There are many questions that have yet to be satisfactorily answered about Dutch ships and captains during the First Anglo-Dutch War. I have been looking at my notes from the "Staet van Oorlogh te Water voor den Jaere 1654" that contributed largely to Vreugdenhil's part of Lists of Men of War. The first ship is the Amsterdam ship Achilles.  We know the dimensions, in Amsterdam feet and that the ship carried 30-40 guns. What we don't know is what role this ship played in the First Anglo-Dutch War. Apparently, she still existed in 1654, but was about to be discarded, as she was gone by 1655.

 

What we believe was the other Amsterdam ship named Achilles was noted in lists and accounts of the First Anglo-Dutch War. The "other" Achilles doesn't appear in Dr. Elias' book, Schetsen uit de Geschiedenis van ons Zeewezen, and hardly appears in The First Dutch War. I had wondered if the two ships might have been confused, but the ship that appears in The First Dutch War is clearly the other ship, which was the smaller of the two. Dirck Schey was her captain.

 

This is what was listed in the manuscript, which is not very useful.

 

Admiralty:             Amsterdam

Ship:                       Achilles

Date:                      

Captain:                

Guns:                     

Length:                  131 feet

Beam:                     29 feet

Hold:                      13 feet

Brass Guns:          

Iron Guns:            

 

These are some example last calculations. I have some snippets of Java and Smalltalk code that do these. I worked this out in early 2003, when I was studying this topic, after reading Ab Hoving's book about Witsen and his article in the book, The Heyday of Sail. Probably not many people know this, but the "patriarch" of the Dutch fleet in the First Anglo-Dutch War, the Noorderkwartier ship Eenhoorn, built in 1625, was measured at 200 lasts (measured is perhaps too strong a term). More likely, she was estimated to be 200 lasts. My 200 last example is for the Eenhoorn. All the dimensions are in Amsterdam feet of 283 mm and the notation is: Length x Beam x Depth in hold. The divisor is the "Last factor" that is chosen to make the "lasts" figure a round number that is plausible.

l2b = ratio of length to beam

l2d = ratio of length to depth (in hold)

116.0 x 26.5 x 11.5 / 235.6733333333    150 lasts

120.0 x 27.5 x 12.0 / 232.9411764706  170 lasts

122.0 x 28.0 x 12.5 / 237.2222222222   180 lasts

125.0 x 29.0 x 13.0 / 235.625  200.0 lasts

145.0 x 33.25 x 14.75 / 237.0447916667  300 lasts

134.0 x 31.0 x 13.5 / 233.6625  240 lasts

125.0 x  30.0 x 12.5/233.0  200 lasts

118.0 x 28.0 x 12.0/233.0    170 lasts

116 x 25 x 12.5 => const=242, l2b=4.64  l2d=1/9.28  150 lasts

112.0 x 25.5 x 11.5/233.0   140 lasts

109.0 x 25.0 x 11.0 / 233.0 130 lasts

103.0 x 24.0  x 10.5/233.0   110 lasts

100.0 x 23.0 x 10.0/233.0   100 lasts

80.0 x 18.0 x 8.0/233   50 lasts

This is a section of a paper that I started in 2000, about the Line of Battle.

Seventeenth Century

 

The Seventeenth Century features the transition from Elizabethan galleons to ships of the line, differing only in size from those that fought at the Battle of Trafalgar.  The ship of the line was invented by Charles I, when he commissioned the building of the 100-gun ship, the Sovereign of the Seas (later known as the Sovereign or Royal Sovereign).  Prior to the construction of the Sovereign, ships would be built with the heaviest guns in the chase, for end-on fighting, with lesser guns on the broadside.  The Sovereign, having her heaviest battery facing the sides, thereby asked to be fought in a line.  The evolution of English armaments was to increase the numbers and strength of the broadside, so that by the commencement of the First Anglo-Dutch War, at the Battle off Dover, ships would be fighting so as to be able to fire on the broadside.  From that point on, the English built increasingly more heavily armed ships, with both two and three tiers of heavy guns.  George Monck formally initiated the use of a single, line of battle at the Battle of the Gabbard. 

