Most certainly not similar to the Constitution

Chuck Fan wrote:

I grant you that fleets made prodigious strides during the 3 (Three ) Anglo-Dutch wars.  The largest ships of the fleet both increased in number, and approached 18th century second rates in nominal muzzle count and weight of single broadside, if not in actual firepower.  However, the bulk of the battle line even after the thrid Dutch war was still made up of ships that were no more than half way between a typical ship of the first war and the small 64 gun third rate of mid-to-late 18th century.   Indeed, the fact that the largest ships of 1690 battle line had indeed approached or equaled the nominal muzzle count of later first rates only served to distort the average and disguise the comparative feebleness of the ships that made up the bulk of the battle line even as late as 1690. Let's look at the French fleet of Beachy Head in 1690.  The French at the height of Louis XIV generally built extravagantly in size and gun power compared the Dutch and English, and their fleet better serves to illustrate the still very significant difference in size of the bulk of the ships of the battle line then and those of the line 100 years later.   The French battle line in question consisted of 79 ship totaling 4600 guns, including swivels.   I don't know how many were great guns and how many were swivels, so let's include the swivels in the tally as well.  We find the French fleet mounted on average 57 guns per ship, swivels included.   However, in the French fleet were 3 120 gunners and 5 other ships mounting over 100 guns.   If we remove these atypical Premier Rang Extraordinaires from the average to better see the average size of the majority of the battle line, we find the remaining French battle line mounted only 51 guns per ship, including swivels.   The boardsides of a later 74 would certainly not count any swivels or musketoons, nor would they count the big carronades that would not be invented for another 100 years.   So while big prestige ships such as Royal Luois and other Premier Rang Extraordinaires proliferated, the bulk of the battle line was still made up of much smaller ships than would never be continenced in the battle lines of late 18th century.  In fact, the fmuzzle count of the median ship in the battle fleet of 1690 has not grown very dramatically over those of the 1st or second Dutch war.    For the average ship in the battleline, the growth that occurred between the first Dutch war in the 1660 and the war of Grand Coalition in 1690 would have to more than double before the umbiquitious 74s of the Napoleonic war can be matched. P.S.  The Dutch did build 3 deckers.  15 of the them in fact, between ~1685 and ~1710.   But it is true that they built none both before or after that period.

Well, I have never heard of a Dutch three-decker from any period, let alone the Anglo Dutch wars.  You may be thinking of ships like 'Gouden Lieuw,' the flagship of Cornelis Tromp, but that in fact was best described as a 'two and a half decker' of some 86 guns.  Yes, there were a lot of smaller ships in the fleets, but when you look at the numbers of the largest in each fleet, you will begin to see what I am talking about.  As far as actual firepower for these big boys (80 gun plus), the lower deck was normally equipped with 'Cannon of Seven,' which are 42 pounders, while the first rates of Nelson's time (and the British and French 74's too, though Spanish first rates and under were usually equipped with 28's!) were equipped with 32's (Victory was originally designed for 42's).  The main reason for this was a 32 was quicker to reload, but that doesn't mean much when you were facing the first blast!  There were reports of ships actually sinking after being hit with just ONE broadside from a ship like 'Royal Sovereign', and it was common during these battles for commanders to have to shift ships a number of times as each became wrecked by gunfire (Cornelis Tromp was forced to change ships at the Texel so many times, the the English commanders asked if there was one, or three Tromps fighting that day!). 

 Each of these comparative monster ships formed a 'hard point' in the line, which was reinforced, and formed a reinforcement for the lighter ships.  But just because there were lighter ships in the squadron was no excuse to shrink from battle, and many times several of these 'smaller' 50 gun ships would team up to take and destroy a large first rate (this is what happened to the first rate 'Royal James' at the battle of Solebay).  Also, your 'averaging' of guns per ship is suspect as well, as there were quite a number of small scout ships for all fleets that might only have a dozen guns or even less, and fireships are also included in the total number of ships involved (and a typical Dutch fleet at the end of the Anglo Dutch wars would have at least a half dozen or more of these).  And when you compare that with the Dutch Fleet at the beginning of the First Anglo-Dutch war, in which by far the largest ship in the Dutch fleet was the converted Merchant ship 'Brederode' of only 54 guns, I think you will agree that your 'averages' are more than a bit scewed! 

