides cracked, giving leaks, ladders and decks fell through, guns fell off their mounts. It happened that from a powerful salvo at close range, the ship literally fell apart. It also happened that he fell apart from his own volley. In short, when the ships converged on a pistol shot, the more durable and with a more courageous crew won. Or one that, by the time they approached point-blank, had kept the guns loaded. Guns at such a distance from the enemy, of course, were not loaded. The ships could not go point-blank from one another for a long time - their speed could not be the same. In order not to overtake, the faster one had to turn away from the wind from time to time, that is, change the direction of movement. The ships approached and then diverged. If a squadron fought against a squadron, then each ship covered the one in front from the bypass behind. But no one covered the closing one. Therefore, if the infantry was afraid of coverage from the flanks, then the ships avoided coverage from the head and tail of the column, especially the tail, since this was easier to implement. The breakthrough of the column was also dangerous, when some part of it was cut off by the enemy. The trick was that when the tail was cut off, the head of the squadron could not turn around to help him - the returning ships would have to tack against the wind, and in such a position they would be vulnerable as nailed. The ships that were cut off were forced to slow down - they took away the wind from behind, blocked them in front, - literally blocked them, substituting the side. It was the galleys that sought to hit the enemy with their bows, and the sailing ship was afraid to break the bowsprit with such a blow and turn into scrap. More than a collision, by the way, did not threaten anything. The speeds were low, and the construction of the ships was solid - so, the dishes in the galley would break - that's all. Ships that lost their speed (and, consequently, their ability to aim guns while maneuvering) were shot at point-blank range. For the first time, such methods of naval combat were used in the 17th century by the Dutch against the British. To the great humiliation of the latter, De Rieter destroyed the strongest British squadrons with a crowd of light frigates and a few heavy ones. The Dutch even broke into the Thames. However, later, the British realized what the trick was, and besides, the Dutch began to build battleships, neither to take away the wind from which, nor to block which, nor to shoot through the core of the cannon lifting for their ships, the Dutch could no longer. The shipyards of the Dutch themselves were located in the depths of their country and the maximum tonnage of ships was limited by the depth of the channels. Another way to win great victory at sea was to catch the enemy fleet in the parking lot. Especially if most of the crews were on the shore. It was possible to smash motionless ships with impunity. So Nelson destroyed the French fleet at Aboukir. The French not only released most of the crews to the shore, but also carelessly stood up so that the British freely passed between the coast and the French line. Two or four English ships went around the French from the sides and anchored outside of its sector of fire. When the ship fought while at anchor, a pair of longboats was always on duty next to it, in order to change the orientation of its hull if necessary. For the same reason, it was relatively easy for Peter and Menshikov to capture a pair of Swedish light frigates at the anchorage. The Swedes could not raise the anchors, as they would have been carried aground by the current, and apparently there was no wind. So the Swedes could only fight back with falconets. Another question is that it was problematic to get on board the frigate from the plow. In addition to artillery fire, boarding was a common way for one ship to attack another. In battles between battleships and heavy frigates, however, he had almost no use. Firstly, these ships were created for artillery combat. Such ships were often captured, but it happened differently - having exhausted the possibilities for resistance, the ship simply surrendered, - then a boarding team landed on it. Or, while maneuvering, they still collided and got mixed up with rigging - the situation turned out to be stupid, but somehow the battle had to be continued. Secondly, the large frigates and battleships were too large for boarding to be physically feasible. Even if the two battleships were butted, their sides were littered inward, and there was a gap between the decks, too large to be bridged by a jump. Jumping onto an enemy ship by swinging on the dangling end, or crawling from port to port, or throwing a cat and climbing up the outside of the side was feasible. But it was possible to attack in this way only if there was an overwhelming numerical superiority and a strong coupling of ships. And there were also problems with the hitch - ships weighing 200 tons each were easy to pull with cats, large ships with huge inertia and windage were unrealistic. Mooring them firmly to one another would not be easy even with the efforts of both teams, and if this had not been done, it could have turned out like Prince Hamlet. Who remembers: during the boarding, he jumped aboard an enemy ship, and, since he was the only psycho with a certificate on the ship, he ended up there alone. But the pirates decided that even one - with a certificate - was too much. And they dumped it. I mean, someone who got on board an enemy ship in this way had every chance of ending up naked on the shores of some kind of sucky kingdom. This is at best. The boarding of an equal ship had to be carried out in such a way as to reduce the bonuses of the defenders to a minimum. Otherwise - it makes no sense. The galley of the 16th century had a wide raised platform on the bow that was approaching the low side of another galley. In such a situation, the attackers even had an advantage, since the enemy forces were cut in half. In the 18th century, the scampaways no longer had such a platform, since they were not intended to fight other galleys flat like a flounder. The naves and coggs of the 16th century also had a raised platform at the prow. She was higher and could be pushed onto the high side of the ship of the northern seas. If you recall, then the Romans, as civilized people crossed to the enemy ship on the bridge. But on the ships of the 17th-18th centuries there were no boarding devices - they became irrelevant. The small sailing ships of the 17th-18th centuries, down to the light frigates, operated differently. The firefight between them was not as effective as between large ships, since they had fewer guns and themselves represented a smaller and more mobile target. Although in the event of a hit, the cores carried more damage. To an even greater extent, this concerned merchant and pirate ships. Here boarding was quite applicable and possible - the ships converged closely and the crampons pulled side to side. They jumped from deck to deck, if they didn't step over. It was more difficult to board a higher ship from a lower one. Here it was impossible to think of