Chapter IV: Preface: 11 (4)

Hence no new type of boat was characterized by this new denomination which was given in the second half of the XVIth century; it is the old form which, slightly modified, appears under another name. This is a fact which will be met with more than once further on. A comparison between the “Vlieboot”, (flyboat), the “Baertze”, etc., brings out the analogy between these vessels; the same holds good for the “Buss”. All these forms are derived from the “Cog”.

The “Flyboat” originated on the Zuider Zee. Its name seems to have come from the “Vlie” which was frequented by boats of this kind. These latter, as has been said, had reentering topsides, that is, convex in shape, hence it was more difficult to board them under these conditions and, consequently, their defense needed but a limited number of men; this was a matter of importance for merchant vessels.

[Sidenote: II 148]

[Sidenote: III 19]

Besides having a respectable cargo capacity, the “Flyboats” were also very handy. There is no doubt that they were the forerunners of the flutes, the merchant vessels _par excellence_ of the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries, which England and France borrowed from us.

There is in existence a beautiful reproduction of the “Flyboat” dating from 1647. It shows a relatively large vessel; judging by the beakhead shown which was not carried by our small merchant vessels. The beak had been adopted first in the Mediterranean; it is not, therefore, of Dutch origin. None of the old Dutch types had it, whereas those of the Mediterranean and, even those of the times of the Phœnicians already had them. (See, among others, ~Van Yk~, p. 103.)

Toward the end of the XVIth century the name of “Baertze” gave way to that of “Vlieboot” (flyboat), and at the beginning of the XVIIth century, arose the vessels called “Galioot” (galliot), “Noordvaerder”, “Kof” (kuff), “Smakschip” (smack), “Boeier” (tender), together with the flutes and square stern vessels. Still--and this cannot be too often repeated--the primitive forms do not disappear under these different names. The forms have been enlarged and a few exterior characteristics, as well as the rigging, have been modified. The different types just mentioned above have, therefore, as their main and fundamental character the old rounded bow. The vessels of the period under consideration could be divided into three principal groups: _a_) the square-stern ships; _b_) the flutes in the broadest acceptation of the word; and _c_) the “Kof en Smakschepen” (kuffs and smacks).

It is unnecessary to add that the vessels of groups _b_ and _c_ were round at the stern. Hence, the purest old Dutch types will be found in these two groups.

The XVIIth century is now reached, that century of glory and prosperity for our country, especially from the point of view of shipbuilding. However, before beginning on this period, let us look a little into what was the situation of shipbuilding abroad.

Let us begin with Spain, which was mixed up in our war for independence.

The Spanish naval architecture, which flourished after that of Portugal, felt undoubtedly and intensely the influence of the Mediterranean. The Spanish galleons and caracks recall the Genoese “nefs” and caracks, of which only a few old reproductions have been preserved, and which came up under the influence of relations with Northern nations.

In addition to the galleons, the galleys and the galliasses held an important place in the Spanish navy. The frequent use of vessels with oars made hand to hand fights quite rare and led to less frequent boarding among the nations of the South, this being the reverse of the practise among the Northern races.

The pictures of the Mediterranean vessels can be consulted to advantage in order to obtain an idea of the Spanish ships.

The sea power of Spain disappeared, as is known, with the Invincible Armada, in 1588. A summary description of this fleet will give an idea of the importance of the ships which composed it. It was made up of one-hundred-and-thirty-two vessels, of which (~Holmes~, p. 92) four were galleys, four galliasses, thirty vessels of less than 100 tons and ninety-four ships of 130 to 1550 tons. The round-stern ships had a total capacity of 59,120 tons. There were 2761 pieces of artillery and the ships companies contained 7862 seamen and 20,671 soldiers.

The English fleet had one-hundred-and-ninety-seven vessels, of which only thirty-four belonged to the royal navy, all the rest were merchantmen hastily equipped for war.

The largest English ship was the _Triumph_, built in 1561, of 1000 to 1100 tons burden and carrying three hundred sailors, forty gunners and one-hundred-and-sixty soldiers. It mounted forty-six guns. Besides the “Triumph”, the English fleet had but seven vessels of 600 to 1000 tons whereas the Spanish fleet had forty-five vessels of this size. The total of all hands of the English fleet amounted to 15,551 souls.

In this struggle Holland was with England; it was she that kept the Duke of Parma shut up at Dunkerque. The largest vessels of the Netherlands fleet were of 400 tons. Both in England and with us, merchant ships, which did duty temporarily as men of war, were leased for the war. This old custom of the Middle Ages still survived. Besides, it was all the simpler, at this latter period, to equip merchantmen for war, as artillery was still in its infancy or even unknown.

The following figures (~Holmes~, p. 95) show how much larger the vessels of the Southern States were than ours, as a rule. In 1592, the English captured a Portuguese _carack_ of 1600 tons, 165 feet between perpendiculars and showing seven decks.

In 1594, it was the turn of a Spanish _carack_ with 1100 men on board. When Cadiz was taken in 1596, two Spanish galliasses fell into the enemy’s hands; they were vessels of 1200 tons; the flagship “San-Felipo”, which was blown up measured 1500 tons.

A Portuguese carack of 1600 tons, called the San-Valentino, valued with her guns at a million ducats, was captured at Cezimbra in 1602.

Following our example, it is said, and as the result of “Kryn Wouterszoon’s” invention, the movable top-mast was adopted by the English during the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1588-1603). (~Holmes~, p. 86).

Up to this point, the ports were not only irregularly arranged, but the lower row was generally so low that those in this tier had to be kept closed if the sea were at all rough. In England, however, the tendency was to raise the lowest tier (~Holmes~, p. 96) and this example was soon generally followed.