 Essentially, by the last of the Anglo-Dutch wars, there were few ships in the line on either side that carried fewer than 50 guns, and most were in the 60-70 gun range, and the same was true at Beachy Head.  Add to that that there were literally as many as a hundred ships or more per side, and you get an better idea of what I am talking about!  And the 'smaller' 60-70 gun ship was a standard lineship until the end of the 18th century (the Spanish navy at the beginning of the 18th century was equipped entirely with 60-68 gun ships, and was essentially completely destroyed by a pretty standard British squadron of 1 x 90, 2 x 80's, 8 x 70's, 7 x 60's, 2 x 50's and 2 frigates at Cape Passaro in 1718; such would not have been the case if the opponent was Dutch!)

Interesting

I grant you that fleets made prodigious strides during the 3 (Three ) Anglo-Dutch wars.  The largest ships of the fleet both increased in number, and approached 18th century second rates in nominal muzzle count and weight of single broadside, if not in actual firepower.  However, the bulk of the battle line even after the thrid Dutch war was still made up of ships that were no more than half way between a typical ship of the first war and the small 64 gun third rate of mid-to-late 18^th century.   Indeed, the fact that the largest ships of 1690 battle line had indeed approached or equaled the nominal muzzle count of later first rates only served to distort the average and disguise the comparative feebleness of the ships that made up the bulk of the battle line even as late as 1690.

Let's look at the French fleet of Beachy Head in 1690.  The French at the height of Louis XIV generally built extravagantly in size and gun power compared the Dutch and English, and their fleet better serves to illustrate the still very significant difference in size of the bulk of the ships of the battle line then and those of the line 100 years later.   The French battle line in question consisted of 79 ship totaling 4600 guns, including swivels.   I don't know how many were great guns and how many were swivels, so let's include the swivels in the tally as well.  We find the French fleet mounted on average 57 guns per ship, swivels included.   However, in the French fleet were 3 120 gunners and 5 other ships mounting over 100 guns.   If we remove these atypical Premier Rang Extraordinaires from the average to better see the average size of the majority of the battle line, we find the remaining French battle line mounted only 51 guns per ship, including swivels.   The boardsides of a later 74 would certainly not count any swivels or musketoons, nor would they count the big carronades that would not be invented for another 100 years.   So while big prestige ships such as Royal Luois and other Premier Rang Extraordinaires proliferated, the bulk of the battle line was still made up of much smaller ships than would never be continenced in the battle lines of late 18th century.  In fact, the fmuzzle count of the median ship in the battle fleet of 1690 has not grown very dramatically over those of the 1st or second Dutch war.    For the average ship in the battleline, the growth that occurred between the first Dutch war in the 1660 and the war of Grand Coalition in 1690 would have to more than double before the umbiquitious 74s of the Napoleonic war can be matched.

P.S.  The Dutch did build 3 deckers.  15 of the them in fact, between ~1685 and ~1710.   But it is true that they built none both before or after that period.

 

Chuck Fan wrote:

No doubt more ships and more men participated during the pitched battles of the Anglo-Dutch war than during battles of the later wars of the sailing age.    But that must be offset by the fact that during the anglo-Dutch wars, the average warship is a converted merchantman, and the battleline carried on average about 30 - 40 guns a ship.   By the end of the 18th century, almost all major warships of specially designed, purpose built for war and even 64s are deemed too small to stand in line.    During the Anglo-Dutch wars both sides threw what is effectively the majority of their battlefleet like battering rams against each other in single pitched battles, where as during Napoleonic wars, the far larger navies are strategically dispersed to multiple key points so that only a fraction of the main battlefleets are engaged in any one battle.    So of course the scale of the naval war was far larger during the late 18th - early 19th century than during the Anglo-Dutch wars even if more ships and more men may have met at a single location during the earlier war.

Well, it all depends on WHICH Anglo-Dutch war you are talking about! Certainly your commentary holds true for both sides in the first war (there were three!), but by the beginning of the second, the English had discovered and employed the line of battle with its three divisions (van, main, rear), and used it most effectively against the Dutch.  The Dutch caught on by the end of the second war and did likewise.  Same goes for the ships involved.  In the first war, MOST of the Dutch ships were in fact converted merchantmen, and a large portion of the English ships were as well.  But by the end of the second war, the merchant ships were pretty much gone from both fleets (with the exception of fireships), and the English fleet had a over a half dozen first rates from 90 to over 100 guns each, as well as a large number in the 70-80 gun range (50's were used much like frigates in the 18th/19th century).  The Dutch never built three-deckers (their harbors couldn't take them), but by the third war, they had a dozen 80-84 gun two deckers that were just about as big as anything the English could throw at them, plus dozens more in the 60-70 gun range, and all were purpose-built warships designed to fight in line-ahead formation.  You might note that at Trafalgar, Villeneuve's flagship was 'only' an 80 gun two decker!  True, these wars didn't take place in such widely-scattered areas as did the later Napoleonic wars, but there were still a number of 'incidents' that took place in the Caribbean, the US East Coast, and elsewhere (such as the retaking of New Amsterdam by a Dutch squadron, De Ruyter's squadron cruising in the Caribbean, action in the Med involving the Smyrna convoy, and raids by both sides along the West Coast of Africa).  Essentially, all the tactics and strategies used in the 18th and 19th centuries had their source in the Anglo-Dutch wars (convoys, blockade, line of battle, sub-divided squadrons, purpose-built warships, etc.)

