| # | Polity | Coded Value | Tags | Year(s) | Edit | Desc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
"The pitiful state of the Chinese navy can be attributed to the fact that from the conquest of Taiwan in 1683 until the mid-nineteenth century, China was not faced by any serious threats from the sea."
[1]
Qing sent several hundred ships to Taiwan in the Battle of Penghu in 1683. Qing policies did not require a strong navy, "so the Chinese navy gradually atrophied over time.
[2]
[1]: (Lococo, 2002, 125) [2]: (Erickson and Goldstein 2009, 289) |
||||||
|
The Qing "imperial vessel" considered a symbol of the Qing military presence in the East Asian Sea, yet the guns, cannons, and soldiers on board these vessels more or less served as precautions against potential danger. With increasing foreign presence, the Manchu continued to build coastal defense and naval power in attempt to match the Western powers.
[1]
Fortifications [1]: (Po 2018, 76, 90-91) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Fortifications
|
||||||
|
Fortifications
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned by sources
[1]
.
[1]: Illinois State Museum, Illinois Society: Warfare (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/post/htmls/soc_war.html |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
’The importance of Funan as a maritime power is attributed to the king Fan Man or Fan Shi Man, whose reign has been dated to around 200 C.E. He is said to have constructed a fleet of ships and to have attacked more than ten kingdoms. Only three kingdoms were individually named, but all have been identified with the Malay Peninsula. These raids appear to have been an attempt to take control of the maritime trade flowing from India through the Malay Peninsula to China.’
[1]
’The most notable ruler holding the title fan was known to the Chinese as Fan Shih-man. He was recorded as a great military leader who defeated rivals and replaced then with his kinsmen to rule under him. He also led maritime expeditions against his ene- mies, but the extent of these campaigns is not known. The History of the Liang Dynasty describes how the ruler of Funan in the early third century C.E. “used troops to attack and subdue the neighboring kingdoms, which all acknowledged themselves his vassals. He himself adopted the style of Great King of Funan. Then he ordered the construction of great ships and, crossing right over the Gulf of Siam, attacked more than ten states.”’
[2]
’According to the Chinese chronicles, the Funanese also had a powerful navy, which suggests that they themselves ventured onto the seas to trade.’
[3]
[1]: (Southworth 2004, p. 529) [2]: (Higham 2004, p. 109) [3]: (Tully 2005, p. 12) |
||||||
|
’The importance of Funan as a maritime power is attributed to the king Fan Man or Fan Shi Man, whose reign has been dated to around 200 C.E. He is said to have constructed a fleet of ships and to have attacked more than ten kingdoms. Only three kingdoms were individually named, but all have been identified with the Malay Peninsula.These raids appear to have been an attempt to take control of the maritime trade flowing from India through the Malay Peninsula to China.’
[1]
’According to the Chinese chronicles, the Funanese also had a powerful navy, which suggests that they themselves ventured onto the seas to trade.’
[2]
[1]: (Southworth 2004, p. 529) [2]: (Tully 2005, p. 12) |
||||||
|
’One more text which is relevant, and probably belongs in [H] though possibly south of it in [K]-the exact provenance is unknown-is k.155, by a technical official, dhanyakarapati, "chief of the grain stocks", and one of only eight or nine such specialized functions mentioned in the pre-Angkor corpus, [Footnote 143: There are seven inscriptions by, or referring to, such technical or administrative specialists. The others are K.133 [I], a "chief ship pilot", mahanauvaha, in K.140 [K] a "master of all elephants," or "vassal king", samantagajapati; in K.765 [T] a mahanukrtavi-khyata, "celebrated for his great following"; in K725 three such titles or names of functions, samantanauvaha, "chief of the naval forces", mahasvaptai, "great chief of horse", sahasravargadhiptai, "chief of a group of a thousand"; in K726 yuddhapramukha, military officer; and the latest in date a certain mahavikrantakesari, a name meaning "great bold lion", probably indicating a military person, who is mentioned 4 times in K1029 [R].]’
[1]
[1]: (Vickery 1998, 125) |
||||||
|
’The Khmer sources for this Cham victory refer to a surprise naval attack, sending a fleet up the Tonle Sap to the Great Lake. This illustrates the importance of shipping, for naval warfare as well as commerce; the Khmers, long accustomed to navigation on the Lake and the great waterways that seamed their territory, were not backward when it came to war at sea, and in the twelfth-century war against the Vietnamese it was claimed that they sent a fleet of 700 vessels round the coast.’
[1]
’Elsewhere we see a land battle (with the Cham enemies wearing their characteristic head-dress with floral crests), and a naval battle, in which fierce-prosed longboats are crowded by standing warriors who wield spears above their heads, while shoals of fish below them suggest the otherwise invisible water.’
[2]
’Great naval battles with the Cham appear on the Bayon and at Banteay Chhmar, both sides employing essentially identical ships embellished with garudas on the prow and nagas on the stern. Each vessel had 20 to 42 rowers plus a steersman, and must have been enormous. The bloody engagements on the waters of the Great Lake included the use of grappling hooks.’
[3]
’The representation of naval craft used in war, on their own or taking part in a battle, is found twice in the Khmer bas-reliefs we are studying: once at Bayon on the end wall of the other gallery, S side, E wing (Fig. 111), a scene whose portrayals or naval vessels can be linked to those in the same wing but farther west (Fig. 110), and the on some panels on the south-east corner of the same gallery. The other is found at Banteay Chmar where another naval battle fills a panel on the outer east gallery, south wing (Fig. 112).’,
[4]
’According to Maspero (2002[1928]: 75; see also Cœdès 1968[1964]: 159-160), Sūryavarman had his own fleet which might not have been confined to the Mekong and other river systems, since later Vietnam sources report Khmer attacks in 1128 by over 700 ships to loot the coasts of Thanh-hoa. In 1147, the Chinese resumed diplomatic relations with the Khmer by honouring the (Chenla) king, and negotiated a commercial agreement (Cœdès 1968[1964]: 162; Briggs 1999[1951]: 189).’
[5]
[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.157) [2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.127). [3]: (Coe 2003, p. 187) [4]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 127) [5]: (Lustig 2009, p. 101) |
||||||
|
’The Khmer sources for this Cham victory refer to a surprise naval attack, sending a fleet up the Tonle Sap to the Great Lake. This illustrates the importance of shipping, for naval warfare as well as commerce; the Khmers, long accustomed to navigation on the Lake and the great waterways that seamed their territory, were not backward when it came to war at sea, and in the twelfth-century war against the Vietnamese it was claimed that they sent a fleet of 700 vessels round the coast.’
[1]
’Elsewhere we see a land battle (with the Cham enemies wearing their characteristic head-dress with floral crests), and a naval battle, in which fierce-prosed longboats are crowded by standing warriors who wield spears above their heads, while shoals of fish below them suggest the otherwise invisible water.’
[2]
’Great naval battles with the Cham appear on the Bayon and at Banteay Chhmar, both sides employing essentially identical ships embellished with garudas on the prow and nagas on the stern. Each vessel had 20 to 42 rowers plus a steersman, and must have been enormous. The bloody engagements on the waters of the Great Lake included the use of grappling hooks.’
[3]
’The representation of naval craft used in war, on their own or taking part in a battle, is found twice in the Khmer bas-reliefs we are studying: once at Bayon on the end wall of the other gallery, S side, E wing (Fig. 111), a scene whose portrayals or naval vessels can be linked to those in the same wing but farther west (Fig. 110), and the on some panels on the south-east corner of the same gallery. The other is found at Banteay Chmar where another naval battle fills a panel on the outer east gallery, south wing (Fig. 112).’,
[4]
’According to Maspero (2002[1928]: 75; see also Cœdès 1968[1964]: 159-160), Sūryavarman had his own fleet which might not have been confined to the Mekong and other river systems, since later Vietnam sources report Khmer attacks in 1128 by over 700 ships to loot the coasts of Thanh-hoa. In 1147, the Chinese resumed diplomatic relations with the Khmer by honouring the (Chenla) king, and negotiated a commercial agreement (Cœdès 1968[1964]: 162; Briggs 1999[1951]: 189).’
[5]
[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.157) [2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.127). [3]: (Coe 2003, p. 187) [4]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 127) [5]: (Lustig 2009, p. 101) |
||||||
|
Following was present during previous Classical Angkor period and inferred for this period: ’The Khmer sources for this Cham victory refer to a surprise naval attack, sending a fleet up the Tonle Sap to the Great Lake. This illustrates the importance of shipping, for naval warfare as well as commerce; the Khmers, long accustomed to navigation on the Lake and the great waterways that seamed their territory, were not backward when it came to war at sea, and in the twelfth-century war against the Vietnamese it was claimed that they sent a fleet of 700 vessels round the coast.’
[1]
’Elsewhere we see a land battle (with the Cham enemies wearing their characteristic head-dress with floral crests), and a naval battle, in which fierce-prosed longboats are crowded by standing warriors who wield spears above their heads, while shoals of fish below them suggest the otherwise invisible water.’
