The galley was used very succesfully by the danish navy as late as the Napoleonic wars. The trick is not just about the wind, but the galleys ability to sail at very shallow waters. They can hide at the coast, and dart out to attack becalmed sailing ships from any angles they want. They (The Danish galleys) were armed with a single very heavy cannon, designed to shoot at the sailing ships vulnerable aft, and were very very good at it. But they are dependent on a close by base to operate from, and dont handle rough weather well. There were also hybrids of galleys and sailing ships, in all sizes and forms.
+Anders Hoegild They wheren't just used in Danish waters, but also in Norwegian waters. Norway has a *lot* of skerries (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skerry) so depending on the wind conditions the sailing ships could be at a severe dissadvantage when sailing among those as they don't have the freedom of movement to fully take advantage of the wind. The gun boats (galleys) could therefore use that to their advantage to force the sailing ships into a dissadvantagous position for instance. The gun boats could also more easily take advantage of the cover that the various islands provided to hide and ambush sailing ships.
It matters a lot, if you are fighting a fleet of oceangoing vessels during wintertime. Galleys can`t chase or even fight a frigate in fair weather , so it needs a secure (ie guarded) port to flee to, if the weather changes.
+Anders Hoegild Yeah, a port was essential. However they *could* fight a frigate when there was wind, just not in open water. They needed terrain to make use of to level the playingfield. For instance when tacking in a sailing ship there's a limit to how high up against the wind you can go while someone rowing can go straight up against the wind. If you're able to force a sailing ship to make manuvers that make them lose some of their "altitude" (in the lack of a better word) or lose "ground" against the wind you can get them down to a location where they don't have enough room to efficiently tack up against the wind and they might run ashore or be forced to drop anchor to avoid doing so. Once it's stationary it's a relatively easy target for the gun boats as they can choose the time and place of engagement potentially manuvering themselves in from a direction the frigate can't fire at.
On the Bronze guns vs Iron Guns: Bronze is easier to cast (lower melting point means it remains fluid for longer), so there was less likelyhood of air bubbles creating weak points that would let the gun explode. Also bronze if stressed by forces like an exploding barrel stretches rather than bursts. That's why they could be made lighter. The better precision in the casting process also meant they were more accurtate. I'd be interested in why they were more expensive though. As far as I understand most of the price of metals in the time was the energy (and thus manhours) that had to be spent extracting and purifying them. Since iron is much much much harder to extract and to melt my first instinct would be that it was more expensive. Why isn't that the case? Is it just the availability of copper and tin?
Anyone else love the scenes in the tv-series "Black Sails" where the pirates (primarily using repurposed merchant vessels) try to take on the Spanish Urca De Lima (a proper man o' war)? I'm particularly fond of that scene because it really shows off the differences in combat capabilities between repurposed merchant ships and a purposebuilt navy ship. That broadside barrage from the Urca is downright scary!
I've searched it and seen it. It's awesome, though it's not from the period but rather from the late XVII/early XVIII century. As well as the difference between repurposed merchant ships, there is the fact that it's a Spanish warship, which means it would be particularly well built since Spain couldn't match Britain in number of ships they went into powerful and sturdy warships. The Spanish naval crews were, together with the British crews, the best trained and most experienced (we can't tell for both countries at the time, depends of the unit and period)
Podemos URSS I'd say the dutch crew's where some of the best 1610 until at least 1660. Yet the dutch never had the best or most purpuse build warships. The ones we had where crewed with the best sailors. Under michiel the ruyter the first marine corps in the world captured and burned large parts of the british warfleet in a fortified harbor deep inside england once. As well as capturing a Spannish silver fleet on its way back from America. A glorious time for many european nations if you ignore the slavery and horrors of plagues.
@@JasperKlijndijk Well, certainly your seamen were good, though they were both merchants and military at the time. Though the first marine corps ever is the Spanish Tercio de Armada, created during the military reform of Charles I (early XV century), designed to both fight on warships during boarding actions and sparhead landing operations like the ones made on Tunis. They also were key to winning the battle of Lepanto.
I saw, but naval combat there was almost as dumb as in Age of Empires...just with more ships. Especially sea land combat was just ridiculous. xD Edit: Also I think there were no medieval ships in Cossacks, right?
Galley warfare in Rome 2 is...alright with the DeI Mod. I play it quite regularly on stream. In Attila I never got to the point were I could have fielded ships, I just noticed. oO
Can't help a bit of self-promotion here. I wrote quite a lot of the Wikipedia articles on galleys. They're quite well referenced too. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley_tactics I also wrote articles on some interesting hybrid oared/sailing vessels that were used by the Swedish archipelago fleet: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turuma en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemmema en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pojama en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udema
Oh, and the Swedish archipelago fleet also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archipelago_fleet Main rival of the Russian Baltic fleet in the late 18th century. If you're interested in looking into the wars in the Russo-Swedish conflicts in the Baltic, the sources used in the article on the archipelago fleet are really good. Mostly in Swedish, but Jan Glete wrote quite a lot in English. Btw, if you want to get a good overview of European navy composition in the early modern period, Glete's 2-volume "Navies and Nations" is SUPER-useful. It's an incredibly good synthesis of numerous sources and has some excellent comparative figures for virtually all early modern navies.
also sailing ships had guns farwarfiring, but they had to be placed very high and in the castles, so they were only good for longer ranges and fighting other roundships. Caracks had guns pointing in any direction.
galleys were dominant ship in the mediterraneum in northern europe ship combat evolved into more larger vessels because of the more rough north sea, then the large ships came more south , where they encountered the moremediterraneum galleys which lead to even higher ships with higher castles to be mroe defensible
In Italy the wage of an oarsman by 1510 was one ducat whereas by 1570 it was 10 ducats which attributed the transition of galleys to laternas or galeas grosse which was the transition from alla sensile to alla stocaccio.
Will you cover ship building on this channel or your main one? I always wondered how the curves in the ship's hull was made and how the entire ship was waterproofed.
The best ships timbers were taken from trees that had the same curvature as the required part of the hull. Obviously this was not always possible, so later they moved towards steam bending of timbers and other methods to build out the curves. As an indication of how important the timber was, good quality ship timber was the reason Canada was so valuable to Britain, with its vast forests and slow growing connifers it was literally a heaven for ship builders of the period. As for water proofing, partially this would be maintained through the natural swelling of the wood in contact with water, sounds counter intuitive but its pretty much the case. For larger seams they would caulk them with either tar, or with a heavy cloth impregnated or covered in tar. No matter what they did though those old wooden ships still leaked, so you generally had a few guys permanently down below manning the bilge pumps to pump out excess water.
On galleys in the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean; galleys were used extensively until the Boroque Period. The English used the galleass sparingly, but the Dutch had many galleys armed with swivel guns to combat the Spanish especially to patrol the estuaries of the Low Countries. Before that, longboats were used well into the 13th century and galleys were used by the French Navy in the English channel coming from their shipyard Clos des Galees or by Genoese mercenaries.
Hey there, Military History not Visualized. I came here from your main channel (obviously) and I feel educated and entertained by your main content (though not so much because of the visualization), but not so much by your talks over here (though not so much because of the lack of visualization). I didn't really know why until it hit me today: The lack of focus and the breaking of promises. Yes! You promised us a video about Naval Warfare from 1330 to 1680 and certainly those 13 minuted were not enough for that. The only thing I took away from this was the coexistence of ore and sail ships, which is an interesting point in and of itself. If you had intentionally and exclusively focused and expanded on this, it would certainly have become a great video. Sorry for complaining, I'm very German in this regard.
I just don't understand one issue. Galleys are too low for a ship and it rowers benches take up whole deck. Where do armed marines stand or sleep? Where they store the cargo?
Love your channel and this video seems to be a bit scattered. Have you thought about breaking it into several parts by century? Seems to jump back and forth between oars and broadsides.
Oar ships are smaller, harder to hot and good for manuvrabilty but need alot more labor so nore logistics and sometimes slower, plus men get tired, Because of there smaller size bording is near impossible and defeing bordings is very hard, Then talk of 15th century gunpowder is common, swivil guns for anti personal, heavy guns 13-24kg shots, Galley ship (row boats) had there guns on the front making asults and manuvets and firing esayer,(side fire must acount for your and enemy movement, this is less of sn issue forward) sail ships have more guns on sides and more layers but still limited and hard to aim (on both ships) 16th centry cast iron is heavyer then brons but cheaper (alowing for more guns so brodsides) and alows for heavery ships Then as well as crusers and "destroyers" theres now frigets (fast and powerful) converting merchand ships is no longer viable, Now before it was classical raming tactics and head to head fights but 16th century lead to dual lines broadside firing
i would argue the problem with early roundships around 15 to 17 hundred was mainly the fire rate, because of the mettallurgy of time and the actual process of production by the gunmaker, the reliability espacialy with high fire rates was pure. even if the teams could fire the gun faster they would risk exploding it , which was a real danger, the swift galleys in this time would close in and ram etc while the roundship would have to wait for the guns to cool down. also the system of relatively water tight flaps for the gun ports was i think only developed in the french britsh war during henry VIII era, so most roundships would lack those which means the the guns would have to sit higher. with the closable gunports larger guns could be placedmore below which would also sink the center of mass and so would allow for also larger guns on the decks above but not as big as the lowest battery. over time the decks of european war ships became too high and the guns at the same time to low and to fast so galleys lost the ability to close in because they were shot to shreds before , the change from karacke to galleon also meant faster and more maneuvrable roundships which well were not even roundships anymore as the flat heck reduced cost in more tropical and hotter climates as southamerica and the mediterranean sea
Well, for the galleys of the XVI century we have this: "Las galeras emplazan su artillería principal a proa para hacer fuego en caza, montadas las piezas sin más posibilidad de orientación que el rumbo de la nave en cada momento, y con puntería en elevación fija preparada para hacer fuego a una determinada distancia. El número de piezas suele ser de 3, 4 ó 5, combinando las tipo culebrina, de gran alcance (2000m), con las de tipo cañón (1500m) y los de tipo pedrero, de menor precisión que las culebrinas y los cañones y también de menor alcance (600m) pero de efectos más dispersos" (Táctica Naval del siglo XVI, Ricardo Cerezo Martínez, Revista de Historia Naval nº2 [1983]) "Galleys have their main artillery placed on the front to give "hunting fire" (fire on advance), positioned without any chance of orientation other than the course followed by the ship on any time, and with a fixed elevation prepared to open fire at a certain distance. The number of guns is often 3, 4 or 5, mixing culebrins, of great range (2000m), with cannons (1500m) and pedreroes, of lesser precision than either culebrins or cannons, and also of lesser range (600m) but with more disperse effects" Basically, the cannons were used when advancing on the enemy as a way to attrition the enemy warships, damaging them at a distance before a main decisive engagement at close quarters which is centered around boarding parties and ramming enemy ships.
+MUH Geschichte First of all, look up the difference between "pure" and "poor". Secondly, the galleys wheren't ever really outdated. Denmark-Norway still used them up to 1814 as you can see in my links elsewhere on this page.
dude we do not use galleys anymore... oh and using outdated equipemnt is impossible? do you receive a message if you tryy to use outdated ships sying you can't do tha tanymore? there are outdated ships even outdated tanks and artillery used in in the middleeast in this very moment, there is ww1 gear mounted in trucks being fired at people armed with outdated ak47 guns..... they were outdated , when larger ships could fire lfast enough flat enough and had so much crew and high decks a galley could just not make a difference, in some theatres this would not matter so much, but agains the major sea powers... imagining a galley etemptin to ram an ironclad.... OUTDATED btw arquebuses were also still used after meskets were introduced.,probably because of costs and other propperties, yey they were outdated but still somewhat useful
+MUH Geschichte No, they wheren't outdated. They just like non-nuclear submarines today have their use. Sure they're useless for external power projection. But for defence of your own shores they're actually superior to the sailing ships in many ways. You can row up against the wind. You can row when there's no wind. Both giving you advantages when fighting among islands and skerries. You can row with a gun facing forwards while sailing ships need that spot for their sails to be efficient. You can make smaller ships that's still capable of fielding large guns since the gun can be placed alongside the length of the ship facing forwards. They're cheaper. They can operate in wathers with less depth then sailing ships capable of combat. Some of them are small enough that you *can* lift them over land if you need to for strategic or tactical reasons. And they're a smaller target. They had their own developments to keep them competitive vs sailing ships so the oar powered ships of the 1800s where *not* the same as the ones in previous centuries. Do they have drawbacks? Yes, of course they do. Are there situations where they're at a severe dissadvantage? Yes, of course there are. But likewise there's situations where they're at a significant advantage. And the Danish-Norwegian fleet made use of many of those advantages.
yeah because non nuclear submarines fill another role because nuclear submarines for a large part are nuclear deterents as they do not only house torpedos but nuclear rockets and are part of the mutualy ensured nuclear destruction thing. modern uboats that are non nuclear are also concentrated more on stealth, and have modern engines etc ww2 style uboots are completely outdated. damn, if galleys had undergone heavy changes to adept to not become outdated yes they wouldn't have been but the fact that they only were decisive for peripohery tells me they were outdated. like pre dreadnaught battleships were all outtdated after the building of the first dreadnaught but still had use against other ships if they weren't dreadnaught... i still can kill someone with a muzzleloader, does not change that they are outdated
At 2:30 you quote Tallet & Trim (as editors, anyway) as saying a quinquereme has "five men and five oars to each bench". I found that hard to picture, so I looked it up: There were five men all right, but in three decks, each with an oar per side, with rowers per oar in a 2+2+1 pattern.
Good interpretation of late medieval, early gunpowder age naval warfare. Yet the English naval expression for parts of the ship were not pronounced properly. The forepart (raised decking) is called the "fo'c'sle" (forecastle).
Fock-sleigh? Whats that, Boat-swine? Its not the same as poo-poo-deck? Dont get angry there handsomely and hit me with your yard-long-arms, im stupid as a lob lolly boy straight from the bumboat.
4:48 Norway had 51 boats in 1814 armed with cannons and powered by oars. Usually a 24 pound cannon although some also used one or more howitzer or even a mortar. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_War en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alv%C3%B8en
I see your point, as I had the same impression about Portuguese and Chinese. But I know why: this video is more about the equipment (vessels, in a wide and no-pragramatic manner) then its operators. Cheers, mate!
+Laertes L There was a *ton* of nations that he *could* have featured in the video as that period was a great time for several nations. I don't think he really had any particular reason to mention Spain in particular. I do wish he'd mentioned the Danish-Norwegian fleets use of oar powered boats armed with cannons though as we had them in use as late as 1814, not just in the Baltic but of the coast of Norway and Denmark. (Norway had over 50 of them in 1814) I wouldn't have expected any details, but it would have been nice if he'd said "Russia *and* Denmark-Norway)" instead of just "Russia" when mentioning late use of oar powered ships. Honestly Norway is pretty much perfect for a case study of the strengths and weaknesses of oar powered ships. The Hanseatic League defeated us in a major naval engagement outside of Bergen in 1429 because we where essentially still using the viking ships with oars and sails that just wheren't tall enough to effectivly engage the ships of the Hanseatic League, that put a end to our use of leidang as the basis of our naval power. And after the Brits stole our fleet after the second battle of Caupenhagen in 1807 we had to rebuild our fleet in a hurry and small oar powered boats where just quicker and cheaper to build and as it turned out they where also quite effective in our waters leading to extensive use of them of the coast of both Denmark and Norway. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_War They where actually quite effective still at that point with several British ships being defeated by them.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Good joke ... Honestly I think is fine if you want yo approach the subject in this way, but if you are not specific about how many installments these series have some people may "whatabout"... and with some reasoning. From a historical importance POW there is no comparison between the báltic-northern European theater to the importance of the centuries long Aragonese-Spanish campaign in the Mediterránean against the Berber states and the Ottomans. We are talking about pivotal history chokepoints. Maybe the problem lay on the sources. But knowing you a bit I guess you may devote an entire chapter to the Mediterránean theater later 😉 The fall of Constantinople and Lepanto are not lesser episodes or naval battles, like the siege of Wien, they deeply define European identity and world history to a far greater extent than the Báltic or the Netherlands (sorry guys, no offense or belittling intended), so the eyebrow rising may have some ground. I cant wait for Next chapter. Thanks for your dedication ...
I second the accent comment buried in here, the "d" and "g" and "t" sounds are a little rough at points. Definitely can tell you're making serious effort to pronounce it properly though.
+TheAdamk12 Heh, when I meet native speakers that talk about "speaking correctly" I intentionally try to enhance my accent. English doesn't belong to native speakers anymore and given that he's easily understandable I really don't think anyone has any right to complain about him having an accent that quite frankly is much milder then what many dialects of both American and British English actually have naturally.
@@Luredreier like hell. A language will Always belong to its native culture. If I want to learn good Japanese I don't want to learn some butchered version learned by some white nerd from the USA who speaks his "own" version with his manga pals. Get real
I Love your content! But in this Video I feel like you had more (and too many) Hard cuts which make the Video Hard to follow at Times... and also I feel like this was more a Video about the 17. Century and Not the Wohle Period which is listed in the Titel... Still: keep up your awesome work and kisses ☺️😘
canons only became a thing in the 30 years war era, you mean guns, in german those had a large variety of names, such as stück, geschütz, etc, but canon is a type of gun whith a very long tube, compared to caliber.
Same in Britain, guns had all sorts of names prior to around the 30 years war when they were generally codified by weight of shot. The worst thing about it is a culverin in Britain and France may well refer to two completely different type of gun, despite sharing the same name, and even in the same country an early culverin may well be very different to a late culverin.
A German scholar catching up on maritime history? What a surprise............ I would like to see MHV cover the battle of Lepanto. Also, I have read that the real reason the Spanish Armada failed was that the Commander of the land army refused to try and board the Armada's ships. Why was this? Because to do this he had to put his troops on barges to move them out into deeper waters. Dutch waters are often shallow, and the Dutch had a lot of galleys with cannons that could operate in the shallow waters. Cannons and troops on barges are not the happiest combination for the troops, though the galleys might be very happy.
SAILING SHIP: "Don't do it Galley. I have the high ground." GALLEY SHIP: "You underestimate my power!" [FAIL.] GALLEY SHIP: "AH! My limbs! I was going to use those later!"
Bronze lighter than iron? Not sure about that. Copper - the main element of bronze, which is an alloy, is heavier than iron. Different sorts of bronze weights somewhere between 7,4-8,9 tonnes per m³, depending on it's composition, while the density of cast iron is 7,85t/m³. So, bronze _might_ be lighter than iron, but not necessarily, it can also by much,. much heavier.
That nose under water do you mean a ram? THAT is that ships main wapon!!!!!!!!! not the gun. It wasen't untill the venetians used their secret wapon in the battle of Lepanto( gallase a inbetween of the galley and the galleon. But it had guns loads of guns). That canons became more importent than ram's as a ships main wapon. i Think you miss that whole point in your video. I also think you should have made it more clear witch sees you are talking about ? galleys where supirior in the meditaranian up untill Lepanto. In the atlantic and in the northsee. Galleys where not importent at all they where way to vulnable to bad wether. sorry to say that. But have a nice day. and i will look forward to your usuall good videos.
@Military Historian your content is full of information every history fan is eager to know... but then it gets boring because of the way you speak... don't get me wrong...your content is something that I always crave ... But if you can hire someone who speaks better then you...the channel can surely increase your subscribers .. . And make it more entertaining man without loosing your soul ( I mean the kind of information you put in this videos)
Ho-hum, another VOIP shill. All that Internet stuff goes away when the power goes out, which happens during Pacific Hurricane season. A VOIP geek will be voice less, but I will still have my landline active. Put that in your Bong and stuff it. (Dang YT commercial interrupted "Death on the High Seas.") Weren't Cast Iron guns able to take a larger gunpowder charge and a heavier cannon ball, giving you more range/destructive capability? (See: Japanese bronze cannon in the 1850's vs. Iron/Steel cannon.)
Yes, but for the most part those cannons were unable to sink a ship, just caused damage (though the cumulative damage was important). As the Spanish naval historian Captain Ricardo Cerezo Martínez noted, "Estos elementos arrojadizos [disparos de cañón] cumplen una función de desgaste anterior al choque decisivo de las armas manipuladas; aunque ese desgaste, circunstancialmente, pueda ser resolutivo" or, in English, "Those missiles (gunfire) take a role of attrition previous to the decisive engagement between melee weapons; though this attrition can, eventually, be resolutive" La táctica naval en el siglo XVI (Naval tactics during the XVI century), article published in the Revista de Historia Naval (Naval History Magazine), issue nº2 (1983).
Why not show some pictures? I preferred your previous vids; the current format is far less informative, less entertaining and visually less pleasing then your earlier material...
If you wore a captain's hat you could easily pass for one
earrings would be also appreciated in these kinds of videos...
Let's look at his physical characteristics. Skinny, strange accent, big bushy beard. Yup definitely pirate.
Depends on the era
Ya know what, all naval captain's hat during all era
Pirate Uboat commander
I swear I saw him in u-boat crew photos.
The galley was used very succesfully by the danish navy as late as the Napoleonic wars. The trick is not just about the wind, but the galleys ability to sail at very shallow waters. They can hide at the coast, and dart out to attack becalmed sailing ships from any angles they want. They (The Danish galleys) were armed with a single very heavy cannon, designed to shoot at the sailing ships vulnerable aft, and were very very good at it. But they are dependent on a close by base to operate from, and dont handle rough weather well. There were also hybrids of galleys and sailing ships, in all sizes and forms.
Does the fact that they needed bases matter since Denmark has hundreds of islands packed into a tiny space, along with Jutland itself?
+Anders Hoegild
They wheren't just used in Danish waters, but also in Norwegian waters.
Norway has a *lot* of skerries (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skerry) so depending on the wind conditions the sailing ships could be at a severe dissadvantage when sailing among those as they don't have the freedom of movement to fully take advantage of the wind.
The gun boats (galleys) could therefore use that to their advantage to force the sailing ships into a dissadvantagous position for instance.
The gun boats could also more easily take advantage of the cover that the various islands provided to hide and ambush sailing ships.
It matters a lot, if you are fighting a fleet of oceangoing vessels during wintertime. Galleys can`t chase or even fight a frigate in fair weather , so it needs a secure (ie guarded) port to flee to, if the weather changes.
+Anders Hoegild
Yeah, a port was essential.
However they *could* fight a frigate when there was wind, just not in open water.
They needed terrain to make use of to level the playingfield.
For instance when tacking in a sailing ship there's a limit to how high up against the wind you can go while someone rowing can go straight up against the wind.
If you're able to force a sailing ship to make manuvers that make them lose some of their "altitude" (in the lack of a better word) or lose "ground" against the wind you can get them down to a location where they don't have enough room to efficiently tack up against the wind and they might run ashore or be forced to drop anchor to avoid doing so.
Once it's stationary it's a relatively easy target for the gun boats as they can choose the time and place of engagement potentially manuvering themselves in from a direction the frigate can't fire at.
Sounds like an early version torpedo boat
09:39 "Cheaper guns, more guns"
Americans: [heavy breathing]
Lmao
"If the gun ports were too low, this could lead to the sinking of the ship"
***Swedish screeching***
Omg thank you for this video! I've been wondering about this for ages!
On the Bronze guns vs Iron Guns: Bronze is easier to cast (lower melting point means it remains fluid for longer), so there was less likelyhood of air bubbles creating weak points that would let the gun explode. Also bronze if stressed by forces like an exploding barrel stretches rather than bursts. That's why they could be made lighter. The better precision in the casting process also meant they were more accurtate.
I'd be interested in why they were more expensive though. As far as I understand most of the price of metals in the time was the energy (and thus manhours) that had to be spent extracting and purifying them. Since iron is much much much harder to extract and to melt my first instinct would be that it was more expensive. Why isn't that the case? Is it just the availability of copper and tin?
@CipiRipi00 love how you sum that up. Man i wished my history teachers say it like that
@CipiRipi00 pretty much
Anyone else love the scenes in the tv-series "Black Sails" where the pirates (primarily using repurposed merchant vessels) try to take on the Spanish Urca De Lima (a proper man o' war)?
I'm particularly fond of that scene because it really shows off the differences in combat capabilities between repurposed merchant ships and a purposebuilt navy ship.
That broadside barrage from the Urca is downright scary!
Seven Proxies i greatly reccomend Master and Commander if you are into this sorta stuff. Absolutely amazing vid
Master & Commander is certainly the best naval warfare movie for the Napoleonic Wars timeframe.
I've searched it and seen it. It's awesome, though it's not from the period but rather from the late XVII/early XVIII century.
As well as the difference between repurposed merchant ships, there is the fact that it's a Spanish warship, which means it would be particularly well built since Spain couldn't match Britain in number of ships they went into powerful and sturdy warships. The Spanish naval crews were, together with the British crews, the best trained and most experienced (we can't tell for both countries at the time, depends of the unit and period)
Podemos URSS I'd say the dutch crew's where some of the best 1610 until at least 1660. Yet the dutch never had the best or most purpuse build warships. The ones we had where crewed with the best sailors. Under michiel the ruyter the first marine corps in the world captured and burned large parts of the british warfleet in a fortified harbor deep inside england once. As well as capturing a Spannish silver fleet on its way back from America. A glorious time for many european nations if you ignore the slavery and horrors of plagues.
@@JasperKlijndijk Well, certainly your seamen were good, though they were both merchants and military at the time.
Though the first marine corps ever is the Spanish Tercio de Armada, created during the military reform of Charles I (early XV century), designed to both fight on warships during boarding actions and sparhead landing operations like the ones made on Tunis. They also were key to winning the battle of Lepanto.
As always, pure gold.
Sadly not a lot of games about this. I mean...I actually can't remember anything besides Age of Empires 2 and early AoE3. Such a shame.
well, the Patrician series. Yet, I think I only saw Cogs there not oared ships, but I might be wrong.
I also only remember Cogs there...you could also mention Europa Universalis, but to be honest the naval combat there is a joke.
I saw, but naval combat there was almost as dumb as in Age of Empires...just with more ships. Especially sea land combat was just ridiculous. xD
Edit: Also I think there were no medieval ships in Cossacks, right?
Total War: Rome 2 and Total War: Attila has quite a lot of galley warfare. The quality is... uhm... varied, though.
Galley warfare in Rome 2 is...alright with the DeI Mod. I play it quite regularly on stream. In Attila I never got to the point were I could have fielded ships, I just noticed. oO
Great video fam
Can't help a bit of self-promotion here. I wrote quite a lot of the Wikipedia articles on galleys. They're quite well referenced too.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley_tactics
I also wrote articles on some interesting hybrid oared/sailing vessels that were used by the Swedish archipelago fleet:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turuma
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemmema
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pojama
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udema
Oh, and the Swedish archipelago fleet also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archipelago_fleet
Main rival of the Russian Baltic fleet in the late 18th century.
If you're interested in looking into the wars in the Russo-Swedish conflicts in the Baltic, the sources used in the article on the archipelago fleet are really good. Mostly in Swedish, but Jan Glete wrote quite a lot in English.
Btw, if you want to get a good overview of European navy composition in the early modern period, Glete's 2-volume "Navies and Nations" is SUPER-useful. It's an incredibly good synthesis of numerous sources and has some excellent comparative figures for virtually all early modern navies.
also sailing ships had guns farwarfiring,
but they had to be placed very high and in the castles, so they were only good for longer ranges and fighting other roundships.
Caracks had guns pointing in any direction.
Awesome as always
Another fantastic video! Thank you!
MEIN FAVOURITE ADULT CHANNEL
Please don't take it as offense, but this was actually funny. 3:37 "there was a harder to maneuvre"
galleys were dominant ship in the mediterraneum in northern europe ship combat evolved into more larger vessels because of the more rough north sea, then the large ships came more south , where they encountered the moremediterraneum galleys which lead to even higher ships with higher castles to be mroe defensible
Could you do a series on medieval italian warfare?
That would be awesome
Spaghetti whips and focaccia shields
@@NathanDudani racist
@@NathanDudani Cosa intendi? Ci si insultando?
In Italy the wage of an oarsman by 1510 was one ducat whereas by 1570 it was 10 ducats which attributed the transition of galleys to laternas or galeas grosse which was the transition from alla sensile to alla stocaccio.
Will you cover ship building on this channel or your main one? I always wondered how the curves in the ship's hull was made and how the entire ship was waterproofed.
The best ships timbers were taken from trees that had the same curvature as the required part of the hull. Obviously this was not always possible, so later they moved towards steam bending of timbers and other methods to build out the curves. As an indication of how important the timber was, good quality ship timber was the reason Canada was so valuable to Britain, with its vast forests and slow growing connifers it was literally a heaven for ship builders of the period.
As for water proofing, partially this would be maintained through the natural swelling of the wood in contact with water, sounds counter intuitive but its pretty much the case. For larger seams they would caulk them with either tar, or with a heavy cloth impregnated or covered in tar. No matter what they did though those old wooden ships still leaked, so you generally had a few guys permanently down below manning the bilge pumps to pump out excess water.
Military History SPONTANEOUSLY Visualised!
On galleys in the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean; galleys were used extensively until the Boroque Period. The English used the galleass sparingly, but the Dutch had many galleys armed with swivel guns to combat the Spanish especially to patrol the estuaries of the Low Countries. Before that, longboats were used well into the 13th century and galleys were used by the French Navy in the English channel coming from their shipyard Clos des Galees or by Genoese mercenaries.
Hey there, Military History not Visualized. I came here from your main channel (obviously) and I feel educated and entertained by your main content (though not so much because of the visualization), but not so much by your talks over here (though not so much because of the lack of visualization). I didn't really know why until it hit me today: The lack of focus and the breaking of promises. Yes! You promised us a video about Naval Warfare from 1330 to 1680 and certainly those 13 minuted were not enough for that. The only thing I took away from this was the coexistence of ore and sail ships, which is an interesting point in and of itself. If you had intentionally and exclusively focused and expanded on this, it would certainly have become a great video.
Sorry for complaining, I'm very German in this regard.
Yeah, this subject really needs to be a series and not just one video.
Expanding on this topic, if you ever find any books, the history and development of galley warfare in the Mediterranean.
Yeees. As a navy fan I was really hoping for a video from this very informative channel!
Also, R U L E B R I T A N N I A
+Augen
Rule Denmark-Norway! ;-)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_War
Gonna love this.
Military history beardizised!
Sometimes actually quite often numbers and cost are more important then technological prowess and performance.
Quantity has a quality all its own
I just don't understand one issue. Galleys are too low for a ship and it rowers benches take up whole deck. Where do armed marines stand or sleep? Where they store the cargo?
Love your channel and this video seems to be a bit scattered. Have you thought about breaking it into several parts by century? Seems to jump back and forth between oars and broadsides.
Oar ships are smaller, harder to hot and good for manuvrabilty but need alot more labor so nore logistics and sometimes slower, plus men get tired,
Because of there smaller size bording is near impossible and defeing bordings is very hard,
Then talk of 15th century gunpowder is common, swivil guns for anti personal, heavy guns 13-24kg shots,
Galley ship (row boats) had there guns on the front making asults and manuvets and firing esayer,(side fire must acount for your and enemy movement, this is less of sn issue forward) sail ships have more guns on sides and more layers but still limited and hard to aim (on both ships)
16th centry cast iron is heavyer then brons but cheaper (alowing for more guns so brodsides) and alows for heavery ships
Then as well as crusers and "destroyers" theres now frigets (fast and powerful) converting merchand ships is no longer viable,
Now before it was classical raming tactics and head to head fights but 16th century lead to dual lines broadside firing
You should do a video for the galousse.
i would argue the problem with early roundships around 15 to 17 hundred
was mainly the fire rate, because of the mettallurgy of time and the actual process of production by the gunmaker, the reliability espacialy with high fire rates was pure. even if the teams could fire the gun faster they would risk exploding it , which was a real danger,
the swift galleys in this time would close in and ram etc while the roundship would have to wait for the guns to cool down. also the system of relatively water tight flaps for the gun ports was i think only developed in the french britsh war during henry VIII era,
so most roundships would lack those which means the the guns would have to sit higher.
with the closable gunports larger guns could be placedmore below which would also sink the center of mass and so would allow for also larger guns on the decks above but not as big as the lowest battery.
over time the decks of european war ships became too high and the guns at the same time to low and to fast so galleys lost the ability to close in because they were shot to shreds before , the change from karacke to galleon also meant faster and more maneuvrable roundships which well were not even roundships anymore as the flat heck reduced cost in more tropical and hotter climates as southamerica and the mediterranean sea
Well, for the galleys of the XVI century we have this:
"Las galeras emplazan su artillería principal a proa para hacer fuego en caza, montadas las piezas sin más posibilidad de orientación que el rumbo de la nave en cada momento, y con puntería en elevación fija preparada para hacer fuego a una determinada distancia. El número de piezas suele ser de 3, 4 ó 5, combinando las tipo culebrina, de gran alcance (2000m), con las de tipo cañón (1500m) y los de tipo pedrero, de menor precisión que las culebrinas y los cañones y también de menor alcance (600m) pero de efectos más dispersos" (Táctica Naval del siglo XVI, Ricardo Cerezo Martínez, Revista de Historia Naval nº2 [1983])
"Galleys have their main artillery placed on the front to give "hunting fire" (fire on advance), positioned without any chance of orientation other than the course followed by the ship on any time, and with a fixed elevation prepared to open fire at a certain distance. The number of guns is often 3, 4 or 5, mixing culebrins, of great range (2000m), with cannons (1500m) and pedreroes, of lesser precision than either culebrins or cannons, and also of lesser range (600m) but with more disperse effects" Basically, the cannons were used when advancing on the enemy as a way to attrition the enemy warships, damaging them at a distance before a main decisive engagement at close quarters which is centered around boarding parties and ramming enemy ships.
+MUH Geschichte
First of all, look up the difference between "pure" and "poor".
Secondly, the galleys wheren't ever really outdated.
Denmark-Norway still used them up to 1814 as you can see in my links elsewhere on this page.
dude we do not use galleys anymore...
oh and using outdated equipemnt is impossible? do you receive a message if you tryy to use outdated ships sying you can't do tha tanymore?
there are outdated ships even outdated tanks and artillery used in in the middleeast in this very moment,
there is ww1 gear mounted in trucks being fired at people armed with outdated ak47 guns.....
they were outdated , when larger ships could fire lfast enough flat enough and had so much crew and high decks a galley could just not make a difference,
in some theatres this would not matter so much, but agains the major sea powers...
imagining a galley etemptin to ram an ironclad....
OUTDATED
btw arquebuses were also still used after meskets were introduced.,probably because of costs and other propperties, yey they were outdated but still somewhat useful
+MUH Geschichte
No, they wheren't outdated.
They just like non-nuclear submarines today have their use.
Sure they're useless for external power projection.
But for defence of your own shores they're actually superior to the sailing ships in many ways.
You can row up against the wind.
You can row when there's no wind.
Both giving you advantages when fighting among islands and skerries.
You can row with a gun facing forwards while sailing ships need that spot for their sails to be efficient.
You can make smaller ships that's still capable of fielding large guns since the gun can be placed alongside the length of the ship facing forwards.
They're cheaper.
They can operate in wathers with less depth then sailing ships capable of combat.
Some of them are small enough that you *can* lift them over land if you need to for strategic or tactical reasons.
And they're a smaller target.
They had their own developments to keep them competitive vs sailing ships so the oar powered ships of the 1800s where *not* the same as the ones in previous centuries.
Do they have drawbacks?
Yes, of course they do.
Are there situations where they're at a severe dissadvantage?
Yes, of course there are.
But likewise there's situations where they're at a significant advantage.
And the Danish-Norwegian fleet made use of many of those advantages.
yeah because non nuclear submarines fill another role because nuclear submarines for a large part are nuclear deterents as they do not only house torpedos but nuclear rockets and are part of the mutualy ensured nuclear destruction thing.
modern uboats that are non nuclear are also concentrated more on stealth, and have modern engines etc
ww2 style uboots are completely outdated.
damn,
if galleys had undergone heavy changes to adept to not become outdated yes they wouldn't have been but the fact that they only were decisive for peripohery tells me they were outdated.
like pre dreadnaught battleships were all outtdated after the building of the first dreadnaught but still had use against other ships if they weren't dreadnaught...
i still can kill someone with a muzzleloader, does not
change that they are outdated
At 2:30 you quote Tallet & Trim (as editors, anyway) as saying a quinquereme has "five men and five oars to each bench". I found that hard to picture, so I looked it up: There were five men all right, but in three decks, each with an oar per side, with rowers per oar in a 2+2+1 pattern.
Good interpretation of late medieval, early gunpowder age naval warfare. Yet the English naval expression for parts of the ship were not pronounced properly. The forepart (raised decking) is called the "fo'c'sle" (forecastle).
Fock-sleigh? Whats that, Boat-swine? Its not the same as poo-poo-deck?
Dont get angry there handsomely and hit me with your yard-long-arms, im stupid as a lob lolly boy straight from the bumboat.
@@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681 Boat-swain also spelled as "Bosun".
4:48
Norway had 51 boats in 1814 armed with cannons and powered by oars.
Usually a 24 pound cannon although some also used one or more howitzer or even a mortar.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alv%C3%B8en
Without ship visualization we have no idea what is he talking about
Wow, not a single mention to Spain in the whole video, even covering the time of its greatest overseas expansion.
I see your point, as I had the same impression about Portuguese and Chinese. But I know why: this video is more about the equipment (vessels, in a wide and no-pragramatic manner) then its operators. Cheers, mate!
Spain is way to specific... I like abstraction ;)
+Laertes L
There was a *ton* of nations that he *could* have featured in the video as that period was a great time for several nations.
I don't think he really had any particular reason to mention Spain in particular.
I do wish he'd mentioned the Danish-Norwegian fleets use of oar powered boats armed with cannons though as we had them in use as late as 1814, not just in the Baltic but of the coast of Norway and Denmark.
(Norway had over 50 of them in 1814)
I wouldn't have expected any details, but it would have been nice if he'd said "Russia *and* Denmark-Norway)" instead of just "Russia" when mentioning late use of oar powered ships.
Honestly Norway is pretty much perfect for a case study of the strengths and weaknesses of oar powered ships.
The Hanseatic League defeated us in a major naval engagement outside of Bergen in 1429 because we where essentially still using the viking ships with oars and sails that just wheren't tall enough to effectivly engage the ships of the Hanseatic League, that put a end to our use of leidang as the basis of our naval power.
And after the Brits stole our fleet after the second battle of Caupenhagen in 1807 we had to rebuild our fleet in a hurry and small oar powered boats where just quicker and cheaper to build and as it turned out they where also quite effective in our waters leading to extensive use of them of the coast of both Denmark and Norway.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_War
They where actually quite effective still at that point with several British ships being defeated by them.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Good joke ... Honestly I think is fine if you want yo approach the subject in this way, but if you are not specific about how many installments these series have some people may "whatabout"... and with some reasoning. From a historical importance POW there is no comparison between the báltic-northern European theater to the importance of the centuries long Aragonese-Spanish campaign in the Mediterránean against the Berber states and the Ottomans. We are talking about pivotal history chokepoints. Maybe the problem lay on the sources. But knowing you a bit I guess you may devote an entire chapter to the Mediterránean theater later 😉 The fall of Constantinople and Lepanto are not lesser episodes or naval battles, like the siege of Wien, they deeply define European identity and world history to a far greater extent than the Báltic or the Netherlands (sorry guys, no offense or belittling intended), so the eyebrow rising may have some ground. I cant wait for Next chapter. Thanks for your dedication ...
was The First Bomb Vessels Not Used in the begin of the Hundert years War.
Not enough pictures!
I second the accent comment buried in here, the "d" and "g" and "t" sounds are a little rough at points. Definitely can tell you're making serious effort to pronounce it properly though.
+TheAdamk12
Heh, when I meet native speakers that talk about "speaking correctly" I intentionally try to enhance my accent.
English doesn't belong to native speakers anymore and given that he's easily understandable I really don't think anyone has any right to complain about him having an accent that quite frankly is much milder then what many dialects of both American and British English actually have naturally.
@@Luredreier like hell. A language will Always belong to its native culture. If I want to learn good Japanese I don't want to learn some butchered version learned by some white nerd from the USA who speaks his "own" version with his manga pals. Get real
I Love your content!
But in this Video I feel like you had more (and too many) Hard cuts which make the Video Hard to follow at Times... and also I feel like this was more a Video about the 17. Century and Not the Wohle Period which is listed in the Titel...
Still: keep up your awesome work and kisses ☺️😘
canons only became a thing in the 30 years war era,
you mean guns,
in german those had a large variety of names, such as stück, geschütz, etc, but canon is a type of gun whith a very long tube, compared to caliber.
Same in Britain, guns had all sorts of names prior to around the 30 years war when they were generally codified by weight of shot. The worst thing about it is a culverin in Britain and France may well refer to two completely different type of gun, despite sharing the same name, and even in the same country an early culverin may well be very different to a late culverin.
A German scholar catching up on maritime history? What a surprise............
I would like to see MHV cover the battle of Lepanto. Also, I have read that the real reason the Spanish Armada failed was that the Commander of the land army refused to try and board the Armada's ships. Why was this? Because to do this he had to put his troops on barges to move them out into deeper waters. Dutch waters are often shallow, and the Dutch had a lot of galleys with cannons that could operate in the shallow waters. Cannons and troops on barges are not the happiest combination for the troops, though the galleys might be very happy.
SAILING SHIP: "Don't do it Galley. I have the high ground."
GALLEY SHIP: "You underestimate my power!"
[FAIL.]
GALLEY SHIP: "AH! My limbs! I was going to use those later!"
1:06 The same thing later happened at Siege of Belgrad, 1456.
So did Ottomans learn from that and started building bigger ships ? Of course not !
Bronze lighter than iron?
Not sure about that. Copper - the main element of bronze, which is an alloy, is heavier than iron. Different sorts of bronze weights somewhere between 7,4-8,9 tonnes per m³, depending on it's composition, while the density of cast iron is 7,85t/m³. So, bronze _might_ be lighter than iron, but not necessarily, it can also by much,. much heavier.
the guns were heavier due to production issues, I think somebody pointed that out the comments below.
OK, makes sense
Please add Subtitles
German?
That nose under water do you mean a ram? THAT is that ships main wapon!!!!!!!!! not the gun.
It wasen't untill the venetians used their secret wapon in the battle of Lepanto( gallase a inbetween of the galley and the galleon. But it had guns loads of guns). That canons became more importent than ram's as a ships main wapon. i Think you miss that whole point in your video.
I also think you should have made it more clear witch sees you are talking about ? galleys where supirior in the meditaranian up untill Lepanto.
In the atlantic and in the northsee. Galleys where not importent at all they where way to vulnable to bad wether.
sorry to say that. But have a nice day. and i will look forward to your usuall good videos.
Renaissance galleys did not have rams. They had something else(i forget its name) to cut down enemy oars, not damage ship itself.
@Military Historian your content is full of information every history fan is eager to know... but then it gets boring because of the way you speak... don't get me wrong...your content is something that I always crave ... But if you can hire someone who speaks better then you...the channel can surely increase your subscribers ..
.
And make it more entertaining man without loosing your soul ( I mean the kind of information you put in this videos)
1330-1680 - only Turk Russian and English have naval activity... funny very funny!!!
Ho-hum, another VOIP shill. All that Internet stuff goes away when the power goes out, which happens during Pacific Hurricane season. A VOIP geek will be voice less, but I will still have my landline active. Put that in your Bong and stuff it. (Dang YT commercial interrupted "Death on the High Seas.") Weren't Cast Iron guns able to take a larger gunpowder charge and a heavier cannon ball, giving you more range/destructive capability? (See: Japanese bronze cannon in the 1850's vs. Iron/Steel cannon.)
Yes, but for the most part those cannons were unable to sink a ship, just caused damage (though the cumulative damage was important). As the Spanish naval historian Captain Ricardo Cerezo Martínez noted, "Estos elementos arrojadizos [disparos de cañón] cumplen una función de desgaste anterior al choque decisivo de las armas manipuladas; aunque ese desgaste, circunstancialmente, pueda ser resolutivo" or, in English, "Those missiles (gunfire) take a role of attrition previous to the decisive engagement between melee weapons; though this attrition can, eventually, be resolutive" La táctica naval en el siglo XVI (Naval tactics during the XVI century), article published in the Revista de Historia Naval (Naval History Magazine), issue nº2 (1983).
Why not show some pictures? I preferred your previous vids; the current format is far less informative, less entertaining and visually less pleasing then your earlier material...
you are on the wrong channel mate, this is NOT visualized, my second channel.
Then I do apologize, sorry for the misunderstanding... Keep up the good work...
Now research Korean turtleships :)
very boring way of showing it here a "video".
6th