The reproduction does not show clearly w_Shipbuilding from its beginnings. Vol. 1 (of 3)

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.

[Sidenote: III 115]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.)

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: II 189]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: II 124]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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”.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: II 119]

[Sidenote: 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.)

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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, nᵒ 14, and which shows Jonah

in the water.

[Sidenote: II 136]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: II 132]

[Sidenote: II 135]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: II 143]

[Sidenote: 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 ⅚ 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.

+=========+=======+======+=======+===============================+

+---------+-------+------+-------+-------------------------------+

| 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.

[Sidenote: III 8]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: II 148]

[Sidenote: III 19]

Besides having a respectable cargo capacity, the “Flyboats” were also

very handy. There is no doubt that they were the forerunners of the

flutes, the merchant vessels _par excellence_ of the XVIIth and XVIIIth

centuries, which England and France borrowed from us.

There is in existence a beautiful reproduction of the “Flyboat” dating

from 1647. It shows a relatively large vessel; judging by the beakhead

shown which was not carried by our small merchant vessels. The beak

had been adopted first in the Mediterranean; it is not, therefore, of

Dutch origin. None of the old Dutch types had it, whereas those of the

Mediterranean and, even those of the times of the Phœnicians already

had them. (See, among others, ~Van Yk~, p. 103.)

Toward the end of the XVIth century the name of “Baertze” gave way

to that of “Vlieboot” (flyboat), and at the beginning of the XVIIth

century, arose the vessels called “Galioot” (galliot), “Noordvaerder”,

“Kof” (kuff), “Smakschip” (smack), “Boeier” (tender), together with the

flutes and square stern vessels. Still--and this cannot be too often

repeated--the primitive forms do not disappear under these different

names. The forms have been enlarged and a few exterior characteristics,

as well as the rigging, have been modified. The different types

just mentioned above have, therefore, as their main and fundamental

character the old rounded bow. The vessels of the period under

consideration could be divided into three principal groups: _a_) the

square-stern ships; _b_) the flutes in the broadest acceptation of the

word; and _c_) the “Kof en Smakschepen” (kuffs and smacks).

It is unnecessary to add that the vessels of groups _b_ and _c_ were

round at the stern. Hence, the purest old Dutch types will be found in

these two groups.

The XVIIth century is now reached, that century of glory and prosperity

for our country, especially from the point of view of shipbuilding.

However, before beginning on this period, let us look a little into

what was the situation of shipbuilding abroad.

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

The Spanish naval architecture, which flourished after that of

Portugal, felt undoubtedly and intensely the influence of the

Mediterranean. The Spanish galleons and caracks recall the Genoese

“nefs” and caracks, of which only a few old reproductions have been

preserved, and which came up under the influence of relations with

Northern nations.

In addition to the galleons, the galleys and the galliasses held an

important place in the Spanish navy. The frequent use of vessels with

oars made hand to hand fights quite rare and led to less frequent

boarding among the nations of the South, this being the reverse of the

practise among the Northern races.

The pictures of the Mediterranean vessels can be consulted to advantage

in order to obtain an idea of the Spanish ships.

The sea power of Spain disappeared, as is known, with the Invincible

Armada, in 1588. A summary description of this fleet will give an idea

of the importance of the ships which composed it. It was made up of

one-hundred-and-thirty-two vessels, of which (~Holmes~, p. 92) four

were galleys, four galliasses, thirty vessels of less than 100 tons

and ninety-four ships of 130 to 1550 tons. The round-stern ships had a

total capacity of 59,120 tons. There were 2761 pieces of artillery and

the ships companies contained 7862 seamen and 20,671 soldiers.

The English fleet had one-hundred-and-ninety-seven vessels, of which

only thirty-four belonged to the royal navy, all the rest were

merchantmen hastily equipped for war.

The largest English ship was the _Triumph_, built in 1561, of 1000 to

1100 tons burden and carrying three hundred sailors, forty gunners and

one-hundred-and-sixty soldiers. It mounted forty-six guns. Besides the

“Triumph”, the English fleet had but seven vessels of 600 to 1000 tons

whereas the Spanish fleet had forty-five vessels of this size. The

total of all hands of the English fleet amounted to 15,551 souls.

In this struggle Holland was with England; it was she that kept

the Duke of Parma shut up at Dunkerque. The largest vessels of the

Netherlands fleet were of 400 tons. Both in England and with us,

merchant ships, which did duty temporarily as men of war, were leased

for the war. This old custom of the Middle Ages still survived.

Besides, it was all the simpler, at this latter period, to equip

merchantmen for war, as artillery was still in its infancy or even

unknown.

The following figures (~Holmes~, p. 95) show how much larger the

vessels of the Southern States were than ours, as a rule. In 1592, the

English captured a Portuguese _carack_ of 1600 tons, 165 feet between

perpendiculars and showing seven decks.

In 1594, it was the turn of a Spanish _carack_ with 1100 men on

board. When Cadiz was taken in 1596, two Spanish galliasses fell

into the enemy’s hands; they were vessels of 1200 tons; the flagship

“San-Felipo”, which was blown up measured 1500 tons.

A Portuguese carack of 1600 tons, called the San-Valentino, valued with

her guns at a million ducats, was captured at Cezimbra in 1602.

Following our example, it is said, and as the result of “Kryn

Wouterszoon’s” invention, the movable top-mast was adopted by the

English during the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1588-1603). (~Holmes~, p.

86).