[2]
’Great naval battles with the Cham appear on the Bayon and at Banteay Chhmar, both sides employing essentially identical ships embellished with garudas on the prow and nagas on the stern. Each vessel had 20 to 42 rowers plus a steersman, and must have been enormous. The bloody engagements on the waters of the Great Lake included the use of grappling hooks.’
[3]
’The representation of naval craft used in war, on their own or taking part in a battle, is found twice in the Khmer bas-reliefs we are studying: once at Bayon on the end wall of the other gallery, S side, E wing (Fig. 111), a scene whose portrayals or naval vessels can be linked to those in the same wing but farther west (Fig. 110), and the on some panels on the south-east corner of the same gallery. The other is found at Banteay Chmar where another naval battle fills a panel on the outer east gallery, south wing (Fig. 112).’,
[4]
’According to Maspero (2002[1928]: 75; see also Cœdès 1968[1964]: 159-160), Sūryavarman had his own fleet which might not have been confined to the Mekong and other river systems, since later Vietnam sources report Khmer attacks in 1128 by over 700 ships to loot the coasts of Thanh-hoa. In 1147, the Chinese resumed diplomatic relations with the Khmer by honouring the (Chenla) king, and negotiated a commercial agreement (Cœdès 1968[1964]: 162; Briggs 1999[1951]: 189).’
[5]
[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.157) [2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.127). [3]: (Coe 2003, p. 187) [4]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 127) [5]: (Lustig 2009, p. 101) |
||||||
|
’The Khmer sources for this Cham victory refer to a surprise naval attack, sending a fleet up the Tonle Sap to the Great Lake. This illustrates the importance of shipping, for naval warfare as well as commerce; the Khmers, long accustomed to navigation on the Lake and the great waterways that seamed their territory, were not backward when it came to war at sea, and in the twelfth-century war against the Vietnamese it was claimed that they sent a fleet of 700 vessels round the coast.’
[1]
’Elsewhere we see a land battle (with the Cham enemies wearing their characteristic head-dress with floral crests), and a naval battle, in which fierce-prosed longboats are crowded by standing warriors who wield spears above their heads, while shoals of fish below them suggest the otherwise invisible water.’
[2]
’Great naval battles with the Cham appear on the Bayon and at Banteay Chhmar, both sides employing essentially identical ships embellished with garudas on the prow and nagas on the stern. Each vessel had 20 to 42 rowers plus a steersman, and must have been enormous. The bloody engagements on the waters of the Great Lake included the use of grappling hooks.’
[3]
’The representation of naval craft used in war, on their own or taking part in a battle, is found twice in the Khmer bas-reliefs we are studying: once at Bayon on the end wall of the other gallery, S side, E wing (Fig. 111), a scene whose portrayals or naval vessels can be linked to those in the same wing but farther west (Fig. 110), and the on some panels on the south-east corner of the same gallery. The other is found at Banteay Chmar where another naval battle fills a panel on the outer east gallery, south wing (Fig. 112).’,
[4]
’According to Maspero (2002[1928]: 75; see also Cœdès 1968[1964]: 159-160), Sūryavarman had his own fleet which might not have been confined to the Mekong and other river systems, since later Vietnam sources report Khmer attacks in 1128 by over 700 ships to loot the coasts of Thanh-hoa. In 1147, the Chinese resumed diplomatic relations with the Khmer by honouring the (Chenla) king, and negotiated a commercial agreement (Cœdès 1968[1964]: 162; Briggs 1999[1951]: 189).’
[5]
[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.157) [2]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.127). [3]: (Coe 2003, p. 187) [4]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h and Smithies 2007, p. 127) [5]: (Lustig 2009, p. 101) |
||||||
|
’The differing understandings of what the tributary relationship entailed are evident in an incident in October 1592 when King Narasuan of Ayutthaya offered Siamese naval assistance to the Ming court in its struggle to contain the depredations of Japanese pirates. The offer was refused, for from the Chinese point of view it would have been demeaning, and an admission of Chinese weakness, to have accepted. In the mandala world of Southeast Asia, however, it was usual for an ally to contribute military assistance in time of war. Narasuan may have hoped for some quid pro quo in his own conflict with the Burmese, but his offer, and the Ming refusal, point to essential differences in worldview.’
[1]
[1]: (Stuart-Fox 2003, p. 34) |
||||||
|
No references in the literature.
|
||||||
|
Professional seamen.
[1]
"A water-related professional that was first mentioned in Kadiri inscriptions was the undahagi lancang, the shipbuilder."
[2]
According to the Chinese the Kediri kingdom was an even greater maritime power than the Sailendra empire, controlled islands such as Bali, Borneo, South-Celebes.
[3]
[1]: (Hall in Tarling 1993, 212) [2]: (Sedwayati in Ooi 2004 (b), 707) [3]: (Rao 2005, 213) B V Rao. 2005. History of Asia. Sterling Publishers Pvt Ltd. New Dawn Press, Inc. Elgin. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
There were two fleets, one based in Misenum and another in Ravenna. They were commanded by a praefectus classis. Post-Actium battle c800 warships in active service. Augustus created 3 fleets (Praetorian), stationed at Forum Iulil, Ravenna and Misenum. Each fleet had about 10,000 men, Ravenna more after Vespasian. Provincial fleets later added
[1]
No evidence for slaves on Roman war-galleys from the Principate.
[2]
Galleys were most widely used. No new technology was introduced during this period. 196-197 CE, Septimus Severus formed a new naval unit. All Italian triremes now manned with heavily armed troops.
[3]
[1]: (D’Amato 2009, 8) [2]: (Beresford, 2012, 209) [3]: (D’Amato 2009, 6-7) |
||||||
|
The standard warship was a trireme, a ship with three banks of oars, and equipped with rams. "One of the largest naval engagements in Antiquity occurred in 468 when the emperors Anthemius (in the West) and Leo I (in the East) combined forces to send an invasion fleet of 1,113 ships, each reputedly with 100 men aboard, against the Vandal kingdom of Carthage. The king of the Vandals Geiseric engaged the Romans off of Cap Bon (Tunisia) with a fleet of 600 ships. In the ensuing battle, the Vandals’ use of fire ships proved decisive, destroying about half of the Roman fleet."
[1]
400 CE Imperial fleet of Arcadius.
[2]
[1]: (http://usna.edu/Users/history/abels/hh381/late_roman_barbarian_militaries.htm) [2]: (D’Amato 2009, 6-7) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Preiser-Kapeller says present.
[1]
At the end of the seventh century the Byzantines had an "excellent fleet" which could be used to enforce a trade blockade on the West.
[2]
Dromons carried about 200 men (100 rowers, 30 sailers, 70 soldiers). Equipped with greek fire and battering ram. However, the dromon "was in use only for a limited period" since later vessels were modeled on Viking ships. Number of fleets increased from one to four: Constantinople under direct imperial control; Carabisiani theme in south west Asia Minor; Sicily based fleet; Sardinia and the Balearics fleet.
[3]
[1]: (Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences) [2]: (Haussig 1971, 172) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [3]: (Haussig 1971, 208) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Preiser-Kapeller says present.
[1]
Great martime power with an imperial fleet, until 13th Century. Fleet, like army, separated into imperial and theme-based ships. 907 CE imperial (Constantinople) fleet had 60 dromons, martime themes had 42 dromons. Each dromon had crew of 300 men (230 rowers, 70 marines). Lighter ships, pamphylians, manned by 130-160, ousiai, manned by 108-110. Ships used Greek fire.
[2]
[1]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences) [2]: (Tanner, Previte-Orton, Brooke 1923, 741-742) Tanner, J, Previte-Orton, C, Brooke, Z eds. (1923) Charles Diehl, The Cambridge Medieval History, Volume IV, The Eastern Roman Empire 171-1453 [6] |
||||||
|
Preiser-Kapeller says present.
[1]
Great martime power with an imperial fleet, until 13th Century.
[2]
[1]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences) [2]: (Tanner, Previte-Orton, Brooke 1923, 741-742) Tanner, J, Previte-Orton, C, Brooke, Z eds. (1923) Charles Diehl, The Cambridge Medieval History, Volume IV, The Eastern Roman Empire 171-1453 [7] |
||||||
|
Small size of polity implies that there was no significant naval military activity.
|
||||||
|
Small size of polity implies that there was no significant naval military activity.
|
||||||
|
Small size of polity implies that there was no significant naval military activity.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
probably absent
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The Spanish Armada. "The Armada of 1588 was a much more complex enterprise than the expedition to Lepanto seventeen years earlier had been. It was the most massive high seas fleet that Europe had ever seen, but it was also part of an amphibious operation that planned to ferry much of the Spanish forces in the Low Countries to a land invasion of England. There were some one hundred thirty ships in the Armada." “In the 1550s, two-thirds of the Mediterranean galleys employed by the crown were contracted from private owners, the majority Italians”
[1]
[1]: (Kamen 2002, 305) Kamen, Henry. 2002. Spain’s Road to Empire: The Making of a World Power, 1492-1763. London: Penguin Books. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/5IIFB6KQ |
||||||
|
Chalukyas, Pallavas and the Cholas are noted for their naval forces."
