Revell's large scale Spanish Galleon and English Man o' War

Thanks for posting this picture, I just picked up two of this on E-Bay.  It's looks like I need to cut away a cople of layers of the stern to lower it down a bit.  I am cutting open the lower gun ports now.

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the followup. I was wondering how you made out with them.  After having read all this, I'm inclined to agree with you.  Unless I see some wood-cut or engraving of a ship with those precise lines I think I'll pass on any eBay auctions for either of them.

Troy

 

ps - I hear ya about the Lee Galleon... I got one sitting out in the garage waiting to be built :)

Troy,

Welcome!  I read your posts with interest, although I sold both kits on ebay.  They were far too weird to be taken seriously as representing real ships.  But, given the naval architecture of the times, perhaps they do represent something.  I much prefer the Lee/Aoshima galleon!

Bill Morrison

Looking at the pictures again (the next day), I need to reconsider my opinion of last night.  The rigging of the two ships are very similar, and they both have 2 stern galleries, but the engraving has a much lower profile than the model. 

 

That enormously high stern of the model makes me think it was more likely a Spanish ship, or, if it was based on an English ship, a ship from a time before the later "race-built" galleons.  It could be the ship was modelled on a spanish ship for the spanish galleon and then later fitted with rigging based on an english ship for Revell's Man O War packaging. 

 

I'm still looking this morning for some historic example of a Spanish ship which may have had that style of body.

Hi Bill (and everybody)

I know this thread is pretty old, but I've been looking at these models recently myself and came across this discussion.

 

I think I found a possible source for the English Man O War ship.  I saw an image in "New Vanguard 149, Tudor Warships Part 2, Elizabeth's Navy - Osprey 2008" page 7 has a picture at the top right with a caption: "A stern view of the same English galleon depicted opposite, from Wihelm' Dilichi's Kregsbush (Frankfurt 1610)."

I googled for "Wihelm' Dilichi's Kregsbush" and came up with this http://cgi.ebay.at/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400208774000 , an auction for a 1689 Dilich KriegsBuch.  Check out the 11th picture down.

(I pasted in a url to the image below, hopefully it doesn't disappear over time).

 

Here's a version of the Man O War that somebody's built.

The two ships are almost identical.  The only difference I've seen so far is the bow.  I'm in the process of trying to find a copy of "Kriegsbuch Wilhelmi Dilichii"  (I guess that translates as "Wilhelm Dilichi's War Book"  to get a positive make and model of the ship in the engraving.

I'd kinda thought the model was too fanciful to be a realistic old galleon, but now I'm thinking otherwise.  If anybody else has any other info, I'd love to hear more myself.

 

Troy

The Kirsch book has been fantastic!  I recommend it highly for anyone building or researching Galleons.  I also recommend the New Vanguard series booklet Spanish Galleon, 1540 - 1690. It is a nice little reference as well.

Bill Morrison

Drive on Bill!  The Kirsch book is one of my favorites, and I hope it has given you some assistance....

Luckily, although shipbuilding was more art than science in the 16th through 18th centuries, I am finding that the Spaniards did provide a tremendous written record.  For example, the Spanish government issued a series of detailed instructions specifying exactly what they meant by the term "Galleon".  According to Kirsch, and to Konstam, we know the proportions, their armaments, their provisions and how they were fitted out.  We also know how they were built.  There is also a wealth of pictorial evidence of what these ships looked like and there is a large amount of archeological evidence to support the documentary evidence.  But, there are no available plans of specific ships, only artwork.

The more I read, the more I am finding that the Revell kits are not so comical.  The common hull used in both kits closely match the 4:1 length to beam ratio stipulated by the Spanish government. There is pictorial evidence showing similar hulls, as well as models built throughout the period in question.  The sails seem wrong; Professor Tilley said earlier in this thread that the typical ratio for spars was that each spar was roughly 1/2 the length of the one below it; that seems an appropriate observation based on the period models of Galleons in Spanish museums and the pictorial evidence found in period artwork.  Additionally, the armament seems correct in these models for the period in question, as do the fittings.

