More about Jan Adriaensz. van der Werff and problematic sources

Earlier, this evening, I was translating page 211 from Vol. V of Schetsen uit de geschiedenis van ons zeewezen, by Dr. Johan E. Elias. I was focused on this page, as I wanted to see if I might find more information that might resolve the name of Captain van de Werff's ship.

From that and The First Dutch War, Vol. IV, p.323, all we can say is that Captain van de Werff was employed by the Rotterdam Chamber of the VOC (the Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie). From that source, we know that the date he set sail to rendezvous with Witte de With's squadron, at sea, was 17 April 1653 (new style).

Perhaps the worst source to use would be Vol. I of The Paintings of the Willem van de Veldes. It pains me to say this, but the text from pages 15 to 19 is filled with errors. It is sad to say, because it was written by the late M. S. Robinson, Frank Fox's friend. As I understand the situation, Mr. Robinson was a great help to Frank Fox in preparing Frank's first book, Great Ships: the battlefleet of King Charles II. Frank is probably the leading authority on van de Velde drawings, now that Mr. Robinson is no longer living.

An example of the sort of problems that exist can be found on page 16. Thre, two of the ships listed at the bottom of the first column are: Jonas in the Walvisch (sic) and Ruiter. In reality, there were two ships involved with the Jonas en de Walvisch (the correct spelling used by Haverkorn van Rijswijk). One, the Jonas was a 30-gun ship commanded by Joris Colerij. The Jonas belonged to the Amsterdam Admiralty. The other was the Walvisch, also a 30-gun ship. She was commanded by Abraham Verleth, and had been hired by the Amsterdam Directors. Her crew was 110 men.

Worse yet is the other ship named, the Ruiter. I suspect that this was a reference to the Gewapende Ruiter. She was a Portuguese prize that was seized by the English, while returning from Brazil in June 1652. It is a mystery why she would be listed, except that the answer can be found in the horrible book by Carl Ballhausen, on page 617, in the Dutch list for the Battle of Scheveningen. Captain Schaeff is listed along with a ship, Huis van Nassau. Captain Boëtius Schaeff commanded the Gewapende Ruiter, at the time of her capture. In 1653, he commanded the Amsterdam ship, the Hoop (which is otherwise unknown). The only thing wrong with including him at Scheveningen is that he was killed at the Battle of the Gabbard, in June 1653.

Perhaps the culprit is Pieter Haverkorn van Rijswijk, writing in Oud Holland, Vol. 17, in 1899. He also lists a ship, the Rode Leeuw, which I happen to know was commanded by Reynst Corneliszoon Sevenhuysen. The problem with this ship name is that it was paid off after the Battle of the Gabbard, and Captain Sevenhuysen and his crew took over the new ship, the Mars.

There are even more atrocities committed here by Mr. Robinson, but I hope that I have made my point. I am trying to decide whether to list more problems or give up. The point is that you can't trust published sources, as they are often wrong. You need to have read all the published sources, and work at resolving the contradictions. I have found that Dr. Elias' work, the Schetsen 6-volume set is excellent. Short of having access to manuscripts from the Nationaal Archief in Den Haag, Schetsen will be extremely helpful.

You can't ignore the Navy Record Society 6-volume set, The First Dutch War, as you will find the greatest amount of Dutch ship information of any published source.

I'm afraid that Vreugdenhil's book, Vreugdenhil, A., Ships of the United Netherlands, 1648-1702, Society for Nautical Research, London, 1938, is a disappointment. There certainly is a wealth of information there. The problem is that it is filled with errors and omissions.