anything else than to throw the cats on the high side and climb with a dagger in their teeth. Plus, a special anti-boarding net was often stretched along the side of the ship - it had to be cut through, which, having a dagger in its teeth, was quite difficult to do. Such boarding was resorted to only in the event of a large numerical superiority of the crew. Or with equal forces, but in a state of hopeless heroism. So, by the way, the unjustifiably high side of the ships of that era, littered inside, did not arise by chance. In general, the boarding was more pirate than military. A battleship or a large frigate could only be boarded after a thorough artillery preparation, which destroyed most of its crew or deprived it of the will to resist. Or if he was surrounded by a solid mass of fussy scampaways. But, let's say, close combat began. When the ships approached, a new weapon was connected - muskets. The musketeers tried with volleys to hit the officers on the bridge and, in general, any people on the deck of an enemy ship. How many of these musketeers could be is a separate question. The ship's crew in battle was too busy with guns and sails. Marines fired, the number of which could be very different. It could be four times less than sailors, and four times more. On the ships of the 16th century, instead of musketeers, there could be archers and crossbowmen. The coolest thing was to put the musketeers on the yardarms - one shot, and four or five more were engaged in loading the muskets and passing the arrow. So it was possible to fire at the enemy deck from above, which was especially useful if the enemy was going to board, and his ship was no less high. In particular, Nelson was killed by a bullet when his ship diverged from the enemy. But small arms could play a prominent role only in battles between poorly armed ships. When events took on a boarding turn, the muskets lost their significance - they were not dragged onto the deck of an enemy ship. The Marine was armed in such a way that he might have to first crawl along the side like a fly on glass, and then still fight in the cramped interior of the ship. The gun with a bayonet was too long and inconvenient for such an application. The Marine's weapon was a sword, or a saber, or a dagger. Pistols were widely used in the 18th century. The fight was individual. Pistols were still rare in the 17th century. For example, according to Dumas, four musketeers did not have a single pistol (it is in the film that they have pistols, moreover, they are flintlocks). A pair of wheeled pistols cost as much as 4 muskets - at the very least. Breastplates were used only by marines and officers - it would be difficult to climb the yards in armor. But the marines did not really lean on the armor - boarding was associated with the risk of falling into the water. A special form of combat operations of the fleet was the support of land operations. Supporting the infantry with fire was difficult, since the nuclei of naval guns ricocheted only when fired at 500-600 meters. During the battle on the Kinburn Spit, Turkish ships fired on the flank of Suvorov's infantry, but this was a rare case - when the ships managed to get so close to the enemy infantry. During the pacification of the Maghreb, English and French ships entered the harbor of Algiers and shelled the city - up to 1500 meters, the cannonballs could destroy not very strong buildings. During the assault on the island of Corfu, Russian ships anchored near the French fortress and showered it with cannonballs. So it was possible to suppress fortress artillery, but if the fortress was solid, at least 10 naval guns against one fortress were required (counting only one side of the ship and not counting the fortress falconets). In addition, the ship still had to approach the fortress at a minimum distance. In general, the 24-pounders were dangerous enough for fortifications, but only up close. Sometimes, during landing operations, part of the artillery could be removed from the ship. Basically, these were falconets, since there were no horses for towing heavy guns on the ship. A 3-6 pound falconet could well pass for a regimental cannon if it had a wheeled carriage, but most often it was not there - collapsible carriages were then a rarity. Usually, sailors, if they wanted to use a cannon on land, made an impromptu gun carriage for it, similar to the gun carriages of a 15th century bombard, a wooden deck to which the falconet was attached with brackets. It was quite possible to remove a 12-pound gun from the ship and transport it to the shore, but its "sea" carriage did not provide for the possibility of transportation by land. It was impossible to drag her far into the depths of the mainland. When firing from the anchorage, it became especially clear why black powder is also called smoky gunpowder - cast-iron guns emitted smoke in an unimaginable amount, - after two or three volleys the ship was completely hidden in it - only the masts stuck out. Visibility dropped to zero. Even when shooting on the move, and therefore in the presence of wind, this was a problem. Land artillery also suffered from smoke from frequent firing, but on land the battery could have an observation post as far away as possible, and at sea the captain's bridge was a few meters from the nearest muzzle. In addition, at sea, the target was mobile and small in size. For this reason, the bridge turned out to be at the stern of the ship (from where, by the way, not a damn thing was visible towards the bow - that's what the lookouts were required for). The wind in battle usually blew aft and the bridge was cleared of it first. What is the most incredible thing in modern ideas about naval battles of that era? Well, some points related to the Caribbean pirates - of course, but about them - below. Boarding battles between battleships? Happened - like a ram in a tank battle. This, of course, is not a method of using a tank, but there are circumstances. If you think about what associations the words "battle of the era sailing fleet"? Smoke, fire, a raging sea, the brig "Mercury" in full sail emerges victorious from the battle with two Turkish battleships. Well, about the victory of the brig (a small armed civilian ship) over two battleships and two corvettes, we will remember. Maybe he would have won if they had caught up with him. the sea at that time took place in good (comparatively) weather. Maneuvering in battle, the ship would inevitably at some moments be side to the wave. And the ports were at a height of a meter, less often one and a half from the waterline. It is easy to imagine what happened next - the stability of warships of that time was very poor. In addition, ships, excluding giant battleships, did not exceed the size of a modern trawler. decks with their favorite ricochets. strong wind the ship is not faster, but slower than with a moderate one, moreover, only in one direction - tacks against the wind. By the way, the multi-masted sailboat moved with a trick downwind. If the wind was blowing directly into the stern, then the rear mast shaded the front ones, so it turned out to be more profitable to go at a certain angle to the wind.

