do we really know about he 1715 fleet and what are the documents / data of proof ?

[ivan salis]

lets see what common questions can be answered and what proof or documents back it up ...


question 1 ...how many vessels were in the 1715 fleet in total ?

A--- 12 in total --1 French vessel (Griffon) --and 11 Spanish vessels in a combined fleet ... 5 in Ubilla's fleet and 6 in Echiceis's fleet with Ubilla in charge of the "combined fleet" ....

source of the number of vessels in fleet * sept 20th ,1715 letter from salmon to the king of spain ...9 vessels are lost and 2 of the galleons are missing ...9 +2 = 11

question 2 ...did any of the ships survive ?

A---only the french vessel Griffon ...it returned to brest france..


question 3... how many ships sank close together in the "generally well known 1715 fleet area" ?

A....( a total of 8)-- all 5 vessels of Ubilla's fleet --plus the 2 main treasure vessels and the small dutch prize vessel of many names --San Miguel / senor de la popa / Holandisa --from Echiceis fleet .... these wrecks were spread out from from cords of 27 50 to 27 15 degrees ..a distance of roughly 35 miles * source ---from a deposition given in Havana, Cuba by Ubilla's pilot -(-Nicolas de Inda) after he and 18 other men arrived in a launch boat sent on august 6/7th from the wreckssites arriving at 2 pm on august 16th ,1715 .

question 4...what became of the 3 "missing" vessels?

A.....of the 3 "missing vessels that are not in the "main wrecksite area" because they broke away from the bulk of the fleet before the storm hit and ran northward (according to the pilot) --one was known to have sank somewhere near the cape area -- because 4 crew members were found at the cape after floating upon a hatch coverfrom about 2 days --that was the "conception"( when salmon wrote his sept 20th 1715 letter he knew of the conception fate thus the 8 close together wrecks + the conception = 9 -- thus 9 lost***---that leaves 2 other "galleons" (the French prize aka "El Ciervo" and the tobacco hauling nao known as "San Miguel") from the Echiceis fleet unaccounted for .. salmon accounts for them by saying they are thought to have sank on the high seas because wreckage of a large vessel or vessels was found on the north shore of St Augustine...

now ask away and let see if there are other questions that I have the knowledge to answer ...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Boatlode]

I don't agree that the Concepcion necessarily wrecked at the Cape. Those crewmembers could have drifted a long way in two days, and the prevailing winds and currents would have carried them north. So in my opinion, the Concepcion could lie anywhere from just north of Sebastian Inlet to the Cape.

 

[grossmusic]

there are other threads on this where much of this is discussed & I for one would love to see the discussion revived after some dormancy

meanwhile - we do know that the name is Echeverz (not Echiceis)

most of your points do seem to be the general concensus now among those who've dug into the conflicting reports that confuse, mostly due to duplicate names for some of the smaller vessels & all the various spellings of names, places & things (not to mention the language barrier)

Concepcion & the others have lots of theories - all discussed in the threads I don't know how to find right now

 

[ivan salis]

the name if "englishized" is Echeverz -- according to the Spanish disposition of Ubilla's pilot at Havana, Cuba on august 16th.1715 * (Nicolas de Inda)----- on the 30th of last month July, while in open seas, at 28 degrees latitude the terra firme fleet (South American treasure fleet & squadron )--under the command of the Captain of sea and war * Don Antonio Echiceis y Zubiza --(his formal correct title and full name proper in Spanish)

By the way Ubila's titled full Spanish name was ...Don Juan Esteban de Ubila ... often misspelled with 2 ll's by most folks ..and while I myself have used both Echeverz and Ubilla often in my own post to keep from confusing folks .. honestly its historically incorrect to do so..

Don is the Spanish equal to the English knighted title "Sir"...it means you have a "royal title" of honor

 

[grossmusic]

In the 18th century people didn't even know how to spell their own names. It was all phonetics. In fact, Woodes Rogers spells his own name at least 2 or 3 different ways in one document. His signature was never consistent.

But I'd say Don Antonio's signature is closer to Echeverz than Echiceis.


And there are more occurrences of Subiza than Zubiza (that I've found, which is just the tip of an iceberg no doubt, so it could go either way).


In Spain & Basque, most references are Echeberz or Echeverz.


In fact, I don't think I've ever seen Echiceis, but that could be why I couldn't find some documentation - never thought to look for that. I'll have to remember that for the next round of research.

 

[ivan salis]

it was spelled that way--- Echiceis in the in the disposition of *Nicolas de Inda recorded in Havana , Cuba after he arrived at 2 pm on August 16th ,1715 ...looking at the signature you show --I personally would say to me that looks like ...Antomo de echinenz ...but as you say spelling was very phonic back then leading to many different variants of the same name due to poor spelling and misleading sounding of some names by the folks recording the records

My family name is a fine exsample ...currently I go by Salis which in latin means "salt" ...when in England ..salis is like salisbiury -- in Spain its salise' --when from majorica its a totally different name altogether --salis -- the very oldest trace I can find when in the swiss/italiian border region cantons in the late 1400's -- linked to the current Count Charles de Salis of England --from when the family came to England (counts of the Holy Roman Empire) in the 1700's era

 

[grossmusic]

No "quest" is worth it's salt (or salis) if it's too easy. Same goes for the quest for historical knowledge. All the spellings are just obstacles to get past.

Here are a few of the related threads that could use a "bump":

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/treasure-legends-florida/90870-history-1715-treasure-question.html

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/shipwrecks/343502-trying-verify-history-1715-plate-fleet.html

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/shipwrecks/276268-1715-fleet-what-do-we-know.html