The Dutch fleet in 1653 I just saw something that conflicted with other information that I have about the Dutch fleet in 1653. The July 1653 list, written after the Battle of the Gabbard, says that the one vessel belonging to the Rotterdam Chamber of the VOC was named David en Goliad. However, in my Dutch Captains list from November 25, 2001, the ship commanded by Jan Adriaenszoon van der Werff was said to be the Nassau of 36 guns. Jan Adriaenszoon van der Werff seems definitely to have commanded a ship belonging to the Rotterdam Chamber of the VOC. The reference is The First Dutch War, Vol. IV, page 323, Captain van den Werff set sail to join Witte de With, at the rendezvous. The date was April 7, 1653. The reference for the name Nassau originates from what Michael Robinson wrote in The Paintings of the Willem Van De Veldes, Vol. I, page 17. I tend to be very sceptical about that sort of information, as it generally originated from either Carl Ballhausen or else from Pieter Haverkorn van Rijswijk, in commentary about Willem van de Velde, the Elder in the Oud Holland series. I keep wanting to think well of Ballhausen's work, but there are too many reasons to disregard much of his work. The main problem is that his references do not support the text. I have done like R. C. Anderson did, and have looked at some of what Ballhausen referenced in his footnotes. I'm sad to say that what I have seen has the flavor of a faked PhD thesis. In defense of Dr. Ballhausen, R. C. Anderson found Ballhausen's work on the First Anglo-Dutch War in the Mediterranean to be the definitive source. I am also dependent on Ballhausen, as he has the only published list for Dutch ships at the Battle of Dover in May 1652. I don't like using that list, as every list he compiled, later in the book, is wrong, at least in some degree. The only list that he got right was that for Jacob Wassenaer's operation to Danzig in 1656. That list, he cribbed from Brandt's book on De Ruyter, from 1687. I suspect that Brandt's list originated from that published in the Hollandsche Mercurius for 1656, which I have seen. I have acquired a general scepticism about the Hollandsche Mercurius, although all too often, we must rely upon it as the only available source. My scepticism is fueled by having compared documents from the Nationaal Archief, in the Hague, with what was published in the Hollandsche Mercurius. I can find obvious mistakes that have never been corrected in anything published to date. I have discussed some of that already, with regard to the Amsterdam Directors' ships, in particular.

Dutch ship-116 feet long

I just finished digitally editing this picture of a Dutch ship belonging to the 116 foot charter. I estimate that this ship would probably be 150 lasts. I say that because the calculation for lasts would be something like:

116 x 27 x 11 / K = 150 lasts

where K = 229.68, which is a reasonable number.

My dimensions are those quoted by Dr. Weber for the Gorcum (or Gorinchem).

Here is my new drawing:

An Inquiry One part of an inquiry I received was for information about "Lieven de Zeeuw". I would tend to spell his name as Lieve de Zeeuw. I an guessing that his real name could well have been Lieuwe de Zeeuw (as in Lieuwe van Aitzema, the author of Saken van Staet in Oorlogh in ende omtrent de Vereenigte Nederlanden). Lieuwe is equivalent to "Leo" in English. Lieve de Zeeuw Lieve Corneliszoon de Zeeuw was a captain of the Noorder-Kwartier Admiralty. He fought during the war of independence from Spain. I do not know much about him, except that he was the son-in-law of Hillebrandt Gerritszoon Quast. He served in his ship as lieutenant, up until Quast's death in February 1637. He was appointed captain, in place of his late father-in-law. In at least one place, he was called "Luwe" de Zeeuw (hence my speculation that his name was Lieuwe). I will need to check my archival documents to see if I might find Lieve de Zeeuw mentioned. I may not, as usually, only the captain is listed. In October 1639, Lieve de Zeeuw was in Joost Banckert's squadron, right before the Battle of the Downs, when the Spanish fleet was heavily defeated in English waters. His ship was the Noorder-Kwartier admiralty ship, the Wapen van Holland, which had 39 guns and a crew of 120 men. On October 8, 1639, he attended a council of war on board Tromp's flagship, the Aemelia. I have not read the whole story about his participation during 1639, but I do have some references: C. R. Boxer, The Journal of Maarten Harpertszoon Tromp Anno 1639, Cambridge, 1930. Dr. M.G. De Boer, Tromp en de Armada van 1639, Amsterdam, 1941. Dr. F. Graefe, De Kapiteinsjaren van Maerten Harpertszoon Tromp, Amsterdam, 1938. I know a little more, due to Dr. Graefe, about Lieve de Zeeuw's ship (From appendix V): Wapen van Nassau 250 lasts (a gross tonnage measure, nominally equal to 2 tons) 16 brass cannons and 22 iron cannons. Crew consisted of 100 sailors and 20 soldiers.

