Peter the Great’s Ship Discovered in Baltic Sea
Jack Linthicum
Peter the Great’s Ship Discovered in Baltic Sea
By Ali Nassor
Special to The St. Petersburg Times
Archaeologists have discovered the wreck of a Russian battleship
designed by Peter the Great in Amsterdam and which played a key role
in a 1719 victory over Sweden in a war on the Baltic Sea.
A team including professional archeologists, divers, a film-producer
and a cameraman located the 54-gun “Portsmouth” battleship at a 12-
meter depth in the waters off Kotlin Island near Kronshtadt last week
during final stages of a three-month mission as part of the “Secrets
of the Sunken Ships” project.
The team was back on dry land on Tuesday.
“We are currently lobbying for an immediate raising of the wrecks to
serve both as a museum and as objects for research,” said Andrei
Lukoshkov, head of the research team, adding that the discovery is
unique because the ship, which was designed by Peter the Great,
disappeared with another ship, the “London,” on the way back to the
port of Kronshtadt.
However, pending further studies of the wrecks, the archaeologists are
yet to establish if wreckage found near the “Portsmouth” also belongs
to the “London.”
“We have so many collections that we need to establish a museum of
marine archaeology and shipbuilding,” said Lukoshkov.
He said the Kronshtadt district administration has signaled support
for the scheme but has yet to reveal the action plan.
Lukoshov said a total of 11 shipwrecks, including the remains of the
“Oleg,” a cruiser built in St. Petersburg in 1901-1903 but sunk by an
English torpedo on July 8, 1919, and those of an aircraft resembling
Li-2 model belonging to the First Long Range Aviation Division Guard
downed in 1944, have been found during the three-month mission.
Others include unidentified wreckage of a European mast ship, a German
boat “Frida Horn” registered at Schlezwig, both tracked to the second
half of the 19th century, and a well-preserved earlier version of a
mainly iron battleship equipped with rifles.
Among the tasks carried out by the expedition team was the
continuation of a study of the badly damaged 16th century 40-meter-
long mast-ship discovered last year, belonging to the same class as
the famous Swedish “Vasa” battleship also discovered last year. “Vasa”
is believed to have sunk between 1580 and 1610 during Boris Gudunov’s
reign when the Swedes had conquered the Northwestern part of Rus, the
ancient state that predates Russia.
The recent breakthrough brings to a total of about 30 wrecks of
warships discovered in the “Secrets of the Sunken Ships” project.
Others include the “Hanhoot,” built in 1892, the “Jigit” and the
“Haezdnik,” both built in 1856, making a total of about 50 wrecks
including the merchant and passenger ships in the Gulf of Finland,
River Volkhov and Lake Ladoga.
Meanwhile, at the behest of the museum of the Siege of Leningrad
(Blockade Museum), the archaeologists also carried out a special
expedition in the Neva River in search of a boat that went down during
the Nazi blockade of the city. They have reportedly located an
unspecified number of tanks and arms on the Neva riverbed.
JerryT
Raymond O'Hara
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dbc5b1f6-f013-4fcb...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
A discreet battleship post on "Secrets of Sunken Ships".
Peter the Great’s Ship Discovered in Baltic Sea
has spain claimed ownship yet?
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Wonder if they could? I mean the names "Portsmouth" and "London" sound
very Spanish and we know the Spanish once thought they owned at least
England.
"The Spanish made no secret of their hostility to the English Queen,
who they believed was illegitimate and had no right to the English
throne, and had been involved in plots to dethrone her. Elizabeth
herself had encouraged the activities of the English pirates, who
plundered Philip's ships as they made their way from the New World,
seizing their treasures. This had angered Philip immensely, especially
as the stolen treasure was used to help fund those people rebelling
against his rule in the Netherlands."
Weatherlawyer
wrote:
I hate to seem even more green than I am but could we have a
definition of the term "battleship" please. Are we discussing galleons
here?
Jack Linthicum
Definitions of battleship on the Web:
* ( in battleship ) The battleship type had its genesis in the
Gloire, a French oceangoing ironclad displacing 5,600 tons that was
launched in 1859. ...
