17th Century Ship Design and the Sovereign of the Seas (1637)

[Maarten]

Hi Charly,

Good to see you back and hope all is well.
I was struggling to find a clear solution for the mentoned height of the way forward and this seems to perfectly fit it, thx.

 

[tball4217]

Hi tball;

In answer to your first 3 points, I am not quite sure why Elizabeth is relevant to a discussion of the Sovereign, except perhaps in an effort to demonstrate that building prestige ships was expensive. Nonetheless, it certainly happened in Elizabeth's reign, despite the cost. There were numerous complaints about the taxation required to support the Navy in the last decade of her reign, but the building continued; as did their repair, and the beautifying of them with extensive decoration, carved, painted and gilded.

For your fourth point, this is certainly true, and has been made many times, both in the reign of Charles I, and ever since. For a comparison, in 1632, an official estimate concludes that the cost of building a 500 ton ship (without stores and guns) would be just over £4,000

According to the official accounts, the Sovereign cost £40,833/8s/1d farthing.

So yes, a small fleet could have been built for the same sum as that which was spent on the Sovereign's construction. Personally, I am very glad that Charles thought the expense justifiable, and left us with such a legacy to discuss!

Ratty

Revenge can be considered the best example of Elizabeths navy, in terms of size and fire power. The Sovereign was built within 30 years of her death. The big boys in the navy against the Sovereign and anything over 2 gun decks were the old men who had started out with the Elizabethan thinking.

The old adage "good enough for grandpa and father is good enough for me" Had to have been an influence in their decision. And The elizabethan navy shows a preponderence of maxing out at 50 guns and exceedingly long service periods for ships.

Far to many ships being listed as "rebuilt and put back into service" 30-40 years after initial launch. Far too many ships on the register showing they were patched up and made to float for 50+ years. And still being used in the line of battle during open war fare.

List of early warships of the English navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

English ship Nonsuch (1603) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

built between 1555 and 1556. Rebuilt in 1584 and renamed, then in 1603-1605 another rebuild and renaming. Sold out of service/government ownership in 1645.

Thats squeezing 90 years of service out of a ship that cost an initial 4,000 to purchase. Id love to know the cost of each subsequent rebuild. And the overall costs of repairs to keep her going as she aged.

But that list also shows a stunning "lock" down on terms of armament. Elizabeth maxed out at 55 guns. And the following years to maxing at 45-50 guns. And suddenly having the master shipwrights personal career topping moments of building a first rate ship of the line, crashing down when the new super ship comes along and makes that ship a now 2nd or even 3rd rate ship is also something to consider.

Sort of like how many ship designers and ship builders of the last generation of commercial tall ship and steel warships pre 1920 got to see their ships scrapped or converted in coal tenders by 1930 when the new prestige classes of ship came out.

 

[tball4217]

Hi tball;

if you are wondering if the Sovereign was built to be looked at (as well as being a very powerful warship) the answer has to be a very definite yes. In that time the Navy and its ships were regarded as the monarch's personal property, and part of their function was to reflect and magnify the monarch's power and prestige. The fact that even now, almost 400 years later, we are still talking about her, is testament that this was successfully achieved with the Sovereign. She was talked about then because she was designed to be an object of admiration, with her lavish decoration designed solely for display. What other purpose would this serve that could lead to such expense being considered worthwhile?

She was certainly, within a few years of her launch, considered to be a tourist attraction; and in later times there is ample record of a small industry which grew up around handling visitors, extending as far as squabbling over how the money they paid should be divided.

Regarding the entry port, I am dubious that she was built with this feature. The first evidence for its existence is the Van de Velde portrait showing it on the port side. Nor am I aware of any earlier portrait of a ship which shows an entry port (I would be happy to be corrected in this!) Sir Henry Mainwayring's dictionary, which dates from the 1620s and describes several methods of entering a ship, makes no mention of an entry port. To my mind, this is reasonable proof that they did not yet exist, although three-decked ships did. My personal belief is that the entry port was added during the Commonwealth or Protectorate periods, although there is no evidence of this occurring. I also believe that the fact that there is no entry port shown on Payne's engraving should be regarded as supporting the absence of such an item when she was constructed; which is the easiest way to deal with its non-portrayal here, and then needs no explaining away.

Ratty

As later ships had entry ports built in during initial construction, and the king did indeed expect to spend time on her, hence the Kings Cabin... does one expect the king of the realm to clamber over the bulwark by climbing a cargo netting thrown over the side of the hull?

