THE MARY ROSE.

[Peter Hudson]

as a subject of this artwork showing where she sank...with the loss of more than 400 men in what appears to be an accident or malfunction in design.

[Peter Hudson]

Flagship of Henry VIII

[Peter Hudson]

Probably the best write up is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rose

What I found very interesting was that among the artefacts discovered were a number of English Longbows as well as an amazing English Basket Hilt Sword.

Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

So filling in the facts...

The Mary Rose was a carrack in the English Tudor navy of King Henry VIII. She was launched in 1511 and served for 33 years in several wars against France, Scotland, and Brittany. After being substantially rebuilt in 1536, she saw her last action on 19 July 1545. She led the attack on the galleys of a French invasion fleet, but sank in the Solent, the strait north of the Isle of Wight.

[Peter Hudson]

A note on the sketch of the Mary Rose above..

The first illustration of the first roll of the Anthony Roll, depicting the Henry Grace à Dieu, the largest ship in the English navy during the reign of King Henry VIII.

So what is the Anthony Role?

[Peter Hudson]

The Anthony Roll is a written record of ships of the English Tudor navy of the 1540s, named after its creator, Anthony Anthony. It originally consisted of three rolls of vellum, depicting 58 naval vessels along with information on their size, crew, armament, and basic equipment. The rolls were presented to King Henry VIII in 1546, and were kept in the royal library. In 1680 King Charles II gave two of the rolls to Samuel Pepys, who had them cut up and bound as a single volume book, which is now in the Pepys Library at Magdalene College, Cambridge. The third roll remained in the royal collection until it was given by King William IV to his daughter Lady Mary Fox, who sold it to the British Museum in 1858; it is now owned by the British Library.

[Peter Hudson]

The Anthony Roll is the only known fully illustrated inventory of ships of the English navy in the Tudor period. As the work of a successful state official in 16th century England, the artistic value of the Anthony Roll has been described as being characterised by "naive draughtsmanship and conformity to a pattern" though its artistic aspects display "a decent amateur grasp of form and colour".[1] While the inventories listed in its text have proven to be highly accurate, most of the ship illustrations are rudimentary and made according to a set formula. The level of detail of the ship design, armament and especially rigging has therefore proven to be only approximate. Nevertheless, through their depiction of the ceremonial ornamentation the illustrations in the Roll have provided relevant secondary information to the study of Tudor period heraldry, flags and ship ornamentation.

The only known contemporary depictions of prominent Tudor era vessels like the Henry Grace à Dieu and the Mary Rose are contained in the Anthony Roll. As the Mary Rose sank by accident in 1545 and was successfully salvaged in 1982, comparison between the information in the Roll and the physical evidence of the Mary Rose has provided new insights into the study of the naval history of the period.

[Peter Hudson]

For more on The Anthony Rolls see the webpage
Note how the artworks were used for Tudor Spin in those days...ilustrating the might of Henry VIII.

[Peter Hudson]

Construction of Mary Rose began on 29 January 1510 in Portsmouth and she was launched in July 1511. She was then towed to London and fitted with rigging and decking, and supplied with armaments. Other than the structural details needed to sail, stock and arm the Mary Rose, she was also equipped with flags, banners and streamers (extremely elongated flags that were flown from the top of the masts) that were either painted or gilded.[5]

Constructing a warship of the size of the Mary Rose was a major undertaking, requiring vast quantities of high-quality material. For a state-of-the-art warship, these materials were primarily oak. The total amount of timber needed for the construction can only be roughly calculated since only about one third of the ship still exists.[6] One estimate for the number of trees is around 600 mostly large oaks, representing about 16 hectares (40 acres) of woodland.[7]

The huge trees that had been common in Europe and the British Isles in previous centuries were by the 16th century quite rare, which meant that timbers were brought in from all over southern England. The largest timbers used in the construction were of roughly the same size as those used in the roofs of the largest cathedrals in the High Middle Ages. An unworked hull plank would have weighed over 300 kg (660 lb), and one of the main deck beams would have weighed close to three-quarters of a tonne

