Ships of the Crusade Era Part II

Thirteenth-century warships. Illustration from the Cantigas de Santa Maria, by King Alfonso X of Castile. (Bridgeman- Giraudon/Art Resource)

By John H. Pryor

From the sixth to late eleventh centuries, the warship par excellence in the Mediterranean was the dromon and its Muslim and Latin imitations, although Byzantines also developed the chelandion, originally an oared horse transport, which was also imitated. By the tenth century dromons had become biremes with two banks of 50 oars, one below and one above deck. A standard ship’s complement (Gr. ousia) consisted of 108 men, excluding officers, marines, and specialists such as helmsmen and a carpenter. Around 31.5 meters (103 ft.) long, they carried two masts with lateen sails and had quarter rudders on both stern quarters. They also had fighting castles on each side just aft of the foremast and a foredeck at the prow, below which was housed their siphon for hurling Greek fire: this was a weapon that used a force pump to eject a stream of petroleum naphtha fuel that was set alight, creating a tongue of flame that could destroy enemy ships.

Monoreme dromons with only 50 oars were known as galeai, and it seems certain that the Latin galea developed from them. The earliest uses of the Latin term were by a group of eleventh-century Italo-Norman chroniclers, which suggests an adaptation of this ship type in southern Italy from Byzantine originals encountered there. Even though references to galee proliferated rapidly, however, they were never described in detail and all that is known about early galee is that they had fine lines and were fast. The earliest documents with construction details are from the Angevin kingdom of Sicily between 1269 and 1284.

Almost certainly, the oarage system was reconfigured so that two oarsmen could row from one bench position above deck. This made immeasurable difference to the oar mechanics, increasing oarsmen’s combined power delivery markedly. No longer did one bank row below deck in stygian darkness and foul air. It also freed holds for supplies, water, spare gear, and armaments. No wonder that the galea spread rapidly in the West and came to be emulated in both the Byzantine and Muslim worlds.

The earliest datable illustrations of galee are three miniatures in the Madrid manuscript of the Synopsis historiarum of John Skylitzes, produced in Palermo around 1160 (MS Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, vitr. 26–2). These clearly show bireme galleys with a different oarage system. One file of oars was rowed through oarports, but the other was worked above the gunwale. The same system is depicted even more clearly in an early thirteenth-century manuscript of the Carmen ad honorem Augusti of Peter of Eboli (MS Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 120).

This bireme oarage system became known as the alla sensile system. Two oarsmen each rowed single oars from the same bench above deck. Using a stand-and-sit stroke as opposed to the fully seated stroke of classical and Byzantine galleys, they threw their whole weight and the power of their legs into the stroke by falling back onto the bench. The inboard oar was pulled through an oarport in the outrigger, while the outboard oar was pulled against a thole, a pin set in the gunwale (Gr. apostis, It. posticcio, apposticio), to which an oar was held by an oar thong or grommet.

Such bireme galleys remained the norm throughout the main age of the crusades. There is no clear evidence for galleys using any other type of oarage system, and occasional literary references to triremes or to more than one oarsmen pulling each oar are either classical allusions or mistakes. Only in the early fourteenth century did Marino Sanudo Torsello report that: “in [ . . .] 1290, two oarsmen used to row on a bench on almost all galleys which sailed the sea. Later more perceptive men realized that three oarsmen could row on each of the aforesaid benches. Almost everyone uses this nowadays” [Marino Sanudo Torsello, “Liber Secretorum Fidelium Crucis,” in Gesta Dei per Francos, ed. Jacques Bongars, 2 vols. (Hannover: Typis Wechelianis, 1611), p. 57].

Standard bireme galee came to measure around 39.5 meters (1291/2 ft.) in overall length; they were longer than dromons because they mounted 108 rather than 100 oars and because the stand-and-sit stroke needed a distance between any two tholes (Lat. interscalmium) of around 1.20 meters (4 ft.) rather than the 1 meter (31/4 ft.) for fully-seated oarsmen. Their beam was around 4.6 meters (15 ft.) at the deck amidships, and their depth in hold around 2 meters (61/2 ft.). They still carried only two masts with lateen sails, the foremasts being almost 16 meters (521/2 ft.) long with yards nearly 27 meters (881/2 ft.) and the midships masts being 11 meters (36 ft.) long with yards of 20.5 meters (671/4 ft.). The stern-quarter rudders were 6 meters (193/4 ft.) long. By the later thirteenth century, standard crews on Angevin galleys consisted of 108 oarsmen, 2 masters, 4 helmsmen, 36 marines, and 2 ship’s boys. Standard armaments included around 30 crossbows, 8 cases of quarrels (crossbow bolts), 40 shields, 200 lances, 10 halberds, 47 axes, 400 darts, 108 helmets and padded jackets for the oarsmen, 40 glass bottles for Greek fire and 100 pots of powdered quick lime, 2 iron grapnels, rigging cutters, and possibly iron rockets for shooting Greek fire.

Although no substantiatable evidence suggests that any oarage system other than the alla sensile system was used until the late thirteenth century, a variety of names for galleys other than galee appeared sporadically in the sources: sagene, sagittae, gatti, and garabi in particular.

The term sagena appeared first for vessels of Muslim and Croatian corsairs in Byzantine sources. The type was developed among the Slavs on the east coast of the Adriatic Sea.

Sagitta (lit. “arrow”) was also applied to corsair galleys, but to those of the Latin West. They were smaller than galee and presumably very fast, to judge by their name. Thirteenth-century Genoese documents refer to sagittae with 48, 58, 64, and 80 oars. Gattus was derived from the Arabic qiț‘a and appeared mainly in late eleventh- and twelfth-century sources, referring to galleys larger than the norm. The ships were sometimes described as triremes, although that may have been a classicizing literary affectation. Garabus was again derived from Arabic: ghurāb, or possibly also qārib, since it is unclear whether these terms were not simply variants of the same name. ‘Aghriba were sometimes said to have carried 140 oars, and garabus may also have been applied to galleys larger than the norm. If they really did row 140 oars, then they must have been triremes.