In short, both kits can be said to be the basis for a suitable generic model of a Spanish Galleon of 1588.  However, the model named "English Man o' War" does not match English ships of the period, either in proportion or in detail.  One point of interest in the "English" kit is the bonaventure mizzen mast.  Another point of interest are the double stern galleries found on both kits; there are many paintings showing this basic hull configuration with two, one, and no stern galleries.  This could be an interesting way to build both kits into respectable models; build one with either one or two galleries and the other with none.

In other words, I think that it can be done! It may take a lot of work, but I believe that these kits can be made into respectable ship models of generic Spanish Galleons.  I thank everyone who steered me towards the several references that I am now using.  This was quite a find; both kits for $1.00.  Incredible!

Bill Morrison

jtilley wrote:

I've often thought that a generic model would make a refreshing break from the habit of slavishly following detailed plans and documents.  One of these days I want to build a generic fishing schooner or tugboat, put all sorts of interesting, fun, generic details on it, put my wife's name on the stern, and see how many observers figure out what I've done.

 

I've built a couple of "generic" ship models myself, both radio-controlled working models in the region of 1/48 scale. One is a mid 20th century tugboat (completed a few months ago - you can see it here, the other is a small 1890s steam yacht, and is about 50% complete so far. You're definitely right that it makes a refreshing change from endlessly checking plans + references, and allows you to use a fair bit of imagination + creativity in painting and finishing!

I don't have any problem, personally, with building a generic/"freelance" model of a 19th or early 20th century merchant ship (sail or steam) or any sailing vessel up to the early 19th century - virtually every vessel was different (if not when built, then later on in its life) and documentation and plans - at least that readily + affordably available to the public - is relatively poor. My two freelance working models are basically "composites" of other ships which I have photos + reference material for, adapted to fit the hull + fittings that I have available. The tug is mostly based on the "Furie" produced as a kit by Deans Marine (and which I have a set of plans for) and the "Portwey" preserved at West India Docks in London, whilst the steam yacht is a composite of the 1890 "Maid of Honour" and 1904 "Medea".

Back to the subject of the thread, I would buy at least one of the Galleon/Man o'War kits without hesitation if I saw it for $1, if only as a source of spare parts like crew, cannons, spars and fittings! It does seem to me, from looking at photos of built examples, that it could be kitbashed into a reasonably convincing if not totally accurate model of an English 16th century galleon. I'd probably not instantly recognise a model built from one of these kits, modified or otherwise, as I've never actually seen a built one "in person"  - but it's presumably a lot more common and well-known on the other side of the pond. However, as I have the Airfix Golden Hind + Revenge kits, and the Imai Spanish Galleon, all still unbuilt, I'm in no hurry to acquire another 16th century ship for the time being!

This thread has been very interesting to read, however, and I'll keep it in mind if I eventually do acquire one of these kits - it's just the sort of thing that might turn up at a car boot sale (garage sale to US readers) for a few pounds after the previous buyer gave up on building it.

I can't believe it!  I think I found evidence of what Revell might have patterned these hulls after . . . there is a mid-16th century model of a Spanish galleon in the Sanctuario de Nuestra Senora de Consolacion in the Andalucian town of Utrera that shares the same hull lines and similar proportions to those of both Revell kits.  I found the photograph of this model in the New Vanguard Series book Spanish Galleon 1530 - 1690 from Osprey Publishing on page 8.  The same hull lines reappear in a color plate of the San Esteban, 1554, although that picture shows a different sail plan than that included in the kits.  Also, the cannon found in the kits match several of those relics pictured throughout the book.  I'm beginning to believe that I am making some progress.

Bill Morrison

Bingo!  The trick was to break up the fleet formation so the artillery could do the business, and by multiple ships against individuals.....

The major effect of the eight fireships was to disperse the Spanish fleet, leading to the culminating battle off the coast of Gravelines.  In this segment of the overall battle, the English ships caused tremendous hull damage to the Spanish ships through their devastating cannonade.  The Spanish ships suffered many shot-holes rendering many of them unseaworthy. The storms completed the work begun by the English.