Up to this point, the ports were not only irregularly arranged, but the

lower row was generally so low that those in this tier had to be kept

closed if the sea were at all rough. In England, however, the tendency

was to raise the lowest tier (~Holmes~, p. 96) and this example

was soon generally followed.

France, whose ships so far had not yet appeared on the Mediterranean,

began in the XVIIth century, under Richelieu (1624-1692), to develope

her navy. Colbert continued this work with ardor.

It has been stated already, in speaking of the Mediterranean, that the

older French ships were, in principle just like those of Genoa; until

about 1650, galleys were more numerous than other vessels. The North of

France and Normandy belonged only--and the old pictures show it--to the

Northern Centre. This is by no means surprising, if the Norse invasion

be remembered. Even now, boats resembling those of Flanders and of our

own country are still found in the North of France.

Let us return now to the Netherlands.

After the discovery by Vasco da Gama, in 1498, of the route to the

Indies and when Portugal had secured for herself the monopoly of trade

in those lands, Lisbon became the centre of traffic of the world.

In those days, the Dutch sought in Portuguese ports the products of the

Indies; but, in 1580, the Duke of Alba took possession of Portugal and

annexed it to Spain. Nevertheless, we were allowed to continue our

commerce with the former of these countries until 1585, when all our

ships were confiscated.

Hence Holland was reduced to finding for herself a route to the Indies,

and it was believed at first that this result could be found by way of

the North. Four ships were fitted out for this purpose in 1594, two

by Holland and two by Amsterdam. This undertaking failed as did also

that of 1595 which was followed by the famous expedition of Heemskerk,

Barends and van Rijp, which latter was also fruitless.

Meanwhile a route was sought by way of the South and the Cape of Good

Hope. A fleet of four ships, under the command of Keijzers and Houtman

started in 1595 and was gone for two years and a half. After a voyage

of 446 days, the ships reached Bantam and visited Bali. The return

required 168 days. This fleet carried a crew of 248 men.

The results of this expedition, while not brilliant, had, nevertheless,

as a consequence, the formation, in 1602, of the East India Company

which played such an important part in our history.

It is useless to add that these events had a decisive influence on the

development of our naval architecture.

Up to the beginning of the XVIIth century, there was as yet no question

of a war fleet properly so-called. Merchant ships were still hired and

converted into men-of-war to meet contingencies. Our fleet was made up

at that time of all kinds of types of vessels. Among them the square

sterned vessels, called pinnaces, the “Vliebooten” or flyboats and the

flutes were the most important. There were also some “Hekkebooten” and

small “smaks”. So the three kinds of vessels already mentioned above

are again found: viz: the square-stern ships, the flyboats and the

smacks.

[Sidenote: II 149]

The old Zierikzee model gives an exact idea of the transition

from the square-stern ship of the XVIth century to the one of the

XVIIth. Although erring, like all the old reproductions, in regard

to proportions, this model cannot fail to attract our attention to

the marked slope of the stem. It was generally admitted at this time

that the ship should draw the least water possible and have the stem

strongly sloping, with an overhanging bow, so as to displace the water

more easily or, as it was then said, to carry the water underneath and

not around the hull. It was believed that the water was drawn under the

sides (~Van Yk~, p. 353) and that the strongly raking stem allowed the

boat to slide more easily over the water. (~Witsen~, p. 47, column 2

_in fine_.)

Later, opinion changed and then it was seen that the stem was brought

more and more nearly upright until the XIXth century; the vessel thus

gains in fullness.

Fürtenbach reproduces for us a Dutch vessel of the beginning of the

XVIIth century; the counter, probably to avoid difficulties of drawing,

is only sketched in by a few lines. It is seen that the after castle

has increased in proportions, and that the part which separates the

forward and after castles still remains uncovered. This kind of

construction, due to the progressive development of the castles of the

Middle Ages, only disappears at the end of the XVIIIth century, when

vessels with two and three decks come on the scene.

The forward and after castles, in these last ships, are of the same

height; in a word, they are strongly connected to each other and are

formed of several superposed decks.

The rigging, too, has undergone new changes, by reason, no doubt, of

the raising of the stern. The fourth small mast put up at this point

gives way, especially, to a mast carrying a square sail and fixed at

the end of the bowsprit. This mast was used only for steering the ship.

The vessels gained in size and the armament was improved by a more

rational distribution of the guns. The following figures give the proof

of this.

In 1596, a 200-last ship carried only 24 guns; one of 150 lasts carried

17 and one of 100 lasts had only 16 on board.

In 1616, 36 guns were mounted on a ship of 200 lasts; 28 on a ship of

120 lasts, then, in 1628, mention is made of a ship of 200 lasts armed

with 39 cannon. (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, p. 396.)

Aside from the better arrangement for the guns, the increase of the

artillery itself necessitated arming the forecastle and the poop. About

1639, the iron guns were replaced, to a great extent, by others of

bronze, which allowed a greater number of pieces to be taken on board

(~De Jonge~, Vol. I, p. 400), but these pieces were lacking in unity

of calibre and volume. The later adoption of guns of more nearly equal

calibre greatly increased the fighting value of the ships.

However great the progress made by our fleet may have been, it was

still always inferior to the part imposed on it by a naval war. Hence

it became finally a necessity to build war vessels properly so called

and to give up fitting out merchant ships. Sixty new war ships were

laid down in 1653. This first war fleet constructed in our country

set sail in 1658. So the old mediæval custom, which consisted in

appropriating merchant vessels to make them serve as men of war, became

a thing of the past.

