Waldemar

In short, soldier words: make an educated guess and choose at the most „modest“ 24-pounder for your schooner‘s bow gun. Better don‘t count on general historians sporting national bias who have usually no idea on period or modern artillery (assuming a 48-pounder or a 68-pounder is just their guess, not derived from the sources). Generally speaking, Paixhan work is more on ideas, rather than on actual practice. That's my advice. Thank you.

Sorry to say, but this is not contemporary document, just modern interpretation sporting many, many grave mistakes… Please don't waste your time on this drawing, unless you have some other goals. Sorry again. Waldemar

Philemon, From what has been already said (for example – about availability of materials, or unknown shipwrights‘ choices in many detailed aspects), it is quite clear, that all attempts to make a perfect, true reconstruction of any particular 17th-century ship are doomed from the start (with the possible exception of the special case – the „Vasa“ of 1628). Papers by Fred Hocker are perhaps among the most enlightening publications on this issue. Yet, hopefully, your (and other researchers) efforts would allow still better reconstructions, i.e. closer to the reality. Sometimes such efforts give definitive answers, sometimes just warn about various possibilities, and both of these I consider valuable contributions. This is my point of view. Keep on, Waldemar

Whatever you have meant (please be more specific), it is hard to imagine a thorough study on Dutch shipbuilding, or even only a reconstruction attempt of a large 17th century Dutch warship, while ignoring one of the most relevant source artefact – Hohenzollern model. Waldemar

Jan, You are perhaps too hard on these works. As it is, we are still waiting for a single book – scientific, thorough study on shipbuilding, giving alternative solutions, authoritative, impressive, comparing design principles used in different periods/regions, embracing their influence on the differences in ships construction, with no shortcuts nor any mistakes, be it Dutch or otherwise. Hopefully, someone‘s efforts will produce such an ideal book in the near future. Do you perhaps know of any attempt to produce such a single study? … And I have just compared the plates from the books by Dik and Winter. No visible signs of plagiarism you are suggesting. Greets, Waldemar

While I do have reprints of both Dutch shipbuilding treatises in my home library, they are not always the first-choice books to be consulted (Langerveld 1971 edition for van Yk, and van Wijnen 1994 edition for Witsen; but now their digital copies must be available on the internet too). Sometimes other works have a preference, and among them: – A. Hoving, Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age, 2012, which may be regarded as the most readable, clearly arranged interpretation of the methods described by Witsen, – L'Art de batir les vaisseaux, 1719 (Omega 1990 reprint), which is – in effect – a shortened, but still useful compilation of the Dutch works, provided one would not need extremely detailed shipbuilding manual (although in French, it is still written from the strictly Dutch point of view), – G. C. Dik, De Zeven Provinciën, van Wijnen 1994, which should be regarded perhaps as a practical, impressive application of the „manual“ by van Yk, rather than its comprehensive interpretation in the Ab Hoving style. Besides, there are many more modern works: by H. Ketting, H. N. Kamer, E. Rieth, to name a few, which possibly should not be excluded from someone‘s research or analysis. For a number of reasons, I would be probably unable to enter discussion each time, or on the very detailed level, but perhaps you may wish to consider the following, taken from l’Art de batir les vaisseaux: 1. Length of ships (refers to your post #6) It is rather shortly explained on page 19, that the usual length/breadth proportion for the warships is 4:1 (or similar) indeed, and for the merchantmen more – as much as 5:1 for many fluits. Even a sample fluit with the ratio of 5,45:1 (120 feet : 22 feet) is mentioned on page 16. Today, one would be tempted to take it as a simple rule to follow – shorter warships and longer merchantmen, and to judge it from the perspective of the true/untrue statements. But should we? Personally, I consider this statement as a reflection of a general trend only, and from this point of view – perfectly valid. Such approach is not even violated by reading a document from 1628, concerning a captured merchantman, which was considered fit for the naval service, but only after lengthening of its hull. 2. Keel’s bend (refers to your post #22) It seems that you consider the intentional bend of the keel (in the newly-built Dutch ships) always in the downward direction. Nevertheless, on page 71 of l’Art de batir…, one can read, that some (Dutch) shipwrights profiled this bend in the upward direction (hoping the keel would later get straight under the cargo weight), and that other shipwrights built their ships with straight keels from the start, arguing it is better for the ships‘ behaviour when sailing (as if they ignored the phenomenon of the longitudinal distortion of the ship’s hull). Cheers, Waldemar

Seems very true, and may explain many apparent „anomalies“ found today in the ancient shipwrecks. Somehow this conclusion escapes our minds all too often. It should be perhaps repeated over and over again, clearly, loudly, and in large letters. Cheers, Waldemar

