Anglo-Dutch Wars

Sorry for all the math, but it is unavoidable in this sort of analysis. Before the Restoration, the burden calculation used until the end of the age of sail was formulated. That formula was:

LK = length on the keel

LGD = length on the gundeck

B = Beam

D = Depth in hold

Burden in tons = LK x B x B/2 x 1/94

This is often simplified as:

Burden in tons = LK x B x B / 188

The "Beam/2" is a normalized depth, instead of using a true depth in hold, as had previously been the custom. The next step after that, was to use a calculated length of keel, based on the length on the gundeck and the beam:

LK = LGD - 2/5 x B

Now there were both a normalized length on the keel and a normalized depth. Only the length on the gundeck and the beam determined the burden. I believe that eventually, the real length of keel was used, after 1688.

To look at the history of calculations, we have some useful data. There is a list of ships from 1590-1591 that has dimensions and burden in tons. Let us use the famous Ark Royal as our example:

LK	100 ft
Beam	36 ft
Depth	15 ft
Burden	540 tons

So let us look at the burden calculation:

540 tons = 100 ft x 36 ft x 15 ft x 1/100

This calculation holds true for all the ships in the list.

Now, let us look at the Prince Royal, as built in 1610:

LK	115 ft
Beam	43.5 ft
Depth	18 ft
Burden	1200 tons

So let us look at the burden calculation:

1200 tons = 115 ft x 43.5 ft x 18 ft x 4/3 x 1/100 (rounded from 1200.6 tons)

The only variation for this formula formula was that the burden might be rounded to one or two digits, rather than giving an exact number (such as 700 tons or 650 tons). For example, the Constant Reformation was nominally 750 tons, but the actual product was 752.6 tons.

Given our knowledge of formulas, we can now estimate the dimensions of ships for which we only have burdens. For many of the hired or purchased ship from 1642 to 1660, we only know burdens. Let us estimate the dimensions for the English ship, the Cygnet, purchased in 1643.

233 tons = LK x B x D x 4/3 x 1/100

Using some factors from examples, we can estimate each of the dimensions:

LK = LGD x 0.8

B = LGD x 0.25

D = B x 0.4

For the Cygnet, that gives the following:

Burden = LK x B x D x 4/3 x 0.01 = (LGD x 0.8) x (LGD x 0.25) x (B x 0.4) x (4/3) x 0.01 =

Burden = (LGD x 0.8) x (LGD x 0.25) x ((LGD x 0.25) x 0.4) x (4/3) x 0.01 =

Burden = LGD x LGD x LGD x (0.8 x 0.25 x 0.25 x 0.4 x 1.333 x 0.01) =

Burden = LGD x LGD x LGD x 0.000267

This simplifies to:

LGD = (Burden / 0.000267)1/3

So for the Cygnet, the LGD = (239 / 0.000267)1/3 = 96.37ft or 96ft-4in (about)

The LK = LGD / 1.25 = 96.37 / 1.25 = 77.096ft = 77ft-1in (about)

The Beam = LGD / 4 = 96.37 / 4 = 24.09ft = 24ft-1in (about)

The Depth = Beam x 0.4 = 24.09 x 0.4 = 9.636ft = 9ft-8in (about)

So let's test the result: Burden = 77.096 x 24.09 x 9.636 x 4/3 x 1/100 = 238.6, which is finally right!

Anyway, that is my system for estimating. If you change the proportions, the factors change, but the system stays the same, for this earlier period. For the later period, we are reduced to looking at example ships, as the formula doesn't tell us what the real depth was. (I kept making the error of using the LGD in the last calculation, and couldn't figure out why it came out wrong. I just figured out what I had done)

I now suspect that after being wounded on the first day, and having his flagship heavily attacked, that Robert Blake was reluctant to press the fight to the Dutch. At the end of the first day, after having gone on the attack and having been repulsed, the Dutch went into defensive mode.

The Dutch formed a crescent around their convoy, and facing the English. As it was, English frigates picked off merchant ships. On the last day, two warships were also taken. The Dutch had been reduced to about 30 warships that still had ammunition. If the English had pressed an attack, they could have destroyed the remnants of the main Dutch fleet, and taken the convoy. Instead, at nightfall, the English let the Dutch escape. There was a threat of a storm and they were near the French coast. The English pilots were reluctant to enter the shallows, while the Dutch, with their shallow draft ships used the shallows to escape.

An 18th Century British admiral would never have accepted battle when he had such an inferior force as the English had at the Four Days Battle. Frank Fox's book, A Distant Storm: the Four Days Battle of 1666 provides the answer, as best as it is possible to know. George Monck, by then, the Duke of Albemarle, had decided before ever encountering the Dutch to give battle. He could easily have justified withdrawing, as he knew that reinforcements would soon be ready. The fleet was also reduced due to Prince Rupert being sent to intercept a suspected French raid on Ireland. Instead of withdrawing, Albemarle fought.