Off until Sunday night As I will be travelling home for the holiday, I don't expect to be doing any posting until I return, Sunday night. I have been focusing more of my interest on the English fleet, both in terms of orders of battle as well as ship drawings. One conclusion that I have reached is that though most of the Dutch ships used by the English during the First Anglo-Dutch War were captured merchantmen, they seem to have been built to some of the standard dimensions. Our best information concerns the Amsterdam Directors' ships. The biggest surprise was their large size, generally. There were a few of the 116 foot length, but most were larger. The next size larger was 118 feet, which was what many States ships built during the 1630's were. There seem to have been a large number of ships that were 120 feet long. They varied widely in armament, ranging from 28 to 38 guns. The former including the Amsterdam ship, the Bommel while the latter includes the Noorder-Kwartier ship, the Monnikendam, Pieter Florissen's flagship for the First Anglo-Dutch War. The largest ship captured by the English was the Vogelstruis (called Estrich by the English). Herbert Tomesen, with Artitec, the Dutch modelmakers, says that this ship was 160 feet long (Amsterdam feet).

Abraham van der Hulst One question that would be nice to answer is why there would be a Dunkirk flag at the stern of a ship in the background of an Abraham van der Hulst portrait. The ship has a lion on the taffrail and seems to have Dutch flags at the mastheads. There is no obvious ship that would be part of the Amsterdam admiralty that would fit. The protraits is said to date from 1655. I had not been familiar with the ragged cross flag of the Spanish Dunkirkers, but I soon learned something about it. I guess that the red cross is meant to be like to crossed sticks or logs. It is derived from the Hapsburg Spanish flag.

My drawing of the Speaker, Third Rate

This is the initial result of my latest drawing project. I drew the original, as I have said, at 20 feet to the inch scale. I had to scan the drawing in two pieces, and then assemble them in the digital realm. After that, I did my other digital editing. Part of that was to add my gunport drawings. The rest was to do the head, taffrail, gallery, and lamps.

The Speaker was built, in 1650, at Woolwich Dockyard. Her builder was Christoper Pett. He built well, because the Speaker survived into the Restoration period and beyond. In 1660, she was renamed Mary.

The dimensions, as built were:

Length on the gundeck: 143 feet-3 inches Length on the keel: 116 feet Beam outside of the planking: 34 feet-4 inches Depth in the hold: 14 feet-6 inches

Burden: 727 tons

The Mary was finally lost during the Great Storm, in 1703.

The Great Storm is of interest, as this was towards the end of a series of horrific winter storms caused by "Global Cooling". The first of these storms with which I am familiar was that which wrecked almost half of the Spanish Armada in August of 1588.

Willem II, Prince of Orange I had read that Willem II died in a riot involving a bank in Amsterdam. However, I read something on the Internet that contradicted that story. Instead, Willem II was said to have died of Smallpox. In any case, he died before his son, "The Young Prince" was born in 1650. After Willem II died, Johan de Witt became the Stadholder. He had a profound influence on the course of the First and Second Anglo-Dutch Wars. After all, after the first war, Johan de Witt took soundings in the Thames, so in 1667, he pushed the admirals to stage the raid on the Medway and Harwich.

My current drawing project I am working on a profile drawing of the English Third Rate, Speaker. I am working at a larger scale, to improve the drawing. In general, when you draw large and then reduce, almost anything looks better. I am trying out 20 feet to the inch, as a scale. The main question is if the largest ships will fit onto an 11 x 17 sheet. I suspect the largest ships will require a slightly larger size. I am following my usual pattern by doing a pencil drawing, and then inking. I have started the inking process. For the masts, I scaled off of a Van de Velde drawing of an English ship from 1671. Masts, yards, and bowsprit all benefit from measuring from a prototype. I had started by trying to use the 90-gun Second Rate, shown in Frank Fox's book, Great Ships, as a model, but I didn't have any real confidence in the result. I backed off, and started looking for representative Dutch and English Van de Velde drawings. I found one of each, and am proceeding from there.

