Pre-gunpowder sea defences

Saphroneth

Banned
I'm wondering about how defences were set up, specifically harbour defences, in the pre-gunpowder era.
Total War games tell me that there'd be arrow towers and catapult towers, but is that the case? Would there be other kinds of active and passive defence as well?
(This is against a direct seaborne assault.)
 
From the siege of constantinople i know a large chain was a populare method,simply block off the harbor and nothing can get in.
 
From the siege of constantinople i know a large chain was a populare method,simply block off the harbor and nothing can get in.

Dartmouth Castle near where a rodent hangs about also used a chain boom defence.

Typically most defences were fairly passive as actually trying to hit moving stuff with catapults...is problematic to say the least. So chains, either using winch towers like at the Golden Horn or Dartmouth or boats or ships chained together or a combination of both was common. If there were things like sandbars or mudflats and the locals were expecting trouble they might move the markers (if any) warning of such and keep an out for friendlies and send a pilot out to guide them along the safe channel(s).

Remember in order to do much damage the attackers would normally either have to make landfall or board any shipping and so the main aim of the defences was to buy time to muster troops to repel what was essentially land combat with the added humour of balancing on boats.
 
Large chains, known as booms, could be stretched across a harbor to deny entry to enemy ships. I believe Constantinople had a somewhat famous one.
Attackers generally were forced to attack the heavily-fortified towers which housed the ends of the boom and the equipment for raising and lowering it if they wanted to attack by sea, although in some cases the attackers were able to ram a sufficiently large ship through it and/or (the sources aren't clear here) dismantle it from the water.

Edit: Looks like I was beaten to the punch.
 
Urban shorelines were sometimes fortified with walls (either along the shore itself or set back a bit from it), from which a defending force could fight off an amphibious landing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walls_of_Constantinople#Sea_Walls

Arrow towers weren't unheard-of, particularly if the geography of the harbor were such that a tower or two on either side of the entrance could fire on ships trying to enter the harbor.

http://romeartlover.tripod.com/Rodi2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortifications_of_Rhodes#/media/File:Rhodes-sketchFortifications.jpg
 
Mobile navy operating out of habours connected to fortifications with good visuals and communication routes up and down the coast
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The reason I ask is related to a possible attack by a gunpowder-armed (small) naval force - basically a non-gunpowder force supported by a few steam/sail boats and a few guns on transports - against an excellent but pre-gunpowder harbor.

I'm going for realism.
 

Sior

Banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Syracuse_(214–212_BC)

330px-Parigi_griffe.jpg


330px-Thesaurus_opticus_Titelblatt.jpg


The city was fiercely defended for many months against all the measures the Romans could bring to bear. Realizing how difficult the siege would be, the Romans brought their own unique devices and inventions to aid their assault. These included the sambuca, a floating siege tower with grappling hooks, as well as ship mounted scaling ladders that were lowered with pulleys onto the city walls.

Archimedes Directing the Defenses of Syracuse by Thomas Ralph Spence (1895).
Despite these novel inventions, Archimedes devised defensive devices to counter the Roman efforts including a huge crane operated hook – the Claw of Archimedes – that was used to lift the enemy ships out of the sea before dropping them to their doom. Legend has it that he also created a giant mirror (see Heat ray) that was used to deflect the powerful Mediterranean sun onto the ships' sails, setting fire to them. These measures, along with the fire from ballistas and onagers mounted on the city walls, frustrated the Romans and forced them to attempt costly direct assaults.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
While it would be neat, I don't think I can justify Umbar having a solar beam cannon.

Ballistae and onagers noted, though. Thanks.
 
While it would be neat, I don't think I can justify Umbar having a solar beam cannon.

Ballistae and onagers noted, though. Thanks.

Umbar? I'd iamgine that the city could have a Chain Boom across the harbour, the Numenoreans were pretty teched up, I'd imagine Umbar having something similar left-over. Otherwise ballista would be the Corsairs weapon of choice based on popular fan-lore and probably Trebuchets like the Gondorians, maybe throwing flaming ptich. Pots of burning oil thrown via various means are probably another one.
 
While it would be neat, I don't think I can justify Umbar having a solar beam cannon.

Ballistae and onagers noted, though. Thanks.

Well, apparently Numenor in the original sketches by Tolkien was a steampunk nation described with a Medieval flavor :eek:

If Umbar is under hold of the Black Numenoreans... well, a solar beam cannon is simply too awesome to not exist (and obviously safer in the hands of the bad guys :cool:)
 

Saphroneth

Banned
It's Saruman of Many Devices, so gunpowder is pretty exclusively in the ken of Saruman and his Uruks as yet.
I'm thinking a harbour boom, trebuchets with incendiary weapons, ballistae and so on - possibly a fortified island between two shipping channels to boot.
I'll have to think on the solar mirror cannon.

