Christian, thanks for the reminder about flipping, its been a while since we had that discussion.
Sean, I've found my links and notes from when I was looking at this stuff:
First off:
Guilmartin is a bit erratic. In some of his work he asserts that the maximum speed of the late medieval and early modern galley is 7 knots. In other works he asserts a range of 7-12. I suspect that this is due to a renaissance account of a galley race in the Venetian lagoon that has been estimated to 12 knots (admittedly under ideal conditions, and I've got to find the source again).
Guilmartin himself argues that the difference in performance is due to the tactical drivers of the Venetians versus their counterparts. Speed and maneuverability allow for devestating oar rakes and allow for stand off an shoot tactics. In the period the Venetians also have a significantly superior class of rower than any of their counterparts, which also improves performance.
Second, you assert:
>The new shipbuilding methods were much cheaper in labour and materials, but
>produced a slightly worse product. Whether they were an advance or a
>regression is rather subjective I think.
Marine archaeology has revealed that Greek construction methods evolved from sewn together planks to mortise and tenon construction with the ships ribs laid in afterwards. Polzer describes a late archaic ship in the Aegean that is built in a transitional fashion (part mortise and tenon and part laced) in "An Archaic Laced Hull in the Aegean" (INA Quarterly 31.3)
This represents a school of maritime manufacture that will survive into the early modern age, with ships like the Duyfken of the 16th century, now reconstructed using the same technique. (
http://www.duyfken.com/ )
A second method appears at some point in antiquity. In this system the keel and ribs are laid down first and then planked onto, no mortising involved. Roman military ships found at Mainz were built in this fashion (
http://www2.rgzm.de/navis/Ships/Ship101 ... u1Engl.htm )
and the same technique is documented in Michael of Rhode's manuscript on venetian shipbuilding (
http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/michaelofrhodes/ ) from the beginning of the fifteenth century. A 13th century venetian war galley built in this fashion was recently recovered and is being examined by a team led by Marco d'Augustino (Excavation and Recording of the Medieval Hulls at San Marco in Boccalama, INA Quarterly 30.1) and a Byzantine Dromon found at Brozbrun (Hocket, Brozbrun Byzantine Shipwreck Expedition: The Final Campaign 1998 INA Quarterly 25.4)
So, since it appears the two systems of ship manufacture existed in parallel from antiquity, I have some problems with some of your assertions:
>The new shipbuilding methods were much cheaper in labour and materials but
>produced a slightly worse product.
But your "new" system wasn't new, and parallel systems would tend to indicate that labour and material costs were not the drivers. Defining the product as worse is a totally subjective assertion without a foundation.
What defines the quality and value of a ship? If ship construction evolved, as you suggest, so that classical ramming didn't work as a tactic due to whatever factors, were the new ships worse if their sprint speed under oars was slower?(which, it is worth noting, is itself an assertion without a strong foundation)
On another hand, speed of construction could be the key driver for the plank on frame system, as a ship could be built more quickly from standard parts, like the famous Venetian account of a galley built between sunrise and sunset. But such benefits only accrue when you have the massive infrastructure of the Arsenale or its Spanish or Turkish equivalents to back you up. If you don't, it may be the mortise and tenon system is superior.
>Whether they were an advance or a regression is rather subjective I think.
And here we get to the nub of things. It is subjective, as these two systems likely evolved to solve different problems, and resulted in products that did not have clear enough benefits for one system to eliminate the other.
Only in the golden age of sail does plank on frame triumph, for reasons I'd rather not research. I'm willing to forward the theory that the expansion of the infrastructure neccessary to support plank and frame among the key players eliminated the mortise and tenon systems viability. But I wouldn't assert it.
Thanks,
Cole