[1]
It can be inferred that no other state had a significant naval force and there were no states in this period.
[1]: (Eraly 2011, 163) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
The government bureaucracy had a Superintendent of Ships.
[1]
Naval board.
[2]
[1]: (Subramaniam 2001, 79) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press. [2]: (Bradford and Bradford 2001, 125-126) Bradford, Alfred S. Bradford, Pamela, M. 2001. With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Greenwood Publishing Group. |
||||||
|
Chalukyas, Pallavas and the Cholas are noted for their naval forces."
[1]
It can be inferred that no other state had a significant naval force although some of them may have had a smaller navy.
[1]: (Eraly 2011, 163) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
’Chalukyas, Pallavas and the Cholas are noted for their naval forces."
[1]
It can be inferred that no other state had a significant naval force although some of them may have had a smaller navy. The Satavahanas had a lengthy coastline but their capital was based inland and for most of the period they lacked a standing army and sophisticated central administration, which suggests the kings would not have poured resources into sailing assets they would not have seen nor have little control over.
[1]: (Eraly 2011, 163) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
’Chalukyas, Pallavas and the Cholas are noted for their naval forces."
[1]
It can be inferred that no other state had a significant naval force although some of them may have had a smaller navy. The Vakataka territory appears to have been landlocked so very likely to be one of the kingdoms that did not have a navy.
[1]: (Eraly 2011, 163) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
’Chalukyas, Pallavas and the Cholas are noted for their naval forces."
[1]
It can be inferred that no other state had a significant naval force although some of them may have had a smaller navy. The Kadamba kingdom appears to have been landlocked so very likely to be one of the kingdoms that did not have a navy.
[1]: (Eraly 2011, 163) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
Contemporary inscriptions mention the "war boats" of both Emperors Vinayaditya and Mangalesha
[1]
. "There was also a strong division of navy to guard the sea-coast and conduct maritime operations."
[2]
’Chalukyas, Pallavas and the Cholas are noted for their naval forces."
[3]
[1]: D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), p. 265 [2]: (Dikshit 1980, 262) Durga Prasad Dikshit. 1980. Political History of the Chalukyas of Badami. Abhinav Publications. New Delhi. [3]: (Eraly 2011, 163) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
’Chalukyas, Pallavas and the Cholas are noted for their naval forces."
[1]
It can be inferred that no other state had a significant naval force although some of them may have had a smaller navy. The Rashtrakuta kingdom had a lengthy coastline and may have had a small navy.
[1]: (Eraly 2011, 163) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
"That there must have been some trade with foreign countries across the seas we may safely assume, and it is not a little disappointing that direct references to such trade, as also to a mercantile marine, or a navy protecting it, are even scantier than they are under the Chalukyas of Badami"
[1]
. ’Chalukyas, Pallavas and the Cholas are noted for their naval forces."
[2]
[1]: K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, The Chalukyas of Kalyani, in G. Yazdan (ed), The Early History of the Deccan (1960), p. 433 [2]: (Eraly 2011, 163) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
"Chalukyas, Pallavas and the Cholas are noted for their naval forces."
[1]
Hoysalas are not mentioned and since the polity was landlocked it is extremely likely they had no naval forces.
[1]: (Eraly 2011, 163) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
Galleys were the main fighting vessel for Indian navies.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Canaanite polities were able traders, with many large merchant vessels attested to. These were also used for military purposes: the Egyptian Thutmose III describes capturing two cargo ships during his defeat of the Hyksos.
[1]
It is unclear, however, whether dedicated military craft existed.
[1]: Wachsmann (1998:39). |
||||||
|
The Assyrian king Sennacherib reports that Phoenicians built him warships, which were then crewed by Cypriot sailors.
[1]
Almost certainly, the Phoenician cities had navies of their own as well at that early date. In later centuries they certainly did; Phoenician fleets made up the bulk of Persia’s navy.
[1]: Kaufman (2014:4). |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Infantry, cavalry and navy.
[1]
In 345 BCE vs Sidonians: "The fleet consisted of 300 warships and 500 cargo vessels."
[2]
Navy had 600 fighting ships - tiremes, that had 170 oarsmen and 30 fighters.
[3]
According to one military historian (data needs to be checked by an expert for this polity) "the Persians were the first to introduce a large-scale navy used primarily in support of ground operations."
[4]
[1]: (Briant 1999, 117) [2]: (Dandamaev 1989, 308) Dandamaev, M A. 1989. A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire. Brill. [3]: (Shahbazi 2012, 129) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [4]: (Gabriel 2002, 8) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport. |
||||||
|
"Ptolemy had approximately 140 warships" at th eBattle of Salamis (306 BCE). "Heavy ships" that carried marines who would directly embark an enemy ship. "These vessels were propelled mainly, if not completely, by multiple-rower sweeps and would never have had more than three banks of oars, and the ’rating’ must refer to the number of oarsmen in a unit of rowers. The largest ships are now known to have had a catamaran structure that would obviously increase the deck space available for marines, making such ships a particularly formidable proposition in a land-battle-at-sea. The militarization of naval warfare is also illustrated by the mounting of artillery aboard ship, a practice that obviously reflects the greatly enhanced importance of artillery for both siege warfare and field use in the army of Phillip II and Alexander"
[1]
The most commonly used ships were galleys and quiqueremes. (Joe will check this with John Hale ’The Age of Giants’). We need time sensitive data as there were improvements in naval technology. For example, the period also saw the use of improved sails (Joe will provide the reference) and new boarding techniques.
[1]: (Lloyd 2000, 397-398) |
||||||
|
inland polity
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
European colonial powers employed warships: "Undaunted by the prohibition of the King of England, these gallant adventurers embarked, and pressing forward, reached Cape Verde on the 5th March, 1482. Bearing up to Rio de Festos on the 8th April, the French ships, at sight of them, fled. At the river St. Andras two big Portuguese warships fired at them, but by superior and skilful seamanship they cleverly slipped between them and Cape Three Points (Atinkin). They eventually defeated the Portuguese near Cape Coast Castle (Ogua), “to the no small joy of the negroes, as well as the security of themselves.” They were then invited to Mowre, the best trading town. Here for their pewter, brass, and iron they carried away two hundred and sixty-seven elephants’ teeth, weighing two thousand seven hundred and fifty-eight pounds, and a very large quantity of gold dust and nuggets; and so profitable was the venture, that, after paying half their profits to the duke their patron, they were able within three years to buy their traffic with Portugal and their peace with England, besides putting up an hundred thousand pounds apiece in their purses."
[1]
But this was not a feature of Akan military organization, which was mostly made up of infantery.
[1]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 63 |
||||||
|
The sources available make no mention of naval warfare or technology.
|
||||||
|
[The only recorded naval battle took place in 1244 CE.]
|
||||||
|
[The only recorded naval battle took place in 1244 CE.]
|
||||||
|
Inferred as Mehrgarh is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
Inferred as Mehrgarh is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
Inferred as Mehrgarh is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Nausharo is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
Nausharo is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
for a time had seventy valleys, tribute from Armenia.
[1]
[1]: (Debevoise 1938, 45-51) Debevoise, Neilson C. 1938. A Political History of Parthia. University of Chicago Press Chicago. https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/political_history_parthia.pdf |
||||||
|
inferred. As a landlocked kingdom, naval forces were restricted to river craft.
|
||||||
|
Landlocked polity.
|
||||||
|
Around 646 CE Muawiyah ’started building a fleet for sea raids. Arabs from Egypt now raided the African Exarchate.’
[1]
The ships were largely crewed by Coptic Christians, and in the Siege of Constantinople (717-718 CE) the crews defected en-masse. The forces were further weakened by the Byzantium empire’s use of Greek fire. The Naval commitments of the Umayyad Caliphate largely mimicked their opponents, as the ships were of pre-existing design.
[2]
Boatyard established on Rawdah (in Egypt) in 673 CE
[3]
- did this have a military function?.
[1]: (Treadgold 1997, 312) Warren Treadgold. 1997. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press. California. [2]: (Blankinship 1994, 26,87,105,304, 309) [3]: (Raymond 2000, 18) |
||||||
|
The Abbasid Caliphate was not a naval power in the Mediterranean. The Umayyad Caliphate had faced substantial losses at sea with Greek crewed ships, and the Abbasid never attempted to blockade Constantinople from the sea. Furthermore, while the Caliphs controlled the coastlines and had freedom of movement along this territory, it lacked both the facilities to build military ships and the raw materials to facilitate this endeavor. The situation in the Persian gulf was different, as large trade fleets plied the waters between Iraq and India, and down the Horn of Africa.
[1]
Territorial losses outside of the core territories in Egypt and Syria further weakened the capacity of the Abassid Caliphs capacity to wage naval warfare.
[2]
[1]: Whitehouse, David. "Abbasid Maritime Trade: The Age of Expansion." prince MlKASA Takahito (éd.), Cultural and Economic Relations Between East and West: Sea Routes (1988): 62-70. [2]: Gabrieli, Francesco. "Greeks and Arabs in the Central Mediterranean Area." Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18 (1964): 57-65. |
||||||
|
"The Delhi Sultanate had no navy and the Mughal Empire made sporadic attempts to construct a navy. The Mughals maintained a riverine fleet for coastal warfare but lacked a Blue Water Navy."
