Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

 

Siege of Constantinople as depicted between 1453 and 1475.^[38]

Philippe de Mazerolles

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

 

Following the city’s conquest, the Church of the Holy Wisdom (the Hagia Sophia) was converted into a mosque.

Benutzer:Rainer Zenz

 

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

The Virgin of the Navigators by Alejo Fernándezdating to between 1531 and 1536 and depicting Columbus and others of importance in the first years of Spanish exploration.^[5]

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

Chang Ch’ien si accomiata dall’imperatore Wu della dinastia Han, partendo per la sua spedizione in Asia Centrale. Affresco nelle grotte di Mogao Dunhuang, Gansu, Cina

PHG – copied from en wp

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 1

https://wordpress.com/view/giacobbegiusti.wordpress.com

List of sieges of Constantinople.

Conquest of Constantinople
Part of the Byzantine–Ottoman Wars and Ottoman wars in Europe Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2
The last siege of Constantinople, contemporary 15th century French miniature.
Date 6 April – 29 May 1453 (53 days) Location Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) Result Decisive Ottoman victory End of the Byzantine Empire Territorial changes Ottoman Empire annexes the remaining Byzantine territories; Constantinople becomes its new capital Trebizond, Theodoro and Epiruscontinue as Byzantine rump states, until their conquest in 1461, the fall of Theodoro in 1475 and 1479respectively
Belligerents
Ottoman Empire	Byzantine Empire  Republic of Genoa  Republic of Venice  Kingdom of Sicily  Papal States Ottoman Defectors
Commanders and leaders
Mehmed the Conqueror  Zagan Pasha  Suleiman Baltoghlu  Hamza Bey  Ulubatlı Hasan †	Constantine XI †  Loukas Notaras   Theophilos Palaiologos †  Giovanni Giustiniani Longo (WIA)  Cardinal Isidore (POW)  Orhan Çelebi
Strength
Ottomans Land forces: 50,000–80,000[1] 5,000–10,000 Janissaries 1,500 Serbian cavalry Various cannon and bombards Naval forces: 31 Galleys 75 large row boats 20 horse transports	Byzantines Land forces: 7,000–10,000 600 Ottoman defectors[2] Naval forces: 26 ships
Casualties and losses
Unknown but heavy losses	4,000 killed in total (including combatants and civilians) 30,000 enslaved

show v t e Byzantine–Ottoman wars

The Fall of Constantinople(Greek: Ἅλωσις τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, translit. Halōsis tēs Kōnstantinoupoleōs; Turkish: İstanbul’un Fethi, lit. ‘Conquest of Istanbul‘) was the capture of the capital of the Byzantine Empire by an invading Ottoman army on 29 May 1453. The attackers were commanded by the 21-year-old SultanMehmed II, who defeated an army commanded by EmperorConstantine XI Palaiologos and took control of the imperial capital, ending a 53-day siege that began on 6 April 1453. After conquering the city, Sultan Mehmed transferred the capital of his Empire from Edirne to Constantinople and established his court there.

The capture of the city (and two other Byzantine splinter territories soon thereafter) marked the end of the Byzantine Empire, a continuation of the Roman Empire, an imperial state dating to 27 BC, which had lasted for nearly 1,500 years.^[3] The conquest of Constantinople also dealt a massive blow to Christendom, as the Muslim Ottoman armies thereafter were left unchecked to advance into Europe without an adversary to their rear.

It was also a watershed moment in military history. Since ancient times, cities had used ramparts and city walls to protect themselves from invaders, and Constantinople’s substantial fortifications had been a model followed by cities throughout the Mediterranean region and Europe. The Ottomans ultimately prevailed due to the use of gunpowder (which powered formidable cannons).^[4]

The conquest of the city of Constantinople and the end of the Byzantine Empire^[5] was a key event in the Late Middle Ages which also marks, for some historians, the end of the Medieval period.^[6]

State of the Byzantine Empire

Constantinople had been an imperial capital since its consecration in 330 under Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great. In the following eleven centuries, the city had been besieged many times but was captured only once: during the Fourth Crusade in 1204.^[7]:304 The crusaders established an unstable Latin state in and around Constantinople while the remaining empire splintered into a number of Byzantine successor states, notably Nicaea, Epirus and Trebizond. They fought as allies against the Latin establishments, but also fought among themselves for the Byzantine throne.

The Nicaeans eventually reconquered Constantinople from the Latins in 1261. Thereafter, there was little peace for the much-weakened empire as it fended off successive attacks by the Latins, the Serbians, the Bulgarians, and, most importantly, the Ottoman Turks.^{[7][page needed] [8][9][10][page needed]} The Black Plague between 1346 and 1349 killed almost half of the inhabitants of Constantinople.^[11] The city was severely depopulated due to the general economic and territorial decline of the empire, and by 1453 consisted of a series of walled villages separated by vast fields encircled by the fifth-century Theodosian walls.

By 1450 the empire was exhausted and had shrunk to a few square miles outside the city of Constantinople itself, the Princes’ Islands in the Sea of Marmara, and the Peloponnese with its cultural center at Mystras. The Empire of Trebizond, an independent successor statethat formed in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade, also survived on the coast of the Black Sea.

Preparations

When Sultan Mehmed II succeeded his father in 1451, he was just nineteen years old. Many European courts assumed that the young Ottoman ruler would not seriously challenge Christian hegemony in the Balkans and the Aegean.^[12] This calculation was boosted by Mehmed’s friendly overtures to the European envoys at his new court.^[13] But Mehmed’s mild words were not matched by actions. By early 1452, work began on the construction of a second fortress(Rumeli hisarı) on the Bosphorus,^[14] on the European side several miles north of Constantinople, set directly across the strait on the Asian side from the Anadolu Hisarı fortress, built by his great-grandfather Bayezid I. This pair of fortresses ensured complete control of sea traffic on the Bosphorus;^[15] and defended against attack by the Genoese colonies on the Black Sea coast to the north. (This new fortress, was called Boğazkesen, which means ‘strait-blocker’ or ‘throat-cutter’, to emphasize its strategic position.) In October 1452, Mehmed ordered Turakhan Beg to station a large garrison force in the Peloponnese to block Thomas and Demetrios (despotes in Southern Greece) from providing aid to their brother Constantine XI Palaiologosduring the impending siege of Constantinople.^{[nb 1]} Michael Critobulussays about the speech of Mehmed II to his soldiers: « My friends and men of my empire! You all know very well that our forefathers secured this kingdom that we now hold at the cost of many struggles and very great dangers and that, having passed it along in succession from their fathers, from father to son, they handed it down to me. For some of the oldest of you were sharers in many of the exploits carried through by them—those at least of you who are of maturer years—and the younger of you have heard of these deeds from your fathers. They are not such very ancient events nor of such a sort as to be forgotten through the lapse of time. Still, the eyewitness of those who have seen testifies better than does the hearing of deeds that happened but yesterday or the day before. »

Role of Christian Schism

Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI swiftly understood Mehmed’s true intentions and turned to Western Europe for help; but now the price of centuries of war and enmity between the eastern and western churches had to be paid. Since the mutual excommunications of 1054, the Pope in Rome was committed to establishing authority over the eastern church. Nominal union had been negotiated in 1274, at the Second Council of Lyon, and indeed, some Palaiologoi emperors (Latin, Palaeologan) had since been received into the Latin church. Emperor John VIII Palaiologos had also recently negotiated union with Pope Eugene IV, with the Council of Florence of 1439 proclaiming a Bull of Union. These events, however, stimulated a propaganda initiative by anti-unionist Orthodox partisans in Constantinople; the population, as well as the laity and leadership of the Byzantine Church, became bitterly divided. Latent ethnic hatred between Greeks and Italians, stemming from the events of the Massacre of the Latinsin 1182 by the Greeks and the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by the Latins, played a significant role. Finally, the attempted Union failed, greatly annoying Pope Nicholas V and the hierarchy of the Roman church.

The Byzantine Empire in the first half of the 15th century. Thessaloniki was captured by the Ottomans in 1430. A few islands in the Aegean and the Propontis remained under Byzantine rule until 1453 (not shown on the map).

In the summer of 1452, when Rumelı Hisariwas completed and the threat had become imminent, Constantine wrote to the Pope, promising to implement the Union, which was declared valid by a half-hearted imperial court on 12 December 1452.^[7]:373Although he was eager for an advantage, Pope Nicholas V did not have the influence the Byzantines thought he had over the Western kings and princes, some of whom were wary of increasing Papal control, and these had not the wherewithal to contribute to the effort, especially in light of the weakened state of France and England from the Hundred Years’ War, Spain, being in the final part of the Reconquista, the internecine fighting in the German Principalities, and Hungary and Poland’s defeat at the Battle of Varna of 1444. Although some troops did arrive from the mercantile city-states in the north of Italy, the Western contribution was not adequate to counterbalance Ottoman strength. Some Western individuals, however, came to help defend the city on their own account. Cardinal Isidore, funded by the pope, arrived in 1452 with 200 archers^[17] One of these was an accomplished soldier from Genoa, Giovanni Giustiniani, who arrived with 400 men from Genoa and 300 men from Genoese Chios, in January 1453.^[18]:83–84 As a specialist in defending walled cities, he was immediately given the overall command of the defense of the land walls by the emperor. Around the same time, the captains of the Venetian ships that happened to be present in the Golden Hornoffered their services to the Emperor, barring contrary orders from Venice, and Pope Nicholas undertook to send three ships laden with provisions, which set sail near the end of March.^[18]:81

In Venice, meanwhile, deliberations were taking place concerning the kind of assistance the Republic would lend to Constantinople. The Senate decided upon sending a fleet in February 1453, but there were delays, and when it finally set out late in April, it was already too late for it to be able to take part in the battle.^{[19][page needed][18]:85} Further undermining Byzantine morale, seven Italian ships with around 700 men slipped out of the capital at the moment when Giustiniani arrived, men who had sworn to defend the capital. At the same time, Constantine’s attempts to appease the Sultan with gifts ended with the execution of the Emperor’s ambassadors — even Byzantine diplomacy could not save the city.^[7]:373

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

Restored Walls of Constantinople

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

The chain that closed off the entrance to the Golden Horn in 1453, now on display in the İstanbul Archaeology Museums.

Fearing a possible naval attack along the shores of the Golden Horn, Emperor Constantine XI ordered that a defensive chain be placed at the mouth of the harbour. This chain, which floated on logs, was strong enough to prevent any Turkish ship from entering the harbour. This device was one of two that gave the Byzantines some hope of extending the siege until the possible arrival of foreign help.^[19]:380 This strategy was enforced because in 1204 the armies of the Fourth Crusade successfully circumvented Constantinople’s land defenses by breaching the Golden Horn Wall. Another strategy employed by the Byzantines was the repair and fortification of the Land Wall (Theodosian Walls). Emperor Constantine deemed it necessary to ensure that the Blachernaedistrict’s wall were the most fortified because that section of the wall protruded northwards. The land fortifications comprised a 60 ft (18 m) wide moat fronting inner and outer crenellated walls studded with towers every 45–55 metres.^[20]

Strength

Map of Constantinople and the dispositions of the defenders and the besiegers

The army defending Constantinople was relatively small, totaling about 7,000 men, 2,000 of whom were foreigners.^{[nb 2]} At the onset of the siege, probably fewer than 50,000 people were living within the walls, including the refugees from the surrounding area.^{[21]:32 [nb 3]} Turkish commander Dorgano, who was in Constantinople in the pay of the Emperor, was also guarding one of the quarters of the city on the seaward side with the Turks in his pay. These Turks kept loyal to the Emperor and perished in the ensuing battle. The defending army’s Genoese corps were well trained and equipped, while the rest of the army consisted of small numbers of well-trained soldiers, armed civilians, sailors and volunteer forces from foreign communities, and finally monks. The garrison used a few small-calibre artillery pieces, which nonetheless proved ineffective. The rest of the city repaired walls, stood guard on observation posts, collected and distributed food provisions, and collected gold and silver objects from churches to melt down into coins to pay the foreign soldiers.

The Ottomans had a much larger force. Recent studies and Ottoman archival data state that there were about 50,000–80,000 Ottoman soldiers including between 5,000 and 10,000 Janissaries,^{[22][page needed]} *70 cannons^{[23]:139–140[21][page needed][24][page needed]} an elite infantry corps, and thousands of Christian troops, notably 1,500 Serbian cavalry that the Serbian lord Đurađ Branković was forced to supply as part of his obligation to the Ottoman sultan—just a few months before, he had supplied the money for the reconstruction of the walls of Constantinople. Contemporaneous Western witnesses of the siege, who tend to exaggerate the military power of the Sultan, provide disparate and higher numbers ranging from 160,000 to 200,000 and to 300,000^{[22][page needed]}(Niccolò Barbaro: 160,000;^[25] the Florentine merchant Jacopo Tedaldi^[26] and the Great Logothete George Sphrantzes:^{[27][page needed]} 200,000; the Cardinal Isidore of Kiev^[28]and the Archbishop of Mytilene Leonardo di Chio:^[29] 300,000).^[30]

Ottoman dispositions and strategies

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

The Dardanelles Gun, cast in 1464 and based on the Orban bombard that was used by the Ottoman besiegers of Constantinople in 1453 (British Royal Armouries collection).

Mehmed built a fleet to besiege the city from the sea (partially manned by Greek sailors from Gallipoli).^{[21][page needed]}Contemporary estimates of the strength of the Ottoman fleet span between about 110 ships (Tedaldi),^[26] 145 (Barbaro),^[25] 160 (Ubertino Pusculo),^[31] 200–250 (Isidore of Kiev,^[28]Leonardo di Chio^[32]) to 430 (Sphrantzes).^{[27][page needed]} A more realistic modern estimate predicts a fleet strength of 126 ships comprising 6 large galleys, 10 ordinary galleys, 15 smaller galleys, 75 large rowing boats, and 20 horse-transports.^[21]:44

Before the siege of Constantinople, it was known that the Ottomans had the ability to cast medium-sized cannons, but the range of some pieces they were able to field far surpassed the defenders’ expectations. Instrumental to this Ottoman advancement in arms production was a somewhat mysterious figure by the name of Orban(Urban), a Hungarian (though some suggest he was German).^[7]:374One cannon designed by Orban was named « Basilica » and was 27 feet (8.2 m) long, and able to hurl a 600 lb (272 kg) stone ball over a mile (1.6 km).^[33]

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

Modern painting of Mehmed and the Ottoman Army approaching Constantinople with a giant bombard, by Fausto Zonaro

The master founder initially tried to sell his services to the Byzantines, who were unable to secure the funds needed to hire him. Orban then left Constantinople and approached Mehmed II, claiming that his weapon could blast ‘the walls of Babylon itself’. Given abundant funds and materials, the Hungarian engineer built the gun within three months at Edirne, from which it was dragged by sixty oxen to Constantinople. In the meantime, Orban also produced other cannons for the Turkish siege forces.^[18]:77–8

Orban’s cannon had several drawbacks: it took three hours to reload; cannonballs were in very short supply; and the cannon is said to have collapsed under its own recoil after six weeks (this is disputed,^{[22][page needed]} however, given that it was only reported in the letter of Archbishop Leonardo di Chio^[29] and in the later and often unreliable Russian chronicle of Nestor Iskander).^{[nb 4]} Having previously established a large foundry about 150 miles (240 km) away, Mehmed now had to undertake the painstaking process of transporting his massive artillery pieces. Orban’s giant cannon was said to have been accompanied by a crew of 60 oxen and over 400 men.^[7]:374

In preparation for the final assault, Mehmed had an artillery train of seventy large pieces dragged from his headquarters at Edirne, in addition to the bombards cast on the spot.^[34]

Mehmed planned to attack the Theodosian Walls, the intricate series of walls and ditches protecting Constantinople from an attack from the West, the only part of the city not surrounded by water. His army encamped outside the city on the Monday after Easter, 2 April 1453.

The bulk of the Ottoman army were encamped south of the Golden Horn. The regular European troops, stretched out along the entire length of the walls, were commanded by Karadja Pasha. The regular troops from Anatolia under Ishak Pasha were stationed south of the Lycus down to the Sea of Marmara. Mehmed himself erected his red-and-gold tent near the Mesoteichion, where the guns and the elite regiments, the Janissaries, were positioned. The Bashi-bazouks were spread out behind the front lines. Other troops under Zagan Pashawere employed north of the Golden Horn. Communication was maintained by a road that had been constructed over the marshy head of the Horn.^[18]:94–5

Byzantine dispositions and strategies

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

Painting of the Fall of Constantinople, by Theophilos Hatzimihail

The city had about 20 km of walls (land walls: 5.5 km; sea walls along the Golden Horn: 7 km; sea walls along the Sea of Marmara: 7.5 km), one of the strongest sets of fortified walls in existence. The walls had recently been repaired (under John VIII) and were in fairly good shape, giving the defenders sufficient reason to believe that they could hold out until help from the West arrived.^[21]:39 In addition, the defenders were relatively well-equipped with a fleet of 26 ships: 5 from Genoa, 5 from Venice, 3 from Venetian Crete, 1 from Ancona, 1 from Aragon, 1 from France, and about 10 Byzantine.^[21]:45

On 5 April, the Sultan himself arrived with his last troops, and the defenders took up their positions. As their numbers were insufficient to occupy the walls in their entirety, it had been decided that only the outer walls would be manned. Constantine and his Greek troops guarded the Mesoteichion, the middle section of the land walls, where they were crossed by the river Lycus. This section was considered the weakest spot in the walls and an attack was feared here most. Giustiniani was stationed to the north of the emperor, at the Charisian Gate (Myriandrion); later during the siege, he was shifted to the Mesoteichion to join Constantine, leaving the Myriandrion to the charge of the Bocchiardi brothers. Minotto and his Venetians were stationed in the Blachernae palace, together with Teodoro Caristo, the Langasco brothers, and Archbishop Leonardo of Chios.^[18] :92

To the left of the emperor, further south, were the commanders Cataneo, with Genoese troops, and Theophilus Palaeologus, who guarded the Pegae Gate with Greek soldiers. The section of the land walls from the Pegae Gate to the Golden Gate (itself guarded by a Genoese called Manuel) was defended by the Venetian Filippo Contarini, while Demetrius Cantacuzenus had taken position on the southernmost part of the Theodosian wall.^[18] :92

The sea walls were manned more sparsely, with Jacobo Contarini at Stoudion, a makeshift defense force of Greek monks to his left hand, and prince Orhan at the Harbour of Eleutherius. Pere Julià was stationed at the Great Palace with Genoese and Catalan troops; Cardinal Isidore of Kiev guarded the tip of the peninsula near the boom. The sea walls at the southern shore of the Golden Horn were defended by Venetian and Genoese sailors under Gabriele Trevisano.^[18] :93

Two tactical reserves were kept behind in the city, one in the Petra district just behind the land walls and one near the Church of the Holy Apostles, under the command of Loukas Notaras and Nicephorus Palaeologus, respectively. The Venetian Alviso Diedo commanded the ships in the harbor.^[18] :94

Although the Byzantines also had cannons, they were much smaller than those of the Ottomans and the recoil tended to damage their own walls.^[29]

According to David Nicolle, despite many odds, the idea that Constantinople was inevitably doomed is wrong, and the overall situation was not as one-sided as a simple glance at a map might suggest.^[21]:40It has also been claimed that Constantinople was « the best-defended city in Europe » at that time.^[35]

Siege

At the beginning of the siege, Mehmed sent out some of his best troops to reduce the remaining Byzantine strongholds outside the city of Constantinople. The fortress of Therapia on the Bosphorus and a smaller castle at the village of Studius near the Sea of Marmara were taken within a few days. The Princes’ Islands in the Sea of Marmara were taken by Admiral Baltoghlu‘s fleet.^[18]:96–7 Mehmed’s massive cannon fired on the walls for weeks, but due to its imprecision and extremely slow rate of reloading the Byzantines were able to repair most of the damage after each shot, limiting the cannon’s effect.^[7]:376

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

The Ottoman Turks transport their fleet overland into the Golden Horn.

Meanwhile, despite some probing attacks, the Ottoman fleet under Suleiman Baltoghlucould not enter the Golden Horn due to the chain the Byzantines had previously stretched across the entrance. Although one of the fleet’s main tasks was to prevent any ships from outside from entering the Golden Horn, on 20 April a small flotilla of four Christian ships^{[nb 5]} managed to slip in after some heavy fighting, an event which strengthened the morale of the defenders and caused embarrassment to the Sultan.^[7]:376 Baltoghlu’s life was spared after his subordinates testified to his bravery during the conflict.

Mehmed ordered the construction of a road of greased logs across Galata on the north side of the Golden Horn, and dragged his ships over the hill, directly into the Golden Horn on 22 April, bypassing the chain barrier.^[7]:376 This seriously threatened the flow of supplies from Genoese ships from the — nominally neutral — colony of Pera, and demoralized the Byzantine defenders. On the night of 28 April, an attempt was made to destroy the Ottoman ships already in the Golden Horn using fire ships, but the Ottomans had been warned in advance and forced the Christians to retreat with heavy losses. Forty Italians escaped their sinking ships and swam to the northern shore. On orders of Mehmed, they were impaled on stakes, in sight of the city’s defenders on the sea walls across the Golden Horn. In retaliation, the defenders brought their Ottoman prisoners, 260 in all, to the walls, where they were executed, one by one, before the eyes of the Ottomans.^[18]:108[36] With the failure of their attack on the Ottoman vessels, the defenders were forced to disperse part of their forces to defend the sea walls along the Golden Horn.

The Ottoman army had made several frontal assaults on the land wall of Constantinople, but were always repelled with heavy losses.^[37]Venetian surgeon Niccolò Barbaro, describing in his diary one of such frequent land attacks especially by the Janissaries, wrote:

“

They found the Turks coming right up under the walls and seeking battle, particularly the Janissaries … and when one or two of them were killed, at once more Turks came and took away the dead ones … without caring how near they came to the city walls. Our men shot at them with guns and crossbows, aiming at the Turk who was carrying away his dead countryman, and both of them would fall to the ground dead, and then there came other Turks and took them away, none fearing death, but being willing to let ten of themselves be killed rather than suffer the shame of leaving a single Turkish corpse by the walls.[25]

”

Siege of Constantinople as depicted between 1453 and 1475.^[38]

After these inconclusive frontal offensives, the Ottomans sought to break through the walls by constructing underground tunnels in an effort to mine them from mid-May to 25 May. Many of the sappers were miners of Serbian origin sent from Novo Brdo by the Serbian despot. They were placed under the command of Zagan Pasha. However, an engineer named Johannes Grant, a German^{[nb 6]} who came together with the Genoese contingent, had counter-mines dug, allowing Byzantine troops to enter the mines and kill the workers. The Byzantines intercepted the first Serbian tunnel on the night of 16 May. Subsequent tunnels were interrupted on 21, 23, and 25 May, and destroyed with Greek fire and vigorous combat. On 23 May, the Byzantines captured and tortured two Turkish officers, who revealed the location of all the Turkish tunnels, which were then destroyed.^[39]

On 21 May, Mehmed sent an ambassador to Constantinople and offered to lift the siege if they gave him the city. He promised he would allow the Emperor and any other inhabitants to leave with their possessions. Moreover, he would recognize the Emperor as governor of the Peloponnese. Lastly, he guaranteed the safety of the population that might choose to remain in the city. Constantine XI only agreed to pay higher tributes to the sultan and recognized the status of all the conquered castles and lands in the hands of the Turks as Ottoman possession.

“

Giving you though the city depends neither on me nor on anyone else among its inhabitants; as we have all decided to die with our own free will and we shall not consider our lives.[nb 7]

”

Around this time, Mehmed had a final council with his senior officers. Here he encountered some resistance; one of his Viziers, the veteran Halil Pasha, who had always disapproved of Mehmed’s plans to conquer the city, now admonished him to abandon the siege in the face of recent adversity. Zagan Pasha argued against Halil Pasha, and insisted on an immediate attack. Mehmed planned to overpower the walls by sheer force, expecting that the weakened Byzantine defense by the prolonged siege would now be worn out before he ran out of troops and started preparations for a final all-out offensive.