The ships of Jean Colombe

Do not yawn, historian, compose a book,
watch the rotation of the earth.
Every century, year, day, moment,
how much is due, allot.
The wind is rising, the star is fading.
Caesar sleeps and groans in his sleep.
Tomorrow it will be clear who will overthrow whom,
and they will kill me in the war ...
Mikhail Shcherbakov Ad Levconoen

When examining the design of 15th-century sailing ships using the example of the Flemish carrack from Master W's engraving with a key, we should not limit ourselves to this image.

An excellent illustration for our notes will serve as miniatures from the French manuscript 5594, stored in the National Library of France. Not only is looking at them a great pleasure in itself, but these miniatures are also very informative for lovers of the history of the 15th century fleet.

The history of this manuscript is as follows. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Pope hatched the idea of a new crusade to liberate the Holy Land. This project was never carried out, but its preparation revived interest in the history of the former Crusades. The ruler of Champagne and adviser to King Louis XI Louis de Laval in 1472 ordered his chaplain Sebastian Mamero ( Sebastien Mamerot) Chronicle of the Crusades. To make illustrations for this chronicle, Mamero invited the famous miniaturist Jean Colombe. As a result of their joint work, in 1474 the famous chronicle "Campaigns of the French across the sea against the Turks and other overseas Saracens and Moors" appeared in 1474 ( Passages faiz oultre mer par les François contre les Turcqs et autres Sarrazins et Mores oultre marins). Since the campaigns were "overseas", the miniatures for the chronicle depict many ships. Now, of course, we will be interested only in some of these images related to our main object of study - the Flemish caracca.

Jean Colombe cannot be considered a specialist in maritime affairs. He lacked knowledge of the technical details of the construction of ships, so the scale is not always observed, rigging elements appear on the images that do not make sense, and so on. Almost all miniatures depict one type of ship, which can be schematically represented as follows:

Some of the illustrations show a whole fleet of such ships, which are placed large groups armed men in protective armor.

Apparently, it would not be a mistake to consider them military transports, one of the types of “round ships” of the 15th, and perhaps even the 14th century. Their main characteristic features are a short length, a strong longitudinal deck sheer, a long bow platform ending in a pointed end, and massive outer bars on the aft part of the ship's side. At the stern there is a superstructure with four longitudinally elongated openings, loopholes or ports. The stepped rudder looks strange, but perhaps the artist simply does not separate the rudder from the sternpost in his image.

On the nose itself is a gadget of incomprehensible purpose, reminiscent of a harpoon used by fishermen or a hook with a hook at the end. We can see this item in many images of that era. Here is another example:

However, we can see something similar in the engraving by Master WA

At a short distance from this gadget, apparently, a rig anchor is suspended, which was brought on a boat forward along the course of the ship and then pulled up to it with the help of a capstan. This maneuver was extremely important when operating in the coastal zone, when mooring to the shore and entering the mouths of the rivers, since the sailing armament of the ships was not yet sufficiently developed and did not allow such maneuvers to be carried out.

We will study the bow of the Flemish carrack in more detail next time.

At the beginning of the XV century. one of the largest cargo ships was the karakka. She was distinguished by a high forecastle, the presence of several longitudinal fastenings, and two or more decks were located on the quarterdeck. Compared to modern ships, the carrying capacity of the karakka was truly impressive: the largest of them could hold up to 2,000 tons. At the same time, the ship was well armed: there were usually from 30 to 40 guns on board. There were three masts on the ship: in the middle a main mast with a large yard was installed, on which a straight sail was fixed, at the stern - a mizzen mast equipped with a latin sail, at the bow - a foremast with a straight sail, and on the forecastle - a bowsprit.

Advantages of a medieval galley

In this era, there was no clear differentiation between merchant and warships: for centuries, only a rowing galley was considered an exclusively military vessel. For example, the Venetian galley had the following dimensions: width - 5 m, length - 40-50 m, distance from deck to keel - approximately 1.8 m. On each side of the galley there were 26-30 cans, which were installed at a certain angle to the side. The bank could accommodate 3 rowers, each of which had its own oar. As a rule, two masts were made on the galley: the foremast on the bow of the ship and the mainmast, located at a distance of a third of the length of the ship, starting from the bow. Latin sails were fixed on both masts.

medieval galley

Ships - direct heirs of the galley

The successors of the galley were the high-speed fusta, each boat of which had 18-22 cans for rowers, a galliot (14-20 cans), a brigantine (8-12 cans), a light frigate saet - the direct predecessor of a three-masted merchant ship, distinguished by the presence of latin sails on the mizzen and main mast and a straight sail on the foremast, and the well-known frigate (6-2 0 cans).

Galleass

The galleasses stood out even longer than the galleys: they could reach 70 m. Their features include the presence of three masts and 32 cans on each of the sides below deck. The upper part of the deck was reserved for.

Shipbuilding in the 16th century

By the middle of the XVI century. a large sailboat with 3 or 4 masts is now simply called a ship. In this class, one of the most famous was the ship of Henry VIII called "Henry Grace e" Dew. This ship had a carrying capacity of about 1,000 tons, and its sheathing was still laid open. The ship could easily accommodate 900 crew members who served 195 guns. Its feature was four masts equipped with topmasts, on the aft mast there was only one topmast .

"Henry Grace e Dew"

Northern Europe in the 16th century a pinas arose - a new type of ship, a bit like a galleass. Its displacement ranged from 150 to 800 tons, the ship had three masts, but only the main mast was equipped with a topsail. The gallion, a Portuguese warship, can also be attributed to the same class. Later, it was from gallions that the English and Spanish fleets were completed. The ship was distinguished by a rather sharp hull, and its keel length was three times its width. For the first time on a ship of this model, guns were installed not only above, but also below the main deck and fired through ports. The long hull and low superstructures provided the galleon with great speed and the ability to walk under high angle to the wind than "round" ships.

Better to see once than hear a hundred times
so let's start with the video =)

The royal ship "Vasa", launched on August 10, 1628, sailed only 1300 meters and sank when leaving Stockholm in the sea bay. The cause of the disaster was design errors - the tilted ship scooped up water with cannon ports and slowly sank to the bottom. About 50 people from the crew and escorts on board were killed ...

On September 13, 1956, a short article was published in the Expressen newspaper: “Found old ship near the island of Beckholmen in the middle of Stockholm. This is probably the royal ship Vasa, which sank on its maiden voyage in 1628. The private individual has been researching for five years to find the ship."

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Ships of the 15th and 16th centuries

At the beginning of the 15th century, they began to build two-masted coggs. The further development of world shipbuilding was marked by the transition in the middle of the 15th century to three-masted ships. For the first time this type of vessel appeared in the north of Europe in 1475. Its fore and mizzen masts are borrowed from Mediterranean Venetian ships.

