Поиск     Статистика     Список пользователей     Форумы     Календари     Альбомы     Цитаты     Язык
Вы вошли, как гость. ( войти | зарегистрироваться )

Случайная цитата: "Управление флотом являет собой чудо расточительности, взяточничества, невежества и нерадивости... никаким сметам нельзя доверять... ни один контракт не был выполнен... не проводилось никаких проверок... Некоторые из новых военных кораблей настолько негодны, что без срочного ремонта затонут тут же у причалов. Жалованье матросам выплачивается столь нерегулярно, что они рады, когда находят, ростовщика, который покупает их платежные билеты с сорокапроцентным вычетом. Большинством кораблей на плаву командуют роботы, не обученные морскому делу". Сэмюэль Пепис о состоянии английского военного флота, 1684 г.
- (Добавлено: Михаил)

Дромон: выводы
Модераторы: Dedal

Предыдущая тема :: Следущая тема
       Основные форумы -> Classis Формат сообщения 
Отправлено 23/5/2014 00:35 (#132706 - в ответ на #132704)
Тема: Re: Дромон: выводы


Сообщений: 8416
Местонахождение: Россия, Уфа
Alexandr - 22/5/2014 17:14
На неком сайте цитируется Константин Порфирородный: «Императорский флот насчиты­вал шестьдесят дромонов, на каждом — двести тридцать гребцов и семьдесят солдат».

Это из инвентарной описи экспедиции 911 года на Крит (трактат "De ceremoniis"). Кроме имперских, там еще 15 таких дромонов с фемы Кивирра, 10 с фемы Самос, 7 с фемы Эгейского моря и 10 с фемы Эллада.

Макс Скальд - 22/5/2014 23:21
А что об этом скажет Кальтенбруннер, сиречь Прайор в "Эре дромона"?

Он небезосновательно считает, что здесь и везде, где упоминаются большие экипажи (усия), речь идет о двойном комплекте гребцов. К тому же, гребцы дромонов, в отличие от античных, были вооружены и могли сражаться. В инвентарной описи экспедиции 949 года среди прочих кораблей перечисляются 20 дромонов с двойным экипажем (стандартный экипаж 108-110 моряков). В то же время, ниже упоминается численность их экипажа в 230 гребцов-воинов и 70 просто воинов. Более того, все эти дромоны имели комплект всего в 120 весел. Вес лишнего экипажа увеличит осадку примерно на 10 см, но при коротких переходах каботажного плавания этих экспедиций, по мнению Прайора, риском можно было пренебречь.

Лев VI и Никифор Уран указывали, что некоторые большие дромоны должны были построены так, чтобы на весла нижнего ряда обслуживали 50 человек, а верхнего - 150 тех (все они должны быть вооруженны), которые могли сражаться.

Впрочем, вот цитата:

This being the case, how are the very large figures for some crews to be explained? Both Leo VI and Nikephoros Ouranos directed that some larger dromons should be constructed on which 50 men should serve the oars below deck and 150, all of whom were armed, should be stationed above deck to fight. But the 150 above deck were not said to have served two or three files of oars, merely to have been armed to fight. In the inventory for the 911 expedition to Crete, the crews specified for the dromons of the imperial fleet and also for those of some provincial themata had 230 oarsmen, άνδρες κωπηλάται (andres kopelatai) and 70 marines, πολεμισταί (polemistai), and this specification was repeated in a slightly altered form in the paragraph concerning the arming of a dromon in the inventory for the 949 expedition, qualifying the specifications earlier in the inventory that each dromon should have two ousiai or 220 men. It is important to appreciate here that 230 men of the ships for the expedition of 949 were described as “oarsmen, that is soldiers” (ploimoi kopelatai etoi kai polemistai). They could double in both roles.

On the one hand, the figures ranging between 108 and 160 men or oarsmen, the usage is variable, are not a problem. Dromons with an ousia of 108 men, of whom 100 pulled at the oars at any one time in two files per side on two banks, could never have been more than a norm and variations in crews of up to around 40-50 more could obviously have been accomodated within the tolerances of oarage systems or by ships of somewhat larger dimensions.

