Waldemar

Remarks on Chapter II: At the outset, it should be emphasised that a particular design method or design system (or, in modern terms, a parametric model) should not be equated with the specific proportions used in a particular design (or, in modern terms, a specific set of parameters entered into such a parametric model), which, unfortunately, is quite common among various authors in this field. In other words, a ship with the same proportions can be designed using different methods, or conversely, ships with different proportions can be designed using the same method, simply by modifying the design parameters. And, at least in a geometric sense, the size of ships, i.e. measured in absolute units of measurement such as feet, cubits or metres, is a completely separate issue. That said, it should be noted that Dudley's 'inventions' do not consist in the discovery of some new, previously unknown design method, but merely in ‘playing’ with proportions, and in his specific case, primarily in a quite significant increase in the relative length of ships, as it seems, well above the customs accepted at the time. And so, the essence and main criterion distinguishing his seven ‘inventions’, i.e. proposals for seven different types of vessels, is well reflected in the following unpublished sketch taken from a handwritten batch of material: Although his designs of different types of ships could have individual, varying breadths (and also generally vary in size), in the above sketch they have all been scaled to a single, common width, making it easy to see the difference in the relative lengths of these vessels. Dudley's shortest design is for a galleon four breadths long, and the longest is for a passavolante 10 breadths long. The basic unit of measurement used for further calculations of the main proportions of the ship is the breadth of the hull, quite consistently referred to by Dudley as “boccatura” in the publication, and in handwritten notes also as, for example, “true breadth” at the level of “true waterline”, and similarly (in Italian and in English). Indeed, in accordance with the Mediterranean method or tradition, this breadth is not measured at the widest part of the hull, but at the height of the so-called 'boca' line (at midship), which in Dudley's designs, to simplify now somewhat, generally coincides with the lower edge of the lowest wale and at the same time with the swimming line, and the greatest breadth is hardly mentioned at all in the whole publication. A typical case can be clearly illustrated by one of the published diagrams:

ON THE SEVEN DESIGNS in general of Warships invented by the Author. Chapter II. The first design is shown and described in the figures in Chapter VIII below, of an improved galleon long four breadths along the first line, or wale, which sports two and a half decks, with the gunroom, and will carry eighty pieces, in the manner described in Chapter VII. The author had a 300-ton version of the same design built for himself, carrying 30 pieces, in which he sailed as a general to the Indies in 1594 with other vessels, at his own expense (for comparison, according to the calculation method provided by Dudley, the capacity of his published design is 1000 ton). The second design is of ‘rambargi’, presented in Chapter IX, long five breadths along the first line, or wale; one of which will carry 90 pieces, with the restrictions described in Chapter VII, and they are faster than galleons; and these resemble the longest ships of the Royal Navy of England. The author had one of this type built for the Most Serene Grand Duke Ferdinand I, of about 600 tons, named S. Giovanni Battista. In any case, it carried 60 large, reinforced pieces and proved its worth against the Turks. The third design, described in Chapter X, is of a ‘galezabra’ long six breadths along first line, or wale, which carries two decks and a third, with the gunroom; and this is a vessel even faster than the ‘rambargi’, and is very formidable in fighting from windward with the force of its artillery, and will carry 90 pieces, those described in Chapter VII, with others reinforced [guns]. Of these ‘galezabres’, the author had one built for the Most Serene Grand Duke Cosimo II, not exceeding 300 tons; although it carried 40 good pieces, it was a very fast and very stable vessel. The fourth design is a square-rigged vessel, named a frigate by the author, seven breadths long, with the entire stern, and its proportions can be observed in Chapter XI, and carrying 50 pieces [described] in Chapter VII. And the author built as a test a small vessel, like a ‘pinaccio’, of this design for himself in Livorno in around 1608, and it proved to be very fast and handled well at sea. He had another vessel of the same design, of about 140 tons, built when he went to the Indies, named the Little Bear, commanded by Captain Monck, an Englishman, a relative of the author and his vice-admiral. The fifth design is of rowing vessel, being an improved ‘Galeazza’, called by the author ‘Galerone’ or ‘Galeratone’; which is much more manoeuvrable than the galeazze, and can be dismasted and propelled [by rowing] very well, which the large galeazze cannot do. The Galerone has length of eight breadths along its line (wale), as [shown] in Chapter XII, and can carry 50 carriage cannons and 20 hail-shot guns (‘petrieri’). The author had one of this type built, not so large but longer, for the Most Serene Grand Duke Cosimo II, named Galerata by its inventor, which carried 32 carriage pieces and 20 ‘bombardine’ and moved very well, especially under sail. These are exquisite vessels for sailing and for fighting in battle in place of galleys, and the cost is little more than that of a galley, except for the artillery. The sixth design is a nine-breadth long improved galley by the author, [decribed] in Chapter XIII and named by him ‘Galeratina’. He had one of these built for the Most Serene Grand Duke Cosimo II and named it S. Cosimo. It proved to be the fastest and best-conditioned galley in the Mediterranean, as is well known. and this one did not carry guns on its sides, but rather eight ‘bombardine’ on each side, and two more guns than usual at the bow: These, however, are good vessels for the course. It was the Galera Padrona. The seventh design, of the length of ten breadths along the line (wale), named ‘Passavolante’ by the inventor: Its proportions are shown in the figure in Chapter XIII, and one of these was built for the Most Serene Grand Duke Cosimo II in a similar manner. Therefore, the knowledgeable demonstration follows to manufacture the seven designs mentioned above.