France, whose ships so far had not yet appeared on the Mediterranean, began in the XVIIth century, under Richelieu (1624-1692), to develope her navy. Colbert continued this work with ardor.

It has been stated already, in speaking of the Mediterranean, that the older French ships were, in principle just like those of Genoa; until about 1650, galleys were more numerous than other vessels. The North of France and Normandy belonged only--and the old pictures show it--to the Northern Centre. This is by no means surprising, if the Norse invasion be remembered. Even now, boats resembling those of Flanders and of our own country are still found in the North of France.

Let us return now to the Netherlands.

After the discovery by Vasco da Gama, in 1498, of the route to the Indies and when Portugal had secured for herself the monopoly of trade in those lands, Lisbon became the centre of traffic of the world.

In those days, the Dutch sought in Portuguese ports the products of the Indies; but, in 1580, the Duke of Alba took possession of Portugal and annexed it to Spain. Nevertheless, we were allowed to continue our commerce with the former of these countries until 1585, when all our ships were confiscated.

Hence Holland was reduced to finding for herself a route to the Indies, and it was believed at first that this result could be found by way of the North. Four ships were fitted out for this purpose in 1594, two by Holland and two by Amsterdam. This undertaking failed as did also that of 1595 which was followed by the famous expedition of Heemskerk, Barends and van Rijp, which latter was also fruitless.

Meanwhile a route was sought by way of the South and the Cape of Good Hope. A fleet of four ships, under the command of Keijzers and Houtman started in 1595 and was gone for two years and a half. After a voyage of 446 days, the ships reached Bantam and visited Bali. The return required 168 days. This fleet carried a crew of 248 men.

The results of this expedition, while not brilliant, had, nevertheless, as a consequence, the formation, in 1602, of the East India Company which played such an important part in our history.

It is useless to add that these events had a decisive influence on the development of our naval architecture.

Up to the beginning of the XVIIth century, there was as yet no question of a war fleet properly so-called. Merchant ships were still hired and converted into men-of-war to meet contingencies. Our fleet was made up at that time of all kinds of types of vessels. Among them the square sterned vessels, called pinnaces, the “Vliebooten” or flyboats and the flutes were the most important. There were also some “Hekkebooten” and small “smaks”. So the three kinds of vessels already mentioned above are again found: viz: the square-stern ships, the flyboats and the smacks.

[Sidenote: II 149]

The old Zierikzee model gives an exact idea of the transition from the square-stern ship of the XVIth century to the one of the XVIIth. Although erring, like all the old reproductions, in regard to proportions, this model cannot fail to attract our attention to the marked slope of the stem. It was generally admitted at this time that the ship should draw the least water possible and have the stem strongly sloping, with an overhanging bow, so as to displace the water more easily or, as it was then said, to carry the water underneath and not around the hull. It was believed that the water was drawn under the sides (~Van Yk~, p. 353) and that the strongly raking stem allowed the boat to slide more easily over the water. (~Witsen~, p. 47, column 2 _in fine_.)

Later, opinion changed and then it was seen that the stem was brought more and more nearly upright until the XIXth century; the vessel thus gains in fullness.

Fürtenbach reproduces for us a Dutch vessel of the beginning of the XVIIth century; the counter, probably to avoid difficulties of drawing, is only sketched in by a few lines. It is seen that the after castle has increased in proportions, and that the part which separates the forward and after castles still remains uncovered. This kind of construction, due to the progressive development of the castles of the Middle Ages, only disappears at the end of the XVIIIth century, when vessels with two and three decks come on the scene.

The forward and after castles, in these last ships, are of the same height; in a word, they are strongly connected to each other and are formed of several superposed decks.

The rigging, too, has undergone new changes, by reason, no doubt, of the raising of the stern. The fourth small mast put up at this point gives way, especially, to a mast carrying a square sail and fixed at the end of the bowsprit. This mast was used only for steering the ship.

The vessels gained in size and the armament was improved by a more rational distribution of the guns. The following figures give the proof of this.

In 1596, a 200-last ship carried only 24 guns; one of 150 lasts carried 17 and one of 100 lasts had only 16 on board.

In 1616, 36 guns were mounted on a ship of 200 lasts; 28 on a ship of 120 lasts, then, in 1628, mention is made of a ship of 200 lasts armed with 39 cannon. (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, p. 396.)

Aside from the better arrangement for the guns, the increase of the artillery itself necessitated arming the forecastle and the poop. About 1639, the iron guns were replaced, to a great extent, by others of bronze, which allowed a greater number of pieces to be taken on board (~De Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 400), but these pieces were lacking in unity of calibre and volume. The later adoption of guns of more nearly equal calibre greatly increased the fighting value of the ships.

However great the progress made by our fleet may have been, it was still always inferior to the part imposed on it by a naval war. Hence it became finally a necessity to build war vessels properly so called and to give up fitting out merchant ships. Sixty new war ships were laid down in 1653. This first war fleet constructed in our country set sail in 1658. So the old mediæval custom, which consisted in appropriating merchant vessels to make them serve as men of war, became a thing of the past.

But this fleet was not sufficient by itself, and merchantmen had to do duty as transports. This is why these latter kept guns on board for their own defence.

[Sidenote: II 146]

The war ships mentioned above were called pinnaces and were made with a square stern as well as a large beakhead. Tromp’s flagship, the _Aemelia_ was a pinnace model.

