A question about naval architecture....

[Cascabel]

In side views of the early galleon type ships with the high stern castles, they appear to have quite a severe forward slope to the upper decks, and possibly all of the rear decks. This looks like it would be very uncomfortable to stand on for any length of time, for instance standing at the helm. Did the decks actually slope like that, or is it an illusion caused by the slope of the rail ? I have never been up close to a real one, so I thought I would pose the question.

The other question is, if they actually slope in that fashion, what is the purpose ? Later style ships don't have that steep sloped appearance

>>>>> Cascabel

[captscurvy_nc]

I haven't been on a galleon before but when the galleon ship was at the Blackbeard festival last year I noticed the same thing. Didn't have a chance to go on board so I don't have an answer. Would it have anything to do with allowing fro storage space below? Don't know just asking. Also Cascabell, when the hell am I gonna see you again?

[PoD]

I was on the upper deck of the Golden Hind the other month and that slopes quite severely. I didnt have a problem standing on it for the 40 minutes I was there. The only concern I had was that it was raining and I was expecting the wooden floor to get quite slippery and I didnt fancy falling over the rail onto the people fighting on the deck below.

[Cascabel]

Also Cascabell, when the hell am I gonna see you again?

I'll be at the Beaufort, NC event in August, and also the Bald Head Island event. I hope to cross paths with ye.....

>>>> Cascabel

[captscurvy_nc]

if I can afford the gas by that time (still unemployed from my operations) I will definitly be there. It's been a long time since I got a chance to play pirate with you

[Bos'n Cross]

the boat at black beards was the Kalmar Nyckle, which is a pinnace(though very similar to a galleon), and indeed the decks to slope, and so does the forecastle (though i never though it was enough to be uncomfortable)........indeed the lower decks also slope as well.....over all on most ships the decks all slope towards the center of the vessle...as to why, im not enttiirrelly sure....i believe it has much to do with weight distribution and attempts to lower the cnter of gravity on earlier ships...but im sure someone has a better answer......

[Captain Midnight]

Also Cascabell, when the hell am I gonna see you again?

I'll be at the Beaufort, NC event in August, and also the Bald Head Island event. I hope to cross paths with ye.....

>>>> Cascabel

Cascabel, when exactly is the Bald Head Island event? I might be interested in coming to that one...

[Daniel]

Elizabethan and early 17th century ships were built with very high sterns because of the fear of being "pooped" by a large following sea. I don't know if this is the reason that the after decks curved upward as they went aft, but a higher stern would be a natural accompaniment of such a deck plan.

I'm not sure exactly why the curving lower decks were abandoned later in the 17th century, but certainly the speed advantage of a lower after deck must have played some part. Whether ship builders just decided to sacrifice safety to speed, or they found that the upward curving deck wasn't that much of a safety advantage anyway, I don't know. Theoretically, mariners might have found that extra speed helped reduce the impact of a following sea better than the high stern did, or they might have decided that the sloping decks increased the impact when the ship was pooped by channeling it downhill. I don't have any direct evidence.

While we're at it, maybe someone can explain the switch from those long, nearly level beakheads of the early 17th century to the short, sharply upswept ones of the late 17th century.

[Cascabel]

Cascabel, when exactly is the Bald Head Island event? I might be interested in coming to that one...

It's a week before Beaufort.

>>>> Cascabel

[MarkG]

Elizabethan and early 17th century ships were built with very high sterns because of the fear of being "pooped" by a large following sea. I don't know if this is the reason that the after decks curved upward as they went aft, but a higher stern would be a natural accompaniment of such a deck plan.

I'm not sure exactly why the curving lower decks were abandoned later in the 17th century, but certainly the speed advantage of a lower after deck must have played some part. Whether ship builders just decided to sacrifice safety to speed, or they found that the upward curving deck wasn't that much of a safety advantage anyway, I don't know. Theoretically, mariners might have found that extra speed helped reduce the impact of a following sea better than the high stern did, or they might have decided that the sloping decks increased the impact when the ship was pooped by channeling it downhill. I don't have any direct evidence.

While we're at it, maybe someone can explain the switch from those long, nearly level beakheads of the early 17th century to the short, sharply upswept ones of the late 17th century.