[1]
[1]: (Roy 2015, 9) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
"The Delhi Sultanate had no navy and the Mughal Empire made sporadic attempts to construct a navy. The Mughals maintained a riverine fleet for coastal warfare but lacked a Blue Water Navy."
[1]
[1]: (Roy 2015, 9) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
"The Delhi Sultanate had no navy and the Mughal Empire made sporadic attempts to construct a navy. The Mughals maintained a riverine fleet for coastal warfare but lacked a Blue Water Navy."
[1]
[1]: (Roy 2015, 9) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
"The Delhi Sultanate had no navy and the Mughal Empire made sporadic attempts to construct a navy. The Mughals maintained a riverine fleet for coastal warfare but lacked a Blue Water Navy."
[1]
[1]: (Roy 2015, 9) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
low amount of trade and polities of Japan/Korea did not attempt to control sea routes at this time.
|
||||||
|
low amount of trade and polities of Japan/Korea may not have attempted to control sea routes at this time.
|
||||||
|
naval war in Korea
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
‘The atake-bune was a type of naval warship that was used in battles during the Warring States period and into the early Edo period. These vessels were anywhere from about 20 to 65 feet in length. Atake-bune included a wooden tower from which arrows or matchlock guns could be fired at the enemy. Twenty to 25 oarsmen were needed to propel these large ships.’
[1]
‘Seki-bune was a type of Japanese warship used in the Warring States period and at the beginning of the early modern period. Unlike its contemporary, the atake-bune, the seki-bune was much smaller and faster’.
[2]
[1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.335. [2]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.337. |
||||||
|
[1]
‘The atake-bune was a type of naval warship that was used in battles during the Warring States period and into the early Edo period. These vessels were anywhere from about 20 to 65 feet in length. Atake-bune included a wooden tower from which arrows or matchlock guns could be fired at the enemy. Twenty to 25 oarsmen were needed to propel these large ships.’
[2]
‘Seki-bune was a type of Japanese warship used in the Warring States period and at the beginning of the early modern period. Unlike its contemporary, the atake-bune, the seki-bune was much smaller and faster’.
[3]
[1]: (Turnbull 2002) [2]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.335. [3]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.337. |
||||||
|
‘The atake-bune was a type of naval warship that was used in battles during the Warring States period and into the early Edo period. These vessels were anywhere from about 20 to 65 feet in length. Atake-bune included a wooden tower from which arrows or matchlock guns could be fired at the enemy. Twenty to 25 oarsmen were needed to propel these large ships.’
[1]
‘Seki-bune was a type of Japanese warship used in the Warring States period and at the beginning of the early modern period. Unlike its contemporary, the atake-bune, the seki-bune was much smaller and faster’.
[2]
[1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.335. [2]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.337. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
No references in the literature. RA.
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time and code has yet to receive an expert check
|
||||||
|
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time and code has yet to receive an expert check
|
||||||
|
There was no Hittite fleet, and we do not know what ships were used for intercourse with the island of Cyprus, which the Hittites appear to have controlled. They used the services of the countries covered, especially Ugarit. However, the last king of Hatti, Suppiluliuma II actually boasts of victory in two sea battles (but does not describe them).
[1]
[1]: Gurney, O. R. (1952) The Hittites, Penguin. pp. 103 |
||||||
|
There was no Hittite fleet, and we do not know what ships were used for intercourse with the island of Cyprus, which the Hittites appear to have controlled. They used the services of the countries covered, especially Ugarit. However, the last king of Hatti, Suppiluliuma II actually boasts of victory in two sea battles (but does not describe them).
[1]
[1]: Gurney, O. R. (1952) The Hittites, Penguin. pp. 103 |
||||||
|
"There was no Hittite fleet, and we do not know what ships were used for intercourse with the island of Cyprus, which the Hittites appear to have controlled. They used the services of the countries covered, especially Ugarit. However, the last king of Hatti, Suppiluliuma II actually boasts of victory in two sea battles (but does not describe them)."
[1]
[1]: Gurney, O. R. (1952) The Hittites, Penguin. pp. 103 |
||||||
|
’There was no Hittite fleet, and we do not know what ships were used for intercourse with the island of Cyprus, which the Hittites appear to have controlled. They used the services of the countries covered, especially Ugarit. However, the last king of Hatti, Suppiluliuma II actually boasts of victory in two sea battles (but does not describe them).’
[1]
[1]: Gurney, O. R. (1952) The Hittites, Penguin. pp. 103 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
not mentioned in literature
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Under Lysimachus: “The maritime centers provided the King with a fleet required for military expeditions.”
[1]
[1]: Dimitrov, K. (2011) Economic, Social and Political Structures on the Territory of the Odrysian Kingdom in Thrace (5th - first half of the 3rd century BC). ORPHEUS. Journal of IndoEuropean and Thracian Studies. 18, p. 4-24. p14 |
||||||
|
Inferred, as Cappadocia is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
Their naval base and victories at sea imply the use of military vessels.
[1]
The Seljuks had a naval base at Sinope, making them a maritime force in the Black Sea.
[1]
[1]: Chrysostomides, Julian. “The Byzantine Empire: Eleventh to Fifteenth Century.” In The Cambridge History of Turkey, edited by Kate Fleet, Suraiya Faroqhi, and Reşat Kasaba, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. p.25 |
||||||
|
"The story is recounted by Bar Hebraeus (tr. Budge, p. 486), that 900 Franks came to Iraq in order to build a fleet to harass Muslim shipping, apparently in the Indian Ocean."
[1]
[1]: REUVEN AMITAI, ’IL-KHANIDS i. DYNASTIC HISTORY’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/il-khanids-i-dynastic-history |
||||||
|
Capture of Imrali island in the Sea of Marmara 1308 CE "may have been the Ottomans’ first seaborne adventure." First fleet was "built and crewed by ex-Byzantine sailors and manned by gazi warriors."
[1]
Mehmed II (1444-1446 CE and 1451-1481 CE) was the first Sultan to build up large naval forces.
[2]
[1]: (Nicolle 1983, 24) [2]: (Hodgson 1961, 563) |
||||||
|
Capture of Imrali island in the Sea of Marmara 1308 CE "may have been the Ottomans’ first seaborne adventure." First fleet was "built and crewed by ex-Byzantine sailors and manned by gazi warriors."
[1]
Mehmed II (1444-1446 CE and 1451-1481 CE) was the first Sultan to build up large naval forces.
[2]
[1]: (Nicolle 1983, 24) [2]: (Hodgson 1961, 563) |
||||||
|
1456 CE fleet of 60 ships. 1470 CE 92 galleys. Soon after galleys plus transports numbered about 500. At its height in 17th Century the Mediterranean fleet had three squadrons, at North Africa, Egypt and the Aegean.
[1]
Murat II built a fleet which captured Thessaloniki from Venice in 1430 CE.
[2]
Mehmed II (1444-1446 CE and 1451-1481 CE) was the first Sultan to build up large naval forces.
[3]
assisted by Genoese engineers.
[4]
[1]: (Nicolle 1983, 24-25) [2]: (Nicolle 1983, 24) [3]: (Hodgson 1961, 563) [4]: (Inalcik and Quataert 1997, 19) |
||||||
|
In the 17th century "The Mediterranean fleet now consisted of three squadrons based in North Africa, Egypt and the Aegean. But a serious decline did set in with financial corruption in the Istanbul naval yards and the loss of direct control over Algeria and Tunisia." Magahāribad, North African corsairs, "were first recruited as marines in the 17th century."
[1]
[1]: (Nicolle 1983, 25) |
||||||
|
In the 17th century "The Mediterranean fleet now consisted of three squadrons based in North Africa, Egypt and the Aegean. But a serious decline did set in with financial corruption in the Istanbul naval yards and the loss of direct control over Algeria and Tunisia." Magahāribad, North African corsairs, "were first recruited as marines in the 17th century."
[1]
[1]: (Nicolle 1983, 25) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
RA couldn’t find relevant information. Expert advice is needed
|
||||||
|
The Early Roman Republic did not build specialized military vessels. Rome relied on allies and subject peoples for ships. The First Punic War, from 264 BCE, saw the first systematic attempt by the Romans to make their own ships and for this purpose they copied the Carthaginian quinquireme. To this they added a corvus (bridge) which was used to board enemy ships.
[1]
[1]: (Dupuy and Dupuy 2007) |
||||||
|
Rome relied on allies and subject peoples for ships. First Punic War, from 264 BCE, saw the first systematic attempt by the Romans to make their own ships and for this purpose they copied the Carthaginian quinquireme. To this they added a corvus (bridge) which was used to board enemy ships.
[1]
.
[1]: (Dupuy and Dupuy 2007) |
||||||
|
"A further consequence of the loss of Africa to the Vandals was the fact that in capturing Carthage the Vandals also appeared to have taken control of the Roman fleet. ... concerning the nature of this ’fleet’, ... most likely that the majority of the ships stationed at Carthage were merchant ships, although there may have been a few warships in Carthage as a precautionary measure against attack, and as encouragement to traders to maintain their belief in Roman domination of the Mediterranean."