Someone did note a theory of the entry port being built as a means to "protect of the modesty" of the ladies from having to clamber over the side via climbing the cargo net. If the navy would have done such expensive alterations to such an expensive ship, they would have done it at the start.

Besides, wouldnt the installation of the entry port damaged the priceless gilding?

 

[Jim Fortnam]

This is looking like a tremendous thread.

I have to ask - will you be publishing it? Somewhere I can download the whole thing and flick backwards and forwards?

Although this period and this ship isn’t my main interest ( smaller, every day working vessels early to mid 19th century) I still have an interest in quality information and knowledgeable writing, and I’d enjoy studying it.

Best wishes, and much admiration.

J

 

[CharlieT]

Hi folks,
Regarding the entry door. From my discussion of this topic at https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/...ign-of-the-seas-1637.14668/page-8#post-407281, I guess you can tell that I think it was built with one. Modesty is not the only issue. The other is the exertion required to enter the ship if it was built without such a door. The Sovereign was originally designed to be more of a floating attraction than a functional warship, so it was built to receive visitors, including noble visitors. I rather suspect that they would have made their feelings known had they been forced to work too hard to enter the ship. Yet, there are no recorded complaints.

Jim- No, I won't be publishing it. However, I think you can export the thread in PDF format. You can access this option by going to the very top of any page, and clicking on the little icon on the far right that has the three dots on it. I haven't tried this, so I could be wrong, but I think it will work.

 

[Bilge Ratt]

Revenge can be considered the best example of Elizabeths navy, in terms of size and fire power. The Sovereign was built within 30 years of her death. The big boys in the navy against the Sovereign and anything over 2 gun decks were the old men who had started out with the Elizabethan thinking.

The old adage "good enough for grandpa and father is good enough for me" Had to have been an influence in their decision. And The elizabethan navy shows a preponderence of maxing out at 50 guns and exceedingly long service periods for ships.

Far to many ships being listed as "rebuilt and put back into service" 30-40 years after initial launch. Far too many ships on the register showing they were patched up and made to float for 50+ years. And still being used in the line of battle during open war fare.

List of early warships of the English navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

English ship Nonsuch (1603) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

built between 1555 and 1556. Rebuilt in 1584 and renamed, then in 1603-1605 another rebuild and renaming. Sold out of service/government ownership in 1645.

Thats squeezing 90 years of service out of a ship that cost an initial 4,000 to purchase. Id love to know the cost of each subsequent rebuild. And the overall costs of repairs to keep her going as she aged.

But that list also shows a stunning "lock" down on terms of armament. Elizabeth maxed out at 55 guns. And the following years to maxing at 45-50 guns. And suddenly having the master shipwrights personal career topping moments of building a first rate ship of the line, crashing down when the new super ship comes along and makes that ship a now 2nd or even 3rd rate ship is also something to consider.

Sort of like how many ship designers and ship builders of the last generation of commercial tall ship and steel warships pre 1920 got to see their ships scrapped or converted in coal tenders by 1930 when the new prestige classes of ship came out.

Hi tball;

Still not quite sure why Elizabethan ships are to be considered of any real relevance to the Sovereign, which was launched 35 years after Elizabeth died. Mathew Baker was long dead when the Sovereign was conceived, and William Burrell had also been dead for several years by then. Phineas Pett was accustomed to controversy: his design for the Prince Royal was heavily attacked by other shipwrights, who did not believe that a 3-decker could be constructed. Pett proved them wrong. Likewise, there was fierce criticism of the Sovereign's concept, but not due to her having three decks, as the success of the Prince proved this was perfectly viable. In the Sovereign's case, it was asserted that she was too deep-draughted for any of England's harbours, and would be forced to spend all her career at sea. Pett himself was older than most of his critics by this time: born in 1570, he was doubtless thoroughly imbued with 'Elizabethan' design concepts by both his surroundings, and by Mathew Baker, from whom Pett learned much. Despite this, he showed no signs of limited thinking, and designed both of the Navy's first two 3-decked ships, being well past sixty when he started designing the Sovereign. He was only a few years short of seventy when the Sovereign was launched. So age was no bar to vision in his case, which was presumably why he enjoyed the confidence of both of the early Stuart kings; to the extent that he was entrusted with the most important ship of each reign.

Ratty

 

[Bilge Ratt]

Hi folks,
Regarding the entry door. From my discussion of this topic at https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/...ign-of-the-seas-1637.14668/page-8#post-407281, I guess you can tell that I think it was built with one. Modesty is not the only issue. The other is the exertion required to enter the ship if it was built without such a door. The Sovereign was originally designed to be more of a floating attraction than a functional warship, so it was built to receive visitors, including noble visitors. I rather suspect that they would have made their feelings known had they been forced to work too hard to enter the ship. Yet, there are no recorded complaints.

