Pre cannon naval warfare

[Carpathian Wolf]

Could someone offer some insight on how naval warfare was fought before the mass use of cannons? Did they just sail beside each other and jumped on each other's ships and fought? Or perhaps they used smaller faster ships to harass using archers?

[cfmonkey45]

Ramming, archers, boarding. With the Byzantines, they had greek fire that scared teh out of other fleets. I remember the Cogs and Holks being specifically designed to mitigate boarding from Viking Longboats or something of the like.

[konny]

I remember the Cogs and Holks being specifically designed to mitigate boarding from Viking Longboats or something of the like.

Yes, that's correct: the high silouette of Cogs and later Holks gave a serious advantage in combat over the smaller Scandinavian designs. Boarding was close to impossible (imagine storming a castle's wall during an earthquake), and archers on a Cog would have the full length of the Kraier, or whatever the attacker would be using, as free targets, while the archers on the other ship would hardly see anyone of the Cog's crew who didn't want to be seen.

[Kissaki]

Ramming, archers, boarding. With the Byzantines, they had greek fire that scared teh out of other fleets. I remember the Cogs and Holks being specifically designed to mitigate boarding from Viking Longboats or something of the like.

Cogs and holks were not specifically designed with viking boats in mind. Cogs and holks were the result of the logical realization that putting a forecastle and aftercastle on a boat allowed them to rain arrows down on ships with lower situated decks, and also allowed them to use ballistae and catapults as mentioned. As well as being generally harder to board, of course. It just so happens that it was particularly effective against longboats, which were not fighting vessels to begin with.

[Wagnijo]

Cogs and holks were not specifically designed with viking boats in mind. Cogs and holks were the result of the logical realization that putting a forecastle and aftercastle on a boat allowed them to rain arrows down on ships with lower situated decks, and also allowed them to use ballistae and catapults as mentioned. As well as being generally harder to board, of course. It just so happens that it was particularly effective against longboats, which were not fighting vessels to begin with.

Right

And there was no technical reason that aft and forecastle couldn't be installed on longship.

In fact we have examples of just this happening with the heavy Norwegian longships.

It was however a poor solutions since the strong points of thew longship was its speed, stability and
ability to run onto the shores and deliver an army.

Putting castles on longships would simply ruin the sailing abilities and nullify its strongpoints.

Cogs otoh were poor and slow sailing ships in the first place designed to deliver a cargo with a
small crew. So it made sense to add castles for defense.

Furthermore was longships build with long strakes of quality timber which made them very expensive
compared to the cogs which were build by merchants out of the cheapest available material.

So putting a castle on a longship is very much like putting a truck bed on a Ferrari.

Thge longships stayed with the Baltic navies well into the medieval period as amphibeous strikeforces
and scouting vessels. It was only when the need arose to transport heavy cavalry arose that they
became obsolete as warships.

[Kissaki]

Right

And there was no technical reason that aft and forecastle couldn't be installed on longship.

In fact we have examples of just this happening with the heavy Norwegian longships.

It was however a poor solutions since the strong points of thew longship was its speed, stability and
ability to run onto the shores and deliver an army.

Putting castles on longships would simply ruin the sailing abilities and nullify its strongpoints.

One important reason was the clinker building technique used for lonboats. Knarrs did have aftercastles of sorts, but did not cut through the waters as sleek as longboats. Castles also mean a change in the centre of gravity, as well as less space for rowers. Because of the clinker construction there are also limits as to how much crap you can place on the hull as well, as these boats are meant to be flexible in the water. Caravel built ships, on the other hand, are stiff constructions, which means it can support large structures. A good way to explain the difference between the two structure types' behaviour in the water is to explain the way they are constructed: caravel built ships are made with the keel first, then the ribs secured to the keel, and then the skin on top of that. Clinker built ships, however, are made with the keel first, then the skin, and then the ribs. This allows the hull to conform to the waters much better, but is not suited for warships at all. Indeed, the Norse idea of a sea battle was to link a bunch of longboats together and lay boards across them so they could have a land battle.

Thge longships stayed with the Baltic navies well into the medieval period as amphibeous strikeforces and scouting vessels. It was only when the need arose to transport heavy cavalry arose that they became obsolete as warships.

Warships they were not (calling troop transports warships is a bit of a stretch). The last time longboats were used in battle was in 1429, IIRC, when the entire leidang fleet of 100 longboats came out of Bergen to engage seven cogs. The seven cogs simply sailed through them unscathed, and they sacked Bergen. This showed once and for all that they were indeed obsolete as warships.