But this fleet was not sufficient by itself, and merchantmen had to do

duty as transports. This is why these latter kept guns on board for

their own defence.

[Sidenote: II 146]

The war ships mentioned above were called pinnaces and were made with

a square stern as well as a large beakhead. Tromp’s flagship, the

_Aemelia_ was a pinnace model.

[Sidenote: III 8]

[Sidenote: III 9]

[Sidenote: II 150]

The fleet was increased in a very short time, in 1664, by sixty new

square-stern vessels. (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, p. 25.) The main point

in view in building these ships (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, p. 27) was to

provide our navy with vessels which, _so far as our passes and ports

would allow_, should be at least as large and as powerful as those of

the enemy. By reason of the depth of water in the passes, the number

of their guns was placed at 60 to 80. Among these vessels, which

were launched in 1665, was Van Ruyter’s well known ship _De Zeven

Provinciën_.

For economical reasons, most of the ships carried iron as well as

bronze guns; but Van Ruyter’s flagship had all bronze guns.

The following figures will give some idea of the increasing dimensions

of ships.

In 1654, the largest ship measured 150 feet in length, 38 feet beam and

15 feet depth; it carried 58 guns. The next in size was 146 feet long,

26 feet beam and 14 feet deep; it carried 60 guns.

At the beginning of the second war with England, the two largest ships

were 169 to 171 feet long. _De Zeven Provinciën_ 163 feet long, 43 feet

broad and 15 feet deep. The next in size was 150 to 160 feet in length,

40 to 42½ feet in breadth and 15 feet in depth, etc.

So the length and breadth increased but the greatest depth of 15 feet

did not change, as the depth of our passes was against any increase of

the draft.

When later, the direction toward larger sizes was continued abroad, and

the necessity of following this example was felt among us, the question

of the draught of water became a problem which, more and more, called

for the attention of our shipbuilders. The larger the ship became and

the greater its capacity had to be, the draught of water being limited,

put us in a position of inferiority in regard to the vessels of foreign

countries which ran more easily under sail. No account had to be taken

of shallow passes in those countries, consequently ships of finer form

could be built there. (~Van Yk~, 1697, p. 353.)

When in 1682 the vessels which composed our fleet were divided

into classes or “charters”, a depth of 16 to 17 feet only is given

as the first “charter”. The first three-deck ships built in our

country belonged later to this last class. Hence it is not a matter

of astonishment that, in the long run, our war vessels had to yield

before those of other nations which were steadily becoming larger. This

state of affairs did not arise from any inferiority on the part of our

shipbuilders but had its causes solely in the condition of our passes.

[Sidenote: III 13]

The difference of draught of water appears clearly if the dimensions

of the largest French and English ships be compared with those of our

largest vessel at the end of the XVIIth and beginning of the XVIIIth

centuries. Their dimensions were as follows:

+---------------------+--------+---------+-------+

+---------------------+--------+---------+-------+

| | m | m | m |

|for the Dutch ship | 49.28 | 12.88 | 4.86 |

| „ „ English „ | 49.41 | 14.33 | 5.64 |

| „ „ French „ | 59.91 | 14.29 | 6.61 |

By depth was understood the inside height of the ship measured up to

the load-water line. (~Witsen~, p. 74, sub 9.) (See also Fig. XXXII, p.

56 of the same work, etc.)

A ship having a depth of 4 m. 86 required, with the height of the keel

etc. included, a depth of water of at least 5 metres. Now, it is known

that the depth of water over the “Pampus”, near Amsterdam, had already

become sensibly less at the end of the XVIIth century. Large ships only

succeeded in reaching that city at the cost of serious difficulties.

[Sidenote: II 238]

It was under these circumstances that a certain Meeuwis Meindertz

Bakker, a native of Amsterdam, invented the “sea camels” in 1691, and

by them vessels could be raised from 5 to 6 feet (~Van Yk~, p. 360.)

These “camels” were straight up and down on one side, the other being

fitted to the shape of the ship. Placed on each side of the vessel they

inclosed it and formed a sort of floating dock.

Held between two camels which were securely fastened together, the ship

was raised as they were emptied of the water which they contained.

These camels are very well shown in ~Van Yk~’s work, folio 360, as well

as in “_Figures de navires et embarcations_”, 1831, pl. 35, by ~P. Le

Comte~.

Small boats towed the vessel thus raised across the Pampus. As to the

depth of water which existed at this place, Le Comte says, p. 38, that,

at high tide there were 10½ feet (2.97 ells of the Netherlands) on

the Pampus or “Muiderzand” and 9 feet (2.55 ells) at low tide. It was

only at extraordinary high tide that a depth of 13 feet (3.68 ells) was

to be had.

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

means of camels.

