pixelov - 4/1/2007 23:57
Ух ты! Вот это монстр!
Особенно с башнями по душе
Вот воинственный народ, нет чтобы о душе подумать
_______________________________________________
То было для моделистов, а это для историков, на растерзание
(единственное, нет у меня греческого шрифта, поэтому пришлось вырезать)
Lionel Casson "Ships and seamanship in the Ancient World"
II THE BYZANTINE NAVY
In A.D. 324, Constantine and Licinius prepared for a final showdown on the sea. Licinius collected 350 triremes. Constantine chose to go into action with only 30-oared and 50-oared galleys. He won, and the trireme, for so long queen of the Mediterranean, was forced to yield the throne.(30)
Thus, by the fourth century a.d., naval architecture, going full cycle, returned to the ships that had served the Greek fleets of a thousand years before, galleys of one bank with each rower working his own oar. The reversion was brought about no doubt by chronic shortages of money and men. Two centuries later we find the same kinds of ships in Justinian's navy. By this time they have acquired a new name, dromon "racer."(31) It was to have a long career—though applied to a somewhat different kind of craft.
The one-level galleys of Constantine's and Justinian's fleets lived on to become the moneres and galea of the navy of the Byzantine Empire during its flourishing days in the tenth century, the time we know it best.(32) The name dromon was now given to the ships of
the line of this fleet, two-banked galleys with a minimum of 25 oars in each bank, or 100 in all.(33) There were three sizes. The smallest was called ousiakos because it was manned by one ousia or company, numbering 100 or slightly more;(34) the men were charged with pulling the oars and also taking care of the fighting,(35) which, in effect, would mean those in the upper bank. The largest, the dromon proper, had a minimum crew of 200. Of these, 50 were permanently assigned to the lower bank, and the remaining 150 were stationed above.(36) Possibly 100 of them manned the oars, 2 to each, and 50 were marines;(37) when the occasion warranted it, the second oarsman
could be called upon to leave the bench and take up weapons.(38) In between the ousiakos and dromon was the pamphylos, whose crew varied from 120 to 150 or 160.(39) Exactly how these were divided between rowers and marines, we do not know.
The word dromon, thus, was used in two senses: generkally to refer to any of these diree types of two-banked ships of the line, and specifically to refer to the largest of the three.(40) Within the class of dromons in its specific sense, the very biggest could have as many as 120 oars(41) - i.e., two banks of 30 a side - with a rowing complement of 220.(42) The biggest crew we hear of is 300, made up of 230 oarsmen and 70 marines.(43) Here again we do not know precisely how the oarsmen were distributed; perhaps the upper bank had 2 to each oar, which would put 180 men permanently assigned to the benches and leave 40 to 50 who could serve as rowers or marines as occasion called.
All three models seem to have been similar in build. The dromon proper must have been somewhat broader and also somewhat longer to permit more spacious decking fore and aft for accommodating its larger fighting contingent.