Final assault

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

Painting by the Greek folk painter Theophilos Hatzimihail showing the battle inside the city, Constantine is visible on a white horse

Preparations for the final assault were started in the evening of 26 May and continued to the next day.^[7]:378 For 36 hours after the war council decision to attack, the Ottomans extensively mobilized their manpower in order to prepare for the general offensive.^[7]:378 Prayer and resting would be then granted to the soldiers on the 28th, and then the final assault would be launched. On the Byzantine side, a small Venetian fleet of 12 ships, after having searched the Aegean, reached the Capital on May 27 and reported to the Emperor that no large Venetian relief fleet was on its way.^[7]:377 On May 28, as the Ottoman army prepared for the final assault, large-scale religious processions were held in the city. In the evening a last solemn ceremony was held in the Hagia Sophia, in which the Emperor and representatives of both the Latin and Greek church partook, together with nobility from both sides.^[41]:651–2

Shortly after midnight on May 29 the all-out offensive began. The Christian troops of the Ottoman Empire attacked first, followed by the successive waves of the irregular azaps, who were poorly trained and equipped, and Anatolians who focused on a section of the Blachernaewalls in the northwest part of the city, which had been damaged by the cannon. This section of the walls had been built earlier, in the eleventh century, and was much weaker. The Anatolians managed to breach this section of walls and entered the city but were just as quickly pushed back by the defenders. Finally, as the battle was continuing, the last wave, consisting of elite Janissaries, attacked the city walls. The Genoese general in charge of the land troops,^{[22][page needed][28][29]} Giovanni Giustiniani, was grievously wounded during the attack, and his evacuation from the ramparts caused a panic in the ranks of the defenders.^{[nb 8]}

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

Sultan Mehmed II’s entry into Constantinople, painting by Fausto Zonaro (1854–1929).

With Giustiniani’s Genoese troops retreating into the city and towards the harbor, Constantine and his men, now left to their own devices, kept fighting and managed to successfully hold off the Janissaries for a while, but eventually they could not stop them from entering the city. The defenders were also being overwhelmed at several points in Constantine’s section. When Turkish flags were seen flying above a small postern gate, the Kerkoporta, which was left open, panic ensued, and the defense collapsed, as Janissary soldiers, led by Ulubatlı Hasanpressed forward. Many Greek soldiers ran back home to protect their families, the Venetians ran over to their ships, and a few of the Genoese got over to Galata. The rest committed suicide by jumping off the city walls or surrendered.^{[19][page needed]} The Greek houses nearest to the walls were the first to suffer from the Ottomans. It is said that Constantine, throwing aside his purple regalia, led the final charge against the incoming Ottomans, perishing in the ensuing battle in the streets just like his soldiers. On the other hand, Nicolò Barbaro, a Venetian eyewitness to the siege, wrote in his diary that it was said that Constantine hanged himself at the moment when the Turks broke in at the San Romano gate, although his ultimate fate remains unknown.^{[nb 9]}

After the initial assault, the Ottoman Army fanned out along the main thoroughfare of the city, the Mese, past the great forums, and past the Church of the Holy Apostles, which Mehmed II wanted to provide a seat for his newly appointed patriarch which would help him better control his Christian subjects. Mehmed II had sent an advance guard to protect key buildings such as the Church of the Holy Apostles.

A small few lucky civilians managed to escape. When the Venetians retreated over to their ships, the Ottomans had already taken the walls of the Golden Horn. Luckily for the occupants of the city, the Ottomans were not interested in killing potentially valuable slaves, but rather in the loot they could get from raiding the city’s houses, so they decided to attack the city instead. The Venetian captain ordered his men to break open the gate of the Golden Horn. Having done so, the Venetians left in ships filled with soldiers and refugees. Shortly after the Venetians left, a few Genoese ships and even the Emperor’s ships followed them out of the Golden Horn. This fleet narrowly escaped prior to the Ottoman navy assuming control over the Golden Horn, which was accomplished by midday.^{[19][page needed]} The Army converged upon the Augusteum, the vast square that fronted the great church of Hagia Sophia whose bronze gates were barred by a huge throng of civilians inside the building, hoping for divine protection. After the doors were breached, the troops separated the congregation according to what price they might bring in the slave markets.

Ottoman casualties are unknown but they are believed by most historians to be very heavy due to several unsuccessful Ottoman attacks made during the siege and final assault. Barbaro described blood flowing in the city « like rainwater in the gutters after a sudden storm », and bodies of the Turks and Christians floating in the sea « like melons along a canal ».^[25]

Plundering phase

Mehmed II granted his soldiers three days to plunder the city, as he had promised them.^[18]:145[43] Soldiers fought over the possession of some of the spoils of war.^[44]:283 According to the Venetian surgeon Nicolò Barbaro « all through the day the Turks made a great slaughter of Christians through the city ». According to Philip Mansel, widespread persecution of the city’s civilian inhabitants took place, resulting in thousands of murders and rapes and 30,000 civilians being enslaved or forcibly deported.^[45]

The looting was extremely thorough in certain parts of the city. A week later on 2 June, the Sultan would find the city largely deserted and half in ruins; churches had been desecrated and stripped, houses were no longer habitable and stores and shops were emptied. He is famously reported to have been moved to tears by this, speaking « What a city we have given over to plunder and destruction. »^[18]:152

Aftermath

On the third day of the conquest, Mehmed II ordered all looting to stop and issued a proclamation that all Christians who had avoided capture or who had been ransomed could return to their homes without further molestation, although many had no homes to return to, and many more had been taken captive and not ransomed.^{[18]:150–51} Byzantine historian George Sphrantzes, an eyewitness to the fall of Constantinople, described the Sultan’s actions:^[46][47]

“

On the third day after the fall of our city, the Sultan celebrated his victory with a great, joyful triumph. He issued a proclamation: the citizens of all ages who had managed to escape detection were to leave their hiding places throughout the city and come out into the open, as they were to remain free and no question would be asked. He further declared the restoration of houses and property to those who had abandoned our city before the siege. If they returned home, they would be treated according to their rank and religion, as if nothing had changed.

”

The Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque, but the Greek Orthodox Church was allowed to remain intact and Gennadius Scholarius was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople. This was once thought to be the origin of the Ottoman millet system, however, it is now considered a myth and no such system existed in the fifteenth century.^[48][49]

Following the city’s conquest, the Church of the Holy Wisdom (the Hagia Sophia) was converted into a mosque.

After the sack, many feared other European Christian kingdoms would suffer the same fate as Constantinople. Two possible responses emerged amongst the humanists and churchmen of that era: Crusade or dialogue. Pope Pius II strongly advocated for another Crusade, while Nicholas of Cusa supported engaging in a dialogue with the Ottomans.^[50]

The Morean (Peloponnesian) fortress of Mystras, where Constantine’s brothers Thomas and Demetrius ruled, constantly in conflict with each other and knowing that Mehmed would eventually invade them as well, held out until 1460. Long before the fall of Constantinople, Demetrius had fought for the throne with Thomas, Constantine, and their other brothers John and Theodore.^[51]:446Thomas escaped to Rome when the Ottomans invaded Morea while Demetrius expected to rule a puppet state, but instead was imprisoned and remained there for the rest of his life. In Rome, Thomas and his family received some monetary support from the Pope and other Western rulers as Byzantine emperor in exile, until 1503. In 1461 the independent Byzantine state in Trebizond fell to Mehmed.^[51]:446

Constantine XI had died without producing an heir, and had Constantinople not fallen he likely would have been succeeded by the sons of his deceased elder brother, who were taken into the palace service of Mehmed after the fall of Constantinople. The oldest boy, renamed to Murad, became a personal favorite of Mehmed and served as Beylerbey (Governor-General) of Rumeli (the Balkans). The younger son, renamed Mesih Pasha, became Admiral of the Ottoman fleet and Sancak Beg (Governor) of the Province of Gallipoli. He eventually served twice as Grand Vizier under Mehmed’s son, Bayezid II.^[52]

With the capture of Constantinople, Mehmed II had acquired the « natural » capital of its kingdom, albeit one in decline due to years of war. The loss of the city was a crippling blow to Christendom, and it exposed the Christian west to a vigorous and aggressive foe in the east. The Christian re-conquest of Constantinople remained a goal in Western Europe for many years after its fall to the House of Osman. Rumors of Constantine XI’s survival and subsequent rescue by an angel led many to hope that the city would one day return to Christian hands. Pope Nicholas V called for an immediate counter-attack in the form of a crusade.^{[citation needed]} When no European monarch was willing to lead the crusade, the Pope himself decided to go, but his early death stopped this plan. As Western Europe entered the 16th century, the age of Crusading began to come to an end.

For some time Greek scholars had gone to Italian city-states, a cultural exchange begun in 1396 by Coluccio Salutati, chancellor of Florence, who had invited Manuel Chrysoloras, a Byzantine scholar to lecture at the University of Florence.^[53] After the conquest many Greeks, such as John Argyropoulos and Constantine Lascaris, fled the city and found refuge in the Latin West, bringing with them knowledge and documents from the Greco-Roman tradition to Italy and other regions that further propelled the Renaissance.^[54][55] Those Greeks who stayed behind in Constantinople mostly lived in the Phanar and Galatadistricts of the city. The Phanariotes, as they were called, provided many capable advisers to the Ottoman rulers.

Third Rome

 Third Rome

Giacobbe Giusti, Silk Road, Fall of Constantinople and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 2

Sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror, by Gentile Bellini

Byzantium is a term used by modern historians to refer to the later Roman Empire. In its own time, the Empire ruled from Constantinople (or « New Rome » as some people call it, although this was a laudatory expression that was never an official title) was considered simply as « the Roman Empire. » The fall of Constantinople led competing factions to lay claim to being the inheritors of the Imperial mantle. Russian claims to Byzantine heritage clashed with those of the Ottoman Empire’s own claim. In Mehmed’s view, he was the successor to the Roman Emperor, declaring himself Kayser-i Rum, literally « Caesar of Rome« , that is, of the Roman Empire, though he was remembered as « the Conqueror ». He founded a political system that survived until 1922 with the establishment of the Republic of Turkey.

Stefan Dušan, Tsar of Serbia, and Ivan Alexander, Tsar of Bulgariaboth made similar claims, regarding themselves as legitimate heirs to the Roman Empire. Other potential claimants, such as the Republic of Venice and the Holy Roman Empire have disintegrated into history.^[56]

Impact on the Churches

In 17th-century Russia, the fall of Constantinople had a role in the fierce theological and political controversy between adherents and opponents of the reforms in the Russian Orthodox Church carried out by Patriarch Nikon, which he intended to bring the Russian Church closer to the norms and practices of other Orthodox churches. Avvakum and other « Old Believers » saw these reforms as a corruptionof the Russian Church, which they considered to be the « true » Church of God. As the other Churches were more closely related to Constantinople in their liturgies, Avvakum argued that Constantinople fell to the Turks because of these heretical beliefs and practices.

The fall of Constantinople has a profound impact on the ancient Pentarchy of the Orthodox Church. Today, the four ancient sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople are almost completely devoid of followers and believers because of Islamization and the Dhimma system to which Christians have been subjected since the earliest days of Islam. As a result of this process, the center of authority in the Orthodox Church changed and migrated to Eastern Europe (e.g., Russia) rather than remaining in the former Byzantine Near East.

Cultural references

Legends

There are many legends in Greece surrounding the Fall of Constantinople. It was said that the partial lunar eclipse that occurred on 22 May 1453 represented a fulfillment of a prophecy of the city’s demise.^[57] Four days later, the whole city was blotted out by a thick fog, a condition unknown in that part of the world in May. When the fog lifted that evening, a strange light was seen playing about the dome of the Hagia Sophia, which some interpreted as the Holy Spirit departing from the city. « This evidently indicated the departure of the Divine Presence, and its leaving the City in total abandonment and desertion, for the Divinity conceals itself in cloud and appears and again disappears. » ^[58] For others, there was still a distant hope that the lights were the campfires of the troops of John Hunyadi who had come to relieve the city.^{[nb 10]}

Another legend holds that two priests saying divine liturgy over the crowd disappeared into the cathedral’s walls as the first Turkish soldiers entered. According to the legend, the priests will appear again on the day that Constantinople returns to Christian hands.^[18]:147Another legend refers to the Marble King (Constantine XI), holding that an angel rescued the emperor when the Ottomans entered the city, turning him into marble and placing him in a cave under the earth near the Golden Gate, where he waits to be brought to life again (a variant of the sleeping hero legend).^[60][61]

Cultural impact

Guillaume Dufay composed several songs lamenting the fall of the Eastern church, and the duke of Burgundy, Philip the Good, avowed to take up arms against the Turks. However, as the growing Ottoman power from this date on coincided with the Protestant Reformation and subsequent Counter-Reformation, the recapture of Constantinople became an ever-distant dream. Even France, once a fervent participant in the Crusades, became an ally of the Ottomans.

Nonetheless, depictions of Christian coalitions taking the city and of the late Emperor’s resurrection by Leo the Wise persisted.^[10]:280

29 May 1453, the day of the fall of Constantinople, fell on a Tuesday, and since then Tuesday has been considered an unlucky day by Greeks generally.^[62]

Impact on the Renaissance

 Greek scholars in the Renaissance

The migration waves of Byzantine scholars and émigrés in the period following the sacking of Constantinople and the fall of Constantinople in 1453 is considered by many scholars key to the revival of Greekand Roman studies that led to the development of the Renaissance humanism^{[55][dead link][better source needed]} and science. These émigrés were grammarians, humanists, poets, writers, printers, lecturers, musicians, astronomers, architects, academics, artists, scribes, philosophers, scientists, politicians and theologians.^{[63][better source needed]} They brought to Western Europe the far greater preserved and accumulated knowledge of their own (Greek) civilization.

Megali idea

Between 1919 and 1922, Greek politician Eleftherios Venizelosattempted to implement the Megali Idea (recapture of Constantinople from the Ottoman Empire) in the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)since the Ottoman Empire was severely weakened by its defeat in World War I and by the occupation of Constantinople by the British and French.^{[clarification needed]} However, in the course of the war Venizelos lost the election of 1920 and went into exile and Greece was defeated in the war by Turkey.

Renaming of the city

Ottomans used the Arabic transliteration of the city’s name « Kostantiniyye, » (القسطنطينية), as can be seen in numerous Ottoman documents. Islambol (اسلامبول, Full of Islam) or Islambul (find Islam) or Islam(b)ol (old Turkic: be Islam), both in Turkish Language, were folk-etymological adaptations of Istanbul created after the Ottoman conquest of 1453 to express the city’s new role as the capital of the Islamic Ottoman Empire. It is first attested shortly after the conquest, and its invention was ascribed by some contemporary writers to Sultan Mehmed II himself.^[64]

The name of Istanbul is thought to be derived from the Greek phrase īs tīmbolī(n) (Greek: εἰς τὴν πόλιν, translit. eis tēn pólin, « to the City »), and it is claimed that it had already spread among the Turkish populace of the Ottoman Empire before the conquest. However, Istanbul only became the official name of the city in 1930 by the revised Turkish Postal Law as part of Atatürk‘s reforms.^[65][66][67]

In historical fiction

• Lew Wallace, The Prince of India; or, Why Constantinople Fell. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1893. 2 volumes
• Mika Waltari, The Dark Angel (Original title Johannes Angelos) 1952. Translated from the Finnish by Naomi Walford and pub. in English edition, New York: Putnam, 1953
• Muharem Bazdulj, « The Bridge on Land » from The Second Book, 2000. Translated from Bosnian by Oleg Andric and Andrew Wachtel and pub. in English edition, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2005
• Andrew Novo, Queen of Cities, Seattle: Coffeetown Press, 2009
• Jack Hight, Siege. London: John Murray Publisher Ltd, 2010
• James Shipman, « Constantinopolis », Amazon Digital Services, 2013
• C.C. Humphreys, A Place called Armageddon. London: Orion, 2011
• Emanuele Rizzardi, L’ultimo Paleologo. PubMe Editore, 2017
• John Bellairs, « The Trolley to Yesterday » Dial, 1989
• Kiersten White, « The Conqueror’s Saga », 2016
• Stefan Zweig, « Die Eroberung von Byzanz (Conquest of Byzantium) » in « Sternstunden der Menschheit (Decisive Moments in History) », 1927

• Byzantine Empire portal
• Military history of the Ottoman Empire portal

• Timeline of the Ottoman Empire
• Fetih 1453
• « How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?« , question linked to the imagery of pointless debate while the city was falling.
• Military of the Ottoman Empire
• Tursun Beg (Turkish historian)
• Ulubatlı Hasan
• Dolfin Dolfin, Venetian, naval commander during the siege

Notes

1. ^ While Mehmed II had been steadily preparing for the siege of Constantinople, he had sent the old general Turakhan and the latter’s two sons, Ahmed Beg and Omar Beg, to invade the Morea and to remain there all winter also to prevent the despots Thomas and Demetrius from giving aid to Constantine XI.^[16]:146
2. ^ According to Sphrantzes, whom Constantine had ordered to make a census, the Emperor was appalled when the number of native men capable of bearing arms turned out to be only 4,983. Leonardo di Chio gave a number of 6,000 Greeks.^[18]:85
3. ^ The Spanish Cristóbal de Villalón claims there were ‘ 60,000 Turkish households, 40,000 Greek and Armenian, 10,000 Jewish.^[18]:85
4. ^ Another expert who was employed by the Ottomans was Ciriaco de’ Pizzicolli, also known as Ciriaco of Ancona, a traveler and collector of antiquities.^{[citation needed]}
5. ^ These were the three Genoese ships sent by the Pope, joined by a large Imperial transport ship which had been sent on a foraging mission to Sicily previous to the siege and was on its way back to Constantinople.^[18]:100
6. ^ Runciman speculates that he may have been Scottish^[18]:84
7. ^ Original text: Τὸ δὲ τὴν πόλιν σοῖ δοῦναι οὔτ’ ἐμὸν ἐστίν οὔτ’ ἄλλου τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν ταύτῃ• κοινῇ γὰρ γνώμῃ πάντες αὐτοπροαιρέτως ἀποθανοῦμεν καὶ οὐ φεισόμεθα τῆς ζωῆς ἡμῶν.^[40]
8. ^ Sources hostile towards the Genoese (such as the Venetian Nicolò Barbaro), however, report that Longo was only lightly wounded or not wounded at all, but, overwhelmed by fear, simulated the wound to abandon the battlefield, determining the fall of the city. These charges of cowardice and treason were so widespread that the Republic of Genoa had to deny them by sending diplomatic letters to the Chancelleries of England, France, the Duchy of Burgundy and others.^{[42]:296–97} Giustiniani was carried to Chios, where he succumbed to his wounds a few days later.
9. ^ Barbaro added the description of the emperor’s heroic last moments to his diary based on information he received afterward. According to some Ottoman sources Constantine was killed in an accidental encounter with Turkish marines a little further to the south, presumably while making his way to the Sea of Marmara in order to escape by sea.^{[21][page needed]}
10. ^ It is possible that all these phenomena were local effects of the cataclysmic Kuwae volcanic eruption in the Pacific Ocean. The « fire » seen may have been an optical illusion due to the reflection of intensely red twilight glow by clouds of volcanic ash high in the atmosphere.^[59]

References

1. ^ « Exaggerated » western estimates ranged between 160,000 and 300,000.
2. ^ « İstanbul’un fethinde 600 Türk askeri, Fatih’e karşı savaştı » [In the Conquest of Istanbul 600 Turkish Military Fought Against the Conqueror]. Osmanlı Arauştırmalarlı (in Turkish).
3. ^ Momigliano & Schiavone (1997), Introduction (« La Storia di Roma »), p. XXI
4. ^ « The fall of Constantinople ». The Economist. 23 December 1999. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
5. ^ Frantzes, Georgios; Melisseidis (Melisseides), Ioannis (Ioannes) A.; Zavolea-Melissidi, Pulcheria (2004). Εάλω η ΠόλιςΤ•ο χρονικό της άλωσης της Κωνσταντινούπολης: Συνοπτική ιστορία των γεγονότων στην Κωνσταντινούπολη κατά την περίοδο 1440 – 1453 [The City has Fallen: Chronicle of the Fall of Constantinople: Concise History of Events in Constantinople in the Period 1440–1453] (in Greek) (5 ed.). Athens: Vergina Asimakopouli Bros. ISBN 9607171918.
6. ^ Foster, Charles (22 September 2006). « The Conquest of Constantinople and the end of empire ». Contemporary Review. Archived from the original on 11 June 2009. It is the end of the Middle Ages)
7. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j k l} Norwich, John Julius (1997). A Short History of Byzantium. New York: Vintage Books.
8. ^ Madden, Thomas (2005). Crusades: The Illustrated History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
9. ^ Haldon, John (2000). Byzantium at War 600 – 1453. New York: Osprey.
10. ^ Jump up to:^a b Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. ^ « The Black Death ». Archived from the original on 25 June 2008. Retrieved 13 August 2008., Channel 4 – History.
12. ^ Runciman Fall. p.60
13. ^ Norwich Short Byz. Hist. p.373
14. ^ « Bosphorus (i.e. Bosporus), View from Kuleli, Constantinople, Turkey ». World Digital Library. 1890–1900. Retrieved 2013-10-20.
15. ^ name= »norwichshortbyzhist »/>^:373
16. ^ Setton, Kenneth M. (1978). The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571): The Fifteenth Century. 2. DIANE Publishing. ISBN 0-87169-127-2.
17. ^ Crowley, Roger (2013-02-12). 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West. Hachette Books. ISBN 978-1-4013-0558-1.
18. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s} Runciman, Steven (1965). The Fall of Constantinople, 1453 (Canto ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521398329.
19. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Nicol, Donald M. (1993). The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453 (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. ^ Michael Spilling, ed., Battles That Changed History: Key Battles That Decided the Fate of Nations ( London, Amber Books Ltd. 2010) p.187.
21. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h} Nicolle, David (2000). Constantinople 1453: The End of Byzantium (Campaign). 78. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-84176-091-9.
22. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Pertusi, Agostino, ed. (1976). La Caduta di Costantinopoli, I: Le testimonianze dei contemporanei scrittori greci e latini [The Fall of Constantinople, I: The Testimony of the Contemporary Greek and Latin Writers] (in Italian). I. Verona: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla.
23. ^ Lanning, Michael Lee (2005). The Battle 100: The Stories Behind History’s Most Influential Battles. Sourcebooks, Inc. ISBN 1-4022-2475-3.
24. ^ İnalcıkt, Halil (2001). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klasik Çağ (1300–1600)[The Ottoman Empire, The Classical Age, 1300–1600]. Translated by Itzkouritz, Norman; Imber, Colin. London: Orion.
25. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Nicolò Barbaro, Giornale dell’Assedio di Costantinopoli, 1453. The autograph copy is conserved in the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice. Barbaro’s diary has been translated into English by John Melville-Jones (New York:Exposition Press, 1969)
26. ^ Jump up to:^a b (in French) Concasty, M.-L., Les «Informations» de Jacques Tedaldi sur le siège et la prise de Constantinople
27. ^ Jump up to:^a b Sphrantzes, George. Οικτρός Γεώργιος ο Φραντζής ο και Πρωτοβεσιαρίτης Γρηγόριος τάχα μοναχός ταύτα έγραψεν υπέρ των καθ’ αυτών και τινων μερικών γεγονότων εν τώ της αθλίας ζωής αυτε χρόνω [The Pitiful George Frantzes Who was Protovestiaros, Now a Monk, Wrote This for the Βetterment of Others and as Recompense for Some Deeds in His Miserable Life, This Chronicle] (in Greek).
28. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Rutheniae, Isidorus (6 July 1453). « Isidore of Ruthenia » (Letter) (in Latin). Letter to Bisarion.
29. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d (in Latin) Leonardo di Chio, Letter to Pope Nicholas V, dated 16 August 1453, edited by J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 159, 923A–944B.
30. ^ Leonardo di Chio, Letter,927B: « three hundred thousand and more ».
31. ^ Ubertino Pusculo, Constantinopolis, 1464
32. ^ Leonardo di Chio, Letter, 930C.
33. ^ Davis, Paul (1999). 100 Decisive Battles. Oxford. p. 166. ISBN 978-0-19-514366-9.
34. ^ Arnold (2001) p. 111
35. ^ « The fall of Constantinople ». The Economist. 23 December 1999.
36. ^ Crowley (2005), pp. 150–54
37. ^ Marios Philippides and Walter K. Hanak, The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, (Ashgate Publishing, 2011), 520.
38. ^ From Jean Chartier, Chronicle of Charles VII, king of France, MS Bnf Français 2691, f. 246v [1]
39. ^ Crowley, Roger. 1453: the holy war for Constantinople and the clash of Islam and the West. New York: Hyperion, 2005. pp. 168–171. ISBN 1-4013-0850-3.
40. ^ « 29 Μαϊου 1453: Όταν «η Πόλις εάλω… » [29 May 1453: When the City Fell…]. « iefemerida.com » (in Greek). 29 May 2012. Retrieved 5 June 2017.
41. ^ Cite error: The named reference vasilievhistbyz2was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
42. ^ Desimoni, C. (1874). Adamo di Montaldo. Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria (Proceedings of the Ligurian Society for Homeland History) (in Italian). X. Genoa.
43. ^ Smith, Michael Llewellyn, The Fall of Constantinople, History Makers magazine No. 5, Marshall Cavendish, Sidgwick & Jackson (London).
44. ^ Reinert, Stephen (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. New York: Oxford UP.
45. ^ Mansel, Philip (1995). Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire. Hachette UK. p. 79. ISBN 0-7195-5076-9.
46. ^ George Sphrantzes. The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by George Sphrantzes 1401–1477. Translated by Marios Philippides. University of Massachusetts Press, 1980. ISBN 978-0-87023-290-9.
47. ^ Kritovoulos (or Kritoboulos). History of Mehmed the Conqueror. Translated by Charles T. Riggs. Greenwood Press Reprint, 1970. ISBN 978-0-8371-3119-1.
48. ^ Braude, Benjamin (1982). « Foundation Myths of the Millet System ». In Braude, Benjamin; Bernard Lewis. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. 1. New York: Holmes & Meier. pp. 69–90. ISBN 0841905193.
49. ^ Masters, Bruce (2009). « Millet ». In Ágoston, Gábor; Bruce Masters. Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. pp. 383–4.
50. ^ Volf, Miroslav (2010). « Body counts: the dark side of Christian history ». The Christian Century. 127 (Journal Article): 11–. ISSN 0009-5281.
51. ^ Jump up to:^a b Norwich, John Julius (1995). Byzantium: The Decline and Fall. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-679-41650-1.
52. ^ Lowry, Heath W. (2003). The Nature of the Early Ottoman State. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. p. 115-116.
53. ^ N.G. Wilson, From Byzantium to Italy. Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance, London, 1992. ISBN 0-7156-2418-0
54. ^ « John Argyropoulos ». britannica.com. Retrieved 2 October 2009. .
55. ^ Jump up to:^a b Byzantines in Renaissance Italy
56. ^ « Saving the Third Rome. « Fall of the Empire », Byzantium and Putin’s Russia ». IWM. Retrieved 2016-02-13.
57. ^ Guillermier, Pierre; Serge Koutchmy (1999). Total Eclipses: Science, Observations, Myths, and Legends. Springer. p. 85. ISBN 1-85233-160-7. Retrieved 27 February 2008.
58. ^ Kritovoulos, Michael. History of Mehmed the Conqueror. Translated by C. T. Riggs. Princetone, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954. Pg. 59.
59. ^ « #1543 » (Press release). Pasadena, California: Public Information Office, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA). 1993. Retrieved 5 June 2017.
60. ^ The Marble King (in Greek) Archived 13 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine
61. ^ Hatzopoulos, Dionysios. « Fall of Constantinople, 1453 ». Hellenic Electronic Center.
62. ^ « The fall of Constantinople ». The Economist. 23 December 1999. Retrieved January 27, 2019.
63. ^ Greeks in Italy Archived 7 June 2013 at the Wayback Machine
64. ^ Sakaoğlu, Necdet (1993–94). « İstanbul’un adları » [The names of Istanbul]. Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi (in Turkish). Istanbul: Türkiye Kültür Bakanlığı.
65. ^ Robinson, Richard D. (1965). The First Turkish Republic: A Case Study in National Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
66. ^ Room, Adrian, (1993), Place Name changes 1900–1991, (Metuchen, N.J., & London:The Scarecrow Press, Inc.), ISBN 0-8108-2600-3 pp. 46, 86.
67. ^ « Timeline: Turkey ». BBC News. 10 December 2009. Retrieved 18 January 2010.

