Название:
Автор:
Жанр:
Серия:
Издательство:
but with the costume and construction of a later date. It shows, however, very plainly, the projecting opera-morta and the arrangement of the oars in fours, issuing through row-ports in high bulwarks. [Illustration: Part of a Sea Fight, after Dom. Tintoretto] [Sidenote: Fighting Arrangements.] 28. Midships in the mediaeval galley a castle was erected, of the width of the ship, and some 20 feet in length; its platform being elevated sufficiently to allow of free passage under it and over the benches. At the bow was the battery, consisting of mangonels (see vol. ii. p. 161 seqq.) and great crossbows with winding gear,[16] whilst there were shot-ports[17] for smaller crossbows along the gunnels in the intervals between the benches. Some of the larger galleys had openings to admit horses at the stern, which were closed and caulked for the voyage, being under water when the vessel was at sea.[18] It seems to have been a very usual piece of tactics, in attacking as well as in awaiting attack, to connect a large number of galleys by hawsers, and sometimes also to link the oars together, so as to render it difficult for the enemy to break the line or run aboard. We find this practised by the Genoese on the defensive at the battle of Ayas (infra, p. 43), and it is constantly resorted to by the Catalans in the battles described by Ramon de Muntaner.[19] Sanudo says the toil of rowing in the galleys was excessive, almost unendurable. Yet it seems to have been performed by freely-enlisted men, and therefore it was probably less severe than that of the great-oared galleys of more recent times, which it was found impracticable to work by free enlistment, or otherwise than by slaves under the most cruel driving.[20] I am not well enough read to say that war-galleys were never rowed by slaves in the Middle Ages, but the only doubtful allusion to such a class that I have met with is in one passage of Muntaner, where he says, describing the Neapolitan and Catalan fleets drawing together for action, that the gangs of the galleys had to toil like "forcats" (p. 313). Indeed, as regards Venice at least, convict rowers are stated to have been first introduced in 1549, previous to which the gangs were of galeotti assoldati.[21] [Sidenote: Crew of a Galley and Staff of a Fleet.] 29. We have already mentioned that Sanudo requires for his three-banked galley a ship's company of 250 men. They are distributed as follows:-- Comito or Master 1 Quartermasters 8 Carpenters 2 Caulkers 2 In charge of stores and arms 4 Orderlies 2 Cook 1 Arblasteers 50 Rowers 180 ----- 250 [22] This does not include the Sopracomito, or Gentleman-Commander, who was expected to be valens homo et probus, a soldier and a gentleman, fit to be consulted on occasion by the captain-general. In the Venetian fleet he was generally a noble.[23] 75 The aggregate pay of such a crew, not including the sopracomito, amounted monthly to 60 lire de' grossi, or 600 florins, equivalent to 280_l._ at modern gold value; and the cost for a year to nearly 3160_l._, exclusive of the victualling of the vessel and the pay of the gentleman-commander. The build or purchase of a galley complete is estimated by the same author at 15,000 florins, or 7012_l._ We see that war cost a good deal in money even then. Besides the ship's own complement Sanudo gives an estimate for the general staff of a fleet of 60 galleys. This consists of a captain- general, two (vice) admirals, and the following:-- 6 Probi homines, or gentlemen of character, forming a council to the Captain-General; 4 Commissaries of Stores; 2 Commissaries over the Arms; 3 Physicians; 3 Surgeons; 5 Master Engineers and Carpenters; 15 Master Smiths; 12 Master Fletchers; 5 Cuirass men and Helmet-makers; 15 Oar-makers and Shaft-makers; 10 Stone cutters for stone shot; 10 Master Arblast-makers; 20 Musicians; 20 Orderlies, &c. [Sidenote: Music; and other particulars.] 30. The musicians formed an important part of the equipment. Sanudo says that in going into action every vessel should make the greatest possible display of colours; gonfalons and broad banners should float from stem to stern, and gay pennons all along the bulwarks; whilst it was impossible to have too much of noisy music, of pipes, trumpets, kettledrums, and what not, to put heart into the crew and strike fear into the enemy.[24] So Joinville, in a glorious passage, describes the galley of his kinsman, the Count of Jaffa, at the landing of St. Lewis in Egypt:-- "That galley made the most gallant figure of them all, for it was painted all over, above water and below, with scutcheons of the count's arms, the field of which was or with a cross patee gules.[25] He had a good 300 rowers in his galley, and every man of them had a target blazoned with his arms in beaten gold. And, as they came on, the galley looked to be some flying creature, with such spirit did the rowers spin it along;--or rather, with the rustle of its flags, and the roar of its nacaires and drums and Saracen horns, you might have taken it for a rushing bolt of heaven."