More Cannon Questions on Mayflower

     To put your query on Mayflower's guns in some sort of context, the following, by Dr R C Anderson is relevant "When I was asked to prepare a design for a model of the Mayflower, I was obliged to say that, to the best of my knowledge, such a thing was impossible - although I could produce a model of a ship about the right size and type."  Of the guns, he writes "I gave the model twelve guns, eight minions and four sakers, and I was glad to find that the actual contemporary guns, which are now at Plymouth, Massachusetts, agreed very well with the shape of the guns in the model."  If true and their provenance is established beyond doubt, then there is the answer to your query - either visit or contact the Plimouth Plantation, 137 Warren Avenue, Plymouth, MA 02360 USA.  The ship was, incidentally, apparently very old in 1620; Dr Anderson speculates that it may have been part of the English merchant fleet in 1588!  His model is that of a ship c.1600.

     There follows a list of references, of which you may wish to take advantage:

     a.   Mariner's Mirror, Vol.XII, No.3, July 1926, which contains Dr Anderson's article.

     b.   "The Mayflower and other Colonial vessels" by Wm Avery Baker, who designed the replica which was sailed across the Atlantic to Plymouth in 1957.  This vessel was built in Brixham, Devon from July 1955 and launched in September, 1956.  The book contains much that is of interest - a glossary of terms, description of early ship design and building, rigging with description and sizes, mast and spar dimensions and research sources. There is also a page headed "Plans for Modellers" shewing Mayflower II on four sets of plans to 1/8in. scale.  There are also plans for other craft of the period. Conway Maritime 1983, ISBN 0 85177 286 2.

     c.   "Give me a Ship to sail" by A Villiers, who captained the voyage in 1957 - a seaman's point of view, with several photographs. Published by Hodder and Stoughton, London 1958.

     d.   Plans Ref. MM444 (2 Sheets with a 12 page leaflet on the construction of a 1/72 scale model of the ship, solid up to the lower deck.) by R J Collins, who made his hull a trifle more full and with a little more planksheer than usual - in view of the vessel's age, i.e. a vessel of c.1580.  He also speculates that the guns may have been carried as part of the ballast.  I wonder if the guns  were intended for defence of the settlement, rather than defence at sea.  Given the likely age of the vessel one wonders whether the recoil of such weapons (though relatively small) in a sea fight, might not have done more damage to the Mayflower than to the enemy! Try www.Modelboats.uk or write to Magicalia Publishers Ltd, Berwick House, 8-10 Knoll Rise, Orpington, Kent BR6 0EL, England. I hope this helps.  Good luck. Flitch.

Jake this the kit by Trumpeter correct ? When I did mine I used Model Master Acryl Aircraft Interior Black.Then dry brushed  Model Master Metalizer Burnt Iron.I think I've got some pictures  I could send you if that would help.

Rod

Hi Rod,

Yes pictures would be a help always ready to learn from a seasoned Pro.

Jake

jbgroby@charter.net

Several Mayflowers have been found that sailed at that time, and one was fitted up by the City of London for service against the Armada in 1588. But nearly all of these are listed with different tonnages, and even taking the looseness of measurements into account, its also doubtful a forty year old merchant ship would be sailing in 1620.  Mayflower was probably built sometime between 1600 and 1608.

     Re Woodburner's interesting input on 16/17th century ship design, I have to admit to the grievous error of being ambiguous - apologies.  I did not mean to suggest that Collins' Mayflower plans were of a ship c. 1580, but that the design harked back to that period.  To be fair to Collins,  he writes "It (his design) differs from the more usual in being a trifle fuller and having a little more planksheer.  As justification of this latter point, we must remember that she was a very old ship, and it has been suggested that she was in the merchant fleet that fought against the Armada thirty-two years before her most famous voyage." 

     I take the point made by Woodburner about similarly named vessels of varying tonnages,  but I find it difficult to accept that Dr. Anderson would have overlooked such a major factor  when postulating that the vessel may have been afloat in 1588.  This is only six years after Matthew Baker's "Fragments of English Shipwrightry" c.1582.  He was not responsible for every ship afloat, only those which he was contracted to build.  Shipwrights were notoriously guarded about their "certes", i.e. the formulae they used to determine both the hull-shape and sailing properties of their designs: future employment depended upon both elements being successfully wedded.  When all is said and done, Mayflower was a merchantman; surely, when building, the emphasis would have been on capacity.  Shipwrightry was a very competitive business and it seems unlikely that Baker's peers would have been willing to adopt his formulae without evidence of its superiority over existing methods.  It is conceivable, therefore, that Baker's formula would have taken a while to become "perceived wisdom".  Thus, it is not beyond possibility that Mayflower was 32 years afloat by 1620.

     I am no expert, but it seems to me that, while Mayflower II reflected the planksheer of Matthew Baker's plans in "Fragments, etc.", the hull (framing) of the replica vessel appears  somewhat narrower than that shewn in the 16th C work.  It is a matter of record that Mayflower II rolled violently, lacking ballast.  I am simply suggesting that Collins' remarks about a fuller hull should not be dismissed too lightly.  Best wishes, Flitch

The question of hull proportions, and how they are employed on modern reconstructions, is very sound. As you mention, historic shipbuilders adhered to individual formulas, protected within the guild structure of their craft, and favored on the ideas of each individual.   Baker had one formula, Harriot had another, and so on. 

RC Anderson's was one of the earliest reconstructions, developed in the middle 1920s, by a pioneer in the field. He said he could only reconstruct a vessel of about the right size and type, as in the 1920s little rigorous research had been undertaken.  

William Baker's reconstruction sailed across the Atlantic without engines, is nicely balanced, has a strong visual presence, and manages to look acceptable even with the extra feet of height that resulted from the increased headroom.