Shipbuilding from its beginnings. Vol. 1 (of 3)

by E. van Konijnenburg

TABLE OF CONTENTS

			Page
PREFACE			[11]
Division of Europe according to the shape of vessels: Northern centre—Baltic Sea—Southern centre—Mediterranean Sea.
SOUTHERN CENTRE.
CHAPTER I			[13]
The Egyptians			[13]
The Phœnicians			[17]
The Greeks and Romans			[19]
The Mediterranean in the Middle Ages			[23]
Galleys			[23]
Types of ships in the XVIIIth century			[28]
NORTHERN CENTRE.
CHAPTER II			[33]
Vikings’ vessel			[34]
The Cog			[36]
Influence of the Crusades			[38]
Use of the rudder			[38]
The galley in the Netherlands			[39]
Use of Artillery			[40]
Baertzen			[40]
Krayers and Hulken			[41]
Use of carvel laid planking			[41]
The ship in the XVIth century			[44]
Use of the square-stern ship			[44]
Use of the ports			[45]
The Flyboat			[45]
The Pinnace			[46]
The square-stern ship			[47]
The Flute—the Kuff—the Smack			[47]
Transition of the ship of the XVIth century to that of the XVIIth century			[49]
The war ship (first war navy)			[49]
France			[52]
England			[53]
The Netherlands			[54]
Merchant marine of the Netherlands			[57]
Use of the frigate			[58]
Fireships			[58]
CHAPTER III			[61]
Classification of vessels			[65]
I.—War ships			[65]
[II.—Merchant vessels]		for over seas navigation	[66]
		for the coasting trade	[66]
III.—Ferries			[67]
IV.—Vessels for sundry uses			[67]
V.—Boats intended for the upper rivers (Bovenlanders)			[68]
VI.—Fishing vessels			[70]
CHAPTER IV			[71]
Description of the types of vessels			[71]
The Pinnace			[71]
The Flyboat			[71]
The Katship			[72]
Ship of the Dutch East India Company			[72]
The Boeier			[72]
The Howker			[72]
The Bush			[72]
The Hekboot			[72]
The Straetsvaerder			[73]
The Stokker			[73]
The Frigate			[73]
The Galliot			[73]
The Galeas			[74]
The Koff			[74]
The Smak			[75]
The Smalschip and the Wijdschip			[75]
The Damlooper			[75]
The Tjalk			[76]
The Schuit and the Poon			[76]
The Kaag			[76]
The Steigerschuit			[77]
The Yacht			[77]
The Boeierschuit			[77]
The Pleit			[77]
The Otter			[77]
The Mot			[78]
The Spitsche Mot			[78]
The Ever			[78]
The Bremerkahn			[78]
The Potten and the Pujen			[78]
The Snijboon and the Somp or Pegge			[79]
The Hoogeveensche Praam			[79]
The Praam (pram)			[79]
The Koftjalk			[81]
The Kraak			[82]
The Skiff			[82]
The Ponton			[82]
The Halve Pont or Pijper			[83]
The Gierpont			[83]
The Kabelveerpont			[83]
The Bok			[84]
The Snik			[84]
The Westlander			[85]
The Kaag			[85]
The Utrecht Pram			[85]
The Schouw			[86]
The Trekschuit			[86]
The Yacht			[86]
The Baggeraak			[86]
The Bagger- or Moddermolen			[87]
The Tjotter			[88]
The Laadbak and the Zolderschuit			[88]
The Onderlegger			[88]
THE BOVENLANDERS			[89]
The Rhine			[89]
The Dorstensche Aak			[89]
The Stevenschip			[90]
The Turfijker and the Hagenaar			[90]
The Keen			[90]
The Keenaak			[90]
The Lahnaak and the Slof			[91]
The Meuse			[91]
The The Whalemajol, etc.			[91]
CHAPTER V			[93]
Fishing boats			[93]
The Egmonder Pink			[93]
The Bush			[93]
The Kwee and the Hoekerbuis			[96]
The Hoeker (howker)			[96]
The Haringjager and the Buisconvoyer			[96]
The Sloep (sloop)			[96]
The Logger (lugger)			[97]
The Bom			[97]
The Garnalenschuit			[97]
The Scholschuit or Bazaanschuit			[97]
The Zwartewaalsche Gaffelaar			[97]
The Schokker			[98]
The Haringschuit			[99]
The Punter and the Gondel			[99]
The Hoogaars			[99]
The Steekschuit			[100]
The Hengst			[100]
The Botter			[100]
The Blazer			[100]
The Lemmeraak			[100]
The Bolle and the Knots			[100]
The Jol			[101]
Use of fishing boats on the Zuiderzee			[101]
The Waterschip			[102]
CHAPTER VI			[103]
Belgian craft			[103]
The Tournaisien			[103]
The Chaland			[103]
The Bélandre			[103]
The Pointu			[104]
The Prij			[104]
CHAPTER VII			[105]
Development of the types of vessels in the North-East of Europe in relation to the first inhabitants of the Netherlands			[105]

De scheeps- en sterke bouw

’t heeft ons ’t gebruik geleert,

Dees gaf ons wet en reght

Hoe men de landen heert.[1]

(NIC. WITSEN.)

HOLLAND’S struggle for life has been a constant battle against the invasion of water. If this has been, on the one hand, an enemy to be feared, it has been, on the other, the natural line of communication above all others which has made our ancestors, since time immemorial, a nation of seamen. The boat was a necessity as indispensable as the house.

It is impossible to say who invented the boat; every one has contributed his mite to its building and this has given rise to its gradual development. The discovery that wood would float was due, evidently, to chance.

Use must have been made first of the trunk of a single tree, and afterwards several must have been joined together to make a raft.

Then came the hollowed trunk which was followed, in its turn, by a boat with a framework covered with skins from which the finished boat was born.

Between the floating trunk of a tree and the most complete ship, there have come into existence all sorts of intermediate forms, of which most are still to be found even in our day.

[III 1]

Noah, according to the writers of antiquity, must have been the first shipwright. The old authors enter into circumstantial details on this subject and give various drawings of Noah’s “ark”. Several of these drawings are reproduced in the atlas of this work. The only value of these reproductions of the ark lies in the fact that they probably represent a ship of the time of their author. It must also be noted that the first shipbuilder is as entirely unknown as the first inventor of the boat. That which is beyond any doubt is; that the mutual influences of various nations have been important factors in the evolution of the ship. This latter, on its side, served to bring into contact nations widely separated by water and to open up countries as yet unexplored.

Hence shipbuilding must first have shone forth, under these conditions, among the most civilized races.

Mexico and Peru excepted, it may be said that civilization was developed first among the Chinese in the valley of the Hoang-Ho, then among the Babylonians in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, and among the Egyptians in the valley of the Nile.

The question of knowing whether the Babylonians learned shipbuilding from the Chinese, or the reverse, is one of minor importance. It is certain however that reciprocal influences were at work among the races of Asia Minor and there is no doubt that the Babylonians influenced the Phœnicians, the pioneer shipwrights of the Mediterranean. The Egyptians, who were not a seafaring people do not here enter into consideration.

As the Netherlands lay under the action exercised in Europe, where the development of naval architecture went on about two independent centres, that of the Baltic and that of the Mediterranean, Asia may be set aside in so far as its parts not bordering on the Mediterranean are concerned.

After the Baltic, which will be called the northern centre, had introduced shipbuilding among us, this centre, in so far as over seas navigation is concerned, came into contact with the Mediterranean, which will be called the southern centre, through the movements of commerce and navigation, and finally the two became fused with each other.

It is easy to see that the influence of the northern centre was preponderant on our naval architecture, hence its importance is capital for us.

The few vessels of ancient times which have been found show us what a high degree of perfection shipbuilding had already reached in almost prehistoric times; the finish of these vessels and the care given to their ornamentation might also be noticed. These observations are not extraordinary, when the large part played by the ship in the existence of nations is borne in mind; the contrary would rather have caused surprise. Nor is it astonishing that the chances of the sea should have been faced with small boats. For are not the valiant fishermen of to-day seen facing the waves of the sea, in still smaller boats than those of the ancients, to ply their rude and perilous trade, and that too during the entire year? For let it not be forgotten indeed, that ocean navigation during the Middle Ages was, as a matter of fact, carried on only in Summer. NIC. WITSEN wrote in 1671, p. 195 of his book, on this subject: “dat men oulinckx in deze landen nimmer ’t zee ging als naer besloten boeken, besproken uiterste wille en met God zich te hebben verzoent: wanneer men het gevaar meer ontzag als heden nu dorst men althans zee kiezen zonder aanzien van tijdt of weer van outs wiert de zee gesloten in de quaetste tijden van het jaar!”[2]

To know what we can do, to know of what we are capable, and, above all, to know what there is still to be learned and even what has to be imitated, are the most important demands of all individual education as they are the fundamental requirements of a race which, after all, is but an unit in the series of the nations.

May this book add its mite to a knowledge of the gradual evolution of shipbuilding; may it also cause to disappear this ridiculous way in which ancient ships used to be represented and, most of all, may it awaken the love for the building of ships.

I am, in this connection, fully of the opinion expressed by WITSEN as follows: “Zoo groot dunkt mij de waerdigheidt dezer wetenschap te zijn dat niemant derzelve hier ten lande, daar de zeevaert de sterkste zenuwe van den staet is, behoorde onkundig te zijn.”[3]

[1] Necessity has taught us naval architecture and the art of war, which give the means by which to dominate the nations.

[2] That, in this country, in former times, when greater fear was felt of the dangers of the sea than is now the case when they are faced in all kinds of weather, people never put off from shore without first having settled their accounts, made their wills and partaken of the Holy Communion. In the old days, the sea was closed during the bad season.

[3] The value of this science seems to me so great that none of my fellow countrymen can afford not to be acquainted with it, as navigation is the nerve and sinew of the nation.

THE Egyptians were not a nation of mariners. Their navigation, at the beginning, was limited to the Nile alone; it was only later that they ventured out to sea, preceded and assisted by the Phœnicians. Their vessels were and continued to be river boats. The question of knowing whether the Egyptians borrowed the art of building them from the Babylonians, or whether their art was developed independently of any other is of little importance here and, furthermore, it cannot be solved by the nautical knowledge which we possess. (ERMANN, p. 679.—Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, pp. 25-33.)

[II 1]

That which is certain is that the Babylonians and the Egyptians had their vessels already in the most remote antiquity; this follows (L’Anthropologie, 1899, Vol. X, p. 517, and HOLMES, 1900, p. 9) from the decorations on ancient vases which are supposed to date from 6000 to 4000 years B. C.

[II 2]

Doubts have arisen at times—but wrongly in my opinion—as to the question of knowing whether the decorations in question really do represent vessels. Although the drawings are too primitive to furnish any data relating to the form of the boats, it can surely be said, however, that only vessels propelled by oars are there shown and that sailing vessels were probably still unknown at this time. The lines at the bottom of the boats, considered sometimes, but wrongly, as indicating fishing apparatus (Recherches sur les Origines de l’Égypte, DE MORGAN, pp. 91 and 92), represent the propelling oars, and the long strokes at the stern of the boat, the steering oars. The boats were not moved forward by oars but by paddles, which is the oldest mode of the propulsion used, as can still be seen by the interrupted line of rowers found again, still later, among the Egyptians.

The reasons for the almost exclusive use of the oar or the paddle for propelling boats are to be sought in the mobility of the bottom and hence in variations of the navigable passages of the Nile. To these should also be added the great changes in the height of the water and the sudden dead calms. Sails were used later, it is true, but rowing and towing still continued to be employed along with the sails.

The shape of the vessel depended upon the use for which it was intended, so that there can be distinguished among the Egyptians: boats for transportation, boats for towing and boats for fishing. It is not known whether they had any war vessels. Pleasure boats and boats used for travelling by persons of rank formed a large flotilla. (Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 25, and Aegypten by ADOLPHE ERMANN, p. 639.)

The Egyptian boats were flat, as a rule, with the bow and stern rising with a slight slope above the water, the stern generally higher than the bow in order, so it seems, to give the steersmen a better purchase. (Aegypten, ADOLPHE ERMANN, p. 637.)

[II 2]
[II 3]
[II 4]
[II 5]
[II 13]

Under the ancient Empire, about 5000 to 3200 B. C., boats were moved by paddles, the boatmen facing the bow. Still, even in these distant times, oars were already employed and, toward the end of this period, they were in general use. This is shown clearly by figures on the monuments of this age, where the rowers no longer face the bow but are turned toward the stern. (HOLMES, p. 13; ERMANN, p. 640; Ancient Ships by CECIL TOR, 1894.) Paddling was kept in use only for boats made of papyrus. When the boats were driven by oars, the latter passed through the side of the vessel or through rings arranged for this purpose. Each oar was worked by a single oarsman. The boat was steered by means of oars, rather larger than the others, and handled also each by a single man. The number of steering oars, as well as the number of steersmen, depended on the number of oarsmen (ERMANN, p. 641.) For example: for eight oarsmen there were at least two steersmen; for fourteen there were three steersmen, and four for twenty-one oarsmen, etc.

[II 13]
[II 14]

Already, under the ancient Empire, the sail is shown alongside of the oar. The mast, placed in the middle of the boat, was composed of two posts placed crossways and fastened together at the top; this form of procedure is characteristic of the time of the old Empire.

The rigging, set in the longitudinal axis of the vessel, was composed of a heavy rope leading forward and of several lighter ones, generally from six to twelve, leading aft.

The sail, which was rectangular in shape, was always attached between two yards, one of which held the head, the other the foot of the sail, a system followed exclusively in Egypt. Two ropes led aft from the upper yard, which was fastened to the top of the mast, so as to give the means to turn the sail to the wind.

Here are a few figures which will give some idea of the dimensions which were in use.

A relatively large boat, 16 metres long, had ordinary oars 3 metres long, steering oars of 6 metres, a mast 10 metres high with a yard of 6 metres. The area of the sail was about 60 to 70 square metres, hence it was higher than it was wide. (ERMANN, p. 639.) In calm weather, which was not infrequent, the vessel was driven by oars or else was towed. The mast was then lowered and wrapped in the sail.

In order to attach the rope which connected the vessel with the towing boat, there was used generally a piece of wood set either in the bow alone, or in the bow and the stern: this was the arrangement especially for freight boats. These latter had no rigging, as a rule; they could scarcely make room for a few oarsmen, because the greater part of the boat was occupied by the cabin.

As a general rule, small rowboats were used for towing.

The art of shipbuilding made a great advance under the middle Empire (B. C. 3200-2100). Except for the small papyrus boat, vessels were all propelled by oars and no longer by paddles. The steering oars, which were difficult to handle, were replaced by a single large rudder which could be worked by one man.

The rigging was also changed. The upper yard no longer rested on the mast; it was attached thereto in such a way that it could be removed. The sail was less high, its width was increased and the mast became relatively shorter; finally, the double mast, which was so characteristic of the ancient Empire, was replaced by a single mast.

[II 8]

Under the new Empire, (inclusive of the interregnum of the Hyksos B. C. 2100 to 1600) B. C. 1600 to 730, the art of shipbuilding made no advance. Luxury only increased, especially for the cabins which had already appeared during the time of the middle Empire.

The special feature of this period was the increasing width of the sail. This width was so great that the yards had to be made of two pieces joined near the mast. The following figures give an idea of this constant increase of the sail. (ERMANN, pp. 643 et suiv.)

[II 18]
etc.

Under the ancient Empire, the mast was 10 metres long and the yard was 6 metres. Under the middle Empire, these lengths were, respectively, 5 and 6 metres, and under the new Empire they were 5 and 10 metres.

As the result of this constant increase of the width of the sail, the rigging became more complicated and a top was placed at the head of the mast in order to handle the lines from there.

[II 4]

The scarceness of wood in Egypt was the cause, from the most distant times, of recourse being had to other materials for the construction of vessels. Papyrus answered this purpose very well. This aquatic plant when cut, dried and made up in bundles, formed the material of which the boats were made.

[II 5]

The papyri were laid side by side and a whole was made of them by ties placed at close intervals. (ERMANN, p. 593; NICOLAS WITSEN, p. 6; Archéologie navale, by A. JAL, Vol. I, p. 91.)

Several drawings found on old monuments show us the Egyptians engaged in this work.

The papyrus barks formed a sort of rafts of reeds, judging by these drawings which represent the oarsmen standing upright on the boats.

These latter were small; attempts made later to build them of larger size appear to have failed. As a general rule, the wood intended for the construction of the larger vessels had to be imported.

The many pictures on monuments and the large number of models found, enable a very fair idea of the shape of the ancient Egyptian ship to be formed, and it can be seen at the same time that these shapes were little changed.

Before describing these models, it will be rather interesting to note that, as a general rule, the oldest ones are not reproduced in accordance with the proportions adopted in practice; they are too high and too broad for the length. Taken by themselves, the stem and the sternpost are well shown, but the intermediate body is too short. The cause of this must be sought in the fact that these models are made from nature and not by taking the dimensions of the boats from carefully prepared drawings. Proceeding in this way, it is very difficult to give exactly the relative dimensions of the boats, especially in the relations between length and breadth. This is why the vessels are drawn so often with too little length. So, many old models must be accepted with the necessary reserves.

The vessels shown in mural paintings are generally much better proportioned than those represented by models. In the mural paintings, when the boat is shown in profile, there was no reason to consider the beam; all the same, the figures are often too large.

According to BELGER (“Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde”, XXXIII, p. 24), the models which have been found should be placed in two classes:

a) solid models made from a massive piece of wood, and

b) hollow models which are, evidently, a more faithful reproduction of the ship.

Belger also shows that, in group a, the parts painted white must be considered as not existing, while those painted brown really do exist.

It appears, generally, from the examination of these models that the Egyptian boats were not of deep draught; they had, necessarily, to draw but little water on account of the small depth and the frequent changes in the navigable portions of the river. The mural paintings, on their side, show that the bottom length was one-third of the total length. (ERMANN, p. 637; BELGER, p. 25, XXXIII-1895, et id. p. 26.)

[II 8]

The boats were flat-bottomed with very low sides, so that, in order to prevent the water from coming in, movable upper sides were often used. The outside planking was smooth (all the models are worked in this way) and the boats were finished with neither stem nor sternpost. The keel, in like manner, was not shown on the models, but this would not allow us to say, however, that it never really existed.

How then could the vessel have sufficient strength under these conditions?

[II 10]

This explanation is given by the representation of an ancient boat, exhumed about eleven years ago, shown in “Wassersport” of January 4, 1906, (No 1). The form of this boat shows that there were neither frames nor keel; but, on the other hand, the planking is very thick (36 millimetres) and is formed of joists close laid and dovetailed together; the middle joist which takes the place of the keel is, besides, thicker than the others but it does not project below the hull of the boat. The latter is therefore perfectly smooth on the outside. The keelson forms a whole with the floor and follows up to the very ends of the bow and stern.

The benches for the rowers served as braces for the sides of the vessel; and when this was quite large, the sides, by reason of their greater length, were supported near the middle by a timber laid in the longitudinal axis of the vessel.

At the point where the mast was put up, this timber was made double and embraced the foot of the mast to which it gave the required support. In smaller boats, where this beam is not met with, the support for the mast was formed by a special arrangement which is found in the models.