For example, the Spanish flagship, the San Martin, became detached from the rest of the Armada.  She was immediately set upon by Drake's squadron, led by Revenge.  After Drake finished, the San Martin was set upon by Frobisher's squadron, led by Triumph.  By the time Frobisher was finished, the San Martin had suffered over 200 penetrations by English shot and was in danger of foundering.  Her Chief Purser, Pedro Coco Calderon wrote that, "The holes made in her hull between wind and water caused so great a leakage that two divers could hardly stop them up with hemp caulking and lead plates, working all day." 

Although San Martin survived, this account shows that English shot was effective.  Similarly, the San Felipe and San Mateo were reported "so low in the water their loss was expected soon after the battle."  In fact, several warships were sunk as a result of damage caused by English gunnery, including the large galleon Maria Juan.

So, it wasn't until the fireships that the English had a chance of inflicting major damage.  When the Spaniards were dispersed, the English were able to inflict tremendous damage, resulting in the loss of several key warships and heavy damage to most of the others, rendering many of the Spanish fleet barely seaworthy.  The storms finished the job.

Bill Morrison

It is impoirtant to remember the Armada was also composed of a number of different ship-types, with wildly different sailing performances.  These included not just galleons, but galleases, huge carracks, urcas and others as well.  As a fleet is only as fast as its slowest ship, you begin to see the problem faced by the Spaniards.  It was essential for the Armada to stay together and in formation, which meant there was no room, or opportunity to sally out for battles with individual English ships, as this would either put at hazard the many troopships with the fleet, and/or allow that individual Spanish ship to be overwhelmed by a number of English ships closing in for the kill.  The English were under no such constraint, and kept up a fairly constant level of harassment by individually darting in, firing one broadside, tacking or wearing around (firing either the bow chase or stern chase guns as they bore), then firing the other broadside and retreating away to reload (Elizabethan cannon were much harder to reload than later models).  All that said, the English really didn't inflict much damage the whole way up the Channel (though they burnt up a LOT of gunpowder!), and it was not until they launched a fireship attack against the anchored Armada in the Spanish Netherlands that the Armada became seriously affected, and of course, the rest of the destruction was up to the weather.

Given that I am interested in scale models of ships and not caricatures of ships, perhaps I should simply recoup my $1.00 loss by selling these kits on ebay for $75 to $85 each; that way I can drink a lot of sangrias or margaritas while building the Revenge!  Ole'!   

Just kidding.  I really want to find a way to turn these parodies of ships into real models.  Although I am continuing to research galleons, please keep your suggestions coming! I am really enjoying your comments.

Bill Morrison

woodburner wrote:

I think jtilley's revelation that both Revell models were meant as decorative "ship models" rather than scale models is exactly the point. They represent the romantic idea of a galleon, not the historic one. So they have wild, exaggerated features. If you accept them as that, they then can be fun to build. Put Herb Albert's "Lonely Matador" on the stereo, have a few sangrias, and go to town. Its 1972 all over again. But if Revell sent its folks off to Culver City to research at MGM or Warner, they were going into an intense studio library laden with several decade's worth of reference material. They were bound to find a few real things in all that. The models' beakheads are actually quite good, for example. The high sterns, with the double galleries, may also be influenced by an actual 1594 Dutch engraving of a very large galleon, also shown in Kirch's book. So even here there are faint echos of something real - but only faint ones. So while the models are basically decor items, they have value as showing how ships have been viewed in popular culture. That's quite valid in itself - and anything that lets you drink sangrias while building it can't be all bad. Ole'! Jim

I'll drink to that, if only because ships, and perhaps railroads, exist in the popular imagination, as it was once a great thing, as much as they are documented, IMHO.

I think jtilley's revelation that both Revell models were meant as decorative "ship models" rather than scale models is exactly the point. They represent the romantic idea of a galleon, not the historic one. So they have wild, exaggerated features.

If you accept them as that, they then can be fun to build. Put Herb Albert's "Lonely Matador" on the stereo, have a few sangrias, and go to town. Its 1972 all over again.

But if Revell sent its folks off to Culver City to research at MGM or Warner, they were going into an intense studio library laden with several decade's worth of reference material. They were bound to find a few real things in all that. The models' beakheads are actually quite good, for example. The high sterns, with the double galleries, may also be influenced by an actual 1594 Dutch engraving of a very large galleon, also shown in Kirch's book. So even here there are faint echos of something real - but only faint ones.