The experience of the First Anglo-Dutch War taught the Dutch the need for more powerful ships, able to stand against the larger English ships.  By the time of the Second Anglo-Dutch War, the Dutch had a fleet better equipped to fight, although still comprised of smaller, more lightly armed ships.  The war began with a debacle at Lowestoft, but the Dutch recovered.  They bested the divided English fleet at the Four Days Battle.  At the St. James Day Battle, they tried to fight the English, using the same single line, and were soundly defeated, although they only lost two ships to the one English.  The Dutch found that they still could not fight, yard arm-to-yard arm with the English.

At the beginning of the Third Anglo-Dutch War, the Dutch came close to pulling off a coup, when the caught the combined Anglo-French fleet at anchor in Southwold Bay.  Despite the loss of the Earl of Sandwich, and his ship, the Royal James, the English salvaged the battle, under the leadership of the Duke of York.  In subsquent battles, the Dutch fought, outnumbered, to save the country from invasion.  The Anglo-French fleet was not as well led, after the Duke of York was again removed from command.  In the succeeding battles, mostly fought off the shallows off Zeeland, the Dutch fought in squadrons, prevented invasion, and preserved their forces.  They mounted a maximum effort, and pulled together a fleet comparable to that of the Allies, and won the Battle of the Texel, which knocked England from the war.

The war continued, with the Dutch facing the French, alone.  The remaining battle were fought in the Caribbean and the Mediterranean.  After the death of Michiel De Ruyter, the Dutch naval effort came close to collapse.

When the next war came, the English and Dutch were united under William II and Mary II against the French and Louis XIV.  The War of the English Succession ended with James II in exile in France, bringing to an end, the Seventeenth Century.  The next round began the Eighteenth Century.

I would like to obtain information from the Zeeuws Archief, particularly about Director's ships during the First Anglo-Dutch War. I had an indication of what is there:

"At the Zeeuws Archief you can find information about 'director's ships' in the accounts in the archives of the Rekenkamer van Zeeland (Zeeland auditor's office) (Zeeuws Archief, Arch. Rekenkamer II, inv. nrs. 1179a en 1179b)."

Another ship from Ron van Maanen's list from 1658 was the Admiralty of the Maas ship (Rotterdam), the Wapen van Dordrecht, with 42 guns, and a crew of 130 sailors and 30 soldiers in 1658. The ship was built in 1655, had a length of 127ft-7inches (from stem to sternpost), and a beam inside the planking of  32ft-5in (=uitwatering). The hold was 13ft-3in. I have not seen this, previously, but we actually have draft measurements. The draft aft was 16ft-4in and forward was 14ft-5in. The  height  of the upper deck above the main deck was 7ft-4in. The Wapen van Dordrecht was last mentioned in 1665.

This is rather off-topic, but I thought it was a good illustration of the sort of material that I have, essentially in the form of notes, for English ships. The Ark Royal was a notable ship, having been Lord Howard's flagship during the Armada campaign. At the time I took these notes, I recorded the shot size, rather than the classic names. For example, a 5.25pdr is a saker. A 9-pdr is a demi-culverin. A 24-pdr is a cannon perrier.

1587

Ark Royal

-----

1587  Deptford DY  Peter Pett   (Oppenheim, p.121)

Rebuilt in 1602

-----

Galleon, 55 guns, 694t   (Colledge, p.38)

4-42pdr, 4-32pdr, 12-18pdr, 12-9pdr, 6-5.25pdr, 17 smaller guns

Deptford DY, 1587

Rebuilt in 1608 as Anne Royal

-----

Listed in 1588 as 800t, crew 425  (Archibald, p.329)

-----

1599

4-32pdr, 4-cannon (actually 24pdr), 12-18pdr, 12-9pdr,

     6-5.25pdr, 4-port pieces (7-port piece chambers), 

     2-fowlers (4-fowler chambers), 46 guns total  (Archibald, p.330)

-----

1603   (Oppenheim, p.157)

4-32pdr, 4-24pdr, 12-18pdr, 12-9pdr, 6-5.25pdr, 2-fowlers, 4-port pieces

-----

1602   (Oppenheim, p.124)

LK=100ft, B=37ft, D=15ft, Burden=555t, Tons and Tonnage=692t, crew=400

wt of armament=50t

-----

Listed in 1603 as 800t, crew 400  (Archibald, p.331)

-----

Listed in 1604 as 800t, crew 400  (Archibald, p.331)

-----

This is a typical listing for a Dutch captain in my notes that are part of what is now a 50-page Word document. There is good coverage for the First Anglo-Dutch War, and I have expanded somewhat beyond that, as this listing shows.