Strange as it may sound, the important and extremely interesting chapter Della Fabbrica di Vascelli (‘On Shipbuilding’) from Robert Dudley's larger work, Dell'Arcano del Mare (‘The Mysteries of the Sea’), has so far been largely overlooked by authors of modern works on this subject, and has probably not even been retranslated into the native language of the author of this work, or at least no such translation has been published so far to my knowledge. This can be considered a serious oversight, especially on the part of the academic community, as this very chapter, together with its unpublished part, is at least equal in terms of its substantive value to other works on shipbuilding from this period, such as Baker's Fragments of Ancient Shipwrightry, an anonymous manuscript dated around 1620, or the so-called Newton manuscript from the second quarter of the 17th century. What is more, Dudley's complete account, graphic par excellence (notably with its unpublished, handwritten part), perfectly complements the above-mentioned works and, in addition, greatly facilitates their proper understanding, especially since they have been misinterpreted by the academic community and various researchers through the unauthorised backward extrapolation of later English sources of this kind, such as the Anthony Deane's work from 1670 or William Sutherland's from 1711, which, together with other mistakes, inaccurate analyses and misinterpretations in this field, has had the unfortunate effect of creating modern concepts that dramatically distort the evolution of naval architecture during this period. Although Dudley's work was published as late as 1646–1647, both his biography and the information contained in the publication itself indicate that Dudley uses and describes the method of ship design that was used in England around 1600, which he must have learned there before emigrating in 1605. This is the Mediterranean method, introduced in England around the middle of the 16th century, marked by a three-arch frame construction and the specific transformation of master frame mould, guided by the so-called “boca” line (instead of the maximum breadth line). Over time, around the middle decades of the 17th century, this system evolved into a more advanced form, which can already be described as genuine English design. At least for now, I intend to present a full translation of the chapter ‘On Shipbuilding’ (without focusing on linguistic perfection, if only because of the archaic, crazy syntax of the original Italian text, but rather on a factually correct and comprehensible rendering of the meaning of the statements) along with reproductions of graphics taken from both the printed publication and some unpublished ones (many thanks to @DonatasBruzas for pointing out the latter), as well as supplementary comments, explanations and my own illustrations where necessary and possible. In total, approximately 73,000 characters, or 40 standard A4 pages of text. Let’s start… THE MYSTERIES OF THE SEA, OF THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND BOOK FOUR ON SHIPBUILDING by Design in general, of the invention of the Author. Chapter I. The Naval Architecture discussed in this book was invented and put into practice by the author himself in seven different designs of warships. The figures and proportions of these are shown in Chapters VIII to XV, with individual lines, profiles and moulds, with explanations and other necessary details. So that the author's aim does not prove vain and superfluous, having dealt in the preceding Third Book with the ordinance of forces, the power and strength of ‘rambargi’ (rowbarges), ‘galezabre’, frigates and other vessels, he will now demonstrate the true science of design, so that everything can be put into practical execution. And because words do not fight, but what has been promised will be produced in effect, & in practical action; demonstrating how skilled masters (who also understand something of mathematics) can build by design the vessels referred to in the following chapter, without the inventor himself being present; considering further that the hope of a victory at sea, in winning the day, depends mainly (thanks God) on the strength and quality of vessels that are well constructed and well disciplined, according to the instructions in the preceding Chapter. Otherwise, it would have been highly impertinent of the author to criticise the shortcomings and failings of other warships without offering any remedy to improve them. However, he deemed it expedient, for the reputation of his maritime Mysteries, to show in the best possible way the naval architecture of the construction of the following vessels; and all the more so because in this way a great prince can be victorious against the common enemy of Christianity, not only at sea but also on land, by means of maritime assistance; and the reason and cause for this is sufficiently demonstrated by the examples given in Chapter XV of the preceding Book.