So while the models are basically decor items, they have value as showing how ships have been viewed in popular culture. That's quite valid in itself - and anything that lets you drink sangrias while building it can't be all bad. Ole'!

Comparing the written accounts of the English and Spanish Armada experiences of the Armada is interesting in that they illustrate the frustrations of The Duke of Medina Sidonia and Admiral Howard, the two in command of their respective fleets.  Remember, the Spaniards saw naval warfare as encounters in which the opposing ships would grapple each other and the battle decided by hand-to-hand combat; the English had no such desire, instead, choosing to stand off and engage in gunnery duels. The Spaniards arranged their fleet in a crescent with many of their most powerful warships on the horns for mutual defense.

The English, on the other hand, were loathe to attack the highly disciplined Spanish fleet.  Howard wrote, "We durst not adventure to put in among them."  If the English moved in close, Howard believed that he would give up any advantage that he held.  He therefore decided to use his superior speed to nip at the Spaniards' wings as opportunity arose.  Even his flagship Ark Royal was nimble enough to dash in, fire her broadsides, and evade.

Medina Sidonia, on the other hand, wrote, "Their ships are so fast and nimble, they can do as they like with them."  Given the superior speed of the English ships, the Spaniards could not force a battle, especially battle as they intended.  The English warships were simply too fast for them.

We must consider, though, that the regular warships were supplemented by many armed merchant ships.  John Hawkins may have reconstructed older warships and influenced the designs of newer ships, but he had no impact on privately owned merchant ships.  Many of these remained as slow and cumbersome as those of the Spaniards, who also supplemented their huge fleet by impounding those merchantmen in Spanish ports around their empire.  Even many English merchantment were impounded.

In short, the English warships were generally faster and more maneuverable than their Spanish warships. This fact influenced the entire course of the battle, giving the English one important tactical advantage.  The Spaniards were typically more heavily armed and were more cumbersome. This, too, reflected a favored style of fighting. They, too, held an important tactical advantage, that of maintaining a disciplined and powerful fleet that the English were reluctant to attack in force.  It was the Spaniards who owned the freedom of deciding where in England to attack; the English could only shadow and attack in pin-prick fashion while the Spaniards maintained their discipline.

Bill Morrison

Thank you for your good knowledge gentlemen.

In the early '90's the architecture firm I worked for designed and built the new International Terminal at the airport in San Francisco. The signature items were 380 foot long trusses spanning the departure hall. We found the perfect place to have them built- the erecting halls at Mare Island, which had been decommissioned.

It seems that in the heyday of building submarines, in the 20th century, these vast halls were used to fabricate the frames on a smooth floor, with the patterns laid out at full size.

It makes me feel pretty secure that most drawings of ships previous may best be considered design intent.

 

 

Well, you are all right about any sort of accurate period plan for a galleon, at least of the Elizabethan variety, as the art of drawing ship plans was very much in its infancy in those days.  The art of shipwrightry back then was very much an art, not a science, and no two ships were ever built alike.  Ships were built one at a time, with few actual measurements of any reliability, and mostly depended on the shipwrights skill and 'eye.'  The whole name 'galleon' actually comprises a number of vaguely similar ship-types, and the design could vary considerably depending on what use it was intended for, who built it, when and where.  While it is a commonplace to talk about all English galleons being low 'race-built' affairs, in fact several of them were just as burdensome as those used by the Spanish, with 'high-charged sides,' etc, such as the 'Ark Royal.'  Probably the best reference I have come across for all things galleon from the time of the Armada era is a book by Peter Kirsch named 'The Galleon, The Great Ships of the Armada Era.'  In it are plans, proportions and other specifications drawn from such references as Mathew Baker and many others as well........

I understand that it would be a stroke of exceedingly good fortune to find an actual plan of an actual galleon.  That was an era when many master shipbuilders built "by eye" or intuition.  But, I wonder if there are reliable manuscripts similar to that of Baker's showing first-hand drawings, paintings, or sketches not only of the ships but of general layouts, fittings, and equipment.  I am not referring to romanticised artistic works, of which there are many.  It would be an interesting find!