Horse Transports

Byzantines had oared horse transports equipped with landing ramps as early as the ninth century and retained that capability into the twelfth. The chronicler William of Tyre reports Byzantine horse transports supplied for a combined Byzantine-Frankish attack on Egypt in 1169 as “also having accessible ports at the poops for embarking and disembarking them [horses], also with bridges by which ease of entrance and exit both of men and of horses might be attended to as usual” [William of Tyre, Chronicon, ed. Robert B. C. Huygens (Turnhout: Brepols, 1986), p. 927].

Muslims too were transporting horses on specialized ‘ushāriyyāt and tarā‘id by the tenth century. Twelfth-century tarā‘id could hold forty horses. The Venetians were apparently the first Latins to transport horses to Outremer in 1123, but it is unknown what types of ship they used. By this time the Normans of Sicily definitely could transport horses by galley, because during the Mahdia campaign (1087) 500 cavalry disembarked from beached ships to attack Muslim troops; only galleys could be beached.

Horses were transported in both sailing ships and galleys from the West to Outremer from 1129 up to the time of the Third Crusade. Venice used oared horse transports with stern-quarter ports and landing bridges for the Fourth Crusade (1202–1204), and both appeared among the miscellaneous fleets that reached Damietta during the Fifth Crusade (1217–1221). In 1224 Emperor Frederick II prepared a great fleet of 50 oared horse transports, each carrying forty horses, and in 1246 agents of King Louis IX of France contracted with Genoa for 12 taride to carry twenty horses each for his Crusade to the East.

The Byzantine term for an oared horse transport was chelandion while those of the Muslims had been ‘ushari and tarrīda. In the West uscerius and variants became the generic term for an oared horse transport, while chelandion became adopted as chelandre and variants and tarrīda as taride/tarida. Whether there was ever any real difference between Western chelandre and taride is debatable, but as the thirteenth century wore on, tarida became more common and chelandre disappeared.

Louis IX’s contract of 1246 has the earliest specifications, and these may be compared to those of thirty-horse taride constructed for Charles I of Anjou between 1274 and 1281.

The Later Middle Ages

The twelfth and thirteenth centuries saw no innovation in the technology or construction of Mediterranean sailing naves; however, the length and beam, number of masts, and number of decks and depth in hold of some increased dramatically. By the mid–twelfth century, iconography depicted as a matter of course two-masted naves with multiple-tiered sterncastles and substantial forecastles, such as the Genoese ship conveying Conrad of Montferrat to the Holy Land in the Paris manuscript of the Annals of Genoa [MS Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France,]. By the thirteenth century, the mosaics of San Marco in Venice also showed three-masted ships. No documentary evidence for three-masted ships survives; however, it is available for two-masted ships provided by Genoa and Venice in 1246–1269 for the two crusades of Louis IX of France.

With the amount of deck space legislated by Marseilles for each pilgrim or crusader, ships of the size of the average three-decked ship could carry around 500–550 passengers. One thirteenth century Genoese ship, the Oliva, is known to have had a capacity of 1,100 passengers. Such ships were intercepted and captured by Saladin’s squadrons in the 1170s and 1180s and were referred to in Arabic sources as buțash. According to Arabic sources, one bațsha wrecked off Damietta in 1181/1182 was carrying 2,500 passengers, of whom 1,690 were taken alive. The figures are probably exaggerated, but perhaps not by a great deal if the ship was indeed very large. They could also carry up to 100 horses, normally on the lowest deck, as revealed by a Marseillese contract of 1268 with Louis IX, which specified a fare of 25 shillings for passengers if horses were not stabled there. As the French chronicler Joinville remarked: “On the day that we entered into our ships, the port of the ship was opened and all the horses we wanted to take to Outremer were put inside, and then the port was closed again and plugged well, as when a cask is caulked, because, when the ship is on the high sea, the whole port is under water” [John of Joinville, Vie de Saint Louis, ed. J. Monfrin (Paris: Classsiques Garnier, 1998), p. 62].

Another Northern ship, the cog (MLG kogge), appeared in crusader fleets as early as the Second Crusade (1147–1149). Originally cogs had been flat-bottomed estuarine and river craft in Frisia, but in the early twelfth century cogs appeared that had flat floors and high sides, a radical new rudder hung off a straight sternpost, and straight stemposts, and that could hold the high seas. The wreck from Kolding Fjord (Denmark), dated to the late twelfth or thirteenth centuries, was around 18.3 meters (60 ft.) long and 6.1 (13/4 ft.) meters wide, with a mast step around 1.98 meters (61/2 ft.) forward of midships. It had a flat bottom with edge-joined strakes and sides with clinker strakes. Traces of rust on the sternpost revealed a sternpost rudder rather than the Norse quarter rudder. One of the earliest depictions of such a cog is on the first seal of the city of Elbing (mod. Elbląg, Poland) in Prussia (1242). Whether they evolved from earlier Frisian cogs or whether this name was taken over by a completely new ocean-going craft is debatable.

Cogs of the new type appeared in northern fleets for the Third and Fifth Crusades. In 1217 Count William I of Holland left with a fleet of cogs to join the Fifth Crusade at Damietta. Ports were cut into their sterns to embark the horses, and when the horses were on board, the ports were covered and sealed with pitch and tar. The Mediterranean technology for embarking and disembarking horses by ramps through ports in the hull became adopted in northern Europe.

Maritime history was an evolutionary process. The bireme galee, one-decked and single-masted Mediterranean naves, and Norse knerrir and snekkjur of the age of the First Crusade were replaced 200 years later by trireme galee, multiple-decked and masted naves, and northern cogs.

