HMS Mary Rose sailing warship Henry VIII English Navy 1545

[JIM BAUMANN]

seeking an opinion...

The fore and aft shroud angle on the aftermost mast is a bit optimistic at the best of times
to stop the mast straining fwd with the vessel running down-wind ( as in my model)

unlike all the other masts the Bopnaventure mast has has no support from aft other than shgallo shround angles.

Did ships of the Tudor ear have running back-stays-- even( temporary ?)
if deployed only in the downwind circumstance?

I recall a while back reading soemwhere ( but where?) that runners became more usual usual in the 15 Century ?

any enlightenment please much appreciated !!

Kid re ards

Jim B

[Bouncy70]

The only useful thing to say is "and now you know why the mizzen and bonadventure sails are so small, and their masts so short"...

Supporting the mizzen was, as you have found, problematic. This was less of a problem than it might seem because the stern is not a good place to put a driving sail in the first place, it makes the ship want to turn arsy-versy, stern away from the wind and this is generally a Bad Thing when the wind is at your back. The mizzen sail(s) may not be the biggest but they apply their force to the end of a long lever, just like the headsails do, and have disproportionate turning effect on the ship.

The shrouds and stays will give adequate support for the forces on the mast when the wind is coming roughly from abeam or from forward of the beam, and this is precisely when one would need to use sail on the mizzen for balance, to keep the bow from falling off the wind without using the rudder constantly, which would function as a brake.

(Incidentally... it's basically the same underlying reason why you almost never - except in the more ambitiously over-rigged clippers - see a crossjack sail on a three-masted full-rigger, ie a square sail set from the lower yard on the mizzen mast, analogous to the main and fore courses. It would seem to be a perfectly logical thing to do to increase horsepower but it just was not practical, it was too much sail in the wrong place with too little support.)

[kurusu]

You work is really impressive.

A little food for thought regarding the mizzen and bonaventure topsails and topmasts.

The Engraving of the Solent battle shows the Great Harry, which was very similar to the Mary Rose (according to Anthony's roll), not wearing the Mizzen topsail the spar doesn't appear to be there either and apparently without the topmast in the bonaventure mast.
PS. I am also not so sure if the main topgalant was ever used outside of a parade.






Edited because Bouncy70 showed me the errors in my ways.

[Bouncy70]

You work is really impressive.
The Engraving of the Solent battle shows the Great Harry, wich was very similar to the Mary Rose (according to Anthony's roll), not wearing the bonaventure spar in the fore mizzen mast and apparently without even a topmast in the rearmost one.
PS. I am also not so sure if the main topgalant was ever used outside of a parade.

Slight correction on your nomenclature: On the mizzen mast she has the yard and sail, but the sail is furled. She has a mizzen topmast but neither sail nor yard upon it. The bonaventure mast has the bonaventure sail set, but there is no bonaventure topmast.

(The mizzen is mast number three, the bonaventure is mast number four, sometimes referred to as the "bonaventure mizzen". Their sails were named accordingly. The "second level" of any mast was called the "[fore|main|mizzen|bonaventure] topmast", upon which was set the corresponding topsail)

Interesting picture... it seems they are preferring the smaller, handier bonaventure sail over of the mizzen, it is further aft with greater leverage so presumably gives enough balance to the rig to keep the desired course, even if the sail itself is much smaller.

[kurusu]

You work is really impressive.
The Engraving of the Solent battle shows the Great Harry, wich was very similar to the Mary Rose (according to Anthony's roll), not wearing the bonaventure spar in the fore mizzen mast and apparently without even a topmast in the rearmost one.
PS. I am also not so sure if the main topgalant was ever used outside of a parade.

Slight correction on your nomenclature: On the mizzen mast she has the yard and sail, but the sail is furled. She has a mizzen topmast but neither sail nor yard upon it. The bonaventure mast has the bonaventure sail set, but there is no bonaventure topmast.

