Talk:Mary Rose/2010/May

Possible additions

Having finally found (well, excavated) Rule from my library (allright, my floor) I think I've found what it was I was hankering for during the article's FAC. The 2 main things are the reason for putting so much effort into the ship (because of its unique record) and raising the hull (because the removal of sediment exposed it to the ravages of the sea). So how about slightly tinkering with the 2nd paragraph of the Survey and excavation section to something like this:

By 1978 the initial excavation work had uncovered a complete and coherent site with an intact ship structure and the orientation of the hull had been positively identified as being on an almost straight northerly heading with a 60 degree heel to starboard and a slight downward tilt towards the bow. As no records of shipbuilding techniques used in vessels like the Mary Rose survive, excavation of the ship would allow for a detailed survey of her design and shed new light on the construction of ships of the era.(Rule (1983), p. 108.) A full excavation however, also meant removing the protective layers of silt that prevented the remaining ship structure from being destroyed through biological decay and the scouring of the currents; the operation had to be completed within a predetermined timespan of a few years or it risked irreversible damage. It was also considered desirable to recover and preserve the remains of the hull if possible. For the first time, the project was faced with the practical difficulties of actually raising, conserving and preparing the hull for public display. (Rule (1983), p. 72.)

Small change, but I think it helps. Any thoughts? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good improvement to me. Is "no records" really accurate, though? My memory fails me for accuracy and details here, but aren't there at least a few treatises on carracks from around that time preserved somewhere?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Peter, one matter which bothers me about this article, particularly as regards the ship's internal layout and armament, is the we are discussing two very different ships before and after the 1536 rebuilding (this was a rebuilding, and not a refit; one cannot turn a 500-ton ship into a 700-ton ship without taking her to pieces and extending her frame prior to rebuilding). Much of the discussion revolves around the data of the Mary Rose as she was post 1536 (understandably, after all, this is the material evidence most available); the original ship was significantly different in layout and armament. This needs to be clarified in the article. Ideally, the article should be sub-divided internally to separate the two differing identities. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Isn't this a matter of some dispute, though? That the ship was rebuilt to some degree in the 1530s appears to be generally accepted, but since no one knows exactly how and there are no records to prove what it consisted of, it would be rather difficult to discuss changes in detail. Considering how diffuse measurements of tonnage was in the 16th century, the 200-ton discrepancy appears very vague. (At least that was the impression I got from reading Marsden.) But I agree that some clarifications could probably be made. Peter ^Isotalo 18:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply. I must confess I don't know the exact details of ship records, I'm just going with what Rule says on p108 - that "the earliest English ship plans are those of Matthew Baker, dating from around 1586 and there is no direct evidence of how ships of the Mary Rose type were designed. It was for this reason that the decision to totally excavate the Mary Rose was taken..." Ranger Steve (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That clears it up a bit; added the tweaks with the qualifier "English".

Peter ^Isotalo 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, nice bit of detail - good point! Looks good, Ranger Steve (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Peter, your reference to the 200-ton 'discrepancy' is somewhat misleading. Actually many analysts would now accept that the figures were somewhat more meaningful than your suggest, and the change from a 500-ton ship into a 700-ton ship was significant (as were the rebuildings of the Peter Pomegranate and the Henri Grace a Dieu under the same programme). One major change is that the acquisition of a full broadside battery for all three Great Ships was achived during this rebuilding - previously the ships as built had considerably fewer guns on the broadside (the large number of guns quoted in some contemporary sources were mostly smallish wrought-iron weapons, and few anti-ship bronze guns were mounted before the 1530s), and it is not even certain that their lower (gun) decks were continuous for the entire length of the ship until made so by the 1536/1539 rebuildings. Nicholas Rodger's The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain 660–1649 is quite helpful on naval ordnance developments at this period. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)