[Peter Hudson]

The sailing capabilities of the Mary Rose were commented on by her contemporaries and were once even put to the test. In March 1513 a contest was arranged off The Downs, west of Kent, in which she raced against nine other ships. She won the contest, and Admiral Edward Howard described her enthusiastically as "the noblest ship of sayle [of any] gret ship, at this howr, that I trow [believe] be in Cristendom".[21] Several years later, while sailing between Dover and The Downs, Vice-Admiral William Fitzwilliam noted that both the Henry Grace à Dieu and the Mary Rose performed very well, riding steadily in rough seas and that it would have been a "hard chose" between the two.[22] Modern experts have been more sceptical of her sailing qualities, believing that ships at this time were almost incapable of sailing close to the wind, and describing the handling of the Mary Rose as being like "a wet haystack".

[Peter Hudson]

For the first time...in theory anyway ...this warship was able to fire broadsides...

[Peter Hudson]

The ship went through several changes in her armament throughout her career, most significantly accompanying her "rebuilding" in 1536 (see below), when the number of anti-personnel guns was reduced and a second tier of carriage-mounted long guns fitted. There are three inventories that list her guns, dating to 1514, 1540 and 1546.[31] Together with records from the armoury at the Tower of London, these show how the configuration of guns changed as gun-making technology evolved and new classifications were invented. In 1514, the armament consisted mostly of anti-personnel guns like the larger breech-loading iron murderers and the small serpentines, demi-slings and stone guns.[32]

Only a handful of guns in the first inventory were powerful enough to hole enemy ships, and most would have been supported by the ship's structure rather than resting on carriages. The inventories of both the Mary Rose and the Tower had changed radically by 1540. There were now the new cast bronze cannons, demi-cannons, culverins and sakers and the wrought iron port pieces (a name that indicated they fired through ports), all of which required carriages, had longer range and were capable of doing serious damage to other ships. The analysis of the 1514 inventory combined with hints of structural changes in the ship both indicate that the gunports on the main deck were indeed a later addition.[32]


Various types of ammunition could be used for different purposes: plain spherical shot of stone or iron smashed hulls, spiked bar shot and shot linked with chains would tear sails or damage rigging, and canister shot packed with sharp flints produced a devastating shotgun effect.[34] Trials made with replicas of culverins and port pieces showed that they could penetrate wood the same thickness of the Mary Rose's hull planking, indicating a stand-off range of at least 90 m (300 ft). The port pieces proved particularly efficient at smashing large holes in wood when firing stone shot and were a devastating anti-personnel weapon when loaded with flakes or pebbles

[Peter Hudson]

Hand-held weapons
Five dagger handles with bulbous guards with the badly corroded remains of a few steel blades against a white background
Some of the bollock daggers found on board the Mary Rose; for most of the daggers, only the handles have remained while the blades have either rusted away or have been preserved only as concretions.
To defend against being boarded, Mary Rose carried large stocks of melee weapons, including pikes and bills; 150 of each kind were stocked on the ship according to the Anthony Roll, a figure confirmed roughly by the excavations. Swords and daggers were personal possessions and not listed in the inventories, but the remains of both have been found in great quantities, including the earliest dated example of a British basket-hilted sword.[36]

A total of 250 longbows were carried on board, and 172 of these have so far been found, as well as almost 4,000 arrows, bracers (arm guards) and other archery-related equipment.[37] Longbow archery in Tudor England was mandatory for all able adult men, and despite the introduction of field artillery and handguns, they were used alongside new missile weapons in great quantities. On the Mary Rose, the longbows could only have been drawn and shot properly from behind protective panels in the open waist or from the top of the castles as the lower decks lacked sufficient headroom. There were several types of bows of various size and range. Lighter bows would have been used as "sniper" bows, while the heavier design could possibly have been used to shoot fire arrows.[38]