• Babinger, Franz (1992): Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01078-1
• Crowley, Roger (2005): 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West. Hyperion. ISBN 978-1-4013-0558-1
• Fletcher, Richard A.: The Cross and the Crescent (2005) Penguin Group ISBN 0-14-303481-2
• Harris, Jonathan (2007): Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium. Hambledon/Continuum. ISBN 978-1-84725-179-4
• Harris, Jonathan (2010): The End of Byzantium. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11786-8

Melville Jones, John, The Siege of Constantinople 1453: Seven Contemporary Accounts, Amsterdam 1972

• Momigliano, Arnaldo; Schiavone, Aldo (1997). Storia di Roma, 1(in Italian). Turin: Einaudi. ISBN 88-06-11396-8.
• Murr Nehme, Lina (2003). 1453: The Conquest of Constantinople. Aleph Et Taw. ISBN 2-86839-816-2.
• Pertusi, Agostino, ed. (1976). La Caduta di Costantinopoli, II: L’eco nel mondo [The Fall of Constantinople, II: The Echo in the World] (in Italian). II. Verona: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla.

Philippides, Marios and Walter K. Hanak, The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, Ashgate, Farnham and Burlington 2011.

• Smith, Michael Llewellyn, « The Fall of Constantinople », in History Makers magazine No. 5 (London, Marshall Cavendish, Sidgwick & Jackson, 1969) p. 192
• Wheatcroft, Andrew (2003): The Infidels: The Conflict Between Christendom and Islam, 638–2002. Viking Publishing ISBN 0-670-86942-2
• Wintle, Justin (2003): The Rough Guide History of Islam. Rough Guides. ISBN 1-84353-018-X

https://wordpress.com/view/giacobbegiusti.wordpress.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Triumph of Poseidon and Amphitrite showing the couple in procession, detail of a vast mosaic from Cirta, Roman Africa, now at the Louvre)

Giacobbe Giusti, Triumph of Poseidon and Amphitrite showing the couple in procession, detail of a vast mosaic from Cirta, Roman Africa, now at the Louvre

« Triumph of Neptune and Amphitrite« , a Roman mosaic from Cirta, now in the Louvre (ca. 315-325 AD)

Provincia Africa Proconsularis
Province of the Roman Empire
←  146 BC–5th century  →
The province of Africa within the Roman Empire
Capital		Zama Regia, then Carthago
Historical era		Antiquity
•	Established after the Third Punic War	146 BC
•	Invasion of the Vandals	5th century
Today part of		Tunisia  Libya  Algeria

Part of a series on the
History of Tunisia
Prehistoric[show]
Ancient[show]
Early Islamic[show]
Medieval[show]
Early modern[show]
Modern[show]
Tunisia portal
v t e

Part of a series on the
History of Algeria
Prehistory[show]
Antiquity[show]
Middle Ages[show]
Modern times[show]
Contemporary era[show]
Related topics[show]
Algeria portal
v t e

Part of a series on the
History of Libya
Prehistory Libyco-Berber era pre-146 BC Roman era to 640 AD Islamic rule 640–1510 Spanish rule 1510–1530 Order of Saint John 1530–1551 Ottoman rule 1551–1911 Italian occupation 1911–1934 Italian Libya 1934–1943 Allied occupation 1943–1951 Kingdom of Libya 1951–1969 Libyan Arab Republic 1969–1977 Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1977–1986 Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1986–2011 First Civil War 2011 National Transitional Council 2011–2012 General National Congress 2012–2014 House of Representatives 2014–present Second Civil War 2014–present Government of National Accord 2016–present
Libya portal
v t e

Africa Proconsularis was a Roman province on the northwest African coast that was established in 146 BC following the defeat of Carthage in the Third Punic War. It roughly comprised the territory of present-day Tunisia, the northeast of Algeria, and the coast of western Libyaalong the Gulf of Sirte. The territory was originally inhabited by Berber people, known in Latin as Mauri(English: Moor; Spanish: Moro) indigenous to all of North Africa west of Egypt; in the 9th century BC, Phoenicians built settlements along the Mediterranean Sea to facilitate shipping, of which Carthage rose to dominance in the 8th century until its conquest by the Roman Republic.

It was one of the wealthiest provinces in the western part of the Roman empire, second only to Italia. Apart from the city of Carthage, other large settlements in the province were Hadrumetum (modern Sousse, Tunisia), capital of Byzacena, and Hippo Regius (modern Annaba, Algeria). Besides Latin, the official language, Punic and Berber languages were commonly spoken.

References

• Lennox Manton, Roman North Africa, 1988.
• Susan Raven. Rome in Africa. 3rd ed. (London, 1993).
• Monique Seefried Brouillet, From Hannibal to Saint Augustine: Ancient Art of North Africa from the Musee du Louvre, 1994.
• A. I. Wilson, Urban Production in the Roman World: The View from North Africa, 2002.
• Duane R. Roller, The World of Juba II and Kleopatra Selene: Royal Scholarship on Rome’s African Frontier (New York and London, Routledge, 2003).
• Elizabeth Fentress, « Romanizing the Berbers, » Past & Present, 190,1 (2006), 3-33.
• Michael Mackensen and Gerwulf Schneider. Production centres of African Red Slip Ware (2nd-3rd c.) in northern and central Tunisia: Archaeological provenance and reference groups based on chemical analysis, 2006.
• Cordovana, Orietta Dora, Segni e immagini del potere tra antico e tardoantico: I Severi e la provincia Africa proconsularis. Seconda edizione rivista ed aggiornata (Catania: Prisma, 2007) (Testi e studi di storia antica)
• Dick Whittaker, « Ethnic discourses on the frontiers of Roman Africa », in Ton Derks, Nico Roymans (ed.), Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition (Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 2009) (Amsterdam Archaeological Studies, 13), 189-206.
• Erich S. Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Princeton, PUP, 2010), 197-222.
• Mennen, Inge, Power and Status in the Roman Empire, AD 193-284 (2011)
• Stewart, John, African states and rulers (2006)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa_(Roman_province)

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Venice, Museo Storico Navale (navy museum), wooden model of galley with rowers.

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Galère de l’Ordre de Malte, reconstitution du Musée d’histoire navale de Venise.

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Battle between Venetian and Holy Roman fleets; detail of fresco by Spinello Aretino 1407–1408.

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Triumph of Poseidon and Amphitrite showing the couple in procession, detail of a vast mosaic from Cirta, Roman Africa (ca. 315–325 AD, now at the Louvre)

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Byzantine ship attacking with Greek fire. Madrid Skylitzes manuscript, 11th century.

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Odysseus and the Sirens, Ulixes mosaic at the Bardo National Museum in Tunis, Tunisia, 2nd century AD

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

A Roman naval bireme depicted in a relief from the Temple of Fortuna Primigenia in Praeneste(Palastrina),^[29] which was built c. 120 BC;^[30] exhibited in the Pius-Clementine Museum (Museo Pio-Clementino) in the Vatican Museums.

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Venetian great galley with three sails taking pilgrims to Jerusalem (Conrad Grünenberg 1486/7).

 

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

The Byzantine fleet repels the Rus’ attack on Constantinople in 941. The Byzantine dromons are rolling over the Rus’ vessels and smashing their oars with their spurs.

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

Contemporary depiction of the battle of Lepanto in 1571 that shows the strict formations of the opposing fleets. Fresco in the Gallery of Maps in Vatican Museum.

Giacobbe Giusti, Galley

A model of a Maltese design typical of the 16th century, the last great era of the war galley

A galley is a type of ship that is propelled mainly by rowing. The galley is characterized by its long, slender hull, shallow draft and low freeboard (clearance between sea and railing). Virtually all types of galleys had sails that could be used in favorable winds, but human strength was always the primary method of propulsion. This allowed galleys to navigate independently of winds and currents. The galley originated among the seafaring civilizations around the Mediterranean Sea in the late second millennium BC and remained in use in various forms until the early 19th century in warfare, trade and piracy.

Galleys were the warships used by the early Mediterranean naval powers, including the Greeks, Phoenicians and Romans. They remained the dominant types of vessels used for war and piracy in the Mediterranean Sea until the last decades of the 16th century. As warships, galleys carried various types of weapons throughout their long existence, including rams, catapults and cannons, but also relied on their large crews to overpower enemy vessels in boarding actions. They were the first ships to effectively use heavy cannons as anti-ship weapons. As highly efficient gun platforms they forced changes in the design of medieval seaside fortresses as well as refinement of sailing warships.

The zenith of galley usage in warfare came in the late 16th century with battles like that at Lepanto in 1571, one of the largest naval battles ever fought. By the 17th century, however, sailing ships and hybrid ships like the xebec displaced galleys in naval warfare. They were the most common warships in the Atlantic Ocean during the Middle Ages, and later saw limited use in the Caribbean, the Philippines and the Indian Ocean in the early modern period, mostly as patrol craft to combat pirates. From the mid-16th century galleys were in intermittent use in the Baltic Sea, with its short distances and extensive archipelagoes. There was a minor revival of galley warfare in the 18th century in the wars among Russia, Sweden and Denmark.

Definition and terminology

The term « galley » derives from the medieval Greek galea, a smaller version of the dromon, the prime warship of the Byzantine navy.^[1] The origin of the Greek word is unclear but could possibly be related to galeos, dogfish shark.^[2] The word « galley » has been attested in English from c. 1300^[3] and has been used in most European languages from around 1500 both as a general term for oared warships, and from the Middle Ages and onwards more specifically for the Mediterranean-style vessel.^[4] It was only from the 16th century that a unified galley concept came in use. Before that, particularly in antiquity, there was a wide variety of terms used for different types of galleys. In modern historical literature, « galley » is occasionally used as a general term for various types of oared vessels larger than boats, though the « true » galley is defined as the ships belonging to the Mediterranean tradition.^[5]

The English-built Charles Galley, a « galley frigate » built in the 1670s. It was not a « true » galley, but the term still became part of its name due to its oars.

Ancient galleys were named according to the number of oars, the number of banks of oars or lines of rowers. The terms are based on contemporary language use combined with more recent compounds of Greek and Latin words. The earliest Greek single-banked galleys are called triaconters (from triakontoroi, « thirty-oars ») and penteconters(pentēkontoroi, « fifty-oars »).^[6] For later galleys with more than one row of oars, the terminology is based on Latin numerals with the suffix -reme from rēmus, « oar ». A monoreme has one bank of oars, a biremetwo and a trireme three. Since the maximum banks of oars was three, any expansion above that did not refer to additional banks of oars, but of additional rowers for every oar. Quinquereme (quintus + rēmus) was literally a « five-oar », but actually meant that there were several rowers to certain banks of oars which made up five lines of oar handlers. For simplicity, they have by many modern scholars been referred to as « fives », « sixes », « eights », « elevens », etc. Anything above six or seven rows of rowers was not common, though even a very exceptional « forty » is attested in contemporary source. Any galley with more than three or four lines of rowers is often referred to as a « polyreme ».^[7]

Archaeologist Lionel Casson has used the term « galley » to describe all North European shipping in the early and high Middle Ages, including Viking merchants and even their famous longships, though this is rare.^[8] Oared military vessels built on the British Isles in the 11th to 13th centuries were based on Scandinavian designs, but were nevertheless referred to as « galleys ». Many of them were similar to birlinns, close relatives of longship types like the snekkja. By the 14th century, they were replaced with balingers in southern Britain while longship-type « Irish galleys » remained in use throughout the Middle Ages in northern Britain.^[9]

Watercolor of United States ships at the battle of Valcour Island, depicting several « row galleys« ; similar function, but based on very different designs than Mediterranean galleys.

Medieval and early modern galleys used a different terminology than their ancient predecessors. Names were based on the changing designs that evolved after the ancient rowing schemes were forgotten. Among the most important is the Byzantine dromon, the predecessor to the Italian galea sottila. This was the first step toward the final form of the Mediterranean war galley. As galleys became an integral part of an advanced, early modern system of warfare and state administration, they were divided into a number of ranked grades based on the size of the vessel and the number of its crew. The most basic types were the following: large commander « lantern galleys », half-galleys, galiots, fustas, brigantinesand fregatas. Naval historian Jan Glete has described as a sort of predecessor of the later rating system of the Royal Navy and other sailing fleets in Northern Europe.^[10]

The French navy and the British Royal Navy built a series of « galley frigates » from c. 1670–1690 that were small two-decked sailing cruisers with a set of oarports on the lower deck. The three British galley frigates also had distinctive names – James Galley, Charles Galley and Mary Galley.^[11] In the late 18th century, the term « galley » was in some contexts used to describe minor oared gun-armed vessels which did not fit into the category of the classic Mediterranean type. In North America, during American Revolutionary War, and other wars with France and Britain, the early US Navy and other navies built vessels that were called « galleys » or « row galleys« , though they were actually brigantines or Baltic gunboats.^[12] This type of description was more a characterization of their military role, and was in part due to technicalities in administration and naval financing.^[13]

History

Among the earliest known watercraft were canoes made from hollowed-out logs, the earliest ancestors of galleys. Their narrow hulls required them to be paddled in a fixed sitting position facing forwards, a less efficient form of propulsion than rowing with proper oars, facing backwards. Seagoing paddled craft have been attested by finds of terracotta sculptures and lead models in the region of the Aegean Sea from the 3rd millennium BC. However, archaeologists believe that the Stone Agecolonization of islands in the Mediterranean around 8,000 BC required fairly large, seaworthy vessels that were paddled and possibly even equipped with sails.^[14] The first evidence of more complex craft that are considered to prototypes for later galleys comes from Ancient Egypt during the Old Kingdom (c. 2700–2200 BC). Under the rule of pharaoh Pepi I (2332–2283 BC) these vessels were used to transport troops to raid settlements along the Levantine coast and to ship back slaves and timber.^[15]During the reign of Hatshepsut (c. 1479–57 BC), Egyptian galleys traded in luxuries on the Red Sea with the enigmatic Land of Punt, as recorded on wall paintings at the Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari.^[16]

Assyrian warship, a bireme with pointed bow. 700 BC

Shipbuilders, probably Phoenician, a seafaring people who lived on the southern and eastern coasts of the Mediterranean, were the first to create the two-level galley that would be widely known under its Greek name, diērēs, or bireme.^[17] Even though the Phoenicians were among the most important naval civilizations in early Antiquity, little detailed evidence have been found concerning the types of ships they used. The best depictions found so far have been small, highly stylized images on seals which depict crescent-shape vessels equipped with one mast and banks of oars. Colorful frescoes on the Minoan settlement on Santorini (c. 1600 BC) show more detailed pictures of vessels with ceremonial tents on deck in a procession. Some of these are rowed, but others are paddled with men laboriously bent over the railings. This has been interpreted as a possible ritual reenactment of more ancient types of vessels, alluding to a time before rowing was invented, but little is otherwise known about the use and design of Minoan ships.^[18]

In the earliest days of the galley, there was no clear distinction between ships of trade and war other than their actual usage. River boats plied the waterways of ancient Egypt during the Old Kingdom (2700–2200 BC) and seagoing galley-like vessels were recorded bringing back luxuries from across the Red Sea in the reign of pharaoh Hatshepsut. Fitting rams to the bows of vessels sometime around the 8th century BC resulted in a distinct split in the design of warships, and set trade vessels apart, at least when it came to use in naval warfare. The Phoenicians used galleys for transports that were less elongated, carried fewer oars and relied more on sails. Carthaginian galley wrecks found off Sicily that date to the 3rd or 2nd century BC had a length to breadth ratio of 6:1, proportions that fell between the 4:1 of sailing merchant ships and the 8:1 or 10:1 of war galleys. Merchant galleys in the ancient Mediterranean were intended as carriers of valuable cargo or perishable goods that needed to be moved as safely and quickly as possible.^[19]

Dionysus riding on a small galley-like craft in a painting from the Dionysus cup by Exekias, from c. 530 BC^[20]

The first Greek galleys appeared around the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. In the epic poem, the Iliad, set in the 12th century BC, galleys with a single row of oarsmen were used primarily to transport soldiers to and from various land battles.^[21] The first recorded naval battle, the battle of the Deltabetween Egyptian forces under Ramesses IIIand the enigmatic alliance known as the Sea Peoples, occurred as early as 1175 BC. It is the first known engagement between organized armed forces, using sea vessels as weapons of war, though primarily as fighting platforms. It was distinguished by being fought against an anchored fleet close to shore with land-based archer support.^[22]

The first true Mediterranean galleys usually had between 15 and 25 pairs of oars and were called triaconters or penteconters, literally « thirty- » and « fifty-oared », respectively. Not long after they appeared, a third row of oars was added by the addition to a bireme of an outrigger, a projecting construction that gave more room for the projecting oars. These new galleys were called triērēs (« three-fitted ») in Greek. The Romans later called this design the triremis, trireme, the name it is today best known under. It has been hypothesized that early types of triremes existed as early as 700 BC, but the earliest conclusive literary reference dates to 542 BC.^[23] With the development of triremes, penteconters disappeared altogether. Triaconters were still used, but only for scouting and express dispatches.^[24]

The first warships

A reconstruction of an ancient Greek galley squadron based on images of modern replica Olympias

The earliest use for galleys in warfare was to ferry fighters from one place to another, and until the middle of the 2nd millennium BC had no real distinction from merchant freighters. Around the 14th century BC, the first dedicated fighting ships were developed, sleeker and with cleaner lines than the bulkier merchants. They were used for raiding, capturing merchants and for dispatches.^[25] During this early period, raiding became the most important form of organized violence in the Mediterranean region. Maritime classicist historian Lionel Casson used the example of Homer‘s works to show that seaborne raiding was considered a common and legitimate occupation among ancient maritime peoples. The later Athenian historian Thucydidesdescribed it as having been « without stigma » before his time.^[26]

The development of the ram sometime before the 8th century BC changed the nature of naval warfare, which had until then been a matter of boarding and hand-to-hand fighting. With a heavy projection at the foot of the bow, sheathed with metal, usually bronze, a ship could incapacitate an enemy ship by punching a hole in its planking. The relative speed and nimbleness of ships became important, since a slower ship could be outmaneuvered and disabled by a faster one. The earliest designs had only one row of rowers that sat in undecked hulls, rowing against tholes, or oarports, that were placed directly along the railings. The practical upper limit for wooden constructions fast and maneuverable enough for warfare was around 25-30 oars per side. By adding another level of oars, a development that occurred no later than c. 750 BC, the galley could be made shorter with as many rowers, while making them strong enough to be effective ramming weapons.^[27]

The emergence of more advanced states and intensified competition between them spurred on the development of advanced galleys with multiple banks of rowers. During the middle of the first millennium BC, the Mediterranean powers developed successively larger and more complex vessels, the most advanced being the classical trireme with up to 170 rowers. Triremes fought several important engagements in the naval battles of the Greco-Persian Wars (502–449 BC) and the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), including the battle of Aegospotami in 405 BC, which sealed the defeat of Athens by Sparta and its allies. The trireme was an advanced ship that was expensive to build and to maintain due its large crew. By the 5th century, advanced war galleys had been developed that required sizable states with an advanced economy to build and maintain. It was associated with the latest in warship technology around the 4th century BC and could only be employed by an advanced state with an advanced economy and administration. They required considerable skill to row and oarsmen were mostly free citizens who had years of experience at the oar.^[28]

Hellenistic era and rise of the Republic

 Hellenistic-era warships

A Roman naval bireme depicted in a relief from the Temple of Fortuna Primigenia in Praeneste(Palastrina),^[29] which was built c. 120 BC;^[30] exhibited in the Pius-Clementine Museum (Museo Pio-Clementino) in the Vatican Museums.