Hello, In the hope of making your decision easier and perhaps giving you some confidence in how to proceed with the timbers at the bow, it can be said that these plans are structural reconstructions, so they can certainly be reinterpreted in various ways. For example, in addition to the solutions you have already mentioned (or shown), others can be added: the first frame (I) can simply be made perpendicular to the keel, rather than canted (as the frame XV at the stern), or if you still prefer this frame to be canted, you can make the construction simpler and do this by slightly tilting the flat first floor piece (instead of making it V-shaped when viewed from above). It is clear that these boats were individually built in different ways by different builders.

I see. Perhaps you have a friend who could be able to download these pages for you. It's only a few hours' effort. Alternatively, you can buy a hard-copy reprint, where the texts, including the tables, are already transcribed. No need to download and print anything.

Using the link provided, I accessed the library website, found the desired page, and downloaded it. This is rather pointless, as you can fortunately do all of this yourself, already without any additional help. Good luck.

Take a look here (entry #3):

Ah, yes, the Lomellina case… Fortunately, for an exhibition model, unlike a full-scale floating replica, stability issues are no longer of the utmost importance in the sense that any mistakes or misinterpretations will at least not lead to some kind of costly disaster. You wrote earlier that you have direct contact with people who are involved in researching the Lomellina wreck, and that you receive materials from them regarding this wreck. Are you perhaps aware of any other attempts to reconstruct the ship's shapes besides those presented or recalled in the 2023 paper attached below? Frankly, for certain reasons I'm not personally thrilled with these attempts and its results, but more importantly, I see that you also decided not to follow the published reconstruction and are creating your own interpretation. Guérout Max, Frabetti Beatrice, Castro Filipe, Revisiting Lomellina, 1516 – The Hull Shape, 2023: Guérout Max, Frabetti Beatrice, Castro Filipe - Revisiting Lomellina, 1516 - The Hull Shape - 2023.pdf

Hi, If I may, I'll try to start (hopefully) jokingly. These and similar thoughts could indeed quite easily end up like this (most interesting from the 30th second): But more seriously, in addition to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different plans from the period, quite clear (written) indications on this matter can be found, for example, in the shipbuilding manuscript from around 1610 by Lavanha or the so-called Newton manuscript from the first or second quarter of the 17th century. But perhaps this is most spectacularly and instructively demonstrated by Robert Dudley in his work (manuscript) from around 1636. The descriptions of the individual levels in the diagrams below (transcribed in red) practically speak for themselves and probably don't even need any further commentary. Perhaps except that this specific material has almost certainly never been used or maybe even noticed by anyone before.

Quite possibly the Northern European Late Middle Ages, with its Hanseatic cogs and other cog-like vessels, Scandinavian ships, earliest carracks, etc., and all their somewhat later derivatives, also needs attention, because this period is in fact as conceptually unexplored as the early modern era has been neglected so far. Funnily enough, various researchers are able to carry out really complicated hydrostatic and hydrodynamic calculations, as well as expensive experiments of various kinds, including real-scale sailing, except for the “ trifle” that it is still unknown how these ships were actually designed to satisfy the results of all those modern scientific tests and calculations . As a result, it is simply not possible in the present state of knowledge to draw some conclusions of a more general nature, for example to the extent you ask.

It occurred to me later that one could still show a geometrically rigorous way of determining the reconciling sweep tangent at both ends (that is, to bottom line on one side and to lower breadth sweep on the other). Although the method is extremely simple, it is highly doubtful that it has been used in practice, and especially at actual scale on the mould loft, as can be seen particularly well on sample number 3, where the auxiliary lines extend far beyond the contour area of the frame. The method using a flexible instrument, shown previously in the entry #40, is by far the preferred one, not only because it is hassle-free, but also gives excellent results in terms of the precision of the contours obtained, and this is true even allowing for the minor inaccuracies of handling such a flexible instrument. Be that as it may, below is a method employing formal geometry: 1. make a perpendicular to the line of the bottom at point A, 2. mark point c2 on this line at a distance R from point A, 3. connect points c1 and c2 with a line, 4. find the midpoint of the line c1–c2 and make a perpendicular at this point to line c1–c2, 5. the intersection of the two perpendicular lines (described in steps 1. and 4.) yields point c3, which is the centre of the reconciling sweep.