All three models were aphract. There were gangways along each
side,(44) and a "stiffener," i.e. a girder that ran down the center and held the yard crutches,(45) very likely doubled as a catwalk. To give the rowers some protection, a light frame was rigged along the gangways on which shields could be hung.(46) Aft the ships seem to have been constructed like their Roman predecessors with a poop deck and, upon this, the commander's cabin;(47) on either side was the housing for the steering oars.(48) The ships followed Roman practice as well in dispensing with the rowing frame, for both banks of oars were worked through ports in the hull.(49) There was a stout raised
platform forward for the fighting personnel(50) and, on big units, a smaller platform—a feature first attested in this age—amidships.(51) Although dromons continued for a while to be equipped with the ram and a ram attack was still an element in battle,(52) they were primarily intended for fighting at close quarters. Their weapon par excellence was one that had played but a small role in the ancient world—fire. In the eye of the ship, nestling under the forward platform, was the cannonlike siphon, in effect a flamethrower and a formidable one.(53) It consisted of a long tube of wood lined with bronze, to the inboard end of which was coupled an air pump; some of the inflammable stuff known as "Greek fire" was poured in, ignited, the pump was activated, and a sheet of flame belched forth from the muzzle (Fig. 134)." The largest ships had flamethrowers
amidships and aft as well as forward,(55) and sometimes even the marines were equipped with miniature hand models.(56) A second important arm were the catapults, which shot not only missiles but grenades, pots of "Greek fire" that would explode on impact.(57) The fighting platform amidships must have had overhangs projecting laterally past the gunwales; on these heavy weights were suspended like the "dolphins" of ancient times (239 below), and when an enemy came so close that any were poised over his rowers, the lashings that held them were loosed or cut away.(58)
There are no contemporary representations of these vessels, though we have a few dating from several centuries later (Fig. 134).(59) These reveal that the ram had by this time disappeared, replaced by a long projecting spur at deck level that served as boarding bridge. They also show the ships rigged with a lateen sail; very likely the same rig had been carried earlier. There was a mainmast amidships, set up permanently, as was later practice, rather than retractable as on ancient galleys,(60) certainly another forward, and a mizzen on the largest ships.(61)
The details given above, as mentioned before, all date from the tenth century. The previous centuries are almost a blank. Some scraps
of information have been preserved about the navy of the Arab conquerors of Egypt around the year a.d. 700, which unquestionably consisted of units taken over from their Byzantine predecessors or modeled upon such units. The ship of the line, though here called a karabos, is a two-banked galley; furthermore, it is described as kastellatos, which may mean that, like the dromon, it was fitted with the castellum, the light frame along the sides for hanging shields.(62) Another unit attested is the dromonarion; it must be a smaller and lighter craft since at times, along with akatia (159 below), it was used to patrol the mouth of the Nile whereas the two-banked craft were never assigned such duty. It may be the same as the dromonion, or small dromon, that occurs in the tenth century Byzantine fleet.(63)
___________________________________________________________
30 For the makeup of Constantine's and Licinius' fleets, see Zosimus 2.22.1-2, 2.24.1; cf.
Kienast 138-39.
31 Procopius describes (Bell Vand. 1.11.15-16) the vessels used in the expedition to North Africa in a.d. 533 as "single-banked and having decks overhead to reduce to a minimum the chance of the rowers being hit by enemy missiles. Men today call these ships 'dromons' because they are able to sail very swiftly".... These dromons, in other words, were single-banked cataphracts.
A passage from a dispatch of Theodoric (a.d. 525/6) is often taken (Torr 17, Kienast 156) as evidence that triremes were still being built at that time. In the dispatch Theodoric, lamenting that Italy no longer has a fleet, orders the construction of 1OOO dromons (Cassiodorus, Varia 5.16: decrevimus mille . . . dromones fabricandos). When the fleet was completed he describes it in purple prose as a "fleet-forest, floating homes, the array's feet ... a trireme-conveyance revealing so great a number of oars, yet carefully hiding the men's faces" (classeam silvam, domes aquatiles, exercituales pedes . . , trireme vehiculum remorum tantum namerum prodens, sed hominum jades diligenter abscondens Cassiodorus, Varia 5.17). In a passage of this nature, the words trireme vehiculum need not be taken to the letter. Cf. Paulinus of Nola, Paynata 24.73, where an ordinary ship that carried a casual traveler who brought Paulinus some letters is referred to as a quadrireme.
32 For the Byzantine navy, see the fundamental articles by R. Dolley, "The Warships of the Later Roman Empire," JRS 38 (1948) 47-53 and "Naval Tactics in the
Heyday of the Byzantine Thalassocracy," Atti dell' VIII Congresso di Studi Bizantini I (Rome 1953) 324-39. The texts of the relevant authors have been re-edited by A. Dam in his Naumachica (Paris 1943).