The bow and stern are always shown to be solid (painted brown), which allows it to be supposed that there were decks at the two ends.

The benches for the rowers passed through the planking and gave greater stiffness to the boats; these benches are indicated on most of the reliefs by small squares on the sides of the vessel. The steering oar was supported, on the other hand, by a beam which passed across the boat and which is shown by a small rectangle.

It has been sometimes believed, but wrongly, in my opinion, that these rectangles were windows in the cabin. (See Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 22.)

A very nearly identical method of proceeding can be noted in the barks formerly used by the Arabs of the Black Sea, and reproduced in PARIS’s work, Vol. I, No 59 (see also the models from the Dutch East Indies which appear in the collection of the Technical University at Delft).

This wholly original mode of construction, which was never in use in the North of Europe, bears witness to the fact that the art of shipbuilding in Egypt was more closely related to that of Asia (India and China) than to that of Northern Europe. But this should not be a matter of astonishment.

[II 11]

The proof that these little rectangles, just mentioned, do not represent windows is given by a figure, found in the temple of Dês-el-Bahari (Ancient and Modern Ships, HOLMES, p. 20), which reproduces a boat carrying an obelisk. In the side of this vessel, there are not one, but three superposed rows of these little rectangles. This ship was made exceptionally strong, in proportion to the loads which it had to carry. It would be hard to admit that the side would have been pierced by three superposed rows of windows. An endeavor rather has been made to put in a suitable cross bracing. In the boat which tows the larger vessel, furthermore, there is but one row of rectangles, and these are placed below the gunwale, at the points where the rowers sit. Here it has been considered enough to let the benches of the oarsmen pass through.

Boats intended for carrying freight were a little shorter and more round than the others and were towed, as a rule. They had generally a towing bitt at the top of the bow and sometimes even a second one at the top of the stern. A few had sails and rigging, but generally they could also be propelled by oars. The free space on deck was occupied ordinarily by a cabin (made of laths and covered with cloth). Rather flat at the bow, these boats rose sensibly toward the stern.

[II 20]

As has been said already, it is not known whether the Egyptians had any vessels built exclusively for military purposes. It would seem not, if it be remembered that most of the actions between vessels had no other scene than the river. Furthermore, only one single representation of a naval fight at sea is found, it having taken place under Ramses III (B. C. 1180-1150). Here is another proof that the Egyptians were not a race of seamen, and this is all the more marked as the war ships seen are not of pure Egyptian type. The subject will be taken up again.

JAL gives in his celebrated work, Archéologie navale, p. 68, a few figures about the size of Egyptian boats. According to this author, the largest boats were not more than 39.00 m. long nor more than 5.19 m., or say 5.20 m. wide. The width was to the length, therefore, as 1 to 7.5, a proportion which was maintained for vessels with oars up to the middle ages.

In the matter of the speed of ships, the same author puts it at about 9 kilometres an hour (p. 110). In order to reduce the speed at the rapids of the rivers, there was attached to the boat a rope of which the free end was made fast to a block of stone. This stone slid along the bed of the river and offered a sufficient resistance; although the anchor was not known to the Egyptians, they were, as a matter of fact, its inventors. (JAL, Archéologie navale, p. 103.)

Before ending this chapter, a few more remarks will be made which are applicable to nearly all Egyptian vessels.

The benches for the oarsmen were always perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the boat, this being necessary in view of the special construction of the vessels.

Under the Middle Empire, small extra elevations supplied with a hand rail were erected on the forecastle and poop decks. They were, respectively, the posts of the captain and helmsman.

[II 20]

The mast, erected near the middle of the ship, was movable on all vessels. The double mast under the Old Empire rested in two shoes set on either side of the longitudinal axis. The single mast (under the Middle and New Empires) went down to the bottom of the hold and rested against the beams which held up the rowers’ benches; it was also fixed by ropes (this appears clearly on several reliefs), either directly or by means of a step, as is shown on the model at Berlin. (See BELGER, pp. 27-29.) In this latter case, the mast was fastened to the step itself, a manner of consolidating which is still applied even now. In this respect, a relief coming from a mortuary chamber and now at the museum of Gizeh offers a great deal of interest. This relief shows a mast being let down, and Belger, the author already quoted, calls attention, in this connection, to the fact that the sculptor let the extreme part of the mast fall behind the coat of the man who is occupied with the task, probably because he did not know what to do with it. Then too only two of the five oarsmen of this style of boat appear in this reproduction, whereas, if the drawing were well made, it would follow therefrom that the brackets shown on sundry models abaft of the benches of the rowers, were only to serve as a support to the backs of these last. The great length of the boats and their relatively small immersed length, required special precautions against the hogging of the ship. A rope was stretched from bow to stern along the longitudinal axis of the vessel. This rope was supported on forks and was fastened bow and stern to a cable which ran around the boat. (Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 32.)

[II 12]

The operation of putting up some of these forks is seen in a number of the pictures. Ermann calls attention to the fact, but wrongly in my opinion, that in one of these figures, the crew is occupied in stretching the rope in order to give to the boat the desired curve. (ERMANN, p. 604.) That this is not so comes out clearly, for me, first from the fact that the boat is already shored and hence has already received its final shape. In the second place, the shores would not be kept in position if the form of the ship were being modified; hence, they would not have been drawn. Finally, it is hard to admit that some of the hands should continue to work quietly on the ship, as shown in the picture, while others are, so to speak, in the act of strengthening its curve; because the sides must have spread, necessarily, during this latter operation. Consequently the men are employed merely in setting up the fork which is to carry the rope. It is easy to understand, besides, that this should be done before the shores are removed because after they are taken away the rope would have become properly taut at the least bending of the ship.

[II 17]
[II 19]

It follows, from what precedes, that the Egyptian boat was not a sea craft. Even the boats which went as far as Phœnicia, situated on the Red Sea, and must have been real sea vessels, are represented in the figures in absolutely the same way as are the ordinary river craft.

When King Necho (B. C. 612 to 596), who encouraged commerce, felt the need for possessing a fleet, he applied to some Greeks for the construction of sea-going ships, and Phœnicians, not Egyptians, were employed for great maritime expeditions. (ERMANN, p. 646; HOLMES, p. 26; Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN p. 39; G. MASPORO, Histoire Ancienne des Peuples d’Orient, 1893, pp. 536 and 537.) It was the Phœnicians, and not the Egyptians, who thus became the pioneers of shipbuilding in the Mediterranean.

It is a general phenomenon to see nations, who enter into reciprocal relations, copy very quickly, from each other whatever pertains to the art of shipbuilding. And, could it be otherwise? The struggle for life produces this phenomenon in a perfectly natural way both in military and commercial affairs. When a fleet was not able to stand up against that of the enemy, vessels similar to those of the adversary or even stronger were built. So it was formerly, so it is to-day. But the special features which in the past characterized the ships of the different peoples have passed away, and at the present time the nationality of vessels can no longer be recognized save by the flags which they fly. It is not surprising, therefore, that the different nations, which used to dwell on the shores of the Mediterranean and which reached their prime almost simultaneously, or shortly after one other, did not each have a type of boat belonging especially to its own country.

Alas! little remains of the vessels of antiquity and most of the pictures which have been found, are much less clear than are those of the Egyptians. The sculptors devoted their attention more to the beautiful lines of the ship than to the necessity of giving an exact idea of its construction. Writers, on the other hand are distinguished by exaggeration and emphasis when it is a question of the size of vessels.

There is nothing certain known in regard to dimensions, to the form of ships or to the number of oars. It is not likely that ships of extraordinary dimensions existed. JAL expresses this so well, when he says in his work already mentioned the “Archéologie navale”: “I do not believe any more in the ‘quadraginta ordinum’ galley, 143.43 m. long, 15.27 m. wide and 23.38 m. high above the water than I believe in the long horse which carried the four sons of Aymon“ (p. 117.) (See also Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines, part 36, p. 24; Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 62; JAL, Archéologie Navale, 1840, Vol. I, p. 110.)

The art of shipbuilding was developed in the beginning among the Phœnicians and allied peoples, but it is not possible to say exactly which of these nations was its true promoter. The most primitive forms were found at that time side by side with more perfect models. So it is that Herodotus tells us that the peoples of Asia Minor (Armenians) came down the river toward Babylon in small boats having a hull made of linden branches covered with skins. (See WITSEN, pp. 9 and 16; Livre d’Hérodote, I, 194; Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 27; A. JAL, p. 88.) Straw was laid on the bottom of the boat and one or two asses were carried in addition to the cargo. Arrived at Babylon, the boatmen sold their cargo, as well as the straw and the timbers of their boat, and, with the skins loaded on the backs of the asses, made their way back home. The current of the river was too strong to allow taking the boats up stream.

[II 21]

At this same time more perfect boats were navigating the Mediterranean. The oldest picture of boats of a certain tonnage dates from B. C. 1150 and shows the sea fight between the Egyptians and the Barbarians to which allusion has already been made. (See, ROSSELLINI; JAL, Archéologie navale, 1845, Vol. I, p. 65; Jahrbuch des Kaiserlichen Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Vol. VII, 1892, p. 44.) So far as the shape of the boats is concerned, this picture tells little. It merely lets us see that the vessels of the belligerents differed from each other. Moreover, it is seen at once that the Egyptian ships were propelled by oars and that the others were not. Certain authors have deduced from this fact that the vessels of the Barbarians were sailing ships, which, from my view, is not evident. The Egyptians are, in fact, armed with bows and arrows, and the Barbarians with swords. If the former sought their might in quick movements, the latter could only do battle by boarding; under these conditions, the oarsmen could only have been in the way and this explains their absence, or else they also swung the sword; whereas, among the Egyptians, the vanquished had, probably to act as oarsmen and remained at their oars. (See JAL, Archéologie navale, Vol. I, pp. 52 et seq.) It is probable that the sculptor wished to show that the Egyptians fought differently from the other nations. Finally, the Egyptian vessels in question differed sensibly from those described at the beginning of this work. It is more than likely that these vessels were not Egyptian ships of war, but ships built by more northern nations like the Phœnicians or copied from their models. The rigging is not Egyptian; the sail has but one yard.

Let it be mentioned here that there is in the British Museum at London an amphora coming from the Polledrara (the tomb of Vulci), which Munay (Journal of Hell. Stud., 1889, p. 247) causes to date from the second half of the VIIth century B. C., and on which is a drawing of a Greek ship with Egyptian rigging; the sail is fastened to two yards, a custom which is characteristic of Egypt. (Jahrbuch des Kaiserlichen Deutschen Archeologischen Instituts, Vol. VII, 1892, p. 42.)

The Phœnicians had several kinds of boats and appear to have had more pronounced ships of war. These latter were long and narrow for quick movements; the others, on the contrary, were short and broad for large cargo capacity. (Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN-HOLMES, p. 26.)

[II 23]

There are few data about the primitive Phœnician ships. The oldest reproduction is the one given in Layard’s work. It is a drawing made from a bas-relief preserved in the palace of Sennacherib (about B. C. 700). But this drawing is rudimentary and the dimensions are out of proportion, the drawing is exaggerated. It also contains some apocryphal additions. Consequently, but little importance can be attached to it.

This reproduction is remarkable under only two respects: in the first place, because it represents biremes, although it may be doubted whether the two banks of oars were used at the same time; secondly, the ships have rams. This peculiarity differentiates the Phœnician ships sensibly from those of the Egyptians. (Dictionnaire des Antiquité grecques et romaines, p. 25; Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 30.) It is the oldest reproduction known of boats having rams.

The Phœnicians, by their expeditions along the shores of the Mediterranean, toward Greece, Italy, Africa and even as far as England, according to some authors, while others take them even to the Baltic Sea, exerted a great influence on the art of shipbuilding as it was practised on the Mediterranean. This influence must have made itself felt in the colonies which they founded, and among which Carthage was the most important. There is no doubt that the naval architecture of the Phœnicians differed little from that of the Greeks and from that of the Romans. Let it be remembered, in this connection, that the old models of ships in the Netherlands, for example, remained unchanged for many centuries and that the same fact has been found everywhere else. It is permissible, then, to assume that the types of boats which existed in the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages do not depart greatly from those which date from the time of the Romans.

If the progressive development of the ship through the ages be considered, it is unlikely that the ancients built ships of fabulous dimensions; on the contrary, their vessels must have been rather small.

The first important changes effected in ships were the consequence of the invention of gunpowder, and are not directly related to the evolution of nations. The new direction given to the art of shipbuilding does not coincide therefore with the end of Ancient History and the beginning of the History of the Middle Ages. It seems, then, inexact, under these conditions, to speak of the art of the ancients as of something which forms an isolated whole.

If, judging by the models exhumed, the Egyptian ship had already reached a high degree of perfection, the Egyptians were still having recourse to the lights of the Phœnicians, it is evident that the Phœnician ship must have been the better. Therefore, all the old reproductions, without distinction, leave much to be desired, the result, doubtless, of the incapacity of the sculptor or the painter, which still happens very often in our own time.

Layard’s reproduction shows that biremes have existed since the earliest times. It must not be forgotten, in this connection, to invite attention to the Greek “Dipylon” vases on which two banks of superposed oarsmen are shown. These reproductions are, however, so primitive that it seems to me hazardous to deduce any conclusions from them. As a matter of fact, it may be assumed up to a certain point that the upper bank of oarsmen represents the after bank and that, instead of being superposed, one set of oarsmen followed after the other.

The oars of the upper bank are not drawn in full, which shows that the rowers followed one another and were not placed the ones above the others. It is deduced from this that all these drawings should be accepted with the greatest circumspection.

In the Middle Ages, there were several oarsmen to an oar; more reliance was placed on a more rapid movement of the oars than on the increase of their numbers, to obtain a greater speed.

It cannot be said exactly when the transition was brought about. But the oldest method of propulsion is, in any case, the one in which each oar was worked by a single man for a single oar; it was taken, so it would seem, from the boats using paddles, each paddle being handled by one man.

The relative positions, which might be taken by the rowers who worked superposed banks of oars, have given rise to many suppositions which it is superfluous to examine in detail.

Nothing more will be done than to recall the trials of propulsion by oars, undertaken on the initiative of the Emperor Napoleon III, on a galley built especially for these experiments. It was shown that the trireme was a possible thing but, that a boat of this sort was so encumbered by rowers that no space was left for the cargo. (See the work Le Musée du Louvre, “Constructions navales dans l’Antiquité.”)

The result of the researches made may be stated as follows:

All the ideas put forth in regard to the number of banks of oars and to the respective places occupied by the oarsmen rest only on hypotheses. There have been more than one bank of rowers, but it is probable, however, that it was exceptional when there were more than two. Each oar at the beginning was handled by a single man. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th Edition, p. 806; HOLMES, p. 44; TORR, p. 18; WITSEN, p. 13.)

As a general rule, vessels moved by oars underwent little change after the invention of gunpowder. The propelling force could not be developed because it was not possible to increase the number of oars without trouble (Archéologie Navale, A. JAL, Vol. I, p. 50; Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines, p. 40; idem p. 30).

So, JAL, in the “Archéologie Navale”, refuses to admit that there were ships as large as the “Great Eastern” in the times of the Greeks and Romans.

According to the monument of Prora of Samothrace, thole pins may already have been known to the ancients. Dr. ASSMANN gives much information on this point (Baumeister Denkmälen Seewesen, p. 1632, fig. 1693).

[II 24]

The habit, not yet wholly given up, of painting an eye at the bow, on each side of the stem, proves how long old customs may last. It was already a habit of the Phœnicians, the Greeks and the Romans, and it is still found on a few Italian and Portuguese vessels (See: Das Seewesen, der Griechen und Römer by Dr. EMIL LÜBECK, 1890, p. 43; ASSMANN, Seewesen, p. 1597; Jahrbuch des Deutsch. Archeol. Instituts, 1889, p. 99; Archéologie Navale, JAL, p. 105; Ancient Ships by TORR, p. 69).

These eyes were a symbol: they were intended to show that the ship was seeking its own path, they have been considered sometimes, but wrongly, to be hawse holes.

Old forms have also been long preserved, and among these the ram is the most remarkable.

[II 54]
[II 59]

In this order of ideas, the Speronara of Malta, which appears in Paris’s work, Vol. IV, n^o 203 (n^o 164, etc.) is the most interesting example of the Mediterranean. The stem of this boat rises vertically from the water and is provided with a ram; even the eyes too are there.

Maltese boats without a ram are to be seen in the same figure, but these vessels differ little from the Speronara.

By bringing Layard’s drawing above mentioned close to this one, there will be seen in each some boats having a ram and a mast while others have none, but have stems which rise vertically above the water.

It can be concluded from this that, as far back as the times of the Phœnicians, ships already presented these same differences.

Hence there is no doubt that the Speronara represents a Phœnician type of boat, in which the steering oar is replaced by a rudder.

There is no entire agreement as to the place occupied by the ram. Some persons place it above, others below the load-water line. Be this as it may, it is found on all the ancient models and, in most cases, the bottom line of the ship is prolonged in a straight or a slightly curved line as far as the ram.

The constant presence of this latter element in the reproductions, allows the conclusion that it was placed not below but above the water. If the contrary had been the case, the ram could not have made so great an impression on the painters and sculptors. As for the rest, all the ancient types, on which traces of a ram are found, carry this element above the water line.

The fact that the bottom line ended in the ram, does not prove that this latter was below the water, for this line was invisible, and the draughtsmen, who were uninitiated in the art of shipbuilding, not knowing any other means for representing it, cut the ship off at the water line; but as the drawing then appeared rather strange, they added a curved line joining the ram to the sternpost.

If several of the old pictures be considered from this standpoint and if the curious bottom lines drawn by the draughtsmen be covered by better lines borrowed from the Speronara or from ancient galleys, these reproductions acquire a wholly different meaning.

If little be known about the ancient Phœnician boat, a more thorough knowledge of the Greek or Roman ship has been reached, through researches, especially in the matter of dimensions.

It is settled that the Ancients had dock yards containing sheds for the shelter of vessels from which the running rigging had been removed while the standing parts were left. (See: Das Seewezen der Gr. und R. by Dr. EM. LÜBECK, 1890, p. 2.) These sheds give an idea of the sizes of their ships.

The excavations made by Lieutenant von Alten (Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., p. 5), attached to the Imperial German Archeological Institute (1876-1877), have shown that the figures given by Graser are inaccurate. The dimensions of eight docks could be measured at Munichia, and these structures were 6.25 m. wide by 21.20 m. long.

Later excavations brought to light at Zoa some docks 5.50 m. wide and about 40 metres long, measured along the bank. (Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., idem p. 6.)

The dimensions of the ships must, therefore, have been relatively small.

It is generally granted that the beam of the Greek ship propelled by oars is less than that of the galleys of the Middle Ages.

According to JAL (Archéologie Navale), the ratio of the beam to the length, in the middle ages, was for war vessels: 1 : 8; for merchant ships it was 1 : 7. Graser found that among the Greeks this ratio was 1 : 8¼, and according to SERRE (La Marine de guerre de l’Antiquité, p. 33) and LEMAÎTRE (Revue archéologique 1833, Vol. 8, pp. 149 et seq.) its value was 1 : 9.