Jim- No, I won't be publishing it. However, I think you can export the thread in PDF format. You can access this option by going to the very top of any page, and clicking on the little icon on the far right that has the three dots on it. I haven't tried this, so I could be wrong, but I think it will work.

Hi Charlie;

The truth of the matter is that certainty over the dating of entry ports is not possible in the present state of knowledge. I have a picture of a Van de Velde drawing of the 'Constant Reformation', dated 1648, in which she clearly has an entry port on her port side, so they were in use by this time. Tball's comment that they might have been introduced to protect ladies' modesty is charming, but most ships were not visited by women, except on rare occasions, so this must remain unproven.

Henry Mainwayring in his dictionary only mentions 'entry ladders', which he describes as being used to access the waist, and having ropes on each side to hold onto. This name and design lasted as a concept for at least the next two hundred years, alongside entry ports. It is perhaps pertinent to remember that the substantial tumble-home of a 17th century ship's side meant that a good part of the climb was far from vertical.

My own belief, and I stress that this is only a theory, and has no basis in fact, is that entry ports were introduced during the Civil War period, when large numbers of soldiers became both Admirals and captains. Admirals were known as 'General-at-Sea', and were not at all accustomed to sea-faring. It is possible that their complaints led to the adoption of an easier entering system.

I for one do not believe that the Sovereign was built more as a floating attraction. She was built to project power, which she undeniably did very well when in service; and to reflect the king's prestige. She became a tourist destination more by default of any other purpose whilst she was laid up in Ordinary, than from any deliberate intent. We have no idea what kind of active career Charles intended for her, as shortly after her launch he became embroiled in the Scottish rising which soon developed into full-scale war, and his navy perforce had to take second place.

It would also seem to me most unlikely that Payne would miss something as obvious as an entry port were one in existence. He does show many much smaller details. We will have to agree to disagree on the entry port, methinks!

That apart, your comments on the rising line are clear and concise descriptions, and although I have read other descriptions of this process, I find yours the easiest to understand. Keep up the good work!

Ratty

 

[tball4217]

Hi tball;

Still not quite sure why Elizabethan ships are to be considered of any real relevance to the Sovereign, which was launched 35 years after Elizabeth died. Mathew Baker was long dead when the Sovereign was conceived, and William Burrell had also been dead for several years by then. Phineas Pett was accustomed to controversy: his design for the Prince Royal was heavily attacked by other shipwrights, who did not believe that a 3-decker could be constructed. Pett proved them wrong. Likewise, there was fierce criticism of the Sovereign's concept, but not due to her having three decks, as the success of the Prince proved this was perfectly viable. In the Sovereign's case, it was asserted that she was too deep-draughted for any of England's harbours, and would be forced to spend all her career at sea. Pett himself was older than most of his critics by this time: born in 1570, he was doubtless thoroughly imbued with 'Elizabethan' design concepts by both his surroundings, and by Mathew Baker, from whom Pett learned much. Despite this, he showed no signs of limited thinking, and designed both of the Navy's first two 3-decked ships, being well past sixty when he started designing the Sovereign. He was only a few years short of seventy when the Sovereign was launched. So age was no bar to vision in his case, which was presumably why he enjoyed the confidence of both of the early Stuart kings; to the extent that he was entrusted with the most important ship of each reign.

Ratty

Elizabeth started the rebuilding of the English navy. When henry the 8th died, the navy had 60 ships in it. When elizabeth inherited the crown and navy, it had 30 ships. The years of Mary really gutted it, and focused it on coastal defense. From that link, most of the ships mary "built" were nothing more then 20-30 year old galleasses that were rebuilt into non oared sailing ships with broad side guns.
Not new construction at all, and minimal expenditure.

Elizabeth started the rebuild, and for the most part the focus was on having a large number of smaller ships. The impact and importance on that is that the Revenge was her biggest ship construction, and until the Prince and its 3 decks was launched, it represented the status qou for English ship construction in the navy.

It also represents the mind set that was still embraced when Prince and Sovereign were constructed. Smaller ships in larger numbers. Seriously, the whole shipbuilding program shows a concerted effort to spend as little money as possible. When the record shows they spent more money repairing and rebuilding ships that were finally sent to the scrap yard after their 60th to 80th year of service.. you can clearly see a mentality has taken hold.