[Wagnijo]

One important reason was the clinker building technique used for lonboats. Knarrs did have aftercastles of sorts, but did not cut through the waters as sleek as longboats. Castles also mean a change in the centre of gravity, as well as less space for rowers. Because of the clinker construction there are also limits as to how much crap you can place on the hull as well, as these boats are meant to be flexible in the water. Caravel built ships, on the other hand, are stiff constructions, which means it can support large structures. A good way to explain the difference between the two structure types' behaviour in the water is to explain the way they are constructed: caravel built ships are made with the keel first, then the ribs secured to the keel, and then the skin on top of that. Clinker built ships, however, are made with the keel first, then the skin, and then the ribs. This allows the hull to conform to the waters much better, but is not suited for warships at all. Indeed, the Norse idea of a sea battle was to link a bunch of longboats together and lay boards across them so they could have a land battle.

Err!? The cogs were clinkers as well :-)

The habit of linking the boats together is simply a defensive tactic, having your crews defend less
gunwhale if youy are outnumbered.

If both navies linked up their ships there would hardly be a battle at all, unless by chance.

The last time longboats were used in battle was in 1429, IIRC, when the entire leidang fleet of 100 longboats came out of Bergen to engage seven cogs. The seven cogs simply sailed through them unscathed, and they sacked Bergen.

Afaair the last action by a longship squadron was a swedish leidang which was blown out of the
water by cannon!!!

But I cant remember the reference right now.

Warships they were not (calling troop transports warships is a bit of a stretch). The last time longboats were used in battle was in 1429, IIRC, when the entire leidang fleet of 100 longboats came out of Bergen to engage seven cogs. The seven cogs simply sailed through them unscathed, and they sacked Bergen. This showed once and for all that they were indeed obsolete as warships.

They had been obsolete as fighting ships for a long time if you used them alone.

Mixed with cogs they could still scout and hunt down enemy ships holding contact until
the cogs arrived.

This was used very much when hunting pirates.

[bushbush]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvus_%28weapon%29

this worked wonders for the romans apparently.

[Yuiis]

In the early medieval period, and specifically in the Crown of Aragon I recall reading that the tactics were mainly approaching enemy vessels, firing them to hell with ballistas, and then fighting on board. They also used tactics like ramming into enemy ships to destry them.

I just read some more . It seems like a fairly used tactic by Roger de Lluria, a very famous and brilliant naval commander, was to first retreat with his galleys in order to make the enemy rush for him in a disorganized manner. He would then suddenly stop and reorganize, and then attack the sides of the incoming enemy galleys (the most vulnerable) with ballistas or archers.

[Tiberius Tosi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvus_%28weapon%29

this worked wonders for the romans apparently.

Worked amazingly until a storm came and the Corvus made all the ships front heavy and capsize, killing 200,000 sailors and marines. Was never used again .

[bushbush]

Worked amazingly until a storm came and the Corvus made all the ships front heavy and capsize, killing 200,000 sailors and marines. Was never used again .

lol...karma...what can i say.

[The Despondent Mind]

Which are the Greatest Naval battles in Medieval ? I really can't remember any?

[hindov]

Which are the Greatest Naval battles in Medieval ? I really can't remember any?

Some exemples:
- battle of Meloria (1284): Genoa destroyed the maritime power of Pisa.
- battle of Lajazzo (1294): Genoese victory against the Venetians
- battle of Curzola (1299): Genoese victory against the Venetians
- battle of Sluys (1340) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_sluys
- battle of Bosphorus (1352): Genoese tactical victory against an allied fleet of Venetian and Aragonese ships.
- battle of Gallipoli (1416): Venetian victory against the Ottomas; for many Venetians battles and for Venetian naval strategy http://www.deremilitari.org/resource...es/dotson1.htm

An almost complete list of naval battles at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Medieval naval warfare was used with medieval artillery... Ballistas, Catapults even, even rotating Catapults! Ramming wasnt really used... since the age of Sails brought it to a halt

[Yuiis]

Here go some naval battles of the crown of aragon . We catalans dominated the western mediterranean for many decades!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Orlando

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Counts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Les_Formigues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ponza_(1300)

[jo the greek]

Ramming need exspierenced sailor and rowers

[Carpathian Wolf]

Genoese were some kind of badasses on the waters huh

[Atterdag]

Basically all of the Repubbliche Marinare held quite some power over the waters of the medieval Mediterranean world. Before the Venetian/Genoese rivalry, Genoa was locked in competition with Pisa who in turn had sacked Amalfi (the last of the major four maritime Italian republics) and "crusaded" to the Balearic Isles, Sardinia, Sicily, Tunis and of course the Levant.

[Delta228]

[Tiberius Tosi]

^^ Except back then they didn't fight in bathtubs.