Bibliography The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since Pre- Classical Times, ed. John Morrison (London: Conway Maritime Press, 1995). Cogs, Caravels and Galleons: The Sailing Ship, 1000–1650, ed. Richard W. Unger (London: Conway Maritime Press, 1994). Crumlin-Pedersen, Ole, “The Skuldelev Ships,” Acta Archaeologica 38 (1967), 73–174. A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology, ed. George F. Bass (London: Thames and Hudson, 1972). Pryor, John H., “The Transportation of Horses by Sea during the Era of the Crusades: Eighth Century to 1285 A.D.,” Mariner’s Mirror 68 (1982), 9–27, 103–125. ———, “The Naval Architecture of Crusader Transport Ships: A Reconstruction of Some Archetypes for Round- Hulled Sailing Ships,” Mariner’s Mirror 70 (1984), 171–219, 275–292, 363–386. ———, Geography, Technology, and War: Studies in the Maritime History of the Mediterranean, 649–1571 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). ———, “The Naval Architecture of Crusader Transport Ships and Horse Transports Revisited,” Mariner’s Mirror 76 (1990), 255–273. ———, “The Galleys of Charles I of Anjou, King of Sicily: ca. 1269–84,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 14 (1993), 33–103. Serçe Limaný: An Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, vol. 1: The Ship and Its Anchorage, Crew, and Passengers, ed. George F. Bass et al. (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2004). Steffy, John R., Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1994). Unger, Richard W., The Ship in the Medieval Economy, 600–1600 (London: Croom Hill, 1980). ———, “Warships and Cargo Ships in Medieval Europe,” Technology and Culture 22 (1981), 233–252. Yassý Ada, vol. 1: A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, ed. George F. Bass and Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr. (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1982).

Ships of the Crusade Era Part I

A stylised drawing of a Nef

By John H. Pryor

The types of ships involved in the crusades at various times were referred to in contemporary sources by a wide variety of different names, and in most cases the types of vessels to which the terms corresponded are known reasonably well; however, there are exceptions that are sometimes difficult to categorize with certainty. This is particularly true of the Muslim world. Only a handful of scholars have addressed the issues, and none have examined the nature of the ships involved, their historical evolution, and their performance capabilities, issues that influenced, indeed governed profoundly the actual participation of naval forces in the crusades.


The first Western fleet to sail to the East in the period of the crusades was probably that commanded by Guynemer of Boulogne, who anchored off Tarsos (mod. Tarsus, Turkey) in September 1097. His vessels are characterized merely as naves by the chronicler Albert of Aachen, who was undoubtedly using the term as a generic for ships. The Genoese fleet that sailed in summer 1097 reportedly consisted of 12 galee (galleys of a new Western design) and 1 sandanum. The term sandanum was a Latinization of the Greek chelandion, for a transport galley. The Pisan fleet that left in summer 1099 reportedly numbered 120 naves, while that of the Venetians that sailed in summer 1099 had at least 30 naves. The fleet of Sigurd Jorsalfar, which left Norway in 1107, was said by Thórarin Stuttfeld to have consisted of 60 ships (ON skip). In 1123 the Venetian fleet that sailed for Outremer reportedly numbered 120 naves plus some small boats (Lat. carabii).

During the Third Crusade (1189–1192), a Northern fleet of 50 ships referred to as cogas (cogs) reached Acre (mod. ‘Akko, Israel). The fleet of Richard I the Lionheart, king of England, consisted of ships variously called esneccas or enekes, galees, naves or nefs, dromonz, and bucee. For the Fourth Crusade (1202–1204) the Venetians supplied a battle fleet of 50 galeae (galleys) and a transport fleet consisting of naves for the men and uissiers for the horses. In 1217 Count William I of Holland led a fleet of coccones to Damietta in Egypt. For his Crusade of 1227–1229 the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II prepared various fleets of ships described as naves, galee, usseria, chelandre, and taride. King Louis IX of France contracted with Marseilles and Genoa for squadrons of naves, taride, and galee for his Crusade of 1248–1254.

Byzantine sources of the crusade period mostly use classical Greek terms such as trieres (pl. triereis) or generic terms such as naus (pl. nees) or ploion (pl. ploia) for ships, although Anna Komnene and Niketas Choniates occasionally use dromon (pl. dromones), the term par excellence for Byzantine war galleys since the sixth century. From the late twelfth century a new term, katergon (pl. katerga), began to be used, displacing dromon and becoming the generic for war galleys during the late Byzantine Empire.

Arabic sources of the period use terms such as qārib (pl. qawārib) for small boats and also for galleys, shīnī (pl. shawānī) and ghurāb (pl. ‘aghriba/ghirbān/‘aghrub) for galleys; markab (pl. marākib) and qiț‘a (pl. qița‘) for vessels in general, but often with reference to war galleys; safīna (pl. sufun, safā‘in) for vessels in general, but often for transport ships; musattah (pl. musattahāt) for transport ships; bațsha (pl. buțash) for large sailing ships; ‘ushari (pl. ‘ushāriyyāt) for transport galleys, tarrīda (pl. tarā‘id) for horse transports, and harrāqa (pl. harrāqāt) for fire ships, as well as loan words such as shalandī (pl. shalandiyyat) from the Byzantine chelandion, frequently used for Byzantine war ships but also for galleys built in Egypt.

Such words were rarely used in a technical or technological sense. Most authors were unfamiliar with the sea, were not writing for maritime audiences, and used approved or literary terms for ships even if they did know what particular types ought to be called. Generic terms such as naves, nees, or ploia, and sufun/safā‘in or marākib were used for all types of ships in fleets. The Latin word naves was used for all ships of the Pisan and Venetian fleets in the First Crusade (1096–1099), even though they included galleys. But as well as its generic meaning, by the twelfth century the term navis/naves had acquired a specific reference in a Mediterranean context to lateen-rigged, round-hulled sailing ships.

Evolution of Ship Types

The historical evolution of ship types was continuous. A type could change in its fundamental technology and yet retain the same name, as in the case of the cog. Alternatively, a name could become applied to a completely different type of ship, as occurred with dromon in its Latin and Arabic variants. By the twelfth century it was used for sailing ships that had nothing in common with Byzantine galleys.

