How were the naval battles in Late Medieval Period/Middle Ages?

[Incendio]

How were the naval battles in Late Medieval Period/Middle Ages? Is a topic I've never read about before. I can imagine something like the first galleons, smaller than the ones in late renaissance with sails, with few cannons and probably archers, but this is an idea I have by just taking a look at some paintings of the period. My curiosity about it is because I've read that naval battles were common in Medieval Period, so I would appreciate if somebody can give me further details about this topic.

PS (offtopic). Imagine a new Medieval Total War with naval battles, I have curiosity to know how it will be.

[Sar1n]

Mostly boarding. While the warships would carry some artillery pieces, later cannons, and ranged troops, they served mostly as support before and during boarding action. Sinking or beating the enemy ship to submission by ranged fire was rare. Mediterranean and baltic galleys would often have ram, but actual usage of it was limited.

There was a variety of weapons and techniques developed to help subdue enemy before boarding action, including famous greek fire, some incendiary and quicklime projectiles for artillery, even some proto-torpedo developed by Arabs (although I don't know if it was ever used, or remained on paper only) and some other implements for rope cutting and sabotaging enemy ships at close range. But the decisive action was almost always boarding. Most common method would be to pull alongside, try to catch the enemy ship by throwing or launching hooks on long ropes, reel it in and deploy the boarding ramps, followed by brutal melee. And it was very brutal-there was naturally nowhere to run, and crews were often given no quarter-nobles would sometimes be captured for ransom, but rest of the crew was either killed or enslaved to be oarsmen.

[Dick Cheney.]

I'm not much of a naval historian, but If I were to begin researching naval battles in the Medieval period, I'd first start with the Vikings.

Beyond the Late Medieval and into Early Renaissance however, you do get some pretty interesting battles:

1)Spanish Armada 1588 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada
2)Battle of Lepanto 1571 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto


Two of arguably the most important naval battles in history.

[Cyclops]

I'm no expert but that's never stopped me commenting before.

I think naval battles generally take place between organised powers when there's a contest to be had ie some parity in resources and power projection. We see this in the the classical period between the Spartan alliance and the Persian Empire, the Roman and Carthaginian republics, and civil wars between Roman factions.

Typically the medieval period saw a single empire in the Med with the ability to consistently project naval power (the East Romans) exercising a terrific technological advantage. The Islamic states tended to be land powers, for all their inheritance of sophisticated Roman provincial structures they do not seem to have organised state sponsored navies, rather rallied ad hoc fleets from private sources rather like the Medieval western European feudal states. This continues under the Ottomans, where the Barbarossa brothers were essentially well equipped privateers cooperating with the Sultan's armies.

Naval battle against the East Romans tended to be short lived affairs where naval transports filled with Russians or Arabs were torched with Greek Fire.

I do not know of a single instance of Vikings conducting a battle at sea. These guys were sneaky rat-traders, nipping in for a quick rape or pillage, or some bartering if they were not strong enough to pinch something. The Norse states, especially the Danish, fielded some large fleets to transport their mail clad thanes to roll the English and others, but I don't know of them meeting any navy on the way. (a quick Google reveals a handful of nominal sea battles involving Norse, although on wiki some of them are land battles where the opponents arrived by sea).

Its not until the early Modern period and the rise of the gunpowder empires with strong centralised control that we see state naval forces with the equipment and doctrine to engage in sustained naval operations.

I have a dim memory of some medieval galley warfare in the med between Italian states (Venice and Genoa I think) and there's the battle of Sluys in the 100 Years War, where French galleys are crushed by robust English merchant vessels impressed for service. Both sides engaged in sea raids, and neither really gained command of the sea despite clear English superiority in locally suitable tech and experienced crews.

Medieval states seem to have lacked the resources and organisation to consistently project naval power, so most wars took place on land, and the naval aspect was more about transport. Piracy and its suppression probably made up the bulk of conflict in the seas, and even then it was more about raiders sneaking ashore than battling on the waves.