(The mizzen is mast number three, the bonaventure is mast number four, sometimes referred to as the "bonaventure mizzen". Their sails were named accordingly. The "second level" of any mast was called the "[fore|main|mizzen|bonaventure] topmast", upon which was set the corresponding topsail)

Interesting picture... it seems they are preferring the smaller, handier bonaventure sail over of the mizzen, it is further aft with greater leverage so presumably gives enough balance to the rig to keep the desired course, even if the sail itself is much smaller.

You are right of course English nomenclature played me a trick. To me the masts are called mezena e contra mezena. I'm Portuguese.
But you did get what I meant.

The picture shown is an excerpt from the so called "Cowdray Engraving", it's a copy of a contemporary painting of The Solent battle that sadly was destroyed in a fire.

PS. I went back to my previous post and I hope i fixed things.

[JIM BAUMANN]

So gentlemen... reading between the lines...-- no running backstays then...?

The various sources I have used in building this model

(Marsden x 2, AOTS Mary Rose and the Haynes book-- all suggest in their drawings anyhow,
that upper yards were( might have been!?) carried on the mizzen and Bonavneture masts


.....though in fairness I have yet to see a painting/ illustration of the period showing them BOTH present

( other than Geoff Hunt's! well known painting )

or indeed the sails actually being deployed !

I have my fitted my upper yards--as it also makes an interesting visual juxtaposition; the unused yards fore and aft whilst the lower sails
are setting --controversially perhaps! athwartships!

on another note--reading the words between the pictures in the Haynes book it states;

.. in 1840 John Deane ( an early salvager) recovered a surviving portion of the mainmast 15 ft long (!), whose diameter was akin to that of a 75 gun ship of the time,
so 37 inches ( 94 cm) in diametr , but unlike masts of later ships, the piece recovered was of all one piece--suggesting that suitable timber fro masts was not in short supply! ...

The main mast was reckoned to have 7.4 meters below decks with 18 metres above deck...

I enclose a handful of images , some annotated with arrows

Mr Hunts well known painting

and an excerpt of " The harbour of Calais"

the Science Museum model of the Great Harry depicting upper yards on the Mizzen and Bonaventure

and a couple of images of the Jokita model

and indeed the near contemporary Anthony Rolls drawing of the Great Harry-- whilst hardly a credible scale representation

shows all sorts of yards at all sort of angles-- as well as upper yards on the af masts !

None of these can claim to be the absolute truth... as no one really knows, but constructing this model is very interesting
and to my ( biased!) eyes ....visually arresting!

certainly makes an interesting alternative to the last model completed...

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... /index.htm



This whole Tudor project has been interesting and educational nonetheless, in addition I really do appreciate the input and gentlemanly discussion .

Regards

JIM B

[Ronald47]

Dear Jim, I read through the whole build and I am....... totally blown away and impressed! This is really outstanding modelling and I had to help my mouth closed several times when reading through the build because it fell open several times when seeing this micro-modelling of yours.

Superb!!

[JIM BAUMANN]

Thank you Ronald 47...!

small steps today-- added the multi purchase blocks at the lower mast fore and aft stays

and bowsprit

Have been adding some of the sail controls, braces and sheets for the lower lateen sails.
The camera flash alas has added some odd lighting effect!

The contrast of the upper mizzen and Bonaventure yards being on the centreline with the lower yards setting athwart-ships and drawing,
yjese being balanced by the spritsail on the bowsprit ... is an attractive look I think !

I have also added all the sail and yard control lines fro the spritsail,( there is a lot of it!)

as well as halyard, lift and jeer tails on the mast

next will be adding more upper sail lifts and halyards, before withdrawing outboard and adding the yard braces and sail sheets

followed by flags, streamers and some more crew...

Phew!

JIIM B

[1944WarspiteMan]

Jim you should post this over at the other Fantastic build site - http://modelshipworld.com/

I know you would go down a storm with this on there.

I am a member on there just check out Old Collingwood.


Kind regards.

[marijn van gils]

Wow Jim, you made great progress since the last time I checked in!

