History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 1 (of 4)Lindsay, W. S. (William Schaw)
History
History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 1 (of 4)
Lindsay, W. S. (William Schaw)
Commerce -- History; Shipping -- History; Steam navigation -- History
The vessels used in their first onslaught were in the form of canoes,
scraped out of the long stem of a beech or willow tree. “This slight
and narrow foundation,” says Gibbon, “was raised and continued on
either side with planks, till it attained the length of sixty, and the
height of about twelve feet. These boats were built without a deck,
but with two rudders and a mast, to move with sails and oars, and to
contain from forty to seventy men, with their arms and provisions of
fresh water and salt fish.”[355] In their first enterprise, and with an
insignificant fleet of two hundred vessels, the Russians, under the
princes of Kief, passed the Straits without opposition, and occupied
for a short time the port of Constantinople, from which, however, they
soon retreated. In the second, they do not appear to have met with
any better success; and the third, though chosen when the Greeks were
greatly harassed, and when the naval powers of the empire were employed
against the Saracens, proved most disastrous to the Russians. “Fifteen
broken and decayed galleys were boldly launched against the enemy;
but instead of the single tube of Greek fire, usually planted on the
prow, the sides and stern of each vessel were abundantly supplied with
that liquid combustible. The engineers were dexterous; the weather was
propitious; many thousand Russians, who chose rather to be drowned than
burnt, leaped into the sea; and those who escaped to the Thracian shore
were inhumanly slaughtered by the peasants and soldiers.”[356]
[Sidenote: A.D. 865.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 904.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 941.]
These attempts at naval invasion continued at long intervals, and with
varied success; but the fourth and last, ending in the destruction of
twenty-four of the Greek galleys, was brought to a close by treaty.
The Greeks found that, though victorious, every advantage lay on the
side of the Russians; their savage enemy gave no quarter; their poverty
promised no spoil; while their impenetrable retreats deprived the
conqueror of the hopes of revenge. The Greeks were, therefore, not
unwilling to grant liberal terms to their invaders, the terror these
attacks caused being increased by a supposed prophecy. “By the vulgar
of every rank,” remarks Gibbon, “it was asserted and believed that an
equestrian statue in the square of Taurus was secretly inscribed with
a prophecy, how the Russians, in the last days, should become masters
of Constantinople,”[357]—a belief which, as we know, was still largely
shared in, even so recently as the Crimean war of 1854-6.
[Sidenote: The Normans and their expeditions.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 918.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account