.
Now it's even starting to seem funny 
. Thank you at least for your rhetorical, not to say circus-like display..
-
LUCZORAMA SHIPWRECK SCAVENGER HUNT GIVEAWAY. 4 Weeks of Fun • 1 Legendary Prize ((OcCre’s Fram Ship)) • Global Crew Welcome!
**VIEW THREAD HERE**
Russian light frigate ca. 1700 (Shtandart 1703) – the touch of the tsar
- Thread starter -Waldemar-
- Start date
- Watchers 8
. Thank you at least for your rhetorical, not to say circus-like display.
WALDAMERE THE BEST WAY TO HANDEL THIS IS TO IGNORE,K IGNORE AND TOTALLY IGNORE HE IS GETTING TO YOU WITCH IS HIS OBJECTIVE SO BASICALLY JUST NO RESP0ONCE WHAT SO EVER KEEP UP YOUR VALUABLE WORK SO WE CAN LEARN. GOD BLESS STAY SAFE YOU AND YOURS DON
.
Thank you very much, Don. You are simply irreplaceable.
After the break, for reasons beyond my control, I was going to continue the thread on Hummeren 1624 and only then return to this thread, but now I think I will change the order. Still, I need some more time for substantive preparation. Graphics, unfortunately, do not make themselves and I am still waiting for copies of some source material.
I send my best feelings to you
Thank you very much, Don. You are simply irreplaceable
.After the break, for reasons beyond my control, I was going to continue the thread on Hummeren 1624 and only then return to this thread, but now I think I will change the order. Still, I need some more time for substantive preparation. Graphics, unfortunately, do not make themselves and I am still waiting for copies of some source material.
I send my best feelings to you
.
.
My sincere apologies to all concerned for the prolonged delay, which has several causes – personal reasons, collecting source materials (I have just received a batch of fantastic plans of Russian ships from the first decades of the 18th century, which still need to be reviewed carefully), replacing my computer with a new one, which makes not a small ordeal...
Last but not least, I have also received from a kind reader copies of modern works, including on the first Russian frigates, which I also have yet to familiarise myself with. I am posting below copies of these two modern works for those who also wish to familiarise themselves with them (they are in Russian, so those who do not know the language can use online translators).
— Александр Вячеславович Иванов, Истоки русской кораблестроительной школы. Английская яхта «The Royal Transport», [in:] Menshikov Memorial Readings. The Scientific Almanac 2011/2(9),
— Александр Михайлович Глебов, Российское военное парусное кораблестроение XVIII-XIX веков. Опыт исторической реконструкции, 2016 (p. 133–134).
.
.
In the previous post, I have just replaced the file with the article by Alexander Ivanov with one from which the text can be copied into the clipboard (and then to an online translator). With the file originally inserted this was impossible. However, it is still necessary to manually remove the end-of-line characters (‘enters’) for correct automatic translation by web language tools. Sorry.
.
Last edited:
.
In the context of the connection (or exclusion of such a connection) of the presented plan with the frigate Shtandart 1703, such a statement is simply irrelevant, meaning nothing in fact, and besides, unfortunately, is a symptom of a harmful orthodoxy in this field, not the best evidence of knowledge of common design and construction practices, applied both then and today.
For it is perfectly possible to design and draw some structure using some particular unit of length, and later scale that design by using some other unit of length. Out of quite a few examples of this practice, I have chosen two almost iconic, graphic examples from the period: one of Matthew Baker's designs from the late 16th century and the design of a Dutch cargo ship from the 17th century. In both of these cases, these single designs were intended to be used to build ships of different sizes, precisely by scaling them up or down using different units of length. In particular, note the several linear scales of different lengths in both drawings.
Matthew Baker's universal ship design, late 16th century:
Universal design of a Dutch fluit by F. C. Keyzer, 17th century:
* * *
But that is not all, as there are also undeniable archaeological examples of even a single ship being built using measures of different lengths. In the wreck of the Vasa 1628, several carpenter's foot-length measures of both 11-inch and 12-inch were found, and all with different actual lengths (see on this, for example, F. Hocker, In Details Remembered. Interpreting the Human Component in Shipbuilding, 2013).
According to the content of publication by Alexander Ivanov, posted above, this is merely an assumption, not necessarily correct.
According to the content of publication by Alexander Ivanov, posted above, this is merely an assumption as well, and not necessarily correct.
According to the content of the correspondence, the ruler's dissatisfaction was primarily due to the proportions of the actual ship built, or, as it should rather be understood, its size.
Personally, I interpret this to mean that Vybe Gerens, the actual shipbuilder, used a plan of a ship with an intended length of 90 English feet, but using a nominal 1:1 ratio (either on his own initiative or that of the shipyard administration), built a ship with an actual length of 90 Dutch feet, effectively making it smaller in the proportion of 304,8 mm to 283,113 mm (or other Dutch measure, for instance modified Rhineland foot of 287,758 mm, also used in Dutch shipbuilding at the time, as is perhaps suggested by comparing a known set of dimensions of the Olifant 1705; more on Dutch measures, see, for example, John K. McCarthy, Maritime Archaeology and 3D Digital Libraries – a case study of Dutch Merchant Ships (1595–1800), 2020).