No doubt more ships and more men participated during the pitched battles of the Anglo-Dutch war than during battles of the later wars of the sailing age.    But that must be offset by the fact that during the anglo-Dutch wars, the average warship is a converted merchantman, and the battleline carried on average about 30 - 40 guns a ship.   By the end of the 18th century, almost all major warships of specially designed, purpose built for war and even 64s are deemed too small to stand in line.    During the Anglo-Dutch wars both sides threw what is effectively the majority of their battlefleet like battering rams against each other in single pitched battles, where as during Napoleonic wars, the far larger navies are strategically dispersed to multiple key points so that only a fraction of the main battlefleets are engaged in any one battle.    So of course the scale of the naval war was far larger during the late 18th - early 19th century than during the Anglo-Dutch wars even if more ships and more men may have met at a single location during the earlier war.

 

 

 

 

GeorgeW wrote:

Hi Bryan, I was half expecting a response from you, yes that's the piece, the stern counter from the Royal Charles. Must have been some guy that de Ruyter, talk about a Nelson Touch. ps: How's the Prince coming along?

Reference De Ruyter, yes, he was an amazing Admiral, and vastly unrecognized in these modern times.  Frankly, I would rate him much higher in skill than even Admiral Nelson, as he was involved in literally DOZENS of enormous fleet actions, and usually successfully.  It's funny to think about it, as Trafalgar consisted of about thirty major warships on each side, yet the Battle of Solebay had a combined French/English fleet of 74 major warships against a (victorious!) Dutch fleet of 62, and hardly anyone recalls the action at all.... the Four Days Battle pitted 85 Dutch warships against an English fleet that eventually numbered at least 74 major warships over a period of four days!!  Yet Trafalgar is still credited as the 'greatest' of sea battles!  And finally, when De Ruyter and his fleet not only sailed up the Thames and the Medway and destroyed or carried off a major portion of the English fleet, but actually REMAINED there for over a MONTH, blockading the Thames, terrorizing London, and raiding up and down the river at will!  Yet so little is written of this period...sigh!!  Speaking of the 'Royal Charles,' I remember seeing a very large scale model of this ship (in her earlier Cromwellian guise of 'Naseby' in Earls Court London at the boat show about ten years ago.  I think the scale must have been about 1/50, as it was about 5' long, was made of resin, and not only was remote controlled (they had a big indoor pool set up with fans for wind), and could tack and wear by radio, but had internal lighting, and a sound system with recording of seagulls, creaking spars and shouting seamen.  Remarkable!!  I spoke to the owner briefly, who was an elderly gent, and he told me he had spent about ten years building it from scratch.  Such dedication!

kapudan_emir_effendi wrote:

I'd suggest the wonderful book "Anglo-Dutch Wars of 17th century" from Palgrave publishing to everyone interested with that crucial conflict. This makes a sound re-evaluation of the three wars. BTW, ships very similar to Batavia were prowling the waters off Dardanelles and Crete at roughly the same time period, under the Venetian flag. Dutch/Scandinavian captains were reaping huge profits from hiring themselves to Venetians and seriously spoiling Ottoman war effort, which at the time, was besieging Candia

Yup, that is a good book, and an even better one (and much harder to find these days!) is a book called 'Great Ships, the Battlefleet of King Charles' by Frank Fox.  Chock full of period drawings and paintings!!  The problem with building a Dutch warship like 'Zeven Provincien' is that the Dutch at the time built their ships 'backwards' to now considered normal ship-building practice.  Normally, a ship is built by laying the keel, setting up frames, and then planking.  Dutch practice is to lay and clench the planks first, up to the level of the main wale, and then insert frames, keel, and other structural members afterwards!  Sounds weird, but it is a classic example of the inherent conservatism of shipwrights the world over!  Ships had been built this way in the North of Europe all the way back to the Viking Longships, and so, the Dutch ship-builders continued the tradition right up until the mid-18th century.  One big benefit of this method, is that it inherently produces a very flat bottom and shallow draft for a given size/type of vessel, which was and is incredibly important in the shallow waters of the Netherlands coast.

