Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - II. Udsigt over skibsvæsenet i Norge fra de ældste tider indtil middelalderens slutning / Review of the condition and progress of shipping in Norway, from the earliest period, to the close of the middle ages
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
dl
nem isen for at faa langskibene ud fra Aaslo, efter hans
bud skulde vere 4 favne (7.53 m.) bred. Thi da raaken
under de daverende omstzndigheder selvfolgelig ej blev
gjort bredere end højst nødvendigt og navnlig ej saa
bred, at to skibe kunde komme forbi hinanden, men
dog rummelig nok for det største af skibene, saa kan
dette paa det bredeste ej have været mere end om-
trent 20 fod (6.27 m.). Til sammenligning hidsættes, at
Tuneskibet paa midten har en brede af over 13 fod
(4.08 m.).
Det er ogsaa kun paa en meget ufuldkommen maade vi
kunne bestemme et skibs størrelse og navnlig dets længde
efter tallet af rummene (rim) eller rorbænkene (sess), skjønt
forskjellen mellem skibene indbyrdes selvfølgelig deraf kan
sees. Efter den ældre Gulathingslov maatte de ledings-
skibe, som skibrederne skulde holde, mindst have 20 rum
(tvilugsessa); de største vare paa 30 rum (pritugsessa),
og, som det vil sees foran, oversteg de øvrige lang-
skibes rum kun sjelden det sidste tal, dog træffes ét med
45 rum (s. 30), hvad der er det største, som nævnes hos
os, medens rummene i Knut den mægtiges drage siges at
have gaaet op til 601). Hvert rum var delt i to halv-
rum, saaledes at følgelig aarernes tal paa hver side sva-
rede til rummenes, og deres hele tal paa begge sider til
halvrummenes. Da det af hensyn til konstruktionen selv-
følgelig ej kan tænkes, at en rorbænk hvilede paa ski-
bets klædning, men kun paa tverbaandet (bitt) mel-
lem spanterne, falde disses tal forsaavidt sammen med
bænkenes eller rummenes. Det kan ogsaa nogenlunde
beregnes, hvor stor afstanden var mellem bænkene, da
den ej lod sig indskrænke mere, end at hver mand frit
kunde foretage roningen uden at støde imod den nærmest
siddende rorskarl, og kan denne afstand sættes til 3 fod
(0.93 m.). Men alligevel lader det sig ikke af det opgivne
rumtal endog nogenlunde bestemme, hvor stor længde
hvert enkelt skib havde.
ovenfor, angives nok tallet af vedkommende skibes rum
Som det nemlig vil sees
eller rorbænke, men oftere med saadant tillæg, at
skibet var stort i forhold dertil, hvoraf fremgaar, at
afstanden mellem bænkene ikke var bestemt given, og
1) Heimskr. ed. Unger p. 117.
cutting in the ice in 1200, made by order of King
Sverre to clear his war- ships out from Aaslo, and which
he directed to be 4 fathoms (7.53 m.) wide. For since:
under then existing circumstances the channel was as a.
matter of course not cut broader than absolutely neces-
sary, and especially, not so broad that two ships.
could pass each other, yet nevertheless so roomy as.
to afford place for the biggest ships, the utmost width:
can scarcely have exceeded about 20 feet (6.27 m.).
Here, to afford means for comparison, be it subjoined,
that the Tune vessel’s breadth amidships is over 13 feet:
(4.08 m.).
In like manner it is only with extreme incompleteness.
that we can determine the size of a ship, and specifically,
its length, by the number of divisions (rm) or oarsman’s.
benches (sess) although, of course, the reciprocal difference
between the ships may be thereby ascertained. Conform-
ably to the old Gula-thing’s law, the districts were not
allowed to give war-ships of less dimension than 20 divisions.
(tvecugsessa), and the largest war-ships had 30 divisions (pri-
tugsessa); and as will already have been seen from the above,
the divisions in the other war-ships, rarely were in excegs.
of the latter number, though one (p. 30) is to be found
with 45 divisions, and that the largest named among us;
whereas the divisions of Canute the Great’s war-galley
(«Drage») are said to have reached 601). Each division
was separated into two semi-divisions, consequently the
number of oars on each side is one with the number
of divisions, and their sum total for both sides, is equal
to that of the semi-divisions. Since, having due regard
to the mode of construction, as a matter of course, it
cannot be presumed that the oarsman’s bench rested on
the vessel’s external planking, but only on the beam
(biti) between the frames, the number of beams must
have been identical with that of the divisions. Approxi-
matively also the distance between the benches may be
computed, as it could not have been restricted to less
than a suitable space enabling each man to row, without
thrusting himself against his next oarsman, and that
space may be put at 3 feet (0.93 m.). Notwithstanding
this, from the given number of divisions the entire length
of each particular vessel can not be ascertained with
even tolerable correctness. The number of divisions of
the ships in question, may indeed be given, - as may be
seen from the above, - but often with this addition, that
the vessel itself was large in proportion thereto; —
whence is to be fairly inferred, that the interspace
of the benches, was not a constant, and probably
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