Hence the vessels were narrow as compared with their length, which increased their degree of mobility.

Besides, the depth of the docks discovered shows that the boats drew but little and, consequently, that the ships slid along in a way, on the water.

In this respect too, the ancient boats did not differ much from those of the Middle Ages. Neglecting this detail, among others, Graser reaches a type of ship having far too great a draught.

Alongside of the war vessels, naves longæ, there were the merchant vessels, naves onerariæ. It was natural that great mobility should be sought for the former; it is this which explains the lengthened shape of these boats, whereas the merchant ships were shorter and had more beam.

Later, but still several centuries B. C., when the power of Rome was developed, when its population increased and when the importation of wheat and other provisions became more and more important and had to be made more and more quickly, the ship with oars was used as a merchant vessel in addition to the short, wide boat.

The Roman freight galleys seem, further on, to have been made broader, like those of the Middle Ages, with a view to increasing their capacity. But no new type followed from this; it was merely a new application of existing types.

It can be certified that no new type of boat was created later all at once, and that this change was due not to the shifting of lines of trade or to the construction of new ports. This latter condition could, at most, have modified the accepted dimensions.

The different types of antiquity remained in use for centuries and are still to be found to a great extent.

Nothing more will be done than to attract attention to certain ancient pictures where are seen ships having rounded stems. A short time ago, this peculiarity was still to be found in “la Muleta” a boat of the Tagus, now disappeared. (Compare PARIS, Vol. V, fig. 268; and Jahrbuch der Deutsch. Archeol. Inst., 1889, p. 91.)

The size of boats changed little. In order to develope more force, the number of rowers was increased and, as the length of the ship was reduced, the rowers had forcedly to be placed in banks, one above another.

JAL considers that a triple bank of oars must have been an exception, and that the lowest bank must have been separated from the other two by a deck. The celebrated trireme, built at Asnières in 1860, under orders from Napoleon III, was carried out in accordance with this conception; but, as has been said, the experiment tried with this boat did not give satisfactory results. (See, Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., Dr. LÜBECK, p. 49.)

If, however, the experiment did not solve the question of the position of the rowers, it showed sufficiently that, in the trireme, the ship was filled up with rowers.

The ancient vessel had little space for provisions. Care was taken consequently so to arrange matters as to be able to land every evening, and it can be understood from this that most naval battles were fought close to the shore.

But, in order to land everywhere, a small draught of water was necessary. This, according to Assmann and Lemaître, must have been about one metre. (Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., Dr. EMIL LÜBECK, p. 10, note 5.)

The disposable space on board was so restricted that, when it was not possible to go ashore at night, the oarsmen could only sleep in gangs. While the boat was in motion they had, in order not to interfere with each other, to make their movements absolutely together, and even when coming on board a certain order of succession had to be observed. (Das Seewesen, idem p. 10.)

It is not known exactly when the old method of propulsion, each oar handled by a single man, gave place to the new in which heavy oars were worked by several men. It appears however that the Liburnians already had heavy oars of which the use seems to have been a consequence of the battle of Actium, fought B. C. 31. (Das Seewesen der Gr. und R., Dr. EM. LÜBECK, p. 21.)

As has been seen, there were, alongside of the ships of war or naves longæ, merchant ships or freight vessels, naves onerariæ. The dimensions of these latter were also rather small; as can be judged by their capacity. Their cargo, as shown by ancient documents, was stated in Greek talents or in Roman amphora (1 amphora = 26.50 m.), and later also in midimnes of Attica (1 midimne = 42.50 m.). (Das Seewesen der Gr. mid R., Dr. EM. LÜBECK, p. 22.)

According to an arrangement regulating the size of merchant vessels, made in the year B. C. 218, the boats which brought goods from the senatorial possessions in Sicily and Sardinia to Rome, had a cargo space of only 786 cubic feet. It is true that descriptions of much larger vessels are found. These ships, from calculations made by Assmann and other authors, must have had a capacity of 26,000 to 200,000 cubic feet. Graser even goes so far as to say, from the quantity of freight carried, that the ship “Alexandreia” belonging to Hiero of Syracuse must have had a capacity of 240,000 cubic feet. Mention is even made of one ship having a length of 120 ells, while for another a depth of 29 ells is given.

All these dimensions are not to be despised even now, but, considering the small size of the ports and navigable highways of those days as well as their lack of depth, they must have been an impossibility. Furthermore, all these numerical data rest only on hypotheses, and cannot be exact.

The short, bluff merchant ship of the Ancients was certainly not longer than the vessel with oars and its average size does not seem to have exceeded that of a “tialque”.

The progress of shipbuilding was gradual throughout Western Europe, and as the same may be said of the Mediterranean, since the Middle Ages, what reason is there, then, for supposing that the vessels of Antiquity were of extraordinary dimensions?

In this order of ideas, the Prora of Samothrace, discovered in 1863 and dating from B. C. 306, gives an exact idea of the war ship of the Ancients and proves that this vessel differed little in shape and size from the ships of the Middle Ages.

The bottom was slightly curved near the middle and the hull was made slender toward the ends. The mean draught of water was one metre, while that of the largest vessels scarcely exceeded 1.50 m. (ASSMANN, Seewesen, p. 1597, etc.) The stem and the sternpost were ornamented with signs which are unimportant for this study.

Ships with oars of which the stern was rounded at the level of the water line, carried at the bow a ram, which was used to sink the enemy’s ships and to smash their oars. A heavy block of wood, ornamented with the head of a ram, prevented the ram from penetrating too far into the side of the ship which it attacked.

The arrangements of the ram varied a good deal as is shown by the figures, but the form of the vessel itself was not influenced thereby. This element was the emblem of power and was meant to inspire terror. There is nothing astonishing then that, in most of the old drawings, the draughtsman should have dwelt rather on this detail than on the ship itself, thus causing the shape of this latter to become an accessory.

The ram, which was already in use among the Phœnicians, did not appear among the Greeks until B. C. 536. (Dr. EM. LÜBECK, p. 13.) Whence it follows, and it cannot be repeated too often, that the art of shipbuilding had reached a higher degree of perfection with the Phœnicians than among the Greeks and that the former exercised a preponderating influence over the peoples dwelling along the shores of the Mediterranean.

Hence, the thesis of uniformity of the boats of the Mediterranean could be sustained, but this would not imply that each people had known but one type of vessel. Boats of sundry types existed at the same time; there were the short bluff merchant ships side by side with the long vessels driven by oars, and perfected types were crowded against the primitive.

History tells us, that Cæsar put to sea with a fleet thirty days after the cutting of the wood to be used in its construction. (NICOLAS WITSEN, p. 12, col. 1.) It would be hard to grant that the boats which composed this fleet were well finished ships moved by oars. They were, doubtless flat bottomed vessels, of the type which is still found in the Adriatic and which is so well reproduced in the “Rascona”. (PARIS, Vol. II, and Das Seewesen der Gr. und R. by Dr. EM. LÜBECK, p. 39.)

The rapid construction of the fleet in question furnishes one proof more in favor of the point raised regarding the small size of ships.

In order to show more clearly what is meant by uniformity in the shape of vessels, attention will be called to the “tialque” type of the Netherlands, which is found, with slight changes and under other names, from Denmark to Belgium. All the boats of this type have a common fundamental character; but with the tialque are met still other types which are also found elsewhere.

So, from Denmark to Belgium, there is a series of well defined fundamental types and hence we can speak of common forms.

This remark applies also to the Mediterranean (Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines, 36th part, p. 24; Navis), where these fundamentals have been preserved for centuries: the old types of wooden vessels to be met with at the present time still give an exact idea of them, save in what relates to the rudder and rig.

Sundry types have evidently been set aside or have undergone changes demanded by local conditions, so that, in order to find among them the fundamental characters belonging to a given country, it is often necessary to seek elsewhere.

So, for example, there are found in Holland, at ’s Gravenmoer (North Brabant), an old Rhenish type; in Portugal, small fishing boats which resemble greatly the ancient Egyptian vessels and, in the Arabian Sea, a ship which, aside from the rudder and rigging, resembles, to an astonishing degree, the primitive Roman vessel. And the Arabs claim that they have the oldest and best ships (compare PARIS, Vol. III, n^o 135, with the relief of the “port of the Tiber” which appears in BAUMEISTER, Denkmäler des Klassischen Altertums, fig. 1688).

If vessels moved by oars underwent no changes as the result of the invention of gunpowder, the cause must be sought in the slenderness of their construction required by the small motive power which they could put forth. The number of oarsmen was limited and very soon a maximum was reached which could not be exceeded.

In view of the fact that a practical vessel having more than three banks of rowers could not be constructed, and that the old reproductions which are known never show more than three, it seems permissible to conclude that the ancient writers who speak of four banks of oars and more, have allowed their imaginations to run away with them or, which appears more exact, that they had a way of counting other than the one adopted in our time? Doubtless, it was desired to designate the number of oars which passed in banks through the side of the ship.

Huys’s drawing, according to Breugel (dating from the middle of the XVIth century), shows oars grouped thus in sets of threes, and the same process is found in other old pictures; if these pictures show triremes, the question would be simple to explain.

A reproduction of the trireme, often referred to, is that of the bas-relief of the Acropolis at Athens. (Baumeister Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums, fig. 1689.) Copies of it are found in all the works, but they do not always agree and hence can offer nothing certain. (Dr. MORITZ RÜHLMANN, p. 62.)

Let a few more words be said now about merchantmen.

[II 26]

For these, the most beautiful drawing known is certainly the aforementioned relief of the port of the Tiber, preserved in the Torlonia Museum. In this is seen a large merchant ship with inclined stem and rounded stern. At about two-thirds of the length of the ship from the bow, the gunwale projects so as to give a support to the steering oar. This mode of construction is still found on several Indian boats, etc. The ordinary mast, set up near the middle of the vessel and provided with a stay, is secured by strong ropes. The square sail can be lowered by means of ropes running through rings fastened thereto. Then the mast carries but a single yard; a jib is attached to its upper end.

A mast called “dolon” stands forward; it was used, in the beginning, to hoist in a small life boat. It is still called the “boat mast” probably for this reason.

The cabin occupies all the available space aft of the mast.

The sails were generally square; they were sometimes of rectangular shape on the Alexandria freight ships.

War ships, like important freight vessels, always had two masts. (Dr. BREUSING, Die Nautik der Alten, p. 56.) In action, the sails were furled and the masts lowered, in order to save them from being reached by the ram of the enemy’s ships. (Dr. BREUSING, p. 71.)

[II 31]

Attention should not bear alone on large ships, but also on the small merchant vessels. The most beautiful picture of this sort of boat is, unquestionably, the old relief of the Cathedral at Salerno. (Jahrbuch des Kaiserlichen Deutschen Archeol. Instituts, Vol. IV, p. 103, fig. 1c.) Aside from the question of the rudder, the vessel there shown would easily pass for a modern craft.

This boat is in course of being discharged; the bridge is lowered and the forward panel is raised. The mast which is down had to be taken from its step for this purpose; this method was still much in use in our country in the XVIIIth century. The steering oars hang alongside of the vessel, resting against the projecting side.

The boat itself is completed by a stem and a sternpost. The step of the mast is about one-third of the length of the boat from the bow, and abaft this is seen the hold. This last, as in our present river boats, is closed by means of panels. Even the grooves (half-rounds), into which the panels are set, can be made out and, in these grooves, even the openings to let the water run off (shown by little marks) are to be seen.

The panels are on a slope, as shown by the upper lines.

The meaning of these little half-circles was not understood by the author of the Jahrbuch afore-named. (Jahrbuch des Kais. Deutsch. Arch. Instituts, Vol. IV, 1889, p. 103.)

Two mooring bitts are seen near the bow and four near the stern; their special form allows it to be assumed that they were to be used as a support for oars, which gave the means for going ahead in a calm.

The mast, which is short and thick, is provided with cleats throughout its entire height, hence it may be supposed that these pieces of wood were placed there for climbing the mast. Hence it is probable that this boat did not have rigging sufficiently strong for this purpose. It is true that no ropes are seen in the figure in question, but it cannot be concluded, however, that the vessel had none.

It is my opinion that this boat could not have been larger than a small “tialque”. Here is another proof in support of the argument that, in the course of ages, boats have been but little changed and that their construction soon reached a high degree of perfection. There is nothing surprising to be found in this assertion, if the masterpieces bequeathed to us by the Greeks and Romans be considered.

It is matter of regret that no positive data exist in regard to the position of the oarsmen among the Ancients, because it is just on this point that vessels propelled by oars were modified in the Middle Ages. It was at this period that the oars handled by one man, according to the primitive fashion, gave place to a single bank of heavy oars each of which was worked by several rowers.

This transition was not coïncident with the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476). In fact, the Emperor Leo (886 to 911) advised the construction of “dromon” biremes (LA CROIX, p. 75), and even in the XIth century, a writer is seen to speak of a chélandre or sélandre, to which he attributes a very high speed and which had two banks of oars superposed. (LA CROIX, pp. 75 and 79.)

The change came about gradually, in all probability.

In the XIIIth century, only vessels with one bank of oars, galleys, are mentioned. (See, for banks, VAN YK, p. 11; TORR, Ancient Ships, pp. 19 et seq.)

Meanwhile, the rudder arose and its appearance brought about changes in the stern of the vessel.

As a general rule, little is known about the condition of the art of shipbuilding at the beginning of the Middle Ages. All the same, however, this period must have seen an important marine on the Mediterranean and, consequently, the art of shipbuilding must have been flourishing. There is no doubt that the Crusades (1096-1291) had a great influence on the old state of affairs. Venice became the centre of progress and Genoa followed closely.

The importance of the navy at this time is attested by the famous navy yards at Venice and by a great number of edicts which relate to the construction of ships. Thus, there is found in the XIIIth century an edict which determines the water line for the vessel loaded and for the vessel empty. (JAL, p. 267, article 4.)

In regard to the construction of ships with oars, it is only necessary to refer to the edicts of the Emperor Leo which were observed, even to the Xth century. This Emperor ordered that the galleys should be sufficiently strong and swift, involving thus great length and little beam, but the latter was to be, however, proportioned to the length. These edicts were simple, but categorical.

Later on, people were no longer free to build as they pleased. They had to follow the rules laid down regarding the form of the ships which bore a certain relation to the capacity and to the trips to be made.

The length of the boats was not extraordinary: JAL gives, for example, a length of about 44 metres for vessels propelled by oars. This figure, as one can see, differs little from that of the vessels of antiquity, and was little exceeded later on.

Just as in the times of the Greeks and the Romans, the Middle Ages had their galleys, and their merchant vessels of more rounded form. Thus, for example, the city of Genoa sent to Pisa, in 1284, a fleet of eight galleys and caravels. (JAL, p. 250.)

The galleys, however, were not used exclusively as vessels of war; they also served generally, in the XIVth century, as merchantmen. (JAL, p. 250.)

We have from the Middle Ages no drawings or pictures which give the means of deducing with any certainty the shape of the ships. The oldest picture comes to us from Pietro Laurentini, an artist of the XIVth century; then there exists another by the hand of Raphaël (1483-1520), and dating from the beginning of the XVIth century.

These two reproductions appear in JAL’s work (Archéologie navale), but their small scale almost destroys their value. They are remarkable however from this that the first shows the double mast of the Ancients and the cabin on the after deck, while Raphaël’s carries a castle at the bow and stern, as well as the vessel’s rudder.

It follows from a comparative examination of old coins that the rudder had come generally into use in the XIIIth century. It is superfluous, however, to recall that, nevertheless, the steering oar was still used on many vessels as a rudder.

The invention of gunpowder, near the middle of the XIVth century, made no changes in the structure of the galleys, because the propelling force was still limited to the strength of the rowers, which made a slender shape a prime necessity for the boat and prevented the mounting of any large number of guns on board.

The galleys reached their apogee in 1600. Shortly afterward, they began to lose their value as war ships by reason of the increasing power of the big, rounded sea-going vessels.

A striking example of the fighting inferiority of the galleys is found in the naval action between the French ship “Le Bon” and 36 galleys, on July 10, 1684. (PARIS, Vol. III, no. 126.) This vessel was only 41.41 m. long from bow to stern, with a total width of 11.04 m. and a depth of 5.03 m.; the keel was 37.03 long.

The galleys, on the other hand, were 48.77 m. long over all, 21.20 m. on the keel, with a breadth of 5.90 m. on the deck (8.47 m. between the apostis); the oars were 2.5 metres long.

The higher position of the artillery on “Le Bon”, as well as its more solid frame and thicker planking, allowed this ship to hold the enemy at bay and to escape when the wind rose.

If the strength of the crews be examined, the fighting inferiority of the galleys stands out still more clearly; while the French ship carried only 600 to 800 men, the galleys had on board from 12,000 to 14,000 all told. Consequently, from as far back as the XVIIth century, the galleys were used in France almost exclusively for towing. Thus we read that in 1688, the wind having fallen, Duquesne had his ships brought by galleys under the walls of Algiers in order to bombard that city.

The galleys continued to appear nevertheless in the French navy until 1773.

It was at the battle of Zierikzee, in 1302, where the Flemings fought against the French, the Dutch and the Genoese, that, according to the old Florentine historian Villani, the superiority of the broad-beamed vessels of the North Sea, over the galleys, was first felt. The Count of Flanders had fitted out, for this battle, eighty ships or “coques”, built in accordance with the maritime demands of the place. (Villani says: ottantia navi, overo cahi, al medo di quello mare.) According to this historian it was also the first time that vessels of this kind had to be fought.

The battle of Zierikzee was the cause, from this time on, of giving more and more attention, in the Mediterranean, to the building of broad-beamed ships. Besides, necessity forced it. The Crusades brought about more frequent relations with the peoples of the North against whom defense must needs be had.

In the beginning, the people from the North called upon the Genoese and others along the shores of the Mediterranean to transport the Crusaders to Palestine. The route by the Mediterranean became thus known to them; but they very soon undertook to build ships themselves so as to escape from the exorbitant transportation charges of the Italians. Nevertheless, Venice, Genoa, etc. remained the principal warehouses; and many ships were still built there, especially for France. Philip the Handsome, in his struggle against Edward I of England, in 1295, and Philip of Valois, in his war against Edward III, in 1337, both made use of Genoese vessels. (LA CROIX, p. 92.)

Furthermore, as JAL has written (Archéologie Navale, Vol. II, p. 352), it can be granted with certainty that the vessels built in the French ports of the Mediterranean, were identical with those used in Italy. The mutual relations between maritime peoples and their common interests inevitably brought about these imitations. Venice yielded nothing to Genoa; Genoa was close on the heels of Pisa and, in the improvements made in shipbuilding, this last city did not allow herself to be out-done by Barcelona, Marseilles or Constantinople.

Under these circumstances, the writer just quoted was right, then, in saying: “The basin of the Mediterranean had, therefore, but one navy, at least so far as the principal vessels were concerned; it is so to-day and it was certainly so in ancient times.” I add also for my part that the characteristic differences offered by types of vessels among themselves, have undergone no change in the course of ages and this applies not only to the basin of the Mediterranean, but to shipbuilding in general.

These old types, however, are not to be sought among the large vessels, but rather among the small ones and, particularly, among fishing smacks.