Sure, that mentallity was reversed in the napoleonic wars. Lots of small ships, and even a good number of 74 gun ships would be built and launched in say 1803, and then sold to a scrap yard in 1806. excessive spending on repair and refurbishment of old ships to keep them afloat, replaced by excessive spending on building NEW ships as often as possible.

Its also like the fire that finally ended Sovereign. Oh yes an "accidental fire caused by a wayward cooks candle falling over". Or "people who didnt want the last reminder of a king they disliked being in existence starting a mystery fire". Or the most likely "this ship is to old to fix, the repairs would be horrendous so lets burn her during the night".

Not much has been discussed about the rebuilds and refits done to her. Going to wikipedia on her, her gun decks were changed in plane of alignment with the keel at each rebuild/refit. Not just the super structure. Makes me wonder at what stage some of the official draftings of her hull were made at.

 

[CharlieT]

The Rising Lines (continued)​

The Aft Lower Rising Line​

The aft lower rising line, which the Treatise calls the aft rising line alow, is also called the aft lower rising line of the floor. To simplify a what can be a lengthy discussion, we only need know that the Treatise tells us that the line ends at the “tuck.” Its ship has a square tuck stern, so its line ends at the post. The Sovereign had a round tuck stern, so when Pett gives us the “height of the tuck at the fashion piece,” we can infer that the rising line ends at the fashion piece. Pett’s listed “height of the tuck at the fashion piece” is 16 feet. This is substantially different from the height the Treatise would have us use (⅔ the depth, or about 12 feet 10 inches on the Sovereign), and is one of several substantial differences between the Sovereign and the Treatise that we find at the stern.

Notice that Pett gives us both the height of the gripe and the height of the tuck. The line’s height at the midship bend is understood to be at the floor here. Therefore, Pett is giving us a considerable amount of information about the entire lower rising line.

This line’s height affected how the water flows around the rudder. As explained by Mainwaring (52 p. 215):

“We say a ship hath a good run when it is long and comes off handsomely by degrees, and that her tuck do not lie too low, which will hinder the water from coming strongly and swiftly to the rudder; and a bad run whenas it is short and that the ship is too full below, so that the water comes slowly and weakly to the rudder, the force of it being broken off by the breadth of the ship alow, which will make (as it were) an eddy-water at the rudder and that we call a dead-water.”

As the aft lower rising line moves forward from the tuck, it, arcs downward until it reaches the midship bend. The Treatise captures this downward arc using a cubic function that is computed just like the function for the fore lower rising line, except that the height and bend of the tuck are substituted for the height and bend of the gripe. As the Treatise’s author explains, a cubic function is used because it “maketh a line which runneth along by the touch and by that means keepeth the water under the bilge of the ship, yet tucks up severally both afore and abaft, which gives life and quickness to the ship’s way….”

I have I have corrected for deadrise when computing this line. Recall from a previous section that the position of the fashion piece is speculative.

The red line in the figure below shows the entire lower rising line. Notice that it includes some details I forgot to include in the sheer plan posted earlier.

​

References​

1. Mainwaring, Henry. The Life and Works of Sir Henry Manwaring. [ed.] G.E Manwaring and W.G. Perrin. London : THe Navy Records Society, 1922. Vol. 2.

 

[Bilge Ratt]

Elizabeth started the rebuilding of the English navy. When henry the 8th died, the navy had 60 ships in it. When elizabeth inherited the crown and navy, it had 30 ships. The years of Mary really gutted it, and focused it on coastal defense. From that link, most of the ships mary "built" were nothing more then 20-30 year old galleasses that were rebuilt into non oared sailing ships with broad side guns.
Not new construction at all, and minimal expenditure.

Elizabeth started the rebuild, and for the most part the focus was on having a large number of smaller ships. The impact and importance on that is that the Revenge was her biggest ship construction, and until the Prince and its 3 decks was launched, it represented the status qou for English ship construction in the navy.

It also represents the mind set that was still embraced when Prince and Sovereign were constructed. Smaller ships in larger numbers. Seriously, the whole shipbuilding program shows a concerted effort to spend as little money as possible. When the record shows they spent more money repairing and rebuilding ships that were finally sent to the scrap yard after their 60th to 80th year of service.. you can clearly see a mentality has taken hold.

Sure, that mentallity was reversed in the napoleonic wars. Lots of small ships, and even a good number of 74 gun ships would be built and launched in say 1803, and then sold to a scrap yard in 1806. excessive spending on repair and refurbishment of old ships to keep them afloat, replaced by excessive spending on building NEW ships as often as possible.