The clinching point was as the English came up on the Dutch fleet, they found that the Dutch were anchored. The English had caught the Dutch completely by surprise. Such opportunities seldom are presented. The English swept down on the anchored Dutch fleet. Cornelis Tromp was the first to recognize what had happened. The ships of his squadron cut their anchor cables and set sail, as quickly as possible. The last time I spoke with Frank Fox, he mentioned the Blue flag from the Fighting Instructions. Albemarle used it, in this instance, to mean "fall into line in my wake". After that, Albermarle suddenly ordered the "Bloody Flag" raised on the fore. At that signal, the English ships swept in for an attack. Then the battle started.

On page 355, Vol.I, of Jan Glete's book, Navies and Nations, in Note 10, he talks about a list of about 40 ships hired by the Directors in 1652 to 1653. As far as I can tell, there is no single list. Instead, there are many separate documents, from various dates, starting from early 1652 up until mid-1653 or so. The reference is: "Erste Afdeeling, Directies, Equipering Oorlogsschepen, Algemeen Rijksarchief, The Hague. Mr. Ron van Maanen had originally pointed out this archive to Jan Glete.

There are many other references to documents and letters in the archives in Dr. Johan E. Elias' 6-volume book, Schetsen uit de geschiedenis van ons zeewezen. Dr. Elias had thought that J.C. De Jonge had missed a great deal of material, when he compiled Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewezen, originally in the 1840's. Schetsen is filled with references to documents that Dr. Elias saw in the early 20th Century (at least from 1916 to 1930). Rick van Velden was able to find a few of them, but I would think that a large number remain unseen for the last 70 or 80 years. We really need to find them and make that information available. I am convinced that if we had the time and resources to do the research, we could fill in most gaps in our knowledge of Dutch ships during the First Anglo-Dutch War. I have already mentioned the Hendrick de Raedt pamphlet. That has the prospect of being very useful, if we could obtain a copy.

Teemu koivumäki has the best picture I have seen of the Sovereign of the Seas (1637).

If you are not familiar with his site, Sailing Warships: List of Sailing Warships from 17th. to 19th. Century, you need to be. There is no other source available, in print or on the Web, that has as much information in one place. He has had many contributors, including myself.

I contributed to the Dutch ship section, especially that for the Directors' ships during the First Anglo-Dutch War. Professor Jan Glete pointed out that there was information in the Nationaal Archief, in the Hague, for about 40 Directors' ships. Rick van Velden was able to find much of what Prof. Glete had seen about 20 years ago, as well as a few documents that Prof. Glete had not seen.

This is more information transcribed from the "Staet van Oorlogh te Water voor den Jaere 1654", from July 1654. Two interesting ships were the Eenhoorn (the patriarch, being the oldest Dutch warship) and the Eendracht. Both belonged to the Admiralty of the Noorderkwartier. I believe that the Eenhoorn dimensions may differ from that published by Vreugendhil. The Eenhoorn was a vessel of 200 lasts. Both ships were armed with an odd assortment of guns. They were whatever was available, apparently. During this period, the Dutch struggled to obtain sufficient guns.

Admiralty:	Noorderkwartier
Ship:	Eenhoorn
Date built:	1625
Captain:	Jan Janszoon Heck
Guns:	30
Length:	125 feet
Beam:	29 feet
Hold:	13 feet (estimated)
Iron Guns:	13-10pdr, 7-12pdr, 4-8pdr, 2-6pdr, 2-4pdr, and 2-3pdr

Admiralty:	Noorderkwartier
Ship:	Eendracht
Date built:	1639
Captain:	Jan Janszoon Heck
Guns:	41
Length:	130 feet
Beam:	32 feet
Hold:	12 feet
Brass Guns:	4-24pdr, 2-18pdr, 4-12pdr, 2-9pdr, 4-6pdr, and 2-4pdr
Iron Guns:	8-18pdr, 8-12pdr, and 7-8pdr

This is a very minor bit of information, but it still information that is not generally available. In particular, I have not seen the gun list in print, although the dimensions have been previously published.

Admiralty:	Noorder-Kwartier
Ship:	Casteel van Medemblick
Date built:	1640
Captain:	Captain Houttuijn
Guns:	28
Length:	120 feet
Beam:	27 feet
Hold:	11 feet
Brass Guns:	2-6pdr
Iron Guns:	10-12pdr, 8-8pdr, 6-4pdr, 2-3pdr

Frank Fox is the reigning expert about English ships from the 17th Century. I will try to paraphrase some of what he has said about English ships:

With respect to armaments, the official establishments can't be relied upon. They weren't followed for various reasons, often the availability of the needed guns. Real surveys are the only thing that can be trusted. Some of those were published in Adrian Caruana's book, History of English Sea Ordnance, 1523-1875, in the first volume. The guns used included the light-weight "drakes" and "cuts", for demi-culverins, sakers, and minions.

With respect to manning, both the English and the Dutch wanted to man the guns on both sides in the first two wars. They allocated fewer men per gun than in later times. The establishments in the first and second wars are minimums. If they could find them, supernumeraries were allocated. At Lowestoft, that was about 20 men per ship.

The English allocated 40 shot per gun, plus some special types for the medium and small guns. At the Four Days Battle, they actually carried 50 shot per gun.