For the moneres and galea, see Leo, peri thalassomachias 10 (Dain, p. 21): "smaller and very swift dromons, such as those called galeai ['galleys'] and monereis ['single-bankers'], quick and agile, which you use for patrol and other duties requiring Speed" (...)
33 Leo, peri thal. 8 (Dain, p. 20): "Let each [dromon] have at least 25 thwarts on which the rowers will be placed, so that all the lower thwarts will total 25, the upper similarly 25, for a grand total of 50. Let the rowers sit 2 on each thwart, one to starboard and the other to port, so that all the rowers — who will also double as marines — both those above together with those below, will total 100 men" (...).
34 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, de caerimoniis, 2.45, p. 384A: "Four chelandia ounaka with 108 men to each" (...). This concerns the preparations for an attack on Crete in a.d. 949. For chelandia = dromones, see Dolley, "Warships" 48.
35 See Leo, peri thal. 8, cited in note 33 above.
36 Leo, peri thal. 9 (Dain, p. 21): "And have odier larger dromons than these [i.e., than those manned by a crew of 100] built, holding 200 men, or more or less than this figure depending on the need of the moment created by die enemy. Of these, 50 will work the lower bank of oars, and the 150 will all take their station above, armed, and fight the enemy" (...). "Dolley, "Warships" 48, puts three men on each upper oar. This would surely necessitate longer oars in this bank than in the lower, and we have no evidence for that.
38 For upper-bank oarsmen sharing in the fighting, see Dolley, "Naval Tactics" 332.
39 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, de caer. 2.45, p. 384A-B: "six chelandia famphyla with 120 men each . . . six chelandia pamphyla with 150 men each" (...; this was
in a.d. 949); 2.44, p. 377C: "seven pamphyloi, three with 160 men each and the other four with 130 men each, total 1,000" (...; this Was in A.D. 906).
40 Cf. Dolley, "Warships" 48.
41 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, de caer. 2.45, p. 3886: "for equipping the 20
dromons . . . 120 oars each, total 2,400" (...; this was in a.d. 949).
42 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, de caer. 2.45, p. 384B: "4 dromons, with 220 men each" (...). A company (ousia) consisted of 108 (cf. note 34 above) or no men, and these dromons were manned by 2 companies. Cf. 2.45, p. 384A: "20 dromons with 2 companies each, [total] 40 companies" (...).
43 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, de caer. 2.44, p. 377C: "seven dromons with
230 oarsmen and 70 marines, total 2,100" (...).
44 Dain, Naumachica 5.2.6-7 (p. 65): "The center of the poop and of the vessel up to the prow is called die 'undecked' [asanidon]. The covered areas along either side of the hull are called the 'deck' [katastroma] or the 'platform' [thranos] or the 'planking' [sanidomata]. Above are die first bank of oars, die heavy armed soldiers, the bowmen, and the light armed soldiers; below the 'planking' is the second bank of oarsmen, who do nothing but row since the fighting personnel is on die 'deck' above" (...).
45 Dain, Naumachica 5.2.10 (p. 65): "What are called 'rests' are on die stiffener-keel, three of them made fast in a line, and the yard, when lowered, rests on them" (...). Since die yard would not be lowered down into the bottom of the hold, the "stiffener-keel" (tropis sterea) must have run above die keel at or near deck level. Cf. the upper ship in Fig. 127.
46 Dain, Naumachica 5.2.13 (p. 65): "And there [i.e., by the gangways] is the castellum, where the marines hang their shields" (...).
47 Dain, Naumachica 5.2,5 (p. 64): "the platform aft, where there is also a cabin, or at any rate a berth [krabatos], set up for the admiral or the captain" (...); Leo, peri thal. 8 (Dain, p. 20): "And on die poop should be the berth for the captain . . . both to distinguish and set apart the commanding officer as well as to protect him at times of combat from missiles hurled by the enemy" (...).