Hendrik Adriaenszoon

 

His ship was one of ten, from Amsterdam, lying ready to sail for the convoy to the East, as noted on July 26, 1652 [1DW1, p.388]

Sometime in early 1653, Hendrich Adriaenssen was captain of the Amsterdam ship, Sampson, which had 26 guns and a crew of 90 men.  The ship is listed as lying off of Amsterdam. The list had a notation that the ship "is lying in the Vlie, to prevent the Baltic and Greenland traders from sailing out; afterwards will act as convoy." [1DW4, p.310]

In 1659, Hendrik Adriaanszoon commanded the ship, Gelderland, which was part of the fleet commanded by De Ruyter, operating off Denmark.  The ship had a crew of 190 men and carried 40 guns. This was a ship belonging to the Amsterdam Admiralty. [Grove, p.xv]

In 1664, Hendrik Adriaanszoon commanded the Amsterdam Admiralty ship, Damiaten, which had a crew of 135 men and carried 32 guns.  He was part of De Ruyter's fleet that operated against English outposts. [Reis, p.23]

I believe that this is the ship that became the English Great Charity. There is some uncertainty, in that when comparing these dimensions with the reported English dimensions, as measured, there are some discrepancies. I am pretty sure that this is the ship, as the Great Charity was captured in 1653. We know that the Groote Liefde was one of the ships taken by the English at the Battle of Portland. The information that I have listed here is from a manuscript from the Dutch archives. We believe that "boven" is the height of the upperdeck above the main deck (and the hold).  I have seen the Van de Velde drawing of the Great Charity, but can't find where I saw it. If anyone knows the source, I would be greatful to know.

 8 November 1652   (Nationaal Archief  1.03.02 Inv. nr. 8)

Groote Liefde

 

Captain Bruijn van Seelst

Length:  132 feet

Beam:     29 feet

Hold:      13-1/2 feet

Boven:   6-1/2 feet

38 guns:  2-24pdr brass of the State, 18-12pdr, 14-6pdr, 4-3pdr

Crew:  114

Another source that Vreugdenhil just skimmed, lightly, is the "Staet van Oorlogh te Water voor den Jaere 1654" that includes a great deal of armament information. It also has some useful information about captains. Sadly, it lacks any useful crew size data, for some reason. Even the older lists, at least for Rotterdam, and to a certain extent, Amsterdam and the Noorderkwartier, have armaments, crews, and size in lasts for many ships. I have lists for 1628, 1629, 1631, and 1633, although I have barely looked at them (as they are not as high a priority as the First Anglo-Dutch War).

I was just looking over my document that is essentially a transcription from documents from the Nationaal Archief from 1652 and 1653. I may also have some information from Jan Glete's notes that Rick van Velden was not able to find. On the other hand, Rick found some documents that Jan Glete did not see, twenty years ago.

I am still seeking the right vehicle to publish this information, as it would fill a critical need. I am amazed at how much was omitted in Vreugdenhil's list from 1938. Of course, he also clearly saw some things that I have not seen. For example, there is obviously material from 1648 to 1652 that he has included from some source. The main problem is that he omitted a lot of interesting data, such as armaments, as his is just a summary list. My "directors" list has crew and armament, as well as the height of deck above the hold (boven).

Today, I received a letter from Jan Glete that has copies of paper written by Ron van Maanen, and passed on to Prof. Glete about 1991. The paper is titled "De Dutch in Danish Waters". Part 1 is called "The Dutch Fleet in 1658 and 1659". That is what I received.

