Ships of the 1715 fleet

[jorgeproctor]

Greetings everyone. I am interested on the study of the ships of the 1715 fleet, themselves, and would like to get more information on what was the name of each vessel, the type of ship for each (i.e. galleon, ship of the line, patache, urca, frigate, etc.), and how many cannons each vessel had. Although there is some information on the internet, the reports are conflicting from one to the other, and there are few reference to check and see where the information is coming out of. Furthermore, the ship "Le Griffon," being the only vessel not to have sunk, is never discussed more than to say that it was a French ship and who was its captain. This vessel is the one that intrigues me the most, as although I might have an idea of what each of the other vessels might be (even if I do not have a number of cannons for all of them), I have absolutely no information on "Le Griffon" (no idea what type of vessel this was, or what was the number of cannons it carried). Any help will be greatly appreciated... Jorge

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[aquanut]

All that info is on this forum. The Grifon was the only ship to escape the storm. Do your search through the past posts on this subject.

 

[jorgeproctor]

Greetings aquanut and thank you for your reply. As a matter of fact I did go through some of the older threads. But I keep on finding conflicting information, not to mention that since the archaic sources are never mentioned, that makes it harder to verify what we know to be true an is just assumptions (an example of some if the conflicting information, as an example, is the number of cannons on the Carmen, which some say that it was 72, some 62, some 52 and some even 50). As of right now, what I do know to be true, for sure, is the information on Echevers three main ships (the Carmen, The Rosario and the Concepcion). I found this information in the Archives of the Indies (AGI:CONTRATACION,1276,N.2). Let me start with this information then:

Fleet of General Don Antonio de Echevers y Subiza (documented as a Registro and not an actual Treasure Fleet):
1 - The Capitana, Nuestra Señora del Carmen, San Antonio y San Miguel (the last part of the name was added shortly before departure from Spain. This was an English built ship owned by Antonio de Echevers y Subiza. The ship was a man of war (not a galleon), with two lower gun decks, composed of 26 iron cannons each (on the upper gun deck it had 8 sixteen pounders of Spanish manufacture and an the remaining 18 of British manufacture - on the lower gun deck it had 26 cannons, all ten pounders of Spanish manufacture), then on the upper deck, between the castle and the alcazar it had a total of 10 iron cannons, all six pounders, for a total of 62 cannons total. The ship was 713 tons.
2 - The Almiranta, Nuestra Señora del Rosario y San Francisco Javier, owned by Antonio de Echevers y Subiza. This was also an English built ship (believed to be a galleon) with one gun deck, composed of 22 iron cannons (all 10 pounders of Spanish manufacture). On the alcazar it had a total of 12 cannons, all six pounders of British manufacture, and then on the castle it had 6 additional cannons, all four pounders, for a total of 40 cannons total. The ship was 312 tons.
3 - Nuestra Señora de la Concepción, San José y San Francisco Javier, owned by Antonio de Echevers y Subiza, of native manufacture (de fabrica criolla). This was a patache with one gun deck, composed of 18 iron cannons (all 10 pounders of Spanish manufacture). On the alcazar it had a total of 10 cannons, all six pounders of Spanish manufacture, and then on the castle it had an additional 4 cannons, all four pounders, for a total of 32 cannons total. The ship was 265 tons.

Okay, so that is all I have for the ships above. Now let me document what is believed about the other ships, to see if I can get confirmation as to if this is correct, and, in some cases, more information (as I do not have the tonnage, type of ship and number of cannons for some of the other vessels)