48 Dain, Naumachica 5.2.6 (p. 64): "The parts on either side of the stern, in which
the steering oars rest, are called the 'spreaders' [petasoi] or the 'splits' [schista] or
the 'cheek-pieces' [epotides]"(...).
49 Dain, Naumachica 5.2.12-13 (p. 65): "The strake from which die [lower] oars
project is called the 'shield strake' [thyreon]; that to which they are bound, the
thole [skalmos]; that by which they are bound, the oar-strap [tropoter]. The strake
over the tholes is the 'over-thole strake' [episkalmis]. The oars are fitted through
what are called the 'borings' [tremata] . . . Above this bank of oars is a wale, then
another 'shield strake' for the upper bank of oars. On top of the whole is the gunwale [epenkenis]" (...).
50 Leo, peri thal. 6 (Dain, p. 20): "[The dromon] should by all means have forward in the bows the flamethrower [siphon], girdled with bronze in the usual fashion, through which the prepared fire mixture is shot at the enemy. Topping a flamethrower of this sort there should be a false walk of planks, also fenced about with planks, on which die fighting personnel will take its stand" (...).
These fighting platforms were called xylokastra "wood-castles"; see the following note.
51 Leo, peri thal. 7 (Dain, p. 20): "And the so-called wood-castles can be set up around the middle of the mast on the largest dromons, fenced with planks, from which a number of men can fire into the middle of the enemy vessel either massive stones or iron weights by means of which an [enemy] ship can either be holed, etc."
(...). I take this amidships-castle to be a platform with parapet set halfway up the mainmast. Dolley ("Warships" 51) took it to be a platform similar to the one at the prow; as he points out, this raises problems.
52 Cf. Leo, peri thal. 69 (Dain, p. 31) ; paraphrased by Dolley, "Naval Tactics" 331.
53 See the passage cited in note 50 above.
54 Cf. J. Partington, A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder (Cambridge 1960) 15-17; M. Mercier, Le feu gregeois (Paris 1952) 24-40.
55 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, de caer. 2,48, p. 3888: "for the equipment of the 20 dromons: three flamethrowers each, total 60" (...).
56 Leo, peri thal. 65 (Dain, p. 30): "by means of little flamethrowers [siphones] fired by hand . . . called a hand-flamethrower [cheirosiphon]" (...).
57 Leo, peri thal. 60 (Dain, p. 30): "catapults on the poop, prow, and both sides of the dromon" (...). For pots of "Greek fire," see peri thal. 64. In 61, Leo recommends pots full of vipers, scorpions, and the like.
58 See the passage cited in note 51 above.
59 Anderson, fig. II and pl. 7b (=IH ill. 51).
60 Dain 5.2.9 (p. 65): "In the middle of the ship, over the keel is fitted the mast-step, in which the mast stands. . . . The lower part of the mast, that which is nailed fast to the step, is called the 'leg' " (...).
61 See Dolley, "Warships" 52, who cites examples of ships with at least two masts, and dromons (in the specific sense) with three.
62 See P. Land, IV 1433.64, 129, 179, 227, 319 for mention of ... "two-banked karaboi" and 1434.35, 1435.98 and 103, 1441.102, 1464 for ... "karaboi with castella" (specified as two-banked in 1449.94). On castellum "shield-frame," see note 46 above.
63 For dromonarion, see P. Land, IV 1435.95, the only instance in which it is spelled out in full, being abbreviated elsewhere. For only dromonaria and afatia in the squadron guarding the mouth of the Nile, see 1434.22, 135; 1435.10, 95 (for translations of these documents, see Der Islam 4, 1913, pp. 87-96). Dromonaria also served with the regular fleet units; see 1337.2-3, 1464; P. Ross.-Georg. iv 6.4. For the dromonion of the 10th century Byzantine navy, see Dolley, "Warships" 53.
In P. Cairo Masp. 67359, cols, n.2 and VI.9, dpo(movapiwn) is probably to be read instead of dpo(movov).