Among all nations, even among all seafaring people, fishermen have most preserved their ancient character and modified their manners and customs least. The exercise of their hard calling on the sea has made them hostile to any innovation coming from the shore and has been unable, except in passing over their bodies, to make them give up the old types of ships, the issue of tradition and usage. Hence, fishermen have kept longest the antique forms and it is to them that we must go to find them. Thus there are seen in Norway fishing boats which, aside from the rudder, reproduce almost completely the ancient “Viking ship”. The Dutch “Bom” is, in like manner, a remnant of the “cog”, and Portugal offers barks which call to mind the old mural paintings discovered in Italy.

Naturally many types have disappeared already, and their number is constantly increasing through the use of steel in shipbuilding. Thus it is that there now no longer exist any but a few rare specimens of the galleys and they are used merely for festive occasions (examples: the galley utilized for the naval review of the Hollandsche-Diep, and that used in Portugal on certain holidays).

The oldest work which treats of galleys is called: “Fabbrica di galere”. (JAL, Archéologie Navale, Vol. II, pp. 6 et seq.) The first complete information about them dates from the time of Louis XIV and is given by the Chevalier Barras de la Penne (1698). Nor should the work of Fürstenbach, dating from 1623, be passed by in silence. (WITSEN, p. 186.)

[II 24]
[II 38]
[II 46]
[II 47]

Although the galleys are sufficiently known, a few more words may still be said about them. These boats were long and narrow and rose but little above the water. Their beam was generally one-seventh or one-eighth of their length and the part out of water rose to only 1 m. to 1.50 m. in height. A galley 40.60 m. long, for example, had a beam of only 5.27 m. The total length of the stem was 3.28 m. and of the sternpost it was 3.62 m. The main frame was placed at three-sevenths of the length of the vessel and was flattened on the under side. The vessel narrowed forward and aft and the deck covered its entire length. Near the middle was built the corsia (guard bridge) into which were let the benches of the rowers. On each side, close by the planking and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vessel, were the apostis, heavy timbers into which were let the thole pins. The oars, arranged in a single bank, were each worked by four or five men who rose from their bench as they pushed forward on the loom of the oar, to prepare for a stroke, and fell back on it as the stroke was completed. The oarsmen were stark naked at this work. A man of average strength could stand it, as a rule, for an hour, and yet this work had sometimes to go on for twelve consecutive hours in time of war. What a painful situation, when it is considered that these men were exposed to the inclemencies of the air and to the fire of the enemy!

In order to strengthen the rowers at their work, bread steeped in wine was put into their mouths. If they fell exhausted, they were mercilessly flogged by the boatswain who walked up and down the bridge, and if they did not rise, death awaited them: they were thrown overboard.

If it be borne in mind, furthermore, that the rowers were rivetted to the ship by irons which were rarely removed; that they generally lived and died on their benches, it will be understood that the galleys were a terror and a shame for the seafaring peoples.

It was rare to meet with volunteers for this trade which included, for the matter of that, only slaves and prisoners of war. Still, the rowers were not all equal; they were divided into three distinct classes: 1º those condemned to the galleys, their hair and beard being shaved; 2º the slaves, among whom were Turks, Moors and Negroes, these last considered to be the best rowers, their distinctive mark was a tuft of hair on the head; 3º the “benevoglie” or volunteers among whom were men who had served their time and been liberated, but who were not able to find a place and so sought a refuge on the galleys, as well as bandits and others who no longer had anything on which to live.

The clothing of the rowers was very simple: they received every year two shirts, two pairs of breeches, a red cloth jacket a sou’wester for winter, a red cap and two blankets per bench of oarsmen.

Rations were issued to them, but they could buy more if the food supplied were not enough.

The part of the hold not occupied by ammunition was reserved for provisions; it also included a bit of a cabin for the captain and officers.

When the galley stopped, a large sail was stretched above and across the ship, one side being raised so as to let the air enter.

Their slender build did not give the galleys sufficient stability at sea, consequently the rowers were often very much tried by the waves.

The armament was simple: three guns were placed at the bow, the principal one of which was in the middle (set in the longitudinal axis of the ship); on the large galleys, there were found, as a rule 18, 48 and 12 pounders and, on the small ships, there were one 12-, one 24-and one 8-pdr.

The fighting value was measured by the amount of iron which could be thrown at once and per man. Take, for example, a galley throwing 44 kilogrammes of iron at once and carrying a crew of about 400 men. There would be hurled, then, 0.110 m. per man. A galley cost 400,000 francs, or 9090 francs per kilogramme of iron.

Compare this galley with an ordinary war ship, carrying 55 pieces of artillery with a crew of 1100 men and able to throw 1000 kilogrammes at once (or 0.910 m. per man), and assume its cost to be 3000 francs per kg. The lower fighting efficiency, of the galleys and their much greater relative cost can be clearly seen. This ordinary war ship throws at once nine times more iron per man while its cost is less than that of the galley considered.

In conclusion, it will be stated that the speed of the galleys was 2.50 m. per second or 5.6 miles per hour, and that sails were available in addition to the oars. They carried two masts, one at the bow and the other about midship, both provided with lateen sails (JAL, Clos. nautique, p. 749), which were furled while the vessel was in action.

[II 43]

No further demonstration is necessary to show that the galley was not suited to take the Ocean, which was more and more frequented. The invention of gunpowder soon brought out this vessel’s inferiority for fighting. Hence endeavors were made to improve it.

[II 45]

Thus there is seen to arise in the XVIth century a ship, the “galliass”, of which the bow and stern recall the boats of broad beam, and of which the intermediate part brings the galleys to mind. This ship had more beam than the galleys; its breadth being to its length as 1 to 5½.

With a length of 50.01 m., the galliass had a beam of 9.01 m. and drew 3.35 m.; its greatest depth was 6.52 m. There were 25 oars on each side and the benches of the rowers were 1.30 m. apart. The oars were handled at times by 7 or 8 men and as the sides were higher above the water than those of the galleys, the rowers were better protected against waves.

The galliass carried generally from 700 to 1000 men. Fifty guns were mounted in the towers and between the benches of the rowers.

The galliass was more stable on the water than the galley, protected the rowers better and carried more guns; but, just on account of these advantages, it was less agile as its propelling force was limited by the restricted number of rowers.

The galliass, like the galleys carried three masts furnished with lateen sails. These were very hard to work, so that in violent winds the large sails were replaced by others of smaller size.

It is not astonishing that even the galliass should have been inferior to the broad-beamed ships. Furthermore, they were never numerous; at the end of the XVIth century, in the naval battle of the allied powers against the Turks at Lepanto, only six of them could be assembled. (JAL, Archéologie Navale, p. 394.) It is therefore very doubtful whether the invincible “Armada”, the famous fleet of 1588, included a division of twenty-two galliass; the greater part of these vessels were undoubtedly galleys.

In the same way, there existed among the Ancients, beside the naves longæ, broad beamed ships which were used in the beginning solely for commerce and transportation.

The invention of gunpowder, and still more the closing by the Turks of the old route to the Indies, at the end of the XVth century, made a change in this situation. From this time, trade moves toward the ocean; a new route to the Indies is sought and the New World is discovered.

Then too, the nations of the North greedy for riches and no longer content with the Baltic Sea, take their chances toward the South.

All these circumstances brought in a turning point for the history of the naval architecture of the Mediterranean. In spite of the efforts made to preserve the supremacy of the old types of ships, by building larger vessels with oars, such as the galliass etc., it was necessary to retreat, not only in Italy but also in Spain and Portugal before the more powerful fleets of the peoples of the North.

Hence it can be said, in the order of the ideas already expressed in speaking of the battle of Zierikzee, which occurred in 1302, that the XIVth and XVth centuries saw the naval architecture of the Ocean make its way into the Mediterranean. On the other hand, the art of the Mediterranean was not without its influence on the former.

It is not easy to reconstitute the types of ships inherent to the Mediterranean; indeed, but few data remain concerning these vessels. All that can be done is to refer to the contracts above mentioned of Louis IX. The first reliable information dates from a period subsequent to the middle ages, and notably from the XVIIth century.

All the old drawings known at present leave something to be desired and are always out of proportion. The only conclusion to be drawn from them is that there were several kinds of boats.

It is really to be regretted, as JAL says, that we have no more exact information. There is no doubt, however, that, even in the middle ages, there were good broad-beamed ships (JAL, Clos. naut., p. 1057; LA CROIX, p. 86; idem, p. 96) which allowed at least five hundred fighting men to be carried. (JAL, Archéologie Navale, p. 380, 2d part, note.) Even horses were loaded on board. (JAL, Archéologie Navale, p. 386, etc. HOLMES, p. 68.)

In order to reconstitute the types inherent to the Mediterranean, it is necessary to find out, first of all, what models were still existing at the end of the XVIIIth century, at the time when wooden vessels exclusively were used.

It will be remarked, before beginning this examination, that boats were constantly beached when not under way; let it also be noted that the waters of the Mediterranean were calm, when compared with those of the Ocean. This latter point especially explains why vessels with oars were there so long in use. (PARIS, Vol. IV, p. 206.)

In order to ground the boats, the bottom of the hull had to be flat and, as a matter of fact, the centre body of the vessels under consideration is wide and flat, wider even than that of the vessels from the North. The beam of these latter was to the length as 1 : 4, while in most of the Mediterranean vessels this proportion varies between 1 : 2½ and 1 : 3½ (generally, 1 : 3).

The Mediterranean boats are pointed toward the stem and the sternpost, which is the contrary of what exists for the Northern vessels and this shape gives the former an appearance all their own. Furthermore, the sides of these ships do not come at all together toward the top; at most, they are vertical; in other words: the greatest width is at the top.

Among the old models, some are found which have: 1º a straight sloping stem; 2º a straight vertical stem, and 3º a curved stem which is convex or concave at the top.

Alongside of the broad-beamed vessels, there are a few longer ones, of which the beam is to the length as 1 to 5.

Intentionally, no mention has been made of the sternpost as this has been modified in most cases by the adoption of the rudder.

[II 48]

Besides, many boats have a flat projection at the stern furnished with a balustrade,—a detail which is found also on the Greek and Roman vessels. This position was originally reserved for the helmsmen who operated the steering oars.

[II 49]
[II 50]

Among the more important types must be counted the Xebecs, with three masts furnished at the beginning with lateen sails. These latter were replaced later on by square sails. The ship thus modified was then called a mystic Xebec or a polacca Xebec. The Polacca also existed at this time.

[II 53]

The length of these vessels—about 15 metres—was to the beam as 3½ to 1. The stem, sensibly straight at the top, becomes curved at the foot and is provided with a ram similar to that of a “Galleon”. The sternpost is straight but it leans back and the after deck projects. This type of vessel can be compared to a broad-beamed galley, Astern, the Polacca more nearly resembles ocean vessels.

All these vessels are originally from the West of the Mediterranean. (PARIS, Vol. II, n^os 78 and 90; idem, Vol. I, n^o 25.) The Genoese “pink” can be placed in the same category. (PARIS, Vol. II, no. 119.)

[II 35]
[II 37]
[II 40]
[II 39]

There is still found in Tunisia the “Carèbe”, from 12 to 15 metres long with a beam of one-third of this length. This boat seems to have a double stem (the plank sheer reenters). Let this type be compared with the reproduction which appears on the tower of Pisa, etc. (PARIS, Vol. IV, n^o 201), which also shows a boat with a double stem.

Alongside of the “Carèbe”, are the Arabian “Sandales”, 12 metres long, 2.85 m. wide and 1.30 m. deep. Jal considers this kind of boat as one of the oldest types.

The Arabian “Sandale” is a very slender vessel, narrower amidships than most of the others.

[II 54]
[II 60]

The Maltese boats, the “Speronare”, are still more singular; they are 15 metres long, 4.40 m. beam, 1.20 m. draught with a capacity of about 17 tonnes. The stem and the sternpost are vertical. These boats have sometimes at the stern a flat projection and at the bow a truncated ram.

The same type, 5.30 m. long, 1.95 m. beam and 1 metre deep, becomes a “Tarella”. This boat has no ram. There is no doubt that these are very ancient forms. (Compare, for example, the “Speronara” with Layard’s reproduction.)

The “Schifarro” and “Laoutello” of Sicily, with their curved stem and sternpost, are not less remarkable. These vessels also recall reproductions of the middle ages which present the same characteristics.

On the East coast of Italy are found the “Tartana”, 17.90 m. long, 4.90 m. beam, and drawing 0.80 m. of water and the “Braca da Pasca”, 12.20 m. long, 2.30 m. beam and 1.60 m. deep; both of them flat-bottomed and solidly built. (PARIS, Vol. II, pl. 85, 86 and 87.)

It should be noted that still other types of flat-bottomed boats are met with on the Adriatic, among them are the “Rascona”, a very narrow vessel for its length (1 to 5), and the “Topo”. The former is also steered with the oar.

Greece and Turkey have between them many points of contact. Two types are found there: one with a straight sloping stem, the other with a curved stem: the “Scaphé” and the “Sacobeva”. (PARIS, 3, n^os 91, 89 and 88.)

The Arabian Sea, to go no further, gives the “Baggala” and the “Dungiyah”; the latter has probably now disappeared. These are very old types with a strongly sloping stem. Allusion has been made above to Greek figures in which the analogy with these vessels is complete.

Some types have shifted their ground. The best proof of this is the “Balancella” of Spain which came originally in all probability from Naples (PARIS, Vol. II, n^o 61) and which resembles greatly the “Trabocola”.

All these boats, and only the principal ones have been mentioned, allow the reconstitution of a few fundamental types which are still to be found now and which were in existence several centuries ago. The development of trade, expeditions to points further and further away, which had to be undertaken, have caused the old types to be replaced long since by others intended for navigation beyond the seas. This explains why the primitive types no longer exist except in vessels of small importance. For these latter, it was not necessary to seek new forms, because the small builders continued to follow traditions and to work from models. Steel has gained ground very slowly among them, and insensibly and only as the new generations come to replace the old, will the types of the primitive boats disappear.

Although several types exist, it follows from what precedes that the Mediterranean types are broad in comparison to their length, and flat amidships; besides, they are pointed at bow and stern. With these data, Fürstenbach’s work, which dates from 1629, acquires more value in our eyes, because it contains reproductions of a Dutch ship and a few Mediterranean vessels, in which can be discovered many known types, although they are called by separate names.

The difference of form between the types of the North and those of the South, already pointed out before, is shown there clearly; it appears in all its force when the midship frames of the two boats are brought together. (Compare “die Mittlere Stamenale”, fig. II, with “die Stamenale” of fig. 16, as well as the plans of the ships.) The difference in the height of the stem and sternpost is not less noticeable, and indeed, the Mediterranean ships really appear higher than ours. It will be seen further on that, under the influence of the South (i. e. of the Mediterranean) the people of our country began to make their vessels higher.

It was the South which inaugurated the system of castles which were built on the ships in the Middle Ages. It is to be noticed that already, in the Xth century, the Emperor Leo laid down rules concerning their construction. (LA CROIX, p. 6.) Some castles are found even on old Roman engravings. Hence, there is every authority for supposing that these castles rose progressively.

The improvements of the means of defense, and hence the changes in military tactics, after the invention of gunpowder, contributed a great deal toward enhancing the importance given to these castles.

It was known in Holland that the Mediterranean vessels were more pointed than ours, and a proof of it is found in the passage (p. 355) from van Yk’s well known work, where this author tells us that the special qualities of our ships as sailers was attributed to the greatly curved stern and hence to the full bow. And it is surely not uninteresting, then, to read further on (p. 85A) that the father of the author of the work, accompanied by his three sons, went to Genoa to build vessels able to advance even against the wind, something unknown until then in that city. Hence the art of tacking was not known at Genoa at that period, a manœuvre, furthermore, which the lateen sails did not allow. It was not until later that these sails were replaced by square sails. Hence it was not at all strange that ships with oars remained so long in use on the Mediterranean. On the other hand, it may be considered as proved that, from the earliest times, there existed broad vessels alongside of the long craft fitted with oars. (JAL, Glossaire nautique, p. 1049.)

Still, the few ancient boats which have been exhumed, seem to have reached such a high degree of perfection, that naval architecture must have attained a wonderful development even in the most distant ages. This should not surprise us, however, when we see the masterpieces left by the Mediterranean races, masterpieces which bear witness to their esthetic and practical sense.

As the progressive developments of the ship in the middle ages are studied and as the dimensions of docks and other installations among the Greeks and Romans are considered, it can be stated positively that giant ships were unknown to Antiquity and that the descriptions given thereof should be examined in the light of the conditions which dictated them to the author. Just, for example, as the importance of the city of Babylon, and the excavations made there show, it was singularly exaggerated by the ancient writers. Besides, do we not daily read communications about the extraordinary sizes of ships and engines, sizes which, after a little while, are surpassed by others still more extraordinary? And so will it ever be.

In conclusion, let it be said that the ancient models are still to be found in small wooden vessels and in fishing smacks. These models have come down through the course of the centuries without other changes than those wrought by the rudder and by decoration.

If then an exact idea of the types of the ships of the Ancients be desired, thorough investigations should be started so soon as possible in order to find them, to measure them and to make of them drawings with dimensions, as has been done for the Netherlands.

This rapid comparative study allows the mutual relations which exist between the nations to be established and to show that the ancient types special to Southern France, to Spain and to Portugal all belong to the Mediterranean family, that is to say: to the Southern centre.

Het varen met weynig volk, het nauw en zober behelpen in leeftocht en ons ingeboren zindelijkheid, die de schepen langdurend macht, doet den Nederlantschen scheepvaart bloeyen, en niet het scheepsfatzoen.

NICOLAS WITSEN, 1671.[4]

These remarkable words are characteristic and show that something else than the determined forms of ships is necessary to make a people prosperous and great. If this were not so, our types of vessels, says Witsen, would have been copied immediately by other nations.

Sobriety and cleanliness are two capital virtues of the Dutch race, but, beside these virtues, our ancestors possessed one other important quality: they were builders of economical ships and our present builders have preserved this quality.

Let us hope, with full confidence, that this will always be so in the future.

Witsen maintained—and this fact acquires a certain significance if it be compared with what goes before—that foreigners who have come to Holland to learn our art of shipbuilding, could not after returning home, imitate our processes. I am not surprised, therefore, to see these foreigners write that they could not use our architecture or our measures.

Many a ship, says the author mentioned, has been analyzed and measured abroad, but never has it been imitated; nor have our builders ever harvested any praise for their work.

What Witsen then says about the English is quite characteristic: “In deze braveeren zy (de Engelschen) opentlyk allen Landaert en wanen niemant huns gelyk in deze konst te hebben”[5]. He imputes this unfavorable judgment on the Dutch to the fact, that nothing relating to naval architecture has ever been published in the Netherlands. It will be seen, further on, that, as a matter of fact, people abroad hold another opinion.

Data, which may not be doubted, teach us that, even in the highest antiquity, the peoples living on the shores of the Mediterranean were acquainted with navigation. Again, at the present time, the most savage, the least civilized nations, settled by the banks of rivers, had their boats, however primitive their forms may have been. Several ancient ships were exhumed in Northern Europe during the second half of the last century. It may be concluded from this that the people who lived near the water were familiar with navigation from the earliest times.

