Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Fofolito t1_itoisjy wrote

Cool.

From the article, after Vasa sank three ships were ordered from the same shipwright to similar designs. They were the Crown, Sceptre, and this one, Applet (Apple). Two of these ships served in war and this one was sunk on purpose, upon decommissioning, likely as a submerged spike-strip to foul unawares attackers.

296

banestyrelsen t1_itowzac wrote

I believe all four ships were ordered simultaneously but they started building Vasa first. Already during construction they thought it would be unstable so they made the other three ships wider.

104

tepkel t1_its8lh3 wrote

>In the summer of 1628, the captain responsible for supervising construction of the ship, Söfring Hansson, arranged for the ship's stability to be demonstrated for Vice Admiral Fleming, who had recently arrived in Stockholm from Prussia.

"Man, this ship seems really unstable. Guess we better test it to see"

>Thirty men ran back and forth across the upper deck to start the ship rolling, but the admiral stopped the test after they had made only three trips, as he feared the ship would capsize.

"Man, this ship is really unstable. Guess we better not take it too far on it's maiden voyage"

>The ship sank after sailing roughly 1,300 m into her maiden voyage on 10 August 1628.

11

AnaphoricReference t1_itp6zlb wrote

When you scuttle a ship in the entrance of a harbour defensively, as a blockship, this is usually done to force those that enter the harbour to sail in closer to the cannons of a fortress.

78

TheNaug t1_itpi9al wrote

The -et suffix is the definitive form, like adding "the" to a word.

Äpplet = The Apple

65

motoxjake t1_itonwhh wrote

Very cool! I've been to the Vasa museum in Stockholm and its quite impressive! Never knew there was a sister ship that didnt sink on its maiden voyage.

171

automatvapen t1_itos5wp wrote

They actually made four in total with wasa as the first ship. Let's call it a failed "design concept"

65

War_Hymn t1_itpugjs wrote

If I recall, the designer (a Dutch master shipwright) was bedridden from illness during the Vasa's construction and his nephew or assistant took over the project. The ship ended more top heavy than it should had been, contributing to it's instability.

I'm sure the later sister ships were built with improvements and changes, keep in mind the Vasa was at the cutting edge of ship design at the time - they were trying build not only large, but fast.

23

Cat5lover t1_itpx6vg wrote

I believe it was also this. In spirit of collaboration, the Dutch did one side and the Swedes did the other. The unfortunate part was that the Dutch inch and the Swedish inch are slightly different which led to one side being heavier than the other causing it to lean too far to one side and take on water some few hundred meters from shore.

15

culingerai t1_itrij7t wrote

Source?

3

Cat5lover t1_itsb7g2 wrote

I went to the museum itself a few years ago, but I found this which discusses the instability of the ship. https://faculty.up.edu/lulay/failure/vasacasestudy.pdf

3

culingerai t1_itswuu0 wrote

Good information, but it doesnt address the claim on the inches. Im only asking as this sounds like some sort of urban legend rather than a factual reason for its failure.

6

Cat5lover t1_ituudk0 wrote

That’s a fair assessment. I unfortunately couldn’t find a reference during my brief search, but that was what they said when we went to the museum.

1

panckage t1_itqxkoe wrote

That's right. The unusual thing about the Vasa is you could walk the whole length of the gun deck upright. Previous designs you would need to bend over to walk past the crossbeams. It is this extra height that is blamed for the ship rolling over and consequently sinking

3

avdpos t1_itoytnj wrote

I'm a swede, and I did not know it either

13

clampy t1_itr7amb wrote

It's a really neat museum, but I wish they'd let you go on/in the ship. I get why they don't, but it would have been a lot cooler if they did.

3

motoxjake t1_itr9vtw wrote

Yes, you can get pretty close to it but I would have liked to venture into the ship. I totally understand why thats a bad idea and it was still a fantastic experience, regardless. Stockholm is such a beautiful city.

3

lurkarrunt t1_itopkyn wrote

As a Swedish speaker I found it a bit weird that Guardian wrote Applet and not the correct Äpplet (or The Apple if they wanted to translate)

104

MeatballDom OP t1_itorinu wrote

Surprised to not pick that up myself. Was expecting æblet but then told myself æ wouldn't be used in Swedish and never continued the thought to what should be used. But I guess I assumed the authors would have already done that work.