General Ubilla's New Spain Fleet was composed of:
1 - The Capitana, Nuestra Señora de Regla, San Dimas y San Francisco Javier (Presumably a galleon). Armament: 50 iron cannons total. This ship was 471 tons.
2 - The Almiranta, Santo Cristo de San Roman, Nuestra Señora del Rosario y San Jose (Presumably a galleon). Armament: 54 iron cannons total. This ship was 450 tons.
3 - The Merchant Ship Santisima Trinidad y Nuestra Señora de la Concepcion. This ship was owned by Miguel de Lima y Melo (for which it was nicknamed the Urca de Lima). The ship was a Dutch built Urca type ship of 350 tons with 20 cannons.
4 - The Patache Nuestra Señora de las Nieves y las Animas. 194 Tons (no information on its armament: type or number of cannons).
5 - The sources vary about this last ship. Some say that it was a patache named the Santo Cristo el Valle, others say that it was a balandra called Maria Galante, and yet other sources say that it was a British price (a fragatilla purchased by Ubilla from Echevers in Havana, which Ubilla renamed Nuestra Señora de Regla, as his Capitana). (I need to confirm the name of this ship, what was the tonnage, if known, and its number of cannons).

General Echevers' remining ships:
4 - Señora de la Popa. This ship is said to be the one referred to as La Holandesa. According to what has been published, the ship was a Dutch prize captured off Punta Bernardo (50 miles from Cartagena), which was purchased by Echevers for 2,000 pesos and renamed by Echevers Nuestra Señora del Carmen (just as his Capitana), but was often also referred to as Nuestra Señora de la Popa, as not to confuse names with that of the Capitana.
5 - San Miguel, built in Vizcaya and also owned by General Echevers, 22 cannons (18 four pounders an 4 two pounders).
6 - There is confusing information about this last ship. It is said that this was a French price captured near Portobelo (a galley - una galera, that Echevers purchased for 4,125 pesos. What makes this even more confusing is that it is said that Echevers also renamed this Nuestra Señora del Carmen, for which, to prevent confusion, it was more commonly called El Ciervo. There is some mention to a San Miguel de Excelsis, which is said to have been the English price captured by Echeves outside of Portobelo. If this is correct, then this is the ship sold to Ubilla an unrelated to the other San Miguel mentioned above (this has caused confusion too, as some sources include both of these vessels by the same name as one and the same). Also, I can't say for sure if San Miguel de Excelsis was the original name of the English price or not (do not have any archaic source that would help to sort out any of these information).

The French Vessel traveling with the Fleet:
1 - Le Griffon, Captain Antoine D'ayre. I know this was the only surviving ship. But I still need to know what was the tonnage of this ship and how many cannons did it have. Some sources document this vessel as possibly being a frigate. But can't confirm that.

Okay, so this is all I have. I am hoping to discuss the information here to see if I can separate facts from fiction, and hopefully learn more about the ships themselves.

 

[aquanut]

Right now, I believe you are one or two short. I don't understand why you researched the archives of the Indies while all this is common knowledge?

 

[signumops]

Hey Aquanut:
Jorge is a numismatist who is one of the better authorities on Spanish colonial mints. I think he may have been sitting at the next table during the STLC dinner we were at last month. He was in the Navy for many years stationed in Europe, now retired... I've heard him speak at the FUN show and since he wanders the Spanish Main digging through archives, there is a good possibility that he may uncover some new info. When compiling "The Rainbow Chasers..." I checked with all the published sources (unfortunately only those in the popular English language press) and enumerated the fleets with no single source agreeing with any other, including Mendel Petersen, Clausen, Wagner, Marx, De Bry, ect.

Even on this forum, the suggestion of a fleet listing is sure to bring out an onslaught of favorite interests, which I would love to see argued via archival documentation, of any sort. I think I know where there are two unidentified members of the fleets myself, but, I am no paleographer, nor do I travel around digging through Spanish archives. After all, Romans says 14 ships (?) Wagner says the Cabin Wreck is the Ubilla Capitana. Jorge says it was English, ergo maybe the Hampton Court, and it would have been the Echeverz Capitana, not that of Ubilla. Very interesting. I'd like to see Chagy and Jorge hook up to compare notes.

 

[Au_Dreamers]

If only we could find the missing 3,000 feet of microfilm!!

Jorge, If you can read the old documents I could give you some references/documentation in exchange for translations?