The inventories of both 1514 and 1546[31] also list several hundred heavy darts and lime pots that were designed to be thrown onto the deck of enemy ships from the fighting tops, although no physical evidence of either of these weapon types has been identified. Of the 50 handguns listed in the Anthony Roll, the complete stocks of five matchlock muskets and fragments of another eleven have been found. They had been manufactured mainly in Italy, with some originating from Germany. Found in storage were several gunshields, a rare type of firearm consisting of a wooden shield with a small gun fixed in the middle.[39

[urbanspaceman]

Hey Peter, I know I am left-field here but I wondered just where were those canons made?

[Peter Hudson]

Good question Keith... I have found a number of publications on the subject however I am unable to track down a history of those Cannon makers ...These must have been Royal Factories and under the staregic control of the Rulers Office...especially in the early days... The tight grip on such factories was done via the chief engineers who were carefully selected...


The Surveyor-General of the Ordnance was a subordinate of the Master-General of the Ordnance and a member of the Board of Ordnance, a British government body, from its constitution in 1597. Appointments to the post were made by the crown under Letters Patent. His duties were to examine the ordnance received to see that it was of good quality. He also came to be responsible for the mapping of fortifications and eventually of all Great Britain, through the Ordnance Survey, and it is this role that is generally associated with surveyor-generalship.

[Peter Hudson]

Some light may be seen at https://www.arc.id.au/Cannon.html on the subject

[Peter Hudson]

John Browne (King's Gunfounder)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Browne
Died 1651
Nationality English
Occupation Gunfounder
Known for Gunfounder to Charles I
Spouse Martha
John Browne was an English merchant, the first holder of the post of King's Gunfounder, which was created in 1615. He was heavily involved in the Wealden iron industry, having control of six furnaces in Surrey and Sussex, two in the Forest of Dean as well as his own furnace between Brenchley and Horsmonden.[1]

Biography
During the reign of Charles I, he sold a great number of guns to the former United Provinces, the King being a partner in this traffic.

Browne also held a patent which gave him a monopoly on the casting of pots, pans and firebacks.[1]

John Browne developed a type of cannon known as "The Drake" in the 1620s. This cannon was much lighter than previous cannons firing a similar weight of shot, thus enabling ships to be more heavily armed. One such cannon made by Browne was recovered from the wreck of HMS Swan, a 200 long tons (200 t) Cromwellian warship lost in a storm off the Isle of Mull in 1653 whilst attacking Duart Castle. This cannon weighed 3cwt, 2qtrs, 23 lbs (415 pounds (188 kg)) and had a 3½" (89mm) muzzle. It fired shot weighing 4 pounds (1.81 kg). HMS Swan was the last ship built for Charles I; its guns were all cast in iron. A larger ship, HMS Sovereign of the Seas had 92 Drakes, cast in bronze, as well as 10 non-Drakes, also cast in bronze.[2][3][4]

[M ELEY]

Wow! This is some great material on the Rose! Thank you for posting this indepth material, Peter! I have an archeaological book on the dive/salvage of this historic ship. One of the items that (amazingly) came out intact was a slat pitcher/tankard held together with cordage, common in that era. I managed to get a similar artifact for my own maritime collection of a wood 'noggin' tankard, ca. 1600's. Appreciate you posting this!

[Peter Hudson]

ThankYou for your supporting words on the subject ... I noted how there was very little work done on Forum about Navy weapons and thought how The Mary Rose seemed to put that right. Other discoveries such as the English Basket Hilt and the hoard of English Longbows and Arrows were connected to current discussions on Forum...The collection of Canons and the ability of this ship to fire broadside (actually I find that slightly odd as would thatnot be a potential cause of her sinking ? There some plausible reasons for her demise including lower dack gun doors being not closed but actually no one has yet put a finger on the exact cause of her suddenly going down...

Regards, Peter Hudson

[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.