[Sidenote: III 8]

[Sidenote: III 9]

[Sidenote: II 150]

The fleet was increased in a very short time, in 1664, by sixty new square-stern vessels. (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, p. 25.) The main point in view in building these ships (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, p. 27) was to provide our navy with vessels which, _so far as our passes and ports would allow_, should be at least as large and as powerful as those of the enemy. By reason of the depth of water in the passes, the number of their guns was placed at 60 to 80. Among these vessels, which were launched in 1665, was Van Ruyter’s well known ship _De Zeven Provinciën_.

For economical reasons, most of the ships carried iron as well as bronze guns; but Van Ruyter’s flagship had all bronze guns.

The following figures will give some idea of the increasing dimensions of ships.

In 1654, the largest ship measured 150 feet in length, 38 feet beam and 15 feet depth; it carried 58 guns. The next in size was 146 feet long, 26 feet beam and 14 feet deep; it carried 60 guns.

At the beginning of the second war with England, the two largest ships were 169 to 171 feet long. _De Zeven Provinciën_ 163 feet long, 43 feet broad and 15 feet deep. The next in size was 150 to 160 feet in length, 40 to 42½ feet in breadth and 15 feet in depth, etc.

So the length and breadth increased but the greatest depth of 15 feet did not change, as the depth of our passes was against any increase of the draft.

When later, the direction toward larger sizes was continued abroad, and the necessity of following this example was felt among us, the question of the draught of water became a problem which, more and more, called for the attention of our shipbuilders. The larger the ship became and the greater its capacity had to be, the draught of water being limited, put us in a position of inferiority in regard to the vessels of foreign countries which ran more easily under sail. No account had to be taken of shallow passes in those countries, consequently ships of finer form could be built there. (~Van Yk~, 1697, p. 353.)

When in 1682 the vessels which composed our fleet were divided into classes or “charters”, a depth of 16 to 17 feet only is given as the first “charter”. The first three-deck ships built in our country belonged later to this last class. Hence it is not a matter of astonishment that, in the long run, our war vessels had to yield before those of other nations which were steadily becoming larger. This state of affairs did not arise from any inferiority on the part of our shipbuilders but had its causes solely in the condition of our passes.

[Sidenote: III 13]

The difference of draught of water appears clearly if the dimensions of the largest French and English ships be compared with those of our largest vessel at the end of the XVIIth and beginning of the XVIIIth centuries. Their dimensions were as follows:

+---------------------+--------+---------+-------+
| | LENGTH | BREADTH | DEPTH |
+---------------------+--------+---------+-------+
| | m | m | m |
|for the Dutch ship | 49.28 | 12.88 | 4.86 |
| „ „ English „ | 49.41 | 14.33 | 5.64 |
| „ „ French „ | 59.91 | 14.29 | 6.61 |

By depth was understood the inside height of the ship measured up to the load-water line. (~Witsen~, p. 74, sub 9.) (See also Fig. XXXII, p. 56 of the same work, etc.)

A ship having a depth of 4 m. 86 required, with the height of the keel etc. included, a depth of water of at least 5 metres. Now, it is known that the depth of water over the “Pampus”, near Amsterdam, had already become sensibly less at the end of the XVIIth century. Large ships only succeeded in reaching that city at the cost of serious difficulties.

[Sidenote: II 238]

It was under these circumstances that a certain Meeuwis Meindertz Bakker, a native of Amsterdam, invented the “sea camels” in 1691, and by them vessels could be raised from 5 to 6 feet (~Van Yk~, p. 360.) These “camels” were straight up and down on one side, the other being fitted to the shape of the ship. Placed on each side of the vessel they inclosed it and formed a sort of floating dock.

Held between two camels which were securely fastened together, the ship was raised as they were emptied of the water which they contained.

These camels are very well shown in ~Van Yk~’s work, folio 360, as well as in “_Figures de navires et embarcations_”, 1831, pl. 35, by ~P. Le Comte~.

Small boats towed the vessel thus raised across the Pampus. As to the depth of water which existed at this place, Le Comte says, p. 38, that, at high tide there were 10½ feet (2.97 ells of the Netherlands) on the Pampus or “Muiderzand” and 9 feet (2.55 ells) at low tide. It was only at extraordinary high tide that a depth of 13 feet (3.68 ells) was to be had.

Later, ships drawing 19 feet (5 m. 38) could be brought to Amsterdam by means of camels.

But the situation was no better at Rotterdam. Here, indeed, is what is related by the builder ~Van Yk~, in his work of 1697, p. 14: “En waarlyk de wytheid der schepen is wel het voornaamste en beste middel om het ondiepgaan derselve te bevorderen, een saak die wy hier te Lande wegens de droogte of ondieptheid onzer zeegaten, ten hoogste dienen te betrachten; want (volgens ’t getuigenis van ervaarne en de diepte dezer zeegaten zeer wel bepeild hebbende loodsen) soo konnen met een gemeen geleide uit het Goereesche gat niet meer dan 20, uit Texel, omtrent ook soo veel en uit de Maas niet meer als 13 voeten diepgaande schepen worden uitgelootst. Waarom dan ook somtyds wel is komen te gebeuren, dat eenige, van ’s Lands oorlogs-schepen, soo nauw gemaakt en om zeilvoerens wil soo diep geballast zynde, met een dood getyde en Wind, tot Staats groot nadeel, niet konden ’t zee geraken, of daar al in synde, haar onderste geschut, omdat te naby ’t water lag, niet bruikbaar werd bevonden”[11]. And further on, at page 360, the same author says also: “Want soo heeft men al voor veele jaren, om onze groote en diepgaande schepen in zee te brengen, wegens de ondiepheid onzer _rivieren_ en _zeegaten_, getragt, waar ’t mogelyk, door ledig vatwerk, so pypen, als voedervaten, op te ligten en te doen ryzen. Dog was dit werk, om het byeen schikken der vaten, een ellendige talmerij en veel arbeids onderworpen”.[12]