With respect to ballast, very few ships carried iron ballast, due to the expense. For example, the galley-frigates carried iron ballast, as well as other ships "built for speed". The other ships usually carried coal or shingle ballast (the Dutch were reduced to using sand, which is very problematic, when it gets wet). Some examples of ballast carried are: the Royal Katherine, 145 tons; the Prince of 1670, 206 tons; and the Lennox of 1678, 325 tons. Frank says that the latter was required due to the increase in height of gunports above the water. Unballasted, the ships had a high center of gravity, which had to be compensated by increased ballast.

Tromp attacked Blake, and a group of ships with him that were protecting his ship, the Triumph. This was in the opening moves of the battle. At first light on the first day, Tromp could see two groups of ships to his South. due South, he could see a group of a dozen or so ships, with William Penn's flag on one. Two miles to the East, was another group of similar size, with John Lawson in command.

In between were a half dozen ships. One was the Triumph, with Robert Blake and Richard Deane jointly in command. The rest of the English fleet was 5 or 6 miles to the leeward. The wind was from the Northwest. The Dutch charged directly downwind. Jan Evertsen went for Lawson, Tromp went for Blake, Pieter Florissen tried to go into the gap between Blake and Penn. De Ruijter charged directly at Penn. Lawson intended to tack to the West and sail South of Blake. He intended to then tack back towards Blake and attack from the Southwest. Penn tacked back towards Blake, having been on a Westerly course, at the start.

As I said, De Ruijter charged into Penn's group of ships. They boarded the Assistance, the Prosperous, the Oak, and the Sampson was sunk. The Assistance was John Bourne's flagship. He was Rear-Admiral of the Blue. The Sampson was a Dutch prize (the Sampson van Hoorn, captured while on fishery protection duties in July 1652, off the East coast. The Oak was also a Dutch prize (evidently an Akerboom, perhaps merchant).

Unfortunately for De Ruijter and the Dutch, John Lawson now arrived and recaptured the Assistance, Prosperous, and Oak. They also broke through the circle of Dutch ships around Blake, and broke the Dutch attack.

This first encounter happened right South of Portland Bill. Blake had started his voyage from Beachy Head, and tacked down the Channel, mostly against the wind. By the morning of the first day, the wind had shifted to the Northwest.

As darkness fell on the first day, the Dutch withdrew to the North, to cover their convoy from attacks by Monck's frigates. In the course of the first day's battle, Jan Evertsen's squadron had suffered dearly. He lost 8 ships. Four were sunk: the ship of Captain Cleydyck (Kleijdijck) (30 guns); the Kroon Imperiaal (34 guns), the ship of Cornelis Janszoon Poort; the Engel Gabriel (36 guns), the ship of Isaak Sweers; the Arche Troijane (28 guns), the ship of Abraham van Campen, and probably Sipke Fockes' ship, which was apparently called the Groote Sint Lucas (28 guns).

Schelte Wichelma's ship, the Frisia, blew up. Almost all of the ships that blew up in the Anglo-Dutch wars were probably caused by in sufficient care when handling gun powder. Another possible cause is that a ship can catch fire, and blow up. Apparently, it was possible to have a lot of powder dust in the air, that could be explosive, if there was a spark. It is almost impossible for a hit by a single shot to cause a ship to explode (like the battlecruisers at Jutland or the Hood in 1941).

Three more were captured: the Wapen van Holland (30 guns), commanded by Hendrick de Munnich; the East Indiaman, the Vogelstruis (40 guns), commanded by Cornelis Adriaanszoon Cruijck; and Cornelis Loncke's ship, the Faam (30 guns).

That was all by the end of the first day.

At the end of the third day, there were about 35 Dutch ships protecting the convoy, fighting to keep the marauding English frigates away. Two Dutch warships were lost on that last day: the Vergulde Haan (36 guns) and the Groote Liefde (38 guns).

On February 26, 1652, the Schiedam was in service with the Rotterdam Admiralty. The Schiedam was commanded by Marinus Juynbol. At this time, she carried 26 guns. The dimensions were the same as the Gorcum: 116ft x 27ft x 11ft. On this date, she was engaged in convoying merchant ships to Rouen. I have not seen any further references to the Schiedam after this date. The only published reference I have seen to the Schiedam is in a note on page 81 of Volume VI of Schetsen uit de Geschiedenis van ons Zeewezen. This is another one of those mysteries which we probably will never solve, although we could be surprised.

I have been reading the Onstelde-Zee (1654) pages about the Battle of Portland (with some difficulty). Now, I have open my copy of Schetsen uit de Geschiedenis van ons Zeewezen. I am looking at the Dutch ship losses and captains killed.