[Sar1n]

I'm not much of a naval historian, but If I were to begin researching naval battles in the Medieval period, I'd first start with the Vikings.

Beyond the Late Medieval and into Early Renaissance however, you do get some pretty interesting battles:

1)Spanish Armanda 1588 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada
2)Battle of Lepanto 1571 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto


Two of arguably the most important naval battles in history.

Those are a bit later than OP asks, but Lepanto does provide a good insight as it was fought mostly in traditional medieval mediterranean style.

I'd recoomend instead Battle of Sandwich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sandwich_(1217) , Battle of Sluys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sluys and Battle of Svolder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Svolder , the last one being prime example of Viking naval engagements which were exclusively boarding actions.

[Spear Dog]

I seem to recall there was some naval action by the Hanseatic League against pirates/privateers and both Sweden and the the Danes in the Baltic regions from the mid to late Medieval era.

[Cyclops]

I seem to recall there was some naval action by the Hanseatic League against pirates/privateers and both Sweden and the the Danes in the Baltic regions from the mid to late Medieval era.

Just read a book about the Baltic by a bloke called North and he mentions the various stages of trade development, and the overlap between piracy and trade. My guess is a great deal of naval conflict in the medieval period would be trade cartels (Hansa, Dutch, Venetian, Geneose etc) putting down rivals and pirates.

I think Lepanto marks the return of strategically important naval battles, curiously enough in the familiar form of an eastern Empire faced by a Western coalition. It drew a line under Ottoman naval expansion in the Western Mediterranean, and essentially divided it into Spanish and Turkish spheres. The Turks did expand their hegemony further along the Southern Mediterranean shore and mopped up the Venetians bits in the East, but henceforth Sicily, Italy and the western isles were definitely under the aegis of Madrid and there was surprisingly little further conflict between the Most Catholic Iberian crown and the Commander of the Faithful.

The destruction of the Armada is a fascinating naval set piece, the ability of the English sailors to evade destruction then outmanoeuvre and scatter the Armada is a marvel of skill and tenacity. I've read that it was one of those "doomed operations" FUBARed before it commenced by the death of the commander, delayed by spoiling attacks and the cooperating army in the Low Countries was not even in position to land in England: this makes it seem like it was an inevitable defeat.

I don't think this is right. Philip II was a very capable strategist who had an administration capable of executing enormously complex long range operations. He had forces in play across the world at this point, still expanding the Philippines (the Spanish operations there were amazing feats in themselves), dominating Italy, pacifying most of what is now Belgium (and nearly overwhelming the Northern Netherlands as well). I think it was a brilliantly conceived plan to take the Protestant revolt in the Netherlands in the flank, extend the encirclement of the French and secure Spanish naval supremacy as well.

The reformation in England was the work of a political minority, sparked by the succession crisis of a compromise arriviste dynasty of dubious legitimacy. While the genuine faith and desire for an uncorrupted church on the part of many English Christians cannot be doubted, neither can the fact that political opportunists imposed a rather ramshackle reform on a skeptical nation where the popular forms of Catholicism were happily embraced.

Even with the defeat of the Armada England was wracked with religious conflict which has echoed down almost to this very day: the verdict of the Armada's defeat was that some form of reformed church survived to evolve further. Had Medina Sidonia and Parma secured a landing place the tercios would have rolled the Tudor dynasty into an early grave, and the nacsent Protestant ascendancy with them. Would England have been secured forever for Catholicism? Maybe thats one for the AH board. Definitely an important battle for England, and its failure possibly cost Spain control of the Low Countries long term.

I don't know of resounding naval battle like this in the medieval period. States could simply not project enough power into naval resources to make naval victories and defeats that important.

[Sar1n]

I don't know of resounding naval battle like this in the medieval period. States could simply not project enough power into naval resources to make naval victories and defeats that important.

Battle of Sandwich that I linked above ended First Barons' War by cutting off French supply lines.

Edit: The early medieval period also saw several pivotal naval battles between Arabs and Byzantine empire.