There is nothing in the content of the sources that is cited in the Alexander Ivanov's paper to negate this interpretation. On the contrary, it perfectly explains the smaller ‘proportions’ of the frigate Shtandard 1703, precisely the cause of the ruler's dissatisfaction.
This particular piece of data is actually of little importance in this context, however, in the article by William Ryan published in 1983 that you used and referred to, there may have been some mistake in this regard. For this particular size is given in later fleet listings as 7 feet 9 inches, both by Lyon in 1993 and Winfield in 2009. For the convenience of readers I have included the relevant entries from both works below:
David Lyon , The Sailing Navy List 1688–1860, 1993, p. 29:
Rif Winfield, British Warships in the Age of Sail 1603–1714, 2009, p. 209:
Yes, it is there, and without the slightest doubt, as will be shown in more detail, graphically, in subsequent posts in this thread. It must be added at this point that the notorious problem of today's researchers assessing source plans merely on the basis of passive visual observation (including with a magnifying glass) is, among other things, that more or less construction lines are almost always missing from them, making a meaningful assessment of these extant plans virtually impossible.
It is not at all clear what is the basis for such a statement, given that all or almost all Russian capital or sea going warships from the reign of Peter I, designed using the English method, and presented both in the collection of Peter I drawings from the library of the Russian Academy of Sciences (БАН) and on the plans from the Russian Naval Archives (РГАВМФ), sport a double breadth line. Although it must be admitted that it is not always easy to distinguish between a straight line and an arc of a circle in certain circumstances, especially on the basis of visual observation alone.
Besides, the author of the article, Alexander Ivanov, claims in his article that Peter I learnt or witnessed the drawing of ship designs by Peregrine Osborne, adopting his habits and specifics. Incidentally, both known ship designs by Peregrine Osborne sport a double breadth line as well, as verified and pointed out by my friend Martes.
* * *
To conclude this entry, despite all the above claims kindly provided by Alexander Ivanov, I will nevertheless stand by my conclusion that the presented plan (or perhaps more like a copy of it), could as much as possible have been used for the construction of the frigate Shtandart 1703.
The Dutch origin of the actual builder of the ship is of no significance here either, as it is known that this professional shipwright was perfectly capable of building, and actually built other rather numerous ships precisely on the basis of designs à la anglaise.
Waldemar Gurgul
.
Last edited:
Yes, even before I had an opportunity to read Mr. Ivanov's article, I thought that it must be remembered that this plan is either a copy of a British ship, or a design very closely based on it. Royal Transport - the original - was the work of Lord Danby, and Lord Danby was close friend and host of Tsar Peter during his visit to England where he was presented with the ship and probably accompanying documentation.
We have a couple of his other plans.
Both the Maggot (of which there is a copy in St. Petersburg museum) and Peregrine Galley feature what I think is the upper width - marked by dashed lines.
https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-385580
(a copy from Central Naval Museum in St.-Petersburg, which may suggest the hull was eventually girdled or broadened and shows details of the stern - and, again, even at this resolution two sets of breadth radii can be seen)
The Maggot is evidently the most crazy of Danby's projects, but as far as we know he built the ship at his own expense and outfitted her as a privateer.
And the plan of Peregrine Galley, renamed Carolina during her conversion to full-time royal yacht:
https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-538157
AGAIN CONTINUE SOMETHING I CANH LEARN. MOST INTERESTING. GOD BLESS STAAYB SAFE YOU AND YOURS
Вы ошибаетесь, так как не понимаете реалий того времени в России. Если Геренс построил «Штандарт» в голландских футах, то это значит, что у него было такое указание — построить в голландских футах. В других размерах фута ему просто не дали бы построить, и прежде всего, приданный ему помощник, гвардеец Иван Немцов. Это реалии того времени, когда для точного выполнения замысла царя, к исполнителю прикреплялся гвардеец из бомбардирской роты (личной гвардии Петра I). Этим гвардейцем был Иван Немцов.
И второе. О разности футов прекрасно все знали. У самого короля была палка с 6 гранями, на которых были разные футы. Палка находится в морском музее. Поэтому, раз построили в голландских футах, значит такое задание было получено. Чертеж выполнен в английских футах. Все остальные рассуждения - может быть, да не может быть - от лукавого. Есть факты и они противоречат вашим рассуждениям.