Moreover, it is evident that the long, narrow “canoe” obtained from the hollowed out trunk of a tree was the oldest form of boat. The pole, which was the primitive mode of propulsion, was soon replaced by the paddle and the oar.

Man, by nature, seeks his ease; hence there is no cause for astonishment that he should from the beginning have called the wind to assist him in moving over the water. This accessory means soon became the principal agent of propulsion.

The oldest inhabitants of the Netherlands were acquainted with navigation, long before the Roman domination, and it is to be supposed that they could only have reached the various points of their territory by water.

Cæsar tells us (HOLMES, p. 52) that the Britains used very light vessels composed of a frame of linden branches covered with skins. On the other hand, Pope Marcellinus (A. D. 293-304) relates to what an extent the Saxons were to be feared because of their agility and adds that their boats were made of buffalo skins stretched tight over flexible wood.

By the side of the long vessels with oars, there must have existed very soon broader and less swift boats. These boats were propelled by sails and finally they wholly displaced the ships with oars.

Nothing concerning these primitive boats has been preserved.

It is well known that the oldest inhabitants of our country came from the East. They, doubtless, were acquainted with the art of shipbuilding and they must have adapted their types to the necessities forced upon them by the state of the navigable highways of our low-lying lands.

It can be assumed that the cradle of the naval architecture of the Netherlands was in the Baltic Sea. So, let us turn our eyes first in that direction where, from the most distant times, the art of shipbuilding must have reached a high degree of perfection. This follows not only from the vessels of the time of the Vikings which have been found, but also from the researches made in late years. These researches have authorized the conclusion that, even in ancient times, the peoples of the North seem to have crossed the North Sea. The Swedish archeologist Montelius even assumes that there were already continuous relations between the West coast of Sweden and the East coast of England at the close of the age of stone.

Long before the expeditions, properly so called, made toward the South by the Vikings, the latter crossed the sea, and it is settled beyond question that they were given to navigation at the beginning of our era. Tacitus speaks of the powerful fleets of the Swedes which, in his time, did not use sails but only oars. The author of the work Vesterlandenes indflyelse poa Nordboenes og saerlig Nordmaennenes ydze kulture leveesat og simfundfs Jorhold i Vickingetiden af ALEXANDER BUGGE[6] 1905, seems authorized, under these conditions, in saying that the navigation of the North owes its origin to the Suevi and the Goths settled on the shores of the Baltic, whence it passed later to the Norsemen and the Danes. It may also be added, we believe, that the same was the case with regard to the Netherlands, Great Britain, Belgium and a part of the North of France.

The celebrated German philologist and archeologist, Professor H. Zimmer, supposes that the Norsemen visited the Shetland Islands between the years 590 and 644. This supposition has been confirmed by the researches of Dr. Jacob Jacobsen, who lived for a long time in these islands in order to study there the Norse names of the villages and to pick up still other traces of the Norse language. This savant also concluded that the Norsemen must have already visited the Shetland Islands about the year 700.

[II 75]

If these facts be compared with what used to be done on the Mediterranean, where the endeavor was always made to land at night, it is impossible to repress a sentiment of admiration for the Norsemen who crossed the sea fearlessly as far as Iceland and Greenland. Their naval architecture must even then have reached an extraordinary degree of perfection, full proof of which is found in the construction of the superb ships “Oxberg” and “Gokstad”, found in the neighborhood of Sandefijord (Christiania Museum of Antiquities).

Hence it is scarcely probable that the peoples of the North should have learned anything at all about shipbuilding during their expeditions across Western Europe. On the contrary, this part of Europe, including the Netherlands, must have borrowed the art of shipbuilding from them. It was also only very much later that a navy and fleet were spoken of in England. (See HOLMES, Ancient and Modern Ships, 1900.)

Afterwards, the Norsemen extended their excursions more and more toward the South; they settled in Normandy and took possession of England. It was in the course of these expeditions that they became acquainted with the naval architecture of the Mediterranean. It is needless to say that they must then have appreciated the perfection which the latter had reached. Furthermore their interest demanded it. They borrowed, in particular from the nations of Southern Europe the anchor which these, in their turn, had learned from the Greeks. The Norse word “akkeri”, which means anchor, seems to be borrowed from the Anglo-Saxon “ancor” which owes its origin to the Latin word “ancora”. The word “forkr”, meaning a boathook, is also of foreign origin; it comes from the Anglo-Saxon “forca” and from the Latin “furca”.

The types of the Norse vessels have, however, not been changed as the result of contact with the South. The extraordinary life of the Vikings and their continual piracies justify the conclusion that the merchant ship was not improved among them, but rather among the peoples engaged in a more regular trade. There is really, in my opinion, no cause for astonishment that this development should have taken place in the North-Western part of Europe. There are some even who claim that the vessel “busse”, generally in use during the Middle Ages, came to us from Normandy and dates from the beginning of the XIth century. In order to support this claim, they take their stand on the fact that the word “busse” appears first at about this time in the Chronicles.

J. Steenslup has called attention to a people of seamen called the “Butsecarlas” (mentioned in the old Anglo-Saxon Chronicles of the year 1066 and in the book of Florent Wigorniensis, dating from 1052), who occupied the coasts of Hasting and Yorkshire. This writer also calls attention to the second part of the word, which belongs to the Norse tongue, while the word “buza” occurs frequently in the Old Norse and the Old Swedish, near the XIIIth century, and means a boat of sharply curved form. This word, however, is of Romana origin: it corresponds, so it said, to the Old French buse or buce (dating from about 1080); hence it is considered that the vessel “buce” is originally from Normandy.

This, however, does not seem to be so sure. It has been shown, as a matter of fact, that the same shapes of ships have been preserved for ages even though under other names.

The fact that the word buse is used for the first time about the year 1050 is, therefore, no proof that the type of vessel in question only appeared at this time. I am rather inclined to think that the type under consideration was already in existence, but that it was named buse or buze in Normandy only toward 1050 and, probably, after having undergone a few unimportant changes.

Shipbuilding was imported from the Baltic into the Netherlands by the most ancient inhabitants of this country, the Frisians and the Saxons, who then developed it aside from any foreign influence.

In this respect, the quotation from Witsen, which appears on page 47 of his well known work, becomes really important: De Vriezen komt de lof toe van de herstelde scheepsbouw in Nederland, zoo de meeste schryvers willen[7]. The question is, indeed, that of a development of its own in the North-Western part of Europe; the special and identical forms, still found to-day, to a great extent, from Denmark to Belgium, are sufficient proof of the fact.

This is why the Baltic may be spoken of broadly as the Northern centre, in opposition to the Mediterranean Sea as the Southern centre. The development of shipbuilding had this Northern centre as its starting point and finally reached its highest mark in the Netherlands. France and England came later.

The art of shipbuilding spread gradually through the Netherlands, which continued to go forward until the time when France dominated all by the continental blockade.

[II 72]

Let us return now to the types of ships. It has been said, that several boats of the Vikings have been found. One, especially, was discovered at Haugen in 1867, and another at Gokstad in 1880. Before that, in 1865, three had already been found in Jutland three specimens which seemed to date from the Vth century. The largest of these was 70 feet long.

[II 74]

A Viking vessel was also discovered at Charbuw, near Pommeren. The last discovery was made in the suburbs of Oxenberg, near Christianiafjord, Norway, in 1904.

All these boats are for oars; still sails could be used, they being attached to the mast put up in the centre of the vessel. Considering their beam, these ships are not so long as the vessels for oars of the Mediterranean; in fact, their breadth is to their length as 1:5. They are full near the middle and become narrower at the bow and stern. The stem and the sternpost, which are both curved, rise very high above the water. An oar attached to the stern was used as a rudder.

Their construction differed also from that of the Mediterranean vessels; here, only ships having smooth sides are met with, whereas the Viking boats are clinker built.

The “Gokstad” is one of the most beautiful specimens of this type. HOLMES has described it in detail, in his fine work Ancient and Modern Ships, pp. 55 et seq. This vessel is 77 feet and 11 inches long, 16 feet and 7 inches broad and 5 feet and 9 inches deep; it is also clinker built and rivetted.

[II 76]
[II 80]

Turning now toward Norway, let the fishing boats still in use there to-day be considered; the resemblance of these boats to the Viking ship will be found striking both in shape and structure. It is this which makes HOLMES say (p. 60): “Such an instance of persistency in type is without parallel in the history of shipbuilding”.

It has been seen that this fact occurs not only in Norway but among all nations. There is nothing to cause astonishment in again finding the most ancient models in fishing boats. No class is more conservative than are fishermen, who build their barks as their forefathers did and on whom necessity alone can force new forms.

[II 103]

Aside from the specimens discovered in the North, little is left of the oldest types of ships. There is nothing left of them save a few vague descriptions and imperfect reproductions. In this order of ideas, the coat of arms of the city of Amsterdam is the best known document which the Netherlands supplies. WITSEN’s work contains, on page 362, several reproductions of these arms dating from different epochs.

[II 112]
[II 105]
[II 110]

HOLMES reproduces, besides, the ships which figure on an old Bayeux tapestry (1066), as well as the “Sandwich Seal” of 1238, the “Dover Seal” of 1284 and the “Pool Seal” of 1325 (pp. 67 and 68). These three seals agree with the oldest of the arms of Amsterdam and the ship which they carry is, in every respect, similar to that of the said city. Too much importance cannot be attached, however, to this detail, because, just as the lion of heraldry is very little like a real lion, it is to be supposed that the heraldic ship is not a faithful reproduction of the real type.

The old illustrated Bible of 1200-1220, preserved in the Royal Library of The Hague, and which seems to have come from Northern France, contains also a remarkable reproduction; the type of boat which it gives is also like the preceding ones.

[II 112]

The identity of all these figures allows it to be supposed that a single type of ship ruled in Western Europe; while the clearly pointed out timbers of the planking shows clinker built work.

[II 78]

The reproduction of the Bayeux tapestry shows, besides, that the sail was very early in use; the pilot of one of the ships shown there holds the sheet in his hand. Besides—and this fact is worthy of notice—these vessels all have sensibly vertical stems and sternposts, just as they are still found in our times on a few Norwegian fishing boats.

The “cog”, the vessel in the arms of Amsterdam, is a very well known mediæval type, of which the importance becomes marked in Western and Central Europe from and after the XIIIth century, when the Hanse towns and the Frisians improved it greatly.

This ship, which was very broad for its length, was hard to board, whence its usefulness in time of war.

The “cog” seems to date back further than the institution of the Hanseatic league (1250) judging by the fact that its name was known well before this date. Thus, the inhabitants of the Netherlands had to equip several cogs wherewith to fight the invasions of the Norsemen (810-1010). It was the application of the feudal system to navigation. (See LA CROIX, p. 88.) It is known that this policy was finally established under Charlemagne who subjugated the Frisians in 785 and the Saxons in 804. (Mr. J. C. DE JONGE, History of the Navy of the Netherlands, Vol. 1, p. 6.)

It is needless to say that everything was soon put to work to escape it. A charter of the Roman King Otho I (936-973) calls for a tenth of a “cog” (Kogschult) of which the product came to the bishop of Utrecht. It was the commutation for the obligation to serve the prince with cogs. This obligation seems, in principle, to have struck more especially the countries lying along the present Zuyder Zee. (Mr. DE JONGE, Vol. I, p. 7.)

The “cog” only appears for the first time in Germany in 1211, when the Emperor Otho IV allowed the inhabitants of Wismar to maintain two “cogs” (Cogken), and as many small vessels as they desired.

There are some who claim that the word cog, “Kuggr” in old Norse, comes from the Italian “cocca”, the Spanish “coca” or the old French “coche” and, consequently, they believe that the word is of Romance origin. This does not seem likely; the “cog” is a type of vessel copied from the old Viking boat and adapted to the special conditions of the navigable highways in the low lands of the North-West of Europe. Hence it was robust and full to facilitate grounding.

In reality, the “cog” was unknown in the Mediterranean; this follows from what the Florentine historian Villani relates in connection with the battle of Zierikzee. If this vessel had been a Mediterranean type, the author would not have directed especial attention to this form of ship. Hence the “cog” really belongs to Northern Europe and owes its perfecting to the Frisians and most of all to the Flemings.

[II 103]
[II 97]
[II 98]

The “cog” was generally in use in the XIIIth century and it may be assumed that the Norsemen already knew it in the time of the Vikings. Unfortunately, very little concerning it has come down to us. The oldest reproductions which we possess are those of the seals of Amsterdam and Harderwijk. But the ship which figures in the arms of the former city has undergone many changes in the course of the ages. Witsen says that it is an ill drawn figure and he imputes this defective work to the ignorance of the engravers. (WITSEN, p. 363.)

[II 108]

The arms of Harderwijk agree with those of Damme (JAL, Gloss. nautique, p. 1051); there is no doubt that the two seals show the same ship (the only difference being that the Damme boat carries two towers). If then the Harderwijk ship represents a “cog”, as is claimed by WITSEN (p. 364, 2d column), the same must be the case with the one of Damme.

In so far as the Amsterdam seals are concerned, Witsen further remarks, that the oldest could not date before the year 1200, as Amsterdam did not rank as a city before that time. He adds that it is clearly seen from these arms “hoe het met de bouwery der Kogschepen oulinx heeft gestaen en hoe haer gestalte steeds is veranderd met den tyt, gelyck men ook hedens-daegs (dus ten tyde van dien schryver) de gestalten der schepen steeds verandern ziet” (bl. 364.)[8].

The cogs were clinker built.

Most of the reproductions show only a rounded bow. It can therefore be deduced that the boat which appears in the arms of Harderwijk is a variation of the ordinary “cog”. It should be noticed that all the old types of Dutch ships show, like the “cog”, a slightly rounded bow with no beak.

[II 124]
etc.

Although the old Flemish engravings of the XVth century show different types of ships, it is to be remarked that none of these latter is called a “cog”. Still all these engravings show thick-set boats, with a rounded bow, which must certainly have been derived from the “cogs” which have been scarcely changed.

[II 190]

There is even a reproduction which dates from the beginning of the XVIth century and which shows a Zeeland “cog”. The bow and stern seem there to be identical in shape; it is to be assumed however, judging by the position of the mast which is at about one-third the length of the ship abaft the stem, that the bow was fuller than the stern. The stem is curved as is also the sternpost; the tiller passes through a statie[9]. The mast rakes a great deal, as was required by the use of the old sprits; the vessel is also provided with lee-boards.

The reproduction does not show clearly whether the hull is clinker built. It is very possible that the sides were carvel built, because this style of work was already in use at that time. The boat has no “arcasse”[10]; the hold is covered with convex hatch covers.

[III 115]
[III 116]

This Zeeland “cog” is derived, doubtless, from the primitive “cog”. Let us suppose this vessel as having a little fuller ends; as having the mast in the middle; as having a steering oar instead of a rudder; the lee-boards suppressed and a clinker-built hull; we shall have an idea of the “cog”. This being so, the cause of the existence of our “bom” becomes more important; this latter boat, as is well known, has been greatly enlarged during the past century and has gained fullness at the ends so as to increase its capacity. This is noticeable when the bow of a “bom” is compared with that of the boat used for catching shrimps. This latter has still the old rounded forms and is not so wide in proportion to its length.

[III 112]

Let us suppose then that the “bom” is less square at its ends, higher at bow and stern, that is to say: having a little more sheer, like the boats of former times; there will be had a vessel which, with its clinker built sides, will differ little from the old “cog”, still met with as a rarity in our fleet of fishing boats.

Changed in this way, the “bom” no longer differs so much from the “Egmonderpink” reproduced and described by WITSEN (p. 168); it might even be concluded that it descends therefrom. It can be understood from this how it is, even in our days, that the “bommen” are often called “pinken”.

Thus a picture, in the town Museum of The Hague, shows the beach at Schevening covered, not with “bommen” but with “Egmonderpinken”.

This subject will be taken up again in speaking of fishing boats.

[II 243]

The shrimp fishing boats have been less changed; consequently, aside from the counter which was added later, they differed less from the “Egmonderpink” which, finally, are found again almost complete in the Ostend fishing boats, as LELONG has pointed out in his Encyclopedia of Naval Architecture, p. 17.

The “bommen” were still able in the XIXth century to render good service as coast guards. There is nothing to prove that they existed in Witsen’s time; the contrary is more likely, as this author does not mention them. He merely says that, beside the “Egmonderpinken”, other and much smaller fishing boats were seen on the beach and that they carried only fore and aft sails. If these boats had differed much in shape from the “pinken”, it is to be believed that mention of the fact would have been made. (See WITSEN, p. 168, 2d column.)

[II 187]

The artist who reproduced the Zeeland “cog” has left also the drawing of a “Doghboot” which also came from Zeeland (WITSEN, p. 170, 2d col.) and which resembled very much this “cog”. The stem is a little longer, the “statie” is not closed and the vessel has no convex hatch covers. The rig only differs entirely from that of the “pink” and everything leads to the belief that this kind of boat came from the South.

[II 189]
[II 188]

The same artist gives a figure of a “Heude” or “Heu” from Brabant, which might be called a small Zeeland “cog”. Still, there appear to have been larger “Heudes”, judging by the Brussels “Heu” which was a vessel carrying two pieces of artillery, but of which the reproduction does not give the means for determining the shape of the ship.

It will be well to note here that great circumspection should be used in the matter of these different names adopted to designate such or such vessel. These names have been the cause of much confusion, an example of which is offered by the famous discussion which took place at Groningen, in 1902-1903, as to the question of knowing what a “pram” was.

The crusades, which began in 1096, contributed largely toward perfecting the ship. It was the same with the invention of the compass in the first half of the XIIIth century (HOLMES, p. 66). Commerce and navigation rose higher and higher. Already in the course of the XIIIth century, Damme became the ware house of Northern Europe. Italy, Spain and France brought their products there.

The old maritime customs of Damme served later as the basis of maritime law in Holland, Northern Germany (M. KOENEN, p. 50), Sweden and Denmark.

The XIIIth century saw commercial treaties concluded with the Hanseatic cities and, in 1252, tariffs were fixed (M. KOENEN). “Losbogen, scharpoise, eenvaren” (boats with high sides) and “hekbooten” are in question in these tariffs; and these names are also found in an act made between the Lords of Kuyck and of Dordrecht to settle a difficulty concerning the city duties at the former of these towns.

Among the “losbogen”, are found the boats which were unloaded at the bow or “booge”, as is still done with vessels which carry wood.

The boats used on the Scarp, a tributary of the Scheldt, are placed among the “scharpoises or exarpoises”.

The “eenvaren” were boats handled by a single boatman, and the “hekbooten” were boats which had a square stern.

These few denominations suffice to prove that, even at so early a period, there were different kinds of boats and that alongside of the “cog” there were other vessels of smaller size.

In the beginning, the “cog” was guided by oars, as were other ships; this method was abandoned gradually in the XIIIth century and the steering oar gave place to the rudder.

It is not possible to determine, for Holland, the time when this change occurred; the various coats of arms of Amsterdam can throw no light on this subject. The ship, on many of them, has no rudder, symbolical, doubtless of the fact that people could sail for all parts of the globe (WITSEN, p. 634), and that vessels started from Amsterdam bound to all the countries upon earth.

