THE MARY ROSE.

[M ELEY]

Exactly, Peter. Unlike the Vasa and ships like the Royal George, where we know what caused them to sink, the Mary Rose remains speculative. You bring up an excellent point about her guns, though. Being such an early ship, her design might very well have had gun hatches too close to the waterline. if any 'loose cannons' were to shift the load, it would be very easy to see her turning too much on that side and the sea coming in.

One of the greatest maritime disastrs of all time was the Royal George, which sank at Spithead in ca. 1782? 1783? Have to look that one up again. She was in port and all of the sailor's and officer's families had come aboard as well as a huge crowd of dignitaries, townsfolk, etc. The crew had been careening the ship earlier and had rolled the cannons on the port side to across deck to lean the vessel. This was a quicker way to do an arduous job, but with over a 1000+ people aboard, she was too heavy and her starboard gunports began to take in water. By the time the alarm was sounded, the massive warship flipped over in the bay, resulting in a massive loss of life. After this accident, there was no more careening using this method!

[fernando]

So in the Mary Rose second intervention in 1536, she was extensively modified, her tonnage increasig from 500 to 700 tons (some say 800). In floating terms this is a delicate issue; experts have to ponder on her draft (not) being reduced and, more critically, portholes reaching closer from water line. Such portholes being 'effectively' watertight, it has been assumed that, as the cannons were fully loaded when examined (not meaning that they hadn't previously fired), crew men were professional enough to seal them. I wonder whether portholes are usually sealed and reopened every single time the cannons make their discharges. A different approach by a French witness that what happened was that she was hit by their galleys had no other support at the time, although the expert that planned her raising in 1982 did not discard such possubility. Either way, a couple shots on the hull by the water line or a couple (even one ?) portholes not sealed (or broken) would be enough to provide for the ship's taking on water on a dramatic speed; agravated by the fact that, when she turned around to reach shallow waters, the inclination worsened the situation; as shown by tests made with a fan to simulate the breeze.
For those interested in the navigation & artillery saga, there is a paper by John F. Guilmartin, Jr., where he gives, among other, emphasis to the watertight porthole.


.

[Peter Hudson]

Good points and references plus the important question as to why she sank? There are several theories as to why...There were two refits both of which added weight to the vessel and the danger of firing a broadside or part volley... perhaps half broadside could be another reason as would turning perhaps too quickly etc etc... A fairly large percentage of the vessel was not intact when recovered and either was rotten and vanished after her years on the ocean floor... thus adding to the difficulty of knowing what exactly happened... On another note only about 30 of the crew survivewd thus hardly any key witnesses were available even immediately after her demise... It occured to me that there were no survivors below decks because of the protective deck netting against being boarded... ...This warship also carried huge heavy long flags and enormous pennants hanging from the mast heads... A fast turn in a high swell plus strong winds plus the addition of weight from the last recent refit and assisted by a set of massive flags could have tipped her over and if the lower Gun doors were open that may well be why the ship capsized...Regards,Peter Hudson.