Edit: Would the umlaut have been used in the 17th century? Vowel shift perhaps?

29

Select-Owl-8322 t1_itpauo9 wrote

>Edit: Would the umlaut have been used in the 17th century? Vowel shift perhaps?

"Ä" is actually not an "A" with an umlaut, it's its own separate letter in our alphabet. As is "Å" and "Ö".

And I believe they were used back in the 17th century, but I'm not a linguist so I'm not sure.

31

flowering_sun_star t1_itsdadg wrote

Is this just a matter of the way you are taught the alphabet in school? Because it blatantly is the character 'A' with a diacritic that indicates it is pronounced differently.

−3

Akaviren t1_itsox1b wrote

Not sure if I understand your question, but Å, Ä and Ö is considered a part of the alphabet in Sweden. Thus adding three more letters to what English speakers consider their alphabet.

5

Select-Owl-8322 t1_ittgwih wrote

I man, the visual representation is an A with dots, yes. But it is it own letter. The english alphabet has 26 letters, the swedish alphabet has 29. On a swedish keyboard, Å Ä and Ö have their own keys. The pronunciation is entierly different.

2

Snooderblade t1_ittuyhc wrote

”Q blatantly is the character 'O' with a diacratic that indicates it is pronounced differently”

Different languages have different letters to accomodate that language, there is no objectively correct ”alphabet” and the english version of the latin alphabet isn’t the default. How is this so hard for english speakers to understand?

1

flowering_sun_star t1_itu0zmd wrote

Q is a consonant, while O is a vowel that can have many different pronunciations. They perform very different roles.

It's hard for an English speaker to understand where you're coming from because in English a vowel can have many different pronunciations, and we are comfortable with that. We also understand that other languages use diacritics to provide hints on pronunciation.

It seems really weird to us to insist that a character, and that character with diacritics, are fundamentally different things. Especially when the base character in an English text could reasonably be used to represent both those sounds. And remember that this is all in the context of an English language text!

I'm perhaps just surprised at how up-tight all the swedes are over a simple choice in transliteration. Maybe it is you who need the reminder that not all languages share an alphabet?

0

Snooderblade t1_itu429o wrote

But it’s not an A with diacritics! A and Ä are objectively different letters, using an A (which in english sounds nothing like Ä no matter how you pronounce it) is misleading. You can’t just switch letters based on looks without regard for the sounds they represent. Case in point the closest letter to Ä is E, not A, the official way to transliterate Ä in english is Ae and if you look at the actual article they use Ä aswell.

1

toyyya t1_itrc8mj wrote

Firstly it's worth noting that Swedish doesn't have umlauts like that and it's a separate letter completely. But disregarding the semantics we have officially used Ä and Ö instead of Æ and Ø since at the very least 1541.

Which is when Gustav Vasa's Bible was written that set new standards for the Swedish language, and the change to Ä and Ö was partly motivated by seeking a stronger separate identity from the Kalmar union (which was a Union between Norway Sweden and Denmark that we had just fought ourselves free from due to the Danes effectively controlling it).

12

ArtlieST t1_itr4r2v wrote

They do use Äpplet in the article, just not in the headline! :)

3

lurkarrunt t1_itr5418 wrote

I thought I was confused, but they changed it! Look at the bottom: "This article was amended on 25 October 2022. An earlier version referred to the ship as Applet, when it is Äpplet" Should I assume someone at The Guardian read my comment?

3

ArtlieST t1_itr5u67 wrote

Ooh look at that! Completely missed that little piece hehe. Maybe they did?

2

zoinkability t1_itoikk4 wrote

Java developers are confused by this headline

73

Select-Owl-8322 t1_itp88rs wrote

I actually think it's a little bit disrespectful to the Swedish language to not use the correct spelling, "Äpplet". I know that most non-Swedes wouldn't be able to pronounce it correctly, but they can at least spell it correctly in a headline!

26

zoinkability t1_itpo2y5 wrote

Great point, the proper character is not hard to use

4

gregorydgraham t1_itssusq wrote

Tsk! It’s easy to pronounce, just simultaneously pronounce an “a” and a horizontal semi-colon.

1

buster_de_beer t1_itp6kdn wrote

Nah, applet definitely is a sunken ship. Makes perfect sense.