[1]
[1]: (Huges 2015) Huges, Ian. 2015. Patricians and Emperors: The Last Rulers of the Western Roman Empire. Pen and Sword Military. |
||||||
|
Theodoric c492 CE: "after taking Rimini, he brought a fleet of swift vessels thence to a harbour about six miles from Ravenna, and thus completed its investment by sea."
[1]
551 CE fleet of 300 Ostrogothic ships sailed Adriatic, plundered Corfu and ravaged three cities on Greek mainland.
[2]
[1]: (Hodgkin 1897) [2]: (Thompson 2002, 86) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Present, because shipping was active on the Tiber and in the Tyrhennian throughout the period, and the papacy frequently used the fleets of allies such as the Angevins.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The Papacy maintained a standing fleet of various size during this period, and contributed galleys to the Holy League, an alliance of Christian powers against the Ottoman Turks.
[1]
The papacy also provided the Spanish monarchy with an annual contribution (the quinquenio) to build war galleys for use against the Ottomans.
[2]
[1]: Dandelet in Marino, 18 [2]: Braudel, 1029 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Given the importance of nomadism, it seems unlikely that naval technology was used in warfare.
|
||||||
|
Given the importance of nomadism, it seems unlikely that naval technology was used in warfare.
|
||||||
|
Only canoes are mentioned in the sources
|
||||||
|
Only canoes are mentioned in the sources
|
||||||
|
After the introduction of the horse and chariot in the New Kingdom, the importance of the land army increased relative to that of the navy.
[1]
Navy was viewed as part of the army and amphibious operations were common.
[2]
“His army could reach any coastal town in Syria by ship in four to five days, while by foot the journey would take more than a fortnight.”
[3]
Navy mostly of transport and communications sort.
[4]
Avaris: "We know from Ramesside documents that, at the time of Piramesse, it was a major navy base. It was "the marshalling place of thy (scil. the king’s) chariotry, the mustering place of thy army, the mooring place of thy ships’ troops."
[5]
[1]: (Garcia ed. 2013, 436) [2]: (Healy 1992, 25) [3]: ([http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/megiddobattle.htm [5]: (Bietak in Maree ed. 2010, 139) |
||||||
|
Royal fleet.
[1]
Herodotus mentions triremes "that cruised the Red Sea as well as the Mediterranean" during the reign of Nekau II.
[2]
Tell Defenna was "a naval base from which Greek-style war galleys could operate."
[3]
"Necho developed a fleet with the help of Phoenicians and Greeks, and it played an important role under Apries (589-570 BC) in preventing Babylonian expansion on the Levantine coast."
[4]
Herodotus said Neckau II built triremes for use in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.
[5]
[1]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 972) [2]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 990) [3]: (Lloyd 2000, 367) [4]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 16) [5]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 990) Agut-Labordere, Damien. "The Saite Period: The Emergence of A Mediterranean Power." in Garcia, Juan Carlos Moreno ed. 2013. Ancient Egyptian Administration. BRILL. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Ptolemy had approximately 140 warships" at th eBattle of Salamis (306 BCE). "Heavy ships" that carried marines who would directly embark an enemy ship. "These vessels were propelled mainly, if not completely, by multiple-rower sweeps and would never have had more than three banks of oars, and the ’rating’ must refer to the number of oarsmen in a unit of rowers. The largest ships are now known to have had a catamaran structure that would obviously increase the deck space available for marines, making such ships a particularly formidable proposition in a land-battle-at-sea. The militarization of naval warfare is also illustrated by the mounting of artillery aboard ship, a practice that obviously reflects the greatly enhanced importance of artillery for both siege warfare and field use in the army of Phillip II and Alexander"
[1]
The most commonly used ships were galleys and quiqueremes. (Joe will check this with John Hale ’The Age of Giants’). We need time sensitive data as there were improvements in naval technology. For example, the period also saw the use of improved sails (Joe will provide the reference) and new boarding techniques.
[1]: (Lloyd 2000, 397-398) |
||||||
|
Fleet of warships on the Nile burned in 996 CE.
[1]
Fatimids were "naval-minded" and had a strong navy which controlled the sea routes of the Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean, and the island of Sicily.
[2]
Chinese stern-rudders added during 11th Century.
[3]
Sailors from Sicily and Libya. Naval troops were Arab and Bedouin. Elite "black" marines who were either African or Zawila Saharan.
[4]
[1]: (Raymond 2000, 41) [2]: (Hodgson 1977, 21-28) [3]: (Nicolle 1996, 86) [4]: (Nicolle 1996, 58) |
||||||
|
Naval shipyards in Bulaq. Cyprus conquered 1426 CE.
[1]
Fleet built in response to Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean. Sent to India in 1507 CE.
[2]
The Mamluks had marines, lead by a qaid, and a rais al milaha who captained military ship and commanded sailors.
[3]
[1]: (Raymond 2000, 185) [2]: (Oliver 1977, 39-67) [3]: (Nicolle 1996, 159-181) |
||||||
|
"The first recorded use of ships in a military operation occurred circa 1045 B.C.E when King Wu of Zhou ferried 300 chariots and 3,000 men of his personal guard across the Yellow River at Menjin in forty-seven ships to attack the Shang capital. These were not specialized warships but vessels commandeered for the operation."
[1]
were these ships specialized military vessels?
[1]: (Lorge 2012, 82-83) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Jin made naval military assaults against Wu.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Expeditions in the East China Sea.
[1]
611: "Construction of a fleet of 300 seagoing vessels began at Donglai on the northern side of the Shandong peninsula, and 10,000 watermen were brought up from the Yangzi and Huai valleys to crew the fleet"
[2]
[1]: (Wright 1979, 139) [2]: (Graff 2002, 146) Graff, D A. 2002. Medieval Chinese Warfare, 300-900. Routledge. London |
||||||
|
Battle of Baekgang in 663 CE (Early Tang), they would had a navy
|
||||||
|
The Mongols recruited Chinese and Song sailors to serve in a navy to defeat the Southern Song
[1]
[2]
" Korea was finally vanquished in 1273, suffering the indignity of having its entire navy requisitioned for Khubilai Khan’s first attempt at an invasion of Japan."
[3]
[1]: Thomas T. Allsen, ‘The Circulation of Military Technology in the Mongolian Empire’ in Nicola Di Cosmo (ed.), Warfare in Inner Asian History: 500-1800 (Leiden [2]: Boston: Brill, 2002), p.265. [3]: (Turnball 2002) Turnball, S. 2002. Siege Weapons of the Far East (1): AD 612-1300. Osprey Publishing. |
||||||
|
Military commander Qi Jiguang (1528-1587 CE): "In Qi’s system a war junk had 55 troops divided into five units. Two units used arquebuses, two used cannon, flame-throwers and rockets, and one used other types of gunpowder weapons. Naval combat required firearms by this point, a marked change in warfare."
[1]
[1]: (Lorge 2005, 127) |
||||||
|
There were rivers, but the Rouran were nomads who did not have permanent settlements so no reason to use boats to travel from point A-B when they have horses to do so. Certainly would not have needed to use river vessels for military use. Half the year the rivers would be frozen.
|
||||||
|
Landlocked polity.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Samanids did not have a lengthy period when they had a coastline so unlikely to have developed a naval tradition.
|
||||||
|
There were rivers, but the Khitan were steppe nomads so did not have much use for boats to travel armies from point A-B when they had horses that were much more mobile. Half the year the rivers would be frozen.
|
||||||
|
Landlocked.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Naval forces - in 515 CE used vs Danes.
[1]
Imperial naval base in the 5th century. Ships not Frankish in origin.
[2]
"Roman vessels utilized the rivers and coastal waters to transport merchandise and military personnel. The early Franks developed fleets for use in trade and war. Their vessels were propelled by oars and probably a single square sail. Charlemagne used a fleet against the Slavs, Saxons, Avars, and others. Because of their Italian interests, the Franks also maintained a small Mediterranean fleet in the 9th century."
[3]
[1]: (Bachrach 1972, 128) Bachrach, B S. 1972. Merovingian Military Organization 481-751. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. [2]: (Bachrach 1972, 35) Bachrach, B S. 1972. Merovingian Military Organization 481-751. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. [3]: (Runyan 1995, 1246-1247) Timothy J Runyan. 1995. Naval Power. William W Kibler. Grover A Zinn. Lawrence Earp. John Bell Henneman Jr. Medieval France (1995): An Encyclopedia. Garland Publishing, Inc. New York. |
||||||
|
Naval forces - in 515 CE used vs Danes.
[1]
Imperial naval base in the 5th century. Ships not Frankish in origin.
[2]
"Roman vessels utilized the rivers and coastal waters to transport merchandise and military personnel. The early Franks developed fleets for use in trade and war. Their vessels were propelled by oars and probably a single square sail. Charlemagne used a fleet against the Slavs, Saxons, Avars, and others. Because of their Italian interests, the Franks also maintained a small Mediterranean fleet in the 9th century."