Rotterdam captains killed:

Corstiaen Corstiaenszoon, Prins te Paard (38 guns)

Quirijn van den Kerckhoff, Maria (26 guns)

Hendrick de Munnick, Wapen van Holland (30 guns)(burnt)

Amsterdam captains killed:

Augustijn Balck, Vrijheid (44 guns)

Joris van der Zaan, Campen (42 guns)

Cornelis Janszoon Poort, Kroon Imperiaal (34 guns), Director's ship (sunk)

Jacob Sijvertszoon Spanheijm, Elias (34 guns), Director's ship

Sipke Fockes, Groote Sint Lucas (28 guns), Director's ship (captured)

Dirck Schey, Achilles (28 guns)

Abraham van Campen, Arche Troijane (28 guns), Director's ship (sunk)

Noorderkwartier captain killed:

Pieter Aldertszoon, Burcht (24 guns)

Zeeland captains killed:

Joost Banckert, Liefde (26 guns)

Johannes Regermorter

, a ship (30 guns), a Middelburg Directors ship

Johannes Michelszoon, a fast storeship

East India Company captain killed:

Cornelis Adriaanszoon Cruijck, Vogelstruis (44 guns) (captured)

In addition to this list, which is from Jan Evertsen's journal, we know that the Friesland ship, Frisia, commanded by Schelte Wichelma, blew up, and he was almost certainly killed.

In early 1652, Lambert Pieterszoon commanded the Amsterdam Director's ship, the Nassouw van den Burgh. I have seen his ship called the Hector, although not in the documents that I have from the Nationaal Archief, in the Hague. The first dated document that I have seen showed her in service on 12 March 1652.

The Nassouw was a substantial ship with dimensions 130ft x 32ft x 12ft with a height between the main deck and the upper deck of 7ft. Her armament was quite mixed, being 4-24pdr, 14-12pdr, 10-8pdr, 4-6pdr, and 2-3pdr.

We know that Lambert Pieterszoon joined Witte de With's fleet on 29 September 1652, as part of a group of seven ships. On 10 October, it was reported to Witte de With that Captain Pieterszoon had sailed to the Texel, without orders. Later, on 2 December 1652, he was in Maarten Tromp's squadron, prior to the Battle of Dungeness. Interestingly enough, there is a mention that Lambert Pieterszoon's ship was in company with Jan Evertsen, in a group of 8 ships that had been scattered by a storm. My question is what happened to Lambert Pieterszoon? Was he killed at Dungeness, or what happened to him? We find no further mention of him, after that last date.

I am working on filling in more of the March 1653 list that is outlined in Vol.I of Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewezen. I have the Rotterdam Admiralty section filled in pretty completely, and have started on the Amsterdam Admiralty and Director's ships. My reaction is to wonder if there is a place in the list for the ships in the Mediterranean. The list was made right around the time of the Battle of Livorno (14 March 1653, New Style).

I am making good use of my list that I compiled to aid me in building scenarios for First Anglo-Dutch Wars battles. That list is ordered by captain's last name, and lists ships every time there is a new captain. That is because that most published lists for the Dutch only list captains and not ship names.

Apparently, I have learned enough in the last five months to be able to finally come close to filling out the March 1653 list from Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewezen. What I just posted for Rotterdam is just part of that list. The list shows the state of the Dutch navy just after the Battle of Portland and prior to the Battle of the Gabbard.

This is an attempt to understand the March 1653 list published by J. C. de Jonge, in the appendix to Volume I of Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewezen. We must assume that this list was compiled after the Battle of Portland. The reason that we might believe this is because at the time this list was compiled, 8 Directors' ships had been sunk or captured.  We might be sceptical of de Jonge's list, but there is no other comprehensive listing, so the list needs to be examined. The main problem is that there doesn't seem to be "room" in the list for all the ships we know about.

 

 

Admiralty of the Maas (Rotterdam)

 

 

State's ship	Hired ship	Ship Name	Guns	Sailors	Soldiers
x		Brederode	54	200	50	Lt. Adm. Tromp
x		Gelderland	40	110	30	Michiel Franszoon van den Bergh
x		Prinses Louise	36	124	46	Abel Roelants
x		Dolphijn	32	95	30	Paulus van den Kerckhoff
x		Gorcum	30	95	30	Willem Adriaanszoon Warmont
x		Rotterdam	30	80	20	Jan Aertszoon Verhaeff
x		Gulden Beer	24	80	20	Jan de Haes
x		Utrecht	22	80	20	Leendert Haexwant
x		Overijssel	22	80	20	Dirck Vijch
x		Brander		14
x		Brander		14
x		Adviesjacht	6	15
	x	Hollandia	26	80	20	Ernest Adriaanszoon de Bertrij
	x	Roskam	26	80	20	Corstiaen Eldertszoon
	x	Maria	26	80	20	(Quirijn van den Kerckhoff killed at Portland)

 

Rotterdam Admiralty Losses to Date

 

 

State's ship	Hired ship	Ship Name	Guns	Sailors	Soldiers	Captain	Where Lost
x		Prinses Roijaal Marie	36				Taken in an English port on the outbreak of the war
x		Wapen van Holland	26			Hendrick de Munnich
x			26
x		Gelderland	30	131		Dirck Juynbol	Burnt at the Battle of Dungeness
x			26
x		Nijmegen	26			Paulus van den Kerckhoff	Sunk while returning from Brazil in June 1652

This ship was mentioned in Jan Glete's notes, although I do not have a copy of the document from the archives. This analysis is based on what seemed like the most likely identification. I had really hoped to find the original of this and several other documents, so that I could read for myself what was there. Sadly, Rick van Velden, at the Nationaal Archief, did not find pages.

