One of the things I’ve been looking into lately is the maritime technology of the late sixteenth century. This is because I think it’s a crucial piece of the puzzle as to why London grew so dramatically over the course of c.1550-1650: an unprecedented, tenfold increase.
Fun post. Agree, that navigation skills and technology can't in themselves explain the rise of Northern European maritime strength and adventurousness.
I think in various places Parker makes a lot of points that you pick up on and some others as well. He pointed out in his work on the Armada, that Spanish and Portuguese Atlantic-sailing ships were more designed to intimidate non-European opponents than to fight other warships. They certainly weren't weren't modern 'men-of-war,' designed or set up, like English galleons, to fire repeated broadsides. Until the English and Dutch challenged Spanish and Portuguese naval supremacy, there was no need for such. Parker notes also that as the English found that they could load up their lower, sleeker ships with cannon, they inevitably learned that their ships needed to be built to handle the long-term stress of gun recoils. This level of construction, in turn, provided an advantage in battle, as well as in some types of commerce. Certainly both the English and Dutch realized their "Indiamen" could not be 'fluytbots'!
That’s an interesting point in the Iberians not having had to worry about being attacked too much - at least initially. I recall mention of the Portuguese using broadsides against Indian ships in the 1500s, but that this soon stopped and the tactic was either forgotten or neglected after they were no longer accosted.
Not sure roll was a major factor in seaworthiness. A slow roll is easier on gear and top hamper, which could be rolled out of a ship if the motion was too abrupt, ie the centre of gravity was too low. Ability to sail close to the wind was more a consequence of hull shape and sails. A clean hull was also vital for speed, but the biggest factor was sailing skills.
I will have to look more into it then, as I came across this factor being mentioned quite a few times in my readings. Thank you for your comments. I’m unsure on skill for some of the reasons mentioned above - why would the English with so much shorter a tradition of proper seafaring suddenly leapfrog the Iberians?
“why would the English with so much shorter a tradition of proper seafaring suddenly leapfrog the Iberians?”.
I would have thought that sailing around the UK for centuries had already produced a ‘tradition of proper seafaring’ wouldn’t you? After all the most dangerous part of a voyage from say Blackwall to Bombay, was getting past the Goodwin Sands. ( hence the ‘passengers’ tended to embark/disembark from the Dover area).
By this I mean their newfound ability to sail much farther afield, as mentioned in the article. Substitute "seafaring" for "oceangoing", if you insist. Coastal sailing around well-known routes was of course done anciently.
My point is, that if one could master sailing in the Atlantic & North Sea around the somewhat treacherous coastline of the UK, one could sail anywhere.
Incidentally, by the late 15th century, about the same time that Diaz & Co we setting off, weren’t Bristol ships sailing to the Grand Banks, off Newfoundland?
No, dead reckoning and knowledge of coastlines only got them so far. There's a reason the English were so constrained in their voyaging until the mid-16thC. Going further, and into new seas, also requires celestial navigation. I've written about the development here: https://antonhowes.substack.com/p/age-of-invention-finding-the-latitude
There’s no solid evidence that Bristol ships were fishing at the Grand Banks in the 15thC. There were a few pre-Cabot expeditions out west, but nothing much can be made of them. One in 1480 came back without finding anything. Another in 1481 set out to find “the Isle of Brasile”, laden with salt, and some have simply assumed that this must have been for fishing. But that's it really. We hear nothing more of it, and the English didn’t gain a major foothold in the fisheries off Newfoundland until a century later. Otherwise, there’s the Cabot voyages of the 1490s - using celestial navigation - and all the successful early 16thC trans-Atlantic voyages used foreign pilots too.
So in a nutshell, whilst the English had the requisite seafaring skills, they were so totally deficient in navigational skills that they unable to even attempt ‘ocean’ going ‘adventures’?
Reduced wind resistance was a secondary advantage for English ships. Their higher speed and superior maneuverability resulted mostly from being much lighter than their enemies' vessels.
Two things made the older fortress-like ships much heavier than those of the English.
1) Those tall fore- and after-castles were aptly named, and very heavy.
2) Such ships had to be considerably wider (therfore even heavier) not only to support that weight, but to provide capsize-resisting stability under sail to counter the weight of those 'forts' carried so high up.
Losing the tall, heavy forts was an innovation that triggered a virtuous technological circle for the English. The lighter and lower their ships became, the narrower and faster and still lighter they could make them.
Being lower and more stable, English ships could carry considerably more sail area in proportion to their weight. These ships had both higher speed potential (being lighter), and higher propulsive power (being more stable). The result was superior speed and maneuverability that made them far superior both strategically and tactically.
I believe they only actually sank one! But the crucial word there is "aimed". Rarely achieved, and the fight against the Armada perhaps not the best example, though the Spanish reported many direct hits to hulls. Perhaps I should have been more careful to say "impose structural damage".
In addition to “structural damage”, lethal splinters would have caused terrible soft tissue injuries to many members of the unfortunate crew. These factors will have necessarily reduced morale, which may go some way to explaining why so many Armada ships turned south far too early, with very unfortunate results.
I think most people would regard ‘sink’ as the “crucial” word in that sentence?
I only asked the question because due to their inherent buoyancy, wooden ship are very hard to sink by gunfire.
The only example I can think of from say the 18th century would be the sinking of a French 74 by H.M.S. Royal George, at the Battle of Quiberon Bay, in 1759.
Fun post. Agree, that navigation skills and technology can't in themselves explain the rise of Northern European maritime strength and adventurousness.
I think in various places Parker makes a lot of points that you pick up on and some others as well. He pointed out in his work on the Armada, that Spanish and Portuguese Atlantic-sailing ships were more designed to intimidate non-European opponents than to fight other warships. They certainly weren't weren't modern 'men-of-war,' designed or set up, like English galleons, to fire repeated broadsides. Until the English and Dutch challenged Spanish and Portuguese naval supremacy, there was no need for such. Parker notes also that as the English found that they could load up their lower, sleeker ships with cannon, they inevitably learned that their ships needed to be built to handle the long-term stress of gun recoils. This level of construction, in turn, provided an advantage in battle, as well as in some types of commerce. Certainly both the English and Dutch realized their "Indiamen" could not be 'fluytbots'!
That’s an interesting point in the Iberians not having had to worry about being attacked too much - at least initially. I recall mention of the Portuguese using broadsides against Indian ships in the 1500s, but that this soon stopped and the tactic was either forgotten or neglected after they were no longer accosted.
Yes. Parker's claim was that in Arabian/Persian/Indian waters, the Iberians could essentially fire once and compel withdrawal or surrender.
Not sure roll was a major factor in seaworthiness. A slow roll is easier on gear and top hamper, which could be rolled out of a ship if the motion was too abrupt, ie the centre of gravity was too low. Ability to sail close to the wind was more a consequence of hull shape and sails. A clean hull was also vital for speed, but the biggest factor was sailing skills.
I will have to look more into it then, as I came across this factor being mentioned quite a few times in my readings. Thank you for your comments. I’m unsure on skill for some of the reasons mentioned above - why would the English with so much shorter a tradition of proper seafaring suddenly leapfrog the Iberians?
MARK CORBY26 min ago
“why would the English with so much shorter a tradition of proper seafaring suddenly leapfrog the Iberians?”.
I would have thought that sailing around the UK for centuries had already produced a ‘tradition of proper seafaring’ wouldn’t you? After all the most dangerous part of a voyage from say Blackwall to Bombay, was getting past the Goodwin Sands. ( hence the ‘passengers’ tended to embark/disembark from the Dover area).
By this I mean their newfound ability to sail much farther afield, as mentioned in the article. Substitute "seafaring" for "oceangoing", if you insist. Coastal sailing around well-known routes was of course done anciently.
My point is, that if one could master sailing in the Atlantic & North Sea around the somewhat treacherous coastline of the UK, one could sail anywhere.
Incidentally, by the late 15th century, about the same time that Diaz & Co we setting off, weren’t Bristol ships sailing to the Grand Banks, off Newfoundland?
No, dead reckoning and knowledge of coastlines only got them so far. There's a reason the English were so constrained in their voyaging until the mid-16thC. Going further, and into new seas, also requires celestial navigation. I've written about the development here: https://antonhowes.substack.com/p/age-of-invention-finding-the-latitude
There’s no solid evidence that Bristol ships were fishing at the Grand Banks in the 15thC. There were a few pre-Cabot expeditions out west, but nothing much can be made of them. One in 1480 came back without finding anything. Another in 1481 set out to find “the Isle of Brasile”, laden with salt, and some have simply assumed that this must have been for fishing. But that's it really. We hear nothing more of it, and the English didn’t gain a major foothold in the fisheries off Newfoundland until a century later. Otherwise, there’s the Cabot voyages of the 1490s - using celestial navigation - and all the successful early 16thC trans-Atlantic voyages used foreign pilots too.
Thank you.
So in a nutshell, whilst the English had the requisite seafaring skills, they were so totally deficient in navigational skills that they unable to even attempt ‘ocean’ going ‘adventures’?
Reduced wind resistance was a secondary advantage for English ships. Their higher speed and superior maneuverability resulted mostly from being much lighter than their enemies' vessels.
Two things made the older fortress-like ships much heavier than those of the English.
1) Those tall fore- and after-castles were aptly named, and very heavy.
2) Such ships had to be considerably wider (therfore even heavier) not only to support that weight, but to provide capsize-resisting stability under sail to counter the weight of those 'forts' carried so high up.
Losing the tall, heavy forts was an innovation that triggered a virtuous technological circle for the English. The lighter and lower their ships became, the narrower and faster and still lighter they could make them.
Being lower and more stable, English ships could carry considerably more sail area in proportion to their weight. These ships had both higher speed potential (being lighter), and higher propulsive power (being more stable). The result was superior speed and maneuverability that made them far superior both strategically and tactically.
Thank you for this extra detail!
“They aimed to sink”. Really; How many Spanish ships were actually sunk by gunfire during the Armada adventure if I may ask?
I believe they only actually sank one! But the crucial word there is "aimed". Rarely achieved, and the fight against the Armada perhaps not the best example, though the Spanish reported many direct hits to hulls. Perhaps I should have been more careful to say "impose structural damage".
In addition to “structural damage”, lethal splinters would have caused terrible soft tissue injuries to many members of the unfortunate crew. These factors will have necessarily reduced morale, which may go some way to explaining why so many Armada ships turned south far too early, with very unfortunate results.
Thank you.
I think most people would regard ‘sink’ as the “crucial” word in that sentence?
I only asked the question because due to their inherent buoyancy, wooden ship are very hard to sink by gunfire.
The only example I can think of from say the 18th century would be the sinking of a French 74 by H.M.S. Royal George, at the Battle of Quiberon Bay, in 1759.
Yes, I added an edit to the main text, to make sure it was no longer potentially misleading. Thank you for pointing it out.