It is to be assumed, nevertheless, that it was also in the XIIIth century that the rudder was introduced into Holland. Some persons have tried to make out that there was a certain connection between the adoption of the compass and that of the rudder; this latter became forced, they say, when, thanks to the compass, more and more distant expeditions could be undertaken.

For my part, I do not think that there can be the slightest connection between the two events; the Norsemen, in fact, crossed the North Sea before the rudder was known.

The oldest reproductions of the “cog”, however primitive they may be, have a mast with the sails and rigging of the boat at the centre. I know of no reproduction showing oars. Hence it can be deduced that the sails and rigging formed the main outfit and that the oars, of which the number, even on the largest “cogs”, was limited to a maximum of 32, or 16 on each side, were used only in calm weather. This is what is done at the present time for vessels of less importance, such as the “hoys”.

Hence the oars were only an accessory, the reverse of what was seen for the galleys, where the oars were the main feature and the sails and rigging were secondary. That is why, contrary to what is seen for the “cog”, no reproduction of a galley without oars has been met with.

It is therefore wrong that the name of galleys should be given sometimes to “cogs”. The former were never implanted in the Netherlands, Mr. de Jonge has already pointed out the inaccuracy of the passage of the Annexes of Wagenaar, vol. 3, p. 50, where that author relates that the eleven hundred ships sent against Antwerp by Count William III were almost exclusively galleys.

However, there is a question of galleys in the history of the Netherlands; but it is not a question of the Mediterranean type. Their number was limited and they were used only on rivers.

[II 145]

An engraving which dates from about the year 1600, and shows the Scheldt in front of Antwerp, as well as a view of Gouda, shows boats of this kind.

These galleys were only large rowboats, a little longer than the ordinary ones (DE JONGE, Vol. I, p. 80) and carried only 32 oars at the most. The largest Netherlands galley belonged to the guard of Amsterdam and was called the Terror of the Zuyder zee. Those which were used in naval battles come from the South.

Any one who knows the national character of the Dutch will not be astonished at seeing that the galley had no success in Holland. The trade of the galley slave was considered too vile and no volunteer rowers were to be found; furthermore slavery did not exist and serfdom had been early suppressed. (WITSEN, p. 194, col. 1.)

However, the cogs did not confine themselves to the simple forms which have been sketched. The constant wars, which brought out the fortified castles of the Middle Ages, soon led to the construction on the sea of structures of the same sort, and gradually there were seen to develope among us also the towers which arose at the bow and stern of the ships. The seals of Amsterdam give a striking illustration of this.

Military tactics were not without their influence on this way of building vessels. The crusades and the subsequent relations with the peoples of the Mediterranean, among whom the practice of castles was known, made us familiar with these superelevated constructions. If, in a first encounter, the enemy’s vessel could not be sunk, it was boarded so as to bring about a hand to hand fight. The conqueror was then he who had at hand the most robust ships and who could place himself sufficiently high up to let fly his arrows at the enemy. Nothing was more natural, then, than to imitate on ships the fortified castles with their crenelated towers. If the enemy succeeded in boarding the ship, the defense withdrew to the castles. There should be no cause for astonishment therefore at finding the old tops on the masts and at learning that even the boats were hoisted there in order more surely to crush the adversary under a shower of arrows and stones (Mr. DE JONGE, p. 20).

It can be conceived that the movable castles should not have answered to expectations and, therefore, that an arrangement was soon reached to make but a single body of the castle and the ship, and thence to raise the bow and the stern.

Portugal and Spain, imitating the Mediterranean, had the start of us in constructing castles.

Thus the vessel of the XVIth century is seen to develope gradually and we can understand how the intermediate low part between the forward and after castles should persist.

In the beginning, the deck did not exist in the central part. Then, in order to protect this last against stones and other projectiles, it was covered with a wooden lattice (See, among others, WITSEN, p. 51, col. 2), while its sides were furnished with loopholes covered with pewter, to make it more difficult to scale in case of boarding.

The English seals, more finely and more artistically engraved than ours, give an excellent idea of the progressive development of the castles. Five of them show the sides of the ships as clinker built, while the seal of the city of Poole makes the rivets really visible. The castles are so clearly shown in their successive phases of development, that any explanation is unnecessary. The steering oar, which is seen on the oldest seal, is replaced by a rudder on the others. The Boston seal shows a well turned out three-masted vessel with smooth sides.

All the seals, save this last, show the forms of “cogs”, which proves once more the identity of the types of ships of the North-West of Europe. (Holmes states, on page 70 of his work, that the Poole seal gives the oldest English reproduction of a ship with a rudder, 1325.)

As has been said already, the adoption of the compass was the signal for cutting loose from the coast and for undertaking more distant voyages. We learn, especially in the Reygersbergh Chronijk van Zeelant (published by Boschhorn) Vol. II, p. 212, that about 1440, when the use of the compass had scarcely become general, the Zeelanders worked more and more toward the South, making toward Portugal and Spain.

Before then, these countries seemed so far away that, when starting on a voyage thither, the seamen went to confession and the Holy Sacraments were received.

At the same time with the invention of the compass, another event came to produce a great influence on shipbuilding; it was the invention of gunpowder, with the consequent adoption of artillery.

The history of the Netherlands speaks for the first time of the use of artillery in connection with the expedition of Duke Albert against the Frisians in 1396. It seems, however, to have been used at the siege of the castle of Rozenburg-lez-Voorschoten, in 1351 (M. DE JONGE, Vol. I, p. 28).

Cannon were not used either at the battle of the Sluis or in the maritime expeditions of King Richard III. But they were in general use on board ship in the XIVth century. (HOLMES, p. 71.) The Genoese and the Venetians in the South, and the Hanseatic cities in the North, who were the masters of all peoples in commerce and navigation, were the first to adopt them. (M. DE JONGE, Vol. I, p. 29.)

It was natural that artillery should modify war tactics and it can be said that the military value of ships depended on the number of guns which they carried. Finally, ships were built exclusively for war, and the practice of the Middle Ages, which was to utilize merchantmen for this purpose, must needs be abandoned.

The United Provinces did not decide at once to build special ships. Hence the dimensions of existing types had to be increased, in order that a larger number of guns could be mounted. The difference between sea-going ships and inland vessels became more and more marked. The war ship was evidently the one which departed the most from the old forms, for the reason that it had to undergo every change which had been advantageously adopted by the enemy.

[II 145]

The earliest guns were not greatly to be feared. The proof of this is found in the fact that the coverings of staterooms and castles were sloped, like roofs, so as to make the bombs thrown by the foe roll off more easily.

The name of cog disappears as ships increase in size. The vessels met with are generally called “Hulken” and “Baertzen” toward the end of the XIVth and during the XVth centuries; and, after all, says Witsen, they are only types of ships formerly in use in our country. The “Hulk”, he adds, the larger of the two, used to sail for distant lands; its capacity was as great, sometimes, as 200 lasts. (WITSEN, p. 494, col. 2.)

The “Baertze” was a ship equipped as much for coast defense as for war at sea. In 1518, there were built a very large number of them which ran under sail, but which could be moved by oars in calm weather. (WITSEN, p. 483, col. 1.)

Hence these two types were merchantmen, the “Baertze” especially being used for war. Their equipment included oars too, which were used when the wind failed.

[II 124]
[II 131]

Nor did the XVth century, itself, see any ships built exclusively for war. This century has left us some very beautiful reproductions of Flemish origin (See, Der Meister W. A. of MAX LEHR, 1895, p. 1), on three of which appear the names of “Baertze”, “Barge” and “Kraeck”.

The ships shown there have the same characteristics and differ from each other only in their rig. It is seen that they are bluff-bowed and that their bow is rounded as is also their stern.

[II 127]

Aside from the “Kraeck” none of these vessels carries artillery: all have, however, a castle, still of quite simple construction, at bow and stern. The “Kraeck” alone was supplied later with windows in the stern above the gallery.

Then too, in these reproductions, all the castles, except those of the “Kraeck”, have no roof. This last vessel is the largest, beyond doubt; its very name brings at once to mind a type of ship of which the size and the strong construction seem to find their origin in the Spanish “Carack”, whence the name of “Kraeck”.

[II 64]

The form of this vessel scarcely differs, however, from that of the others; the bow especially approaches rather the Dutch type than the type of the Spanish carack or of the galleon (compare the figure reproduced in VAN YK’s work, p. 9). Hence it may be supposed that the “Kraeck” should have differed from other vessels only by larger castles, stronger rig and increased size.

The “Barge” and the “Baertze” give, with vessels shown on other reproductions, an idea of the Dutch ship of the XVth century. No “Hulken” are met with among these vessels; they were clinker built (WITSEN, p. 496, col. 1, Caravelle), while all the reproductions under consideration show only ships with smooth sides.

Besides the “Hulken”, there were “Razeilers” and “Krayers” which had also clinker built sides. Here, then, is found the old way of building “cogs”, and it may be stated that we are in the presence of vessels which owe their origin to this type of ship, and only have a different name because of certain changes of detail in the matter of their rig or the construction of their castles.

A Flemish miniature of the XVth century gives a very remarkable reproduction of a vessel of the time. A “cog” with overlapping planks is seen here. In accordance with the custom of the Middle Ages, this ship has three masts with tops, a castle at bow and stern, and guns; there are no gun-ports.

[II 118]

The “cogs” which were in use in the XIIIth century, were replaced in the XIVth by the “Krayers” and “Hulken” which had to give way, in their turn in the XVth century, to the “Barges”, “Baertzen” etc. The clinker built sides of large ships only disappeared in this last century, to give room to the smooth sides, a mode of construction which took root with us as the result of our relations with the peoples of the Mediterranean.

An old Record of Hoorn, written by D. Velius, relates that the carvel built side was first applied by “Juliaan” at Zierikzee, and adopted at Hoorn in 1460. The ships built in this way were called “Karviel”, “Kraweel” or “Karveel” (WITSEN, p. 496, col. 1) and their type, according to this author, would seem to have been copied from the Latin vessel “Carabus”. M. DE JONGE, on his side (vol. I, p. 79, note) remarks that “Juliaan” might well have been an Italian.

Witsen gives of these “Karviel” a description which is well worthy of attention: these vessels were rather narrow at the bow, broader at the stern, thus having the shape of a chisel. In other words, their lines were finer, wherein they differed from the types of ships used in Holland.

Hence we seem to have before us not only a given mode of construction, but also a well determined type which has come from the Mediterranean. JAL, in his Glossaire Nautique, pp. 419-420, tells us, as to that, that caravels were already to be found on the Mediterranean in 1307; their dimensions were, however, smaller than those of the ships used by Vasco da Gama and Columbus. Here is what this author says about this style of vessel: “The caravel was a small ship of the family of round-stern vessels but with finer lines than the nefs of its time and more slender forward. It was also faster, more handy and better fitted for all expeditions where speed in going ahead and great quickness in coming about were required.”

These caravels dit not remain in use to act as “Kraecks”; but with this vessel we reach the time when the reciprocal influence of the two centres begins to be felt.

[II 119]
[II 117]

Two existing Flemish miniatures show clearly the difference which existed between the Dutch type and the foreign type; they date from 1482 and 1488 respectively. The first is the picture of the true type of the Dutch vessel; the second shows a foreign ship. On the first, the vessel is represented with smooth sides; therefore this system of construction was adopted among us in the XVth century.

The vessels are not yet made with a square stern, however; their stern being still round in accordance with the ancient way. As a general rule, they were of small size, and our present sea “hoys” could have been compared with them in this respect. They had a capacity of 160, 180 and 200 tonnes, or 80, 90 and 100 “lasts”. Nevertheless, there were also some of 220, 230 and 240 tonnes, or, 110, 115 and 120 lasts. (M. DE JONGE, Vol. I, p. 80.)

The “Karvielen” and the “Kraecken” disappear in the XVIIth century and, at this time, no more types which differ from the ordinary Holland type are met with. Hence it can be maintained that the “Karvielen” and “Kraecken” did not succeed in taking root with us. It will be seen, on the contrary that the full-bowed vessels came more and more into use.

The name of “cog” was, therefore, no longer in use in the XVth century. Nevertheless this type of vessel continued to exist. The “cog” gave birth to the “Hulken” and these latter to the “Baertzen”. Although modified, the first form, that of the full-bowed ship, remained in use. One single characteristic disappeared: that of the slender bows and sterns of the old “Viking” boat which are found in all the reproductions known in the North-West of Europe, from Denmark to and including England and the North of France.

The rigging developed in its turn: the single mast was replaced by three pole masts, each having a top and a single large sail. The ropes were made stronger and channels appeared near the end of the XVth century. The steering oar of the old “cog” had long since given place to the rudder.

It would be incorrect to call “cogs” the vessels represented by Master W. A., as Arenhold has done in his work: Die allmähl. Entwickelung des Segelschiffes von der Römerzeit bis zur Zeit der Dampfer, p. 650—(Jahrbuch der Schiffbautechnischen Gesellschaft, 1906). They are, however, forms which issue from the “cog” but not new forms developed alongside of ancient forms. If history be consulted, there will be no cause for surprise at seeing the effects of the contact of the two Centres appear exactly in the XVth century.

The Crusades (1096-1291), which brought the nations very much together, had come to an end. The alliance of the Hanseatic cities, concluded in 1250, had caused a prodigious growth of our trade in the Baltic Sea. The Frisians, especially, had devoted themselves to the art of shipbuilding, but the Flemings would not let themselves be distanced.

In 1339, there broke out between France and England the Hundred Years’ war, which led the latter to take up shipbuilding much more actively than in the past.

One of the most famous actions of this period was the battle of the Sluis (1340), at which the English fleet of two hundred ships, under the command of King Edward III, completely defeated the Franco-Genoese fleet. This latter, 190 vessels strong, was composed of bluff-bowed vessels, galleys, barges and a large number of small vessels. Certain chroniclers claim that it included four hundred units. (HOLMES, p. 71.)

The English lost four thousand men in this battle, and the French and Genoese twenty-five thousand, which leads to the assumption that the latter had a large number of galleys at their disposal.

In 1345, Edward III came again to France at the head of a fleet of 1000 to 1100 ships and, in 1347, a third expedition, having to do with the siege of Calais, was sent against this country.

HOLMES relates (p. 72) that, for this expedition, the greater part of the fleet, which counted 745 units and 15,895 men, came from England; the other vessels were furnished by the Flanders and Spain.

The size of the crews, which reduces to 21 men per vessel shows sufficiently that the boats of the fleet were relatively small. Under these conditions, a pretty exact idea can be had of this fleet by giving a glance at old engravings which show a flotilla of fishing boats, including some busses and a few “Noordvaarders”, putting out to sea.

The castles which ships carried at this time were small and not set up as a permanence.

The medal struck as a commemoration of the battle of the Sluis also shows a “Cog”, or at least a vessel which is exactly like it by its clinker built sides. It may be supposed that the type of vessel shown in this reproduction was the one most widely used at this period; so, once more is shown the great affinity which existed among the northern nations.

Military tactics had forced the peoples of the Mediterranean and, later, Spain and Portugal, their imitators, to increase the height of their ships. This is confirmed by HOLMES in the following quotation relating to the battle fought by Edward III, near Winchelsea, against forty Spanish ships: “The tactics of the English consisted chiefly of boarding, while the Spaniards, whose vessels were much the higher, attacked with crossbows and heavy stones; the latter they hurled from their fighting tops into their adversaries’ ships”.

The history of the Netherlands also mentions this fact.

England first made use of artillery at sea in 1372; the Mediterranean saw it used by the Genoese in 1377.

Shipbuilding was only developed much later in France. Nevertheless, there is proof that ships were already built there in the XIVth century and it appears that they had cannons on board even in 1339. Still, it was only on the shores of the Mediterranean that shipbuilding was regularly carried on, under the impulse, it appears, of Jean de Vienne, who was made admiral in 1373. (Le Musée de Marine du Louvre.)

It was under the rule of Henri the Navigator (1417) that shipbuilding reached its height in Portugal, a country which was entirely under the influence of the Mediterranean.

Meanwhile, the relations of the Netherlands with the southern countries had developed rapidly.

The closing of the old route to the Indies, which led through the Mediterranean and Asia Minor, brought about a complete upsetting of the commerce of the world. New explorations must needs be undertaken and it is thus that we read in history that after having pushed as far as Guinea with six caravels, in 1446, the Cape Verde Islands were reached soon afterwards.

In 1449, it was the turn of the Azore Islands and, in 1486, Bartholomeo Diaz reached the Cape of Good Hope. Eleven years later, this navigator turned the Cape and landed at the Indies with three vessels, the San Gabriel, the San Raphael and the Bonio. According to existing data, the first of these ships must have had a capacity of 400 tons or 250 to 300 registered tons. (HOLMES, p. 86.)

[II 61]

It is useless to dwell longer on these episodes of which the history is sufficiently well known and of which the last act was the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus in 1492. This latter had at his disposal but three small ships, although Spain was already using, at this time, larger vessels. The best known and the largest of the three was the “Santa-Maria”. This ship had a length of keel of 60.68 feet and a length over all of 128.25 feet with a total breadth of 25.71 feet. The Chicago Exposition of 1893 exhibited a model of this vessel of which HOLMES’s work gives a reproduction on p. 85.

The discovery of America gave rise to the thirst for gold, drove the nations of North-Western Europe to venture on the high seas and obliged them to go actively into shipbuilding. The rise of the Netherlands then was important; the size of their ships grew greatly, and as far back as the XVIth century, vessels of 300, 400, 500 and 600 tons were found.

However, smaller vessels continued to be used, in preference, for war because they were more easily handled. (See, among others, DE JONGE, Vol. I, p. 81.)

After 1500, our shipbuilding became so developed that our country was called the shipyard of Europe. Different from Portugal, where nothing has been preserved, the Netherlands possess a whole series of drawings of the XVIth, XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries, which enable us to form a very exact idea of the progressive development of the ship.

In the old reproductions aforementioned of Maître W. A., as well as in the Flemish miniatures at hand, the forward castle projected beyond the bow, but it already forms, however, a component part of the ship and is fastened to a beam let into the stem and resting on a bracket fastened thereto. This construction gives to the stem the appearance of starting upward and then of falling back in the shape of an S. This is evidently only an illusion.

The vessels after 1500 become larger and the castles gain in importance. The projection of the forward castle, however, diminishes gradually and this castle reached only as far as the stem, by the middle of the XVIth century.

[II 138]

WITSEN, in the appendix of his remarkable work (pp. 8 and 10), gives a fine model of a ship at the end of the XVth century. It is a question of the reproduction of a vessel which, in his time, decorated the arch of the church at Diemer-lez-Amsterdam, built in the year 1500. The rigging of this vessel, as well as the pole mast supplied with tops and carrying large square sails, brings us back to the Middle Ages. The forward castle, which projects beyond the stem, and the after castle are higher than usual. These are no bends such as were used later; several heavy pieces of wood supported on brackets take their place. The sides are evidently smooth and, according to the constant practice of the period, the ship carried on the bow and on the sides pieces of wood for protection.

The stern alone is not clearly shown; there is no rudder to be seen, and this gives the impression that the drawing is at fault.