 

[aquanut]

Hey Aquanut:
Jorge is a numismatist who is one of the better authorities on Spanish colonial mints. I think he may have been sitting at the next table during the STLC dinner we were at last month. He was in the Navy for many years stationed in Europe, now retired... I've heard him speak at the FUN show and since he wanders the Spanish Main digging through archives, there is a good possibility that he may uncover some new info. When compiling "The Rainbow Chasers..." I checked with all the published sources (unfortunately only those in the popular English language press) and enumerated the fleets with no single source agreeing with any other, including Mendel Petersen, Clausen, Wagner, Marx, De Bry, ect.
Even on this forum, the suggestion of a fleet listing is sure to bring out an onslaught of favorite interests, which I would love to see argued via archival documentation, of any sort. I think I know where there are two unidentified members of the fleets myself, but, I am no paleographer, nor do I travel around digging through Spanish archives. After all, Romans says 14 ships (?) Wagner says the Cabin Wreck is the Ubilla Capitana. Jorge says it was English, ergo maybe the Hampton Court, and it would have been the Echeverz Capitana, not that of Ubilla. Very interesting. I'd like to see Chagy and Jorge hook up to compare notes.

Trust meSIgnumops, I wasn't being flippant. I suppose my advanced age doesn't allow me the virtue of patience. I have just seen this subject hashed and rehashed on this forum so many times over the years that I guess I've gotten a bit weary. Jorge, please continue with your quest. I'll see if I can find something that may interest you when I get back to my own computer.

 

[jorgeproctor]

Greetings signumops, an thank you for the kind words about me. Much appreciate it. Also, welcome to the forum to Au Dreamers (will send you a separate message below this one). As for Aquanut, no worries. I did not take your comment personal, as anyone is entitled to their own opinion. With that said, know that I can see where you are coming from when saying that by now you have a lack of patience on a topic that “has been hashed and rehashed.” But know that, unlike how it may have been discussed in some cases before (I admit that there are posts in here with archival references, but none as to the number of cannons on each ship, and/or few information related to all the ships themselves - i.e. size, number of cannons, etc.), I am trying to look at it from a different angle, which brings us to the need for the archives as some of what you called "common knowledge" does seem be currently receiving some uncommon results, with the story changing from book to book, but in all cases, presented as facts. One thing that I have learned from my years of research in the archives is that there is no better way to settle an issue than to go back to the original documents and see what they really say. Don’t get me wrong. With this last one I am not making any accusations and saying that anyone has fabricated facts. But one thing that I have learned over the years is that, sometimes, not having all the information at hand, we tend to fill in the gaps with theories so we can connect the pieces of the puzzle. There is nothing wrong with that (I do it myself often). The problem is that sometimes, as the information goes from person to person, we tend to drop the catch words or phrases such as: allegedly, it is believed, it is possible, unconfirmed reports indicate, etc. Once this is dropped the information goes from theoretical to fact. That is where we could have problems and it could even be the source of some of the conflicting reports. If I find four different reports for the cannons carried by the Nuestra Señora del Carmen, which is what happened to me as I mentioned before (this reports ranging from 50 to 72 cannons), I figured that all four could not be correct. So who is correct? The easy answer is, whomever we are able to confirm through first hand sources (in this case the armament inspection of the ship before it left Spain).

Okay, so, with the above said; let me move back to what I am trying to attempt with this discussion. All I am trying to do is revisit the information, as it is known, but this time trying to fill in the gaps as to where the information is coming from (what source). When I say what source, this includes the actual archaic reference (and yes, I am not talking translation by, but the actual source where the information came from, as the actual word used in Spanish can make a big difference to that chosen as its English Equivalent by the person doing the translation). I know that a lot of this information we might not get to the original source. But that is okay. Anything we do not have an original source we can then underline in our notes, so that we know that the information has not been verified. I think that in the long run this will help a lot in giving us a new perspective.