The first three-masted ship to enter the Baltic Sea was the French ship La Rochelle. The skin of this ship, which had a length of 43 m and a width of 12 m, was not laid flat, like tiles on the roof of a house, as was done before, but smooth: one board close to another. And although this method of sheathing was known before, nevertheless, the merit of his invention is attributed to a shipbuilder from Brittany named Julian, who called this method "carvel" or "craveel". The name of the plating later passed into the name of the type of ships - "caravel". Caravels were more elegant than coggs and had better sailing equipment, so it was no coincidence that medieval discoverers chose these strong, fast and roomy ships for overseas campaigns. Characteristic features of caravels are high sides, deep sheer deck in the middle part of the vessel and mixed sailing equipment. Only the foremast carried a square straight sail. Latin sails on the slanting yards of the main and mizzen masts allowed ships to sail steeply into the wind.

In the first half of the 15th century, the largest cargo ship (perhaps up to 2000 tons) was a three-masted, two-deck karakka, probably of Portuguese origin. In the 15th-16th centuries, composite masts appeared on sailing ships, which carried several sails at once. The area of the topsails and kruysels (top sails) was increased, which made it easier to control and maneuver the ship. The ratio of body length to width ranged from 2:1 to 2.5:1. As a result, the seaworthiness of these so-called "round" vessels improved, which made it possible to make safer long-distance voyages to America and India and even around the world.

A clear distinction between sailing merchant and military ships did not exist at that time; for a number of centuries, only a rowing galley was a typical warship. The galleys were built with one and two masts and carried Latin sails. Significantly larger ships than galleys were galleasses: they had three masts with Latin sails, two large steering oars in the stern, two decks (lower for rowers, upper for soldiers and cannons), and a surface ram in the bow. These warships proved to be durable: as late as the 18th century, almost all maritime powers continued to replenish their fleets with galleys and galleasses. During the 16th century, the appearance of a sailing ship was formed as a whole, which was preserved until the middle of the 19th century. Ships increased significantly in size, if for the 15th century ships of more than 200 tons were rare, then by the end of the 16th century there were single giants reaching 2000 tons, and ships with a displacement of 700-800 tons were no longer rare. From the beginning of the 16th century, European shipbuilding increasingly began to use oblique sails, at first in their pure form, as was done in Asia, but by the end of the century, mixed sailing rigs spread. Artillery was improved - bombards of the 15th and culverins of the early 16th centuries were still not very suitable for arming ships, but by the end of the 16th century the problems associated with casting were largely resolved and a familiar-looking naval gun appeared. Around 1500, cannon ports were invented, it became possible to place cannons in several tiers, and the upper deck was freed from them, which had a positive effect on the ship's stability. The sides of the ship began to fill up inward - so the guns of the upper tiers were closer to the axis of symmetry of the ship. Finally, in the 16th century, regular navies appeared in many European countries. All these innovations gravitate towards the beginning of the 16th century, but, given the time required for implementation, spread only towards its end. Again, shipbuilders also had to gain experience, because at first the ships of a new type had an annoying habit of capsizing immediately when leaving the stocks.

The faster the ship was, the fewer guns it could have in relation to the displacement, since the more the engine weighed - the masts. Not only did the masts themselves with a mass of ropes and sails weigh a fair amount, they also shifted the center of gravity upwards, therefore they had to be balanced by laying more cast-iron ballast in the hold.

The battleships of the 16th century still had inadequate sailing equipment for sailing in the Mediterranean Sea (especially in its eastern part) and the Baltic. The storm jokingly blew the Spanish squadron out of the English Channel.

Ships of the 17th and 18th centuries

In the north of Europe at the beginning of the 17th century, a new type of vessel appeared, similar to flutes - a three-masted pinasse (pinasse). The same type of ships also includes the galleon that appeared in the middle of the 16th century - a military ship of Portuguese origin, which later became the basis of the fleets of the Spaniards and the British. For the first time, guns were installed on the galleon both above and below the main deck, which led to the construction of battery decks; guns stood on the sides and fired through the ports. The displacement of the largest Spanish galleons of 1580-1590 was 1000 tons, and the ratio of the length of the hull to the width was 4:1. The absence of high superstructures and a long hull allowed these ships to sail faster and steeper to the wind than "round" ships. To increase the speed, the number and area of sails were increased, additional sails appeared - foxes and underliesels. At that time, jewelry was considered a symbol of wealth and power - all state and royal courts were luxuriously decorated. The distinction between warships and merchant ships became more distinct. In the middle of the 17th century, frigates began to be built in England, which had up to 60 guns on two decks, and smaller warships, such as a corvette, sloop, bombard, and others.

By the middle of the 17th century, battleships had grown significantly - some already up to 1500 tons. The number of guns remained the same - 50-80 pieces, but 12-pounder guns remained only on the bow, stern and upper deck, guns of 24 and 48 pounds were placed on other decks. Accordingly, the hull became stronger - it could withstand 24-pound shells. In general, the 17th century is characterized by a low level of opposition at sea. England, almost throughout its entire length, could not deal with internal turmoil. The Dutch preferred small ships, relying more on their numbers and the experience of the crews. France, powerful at that time, tried to impose its hegemony on Europe by wars on land - the French were of little interest to the sea. Sweden reigned supreme in the Baltic Sea and did not lay claim to other bodies of water. Spain and Portugal were ruined and often found themselves dependent on France. Venice and Genoa quickly turned into third-rate states. The Mediterranean Sea was divided - the western part went to Europe, the eastern - to Turkey. Neither side sought to upset the balance. However, the Maghreb ended up in the European sphere of influence - English, French and Dutch squadrons did away with piracy during the 17th century. The greatest maritime powers of the 17th century had 20-30 battleships each, the rest had only a few.

Türkiye also began to build battleships from the end of the 16th century. But they still differed significantly from European models. Especially the shape of the hull and sailing weapons. Turkish battleships were significantly faster than European ones (this was especially true in the Mediterranean), carried 36-60 guns of 12-24 caliber pounds and were weaker armored - only from 12-pounder cores. Armament was a pound per ton. The displacement was 750 -1100 tons. In the 18th century, Türkiye began to lag significantly behind in terms of technology. Turkish battleships of the 18th century resembled European ones of the 17th century.