I have no knowledge on 16th century rigs, so cannot help you with the research, but I can tell you that the way you set the sails gives the model a very dynamic look. Beautiful!!!
The rigging also looks amazing.

Can I ask you what you are using for the rigging? I guess stretched sprue for the thinner ropes? But what did you use for the forestays? They loop around the masts like the real thing, which doesn't look like stretched sprue?
And how did you do the multi purchase blocks? And the smaller blocks?
Many questions I know, but this is really extremely interesting for me�

Cheers,

Marijn

[JIM BAUMANN]

Thank you Marjinn and Warspite man!

Modelshipworld, as its a sailing ship site I may well post a few completed model images and a link to here for the build process...

Onward to construction; Marjinn--the tan ropes are indeed all stretched brown sprue, that way I can also get in sag and wind deflection;
the main stays are polyester sewing thread V 69. the uppers are a thinner polyester thread.
I shall add a light wash of darker brown to some of the lines to get some variety and contrast in the whole picture

The blocks are mostly a dab of white glue added to the first line, once that is set I can then add a small spot of liquid Revell contacta cement to the white glue blob
and then attach to that the second sprue to make the-split into-two purchases for the yard braces and sail sheets; the cement fumes slightly soften the first piece of sprue enough so that the block can then be pulled 'square' between the two sprues.! fiddly but rewarding in its finesse--

many sailing ship models in my view are spoilt by vastly over scale blocks and rigging thickness.

Windward braces are generally tight--leeward braces merely taut..... Windward sheets are tight--leeward sheets slightly slaker --with some of the clew forehauls very loose indeed.

==> windward leech control marinets are taut ( pulled fwd )--the leeward ones hang slack

( enclosed images only have these at this stage fitted to fwd lower sail, still to do the the rest! )

anyhow-- the status quo so far:

[JIM BAUMANN]

as an addendum of general interest...

whilst in Germany I came across an older German book from the former DDR,
these Images I had not as yet come across on-line or elsewhere;

one of the Great Harry--showing rather a lot of yards on the mizzen and Bonaventure...

fanciful perhaps..?!

and one of Mary Rose, an etching/ engraving--plainly based on the famous Anthony roll image

again with lots of yards aft!

compare the two !

[HMSInvisible]

Jim, I love this build, but something's not right. I think the lateens are wrong.

The ship is running with the wind on the port quarter.

The lateens, as they are depicted, seem to be close to gybing. They'd be better set on the other side. That is, peak to starboard, tack to port, rather than peak to port, tack to starboard.

Which leads us into the perennial lateen issue: how do you move the yard across. There's a number of options.

1/ You don't (yard and sail stay on the port side of the mast), and the sail presses against the mast. This isn't an option here, as the whole kaboodle would interfere with the ratlines. This does, however, work with Medieval/Mediterranean vessels, that would sail just a wee bit better on one tack than the other (the bad tack).

2/ You tilt the yard to vertical, and take the sail around the front of the mast, before letting it out on the other tack.

3/ You lower the rig to the deck and physically move the yard/sail to the other side (going 'behind' the mast) before raising it again. However, with a bonaventure, there's not the room to easily do this.

I have no idea how Tudor sailors managed their lateens. But 2/ seems likely.

Andy

[JIM BAUMANN]

Good morning HMS Invisible!

ref your point 2)

... tricky get the yard vertically around the fwd of the mast as the ratlines are above the yard ...
( which also... alas ...gnaws away slightly at my version of events too.... )

albeit I think I did work out a feasible ( if involved) evolution of manoeuvre to achieve the yard ahead of shrouds

This very interesting conundrum-like issue was discussed at some length 2 pages back in this build thread

worth a read and a look at the illustrations examples cited(a couple of which are re-posted below)

from here onwards ===> viewtopic.php?f=59&t=163736&start=60#p712155


meanwhile,

==> whilst to modern sailing eyes ( including mine ) what you say would be correct--

HOWEVER....

