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: 23:30:20 10/19/08 Sun
Author: Ron
Subject: Re: Lengths of Turkish Ships of the Line
In reply to: Albert Parker 's message, "Lengths of Turkish Ships of the Line" on 21:36:42 10/19/08 Sun

I asked the author what the meaning is of the word zira, as soon as I get an answer I let you all know
Ron

>>He is very like von Pivka and now that I am almost
>>through the second half of the book, I am left with
>>the feeling that Zorlu doesn't know a great deal about
>>ships. He routinely describes various ships in terms
>>of their length in ziras. The largest 3-deckers seem
>>to have had an upper limit of about 65 ziras. He lists
>>very many examples of ships, all with lengths of under
>>65 zira, and then on pp. 98-99 describes ships with
>>lengths of 190-195 zira.
>
>You may compare Zorlu's numbers with the following,
>from Enver Ziya Karal, "Selim III. Devrinde Osmanli
>Bahriyesi Hakkinda Vesikalar," Tarih
>Vesikalari, I, 1941, 206ff ("Ottoman Naval
>Documents from the Time of Selim III," Historical
>Documents). The column header for these numbers
>is "Sahalari (zira itibariyle)." I found "zira"
>translated as "cubit" or "keel" in a dictionary.
>"Sahalari" is the objective plural form of "saha," but
>"saha" means "area." Its possible that these numbers
>are the zia that another source indicated were a cubic
>measure, and that they are therefore an indicator of
>volume, not length, like the British burthen
>"tons" and displacement in tons of seawater, which can
>be converted into the volume of the hull. The table
>is headed "Selim III devrinde insa edilen harp
>gemileri cetveli," "List of warships built during the
>reign of Selim III." I make no attempt to include
>Turkish diacriticals, such as s-cedilla, undotted i,
>etc. I'm only listing kalyonlar = ships of the line;
>Karal's table includes firkateynler and korvetlar.
>
>63: Tavus-i Bahri (82), Badi-i Nusret (82)
>62: Seimiye (62 [sic; I've seen this corrected
>elsewhere])
>59: Heylbet Endaz, 76; Besaretnüma, 76; Arslan-i
>Bahri, 76; Sayyad-i Bahri, 74; Kaplan-i Bahri, 76
>57: Sehbaz-i Bahri, 74, Ejder-i Bahri, 74
>55: Asar-i Nusret, 74; Bahr-i zafr, 72; Feylz-i Huda,
>72
>53: Ziver-i Bahri, 68; Pertev-i Nusret, 68
>51: Hilal-i zafr, 66
>47: Falih-i bahri, 60
>
>In another instance, he
>>repeats a report by the French ambassador to the
>>effect that the Ottoman Navy had 27 3-deckers in 1796.
>>When I first read this (in Von Pivka, of course), I
>>immediately assumed that the French Ambassador meant
>>27 SOLs of all sizes –which agrees with other
>>reports for the same period.
>
>Nobody else has ever thought that the Turks had over
>two dozen three-deckers, at least as the term is used
>in English. It might be a translation problem.
>Western European ships of the line with guns on two
>full-length decks had a third deck above the hold,
>called in English the "orlop" or "orlop deck." This
>deck was below the wateerline, although the
>space between it and the "lower deck" or "lower
>gun deck" immediately above was not all below the
>waterline. Because of its location it had no ports
>and all illumination was artificial. The deck
>included storerooms for the warrant officers' supplies
>(bosun, sailmaker, etc.), cabins for some officers,
>quarters for the midshipmen, and the "cockpit" where
>the wounded were taken in battle. Thus, a British 74
>was a "three-decker" in the sense that it had three
>surfaces supported by transverse beams and covering
>the entire length of the ship:
>(1) Orlop
>(2) Lower deck, occupied by 32-pounders
>(3) Upper deck, occupied by 18-pounders
>There were, of course, also three other surfaces
>supported by transverse beams but not running
>continuously from bow to stern:
>(1) Forecastle
>(2) Quarterdeck, about half the length of the ship
>(3) Poop deck or roundhouse
>Thus, literally, a British 74 could be called a
>"six-decker." I've never seen a British 74 (or
>any other 74) called a "six-decker" or a
>"three-decker," but if you are not well versed or well
>read in naval sail history in the English language,
>you might not know that only decks carrying
>guns are being counted in the terms "two-decker"
>and "three-decker." Of course, if Turkish warships
>with two decks of guns were "three-deckers," then
>those with three decks of guns were "four-deckers."
>The Turks never had very many of those and perhaps
>they did have 27 "three-deckers" in the late 1790's if
>they were arranged internally like European
>battleships and you count the orlop.

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

Replies:

[ 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.