Odysseus and the Sirens, Ulixes mosaic at the Bardo National Museum in Tunis, Tunisia, 2nd century AD

As civilizations around the Mediterranean grew in size and complexity, both their navies and the galleys that made up their numbers became successively larger. The basic design of two or three rows of oars remained the same, but more rowers were added to each oar. The exact reasons are not known, but are believed to have been caused by addition of more troops and the use of more advanced ranged weapons on ships, such as catapults. The size of the new naval forces also made it difficult to find enough skilled rowers for the one-man-per-oar system of the earliest triremes. With more than one man per oar, a single rower could set the pace for the others to follow, meaning that more unskilled rowers could be employed.^[31]

The successor states of Alexander the Great‘s empire built galleys that were like triremes or biremes in oar layout, but manned with additional rowers for each oar. The ruler Dionysius I of Syracuse (ca. 432–367 BC) is credited with pioneering the « five » and « six », meaning five or six rows of rowers plying two or three rows of oars. Ptolemy II (283-46 BC) is known to have built a large fleet of very large galleys with several experimental designs rowed by everything from 12 up to 40 rows of rowers, though most of these are considered to have been quite impractical. Fleets with large galleys were put in action in conflicts such as the Punic Wars (246-146) between the Roman republic and Carthage, which included massive naval battles with hundreds of vessels and tens of thousands of soldiers, seamen and rowers.^[32]

Most of the surviving documentary evidence comes from Greek and Roman shipping, though it is likely that merchant galleys all over the Mediterranean were highly similar. In Greek they were referred to as histiokopos (« sail-oar-er ») to reflect that they relied on both types of propulsion. In Latin they were called actuaria (navis) (« ship that moves ») in Latin, stressing that they were capable of making progress regardless of weather conditions. As an example of the speed and reliability, during an instance of the famous « Carthago delenda est« -speech, Cato the Elder demonstrated the close proximity of the Roman arch enemy Carthage by displaying a fresh fig to his audience that he claimed had been picked in North Africa only three days past. Other cargoes carried by galleys were honey, cheese, meat and live animals intended for gladiator combat. The Romans had several types of merchant galleys that specialized in various tasks, out of which the actuaria with up to 50 rowers was the most versatile, including the phaselus (lit. « bean pod ») for passenger transport and the lembus, a small-scale express carrier. Many of these designs continued to be used until the Middle Ages.^[33]

Roman Imperial era

Depictions of two compact liburnians used by the Romans in their campaigns against the Dacians in the early 2nd century AD; reliefs from Trajan’s Column, c. 113 AD.

The Battle of Actium in 31 BC between the forces of Augustus and Mark Antony marked the peak of the Roman fleet arm. After Augustus’ victory at Actium, most of the Roman fleet was dismantled and burned. The Roman civil wars were fought mostly by land forces, and from the 160s until the 4th century AD, no major fleet actions were recorded. During this time, most of the galley crews were disbanded or employed for entertainment purposes in mock battles or in handling the sail-like sun-screens in the larger Roman arenas. What fleets remained were treated as auxiliaries of the land forces, and galley crewmen themselves called themselves milites, « soldiers », rather than nautae, « sailors ».^[34]

The Roman galley fleets were turned into provincial patrol forces that were smaller and relied largely on liburnians, compact biremes with 25 pairs of oars. These were named after an Illyrian tribe known by Romans for their sea roving practices, and these smaller craft were based on, or inspired by, their vessels of choice. The liburnians and other small galleys patrolled the rivers of continental Europe and reached as far as the Baltic, where they were used to fight local uprisings and assist in checking foreign invasions. The Romans maintained numerous bases around the empire: along the rivers of Central Europe, chains of forts along the northern European coasts and the British Isles, Mesopotamia and North Africa, including Trabzon, Vienna, Belgrade, Dover, Seleucia and Alexandria. Few actual galley battles in the provinces are found in records. One action in 70 AD at the unspecified location of the « Island of the Batavians » during the Batavian Rebellion was recorded, and included a trireme as the Roman flagship.^[35] The last provincial fleet, the classis Britannica, was reduced by the late 200s, though there was a minor upswing under the rule of Constantine (272–337). His rule also saw the last major naval battle of the unified Roman Empire (before the permanent split into Western and Eastern [later « Byzantine »] Empires), the battle of Hellespont of 324. Some time after Hellespont, the classical trireme fell out of use, and its design was forgotten.^[36]

Triumph of Poseidon and Amphitriteshowing the couple in procession, detail of a vast mosaic from Cirta, Roman Africa (ca. 315–325 AD, now at the Louvre)

Middle Ages

A transition from galley to sailing vessels as the most common types of warships began in the high Middle Ages (c. 11th century). Large high-sided sailing ships had always been formidable obstacles for galleys. To low-freeboard oared vessels, the bulkier sailing ships, the cog and the carrack, were almost like floating fortresses, being difficult to board and even harder to capture. Galleys remained useful as warships throughout the entire Middle Ages because of their maneuverability. Sailing ships of the time had only one mast, usually with just a single, large square sail. This made them cumbersome to steer and it was virtually impossible to sail into the wind direction. Galleys therefore were still the only ship type capable of coastal raiding and amphibious landings, both key elements of medieval warfare.^[37]

Eastern Mediterranean

In the eastern Mediterranean, the Byzantine Empire struggled with the incursion from invading Muslim Arabs from the 7th century, leading to fierce competition, a buildup of fleet, and war galleys of increasing size. Soon after conquering Egypt and the Levant, the Arab rulers built ships highly similar to Byzantine dromons with the help of local Coptic shipwrights from former Byzantine naval bases.^[38] By the 9th century, the struggle between the Byzantines and Arabs had turned the Eastern Mediterranean into a no man’s land for merchant activity. In the 820s Crete was captured by Andalusian Muslims displaced by a failed revolt against the Emirate of Cordoba, turning the island into a base for (galley) attacks on Christian shipping until the island was recaptured by the Byzantines in 960.^[39]

Western Mediterranean

In the western Mediterranean and Atlantic, the division of the Carolingian Empire in the late 9th century brought on a period of instability, meaning increased piracy and raiding in the Mediterranean, particularly by newly arrived Muslim invaders. The situation was worsened by raiding Scandinavian Vikings who used longships, vessels that in many ways were very close to galleys in design and functionality and also employed similar tactics. To counter the threat, local rulers began to build large oared vessels, some with up to 30 pairs of oars, that were larger, faster and with higher sides than Viking ships.^[40] Scandinavian expansion, including incursions into the Mediterranean and attacks on both Muslim Iberia and even Constantinople itself, subsided by the mid-11th century. By this time, greater stability in merchant traffic was achieved by the emergence of Christian kingdoms such as those of France, Hungary and Poland. Around the same time, Italian port towns and city states, like Venice, Pisa and Amalfi, rose on the fringes of the Byzantine Empire as it struggled with eastern threats.^[41]

After the advent of Islam and Muslim conquests of the 7th and 8th century, the old Mediterranean economy collapsed and the volume of trade went down drastically.^[42]The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, neglected to revive overland trade routes but was dependent on keeping the sea lanes open to keep the empire together. Bulk trade fell around 600-750 while the luxury trade increased. Galleys remained in service, but were profitable mainly in the luxury trade, which set off their high maintenance cost.^[43] In the 10th century, there was a sharp increase in piracy which resulted in larger ships with more numerous crews. These were mostly built by the growing city-states of Italy which were emerging as the dominant sea powers, including Venice, Genoa and Pisa. Inheriting the Byzantine ship designs, the new merchant galleys were similar dromons, but without any heavy weapons and both faster and wider. They could be manned by crews of up to 1,000 men and were employed in both trade and warfare. A further boost to the development of the large merchant galleys was the upswing in Western European pilgrims traveling to the Holy Land.^[44]

Venetian great galley with three sails taking pilgrims to Jerusalem (Conrad Grünenberg 1486/7).

In Northern Europe, Viking longships and their derivations, knarrs, dominated trading and shipping, though developed separately from the Mediterranean galley tradition. In the South galleys continued to be useful for trade even as sailing vessels evolved more efficient hulls and rigging; since they could hug the shoreline and make steady progress when winds failed, they were highly reliable. The zenith in the design of merchant galleys came with the state-owned great galleys of the Venetian Republic, first built in the 1290s. These were used to carry the lucrative trade in luxuries from the east such as spices, silks and gems. They were in all respects larger than contemporary war galleys (up to 46 m) and had a deeper draft, with more room for cargo (140-250 t). With a full complement of rowers ranging from 150 to 180 men, all available to defend the ship from attack, they were also very safe modes of travel. This attracted a business of carrying affluent pilgrims to the Holy Land, a trip that could be accomplished in as little 29 days on the route Venice-Jaffa, despite landfalls for rest and watering or for respite from rough weather.^[45]

Development of the true galley

Late medieval maritime warfare was divided in two distinct regions. In the Mediterranean galleys were used for raiding along coasts, and in the constant fighting for naval bases. In the Atlantic and Baltic there was greater focus on sailing ships that were used mostly for troop transport, with galleys providing fighting support.^[46] Galleys were still widely used in the north and were the most numerous warships used by Mediterranean powers with interests in the north, especially the French and Iberian kingdoms.^[47]

During the 13th and 14th century, the galley evolved into the design that was to remain essentially the same until it was phased out in the early 19th century. The new type descended from the ships used by Byzantine and Muslim fleets in the early Middle Ages. These were the mainstay of all Christian powers until the 14th century, including the great maritime republics of Genoa and Venice, the Papacy, the Hospitallers, Aragon and Castile, as well as by various pirates and corsairs. The overall term used for these types of vessels was gallee sottili (« slender galleys »). The later Ottoman navy used similar designs, but they were generally faster under sail, and smaller, but slower under oars.^[48] Galley designs were intended solely for close action with hand-held weapons and projectile weapons like bows and crossbows. In the 13th century the Iberian Crown of Aragon built several fleet of galleys with high castles, manned with Catalan crossbowman, and regularly defeated numerically superior Angevin forces.^[49]

From the first half of the 14th century the Venetian galere da mercato (« merchantman galleys ») were being built in the shipyards of the state-run Arsenal as « a combination of state enterprise and private association, the latter being a kind of consortium of export merchants », as Fernand Braudel described them.^[50] The ships sailed in convoy, defended by archers and slingsmen (ballestieri) aboard, and later carrying cannons. In Genoa, the other major maritime power of the time, galleys and ships in general were more produced by smaller private ventures.

A 3D model of the basic hull structure of a Venetian « galley of Flanders », a large trading vessel of the 15th century. The reconstruction by archaeologist Courtney Higgins is based on measurements given in contemporary ship treatises.^[51]

Illustration of a 15th-century trade galley from a manuscript by Michael of Rhodes (1401–1445) written in 1434.

In the 14th and 15th centuries merchant galleys traded high-value goods and carried passengers. Major routes in the time of the early Crusades carried the pilgrim traffic to the Holy Land. Later routes linked ports around the Mediterranean, between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (a grain trade soon squeezed off by the Turkish capture of Constantinople, 1453) and between the Mediterranean and Bruges— where the first Genoese galley arrived at Sluys in 1277, the first Venetian galere in 1314— and Southampton. Although primarily sailing vessels, they used oars to enter and leave many trading ports of call, the most effective way of entering and leaving the Lagoon of Venice. The Venetian galera, beginning at 100 tons and built as large as 300, was not the largest merchantman of its day, when the Genoese carrack of the 15th century might exceed 1000 tons.^[52] In 1447, for instance, Florentine galleys planned to call at 14 ports on their way to and from Alexandria.^[53] The availability of oars enabled these ships to navigate close to the shore where they could exploit land and sea breezes and coastal currents, to work reliable and comparatively fast passages against the prevailing wind. The large crews also provided protection against piracy. These ships were very seaworthy; a Florentine great galley left Southampton on 23 February 1430 and returned to its port at Pisa in 32 days. They were so safe that merchandise was often not insured.^[54] These ships increased in size during this period, and were the template from which the galleass developed.

Transition to sailing ships

As early as 1304 the type of ship required by the Danish defence organization changed from galley to cog, a flat-bottomed sailing ship.^[55]

During the early 15th century, sailing ships began to dominate naval warfare in northern waters. While the galley still remained the primary warship in southern waters, a similar transition had begun also among the Mediterranean powers. A Castilian naval raid on the island of Jersey in 1405 became the first recorded battle where a Mediterranean power employed a naval force consisting mostly of cogs or nefs, rather than the oared-powered galleys. The battle of Gibraltar between Castile and Portugal in 1476 was another important sign of change; it was the first recorded battle where the primary combatants were full-rigged ships armed with wrought-iron guns on the upper decks and in the waists, foretelling of the slow decline of the war galley.^[56]

The transition from the Mediterranean war galley to the sailing vessel as the preferred method of vessel in the Mediterranean is tied directly to technological developments and the inherent handling characteristics of each vessel types. The primary factors were changing sail design, the introduction of cannons aboard vessels, and the handling characteristics of the vessels.

The sailing vessel was always at the mercy of the wind for propulsion, and those that did carry oars were placed at a disadvantage because they were not optimized for oar use. The galley did have disadvantages compared to the sailing vessel though. Their smaller hulls were not able to hold as much cargo and this limited their range as the crews were required to replenish food stuffs more frequently.^[57] The low freeboard of the galley meant that in close action with a sailing vessel, the sailing vessel would usually maintain a height advantage. The sailing vessel could also fight more effectively farther out at sea and in rougher wind conditions because of the height of their freeboard.^[58]

Under sail, an oared warship was placed at much greater risk as a result of the piercings for the oars which were required to be near the waterline and would allow water to ingress into the galley if the vessel heeled too far to one side. These advantages and disadvantages led the galley to be and remain a primarily coastal vessel. The shift to sailing vessels in the Mediterranean was the result of the negation of some of the galley’s advantages as well as the adoption of gunpowder weapons on a much larger institutional scale. The sailing vessel was propelled in a different manner than the galley but the tactics were often the same until the 16th century. The real-estate afforded to the sailing vessel to place larger cannons and other armament mattered little because early gunpowder weapons had limited range and were expensive to produce. The eventual creation of cast iron cannons allowed vessels and armies to be outfitted much more cheaply. The cost of gunpowder also fell in this period.^[59]

The armament of both vessel types varied between larger weapons such as bombards and the smaller swivel guns. For logistical purposes it became convenient for those with larger shore establishments to standardize upon a given size of cannon. Traditionally the English in the North and the Venetians in the Mediterranean are seen as some the earliest to move in this direction. The improving sail rigs of northern vessels also allowed them to navigate in the coastal waters of the Mediterranean to a much larger degree than before.^[60] Aside from warships the decrease in the cost of gunpowder weapons also led to the arming of merchants. The larger vessels of the north continued to mature while the galley retained its defining characteristics. Attempts were made to stave this off such as the addition of fighting castles in the bow, but such additions to counter the threats brought by larger sailing vessels often offset the advantages of galley.^[61]

Introduction of guns

Painting of the battle of Haarlemmermeer of 1573 by Hendrick Cornelisz Vroom. Note the use of small sailing vessels and galleys on both sides.

From around 1450, three major naval powers established a dominance over different parts of the Mediterranean using galleys as their primary weapons at sea: the Ottomans in the east, Venice in the center and Habsburg Spain in the west.^[62] The core of their fleets were concentrated in the three major, wholly dependable naval bases in the Mediterranean: Constantinople, Venice and Barcelona.^[63] Naval warfare in the 16th century Mediterranean was fought mostly on a smaller scale, with raiding and minor actions dominating. Only three truly major fleet engagements were actually fought in the 16th century: the battles of Preveza in 1538, Djerba in 1560 and Lepanto in 1571. Lepanto became the last large all-galley battle ever, and was also one of the largest battle in terms of participants anywhere in early modern Europe before the Napoleonic Wars.^[64]

Occasionally the Mediterranean powers employed galley forces for conflicts outside the Mediterranean. Spain sent galley squadrons to the Netherlands during the later stages of the Eighty Years’ War which successfully operated against Dutch forces in the enclosed, shallow coastal waters. From the late 1560s, galleys were also used to transport silver to Genoese bankers to finance Spanish troops against the Dutch uprising.^[65] Galleasses and galleys were part of an invasion force of over 16,000 men that conquered the Azores in 1583. Around 2,000 galley rowers were on board ships of the famous 1588 Spanish Armada, though few of these actually made it to the battle itself.^[66] Outside European and Middle Eastern waters, Spain built galleys to deal with pirates and privateers in both the Caribbean and the Philippines.^[67]Ottoman galleys contested the Portuguese intrusion in the Indian Ocean in the 16th century, but failed against the high-sided, massive Portuguese carracks in open waters.^[68]

Despite the huge loss of men and material after the loss of the Spanish Armada in 1588 Spain maintained four permanent galley squadrons. Together they formed the largest galley navy in the Mediterranean in the early 17th century. They formed the backbone of the Spanish war fleet and were used for ferrying troops, supplies, horses and munitions to Spain’s Italian and African possessions.^[69] The Ottoman Turks attempted to contest the Portuguese rise to power in the Indian Ocean in the 16th century with Mediterranean-style galleys, but were foiled by the formidable Portuguese carracks. Even though the carracks themselves were soon surpassed by other types of sailing vessels, their greater range, great size and high superstructures, armed with numerous wrought iron guns easily outmatched the short-ranged, low-freeboard Turkish galleys.^[68] The Spanish used galleys to more success in their colonial possessions in the Caribbean and the Philippines to hunt pirates^[70] and were used sporadically in the Netherlands and the Bay of Biscay.^[71]

Ottoman galleys in battle with raiding boats in the Black Sea; Sloane 3584 manuscript, c. 1636

Galleys had been synonymous with warships in the Mediterranean for at least 2,000 years, and continued to fulfill that role with the invention of gunpowder and heavy artillery. Though early 20th-century historians often dismissed the galleys as hopelessly outclassed with the first introduction of naval artillery on sailing ships,^[72] it was the galley that was favored by the introduction of heavy naval guns. Galleys were a more « mature » technology with long-established tactics and traditions of supporting social institutions and naval organizations. In combination with the intensified conflicts this led to a substantial increase in the size of galley fleets from c. 1520–80, above all in the Mediterranean, but also in other European theatres.^[73] Galleys and similar oared vessels remained uncontested as the most effective gun-armed warships in theory until the 1560s, and in practice for a few decades more, and were actually considered a grave risk to sailing warships.^[74] They could effectively fight other galleys, attack sailing ships in calm weather or in unfavorable winds (or deny them action if needed) and act as floating siege batteries. They were also unequaled in their amphibious capabilities, even at extended ranges, as exemplified by French interventions as far north as Scotland in the mid-16th century.^[75]

Heavy artillery on galleys was mounted in the bow, which aligned easily with the long-standing tactical tradition of attacking head on, bow first. The ordnance on galleys was heavy from its introduction in the 1480s, and capable of quickly demolishing the high, thin medieval stone walls that still prevailed in the 16th century. This temporarily upended the strength of older seaside fortresses, which had to be rebuilt to cope with gunpowder weapons. The addition of guns also improved the amphibious abilities of galleys as they could make assaults supported with heavy firepower, and were even more effectively defended when beached stern-first.^[76] An accumulation and generalizing of bronze cannons and small firearms in the Mediterranean during the 16th century increased the cost of warfare, but also made those dependent on them more resilient to manpower losses. Older ranged weapons, like bows or even crossbows, required considerable skill to handle, sometimes a lifetime of practice, while gunpowder weapons required considerably less training to use successfully.^[77] According to a highly influential study by military historian John F. Guilmartin, this transition in warfare, along with the introduction of much cheaper cast iron guns in the 1580s, proved the « death knell » for the war galley as a significant military vessel.^[78] Gunpowder weapons began to displace men as the fighting power of armed forces, making individual soldiers more deadly and effective. As offensive weapons, firearms could be stored for years with minimal maintenance and did not require the expenses associated with soldiers. Manpower could thus be exchanged for capital investments, something which benefited sailing vessels that were already far more economical in their use of manpower. It also served to increase their strategic range and to out-compete galleys as fighting ships.^[79]

Mediterranean decline[edit]

The Battle of Lepanto in 1571, naval engagement between allied Christian forces and the Ottoman Turks.

Atlantic-style warfare based on heavily armed sailing ships began to change the nature of naval warfare in the Mediterranean in the 17th century. In 1616, a small Spanish squadron of five galleons and a patache was used to cruise the eastern Mediterranean and defeated a fleet of 55 galleys at the battle of Cape Celidonia. By 1650, war galleys were used primarily in the wars between Venice and the Ottoman Empire in their struggle for strategic island and coastal trading bases and until the 1720s by both France and Spain but for largely amphibious and cruising operations or in combination with heavy sailing ships in a major battle, where they played specialized roles. An example of this was when a Spanish fleet used its galleys in a mixed naval/amphibious battle in the second 1641 battle of Tarragona, to break a French naval blockade and land troops and supplies.^[80] Even a purely Mediterranean power like Venice began to construct sail only warships in the latter part of the century. Christian and Muslim corsairs had been using galleys in sea roving and in support of the major powers in times of war, but largely replaced them with xebecs, various sail/oar hybrids, and a few remaining light galleys in the early 17th century.^[81]

No large all galley battles were fought after the gigantic clash at Lepanto in 1571, and galleys were mostly used as cruisers or for supporting sailing warships as a rearguard in fleet actions, similar to the duties performed by frigates outside the Mediterranean.^[81] They could assist damaged ships out of the line, but generally only in very calm weather, as was the case at the Battle of Málaga in 1704.^[82] For small states and principalities as well as groups of private merchants, galleys were more affordable than large and complex sailing warships, and were used as defense against piracy. Galleys required less timber to build, the design was relatively simple and they carried fewer guns. They were tactically flexible and could be used for naval ambushes as well amphibious operations. They also required few skilled seamen and were difficult for sailing ships to catch, but vital in hunting down catching other galleys and oared raiders.^[83]

The largest galley fleets in the 17th century were operated by the two major Mediterranean powers, France and Spain. France had by the 1650s become the most powerful state in Europe, and expanded its galley forces under the rule of the absolutist « Sun King » Louis XIV. In the 1690s the French galley corps (Corps des galères) reached its all-time peak with more than 50 vessels manned by over 15,000 men and officers, becoming the largest galley fleet in the world at the time.^[84]Though there was intense rivalry between France and Spain, not a single galley battle occurred between the two great powers after, and virtually no battles between other nations either.^[85] During the War of the Spanish Succession, French galleys were involved in actions against Antwerp and Harwich,^[86] but due to the intricacies of alliance politics there were never any Franco-Spanish galley clashes. In the first half of the 18th century, the other major naval powers in the Mediterranean Sea, the Order of Saint John based in Malta and of the Papal States in central Italy, cut down drastically on their galley forces.^[87] Despite the lack of action, the galley corps received vast resources (25-50% of the French naval expenditures) during the 1660s centuries.^[88] It was maintained as a functional fighting force right up until its abolishment in 1748, though its primary function was more of a symbol of Louis XIV’s absolutist ambitions.^[89]

The last recorded battle in the Mediterranean where galleys played a significant part was at Matapan in 1717, between the Ottomans and Venice and its allies, though they had little influence on the final outcome. Few large-scale naval battles were fought in the Mediterranean throughout most of the remainder of the 18th century. The Tuscan galley fleet was dismantled around 1718, Naples had only four old vessels by 1734 and the French Galley Corps had ceased to exist as an independent arm in 1748. Venice, the Papal States and the Knights of Malta were the only state fleets that maintained galleys, though in nothing like their previous quantities.^[90] By 1790, there were less than 50 galleys in service among all the Mediterranean powers, half of which belonged to Venice.^[91]

Use in northern Europe

Dutch ships ramming Spanish galleys in the Battle of the Narrow Seas, October 1602.