But the situation was no better at Rotterdam. Here, indeed, is what

is related by the builder ~Van Yk~, in his work of 1697, p. 14: “En

waarlyk de wytheid der schepen is wel het voornaamste en beste middel

om het ondiepgaan derselve te bevorderen, een saak die wy hier te Lande

wegens de droogte of ondieptheid onzer zeegaten, ten hoogste dienen

te betrachten; want (volgens ’t getuigenis van ervaarne en de diepte

dezer zeegaten zeer wel bepeild hebbende loodsen) soo konnen met een

gemeen geleide uit het Goereesche gat niet meer dan 20, uit Texel,

omtrent ook soo veel en uit de Maas niet meer als 13 voeten diepgaande

schepen worden uitgelootst. Waarom dan ook somtyds wel is komen te

gebeuren, dat eenige, van ’s Lands oorlogs-schepen, soo nauw gemaakt

en om zeilvoerens wil soo diep geballast zynde, met een dood getyde

en Wind, tot Staats groot nadeel, niet konden ’t zee geraken, of daar

al in synde, haar onderste geschut, omdat te naby ’t water lag, niet

bruikbaar werd bevonden”[11]. And further on, at page 360, the same

author says also: “Want soo heeft men al voor veele jaren, om onze

groote en diepgaande schepen in zee te brengen, wegens de ondiepheid

onzer _rivieren_ en _zeegaten_, getragt, waar ’t mogelyk, door ledig

vatwerk, so pypen, als voedervaten, op te ligten en te doen ryzen. Dog

was dit werk, om het byeen schikken der vaten, een ellendige talmerij

en veel arbeids onderworpen”.[12]

According to the Reports of Proceedings of the Batavian Association at

Rotterdam, 1850, pp. 94 _et seq._, the Briel pass was practicable only

for vessels drawing from 3 metres to 3 m. 50 and larger ships had to

go by the “Goereesche Gat” to reach Rotterdam, using successively the

“Hollandsche Diep” and the “Dortsche Kil”. There was at these places,

even at high tide, only a depth sufficient for a maximum draught of

5 m. 70. (See Dr. ~Blink~, “_Nederland en zijne Bewoners_”, Vol. I,

p. 447.) Navigation along this route, furthermore, was difficult on

account of the narrowness of the channel. It was this condition which

made necessary the digging of the canal by way of Voorne (1827-1829).

But in spite of this new navigable highway, the maximum draught of

water continued to depend, none the less, on the depths to be found, at

ordinary high tide in the “Goereesche Gat” and the “Stellegat”. These

depths were respectively 5 m. 70 and 5 m. 20 (~W. F. Leemans~: “_De

Nieuwe Waterweg_”, etc. _Gedenkboek K. Inst. Ing._ p. 13 and p. 130.)

[Sidenote: II 140]

[Sidenote: III 14]

The situation became more critical for the Netherlands navy as ships

abroad increased their size, and meanwhile, foreign activity was

redoubled! England gave to her navy four-fifths of the revenues of the

Crown in 1656-1657, two thirds in 1657-1658, and nearly three-fifths in

1658-1659. (~Holmes~, p. 108.)

Four of the the largest vessels built during this period had a capacity

greater than one thousand tons. In 1673, was launched _The Royal

Charles_, a ship well known to us, which was taken later by the Dutch.

The largest number of English war ships still belonged, at this period,

to the third class. The classification was stated as follows in 1666:

+-------+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+--------+

+-------+---------+--------+-----------+-----------+--------+

| 1 | 128-146 | 40-48 | 17.9-19.8 | 1100-1740 | 90-100 |

| 2 | 121-143 | 37-45 | 17-19.8 | 1000-1500 | 82-90 |

| 3 | 115-140 | 34-40 | 14.2-18.3 | 750-1174 | 60-74 |

| 4 | 88-108 | 27-34 | 11.2-15.6 | 12.8-17.8 | 32-54 |

| 5 | 72-81 |23.6-27 | 9.9-11 | 11.6-13.2 | 26-32 |

| \----------------V----------------/ |

| Dimensions are in English feet. 1 foot = 0 m. 3048 |

The year 1646 saw the first frigate built in England and in 1679 the

bomb-ketch, built according to the model invented by the French builder

Bernard Renan, was adopted.

After 1700, English naval architecture fell completely under the

influence of that of France.

“It may truly be said”, writes ~Holmes~ (p. 114) “that during

the whole of the eighteenth century, the majority of the improvements

introduced in the forms and proportions of vessels of the Royal Navy,

were copied from French prizes”.

Scarcely was a French vessel taken ere it was copied, but generally on

a larger scale (~Holmes~, p. 114). Shipbuilding, in the mean time, had

become wonderfully perfected, especially under the Ministry of Colbert

(1661), after the first foundations had been laid by Cardinal Richelieu

in 1630. Save for a few changes in detail, the rules laid down by

Colbert were followed until the XIXth century.

In 1668, the French fleet numbered already 176 vessels, of which one of

the most beautiful and famous specimens was the _Soleil Royal_. This

fleet was organized on the same footing as that of Holland (~De Jonge~,

Vol. III, part I, p. 114). Besides, there existed at this time but

little difference between the French and Dutch types.

Dimensions increased greatly at the end of the XVIIth century, under

the reign of Louis XIV. This can be seen in the following table,

prepared by Barras de la Penne (1698).