Now, this then brings me back to the information on the ships included above. The information on Echevers three main ships I know to be correct because that I have directly from the inspector inspecting the ships before they left Spain. So I know this to be correct. What about the rest of the information? We know for sure that the Nuestra Señora de Regla had 50 cannons (and yes, it is "de Regla" and not "de la Regla", according to the archives - not a typo)? What about the Santo Cristo de San Roman? We know for sure that this one has 54 cannons? What about where these two ships were built? We know that, or not? Hey, any information can help, and the same goes for the rest of the ships. On another note, I know nothing about Le Griffon. According to something I read, this was a 500-ton French Frigate of the 4th Class, built in Brest in 1705, 124 feet long, 33 feet wide, 48 cannons. My question is, do we know for sure that this Le Griffon is the same as the one that traveled with the 1715 fleet (I ask as it was common for ships to have similar names, and finding a ship with a familiar name does not necessarily mean that this is it for sure)?

Okay, I know I will have many more questions, and I am sorry if I am so inquisitive. But know that I am not a treasure hunter or even a diver (the only diving I have ever done is skin diving – have never scuba dive or even have the knowledge or training to do so). So my thirst for knowledge is exclusively academic, for the purpose of trying to find a consensus on what we know for sure to be the facts, an if we have gaps in the story, what theories have been proposed to fill in those gaps (specifying these theories as such).

On a last note, thank you for your willingness to contribute and will be looking forward to anything that you might find in your computer. Oh yeah, and you did mention that you believed that my list above was one or two short. What ship or ships were missing from the list above?

 

[jorgeproctor]

Okay Au Dreamers, I am back. About what you mentioned regarding the missing 3,000 feet of microfilm, where is this information missing? I ask because all the information at the archives is not necessarily in microfilm yet (there are still files that they have not worked on). So the information might not be necessarily missing. Just a thought.

On another note, to answer your question, yes, I can read the old documents. Although, I must say that at the moment I am tied up until at least August finishing a book that I have been working on for several years now, an would not be able to make the translations, until after I finish this project. With that said, let me send you my email address via private message in here, and that way we can stay in touch, as I do not want to ask you for your references and then keep you hanging, waiting for the translations. If it is okay with you, we can revisit this again down the road.

 

[signumops]

Jorge:
You may have to give up on matching calibers to vessels... many of the cannon were picked up during WWII and those iron guns still on the bottom are so corroded that you can not judge bore size. They will not be removed from where they are. Attached a couple of pics of one near Wabasso. The end of the barrel is broken on this one.

 

[mrmagoo560]

Greetings everyone. I am interested on the study of the ships of the 1715 fleet, themselves, and would like to get more information on what was the name of each vessel, the type of ship for each (i.e. galleon, ship of the line, patache, urca, frigate, etc.), and how many cannons each vessel had. Although there is some information on the internet, the reports are conflicting from one to the other, and there are few reference to check and see where the information is coming out of. Furthermore, the ship "Le Griffon," being the only vessel not to have sunk, is never discussed more than to say that it was a French ship and who was its captain. This vessel is the one that intrigues me the most, as although I might have an idea of what each of the other vessels might be (even if I do not have a number of cannons for all of them), I have absolutely no information on "Le Griffon" (no idea what type of vessel this was, or what was the number of cannons it carried). Any help will be greatly appreciated... Jorge

I am also interested in these ships and would like to know which 2 ships Kip Wagner didn't locate. I believe his research was accurate but don't think all the information was made public. With that being said, I think I might have an idea where those 2 missing ships went down and it would place then in international waters, far enough out that the state of Florida wouldn't have any jurisdiction over them. But it is only a hunch at this point.
There is a lot of odd claims about these ships and I have seen things on here about these ships as far north as St. Augustine and don't understand any of that. From the history and documents I have found they were sailing fairly close together until the storm blew them into the area around Sebastian Inlet and Vero Beach, were they broke up on the reef. I have also tried to gather all the information I can on hurricanes and storms in that area and it all seems to fit Kip's account of what he found and put in his book. But from what I have found, the 2 missing ships are the 2 flags ships from the 2different fleets ( Vera Cruz, Mexico and Havana Cuba) so they would probably be the largest and heaviest ships in the combined fleet and would naturally draw more water and behave differently in such a storm and probably not end up in the same place as the others.
I am not an expert on this subject, it is just something that has fascinated me for a very long time and I understand your questions. There is so much information on this subject it would be nice to have it all together in hopes of sorting through it all to try to figure out what really happened and where the truth actually lies.