Oared vessels remained in use in northern waters for a long time, though in subordinate role and in particular circumstances. In the Italian Wars, French galleys brought up from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic posed a serious threat to the early English Tudor navy during coastal operations. The response came in the building of a considerable fleet of oared vessels, including hybrids with a complete three-masted rig, as well as a Mediterranean-style galleys (that were even attempted to be manned with convicts and slaves).^[92] Under King Henry VIII, the English navy used several kinds of vessels that were adapted to local needs. English galliasses (very different from the Mediterranean vessel of the same name) were employed to cover the flanks of larger naval forces while pinnaces and rowbarges were used for scouting or even as a backup for the longboats and tenders for the larger sailing ships.^[93] During the Dutch Revolt (1566–1609) both the Dutch and Spanish found galleys useful for amphibious operations in the many shallow waters around the Low Countries where deep-draft sailing vessels could not enter.^[86]

While galleys were too vulnerable to be used in large numbers in the open waters of the Atlantic, they were well-suited for use in much of the Baltic Sea by Denmark, Sweden, Russia and some of the Central European powers with ports on the southern coast. There were two types of naval battlegrounds in the Baltic. One was the open sea, suitable for large sailing fleets; the other was the coastal areas and especially the chain of small islands and archipelagos that ran almost uninterrupted from Stockholm to the Gulf of Finland. In these areas, conditions were often too calm, cramped and shallow for sailing ships, but they were excellent for galleys and other oared vessels.^[94] Galleys of the Mediterranean type were first introduced in the Baltic Sea around the mid-16th century as competition between the Scandinavian states of Denmark and Sweden intensified. The Swedish galley fleet was the largest outside the Mediterranean, and served as an auxiliary branch of the army. Very little is known about the design of Baltic Sea galleys, except that they were overall smaller than in the Mediterranean and they were rowed by army soldiers rather than convicts or slaves.^[95]

Baltic revival and decline

A painting of the Battle of Grengamin 1720 by Ferdinand Perrot (1808–41) showing a large Russian galley engaging Swedish frigates at close range. Note the crowded fighting platform (rambade) in the bow.

Galleys were introduced to the Baltic Sea in the 16th century but the details of their designs are lacking due to the absence of records. They might have been built in a more regional style, but the only known depiction from the time shows a typical Mediterranean vessel. There is conclusive evidence that Denmark became the first Baltic power to build classic Mediterranean-style galleys in the 1660s, though they proved to be generally too large to be useful in the shallow waters of the Baltic archipelagos. Sweden and especially Russia began to launch galleys and various rowed vessels in great numbers during the Great Northern War in the first two decades of the 18th century.^[96] Sweden was late in the game when it came to building an effective oared fighting fleet, while the Russian galley forces under Tsar Peter I developed into a supporting arm for the sailing navy and a well-functioning auxiliary of the army which infiltrated and conducted numerous raids on the eastern Swedish coast in the 1710s.^[97]

Sweden and Russia became the two main competitors for Baltic dominance in the 18th century, and built the largest galley fleets in the world at the time. They were used for amphibious operations in Russo-Swedish wars of 1741–43 and 1788–90. The last galleys ever constructed were built in 1796 by Russia, and remained in service well into the 19th century, but saw little action.^[98] The last time galleys were deployed in action was when the Russian navy was attacked in Åbo (Turku) in 1854 as part of the Crimean War.^[99] In the second half of the 18th century, the role of Baltic galleys in coastal fleets was replaced first with hybrid « archipelago frigates » (like the turuma or pojama) and xebecs, and after the 1790s with various types of gunboats.^[100]

Both the Russian and Swedish navies were based on a form of conscription, and both navies used conscripts as galley rowers. This had several advantages over convicts or slaves: the rowers could be armed to fight as marines, they could be also used as land soldiers and invasion force, and they could be taught better and more skilled than convicts or slaves. Since most naval conscripts came from coastal parishes and towns, most were already experienced seafarers when they entered the service.

Southeast Asia

Galley from Banten, 1598

Various types of indigenous galley-like vessels are used in Southeast Asia, namely: lancaran, penjajap, kelulus, lanong, garay, kora-kora, and karakoa. During the turn of the 16th century, mediterranean influence came, mainly by Ottoman influences of sultanates in Nusantaran archipelago. A royal galley (ghali kenaikan raja) of Malacca sultanate built approximately in 1453 is called Mendam Berahi (Malay for Suppressed Passion). It is 60 gaz (67 m) in length and 6 depa (11 m) in width. This ghali had 3 masts and able to carry 400 men, 200 of them were rowers in 50 rowing line. It is armed with 5 bow-mounted rentaka and ramming beam.^[101]

Acehnese in 1568 siege of Portuguese Malacca used 4 large galley 40-50 meter long each with 190 rowers and 3 masts. They were armed with 12 large camelos (3 at each bow side, 4 at stern), 1 basilisk (bow-mounted), 12 falcons, and 40 swivel guns. By then cannons, firearms, and other war material had come annually from Jeddah, and the Turks also sent military expert, master of galleys, and technicians.^[102] In 1575 siege, Aceh used 40 two-masted galleys with Turkish captains carrying 200-300 soldier of Turk, Arab, Decanis, and Aceh origins. The state galleys of Aceh, Daya, and Pedir is said to carry 10 meriam, 50 lela, and 120 cecorong (not counting the ispinggar). Smaller galley carry 5 meriam, 20 lela, and 50 cecorong.^[103] Western and native sources mention that Aceh had 100-120 galleys at any time (not counting the smaller fusta and galiot), spread from Daya (west coast) to Pedir (east coast). One galley captured by Portuguese in 1629 is very large, and it was reported there were total 47 of them. She reached 100 m in length and 17 m in breadth, had 3 masts with square sails and topsails, propelled by 35 oars on each side and able to carry 700 men. It is armed with 18 large cannon (five 55-pounders at the bow, one 25-pounder at the stern, the rest were 17 and 18-pounders), 80 falcons and many swivel guns. The ship is called « Espanto do Mundo » (terror of the universe), which probably a free translation from « Cakra Dunia« .^[101]

Two Dutch engravings from 1598 and 1601 depicted galley from Banten and Madura. They had 2 and 1 mast(s), respectively. Major difference from mediterranean galleys, Nusantaran galley had raised fighting platform called « balai » in which the soldier stood, a feature common in warships of the region.^[104] Sultanate of Goa of mid 17th century had « Galle » 40 m long and 6 m breadth, carrying 200-400 men. Other galle of the kingdom varied between 23-35 m in length.^[101]

Construction

Illustration of an Egyptian rowed ship of c. 1250 BC. Due to a lack of a proper keel, the vessel has a truss, a thick cable along its length, to prevent it from losing its shape.

Galleys have since their first appearance in ancient times been intended as highly maneuverable vessels, independent of winds by being rowed, and usually with a focus on speed under oars. The profile has therefore been that of a markedly elongated hull with a ratio of breadth to length at the waterline of at least 1:5, and in the case of ancient Mediterranean galleys as much as 1:10 with a small draught, the measurement of how much of a ship’s structure that is submerged under water. To make it possible to efficiently row the vessels, the freeboard, the height of the railing to the surface of the water, was by necessity kept low. This gave oarsmen enough leverage to row efficiently, but at the expense of seaworthiness. These design characteristics made the galley fast and maneuverable, but more vulnerable to rough weather.

The documentary evidence for the construction of ancient galleys is fragmentary, particularly in pre-Roman times. Plans and schematics in the modern sense did not exist until the 17th century and nothing like them has survived from ancient times. How galleys were constructed has therefore been a matter of looking at circumstantial evidence in literature, art, coinage and monuments that include ships, some of them actually in natural size. Since the war galleys floated even with a ruptured hull and virtually never had any ballast or heavy cargo that could sink them, not a single wreckage of one has so far been found. The only exception has been a partial wreckage of a small Punic liburnian from the Roman era, the Marsala Ship.^[105]

On the funerary monument of the Egyptian king Sahure (2487–2475 BC) in Abusir, there are relief images of vessels with a marked sheer (the upward curvature at each end of the hull) and seven pairs of oars along its side, a number that was likely to have been merely symbolical, and steering oars in the stern. They have one mast, all lowered and vertical posts at stem and stern, with the front decorated with an Eye of Horus, the first example of such a decoration. It was later used by other Mediterranean cultures to decorate seagoing craft in the belief that it helped to guide the ship safely to its destination. These early galleys apparently lacked a keelmeaning they lacked stiffness along their length. Therefore, they had large cables connecting stem and stern resting on massive crutches on deck. They were held in tension to avoid hogging, or bending the ship’s construction upwards in the middle, while at sea.^[15] In the 15th century BC, Egyptian galleys were still depicted with the distinctive extreme sheer, but had by then developed the distinctive forward-curving stern decorations with ornaments in the shape of lotus flowers.^[106] They had possibly developed a primitive type of keel, but still retained the large cables intended to prevent hogging.^[16]

A schematic view of the mortise and tenon technique for shipbuilding that dominated the Mediterranean until the 7th century AD.^[107]

The design of the earliest oared vessels is mostly unknown and highly conjectural. They likely used a mortise construction, but were sewn together rather than pinned together with nails and dowels. Being completely open, they were rowed (or even paddled) from the open deck, and likely had « ram entries », projections from the bow lowered the resistance of moving through water, making them slightly more hydrodynamic. The first true galleys, the triaconters (literally « thirty-oarers ») and penteconters (« fifty-oarers ») were developed from these early designs and set the standard for the larger designs that would come later. They were rowed on only one level, which made them fairly slow, likely only 5-5.5 knots. By the 8th century BC the first galleys rowed at two levels had been developed, among the earliest being the two-level penteconters which were considerably shorter than the one-level equivalents, and therefore more maneuverable. They were an estimated 25 m in length and displaced 15 tonnes with 25 pairs of oars. These could have reached an estimated top speed of up to 7.5 knots, making them the first genuine warships when fitted with bow rams. They were equipped with a single square sail on mast set roughly halfway along the length of the hull.^[108]

Trireme

 trireme

The stern of the modern trireme replica Olympias with twin side rudders

By the 5th century BC, the first triremes were in use by various powers in the eastern Mediterranean. It had now become a fully developed, highly specialized vessel of war that was capable of high speeds and complex maneuvers. At nearly 40 m in length, displacing almost 50 tonnes, it was more than three times as expensive as a two-level penteconter. A trireme also had an additional mast with a smaller square sail placed near the bow.^[109] Up to 170 oarsmen sat on three levels with one oar each that varied slightly in length. To accommodate three levels of oars, rowers sat staggered on three levels. Arrangements of the three levels are believed to have varied, but the most well-documented design made use of a projecting structure, or outrigger, where the oarlock in the form of a thole pin was placed. This allowed the outermost row of oarsmen enough leverage for full strokes that made efficient use of their oars.^[110]

The Athlit ram, a preserved original warship ram from around 530–270 BC. It weighs nearly half a tonne and was probably fitted to a « five » or a « four ».^[111]

The first dedicated war galleys fitted with rams were built with a mortise and tenontechnique, a so-called shell-first method. In this, the planking of the hull was strong enough to hold the ship together structurally, and was also watertight without the need for caulking. Hulls had sharp bottoms without keelsons in order to support the structure and were reinforced by transverse framing secured with dowels with nails driven through them. To prevent the hull from hogging there was a hypozoma, a thick cable that connected bow with stern. It was kept taut to add strength to the construction along its length, but its exact design or the method of tightening is not known.^[112] The ram, the primary weapon of ancient galleys from around the 8th to the 4th century, was not attached directly on the hull but to a structure extending from it. This way the ram could twist off if got stuck after ramming rather than breaking the integrity of the hull. The ram fitting consisted of a massive, projecting timber and the ram itself was a thick bronze casting with horizontal blades that could weigh from 400 kg up to 2 tonnes.^[109]

Roman era

Galleys from 4th century BC up to the time of the early Roman Empire in the 1st century AD became successively larger. Three levels of oars was the practical upper limit, but it was improved on by making ships longer, broader and heavier and placing more than one rower per oar. Naval conflict grew more intense and extensive, and by 100 BC galleys with four, five or six rows of oarsmen were commonplace and carried large complements of soldiers and catapults. With high freeboard (up to 3 m) and additional tower structures from which missiles could be shot down onto enemy decks, they were intended to be like floating fortresses.^[113] Designs with everything from eight rows of oarsmen and upwards were built, but most of them are believed to have been impractical show pieces never used in actual warfare.^[114] Ptolemy IV, the Greek pharaoh of Egypt 221–205 BC, is recorded as building a gigantic ship with forty rows of oarsmen, though no specification of its design remains. One suggested design was that of a huge trireme catamaran with up to 14 men per oar and it is assumed that it was intended as a showpiece rather than a practical warship.^[115]

With the consolidation of Roman imperial power, the size of both fleets and galleys decreased considerably. The huge polyremes disappeared and the fleet were equipped primarily with triremes and liburnians, compact biremes with 25 pairs of oars that were well suited for patrol duty and chasing down raiders and pirates.^[116] In the northern provinces oared patrol boats were employed to keep local tribes in check along the shores of rivers like the Rhine and the Danube.^[117] As the need for large warships disappeared, the design of the trireme, the pinnacle of ancient war ship design, fell into obscurity and was eventually forgotten. The last known reference to triremes in battle is dated to 324 at the battle of the Hellespont. In the late 5th century the Byzantine historian Zosimus declared the knowledge of how to build them to have been long since forgotten.^[118]

Middle Ages

The earliest medieval galley specification comes from an order of Charles I of Sicily, in 1275 AD.^[119] Overall length 39.30 m, keel length 28.03 m, depth 2.08 m. Hull width 3.67 m. Width between outriggers 4.45 m. 108 oars, most 6.81 m long, some 7.86 m, 2 steering oars 6.03 m long. Foremast and middle mast respectively heights 16.08 m, 11.00 m; circumference both 0.79 m, yard lengths 26.72 m, 17.29 m. Overall deadweight tonnage approximately 80 metric tons. This type of vessel had two, later three, men on a bench, each working his own oar. This vessel had much longer oars than the Athenian trireme which were 4.41 m & 4.66 m long.^[120] This type of warship was called galia sottil.^[121]

The dromon and the galea

14th-century painting of a light galley, from an icon now at the Byzantine and Christian Museum at Athens

The primary warship of the Byzantine navy until the 12th century was the dromon and other similar ship types. Considered an evolution of the Roman liburnian, the term first appeared in the late 5th century, and was commonly used for a specific kind of war-galley by the 6th century.^[122] The term dromōn (literally « runner ») itself comes from the Greek root drom-(áō), « to run », and 6th-century authors like Procopius are explicit in their references to the speed of these vessels.^[123] During the next few centuries, as the naval struggle with the Arabs intensified, heavier versions with two or possibly even three banks of oars evolved.^[124]

The accepted view is that the main developments which differentiated the early dromons from the liburnians, and that henceforth characterized Mediterranean galleys, were the adoption of a full deck, the abandonment of rams on the bow in favor of an above-water spur, and the gradual introduction of lateen sails.^[125] The exact reasons for the abandonment of the ram are unclear. Depictions of upward-pointing beaks in the 4th-century Vatican Vergil manuscript may well illustrate that the ram had already been replaced by a spur in late Roman galleys.^[126] One possibility is that the change occurred because of the gradual evolution of the ancient shell-first construction method, against which rams had been designed, into the skeleton-first method, which produced a stronger and more flexible hull, less susceptible to ram attacks.^[127] At least by the early 7th century, the ram’s original function had been forgotten.^[128]

The dromons that Procopius described were single-banked ships of probably 25 oars per side. Unlike ancient vessels, which used an outrigger, these extended directly from the hull.^[129] In the later bireme dromons of the 9th and 10th centuries, the two oar banks were divided by the deck, with the first oar bank was situated below, whilst the second oar bank was situated above deck; these rowers were expected to fight alongside the marines in boarding operations.^[130] The overall length of these ships was probably about 32 meters.^[131] The stern (prymnē) had a tent that covered the captain’s berth;^[132] the prow featured an elevated forecastle that acted as a fighting platform and could house one or more siphons for the discharge of Greek fire;^[133]and on the largest dromons, there were wooden castles on either side between the masts, providing archers with elevated firing platforms.^[134] The bow spur was intended to ride over an enemy ship’s oars, breaking them and rendering it helpless against missile fire and boarding actions.^[135]

Standardization

From the 12th century, the design of war galleys evolved into the form that would remain largely the same until the building of the last war galleys in the late 18th century. The length to breadth-ratio was a minimum of 8:1. A rectangular telaro, an outrigger, was added to support the oars and the rowers’ benches were laid out in a diagonal herringbone pattern angled aft on either side of a central gangway, or corsia.^[136] It was based on the form of the galea, the smaller Byzantine galleys, and would be known mostly by the Italian term gallia sottila (literally « slender galley »). A second, smaller mast was added sometime in the 13th century and the number of rowers was rose from two to three rowers per bench as a standard from the late 13th to the early 14th century.^[137] The gallee sottili would make up the bulk the main war fleets of every major naval power in the Mediterranean, assisted by the smaller single-masted galiotte, as well as the Christian and Muslim corsairs fleets. Ottoman galleys were very similar in design, though in general smaller, faster under sail, but slower under oars.^[138] The standard size of the galley remained stable from the 14th until the early 16th century, when the introduction of naval artillery began to have effects on design and tactics.^[139]

A Venetian galea sottila from the late 15th century from Vittore Carpaccio‘s Return of the Ambassadors in the series Legend of Saint Ursula (1497–1498). Note the oars arranged in groups of three according to the alla sensile rowing method.

The traditional two side rudders were complemented with a stern rudder sometime after c. 1400 and eventually the side rudders disappeared altogether.^[140] It was also during the 15th century that large artillery pieces were first mounted on galleys. Burgundian records from the mid-15th century describe galleys with some form of guns, but do not specify the size. The first conclusive evidence of a large cannon mounted on a galley comes from a woodcut of a Venetian galley in 1486.^[141] The first guns were fixed directly on timbers in the bow and aimed directly forwards, a placement that would remain largely unchanged until the galley disappeared from active service in the 19th century.^[142]

The ubiquitous bow fighting platform (rambade) of early modern galleys. This model is of a 1715 Swedish galley, somewhat smaller than the standard Mediterranean war galley, but still based on the same design.

With the introduction of guns in the bows of galleys, a permanent wooden structure called rambade (French: rambade; Italian: rambata; Spanish: arrumbada) was introduced. The rambade became standard on virtually all galleys in the early 16th century. There were some variations in the navies of different Mediterranean powers, but the overall layout was the same. The forward-aiming battery was covered by a wooden platform which gave gunners a minimum of protection, and functioned as both a staging area for boarding attacks and as a firing platform for on-board soldiers.^[143]After its introduction, the rambade became a standard detail on every fighting galley until the very end of galley era in the early 19th century.^[144]

In the mid-17th century, galleys reached what has been described as their « final form ».^[145] Galleys had looked more or less the same for over four centuries and a fairly standardized classification system for different sizes of galleys had been developed by the Mediterranean bureaucracies, based mostly on the number of benches in a vessel.^[10] A Mediterranean galley would have 25-26 pairs of oars with five men per oar (c. 250 rowers), 50-100 sailors and 50-100 soldiers for a total of about 500 men. The exceptions were the significantly larger « flagships » (often called lanternas, « lantern galleys ») that had 30 pairs of oars and up to seven rowers per oar. The armament consisted of one heavy 24- or 36-pounder gun in the bows flanked by two to four 4- to 12-pounders. Rows of light swivel guns were often placed along the entire length of the galley on the railings for close-quarter defense. The length-to-width ratio of the ships was about 8:1, with two main masts carrying one large lateensail each. In the Baltic, galleys were generally shorter with a length-to-width ratio from 5:1 to 7:1, an adaptation to the cramped conditions of the Baltic archipelagos.^[146]

A single mainmast was standard on most war galleys until c. 1600. A second, shorter mast could be raised temporarily in the bows, but became permanent by the early 17th century. It was stepped slightly to the side to allow for the recoil of the heavy guns; the other was placed roughly in the center of the ship. A third smaller mast further astern, akin to a mizzen mast, was also introduced on large galleys, possibly in the early 17th century, but was standard at least by the early 18th century.^[147]Galleys had little room for provisions and depended on frequent resupplying and were often beached at night to rest the crew and cook meals. Where cooking areaswere actually present, they consisted of a clay-lined box with a hearth or similar cooking equipment fitted on the vessel in place of a rowing bench, usually on the port (left) side.^[148]

Model of the French Dauphine

Side view. Dauphine was built in 1736 and survived until the French Revolution.

Front view. Contemporary model on display at Toulon naval museum.

Propulsion

Throughout their long history, galleys relied on rowing as the most important means of propulsion. The arrangement of rowers during the 1st millennium BC developed gradually from a single row up to three rows arranged in a complex, staggered seating arrangement. Anything above three levels, however, proved to be physically impracticable. Initially, there was only one rower per oar, but the number steadily increased, with a number of different combinations of rowers per oar and rows of oars. The ancient terms for galleys was based on the numbers of rows or rowers plying the oars, not the number of rows of oars. Today it is best known by a modernized Latin terminology based on numerals with the ending « -reme » from rēmus, « oar ». A trireme was a ship with three rows of oarsmen, a quadrireme four, a hexareme six, and so forth. There were warships that ran up to ten or even eleven rows, but anything above six was rare. A huge forty-rowed ship was built during the reign of Ptolemy IV in Egypt. Little is known about its design, but it is assumed to have been an impractical prestige vessel.

Rowing

Modern reconstruction of a cross-section of an ancient Greek trireme, showing the three levels of rowers.

Ancient rowing was done in a fixed seated position, the most effective rowing position, with rowers facing the stern. A sliding stroke, which provided the strength from both legs as well as the arms, was suggested by earlier historians, but no conclusive evidence has supported it. Practical experiments with the full-scale reconstruction Olympias has shown that there was insufficient space, while moving or rolling seats would have been highly impractical to construct with ancient methods.^[149] Rowers in ancient war galleys sat below the upper deck with little view of their surroundings. The rowing was therefore managed by supervisors, and coordinated with pipes or rhythmic chanting.^[150] Galleys were highly maneuverable, able to turn on their axis or even to row backwards, though it required a skilled and experienced crew.^[151] In galleys with an arrangement of three men per oar, all would be seated, but the rower furthest inboard would perform a stand-and-sit stroke, getting up on his feet to push the oar forwards and then sitting down again to pull it back.^[151]

The faster a vessel travels, the more energy it uses. Reaching high speed requires energy which a human-powered vessel is incapable of producing. Oar system generate very low amounts of energy for propulsion (only about 70 W per rower) and the upper limit for rowing in a fixed position is around 10 knots.^[152] Ancient war galleys of the kind used in Classical Greece are by modern historians considered to be the most energy efficient and fastest of galley designs throughout history. A full-scale replica of a 5th-century BC trireme, the Olympias was built 1985–87 and was put through a series of trials to test its performance. It proved that a cruising speed of 7-8 knots could be maintained for an entire day. Sprinting speeds of up to 10 knots were possible, but only for a few minutes and would tire the crew quickly.^[153] Ancient galleys were built very light and the original triremes are assumed to never have been surpassed in speed.^[154] Medieval galleys are believed to have been considerably slower, especially since they were not built with ramming tactics in mind. A cruising speed of no more than 2-3 knots has been estimated. A sprint speed of up to 7 knots was possible for 20–30 minutes, but risked exhausting the rowers completely.^[155]

Rowing in headwinds or even moderately rough weather was difficult as well as exhausting.^[156] In high seas, ancient galleys would set sail to run before the wind. They were highly susceptible to high waves, and could become unmanageable if the rowing frame (apostis) came awash. Ancient and medieval galleys are assumed to have sailed only with the wind more or less astern with a top speed of 8-9 knots in fair conditions.^[157]

Galley slaves

: Galley slave

Model of a Venetian three-banked galley rowed alla sensile, with three rowers sharing a bench but handling one oar each

Contrary to the popular image of rowers chained to the oars, conveyed by movies such as Ben Hur, there is no evidence that ancient navies ever made use of condemned criminals or slaves as oarsmen, with the possible exception of Ptolemaic Egypt.^[158]Literary evidence indicates that Greek and Roman navies relied on paid labor or ordinary soldiers to man their galleys.^[159][160] Slaves were put at the oars only in times of extreme crisis. In some cases, these people were given freedom thereafter, while in others they began their service aboard as free men. Roman merchant vessels (usually sailing vessels) were manned by slaves, sometimes even with slaves as ship’s master, but this was seldom the case in merchant galleys.^[161]

It was only in the early 16th century that the modern idea of the galley slave became commonplace. Galley fleets as well as the size of individual vessels increase in size, which required more rowers. The number of benches could not be increased without lengthening hulls beyond their structural limits, and more than three oars per bench was not practicable. The demand for more rowers also meant that the relatively limited number of skilled oarsmen could not keep up with the demand of large galley fleets. It became increasingly common to man galleys with convicts or slaves, which required a simpler method of rowing. The older method of employing professional rowers using the alla sensile method (one oar per man, with two to three sharing the same bench) was gradually phased out in favor of rowing a scaloccio, which required less skill.^[162] A single large oar was used for each bench, with several rowers working it together and the number of oarsmen per oar rose from three up to five. In some very large command galleys, there could be as many as seven to an oar.^[163]

An illustration from 1643 showing the layout of rowing benches as well and placement of rowers on a galley with 16 pairs of oars. It also shows a rower at the top of the stroke using the standing rowing technique typical of a scaloccio rowing.