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/253310/Ferdinand-Alphonse-Hamelin
* nautical: A naval vessel having a large displacement, good
speed, large radius of action, maximum armament, maximum protection
against gun fire ...
abbot.us/DD629/dictionary/display.shtml
* large and heavily armoured warship
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* A battleship is a large, heavily armored warship with a main
battery consisting of the largest calibre of guns. Battleships are
larger, better armed, and better armored than cruisers and destroyers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship
* Large capital warship displacing tens of thousands of tons,
heavily armoured and armed with big guns. Battleships are now
obsolescent, replaced by smaller vessels with guided missiles; Non-
functional rocket stage, used for configuration and integration tests
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/battleship
Roger Conroy
"Weatherlawyer" <Weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d703f036-065c-4eb2...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
====================================================
With a mere 54 guns it isn't even close to being comparable to a
contemporary RN First Rate.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> "Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
This is the Czar designing, if he wants to call it a battleship so be
it. I worry a bit about the names, Portsmouth and London almost sound
like omens from the future.
Raymond O'Hara
like omens from the future.========
===========================================================================================
the term ship-of-the-line and battleship were used interchangeably
Keith Willshaw
"Roger Conroy" <rogerconr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g5ab3j$aaa$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> I hate to seem even more green than I am but could we have a
> definition of the term "battleship" please. Are we discussing galleons
> here?
>
No we are talking about a ship of the line built by the English shipbuilder
Joseph Nye who was employed by Peter The Great
> ====================================================
>
> With a mere 54 guns it isn't even close to being comparable to a
> contemporary RN First Rate.
Perhaps not but they were considered good ships at the time.
In 1715 British Admiral Sir John Norris wrote"It is not reasonable that you
should beleive that his Nation by the help of some English builders should
have made the Improvement we find. he has three new sixty Gun ships built
by them
at Petersburgh that are in every way equal to the best of that Rank
in our Country and are handsomely finished."
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:024df25a-d2ad-4eb3...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
wrote:
> "Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> With a mere 54 guns it isn't even close to being comparable to a
>> contemporary RN First Rate.
> This is the Czar designing, if he wants to call it a battleship so be
> it.
A fourth rate ship of 50-60 guns was considered a ship of the line
or battleship in the RN until 1756 so the Russians were quite
right to describe it as a battleship.
> I worry a bit about the names, Portsmouth and London almost sound
> like omens from the future.
Peter was very pro western and its hardly surprising they carried those
names
given that they were built by English shipbuilders in the English style.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
The Treaty of Portsmouth (New Hampshire) ended the Russo-Japanese War
in 1905.
Weatherlawyer
Andrew Robert Breen
Keith Willshaw <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Roger Conroy" <rogerconr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:g5ab3j$aaa$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>>
>> I hate to seem even more green than I am but could we have a
>> definition of the term "battleship" please. Are we discussing galleons
>> here?
>>
>
>No we are talking about a ship of the line built by the English shipbuilder
>Joseph Nye who was employed by Peter The Great
>>
>> contemporary RN First Rate.
>
>Perhaps not but they were considered good ships at the time.
There were damned few first rates in service then (and they'd not
be the ships you'd want to use in the Baltic). In the 1710s a
50-56 gun ship was a perfectly respectable member of the line
of battle. It wasn't until the second half of the century that
the bigger navies started moving them to cruising/flag of distant
squadron/littoral warfare flagship duties, and even then 50s
were in the battle lines at the Nile, Camperdown, Copenhagen...
In 1719 a 50 was a very reasonable line-of-battle ship: even the
smaller 12lbr ships occasionally served that way 'back then.
--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)
Jack Linthicum
You are the one who didn't know.
I hate to seem even more green than I am but could we have a
definition of the term "battleship" please. Are we discussing galleons
here?
FYI Galleons went out of useful service in the mid-17th Century.