[3]
[1]: (Bachrach 1972, 128) Bachrach, B S. 1972. Merovingian Military Organization 481-751. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. [2]: (Bachrach 1972, 35) Bachrach, B S. 1972. Merovingian Military Organization 481-751. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. [3]: (Runyan 1995, 1246-1247) Timothy J Runyan. 1995. Naval Power. William W Kibler. Grover A Zinn. Lawrence Earp. John Bell Henneman Jr. Medieval France (1995): An Encyclopedia. Garland Publishing, Inc. New York. |
||||||
|
"The English possessions in France led to Anglo-French warfare in the 13th and 14th centuries. The French pieced together a navy for use in the Atlantic and the Channel, often hiring Genose galleys to fight the English, especially in the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453 CE). France also built a naval base and shipyard, the Clos des Galées, at Rouen."
[1]
The ’cog’ was mostly used in the northern waters while galleys were used in the Mediterranean.
[2]
[1]: (Runyan 1995, 1246-1247) Timothy J Runyan. 1995. Naval Power. William W Kibler. Grover A Zinn. Lawrence Earp. John Bell Henneman Jr. Medieval France (1995): An Encyclopedia. Garland Publishing, Inc. New York. [2]: (Nicolle 2000, 39) David Nicolle. 2000. French Armies Of The Hundred Years War. Osprey Publishing. Oxford. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The Abbasid Caliphate was not a naval power in the Mediterranean. The Umayyad Caliphate had faced substantial losses at sea with Greek crewed ships, and the Abbasid never attempted to blockade Constantinople from the sea. Furthermore, while the Caliphs controlled the coastlines and had freedom of movement along this territory, it lacked both the facilities to build military ships and the raw materials to facilitate this endeavor. The situation in the Persian gulf was different, as large trade fleets plied the waters between Iraq and India, and down the Horn of Africa.
[1]
Territorial losses outside of the core territories in Egypt and Syria further weakened the capacity of the Abassid Caliphs capacity to wage naval warfare.
[2]
[1]: Whitehouse, David. "Abbasid Maritime Trade: The Age of Expansion." prince MlKASA Takahito (éd.), Cultural and Economic Relations Between East and West: Sea Routes (1988): 62-70. [2]: Gabrieli, Francesco. "Greeks and Arabs in the Central Mediterranean Area." Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18 (1964): 57-65. |
||||||
|
Likely in Persian Gulf to protect sea trade.
|
||||||
|
In the Anatolian Seljuk state (a different polity) "the Seljuk state never possessed very large naval forces".
[1]
Could infer that this was also true for the Great Seljuk Empire.
[1]: (Köprülü and Leiser 1992, 62) Köprülü, Mehmet Fuat. Gary Leiser, Gary. 1992. The Origins of the Ottoman Empire. SUNY Press. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Salah al-Din devoted substantial resources to rebuilding the Egyptian Mediterranean fleet
[1]
Shipbuilding in Fustat. "In 1181, when there was fear that the Nile might dry up, four light boats for carrying troops to Yemen were being built in Fustat’s shipyards."
[2]
60 fighting galleys and 20 transport vessels by 1179 CE.
[3]
[1]: (Chamberlain 2008, 217) [2]: (Raymond 2000, 99) [3]: (Nicolle 2011) Nicolle, D. 2011. Saladin. Osprey Publishing. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
No naval warfare.
|
||||||
|
Naval battle recorded, with ships being boarded by soldiers and supplies, although it is not mentioned if the sips were specialized for war
[1]
[1]: Porter, Venetia Ann (1992) The history and monuments of the Tahirid dynasty of the Yemen 858-923/1454-1517, Durham theses, Durham University, pp. 65-66 , Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/5867/ |
||||||
|
The early Safavid did not have a proper navy.
[1]
The early Safavid did not have a proper navy. Shah Abbas would recruit sailors from Arab vassal states to man converted merchant ships. He also received support from the English who provided armed ships and landed Safavid troops.
[1]
[1]: Steven R. Ward, Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces (Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press, 2009), p.49. |
||||||
|
"Tamralipti Port Under the Guptas remained the centre of maritime trade of Bay of Bengal. While coastal areas of east India carried on maritime trade with South-East Asia, from the west coast of India, trade occurred with the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire."
[1]
[1]: (Roy 2016, 21) Kaushik Roy. 2016. Military Manpower, Armies and Warfare in South Asia. Routledge. Abingdon. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"In north India, Bengal and the Indus valley played important role in naval affairs. We are informed that Jivitagupta II of Magadha and Dahir and Jaismha of Sind had also powerful naval forces. Jaisimha was defeated and killed by the Arabs after a hard fought naval battle."
[1]
[1]: (Mishra 1977, 149) Shyam Manohar Mishra. 1977. Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman. Abhinav Publications. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Every dynasty that wanted to create a Chinese empire extending south of the Yellow River had to build a navy."
[1]
According to Joseph Needham Northern Song’s naval resources began at 11 squadrons of 3000 men and reached 20 squadrons of 52,000 men. The main base was Shanghai.
[2]
[1]: (Lorge 2011, 28) [2]: (Needham ????) Needham, Joseph. ???? Science and Civilization in China. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Present.
[1]
Did this reference provide any more detail? Reference for earlier polity in the region: "The battle of Ma’mura, in which the Portuguese naval and land forces were dealt a severe defeat, indicated that the Moroccan state was modernizing its military forces."
[2]
[1]: M. El Fasi, Morocco, in B.A. Ogot (ed), General History of Africa, vol. 5: Africa from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries (1992), pp. 200-232 [2]: (Ilahiane 2006, 139) Hsain Ilahiane. 2006. Historical Dictionary of the Berbers (Imazighen). Scarecrow Press. Lanham. |
||||||
|
Landlocked state.
|
||||||
|
Landlocked state.
|
||||||
|
No discussion in literature of this. In this case it is evidence of absence since this is in line with logical expectations for this late-complexity society.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The Xiongnu were land-based steppe nomads, unlikely to have had any sort of navy
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
(such as galleys and sailing ships)
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
This variable may also be in need of reconsideration. Kituai mentions armed naval vessels when narrating German punitive expeditions and the early colonial situation in general, primarily in the capacity of providing supplies and assistance to land forces, and occasional bombardments.
[1]
[1]: Kituai, August Ibrum K. 1998. "My gun, my brother: the world of the Papua New Guinea colonial police, 1920-1960", 85p |
||||||
|
This variable may also be in need of reconsideration. Kituai mentions armed naval vessels when narrating German punitive expeditions and the early colonial situation in general, primarily in the capacity of providing supplies and assistance to land forces, and occasional bombardments.
[1]
[1]: Kituai, August Ibrum K. 1998. "My gun, my brother: the world of the Papua New Guinea colonial police, 1920-1960", 85p |
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature RA.
|
||||||
|
Naval forces - in 515 CE used vs Danes.
[1]
Imperial naval base in the 5th century. Ships not Frankish in origin.
[2]
"Roman vessels utilized the rivers and coastal waters to transport merchandise and military personnel. The early Franks developed fleets for use in trade and war. Their vessels were propelled by oars and probably a single square sail. Charlemagne used a fleet against the Slavs, Saxons, Avars, and others. Because of their Italian interests, the Franks also maintained a small Mediterranean fleet in the 9th century."
[3]
[1]: (Bachrach 1972, 128) Bachrach, B S. 1972. Merovingian Military Organization 481-751. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. [2]: (Bachrach 1972, 35) Bachrach, B S. 1972. Merovingian Military Organization 481-751. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. [3]: (Runyan 1995, 1246-1247) Timothy J Runyan. 1995. Naval Power. William W Kibler. Grover A Zinn. Lawrence Earp. John Bell Henneman Jr. Medieval France (1995): An Encyclopedia. Garland Publishing, Inc. New York. |
||||||
|
"The English possessions in France led to Anglo-French warfare in the 13th and 14th centuries. The French pieced together a navy for use in the Atlantic and the Channel, often hiring Genose galleys to fight the English, especially in the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453 CE). France also built a naval base and shipyard, the Clos des Galées, at Rouen."
[1]
[1]: (Runyan 1995, 1246-1247) Timothy J Runyan. 1995. Naval Power. William W Kibler. Grover A Zinn. Lawrence Earp. John Bell Henneman Jr. Medieval France (1995): An Encyclopedia. Garland Publishing, Inc. New York. |
||||||
|
"The English possessions in France led to Anglo-French warfare in the 13th and 14th centuries. The French pieced together a navy for use in the Atlantic and the Channel, often hiring Genose galleys to fight the English, especially in the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453 CE). France also built a naval base and shipyard, the Clos des Galées, at Rouen."
[1]
The ’cog’ was mostly used in the northern waters while galleys were used in the Mediterranean.
