Friday, May 2, 2008 - New servers are in! Click-in for more info!
VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:48:02 04/22/08 Tue
Author: Bob Legge
Subject: Re: Dutch gunlist around 1700
In reply to: John Tredrea 's message, "Re: Dutch gunlist around 1700" on 09:46:02 04/22/08 Tue

>>This is a good illustration that the terms "first
>>rate" for ships of 100 guns or more, "second rate" for
>>ships of 90-98 guns, etc., are limited to the British
>>navy. I believe that Ron is translating the Dutch
>>word "charter" here as "rate." The French term was
>>"rang." "Rates" were bureaucratic terms that covered
>>different ranges of size and armament according to the
>>needs of each navy, not universal, international
>terms.
>>
>>
>
>Many years ago, Jan Glete told me via email that the
>Dutch Charter system was not a rating system in
>the British or French sense, but something of an quota
>system delimiting the relative responsibilites that
>each of the five Dutch Admiralties had for providing
>ships for various types of ships -e.g. the Admiralty
>of Amsterdam might be assessed responsibility for
>providing seven ships in the 1st Charter, thirteen in
>the 2nd Charter, and so forth. Since the ships falling
>within each charter also fell into various ranges of
>both guns and dimensions, this certainly seemed to me
>to be a rating system, but I suppose that Dr. Glete
>was stating that the starting point for
>establishing the various Charters was related to
>fiscal responsibility on the parts of the various
>Admiralties and not to the number of guns actually
>carried by individual ships. Originally there were
>only four Charters, but the growth in importance of
>smaller classes of ships resulted in the addition of
>Charters 5-8 in the early 1700's
>
>Jan Glete stressed that the Charter system was without
>clearcut lines of demarcation based either on number
>of guns carried or on ships dimensions. During the
>disorganized 1600's, there were ships that could be
>placed in two different Charters because there was no
>consistent relationship between guns carried and
>length of ship.
>
>I still have a copy of Dr. Glete's email for any
>interested parties. It is a bit too long to paste here.
>
>John Tredrea

John,
I would appreciate a copy of Dr. Glete's email.
I live in Perth, Western Australia and we have built a replica of the Duyfken of 1606, a small D. E.I.C. (V.O.C.) ship.
http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/collections/maritime/march/duyfken/drppics.htm
http://www.duyfken.com/
This was sailed to the spice islands and then to Holland, returning on a motor vessel. The vessel has proved to be quite fast.
Some of the D.E.I.C. (V.O.C.)ships were wrecked on the West Australian coast and much has been salvaged, including the port aft part of the Batavia's hull.
Thank you,
Bob.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.