[Cyclops]

Battle of Sandwich that I linked above ended First Barons' War by cutting off French supply lines.

Edit: The early medieval period also saw several pivotal naval battles between Arabs and Byzantine empire.

Yes I am pretty ignorant and very happy to be corrected.

Sandwich seems to be a full blown naval battle in which tactical manoeuvre, engagement at range , use of formations and boarding are all important. It does have a strategic outcome in ending the Baron's revolt (although I would argue a narrow one, and not Grand Strategic in its scope: if it had ended all french interference in Britain perhaps that would be the case) so my case that no medieval naval action was strategic is not tenable.

I guess I am groping for a definition that distinguishes medieval battles from Early modern and classical examples (although there would be a lot of small battles in common).

In the example of Sandwich above the presence of a pirate/noble (Eustace) and impressed ships, plus a ship owned by a feudal lord gives the sense of non- and semi-state players in the majority.

The Arab/East roman naval battles I would argue take place in late antiquity rather than the early medieval (I favour the date 800 for the start of the Middle Ages, although I know it varies between 476 (abdication of Romulus Augustulus) to 988 (establishment of what became the Holy Roman Empire by Otto the Great-which is the start of feudalisation). Given that an earlier date is more widely accepted I would have to concede there were significant state controlled naval actions in the Medieval period. I would also say the ability of states to conduct sustained strategic naval warfare was limited to the early Caliphate and the East Roman Empire before about 1050.

Is it fair to say medieval naval warfare was rarely strategic, in that it rarely too the form of sustained, centrally planned and organised state conflicts with a cohesive policy? I would argue the Hansa and Italian trade republics represent the most strategic naval actors, and their focus was clearly trade (Venice became more militarised in the Renaissance, and used proxies to fight in the east Med in the medieval period).

I'd say even the first modern power with a strong centralised naval policy was Portugal, and that policy grows out of semi-state antecedents. Prince Henry the navigator's coterie was focused around the order of Aviz (a knightly crusading order with roots in the Reconquista and crusades into Tangiers). Another medieval knightly order with a naval aspect is the Hospitalers/knights of St John, whose "crusading" activities came to include what was probably better described as piracy from their bases in Cyprus, Rhodes and later Malta.

[Sar1n]

From tactical standpoint, I'd say that the defining point between medieval and early modern battles would be adoption of line of battle tactics in 16th and early 17th century. It's a good marker for formalization of naval tactics and strategy, as well as kind of ethos for naval battles.

As a state policy, it's a whole lot more complicated. Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and Danelaw did raise state-funded, standing fleets for protection against Vikings and clashed with them in few battles, with little success. Byzantine empire maintained standing fleet until 11th century. Then, there is a gap. Most naval nations maintained some warships in ordinary (meaning pretty much mothballed) that could be reactivated in case of major conflict, but no standing navy, and most naval operations were performed by private or feudal subjects. The first state to estabilish a permanent navy was Portugal in 15th century, followed by other major powers in 16-17th centuries, as they gained overseas territories and trade routes that needed protection.

The strategy did not actually change much until 16-17th century, end even that was not a radical change. Major warships were, during peacetime, kept mostly in ordinary, and in war, used for crucial tasks, like protecting vital supply lines, invasion fleets, blockading the enemy ports, as a part of overall strategy for the conflict. What changed in 16th and 17th century was development of sailing ships and their armament to the point where cruiser warships, capable of operating for months without resupply and with lower running costs compared to mixed propulsion warships, became common, and opening of overseas trade routes that made operation of such ships very popular.

[Prince of Essling]

You may want to take a look at Susan Rose's "Medieval Naval Warfare, 1000–1500" and Jan Glete's "Warfare at Sea, 1500–1650: Maritime Conflicts and the Transformation of Europe". They form part of the Routledge series "Warfare and History".

Also try Ernest J King's "War At Sea In The Middle Ages And The Renaissance".

You can download Louis Sicking's "Naval warfare in Europe, c . 1330– c . 1680" https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bit...pdf?sequence=1