Hello, I find your in-depth analysis of both Dutch works on shipbuilding very interesting. Perhaps the most instructive is to see how various parts of the ships are dimensioned, usually taking into account their practical, structural context, rather than using more or less „theoretical“, conceptual approach. Or, in other words, that the ships are seen perhaps more as an assembly of real, structural parts, rather than a body in a geometrical, ie. conceptual sense. P.S. It would be much easier to read if you would remember to insert empty lines between paragraphs. Cheers, Waldemar

Druxey, I am pretty sure you would succeed. Motivation only is needed... ... except consultation on the Model Ship World forum of course. 🙂

Wefalck, many thanks for your entry and interesting explanations. While the translation itself, with the invaluable help of Uwe, Druxey and Cirdan, is already done, you may have just given a possible clue to the author's identity of this document, which is so far unknown. Supposed Swedish linguistic influence in this script may point to the only non-German member of the Naval Commission (a body administering the fleet) – a Swede, Gabriel Pose. This is perhaps a path to explore, although there are so many other possibilities... Deciphering a hand-written document in gothic script was really a challenging, almost traumatic experience. Happily, this document is mostly an easy-to-grasp listing with not-too-many different words, only frequently repeated. But, somewhat troublesome, notoriously differently spelled. The ship's name, "Arca Noë", is a good example. In one place it is written as "Arhnahe" (or "Arhnohe"), and in the other – "Archÿ Nohe", as you can see below (Daß Schüff Archÿ Nohe genandt). Typically, cast-iron barrels would burst into many extremely dangerous fragments (just like the hand grenade would), in contrast to bronze ordnance, which would only open (split) in one spot, while still remaining in one piece (provided there was not much tin in the alloy, as in bells). This is why gunners usually preferred bronze guns. Cheers, Waldemar

🙂

My pleasure, Druxey! … and must admit, that our brain storm succeeded beyond my expectations. I am sure the outcome is close to perfection now. Cheers, Waldemar

Proudly presenting the results of our efforts: This year, out of the iron guns on the ships, five burst: on the „Arca Noë“ – 1 iron 3½-pounder gun, 3 iron guns burst on the ship „Sankt Georg“: one 5-pounder gun and two 6-pounders, 1 iron gun burst on the ship „Meerweib“; a 6-pounder. [also] 1 bronze falconet split in half in action. 1 small bronze falconet fell overboard in battle. (I have preferred "bursting" for brittle cast-iron, and "splitting" for elastic bronze ordnance) 🙂 Power!

Well, I consider the work done. Accepted almost all your suggestions ("bursting" instead of "distributing" too, thanks Uwe). The rest of this document is a quite simple-to-apprehend listing of ships and their artillery armament. Thank you very much again for your input. Much appreciated. For those curious, I have found this document lately in the Swedish archives in Stockholm, and am preparing it for the first-time public presentation. It contains much of the yet unknown data, not even available from the official documents: this is the exhaustive listing of all the fleet’s ships with their complete artillery armament. The fleet national aspects are quite interesting, and may look even strange today. Perhaps you wish to guess its (nominal) nationality? – created on the order, and mostly acted on behalf of the Swedish-born ruler, – built by German shipwrights, under supervision of a Scotsman, – administered by the Naval Commission, based in German-speaking, semi-independent city, with German-speaking officials as its members (almost exclusively), – commanded by German and Dutch-born admirals, – manned mostly by German-speaking crews, – documents concerning the management of the fleet, and the correspondence between its owner and the administrative body as well, were all in German (just as this spy report). Would you try?

Oh my …! Druxey, Uwe! What a script! Ye dredded speltcheker stryked yettagan… And no typewriters already in 1628? So many traps...

Well, this is hopefully the last mystery to be resolved: Could the phrase „5 Stück sind gesprungen“ mean „5 guns are split (ie. distributed)“ or rather „5 guns burst“? The first meaning perhaps more in line with historical context, but the second meaning linguistically more probable. Or: In diesem Jahr seindt auf den Schiffen 5 eiserne Stuck zersprungen allß auff der (Arh nahe?) 1st meaning: This year 5 iron guns were distributed to the ships, all of them to the [ship] Arca Noë. 2nd meaning: This year 5 iron guns burst on the ships, all on the [ship] Arca Noë. Which one is more convincing? Cheers, Waldemar

😊 I much liked the second, situational story...