In the centuries before the First Crusade, Mediterranean maritime commerce was carried on a cloud of small sailing ships. Judging from excavations of shipwrecks (the Yassý Ada ship of the seventh century, the Bozburun ship whose timbers were felled in 874, and the early eleventh-century Serçe Limani ship, all from within modern Turkey, and the thirteenth-century Contarina ship found near Venice), such ships averaged around 20 meters (c. 651/2 ft.) in overall length, around 5 meters (c. 161/2 ft.) maximum beam, and around 2–2.5 meters (c. 61/2–81/4 ft.) depth in hold. They probably had single masts and lateen sails, were steered by two stern-quarter rudders, and carried multiple anchors because of their inefficient design and light weight. Smaller versions had only half-decks at bow and stern. Larger ones were fully decked with a small, low cabin at the stern, such as was the case with the Yassý Ada ship.

There certainly were large ships, such as the fine one sailing up the Bosporus that reportedly incensed the Byzantine emperor Theophilos (d. 842) when he learned that its owner was his wife Theodora, or the three-masted “pirate” naus reported by Anna Komnene during the First Crusade. Three-masted sailing ships certainly existed in the eleventh century, as is proved by a depiction on glazed Pisan bacini, which were glazed pottery bowls from the Muslim world placed on the facades of churches at Pisa and elsewhere to reflect sunlight and give the churches a glittering aspect. However, such large ships have left no trace in the documentary record before the thirteenth century.

In the Mediterranean, ships had always been built with strakes edge-joined: that is, with the planks of the hull joined edge to edge and not overlapping as in clinker construction. In classical antiquity, hulls had been shell-constructed from the keel out by holding the strakes together with closely spaced mortise-and-tenon joints pegged with treenails (wooden pegs). Frames were inserted only when hulls had been built to a point where they could be usefully positioned. This produced light and strong hulls but was extremely expensive in terms of the labor and carpentry skills required. By the fourth century (as evidenced in another wreck found at Yassý Ada), tenons had become less tightly fitting, wider but shorter, and spaced more widely apart. The evolutionary process was yet more clearly apparent in the seventh century Yassý Ada wreck. The Bozburun wreck showed no signs of mortise-and-tenon edge-joining, and by the eleventh century, in the Serçe Limani wreck, skeleton construction over a framework of ribs and stringers had replaced shell construction.

Coating ships with a layer of pitch over the whole hull was replaced by driving caulking into the seams between the planks. The first usages of the Greek word for a caulker (kalaphates) occurred in sixth-century Egyptian papyri and appeared in Byzantium itself in the tenth century, in inventories for expeditions to Crete in the De cerimoniis attributed to Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, which included linen for, and the cost of kalaphateseos: caulking. The first picture of caulkers working on a ship is in a manuscript of the De materia medica of Dioskorides Pedanios, probably made for Emperor Constantine VII (MS New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, 652 fol. 240r).

In northern Europe, ships were also shell-constructed, but there strakes were not edge-joined but rather clinker-overlapped. Up to the eleventh century, the sailing ship par excellence was the Norse knörr (ON, pl. knerrir). Two such ships, dated to around 1000, were among 5 ships excavated off Skuldelev in Roskilde Fjord (Denmark). The smaller was around 13.72 meters (45 ft.) long and around 3.20 meters (101/2 ft.) in beam, the larger around 14.94 meters (49 ft.) long and 4.57 meters (15 ft.) in the beam. Both had half decks forward and aft and an open hold amidships. The mast of the smaller was socketed into the kelson, with a stringer laid over the floor timbers and keel to provide fore-and-aft rigidity and to lock the floor timbers to the keel, while that of the larger was set in a complex mast-step. Both would have been steered by a starboard stern-quarter rudder. The larger may well have ventured out into the Atlantic Ocean, since it was heavily built with sturdy frames. Larger knerrir were primarily sailing ships, using what oars they carried only for entering and leaving harbor, for close maneuvering, and in emergencies.

The Skuldelev ships also included two long ships (ON langskip) like the famous ships excavated at Oseberg and Gokstad. The Oseberg ship (from around 800) and the Tune ship (from around 875) had dimensions of 21.4 meters (701/4 ft.) in length, 5.1 meters (163/4 ft.) in the beam, and 1.4 meters (41/2 ft.) depth in hold and around 20.0, 4.6, and an unknown depth in hold respectively (651/2 and 15 ft.). The Gokstad ship (of around 900) was 23.4 meters in length, 5.2 meters in the beam, and 1.9 meters depth in hold (763/4, 17, and 61/4 ft.). Those of the two Skuldelev ships were approximately 18, 2.6, and 1.1 meters (59, 81/2, and 31/2 ft.) and 30, 4.2 meters (981/2 and 133/4 ft.), and unknown depth in hold, respectively. The Oseberg ship carried 15 pairs of oars, the Tune and smaller Skuldelev ships 12 pairs. The Gokstad ship carried 16 pairs of oars and the larger Skuldelev ship between 20 and 30 pairs. In Norse literature the terms langskip and “snake” (ON snekkja, pl. snekkjur) were interchangeable, although snekkjur may have been larger. As the length of northern longships began to increase, the largest became known as drekar, “dragon ships” (sing. dreki). Those such as the Gokstad ship and the larger Skuldelev ship would certainly have been capable of voyages to Outremer; however, whether Norse langskip, snekkjur, or drekar actually made such voyages is debatable. Crews would have been much more comfortable in knerrir, and there would have been no reason to use longships unless naval combat was expected.

In England knerrir became known as céolas (OE sing. céol), that is keels, perhaps reflecting originally the pronounced keels of Norse ships as opposed to keel-less Frisian hulks and cogs. By the eleventh century the Old English term céol was used commonly for sailing ships in the lower North Sea and English Channel. Another name that appeared increasingly from the eleventh century was bussa/busse/bus/buza (Lat. bucia/bucius); however, whether the Mediterranean Latin bucia/bucius was adopted in the north or vice-versa is unclear. No descriptions of these terms permit attribution of particular characteristics to ships. Nor do illustrations name types until much later. By the thirteenth century ships like knerrir but with light and possibly demountable castles added at the stern, and sometimes the bow, appeared on town seals. Beam ends through the hull of some were probably deck beams. Such ships were probably the buciae in the English fleet of the Third Crusade, and according to Richard of Devizes, the naves of the English fleet, which were only half the size of the buciae, carried forty foot soldiers and forty horses as well as their supplies. The Norse snekkja was also imitated in England under the names esnecca or esneke. King Henry II had a sixty-oared esnecca that made the voyage to Outremer during the Third Crusade. Other flotillas of snekkjur and smaller oared ships from France, Flanders, and Denmark also participated.