You can see the evolution of this over the centuries. The Medieval Cog had a high prow and stern to part waves. As it developed into a full three-mast ship, the angle was incorporated into the upped decks. On the Santa Maria we point out that any water that comes onto the ship drains to the center and then to the scuppers (drains) under the rails. The angle is there but not all that bad on the Santa Maria.

Jump forward a century and the angles get crazy, especially on Dutch ships. The Half Moon's poop is not really usable it is at such a steep angle. The captain says that it is nothing more than the roof of the cabin and not meant for anything else.

English ships from that period are not as bad. I've been on most of them including the Golden Hind two weeks ago. All of the decks are usable on these. Possibly the development of the race-built galleon was a factor. These high, sloped decks make navigation more difficult since they catch cross-winds. The captain of the Half Moon has pointed out that his hull has more area than most sailboat's sails.

By the mid-17th century you can see the beginning of a long trend of removing the extra superstructures and simplifying the lines overall. A 16th or early 17th century ship always has a very broken profile with parts going up and down. Later ships were much closer to straight across.

I've never seen a discussion of this but the goal of catching water at the center must have been abandoned in favor of making ships handier and able to sail closer to the wind.

Mark

[Bos'n Cross]

Iv done a bot of looking around, and i think at least the reason for the sterns being narrower and higher at least, was to help deter boarding, and in the event of close ship combat, to give archers and later musketeers a good platform to shoot from. It would seem that through out the 17th century as cannon(guns) became more in use, the stern and forecastles were lowered as the risk of boarding was reduced. I also believe that the curved shape at least in part may have helped in draining and preventing pooping, but i still like the gravity idea as well lol

[Tartan Jack]

I'll add that on a rolling ship in rolling seas . . .

The angles would be less noticeable.

[Capt Thighbiter]

Could the slope be related to the desire for any water that got on board and did not exit via the scuppers eventually drain into the well ( bilge)which was located at the center of gravity fore and aft? also, leaking water left to its own devices on a flush deck ship could trickle down into the hold, where valuable cargo maybe affected. Cargo held in the high ends of the curve wouldnt be as likely to get wet ?

It's probably a combination of factors that is the reason for them. But those high focsles and poops must have increased the ships leeway big time.

[Fox]

... I've been on most of them including the Golden Hind two weeks ago...

Which one?

[MarkG]

... I've been on most of them including the Golden Hind two weeks ago...

Which one?

The one in London.

[Captain McCool]

How many Golden Hinds are there?

[MarkG]

How many Golden Hinds are there?

Two that I know of. The other one is at Brixam Harbor in Devon.

http://www.goldenhind.co.uk/

Mark

[Captain McCool]

Interesting... are they exactly the same (basically), or do they vary in construction, historical accuracy, etc? Just kind of curious...

[Fox]

There are some significant differences between the two vessels in terms of design, but they both fit (more or less, see below) the evidence that is available about the original Golden Hind. The trouble is that there isn't a great deal of detailed evidence about the original, and much of what there is is contradictory (tonnage, for example, though listed in most sources as 100-120, is listed elsewhere as low as 80 tons and as high as 400 tons). Both ships, therefore can be described as fair representations of a vessel the right size, type, and period to be the Golden Hind. We don't know whether the original ship had a stern gallery or not, but either was equally possible: the Brixham ship does have a gallery, the London ship doesn't.

Both ships do have some innacuracies. Both, for example, have a wheel where a whipstaff would be more appropriate. Both are also potentially a bit too large, though there is enormous debate about that.

In terms of construction, the ship in London was built (in theory) in a completely authentic way - how authentic is also debateable, but that was certainly the intention. Largely that was because the whole purpose of building her (or a significant part at least) was simply as an excercise in historical ship building.

By contrast, the Brixham ship was built to be a working museum, so a fully authentic construction technique was not used. All the inauthentic bits of construction are entirely concealed though.

There used to be a third at Southend in Essex, but (I believe) that's now been moved to dry land, called something else, and is the centre-piece of an amusement park.

