The youth of the English fleet

33
1
Arrival of William the Conqueror in England.


From William the Conqueror to the Hundred Years' War


At first everything was simple.



William I the Conqueror in 1066 issued a bill according to which the five main ports of the kingdom bore monetary and other duties for the creation fleet. According to William, the Five Ports (Dover, Hastings, Hythe, New Romney and Sandwich) were to put 57 ships to sea if necessary in exchange for privileges and tax reductions. It is clear that they are fully equipped and with teams, but for two months. Further, the king, if he continued to use the fleet, was forced to pay "at a good trading rate".

But it soon quickly became clear that the very existence of the Cinque Ports and the agreement described above was hindering the development of the fleet. That is, roughly speaking, its size is limited to 57 vessels. What if you need more?

And the same William the Conqueror came up with one more thing - arrest and forced recruitment into the service of the king. All ships in English ports, if suddenly the need arises. It is clear that when a general arrest was ordered, foreign ships were forced into service on the same basis as English ships, and this practice continued until the early years of the reign of Elizabeth I.

Well, the first royal ships arose under the famous Prince John - the same John the Landless, familiar to our readers from Sir Walter Scott's novel “Ivanhoe”. It was Prince John who introduced the positions "Keeper of the king's ships" и "Keeper and Governor".

John did not do this out of a good life - Richard the Lionheart, having left for Palestine, remained king, that is, only he could arm and collect taxes for the fleet of the Five Ports, and John had a conflict with the barons. Therefore, he became concerned with the creation of the royal fleet itself. True, this did not go in vain - when John became a full-fledged king, the barons rebelled, soon a French invading army landed in England, and John was forced to sign the Magna Carta.

Until the reign of Henry III, the fleet consisted mainly of sailing ships, and by this time many had two masts, each carrying one sail. The transformation of a merchant ship into a warship was carried out by equipping it with temporary bow and stern castles (forecastle and aftercastle), which later became a permanent forecastle and poop, adding "upper castle" or combat Mars and providing adequate weapons.

Undoubtedly, the king's own ships were more durable and internally better equipped for battle than the mercenary merchant ships.

2
Return of Henry III and Eleanor of Aquitaine from Gascony in 1243.

It is from the time of John the Landless that we can talk about at least some kind of royal fleet. In the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries, the "keeper of the royal ships" first became clerk of marine causes then clerk of the navy and finally in the XNUMXth century - clerk of the acts. This was the first naval post in England. But others soon emerged.

Around 1299–1300 Another position has arisen - keeper (or governor) of the sea (keepers or governors of the sea). There were two of them - Guardian of the East or Narrow seas и Guardian of the South (this nobleman or knight was responsible for all the fighting in the Channel). The most interesting thing is that the fleet was supplied and paid from funds Wardrobe Accounts.

Around this time Edward I created and Navy Board, which included all the Guardians, the constable, the treasurer and the king himself. And at the beginning of the Hundred Years' War, the English fleet earned much praise.

During the Hundred Years' War


However, already in the 1360s and 1370s, the British began to have problems. For example, the year of Edward III's death was characterized by the sack of Rye, Lewes, Hastings, Yarmouth, Dartmouth, Plymouth, Folkestone, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight by Spanish-French squadrons. In 1378, the House of Commons came into direct conflict with the royal authorities, citing losses and poverty caused by non-payment or delay of payment for the use of ships, as well as the lack of compensation for the procurement of supplies and zips, as the reasons for the weakness of the English fleet. And in 1380 the king agreed that all owners of ships hired for the royal service would receive compensation of 3 shillings 4 pence per ton every three months, starting from the day of hire.

Since such an amount turned out to be unaffordable for the kings, they first tried to reduce it to 2 shillings, then to one and a half, and problems with the fleet grew. At the same time, the merchant fleet was also shrinking, which forced King Henry IV to adopt a decree obliging English subjects to export and import goods only on English ships, and the majority of the crews of these ships had to be subjects of the English crown. In fact, this was England's first attempt to pass an equivalent to the Navigation Acts.

2
Battle of Sluys, 1340.

This measure entailed an increase in English merchant shipping and a gradual decrease in dependence on the Hansa and its transportation, which in 1406 accounted for up to 70% of the total number of goods supplied and exported. During the time of Henry V, English ships were already sailing to Lisbon and Morocco, and English fishermen were fishing throughout the North Sea all the way to Iceland.

Under Henry V, the Royal Navy also rose from oblivion. So, in 1416, Henry V's fleet consisted of 17 coggs (the largest is the 1-ton Jesus of the Tower), 000 carracks, 7 barques and 2 balinger (balinger - a small fishing vessel, mainly for hunting whales). At the same time, Henry V began construction of the giant Grace Dieu, a ship 12 feet (218 meters) long and 66,5 feet (50 meters) wide.

The armament consisted of only three cannons, but the forecastle and aftercastle were raised to a height of up to 50 feet for the purpose of shooting down enemy ships with archers and slingers. The total displacement is estimated at 2 tons.

The ship never went to sea and sank in 1439 from a lightning strike in the River Hamble.
The construction of such a large fleet could not but affect the king's finances, Henry fell into large debts, and after his death in 1422 his property, including the royal ships, was largely sold off at residual value. At the same time, Henry V's creditors received only 1 marks; the rest of the money from the sale was simply pocketed by the new king Henry VI.

4
Grace Dieu, reconstruction.

This sale of the fleet provoked England's weakness at sea, and pirates began to plunder the English shores. In addition, the War of the Roses soon began, and the entire pirate freemen were very often led by English barons.

During the War of the Roses


In 1432, the House of Commons officially declared that Danish ships had plundered the harbor of Hull (Gul) to the amount of £5, and other ports to the amount of £000 in one year, and demanded that letters of marque be issued to compensate for the losses.

In 1435, William Morphout of Winchelsea applied for pardon after serving, as he sarcastically put it, "a long time at Dover Castle", he put to sea with 100 men to attack the king's enemies. It was difficult for him to get provisions, which, apparently, led him to the path of piracy, but instead of Danish ones, he began to rob his own, and English ships.

“You use your shipping to fight the poor merchants, rob and rob them of their goods, and you yourself become robbers and pirates.”,
– this is how a contemporary described this situation.

The statute of Henry V qualified the violation of the truce and safe conduct as high treason, and in order to somehow legalize privateering, the position of Guardian of the patent, who had to be a high-ranking person with an income of at least £40 per year. The Keeper was also the guarantor for the privateer, and if the captain took the slippery slope of piracy, the Keeper paid the privateer's losses.

Under Henry VI, neutrals were provided with free letters of safe conduct for loading goods onto ships, and the House of Commons protested this decision - because, according to parliamentarians, protection had to be paid for. True, by that time the navy had been sold for debts, and the safe conduct was only some kind of paper wish to the pirates not to rob this ship. It is clear that pirates were much more afraid of warships, and not of some pieces of paper.

Instead of building a royal fleet, Henry VI resorted to hiring ships for service. However, this turned out to be much more expensive - for example, in 1450, a mercenary fleet cost £13, that is, a quarter of the entire annual income of the crown, and the Treasury declared that it was not able to cover this debt. As a result, the king paid only 000 pounds in money, and gave the rest in goods, wool, some assets and... the right to collect taxes on certain lands.

5
Henry V's fleet

Realizing that this situation was abnormal, from 1455 Henry began to rent out his few ships to merchants. Yes, this brought some profit to the crown (for example, the already mentioned Jesus of the Tower brought the crown 4 pounds 16 shillings and 4 pence, but he died on the same voyage, so the profit did not cover the losses).

In the same 1455, the War of the Roses began, and the fleet was abandoned for a long time.

In 1461, Edward IV introduced the measurement of ships' tonnage in barrels of Bordeaux wine. One barrel (do) with a volume of 252 gallons and became a measure of cargo capacity, and later of displacement, which at that time was determined simply by how many such barrels a ship could take on board. The word later came from the name of this barrel "ton".

Edward IV decided to restore the navy and acted very methodically. In 1464, the Navigation Act came into force, the first to be approved by the Crown since the reign of Richard II, and although it expired after three years, it became the promise of future and more effective legislation. Edward is said to have been a trader himself, and trade treaties with Burgundy, Brittany and Castile show that he understood where the sources of national wealth lay.

Nevertheless, only Richard III began to buy (rather than build) royal ships, during whose short reign 8 ships were acquired, mainly in France and Spain. However, in 1485, at the Battle of Bosworth, Richard was defeated, and Henry VII Tudor ascended the throne, and he laid the foundations that later made it possible to begin the construction of the prototype of a regular fleet.

Henry VII and the fleet


It was under Henry VII that the earnings of sailors and soldiers on ships were set at a shilling a week when in harbor, and a shilling and three pence a week at sea. Additionally, food was supplied, for which a shilling and a halfpenny per week were allocated. Sailors, shipyard workers, lumberjacks and all others received not only wages, but also rations. For the first time, blue jackets were purchased for one hundred people on flagship ships - the forerunner of the future uniform.

The captain, the highest officer in the fleet, received three shillings and four pence a week. Treasurer and boatswain - one shilling and eight pence, quartermaster - one shilling and six pence, steward and cook - one shilling and three pence. These were port rates; perhaps they were higher at sea.

6
John Cabot at an audience with Henry VII before setting sail in search of new lands.

For example, when the Sovereign sailed from the Thames Estuary to Portsmouth, the voyage took 31 days. The captain received 2 pounds 10 shillings for this voyage, the purser - 14 shillings and 8 pence, the quartermasters - 10 shillings each, the boatswain - 16 shillings and 8 pence, the steward - 8 shillings, the cook - 10 shillings.

However, the British were not yet a maritime nation. As the Spanish ambassador to England, Don Ferdinando de Puebla, wrote: “English sailors are complete ignoramuses and savages”.

The discovery of the New World had a great influence on Henry, and the English king also decided to join the search for new lands. But this required the construction of a fleet. And Henry began with the construction of royal shipyards; it was under him that shipyards were built in Deptford, Portsmouth and Woolwich.

The king became concerned with the construction of dry docks and the creation of logistics for the delivery of materials to the shipyard, which King Henry VIII later took advantage of during the construction of the first Tudor fleet.

The main thing that Henry VII did was to create a material base. He left behind seven royal ships - two carracks "Sovereign" and "Regent", two small 80-ton ships that were registered as galleys (Galley), the ship "Michael", captured from the Scots in 1488, the caravels "Mary and John" and "Carvel Ewe".

This was precisely the starting position of Henry VIII, who began an extensive program of building a large fleet.

References:
1. Monson, William “The naval tracts of Sir William Monson” – London, Printed for the Navy Records Society, 1902.
2. HR Fox “English Seamen under the Tudors” – London, 1868.
3. William Laird Clowes, Clements Robert, Sir Markham “The Royal Navy: A History from the Earliest Times to the Present” – Chatham Publishing; Reissue edition, 1997.
4. Michael Oppenheim “A History of the Administration of the Royal Navy and of Merchant Shipping in Relation to the Navy” - London, J. Lane, 1896.
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    26 October 2023 05: 48
    Good morning, I’m starting to get used to the broad scope and peremptory presentation of the Author’s material. First of all, thank you!
    At first everything was simple.
    William I the Conqueror in 1066….

    I personally, following other experts, would start with the fleet of Alfred the Great. According to A. Shtenzel, it was the mistake of his “naval commanders” who were confident in the impossibility of “crossing” the English Channel in the fall that led to the collapse of the kingdom of Herald.
    Have a nice day, everyone!
    1. +1
      26 October 2023 06: 13
      Only Alfred’s state has even less relation to Great Britain than Rus', and Svyatoslav Igorevich has to the Russian Federation.
    2. +7
      26 October 2023 06: 55
      I'm starting to get used to peremptory comments. Firstly, Alfred the Great was not the king of England, but the king of Wessex. Secondly, we know very little about his fleet, in fact only that it existed.
      Well, thirdly. Stenzel is very outdated, his data is often incorrect, and even more often simply pretentious.
      So it goes.
      1. +7
        26 October 2023 09: 18
        Firstly, Alfred the Great was not the king of England, but the king of Wessex. Secondly, we know very little about his fleet, in fact only what it was.
        Well, thirdly. Stenzel is very outdated, his data is often incorrect, and even more often simply pretentious.

        Well, fourthly, modern British historians, although they criticize their colleagues of the Victorian era for the fact that Alfred the Great was considered the founder of the Royal Navy, still begin to count the history of the English fleet from the XNUMXth century, that is, from the moment of the formal formation of the Kingdom of England and the certain role of the English The monarchs of the Wessex dynasty are celebrated for creating it (the fleet). Therefore, it is somehow not correct to ignore the opinion of British colleagues and deprive the British Navy of childhood, starting right from youth.
        So it goes.
        1. -1
          26 October 2023 14: 53
          The British can even take it from Julius Caesar, if they like, that William the Bastard created not just a fleet, but an entire state, because a complete change of the elite was not a cat’s sneeze.
      2. +5
        26 October 2023 11: 39
        Quote: Sergey Makhov
        Firstly, Alfred the Great was not the king of England.

        Where did you write this in your comment?
        If you believe that there is no continuity between the powers of William the Conqueror and Alfred the Great, indicate the works of British historians where they claim this.
        Even in the sources you cited, the emergence of the British fleet is considered from the era of Alfred the Great. However, the history of Britain is not covered separately from Wessex.
        By the way, William the Conqueror sincerely considered himself the heir to the English crown, which included Wessex.
    3. 0
      26 October 2023 09: 17
      Of course the British had a fleet before William. But they stopped collecting funds for it under Edward the Confessor. Therefore, at the time of the invasion there was neither a fleet nor “naval commanders”.
      1. +5
        26 October 2023 09: 35
        Therefore, at the time of the invasion there was neither a fleet nor “naval commanders”.

        What then was Harold Godwinson collecting in the Solent in 1066, preparing to repel the invasion of William the Caller?
        By the way, on the Bayeux tapestry mentioned by the author, in addition to the ships of William the Conqueror, there are also the ships of Harold II.
        1. +1
          26 October 2023 10: 08
          What then was Harold Godwinson collecting in the Solent in 1066, preparing to repel the invasion of William the Caller?

          Don't know. Musgrove and Lewis do not say a word about English ships in the company of 1066. This of course does not mean that they did not exist at all. Still, ships are not automatic
          equals fleet
          By the way, on the Bayeux tapestry mentioned by the author, in addition to the ships of William the Conqueror, there are also the ships of Harold II.

          Strictly speaking, no. On the tapestry is a single English ship of Harold Godwinson, King Edward's envoy.
          1. +5
            26 October 2023 13: 16
            Don't know. Musgrove and Lewis do not say a word about English ships in the company of 1066.

            And Swanton (Michael Swanton) has it. On page 196.

            1. +2
              26 October 2023 15: 41
              I checked the translation of the chronicle on Guttenberg
              Harold's fleet is mentioned for company against the Norwegians. Harold assembled a fleet and army at Sandwich and waited all summer and part of the fall for Harald's invasion. Due to lack of resources, he had to disband the fleet and some of the ships died on the way to London
              I didn’t find anything about attempts to counteract Wilhelm
              But yes, this anyway contradicts what I wrote above. Apparently he was uncritical of some secondary source
  2. +1
    26 October 2023 06: 59
    Strange, the British system of measures created the metric ton? Or is it the French?
    1. 0
      26 October 2023 07: 37
      The French, the Britons, and even now, without the metric system, can manage just fine
    2. +5
      26 October 2023 09: 54
      Strange, the British system of measures created the metric ton?

      The British system of measures created the English ton (long ton) - approximately 1016 kg. Just how much a 252 gallon wine barrel weighed.
    3. +2
      26 October 2023 09: 56
      Strange, the British system of measures created the metric ton?

      They created only the pronunciation of this word. Their native tons are not equal to metric tons. There were also “long” and “short” tons.
  3. +1
    26 October 2023 12: 03
    Gratitude to the author, it is very interesting that the "Lord of the Seas" was actually in this status for 3-4 centuries (before the Phoenicians they would still have to jump and jump).
    One note: where is the encouraging “to be continued”?
    Well, it is doubtful whether the article is classified under the “weapons” heading; in my opinion, this is “history” in its purest form.
    1. +3
      26 October 2023 13: 18
      Britain had unconditional dominance at sea for about a hundred years - from Trafalgar to WWII. But even a hundred years is a very long time.
    2. +6
      26 October 2023 13: 30
      they would still have to jump and jump before the Phoenicians

      Phenicia, unlike the British Empire, was never a world hegemon. Therefore, who should jump to whom is the question.
      1. +2
        26 October 2023 14: 39
        And Britain was not a world hegemon. She may have considered herself such in the interval between the First and Second World Wars, but, as it turned out, it was unfounded - after the end of the latter, two superpowers arose, and neither of them was Britain.
        As for the Phoenicians, for almost a thousand years they had a monopoly in naval shipbuilding and navigation; in general, there was a direct ban on other ships sailing in the western part of the Mediterranean Sea (and therefore in the Atlantic).
        So, even serving the Persian conquerors, say, the Phoenician sailors were still the best, until we began to suffer defeats from the Greeks, and then from the Romans.
        1. +2
          26 October 2023 16: 36
          And Britain was not a world hegemon

          Apparently, you have never heard of Pax Britannica.
        2. 0
          26 October 2023 19: 17
          Quote: faterdom
          the same thing before the Phoenicians - they were almost a thousand years a monopoly in naval shipbuilding, navigation, and in general there was a direct ban on other ships sailing the western part of the Mediterranean Sea (and therefore the Atlantic).


          It may turn out that this trade of theirs was not particularly profitable - otherwise the technological monopoly would have been quickly “seized and divided.”
          1. +1
            26 October 2023 20: 17
            Holding a monopoly on shipbuilding and maritime transportation, the extraction of purple, tin from Albion (during the Bronze Age) and iron from Iberia for hundreds of years is “not particularly profitable???”
            This is why Macedonian destroyed Tire, that there was no naval blockade, and the treasures accumulated over centuries (gold and foreign exchange reserves) were taken to Carthage, but no one was printing dollars then... and half of the world's wealth eluded him.
            I think only an early death (an accident?) saved Carthage from being visited by the “living god”.
      2. +1
        26 October 2023 17: 24
        The British Empire was not a hegemon in the usual sense of the word. A superpower - yes, but unlike the United States, it did not have such powerful financial, political and military leverage over other great powers (the influence was not so large-scale, the pound did not dominate like the modern dollar, the ground army was too weak, towards the end of the 19th century the policy of “brilliant isolation”, which is also not compatible with hegemonic status) in order to dominate unconditionally. She was rather the first among equals. Compare with the USA, which has bases all over the world, and not only among the natives.
        1. +3
          26 October 2023 18: 40
          Compare with the USA, which has bases around the world

          Compare. Map of 1910.

          1. 0
            26 October 2023 23: 32
            I told you, this is not about the natives, but about the influence on the great powers.
        2. 0
          26 October 2023 20: 26
          A superpower? In what period can Great Britain, even “with the never setting sun,” be considered such?
          After the defeat of Napoleon? No, rather, Russia was a superpower then, although not for long.
          After the Crimean War? No, Russia quickly did not give a damn about the imposed “standards,” and Bismarck soon created Germany and occupied France.
          Anglo-Boer War - the last purely British victory of regular troops over Dutch settlers? Is this a superpower?
          No, it was not an order of magnitude stronger than its rival powers, France, Germany and Russia. And even after the end of the First World War it did not become so.
          1. +2
            26 October 2023 23: 44
            After the defeat of Napoleon. It controlled a very large part of the world, by 1913 more than 412 million - 23% of the entire world population at that time. No other European power could boast of anything like this (although Russia was almost as big formally, this is due to Siberia, which was essentially almost a desert; its value cannot be compared with the British colonies) Well, economically it was much stronger than its competitors until WWII . Here for clarity

            And what does the Boers and the British army have to do with it, when Britain’s superiority was due to the unconditionally strongest fleet and bases in key locations like Gibraltar, which made it possible to control world trade.
            Well, I repeat, a superpower does not necessarily have to control everyone else; before the Cold War, the status of a superpower only meant a clear economic-political-military (in the case of Britain at sea, not on land) superiority over the others, and did not cancel the presence of other independently acting great powers. The Spanish Empire, the British Empire, the Holy Roman Empire are the superpowers of their time. The Russian Empire did not have global influence and it clearly was not a superpower, especially after the Crimean Empire (it may have canceled the terms of the treaty, but it never restored its previous status after the shameful defeat).
      3. +2
        26 October 2023 19: 32
        Quote from Frettaskyrandi
        they would still have to jump and jump before the Phoenicians

        Phenicia, unlike the British Empire, was never a world hegemon. Therefore, who should jump to whom is the question.

        Nikolaevich, let's be honest - Phenicia has never been a single state. In fact, before the fall of Tyre, they acted as a semi-independent union of policies. I don’t think that the Phoenicians were allowed to develop by their stronger neighbors on the mainland: the Egyptians, and later the Persians. After Alexander the Great, the cities of the Phoenicians in Asia Minor lost their importance. Of the Phoenician colonies, Carthage occupies a special place, but based on the results of the Punic Wars, we know the result.
        In the Mediterranean Sea, Sicily had the most favorable conditions for dominance, but the proximity of the Apennine Peninsula nullifies everything.
        If offhand you can name only two islands close to Foggy Albion - these are Madagoscar and the group of islands where Japan is located..
        Good evening!
        1. +2
          26 October 2023 20: 50
          Good evening!

          Good evening!
          I still don’t understand, did you agree with my point of view or vice versa?
          1. +2
            26 October 2023 21: 42
            Good day!
            What we imagine as Phenicia as a state is questionable in principle. The Phoenicians are representatives of the people (nation), like the ancient Greeks. The cities of the Phoenicians on the coast of Asia Minor constantly competed with each other. Moreover, since the formation of the Persian state, at best they had autonomy, after the expansion of Hellas they did not have it. Exception: Carthage.
            However, the Greeks were also far from being statesmen. Syracuse and Magna Graecia, although they survived the collapse of the Empire of Alexander the Great, disappeared during the first Punic War.
            In fact, the term “Phoenicia” is chosen a little incorrectly.
            For the rest I completely agree.
    3. +2
      26 October 2023 13: 42
      Fleet administration, organization and development are no less, and even more than weapons :-)
      1. +4
        26 October 2023 19: 35
        Quote: Sergey Makhov
        Fleet administration, organization and development are no less, and even more than weapons :-)

        I agree with my colleague. Your article in the History section would have looked more appropriate.
        hi
  4. 0
    30 October 2023 17: 36
    Thanks to the author, very interesting article. It's strange that it's not in "history".