Вы искажаете сущность, подменяя понятия. В обоих примерах присутствуют футы одинакового размера. Изменяется только масштаб — доля дюймов за фут. Никаких изменений размера фута в этих примерах нет. Способность изменять размеры проекта посредством изменения масштаба — одна из самых известных до наших дней. Другое дело, что этот способ возможен в определенных пределах - невозможно 100-пушечный корабль отмасштабировать до фрегата, и наоборот. Но, футы, вернее - их размер, здесь одни и те же.
И что? В 30-х годах 18 века воинская морская комиссия по императорскому указу собрала все образцы русского аршина из регионов России. Все они имели разную длину. Есть пословица - каждый купец на свой аршин мерит. И что теперь? Для реконструкции будем искать какой-нибудь рязанский или новгородский аршин? Я замерил палку Петра 1 с линейкой 19 века - есть небольшое отклонение. Замерил линейку современной с английскими футами - есть небольшое отклонение. Не следует искать абсолютной точности в этом вопросе, но просто иметь это ввиду.
Вы несколько раз повторите это утверждение. Да будет Вам известно, что есть такая наука - История. У этой науки, как и у всех остальных, есть свои правила, принципы, инструменты. Один из переходных преобразований, что если гипотеза ничего не противоречит, значит гипотеза верна. Верна она будет делать техпор, пока не будет представлена другая гипотеза, опровергающая предыдущую. Но и новая гипотеза не должна иметь противоречий. Выдвигайте, посмотрите.
Вы плохо представляете исторические реалии того времени в России. Ни один администратор верфи, ни один мастер не посмел бы нарушить отданный Петром указание. Нарушение было чреватой мгновенной расправой с нарушителем.
Мы не имеем прямых указаний, в чем заключались претензии короля. Эти претензии были признаны царем устно. Рассуждаем о претензиях Петра только по упоминанию их в письме А.Д.Меншикова - мог бы исправиться он изряднее во всем против препорций, так же и в прочем. Это высказывание «сложное» сейчас переводится на английский или другой какой язык. Но, носитель русского языка точно видит в этом высказывании ОБЩИЙ ХАРАКТЕР. В данном случае А.Д.Меньшиков вводит термин «препорция» в ОБЩЕМ ПОНИМАНИИ, а не конкретно только размеры и их расположение.
Второе. Недовольство Петра отражается на важных событиях. Об этом в статье точно сказано. Далее фрегаты именуются «транспортами». Следовательно, главное в претензиях короля были не размеры - указано в голландских футах, построить, вот и построить в голландских футах. Общая архитектура должна была быть подобна чертежу "Транспорта". Для этого был приставлен Иван Немцов. С этим не справился Геренс. Это тоже указано в статье. Но это указание Вам неудобно, Вы его пропускаете "мимо ушей".
См. таблицу на странице статьи 41. Подумайте над ее добавлением. То же самое и с моими словами под этой таблицей. Куда Вы "воткнете" 7,9 футов в эту таблицу? Мне кажется, что это Лайон и Уинфилд - кто у кого написал? - сделали описку. Размеры «Транпорта Рояля» точно соответствуют между судами двух классов. Предлагаемая Вами величина 7,9 футов "вываливается". Почитайте на досуге...
Подлинник покажите. Без особых линий. Только подлинник. Вот и посмотрим, есть или нет.
И что? Это мое впечатление от знакомства с работой Петра. Вам уже мое впечатление не нравится? Ну, я не красная девица, чтобы кому-то понравилось. Вы мне тоже не очень-то нравитесь.))
.
My goodness, what an idle ramble. Perhaps you were right, Don. It is difficult to even attempt to argue with such hysterical and yet self-contradictory statements at all. Why should I waste my time on it?
For example, to keep explaining like a small child that the linear scales, all of different lengths, on a drawing of a Dutch ship have the same number of graduations, that is 33? And what follows from this? Or how to understand the argument that the ship's builder had his own personal controller who made sure that everything went according to plan, and at the same time it did not go according to plan? And so on. Rubbish.
.
WALDAMERE, FRIEND TO MUCH TIME TAKEN BY UOE YOU CAN TALK TO A [PIANO BUT CAN NOT MAKE IT UNDERSTOD GET BACK TO POSTING FOR US LEARNING IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE EVENTUALLY IT WILL GO AWAY SO LET US MOVE ON, YOU WILL NEVER GET ANYWHERE WITH SOMEONE LIKE THIS. THIS IS 86 YEARS OF TRYING. GOD BLESS STAY SAFE YOU AND YOURS DON
.
Really!? Do you have any more instructions on manipulation, rudeness and lack of humanity? This is really funny.
.
Both members, don't get personal. If the discussion doesn't stay within the bounds of decency and the rules of our forum, I'll be forced to close this topic. Please be mutually polite, and save your emotions for concerts and sports events.
Не стоит переходить на личности, Если дискуссия не будет соблюдаться в рамках приличия и правилах нашего форума, я буду вынужден закрыть эту тему. Пожалуйста будьте взаимно вежливы, придерите эмоции для концертов и спорта.