According to the Reports of Proceedings of the Batavian Association at Rotterdam, 1850, pp. 94 _et seq._, the Briel pass was practicable only for vessels drawing from 3 metres to 3 m. 50 and larger ships had to go by the “Goereesche Gat” to reach Rotterdam, using successively the “Hollandsche Diep” and the “Dortsche Kil”. There was at these places, even at high tide, only a depth sufficient for a maximum draught of 5 m. 70. (See Dr. ~Blink~, “_Nederland en zijne Bewoners_”, Vol. I, p. 447.) Navigation along this route, furthermore, was difficult on account of the narrowness of the channel. It was this condition which made necessary the digging of the canal by way of Voorne (1827-1829). But in spite of this new navigable highway, the maximum draught of water continued to depend, none the less, on the depths to be found, at ordinary high tide in the “Goereesche Gat” and the “Stellegat”. These depths were respectively 5 m. 70 and 5 m. 20 (~W. F. Leemans~: “_De Nieuwe Waterweg_”, etc. _Gedenkboek K. Inst. Ing._ p. 13 and p. 130.)

[Sidenote: II 140]

[Sidenote: III 14]

The situation became more critical for the Netherlands navy as ships abroad increased their size, and meanwhile, foreign activity was redoubled! England gave to her navy four-fifths of the revenues of the Crown in 1656-1657, two thirds in 1657-1658, and nearly three-fifths in 1658-1659. (~Holmes~, p. 108.)

Four of the the largest vessels built during this period had a capacity greater than one thousand tons. In 1673, was launched _The Royal Charles_, a ship well known to us, which was taken later by the Dutch.

The largest number of English war ships still belonged, at this period, to the third class. The classification was stated as follows in 1666:

+-------+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| CLASS | LENGTH | BEAM | DEPTH | TONNAGE | GUNS |
| | OF KEEL | | | | |
+-------+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| 1 | 128-146 | 40-48 | 17.9-19.8 | 1100-1740 | 90-100 |
| 2 | 121-143 | 37-45 | 17-19.8 | 1000-1500 | 82-90 |
| 3 | 115-140 | 34-40 | 14.2-18.3 | 750-1174 | 60-74 |
| 4 | 88-108 | 27-34 | 11.2-15.6 | 12.8-17.8 | 32-54 |
| 5 | 72-81 |23.6-27 | 9.9-11 | 11.6-13.2 | 26-32 |
| \----------------V----------------/ |
| Dimensions are in English feet. 1 foot = 0 m. 3048 |

The year 1646 saw the first frigate built in England and in 1679 the bomb-ketch, built according to the model invented by the French builder Bernard Renan, was adopted.

After 1700, English naval architecture fell completely under the influence of that of France.

“It may truly be said”, writes ~Holmes~ (p. 114) “that during the whole of the eighteenth century, the majority of the improvements introduced in the forms and proportions of vessels of the Royal Navy, were copied from French prizes”.

Scarcely was a French vessel taken ere it was copied, but generally on a larger scale (~Holmes~, p. 114). Shipbuilding, in the mean time, had become wonderfully perfected, especially under the Ministry of Colbert (1661), after the first foundations had been laid by Cardinal Richelieu in 1630. Save for a few changes in detail, the rules laid down by Colbert were followed until the XIXth century.

In 1668, the French fleet numbered already 176 vessels, of which one of the most beautiful and famous specimens was the _Soleil Royal_. This fleet was organized on the same footing as that of Holland (~De Jonge~, Vol. III, part I, p. 114). Besides, there existed at this time but little difference between the French and Dutch types.

Dimensions increased greatly at the end of the XVIIth century, under the reign of Louis XIV. This can be seen in the following table, prepared by Barras de la Penne (1698).

+---------+------+-----------------+--------+-----+-----+-------------+ | RANK |Number| CALIBRE | | | | NUMBER | | AND | of | AND MATERIAL | LENGTH |BEAM |DEPTH| OF | | ORDER | Guns | OF THE GUNS | | | | BATTERIES | +---------+------+-----------------+--------+-----+-----+-------------+ | Ships of the line. | | | {1st battery, 8 of 48| M. | M. | M. |Three covered| |1st rank,| { the rest, 36| 56.01 | | |batteries, | |1st order|112{ 2d battery, 24|between |15.64| 7.64|poop, and | |Soleil | { 3d battery, 18|perpen- | | |forward | | Royal | {poop and topgallant |diculars| | |castle. | | | { forecastle, | | | | | | | { 12 and 18| 51.54 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Three covered| |1st rank,|70 to | bronze guns | 51.91 |14.29| 6.61|batteries, | | 2d order| 100 | | | | |castle, | | | | | | | |forward | | | | | | | |and aft. | | | | | | | | | | 2d rank,|60 to | bronze guns | 48.72 |13.47| 6.17| idem. | |1st order| 70 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3d rank,|56 to | ⅔ bronze | 47.47 |12.34| 5.68|Two covered | |1st order| 66 | ⅓ iron | | | |decks, poop, | | | | | | | |and forward | | | | | | | |castle. | | | | | | | | | | 3d rank,|40 to | ½ bronze | 34.22 |12.01| 5.41| idem. | | 2d order| 50 | ½ iron | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Do not come into line. | | | 30 | ⅓ bronze | | | | | |4th rank | to | ⅔ iron | 38.98 |10.55| 4.71| idem. | | | 40 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 18 | ¼ bronze | | | |Two small | |5th rank | to | ⅔ iron | 35.73 | 8.66| 4.55|castles or | | | 30 | | | | |only one | | | | | | | |aft. | | 8 | | | | | | |Frigates | to | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | | 16 | | | | | |

[Sidenote: II 166]

[Sidenote: II 169]

[Sidenote: II 15]

The progress made in naval architecture under the reign of Louis XIV is noted as follows in the work: _Le Musée de Marine du Louvre_. “The rake of the bow is less exaggerated, the after castle is lowered, the artillery is well distributed; the masts are better proportioned and the spread of canvas is much greater, as well as more handy, making the motion more rapid and the manœuvres more easy. The profusion and elegance of the ornaments have reached their highest point; they had the kind of poetry of the old chivalry. Everything in this navy already caused the perfection, which the ship reached quickly under the next two reigns, to be anticipated.”