Updated Naval History and History of Ship Design Bibliography I just finished a combined and expanded bibliography, which I hope will appear sometime soon, on my website. Presently, there are two separate lists that I prepared in 2001. I have combined them and have included some new materials. A feature of this bibliography is that, as a rule, everything listed is in my library.

My Theory About Tactics My theory, long-held, is that the only way that the Dutch were able to compete in the First, Second, and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars was to use tactics of "mutual support and concentration". The basics are that when a ship is attacked, other ships will converge to support them in the fight. On the attack, several ships will concentrate against a single opponent. The Dutch always operated in a rough line, divided into squadrons. They were not that concerned with sailing in a rigid, single line, although they would do that, on occasion. The advantage of a single line is that all guns can be brought to bear on the opposing line, if they are willing to play the game and also sail in line. There was a great clamour for single-line tactics in the Dutch ranks, after their defeat at the Battle of Lowestoft, in 1665. The great admiral, Michiel Adriaansz. de Ruyter was not one of the believers. My assessment was that the Dutch were so soundly beaten at Lowestoft because they were so badly lead, and had included so many merchant captains in their ranks. That, and they still had many small ships. They were mainly equipped with the ships build by the two thirty-ship building programs from the First Anglo-Dutch War. The large majority of those ships were 130 feet long (in Amsterdam feet). They were approximately equivalent to the smaller, English Fourth Rate frigates. The Dutch admiral was a political choice: Jacob Wassenaer, Lord Obdam. He was a former cavalryman, not a sailor. Johan de Witt, the Dutch leader, was nervous enough about him to appoint Egbert Meeussen Kortenaer as his flag captain. By Lowestoft, Kortenaer had become Lt.-Admiral of the Maas (Rotterdam). At the St. James Day Battle in 1666, the Dutch tried the strict single line formation and were heavily battered. They were beaten in moral terms, although they lost two ships while the English lost one. De Ruyter was successful in the Third Anglo-Dutch War through judicious use of concentration and mutual support, and not risking his fleet until the decisive moment, when they beat the combined English-French fleet at the Battle of the Texel, in 1673. A feature of the Third Anglo-Dutch War was that the Dutch had larger ships that were more heavily armed. While De Ruyter's flagship, the Zeven Provinciën, had a mixed armament of 24 and 36 pounders on the lower tier during the Second Anglo-Dutch War. By the third war, the Zeven Provinciën had a uniform lower tier of 36 pounders. The Dutch had also benefitted from the building program initiated in 1664, once it was clear that another war was inevitable: 1664 12-160 foot ships 12-150 foot ships 1665 12-150 foot ships 12-140 foot ships 1666 12-170 and 171 foot ships See my analysis on my web site: The Dutch building program, starting in 1664.

Ambiguity about Dutch ships in the First Anglo-Dutch War One bothersome aspect about researching the Dutch fleet in the First Anglo-Dutch War is that there is conflicting information between sources. One important source is the list of Dutch ships that was originally published in the periodical, the Hollandsche Mercurius, for 1652. A feature of this list is that it actually contains information from June 1653. The various volumes were published a year later, so this should not be too surprising. One example of the problem that I have found is the listing for Corstiaen Corstiaensen (or Corstiaenszoon). He is listed with the ships belonging to Rotterdam. The most accessible version of the list is found in Volume I of The First Dutch War. His ship is included among those "Ships hired by the admiralty to be deducted from the Hundred". The "Hundred" are the 100 ships to be hired by the admiralties in 1652. When we study the Battle of the Kentish Knock, we find that Corstiaen Corstiaensen is included among the captains with the Rotterdam Directors. I will write later about other issues like this.

A good, online translator For anyone who needs to do translation, I highly recommend the Systran engine (Systran Box). I have been using this service for both Dutch and French to English translation help. It has the problem of a somewhat limited vocabulary, especially for ships and naval history. I also have to correct archaic spellings, as the Systran box only knows the modern languages. My main use is to help with idiom and phrases. That is my main problem with Dutch: a literal translation seems like "Chinese" (not to disparage Chinese). What I mean is that, typically, a literal translation of any language is laughable. You have to know phrases and idiom to get a smooth translation.