+---------+------+-----------------+--------+-----+-----+-------------+

| AND | of | AND MATERIAL | LENGTH |BEAM |DEPTH| OF |

+---------+------+-----------------+--------+-----+-----+-------------+

| Ships of the line. |

| | {1st battery, 8 of 48| M. | M. | M. |Three covered|

|1st rank,| { the rest, 36| 56.01 | | |batteries, |

|1st order|112{ 2d battery, 24|between |15.64| 7.64|poop, and |

|Soleil | { 3d battery, 18|perpen- | | |forward |

| Royal | {poop and topgallant |diculars| | |castle. |

| | { forecastle, | | | | |

| | { 12 and 18| 51.54 | | | |

| | | | | | |

|1st rank,|70 to | bronze guns | 51.91 |14.29| 6.61|batteries, |

| | | | | | | |

| 2d rank,|60 to | bronze guns | 48.72 |13.47| 6.17| idem. |

|1st order| 70 | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| 3d rank,|56 to | ⅔ bronze | 47.47 |12.34| 5.68|Two covered |

| | | | | | | |

| 3d rank,|40 to | ½ bronze | 34.22 |12.01| 5.41| idem. |

| | | | | | | |

| Do not come into line. |

| | 30 | ⅓ bronze | | | | |

|4th rank | to | ⅔ iron | 38.98 |10.55| 4.71| idem. |

| | 40 | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|5th rank | to | ⅔ iron | 35.73 | 8.66| 4.55|castles or |

| | 30 | | | | |only one |

| | | | | | |aft. |

| 8 | | | | | |

|Frigates | to | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |

| | 16 | | | | | |

[Sidenote: II 166]

[Sidenote: II 169]

[Sidenote: II 15]

The progress made in naval architecture under the reign of Louis XIV

is noted as follows in the work: _Le Musée de Marine du Louvre_.

“The rake of the bow is less exaggerated, the after castle is lowered,

the artillery is well distributed; the masts are better proportioned

and the spread of canvas is much greater, as well as more handy, making

the motion more rapid and the manœuvres more easy. The profusion and

elegance of the ornaments have reached their highest point; they had

the kind of poetry of the old chivalry. Everything in this navy already

caused the perfection, which the ship reached quickly under the next

two reigns, to be anticipated.”

Naval architecture took a great start. Many works were published, of

which those of Bernouilli (1738) and of Euler (1749), treating of the

stability of ships, are the best known.

The dimensions of vessels continue steadily to increase. Ships mounting

70 guns which, in 1715, were rated in the first class were passed to

the sixth class in 1765.

The French fleet in 1750, according to the _Musée de Marine du Louvre_,

was composed as follows:

+======+========+========+========+===========+========+=============+

+------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+--------+-------------+

| +THREE DECKERS+ |

| |

| | M. | M. | M. | | Men |30 pdrs |

| 120 |56.84 |14.61 |7.47 } }1000 |18 „ |

| |to 60.42|to 16.24| to 8.12} 3 covered } to 1200|„ middle „ |

| | | | } } | |

|110(1)|54.57 |14.94 |7.31 } batteries }1000 |12 „ |

| |to 57.82|to 15.59| to 7.80} } to 1100|„ upper „ |

| | | | } with } | |

| 100 |53.27 |14.61 |7.47 } } 900 |6 „ |

| |to 57.49|to 15.26| to 7.63}forcastles } to 1000|on forecastle|

| | | | } } | |

| 90 |51.97 |14.29 |6.81 } and poops } 850 |4 „ |

| |to 55.22|to 14.94| to 7.46} } to 900 |on poop deck |

| |

| +DOUBLE DECKERS+ |

| |

| 80 |50.67 |13.96 |6.66 |2 covered | 750 |36 pdrs |

| |to 54.57|to 14.61| to 6.98| batteries | to 800 |in lower tier|

| | | | | with | |18 „ |

| | | | | and poop | |8 „ |

| | | | | | |

| 74 |48.72 |13.64 |6.50 |2 covered | 650 |36 or 24 pdrs|

| |to 53.27|to 13.96| to 6.98| batteries | to 700 |in lower tier|

| | | | | | | |

| 64(2)|46.04 |12.66 |6.00 |2 batteries| 450 |18 or 12 pdrs|

| |to 48.72|to 12.99| to 6.50| and | to 500 |in lower tier|

| 50 |43.84 to|11.36 to| 5.50 to|2 batteries| 300 |18 or 12 pdrs|

| | 45.17 | 12.01 | 5.85 | and | to 330 |in upper tier|

| | | | |forecastle | |6 or 4 |

| |

| +FRIGATES+ |

| |

| 40 |38.98 to|10.71 to| 5.19 to|Single | } |

| | 42.22 | 11.04 | 5.53 |battery |280 to } |

| | 42.22 | 11.04 | 5.53 |with | 300 } |

| | 42.22 | 11.04 | 5.53 |forecastle | } |

| | | | | | } 12 pdrs |

| 30 |35.07 to| 9.74 to| 4.55 to| do. |200 to } in battery |

| | 38.98 | 10.39 | 5.20 | | 230 }6 or 4 pdrs on|

| | | | | | } forecastle. |

| 20 |33.13 to| 8.77 to| 4.22 to| do. |130 to } |

| | 35.73 | 9.10 | 4.55 | | 150 } |

| |

| +CORVETTES+ |

| |

| 12 |19.49 to| 7.85 to| 2.92 to|Single | 70 to |4 pdrs in |

| | 22.74 | 8.50 | 3.25 |battery | 80 | barbette |

(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 |

| | | | | | | |

+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

| | | | | | | |

|Length of gundeck|192 -- |156 -- |150 -- |144 -- |130 -- |118 -- |

| | | | | | | |

| midship frame | 47 -- | 43 -- | 41 -- | 38 -- | 35 -- | 32 -- |

| | | | | | | |

|Depth of hold | 18 6 | 17 8 | 17 4 | 15 8 | 14 -- | 13 6 |

| | | | | | | |

|Tonnage | 1552 | 1283 | 1069 | 914 | 705 | 532 |

Here is what ~Holmes~ writes, p. 115: “The subject of the superiority

in size of the French ships was constantly coming to the front and, in

1719, a new establishment was made for the dimensions of ships in our

Royal Navy, according to the following scale:

+================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+===========+

| | | | | | | |

| NUMBER OF GUNS | 90 | 80 | 70 | 60 | 50 | 40 |

| | | | | | | |

+----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+

| Length | 2 ft. | 2 ft. | 1 ft. | 0 | 4 ft. | 6 ft. |

| Breadth | 2 in. | 1 ft. | 6 in. | 1 ft. | 1 ft. |1 ft. 2 in.|

| Tonnage | 15 | 67 | 59 | 37 | 51 | 63 |

In 1765, vessels were already met with carrying 100 guns, measuring

2047 tons and having already 21 ft. 6 in. depth of hold. ~Holmes~

writes on this subject (pp. 124-128): “During the whole of our naval

history down to comparatively recent times, improvements in the

dimensions and forms of our ships were only carried out after they had

been originally adopted by the French, or Spaniards, or more recently

by the people of the United States of America.”

In 1719, the process which consisted of heating timbers at an open fire

in order to bend them was adopted in England and, in 1736, they were

smoked. (~Holmes~, p. 115.) Ventilation was improved in 1753 (~Holmes~,

p. 117) and, in 1761 (~Holmes~, p. 121), followed the invention of the

process which consisted in covering ships with copper plates. Before

this period, lead was used exceptionally for this purpose. Nearly one

hundred years earlier, several vessels in Holland were covered in

part or wholly with copper plates, as is shown by a passage from ~Van

Yk~’s work, _De Nederlandsche Scheepsbouwkunst opengesteld_, in which

he says, p. 121: “Dat het schip on de zuid of west bestieren sal, heeft

zy om den houtknagenden worm daarvan te keeren, stevenswaarts met koper

doen bekleeden”[13].

Everything which precedes shows sufficiently how far superior the

French and English fleets were to our own, about the middle of the

XVIIIth century, in the size of their ships. But experience had

demonstrated that the power of a fleet did not lie in numbers alone,

but also in the intrinsic value of each ship (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, p.

86), just as Martin Harpertszoon Tromp had also, himself, declared some

time before.

In order to give an idea of the extraordinary energy displayed by the

United Provinces, it will be mentioned that from 1682 to 1700, hence

in eighteen years, there were built 15 three-deckers of 90 to 96 guns

each, 2 of 80 to 86, 2 of 70 to 74, 29 of 60 to 68, and 26 of 50 to 56

pieces of artillery, together with 2 frigates of 22 guns, 3 fire ships

and 9 ketches, in all 107 vessels. Of this number, seven only were

built outside of the provinces of Holland and Zeeland. (~De Jonge~,

Vol. II, pp. 72 to 75.)

Outside of this fleet of which the cost was defrayed by means of

extraordinary credits, there were built during the same period, with

ordinary credits, 65 other vessels, of which 7 were of 50 to 52 guns,

18 of 40 to 46, 17 of 30 to 38, 13 of 20 to 26, and 10 of 16 guns at

least.

Or, for a period of eighteen years, a total of 107 + 65 = 172 new

ships. This increase of the fleet was an absolute necessity. It was

necessary, in fact, to make up the losses caused by storms and other

misfortunes, and amounting, during the years 1688-1698, to 3 units of

70, 5 of 60, 6 of 50, 8 of 40 to 46 guns, in addition to a few vessels

of 30 guns and less, 36 ships in all.

All these works evidently cost large sums. During the period 1682-1702,

the expenditures for new ships were about 81,197,000 florins and about

69,954,800 florins for equipment.

Maintenance, equipment, etc. came to about 5,829,000 florins, and in

1697, the costs rose to 7,732,000 florins. (~De Jonge~, Vol. II, pp. 80

and 81.) In order to form any exact idea of the importance of this sum,

it must be remembered that, at the time under consideration, salaries,

etc. were far lower than those of our day. (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap.

I, p. 80, note.)

Besides the war ships just mentioned, a large number of merchant ships,

vessels of less importance for inland service, and fishing boats were

built, so that, if the old writers are to be believed, “there were

places where there were counted more boats than houses”.

At the time when Hugo de Groot lived, two thousand vessels were built

annually. (~Koenen~, _Geschiedenis van Scheepbouw en Zeevaart_, p. 87.)

No Hollanders were met with who did not possess a certain amount of

knowledge relating to shipbuilding. (Idem, p. 85.)

[Sidenote: II 154]

In order to display such a large amount of energy, shipbuilding must

have developed with us in an extraordinary way. The proof of this is

found in the works of Nicolas Witsen (1671) and of Van Yk (1697).

Hence our naval architecture enjoyed an unheard of prosperity at the

beginning of the XVIIIth century.

[Sidenote: II 155]

[Sidenote: II 156]

In order to form an idea of the perfection of design which our naval

architecture had reached toward the middle of the same century, it is

enough to consult, in our album, the photographic reproductions of a

few drawings made by M. Van Gent in 1750, 1751, 1752, the originals

of which belong to the remarkable collection of engravings of M. S.

Van Gyn, at Dordrecht, as well as the copy of a war ship of 1770 which

appears in the collection of colored drawings.