 

[jorgeproctor]

Thank you for the advice and for showing me the pictures signumops. I see your point. Although I have also been taking some notes on a few cannons that have been salvaged and put on State Parks. I plan to go in March to the one down in the Keys to see if I can track down some of those cannons. I know it might be a futile effort. But hey, I have to go down to Key West anyways, so I might as well make a pit stop and take a look... Now, learning the number of cannons for some of these other vessels might be a good thing anyways (as it seems that we do not have this information for all the ships of the 1715 fleet). Even if the information is somewhat useless for identifying the site through cannon and caliber comparison. Just look at the example of the Sandy Point wreck, said to be the Rosario. The number of cannons on that site (between the ones currently on the site and the ones salvaged, adds up to 41 cannons). Chances are that there might be a few more cannons that have not been discovered or even salvaged without this being recorded. But even if we assume that the 41 were the total number of cannons on that ship, that would be one cannon too many for what the Rosario was said to be carrying (the Rosario had 40 cannons). Just a thought.

 

[jorgeproctor]

mrmagoo560: In this site there is a discussion called 1715 fleet pop quiz, which discusses your question extensively (see: http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/shipwrecks/110084-1715-fleet-pop-quiz.html). Be aware that there does seem to be disagreement as to the answer to your question. But, if you go to page 2 of that discussion, you will probably find a lot of information regarding "the two missing ships."

 

[signumops]

Jorge:
Here's a picture from Tommy Gore's collection that was in "The Rainbow Chasers In The Great Florida Treasure Hunt". These are cannon from the 1715 fleet laying at the "Orange" docks in Fort Pierce sometime in the 1920s after they were salvaged and placed in public locations throughout the city. They probably came from the Urca de Lima, or the Sandy Point Wreck... who knows for sure.

 

[jorgeproctor]

Signumops:

Thanks for posting that picture of the salvaged cannons. That is impressive to look at. I only wish that they would have kept better records as to where they were salvaged from and where these were being placed. That would help. On another note, what is your opinion about the Cannons Wreck? I know that it has been proposed that this could be part of the same ship that is in Corrigan. But, what do you believe regarding this?

 

[Jolly Mon]

My French is very poor (non-existent), but unless there were two Le Griffon's, both captained by a Chevalier d'Aire and sailing for Vera Cruz in 1712, then this should be right up your alley:

Histoire Navale D'Angleterre, Thomas Lediard, 1751
Histoire navale d'Angleterre, depuis la Conquête des Normands en 1066, jusqu ... - P.-F. Puisieux - Google Books

It looks like to me she is supposed to have carried 44 guns and a crew of 250 when she left for Vera Cruz in 1712. Unfortunately, no class or tonnage is given.

There are quite a few references to a ship called Le Griffon in this work...I cannot say if they all refer to the same vessel, but I don't think so. In most of the other references Le Griffon is listed as a "brulot", which I believe was the French term for fire ship. Fire ships were generally old hulks loaded with flammable material to be sailed into the midst of an enemy line to break it or sow confusion.


Here is a very rough translation of the paragraph:

"it was the Griffon, ship forty four guns and two hundred and fifty men crew, control the Chevalier d'Aire, load bales destined goods for Vera Cruz, which would have taken a rich well to reward sentences she had to take listening, but they claimed that the ship had obtained a passport from the Queen, though he was not the onboard when we took him and finally after many talks and share other the Chevalier Thomas knew obliges him put his pretensions, with a much lower amount of money to the value of the catch."