Naval architecture took a great start. Many works were published, of which those of Bernouilli (1738) and of Euler (1749), treating of the stability of ships, are the best known.

The dimensions of vessels continue steadily to increase. Ships mounting 70 guns which, in 1715, were rated in the first class were passed to the sixth class in 1765.

The French fleet in 1750, according to the _Musée de Marine du Louvre_, was composed as follows:

+======+========+========+========+===========+========+=============+
|NUMBER|Length | Beam |Moulded | | | Calibres |
| OF |between | at main depth | BATTERIES | Crew | of guns |
| GUNS |perpen- | frame | | | | |
| |diculars| | | | | |
+------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+--------+-------------+
| +THREE DECKERS+ |
| |
| | M. | M. | M. | | Men |30 pdrs |
| | | | | | |in lower tier|
| 120 |56.84 |14.61 |7.47 } }1000 |18 „ |
| |to 60.42|to 16.24| to 8.12} 3 covered } to 1200|„ middle „ |
| | | | } } | |
|110(1)|54.57 |14.94 |7.31 } batteries }1000 |12 „ |
| |to 57.82|to 15.59| to 7.80} } to 1100|„ upper „ |
| | | | } with } | |
| 100 |53.27 |14.61 |7.47 } } 900 |6 „ |
| |to 57.49|to 15.26| to 7.63}forcastles } to 1000|on forecastle|
| | | | } } | |
| 90 |51.97 |14.29 |6.81 } and poops } 850 |4 „ |
| |to 55.22|to 14.94| to 7.46} } to 900 |on poop deck |
| |
| +DOUBLE DECKERS+ |
| |
| 80 |50.67 |13.96 |6.66 |2 covered | 750 |36 pdrs |
| |to 54.57|to 14.61| to 6.98| batteries | to 800 |in lower tier|
| | | | | with | |18 „ |
| | | | | forecastle| |„ upper „ |
| | | | | and poop | |8 „ |
| | | | | | |on forecastle|
| | | | | | |4 „ on poop|
| | | | | | |
| 74 |48.72 |13.64 |6.50 |2 covered | 650 |36 or 24 pdrs|
| |to 53.27|to 13.96| to 6.98| batteries | to 700 |in lower tier|
| | | | | with | |8 pdrs |
| | | | | forecastle| |in upper tier|
| | | | | and poop | |8 or 6 pdrs |
| | | | | | |on forecastle|
| | | | | | |4 pdrs on |
| | | | | | |poop |
| | | | | | | |
| 64(2)|46.04 |12.66 |6.00 |2 batteries| 450 |18 or 12 pdrs|
| |to 48.72|to 12.99| to 6.50| and | to 500 |in lower tier|
| | | | | forecastle| |24 or 18 pdrs
| | | | | | |in upper tier|
| | | | | | |6 pdrs |
| | | | | | |on forecastle|
| | | | | | |12 or 8 pdrs |
| | | | | | |in lower tier|
| 50 |43.84 to|11.36 to| 5.50 to|2 batteries| 300 |18 or 12 pdrs|
| | 45.17 | 12.01 | 5.85 | and | to 330 |in upper tier|
| | | | |forecastle | |6 or 4 |
| | | | | | |pdrs on |
| | | | | | | forecastle. |
| |
| +FRIGATES+ |
| |
| 40 |38.98 to|10.71 to| 5.19 to|Single | } |
| | 42.22 | 11.04 | 5.53 |battery |280 to } |
| | 42.22 | 11.04 | 5.53 |with | 300 } |
| | 42.22 | 11.04 | 5.53 |forecastle | } |
| | | | | | } 12 pdrs |
| 30 |35.07 to| 9.74 to| 4.55 to| do. |200 to } in battery |
| | 38.98 | 10.39 | 5.20 | | 230 }6 or 4 pdrs on|
| | | | | | } forecastle. |
| 20 |33.13 to| 8.77 to| 4.22 to| do. |130 to } |
| | 35.73 | 9.10 | 4.55 | | 150 } |
| |
| +CORVETTES+ |
| |
| 12 |19.49 to| 7.85 to| 2.92 to|Single | 70 to |4 pdrs in |
| | 22.74 | 8.50 | 3.25 |battery | 80 | barbette |
| | | | |without | | battery. |
| | | | |forecastle | | |

(1) There were a few intermediate types classified with those of this list which they approached nearest.

(2) This ship was the smallest of those which could enter the line of battle.

France also exercised a great influence on the design of ships. (~Holmes~, p. 114, _ab initio_.) The most beautiful vessel of this time was the _Sans Pareil_.

The work mentioned above, _Le Musée de Marine du Louvre_, contains a passage relating to the time of Louis XVI (1744-1793) which is well worthy of our attention (Chapter VII): “It was the moment when the science of shipbuilding, born in Holland, really passed into France”. This does not alter the fact that, even at the end of the XVIIIth century, people still went to Holland to study this art, in spite of the high degree of perfection which it had reached in France. Here indeed is what the above mentioned work says: “People went at the end of the last (XVIIIth) century to take lessons in Holland and, on this subject, the library at Brest has a manuscript of one of the celebrated engineers, Olivier, who had been sent there, about 1780, to study construction.”