[MarkG]

There are some significant differences between the two vessels in terms of design, but they both fit (more or less, see below) the evidence that is available about the original Golden Hind. The trouble is that there isn't a great deal of detailed evidence about the original, and much of what there is is contradictory (tonnage, for example, though listed in most sources as 100-120, is listed elsewhere as low as 80 tons and as high as 400 tons). Both ships, therefore can be described as fair representations of a vessel the right size, type, and period to be the Golden Hind. We don't know whether the original ship had a stern gallery or not, but either was equally possible: the Brixham ship does have a gallery, the London ship doesn't.

Both ships do have some innacuracies. Both, for example, have a wheel where a whipstaff would be more appropriate. Both are also potentially a bit too large, though there is enormous debate about that.

In terms of construction, the ship in London was built (in theory) in a completely authentic way - how authentic is also debateable, but that was certainly the intention. Largely that was because the whole purpose of building her (or a significant part at least) was simply as an excercise in historical ship building.

By contrast, the Brixham ship was built to be a working museum, so a fully authentic construction technique was not used. All the inauthentic bits of construction are entirely concealed though.

There used to be a third at Southend in Essex, but (I believe) that's now been moved to dry land, called something else, and is the centre-piece of an amusement park.

The London ship has a gallery. I was a little surprised that the flooring is solid. I am more familiar with the Susan Constant which has spaced planks for drainage.

Wheels are controversial everywhere. When one of the Jamestown ships was sailed across the Atlantic in the 1980s it was outfitted with a wheel at the captain's insistence for safety. Most of the other early colonial ships either use a whipstaff or a straight tiller.

Mark

[Fox]

How odd, I've been aboard several times and I was convinced there was no gallery. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the point is that there are differences between the two vessels which are purely a matter of interpretation and can't be construed as either "right" or "wrong" in terms of the evidence about the original ship.

[MarkG]

How odd, I've been aboard several times and I was convinced there was no gallery. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the point is that there are differences between the two vessels which are purely a matter of interpretation and can't be construed as either "right" or "wrong" in terms of the evidence about the original ship.

That's true for all historic ships. At best they are educated guesses. The Santa Maria we have in Columbus is about the right size and we know that the original had three masts, five sails, and a cabin. We know that Columbus had red bed hangings (he gave them away) and that it had a quadrant that Columbus did not trust (he used the Nina's astrolabe on the way back). That's about all we know.

Even ships built to the same modern plans differ. There is a Santa Maria built from the same plans in Texas but the railings are different and theirs is all brown while ours is natural wood with red and white trim. Plus the Texas one has a wheel.

The original three ships at Jamestown were too small. The historic records showed that they were larger than the ships that were built. The reason that they made them too small was that the governor in the 1950s had a painting of the three ships that he really liked and he insisted that the ships match his painting. When the replaced the Godspeed and Discovery in the 1980s they used the same plans. It wasn't until they built new ships for 2007 that someone discovered that they should be larger.

The Pilgrim shallop was supposed to be lapstrake but the people who built it felt that only inferior boat builders did lapstrake so they built it carvel.

Mark

[capn'rob]

A little side note. In the Virginia Statehouse there are only two paintings. All other art is statuary. One painting, done in the 18th century of a Revalutionary War Battle. The other is of the "Susan Constant" by Griffith Baily Coale. G.B.Coale was not just a prolific Maritime Artist. He was Commisioned by Admiral Nimitz as an Officer in the U.S. Navy as the official Navy Documenting Artist. England had an artist to record their sea battles for centuries. Coale did hundreds of paintings of which a large collection remain in Baltimore in the Navy's Archives. Another of his talents was Murals. In 1929 he was commisioned by a bank being built in NYC to paint a mural 225 feet long, the perimeter of their lobby, representing the advancement in commerce. Coale represented this in a "Pagentry of Ships through the Growth of Commerce". To help with this task he hired art students from a few of the area art schools. One was Yale and the student was my Dad. The building was just recently restored including the mural and on my next trip to Manhattan I am going to see it. The bank is now a private school and the lobby is used as a venue for parties, etc. You can see some of the mural on the website for "Broadstreetballroom" it starts with phonecians and egyptians and follows up to "modern time" with a dirigible and bi-plane overhead! That's how modern it was !!