THE MARY ROSE.

Peter Hudson · 6th October 2023, 09:30 PM

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 · 10th October 2023, 12:20 AM

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 · 10th October 2023, 02:13 PM

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 · 10th October 2023, 08:59 PM

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 · 11th October 2023, 07:55 PM

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 · 11th October 2023, 11:10 PM

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.

6th October 2023, 09:30 PM	#1
Peter Hudson Member Join Date: Jul 2020 Posts: 313	John Browne (King's Gunfounder) 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]

10th October 2023, 02:13 PM	#3
Peter Hudson Member Join Date: Jul 2020 Posts: 313	Mary Rose. 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

10th October 2023, 08:59 PM	#4
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,082	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! Last edited by M ELEY; 10th October 2023 at 09:01 PM. Reason: Spelling!

10th October 2023, 12:20 AM	#2
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,082	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!

11th October 2023, 11:10 PM	#6
Peter Hudson Member Join Date: Jul 2020 Posts: 313	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.