The fact that the joinery is anything but sloppy (or perhaps better: irregular) does not mean that the design itself was also careless. Let's take, for example, the buildings of the Incas, the pyramids of the Egyptians or Neolithic Stonehenge. Despite the considerable irregularity of the stone components used, astronomers still find remarkable precision in the assembly of these structures. The same is also perfectly true today — aesthetic aspects aside, it actually does not matter whether the floor in flats and offices is made of boards or tiles of varying dimensions, as long as it is level and sufficiently even. So why waste a good material? The oldest shipbuilding manuals very rarely mention the width of the planks, if at all, as opposed to their thickness and sometimes the minimum length required for more "strategic" components of the structure.

Well, fine, now that it's “all” cleared up, I at least have a smooth excuse not to spend a perverse amount of money on the decent quality copies of source material needed to prepare free presentations after all. I'm off back to my favourite 16th and 17th century (and European archives ).

Ah, you may have spoiled my surprise, but perhaps that's for the better, as the further fate of this very venture is quite unclear indeed. On the one hand, you might have had it easier, as we have discussed the issue privately before, yet, on the other hand, with your watchful eye for shapes you yourself must also have noticed the striking resemblance to French light craft of Louis XIV's time, such as the frigate l'Aurore 1697 (body plan shown in the thread on the Mary Rose 1511). Now, I would still like to say that people, while attempting similar analyses, usually focus on comparing dimensions, which is completely missing the point. After all, absolute dimensions, just like many of the proportions, are simply determined by a kind of circumstances which have little in common or being quite independent of design methods, as you pointed out above.

Indeed an excellent article (and easy to find online) — many thanks, Chapman. In a convenient, compact way, it provides information that creates the necessary historical context for this issue. I have also refreshed myself with the content of the related section in The 32-gun Frigate Essex (1799) by Portia Takakjian, published 1990, however, it looks like, that in terms of today's state of knowledge regarding the design methods employed by early American designers, the statement just made by Brewington in his 1948 paper is in fact still relevant:

The document is available online for anyone interested (see link below), just only up to page 162 of the manuscript. In a malicious twist of fate, the page with the data for Randolph 1776 is already on the next, first page of the non-accessible part of the whole document, that is 163–164. And the archive wishes USD 37.50 for making one scan of this double page available. Funny. Historical Society of Pennsylvania: DAMS : Volume/Folder : Principal Dimensions [1719-1828] [10581] Under the circumstances, I won't even bother to approach the other archive (the navy) for a better copy of the original ship's plan anymore, and I think I'll give up on this project altogether. It's a pity, because the results and conclusions of this investigation could be really interesting, and actually unknown or unrealized until now. More precisely, I already have near certainty about the design methods applied in early American ships, nevertheless, adequate input material is obviously needed to present this adequately.

Thank you, Tony. Yes, I have this publication in my home library, as well as probably all of Chapelle's other major works. Indeed, there is a wealth of interesting, important and useful information about this frigate (actually the whole frigate series) contained therein. Nevertheless, I intend to do something that even Chapelle himself did not do, which is to reverse-engineer the design of the Randolph, and to do this I need a copy of the original design in the best possible quality, as opposed to later redrawings which necessarily distort the original somewhat and, worse, somehow lose very important details found on the originals. By the same token, British-made plans of these early American ships are also unsuitable for my purposes. The point is that I have some observations about the presumed design method used (in a conceptual sense) and I would like to take a closer look at this for confirmation (or otherwise) of these presumptions. They may explain why the American designs were marked by such a specificity of shape rather than another.

Thanks, Wayne. Nonetheless, I'm already having some doubts as I've noticed in several places in the document that ‘foremast’ has been reworded to ‘foremost’ (and the other way round) and in addition, for Randolph itself, the distance between decks seems to not match the draught (5‘ 2" versus 5‘ 7"). And, almost forgot, the Randolph is listed in the title as a 23-gun frigate instead of 32-gun one.