All major Mediterranean powers sentenced criminals to galley service, but initially only in time of war. Christian naval powers like Spain frequently employed Muslim captives and prisoners of war. The Ottoman navy and its North African corsair allies often put Christian prisoners to the oars, but also mixed volunteers. Spain relied on mostly servile rowers, in great part because its organizational structure was geared toward employing slaves and convicts.^[164] Venice was one of few major naval powers that used almost only free rowers, a result of their reliance on alla sensilerowing which required skilled professional rowers. The Knights of Saint John used slaves extensively, as did the Papal States, Florence and Genoa. North African ghazicorsairs relied almost entirely on Christian slaves for rowers.^[165]

Sails

 

In ancient galleys under sail, most of the moving power came from a single square sail. It was rigged on a mast somewhat forwards of the center of the ship with a smaller mast carrying a head sail in the bow. Triangular lateen sails are attested as early as the 2nd century AD, and gradually became the sail of choice for galleys. By the 9th century lateens were firmly established as part of the standard galley rig. The lateen rig was more complicated and required a larger crew to handle than a square sail rig, but this was not a problem in the heavily manned galleys.^[166] Belisarius’ Byzantine invasion fleet of 533 was at least partly fitted with lateen sails, making it probable that by the time the lateen had become the standard rig for the dromon,^[167]with the traditional square sail gradually falling from use in medieval navigation in the Mediterranean.^[168] Unlike a square sail rig, the spar of a lateen sail did not pivot around the mast. To change tacks, the entire spar had to be lifted over the mast and to the other side. Since the spar was often much longer than the mast itself, and not much shorter than the ship itself, it was a complex and time-consuming maneuver.^[169]

Armament and tactics

Main article: Galley tactics

In the earliest times of naval warfare boarding was the only means of deciding a naval engagement, but little to nothing is known about the tactics involved. In the first recorded naval battle in history, the battle of the Delta, the forces of Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III won a decisive victory over a force made up of the enigmatic group known as the Sea Peoples. As shown in commemorative reliefs of the battle, Egyptian archers on ships and the nearby shores of the Nile rain down arrows on the enemy ships. At the same time Egyptian galleys engage in boarding action and capsize the ships of the Sea Peoples with ropes attached to grappling hooks thrown into the rigging.^[170]

Introduction of the ram

The ram bow of the triremeOlympias, a modern full-scale reconstruction of a classical Greek trireme.

Around the 8th century BC, ramming began to be employed as war galleys were equipped with heavy bronze rams. Records of the Persian Wars in the early 5th century BC by the Ancient historian Herodotus (c. 484-25 BC) show that by this time ramming tactics had evolved among the Greeks. The formations adapted for ramming warfare could either be in columns in line ahead, one ship following the next, or in a line abreast, with the ships side by side, depending on the tactical situation and the surrounding geography. The primary methods for attack was either to break through the enemy formation or to outflank it.^[171] Ramming itself was done by smashing into the rear or side of an enemy ship, punching a hole in the planking. This did not actually sink an ancient galley unless it was heavily laden with cargo and stores. With a normal load, it was buoyant enough to float even with a breached hull. Breaking the enemy’s oars was another way of rendering ships immobile, rendering them easier targets. If ramming was not possible or successful, the on-board complement of soldiers would attempt to board and capture the enemy vessel by securing it with grappling irons, accompanied by missile fire with arrows or javelins. Trying to set the enemy ship on fire by hurling incendiary missiles or by pouring the content of fire pots attached to long handles is thought to have been used, especially since smoke below decks would easily disable rowers.^[172] Rhodes was the first naval power to employ this weapon, sometime in the 3rd century, and used it to fight off head-on attacks or to frighten enemies into exposing their sides for a ramming attack.^[173]

A successful ramming was difficult to achieve; just the right amount of speed and precise maneuvering were required. Fleets that did not have well-drilled, experienced oarsmen and skilled commanders relied more on boarding with superior infantry (such as increasing the complement to 40 soldiers). Ramming attempts were countered by keeping the bow towards the enemy until the enemy crew tired, and then attempting to board as quickly as possible. A double-line formation could be used to achieve a breakthrough by engaging the first line and then rushing the rearguard in to take advantage of weak spots in the enemy’s defense. This required superiority in numbers, though, since a shorter front risked being flanked or surrounded.^[174]

Boarding prevails

The Byzantine fleet repels the Rus’ attack on Constantinople in 941. The Byzantine dromons are rolling over the Rus’ vessels and smashing their oars with their spurs.

Despite the attempts to counter increasingly heavy ships, ramming tactics were gradually superseded in the last centuries BC by the Macedonians and Romans, both primarily land-based powers. Hand-to-hand fighting with large complements of heavy infantry supported by ship-borne catapults dominated the fighting style during the Roman era, a move that was accompanied by the conversion to heavier ships with larger rowing complements and more men per oar. Though effectively lowering mobility, it meant that less skill was required from individual oarsmen. Fleets thereby became less dependent on rowers with a lifetime of experience at the oar.^[31]

By late antiquity, in the 1st centuries AD, ramming tactics had completely disappeared along with the knowledge of the design of the ancient trireme. Medieval galleys instead developed a projection, or « spur », in the bow that was designed to break oars and to act as a boarding platform for storming enemy ships. The only remaining examples of ramming tactics were passing references to attempts to collide with ships in order to destabilize or capsize them.^[175]

Byzantine ship attacking with Greek fire. Madrid Skylitzes manuscript, 11th century.

The Byzantine navy, the largest Mediterranean war fleet throughout most of the early Middle Ages, employed crescent formations with the flagship in the center and the heavier ships at the horns of the formation, in order to turn the enemy’s flanks. Similar tactics are believed to have been employed by the Arab fleets they frequently fought from the 7th century onwards. The Byzantines were the first to employ Greek fire, a highly effective incendiary liquid, as a naval weapon. It could be fired through a metal tube, or siphon mounted in the bows, similar to a modern flame thrower. The properties of Greek fire were close to that of napalm and was a key to several major Byzantine victories. By 835, the weapon had spread to the Arabs, who equipped harraqas, « fireships », with it. The initial stages in naval battles was an exchanges of missiles, ranging from combustible projectiles to arrows, caltrops and javelins. The aim was not to sink ships, but to deplete the ranks of the enemy crews before the boarding commenced, which decided the outcome. Once the enemy strength was judged to have been reduced sufficiently, the fleets closed in, the ships grappled each other, and the marines and upper bank oarsmen boarded the enemy vessel and engaged in hand-to-hand combat.^[175] Byzantine dromons had pavesades, racks along the railings, on which marines could hang their shields, providing protection to the deck crew.^[176] Larger ships also had wooden castles on either side between the masts, which allowed archers to shoot from an elevated firing position.^[134]

Battle between Venetian and Holy Roman fleets; detail of fresco by Spinello Aretino 1407–1408.

Later medieval navies continued to use similar tactics, with the line abreast formation as standard. As galleys were intended to be fought from the bows, and were at their weakest along the sides, especially in the middle. The crescent formation employed by the Byzantines continued to be used throughout the Middle Ages. It would allow the wings of the fleet to crash their bows straight into the sides of the enemy ships at the edge of the formation.^[177]

Roger of Lauria (c. 1245–1305) was a successful medieval naval tactician who fought for the Aragon navy against French Angevin fleets in the War of the Sicilian Vespers. At the Battle of Malta in July 1283, he lured out Angevin galleys that were beached stern-first by openly challenging them. Attacking them in a strong defensive position head-on would have been very dangerous since it offered good cohesion, allowed rowers to escape ashore and made it possible to reinforce weak positions by transferring infantry along the shore. He also employed skilled crossbowmen and almogavars, light infantry, that were more nimbler in ship-to-ship actions than heavily armed and armored French soldiers.^[178] At the battle of the Gulf of Naples in 1284, his forces launched clay cooking pots filled with soap before attacking; when the pots broke against the enemy decks, they became perilously slippery and difficult for heavy infantry to keep their feet on.^[179]

Gun galleys

The earliest guns were of large calibers, and were initially of wrought iron, which made them weak compared to cast bronze guns that would become standard in the 16th century. They were at first fixed directly on timbers in the bow, aiming directly forwards. This placement would remain largely unchanged until the galley disappeared from active service in the 19th century.^[142] The introduction of heavy guns and small arms did not change tactics considerably. If anything, it accentuated the bow as the offensive weapon, being both a staging area for boarders and the given position for small arms and cannons. The galley was capable of outperforming sailing vessel in early battles. It retained a distinct tactical advantage even after the initial introduction of naval artillery because of the ease with which it could be brought to bear upon an opposing vessel.^[180]

Contemporary depiction of the battle of Lepanto in 1571 that shows the strict formations of the opposing fleets. Fresco in the Gallery of Maps in Vatican Museum.

In large-scale galley-to-galley engagements, tactics remained essentially the same until the end of the 16th century. Cannons and small firearms were introduced around the 14th century, but did not have immediate effects on tactics; the same basic crescent formation in line abreast that was employed at the battle of Lepanto in 1571 was used by the Byzantine fleet almost a millennium earlier.^[181] Artillery on early gun galleys was not used as a long-range standoff weapon against other gun-armed ships. The maximum distance at which contemporary cannons were effective, c. 500 m (1600 ft), could be covered by a galley in about two minutes, much faster than the reload time of any heavy artillery. Gun crews would therefore hold their fire until the last possible moment, somewhat similar to infantry tactics in the pre-industrial era of short range firearms.^[182] The weak points of a galley remained the sides and especially the rear, the command center. Unless one side managed to outmaneuver the other, battle would be met with ships crashing into each other head on. Once fighting began with ships locking on to one another bow to bow, the fighting would be fought over the front line ships. Unless a galley was completely overrun by an enemy boarding party, fresh troops could be fed into the fight from reserve vessels in the rear.^[183]

Ceremonial symbolism

The Galley Subtle, one of the very few Mediterranean-style galleys employed by the English. This illustration is from the Anthony Roll (c. 1546) and was intended as its centerpiece.

Galleys were used for purely ceremonial purposes by many rulers and states. In early modern Europe, galleys enjoyed a level of prestige that sailing vessels did not enjoy. Galleys had from an early stage been commanded by the leaders of land forces, and fought with tactics adapted from land warfare. As such, they enjoyed the prestige associated with land battles, the ultimate achievement of a high-standing noble or king. In the Baltic, the Swedish king Gustav I, the founder of the modern Swedish state, showed particular interest in galleys, as was befitting a Renaissance prince. Whenever traveling by sea, Gustav, the court, royal bureaucrats and the royal bodyguard would travel by galley.^[184] Around the same time, English king Henry VIII had high ambitions to live up to the reputation of the omnipotent Renaissance ruler and also had a few Mediterranean-style galleys built (and even manned them with slaves), though the English navy relied mostly on sailing ships at the time.^[93]

Despite the rising importance of sailing warships, galleys were more closely associated with land warfare, and the prestige associated with it. British naval historian Nicholas Rodger has described this as display of « the supreme symbol of royal power … derived from its intimate association with armies, and consequently with princes ».^[185] This was put to perhaps its greatest effect by the French « Sun King », Louis XIV, in the form of a dedicated galley corps. Louis and the French state created a tool and symbol of royal authority that did little fighting, but was a potent extension of absolutist ambitions. Galleys were built to scale for the royal flotilla at the Grand Canal at Versailles for the amusement of the court.^[186] The royal galleys patrolled the Mediterranean, forcing ships of other states to salute the King’s banner, convoyed ambassadors and cardinals, and obediently participating in naval parades and royal pageantry. Historian Paul Bamford described the galleys as vessels that « must have appealed to military men and to aristocratic officers … accustomed to being obeyed and served ».^[187]

Gouache of a late 17th-century French royal galley. The vessel is richly decorated with red and blue damask, brocade and velvet for the stern canopy and flags, and carved gilded ornaments on railings, outrigger and hull.

Sentencing criminals, political dissenters and religious deviants as galley rowers also turned the galley corps into a large, feared, and cost-effective prison system.^[188] French Protestants were particularly ill-treated at the oar and though they were only a small minority, their experiences came to dominate the legacy of the king’s galleys. In 1909, French author Albert Savine (1859–1927) wrote that « [a]fter the Bastille, the galleys were the greatest horror of the old regime ».^[189] Long after convicts stopped serving in the galleys, and even after the reign of Napoleon, the term galérien (« galley rower ») remained a symbolic general term for forced labor and convicts serving harsh sentences.^[190]

Being a galley rower did not carry such stigma at Baltic, where galley rowers were conscripts: rather they considered themselves as marine soldiers. The main building of the Finnish Naval Academy at Suomenlinna, Helsinki bears the nickname Kivikaleeri (« Stone Galley ») as a legacy of the era.

Surviving examples

La Liberté, a full-scale replica of a 17th-century galley in Switzerland, though without any rowing benches

Original vessels

The naval museum in Istanbul contains the galley Kadırga (Turkish for « galley », ultimately from Byzantine Greek katergon), dating from the reign of Mehmed IV (1648–1687). She was the personal galley of the sultan, and remained in service until 1839. She is presumably the only surviving galley in the world, albeit without its masts. It is 37 m long, 5.7 m wide, has a draught of about 2 m, weighs about 140 tons, and has 48 oars powered by 144 oarsmen.

Reconstructions

A 1971 reconstruction of the Real, the flagship of John of Austria in the Battle of Lepanto (1571), is in the Museu Marítim in Barcelona. The ship was 60 m long and 6.2 m wide, had a draught of 2.1 m, weighing 239 tons empty, was propelled by 290 rowers, and carried about 400 crew and fighting soldiers at Lepanto. She was substantially larger than the typical galleys of her time.

A group called « The Trireme Trust » operates, in conjunction with the Greek Navy, a reconstruction of an ancient Greek Trireme, the Olympias.^[191]

Ivlia is a replica Greek bireme built at Sochi on the Black Sea in 1989 which spent six seasons touring round Europe with volunteer crews.

Archaeological finds

In 1965, the remains of a small Venetian galley (fusta) sunk in 1509 were found in Lake Garda, Italy. The vessel had been burned and only the lower hull remained.^[192]

In the mid 1990s, a sunken medieval galley was found close to the island of San Marco in Boccalama, in the Venice Lagoon.^[193] The hull has been dated, for the context and the C14 analysis, between the end of the XIII and the beginning of the XIV century.

The excavation and the photogrammetric survey (photogrammetry) and 3D laser scanner of this important testimony of medieval nautical archaeology has started in 2001 through two complex executive phases.^[194] The stratigraphic excavation of the wreck was in fact performed entirely underwater, according to the archaeological methodologies. The survey of the hull was instead realized after the setting in dry the entire medieval perimeter of the submerged island. This operation took place through the infixation of a continuous barrier consisting of sheet piles and the use of water pumps. This long excavation and documentation campaign was directed by underwater archaeologist Marco D’Agostino and, as deputy director, by his colleague Stefano Medas.

The lower hull is mostly intact and it was not recovered due to high costs.

References

1. Jump up^ Pryor (2002), pp. 86–87; Anderson (1962), pp. 37–39
2. Jump up^ Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott Galeos, A Greek-English Lexicon
3. Jump up^ Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989), « galley »
4. Jump up^ See for example Svenska Akademiens ordbok, « galeja » or « galär  » and Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, « galeye« 
5. Jump up^ Anderson (1962), pp. 1, 42; Lehmann (1984), p. 12
6. Jump up^ Casson (1971), pp. 53—56
7. Jump up^ Murray (2012), p. 3
8. Jump up^ Casson (1995), p. 123
9. Jump up^ Rodger (1997), pp. 66—68
10. ^ Jump up to:^ab Glete (1993), p. 81
11. Jump up^ Winfield (2009), pp. 116—118
12. Jump up^ Karl Heinz Marquardt, « The Fore and Aft Rigged Warship » in Gardiner & Lavery (1992), p. 64
13. Jump up^ Mooney (1969), p. 516
14. Jump up^ Wachsmann (1995), p. 10
15. ^ Jump up to:^ab Wachsmann (1995), p. 11–12
16. ^ Jump up to:^ab Wachsmann (1995), pp. 21–23
17. Jump up^ Casson (1995), pp. 57–58
18. Jump up^ Wachsmann (1995), pp. 13–18
19. Jump up^ Casson (1995), pp. 117–21
20. Jump up^ Casson (1971), pp. 68–69
21. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov (2000), p. 25
22. Jump up^ Wachsmann (1995), pp. 28–34
23. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov, pp. 32–35
24. Jump up^ Casson (1991), p. 87
25. Jump up^ Casson (1991), pp. 30–31
26. Jump up^ Casson (1991), pp. 44–46
27. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov, (2000), pp. 27–32
28. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov (2000), pp. 38–41
29. Jump up^ D.B. Saddington (2011) [2007]. « the Evolution of the Roman Imperial Fleets, » in Paul Erdkamp (ed), A Companion to the Roman Army, 201-217. Malden, Oxford, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN978-1-4051-2153-8. Plate 12.2 on p. 204.
30. Jump up^ Coarelli, Filippo (1987), I Santuari del Lazio in età repubblicana. NIS, Rome, pp 35-84.
31. ^ Jump up to:^ab Morrison, Coates & Rankov (2000), pp. 48–49
32. Jump up^ Morrison (1995), pp. 66–67
33. Jump up^ Casson (1995), pp. 119–23
34. Jump up^ Rankov (1995), pp. 78–80
35. Jump up^ Rankov (1995), pp. 80–81
36. Jump up^ Rankov (1995), pp. 82–85
37. Jump up^ Rodger, (1997), pp. 64–65
38. Jump up^ Unger (1980), pp. 53–55.
39. Jump up^ Unger (1980), pp. 96–97
40. Jump up^ Unger (1980), p. 80
41. Jump up^ Unger (1980), pp. 75–76
42. Jump up^ Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne; the thesis appears in chapters 1–2 of Medieval Cities (1925)
43. Jump up^ Unger (1980), pp. 40, 47
44. Jump up^ Unger (1980), p. 102–4
45. Jump up^ Casson (1995), pp. 123–126
46. Jump up^ Glete (2000), p. 2
47. Jump up^ Mott (2003), pp. 105–6
48. Jump up^ Pryor (1992), pp. 64–69
49. Jump up^ Mott (2003), p. 107
50. Jump up^ Braudel, The Perspective of the World, vol. III of Civilization and Capitalism (1979) 1984:126
51. Jump up^ Higgins, Courtney Rosali (2012) The Venetian Galley of Flanders: From Medieval (2-Dimensional) Treatises to 21st Century (3-Dimensional) Model. Master’s thesis, Texas A&M University [1]
52. Jump up^ Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II I, 302.
53. Jump up^ Pryor (1992), p. 57
54. Jump up^ Mallett (1967)
55. Jump up^ Bass, p. 191
56. Jump up^ Mott (2003), pp. 109–111
57. Jump up^ Hattendorf and Unger (2003) pp, 70
58. Jump up^ Glete (2000) pp 18
59. Jump up^ Glete, (2000) pp. 23
60. Jump up^ Glete, (2000) pp. 28
61. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974) pp. 252
62. Jump up^ Glete (1993), p. 114
63. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), p. 101
64. Jump up^ Glete (1993), pp. 114–15
65. Jump up^ Glete (2000), pp. 154, 163
66. Jump up^ Glete (2000), pp., 156, 158-59
67. Jump up^ Bamford (1973), p. 12; Mott, 113-14
68. ^ Jump up to:^ab Mott (2003), p. 112
69. Jump up^ Goodman (1997), pp. 11–13
70. Jump up^ Bamford (1973), p. 12
71. Jump up^ Mott (2003), pp. 113–14
72. Jump up^ See especially Rodger (1996)
73. Jump up^ Glete (2003), p. 27
74. Jump up^ The British naval historian Nicholas Rodger describes this as a « crisis in naval warfare » which eventually led to the development of the galleon, which combined ahead-firing capabilities, heavy broadside guns and a considerable increase in maneuverability by introduction of more advanced sailing rigs; Rodger (2003), p. 245. For more detailed arguments concerning the development of broadside armament, see Rodger (1996).
75. Jump up^ Glete (2003), p. 144
76. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 264–66
77. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), p. 254
78. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), p. 57
79. Jump up^ Glete (2003), pp. 32–33
80. Jump up^ Glete (2000), p. 183
81. ^ Jump up to:^ab Jan Glete, « The Oared Warship » in Gardiner & Lavery (1992), p. 99
82. Jump up^ Rodger (2003), p. 170
83. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), pp. 14–18
84. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), p. 52
85. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), p. 45
86. ^ Jump up to:^ab Lehmann (1984), p. 12
87. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), pp. 272–73
88. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), pp. 23–25
89. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), pp. 277–278
90. Jump up^ Bamford, (1974), pp. 272–73; Anderson, (1962), pp. 71–73
91. Jump up^ Glete (1992), p. 99
92. Jump up^ Rodger (1997), p. 208–12
93. ^ Jump up to:^ab John Bennel, « The Oared Vessels » in Knighton & Loades (2000), pp. 35–37.
94. Jump up^ Rodger (2003), pp. 230–30; see also R. C. Anderson, Naval Wars in the Baltic, pp. 177–78
95. Jump up^ Glete (2003), pp. 224–25
96. Jump up^ Anderson (1962), pp. 91–93; Berg, « Skärgårdsflottans fartyg » in Norman (2000) pp. 51
97. Jump up^ Glete, « Den ryska skärgårdsflottan » in Norman (2000), p. 81
98. Jump up^ Anderson (1962), p. 95
99. Jump up^ Bondioli, Burlet & Zysberg (1995), p. 205
100. Jump up^ Jan Glete, « Den ryska skärgårdsflottan: Myt och verklighet » in Norman (2000), pp. 86–88
101. ^ Jump up to:^abc Reid, Anthony (2012). Anthony Reid and the Study of the Southeast Asian Past. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. ISBN978-981-4311-96-0.
102. Jump up^ Boxer. The Acehnese attack on Malacca in 1629. pp. 119–121.
103. Jump up^ Iskandar, Teuku (1958). De Hikajat Atjeh. Gravenhage: KITLV. p. 175.
104. Jump up^ Lode (1601). Tweede Boek. Amsterdam. p. 17.
105. Jump up^ Coates (1995), p. 127
106. Jump up^ This flower-inspired stern detail would later be widely used by both Greek and Roman ships.
107. Jump up^ Unger (1980), pp. 41–42
108. Jump up^ Coates (1995), p. 136–37
109. ^ Jump up to:^ab Coates (1995), pp. 133–34; Morrison, Coates & Rankov (2000), pp. 165–67
110. Jump up^ Coates (1995), pp. 137–38
111. Jump up^ Casson (1991), pp. 135–36
112. Jump up^ Coates (1995), pp. 131–32
113. Jump up^ Coates (1995), pp. 138–40
114. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov (2000), p. 77
115. Jump up^ Shaw(1995), pp. 164–65
116. Jump up^ Hocker (1995), p. 88
117. Jump up^ Rankov (1995), pp. 80–83
118. Jump up^ Rankov (1995), p. 85
119. Jump up^ See both Bass and Pryor
120. Jump up^ Morrison p. 269
121. Jump up^ Landström
122. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 123–125
123. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 125–126
124. Jump up^ Pryor (1995), p. 102
125. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), p. 127
126. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 138–140
127. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 145–147, 152
128. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 134–135
129. Jump up^ Pryor (1995), pp. 103–104
130. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 232, 255, 276
131. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 205, 291
132. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), p. 215
133. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), p. 203
134. ^ Jump up to:^ab Pryor (1995), p. 104
135. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 143–144
136. Jump up^ Anderson (1962), pp. 52, 54–55
137. Jump up^ Pryor (1992), p. 64
138. Jump up^ Pryor (1992), pp. 66–69
139. Jump up^ Anderson (1962), pp. 55–56
140. Jump up^ Pryor refers to claims that stern rudders evolved by the Byzantines and Arabs as early as the 9th century, but refutes it due to lack of evidence. Anderson (1962), pp. 59–60; Pryor (1992), p. 61.
141. Jump up^ Lehmann (1984), p. 31
142. ^ Jump up to:^ab Guilmartin (1974), p. 216
143. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), p. 200
144. Jump up^ Lehmann (1984), pp. 32–33
145. Jump up^ Jan Glete, « The Oared Warship » in Gardiner & Lavery (1992), p. 98
146. Jump up^ Jan Glete, « The Oared Warship » in Gardiner & Lavery (1992), pp. 98–100
147. Jump up^ Anderson (1962), p. 17
148. Jump up^ Lehmann (1984), p. 22
149. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov, The Athenian Trireme, pp. 246–47; Shaw (1995), pp. 168–169
150. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov, The Athenian Trireme, pp. 249–52
151. ^ Jump up to:^ab Morrison, Coates & Rankov, The Athenian Trireme, pp. 246–47
152. Jump up^ Coates 1995, pp. 127–28
153. Jump up^ Shaw (1995), p. 169
154. Jump up^ Shaw (1995), p. 163
155. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 210–211
156. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov, The Athenian Trireme, p. 248
157. Jump up^ Pryor (1992), pp. 71–75
158. Jump up^ Casson (1995), pp. 325–26
159. Jump up^ Rachel L. Sargent, « The Use of Slaves by the Athenians in Warfare », Classical Philology, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jul., 1927), pp. 264–279
160. Jump up^ Lionel Casson, « Galley Slaves », Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 97 (1966), pp. 35–44
161. Jump up^ Unger (1980), p. 36
162. Jump up^ From Italian remo di scaloccio from scala, « ladder; staircase »; Anderson (1962), p. 69
163. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 226–227
164. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 109–112
165. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 114–119
166. Jump up^ Unger (1980), pp. 47–49.
167. Jump up^ Basch (2001), p. 64
168. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), pp. 153–159
169. Jump up^ Pryor (1992), p. 42
170. Jump up^ Wachsmann (1995), pp. 28–34, 72
171. Jump up^ Morrison, Coates & Rankov (2000), pp. 42–43, 92–93
172. Jump up^ John Coates (1995), pp. 133–135
173. Jump up^ Casson (1991), p. 139
174. Jump up^ Casson (1991), pp. 90–91
175. ^ Jump up to:^ab Hocker (1995), pp. 95, 98–99.
176. Jump up^ Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), p. 282
177. Jump up^ Pryor (1983), pp. 193–194
178. Jump up^ Pryor (1983), pp. 184–188
179. Jump up^ Pryor (1983), p. 194
180. Jump up^ Rose (2002), pp. 133
181. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 157–158
182. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 199–200
183. Jump up^ Guilmartin (1974), pp. 248–249
184. Jump up^ Jan Glete, « Vasatidens galärflottor » in Norman (2000), pp. 39, 42
185. Jump up^ Rodger (2003), p. 237
186. Jump up^ For more information on the royal flotilla of Louis XIV, see Amélie Halna du Fretay, « La flottille du Grand Canal de Versailles à l’époque de Louis XIV : diversité, technicité et prestige » (in French)
187. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), pp. 24–25
188. Jump up^ Bamford (1974), pp. 275–278
189. Jump up^ Bamford (1973), pp. 11–12
190. Jump up^ Bamford (1973), p. 282
191. Jump up^ The Trireme Trust
192. Jump up^ Scandurra, Enrico (1972), pp 209–10
193. Jump up^ AA.VV., 2003, La galea di San Marco in Boccalama. Valutazioni scientifiche per un progetto di recupero (ADA – Saggi 1), Venice
194. Jump up^ D’Agostino – Medas, (2003), Excavation and Recording of the medieval Hulls at San Marco in Boccalama (Venice), the INA Quarterly (Institute of Nautical Archaeology), 30, 1, Spring 2003, pp. 22–28