Uwe, again much needed relief… Must confess, that I have surrendered the efforts to translate the original ships‘ names, which are always found in German in all extant documents anyway. Besides, as you have already noticed, it is too tricky. There is hardly any ortography in this script, and the word‘s meaning must be derived from the context as well. Let alone my transcription mistakes. „sheist“ – this is a seemingly correct transcription, but I have replaced it with „shiest“, just to avoid controversy you have remarked. „… in der Schlatedt Zwey gesprängen“ – I have taken it losely as „… in der Schlacht [in] zwei gesprungen“. I suppose, the word „gesprängen“ (meaning „burst“), should be even transcribed here as „gesprungen“ directly. „der Ahrnahe“ – this is perhaps the worst. I am thinking on it now… Cheers, Waldemar

😃 Druxey – the Eagle Eye, thank you so much...

Druxey, (un)fortunately, it is a longer document – some six pages long. In this way you have prompted me to show yet another fragment, asking for your help, although in this case I am pretty sure of my understanding/translation. But perhaps I am wrong, please check: (my) transcription: In diesem Jahr seindt auf den Schiffen 5 eiserne Stuck zersprängen allß auff der Arhnahe. 1 Eiserneß Stück scheist Kügel von 3½ tb 3 Eiserne Stuck sind auff den Schif Sanct Görgen gesprängen 1 Stuck schoß Kügel von 5 tb, 2 dito schosen Kugel von 6 tb 1 Eisern Stück ist auff den Schiff Mehr Weib gesprängen schost Kügel von 6 tb 1 Metallen Falconetel ist in der Schlatedt Zwey gesprängen 1 Kleineß Metallen Falconet ist in der Schlaht über bordt kommen. attempted translation: In this year (ie. 1628), 5 more iron guns were distributed to the ships comparing to the last year [, of these]: 1 iron 3½ pounder gun, 3 iron guns were allocated to the ship „Sankt Georg“, (namely) one 5-pounder gun and two 6-pounder guns, 1 iron gun was assigned to the ship „Meerweib“ – 6-pounder [also] 1 bronze falconet has blown up in two in the [last] battle 1 small bronze falconet has fallen overboard in the [last] battle It is important to make it right, so please do not hesitate to intervene… Cheers, Waldemar

Druxey and Uwe, I have elected to use your suggestions. Taking the term „zue besagen“ as „zu besorgen“ („to provide“), and considering the general, ie. historical context, here the final(?) translation: Der Weise Hundt bedarff 12 Stück von 4 oder 5 tb eisen. Auff diese Weise seindt die Schife mit Stücken von nethen zue besagen. The "Weisse Hund" needs twelve 4 or 5 pounder guns. In the same way (all other seized/arrested) Dutch ships are to be provided with guns. If you would not deny its compatibility with the original text, I would keep it this way. Cheers, Waldemar

Uwe, thank you very much again for your much helpful efforts. And yes, it may well be a German-Dutch linguistic mix, a sort of lingua franca of the southern Baltic harbour-cities (for instance – „van“ instead of „von“ in this document). This document relates to an earlier, most devastating conflict of the era – the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), mostly a land warfare, but with some naval „accents“ too. Greetings, Waldemar

Hello Chapman! Many thanks for your input. You are perfectly right. Nevertheless, I would like to clarify why I have chosen otherwise. Please take a look at the other, more typical sample of this document (incidentally much more easier to interpret): (my) transcription: No 6. Daß Schüff Mehr Weüb 4 Metallen Stück süßen Kugel von 3 tb eisen 2 Metallen Stuck schißen Kugl von 2 tb 2 Metallen Barsen schißen Kugl von ½ tb 2 Eiserne Stuck schißen Kugel von 6 tb 2 Eiserne Stuck schißen Kugel von 5 tb 2 Eiserne Stuck schißen Kugel von 3 tb 4 Kleine Stein Stück mit Kammern Suma der Metallen undt eiseren Stück 18 Mangelen Stck 2 As can be seen, there are indeed both „kinds“ of guns listed here: bronze („Metallen“), (cast-)iron („Eiserne“), and perhaps even wrought-iron guns (4 small breechloaders, most probably swivel guns). Please also see the word „eisen“ (in red) at the end of the 2nd line, which must refer to the material of the roundshot („Kugel”). This way the gun type was clearly defined – long barreled true bored cannon capable of shooting roundshot, in contrast to other types of ordnance, most importantly langridge-shot guns („Schrot Stucke” in this document) – usually light, short and with conical bores. At least I imagine so… Cheers, Waldemar

Druxey, you have touched my sensitive spot: is it better to keep the original flavour of the script (by translating it literally as much as possible), or perhaps to make it more natural for the modern reader? Must confess, that I still can not resolve this issue, but am gradually leaning to your suggestion... Thank you, Waldemar

Hi Rodolfo, As this is one of my most favourite ship of the entire galaxy, I follow your building log with the utmost curiosity. Good work. Thanks!