Maas feet again

I realized this morning that I have been estimating dimensions, all week, for Rotterdam ships without taking into account my theory about the size. I theorize that all Rotterdam sizes in lasts are based on calculations using Maas feet of 12 inches of 308mm. This is certainly true for ships from pages dating from 1642. My theory is that this applies to all Rotterdam ships from 1600 to 1652, not just 1642.

After a certain date, all Dutch ships were measured in Amsterdam feet of 11 inches and 283mm. The usual last calculations are based on measurements in Amsterdam feet. I always convert dimensions to Amsterdam feet, so we have a common basis for comparison.

Another question about 1665

Another question about 1665: there were ships named Hoorn and Eenhoorn in service in 1665 and which fought in the Battle of Lowestoft. There is every reason to think that the Eenhoorn built in 1625 had been discarded sometime after 1655. Still, a ships named Hoorn or Eenhoorn in 1665 had dimensions approximating the dimensions of the ship from 1625. The ship Hoorn, which served in the First Anglo-Dutch War, as well, was 120ft long and carried a main battery of 8pdr guns. The larger ship carried a mixed armament of varying from 12pdr down to 3 or 4pdr guns. No other ship with a similar name is mentioned from 1652 to 1655. I am tempted to think that it was the larger ship that was called Eenhoorn in 1665 and the smaller ship was called the Hoorn. The commander of the Hoorn was none other than the veteran of the First Anglo-Dutch War, Claes Cornelisz Hen (or Valehen). There is a gun list, pretty modest, for the Hoorn, while we lack a similar list for the Eenhoorn. If we had one, we might be better able to understand the situation in 1665. We also might be in better shape, analytically, if we knew about one or more other ships named Hoorn or Eenhoorn for the Admiralty of the Noorderkwartier.

The Dutch ship Monnik in 1658 and 1665

Vreugdenhil says that the smaller Monnik or Wapen van Monnikendam was the ship lost in the Baltic in 1659. The larger Monnikendam carried 32 guns in the Baltic, while the Wapen van Monnikendam carried 26 guns. However, there is a page in the Collectie Johan de Witt from 1665 that shows that the Monnik in 1665 was 116ft x 27ft. Another point is that the ship Monnik in service in 1665 had an extremely light armament. The larger ship Monnikendam carried 8-18pdr guns in 1652 to 1654. Knowledgeable people, however, swear that it was the smaller ship that was lost. From what is in Anderson's book, Naval Wars in the Baltic, the ship captured was the ship that carried 32 guns, so therefore, this was the 120ft long ship, not the smaller ship.