There many nuggets in this paper. For example, the Cogge appears to have been a merchant ship that had been hired by the Danes in 1657, and returned to the Dutch before Christmas. There are also some dimensions actually measured, not just the designed measurements. This is just a sample. As much as possible, I have preserved Mr. van Maanen's words and spelling that are in this table:

Ship	Eendracht
Admiralty	Maas (Rottedam)
Built	1653
Length (Designed)	150 feet
Length (Measured)	152 feet
Length (keel as designed)	121 feet
Beam (uitwatering)	37 feet-4 inches
Beam	38 feet
Depth of hold (below overloop, after measurement)	14 feet-8 inches/ 15 feet-3 inches
Height verdeck	7 feet-9 inches
Guns	58-72
Crew in 1658	240 sailors and 75 soldiers

As I am working on building Dutch OOB's for the Gabbard and Scheveningen, I have been reading through the published sources. I believe that I missed one ship that was in De Ruyter's division within his squadron. I will try to format the information better, this time.

I am working on the Dutch orders of battle for the Gabbard and Scheveningen. I am posting what I have for the Gabbard, now. (Also, I have updated the Dutch warship losses for the First Anglo-Dutch War at AngloDutchWarsBlog.com)

I was reading Dr. Elias' book, Schetsen uit de Geschiedenis van ons Zeewezen, Vol.V, note 6 on page 59. This note mentions two lists of ships for the Admiralty of Rotterdam. One is dated 27 September 1652 and the other is dated 18 November 1652. Apparently, these discuss the armament that was carried by Witte de With's ship, the Prinses Louise. In September 1652, the Prinses Louise carried 36 guns. By November, it was over-armed with 46 guns! Tne note says that this was four guns fewer than was carried by the much larger Brederode. The actual reference is from an obsolete indexing system at the archive, but it says: "Hare Hoogh Mogende, van 27 Sept. en 18 Nov. 1652, L.A. (Lands Archief?) 5539 V. I have the list for 26 February 1652, and it is priceless. This should be of similar vallue.

I was searching for Pieter Floriszoon/Florissen (using Vivisimo.com) and found an interesting page. This is devoted to Jacob van Wassenaer Obdam, who was the son of Jacob van Wassenaer-Duivenvoorde (who had a ship named after him). The best part of this page is the good scan of the Van de Velde drawing of the Battle of Lowestoft. I have not posted such a thing because of concerns about intellectual property rights.

I would not treat this page as a source for detailed information, as what is quoted about the Battle of the Sound is not accurate. The images on the page, though, make this worth viewing.

I compiled this, while discussing the Dutch OOBs at the Battle of the Gabbard and Scheveningen. This is my best guess at the organization at Scheveningen:

Admiral:	Lt-Adm Tromp	Brederode, 58 guns (there is a picture that shows the additional guns on the forecastle) (R)
Vice-Adm:	Gideon de Wildt	Vrede, 44 guns (A)	--
Rear-Adm:	Abel Roelants	Prinses Louise, 36 guns (R)	(nicknamed "Vader Abel")
--	--	--	--
Admiral:	Jan Evertsen	Vlissingen, 40 guns (Z)	--
Vice-Adm:	Cornelis Evertsen de Oude	Wapen van Zeeland, 30 guns (Z)	--
Rear-Adm:	Adriaan Kempen	Amsterdam, 30 guns (Z)	--
--	--	--	--
Admiral:	Witte de With	Vrijheid, 44 guns (A)	(Abraham van der Hulst was captain)
Vice-Adm:	Jan Janszoon Lapper	Fazant, 32 guns (A)
Rear-Adm:	Jacob Kleijdijck	Prins te Paard, 38 guns (R-Dir or R)	--
--	--	--	--
Admiral:	Pieter Florissen	Monnikendam, 36 guns (NQ)	--
Vice-Adm:	Gillis Thyssen Campen	Groningen, 42 guns (A)	--
Rear-Adm:	Cornelis Taenman	Prins Maurits, 32 guns (NQ)	--
--	--	--	--
Admiral:	Michiel De Ruyter	Witte Lam, 40 guns (Vlissingen Directors)	--
Vice-Adm:	Markus Hartman	Gekroonde Liefde, 36 guns (Z)
Rear-Adm:	Frans Mangelaer	Liefde, 30 guns (Z)	--

I now have tentative OOB's for the Dutch for the Battle of the Gabbard and the Battle of Scheveningen. I also updated several other documents, in the process. I was amazed that I could do as well as I did for Scheveningen. The combination of Dr. Elias' book, Schetsen, and The First Dutch War really helped immensely. Of course, the Directors ship information along with the "Staet van Oorlogh te Water voor den Jaere 1654" were a big help, as well. It would not be as good as it is, if I had not had Jan Glete's help, over the last year or so.