Hence the shipbuilding of the Netherlands was still highly appreciated at that time.

The increase in dimensions of the French fleet found its echo in the English fleet; the following are the characteristics of the latter fleet in 1706:

+=================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+
| | | | | | | |
| NUMBER OF GUNS | 90 | 80 | 70 | 60 | 50 | 40 |
| | | | | | | |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| |ft. in.|ft. in.|ft. in.|ft. in.|ft. in.|ft. in.|
| | | | | | | |
|Length of gundeck|192 -- |156 -- |150 -- |144 -- |130 -- |118 -- |
| | | | | | | |
|Breadth at | | | | | | |
| midship frame | 47 -- | 43 -- | 41 -- | 38 -- | 35 -- | 32 -- |
| | | | | | | |
|Depth of hold | 18 6 | 17 8 | 17 4 | 15 8 | 14 -- | 13 6 |
| | | | | | | |
|Tonnage | 1552 | 1283 | 1069 | 914 | 705 | 532 |

Here is what ~Holmes~ writes, p. 115: “The subject of the superiority in size of the French ships was constantly coming to the front and, in 1719, a new establishment was made for the dimensions of ships in our Royal Navy, according to the following scale:

+================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+===========+
| | | | | | | |
| NUMBER OF GUNS | 90 | 80 | 70 | 60 | 50 | 40 |
| | | | | | | |
+----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
| Increase of: | | | | | | |
| Length | 2 ft. | 2 ft. | 1 ft. | 0 | 4 ft. | 6 ft. |
| Breadth | 2 in. | 1 ft. | 6 in. | 1 ft. | 1 ft. |1 ft. 2 in.|
| Tonnage | 15 | 67 | 59 | 37 | 51 | 63 |

In 1765, vessels were already met with carrying 100 guns, measuring 2047 tons and having already 21 ft. 6 in. depth of hold. ~Holmes~ writes on this subject (pp. 124-128): “During the whole of our naval history down to comparatively recent times, improvements in the dimensions and forms of our ships were only carried out after they had been originally adopted by the French, or Spaniards, or more recently by the people of the United States of America.”

In 1719, the process which consisted of heating timbers at an open fire in order to bend them was adopted in England and, in 1736, they were smoked. (~Holmes~, p. 115.) Ventilation was improved in 1753 (~Holmes~, p. 117) and, in 1761 (~Holmes~, p. 121), followed the invention of the process which consisted in covering ships with copper plates. Before this period, lead was used exceptionally for this purpose. Nearly one hundred years earlier, several vessels in Holland were covered in part or wholly with copper plates, as is shown by a passage from ~Van Yk~’s work, _De Nederlandsche Scheepsbouwkunst opengesteld_, in which he says, p. 121: “Dat het schip on de zuid of west bestieren sal, heeft zy om den houtknagenden worm daarvan te keeren, stevenswaarts met koper doen bekleeden”[13].

Everything which precedes shows sufficiently how far superior the French and English fleets were to our own, about the middle of the XVIIIth century, in the size of their ships. But experience had demonstrated that the power of a fleet did not lie in numbers alone, but also in the intrinsic value of each ship (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, p. 86), just as Martin Harpertszoon Tromp had also, himself, declared some time before.

In order to give an idea of the extraordinary energy displayed by the United Provinces, it will be mentioned that from 1682 to 1700, hence in eighteen years, there were built 15 three-deckers of 90 to 96 guns each, 2 of 80 to 86, 2 of 70 to 74, 29 of 60 to 68, and 26 of 50 to 56 pieces of artillery, together with 2 frigates of 22 guns, 3 fire ships and 9 ketches, in all 107 vessels. Of this number, seven only were built outside of the provinces of Holland and Zeeland. (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, pp. 72 to 75.)

Outside of this fleet of which the cost was defrayed by means of extraordinary credits, there were built during the same period, with ordinary credits, 65 other vessels, of which 7 were of 50 to 52 guns, 18 of 40 to 46, 17 of 30 to 38, 13 of 20 to 26, and 10 of 16 guns at least.

Or, for a period of eighteen years, a total of 107 + 65 = 172 new ships. This increase of the fleet was an absolute necessity. It was necessary, in fact, to make up the losses caused by storms and other misfortunes, and amounting, during the years 1688-1698, to 3 units of 70, 5 of 60, 6 of 50, 8 of 40 to 46 guns, in addition to a few vessels of 30 guns and less, 36 ships in all.

All these works evidently cost large sums. During the period 1682-1702, the expenditures for new ships were about 81,197,000 florins and about 69,954,800 florins for equipment.

Maintenance, equipment, etc. came to about 5,829,000 florins, and in 1697, the costs rose to 7,732,000 florins. (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, pp. 80 and 81.) In order to form any exact idea of the importance of this sum, it must be remembered that, at the time under consideration, salaries, etc. were far lower than those of our day. (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 80, note.)

Besides the war ships just mentioned, a large number of merchant ships, vessels of less importance for inland service, and fishing boats were built, so that, if the old writers are to be believed, “there were places where there were counted more boats than houses”.

At the time when Hugo de Groot lived, two thousand vessels were built annually. (~Koenen~, _Geschiedenis van Scheepbouw en Zeevaart_, p. 87.) No Hollanders were met with who did not possess a certain amount of knowledge relating to shipbuilding. (Idem, p. 85.)