[2]
[1]: (Runyan 1995, 1246-1247) Timothy J Runyan. 1995. Naval Power. William W Kibler. Grover A Zinn. Lawrence Earp. John Bell Henneman Jr. Medieval France (1995): An Encyclopedia. Garland Publishing, Inc. New York. [2]: (Nicolle 2000, 39) |
||||||
|
Colbert, Secretary of State for the Navy from 1669 CE, created "almost from scratch... a navy - the colonial and commercial objectives of which were almost completely obscured by its overwhelmingly military purposes." By 1672 CE France had a fleet of 120 ships, up from 18 in 1661 CE. There were an additional 30 galleys in the Mediterranean (5 kph, rowed by slaves).
[1]
However, French naval expansion limited because they lacked a channel port that could receive large ships, closest anchorage was at Brest, in Brittany and after 1693 CE naval fleets were rarely used.
[2]
"The highest-rated ships were built on a scale and with an artillery provision which hugely increased the numbers of their crews and transformed the proportional size (as well as expense) of the naval arm of most states’ armed forces."
[3]
[1]: (Ladurie 1991, 152) [2]: (Briggs 1998, 144) [3]: (Parrott 2012, 64) David Parrott. Armed Forces. William Doyle. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of the Ancien Régime. Oxford University Press. Oxford. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Landlocked to sea.
|
||||||
|
Landlocked state, nomadic cavalry-based army.
|
||||||
|
we need expert input in order to code this variable
|
||||||
|
we need expert input in order to code this variable
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
for a time had seventy valleys, tribute from Armenia.
[1]
[1]: (Debevoise 1938, 45-51) Debevoise, Neilson C. 1938. A Political History of Parthia. University of Chicago Press Chicago. https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/political_history_parthia.pdf |
||||||
|
Likely had some military vessels as they had a southern port on the Gulf, but not extensive.
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in literature
|
||||||
|
At the time of Ur III c2000 BCE Gu’abba was a seaport on the Persian Gulf that built ships and had a textile manufacturing sector. A trade route from Guabba ran east to the Karun River and beyond (the region of Susiana). The route was also used for the transport of troops.
[1]
The Achaemenids (from c500 BCE?) possessed possibly the first large-scale militarised naval force
[2]
(one imagines largely based in the Mediterranean but presumably also some craft in the Persian Gulf) - the fleet consisted of over 600 tiremes that had 170 oarsmen and 30 fighters.
[3]
Have not found any earlier reference to naval operations occurring on the Persian Gulf that would require fighting ships. Did the Achaemenid fleet come out of nowhere or did it have some smaller-scale precedents in the Neo-Elamite civilization or Sumerian before that? Perhaps most unlikely before the Neo-Elamite Period.
[1]: (? 2018) Author?. Title?. Javier Alvarez-Mon. Gian Pietro Basello. Yasmina Wicks. ed. 2018. The Elamite World. Routledge. Abingdon. [2]: (Gabriel 2002, 8) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport. [3]: (Shahbazi 2012, 129) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
At the time of Ur III c2000 BCE Gu’abba was a seaport on the Persian Gulf that built ships and had a textile manufacturing sector. A trade route from Guabba ran east to the Karun River and beyond (the region of Susiana). The route was also used for the transport of troops.
[1]
The Achaemenids (from c500 BCE?) possessed possibly the first large-scale militarised naval force
[2]
(one imagines largely based in the Mediterranean but presumably also some craft in the Persian Gulf) - the fleet consisted of over 600 tiremes that had 170 oarsmen and 30 fighters.
[3]
Have not found any earlier reference to naval operations occurring on the Persian Gulf that would require fighting ships. Did the Achaemenid fleet come out of nowhere or did it have some smaller-scale precedents in the Neo-Elamite civilization or Sumerian before that? Perhaps most unlikely before the Neo-Elamite Period.
[1]: (? 2018) Author?. Title?. Javier Alvarez-Mon. Gian Pietro Basello. Yasmina Wicks. ed. 2018. The Elamite World. Routledge. Abingdon. [2]: (Gabriel 2002, 8) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport. [3]: (Shahbazi 2012, 129) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
At the time of Ur III c2000 BCE Gu’abba was a seaport on the Persian Gulf that built ships and had a textile manufacturing sector. A trade route from Guabba ran east to the Karun River and beyond (the region of Susiana). The route was also used for the transport of troops.
[1]
The Achaemenids (from c500 BCE?) possessed possibly the first large-scale militarised naval force
[2]
(one imagines largely based in the Mediterranean but presumably also some craft in the Persian Gulf) - the fleet consisted of over 600 tiremes that had 170 oarsmen and 30 fighters.
[3]
Have not found any earlier reference to naval operations occurring on the Persian Gulf that would require fighting ships. Did the Achaemenid fleet come out of nowhere or did it have some smaller-scale precedents in the Neo-Elamite civilization or Sumerian before that? Perhaps most unlikely before the Neo-Elamite Period.
[1]: (? 2018) Author?. Title?. Javier Alvarez-Mon. Gian Pietro Basello. Yasmina Wicks. ed. 2018. The Elamite World. Routledge. Abingdon. [2]: (Gabriel 2002, 8) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport. [3]: (Shahbazi 2012, 129) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
At the time of Ur III c2000 BCE Gu’abba was a seaport on the Persian Gulf that built ships and had a textile manufacturing sector. A trade route from Guabba ran east to the Karun River and beyond (the region of Susiana). The route was also used for the transport of troops.
[1]
The Achaemenids (from c500 BCE?) possessed possibly the first large-scale militarised naval force
[2]
(one imagines largely based in the Mediterranean but presumably also some craft in the Persian Gulf) - the fleet consisted of over 600 tiremes that had 170 oarsmen and 30 fighters.
[3]
Have not found any earlier reference to naval operations occurring on the Persian Gulf that would require fighting ships. Did the Achaemenid fleet come out of nowhere or did it have some smaller-scale precedents in the Neo-Elamite civilization or Sumerian before that? Perhaps most unlikely before the Neo-Elamite Period.
[1]: (? 2018) Author?. Title?. Javier Alvarez-Mon. Gian Pietro Basello. Yasmina Wicks. ed. 2018. The Elamite World. Routledge. Abingdon. [2]: (Gabriel 2002, 8) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport. [3]: (Shahbazi 2012, 129) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
At the time of Ur III c2000 BCE Gu’abba was a seaport on the Persian Gulf that built ships and had a textile manufacturing sector. A trade route from Guabba ran east to the Karun River and beyond (the region of Susiana). The route was also used for the transport of troops.
[1]
The Achaemenids (from c500 BCE?) possessed possibly the first large-scale militarised naval force
[2]
(one imagines largely based in the Mediterranean but presumably also some craft in the Persian Gulf) - the fleet consisted of over 600 tiremes that had 170 oarsmen and 30 fighters.
[3]
Have not found any earlier reference to naval operations occurring on the Persian Gulf that would require fighting ships. Did the Achaemenid fleet come out of nowhere or did it have some smaller-scale precedents in the Neo-Elamite civilization or Sumerian before that? Perhaps most unlikely before the Neo-Elamite Period.
[1]: (? 2018) Author?. Title?. Javier Alvarez-Mon. Gian Pietro Basello. Yasmina Wicks. ed. 2018. The Elamite World. Routledge. Abingdon. [2]: (Gabriel 2002, 8) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport. [3]: (Shahbazi 2012, 129) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
At the time of Ur III c2000 BCE Gu’abba was a seaport on the Persian Gulf that built ships and had a textile manufacturing sector. A trade route from Guabba ran east to the Karun River and beyond (the region of Susiana). The route was also used for the transport of troops.
[1]
The Achaemenids (from c500 BCE?) possessed possibly the first large-scale militarised naval force
[2]
(one imagines largely based in the Mediterranean but presumably also some craft in the Persian Gulf) - the fleet consisted of over 600 tiremes that had 170 oarsmen and 30 fighters.
[3]
Have not found any earlier reference to naval operations occurring on the Persian Gulf that would require fighting ships. Did the Achaemenid fleet come out of nowhere or did it have some smaller-scale precedents in the Neo-Elamite civilization or Sumerian before that? Perhaps most unlikely before the Neo-Elamite Period.
[1]: (? 2018) Author?. Title?. Javier Alvarez-Mon. Gian Pietro Basello. Yasmina Wicks. ed. 2018. The Elamite World. Routledge. Abingdon. [2]: (Gabriel 2002, 8) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport. [3]: (Shahbazi 2012, 129) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
At the time of Ur III c2000 BCE Gu’abba was a seaport on the Persian Gulf that built ships and had a textile manufacturing sector. A trade route from Guabba ran east to the Karun River and beyond (the region of Susiana). The route was also used for the transport of troops.
[1]
The Achaemenids (from c500 BCE?) possessed possibly the first large-scale militarised naval force
[2]
(one imagines largely based in the Mediterranean but presumably also some craft in the Persian Gulf) - the fleet consisted of over 600 tiremes that had 170 oarsmen and 30 fighters.
[3]
Have not found any earlier reference to naval operations occurring on the Persian Gulf that would require fighting ships. Did the Achaemenid fleet come out of nowhere or did it have some smaller-scale precedents in the Neo-Elamite civilization or Sumerian before that? Perhaps most unlikely before the Neo-Elamite Period.