Of course since they're coming up against a trio of paddle steamers with 75mm rifles and a fleet with the ability to land rifle armed troops, they're not as impregnable as they could be.
 
Thermal warfare actually predates gunpowder. Byzantines had Greek Fire and fireships were known as far back as Antiquity.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Thermal warfare actually predates gunpowder. Byzantines had Greek Fire and fireships were known as far back as Antiquity.
I know of both, but my understanding of Greek Fire is that it involved tricky siphons or pots whereas fireships weren't nearly as potent without gunpowder bombs to add to them.
(They both also seem less defensive weapons.)
 
I know of both, but my understanding of Greek Fire is that it involved tricky siphons or pots whereas fireships weren't nearly as potent without gunpowder bombs to add to them.
(They both also seem less defensive weapons.)

The siphons used for Greek Fire were certainly tricky, complicated devices but they didn't seem too bad if the people using them knew what they were doing. Byzantine fleets were able to use them on a pretty large scale despite they're opponents being unable to make it work. At one point the Bulgarians even captured both a number of fully functional siphons and a supply of Greek Fire itself but simply couldn't make it work as they didn't know how. So apparently the process, whatever it was, wasn't very straitforward.

Also, I don't see why Greek Fire would be less defensive weapon. It should be at least as useful on the defensive as the offensive, especially for the siphon projected variety. Because the material floated on water and continued to burn while doing so it could be used to create a barrier to an opposing fleet. Further, the Byzantines used it extensively in defensive positions, both naval and land based. The incident I mentioned earlier where the Bulgarians captured some siphons and Greek Fire happened when they took a fortress on the Danube that had a number of siphons incorporated into its defenses. So I think it's perfectly reasonable, even likely, to have Greek Fire as part of Umbar's defenses if you decide they have access to it.

Saphroneth said:
I'm thinking a harbour boom, trebuchets with incendiary weapons, ballistae and so on - possibly a fortified island between two shipping channels to boot.
Sounds about right. For what its worth the fleets of the Diadochi had large ships armed with big stone throwing ballista so that's also a possibility for the Umbar fleet. I liek the idea of a fortified island in the harbour. The fortress of La Goletta in Tunis would be a superb model for such a thing.

Saphroneth said:
I'll have to think on the solar mirror cannon.
While it would be extremely cool to have, there have been a nuber of tests and attempts to recreate the solar mirror cannon and none have been successful. I think one idea that sorta worked was that the mirrors were used to ignite pitch that had hit the attacking ships but hadn't caught.

The only other thing I have to add is that I see sea walls as a must for a big port city and naval power like Umbar. Much like the sea walls of Carthage or Constantinople.
 
I know of both, but my understanding of Greek Fire is that it involved tricky siphons or pots whereas fireships weren't nearly as potent without gunpowder bombs to add to them.
(They both also seem less defensive weapons.)
Fire ships are a lot cheaper than actual war ships, so were fairly frequently a defensive technique for a desperate defenders.
 
East Asian naval defence primarily rested on the possession of a riverine/coastal navy sufficient to deter (usually nomadic) enemies, but there were also other ways where a land-based force could deter naval forces.

First, there's the standard 'chain stretched across the water' tactic, where a large chain blocks a waterway and, at the very least, slows down an invading naval force.

Then there's sea walls, where defenders would built a wall parallel to the coast, and deny enemies a safe place to land. This tactic was most notably used in the Japanese defence against the Mongol invasions.

An army facing a fleet close to shore (or hemmed in by riverbanks) could use fire incendiary arrows at an enemy. With the development of catapult technology and especially the introduction of the counterweight trebuchet with the Mongols (previously the Chinese only had traction trebuchets), land-based trebuchets started to be used against naval forces, throwing either rocks, primitive grenades or naptha bombs. This tactic was viciously effective in decimating the Southern Song navy during the final stage of the Mongol conquests.

Finally, defenders could put large iron stakes in coastal/riverine shallows or in tidal areas, drawing the ships in until they got stuck on the stakes and became sitting ducks for the defenders. East Asian ships were generally flat-bottomed with no keel, so this tactic was quite effective against them. The Annamese used this to great effect in repelling the Mongol invasions of their country.
 
Note that, AFAIK, 'chains' across the harbour mouth were usually a line of logs chained end to end, not a complete line of metal links.

Not that that matters to the discussion.
 
Top