[Sidenote: II 154]

In order to display such a large amount of energy, shipbuilding must have developed with us in an extraordinary way. The proof of this is found in the works of Nicolas Witsen (1671) and of Van Yk (1697). Hence our naval architecture enjoyed an unheard of prosperity at the beginning of the XVIIIth century.

[Sidenote: II 155]

[Sidenote: II 156]

In order to form an idea of the perfection of design which our naval architecture had reached toward the middle of the same century, it is enough to consult, in our album, the photographic reproductions of a few drawings made by M. Van Gent in 1750, 1751, 1752, the originals of which belong to the remarkable collection of engravings of M. S. Van Gyn, at Dordrecht, as well as the copy of a war ship of 1770 which appears in the collection of colored drawings.

These documents reproduce faithfully the ships with their water lines. But what attracts attention most particularly is the following inscription which is very legible in the drawing of the war ship of 1750: _Property of Admiral Schryver_. This admiral is the one who wrote in 1753 that the shipbuilders, and especially those who built the ships of war of the State during the period extending from 1683 to 1753, were scarcely more than ordinary ship carpenters; that they had no theoretical knowledge, were guided only by experience and, in certain respects, were on the same level as the master carpenters of Zaandam who, in the face of a failure, had offered as an excuse that “the boat had not let itself be shaped otherwise with an axe”.

Admiral Schryver refers, in support of what he says, to various war vessels which were less successful, and among them he mentions, in the first place, five three-deck ships built between 1683 and 1689, the first, it should be said, which our builders had turned out.

No one can be surprised that these vessels did come fully up to what was expected! And if later, better ones were built, it merely proves that our builders had succeeded in solving the great problem of turning out strong ships of which the draught had to be limited, on account of the depth in our passes and rivers.

Still later, imperfections had to be noted; but that does not show, by any means, incapacity on the part of our builders. It happens even in these times, both at home and abroad, that the best yards launch vessels which are not up to their best work or which may need changes.

Admiral Schryver’s complaint (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 116) denouncing the incapacity of our constructors seems to be neither founded nor deserved. It is a question here of a headstrong naval officer, imbued with his own ideas and holding only contempt for those of others (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 116), rather than a man thoroughly conversant with our naval architecture. Still, as it has been shown further back, it was not alone during the time of the Grand Pensionary Jean De Witt, and of the illustrious Colbert, as De Jonge tells us (Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 120), that foreigners came to learn shipbuilding from us; much later still, in 1780, France sent her sons to our yards and it is assumed that it was only under the reign of Louis XVI (1774-1793), that the French navy could throw off Dutch influence entirely.

Our country followed attentively, however, the progress made in France and England in the art of naval construction, as is testified to by the translation of Du Hamel du Monceau’s work (appeared in 1757), and the passage therein contained announcing, for later on, a translation of the work of Mungo Murray, the famous builder of the shipyard at Deptford. It is not known whether this latter translation ever saw the light, all the same, it is clear to my mind, from what precedes, that works appearing abroad were read by us.

It has been shown that drawing was used in connection with shipbuilding at the middle of the XVIIIth century. Hence shipbuilders had broken with the old Dutch method of being guided by lines drawn by ribbands.

The lowest gun ports of ships were placed too near the water; complaint was first made against this by us. The same complaint was soon heard in England where the situation was not remedied, however, until the end of the XVIIIth century, when the French builders were copied. (~Holmes~, p. 126).

A certain amount of time went by before Great Britain adopted the improvements made in shipbuilding by the French.

Mr. de Jonge, relying on foreign quotations, states that the Czar Peter-the-Great seems to have learned shipbuilding, properly so called, in England. ~Fincham~, the historian, even relates (_History of naval architecture_, p. 69) that the Czar Peter preferred English to Dutch construction. Mr. Koenen remarks, in regard to this, that this preference could, at most, only have had to do with war ships. Be this as it may, it is settled that Peter-the-Great resorted, all the same, to Dutch vessels, builders and seamen to form his fleet which, three years before his death, included 41 men-of-war carrying 2106 guns and 14,900 men, which made the Swedes say (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. II, p. 152, and ~M. Koenen~, pp. 93-95): “We see nothing Muscovitish about the Muscovite fleet unless it be the flag. We have to fight a Dutch fleet, commanded by Dutchmen, manned by Dutch seamen and spitting out Dutch powder from Dutch guns”.

It may be asked then whether the Peter-the-Great would really have called on the Dutch builders if he had been able to find better among the English.

What explanation is to be made as to why our shipbuilders were abandoned about the middle of the XVIIIth century?

The size of ships was constantly increasing in England and in France; and the fleets of foreign powers were ever becoming stronger, while in our country, the shallowness of passes, rivers and ports, prevented the construction of ships which, by their size, could vie with those of other lands. (~Van Yk~, p. 14). All the writers of the period point out this situation of which the realness has been shown by means of a few figures.

The disadvantage resulting from the relative shallowness of the Dutch passes was felt as far back as the end of the XVIIth century, and this disadvantage could only become more marked as time went on. Meanwhile, the necessity of building more powerful ships, carrying as many as 90 to 95 guns, became a matter of serious importance. In order to avoid drawing too much water, it became necessary to make the ships fuller, but this also made them heavier and poorer sailers, consequently they were but poor fighting instruments in the hands of our brave admirals. Is it then to be wondered at that the latter complained about them bitterly? In spite of all our courage, the shallowness of our approaches to the sea, to say nothing of the financial situation, made us yield before the foreigner.