As for your final point; given that I have studied naval history extensively, those kits do look ridiculous. That is why I started this thread, to draw further upon the knowledge of my modeling peers to help with ideas to make these things less ridiculous.  Therein lies the challenge! 

Bill Morrison

For a good, general, and reasonably up-to-date overview of the story, take a look at Cogs, Caravels, and Galleons, ed. Richard W. Unger, the relevant volume in the Conway's History of the Ship series.  The bibliography contains some Spanish sources that I haven't seen.  Probably the best, and certainly the most detailed, book specifically on galleons is Galleon:  The Great Ships of the Armada Era, by Peter Kirsch.  That book, the illustrations in which are outstanding, concentrates on English and other Northern European ships; it isn't so useful regarding Spanish ones.  Of the modern attempts to reconstruct Spanish galleons, probably the most believable one I've encountered is in The Spanish Armada, by Colin Martin and Geoffrey Parker, a big, well-illustrated history that was published to coincide with the anniversary in 1988. 

But don't expect to find any reliable, contemporary plans of Spanish galleons.  I'm about ninety percent confident in asserting that there simply aren't any - partly because modern conventions for drawing plans hadn't been established in the sixteenth century.  And be warned - the more time you spend studying good sources (both primary and secondary) about this subject area, the more ridiculous those two old Revell kits are going to look.

Thank you, bondoman, for your comments!  Also, I feel obliged to note jtilley's allusion to his being unable to prove what is wrong about these kits; I believe that our goal as serious modelers should be to prove that which is correct about a given ship model. This perspective then leads to a dilemma concerning these kits; how can one go about proving that the hull dimensions and spar dimensions are correct given the sparcity of primary source materials?  The discussion in this thread has caused me to start perusing the secondary source materials at my disposal, hoping that I can find some appropriate reference to primary sources.  Even a reliable secondary source would be helpful.

Bill Morrison

jtilley wrote:

(I'm tempted to add another one:  "tall ship."  It's utterly meaningless except in the minds of marketers.)

It's first a rather romantic term, with credit to John Masefield, a wonderful poet.

Very good post, as usual I've learned alot. I feel like an audit student over at the local College.

As far as building one's own fantasy, it's an intriguing idea that was very popular in model railroading some decades ago, for a variety of reasons. Now the market is absolutely flooded with so many relatively accurate models of every railroad that is or ever was that it's much more rare.

See John Allen's Gorre and Daphetid

But it did always have the great benefit of instant innoculation from the rivet counters.

Personally, no - largely because that hull shape is instantly recognizable as that of the two Revell kits.  (I've never seen anything else that looks quite like it.  A model based on either of those hulls would scream "Revell Spanish Galleon!" at me - and, I suspect, at lots of other plastic sailing ship enthusiasts.  Maybe even at all twelve of us.)  And the overall proportions, to my eye, simply aren't believable; the overhang of the stern structure looks ridiculous.

Here, however, we are deep into the area of personal taste.  Nobody knows for sure what a real Spanish galleon of the Armada period looked like.  None of the responsible reconstructions I've run across bears much resemblance to that Revell shape, but I can't prove that it's wrong. 

Also - I've never seen a model that was based (heavily modified) on either of those kits by a modeler who really knew what he/she was doing.  Maybe it could be done.  A big part of their (to my eye) preposterous appearance has to do with the malproportioned sail plan.  Replacing the masts and yards with new ones to late-sixteenth-century proportions might make quite a difference.

I really think, though, that it would be easier to start from scratch. 

Some people seem determined to look for means to justify badly-designed sailing ship kits.  (The various Forum threads dealing with the Heller Soleil Royal are full of posts from people trying to convince themselves that the proportions and details of that kit might - just might - be right.)  I've never felt any inclination to operate like that.  But we're deep into the realm of personal taste and interest here.  To each his own.  As warshipguy has noted so many times, there aren't many plastic sailing ship kits on the market these days; I guess I can't blame anybody for feeling reluctant to discard any of them.

I thought that it would be appropriate for me to provide a brief synopsis of the differences between Spanish and English galleons of 1588, since both kits claim to represent ships of the Armada era.