 

St. Jeronimus

Length                   Beam                      Depth in Hold              [Directors]

116 feet                  28 feet                    11 feet

 

This was a Medemblik Directors' ship commanded by Jan Pieterszoon Renaren [1DW1, p.263]. As this was the only Medemblik Director's ship, at the beginning of the war, the St. Jeronimus seems to have been Captain Renaren's ship.  In mid-1652, the ship carried 30 guns and had a crew of 110 men [1DW1, p.263].  Captain Renaren's ship joined Witte de With's fleet, prior to the Battle of the Kentish Knock [1DW2, p.351]. The ship was paid off in November 1652.  The ship's crew mutinied and would not go to sea, again, in a ship they said was in such disrepair [Schetsen IV, p.27].  Tromp had the ship towed into port to be paid off [1DW3, p.47]. 

 

Sources

 

[Directors]  Jan Glete's notes about a document that he describes in his book, Navies and Nations, in note 10 on page 355, in Volume I.  We don't have the actual inventory number, but this in an archive that he does list: 

Eerste Afdeling, Directies, Oorlogschepen, Algemeen Rijksarchief, The Hague.

 

 

[Schetsen]  Elias, Johan E., Schetsen uit de Geschiedenis van ons Zeewezen, 6-vols., Martinus Nijhoff,

                's-Gravenhage, 1916-1930.

[1DW1] Ed. Gardiner, Dr. S.R., First Dutch War, Vol.I, Navy Records Society, London, 1898.

 

[1DW2] Ed. Gardiner, Dr. S.R., First Dutch War, Vol.II, Navy Records Society, London, 1899.

 

[1DW3] Ed. Gardiner, Dr. S.R., and Atkinson, C.T., First Dutch War, Vol.III, Navy Records Society,

                London, 1905.

 

 

I had the occasion to look in Vol.II of Schetsen uit de Geschiedenis van ons Zeewezen. I keep seeing sources referenced there, in footnotes, that I really would like find. For example, in notes on page 130:

Andries Soury, deputy of their High Majesties, in the Vlie and their High Majesties, Rotterdam, 17 Sept. 1652, list of ships come from the Shetlands

Tromp to their High Majesties, 20 Sept. 1652 with a list

List of ships of the Admiralty of Amsterdam, 20 Sept. 1652

List of ships of the Admiralty of Friesland, 13 Nov. 1652

Miss. Dagv. Amsterdam, 18 August 1652. It also says "Het zijn, zooals uit deze opgaven blijkt, vooral de--slecht toegeruste--directieschepen (waarvan er 9 verongelukten) en de grootendeels geheel onzeewaardige branders, die 't het zwaarst te verantwoorden hebben gehad."

# posted by Jim : 7:20 PM  

Many of the ship names used in the 1660's and 1670's were actually used much earlier. This ship, the Deventer, was at the Battle of the Downs, when Tromp defeated the last Spanish armada, in English waters.

 

Deventer

28 guns 

crew 110               

in 1639, commanded by Robbert Post

[Armada, p.67]

 

About 1636, commanded by Jacob Brouwer.  [List 1630's]

 

250 lasts.  32 guns. Crew 120: 100 sailors and 20 soldiers. From 1636 to June 1637,

commanded by Jacob Brouwer. From June 1637, commanded by Govert Gerritsz. Voorens.

Amsterdam Admiralty [Jaren, pp.154-155]

 

Sources

 

[Armada]                De Boer, Dr. M.G., Tromp en de Armada van 1639, Amsterdam, 1941.

 

[Jaren]                    Graefe, Dr. F.,     De Kapitensjaren van Maerten Harpertszoon Tromp,

                                                Amsterdam, 1938.

 

[List 1630's] 1.01.06 Inv. No. 5516 Ship List (Fragment) Undated but from 1630's

The Heemskerck was built in 1638, the same year as the small ships, the Utrecht, and Overijssel, both carrying 22 guns. The latter two ships are usually credited with having dimensions of 100ft x 23ft x 8ft. As I have written elsewhere, these ships were actually larger, when measured in Amsterdam feet. The published dimensions were in Maas feet, which were divided into 12 inches. Amsterdam feet were 283mm and divided into 11 inches. I believe Maas feet to be 308.7mm, which is roughly equivalent to multiplying 208 x 12/11.

My note about the Utrecht and Overijssel is at Kentishknock.com. In any case, the Heemskerck was very similar in size to these two ships. Possibly, they were all the same dimensions, and the dimensions in Maas feet don't quite equate to the dimensions in Amsterdam feet. I theorize that might be the case. The Utrecht and Overijssel were probably about 100 lasts, as well.

One other point that I wanted to make about the Heemskerck is that I saw a note saying that the Heemskerck was 60 lasts or 120 tons. I will explain why that does not seem reasonable. That well may be the stated size, but that does not match what I would calculate.