Part of how this blog has progressed is that I have responded to inquiries. For example, the Dutch and English naval officer biographies were largely driven by questions from a reader in Russia, who was very knowledgable. I have information that seems not to be suitable for the Internet (simply because of size), that I would be willing to supply, upon request.

This information is from my unpublished paper about Dutch ships and captains. I probably will make this available, over time, as the whole document is too large, really, for the Internet. I'm sorry this is such a small piece. Dimensions are in Amsterdam feet, which are 283mm and divided into 11 inches per foot. That accounts for the odd fractions. My system for research orders the listing by captain, as that is particularly important for the First Anglo-Dutch War, where usually on captains are listed.

Ship:>/td>	Utrecht
Info. Date:	5/1672
Captain:	Fransçois van Aarssen
Guns:	36
Sailors:	118
Soldiers:	10
Admiralty:	Rotterdam
Built:	1661
Length:	115.64ft
Beam:	28.36ft
Hold:	11.45ft

Ship:>/td>	Oudkarspel
Info. Date:	8/1673
Captain:	Jan van Abkoude
Guns:	34
Sailors:	103
Soldiers:	18
Admiralty:	Amsterdam
Built:	1667
Length:	123ft
Beam:	30ft
Hold:	12.5ft

Ship:>/td>	Leiden
Info. Date:	7/1675
Captain:	Jan van Abkoude
Guns:	36
Sailors:	160 (soldiers and sailors)
Soldiers:	0
Admiralty:	Amsterdam
Built:	1668
Length:	?
Beam:	?
Hold:	?

Fractions and the corresponding Amsterdam inches:
0.91 = 10 inches
0.82 = 9 inches
0.73 = 8 inches
0.64 = 7 inches
0.55 = 6 inches
0.45 = 5 inches
0.36 = 4 inches
0.27 = 3 inches
0.18 = 2 inches
0.09 = 1 inches

A good site/page to know about is the VOC ship list on the VOC website. I wish that there was more detail about the actual ships. I found it odd that there are ships that are missing from the list, such as the David en Goliad, belonging to the Rotterdam Chamber of the VOC. I have a copy of a document from July 1653 that lists the ship.

For those with an interest, I have posted my list of Dutch warship losses in the First Anglo-Dutch War on AngloDutchWarsBlog.com. I would welcome comment on this list. I have my research sources for each one, so we could discuss them individually. I have had uncertainty about several ships. One is which ship was actually lost, when Sipke Fockes was killed and his ship captured at the Battle of Portland. The contemporary sources said it was the Groote Sint Lucas (28 guns) while based on some contemporary documents, I had thought that it was the Sint Maria (28 guns). The Sint Maria identification was brought into question, when I had found that a document from the Amsterdam Directors listed the Sint Maria, after the Battle of Portland, as needing repairs (I have probably beaten this topic to death, earlier).

I have the Dutch losses in the First Anglo-Dutch War posted at AngloDutchWarsBlog.com. I probably will further refine this list, over time, if I can find more information, but this reflects my best estimate. It is based on published sources, necessarily, although including the Hollandsche Mercurius from 1652 and 1653. The other contemporary sources are Gerard Brandt, Het Leven en Bedrijf van den Heere Michiel de Ruiter (1687) and Jodocus Hondiu, Onstelde-Zee, oft Zee-Daden. Voorgevallen tussen de Hoogh Mogende Heeren, De Heeren Staten Generaal der Vereende Neerlanden (1654). The other sources all depend upon primary sources, such as Johan E. Elias, Schetsen uit de geschiedenis van ons zeewezen, 6 volumes (1916-1930) and The First Dutch War, 6 volumes (1898-1930).

I am not sure how widely available this information is, so I am posting it, to correct that problem. As you may or may not know, the Dutch had a series of acts that funded ships, starting in 1648. After the Peace of Munster, forty ships were funded as cruisers. That is usually all that is credited, up until 1651. In 1651, 36 new cruisers were added to the fleet. I can only definitely name seven of the 36. They all belonged to the Admiralty of the Noorderkwartier:

Ship	Captain	Crew	Guns	Length	Beam	Hold
Alkmaar	Jan Warnaertszoon Capelman	95	28	?	?	?
Eendracht	Jacob de Boer	140	40	130 ft	32 ft	12 ft
Jonge Prins	Cornelis Barentszoon Slordt	115	28	120 ft	28 ft	11.5 ft
Monnikendam	Pieter Florissen	138	36	120 ft	28.5 ft	11 ft
Prinses Roijaal	Albert Corneliszoon 't Hoen	140	34	?	?	?
Stad van Medemblik	Pieter Schellinger	110	30	?	?	?
Wapen van Enkhuizen	Gerrit Femssen	110	34	120 ft	29 ft	11.75 ft

We actually know the armaments carried for some of these ships.

Ship	Guns
Eendracht	2-24pdr, 10-18pdr, 12-12pdr, 2-9pdr, 7-8pdr, 4-6pdr, 2-4pdr
Jonge Prins	2-24pdr, 10-12pdr, 8-8pdr, 2-5pdr, 4-4pdr, 2-2pdr
Monnikendam	8-18pdr, 10-12pdr, 2-10pdr, 10-6pdr, 6-4pdr, 2-3pdr

We can always wish to know more, but unless we can find the "Staet van Oorlogh te water voor den Jaere 1648", we are probably out of luck.

I just read something that seemed pretty bizarre. There was a claim that the Revenge was armed with "42 bronze guns. Twenty of these, heavy 20-30lb demi-cannon and slightly lighter culverins and demi-culverins, were housed on the lower deck. On the upper decks were more demi-culverins, 8-10lb sakers, and a variety of anti-personnel weapons, swivel-mounted breech-loaders, called fowlers or falcons." (The Revenge by John Barratt ). The only problem with this is that the Revenge could not carry such an armament. It was a 500 ton vessel. In the First Anglo-Dutch War, similar ships carried culverins on the lower tier.

Michael Oppenheim give the armament as follows: 2-demi-cannon, 4-cannon perrier, 10-culverins, 6-demi-culverins, 10-sakers, 2-falcons, 2-port pieces, 4-fowlers, and 6-bases. I am unclear as to the date of this list, however. I don't have all my sources instantly available to me, so I can't expand on this. I would be interested to hear some feedback on this topic.

Prof. Jan Glete provided me several documents showing Swedish ship armaments prior to the Battle of the Sound. These may have been augmented, prior to the battle. I thought it might be interesting to list the armament for the Kronan. An interesting feature of this document is that it lists guns by deck.

Lower Deck
Brass guns: 2-30pdr, 6-24pdr
Iron guns: 6-18pdr, 10-14pdr

Upper Deck:
Brass guns: 6-14pdr, 10-12pdr
Iron guns: 8-8pdr

Upperworks:
Brass guns: 14-6pdr, 2-3pdr

This document lists 6 ships: Kronan, Scepter, Oldenburgh, Dawidh, Engelen, and a name that I cannot decipher, but which looks like it could be Kååsen. The first letter is what is baffling me. Only two of the ships in the 4 Sept 1658 list took part in the battle: Kronan and Dawidh (David).

I was just looking to see if J.C. Mollema had any information about Laurens Degelcamp. He served the Admiralty of Friesland. In 1652, he commanded the Gelderland (24 guns). He missed the Battle of Plymouth, as another ship collided with his, and his ship lost its bowsprit.

He was present at the Battle of the Kentish Knock. After that, we lose sight of him, until 1654, when the "Staet van Oorlogh te water voor den Jaere 1654" lists him as commanding the Omlandia (30 guns). The Omlandia was a substantial ship, but old, having been built in 1628. I believe that the only active ship that was older was the Noorderkwartier ship, the Eenhoorn, which was built in 1625. The Omlandia's dimensions were: 122ft X 26.5ft X 13ft. Her armament, in 1654, was: 2-12pdr, 3-9pdr, 6-8pdr, 6-6pdr, 9-5pdr, 2-4pdr, and 2-3pdr. It was an odd assortment of ordnance.

Laurens Degelcamp was also at the Battle of the Sound, in 1658, where he commanded the Friesland ship, the Groningen (34 guns). Here dimensions were: 132ft x 31ft x 14.5ft. Her crew consisted of 100 sailors and 15 soldiers.

A friend called this new search engine to my attention, today. The link is vivisimo.com I was impressed that I was able to search into the archives for my blogs and find obscure information. This is a product of research at Carnegie Mellon University, and of a new company, as well. For example, I could search "Groote Vergulde Fortuijn" and vivisimo found the references in this blog.

I have been running many simulation runs for the battle that for which I have implemented scenarios. The main lesson is that the English 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Rates are so dominant, that the Dutch should have not had a chance, in the First Anglo-Dutch War. In particular, the 2nd Rates, with demi-cannons on the lower tier and a great burden (750-900-some tons), that the Dutch, largely equipped with 12pdrs, should not have been able to do much.

My tentative theory to explain this has changed. I used to think that the Dutch tactics of mutual support and concentration could explain the situation. I now believe that it was the lack of order and the leadership of Robert Blake may well be ther explanation. In particular, at the Battle of the Kentish Knock, the English should have been able to dominate, as they did later at the Gabbard and Scheveningen, but instead, the Dutch only lost two ships: one sunk and one captured.

I extracted my ship definitions for English and Dutch ships from Privateers Bounty. The English definitions are unique, in that they are my best estimates, based on my research of the last 14 years. Frank Fox believes that we may be able to find the real data in England, as there are piles of mid--17th Century documents that no one has seen since the 17th Century. No one has had the time or interest to examine them. The volume of documents is also an issue. The lack of a good index means that they will have to be examined, one-at-a-time, to find the bits of information that we crave.

I am going to relaunch www.anglodutchwarsblog.com so that I have a place for more pictures and other longer content not suitable for kentishknock.com.

On a web page that I think is generally quite good, I noticed and error. It says "With three ships sunk, two captured and the Triumph badly damaged, Blake finally retreated and sailed away to the safety of the Thames." This is on the English civil war website that I recommended on the Open Directory Project. The truth was that no English ships were sunk and just the Garland and Anthony Bonaventure were captured during the battle. After the battle, Bastiaan Centen captured the 36-gun vessel, the Hercules.

As you might be able to tell, I am currently consumed by learning about the Battle of Portland (the Three Days Battle). I thought it might be interesting to list my best estimates for the four Dutch flagships at the Battle of Portland. Sadly, this has some estimates and calculations, although it also includes the best information available from archival sources (Nationaal Archief in the Hague).

Note that the dimensions for the Brederode are calculated. Researchers such as Jan Glete and Ab Hoving have known for a long time that the usual dimensions for the Brederode are actually in Maas feet, not Amsterdam feet. Roughly, you can multiply a Maas foot by 12/11 to get the dimensions in Amsterdam feet. I only found this out about a year ago, when I got the "famous" 26 February 1652 Rotterdam Admiralty list.

Name	Brederode	Witte Lam	Hollandia	Monnikendam
Captain/Admiral	Tromp	De Ruyter	Jan Evertsen	Pieter Florissen
Admiralty	Rotterdam	Vlissingen Directors	Zeeland	Noorderkwartier
Guns	58	40	38	36
Crew	270	140	160	138
English Burden	654 tons	395 tons	379 tons	368 tons
Navigational draft	17ft	13ft	14ft	13ft
Length x Beam x Depth	144ft x 35ft x 14ft-8in	127ft x 27-1/4ft x 12.5ft	120ft x 29ft x 12.5ft	120ft x 28.5ft x 11ft
Gun list	4-36pdr, 12-24pdr, 8-18pdr, 20-12pdr, 10-6pdr, 4-4pdr	2-24pdr, 4-18pdr, 14-12pdr, 10-8pdr, 6-6pdr, 4-4pdr	4-4pdr, 16-12pdr, 12-8pdr, 6-4pdr	4-18pdr, 10-12pdr, 8-8pdr, 10-6pdr, 4-4pdr

I know a little bit more about the start to the Battle of Portland than I had previously understood. As I have said, this was another case where Blake was in a rush to engage the Dutch, and allowed himself and a few others to be confronted by great odds. The Dutch had the weather gauge, while the English were all down wind, some as far as four miles away. George Monck, with the less weatherly ships, were strung out to the Southeast. When Blake saw the Dutch approaching, the leading English ships, including the Triumph and others, formed a sort of hedgehog, and were able to keep the Dutch at bay, despite repeated assaults by Tromp and his seconds.

This gave time for the other English ships to beat their way upwind. While this was happening, several English ships were boarded and taken. Michiel De Ruyter had taken the 42-gun hired merchantman, the Proserperous of London, while the Dutch prize, the Oak and a 4th Rate frigate were taken, as well. The Dutch prize Sampson (26 guns) was sunk.

The assaulting Dutch ships were badly damaged. De Ruyter's flagship, the Witte Lam (40 guns) was dismasted and had to be towed for the remainder of the battle by Jan Duym's ship, the Zon. The Dutch also fired off a lot of ammunition, so that even by the end of the first day, some ships were running low. Their situation only deteriorated, as the battle progressed. They were only saved by what almost seems like Blake's loss of nerve at the end of the third day.

The Battle of Portland was an example of what had happened at the Kentish Knock and at Dungeness: Robert Blake rushed into battle with his fleet in great disorder. That resulted, in each case, with a situation where the Dutch were able to achieve a local superiority.

At the Kentish Knock, the result was that the Dutch losses were small (one ship blown up and one captured). When comparing paper strenghts, the Dutch should have been devastated. Instead, they escaped serious losses.

At Dungeness, the Dutch concentrated against the head of the English fleet. In this case, Blake was locally supported by the Garland and Anthony Bonaventure. Tromp, in the Brederode, was very hard pressed by them. If Jan Evertsen, in the Hollandia, had not rescued him, he could have even been captured. Despite this, Blake was largely unsupported, and his flagship took heavy damage. The rest of his fleet was scattered across a great space, in disarray, and a light air.

At Portland, the English fleet came into battle in disarray, as well. The Dutch had the weather gauge, and the English were spread out over at least four miles, to the leeward. George Monck's squadron was the most distant, to the South. Blake was very anxious, as always, to make contact with the Dutch. They accommodated him, and came close to taking the flagships. They were boarded, and only just managed to repel the Dutch. As it was, several ships were taken (but only temporarily).

In this case, the battle stretched out over three days, and the English superiority in size and broadside weight overcame the Dutch. The only reason the Dutch escaped was due to English timidity, which seems strange, given Blake's headlong attacks. On the evening of the third day, when the Dutch were approaching the French shoals, the English shied away, and let the Dutch escape.

I am going to push for a Battle of Portland scenario, based on my current understanding, for posting at kentishknock.com. My webmaster has the new organization in place that I had suggested. We will continue to flesh out this framework. My intent is to continue to make available information that has not been previously published, along with my analysis.

I ran some tests, late this afternoon, with my revised understanding of the Battle of the Kentish Knock, and found that if the battle were of short duration, the Dutch did quite well. If the battle became extended, and the English were able to close, the battle would decisively tip to the English. That may well be the explanation for the Dutch performing well at that battle. The English were so badly organized and led by Blake, that they were fortunate not to lose any ships.

I did not see that quite so dramatically for Portland, which I also tested. Part of the reason seems to be that it was too easy for Monck's squadron to come up, against the wind. I don't understand, yet, what the issue is (I have been testing with my favorite computer simulator for sailing naval warfare).

This afternoon, I read Peter Padfield's account of the Battle of Portland (Tide of Empires, Vol. 1), and then read Michael Baumber's account (General-at-Sea). There is no indication that the Dutch had fired off ammunition at shore batteries or castles in either of these books.

I'm sorry to say that Baumber's book has many factual mistakes about the various battles of the First Anglo-Dutch War. Unless I am able to do some "fact checking" and corroborate what he has written, I would hesitate to use what he says. I hope he is generally correct, but I need to read his book more closely, and do some cross-checking before I would be ready to affirm that estimate.

Another thing I noticed is that Peter Padfield's map, showing the squadron positions, differs radically from Dr. Ballhausen's map. Peter Padfield shows Monck's squadron to the Southeast, instead of the Northeast.