Chinese Invention – Ship’s Rudder

Han Dynasty: circa 202 BC – 220 AD

Chinese naval developments occurred far earlier than similar western technology. The first recorded use of rudder technology in the West was in 1180. Chinese pottery models of sophisticated slung axial rudders (enabling the rudder to be lifted in shallow waters) dating from the 1st century have been found. Early rudder technology (c 100 AD) also included the easier to use balanced rudder (where part of the blade was in front of the steering post), first adopted by England in 1843 – some 1700 years later. In another naval development, fenestrated rudders were common on Chinese ships by the 13th century which were not introduced to the west until 1901. Fenestration is the adding of holes to the rudder where it does not affect the steering, yet make the rudder easy to turn. This innovation finally enabled European torpedo boats to use their rudders while traveling at high speed (about 30 knots).


Easily distinguishable by its typical stem-head with trefoil crest, Ghanjah was formerly used in trading. having a capacity of 130 to 300 tons, this boat used to be built in Sur.

Length 70 – 125 Feet. Weight 125 – 300 tons

Very similar vessel to the Baghlah and difficult to distinguish, the major give away being the stem head. The Ghanjah has a protruding stem head with a round ornament carved at the end, there is also a distinctive tri fingered design on top of the round ornament. The Ghanjah tended to be narrower than the Baghlah and has been known to carry three masts.

Baghlah – Arab cargo vessel

A baghlah, bagala or baggala is a large deep-sea dhow, a traditional Arabic sailing vessel.

A baghlah is a type of dhow with one or more lateen sails. It is primarily used along the coasts of the Arabian Peninsula, Sindh, India, and East Africa. A larger dhow may have a crew of approximately thirty while smaller dhows have crews typically ranging around twelve.

Baghlahs were used as merchant ships in the Indian Ocean and the minor seas around the Arabian Peninsula. They reached eastwards up to the Bay of Bengal and the Spice Islands and southwestwards down to the East African coast.
The baghlah uses two to three lateen sails and supplementary sails can be added. It is a heavy ship that needs a crew of at least 18-25 sailors. In favorable conditions a baghlah can sail up to 9 knots.

The Cossacks

Operation Keelhaul – Betrayal of the Cossacks in Lienz

The Cossacks were probably the most militarily skilled and loyal foreign volunteers of the Wehrmacht.
In September 1942 the German cavalry General von Pannwitz started raising a complete division with Cossacks, by absorption of previous regiment-sized units like Kampfgruppen von Jungschultz, Lehman, Konomow and Wolff, fresh recruitments, and by implanting a ‘stan’ or Cossack settlement in Poland, and later in Northern Italy. In September 1943 this 1. Kossacken Division was ordered to Yugoslavia, to fight the partisans of Tito.

The Cossacks fought bitterly against the partisans, and proved to be more successful in this kind of operations than the German units, their horses giving them a useful tactical flexibility in the wild terrain of the Balkan mountains. At the end of 1943, with a new 2. Division, von Pannwitz formed the XIV Kossacken Korps. General von Pannwitz was so popular amongst his Cossacks that they granted him the title of ‘Feldataman’, the highest rank in the Cossack hierarchy, traditionally reserved for the Tsar alone.

The Cossacks continued fighting against the partisans and later the Red Army until the end, when the majority of them managed to surrender to the British Army. However, Stalin demanded them to be handed over, and the British acceded. General von Pannwitz, who refused leaving his men, was hanged. The Cossacks were shot at once or sent to the Siberian gulags.

Vlassov’s Army

Prague 1945



Russia was far from a monolithic structure. It contained numerous diverse ethnic groups, many of which had long histories of resenting Russian suzerainty and domination. Combined with the long standing hatred of Russia, the new Soviet regime was often even more hated, even by the Russians, so when the Germans invaded, their initial reception was often one of liberator than one of conqueror. Deserters appeared in the hundreds before German units offering their services in any capacity and they were taken in gladly. They were given the names “Hilfsfreiwilliger” (Volunteer Helpers) or Hiwis for short. Initially, their functions were the various menial tasks such as cooking, digging latrines, officers’ batmen, etc., but more than once they jumped into combat roles when the opportunity arose. Hundreds of the Hiwis were gradually sucked into the role of combatant, despite the lack of orders and the German ethnic attitudes of the period.

The 134th Infantry Division began openly enlisting Russians in July 1941. Other divisions refrained from such overt violation of Hitler’s orders, but more than willingly took the Russians on an unofficial basis. During the winter of 1941/42 the first Osttruppen or Eastern Troops were formed. By early 1942 six battalions of Ostruppen were formed in Army Group Center under Oberst von Tresckow. These units were given territorial designations, like Volga, Berezina, and Pripet. Initially they were used in the rear on anti-partisan operations with the security divisions, but slowly they were brought forward into the front lines.

In early 1942 racist elements of the German hierarchy brought this to Hitler’s attention. He responded to the movement by prohibiting the use of Russian “sub humans” as soldiers and on 2/10/42 issued a Fuhrer Order that limited their use of those existent units to rear area operations only. Despite his obvious displeasure, the Osttruppen continued to expand. The OKH was to authorize the use of Hiwis up to 10% to 15% of divisional strength and by August 1942 official regulations were issued governing uniforms pay, decoration, and insignia. By early 1943 an estimated 80,000 Russians were serving the Wehrmacht in Ostbataillonen.

The formation of Russian units in the German army would have been quite limited had not the Soviet General Vlassov been captured in July 1942. He had been a prominent general after the war erupted, but in March 1942 he was ordered to liberate Leningrad with the 2nd Soviet Assault Army. His attack failed and his army of nine infantry divisions, six infantry brigades, and an armored brigade were surrounded, abandoned by Stalin, and crushed, leaving the Germans with 32,000 prisoners. Amongst the German High Command there had always some hope of forming a Russian army to assist them in the conquest of Soviet Russia. As time progressed, it became apparent that Vlassov was the ideal man to form this army.