Lasts are a problematic measure, as I have written here and elsewhere. The formula is:

Lasts = Length x Beam x Hold / K

The main problem is that K is not fixed for all ships. The "patriarch" of the Dutch navy in the First Anglo-Dutch War was the Noorderkwartier ship, the Eenhoorn, built in 1625. The Eenhoorn was usually said to be measured at 200 lasts. Her dimensions were: 125ft x 29ft x 13ft (the hold is an estimate). That means that K, in this case, would be K=235.625.

The calculation for the Heemskerck would be: Lasts = 106 x 24 x 9 / K. If lasts were 100 then K would be 228.96, which is not unreasonable. If the the lasts were only 60, then the calculation would be 60 = 106 x 24 x 9 / K, where K=381.6, which is out of range. Ab Hoving, in his book about Nicolaes Witsen, has a table that lists dimensions, lasts, and the "factor" (what I am calling K). He gives the contemporary measurement for lasts, which is often just an estimation, not based on actual measurements. The range that he gives for K is from 178 to 350.

Why I believe that my estimate for K and the lasts is reasonable, is that there are examples that are very similar. The Zilver Ster (of 1601) had dimensions: 104ft x 25ft x 10ft, and measured 130 lasts. That would require a K=200.

As I have been looking at jachts, it is worth looking at a good example of a moderate-sized, three-masted jacht, the Heemskerck. This was the ship in which Abel Tasman did his exploration. He was accompanied by a fluit, the Zeehaan.

The Heemskerck was built in 1638, with dimensions: 106ft x 24ft x 9ft (Amsterdam feet). Without being able to consult Ab Hoving's book, I would guess the armament to have been 14-18 guns.

Artitec, the fine model makers have a picture of their Heemskerck model:

Their VOC site can be found at VOC.Artitec.nl: 400 Jaar VOC 1602-2002

I know that 106-foot jachts were ship-rigged. The Heemskerck is an example. I also suspect that those that were in the 89-96foot range (I believe) were ship-rigged. How were the 70-foot jachts rigged? I had long assumed that they might be hoeker-rigged, or something like that. I recently thought that they might still be ships, possibly without topgallants.

It is very rare to see a complete listing of the crew of a Dutch ship. Normally, marines were lumped together with sailors, with land soldiers listed separately. An exception is the listing for the Zeeland frigate Delft, at the Four Days Battle. At that battle, the Delft carried 167 men. There were 102 sailors, 20 marines, and 45 land soldiers.

At the time of the Four Days Battle, the Delft was a fairly new ship, having been built in 1664. Here dimensions were: 116 x 28-1/2 x 11-1/2 (Amsterdam feet). She carried 36 guns: 2-brass 12pdr, 14-12pdr, 4-brass 6pdr, 8-6pdr, 6-4pdr and 2 smaller.

She was commanded by captain Dirk Jobsz. Kiela for the battle.

This information is all from H.A. van Foreest and R.E.J. Weber, De Vierdaagse Zeeslag 11-14 Juni 1666.

I can see at least two different Dutch ship types. Larger ships, especially from prior to 1665, have more rake, similar to English ships. Small frigates seem to have more of a "vertical stem". That is, there is much less rake. This difference in rakes can be seen when looking at the relationship between English length on keel and the Dutch length from stem-to-sternpost. For ships, like the Huis te Zwieten, the ratio between the Dutch and English lengths is about 1.33 (146/110). For the Delft frigate, the ratio is only 1.18 ((111-3/ 11)/94). Many of the large, captured VOC ships have the larger ratio. For the few cases where there was a small ship with greater rake, the burden was radically lower (such as the St. Paulus). That was why the English eventually used the LGD (length on the gundeck) and used a normalized keel length, instead of a real keel length. An earlier move along these lines had been to use the normalized depth (Beam/2) rather than the measured depth, for burden calculations.

Dr. Weber's book is exteremely useful to my research about 17th Century Dutch warships. For many of the Dutch prizes used by the English at the Four Days Battle, there are both the Dutch and the English dimensions. For that matter, he also has dimensions for almost all of the Dutch ships, as well. They are all in Amsterdam feet, so they resolve some of the lingering problems caused by Vreugdenhil's publication in Lists of Men of War.

Anyway, what this book points out is that something Frank Fox has told me, as well. The Dutch ships have very upright stems, while the English generally have a good deal of rake. Given that, I will need to give up and create a separate entry type for Dutch prizes, with different calculations, in my English ship spreadsheet.

A case in point is the Zealand (ex-Wapen van Zeeland). The Dutch dimensions were: 116ft x 28ft x 11-1/2ft. The English dimensions were: LK: 93ft, B: 28ft-6in, D: 9ft (LK=length of keel, B=beam outside the planking, and D=depth in hold measured English style). The ratio between the Dutch length from stem-to-sternpost to the English length on the keel is about 1.28. To put that into perspective, the Dutch length, in English units is 107ft-7.5in. Thus, the ratio between the length from stem-to-sternpost to the keel length is about 1.157:1. That means that there is a very small rake.