Many contemporary illustrations DO show the " yard-windward " scenario;
And the lateen leeches are then actually parallel to the leeches of the square sails,
so the inversion/ sail- gybe aspect is not as tragic as it may appear at first sight

Lateen yards are controlled at both ends- hence there is a " preventer" at the lower end.


but --probably most significantly at this advanced stage of the model I shall not be ' undoing' the aft rig

but to continue to peddle this ' flat-earth' theory ' of mine ,, swimming against the tide perhaps...
and present the mode along l with the images as below

do however have a read of the debate as linked above

regards

JIM B


hoping for the best!

[JIM BAUMANN]

as another thought;

note that is in this painting both vessels appear to be on a very similar heading ( broadish reaching )

yet Mary Rose has her Lateen yards set to windward as discussed

which the smaller vessel has its smaller Lateen set in the conventional 'modern way '

I firmly believe that all not all the artists of time were all wrong all of the time...

[Rob]

I went on board this vessel in Plymouth last year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_ ... ctoria.jpg

Would the same issue apply with the yard on the mizzen mast? I think she was filmed for her circumnavigation so maybe you could glean something if you can find footage?

[HMSInvisible]

This very interesting conundrum-like issue was discussed at some length 2 pages back in this build thread

worth a read and a look at the illustrations examples cited(a couple of which are re-posted below)

Hi Jim,

I posted last night, then realised I'd missed a page or two, went back and saw the discussion.

Lots to think about.

Given that contemporary illustrations are pretty much all we have to go on, I think we have to assume some veracity in what they depict. While the artists might not have been sailing experts, it's likely that any money-paying client was. Would they stand for an obvious inaccuracy that would lead the lowliest tar to laughing like a drain? I don't think so.

And - kudos to my non-sailing son who's just walked by, heard about the problems of tacking/gybing lateen rigs, and offered option 4/...

If the lateen is an isoceles triangle, with the yard the 'odd' length (the other, cloth sides, equal in length) and if the yard is pivotted about halfway, in front of the mast, why not tack by swapping peak for tack, tack for peak? Think about it...yes, the canvas strips would then run 'the wrong way', but they'd be no 'bad tack', no interference with the shrouds/ratlines, no lowering and raising the whole rig. Indeed, the process could be swift and easy. edit...that's yard outside shrouds, obviously

Hmmm.

Andy

[Frank Spahr]

I as a card-carrying landlubber can broadly grasp the issue, and find it interesting, and have also myself asked however they got those lateen sails on the other tack, or whatever it is called -

but the main thing to me is that this tiny model is so intricately and delicately built and painted in such a credible way that it is a true work of art to me. Jim, you are outdoing yourself again.#

Much impressed

Frank

[JIM BAUMANN]

Mary Rose carried an emblem, a forerunner of the figurehead as we know it
The emblem was a two-sided wooden carving of the Tudor Rose, reckoned to have been gaudily painted ...

the original item which was recovered from the seabed, was rather--understandably-- somewhat eroded and dilapidated after more than 450 years under water...

a digital reconstruction would make it look like this

Renowned marine artist Geoff Hunt --in two of his (deeply researched) paintings of Mary Rose has two very different interpretations of its orientation...

athwarsthips

and .. fore and aft

I made some wire circles and painted them,

red, light grey ( and added a yellow centre bud after the photo was taken !! )

Mary Rose also--it seems -- had a projection fwd--that may have served as a ram (?)

(I think they mave used the bowsprit grapple ' anchor' to drop on the enemy ship, draw the two closer together possibly with sail assistance to rill and ram the other ship? )

either way -fanciful or not -- I decided to make and add it

Geoff hunt--marine artist as above

herewith his interpretation(s!)

I made mine of brass PE scraps on a styrene rod post

Herewith installed (with the Rose -I chose athwarships! ==> as the recovered piece of the real ship had carvings on one side only )

-- once the ' ram?) is painted and blended it should look pretty convincing

Onwards!

[maxim]

Very cool bow decoration!