This is most probably the only US ship (frigate) from the Revolutionary period for which original plans have survived. Admittedly, they are available online, but the quality is not the best, as it appears to be essentially a scan of aged microfilm of not very good sharpness, so a lot of the detail is blurred. Does anyone have a better copy than the one available on the archive website? In addition, does anyone have and can provide a good quality scan of a page from the Joshua Humphreys' notebook concerning this very frigate? Granted, this page is already transcribed and available (as is the entire manuscript), but I would nevertheless like to verify the numerical data, which is quite easy to get wrong in the process. Besides, what does the term ‘hanging gundeck’ mean? The stated value on the transcribed page is 1 foot 7 inches. The copy of the draught itself available at: https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-65000/NH-65618.html And reproductions of both mentioned above items:

Thank you also for that last entry, Trevor. Some interesting, previously unknown details, giving useful context and enriching the overall picture. As for your reservations about your text, well, that's my personal experience too, as well as probably that of many authors in the world. I've even accumulated quite a few things that I myself would like to improve on in my past publications, be it paper or on-line, nonetheless one usually doesn't go back to it anymore, just creates new things... There is simply no such thing as absolute perfection and this has to be taken into account. But that's still not at all bad, like completely abandoning further attempts or research. I'm also glad to hear that you've remained a fan of the field despite the different paths your career has taken .

Oh, also a mention that I am familiar with one of your publication, indeed already decades old, yet still relevant and I actually use it as well. Attached below for convenient access for possible readers. Trevor Kenchington, The Structures of English Wooden Ships: William Sutherland's Ship, circa 1710, 1993: Kenchington Trevor - The Structures of English Wooden Ships - William Sutherland's Ship, circa 1710 - 1993.pdf

I'll say frankly that I enjoyed the spirit of that post, especially the observation (if I understood it correctly) that for effective puzzle solving in this particular field, even the closest interdisciplinary cooperation, which can work so well in most other fields, may not be enough. The way I see it in practice is that, to oversimplify somewhat, historians usually have no idea about engineering, engineers usually have no idea about history (including the history of shipbuilding), on top of that one still has to know several languages (written period sources!), geometry, know CAD software for the necessarily personally conducted tests, be critical, persistent and enthusiastic, and so on. Ideally, it all just should be in the same head, if possible. And well, yes, I have read somewhere that the term "Fragments of Ancient English Shipwrightry" for Baker's manuscript has been in reality coined by Samuel Pepys a couple of decades later . Indeed, today's translators do particularly badly with Germanic languages for some reason. I don't think I can help much, except that, if necessary, I can sometimes try to describe something in other words, in the hope of a better automatic translation. But that's also one of the main reasons why I generally reduce the volume of text in favour of graphics.

Nevertheless, I would still like to show a quite fresh paper (a 2023 publication on the very important shipwreck of the Lomellina of 1516), which exemplifies the way in which archaeologists up to now actually evaluate shipwrecks in an attempt to reconstruct their shapes. In the shortest terms, missing conceptual elements, such as the rake of the posts or the rise of the decks, are borrowed from some manuscript of the period that is deemed adequate (which may still be appropriate in itself, albeit under certain conditions), yet further on this attempt is reduced to merely manipulating the cross sections to just get the hull shapes as smooth as possible, and by the modern method of synchronising hull lines, which has little in common with the methods of the era. And nothing more, no effort to deduce the true design method that was actually used by the ship's builders. Personally, I have no objection if someone is satisfied with such archaeological evaluations, however limited in their aims, scope and methods. But by being carried out in such an unambitious manner, they certainly cannot clarify perhaps the most important issues, namely those related to ancient ship design methods. On the other hand, such a state of affairs is also the result of a generally poor level of knowledge in this area, and this, in turn, precisely of the pernicious influence of today's doctrines which, through their misguidedness, have in fact only led to practical impotence or stagnation and a consequent lack of progress in this kind of research. I am thinking in particular of the today's doctrine of shipbuilding by ‘feel’ or by ‘eye’, i.e. with virtually no conception whatsoever (yet so convenient for humanistically profiled scholarship), and the doctrine of the ‘spontaneously or independently born English school of design’ (yet having just been virtually stripped of its alleged ‘evidence’), and this still conceived in a frighteningly orthodox manner. However, just to repeat — if someone is nevertheless satisfied with such a take, there you go. Max Guérout, Beatrice Frabetti, Filipe Castro, Revisiting Lomellina, 1516: The Hull Shape, 2023: Guérout Max, Frabetti Beatrice, Castro Filipe - Revisiting Lomellina, 1516 - The Hull Shape - 2023.pdf

Oh, and then there's this a kind of very abbreviated variant of the latter work mentioned above in the form of an article in one of the periodicals. Rivera Vaquero Isidro José - Aproximación al sistema de Jorge Juan referido al aparejo de los navíos españoles, 1753 - 2011.pdf