The ship next in rank to the battleship was the frigate, designed to capture the water space. With the incidental destruction of everything (except battleships) that was available in this space. Formally, the frigate was an auxiliary ship in the battle fleet, but, given that the latter was used extremely sluggishly, frigates turned out to be the most popular of the ships of that period. Frigates, like later cruisers, could be divided into light and heavy ones, although such a gradation was not formally carried out. The heavy frigate appeared in the 17th century, it was a ship with 32-40 cannons, counting the falconets, and displacing 600-900 tons of water. The guns were 12-24 pounds, with the latter predominating. The armor could withstand 12-pound cannonballs, the armament was 1.2-1.5 tons per pound, and the speed was greater than that of a battleship. The displacement of the latest modifications of the 18th century reached 1500 tons, there were up to 60 cannons, but usually there were no 48-pound ones.

In the 17th and early 18th centuries, light frigates were simply the cheapest warships, ships that could be made a whole cloud and quickly. Including by re-equipment of merchant ships. By the middle of the 18th century, similar ships began to be specially produced, but with an emphasis on maximum speed - corvettes. There were even fewer cannons on corvettes, from 10 to 20 (there were actually 12-14 cannons on 10-gun ships, but those that looked at the bow and stern were classified as falconets). The displacement was 250-450 tons.

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9/sasha3311.7/0_515d_2eaff2c1_XL

When the ship fought while at anchor, a pair of longboats was always on duty next to it, in order to change the orientation of its hull if necessary. For the same reason, it was relatively easy for Peter and Menshikov to capture a pair of Swedish light frigates at the anchorage. The Swedes could not raise the anchors, as they would have been carried aground by the current, and apparently there was no wind. So the Swedes could only fight back with falconets. Another question is that it was problematic to get on board the frigate from the plow. In addition to artillery fire, boarding was a common way for one ship to attack another. In battles between battleships and heavy frigates, however, he had almost no use. Firstly, these ships were created for artillery combat. Such ships were often captured, but it happened differently - having exhausted the possibilities for resistance, the ship simply surrendered, - then a boarding team landed on it. Or, while maneuvering, they still collided and got mixed up with rigging - the situation turned out to be stupid, but somehow the battle had to be continued. Secondly, the large frigates and battleships were too large for boarding to be physically feasible. Even if the two battleships were butted, their sides were littered inward, and there was a gap between the decks, too large to be bridged by a jump. Jumping onto an enemy ship by swinging on the dangling end, or crawling from port to port, or throwing a cat and climbing up the outside of the side was feasible. But it was possible to attack in this way only if there was an overwhelming numerical superiority and a strong coupling of ships. And there were also problems with the hitch - ships weighing 200 tons each were easy to pull with cats, large ships with huge inertia and windage were unrealistic. Mooring them firmly to one another would not be easy even with the efforts of both teams, and if this had not been done, it could have turned out like Prince Hamlet. Who remembers: during the boarding, he jumped aboard an enemy ship, and, since he was the only psycho with a certificate on the ship, he ended up there alone. But the pirates decided that even one - with a certificate - was too much. And they dumped it. I mean, someone who got on board an enemy ship in this way had every chance of ending up naked on the shores of some kind of sucky kingdom. This is at best. The boarding of an equal ship had to be carried out in such a way as to reduce the bonuses of the defenders to a minimum. Otherwise - it makes no sense. The galley of the 16th century had a wide raised platform on the bow that was approaching the low side of another galley. In such a situation, the attackers even had an advantage, since the enemy forces were cut in half. In the 18th century, the scampaways no longer had such a platform, since they were not intended to fight other galleys flat like a flounder. The naves and coggs of the 16th century also had a raised platform at the prow. She was higher and could be pushed onto the high side of the ship of the northern seas. If you recall, the Romans, as civilized people, crossed over to an enemy ship along the bridge. But on the ships of the 17th-18th centuries there were no boarding devices - they became irrelevant. The small sailing ships of the 17th-18th centuries, down to the light frigates, operated differently. The firefight between them was not as effective as between large ships, since they had fewer guns and themselves represented a smaller and more mobile target. Although in the event of a hit, the cores carried more damage. To an even greater extent, this concerned merchant and pirate ships. Here boarding was quite applicable and possible - the ships converged closely and the crampons pulled side to side. They jumped from deck to deck, if they didn't step over. It was more difficult to board a higher ship from a lower one. Here it was impossible to think of anything else than to throw the cats on the high side and climb with a dagger in their teeth. Plus, a special anti-boarding net was often stretched along the side of the ship - it had to be cut through, which, having a dagger in its teeth, was quite difficult to do. Such boarding was resorted to only in the event of a large numerical superiority of the crew. Or with equal forces, but in a state of hopeless heroism. So, by the way, the unjustifiably high side of the ships of that era, littered inside, did not arise by chance. In general, the boarding was more pirate than military. A battleship or a large frigate could only be boarded after a thorough artillery preparation, which destroyed most of its crew or deprived it of the will to resist. Or if he was surrounded by a solid mass of fussy scampaways. But, let's say, close combat began. When the ships approached, a new weapon was connected - muskets. The musketeers tried with volleys to hit the officers on the bridge and, in general, any people on the deck of an enemy ship. How many of these musketeers could be is a separate question. The ship's crew in battle was too busy with guns and sails. Marines fired, the number of which could be very different. It could be four times less than sailors, and four times more. On the ships of the 16th century, instead of musketeers, there could be archers and crossbowmen. The coolest thing was to put the musketeers on the yardarms - one shot, and four or five more were engaged in loading the muskets and passing the arrow. So it was possible to fire at the enemy deck from above, which was especially useful if the enemy was going to board, and his ship was no less high. In particular, Nelson was killed by a bullet when his ship diverged from the enemy. But small arms could play a prominent role only in battles between poorly armed ships. When events took on a boarding turn, the muskets lost their significance - they were not dragged onto the deck of an enemy ship. The Marine was armed in such a way that he might have to first climb over the side like a fly on glass, and then still fight in the cramped interior of the ship. The gun with a bayonet was too long and inconvenient for such an application. The Marine's weapon was a sword, or a saber, or a dagger. Pistols were widely used in the 18th century. The fight was individual. Pistols were still rare in the 17th century. For example, according to Dumas, four musketeers did not have a single pistol (in the film they have pistols, moreover, they are flintlocks). A pair of wheeled pistols cost as much as 4 muskets - at the very least. Breastplates were used only by marines and officers - it would be difficult to climb the yards in armor. But the Marine Corps did not really lean on the armor - boarding was associated with the risk of falling into the water. A special form of combat operations of the fleet was the support of land operations. Supporting the infantry with fire was difficult, since the nuclei of naval guns ricocheted only when fired at 500-600 meters. During the battle on the Kinburn Spit, Turkish ships fired on the flank of Suvorov's infantry, but this was a rare case - when the ships managed to get so close to the enemy infantry. During the pacification of the Maghreb, English and French ships entered the harbor of Algiers and shelled the city - up to 1500 meters, the cannonballs could destroy not very strong buildings. During the assault on the island of Corfu, Russian ships anchored near the French fortress and showered it with cannonballs. So it was possible to suppress fortress artillery, but if the fortress was solid, at least 10 naval guns against one fortress were required (counting only one side of the ship and not counting the fortress falconets). In addition, the ship still had to approach the fortress at a minimum distance. In general, the 24-pounders were dangerous enough for fortifications, but only up close. Sometimes, during landing operations, part of the artillery could be removed from the ship. Basically, these were falconets, since there were no horses for towing heavy guns on the ship. A 3-6 pound falconet could well pass for a regimental cannon if it had a wheeled carriage, but most often it was not there - collapsible carriages were then a rarity. Usually, sailors, if they wanted to use a cannon on land, made an impromptu gun carriage for it, similar to the gun carriages of a 15th century bombard, a wooden deck to which the falconet was attached with brackets. It was quite possible to remove a 12-pound gun from the ship and transport it to the shore, but its "sea" carriage did not provide for the possibility of transportation by land. It was impossible to drag her far into the depths of the mainland. When firing from the anchorage, it became especially clear why black powder is also called smoky gunpowder - cast-iron guns emitted smoke in an unimaginable amount, - after two or three volleys the ship was completely hidden in it - only the masts stuck out. Visibility dropped to zero. Even when shooting on the move, and therefore in the presence of wind, this was a problem. Land artillery also suffered from smoke from frequent firing, but on land the battery could have an observation post as far away as possible, and at sea the captain's bridge was a few meters from the nearest muzzle. In addition, at sea, the target was mobile and small in size. For this reason, the bridge turned out to be at the stern of the ship (from where, by the way, not a damn thing was visible towards the bow - that's what the lookouts were required for). The wind in battle usually blew aft and the bridge was cleared of it first. What is the most incredible thing in modern ideas about the naval battles of that era?

In the meantime, let's quickly and briefly "run" to the 15th century, and there we will already reveal the issue in more detail. So let's start:

The first sailing ships appeared in Egypt around 3000 BC. e. This is evidenced by the paintings decorating ancient Egyptian vases. However, the home of the boats depicted on the vases is apparently not the Nile Valley, but the nearby Persian Gulf. Confirmation of this is a model of a similar boat found in the Obeid tomb, in the city of Eridu, which stood on the shores of the Persian Gulf.

In 1969, the Norwegian scientist Thor Heyerdahl made an interesting attempt to test the assumption that a ship equipped with a sail, made of papyrus reed, could sail not only on the Nile, but also on the high seas. This vessel, essentially a raft, 15 m long, 5 m wide and 1.5 m high, with a 10 m mast and a single straight sail, was steered by a steering oar.

Before the use of the wind, floating craft either moved by oars or were pulled by people or animals walking along the banks of rivers and canals. Vessels made it possible to transport heavy and bulky goods, which was much more productive than transporting animals by teams on land. Bulk goods were also transported mainly by water.

papyrus ship

A large naval expedition of the ruler of Egypt Hatshepsut, undertaken in the first half of the 15th century, is historically attested. BC e. This expedition, which historians also consider trading, proceeded through the Red Sea in ancient country Punt on the east coast of Africa (this is roughly modern Somalia). The ships returned heavily laden with various goods and slaves.

In close navigation, the Phoenicians used mainly light merchant ships that had oars and a straight rake sail. Vessels intended for long-distance navigation and warships looked much more impressive. Phoenicia, unlike Egypt, had very favorable natural conditions for the construction of the fleet: near the coast, on the slopes of the Lebanese mountains, forests grew, dominated by the famous Lebanese cedar and oak, as well as other valuable tree species.

In addition to improvement sea vessels The Phoenicians left another remarkable legacy - the word "galley", which probably entered all European languages. Phoenician ships set sail from the large port cities of Sidon, Ugarit, Arvada, Gebala, etc., where there were also large shipyards.

Historical materials also speak of the voyage of the Phoenicians in a southerly direction through the Red Sea to indian ocean. The Phoenicians are credited with the honor of the first voyage around Africa at the end of the 7th century. BC e., that is, almost 2000 years before Vasco da Gama.

The Greeks already in the IX century. BC e. they learned from the Phoenicians to build ships that were remarkable for that time and early began the colonization of the surrounding territories. In the VIII-VI centuries. BC e. their area of penetration covered western shores mediterranean sea, the entire Pontus Euxinus (Black Sea) and the Aegean coast of Asia Minor.

Not a single wooden antique ship or part of it has survived, and this does not allow us to clarify the idea of the main types of galleys, which has developed on the basis of written and other historical materials. Divers and scuba divers continue to explore the seabed at the sites of ancient naval battles in which hundreds of ships were lost. Their shape and internal structure can be judged by indirect signs - for example, by accurate sketches of the location of clay vessels and metal objects that have been preserved where the ship lay. And yet, in the absence of wooden parts of the hull, painstaking analysis and imagination cannot be dispensed with.

The vessel was kept on course by means of a steering oar, which had at least two advantages over the later rudder: it made it possible to turn a stationary vessel and easily replace a damaged or broken steering oar. Merchant ships were wide and had ample hold space to accommodate cargo.

The ship was a Greek war galley circa 5th century BC. BC e., the so-called birema. With rows of oars arranged in two tiers along the sides, she naturally had greater speed than a ship of the same size with half the number of oars. In the same century, triremes became widespread - warships with three "floors" of rowers. A similar arrangement of galleys is the contribution of ancient Greek masters to the design of sea vessels. Military kinkerems were not "long ships", they had a deck, internal quarters for soldiers and a particularly powerful ram, bound with copper sheets, located in front at water level, which broke through the sides of enemy ships during naval battles. The Greeks adopted a similar combat device from the Phoenicians, who used it in the 8th century. BC e.

Although the Greeks were able, well-trained sailors, sea travel was a dangerous business at that time. Not every ship reached its destination as a result of either a shipwreck or a pirate attack.
galleys ancient Greece plowed almost the entire Mediterranean and Black Sea, there is evidence of their penetration through Gibraltar to the north. Here they reached Britain, and possibly Scandinavia. Their voyages are shown on the map.

At the first big clash with Carthage (in the First Punic War), the Romans realized that they could not hope for victory without having a strong navy. With the help of Greek specialists, they built 120 large galleys in a short time and transferred to the sea their method of warfare, which they used on land - an individual battle of a warrior against a warrior with personal weapons. The Romans used the so-called "crows" - boarding bridges. On these bridges, which pierced the deck of the enemy ship with a sharp hook, depriving him of the possibility of maneuvering, the Roman legionnaires broke into the enemy deck and started the battle in their usual manner.

The Roman fleet, like the contemporary Greek fleet, consisted of two main types of ships: "round" merchant and slender battle galleys.

Certain improvements can be noted in the sailing armament. On the main mast (mainmast) a large square straight sail is retained, which is sometimes supplemented by two small triangular upper sails. A smaller quadrangular sail appears on the forward inclined mast - the bowsprit. Increasing the total area of the sails increased the force used to propel the vessel. However, the sails continue to be an additional mover, the oars, not shown in the figure, remain the main one.
The value of the sail, however, undoubtedly increased, especially on long voyages, which were made as far as India. At the same time, the discovery of the Greek navigator Gippal helped: the August southwest and January northeast monsoons contributed to the maximum use of sails and at the same time reliably indicated the direction, like a compass much later. The road from Italy to India and the return journey, with an intermediate crossing by caravans and ships along the Nile from Alexandria to the Red Sea, lasted about a year. Previously, the path by oars along the shores of the Arabian Sea was much longer.

During trading voyages, the Romans used numerous Mediterranean ports. Some of them have already been mentioned, but one of the first places should be given to Alexandria, located in the Nile Delta, whose importance as a transit point increased as Rome’s trade with India and the Far East grew.

For more than half a millennium, knights kept Europe in fear high seas- Vikings. They owe their mobility and omnipresence to dracars - true masterpieces of shipbuilding art.

On these ships, the Vikings made distant sea voyages. They discovered Iceland, South coast Greenland, long before Columbus they visited North America. The snake heads of the stems of their ships were seen by the inhabitants of the Baltic, the Mediterranean and Byzantium. Together with the squads of the Slavs, they settled in the great trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks.

The main mover of the drakar was a raked sail, with an area of 70 m2 or more, sewn from separate vertical panels, richly decorated with gold braid, drawings of the coats of arms of the leaders or various signs and symbols. Ray rose with the sail. The high mast was supported by the stays going from it to the sides and to the ends of the vessel. The sides were protected by richly painted shields of warriors. The silhouette of the Scandinavian ship is one of a kind. It has many aesthetic merits. The basis for the reconstruction of this ship was the drawing of the famous carpet from Bae, which tells about the landing in 1066 of William the Conqueror in England.

The first three-masted ship to enter the Baltic Sea was the French ship La Rochelle. The skin of this ship, which had a length of 43 m and a width of 12 m, was not laid flat, like tiles on the roof of a house, as was done before, but smooth: one board close to another. And although this method of sheathing was known before, nevertheless, the merit of his invention is attributed to a shipbuilder from Brittany named Julian, who called this method "carvel" or "craveel". The name of the plating later passed into the name of the type of ships - "caravel". Caravels were more elegant than coggs and had better sailing equipment, so it was no coincidence that medieval discoverers chose these strong, fast and roomy ships for overseas campaigns. Characteristic features of caravels are high sides, deep sheer deck in the middle part of the vessel and mixed sailing equipment. Only the foremast carried a square straight sail. Latin sails on the slanting yards of the main and mizzen masts allowed ships to sail steeply into the wind.

"Vasa" Swedish warship

At the beginning of the XVII century. Sweden has significantly strengthened its position in Europe. The founder of the new royal dynasty, Gustav I Vasa, did a lot to bring the country out of medieval backwardness. He delivered Sweden from Danish rule, carried out a reformation, subordinating the previously all-powerful church to the state.
The Thirty Years' War of 1618-1648 was underway. Sweden, which claimed to be one of the dominant countries in Europe, sought to finally consolidate its dominant position in the Baltic.

The main rival of Sweden in the western part of the Baltic Sea was Denmark, which owned both banks of the Sound and the most important islands the Baltic Sea. But it was a very strong opponent. Then the Swedes concentrated all their attention on the eastern shores of the sea and, after long wars, captured the cities of Yam, Koporye, Karela, Oreshek and Ivan-gorod, which had long belonged to Russia, thus depriving Russian state access to the Baltic Sea.
However, Gustav II Adolf, the new king of the Vasa dynasty (1611-1632), wanted to achieve complete domination of Sweden in the eastern part of the Baltic Sea and began to create a strong navy.

In 1625, the Stockholm Royal Shipyard received a large order for the simultaneous construction of four large ships. The king showed the greatest interest in the construction of a new flagship. This ship was named "Vasa" - in honor of the Swedish royal Vasa dynasty, to which Gustav II Adolf belonged.

The best ship craftsmen, artists, sculptors, and wood carvers were involved in the construction of Vasa. Hendrik Hibertson, a well-known shipbuilder in Europe, was invited as the chief builder. Two years later, the ship was safely launched and towed to the outfitting pier, located just under the windows of the royal palace.

Galion "Golden Hind" ("Golden Doe")

The ship was built in the 60s of the 16th century in England and was originally called "Pelican". On it, the English navigator Francis Drake in 1577-1580, as part of a squadron of five ships, undertook a pirate expedition to the West Indies and made the second circumnavigation of the world after Magellan. In honor of the beautiful seaworthiness of his ship, Drake renamed it the "Golden Doe" and installed a figurine of a doe made of pure gold in the bow of the ship. The length of the galleon is 18.3 m, the width is 5.8 m, the draft is 2.45 m. This is one of the smallest galleons.

Significantly larger ships than galleys were galleasses: they had three masts with Latin sails, two large steering oars in the stern, two decks (lower for rowers, upper for soldiers and cannons), and a surface ram in the bow. These warships proved to be durable: as late as the 18th century, almost all maritime powers continued to replenish their fleets with galleys and galleasses. During the 16th century, the appearance of a sailing ship was formed as a whole, which was preserved until the middle of the 19th century. Ships increased significantly in size, if for the 15th century ships of more than 200 tons were rare, then by the end of the 16th century there were single giants reaching 2000 tons, and ships with a displacement of 700-800 tons were no longer rare. From the beginning of the 16th century, European shipbuilding increasingly began to use oblique sails, at first in their pure form, as was done in Asia, but by the end of the century, mixed sailing rigs spread. Artillery was improved - bombards of the 15th and culverins of the early 16th centuries were still not very suitable for arming ships, but by the end of the 16th century the problems associated with casting were largely resolved and a familiar-looking naval gun appeared. Around 1500, cannon ports were invented, it became possible to place cannons in several tiers, and the upper deck was freed from them, which had a positive effect on the ship's stability. The sides of the ship began to fill up inward - so the guns of the upper tiers were closer to the axis of symmetry of the ship. Finally, in the 16th century, regular navies appeared in many European countries. All these innovations gravitate towards the beginning of the 16th century, but, given the time required for implementation, spread only towards its end. Again, shipbuilders also had to gain experience, because at first the ships of a new type had an annoying habit of capsizing immediately when leaving the stocks.

Ships of the 17th and 18th centuries

Incredibly increased the number of battleships. England, France, Russia, Turkey, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and Portugal had battle fleets. By the middle of the 18th century, England had almost undivided dominance at sea. By the end of the century, she had almost a hundred battleships (including those that were not in active use). France scored 60-70, but they were weaker than the English. Russia under Peter stamped 60 battleships, but they were made in a hurry, somehow, carelessly. In a rich way, only the preparation of wood - so that it would turn into armor - should have taken 30 years (in fact, Russian ships and later were built not from bog oak, but from larch, it was heavy, relatively soft, but did not rot and served 10 times longer than oak). But their number alone forced Sweden (and the whole of Europe) to recognize the Baltic Sea as Russian inland. By the end of the century, the size of the Russian battle fleet even decreased, but the ships were brought up to European standards. Holland, Sweden, Denmark and Portugal had 10-20 ships each, Spain - 30, Turkey - also about that, but these were already ships of a non-European level.

In the 17th and early 18th centuries, light frigates were simply the cheapest warships, ships that could be made a whole cloud and quickly. Including by re-equipment of merchant ships. By the middle of the 18th century, similar ships began to be specially produced, but with an emphasis on maximum speed - corvettes. There were even fewer cannons on corvettes, from 10 to 20 (there were actually 12-14 cannons on 10-gun ships, but those that looked at the bow and stern were classified as falconets). The displacement was 250-450 tons.

By installing additional guns, 300-400 of them could be turned into light frigates. The rest are in sloops. Another question is that the merchant ship brought profit to the Dutch treasury, and the frigate or sloop consumed this profit. England at that time had 600 merchant ships. How many people could be on these ships? A is different. In principle, a sailboat could have one crew member for every ton of displacement. But this worsened habitability and reduced autonomy. On the other hand, the more numerous the crew, the more combat-ready the ship turned out to be. In principle, 20 people could manage the sails of a large frigate. But only in good weather. They could do the same in a storm, simultaneously working on the pumps and battening down the port covers knocked out by the waves, they could do it for a short time. Most likely, their strength would have ended earlier than the wind. To conduct a battle on a 40-gun ship, a minimum of 80 people were required, - 70 load the guns of one side, and another 10 run around the deck and lead. But if the ship performs such a complex maneuver as a turn, all gunners will have to rush from the lower decks to the masts - when turning, the ship will certainly have to move tacks against the wind for some time, but for this, it will be necessary to tightly reef all direct sails, and then, naturally, open them again. If the gunners need to either climb the masts, then run into the hold for the cannonballs - they won’t shoot much.

Typically, sailboats designed for long passages or long cruising had one person on board for 4 tons. This was enough to control the ship and for combat. In the event that the ship was used for landing operations or boarding, the crew could reach one person per ton. How did they fight? If two roughly equal ships met in the sea under the flags of the warring powers, then both of them began to maneuver in order to take a more advantageous position from the side of the wind. One sought to go into the tail of the other - so it was possible at the most interesting moment to take away the wind from the enemy. Considering that the guns were guided by the hull, and the maneuverability of the ship was proportional to its speed, no one wanted to move against the wind at the time of the collision. On the other hand, having too much wind in the sails, it was possible to slip forward and let the enemy pass to the rear. All these dances were original in the sense that it was practically possible to maneuver only by direction.

Of course, the whole story did not fit into the LiveJournal framework, so read the continuation on InfoGlaze -