These documents reproduce faithfully the ships with their water

lines. But what attracts attention most particularly is the following

inscription which is very legible in the drawing of the war ship of

1750: _Property of Admiral Schryver_. This admiral is the one who wrote

in 1753 that the shipbuilders, and especially those who built the ships

of war of the State during the period extending from 1683 to 1753,

were scarcely more than ordinary ship carpenters; that they had no

theoretical knowledge, were guided only by experience and, in certain

respects, were on the same level as the master carpenters of Zaandam

who, in the face of a failure, had offered as an excuse that “the boat

had not let itself be shaped otherwise with an axe”.

Admiral Schryver refers, in support of what he says, to various war

vessels which were less successful, and among them he mentions, in the

first place, five three-deck ships built between 1683 and 1689, the

first, it should be said, which our builders had turned out.

No one can be surprised that these vessels did come fully up to what

was expected! And if later, better ones were built, it merely proves

that our builders had succeeded in solving the great problem of turning

out strong ships of which the draught had to be limited, on account of

the depth in our passes and rivers.

Still later, imperfections had to be noted; but that does not show,

by any means, incapacity on the part of our builders. It happens even

in these times, both at home and abroad, that the best yards launch

vessels which are not up to their best work or which may need changes.

Admiral Schryver’s complaint (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 116)

denouncing the incapacity of our constructors seems to be neither

founded nor deserved. It is a question here of a headstrong naval

officer, imbued with his own ideas and holding only contempt for

those of others (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 116), rather than a

man thoroughly conversant with our naval architecture. Still, as it

has been shown further back, it was not alone during the time of the

Grand Pensionary Jean De Witt, and of the illustrious Colbert, as De

Jonge tells us (Vol. IV, Chap. I, p. 120), that foreigners came to

learn shipbuilding from us; much later still, in 1780, France sent her

sons to our yards and it is assumed that it was only under the reign

of Louis XVI (1774-1793), that the French navy could throw off Dutch

influence entirely.

Our country followed attentively, however, the progress made in France

and England in the art of naval construction, as is testified to by

the translation of Du Hamel du Monceau’s work (appeared in 1757), and

the passage therein contained announcing, for later on, a translation

of the work of Mungo Murray, the famous builder of the shipyard at

Deptford. It is not known whether this latter translation ever saw the

light, all the same, it is clear to my mind, from what precedes, that

works appearing abroad were read by us.

It has been shown that drawing was used in connection with shipbuilding

at the middle of the XVIIIth century. Hence shipbuilders had broken

with the old Dutch method of being guided by lines drawn by ribbands.

The lowest gun ports of ships were placed too near the water; complaint

was first made against this by us. The same complaint was soon heard

in England where the situation was not remedied, however, until the

end of the XVIIIth century, when the French builders were copied.

(~Holmes~, p. 126).

A certain amount of time went by before Great Britain adopted the

improvements made in shipbuilding by the French.

Mr. de Jonge, relying on foreign quotations, states that the Czar

Peter-the-Great seems to have learned shipbuilding, properly so called,

in England. ~Fincham~, the historian, even relates (_History of

naval architecture_, p. 69) that the Czar Peter preferred English to

Dutch construction. Mr. Koenen remarks, in regard to this, that this

preference could, at most, only have had to do with war ships. Be this

as it may, it is settled that Peter-the-Great resorted, all the same,

to Dutch vessels, builders and seamen to form his fleet which, three

years before his death, included 41 men-of-war carrying 2106 guns and

14,900 men, which made the Swedes say (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. II,

p. 152, and ~M. Koenen~, pp. 93-95): “We see nothing Muscovitish about

the Muscovite fleet unless it be the flag. We have to fight a Dutch

fleet, commanded by Dutchmen, manned by Dutch seamen and spitting out

Dutch powder from Dutch guns”.

It may be asked then whether the Peter-the-Great would really have

called on the Dutch builders if he had been able to find better among

the English.

What explanation is to be made as to why our shipbuilders were

abandoned about the middle of the XVIIIth century?

The size of ships was constantly increasing in England and in France;

and the fleets of foreign powers were ever becoming stronger, while in

our country, the shallowness of passes, rivers and ports, prevented the

construction of ships which, by their size, could vie with those of

other lands. (~Van Yk~, p. 14). All the writers of the period point

out this situation of which the realness has been shown by means of a

few figures.

The disadvantage resulting from the relative shallowness of the Dutch

passes was felt as far back as the end of the XVIIth century, and this

disadvantage could only become more marked as time went on. Meanwhile,

the necessity of building more powerful ships, carrying as many as 90

to 95 guns, became a matter of serious importance. In order to avoid

drawing too much water, it became necessary to make the ships fuller,

but this also made them heavier and poorer sailers, consequently

they were but poor fighting instruments in the hands of our brave

admirals. Is it then to be wondered at that the latter complained about

them bitterly? In spite of all our courage, the shallowness of our

approaches to the sea, to say nothing of the financial situation, made

us yield before the foreigner.

This inferiority is wrongly blamed on the Dutch shipbuilders of the

day. Naturally, many of them held on for a long time to the old ways,

as is shown by Du Hamel du Monceau, in the following terms at page 287

of his work: “The habit of copying mechanically and servilely what

was done in the past, has produced all these rules of proportions

observed in determining the main frame, the description of models and

their designs.” And this author adds this interesting detail: “Every

ship-carpenter kept these rules as a family secret”.

The Dutch builders had no affection for the pen; ~Witsen~ himself has

already called attention to this; they were afraid of publishing their

secrets, lest they might see their work carried off by others. It was

only a few years ago that an engineer engaged in shipbuilding refused

to let me see the drawings of one of his ships; he too feared lest his

models should be imitated.