On the other hand, there are only two explanations for the very large figures of 220 or 230 oarsmen for some dromons. If they could all row together, these must have been quadriremes larger than the norm. But if quadrireme dromons did exist, it is inconceivable that the many contemporary sources, which were normally addicted to the spectacular, would not have mentioned them. Moreover, although oarsmen could double as marines, only those serving the oars above deck were armed and there is no evidence that any Byzantine dromons had four files of oars. In fact, that all 230 oarsmen could row on oars at the same time is impossible and the evidence of the inventories for the Cretan expedition of 949 that the same 20 dromons which carried two ousiai had only 120 oars is conclusive evidence that they could not all row at the one time. Many crew must have been taken aboard at various times as supernumeraries who could be used either as oarsmen in watches, so that fleets could continue under way under oars around the clock if necessary, or as marines and landing forces. It should be borne in mind that the Cretan expeditions were assaults against an island held by a formidable enemy with a long history of naval prowess. It would not be surprising if the dromons were packed to their gunwales with supernumeraries who could both participate in the assault on the island and also fight if the enemy engaged at sea.

Doubling crews by taking aboard supernumerary oarsmen or marines would have created significant problems. Galleys such as dromons were finely tuned pieces of machinery with oarage systems which had evolved to deliver maximum performance. Upsetting the oarage balances beyond allowable tolerances would have affected their performance capabilities badly and, in extreme cases made them unworkable. We demonstrate below that a dromon with a standard complement of one ousia of 108-110 men plus a normal complement of officers, soldiers, sailors, etc., would have been designed to have a freeboard at the lower oarport above the plane water line of around 0.36 metres amidships. To double the ousia with another 110 lean but muscly men weighing around 85 kilogrammes each would add another 9.35 tonnes in weight. The plane area at the waterline was only approximately 95 square metres and another 9.35 tonnes would sink the ship by almost 10 centimetres and impede the working of the oarage system badly. Ships such as these had evolved ergonomically to work in the most efficient way. The angle to the horizontal of the oars could not be changed significantly without making the entire stroke inefficient and the recovery in particular extremely difficult. Of course there would have been some tolerances, but how great would they have been? After all the considerations worked through below, the oarage system which we have come to consider most probable is as shown in Figure 32. If the waterline in this figure is sunk by 10 centimetres, the lower oarsmen would have to lower their arms by five centimetres during the pull and would be unable to raise the bottoms of their blades more than around 70 centimetres out of the water during the return, making them unworkable in more than the light breezes of Beaufort Scale Three, 7-10 knots, which raise wavelets up to 60 centimetres, which do not even break. The conclusion is that if dromons took aboard a second ousia, let alone the 230 oarsmen and 70 soldiers of the Cretan expeditions, they would have had to have been stripped of provisions, water, spare gear, or armaments in order to compensate for the extra weight. Alternatively, the lower oar-bank would have had to have been shut down and the oar ports sealed. But if that was done the ships would have been dangerously low in the water and vulnerable to any sort of a sea at all.

The inventory for the expedition of 949 included a “portulan”, a stadiodromikon, which, if we can believe it, gave the distances from Constantinople to Crete, specifying fourteen traverses en route. Purposely excluding here discussion of the vexed issue of how the stadiodromikon was compiled and how tenth-century Byzantines could have measured spatially across open water when they had no technology capable of dead-reckoning distances at sea, no traverse was given at more than 100 Byzantine milia, about 85 English miles, and such short traverses may well have reflected stripping the ships bare in order to accommodate supernumerary crews. These were all traverses which the fleet would make before the prevailing north to north-easterly winds of summer and at the average speed of around two knots maintained around the clock which medieval galley fleets were capable of in all conditions, none should have taken more than two days. As long as the increased weight of the crews was compensated for somehow, the ships could have carried far larger crews than they normally would have on extended cruises.
Верх страницы Низ страницы

Перейти на форум :
Искать на этом форуме
Версия для печати
Отправить ссылку на e-mail
zorich books

(Удалить все cookies этого сайта)
Работает MegaBBS ASP Forum Software
© 2002-2021 PD9 Software