[26] The galleys, which were very low in the water,[27] could not keep the sea in rough weather, and in winter they never willingly kept the sea at night, however fair the weather might be. Yet Sanudo mentions that he had been with armed galleys to Sluys in Flanders. I will mention two more particulars before concluding this digression. When captured galleys were towed into port it was stern foremost, and with their colours dragging on the surface of the sea.[28] And the custom of saluting at sunset (probably by music) was in vogue on board the galleys of the 13th century.[29] We shall now sketch the circumstances that led to the appearance of our Traveller in the command of a war-galley. [1] I regret not to have had access to Jal's learned memoirs (Archeologie Navale, Paris, 1839) whilst writing this section, nor since, except for a hasty look at his Essay on the difficult subject of the oar arrangements. I see that he rejects so great a number of oars as I deduce from the statements of Sanudo and others, and that he regards a large number of the rowers as supplementary. [2] It seems the more desirable to elucidate this, because writers on mediaeval subjects so accomplished as Buchon and Capmany have (it would seem) entirely misconceived the matter, assuming that all the men on one bench pulled at one oar. [3] See Coronelli, Atlante Veneto, I. 139, 140. Marino Sanudo the Elder, 76 though not using the term trireme, says it was well understood from ancient authors that the Romans employed their rowers three to a bench (p. 59). [4] "Ad terzarolos" (Secreta Fidelium Crucis, p. 57). The Catalan Worthy, Ramon de Muntaner, indeed constantly denounces the practice of manning all the galleys with terzaruoli, or tersols, as his term is. But his reason is that these thirds-men were taken from the oar when crossbowmen were wanted, to act in that capacity, and as such they were good for nothing; the crossbowmen, he insists, should be men specially enlisted for that service and kept to that. He would have some 10 or 20 per cent, only of the fleet built very light and manned in threes. He does not seem to have contemplated oars three-banked, and crossbowmen besides, as Sanudo does. (See below; and Muntaner, pp. 288, 323, 525, etc.) In Sanudo we have a glimpse worth noting of the word soldiers advancing towards the modern sense; he expresses a strong preference for soldati (viz. paid soldiers) over crusaders (viz. volunteers), p. 74. [5] L'Armata Navale, Roma, 1616, pp. 150-151. [6] See a work to which I am indebted for a good deal of light and information, the Engineer Giovanni Casoni's Essay: "Dei Navigli Poliremi usati nella Marina dagli Antichi Veneziani," in "Esercitazioni dell' Ateneo Veneto," vol. ii. p. 338. This great Quinquereme, as it was styled, is stated to have been struck by a fire-arrow, and blown up, in January 1570. [7] Pantera, p. 22. [8] Lazarus Bayfius de Re Navali Veterum, in Gronovii Thesaurus, Ven. 1737, vol. xi. p. 581. This writer also speaks of the Quinque- reme mentioned above (p. 577). [9] Marinus Sanutius, p. 65. [10] See the woodcuts opposite and at p. 37; also Pantera, p. 46 (who is here, however, speaking of the great-oared galleys), and Coronelli, i. 140. [11] Casoni, p. 324. He obtains these particulars from a manuscript work of the 16th century by Cristoforo Canale. [12] Signor Casoni (p. 324) expresses his belief that no galley of the 14th century had more than 100 oars. I differ from him with hesitation, and still more as I find M. Jal agrees in this view. I will state the grounds on which I came to a different conclusion. (1) Marino Sanudo assigns 180 rowers for a galley equipped ai Terzaruoli (p. 75). This seemed to imply something near 180 oars, for I do not find any allusion to reliefs being provided. In the French galleys of the 18th century there were no reliefs except in this way, that in long runs without urgency only half the oars were pulled. (See Mem. d'un Protestant condamne aux Galeres, etc., Reimprimes, Paris, 1865, p. 447.) If four men to a bench were to be employed, then Sanudo seems to calculate for his smaller galleys 220 men actually rowing (see pp. 75-78). This seems to assume 55 benches, i.e., 28 on one side and 27 on the other, which with 3-banked oars would give 165 rowers. (2) Casoni himself refers to Pietro Martire d'Anghieria's account of a Great Galley of Venice in which he was sent ambassador to Egypt from the Spanish Court in 1503. The crew amounted to 200, of whom 150 were for working the sails and oars, that being the number of oars in each galley, one man to each oar and three to each bench. Casoni assumes that this vessel must have been much larger than the galleys of the 14th century; but, however that may have been, Sanudo to his galley assigns the larger crew of 250, of whom almost exactly the same proportion (180)