How, then, could it be expected that ships should already be built

according to scientific rules, at the middle of the XVIIIth century,

when in France, which was ahead of all other nations in the matter,

these rules were not taken up until 1740? _Le Musée de Marine du

Louvre_ says in speaking of the XVIIIth century: “It (the vessel) is

built in accordance with scientific principles which began to become

known in 1697, but which scarcely date from before 1740 and which

bring about a great resemblance among the ships of all countries so

soon as they are intended for navigating the high seas, as originality

no longer exists except for coasting vessels attached to their own

shores.” (See, among others, M. ~Bongeur~, 1746, XXIII.)

It was not, then, attachment to tradition, but the natural condition of

our passes which kept us from building vessels of war as good as those

built abroad. This is what Mr. ~De Jonge~ forgets, while at the same

time he attaches too little weight to practice, which still enjoys,

even in our time, a great authority even in the matter of shipbuilding.

So this honorable writer arrives necessarily at forming, in regard to

our builders of the XVIIIth century, an unfavorable and undeserved

judgment.

The decline of shipbuilding along the “Zaan”, for example, was not

the consequence of the ignorance of our builders; this cause must be

attributed above all to the silting up of the river and of the mouth

of the IJ. This occurrence no longer allowed ships of any importance

to be taken to sea except at great cost and trouble. (~Loosjes~, _De

Zaandamsche dorpen_, p. 194.--M. ~Koenen~, p. 95.)

[Sidenote: III 15]

In order to bring out the difference existing between the French and

English styles and the Dutch style, I have placed on one plate of my

album the various main frames. This drawing is sufficiently eloquent

by itself, still, I must once more call attention, in passing, to the

differences which distinguish these various styles. These differences

existed at first in the shape and composition of the main frames;

then, the English vessels had less sheer, were less high and were not

square at the stern. (~Van Yk~, p. 17.) The English seem also to have

used crossed riders, instead of stanchions with vertical faces, to

save working; but this process was considered less practical from the

point of view of stowage. (~Van Yk~, p. 17 and figure A, p. 18.) They

gave their ships loof (~Witsen~, p. 126) and broad sides (“dick in den

buik”, as ~Witsen~ says on p. 207), the reverse of what was done for

the Dutch vessels. “The Dutch ships”, says ~Holmes~ (p. 110), “excelled

all others in one respect: that they were the first in which the absurd

practice of an exaggerated ‹tumble home› or contraction of the upper

deck was abandoned. This fashion”, he said further on, “was still

carried out to a very great extent by the English and to a less extent

by the French and Spaniards”.

~Holmes~ speaks also of the light draught of our vessels. He expresses

himself on this subject as follows on page 111 of his work: “In

consequence of the shallowness of the Dutch harbours, the draught of

their ships was also considerably less than that of the English vessels

of corresponding force”.

The English had at their disposal docks for the construction of their

ships (~Witsen~, p. 206, column I.); they used neither ribands nor

shores. Before laying down their ships, says ~Van Yk~ (p. 19), they

so prepared the models as to give them the shape desired. For this

purpose, and before starting construction, they laid out the frames at

full size on a floor. This process was, therefore, born in England.

The laying out of the full scale drawings was only adopted with us at

the middle of the XVIIIth century. Before this time, only models and

ribands were used in our country, as is still the present practice for

building the smaller wooden vessels and many fishing boats.

This new method, however, was not introduced without trouble; and the

more so as there was doubt of success in applying it to the Dutch

ships, which, as ~Van Yk~ says (p. 19), “had rounded sides, _to allow

them to glide over the water_, and _sharper angles_ than the English

ships” which had a more regular contour.

The Swedes and Danes followed the Dutch method in the main. (~Van Yk~,

p. 20.) Their navy was copied after ours (~De Jonge~), but their ships

were not so full and drew more.

The honor of having endowed the shipbuilding art with scientific

principles belongs wholly to the French. All the nations, even the

Dutch and the English borrowed these principles from them about the

middle of the XVIIIth century. It was however only at the end of this

century that the French method for calculating and designing ships

forced its way everywhere.

The Netherlands, in addition to their war fleet proper, had a very

large merchant marine. (~Koenen~, p. 90.) This latter it is said,

included, at the beginning of the XVIIth century, 20,000 vessels which

had all been built in Holland and, flying the Dutch colors, furrowed

the seas in all directions. At the end of this century, when we must

have already lost many of our over-seas possessions, the total tonnage

of the English merchant marine amounted to 500,000 tons; that of our

country was 900,000 tons, and all other nations together had 2,000,000

tons. (~Groen van Pinsteren~, _Handboek_, § 303.--~Koenen~, p. 160.)

Our merchantmen obtained quickly a great perfection. Full proof of this

can be found in the observations made by Sir Walter Raleigh (1552-1618)

about the Dutch ships, in which, as he remarks, a large amount of

freight could be stowed while, at the same time, they required

a smaller crew than that found necessary for the English ships.

(~Koenen~, p. 86.)

Our merchant vessels, among which especially “flutes” were met with,

were copied by the English and French.

Flutes were used preferentially as freight carriers. The following,

for example, is found in _Le Musée de Marine du Louvre_: “The navy

has always had transports for supplying squadrons; they were called

at first flutes or transports and later were known as ‹corvettes de

charge›”.

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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: II 158]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Illustration]

The reproduction does not show clearly whether the hull is clinker