I'd suggest the wonderful book "Anglo-Dutch Wars of 17th century" from Palgrave publishing to everyone interested with that crucial conflict. This makes a sound re-evaluation of the three wars.

BTW, ships very similar to Batavia were prowling the waters off Dardanelles and Crete at roughly the same time period, under the Venetian flag. Dutch/Scandinavian captains were reaping huge profits from hiring themselves to Venetians and seriously spoiling Ottoman war effort, which at the time, was besieging Candia

Hi Bryan, I was half expecting a response from you, yes that's the piece, the stern counter from the Royal Charles.

Must have been some guy that de Ruyter, talk about a Nelson Touch.

ps: How's the Prince coming along?

GeorgeW wrote:

Hmmm, I'm not too sure about that, the last time the Dutch sailed into one of our naval dockyards they ran off with our Flagship! ps: Can we have back the bit of it that remains please.

You mean this???

 

 

Uhm.....no.

(sorry, couldn't resist )

 

GeorgeW wrote:

Hmmm, I'm not too sure about that, the last time the Dutch sailed into one of our naval dockyards they ran off with our Flagship! ps: Can we have back the bit of it that remains please.

 

 

I was wondering why the Victory has been bolted down to the dry dock.

 

Hmmm, I'm not too sure about that, the last time the Dutch sailed into one of our naval dockyards they ran off with our Flagship!

ps: Can we have back the bit of it that remains please.

GeorgeW wrote:

When you're 242 years of age, the replacement of iron by fibreglass may be a welcome relief on your venerable old decks

 

Well, only 17% of the Victory is 242 years old, and most of that is in her keel.   I understand well over half of her dates to after the 1850s.

But it would be something if the two can come together.   If the new Zeven Provicien can one day sail to Portsmouth and meet the Victory in person, and the two ships, roughly forming the opening and closing brackets of the great age of the line of battle, can come together to shake hawsers. 

 

 

 

 

When you're 242 years of age, the replacement of iron by fibreglass may be a welcome relief on your venerable old decks

searat12 wrote:

I understand however that they have had to start all over again with 'Zeven Provincien,' because it seems the old Dutch style of ship building is still a lost art.  I would be very interested to see any new photos of 'Zeven Provincien' you have, as I am very interested to see how much they have had to compromise the design (hopefully, it will look just the same, and you wouldn't notice a thing until you went below to look at the frames and futtocks).

 

She was still just an incomplete set of herring bone frames plus a few bottom planks last december.  Stern decorations were being made in the workshop.  They had to start over again with the frames because they got the shape of the bow wrong the first time around.    They plan to cast her guns in metal, and not resort to the fiberglass stuff aboard the HMS Victory now.

 

Hello all -

Here's an older thread on Batavia - there are pix of the Revell kit, as well as links to pix of the full-size replica:

/forums/618439/ShowPost.aspx

The Revell model is indeed a very good representation of the replica.

Jose Gonzales

'Batavia' is fully complete and in sailing condition, but the EU won't let her sail in Europe (she is too original!).  They put 'Batavia' on a transport ship out to Sydney Australia for the Olympics some years ago, and they sailed her there ("Nyaah Nyaah EU!!").  Revell Germany makes/made a model of 'Batavia' which is a pretty accurate representation (gotta hunt for one though!).  I sure hope they do the same such time as 'Zeven Provincien' gets launched!  An awesome ship, and a most suitable period opponent for you fans of 'HMS Prince' by Airfix!  I understand however that they have had to start all over again with 'Zeven Provincien,' because it seems the old Dutch style of ship building is still a lost art.  I would be very interested to see any new photos of 'Zeven Provincien' you have, as I am very interested to see how much they have had to compromise the design (hopefully, it will look just the same, and you wouldn't notice a thing until you went below to look at the frames and futtocks).

I'll try and get some more photo's of the Batavia and the Zeven Provincieen up sometime this week.

Julian

Chuck Fan wrote:

Was there last December, my head bore a lump for 2 month afterwards from striking the deck beam on the 3 foot spice deck.

Aha ! The evil old spice deck, well you are not alone in having tried to move the deck beams by head

Julian

By all means yes!! I am just about to start building the Revell Mayflower and would love to see a ship od a simular period

Was there last December, my head bore a lump for 2 month afterwards from striking the deck beam on the 3 foot spice deck.  Can't wait for the Zeven Provincieen.  I want to be there in 2015 when she is ready.  Just imagine, a ship of the line that actually sails. 

 

Let's see, three masts, some gunports...just like the Constitution!

Nice pictures.  Thanks!

Mark

 

More pictures are always welcome. Good to know that there is such a beauty just around the corner!  Is it still being built? It looks so complete from the outside.

SD