As the war progressed and the German effort in Russia began failing, Hitler was eventually persuaded to permit the formation of the army. The first steps occurred in August 1942 when General Koestring formed an Inspectorate which was to organize Caucasian troops. Koestring, however, ignored this limitation and took all volunteers possible. When Koestring retired in January 1943 the post of General der Ostruppen was created and given to General Hellmich, who had no previous experience with the Russians. Fortunately, Hellmich and Koestring’s service overlapped and the two men agreed on Koestring’s earlier decisions.

The Osttruppen was absorbing not only Caucasians, but Ukrainians, Russians, Azberjainis, and Turkistanis. In January 1944 Koestring, now apparently out of retirement, took over from Hellmich with the new title General der Freiwilligen Verbaende (General of Volunteer Units). In the meantime, Hitler had authorized the formation of a Russian army under Vlassov. In November 1942 a Russian National Committee was established in Berlin with Vlassov serving as Chairman. It then issued the Smolensk Manifesto, calling for the destruction of Stalinism, the conclusion of an honorable peace with Germany, and Russian participation in the “New Europe.”

The German Army intelligence then proceeded to drop copies of leaflets over the Russian lines, as well as a carefully planned accident which resulted in their being dropped over German lines as well. It appears that Hitler had forbidden any release of this in the German press. During the winter of 1942/43, faced with the destruction of the 6th Army in Stalingrad and Rommel’s expulsion from North Africa, Hitler began to reconsider the role he had allocated to Vlassov’s Russkaia Osvoboditelnaia Armiia or ROA.

The desertion rate from the Soviet army rose to 6,500 in July 1943, compared to 2,500 the previous year, as a result of ROA propaganda and the future looked bright. However, in September 1943 Hitler announced that the ROA was to be dissolved. The German generals pleaded with him, pointing out that the Russian front would collapse, as there were currently 78 Ost battalions, 122 companies, one regiment and innumerable supply, security, and other units then serving with the German army, not to mention the thousands of Hiwis in the German units. Certainly there were 750,000 Russians then serving in the German army and some estimates go so far as to suggest that 25% of the German army on the Russian front was made up of ethnic Russians.

A screaming and raging Hitler was eventually brought to compromise and only those units whose loyalty was suspect were to be disbanded and the rest would be transferred to the West. This, being left in Wehrmacht hands, the disbandings were limited to 5,000 men and serious procrastination prevented many transfers westwards. However, by October 1943 large numbers of Ostruppen did begin moving west. This was accomplished by exchanging Ost Battalions for German battalions in the west. These Ost battalions were then formally incorporated into the German divisions where they were assigned.

The morale of the Osttruppen began to collapse. Vlassov was persuaded to write them an open letter announcing these transfers were only a temporary expediency and hinted at bigger and better things. When the allies invaded Normandy they were startled to find that many of their German prisoners were, in fact, Russians and soon had 20,000 ROA prisoners in custody. Though Himmler refused to believe Koestring’s reports, at that time there were 100,000 eastern volunteers in the Luftwaffe and Navy and another 800,000 in the German Army.

The continuing reversal of German military hopes was slowly bringing even the SS around to reconsidering the desirability of Russian troops. In the east the SS was, by late 1943, regularly rounding up 15-20 year olds to serve as Flak helpers. There was discussion of the creation of an Eastern Moslem SS Division and several Slavic legions were forming in the SS. Himmler soon began considering himself as the leader of the “Army of Europe” and began taking any non-German human material he could find into his hands. It was not long before he saw Vlassov’s ROA as another force that could be added.

Himmler approached Vlassov and proposed the formation of a Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia (Komitet Osvobozhdeniia Narodov Rossi or K.O.N.R.) It was to be allowed to raise an army of five divisions, two of which were to be raised immediately. The personnel would be drawn from the existing ROA units and from among the Ostarbeiter then in Germany. The first two units formed were placed under Vlassov’s command on 1/28/45, the 600th and 650th Russian Divisions. In Neuren an airforce or air division, was organized that consisted of an air transport squadron, a reconnaissance squadron, a flak regiment, a paratrooper battalion, and a flying training unit. This force of some 4,000 men was assigned to General V.I. Maltsev. On 2/1/45 Goering formally handed this division over to Vlassov’s command.

By March 1945 the KONR numbered some 50,000 men. The Cossack Cavalry Corps was promised to Vlassov by Himmler, as was the Russian Guard Corps in Serbia, but in fact neither was ever placed under his command. The KONR fought its first battle in February 1945 when a force of the 600th Division attacked in Pommerania and its engagement was a complete success. Hundreds of Soviet soldiers changed sides and joined it. In March it moved to the Oder front and was ordered to attack the Soviet army near Frankfurt. However, it was so pounded by the Soviets that it withdrew to the south and back into Czechoslovakia. On 5/5/45 the Czech communists began a revolt in Prague and Buniachenko ordered the 600th Division to assist them. Their assistance was refused by the Czechs and, as the war ended the next day, the division was taken prisoner by the Americans. The 650th Division, except for one regiment, were captured by the Russians and either executed or sent into the Russian Gulag. Vlassov was snatched from American hands by the Russians, suffered through a short show trial, and was quickly executed along with the major leaders of the KONR.

599TH RUSSIAN BRIGADE: Formed in April 1945 in Aalborg, Denmark, as part of the Liberation Russian Army under Vlassov. It contained:

1/,2/,3/1604th Grenadier Regiment (from 714th (Russian) Grenadier Regiment) 1/,2/,3/1605th Grenadier Regiment 1/,2/,3/1606th Grenadier Regiment

The division was intended to be expanded to form the 3rd Vlassov Division.

600TH (RUSSIAN) INFANTRY DIVISION Formed on 12/1/44 as part of the Russian Liberation Army under Vlassov with what was to have become the 29th Waffen SS Grenadier Division (1st Russian). On 2/28/45 it contained:

1/,2/1601st Grenadier Regiment 1/,2/1602nd Grenadier Regiment 1/,2/1603rd Grenadier Regiment 1/,2/,3/,4/1600th Artillery Regiment 1600th Division Support Units

650TH (RUSSIAN) DIVISION Formed in March 1945 as part of Vlassov’s Russian Liberation Army. The division was organized with prisoners of war and contained, on 4/5/45:

1/,2/1651st Grenadier Regiment 1/,2/1652nd Grenadier Regiment 1/,2/1653rd Grenadier Regiment 1/,2/,3/,4/1650th Artillery Regiment 1650th Divisional Support Units

The division was not fully formed and remained in Munsingen until overrun. On 17 January 1945 the organization of the 650th Infantry (Russian) Division was established as follows:

DIVISION STAFF: Division Staff (2 LMGs) 1650th (mot) Mapping Detachment 1650th (mot) Military Police Detachment (3 LMGs)

1651ST INFANTRY REGIMENT: REGIMENTAL STAFF Staff Staff Company (3 LMGs) 1 Signals Platoon 1 Engineer Platoon (6 LMGs) 1 Reconnaissance Platoon (3 LMGs) 1 Signals Platoon 2 BATTALIONS, each with 3 Infantry Companies (9 LMGs ea) 1 Heavy Company (8 HMGs, 4 75mm infantry support guns, 1 LMG & 6 80mm mortars)

13TH INFANTRY SUPPORT COMPANY: (2 150mm leIG, 1 LMG, 8 120mm mortars & 4 LMGs)

14TH PANZERJAGER COMPANY (54 Panzerschreck, 18 Reserve Panzerschreck & 4 LMGs)

1652ND INFANTRY REGIMENT: same as 1651st 1653RD INFANTRY REGIMENT: same as 1651st

1650TH (MOUNTED) RECONNAISSANCE BATTALION: 4 Squadrons, each with (9 LMGs, 2 80mm mortars)

1650TH PANZERJAGER BATTALION: 1 Staff 1 (mot) Staff Company (1 LMG) 1st Company (12 75mm PAK & 12 LMGs) 2nd (armored) Company 14 Assault Guns (sturmgeschutz) & 16 LMGs Detachment captured Russian tanks 3rd (mot) Flak Company (9 37mm Flak guns & 5 LMGs)

1650TH ARTILLERY BATTALION: 1 Staff 1 Staff Battery (1 LMG) 1ST, 2ND & 3RD BATTALIONS, each with: 1 Staff 1 Staff Battery (1 LMG) 2 105mm leFH Batteries (4 105mm leFH & 4 LMGs ea) 1 75mm Battery (6-75mm guns & 3 LMGs) 4TH BATTALION: 1 Staff 1 Staff Battery (1 LMG) 2 150mm sFH Batteries (6-150mm howitzers & 4 LMGs ea)

1650TH (BICYCLE) PIONEER BATTALION 2 (bicycle) Pioneer Companies, each with: (2 HMGs, 9 LMGs, 6 flame throwers & 2 80mm mortars) 1 Pioneer Company (2 HMGs, 9 LMGs, 6 flame throwers & 2 80mm mortars)

1650TH SIGNALS BATTALION: 1 (mixed mobility) Telephone Company (4 LMGs) 1 (mixed mobility) Radio Company (2 LMGs) 1 (mixed mobility) Signals Supply Detachment (2 LMGs)

1650TH FELDERSATZ BATTALION: 1 Supply Detachment 5 Replacement Companies, with a total of: (50 LMGs, 12 HMGs, 6 80mm mortars, 1 120mm mortar 1 75mm leIG, 1 75mm PAK, 1 20mm/37mm Flak, 2 flame throwers, 1 105mm leFH 18 , 6 Panzerschrecke, & 56 Sturm Gewehr 41

1650TH DIVISIONAL SUPPORT REGIMENT: SUPPLY TROOP: 1650th (mot) 120 ton Transportation Company (4 LMGs) 1/,2/1650th Horse Drawn (30 ton) Transportation Companies (2 LMGs ea) 1650th Horse Drawn Supply Platoon OTHER: 1650th Ordnance Troop 1650th (mot) Vehicle Maintenance Troop 1650th Supply Company (3 LMGs) 1650th (mot) Field Hospital 1650th (mot) Medical Supply Company 1650th Veterinary Company (2 LMGs) 1650th (mot) Field Post Office

In a parallel formation to the ROA and KONR another large force of Russians was formed in March 1942 by German Intelligence. This force was the Versuchsverband Mitte (Experimental Formation of Army Group Center). Though officially known as Abwehr Abteilung 203 the unit was to have several names – Verband Graukopf, Boyarsky Brigade, Russian Special Duty Battalion, Ostintorf Brigade, and finally the Russian National People’s Army (Russkaia Natsionalnaya Narodnaya Armiya or RNNA). The unit was started when a Russian émigré, Sergi Ivanov, recruited several prominent Russian prisoners of war and other Russian exiles, to the German cause. Ivanov, acting as a liaison officer for the Abwehr, worked with Igor Sakharov, son of a White Russian General and émigré to Germany, and slowly they organized a force of 3,000 former prisoners of war.

By December 1942 they had 7,000 men training. A brigade was formed consisting of four battalions, an artillery battalion, and an engineer battalion. The organization of the units was based on the Russian model. In August 1942 Colonel Boyarsky took command in December Feldmarschal von Kluge inspected the brigade, was pleased with what he saw, and expressed his pleasure with its actions in combat in the German rear in May 1942. He then stated that he would issue the unit German uniforms and weapons and split it into a number of infantry battalions, which would be assigned to various German combat divisions. This offhanded command shattered the brigade’s morale and 300 men promptly deserted. It had seen itself as the cadre of a Russian army of liberation. Despite their protests, the brigade was broken into the 633rd, 634th, 635th, 636th, and 637th Ost Battalions and employed in anti-Partisan operations.

1848 in Austro-Hungary

Capitulation of Hungarian Army at Világos 1849

In 1848, when a series of revolutions broke out across Europe, Pest, Vienna, and Prague were among the cities at the forefront of experiments with political reform. In Hungary, under the leadership of Lajos Kossuth (1802.1894), the diet rapidly proclaimed a new constitutional regime in April (the April Laws). This arrangement confirmed Hungary’s existence independent of other Habsburg territories, promised liberal rights of citizenship and enfranchisement to many more inhabitants (although not to Jews or to small property owners), and maintained full enfranchisement for any noble, no matter how poor. The Hungarian reformers postponed any significant transformation of the manorial system, a tack that pleased the broad gentry class and nobility but did little to satisfy the peasantry. Furthermore, the April Laws imposed the Magyar language on state and society, and this tended to diminish revolutionary unity, provoking opposition among leaders in Croatia and Transylvania who rejected Magyar predominance and insisted on using Latin in their communications with the government. In fact the question of defining the nation and the privileged role of the Magyar language helped to alienate many who spoke other languages and who might otherwise have sympathized with the new liberal constitutional regime. Later in 1848 and 1849 the Habsburg military carefully exploited this alienation as the dynasty struggled to reimpose control over Hungary. The dynasty’s strategy of divide and conquer ultimately provoked the Hungarian revolutionaries in turn to depose the Habsburgs and to declare full independence in April 1849.

In Vienna the government collapsed in March 1848, Metternich fled, and the emperor;s advisors promised a constitutional regime with liberal franchise laws, civil rights, the abolition of censorship, and, eventually, an end to the remaining vestiges of serfdom and the manorial system (which in Galicia were considerable). Occasional outbursts of popular violence in Vienna throughout the spring continued to drive the revolution further to the left, until the court found it expedient to remove itself to the safer, more conservative city of Innsbruck. In July an Austrian parliament elected by means of an extremely generous suffrage set about writing a constitution, and it too was eventually removed to the sleepy town of Kremsier/Kroměříž. in Moravia in order to avoid the political pressures exerted by the radical crowd in the streets of Vienna. At the same time, the issue of political nationalism came to the fore in several different and often contradictory contexts. Austria sent a large delegation to the Frankfurt National Assembly, which struggled in 1848 and 1849 to forge a new united Germany. Liberal Austrians who sat in the Frankfurt National Assembly tended to share an idealistic vision of a future united Germany that would include the non-German-speaking Habsburg territories. The inhabitants of these territories, it was imagined, would receive linguistic rights where necessary from the fraternal German people, and they would reap considerable benefits from their participation in the high cultural and economic development of the German nation. In fact, using a universal language of inclusion, many Austro-German liberals imagined their nation to be defined by its very commitment to the values of liberal humanism, values available to any struggling people in east-central Europe.

At the same time, and in reaction to the events at Frankfurt, Czech national liberal leaders proclaimed their own adherence to an Austria separate from Germany and defined by Slav interests. The (bilingual) Bohemian historian František Palacký(1798–1876), who had been invited to participate in the planning process for the Frankfurt National Assembly, used the occasion of his reply to articulate this Austro-Slav position most effectively. Calling for an Austria organized around a principle of Slav solidarity, since this would protect the so-called smaller nations of central Europe from German and Russian hegemony, Palacký argued that had Austria not existed, it would have had to be invented for this very purpose. In June an informal Slav Congress even met in Prague, although its activities tended to demonstrate the difficulties of forging a common program that would unite the political interests of Czech, Polish, Ukrainian, Slovak, Serbian, and Slovene speakers across the Monarchy.

Many historians have since judged nationalism rather than liberalism to have been the major source of discontent in 1848. Such a judgment accepts the nationalist rhetoric of 1848 at face value, and views it in the context of modern nationalist sensibilities, rather than in terms of the specific and limited meanings that attached to such language over 150 years ago. The fact that Austro- Slav declarations by Czech nationalist leaders caught their German-speaking counterparts in Bohemia by surprise should alert the observer to the relative novelty and insignificance of the national issue to most Austrians in 1848. Nationalist discourse became a critical vehicle for conveying regional demands that year, but the nations it invoked were largely figments of the nationalists’ own imagination. More often than not, regional and class loyalties far outweighed their nationalist counterparts. German and Czech-identified deputies to the Austrian parliament from Bohemia (many of whom were bilingual) agreed more often with each other, for example, than they did with German-speaking delegates from Lower Austria or Styria. And unlike their Polish noble counterparts, Polish-speaking peasant deputies to the parliament sought an immediate end to all forms of manorialism. Many historians of 1848 have also argued that the work of the constitutional committee at the parliament in Kremsier constituted the last possibility for a friendly constitutional understanding among the various ‘‘nations’’ of Austria. Indeed the work of the committee provided a notable model for later Austrian constitutions, but the compromises achieved by the committee emerged from its members’ powerful conviction that their common liberal sympathies far outweighed nationalist differences. Whether they held centralist or federalist views, German national or Slav national orientations, the men at Kremsier largely put aside their differences over the latter issues to produce a bill of rights and state structure that would have transformed dynastic Austria into a genuinely constitutional regime.

Their efforts, however, would not pay off for another twenty years. Already in the summer of 1848 the regime had begun to reassert its dominance against the revolution, even against its more moderate proponents. In June, Field Marshal Prince Alfred Windischgrätz successfully laid siege to Prague, ending both the Slav Congress and a radical student uprising there. In October the military besieged revolutionary Vienna, long since abandoned by the court and most moderates. In early December the regime replaced the faltering Emperor Ferdinand with the eighteen-year-old Francis Joseph I (r. 1848–1916), and in the spring of 1849 the new emperor and his prime minister, Felix Schwarzenberg, sent the Austrian parliament home, imposing a constitution of their own devising on Austria. Later in 1849, with the help of the Russian military, the Austrians finally managed to defeat the armies of the Hungarian rebels, and in 1851 the emperor decided to rule openly as an absolute monarch by abrogating the constitution he had issued a year before.