Louie da fly

You're a braver man than I, Gunga Din. I look forward to seeing what I feel must be the first ever model of a hulc. Except perhaps this: And a boojum is a snark, but a snark isn't necessarily a boojum. You may serve it with greens and it's handy for striking a light . . .

Hi Cap'n Snack and welcome to MSW. I had to look up what gunpla was. Quite a move from that to ship modelling, but I imagine the skills from on should transfer to the other quite well. Make sure you start a build log when you begin your model. It is a very good way to get help and advice and encouragement, and we get to see yet another beautiful ship model under way.There are instructions on how to do it here: Looking forward to seeing your progress.

Welcome, Patrick! I'd second Mark's suggestion that you start a build log when you begin your model. It's a great way to get help and advice - and encouragement. By the way, why the name Boomer? Are you a baby boomer (like a lot of us) or is it because that's the name for a very big kangaroo?

Half your luck, Andre, living in Portsmouth. So if you're unsure of a detail you can just pop down to the naval base and check it on-site! When you've finished Victory maybe you should consider making the Warrior and Mary Rose . . .

Very interesting conclusion. Perhaps because in frame-first construction the strakes were fixed to the frames, whereas in shell-first they were fixed to each other?

I very much enjoyed following the process as you did the decking from start right through to finish. You've done a very nice job there. It looks really good.

Very clever. Looks good, too.

Nice work. Looks like another triumph for the poor man's lathe.

Oops!

Understood. Just put it down to experience for next time. Well at least you didn't have to do that. I'm not sure I'd be willing to take on a fluit - so complex!

Chuck, I've downloaded it as a PDF. I'll PM it to you.

Marcus, not sure if it's just the photo, but in the third last pic above the topmost wales port and starboard seem to be aligned differently. I don't know if this is a problem. Other than that the wales look very good.

A lot of fiddly work, but worth it in the long run.

Beautiful work, Chuck. Very nice indeed.

Hi Chuck. Thought you might be interested in this. In Norway they've found "cogs" with remnants of rigging items. And there's a good definition of what are currently accepted as the characteristics of a "cog" https://www.academia.edu/22591645/Medieval_Shipwrecks_from_North_Norway_and_their_Contribution_to_Understanding_Maritime_Interaction_and_Trade?email_work_card=view-paper

Yes, this seems to have been a common design - the Serce Limani wreck and other Yenikapi wrecks have the same flat bottom and sharp change at the bilge line. The ones I've looked at (admittedly galleys, as this is what I was interested in) have alternating frames - every second frame (though the builders weren't all that consistent about their spacing) crosses from bilge to bilge. Every other frame is a pair that runs from keel to gunwale on each side. Together these two frame types provide good structural integrity. However, it looks like Yenikapi 12 was constructed differently.

I thought you might be interested in this: https://www.academia.edu/22591645/Medieval_Shipwrecks_from_North_Norway_and_their_Contribution_to_Understanding_Maritime_Interaction_and_Trade?email_work_card=title - they found "six complete or partial blocks and two possible deadeye fragments.", though the only block the paper show a photo of is what we would now call a heart as it doesn't have a sheave. The paper also quotes a definition of what are nowadays understood to be the defining characteristics of a cog "having straight stem and stern,flush-laid bottom planking, clinker-built sides, and floor-timbers alternating between extension to port and starboard (Crumlin-Pedersen, 2000)", which I had never come across before , and though there are exceptions to this, it's a pretty good definition.