I have my spreadsheet that has calculations for all the Dutch ships in the First Anglo-Dutch War, as well as those that participated in the Battle of the Sound, in 1658. I just started a comparable spreadsheet for the English, based on the Dutch spreadsheet. There are differences, of course, as my English spreadsheet has only the English gun types, plus those captured Dutch gun types as they used (12pdr, 8pdr, 6pdr, and 3pdr). For the English, I want to enter length of keel, beam outside the planking, and depth in hold, rather than length from stem to stern, beam inside the planking, and the Dutch hold measurement.

A big issue is that for one of the standard Dutch ship charters (116ft x 27ft x 11ft), my English burden calculation seems too large (326t). My new calculation (289t) seems much more plausible. The Anthony Bonaventure (36 guns) served in both navies, and my Dutch figures are suspect, as well.

Even though it was not the policy, the Dutch were waiting for the English to close, running in a rough line, sailing close-hauled. They tacked as they neared the Kentish Knock, so the Dutch and English were sailing on opposite tacks, at the start of the battle. This was when the James (66 guns) and the Sovereign (90 guns) ran aground. Fortunately, they were able to get off, and then tacked to sail to the southeast.

The English were caught in a bad situation, as Witte de With concentrated against Blake, and the few ships with him. The majority of the Dutch fleet, including De Ruyter's squadron, concentrated against Bourne's squadron. Captain Badiley, brother of the Mediterranean commander, got in trouble, and was only rescued when the Speaker and her companions broke through the surrounding Dutch ships.

Then the tide turned against the Dutch, and they retreated after have Jan Noblet's ship, the Burgh van Alkmaar (24 guns) sunk and Claes Sael's ship, the Maria (30 guns) captured. The great East Indiaman, the three-year old Prins Willem first lost her mainmast, and then foremast. Witte de With moved back to his regular flagship, the Prinses Louise.

Witte de With had wanted to renew the battle the next day, but the council of war was opposed, so they headed home. Michiel De Ruyter was opposed, and that was that. This was the beginning, in the First Anglo-Dutch War of the relationship between Witte de With and Michiel De Ruyter. At Dungeness, when Witte de With went ashore, too ill for sea, Michiel De Ruyter commanded De With's squadron.

I am starting to get a better picture of the start of the Battle of Portland. The Dutch approached from the northwest. Apparently, west to east, the Dutch were De Ruyter, Florissen, Tromp, and Jan Evertsen, and their squadrons. Directly south of Tromp was Lawson with about a dozen ships. To the immediate west of Lawson was Blake and Deane, along with about a half-dozen ships. To the west of them was Penn and another dozen ships. Altogether, there were only 30 English ships, at the point of collision. The rest, including Monck and his squadron, were to the leeward.

Tromp headed for Blake, but was repulsed by a circle of ships protecting Blake, in the Triumph. During the fight, however, Blake was wounded by a bar shot. He never healed between and when he died in 1657.

Penn was in bigger trouble. De Ruyter's squadron sank the Dutch prize, the Sampson (26 guns) and took the Prosperous, Assistance, and Oak. De Ruyter had personally taken the Prosperous (42 guns).

Penn was rescued by the arrival of Lawson. Jan Evertsen had taken his squadron against Lawson, and was decimated. When Lawson arrived, he broke the Dutch attack on Blake and retook Penn's ships that had been captured.

The Dutch were forced to retreat to protect their merchant convoy from Lawson's frigates. That ended the first day of the Battle of Portland.

The Dutch had started in a very favorable position, and had actually taken one flagship, the Assistance, that of John Bourne, Rear-Admiral of the Blue. Penn and the Generals were hard pressed, and with a little luck, the Dutch could have taken them, as well, as the Dutch had about 80 warships to the 30 English ships, as first contact.

There is this book by Jodocus Hondius, Onstelde-Zee, Oft Zee-Daden, published in Amsterdam in 1654. The book has many mistakes of fact, but it still is quite "interesting", since it is one of the few contemporary accounts of the First Ango-Dutch War. On page 82, two ships are mentioned: 1) Meerman, with 4 brass and 24 iron guns , and 2) Leeuwen, 4 brass and 28 iron guns. We might have some reason to doubt the numbers, because immediately before this, he mentions the Prins Willem, and says she has 4 brass and 30 iron guns. I would guess that this was the Admiralty of Amsterdam ship, that we usually list as having 28 guns. On page 83, Hondius mentions that ship, the Poort van Trojen. I wonder if this is a new ship name, or simply another name for the Amsterdam Director's ship, the Arche Troijane (28 guns). I suspect it is a new ship name, although my reading of this book is so poor, I have trouble telling the context in which it is mentioned. I think that Arche Troijane (captain Abraham van Campen) was sunk on the first day, so this must be a new ship. Hondius also mentions the Burgh (or Burcht), which I believe to be a Rotterdam Director's ship.

Perhaps as long as twenty years ago, Jan Glete found several very interesting documents in France. They contained intelligence information about Dutch ships in the 1670's. The transcription and partial analysis of these is available on KentishKnock.com. The sources are:

1. Jan Glete's notes from Melanges de Colbert 84, fol. 533-538, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris: "the list prepared by the marquis de Seignelay (Colbert's son) during his visit to the Netherlands in 1671" ) as noted on p.334, note 23, from Jan Glete's book, Navies and Nations: Warships, Navies and State Building in Europe and America, 1500-1860, Vol. One, Stockholm, 1993. This document actually contains two lists, as some ships are duplicated between two parts.