Replaced by the ship on the ine, of which the Portsmouth seems to be
one.
http://freespace.virgin.net/robmar.tin/russ/noy.htm
http://www.greatgridlock.net/Sqrigg/shipline.html
http://www.greatgridlock.net/Sqrigg/galleon.html
Andrew Robert Breen
Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>I hate to seem even more green than I am but could we have a
>definition of the term "battleship" please. Are we discussing galleons
>here?
And whose definition would you like: there are plenty to choose from ;)
"Battleship"/"Liner"/"Ship of the Line" were all names applied to large
warships intended to participate in fleet actions, forming the main
battle line (the line being the most effective formation for gun combat
from the advent of reasonably-rapid reloading in the 1st Dutch war until
the end of the gun era). The term used varied with time (and with nation,
of course). "Battleship" may well be the best translatio n of the Russian
term for these ships, regardless of era.
In about 1719 the chances were that an old sailor in the english-speaking
world would refer to ships of this type as "Frigates", a term applied
promiscuous-like to any ship built lower than had been fashionable a
couple of generations before (and that, itself, leads to interesting
possibilities). The first RN 100-gun ship was referred to as a "great
Friggott" when new....
>
>FYI Galleons went out of useful service in the mid-17th Century.
That's the dutcch/english type of galleon - which had already more
or less gone by 1610-ish, with performance sacrified to gunpower
(hence the rise of the frigate-built ship). The name, however,
continued in use for large armed auxilaries or merchantmen, particularly
Spanish ones - as witness Anson's capture of the Manila galleon in
17-earlish..
>Replaced by the ship on the ine, of which the Portsmouth seems to be
>one.
She seems to be a species of 50 - by the standards of the time, a ship of
the line, visibly related to RN 50-ishes of the time (which in turn were
descended from the Commonwealth's single-decked 30-s0me gun "friggots",
which got up-gunned with a second deck after the success of the first
battle lines.
I recommend Rif Winfield's "The 50 gun ship" for a good history of the
very convoluted development of the 50s in the RN: as this ship was heavily
english-influenced[1] in design many of the comments probably apply to her
too.
[1] Scotland having had its own Navy until 1707
--
Andy Breen Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Post-September, somebody figured out that the Internet was
cheaper than babysitters (Dick Gaughan)
Jack Linthicum
> In article <3e424f76-555d-4a7e-a5e1-95ba6d299...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Wasn't the "Manila Galleon" more or less the title of route rather
than of the ships (naos) that took it? The size of the galleon ranged
from 500 to 2000 tons.
The Concepcion was the largest Spanish ship built up to her time --
between 140 and 160 feet long and displacing some 2,000 tons, with a
loaded draft of between 18 and 22 feet. The Concepcion was also one of
the richest galleons of her day, with cargo worth tens of millions of
dollars today. (1638)
George
wrote:
> This is the Czar designing, if he wants to call it a battleship so be
> it. I worry a bit about the names, Portsmouth and London almost sound
> like omens from the future.
His Navy was based upon the RN anyway.
Any term used by either navy meant the same thing
Raymond O'Hara
"George" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:10661717-81c5-4291...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
you snipped everything i wrote and left behind only jack's comment.
while jack wrote nothing i'd disagree with it does help to get the snipping
and attributions right in future attempts..
George
wrote:
> "George" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
> > His Navy was based upon the RN anyway.
> > Any term used by either navy meant the same thing
>
> you snipped everything i wrote and left behind only jack's comment.
> while jack wrote nothing i'd disagree with it does help to get the snipping
> and attributions right in future attempts..
So ?
I -was- replying to your message.
Sometimes you're worth it
And does that invalidate the fact that the Russian Navy was/is based
upon the Royal Navy ?
dott.Piergiorgio
> I hate to seem even more green than I am but could we have a
> definition of the term "battleship" please. Are we discussing galleons
> here?
An early SOL (Ship of the Line).
B* descends more or less straight from the old "wooden walls", the main
conceptual difference between an ironclad and the preceding SOL is that
the protection was of iron istead of wood.
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Kerryn Offord
More completely, a ship of the line of battle.. a ship able to join the
line of battle. Hence a battle ship (battleship)
Raymond O'Hara
except you didm't respond to my message. what you responded to was jacks
message. everything i wrote was under the double line.