That's very good. He looks a lot better. I'm a big fan of shiny. Here's the helmet I made to wear at the battle of Hastings re-enactment event (on the actual battlefied) in 2000. I've always been a great exponent of the idea that if you could afford a helmet you'd have kept it shiny. You could see your face in this one. And I inscribed the nasal with 11th century "Ringericke" style knotwork (with wolves on the eyebrows). Unfortunately after I got home we moved house and the helmet vanished - I suspect the moving men who I was silly enough to show it to. After all that work! Yes, combs were very common. Usually made of antler (which I discovered is actually bone - it's just an extension of the bones of the body - but is configured very conveniently for making combs and falls off the deer's head each year - how convenient is that?). I got right into bonework at one point and made one comb for my lovely wife and started another but never finished it (ran out of antler). There are huge numbers of Viking and Anglo-Saxon (for lack of a better word) combs in museums, and it's possible to date them by their shape and decoration. The fineness of the teeth of some of them is unbelievable - I've no idea how they managed it with hand tools. Very highly sophisticated technology. And yes, the concept of "Englaland" was, if you like, created by the Vikings. They destroyed all the independent English kingdoms except Wessex, and when Aelfred the Great defeated them, the treaty divided the land into Danelagh/Danelaw and Aelfred's realm, he became the "king of the English folk". His kingdom was expanded by his successors, taking more and more of the Danelaw until everything south of the Scottish border was one kingdom. Several of the pre-Viking Anglo-Saxon kings had achieved the status of Bretwalda [effectively High King] by defeating their neighbouring kingdoms, but none had managed to unite the whole country under one rule as the Vikings did by default. Interesting - if there hadn't been Viking invasions, there wouldn't have been an England . . .

Phil, that's looking amazingly good. I'm impressed. you've even put the "bowsprit" in, which I wasn't expecting. (it's function is debatable - it probably didn't work the same way as the bowsprits of centuries later, and it vanished quite soon, but it does appear fairly often in contemporary representations). Probably the best name for those internal planks is "stringers", whose function is the strengthen the structure. If the inside of the hull was covered with them they'd probably have a different name (such as "internal planking"). They'll work well to provide you with belaying points for the rigging ropes. I'm amazed you've been able to achieve with balsa - it's really rubbish wood, and you've stretched it way past its normal capabilities. Making a capstan without a lathe isn't as hard as you may think. You can carve it to shape without too much trouble. Start with a square section piece of wood, then take off the corners to make it octagonal, then smooth it down further and further. That's how they made masts. Finally, you can use a "poor man's lathe" (electric drill) to finish it off. But don't use balsa! Even pine would be better, but I'm sure you can find some decent wood without too much trouble. Or, perhaps better still, you could shorten the process by starting with a piece of dowel and carve it down to the shape you want. Maybe even "turn" it to shape, using an electric drill as a lathe and a rough file as your "lathe tool". The Bremen cog had a capstan to raise the main yard, but it also had a windlass. See https://nautarch.tamu.edu/class/316/cog/ By the way, regarding the fixing of shrouds and rigging artefacts, have a look at https://www.academia.edu/22591645/Medieval_Shipwrecks_from_North_Norway_and_their_Contribution_to_Understanding_Maritime_Interaction_and_Trade?email_work_card=view-paper - they found some blocks and what might be fragments of deadeyes.

Eric, that's a very well thought out reply. I didn't realise Sihtric was the lowest status of your figures. In which case I think you're right emphasising the contrast with the other two. Generosity to your underlings was very much part of the Viking (and generally northern mediaeval) culture. Lords were referred to in poems as "ring-givers" and their generosity was made much of. - it's one of the main things that kept their followers loyal. Maybe Sihtric was poor but had distinguished himself by an act of conspicuous bravery, so was rewarded by his jarl? The account relating to English reactions to Viking cleanliness is a single instance, and was written several centuries later. Doesn't mean it's not true, but needs to be taken with a grain of salt - in my view too many people take this one mention as a blanket description of all Vikings everywhere - and for example it;s contradicted by Ibn Fadlan's account of them as "the filthiest of God's creatures", describing how they shared the same washing bowl and each man washed in it, spat in it, then handed it to the next. However, Ibn Fadlan was writing for a fastidious Arab audience and I think he's likely to have sensationalised his account to increase its effect. Don't take too much notice of what re-enactors do. A lot of them get it very wrong - I ought to know; I got the reputation of being an authenticity fascist when I was re-enacting. Some of the stuff was pretty damned bad, but mention it to the person (politely and helpfully) and overhear one of the older guys saying to a newbie "Oh don't listen to him . . ." And no need to put quotes around the word "English" - that's what they called themselves; the Englisc folc [folk] (sc pronounced as we now pronounce sh) or the angelcynn [English kin]. The word Saxon would have made a pre-conquest Englishman think you were referring to someone from Germany(!)