This inferiority is wrongly blamed on the Dutch shipbuilders of the day. Naturally, many of them held on for a long time to the old ways, as is shown by Du Hamel du Monceau, in the following terms at page 287 of his work: “The habit of copying mechanically and servilely what was done in the past, has produced all these rules of proportions observed in determining the main frame, the description of models and their designs.” And this author adds this interesting detail: “Every ship-carpenter kept these rules as a family secret”.

The Dutch builders had no affection for the pen; ~Witsen~ himself has already called attention to this; they were afraid of publishing their secrets, lest they might see their work carried off by others. It was only a few years ago that an engineer engaged in shipbuilding refused to let me see the drawings of one of his ships; he too feared lest his models should be imitated.

How, then, could it be expected that ships should already be built according to scientific rules, at the middle of the XVIIIth century, when in France, which was ahead of all other nations in the matter, these rules were not taken up until 1740? _Le Musée de Marine du Louvre_ says in speaking of the XVIIIth century: “It (the vessel) is built in accordance with scientific principles which began to become known in 1697, but which scarcely date from before 1740 and which bring about a great resemblance among the ships of all countries so soon as they are intended for navigating the high seas, as originality no longer exists except for coasting vessels attached to their own shores.” (See, among others, M. ~Bongeur~, 1746, XXIII.)

It was not, then, attachment to tradition, but the natural condition of our passes which kept us from building vessels of war as good as those built abroad. This is what Mr. ~De Jonge~ forgets, while at the same time he attaches too little weight to practice, which still enjoys, even in our time, a great authority even in the matter of shipbuilding. So this honorable writer arrives necessarily at forming, in regard to our builders of the XVIIIth century, an unfavorable and undeserved judgment.

The decline of shipbuilding along the “Zaan”, for example, was not the consequence of the ignorance of our builders; this cause must be attributed above all to the silting up of the river and of the mouth of the IJ. This occurrence no longer allowed ships of any importance to be taken to sea except at great cost and trouble. (~Loosjes~, _De Zaandamsche dorpen_, p. 194.--M. ~Koenen~, p. 95.)

[Sidenote: III 15]

In order to bring out the difference existing between the French and English styles and the Dutch style, I have placed on one plate of my album the various main frames. This drawing is sufficiently eloquent by itself, still, I must once more call attention, in passing, to the differences which distinguish these various styles. These differences existed at first in the shape and composition of the main frames; then, the English vessels had less sheer, were less high and were not square at the stern. (~Van Yk~, p. 17.) The English seem also to have used crossed riders, instead of stanchions with vertical faces, to save working; but this process was considered less practical from the point of view of stowage. (~Van Yk~, p. 17 and figure A, p. 18.) They gave their ships loof (~Witsen~, p. 126) and broad sides (“dick in den buik”, as ~Witsen~ says on p. 207), the reverse of what was done for the Dutch vessels. “The Dutch ships”, says ~Holmes~ (p. 110), “excelled all others in one respect: that they were the first in which the absurd practice of an exaggerated ‹tumble home› or contraction of the upper deck was abandoned. This fashion”, he said further on, “was still carried out to a very great extent by the English and to a less extent by the French and Spaniards”.

~Holmes~ speaks also of the light draught of our vessels. He expresses himself on this subject as follows on page 111 of his work: “In consequence of the shallowness of the Dutch harbours, the draught of their ships was also considerably less than that of the English vessels of corresponding force”.

The English had at their disposal docks for the construction of their ships (~Witsen~, p. 206, column I.); they used neither ribands nor shores. Before laying down their ships, says ~Van Yk~ (p. 19), they so prepared the models as to give them the shape desired. For this purpose, and before starting construction, they laid out the frames at full size on a floor. This process was, therefore, born in England.

The laying out of the full scale drawings was only adopted with us at the middle of the XVIIIth century. Before this time, only models and ribands were used in our country, as is still the present practice for building the smaller wooden vessels and many fishing boats.

This new method, however, was not introduced without trouble; and the more so as there was doubt of success in applying it to the Dutch ships, which, as ~Van Yk~ says (p. 19), “had rounded sides, _to allow them to glide over the water_, and _sharper angles_ than the English ships” which had a more regular contour.

The Swedes and Danes followed the Dutch method in the main. (~Van Yk~, p. 20.) Their navy was copied after ours (~De Jonge~), but their ships were not so full and drew more.

The honor of having endowed the shipbuilding art with scientific principles belongs wholly to the French. All the nations, even the Dutch and the English borrowed these principles from them about the middle of the XVIIIth century. It was however only at the end of this century that the French method for calculating and designing ships forced its way everywhere.

The Netherlands, in addition to their war fleet proper, had a very large merchant marine. (~Koenen~, p. 90.) This latter it is said, included, at the beginning of the XVIIth century, 20,000 vessels which had all been built in Holland and, flying the Dutch colors, furrowed the seas in all directions. At the end of this century, when we must have already lost many of our over-seas possessions, the total tonnage of the English merchant marine amounted to 500,000 tons; that of our country was 900,000 tons, and all other nations together had 2,000,000 tons. (~Groen van Pinsteren~, _Handboek_, § 303.--~Koenen~, p. 160.)

Our merchantmen obtained quickly a great perfection. Full proof of this can be found in the observations made by Sir Walter Raleigh (1552-1618) about the Dutch ships, in which, as he remarks, a large amount of freight could be stowed while, at the same time, they required a smaller crew than that found necessary for the English ships. (~Koenen~, p. 86.)

Our merchant vessels, among which especially “flutes” were met with, were copied by the English and French.

Flutes were used preferentially as freight carriers. The following, for example, is found in _Le Musée de Marine du Louvre_: “The navy has always had transports for supplying squadrons; they were called at first flutes or transports and later were known as ‹corvettes de charge›”.