Shipbuilding from its beginnings. Vol. 1 (of 3)Konijnenburg, E. van (Emile)
History
Shipbuilding from its beginnings. Vol. 1 (of 3)
Konijnenburg, E. van (Emile)
Shipbuilding -- History; Ships -- History
Mr. de Jonge, relying on foreign quotations, states that the Czar
Peter-the-Great seems to have learned shipbuilding, properly so called,
in England. ~Fincham~, the historian, even relates (_History of
naval architecture_, p. 69) that the Czar Peter preferred English to
Dutch construction. Mr. Koenen remarks, in regard to this, that this
preference could, at most, only have had to do with war ships. Be this
as it may, it is settled that Peter-the-Great resorted, all the same,
to Dutch vessels, builders and seamen to form his fleet which, three
years before his death, included 41 men-of-war carrying 2106 guns and
14,900 men, which made the Swedes say (~De Jonge~, Vol. IV, Chap. II,
p. 152, and ~M. Koenen~, pp. 93-95): “We see nothing Muscovitish about
the Muscovite fleet unless it be the flag. We have to fight a Dutch
fleet, commanded by Dutchmen, manned by Dutch seamen and spitting out
Dutch powder from Dutch guns”.
It may be asked then whether the Peter-the-Great would really have
called on the Dutch builders if he had been able to find better among
the English.
What explanation is to be made as to why our shipbuilders were
abandoned about the middle of the XVIIIth century?
The size of ships was constantly increasing in England and in France;
and the fleets of foreign powers were ever becoming stronger, while in
our country, the shallowness of passes, rivers and ports, prevented the
construction of ships which, by their size, could vie with those of
other lands. (~Van Yk~, p. 14). All the writers of the period point
out this situation of which the realness has been shown by means of a
few figures.
The disadvantage resulting from the relative shallowness of the Dutch
passes was felt as far back as the end of the XVIIth century, and this
disadvantage could only become more marked as time went on. Meanwhile,
the necessity of building more powerful ships, carrying as many as 90
to 95 guns, became a matter of serious importance. In order to avoid
drawing too much water, it became necessary to make the ships fuller,
but this also made them heavier and poorer sailers, consequently
they were but poor fighting instruments in the hands of our brave
admirals. Is it then to be wondered at that the latter complained about
them bitterly? In spite of all our courage, the shallowness of our
approaches to the sea, to say nothing of the financial situation, made
us yield before the foreigner.
This inferiority is wrongly blamed on the Dutch shipbuilders of the
day. Naturally, many of them held on for a long time to the old ways,
as is shown by Du Hamel du Monceau, in the following terms at page 287
of his work: “The habit of copying mechanically and servilely what
was done in the past, has produced all these rules of proportions
observed in determining the main frame, the description of models and
their designs.” And this author adds this interesting detail: “Every
ship-carpenter kept these rules as a family secret”.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account