Most frontline warships of the time were broad-beamed in proportion to the length of their hulls, with enormous castellated superstructures fore and aft.  These "castles" functioned as siege towers from which soldiers would fire down onto the deck of an enemy ship that had been grappled alongside.  The combination of low length to beam ratio and the effects of the castles rendered such ships to be very difficult to maneuver and they were very slow.

When John Hawkins assumed a degree of control over Elizabeth I's navy in the 1570's, he began a series of ship reconstructions to lengthen the ships and cut down those awkward castles, using the highly successful Revenge as his precedent.  His goal was to improve the navy by making the ships more highly maneuverable and faster than its opponents.  Whereas the fighting doctrine of the day emphasized grappling and boarding, Hawkins believed that maneuverability and rapid-fire heavy gunnery from a distance was to become more effective.  By 1588, Hawkins' reconstruction program was complete.

As a result, at the time of the Armada, the English ships more closely resembled the "race-built" galleon depicted in the famous drawings by Matthew Baker (alleged to be  Revenge).  These ships were sleeker, narrower, and lower to the sea than their Spanish counterparts.

Therefore, the Revell kits cannot represent both English and Spanish galleons of 1588.  They are basically the same kit with minor differences.  They both have the low length to beam ratio found more likely in Spanish than English ships.  They both have the very high fore and aft castles, again found typically in Spanish ships. The detail differences between the kits have already been identified in an earlier posting and won't be dealt with here.

It is clear that the English kit is not an English warship of 1588; rather, she represents a Spanish ship with a different rig than the other kit.

That being said, does anyone believe that these kits are salvageable as Spanish Galleons of 1588?

Bill Morrison

And here is an example of a ship model made from bone (French prisoner of war ship model)

I think that there is one assumption that we can make from what is known; the kit purporting to be English is another variation of the Spanish kit. Given the major differences between English and Spanish ships of the period, modeling it as a generic English "Man o' War (whatever that term is supposed to mean!) is out of the question. I also like jtilley's comment that one can turn anything , even a beef bone, into a scale model. As an historian, I also appreciate his comment that the sources from which these kits are based would be essential to any appropriate build. 

Bill Morrison

I agree completely that adding any relevant qualifiers to the label of a "generic" reconstruction would be a good idea.  I think what's most important is to clarify that it is in fact a reconstruction.  One of my few complaints about the Revell Golden Hind is that the company gave the purchaser of the kit no hint of that fact, or any hint of the sources on which the model is based. 

Regarding the two big Revell kits - I think it's useful to rephrase the question slightly.  It is, of course, possible to turn virtually anything, up to and including a beef bone, into a scale ship model.  So maybe the relevant question is:  would turning these kits into scale models be substantially easier than working from scratch?  In my personal opinion the answer is no. 

One could, I suppose, argue that, because we know so little about real vessels of the period, there's no proof that the Revell kits are "inaccurate."  But a competent reconstruction needs to take into account the information that does exist.  Even taking into consideration the paucity of reliable information about Spanish and English ships of the late sixteenth century, the proportions of those hulls just aren't believable.  I'm sure some of the fittings could be put to good use in a scratchbuilt model, but if I were trying to build a model of an English or Spanish warship from the Armada period I'd literally rather start from scratch. 

I'll qualify that with my usual caveat:  to each his/her own.  I certainly have no business passing judgment on any modeler who wants to try it.  But from my personal standpoint, even given the much discussed absence of new plastic sailing ship kits on the market, there are enough to keep me busy for a long time without resorting to those two.

JTilley,

I do undestand what you are saying about generic ship models. I would have to grudgingly agree with your point that a well-founded and researched generic "Spanish Galleon of 1588" certainly has a place among better ship models.  I would refine that a little by stating something like "1000 ton Spanish Galleon of 1588" or "750 ton Spanish Galleon of 1588," etc.  Afterall, there were many designs reflecting the term "Galleon," in fact, the type can be somewhat differentiated by national origin as well as locale of the design and build.

That leads me back to the kits in question.  Can they serve as the basis of accurate generic builds?  Please tell me what you (or anyone) thinks.

Bill Morrison