 

[signumops]

Signumops:

Thanks for posting that picture of the salvaged cannons. That is impressive to look at. I only wish that they would have kept better records as to where they were salvaged from and where these were being placed. That would help. On another note, what is your opinion about the Cannons Wreck? I know that it has been proposed that this could be part of the same ship that is in Corrigan. But, what do you believe regarding this?

Jorge:
In 1990, Doug Armstrong (no relation to me), served as the data collector aboard Steve Shouppe's salvage boat working on the Cannon Wreck. He saved all of his daily work sheets, and being one of the better record keepers in the business, made drawings of all the artifacts raised, and recorded the locations of cannon and ballast, by estimated volume. Last year I reprinted one of Doug's archaeological reports "The Winter Beach Salvage Camp", which deals with a 1715 salvage camp found some several miles or less, south of the Cannon Wreck. As a bonus, I made this volume serve double duty and included Doug's entire collection of daily log sheets from the 1990 Cannon Wreck digs, a rectified chart of the season's finds, and a letter that Doug had which was a reply from a cannon expert in England to Roger Smith of the Bureau of Archaeological Resources (I think Roger Smith is still working for Florida and the BAR). This expert had been questioned about two of the cannon on the Cannon Wreck. Smith wanted to know their era and manufacture. The expert (I do not have his name because I only had 2 of the 3 pages of the letter) said that he thought the guns were commercially produced in Sweden for the Spanish and that they were from the early 18th century. One of them was a howitzer, the other a four-pounder, both iron. I had to typeset the text as the original letter image was too difficult to read as a scanned image. However, all of the other daily field notes are presented in their original image format. You can get a copy at Amazon.
Based upon Doug's prolific notes, I would have to say that the Cannon Wreck is a vessel in and of itself considering that there was considerable ballast, cannon, rudder gudgeon, and other items found within a plausible spill pattern. However, be aware that I have never worked on the Cannon Wreck myself. On the other hand, I am acquainted with some of the divers who have, most of them of the opinion that this is a single ship, and probably one of the 1715 fleet vessels. Unfortunately, no coins were recovered, giving us some better assurance by date. Armstrong indicates that several led muzzle cover sheets were found for 6-pounders, and at least one 6-pounder ball was recovered during the 1990 season.
There are a mixture of wrecks in this area, including one called the Iron Ballast Wreck which lays nearby to the Cannon Wreck, it being of the very early 20th century as I understand it. Positively associating guns with particular vessels is very difficult and I offer the previous example of the 9 footer I illustrated with the broken muzzle. It lays all by itself with nothing nearby... no ballast, no EO's (save one brass or bronze pin), or shards. Existing dig charts from the Fisher labs do not have it marked, but have other metallic finds nearby or in the immediate proximity. Why it is laying there in plain view, un-recorded, remains a mystery to me. I found it quite by accident while looking for my metal detector that had drifted away from me while I was trying to remove the bronze pin from the rock about 30 feet away, and had I not begun swimming in a circle to find my detector, I would not have discovered the cannon. (BTW, I found my detector floating in the surf about a half mile away, but I had put a pelican buoy on the cannon so we could return for a fix.)

 

[jorgeproctor]

Greeting Jolly Mon and thank you for posting that book entry. That is exactly the type of stuff I am looking for. Yes, that confirms the identity of Le Griffon. This definitely confirms that this ship was the 500 tons frigate by this name. Awesome!!! Thanks.

 

[jorgeproctor]

Signumops:
Thank you for all the info. I will definitely go look for that book as I now want to learn as much as possible about the Cannon Wreck site. Specially with the news about the believe that this is a separate ship all together. I am finding enough clues in the archives that you never know what find could end up representing the proverbial "eureka moment" that could ID one of these sites to their corresponding ship.

 

[PhipsFolly]

Jorge...

If you are referring to the "Cannon Pile" Wreck off of Treasure Shores Park, it is most definately a wreck on its own and many 1715 Fleet period coins, artifacts and treasures have come from this site. Many gold and silver coins (alot of Lima mint coins), incredible jewelry pieces, raw emeralds, and rare early Chinese export porcelain wares have been recovered over the years both on the beach and offshore.