Lasts, why they can't be reliably calculated In the early 17th Century, Dutch ships have sizes in terms of "lasts". Dimensions are very rare. I do not have any archival documents that list dimensions. Lasts are a load-carrying measure. I persist in trying to calculate lasts for Dutch ships, because there is no other way to estimate dimensions. When I want to draw ships, they must have some dimensions. The reason why estimating size from lasts can't be done with any accuracy, is that they seem to have been largely estimated. Unlike English tons and tonnage, there was not a formula that you can apply. Well, there is a formula, but the constant fluctuates. The formula is: Lasts = Length x Beam x Hold / K The length is the length from stem to sternpost, in Amsterdam feet. The beam is that measured inside the planking. The hold (depth in hold) is measured at the side of the ship. I have heard it described as being at the widest part. I will include a diagram. The tricky part is "K". Lasts generally seem to be rounded off. The K is adjusted to make the amount end in a zero, generally. For example, the Brederode had the following dimensions: Length: 144 feet (Amsterdam) (132 Maas feet) Beam: 35 feet (Amsterdam) (32 Maas feet) Hold: 14 feet-8 inches (Amsterdam) (13-1/2 Maas feet) The product of Length x Beam x Hold = 74225.45 cubic feet The lasts are given as 300, so the K needed is calculated: K = 74225.45 / 300 = 247.42 This is a quite large K. I usually use a K of 217. Another example is the Gorcum, which we believe was 150 lasts. Length: 116 feet (Amsterdam) (106 Maas feet) Beam: 27 feet (Amsterdam) (25 Maas feet) Hold: 11 feet (Amsterdam) (9.5 Maas feet) 150 = 116 x 27 x 11 / K K = 116 x 27 x 11 / 150 = 229.68 As you can see, this is not an exact calculation. A feature of my examples is that they are ships that have published dimensions that would appear to be Amsterdam feet, but actually Maas feet. Today, I saw the Brederode described as having dimensions of 132 x 32 x 13-1/2 feet, which everyone had assumed were Amsterdam feet. The crazy thing is that information has long been available which clearly shows these dimensions as been "Maes voeten" (Maas feet). A Maas foot is the same as a Rhineland foot, and is approximately 12/11 x 283mm, or about 308.7mm. I have a published source and two archival sources that confirm this. Experts, including Prof. Jan Glete and Ab Hoving, have known this for a long time. I only learned it in early 2003, when I received the Rotterdam Admiralty document dated 26 February 1652.

Something a little different I was browsing, looking for a good map showing Rye Bay, the Downs, and Dover, when I found this list, showing Joost Banckert's squadron, circa October 1639, before the Battle of the Downs. The list was from Dr. M. G. De Boer's book, Tromp en de Armada van 1639. I have considerably augmented the list from other sources. Joost Banckert - 't Wapen van Zeeland, 28 guns, crew 110 (Zeeland) Frans Jansz. van Vlissingen - Zeeridder, 34 guns, crew 120 (Zeeland) Joris van Cats - Zutphen, 28 guns, crew 110 sailors and 20 soldiers (Amsterdam) 250 lasts Jan Theunisz. Sluis - Walcheren, 28 guns, crew 110 (Amsterdam) - 200 lasts Lieve Cornelisz. de Zeeuw - 't Wapen van Holland, 39 guns, crew 120 (Noorder-Kwartier) - 200 lasts Albert 't Jongen Hoen - Neptunis, 33 guns, crew 110 (Nooder-Kwartier) Pieter Barentsz. Dorrevelt - Amsterdam, 10 guns, crew 60 (Amsterdam) Gerrit Veen - Drenthe, 16 guns, crew 60 (a jacht) ( Joris Pietersz. van den Broucke (or Broeck) - Rotterdam, 10 guns, crew 70 (Friesland) Adriaan Jansz. den Gloeyenden Oven - Arnemuyden, 22 guns, crew 80 (Zeeland-Middelburg) Abraham Crijnssen - Ter Goes, 24 guns, crew 90 (Zeeland-Middelburg) Tjaert de Groot - Friesland, 22 guns, crew 70 (Friesland) I had to draw upon three books, plus my 46 page list of captains and ships from 1628 to 1700, to complete the list as far as I have.