[1]: (? 2018) Author?. Title?. Javier Alvarez-Mon. Gian Pietro Basello. Yasmina Wicks. ed. 2018. The Elamite World. Routledge. Abingdon. [2]: (Gabriel 2002, 8) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport. [3]: (Shahbazi 2012, 129) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
At the time of Ur III c2000 BCE Gu’abba was a seaport on the Persian Gulf that built ships and had a textile manufacturing sector. A trade route from Guabba ran east to the Karun River and beyond (the region of Susiana). The route was also used for the transport of troops.
[1]
The Achaemenids (from c500 BCE?) possessed possibly the first large-scale militarised naval force
[2]
(one imagines largely based in the Mediterranean but presumably also some craft in the Persian Gulf) - the fleet consisted of over 600 tiremes that had 170 oarsmen and 30 fighters.
[3]
Have not found any earlier reference to naval operations occurring on the Persian Gulf that would require fighting ships. Did the Achaemenid fleet come out of nowhere or did it have some smaller-scale precedents in the Neo-Elamite civilization or Sumerian before that? Perhaps most unlikely before the Neo-Elamite Period.
[1]: (? 2018) Author?. Title?. Javier Alvarez-Mon. Gian Pietro Basello. Yasmina Wicks. ed. 2018. The Elamite World. Routledge. Abingdon. [2]: (Gabriel 2002, 8) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport. [3]: (Shahbazi 2012, 129) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
At the time of Ur III c2000 BCE Gu’abba was a seaport on the Persian Gulf that built ships and had a textile manufacturing sector. A trade route from Guabba ran east to the Karun River and beyond (the region of Susiana). The route was also used for the transport of troops.
[1]
The Achaemenids (from c500 BCE?) possessed possibly the first large-scale militarised naval force
[2]
(one imagines largely based in the Mediterranean but presumably also some craft in the Persian Gulf) - the fleet consisted of over 600 tiremes that had 170 oarsmen and 30 fighters.
[3]
Have not found any earlier reference to naval operations occurring on the Persian Gulf that would require fighting ships. Did the Achaemenid fleet come out of nowhere or did it have some smaller-scale precedents in the Neo-Elamite civilization or Sumerian before that? Perhaps most unlikely before the Neo-Elamite Period.
[1]: (? 2018) Author?. Title?. Javier Alvarez-Mon. Gian Pietro Basello. Yasmina Wicks. ed. 2018. The Elamite World. Routledge. Abingdon. [2]: (Gabriel 2002, 8) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport. [3]: (Shahbazi 2012, 129) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
At the time of Ur III c2000 BCE Gu’abba was a seaport on the Persian Gulf that built ships and had a textile manufacturing sector. A trade route from Guabba ran east to the Karun River and beyond (the region of Susiana). The route was also used for the transport of troops.
[1]
The Achaemenids (from c500 BCE?) possessed possibly the first large-scale militarised naval force
[2]
(one imagines largely based in the Mediterranean but presumably also some craft in the Persian Gulf) - the fleet consisted of over 600 tiremes that had 170 oarsmen and 30 fighters.
[3]
Have not found any earlier reference to naval operations occurring on the Persian Gulf that would require fighting ships. Did the Achaemenid fleet come out of nowhere or did it have some smaller-scale precedents in the Neo-Elamite civilization or Sumerian before that? Perhaps most unlikely before the Neo-Elamite Period.
[1]: (? 2018) Author?. Title?. Javier Alvarez-Mon. Gian Pietro Basello. Yasmina Wicks. ed. 2018. The Elamite World. Routledge. Abingdon. [2]: (Gabriel 2002, 8) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport. [3]: (Shahbazi 2012, 129) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"A perhaps unexpected role that fell to Turcomans who had risen to power in the mountains of Anatolia, far from the sea, was to garrison forts along the Arabian Gulf coast to protect the rich trading links with India. Aq Qoyunlu vessels plied such waters, but whether any could be regarded as warships to suppress the endemic piracy of the Gulf is again unknown."
[1]
"The weapons used in the military forces of the Anatolian Principalities ... Principalities with an outlet on the sea are believed to have had small naval forces."
[2]
[1]: (Nicolle 1990, 37) Nicolle, David. 1990. The Age of Tamerlane. Osprey Publishing. [2]: (1994, 365) Ibrahim Kafesoglu. Ahmet Edip Uysal. Erdogan Mercil. Hidayet Yavuz Nuhoglu. 1994. A short history of Turkish-Islamic states (excluding the Ottoman state). Turkish Historical Society Printing House. |
||||||
|
"... despite the obvious importance of the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf to Iran’s security and commerce, the Qajars refused to spend enough to develop a naval force. Within a few years following Nader Shah’s death, his fleet ceased to exist. The Qajars did not start to think about creating a small naval establishment until 1850..."
[1]
[1]: (Ward 2014, 66) Steven R Ward. 2014. Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Georgetown University Press. Washington DC. |
||||||
|
"... despite the obvious importance of the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf to Iran’s security and commerce, the Qajars refused to spend enough to develop a naval force. Within a few years following Nader Shah’s death, his fleet ceased to exist. The Qajars did not start to think about creating a small naval establishment until 1850..."
[1]
[1]: (Ward 2014, 66) Steven R Ward. 2014. Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Georgetown University Press. Washington DC. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Navy was the main fighting force until the New Kingdom.
[1]
Land forces are known, but they appear to have been ad hoc, mustered for specific purposes. Note e.g tomb of Weni, dyn. 6 (Abydos): "an army of many tens of thousands from all over Upper Egypt" mustered to fight the "Asiatic sand-dwellers."
[2]
Snofru (2575-2551 BCE) sent a fleet of forty ships to trade with Phoenicia.
[3]
Seagoing ships between the Levant and Egypt existed in the Old Kingdom
[4]
Spalinger speculates whether Lebanese sailors may have been used in Old Kingdom naval flotilla, just as Nubian soldiers used in Egyptian army (6th Dynasty)
[5]
[1]: (Manning 2012, 73) [2]: (Lichtheim 1975, p.19) [4]: (Gnirs 2001) [5]: (Spalinger 2013, 461) |
||||||
|
Navy was the main fighting force until the New Kingdom.
[1]
Land forces are known, but they appear to have been ad hoc, mustered for specific purposes. Note e.g tomb of Weni, dyn. 6 (Abydos): "an army of many tens of thousands from all over Upper Egypt" mustered to fight the "Asiatic sand-dwellers."
[2]
Seagoing ships between the Levant and Egypt existed in the Old Kingdom
[3]
Spalinger speculates whether Lebanese sailors may have been used in Old Kingdom naval flotilla, just as Nubian soldiers used in Egyptian army (6th Dynasty)
[4]
[1]: (Manning 2012, 73) [2]: (Lichtheim 1975, p.19) [3]: (Gnirs 2001) [4]: (Spalinger 2013, 461) |
||||||
|
"The key differentiation between the fully developed army of the New Kingdom and that in the previous era of the Middle Kingdom is reflected best in the amphibious nature of the earlier institution. Thus as in Dynasty XIII and onwards, when the chariotry division was the attractive sector of the army for the sons of nobles, in the Middle Kingdom it was the fleet that provided the positions of importance."
[1]
[1]: (Garcia ed. 2013, 433) |
||||||
|
needs expert verification
|
||||||
|
The Valley of Oaxaca is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
The Valley of Oaxaca is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
The Valley of Oaxaca is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
The Valley of Oaxaca is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
The Valley of Oaxaca is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
The Valley of Oaxaca is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
The Valley of Oaxaca is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
The Valley of Oaxaca is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
The Valley of Oaxaca is landlocked.
|
||||||
|
We have found no indication of naval battles.
|
||||||
|
Venetian ships.
[1]
"The size of the navy in peacetime was fixed in 1523 at 25 galleys, but it generally comprised no more than 24, of which 18 were commissioned in Venice and 6 in Crete and Cyprus. Cyprus had a small squadron of 2-4 galleys to protect its coasts and the commercial shipping, and a few other colonies, such as Cerigo and Zante, also had one or two galleys ... By the end of the 16th century the peacetime navy already numbered 33 galleys, four of which were manned in Crete."
[2]
[1]: (Norwich 2003, 177) John Julius Norwich. 2003. A History of Venice. Penguin Books. London. [2]: (Arbel 2014, 210) Benjamin Arbel. Venice’s Maritime Empire in the Early Modern Period. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. |
||||||
|
Venetian ships.
[1]
"The size of the navy in peacetime was fixed in 1523 at 25 galleys, but it generally comprised no more than 24, of which 18 were commissioned in Venice and 6 in Crete and Cyprus. Cyprus had a small squadron of 2-4 galleys to protect its coasts and the commercial shipping, and a few other colonies, such as Cerigo and Zante, also had one or two galleys ... By the end of the 16th century the peacetime navy already numbered 33 galleys, four of which were manned in Crete."
[2]
[1]: (Norwich 2003, 177) John Julius Norwich. 2003. A History of Venice. Penguin Books. London. [2]: (Arbel 2014, 210) Benjamin Arbel. Venice’s Maritime Empire in the Early Modern Period. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. |
||||||