This vessel had no upper stern, in all probability, for our ships did not yet know this addition. There is a proof of it in the Noah’s Ark, reproduced in the Nürenberger Chronik, folio XI, of 1494, as well as in that of the ship which appears in the Ecclesiastical Painting of the Middle Ages in Holland, 1518-1525, n^o 14, and which shows Jonah in the water.

[II 136]
[II 119]

This last picture especially gives a magnificent type of boat of the beginning of the XVIth century. It is not so old as the ship of the Church at Diemer, as to which the rig furnishes proof: the pole of the mast passes through the top and, another characteristic, the forward castle does not project beyond the stem. The ram has been broken off near the frame. Besides, the human figures, as compared with the ship, are exaggerated. The sides of the vessel are smooth. It brings admirably to mind the Flemish miniature of 1482.

These reproductions are most interesting in view of the development of the ship; we see in them the forms of the castle become more precise, the rigging improve and increase and the vessel itself gain in size.

Attention is called to the fact that the ships in all these drawings carry a bowsprit which was used at first only to hoist the anchor, as is the practice still on the large river lakes.

Let us now turn our eyes to Breugel’s pictures of which F. Huis has left some superb engravings.

[II 132]
[II 135]
[II 64]

A close examination of these reproductions brings out different types of ships. Several of them show us important vessels which, by their great rams, their high castles and their broad sterns, differ notably from the old Holland ship.

Van Yk’s work also shows, on page 9, a reproduction of those big vessels which the author calls Spanish “Caracks” or galleons, two types of ships which arose under the influence of the Mediterranean.

But, alongside of these “caracks” are also found smaller Dutch vessels. An engraving of 1564, of a Breugel picture, shows particularly an Amsterdam merchantman. It has a round stern. It can be compared advantageously with an old Flemish engraving, dating from 1480 or 1490, which shows a “Kraeck” without escutcheon, and of which the castles differ completely in form and size from those carried by the ships seen in the engravings of Maître W. A. These castles agree with the Mediterranean types.

The boat with the square stern had been adopted in Holland, therefore, as far back as the end of the XVIth century.

Square sterns remained in use there, for large vessels up to the end of the XVIIIth century; at that time a return was made to the old structure, in imitation of England which used the square stern for only a short time, seeing that William Pitt (HOLMES, p. 40) introduced the rounded forms there in the XVIIth century. Hence Mr. de Jonge is in error when he says in his work that the vessel with the square stern only appeared in Holland in 1651.

The adoption of the square stern, nevertheless, did not cause the old round-stern, full-bow vessel to disappear; this is an established fact.

Another word about ports. The old reproductions of the XVIth century show ports; some are even found on a miniature of 1428. In any event, their general use dates back to the end of the XVth century; they seem to have been invented by a Frenchman from Brest, named Descharges. (DE JONGE, Vol. I, p. 85.)

The masts and rigging also underwent important changes. At the beginning of the Eighty Years War (1590), an inhabitant of Enkhuizen, “Kryn Wouterez” by name, according to Brandt (History of Enkhuizen, Vol. I, p. 139), invented a process for making masts in several sections (DE JONGE, Vol. I, p. 390). The masts, made first of two pieces, were, by means of this new invention, soon made in three parts each carrying a square sail. From this time, the old medieval rig of one large sail begins to disappear.

In order to facilitate the evolutions of the ship, a square sail was placed on the bowsprit.

Finally, the guns are placed more rationally and, imitating the practice on the Spanish caracks, some were located in the forward and after castles so as to command the deck. This arrangement recalls the practice of the Middle Ages, in accordance with which, in case of boarding, the crew retired into the castles whence a charge was made on the invaders.

[II 143]
[II 141]

The vessel represented on the engraving of 1594, therefore, arose gradually from the old forms, but not without having felt the influence of the Mediterranean; this evolution leads us to the “Pinnace” of the XVIIth century. The ship was then richly ornamented and bedecked, and its sails, in accordance with use, carried handsome paintings. This custom disappeared insensibly during the century named, but the custom of decorating ships continued, none the less, for still a long time afterwards.

According to WITSEN, fixed rules governed the construction of vessels from the XVIth century on. One strict rule, among others, did not allow the stem to project more than 7/6, or less than 5/6 of its height, nor could the sternpost project more than a fifth or a fourth of its height. The author mentioned pretends that the stem was made with a marked slope, for the reason that it was believed that, under such conditions, the ships would glide more easily over the water (p. 47, column 2 at the end).

At about one-third of the length of the keel from the stem, were placed from one to four main frames; the ship narrowed aft to such a degree that the wing transom was equal in length to half the greatest beam of the ship. The bow was full, which allowed the water to be thrown more easily aside. (WITSEN, pp. 49 and 50.)

The seams were calked and, in accordance with an old custom, covered with lead plates.

The forward castle had been reduced in height while the after castle, on the contrary, had been raised. A fourth mast was placed in the stern to facilitate the manœuvring of the ship; this mast disappeared later on, when the bowsprit was adopted in the course of the XVIIth century. (WITSEN, p. 139, 2d column.)

The XVIth century was a memorable period for the Netherlands; it was during this century that was laid the foundation of that navy to which, as says Mr. DE JONGE, Holland was to owe later her liberty, her greatness and her prosperity. This navy united within itself everything which could concur to bring forth a force able to defend the country, to protect commerce, navigation and the fisheries and to bring to Holland glory and power.

Our marine, in general, and our shipbuilding, in particular, then developed steadily. A long period of struggles began and many battles were fought both before and after the Eighty Years War (1568-1648).

According to the old custom, the ships which took part in actions were only merchantmen fitted out for the purpose. (DE JONGE, Vol. I, p. 180.) These vessels, which were called “Vliebooten” or “Vlietbooten” (flyboats), had a small capacity varying from 40 to 140 tons and carried six, eight, ten or twenty guns. The size of the crew was proportioned generally to capacity; a vessel of 50 tons carried 50 men. (DE JONGE, Vol. I, p. 101.)

The “Heuden”, already mentioned above, as well as “Boeiers” (tenders), also called “Kromstevens”, and other flat-bottomed craft were used on the rivers.

The navy of Zeeland included, in addition to a number of small boats, a few vessels of more respectable size. “Hulken” were used at the siege of Middleburg; one of them, called the big “Hulk”, must have had a capacity of 600 lasts, or 1200 tons, and a crew of at least 500 to 600 men. (VAN METEREN, fol. 81 and 102.)

As a general rule, the vessels of North Holland were larger than those of Zeeland. Their capacity was 50 to 125 last, or 100 to 250 tons and a crew of 50 to 150 sailors and soldiers. The largest vessels carried thirty-two guns. (DE JONGE, Vol. I, p. 187.)

Bor relates (Guerres de Hollande, Vol. I, p. 650) that thirteen vessels of this latter category were fitted out in 1575, and that this fleet was filled out by “Kraveelschepen”, “Yachten”, “Waterschepen” and “Booten”, while according to DE JONGE (Vol. I, p. 187), a few galleys were still in service on the Zuyder Zee.

In order to be able to form a more exact idea of the importance of our naval power at this time, the following table, of which the original is preserved in the Archives of the State (DE JONGE, Vol. I, p. 586), has been inserted here to show the navy of the province of Holland in 1587.

NUMBER OF VESSELS	LASTS	GUNS	CREW	REMARKS
1	100	16	95	1 Last = 2 tons.
1	—	14	70
1	27	14	32	Small calibre.
10	30–90	12	45–76
35	17–70	8–11	29–75	the largest: 50 to 60 men.
4 Y	—	—	36–50	Y stands for Yachts.
25	8–40	4–7	11–70	the largest: 30 to 40 men.
6	—	1–2	7–11
1 G	—	1	16	G stands for galley.

In addition to the “Vliebooten”, there were vessels of less importance called “Kromstevens”, “Kraveelen”, “Heuden” or freight vessels, “Krapschuiten”, “Potten“, “Yachten”, “Boeiers“. The largest vessels were still, however, only of modest dimensions. According to the decisions of the Government, dated June 1, 1588, three of the largest vessels were to be equipped for war and it was stipulated that their capacity was to be 200 lasts. (DE JONGE, Vol. I, p. 201, note.)

There are some who claim that only small boats were used at the beginning of our war for independence, because the battles were fought only on rivers and because, furthermore, the financial situation was very bad. (DE JONGE, Vol. I, pp. 203-204.) I consider, for my part, that the latter reason was the main one. Later on, complaints were again made about the unsatisfactory state of the fleet by reason of lack of funds.

[III 8]
[III 9]

Returning new to the shapes of the ships. The “Hulk” has been seen to appear after the “Cog”, only to be replaced, itself, by the “Baertze”. The “Kraeck” arose alongside of this last type which was followed finally by the “Spiegelschip” under the form of a pinnace and a war vessel.

The full bow lasted, however, in boats of little importance and so the “Vlieboot” or “Vlietboot” was seen to follow the “Baertze”. It is the old type of the “Baertze” of which the topsides tumbled in appreciably.

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.

[II 148]
[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.

[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.

[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.

[III 8]
[III 9]
[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.

[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.

[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.)

[II 140]
[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 OF KEEL	BEAM	DEPTH	TONNAGE	GUNS
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
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 AND ORDER	Number of Guns		CALIBRE AND MATERIAL OF THE GUNS	LENGTH	BEAM	DEPTH	NUMBER OF BATTERIES
1st rank, 1st order Soleil Royal	112		1st battery, 8 of 48 the rest, 36 2d battery, 24 3d battery, 18 poop and top­gallant forecastle, 12 and 18	M. 56.01 between perpen­ diculars 51.54	M. 15.64	M. 7.64	Three covered batteries, poop, and forward castle.		Ships of the line.
1st rank, 2nd order	70 to 100		bronze guns	51.91	14.29	6.61	Three covered bat­teries, castle forward and aft.
2d rank, 1st order	60 to 70		bronze guns	48.72	13.47	6.17	idem.
3d rank, 1st order	56 to 66		⅔ bronze ⅓ iron	47.47	12.34	6.68	Two covered decks, poop and forward castle.
3d rank, 2d order	40 to 50		½ bronze ½ iron	34.22	12.01	5.41	idem.
4th rank	30 to 40		⅓ bronze ⅔ iron	38.98	10.55	4.71	idem.		Do not come into line.
5th rank	18 to 30		¼ bronze ¾ iron	35.73	8.66	4.55	Two small castles, or onle one aft.
Frigates	8 to 16		—	—	—	—	—

[II 166]
[II 169]
[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 OF GUNS

Length between perpendic­ulars

Beam at main frame

Moulded depth

BATTERIES

Crew

Calibres of guns

THREE DECKERS

M.

M.

M.

Men

30

pdrs in

lower

tier

120

56.84 to 60.42

14.61 to 16.24

7.47 to 8.12

3 covered batteries with forecastles and poops.

1000 to 1200

18

”

middle

”

110(1)

54.57 to 57.82

14.94 to 15.59

7.31 to 7.80

1000 to 1100

12

”

upper

”

100

53.27 to 57.49

14.61 to 15.26

7.47 to 7.63

900 to 1000

6

”

on forecastle

90

51.97 to 55.22

14.29 to 14.91

6.81 to 7.46

850 to 900

4

”

on poop deck

DOUBLE DECKERS

80

50.67 to 54.57

13.96 to 14.61

6.66 to 6.98

2 covered batteries with forecastle and poop

750 to 800

36

pdrs in

lower

tier

18

”

upper

”

8

”

on forecastle

4

”

on poop

74

48.72 to 53.27

13.64 to 13.96

6.50 to 6.98

2 covered batteries with forecastle and poop

650 to 700

36 or 24 pdrs in lower tier

8 pdrs in upper tier

8 or 6 pdrs on fore­castle

4 pdrs on poop

64(2)

46.04 to 48.72

12.66 to 12.99

6.00 to 6.50

2 batteries and forecastle

450 to 500

18 or 12 pdrs in lower tier

24 or 18 pdrs in upper tier

6 pdrs on fore­castle

50

43.84 to 45.17

11.36 to 12.01

5.50 to 5.85

2 batteries and forecastle

300 to 660

12 or 8 pdrs in lower tier

18 or 12 pdrs in upper tier

6 or 4 pdrs on fore­castle

FRIGATES

40

38.98 to 42.22

10.71 to 11.04

5.19 to 5.53

Single battery with fore­castle

280 to 300

12 pdrs in battery 6 or 4 pdrs on fore­castle

30

35.07 to 38.98

9.74 to 10.39

4.55 to 5.20

do.

200 to 230

10

33.13 to 35.73

8.77 to  9.10

4.22 to 4.55

do.

130 to 150

CORVETTES

12

19.49 to 22.74

7.85 to  8.30

2.92 to 3.23

Single battery without fore­castle.

70 to 80

4 pdrs in barbette battery.

(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	—	136	—	130	—	144	—	130	—	118	—
Breadth at midship frame	47	—	43	—	41	—	38	—	35	—	32	—
Depth of hold	18	6	17	8	17	4	13	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.)

[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.

[II 155]
[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.)

[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’”.

In order to give an idea of the number of vessels in use at the end of the XVIIth century, I have given below a few figures taken from Mr KOENEN’s work, p. 160, which he, in his turn, has borrowed from “VAN HOOGENDORP.—Bijdragen tot de huishouding van den Staat”. (Vol. I, p. 183.)

In 1783, there were in the provinces of North Holland and Friesland: 50 flutes of 400, 450 and 500 lasts (1 last = 2 tons) sailing to Norway and the Baltic Sea, as well as for France and Spain; 30 flutes of 250 to 280 lasts; 18 flutes of 160 to 180 lasts frequenting the port of Archangel, the Mediterranean and the West Indies and having served originally for the Greenland fisheries; then 16 craft of 160 to 180 lasts and 80 howkers or galliots, of which 13 were of 300 to 350 lasts, 18 from 240 to 280, 12 from 200 to 220, 17 from 160 to 180 and 20 from ___ to 150, which sailed to Archangel, the Baltic, the Mediterranean and the West Indies. There were also, 60 frigates “snauwen” and brigantines, of which 10 of 150 to 200 lasts; 30 from 100 to 140 and 20 from 70 to 90 lasts; 5 “hekbootschepen” of 200 to 300 lasts and 140 vessels including howkers, frigates “snauwen” and brigantines varying from 60 to 300 lasts. Finally there were still 36 vessels frequenting the East and West Indies, 150 “kuffs” and smacks of 50 to 70 lasts, 90 “kuffs” and galliots of 70 to 100 lasts and, at the end, 120 galliots, (howkers) and “kuffs” of 100 to 150 lasts; in all, 819 vessels.

There should be added to this number, for Leeuwarden: 20 “kuffs” and “smacks” varying from 50 to 100 lasts and over; for Groningen, 30 vessels of 50 to 70 lasts; for Harlingen, 9 vessels of 100 to 150 lasts, 1 of 180, and 3 from 200 to 300 lasts; for Makkum, 14 ships of 60 to 100 lasts and over; for Workum, 2 of 60 to 70, 24 of 80 to 100 and 23 of 100 lasts and more.

Bolsward, Woudsend, Drylst, Dokkum, Sneek, Grouwsloten, etc., counted together 30 ships of 50 to 70 lasts; 40 of 70 to 100 and 50 of 100 lasts and above. Finally, Lemmer had 40 vessels of 50 to 100 lasts and upward.

There were also a large number of vessels of less importance, such as hoys, etc. having a carrying capacity of 20 to 30 lasts, and a not smaller quantity of fishing boats, which were not included in the above figures.

There is found thus a total of about 1105 vessels exclusive of small boats.

But it was not the mere number of ships which was large; there existed at the same time, as could be seen by the different denominations, a great variety of types of ships.

Merchant vessels, in particular, will be taken up in the next chapter. But, before leaving the ships of war, let it be once more remarked that, from the beginning of the XVIIth century, our country had its frigates. This type of ship was unknown among us before this time, but circumstances had forced its use in the end.

The inhabitants of Dunkirk had caused us heavy losses; from 1631 to 1637, they had captured at Maassluis more than two-hundred fishing vessels valued at over a million florins. (DE JONGE, Vol. I. p. 373.) In order to carry on their piracies with greater impunity, they had obtained from the Mediterranean a ship of fine lines which, although not large (it carried only 6 to 12 guns), was none the less a fine sailer; it was the frigate.

In order to struggle more effectively against the inhabitants of Dunkirk, we too began to build the vessel in question and their number increased rapidly under the urgent advice of our great Admiral Tromp. (DE JONGE, Vol. I, pp. 388 and 389.) Later on they were built of larger size.

[III 18]

As has just been said the frigate was imported into France by the inhabitants of Dunkirk; thence it passed into England, in 1741, (HOLMES, p. 121); all the same, this latter country had already had some of smaller size in 1646.

The frigates played an important part in the Anglo-American war.

Fire was one of the greatest enemies of wooden ships. Hence recourse was had to this element from the earliest times, in order to destroy an enemy’s fleet. It was not enough to throw burning pitch; more effective means were invented and the Ancients were already using fireboats to set fire to the hostile fleet.

Time will not be wasted in conjectures about the fireships of the Ancients, which could only have been ordinary vessels. A summary description will rather be given of those used in the XVIIth century they being the only ones mentioned in Witsen’s well known work, pp. 166 and 167.

Vessels of rather small size acted as fireboats, preferentially flutes or pinnaces. Later, “spiegelschepen” of 70 or 80 lasts were used. These vessels had a smooth continuous deck in which were made holes having an area of about 1.5 square feet. A trough starting from the poop ran forward for the entire length of the vessel, with side troughs leading athwartships, in a word, a train was formed which would let the fire run easily and quickly throughout the ship. For this purpose, the troughs were filled with a mixture composed half of gunpowder by volume, quarter of saltpetre and the remaining quarter made up of equal parts of resin and sulphur, the whole mixed with a little linseed oil.

The troughs thus filled were covered with shavings which, in their turn, disappeared under faggots of light branches soaked in a mixture of resin, cod-liver oil, powder and saltpetre. In addition to this, the vessel was filled with other inflammable materials; the deck and the inside walls were smeared with grease and covered with a layer of finely powdered resin.

Sometimes the fireships were loaded with open barrels filled with shavings soaked in tar. Special care was also taken that all ports and hatches should be left open so as to give plenty of draught.

In order more surely to have the fireship catch the enemy’s vessel, strong grapnels were attached to the end of the bowsprit and to the ends of the yards; these grapnels could be detached by means of ropes laid along the ship.

In order to deceive the enemy and to save appearances, quaker guns were stationed in the ports. Two iron guns only were placed aft for defence against attacks.

A large trap was made in the poop to allow the crew to quit the vessel, after having lighted the fire and let go the grapnels, and to get away in a launch attached to the fireship underneath the trap.

The service with fireships was naturally a perilous task, so only the bravest men were selected for this duty and they, on account of the great danger incurred, received double pay.

In case of need, the fireships were started straight at the enemy, so that the latter’s ship was taken face on and not by the side. Under these conditions, the rigging of the two vessels became entangled at once and it became impossible then to separate them.

The fireships were only old ships as a rule, yet new vessels were sometimes employed, for the construction of which, as Witsen says, “a very ordinary, very light and very inflammable wood was used.”