Since I mentioned the Witte Lam I believe that the list from the 1652 edition of the Hollandsche Mercurius lists the Witte Lam as having 32 guns and a crew of 120 sailors. Often called simply the Lam , this ship is famous as being Michiel Adriaanszoon De Ruyter's flagship at the Battle of Portland, the Battle of the Gabbard, and the Battle of Scheveningen. My 1653, the Lam carried 40 guns and had a crew of 145 sailors (possibly including marines and land soldiers). The book, Salt in Their Blood, is a good resource for De Ruyter in 1653. De Ruyter actually had a new ship before the Battle of Scheveningen, the Huis te Kruiningen. He and Witte de With both were fitting out their new ships, "in the Texel". However, they were not ready for sea for the Battle of Scheveningen (a.k.a. Ter Heide). Witte de With's new ship, the Huis te Swieten, became De Ruyter's flagship by July 1654. By then, I believe that Witte de With was back in his favorite ship, the Brederode.

My theory about the Battle off Dover, 19/29 May 1652 My thoughts had turned to the opening battle of the First Anglo-Dutch War. Leading up to this encounter, the Dutch fleet had been driven from the continental side of the Channel, due to bad weather. They had lost anchors and cables in the process. They headed for the South Foreland, to seek shelter. On the afternoon of 29 May (I prefer new style dates, using the Dutch preference), Tromp encountered Jacob Huyrluyt, Joris van der Zaan, and 7 merchantmen. They described an encounter they had, on 22 May, with Anthony Young's small detachement. They had, at first, refused to render the salute demanded by the English. Shots were fired, and the Dutch ultimately complied. When Lt-Admiral Tromp heard the story, he seems to have been greatly angered. He had already sent Jan Thyssen (commanding the Vlissingen DIrectors' ship, Witte Lam, then carrying as few as 32 guns) and Pieter Aldertszoon (I believe his ship was the Noorder-Kwartier Admiralty ship, Mem>Burcht), into the Downs. They met with Commodore Nehemiah Bourne, telling him of the Dutch plans. The Dutch fleet then entered the Downs. The English demanded that the Dutch salute their sovereignty over the seas around England. Commodore Bourne came out of the Downs with his squadron, while General-at-Sea Robert Blake came from Rye Bay. Blake was said to be a friend of Tromp's, but you wouldn't have known, by what proceeded. The English fired one shot, which they did to prompt the Dutch to strike (lower their flags in salute). I believe that Tromp, in his angry state, replied with a broadside, and the battle was started. The largest Dutch ship present was Tromp's flagship, the 54-gun Brederode. The Dutch totalled 42 ships, but all were smaller than the largest English ships. The English had about 21 ships, with some smaller craft. One of the English ships was the merchantman Reuben. The result was that the Vlissingen Directors' ship, the St. Laurens, 30 guns, was captured along with the Amsterdam Directors' ship, St. Maria, 28 guns. The St. Maria was thought be sinking, so the English abandoned her. The Dutch found her abandoned, the next day, and towed her home.

My Main Research Focus My primary work is to completely describe the Dutch in the First Anglo-Dutch War. Part of that is to have a list of all ships and their captains. In a good number of cases, there were multiple captains per ship. Next is to build orders of battle for the battles and operations. Finally, I want to have a good understanding of the manouevers in each battle, and to have diagrams and narratives. On my website, www.kentishknock.com, I have made some progress, although what I have is only a start.

Royal Louis (1692) drawings If anyone knows the current location of the Royal Louis drawings that show the carvings, we would be very greatful. These drawings last surfaced in the 1970's, and have not been seen, in public, since. They are presumed to be in the hands of a private collector.

We now show up in Google I was pleased to see that this blog now appears prominently placed in Google, at least for some specific topics. I intend to continue to publish previously unpublished information, as well as the results of research and analysis.