Its also like the fire that finally ended Sovereign. Oh yes an "accidental fire caused by a wayward cooks candle falling over". Or "people who didnt want the last reminder of a king they disliked being in existence starting a mystery fire". Or the most likely "this ship is to old to fix, the repairs would be horrendous so lets burn her during the night".

Not much has been discussed about the rebuilds and refits done to her. Going to wikipedia on her, her gun decks were changed in plane of alignment with the keel at each rebuild/refit. Not just the super structure. Makes me wonder at what stage some of the official draftings of her hull were made at.

Hi tball;

Thanks for explaining your thoughts in more detail. With regard to the Revenge, do you mean that she was the best example of balance between firepower and ship size which could be obtained, and if so, what are the reasons for this opinion. Or do you believe that she was the largest of Elizabeth's ships, which is what you seem to be saying with your comment that Revenge 'was her biggest ship construction'.

I'm sorry, but I still can't quite understand the connection you are trying to make between Elizabeth's ships or Navy, and the Sovereign. I am very interested in your view, which seems to involve some analysis, but its detail continues to elude me.

Revenge was built in Deptford Yard, probably in 1577; she was built alongside the Scout, a much smaller ship, and the financial records of their building are combined, so it is not possible to know the exact amount which she cost to construct.

In the last 25 years of her reign, Elizabeth's Navy was headed by three, or four (at different times) ships, larger than all the others. These were known as 'Ships Royal', and were, by the standards of the time, the largest ships built, with the heaviest armament. These ships were the Triumph, the White Bear, the Elizabeth Jonas, and the Merhonour. The Merhonour had a 110ft keel; the White Bear one of 108 feet, & the Elizabeth Jonas and the Triumph 100ft keels. Their burthens (in tons & tonnage) were: Triumph 955 tons; White Bear 915 tons; Merhonour 865 tons; and the Elizabeth Jonas 855 tons. They carried crews of at least 500-600 men. The Revenge had a crew of 300 men, made up primarily of 110 sailors, 110 soldiers, and 30 gunners; and a tonnage of around 600 tons. In no wise does this qualify her as a 'biggest ship construction', so I would be grateful if you could tell me what made her so special as a ship (her epic defence against overwhelming numbers of Spanish ships is a different matter, though, and is a story worthy of everyone's attention; although I must state here that the version given on Wikipedia is not, I believe, accurate, and does not agree with other accounts I have seen. Don't believe something just because it is on Wikipedia; there are often things said there which reflect the knowledge of the compiler, and are not based on deep research into original records)

Finally, when she burnt at her moorings, the Sovereign was not many years out of a major re-build, which lasted from 1680 to 1685. It is therefore highly unlikely that she was considered in any way to be disposable.

Amongst the records related to this rebuild the following are stated: (I paraphrase rather than give exact quotes)

Firstly, that during both her rebuilds, sufficient numbers of her timbers were retained, so that her hull's shape was not altered, but was maintained (the stern was widened in that later rebuild, though)

Secondly, that it is stated that her gun-ports were all still her original ones (although some had been added on the upper levels of the stern) With this in mind, the Wikipedia source which states that her gun-decks were re-aligned at each rebuild cannot be based on any contemporary record, but is only a repetition of later, erroneous, speculation or misunderstandings. I have copies of all surviving records relating to the Sovereign's rebuilds, and in none of these is there any mention made of either an intention to alter the decks, or of it being done (the earliest rebuild sometimes listed as being carried out on her, in 1651-2, was not in fact carried out; although some more minor changes were seemingly made at least once at other times, without details being recorded)

Ratty

 

[Bilge Ratt]

The Rising Lines (continued)​

The Aft Lower Rising Line​

The aft lower rising line, which the Treatise calls the aft rising line alow, is also called the aft lower rising line of the floor. To simplify a what can be a lengthy discussion, we only need know that the Treatise tells us that the line ends at the “tuck.” Its ship has a square tuck stern, so its line ends at the post. The Sovereign had a round tuck stern, so when Pett gives us the “height of the tuck at the fashion piece,” we can infer that the rising line ends at the fashion piece. Pett’s listed “height of the tuck at the fashion piece” is 16 feet. This is substantially different from the height the Treatise would have us use (⅔ the depth, or about 12 feet 10 inches on the Sovereign), and is one of several substantial differences between the Sovereign and the Treatise that we find at the stern.

Notice that Pett gives us both the height of the gripe and the height of the tuck. The line’s height at the midship bend is understood to be at the floor here. Therefore, Pett is giving us a considerable amount of information about the entire lower rising line.

This line’s height affected how the water flows around the rudder. As explained by Mainwaring (52 p. 215):

“We say a ship hath a good run when it is long and comes off handsomely by degrees, and that her tuck do not lie too low, which will hinder the water from coming strongly and swiftly to the rudder; and a bad run whenas it is short and that the ship is too full below, so that the water comes slowly and weakly to the rudder, the force of it being broken off by the breadth of the ship alow, which will make (as it were) an eddy-water at the rudder and that we call a dead-water.”

As the aft lower rising line moves forward from the tuck, it, arcs downward until it reaches the midship bend. The Treatise captures this downward arc using a cubic function that is computed just like the function for the fore lower rising line, except that the height and bend of the tuck are substituted for the height and bend of the gripe. As the Treatise’s author explains, a cubic function is used because it “maketh a line which runneth along by the touch and by that means keepeth the water under the bilge of the ship, yet tucks up severally both afore and abaft, which gives life and quickness to the ship’s way….”

I have I have corrected for deadrise when computing this line. Recall from a previous section that the position of the fashion piece is speculative.

The red line in the figure below shows the entire lower rising line. Notice that it includes some details I forgot to include in the sheer plan posted earlier.
View attachment 509543

​

References​

1. Mainwaring, Henry. The Life and Works of Sir Henry Manwaring. [ed.] G.E Manwaring and W.G. Perrin. London : THe Navy Records Society, 1922. Vol. 2.

Hi Charlie;

Thanks for the reconstruction. I think that you are doing a good job here! An interesting point about Phineas Pett, and the fashion piece's function, might be related to one of John Evelyn's diary entries, in which he recorded a visit to the Sovereign; which occurred in 1641. Evelyn wrote that the ship was 'A rare sailer, the work of the famous Phineas Pett, inventor of the frigate-fashion of building, to this day practiced'. I often wonder exactly what Evelyn was referring to by the 'frigate-fashion of building', something which he obviously considered a noteworthy achievement. As had other shipwrights, who obviously copied his technique. Personally, I believe that this was the round-tuck stern construction (the other main alternative would be a system of hull framing) My main reason for this is to be found in an article which you referenced earlier in the Mariners Mirror, about the draught of the 18 gun Phoenix of 1613, which was drawn by Phineas Pett. This ship quite clearly had a round-tuck stern, which can be deduced from the fact that the wing transom is shown, on the plan, with each end curving forward 18". A strongly-curved wing transom is not, to the best of my knowledge, any part of a square-tuck stern; and would make its construction more awkward. All the drawings or depictions of the square tuck which I have seen show it as a flat, or nearly flat, plane. If Phineas Pett, twenty years before he designed the Sovereign, was already designing ships with a round tuck, this is to my thinking a very good pointer (alongside the other evidence) to the Sovereign having the same, as you show. Especially if, as speculated above, Pett was the instigator of this method (round tuck sterns were used in the Medieval period, but fell out of use in Henry VIII's time, which is presumed to be due to the need to mount cannon in the stern)

Ratty

 

[Herman]

Hi Charlie. I wish you all the best and a very Happy Birthday .

 

[Alan Smith]

Looking back a little in this thread, the question of the purpose of the SoS was mentioned. This ship was designed to project power, something very necessary for a nation intending to establish and thereafter maintain an empire. This has been and still is a feature of ambitious nations thinking for centuries. More modern examples come to mins, in terms of single ships, perhaps HMS Hood, and in the current era the carrier groups of the USA.

 

[DARIVS ARCHITECTVS]

I am eagerly awaiting @CharlieT 's next post. This thread has my rapt attention.

 

[CharlieT]

So......
Some stuff happened and I was unable to post for a while. I see if I can get a few more in.

The Rising Lines (continued)​

The Fore and Aft Upper Rising Lines​

This section discusses both the fore and aft upper rising lines. These lines tell us how high the widest part of the ship is at every bend.

The Treatise refers to the upper rising line as the rising aloft. It is also called the rising line of the breadth. This line’s fore and aft parts both have a straight and a curved part. A straight part is incorporated because the line will rise too much if a single, simple arc is used. As its author explains; “But because every circle doth raise the breadth in the quarters somewhat too high where it should be kept down to bear with the luff, the best way to help this defect will be to carry the breadth from midships by a straight line near ¼ of the keel each way….” The result is that the line is flat for about one half of the keel’s length.

The curved parts of the fore and aft lines are both parts of a circle. The heights of points along this circle are calculated using trigonometric quantities the Treatise refers to as the versed sine and the right sine. Figure 75 illustrates how these two sines are used to compute the aft upper rising line. The versed sine’s length tells us how much higher the breadth is at any given bend than it is at the midship bend, where the versed sine’s length is zero. The right sine tells us how far any given bend is from the midship bend. For example, the right sine is relatively long at the wing transom because it is relatively far from the midship bend. The versed sine is also relatively long here, so this tells us that the breadth is higher here than at the midship bend. Both sines become progressively shorter as we move from the wing transom to the midship bend.

Figure 75. Using the Versed Sine to Compute the Aft Upper Rising Line’s course.

​

Note: Figure not drawn to scale. Among other things, the curvature of the rising line is exaggerated for the purposes of illustration.

Calculating the course of the line aft of the midship bend is straightforward. It involves using the Treatise’s method to construct a line that runs from the wing transom to the height of the breadth at the midship bend. We have already determined the post’s height and, since this is also the wing transom’s height, we know where the line’s aft end is. Phineas Pett gives us the height at the midship bend.

Things are more complicated for the line fore of the midship bend. The Treatise’s method probably does not work for finding the height at the Sovereign’s bow,[1] so I rearranged its proportional rules for calculating the post’s height and the height of the breadth at the bow to express the height of the line’s fore end as a proportion of the height of its aft end. I then added an additional 3.85 inches to the height of the line’s fore end because the lower rising line’s fore end (i.e., the height of the way forward) is 3.85 inches higher than the Treatise would have us make it. This addition maintains the space between the upper and lower rising lines that the Treatise would have us use. The result is a fore height of the breadth that is four inches above the bottom of the upper main wale. I stress that although this line is derived from the Treatise, it is obviously a guess. It would be reasonable to place the line as low as the bottom of the upper main wale, or as high as this wale’s top. Lower may be preferable to higher. There is some evidence that the breadth was lower in early 17th century ships, and was only made higher later on, perhaps because the beakhead bulkhead was moved forward at this time. (Endsor, 2020, p. 165)

The figure below now includes the entire upper rising line.

References​

Endsor, R. (2020). The Master Shipwright's Secrets. New York: Osprey Publishing.

---

[1] Using the Treatise’s method to calculate the Sovereign’s fore height of the breadth is suspect because it calculates the heights of the rising line at the bow and stern as a proportion of the ship’s depth. The line’s height at the Sovereign’s stern does not follow the proportion the Treatise uses, so it appears Pett did not use this method.

 

[CharlieT]

The Rising Lines (continued)​

The Toptimber Rising Line​

The toptimber rising line helps us draw the toptimber sweep on the body plan. This line does not does not locate the actual tops of most of the timbers.[1] It is only a guide used to draw the upper parts of the bends.

Shipwrights only rarely (if ever) drew a toptimber line on their plans. The Treatise tells us that it is not “needful” to do so. The toptimbers’ actual heights were what was drawn on plans.

Some contemporary sources do not even mention the toptimber rising line. It is not mentioned in John Smith’s “Sea-Grammar” from 1627, (Smith, 1627) or in Sir Henry Manwaring’s “The Seaman’s Dictionary” published in 1644. (Mainwaring, 1644) Deane also does not discuss it. The toptimber line may have received such cursory treatment because shipwrights felt that it had little, if any, effect on the way a ship sailed or steered.

The Treatise’s author only gives the toptimber rising line passing mention. He merely says;

“I might here add a third rising line for carrying the top timbers, but because the proportion of double the depth set off from the breadth line upon every bend doth very well direct the same, it shall not be needful to draw any other line.”

Bushnell[2] only tells us that the line is “drawn from the top of the Poop to the Fore-Castle,” without mentioning whether the line is straight or curved. Regardless, this results in a line that is above many of the bends.

The Treatise’s would have us place the toptimber rising line at twice each bend’s depth. This does not work well for a ship as big as the Sovereign. One difficulty is that it ultimately leads to a roundhouse that is too narrow to accommodate the stern decorations. Therefore, I have used a version of Bushell’s line, drawing it as a circle that runs from the top of the foremost bend to the top of the aftmost one.

The figure below shows the toptimber rising line.

References​

Mainwaring, H. S. (1644). The sea-mans dictionary : or, an exposition and demonstration of all the parts and things belonging to a shippe : together with an explanation of all the termes and phrases used in the practique of navigation. London: John Bellamy.