Further reading

• Anderson, Roger Charles, Oared fighting ships: From classical times to the coming of steam. London. 1962.
• Bamford, Paul W., Fighting ships and prisons: the Mediterranean Galleys of France in the Age of Louis XIV. Cambridge University Press, London. 1974. ISBN 0-8166-0655-2
• Basch, L. & Frost, H. « Another Punic wreck off Sicily: its ram » in International journal of Nautical Archaeology vol 4.2, 1975. pp. 201–228
• Bass, George F. (editor), A History of Seafaring, Thames & Hudson, 1972
  • Scandurro, Enrico, Chapter 9 The Maritime Republics: Medieval and Renaissance ships in Italy pp. 205–224
• (in Italian) Bragadin, Marc’Antonio, Le repubbliche marinare (I grandi libri d’oro), Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1974. ISBN 2560007802093 Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN.
• Capulli, Massimo, Le Navi della Serenissima – La Galea Veneziana di Lazise.Marsilio Editore, Venezia, 2003.
• Gardiner, Robert & Lavery, Brian (editors), The Line of Battle: Sailing Warships 1650–1840. Conway Maritime Press, London. 1992. ISBN 0-85177-561-6
• Casson, Lionel, « Galley Slaves » in Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 97 (1966), pp. 35–44
• Casson, Lionel, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton University Press, 1971
• Casson, Lionel, The Ancient Mariners: Seafarers and Sea Fighters of the Mediterranean in Ancient Times Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 1991. ISBN 0-691-06836-4
• Casson, Lionel, « The Age of the Supergalleys » in Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times, University of Texas Press, 1994. ISBN 0-292-71162-X [2], pp. 78–95
• D’Agostino, Marco – Medas, Stefano, Excavation and Recording of the medieval Hulls at San Marco in Boccalama (Venice), the INA Quarterly (Institute of Nautical Archaeology), 30, 1, Spring 2003, pp. 22–28
• Glete, Jan, Navies and nations: Warships, navies and state building in Europe and America, 1500–1860. Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm. 1993. ISBN 91-22-01565-5
• Glete, Jan, Warfare at Sea, 1500–1650: Maritime Conflicts and the Transformation of Europe. Routledge, London. 2000. ISBN 0-415-21455-6
• Guilmartin, John Francis, Gunpowder and Galleys: Changing Technology and Mediterranean Warfare at Sea in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge University Press, London. 1974. ISBN 0-521-20272-8
• Guilmartin, John Francis, »Galleons and Galleys », Cassell & Co., London, 2002 ISBN 0-304-35263-2
• Hattendorf, John B. & Unger, Richard W. (editors), War at Sea in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Woodbridge, Suffolk. 2003. ISBN 0-85115-903-6 [3]
  • Balard, Michel, « Genoese Naval Forces in the Mediterranean During the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries », pp. 137–49
  • Bill, Jan, « Scandinavian Warships and Naval Power in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries », pp. 35–51
  • Doumerc, Bernard, « An Exemplary Maritime Republic: Venice at the End of the Middle Ages », pp. 151–65
  • Friel, Ian, « Oars, Sails and Guns: the English and War at Sea c. 1200-c. 1500 », pp. 69–79
  • Glete, Jan, « Naval Power and Control of the Sea in the Baltic in the Sixteenth Century », pp. 215–32
  • Hattendorf, John B., « Theories of Naval Power: A. T. Mahan and the Naval History of Medieval and Renaissance Europe », pp. 1–22
  • Hattendorf, John B.and Richard W. Unger, eds. War At Sea In The Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge. 2003.
  • Mott, Lawrence V., « Iberian Naval Power, 1000–1650 », pp. 103–118
  • Pryor, John H., « Byzantium and the Sea: Byzantine Fleets and the History of the Empire in the Age of the Macedonian Emperors, c. 900-1025 CE », pp. 83–104
  • Rodger, Nicholas A. M., « The New Atlantic: Naval Warfare in the Sixteenth Century », pp. 231–47
  • Runyan, Timothy J., « Naval Power and Maritime Technology During the Hundred Years’ War », pp. 53–67
• Hutchinson, Gillian, Medieval Ships and Shipping. Leicester University Press, London. 1997. ISBN 0-7185-0117-9
• Knighton, C. S. and Loades, David M., The Anthony Roll of Henry VIII’s Navy: Pepys Library 2991 and British Library Additional MS 22047 with related documents. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot. 2000. ISBN 0-7546-0094-7
• Lehmann, L. Th., Galleys in the Netherlands. Meulenhoff, Amsterdam. 1984. ISBN 90-290-1854-2
• Morrison, John S. & Gardiner, Robert (editors), The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times. Conway Maritime, London, 1995. ISBN 0-85177-554-3
  • Alertz, Ulrich, « The Naval Architecture and Oar Systems of Medieval and Later Galleys », pp. 142–62
  • Bondioli, Mauro, Burlet, René & Zysberg, André, « Oar Mechanics and Oar Power in Medieval and Later Galleys », pp. 142–63
  • Casson, Lionel, « Merchant Galleys », pp. 117–26
  • Coates, John, « The Naval Architecture and Oar Systems of Ancient Galleys », pp. 127–41
  • Dotson, John E, « Economics and Logistics of Galley Warfare », pp. 217–23
  • Hocker, Frederick M., « Late Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic Galleys and Fleets », pp. 86–100
  • Morrison, John, « Hellenistic Oared Warships 399-31 BC », pp. 66–77
  • Pryor, John H. »From dromon to galea: Mediterranean bireme galleys AD 500-1300″, pp. 101–116.
  • Rankov, Boris, « Fleets of the Early Roman Empire, 31 BC-AD 324 », pp. 78–85
  • Shaw, J. T., « Oar Mechanics and Oar Power in Ancient Galleys », pp. 163–71
  • Wachsmann, Shelley, « Paddled and Oared Ships Before the Iron Age », pp. 10–25
• Mallett, Michael E. (1967) The Florentine Galleys in the Fifteenth Century with the Diary of Luca di Maso degli Albizzi, Captain of the Galleys 1429–1430. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1967
• Mooney, James L. (editor), Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships: Volume 4. Naval Historical Center, Washington. 1969.
• Morrison, John S., Coates, John F. & Rankov, Boris,The Athenian Trireme: the History and Reconstruction of An Ancient Greek Warship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2000. ISBN 0-521-56456-5
• Murray, William (2012) The Age of Titans: The Rise and Fall of the Great Hellenistic Navies. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-538864-0
• (in Swedish) Norman, Hans (editor), Skärgårdsflottan: uppbyggnad, militär användning och förankring i det svenska samhället 1700–1824. Historiska media, Lund. 2000. ISBN 91-88930-50-5
• Pryor, John H., « The naval battles of Roger of Lauria » in Journal of Medieval History 9. Amsterdam. 1983; pp. 179–216
• Pryor, John H., Geography, technology and war: Studies in the maritime history of the Mediterranean 649-1571. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1992. 0-521-42892-0 [4]
• Rodger, Nicholas A. M., « The Development of Broadside Gunnery, 1450–1650. » Mariner’s Mirror 82 (1996), pp. 301–24.
• Rodger, Nicholas A. M., The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain 660–1649. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. 1997. ISBN 0-393-04579-X
• Rose, Susan, Medieval Naval Warfare, 1000–1500.Routledge. London. 2002.
• Rodgers, William Ledyard, Naval Warfare Under Oars: 4th to 16th Centuries, Naval Institute Press, 1940.
• Tenenti, Alberto Piracy and the Decline of Venice 1580–1615 (English translation). 1967
• Unger, Richard W. The Ship in Medieval Economy 600-1600 Croom Helm, London. 1980. ISBN 0-85664-949-X
• Winfield, Rif (2009) British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1603–1714: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates. Seaforth, Barnsley. ISBN 978-1-84832-040-6

Look up galley in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Galleys.

•  « Galley« . Encyclopædia Britannica(11th ed.). 1911.
• John F. Guilmartin, « The Tactics of the Battle of Lepanto Clarified: The Impact of Social, Economic, and Political Factors on Sixteenth Century Galley Warfare ». A very detailed discussion of galley warfare at the Battle of Lepanto
• (in Spanish) Rafael Rebolo Gómez – « The Carthaginian navy »., 2005, Treballs del Museu Arqueologic d’Eivissa e Formentera.
• « Some Engineering Concepts applied to Ancient Greek Trireme Warships », John Coates, University of Oxford, The 18th Jenkin Lecture, 1 October 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com

Giacobbe Giusti, Byzantine Iconoclasm

Giacobbe Giusti,

Byzantine Iconoclasm

A simple cross: example of iconoclast art in the Hagia IreneChurch in Istanbul

Giacobbe Giusti,

Byzantine Iconoclasm

 

Giacobbe Giusti,

Byzantine Iconoclasm

Giacobbe Giusti,

Byzantine Iconoclasm

A simple cross: example of iconoclast art in the Hagia Irene Church in Istanbul

Giacobbe Giusti,

Byzantine Iconoclasm

Byzantine Iconoclasm, Chludov Psalter, 9th century.^[1]

Byzantine Iconoclasm(Greek: Εἰκονομαχία, Eikonomachía, literally, « image struggle » or « struggle over images ») refers to two periods in the history of the Byzantine Empire when the use of religious images or icons was opposed by religious and imperial authorities within the Eastern Church and the temporal imperial hierarchy. The « First Iconoclasm », as it is sometimes called, lasted between about 726 and 787. The « Second Iconoclasm » was between 814 and 842. According to the traditional view, Byzantine Iconoclasm was started by a ban on religious images by Emperor Leo III and continued under his successors. It was accompanied by widespread destruction of images and persecution of supporters of the veneration of images. The Western church remained firmly in support of the use of images throughout the period, and the whole episode widened the growing divergencebetween the Eastern and Western traditions in what was still a unified church, as well as facilitating the reduction or removal of Byzantine political control over parts of Italy.

Iconoclasm, Greek for « breaker of icons » (Medieval Greek εἰκονοκλάστης, equivalent to Greek εἰκονο- icono- [icon] + κλάστης – [breaker]), is the deliberate destruction within a culture of the culture’s own religiousicons and other symbols or monuments, usually for religious or political motives. People who engage in or support iconoclasm are called iconoclasts, a term that has come to be applied figuratively to any person who breaks or disdains established dogmata or conventions. Conversely, people who revere or venerate religious images are derisively called « iconolaters » (εἰκονολάτρες). They are normally known as « iconodules » (εἰκονόδουλοι), or « iconophiles » (εἰκονόφιλοι). These terms were, however, not a part of the Byzantine debate over images. They have been brought into common usage by modern historians (from the seventeenth century) and their application to Byzantium increased considerably in the late twentieth century. The Byzantine term for the debate over religious imagery, « iconomachy » means « struggle over images » or « image struggle ».

Iconoclasm has generally been motivated theologically by an Old Covenantinterpretation of the Ten Commandments, which forbade the making and worshipping of « graven images » (Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 5:8, see also Biblical law in Christianity). The two periods of iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire during the 8th and 9th centuries made use of this theological theme in discussions over the propriety of images of holy figures, including Christ, the Virgin (or Theotokos) and saints. It was a debate triggered by changes in Orthodox worship, which were themselves generated by the major social and political upheavals of the seventh century for the Byzantine Empire.

Traditional explanations for Byzantine iconoclasm have sometimes focused on the importance of Islamic prohibitions against images influencing Byzantine thought. According to Arnold J. Toynbee,^[2] for example, it was the prestige of Islamic military successes in the 7th and 8th centuries that motivated Byzantine Christians to adopt the Islamic position of rejecting and destroying devotional and liturgical images. The role of women and monks in supporting the veneration of images has also been asserted. Social and class-based arguments have been put forward, such as that iconoclasm created political and economic divisions in Byzantine society; that it was generally supported by the Eastern, poorer, non-Greek peoples of the Empire^[3] who had to constantly deal with Arab raids. On the other hand, the wealthier Greeks of Constantinople and also the peoples of the Balkan and Italian provinces strongly opposed Iconoclasm.^[3] In recent decades in Greece, Iconoclasm has become a favorite topic of progressive and Marxist historians and social scientists, who consider it a form of medieval class struggle and have drawn inspiration from it. Re-evaluation of the written and material evidence relating to the period of Byzantine Iconoclasm by scholars including John Haldon and Leslie Brubaker, has challenged many of the basic assumptions and factual assertions of the traditional account.

Background

19th-century Italian painting, The Iconoclasts, by Domenico Morelli

Christian worship by the sixth century had developed a clear belief in the intercessionof saints. This belief was also influenced by a concept of hierarchy of sanctity, with the Trinity at its pinnacle, followed by the Virgin Mary, referred to in Greek as the Theotokos(« birth-giver of God ») or Meter Theou(« Mother of God »), the saints, living holy men, women, and spiritual elders, followed by the rest of humanity. Thus, in order to obtain blessings or divine favour, early Christians would often pray or ask an intermediary, such as the saints or the Theotokos, or living fellow Christians believed to be holy, to intercede on their behalf with Christ. A strong sacramentality and belief in the importance of physical presence also joined the belief in intercession of saints with the use of relics and holy images (or icons) in early Christian practices.^[4]

Believers would, therefore, make pilgrimages to places sanctified by the physical presence of Christ or prominent saints and martyrs, such as the site of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Relics, or holy objects (rather than places) which were a part of the remains, or had come into contact with, Christ, the Virgin or a saint, were also widely utilized in Christian practices at this time. Relics, a firmly embedded part of veneration by this period, provided physical presence of the divine but were not infinitely reproducible (an original relic was required), and still usually required believers to undertake pilgrimage or have contact with somebody who had.

The use and abuse of images had greatly increased during this period, and had generated a growing opposition among many in the church, although the progress and extent of these views is now unclear. Images in the form of mosaics and paintings were widely used in churches, homes and other places such as over city gates, and had since the reign of Justinian I been increasingly taking on a spiritual significance of their own, and regarded at least in the popular mind as capable of possessing capacities in their own right, so that « the image acts or behaves as the subject itself is expected to act or behave. It makes known its wishes … It enacts evangelical teachings, … When attacked it bleeds, … [and] In some cases it defends itself against infidels with physical force … ».^[5] Key artefacts to blur this boundary emerged in c. 570 in the form of miraculously created acheiropoieta or « images not made by human hands ». These sacred images were a form of contact relic, which additionally were taken to prove divine approval of the use of icons. The two most famous were the Mandylion of Edessa (where it still remained) and the Image of Camuliana from Cappadocia, by then in Constantinople. The latter was already regarded as a palladium that had won battles and saved Constantinople from the Persian–Avarsiege of 626, when the Patriarch paraded it around the walls of the city. Both were images of Christ, and at least in some versions of their stories supposedly made when Christ pressed a cloth to his face (compare with the later, western Veil of Veronica and Turin shroud). In other versions of the Mandylion’s story it joined a number of other images that were believed to have been painted from the life in the New Testament period by Saint Luke or other human painters, again demonstrating the support of Christ and the Virgin for icons, and the continuity of their use in Christianity since its start.

The events of the seventh century, which was a period of major crisis for the Byzantine Empire, formed a catalyst for the expansion of the use of images of the holy and caused a dramatic shift in responses to them. Whether the acheiropoietawere a symptom or cause, the late sixth to eighth centuries witnessed the increasing thinning of the boundary between images not made by human hands, and images made by human hands. Images of Christ, the Theotokos and saints increasingly came to be regarded, as relics, contact relics and acheiropoieta already were, as points of access to the divine. By praying before an image of a holy figure, the believer’s prayers were magnified by proximity to the holy. This change in practice seems to have been a major and organic development in Christian worship, which responded to the needs of believers to have access to divine support during the insecurities of the seventh century. It was not a change orchestrated or controlled by the Church. The events which have traditionally been labelled ‘Byzantine Iconoclasm’ may be seen as the efforts of the organised Church and the imperial authorities to respond to these changes and to try to reassert some institutional control over popular practice.

The rise of Islam in the seventh century had also caused some consideration of the use of holy images. Early Islamic belief stressed the impropriety of iconic representation. Earlier scholarship tried to link Byzantine Iconoclasm directly to Islam by arguing that Byzantine emperors saw the success of the early Caliphate and decided that Byzantine use of images (as opposed to Islamic aniconism) had angered God. This does not seem entirely plausible however. The use of images had probably been increasing in the years leading up to the outbreak of iconoclasm.^[6]One notable change came in 695, when Justinian II put a full-faced image of Christ on the obverse of his gold coins. The effect on iconoclast opinion is unknown, but the change certainly caused CaliphAbd al-Malik to break permanently with his previous adoption of Byzantine coin types to start a purely Islamic coinage with lettering only.^[7] This appears more like two opposed camps asserting their positions (pro and anti images) than one empire seeking to imitate the other. More striking is the fact that Islamic iconoclasm rejected any depictions of living people or animals, not only religious images. By contrast, Byzantine iconomachy concerned itself only with the question of the holy presence (or lack thereof) of images. Thus, although the rise of Islam may have created an environment in which images were at the forefront of intellectual question and debate, Islamic iconoclasm does not seem to have had a direct causal role in the development of the Byzantine image debate.^{[citation needed]}

The goal of the iconoclasts was to restore the church to the strict opposition to images in worship that they believed characterized at the least some parts of the early church. Theologically, one aspect of the debate, as with most in Christian theology at the time, revolved around the two natures of Jesus. Iconoclasts believed that icons could not represent both the divine and the human natures of the Messiah at the same time, but separately. Because an icon which depicted Jesus as purely physical would be Nestorianism, and one which showed Him as both human and divine would not be able to do so without confusing the two natures into one mixed nature, which was Monophysitism, all icons were thus heretical. Reference was also made to the prohibitions on the worship of graven images in the Mosaic Law but the nature of Biblical law in Christianity has always been in dispute. However, no detailed writings setting out iconoclast arguments have survived; we have only brief quotations and references in the writings of the iconodules.

Sources

Argument about icons before the emperor, in the Skylitzis Chronicle

A thorough understanding of the Iconoclast period in Byzantium is complicated by the fact that most of the surviving sources were written by the ultimate victors in the controversy, the iconodules. It is thus difficult to obtain a complete, objective, balanced, and reliably accurate account of events and various aspects of the controversy.^[8] The period was marked by intensely polarized debate amongst at least the clergy, and both sides came to regard the position of the other as heresy, and accordingly made efforts to destroy the writings of the other side when they had the chance. Leo III is said to have ordered the destruction of iconodule texts at the start of the controversy, and the records of the final Second Council of Nicaea record that books with missing pages were reported and produced to the council.^[9] Many texts, including works of hagiography and historical writing as well as sermons and theological writings, were undoubtedly « improved », fabricated or backdated by partisans, and the difficult and highly technical scholarly process of attempting to assess the real authors and dates of many surviving texts remains ongoing. Most iconoclastic texts are simply missing, including a proper record of the council of 754, and the detail of iconoclastic arguments have mostly to be reconstructed with difficulty from their vehement rebuttals by iconodules.