Externally the fireships did not differ from ordinary vessels; anything else would not have been practical, because the enemy would have recognized them at once under these conditions. Their crew was as few in numbers as possible and every precaution was taken to allow it to leave the vessel as soon as the latter was well on fire and had reached the desired point.

[II 158]
[II 101]

The changes made in our war ships during the XIXth century are sufficiently well known; consequently it will not be necessary to dwell on them. Nothing more will be said than this: that the sheer of these vessels became less, that the stem and the sternpost approached more nearly the vertical and that the old ornaments disappeared almost entirely.

[II 165]

Toward the end of the XVIIIth century, the rounded shape of the stern was adopted, according to the English fashion. It was the death blow to the old square stern ship, but already, long before that, it had been called ship of war. This new denomination changed nothing in its construction.

Our shipbuilding had gone to pieces under the French occupation, and the continental blockade completed the ruin. Still, toward the end of the first half of the XIXth century it succeeded in reviving. It is true that in 1824 only three ships, measuring in all 1440 tons, were built; but, in 1827, this number had already gone up to 59 vessels with a total tonnage of 19,758 tons. These data relate only to vessels of more than 100 tons. (KOENEN, p. 101.)

In 1853, says M. Koenen, there were in the province of Groningen 89 shipyards for both inland and ocean navigation. In Friesland, there were large yards at Harlingen and at Lemmen devoted exclusively to the construction of sea-going vessels. In North Holland, ocean shipping was under construction at Amsterdam, Medenblik, Monnickendam, Muiden and Nieuwendam. Shipbuilding was flourishing at Rotterdam, Schiedam, Alblasserdam and Dordrecht.

In this same year, 1853, adds the author above named, 125 ships built in our country were registered, and our merchant marine included 1971 vessels with a total tonnage of 224,432 lasts (= 448,864 tons).

Steam, too, had appeared among us during the first half of the XIXth century and sailing vessels for this reason were relegated to the background. The adoption of iron for the frames of ships also brought about great changes; but the importance of this new material was not everywhere sufficiently taken into account, and many shipyards which continued to hold to building in wood underwent a rapid decline. Others, on the contrary, which had taken up iron construction from the moment of its appearance, became largely prosperous and contributed greatly toward maintaining the ancient fame of our naval architecture.

The first iron ship turned out in the Netherlands was built by Fop Smit, who appears also to have been the inventor of iron masts. The first Dutch steamboats were built at Feyenoord (1834-1835) in the yard which now belongs to the Society of Naval and Mechanical Constructions. (See Gedenkboek Kon, Instituut van Ingenieurs, p. 209, etc.)

The revolution wrought by the introduction of steel in the construction of war ships is sufficiently well known; but these vessels have lost all character of their own and they can no longer be recognized except by the flag which they fly. Such is the present situation for ocean navigation, and such will also be the situation for inland navigation. Here too steel has been adopted for the construction of the frames of vessels, and the old forms are passing away to give place to types which will soon be in general use.

But, when that time comes, river boats will also have lost all national character and search will be made in vain to know what were the characteristics of the past. And yet, in spite of the uniformity which even now exists, the vessels which Holland has turned out can still always be recognized by their solid and elegant forms.

And may it thus ever be; may our builders ever carry higher the fair fame of Dutch naval construction; and may Dutch capital also continue to second them and to understand that the strength of our land lies in a flourishing marine. But the latter needs in its turn excellent lines of communication; the XIXth century, as we all know, has seen the rise of new communications by water and the improvement of the old lines; the obstacles, arising from insufficient depth in the channels leading to our commercial centres, have disappeared, and it has become possible for us to compete with foreign nations in the arena of the construction of large ships.

[4] The Dutch marine owes its prosperity not to the beauty of form of its ships, but to the value of its limited personnel, to the sobriety of its seamen and to the innate cleanliness of the Dutch people.

[5] On this point, they (the English) openly defy all other nations and believe themselves to be unequaled on the ground of shipbuilding.

[6] Western Influence on the Cultivation, Mode of living and Agriculture of the Children of the North (Norwegians and other Scandinavians) in the Time of the “Vikings”, by ALEXANDER BUGGE.

[7] It is the opinion of most authors that the Frisians have the honor of having made shipbuilding flourish again in the Netherlands.

[8] “How cogs were built in the past, and how much they have changed with the passage of time, just as in our day (the time of the writer) furthermore, the shape of ships is seen to be undergoing constant modifications.” (P. 364.)

[9] The statie was a sort of secondary bulwark at the stern, rising quite high above the rail. The tiller swung from side to side in an opening made in the bottom plank of the statie and above the rail at the stern.

[10] The “arcasse” includes the sternpost and the transoms. It belongs to square-sterned vessels only.

[11] The best and surest means of avoiding a too great draught of water consists in widening the ships. An endeavor should be made to realize this programme, seeing how shallow our passes are. According to the opinion of experienced pilots who have sounded the passes conscientiously, it is not possible to bring ships drawing more than 20 feet through the “Goeree” pass, or ships drawing about an equal amount through the Texel, or more than 13 feet through the Meuse. This is why it has happened more than once that war vessels of the State, of fine lines and deeply ballasted so as to facilitate manœuvering under sail, could not gain the open sea at low tide or in calm weather, to the great detriment of the country, while outside, the lowest tier of guns could not be used because it was too near the water.

[12] Several years ago, by reason of the shallowness of our rivers and passes, an attempt was made, so far as it was possible, to raise our large, deep draught ships by means of empty casks, so that they could reach the open sea. But this process required an infinite time and great labor just to put the casks into place.

[13] “The vessel which sails to the West or the South shall have the bow covered with copper to protect it against the teredo”.

It was seen in the preceding chapter that it was not until the second half of the XVIIth century that the construction of vessels of war, as such, was begun in Holland. Up to that moment merchant ships were equipped and used for military purposes. In proportion as commerce developed and as dangers from enemies at sea increased, the armament of merchant ships became more and more important. So, personal interest was the cause of partially equipping merchantmen as men of war. It was for this reason that the East India Company built ships which may be considered as types of the kind.

Consequently it was just the largest merchant vessels which were most changed as time rolled by. The old types are, therefore, no longer found in this category of vessels; it is among the small craft that they are best preserved.

The oldest type of Dutch ship is the “Koggeschip” (Cog) from which are descended the “Krayers” and “Hulken”. These vessels are all clinker built. The “Barges”, “Baertsen”, etc. appeared in the XVth century. Their planking was smooth. They gradually drove out the “Krayers” and “Hulken”, from which they really differed little in form.

At the end of the XVth century are found the “Kraak” (carack or galleon) which came to us from the nations of the South, just as we took from them the “Spiegelschip” (a square-sterned vessel) at the close of the XVIth century. The names of “Barges”, etc. now give place to the “Koffen” (koffs) and “Smakken” (smacks); but the old forms do not disappear by reason of this fact; the same types of vessels merely change their name as the result of a few changes in details. It is thus that of the “Tjalken” (tialks), which are not mentioned by Witsen although they existed in his day and were then called “Smalschepen” or “Wijdschepen”. Several other examples of this sort could be given. The likeness of form is even so striking that, at the beginning of the XIXth century, our fleet still showed perfectly the types of Witsen’s time. The changes introduced were merely those of detail.

In examining the old types, which are now still in use, it is well not to lose sight of the fact that our ships have, during the XIXth century, increased greatly their length and beam and proportionally also their draught as the result of the improvements of our navigable highways and the digging of new channels.

The result of this has been the falling off of certain types, to which the appearance of iron in shipbuilding has also largely contributed.

For other types, the improvement of the navigable highways and the creation of ports have brought about their complete disappearance. Thus the construction of the “Bommenhaven” will soon have, as its consequence, the total disappearance of the old “Bommen” of which more will be said further on (fishing boats).

The smaller boats will give, under these conditions, the best idea of the old forms, and, as has been seen in what precedes, the most beautiful specimens will be found among the fishing boats. The fishing vessels best reveal the origin of the forms of our ships, so a special chapter will be devoted to this kind of craft.

It has been seen that the essential difference between merchant ships and men-of-war was marked by the narrow deck of the former which allowed the size of the crew to be reduced (WITSEN, pp. 54, 263, 266), and it has been told that the Dutch were always quoted as examples in this matter. It is thus that the “Vliebooten” (flyboats) appeared, the precursors of the “Fluiten” (flutes), which are known in England by the name of the “Dutch Flight”.

Trips both to northern and southern countries give rise to changes from which are developed a great number of types of boats all of which are derived, however, from a same fundamental type. WITSEN writes on this subject (page 53).

“Noortsche deelhaelders laeden het meest wanneer na den vierkante hellen, kooren schepen en die op stukgoederen aenleggen, als ze rondtachtig zijn en veel springen. Oost en Noortsvaerders die grove waeren laeden zijn grooter in ’t gemeen als die stukgoederen wijnen en diergelijke laeden gelijk ook de zouthaelders”[14].

These are all variations of a same type of vessel.

When the size of ships increased, it was necessary to make them still more bulging on account of the limited depth of the arms of the sea, and this brought about the disappearance of differences in the fundamental forms.

Thus we read in VAN YK (page 348).

“Maar als men hiertegen aanmerkt dat wegens de doorgaans ondiepe gronden en lastvoerens wil alle schepen van tijd tot tijd vierkanter werden gebouwd sulks dat heden desen aangaande niet so veel onderscheid tusschen d’een en d’andere soort van schepen als wel voor dezen gevonden werd. Want een hedendaags welgebouwde kaag sal in Lasten te voeren ’t Smalschip dat in Lengte, Wijdte en Holte daaraan gelijk is, weinig wijken willen. En de Damschuit die wel gemaakt is sal den Damlooper bijna ook evenaren konnen.”[15]

The narrow deck of merchant vessels had still another origin which referred to the way of gauging vessels and gave rise to the construction of strongly bulging ships.

WITSEN says (p. 160) on this point:

“Het uitbreecken deser schepen (Noortsvaerders) voor en achter bracht hier in den schipper profijt aan dat ze vele goederen meer stouden als de maat der schepen hielt.”[16]

This applies especially to boats going to load wood or grain at the Baltic ports, on account of the tolls which had to be paid to the King of Denmark, tolls of which the amount was determined by the treaty of 1647, by calculating the capacity of the vessel in terms of the length, the beam on deck and the depth of hold. But, when this treaty was modified in 1666, this unsightly way of building and this exaggerated bulging gradually disappeared (werd dit mismaekt bouwen en geweldigh uitspringen achterwege gelaten). (WITSEN, p. 160.)

[III 16]

Nevertheless, the construction of large numbers of merchant ships with narrow decks was still persisted in and, even at the beginning of the XIXth century, “Fluitschepen” (flutes) are still met with. A beautiful model of one of these “Dutch Flights” exists at the museum of antiquities at Dordrecht.

The greater bulging of merchant vessels kept pace with the straightening of the sternpost and stem. On another side, the idea that the volume of the submerged part of a vessel should be reduced to a minimum, was abandoned toward the end of the XVIIth century.

[II 149]
[II 153]

The straightening of the sternpost brought about the shortening of the beakhead which, at the beginning of the XVIIth century, measured one-fifth of the total length of the vessel and only one-eighth of this length at its end. This difference is clearly seen by comparing the Zierikzee model with that of the “Bleijswijk”. The beakhead, which had come down to us from ancient times (VAN YK, p. 103), was used only “als Heimelijke gevoeg-plaatsen” (as a W. C.) for the crew, and those who had been guilty of some unimportant misdemeanor were also shut up there, as VAN YK says (p. 104), “des devotie des overspelenden zeewaters” (at the mercy of the waves).

Fire was the great enemy of our merchant ships. The stoppage of leaks was also more difficult for these vessels than for men-of-war because it was impossible, as a rule, on the former to reach the leak from the inside and through the cargo.

Water tight bulkheads did not exist, but, for all that, the stoppage of the leak was none the less indispensable. WITSEN tells us how it was all handled (p. 276), and, after explaining how a fire was put out, he continues thus:

“Wanneer een geschoten gat onder water van binnen niet gestopt kan worden, hetzij den last in den weg is of anderzins, wordt een man buiten boord met een prop in de hant op een plankje gezet, daar een dreg aan vast is, die hem onder water haalt. En aldus stopt of dekt hij de opening. Men geeft hem een geoliede lap in den mont on het water uit het lichaem te weeren”[17].

Before going on to the classification, properly so called, of the principal categories of vessels which have just been sketched out, a few more remarks, about the ship in general and a few details in particular, should be made.

The old builders of wooden vessels determined the ship’s length by the work for which it was intended. This length was measured from the forward side of the stem to the after side of the sternpost. The beam and the depth were deduced from the length; the beam being taken equal to one-fourth of the length, and for the depth, one foot was taken for each 10 feet of length, at the point where the vessel’s height was least. It was only for esthetic reasons that the sternpost was made higher than the stem.

When the keel was laid down, the sternpost and the stem put up, the wing transom was made fast to the fashion timbers, then the main frame and the frame at the junction of the stem were reared. Another frame was raised between the main frame and the sternpost. “Centen” (thin flexible boards, called ribands in English) were then made fast to these frames so as to determine in this way the shape of the ship and to deduce therefrom the other frames.

According to VAN YK (p. 77), these boards are not called “centen”, but “certen”, because the form of the vessel is fixed by means of these boards and made “certain”. Other authors pretend that the word comes from “Kanten” or “Kenten” from the word “bekendheid” (knowledge).

The shape of the ship was thus determined by trial after having settled, in the first place, on the main frame and the length. The smaller the vessel, the more sheer it had and the more ribands were required exactly to determine its shape.

On the other hand it was customary to give the ship some sheer (zeegte), that is: to make it higher at the ends than at the middle. This sheer was obtained, after setting the ribands, by means of sheerstrakes of which the fastening was begun at the lowest point of the height of the ship. These sheerstrakes rose forward at the rate of 1 inch for every 6 feet of length, and aft at the rate of 5 inches for every 6 feet. The wales which served to protect the ship were laid according to the sheerstrakes. The sheer in large vessels (spiegelschepen) was gradually reduced and the effort was made insensibly to build ships with a flat deck in imitation of England and later of America. The sheer still exists in boats for inland waters, like the “Tjalken”, “Poonen”, etc. Only one wale or bend is used for small vessels, the larger ones, such as the “Tjalken” and “Smakken” require three bends superposed.

It is noticed, as a rule, that the bends became lighter in the XVIIIth century, just as did the sternpost and the stem. The engravings which show boats prior to 1500, show also several equidistant bends, and it was only at the end of the XVIth century that the single bends of later days are seen to appear. Moreover, it is certain that the improvement of the navigable highways was one of the causes of the lighter construction of ships.

These old engravings show that the planking is in very short pieces so as to avoid marked curves; but, in order to give, all the same, sufficient stiffness to the vessel, many bends became necessary.

[II 138]

In the old shipbuilding, where the pieces of the planking nailed together clinker ways make the construction more solid, the bends were exceptional. The old “Koggeschepen” (Cogs), for example, had none, but the reproduction of a small boat preserved at the church at Diemer shows them.

These wales are then supported by round wooden brackets which are still found in a few old “Poonen”.

In the matter of the wales, the rule was that when the vessel was seen from in front they seemed to be convex, with the convexity on top, whereas, seen from the side, they look concave, that is, with the convexity underneath.

It has been said in what precedes that the method of ribands (“centen”) was abandoned for large ships, about the middle of the XVIIth century, and that, after that time, work was done from sketches in putting up the frames and in building the ship.

The rudder was handled by means of a tiller, and on large vessels this is often held up by a piece of wood (luierwagen) which is still seen on many small inland vessels.

In order readily to work the tiller of large vessels, a hole was cut in the poop deck immediately over the free end of the tiller in its middle position. A lever passed upward through this hole and was hung on a pivot of which the axis lay fore and aft. The lower end of the lever was attached to the free end of the tiller while the upper end was loose. By swinging the top of the lever to one side or the other of the ship, a corresponding motion was given to the tiller and so to the rudder. This manœuvre was, naturally, not easy in heavy weather and required assistance. A pulley, around which ran a rope or steering line having one end made fast to the tiller, was set in the deck so as better to operate the rudder. (WITSEN, p. 274, 2d column.)

This rope, which was served by two men, formed with the pulley the precursor of the steering wheel which appeared on the continent in the XVIIIth century, after having been already in use in England, as certain authors try to make out.

It is claimed sometimes that the rudder could only swing a little to either side. This, however, is a mistake. WITSEN says, as a matter of fact, p. 58: “The greater the swing of the rudder, the harder is the manœuvre”. It is evident that Witsen would have said nothing about the swing if it had been small. It follows clearly from the quotation from VAN YK (p. 121) in regard to the “luierwagens” that the helmsman must have put forth a great deal of strength: “Hij (de luierwagen) diend om de Roerpen, aan ’t vooreinde t’ ondersteunen nademaal deze, wegens deszelfs langte, om sig selven te dragen immers om ’t geweld dat de man te Roer daaraan verrichten moet, uit te staan; al te zwak soude wezen”[18].

Finally, M. Bouguer (1746) says in his work, p. 83, “that the rudder should make with the prolongation of the keel an angle of about 55° 44´, etc.”.

Hence it is incorrect to say that the swing of the rudder could only reach a few degrees. (PARIS, vol. 4, p. 221.)

Furthermore, vessels should be able to come about more quickly in our rivers, with their narrow channels and small depth of water, hence the rudder should be able to swing more than a few degrees.

On small inland boats, the rudder is frequently lengthened on reaching shallow water. This elongation was made by means of an isolated board or a movable part (VAN YK, p. 221), a thing which happens still very often at the present time.

If the tiller can be turned entirely above the bulwarks, which is called in Dutch “geen statie voeren” (without statie), the vessel is said to have a draai over boord in contradistinction to vessels with “statie”. The “statie” means the part of the bulwarks which rises above the tiller[19].

The tiller passes in this case through an opening in the “statie”, which prevents the rudder being brought hard over.

The length of the lee-boards is taken at twice the depth of the hold.

As many rivers and lakes are lacking in depth, the length of the lee-boards is reduced for inland vessels, in order to prevent them from touching bottom, consequently their width was increased.

The lee-boards for the ocean and for the rivers of Zealand are long and narrow.

New modifications were made in the rigging of vessels toward the middle of the XVIIIth century. The small bowsprit disappeared in order to make place for the fore-masts which have remained in use since that time.

[III 145]
etc.

The rigging of the large vessels is sufficiently well known. It is desired merely to dwell on the fact that fore-masts have been placed wrongly on various models of the XVIIth century.

A vessel of which the planking is rabbetted into the stem is called a “vaartuig”. The “Aak” (ake) is a boat without a stem and its planking forms a plane up to the bow. The planking ends then at the plane in front. If this occurs for a “Tjalk”, there is obtained what is known as an “Aak Tjalk”.

When the after deck is raised so as to come up to the level of the main rail, the vessel is said to be supplied with a “paviljoen”. Thus, for example, a “Statiepaviljoenpoon”, is a “poon” with a raised deck. If the after deck be not raised, the vessel is simply a “Statiepoon”.

Vessels can be grouped, then, in the following way: