From galleons to Dunkirk frigates

14
From galleons to Dunkirk frigates

The early 1500s are often referred to as the "shipping revolution." The artillery had finally established itself on navy, but brought with it many problems. First of all, this is the distribution of weights. The cannon ports invented by the French, on the one hand, made life easier for the artillerymen themselves, but on the other hand, they became a headache for the sailors.
If the port was too close to the waterline, the ship risked sinking. And vice versa, if the main artillery deck was located high, due to the high center of gravity, the ship simply risked capsizing.

Thus, the famous ship Mary Rose sank due to the fact that its ports were only 40 cm above the waterline and during the list they simply did not have time to slam them shut. On the other hand, the Swedish Vasa had a high center of gravity, tilted during a gust of wind, water rushed into the open gun ports, and the ship sank.



Both Mary Rose and Vasa were large, impressive ships for their time, and embody the ideal "technical error during construction."

Spanish and English fleets


Before 1600, most of the large cannon used on ships came from the army. There were no uniform calibers, and to top it all off, in the first half of the 1530th century, these guns were most often unsuccessfully placed either in the bow or in the stern. Only around the 1540s did the Spaniards, and from the XNUMXs everyone else, begin to distribute cannons along the sides.

The truly naval cannons were the so-called “culverins”, whose barrels were very long, as well as canons and demi-canons. Thus, the Spanish culverin had a caliber of 20 Castilian pounds (1 Castilian pound - 460,093 grams), a barrel length of 4,65 meters and a weight of 70–72 quintals (3,22 tons). The English culverin had more modest characteristics - caliber 17 pounds, barrel length - 2,44 meters, weight - 30 handreveits (1,524 tons).

Spanish canon (cannon) - caliber 36 pounds, length 2,9 meters, weight 50 quintals (2,3 tons). English canon - caliber 30 pounds, barrel length 3 meters, weight - 42 handerweight (2,184 tons).

1
The Spanish Armada off the English coast.

The disparity in the armament of ships is perfectly illustrated by the following examples. For example, the galleon San Martin was armed with 6 canons, 4 demi-canons, 6 stone throwers, 4 culverins, 12 half-culverins, 14 swivel cannons. Of this total, 32 cannons fired iron, cast iron or bronze cannonballs, and 18 fired stone cannonballs.

If you think that the British had more order, you are mistaken. For example, the famous Revenge (built in 1585) carried 2 demi-canons, 4 perrier canons, 10 culverins, 6 half-coulevrins, 10 sacre, 2 falcons, 2 port pisses (10-pounder guns), 4 fowlers, 6 basses. Here it is also necessary to separate the cannons that fired wrought iron cannonballs, cast iron cannonballs and stone throwers.

As for ships, at that time the galleon reigned supreme in the sea. The Spanish fleet of the Armada times can be quite conditionally (adding large naos here) divided into four types of galleons. These are Class I galleons, most often flagships or vice admiral's ships, displacing 1–000 tons, which carried 1 to 200 guns (the Armada had seven); class II galleons, displacing 30 to 50 tons, which carried 750 to 900 guns (30 units); Class III galleons, most of which were assigned to the Biscay and Castilian Armadas, had a displacement of 40 to 30 tons and carried 520 guns (540 units); and finally, class IV galleons, from 24 to 16 tons, which had from 250 to 400 guns (16 units).

Of all these galleons, only the flagship seven were built as warships, the rest were military merchant ships, with spacious holds and a hastily armed menagerie of guns of different calibers.

2
Model of the English "fast galleon" Revenge, 1577.

As for the British, during this period they developed the so-called “fast galleons”, that is, galleon-type vessels in which the forecastle and sterncastle were greatly reduced, and the length-to-width ratio was 3,5 to 1. “Fast galleons”, in rare cases with the exception, they had a displacement of 150 to 400 tons and carried from 20 to 40 guns.

Nevertheless, in 1588 both Spanish and English ships were still to some extent derivatives of medieval ships.

Dutch experience


In this regard, the Netherlands went its own way. Throughout the 40th century, sailors from Holland, who were mainly engaged in fishing, began to build a new type of vessel, which they borrowed from the Scandinavians and called “busse” (buche, busse). The ships were pot-bellied, small, with a displacement of 80 to XNUMX tons. But the epoch-making innovation in them were the sides heaped inside and a flat bottom.

It was this principle that was used in 1595, when a new type of merchant ship, the flute, was launched in Horn. The ship had a length to width ratio of 4 to 1, a pear-shaped cross-section, inward sides and an almost flat bottom. This ship was the first to have a steering wheel instead of a tiller. To control the steering wheel, the Dutch came up with a scheme of blocks and cables.

The flute usually carried straight sails on the foremast and mainmast and a forward sail on the mizzen. By the way, the length of the masts was increased, and a little later they began to place not two, but three tiers of sails on the masts for ease of control.

3
Model of a Dutch flute.

The ship turned out to be light, seaworthy, easy to operate; most often, both beads and flutes were built from pine or spruce.

The first flutes had a displacement of 80 to 150 tons, but the project turned out to be successful, and the tonnage began to be increased. Due to the absence of locks in the stern and bow, the center of gravity of the flute was located quite low, the ship turned out to be stable, and naturally, the Dutch thought about its military reincarnation. And soon 400- and 500-ton flutes appeared, armed with 40 or 50 guns.

Privateer frigates


During the Thirty Years' War, the Dunkirk corsairs discovered that galleons and flutes were difficult to operate in shallow waters, and they needed a new type of vessel.

No, at first they tried to make do with galleons and flutes, simply reducing them in size. So, in the 1640s, in the Flemish Armada, a galleon was a ship with 12 to 24 guns, three masts and a displacement of 150 to 300 tons. Slightly smaller ships began to be called “flybots”, in fact, these were flutes with a displacement of 80 to 120 tons, carrying the same 12–24 guns, but at the same time more maneuverable and speedy, due to the increased length (the ratio of length to width became 6 to 1) and three tiers of sails.

In 1634, the strongest galleon of the Flemish Armada had 48 guns and a crew of 300, and of the 21 royal ships at Dunkirk, 14 had only 24–26 guns for a crew of 130–150 men.

It is clear that such characteristics were limited by the depth of Dunkirk harbor. Dunkirk was unable to accept anything more powerful and deep-sea.

Therefore, another thought arose - what if we creatively developed and used the concept of galleys? Spanish masters had been building galleys almost since the 1630th century; they knew how to build them to perfection; moreover, Spanish generals were very fond of galleys. However, rowing was considered a shameful, slavish activity in Spain, and rowers were most often recruited from prisoners. Since by the XNUMXs the Dutch had learned to fight, there were few prisoners. After this, the Dunkirk privateers began, on the orders of Spinola, to capture English ships and send English sailors to the galleys (although England was a neutral power at that time):

“We will keep the English prisoners who cannot pay the ransom, and we will send the strongest to the galleys.”

But there weren’t enough of them either, so in the Flemish Armada they tried to switch to half-galleys, reducing the number of cans from 20–24 to 7–12. This type of rowing vessel was lighter, requiring only one person per oar, and most often the rowers on them were not criminals or prisoners, but civilian sailors.

4
Spanish galley of the 17th century.

From the half-galley, the pinnace was born - this is a small sailing and rowing ship with two masts, ten pairs of oars and carrying 10-12 guns, three in the bow, and the rest - light ones - located on the sides. The cannon deck was placed above the rowing row, and this protected the rowers from waves and wind.

It was the pinnace squadron that was commanded in Dunkirk in the 1630s by a certain Gaspard Bar, the uncle of the future famous French privateer Jean Bar.

Well, then the Flemings did the simplest thing. They connected the narrow, pointed profile of the pinnace, removing the oars from there, and installed square-rigged masts on the ship with three tiers of sails on the first two masts. In addition, the oars were also retained, only now the rowing deck was simply removed, and, if necessary, weights began to be inserted into the cannon ports. That is, the ship could either row or use cannons.

5
Blockade of Dunkirk by the Dutch fleet. Note the pear-shaped stern of the flutes.

The first Dunkirk frigate was built in 1626 by shipwright Jacques Folbier, called La Esperança, had a displacement of 32 tons and carried 6 small cannons. The ship turned out to be exceptionally fast and maneuverable and, of course, it soon began to increase in size, and by 1636 it had reached a displacement of 100–200 tons.

These Dunkirk frigates made a big splash off the Dutch coast, the Dutch wrote:

“Their banner is robbery, and their motto is robbery. They sail their frigates both under sail and with oars when necessity presses upon them. In calm weather they use oars with which they cut through the seas, while our ships cannot move due to calmness. And thus they flee from retribution.”

End


After the capture of Dunkirk in 1646 by the Duke of Enghien, Abraham Duquesne, future admiral of France and conqueror of de Ruyter, was ordered to visit Dunkirk with a commission of inspection. After inspecting the shipyards, he proposed maintaining shipbuilding in the city and starting to build Dunkirk frigates in even greater quantities. Cardinal Giulio Mazarin approved this idea.

On the other side of the English Channel, other events took place. In 1636, the British fell into the hands of a real Dunkirk frigate - Nicodemus (6 guns, 105 tons, length 73 feet, width 19 feet), as the British themselves described it - “the fastest ship in the world” (most absolute sailer in the world).

6
HMS Constant Warwick, 1645.

English craftsmen creatively reworked the project, greatly increased its size, installed heavy guns, and as a result, in 1645, the first real frigate was laid down - the 32-gun Constant Warwick. But this is completely different story.

References:
1. Patrick Villiers “Les corsaires du littoral: Dunkerque, Calais, Boulogne, de Philippe II à Louis XIV (1568–1713)” – Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 2000.
2. Colin Martin, Geoffrey Parker “The Spanish Armada” – Manchester Univ Pr., 2002.
3. EW Petrejus “La flûte hollandaise” – Lausanne, 1967.
4. Unger, Richard W. “Dutch Shipbuilding in the Golden Age” – History Today. Vol. 34, No. 1, 1981.
5. H. Malo “Les corsaires dunkerquois et Jean Bart”, volume I – Des origines à 1682. Paris, Mercure de France, 1913.
6. Dr Lemaire, “La frégate, navire dunkerquois” – Bulletin de l'Union Faulconnier, tome XXX, 1933.
7. La Roncière “Histoire de la marine française”, tome IV – Revue d'Histoire Moderne & Contemporaine Année, 1910.
14 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -6
    26 January 2024 07: 33
    It's a good thing to raise sons...
    Little is written about local history. So the Ukhrs and Kazakhs were and are offended by the big Euro history and politics - everything is past them.
    What about the types of trousers and pipes and the types of bows used by horsemen?
    Kowtow to the West.
    The history of Eurasia is not interesting. To whom? Kochi, etc. Expeditions through chronicles and fairy tales. After all, the distances from Moscow to Samarkand and to Beijing are comparable to Cadiz-Caribbean and Angola
    1. -1
      April 26 2024 12: 13
      “Beaver, exhale...” (c) What kind of stream of consciousness is this?
  2. +4
    26 January 2024 07: 49
    Thanks to the Author for an interesting article.

    I would like to state a couple of things related to the topic.

    The terms “canon” and “half-canon” seemed unusual to me; the terms “cannon” and “half-gun” are more familiar. Even in modern artillery, the term "cannon" is used to designate the type of gun (to distinguish, for example, howitzers and howitzer-guns), although half-gun and culverin are no longer used. That is, “cannon” is a completely official name for a certain type of artillery piece. “Canon” in English is just that, a cannon, although it is also used in a broader sense, often denoting a weapon in general, and sometimes not an artillery one.

    As far as I remember, the “barrel-shaped” shape of the flute is associated with the desire to reduce the area of ​​the upper deck, because it was for the area that port fees were often levied, and flutes, like galleons, were also used for trade.
    1. +4
      26 January 2024 22: 49
      Quote: S.Z.
      As far as I remember, the “barrel-shaped” shape of the flute is associated with the desire to reduce the area of ​​the upper deck, because it was for the area that port fees were often levied, and flutes, like galleons, were also used for trade.

      This is just an ancient story or, as they say now, an “urban legend.” In reality, by narrowing the width of the deck and superstructures, the builders tried to reduce the top weight of the ship, what is above the waterline and tends to capsize. For sailing ships of that time, a very significant factor, especially for flutes with their two topmasts and therefore higher masts.

      By the way, you can look at the French battleships of the early 20th century, or the Russian Borodino type. No one demanded duty from the battleships, but the decks were narrowed and the sides were more than noticeably littered. So the shipbuilders struggled with the enormous upper weight of the armor and main caliber turrets.
  3. +1
    26 January 2024 12: 22
    In 1636, the British fell into the hands of a real Dunkirk frigate - Nicodemus (6 guns, 105 tons, length 73 feet, width 19 feet), as the British themselves described it - “the fastest ship in the world” (most absolute sailer in the world).
    ...
    English masters creatively reworked the project, greatly increased its size, installed heavy guns, and as a result, in 1645, the first real frigate was laid down - the 32-gun Constant Warwick.

    The British themselves describe the process of the appearance of their first frigate in the classic six-volume Naval History of Great Britain somewhat differently. In the first volume, published in 1837, a whole chapter is devoted to the construction of the Constant Warwick, in which it is stated that the source of inspiration for the English shipbuilder Peter Pett was a French frigate he saw on the Thames.
    That it was the Nicodemus captured back in 1633 is highly doubtful, since after that the British captured French ships much closer in design to their Constant Warwick, as Naval History also points out.
    1. +3
      26 January 2024 13: 15
      I based myself on Winfield, who sees the Constant Warwick as a cross between a Dunkirk frigate and a cub.
      1. +1
        26 January 2024 13: 53
        Does Reef Winfield derive from the “French frigate” in general or from a specific frigate?
        1. 0
          26 January 2024 15: 48
          From the Dunkirk frigate on one side - the line of Swan (with unsuccessful copies of the British), Nicodemus (with his attempts at copies), then through Leopard and Swallow to Constant Warwick.
          The other side is weapons - definitely Lion Cubs, Lion Whelps
          1. +1
            26 January 2024 17: 37
            Lion Whelps

            Lyon's Whelps

            What about the English Providence (1637) and Expedition (1637)? And the French Expedition (1618)?
            1. 0
              26 January 2024 17: 50
              Regarding Expedition, it passed my attention, but Providence and the second Expedition - of course, the first attempts to combine the strength of the lion cubs and the speed of the Dunkirk frigates were not particularly successful, as far as I read
              1. +1
                26 January 2024 19: 18
                This is actually why I wrote this - it is not worthwhile to draw such “direct lines of origin of something from something” in evolution in general and shipbuilding in particular. Often the path is quite winding.
  4. 0
    26 January 2024 23: 10
    In general, I liked the article, for which I thank the author. smile

    Although, probably according to tradition, Sergei again confuses something with cannons and culverins.

    The truly naval cannons were the so-called “culverins”, the barrels of which were very long.. Thus, the Spanish culverin had a caliber of 20 Castilian pounds (1 Castilian pound - 460,093 grams), the barrel length was 4,65 meters.. English culverin had more modest characteristics - caliber 17 pounds, barrel length - 2,44 meters, ..

    It was customary to call very long cannons culverins. And if the Spanish culverins, 32 calibers long, certainly are, then the supposedly English culverins, 18 calibers long, are the most common and even shortened guns; a normal cannon was 21-23 calibers long.

    Flute, this is certainly one of the most successful projects of that time. The narrow and high stern setting did not interfere with the sails when a meter was passing, and at the same time worked like a fin, turning the ship with its bow towards the wind and waves in a storm, in case of loss of sails. The vessel turned out to be very seaworthy.
    1. +1
      27 January 2024 10: 19
      No. Judging by the Armada documents, the Spanish culverin is almost twice as long as the English one. The guns are on a separate line there
      1. 0
        27 January 2024 20: 01
        Quote: Sergey Makhov
        Judging by the Armada documents, the Spanish culverin is almost twice as long as the English one. The guns are on a separate line there.

        Here's another question. What you called an English culverin is definitely not a culverin. Did the British of that time even have culverins? The armies of other countries had stupid extra-long guns, and in theory the British probably had them too.