Major historical sources for the period include the chronicles of Theophanes the Confessor^[10] and the Patriarch Nikephoros,^[11] both of whom were ardent iconodules. Many historians have also drawn on hagiography, most notably the Life of St. Stephen the Younger,^[12] which includes a detailed, but highly biased, account of persecutions during the reign of Constantine V. No account of the period in question written by an iconoclast has been preserved, although certain saints’ lives do seem to preserve elements of the iconoclast worldview.^[13]

Major theological sources include the writings of John of Damascus,^[14]Theodore the Studite,^[15] and the Patriarch Nikephoros, all of them iconodules. The theological arguments of the iconoclasts survive only in the form of selective quotations embedded in iconodule documents, most notably the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea and the Antirrhetics of Nikephoros.^[16]

The first iconoclast period: 730–787

The torture and martyrdom of the iconophile Bishop Euthymius of Sardeis by the iconoclast Byzantine Emperor Michael II in 824, in a 13th-century manuscript

An immediate precursor of the controversy seems to have been a large submarine volcanic eruption in the summer of 726 in the Aegean Sea between the island of Thera(modern Santorini) and Therasia, probably causing tsunamis and great loss of life. Many, probably including Leo III, interpreted this as a judgement on the Empire by God, and decided that use of images had been the offence.^[17]

The classic account of the beginning of Byzantine Iconoclasm relates that sometime between 726 and 730 the Byzantine Emperor Leo III the Isaurian ordered the removal of an image of Christ, prominently placed over the Chalke Gate, the ceremonial entrance to the Great Palace of Constantinople, and its replacement with a cross. Fearing that they intended sacrilege, some of those who were assigned to the task were murdered by a band of iconodules. Accounts of this event (written significantly later) suggest that at least part of the reason for the removal may have been military reversals against the Muslims and the eruption of the volcanic island of Thera,^[18] which Leo possibly viewed as evidence of the Wrath of God brought on by image veneration in the Church.^[19]

Leo is said to have described mere image veneration as « a craft of idolatry. » He apparently forbade the veneration of religious images in a 730 edict, which did not apply to other forms of art, including the image of the emperor, or religious symbols such as the cross. « He saw no need to consult the Church, and he appears to have been surprised by the depth of the popular opposition he encountered ».^[20]Germanos I of Constantinople, the iconophile Patriarch of Constantinople, either resigned or was deposed following the ban. Surviving letters Germanos wrote at the time say little of theology. According to Patricia Karlin-Hayter, what worried Germanos was that the ban of icons would prove that the Church had been in error for a long time and therefore play into the hands of Jews and Muslims.^[21]

Patriarch Germanos I of Constantinople with icons supported by angels

This interpretation is now in doubt, and the debate and struggle may have initially begun in the provinces rather than in the imperial court. Letters survive written by the Patriarch Germanos in the 720s and 730s concerning Constantine, the bishop of Nakoleia, and Thomas of Klaudioupolis. In both sets of letters (the earlier ones concerning Constantine, the later ones Thomas), Germanos reiterates a pro-image position while lamenting the behaviour of his subordinates in the church, who apparently had both expressed reservations about image worship. Germanos complains « now whole towns and multitudes of people are in considerable agitation over this matter ».^[22] In both cases, efforts to persuade these men of the propriety of image veneration had failed and some steps had been taken to remove images from their churches. Significantly, in these letters Germanos does not threaten his subordinates if they fail to change their behaviour, he does not seem to refer to a factional split in the church, but rather to an ongoing issue of concern, and Germanos refers to the Emperor Leo III, often presented as the original Iconoclast, as a friend of images. Germanos’ concerns are mainly that the actions of Constantine and Thomas should not confuse the laity.

At this stage in the debate there is no clear evidence for an imperial involvement in the debate, except that Germanos says he believes that Leo III supports images, leaving a question as to why Leo III has been presented as the arch-iconoclast of Byzantine history. Almost all of the evidence for the reign of Leo III is derived from textual sources, the majority of which post-date his reign considerably, most notably the Life by Stephen the Younger and the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. These important sources are fiercely iconophile and are hostile to the Emperor Constantine V (741-775). As Constantine’s father, Leo also became a target. Leo’s actual views on icon veneration remain obscure, but in any case may not have influenced the initial phase of the debate.

During this initial period, concern on both sides seems to have had little to do with theology and more with practical evidence and effects. There was initially no church council, and no prominent patriarchs or bishops called for the removal or destruction of icons. In the process of destroying or obscuring images, Leo is said to have « confiscated valuable church plate, altar cloths, and reliquaries decorated with religious figures« ,^[20] but he took no severe action against the former patriarch or iconophile bishops.

In the West, Pope Gregory III held two synods at Rome and condemned Leo’s actions, and in response Leo confiscated papal estates in Calabria and Sicily, detaching them as well as Illyricum from Papal governance and placing them under the governance of the Patriarch of Constantinople.^[23]

Ecumenical councils

Leo died in 741, and his son and heir, Constantine V (741–775), was personally committed to an anti-image position. Despite his successes as an emperor, both militarily and culturally, this has caused Constantine to be remembered unfavourably by a body of source material which is preoccupied by his opposition to image veneration. In 754 Constantine summoned the Council of Hieria in which some 330 to 340 bishops participated and which was the first church council to concern itself primarily with religious imagery. Constantine seems to have been closely involved with the council, and it endorsed an iconoclast position, with 338 assembled bishops declaring, « the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation–namely, the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods. . . . If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, etc. . . . let him be anathema. » This Council claimed to be the legitimate « Seventh Ecumenical Council »,^[24] but its legitimacy is disregarded by both Eastern and Western traditions as no patriarchs or representatives of the five patriarchs were present: Constantinople was vacant while Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria were controlled by Muslims, and Rome did not send a representative.

An icon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (17th century, Novodevichy Convent, Moscow)

The iconoclast Council of Hieria was not the end of the matter, however. In this period complex theological arguments appeared, both for and against the use of icons. Constantine himself wrote opposing the veneration of images, while John of Damascus, a Syrian monk living outside of Byzantine territory, became a major opponent of iconoclasm through his theological writings.^[25]

It has been suggested that monasteries became secret bastions of icon-support, but this view is controversial. A possible reason for this interpretation is the desire in some historiography on Byzantine Iconoclasm to see it as a preface to the later Protestant Reformation in western Europe, in which monastic establishments suffered damage and persecution.^{[citation needed]} In opposition to this view, others have suggested that while some monks continued to support image veneration, many others followed church and imperial policy.^{[citation needed]}

The surviving sources accuse Constantine V of moving against monasteries, having relics thrown into the sea, and stopping the invocation of saints. Monks were forced to parade in the Hippodrome, each hand-in-hand with a woman, in violation of their vows. In 765 St Stephen the Younger was killed, and was later considered a martyr to the Iconophile cause. A number of large monasteries in Constantinople were secularised, and many monks fled to areas beyond effective imperial control on the fringes of the Empire.^[25]

Constantine’s son, Leo IV (775–80) was less rigorous, and for a time tried to mediate between the factions. When he died, his wife Irene took power as regent for her son, Constantine VI (780–97). Though icon veneration does not seem to have been a major priority for the regency government, Irene called an ecumenical council a year after Leo’s death, which restored image veneration. This may have been an effort to secure closer and more cordial relations between Constantinople and Rome.

Irene initiated a new ecumenical council, ultimately called the Second Council of Nicaea, which first met in Constantinople in 786 but was disrupted by military units faithful to the iconoclast legacy. The council convened again at Nicaea in 787 and reversed the decrees of the previous iconoclast council held at Constantinople and Hieria, and appropriated its title as Seventh Ecumenical Council. Thus there were two councils called the « Seventh Ecumenical Council, » the first supporting iconoclasm, the second supporting icon veneration.

Unlike the iconoclast council, the iconophile council included papal representatives, and its decrees were approved by the papacy. The Eastern Orthodox Churchconsiders it to be the last genuine ecumenical council. Icon veneration lasted through the reign of Empress Irene‘s successor, Nikephoros I (reigned 802–811), and the two brief reigns after his.

The second iconoclast period: 814–842

Late 14th-early 15th century iconillustrating the « Triumph of Orthodoxy »under the Byzantine empress Theodora over iconoclasm in 843. (National Icon Collection 18, British Museum).

Emperor Leo V the Armenian instituted a second period of Iconoclasm in 815, again possibly motivated by military failures seen as indicators of divine displeasure, and a desire to replicate the military success of Constantine V. The Byzantines had suffered a series of humiliating defeats at the hands of the Bulgarian Khan Krum, in the course of which emperor Nikephoros I had been killed in battle and emperor Michael I Rangabehad been forced to abdicate.^[26] In June 813, a month before the coronation of Leo V, a group of soldiers broke into the imperial mausoleum in the Church of the Holy Apostles, opened the sarcophagus of Constantine V, and implored him to return and save the empire.^[27]

Soon after his accession, Leo V began to discuss the possibility of reviving iconoclasm with a variety of people, including priests, monks, and members of the senate. He is reported to have remarked to a group of advisors that:

all the emperors, who took up images and venerated them, met their death either in revolt or in war; but those who did not venerate images all died a natural death, remained in power until they died, and were then laid to rest with all honors in the imperial mausoleum in the Church of the Holy Apostles.^[28]

Leo next appointed a « commission » of monks « to look into the old books » and reach a decision on the veneration of images. They soon discovered the acts of the Iconoclastic Synod of 754.^[29] A first debate followed between Leo’s supporters and the clerics who continued to advocate the veneration of icons, the latter group being led by the Patriarch Nikephoros, which led to no resolution. However, Leo had apparently become convinced by this point of the correctness of the iconoclast position, and had the icon of the Chalke gate, which Leo III is fictitiously claimed to have removed once before, replaced with a cross.^[30] In 815 the revival of iconoclasm was rendered official by a Synod held in the Hagia Sophia.

Leo was succeeded by Michael II, who in an 824 letter to the Carolingian emperor Louis the Pious lamented the appearance of image veneration in the church and such practices as making icons baptismal godfathers to infants. He confirmed the decrees of the Iconoclast Council of 754.

Michael was succeeded by his son, Theophilus. Theophilus died leaving his wife Theodora regent for his minor heir, Michael III. Like Irene 50 years before her, Theodora presided over the restoration of icon veneration in 843, on the condition that Theophilus not be condemned. Since that time the first Sunday of Great Lenthas been celebrated in the Orthodox Church and in Byzantine Rite Catholicism as the feast of the « Triumph of Orthodoxy« .

Arguments in the struggle over icons

Iconoclast arguments

This page of the Iconodule Chludov Psalter, illustrates the line « They gave me gall to eat; and when I was thirsty they gave me vinegar to drink » with a picture of a soldier offering Christ vinegar on a sponge attached to a pole. Below is a picture of the last Iconoclast Patriarch of Constantinople, John VII rubbing out a painting of Christ with a similar sponge attached to a pole. John is caricatured, here as on other pages, with untidy straight hair sticking out in all directions, which was meant to portray him as wild and barbaric.

Nikephoros I of Constantinopleupholding an icon and trampling John VII of Constantinople. Chludov Psalter.

What accounts of iconoclast arguments remain are largely found in quotations or summaries in iconodule writings. It is thus difficult to reconstruct a balanced view of the popularity or prevalence of iconoclast writings. The major theological arguments, however, remain in evidence because of the need in iconophile writings to record the positions being refuted. Debate seems to have centred on the validity of the depiction of Jesus, and the validity of images of other figures followed on from this for both sides. The main points of the iconoclast argument were:

1. Iconoclasm condemned the making of any lifeless image (e.g. painting or statue) that was intended to represent Jesus or one of the saints. The Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum held in 754 declared:
   

   « Supported by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, we declare unanimously, in the name of the Holy Trinity, that there shall be rejected and removed and cursed one of the Christian Church every likeness which is made out of any material and colour whatever by the evil art of painters…. If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (χαρακτήρ, kharaktír) of the Word after the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema! …. If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, let him be anathema! »

2. For iconoclasts, the only real religious image must be an exact likeness of the prototype -of the same substance- which they considered impossible, seeing wood and paint as empty of spirit and life. Thus for iconoclasts the only true (and permitted) « icon » of Jesus was the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ, according to Orthodox and Catholic doctrine.
3. Any true image of Jesus must be able to represent both his divine nature (which is impossible because it cannot be seen nor encompassed) and his human nature (which is possible). But by making an icon of Jesus, one is separating his human and divine natures, since only the human can be depicted (separating the natures was considered nestorianism), or else confusing the human and divine natures, considering them one (union of the human and divine natures was considered monophysitism).
4. Icon use for religious purposes was viewed as an inappropriate innovation in the Church, and a return to pagan practice.
   

   « Satan misled men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. The Law of Moses and the Prophets cooperated to remove this ruin…But the previously mentioned demiurge of evil…gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance of Christianity. »^[31]

   It was also seen as a departure from ancient church tradition, of which there was a written record opposing religious images. The Spanish Synod of Elvira(c. 305) had declared that « Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration »,^[32] and some decades later Eusebius of Caesaria may have writren a letter to Constantia (Emperor Constantine’s sister) saying « To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error »;^[33] Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis wrote his letter 51 to John, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 394) in which he recounted how he tore down an image in a church and admonished the other bishop that such images are « opposed . . . to our religion »,^[34] although the authenticity of this letter has also long been disputed, and remains uncertain.^[35] However, as Christianity increasingly spread among gentiles with traditions of religious images, and especially after the conversion of Constantine (c. 312), the legalization of Christianity, and, later that century, the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire, many new people came into the new large public churches, which began to be decorated with images that certainly drew in part on imperial and pagan imagery: « The representations of Christ as the Almighty Lord on his judgment throne owed something to pictures of Zeus. Portraits of the Mother of God were not wholly independent of a pagan past of venerated mother-goddesses. In the popular mind the saints had come to fill a role that had been played by heroes and deities. »^[36]

Iconophile arguments

The chief theological opponents of iconoclasm were the monks Mansur (John of Damascus), who, living in Muslim territory as advisor to the Caliph of Damascus, was far enough away from the Byzantine emperor to evade retribution, and Theodore the Studite, abbot of the Stoudios monastery in Constantinople.

John declared that he did not worship matter, « but rather the creator of matter. » He also declared, « But I also venerate the matter through which salvation came to me, as if filled with divine energy and grace. » He includes in this latter category the ink in which the gospels were written as well as the paint of images, the wood of the Cross, and the body and blood of Jesus. This distinction between worship and veneration is key in the arguments of the iconophiles.

The iconophile response to iconoclasm included:

1. Assertion that the biblical commandment forbidding images of God had been superseded by the incarnation of Jesus, who, being the second person of the Trinity, is God incarnate in visible matter. Therefore, they were not depicting the invisible God, but God as He appeared in the flesh. They were able to adduce the issue of the incarnation in their favour, whereas the iconoclasts had used the issue of the incarnation against them. They also pointed to other Old Testament evidence: God instructed Moses to make two golden statues of cherubim on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant according to Exodus 25:18–22, and God also told Moses to embroider the curtain which separated the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle tent with cherubim Exodus 26:31. Moses was also instructed by God to embroider the walls and roofs of the Tabernacle tent with figures of cherubim angels according to Exodus 26:1.
2. Further, in their view idols depicted persons without substance or reality while icons depicted real persons. Essentially the argument was that idols were idols because they represented false gods, not because they were images. Images of Christ, or of other real people who had lived in the past, could not be idols. This was considered comparable to the Old Testament practice of only offering burnt sacrifices to God, and not to any other gods.
3. Regarding the written tradition opposing the making and veneration of images, they asserted that icons were part of unrecorded oral tradition (parádosis, sanctioned in Catholicism and Orthodoxy as authoritative in doctrine by reference to Basil the Great, etc.), and pointed to patristic writings approving of icons, such as those of Asterius of Amasia, who was quoted twice in the record of the Second Council of Nicaea. What would have been useful evidence from modern art history as to the use of images in Early Christian art was unavailable to iconodules at the time.
4. Much was made of acheiropoieta, icons believed to be of divine origin, and miracles associated with icons. Both Christ and the Theotokos were believed in strong traditions to have sat on different occasions for their portraits to be painted.
5. Iconophiles further argued that decisions such as whether icons ought to be venerated were properly made by the church assembled in council, not imposed on the church by an emperor. Thus the argument also involved the issue of the proper relationship between church and state. Related to this was the observation that it was foolish to deny to God the same honor that was freely given to the human emperor, since portraits of the emperor were common and the iconoclasts did not oppose them.

Emperors had always intervened in ecclesiastical matters since the time of Constantine I. As Cyril Mango writes, « The legacy of Nicaea, the first universal council of the Church, was to bind the emperor to something that was not his concern, namely the definition and imposition of orthodoxy, if need be by force. » That practice continued from beginning to end of the Iconoclast controversy and beyond, with some emperors enforcing iconoclasm, and two empresses regent enforcing the re-establishment of icon veneration.

Art

14th century miniature of the destruction of a church under the orders of the iconoclast emperor Constantine V Copronymus

The iconoclastic period has drastically reduced the number of survivals of Byzantine art from before the period, especially large religious mosaics, which are now almost exclusively found in Italy and Saint Catherine’s Monastery in Egypt. Important works in Thessaloniki were lost in the Great Thessaloniki Fire of 1917 and the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). A large mosaic of a church council in the Imperial Palace was replaced by lively secular scenes, and there was no issue with imagery per se. The plain Iconoclastic cross that replaced a figurative image in the apse of St Irene’s is itself an almost unique survival, but careful inspection of some other buildings reveals similar changes. In Nicaea, photographs of the Church of the Dormition, taken before it was destroyed in 1922, show that a pre-iconoclasm standing Theotokos was replaced by a large cross, which was itself replaced by the new Theotokos seen in the photographs.^[37] The Image of Camuliana in Constantinople appears to have been destroyed, as mentions of it cease.^[38]

Reaction in the West

The period of Iconoclasm decisively ended the so-called Byzantine Papacy under which, since the reign of Justinian I a century before, the popes in Rome had been initially nominated by, and later merely confirmed by, the emperor in Constantinople, and many of them had been Greek-speaking. By the end of the controversy the pope had approved the creation of a new emperor in the West, and the old deference of the Western church to Constantinople had gone. Opposition to icons seems to have had little support in the West and Rome took a consistently iconodule position.

When the struggles flared up, Pope Gregory II had been pope since 715, not long after accompanying his Syrian predecessor Pope Constantine to Constantinople, where they successfully resolved with Justinian II the issues arising from the provocative anti-Western decisions of the Quinisext Council of 692, which no Western prelates had attended. Of the delegation of 13 Gregory was one of only two non-Easterners; it was to be the last visit of a pope to the city until 1969. There had already been conflicts with Leo III over his very heavy taxation of areas under Roman jurisdiction.^[39]

Byzantine Iconoclasm.

•  Quotations related to Byzantine Iconoclasm at Wikiquote
• Aniconism in Christianity
• Feast of Orthodoxy
• Libri Carolini

Notes

1. Jump up^ Byzantine iconoclasm
2. Jump up^ Toynbee, Arnold Joseph. A Study of History: Abridgement of volumes VII-X. p. 259.
3. ^ Jump up to:^a b Mango (2002)
4. Jump up^ Brubaker, Leslie; Haldon, John (6 January 2011). « 1 ». Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, C. 680-850: A History. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-521-43093-7. Retrieved 10 January 2015.
5. Jump up^ Kitzinger, 101 quoted, 85-87; 95-115
6. Jump up^ Kitzinger (1977), 105
7. Jump up^ Cormack, 98-106
8. Jump up^ Brubaker and Haldon (2001)
9. Jump up^ Noble, 69
10. Jump up^ C. Mango and R. Scott, trs., The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (Oxford, 1997).
11. Jump up^ C. Mango, ed. and tr., The short history of Nikephoros (Washington, 1990).
12. Jump up^ M.-F. Auzépy, tr., La vie d’Étienne le jeune par Étienne le Diacre (Aldershot, 1997).
13. Jump up^ I. Ševčenko, « Hagiography in the iconoclast period, » in A. Bryer and J. Herrin, eds., Iconoclasm (Birmingham, 1977), 113–31.
14. Jump up^ A. Louth, tr., Three treatises on the divine images (Crestwood, 2003).
15. Jump up^ C.P. Roth, tr., On the holy icons (Crestwood, 1981).
16. Jump up^ M.-J. Mondzain, tr., Discours contre les iconoclastes (Paris, 1989), Exodus 20:1-17.
17. Jump up^ Mango (1977), 1; Beckwith, 169
18. Jump up^ Volcanism on Santorini / eruptive history at decadevolcano.net
19. Jump up^ According to accounts by Patriarch Nikephoros and the chronicler Theophanes
20. ^ Jump up to:^a b Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford University Press, 1997
21. Jump up^ The Oxford History of Byzantium: Iconoclasm, Patricia Karlin-Hayter, Oxford University Press, 2002.
22. Jump up^ Mango (1977), 2-3
23. Jump up^ David Knowles – Dimitri Oblensky, « The Christian Centuries: Volume 2, The Middle Ages », Darton, Longman & Todd, 1969, p. 108-109.
24. Jump up^ « Internet History Sourcebooks Project ».
25. ^ Jump up to:^a b Cormack,
26. Jump up^ Pratsch, 204–5.
27. Jump up^ Pratsch, Theodoros, 210.
28. Jump up^ Scriptor incertus 349,1–18, cited by Pratsch, Theodoros, 208.
29. Jump up^ Pratsch, Theodoros, 211-12.
30. Jump up^ Pratsch, Theodoros, 216-17.
31. Jump up^ Epitome, Iconoclast Council at Hieria, 754
32. Jump up^ Literatures, Prof. John P. Adams, Modern and Classical Languages and. « CANONS OF THE CHURCH COUNCIL ELVIRA (Granada) ca. 309 A. D. »
33. Jump up^ The letter’s text is incomplete, and its authenticity and authorship uncertain. David M. Gwynn, From Iconoclasm to Arianism: The Construction of Christian Tradition in the Iconoclast Controversy [Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 47 (2007) 225–251], p. 227-245.
34. Jump up^ Paragraph 9, text
35. Jump up^ Gwynn, p. 237
36. Jump up^ Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (The Penguin History of the Church, 1993), 283.
37. Jump up^ Kitzinger (1977), 104-105
38. Jump up^ Beckwith, 88
39. Jump up^ Beckwith, 169

References

• Beckwith, John, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, Penguin History of Art (now Yale), 2nd edn. 1979, ISBN0140560335
• Brubaker, L. and Haldon, J. (2001), Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680-850: the Sources Birmingham
• Cormack, Robin, Writing in Gold, Byzantine Society and its Icons, 1985, George Philip, London, ISBN054001085-5
• Kitzinger, Ernst (1977), Byzantine art in the making: main lines of stylistic development in Mediterranean art, 3rd-7th century, Faber & Faber, ISBN0571111548 (US: Cambridge UP, 1977)
• Mango, Cyril (1977), « Historical Introduction, » in Bryer & Herrin, eds., Iconoclasm, Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, ISBN0704402262
• Mango, Cyril (2002), The Oxford History of Byzantium
• Noble, Thomas F. X., Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians, 2011, University of Pennsylvania Press, ISBN0812202961, 9780812202960, google books
• Pratsch, T., Theodoros Studites (759–826): zwischen Dogma und Pragma(Frankfurt am Main, 1997)

Further reading

• Leslie Brubaker, Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm, Bristol Classical Press, London 2012.
• L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, ‘’Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680-850’’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
• A. Cameron, « The Language of Images: the Rise of Icons and Christian Representation » in D. Wood (ed) The Church and the Arts (Studies in Church History, 28) Oxford: Blackwell, 1992, pp. 1–42.
• H.C. Evans & W.D. Wixom (1997). The glory of Byzantium: art and culture of the Middle Byzantine era, A.D. 843-1261. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. ISBN 9780810965072.
• Fordham University, Medieval Sourcebook: John of Damascus: In Defense of Icons.
• A. Karahan, « Byzantine Iconoclasm: Ideology and Quest for Power ». In: Eds. K. Kolrud and M. Prusac, Iconoclasm from Antiquity to Modernity, Ashgate Publishing Ltd: Farnham Surrey, 2014, 75-94. ISBN978-1-4094-7033-5.
• R. Schick, The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic Rule: A Historical and Archaeological Study (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 2) Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1995, pp. 180–219.
• P. Brown, « A Dark-Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy, » English Historical Review 88/346 (1973): 1–33.
• F. Ivanovic, Symbol and Icon: Dionysius the Areopagite and the Iconoclastic Crisis, Eugene: Pickwick, 2010.
• E. Kitzinger, « The Cult of Images in the Age of Iconoclasm, » Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954): 83–150.
• Yuliyan Velikov, Image of the Invisible. Image Veneration and Iconoclasm in the Eighth Century. Veliko Turnovo University Press, Veliko Turnovo 2011. ISBN978-954-524-779-8 (in Bulgarian).
• Thomas Bremer, « Verehrt wird Er in seinem Bilde… » Quellenbuch zur Geschichte der Ikonentheologie. SOPHIA – Quellen östlicher Theologie 37. Paulinus: Trier 2015, ISBN978-3-7902-1461-1 (in German).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm

http://www.giacobbegiusti.com