Murray, M. (1754). A Treatise on Ship-Building and Navigation. London: D. Henry and R. Cave.

Smith, J. (1627). A sea grammar vvith the plaine exposition of Smiths Accidence for young sea-men, enlarged. Diuided into fifteene chapters: what they are you may partly conceiue by the contents. London: Iohn Hauiland.

---

[1] The bends tops on the current plans were taken from the tops of the rails that indicate the gunwales’ locations.
[2] This is not meant to imply that Bushnell invented this method of drawing the toptimber rising line, or that it was unique to him.

 

[CharlieT]

The Narrowing Lines

The narrowing lines were shown on a plan called the half breadth plan. These lines helped shipwrights draw the individual bends on the body plan. Unlike the later waterlines, they did not show how wide the ship is at various fixed elevations. The elevations of early 17th century narrowing lines varied according to the varying heights of the rising lines. To further complicate matters, the narrowing lines of the floor and the toptimbers did not correspond to a ship’s actual width except at, or very near, the midship bend. The rising and narrowing lines of the floor were also not useful in fairing a ship and, if not well-placed, could even inhibit it. (Lavery, 1984, p. pg 20)

As with the rising lines, separate narrowing lines are drawn fore and aft of the midship bend. The fore and aft ends of the two lower narrowing lines bring the width to zero by definition, and Pett gives us the floor’s width at the midship bend. Hence, we know the widths of the fore and aft ends of both lower narrowing lines. However, one cannot be certain of exactly how the lines narrow. I have based this on the Treatise. An analogous situation exists for the upper narrowing line where, its aft end is defined by the wing transom's width (which Pett gives us), its fore end has no width, and Pett gives us the ship’s breadth at the midship bend. Again, we do not know exactly how the lines narrow. I have also based this on the Treatise. The toptimber narrowing line is more speculative. Pett provides no information about it, and it does not have zero width at either end. I have based both the fore and aft lines on the Treatise, though the fore narrowing lines is more loosely based on it.

The Lower Narrowing Line​

The Fore Lower Narrowing Line​

The Treatise says that “the narrowing alow forward on must also be a fuller [line] than the same is aft, that the gripe may be more bluff and stout, which conveys the water with more ease under the bilge and from thence to run without further resistance...”

This narrowing line is another power function; this time to the second power. However, since I narrowed the breadth less than the Treatise suggests (this is discussed in the later section on the fore upper rising line), I also narrowed the floor less than it suggests. I accomplished this by raising the bend number to the third power.

The Aft lower Narrowing Line​

The Treatise constructs the aft lower narrowing line as an ellipse, explaining that this is because the “narrowing alow aftward on must be by a lank line to the end [that] the water being past [sic] by the broadest part of the bilge at the midship bend may hang but a while there, but may have a passage aftward without cod or cling to dead[en] the way…”.

Calculating the lower narrowing line’s course is more complicated than calculating the course of any other rising or narrowing line. The computational difficulties are compounded because the trigonometry the Treatise uses is antiquated. Further, some solutions can result in negative numbers, and seventeenth century shipwrights probably did not know what to do with results like this. Even contemporary mathematicians were skeptical, some of whom argued that negative numbers were “unfit in the row of gentlemen [i.e., positive numbers].” (Vyawahare & Agrawal, 2008)

Another problematic aspect of the Treatise’s calculations is that they cannot be directly applied to any ship whose breadth and keel length are much different from those of the Treatise’s example ship. In fact, the Treatise’s calculations are even approximate on its own ship (here, they produce a line that is a little more than 3 ¼ inches too wide). This raises the possibility that if shipwrights actually used this method, the error was allowed to stand, or it had to be corrected by the adze men.

The specific reason the Treatise’s method is approximate relates to the fact we must extend the line aft of the stern to obtain a line whose width comes to zero at the tuck. The difficulty lies in determining just how far aft we should extend it. I determined this numerically. This is too cumbersome for seventeenth century shipwrights. In fact, as suggested by the approximate solution on the Treatise’s ship, any exact solution was too cumbersome for them. In fact, finding an “exact” solution with modern mathematical methods is also cumbersome. My line is four ten thousandths of an inch too wide. Since this is unlikely to make much of a difference to modelers (who work at scale), I did not seek a more accurate solution.

References​

Lavery, B. (1984). The Ship of the Line (Vols. Volume II: Design, Construction and Fittings). London: Conway Maritime Press.

Vyawahare, A., & Agrawal, R. K. (2008). A History of Negative Numbers. Scientia Bruneiana, 9, 75-79.