2. Undated list, from copies supplied by Jan Glete, from around 1676, from the Archives Nationales, Paris, Marine B7 477, starting with folio 5.

The latter is probably from about 1676. Prof. Glete kindly supplied me with a copy of his notes and the manuscript pages. The pages are significant, because they have ship data that is not available from surviving Dutch sources. We are greatly the worse for the loss of information from the fire at the Netherlands Ministry of Marine in 1844. There is some of that information published in J.C. De Jonge's Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewezen, 5 Vols., Haarlem, 1858-1862. This was the second edition. The first edition had been compiled prior to the fire.

OK, so he actually co-authored the book. The primary authors were H.A. Van Foreest and R.E.J. Weber. Frank Fox was a consultant to Dr. Weber, and helped him resolve some issues with English ships. Why the book is so useful for me, are the Dutch and English ship lists for the Four Days Battle. Frank Fox has very good summary lists, but the lists in this book include much more detail than Frank could fit into his book on the Four Days Battle. the archival sources mentioned should be very helpful, if they can be found.

I put the statement that way, because just because someone found something in the archives 20 years ago does not mean it can be found today (sadly). I say that from experience with having someone else look for manuscripts for me in the archives.

An example of what can be found in the book is the listing for the Amsterdam frigate, the Asperen. The Asperen was built in 1656 at Amsterdam. Her dimensions were: 117ft x 29ft x 11ft. She carried 34 guns, at the Four Days Battle, which consisted of 6-12pdr and 12-8pdr on the lower tier and 12-6pdr on the upper tier. There were also 4-2pdr "voor de hut" (in the cabin), presumably on the quarterdeck, aft. Her intended crew was 120 sailors and 20 soldiers, but at the Four Days Battle, she only carried 110 sailors and 20 soldiers. She lost 1 killed and 5 wounded in the battle.

I would greatly appreciate any help someone might be able to make with what I have on Kentishknock.com, what I got from Jan Glete's notes and copies. It is Dutch Ships in French Documents, and I took a shot at .trying match what is there to known Dutch ships. The problem is that there are more ships listed than we know about. If anyone, who is a French speaker, who might be able to help, I would be willing to supply copies of what Jan Glete sent. There are some pages written in a fine hand, all in French, that are copies of the oriiginals. Others are Jan Glete's notes. Over the last year, I have gotten quite good at reading what he wrote 20 years ago. They all seem to have been written in pencil, which makes sense to me, after my experience at the James Ford Bell Library, looking at old materials. You don't want to risk getting ink from a ballpoint pen on the old books.

I had given copies of some manuscripts from 1658 to Jan Glete. He noticed that the names for the Amsterdam ships Cogge and Waegh didn't seem like warship names to him. He started to do some research in the literature, and finally from his notes.

A week ago, Jan Glete noticed "it looks very likely that Cogge and Waegh were armed merchantmen rather than state-owned warships." He pointed out that in the "lijste van Schepen van Oorlogh" that these two ships were listed separately from the admiralty ships and were called "Stadsschepen".

He finally looked in his notes and found that he had seen a list of ships sent to Denmark in 1658, in Den Doorluchtige Zeehelden deser Eeuwen, Vol.II, published in Amsterdam in 1676. He had found that volume in a library in the Netherlands, quite a long time ago. In that volume, under the heading of "Stads schepen van Amsterdam", were two ships called Boge and Waergh. They clearly were the same as the Cogge and Waegh. I have seen the name Boge used in placed of Cogge, and wondered whence it came. The handwritten manuscripts from 1658 clearly say "Cogge". In any case, we now know that these were merchant ships fitted out by Amsterdam, for this expedition, rather than warships, as I had guessed. We owe a debt to Jan Glete for his perserverence in researching this issue.

After rereading R.C. Anderson's article "The First Dutch War in the Mediterranean", I finally realized that Van Galen's squadron (or fleet) was anchored right outside the harbor of Livorno. I'm not sure where they were anchored, in relation to the harbor mouth. In my Privateers Bounty scenario, I placed them North of the harbor entrance.

Interestingly enough, when I ran the simulator, the Madonna della Vigna was disabled relatively near the shore. In the actual battle, she was the only Dutch loss, and had been run ashore.

I have added a scenario for the Battle of Livorno (14 May 1653) and have included the updated scenarios for the other battles. I don't have a convenient place to make it available for download, so I will just have to e-mail the zip file on request.

As I have written, previously, I have some early-to-mid 17th Century Dutch lists. These are all called "Staet van Oorlogh te Water" or some variation of that spelling. I have the lists for 1628, 1629, 1631, 1633, and 1654. I actually have two versions of the 1654 list. I had completely transcribed the ship data from a more incomplete version of the 1654 lists, a year ago. I have not attempted to go into the most complete version, as it is very time consuming. Even the more limited version had many gems of information. The most complete version has even more. Jan Glete had sent me his notes for the Rotterdam part of the list that was omitted from the other version.