"the term ship-of-the-line and battleship were used interchangeably " was
all that i added.
what you quoted
"
This is the Czar designing, if he wants to call it a battleship so be
it. I worry a bit about the names, Portsmouth and London almost sound"
was written by jack.
trust me, if you misattribute quotes you will get abused. i was just giving
you some friendly advice.
mof
> "Roger Conroy" <rogerconroy.nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g5ab3j$aaa$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
> > I hate to seem even more green than I am but could we have a
> > definition of the term "battleship" please. Are we discussing galleons
> > here?
>
> No we are talking about a ship of the line built by the English shipbuilder
> Joseph Nye who was employed by Peter The Great
That is highly doubtful. The Portsmouth was built by the Dutch and the
London was a British ship that the Russians bought.
In any case, the Russian expressions for battleship is, линейный
корабль or линкор. HMS Victory and HMS Dreadnought can both be
described with the words линейный корабль . It is possible that the
person writing the article was unaware of the expression 'ship of the
line'.
> > With a mere 54 guns it isn't even close to being comparable to a
> > contemporary RN First Rate.
>
> Perhaps not but they were considered good ships at the time.
Good for what they were meant to do, they might well have been, but
they were very small. In the navies of the maritime powers, these
small battleships were often used as convoy escorts.
Marcus
Jack Linthicum
> On 12 Juli, 17:47, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Roger Conroy" <rogerconroy.nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:g5ab3j$aaa$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> > > I hate to seem even more green than I am but could we have a
> > > definition of the term "battleship" please. Are we discussing galleons
> > > here?
>
> > No we are talking about a ship of the line built by the English shipbuilder
> > Joseph Nye who was employed by Peter The Great
>
> That is highly doubtful. The Portsmouth was built by the Dutch and the
> London was a British ship that the Russians bought.
>
> ËÏÒÁÂÌØ or ÌÉÎËÏÒ. HMS Victory and HMS Dreadnought can both be
> described with the words ÌÉÎÅÊÎÙÊ ËÏÒÁÂÌØ . It is possible that the
> person writing the article was unaware of the expression 'ship of the
> line'.
>
> > > With a mere 54 guns it isn't even close to being comparable to a
> > > contemporary RN First Rate.
>
> > Perhaps not but they were considered good ships at the time.
>
> Good for what they were meant to do, they might well have been, but
> they were very small. In the navies of the maritime powers, these
> small battleships were often used as convoy escorts.
>
> Marcus
I don't know where you got your dictionary but my Smirnitsky says
battleship is "linenniy korabl" or "linkor". The Russian word
"linenniy" means length usually but is obviously used as "line" here.
A ship of the line.
mof
> I don't know where you got your dictionary but my Smirnitsky says
> battleship is "linenniy korabl" or "linkor". The Russian word
> "linenniy" means length usually but is obviously used as "line" here.
> A ship of the line.
Those were the words I wrote, but I see now that all that remains are
chaos vowels. :-D
Marcus
mof
> Among the tasks carried out by the expedition team was the
> continuation of a study of the badly damaged 16th century 40-meter-
> long mast-ship discovered last year, belonging to the same class as
> the famous Swedish “Vasa” battleship also discovered last year. “Vasa”
> is believed to have sunk between 1580 and 1610 during Boris Gudunov’s
> reign when the Swedes had conquered the Northwestern part of Rus, the
> ancient state that predates Russia.
Hej!
This information is incorrect in some way. Vasa sunk on the 10th of
August 1628, and the wreck was raised in the 60s. The writer is
confused, or is talking about some other ship named "Vasa".
In any case, up to 1715 the Russians bought more or less half the
fleet they had in the Baltic. It was never really tested, because for
a very long time they didn't use it, and even when they finally had
superiority, together with the Danish fleet, they were reluctant to
risk much. A possible reason for the final years is that British ships
patrolled together with Swedish.
It would be interesting to see how much the two ships differ from
eachother.
Marcus