I like the look. Am I right in thinking he's wearing ankle boots and leg wrappings (known to the Vikings as wickelbander and to the English as winningas)? If so can I suggest making the boots and the leg wraps different colours so you can tell which is which? Although modern re-enactors usually make wickelbander out of strips cut from a piece of fabric, back in the day they were woven (from wool) as narrow strips. One other comment - as someone rich enough to have a sword and helmet he looks a little scruffy. The Vikings were great show-offs and would flaunt it if they had it. So I think the helmet, for example, would be shiny silver rather than blackish or rusty. Maybe he's been living a hard life recently. And perhaps a design on the shield? (see http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/shield/shield.html for some info on that). (well, you did ask . . . )

Yep. It's even shown on the "shipbuilding" panel of the Bayeux Tapestry, where a fleet is being built for William of Normandy to invade England. (Also a hand drill held by the guy on the right working on the upper ship, and perhaps a smaller one held by the left-hand guy on the lower ship)

That's possible, but we need to remember that the northern Europeans had sailing ships well before the crusades (at least as early as the first Viking raid of 793 AD and probably earlier) and so would already have evolved their own means of belaying shrouds. Though it's quite possible that Mediterranean ships influenced those of northern/western Europe, the influence also worked the other way around, with single-masted square-rigged vessels similar to cogs suddenly appearing in the Mediterranean after centuries of multi-masted lateeners. As far as shroud fixings go, we're probably best relying on the existing evidence - which unfortunately seems to consist only of pictures produced by people who may or may not have been familiar with ships - but that's all we have. Regarding the nature of a hulk - the current theory amongst academics is that unlike "nefs" (still not an official term, but it serves for the time being) which have a stem and sternpost and have conventional clinker planking a hulc/holk/hulk is characterised by two design features - "reverse"clinker planking (with the overlap upwards rather than downwards) and a lack of stem and sternposts, with the planking doing all the structural work and somehow curving around the bow and stern. Apparently some small river craft have been found built this way. What set this all off was the 1295 AD seal of the town of New Shoreham, (previously known as Hulkesmouthe) which has an inscription referring to the ship on the seal as a "hulc". Here are two photos of the seal: And a 19th century (I think) engraving of it which gives clearer detail, but may incorporate copying errors. Ok, there are no stem or sternposts shown,but there's no sign of reverse clinker (in fact the lines between the planks are raised, not recessed and the planks all seem to be in the same flat plane). For reverse clinker you need to go to the pictures below. BNF Psalter of Jean de Berry Gallica f.127r Philippe_Augustus awaits his fleet So the shading certainly seems to suggest that the lower planks overlap the upper ones. But is that enough to base such a complex, unwieldy, top-heavy theory on? Perhaps it's just artistic error on the part of someone who'd never looked closely at a ship? Ok they've found some small river vessels built that way but would a large ship of that construction even be seaworthy? And (Occam's razor) why would anybody build it that way when standard construction is so much easier? And that the New Shoreham seal calls the ship a hulc is a pretty thin bit of evidence that the word describes that specific type of ship. Maybe, like "nao", it just means "ship", or perhaps "cargo ship", or "warship" or . . . It seems to me this theory is like a house of cards - one touch and it'll all come crashing down. Or maybe the Emperor's New Clothes would be a better comparison. Sorry about the rant, but this has become the "standard" idea of what a hulk was, repeated in any number of academic papers and I believe it's one of the worst examples of academics quoting each other as proof of a theory with almost no reliable basis in fact. Of course if some archaeologist does find one, it'll blow my objections out of the water. But I'll wait till then to change my opinions.

Very elegant.

In many (not all) contemporary representations the forecastle is shown without a rear "wall", so access is pretty easy. But there are also quite a number that show it with a rear wall, so perhaps both are correct. However, getting into the forecastle on this kit does seem a little difficult. I don't know what the right answer is but you raise a good point, Chuck S.