16

unknown_ordinary t1_itoquj2 wrote

Everyone else is excited about our ancestors enjoying gadgets from our favorite company

1

panckage t1_itqxzq3 wrote

Not surprised by the performance though!

1

ElMachoGrande t1_itoy6xc wrote

Swedish guy here: It was named Äpplet, not Applet. Ä and A are two completely different letters. Applet is a programming concept, Äpplet means "The apple".

37

DdPillar t1_itp1d54 wrote

Literally, yes, although together with its sister ships (the sceptre and the crown), it is obviously a reference to riksäpplet, Globus Cruciger a Christian symbol of authority. Together they make up the Regalia of Sweden.

14

Electric_Evil t1_itor1n9 wrote

So can we raise this one and put it on display next to the Vasa?

11

beach_boy91 t1_itp199r wrote

In a swedish article i read yesterday, it's said that it lies in a military area, which are forbidden to dive in. They gotta have special authority to dive there and they said that maybe they'll take a look at it towards spring to 3d scan the entire thing but they didn't think they would raise the ship and just let it be. It has survived there since 1659 and is still mostly intact. It will be able to lie at the bottom for a lot longer without the need of raising it and requier constant maintaining

22

IMALEFTY45 t1_itovko8 wrote

They would need to build a bigger museum

7

rbajter t1_itpjwd2 wrote

They already have a bigger boat. (dun dun)

5

drmalaxz t1_itpfxnj wrote

A bit lax to not even check that the Vasa actually sunk August 10, 1628.

6

[deleted] t1_itpq48y wrote

[deleted]

3

tiramichu t1_itqhnp3 wrote

Because there is surviving historical record.

The 1600s were not as long ago as you think. People paid taxes. There were financial ledgers, and letters written, and paintings of significant things. And when the navy ordered an expensive warship there was certainly a contract with the shipyard.

It might seem like forever ago, but in the grand scheme it's pretty modern history.

And as well as records of when it was built, also records of how it was lost.

13

[deleted] t1_itqqra2 wrote

[deleted]

2

wegtys t1_itrpqpm wrote

Chemical analysis of the wood shows it was from the same location as the wood from the Vasa and the year rings show it was cut the same year.

1

Dextimus t1_itro1wv wrote

Archaeologists were able to confirm that this was indeed the sister ship to the Vasa due to identical screws being found and the exact same steps to assemble it in its construction manual.

2

Oana__Oana t1_itsb9e8 wrote

It’a a really cool museum about this in Stockholm, and you can find out a lot of interesting facts about it there! Also the ship very well preserved

2

DeRuyter67 t1_itp9o3h wrote

Why did it sink?

1

fredagsfisk t1_itpf7n9 wrote

It was sunk on purpose to block a passage for enemy ships, 29 years after it first set sail. It was already damaged and worn at the time, to the point where it was deemed too expensive for repairs to be worth it.

12

ulyssesfiuza t1_itphlk0 wrote

At the time it was a rotten Applet, or Äpplet. Various redditors point to the difference, none show the difference in spell.

4

Snooderblade t1_itqw1nw wrote

A and Ä are different letters that just happens to look similar but they sound nothing alike. Using an A instead of the correct letter is like using a Q instead of an O.

7

rbajter t1_itpkb5r wrote

I heard that these old wooden ships usually serverd around 12 years before being replaced.

1

fredagsfisk t1_itpn3dz wrote

Hmm, sounds very low, so I don't think that's correct. I know that the cannons apparently had a much longer service life than the ships themselves tho, and that they'd be salvaged and reused when one sank.

For Swedish "regalskepp" (the largest ships of the navy during the 1600s):

Äpplet - 3 years, sold

Vasa - 0 years, sank instantly

Äpplet - 29 years, sunk on purpose (the one in the article)

Kronan - 43 years, sunk on purpose

Göta Ark - 16 years, scrapped

Scepter - 39 years, sunk on purpose

Draken - 21 years, stranded during battle

Viktoria - 28 years, sunk on purpose

Saturnus - 45 years, though was rebuilt and renamed Bohus after 25 years

Riksäpplet - 15 years, sank during storm

Svärdet - 13 years, sank in battle

Wrangel - 49 years, though was rebuilt after 25 years

Nyckeln - 14 years, sank by own crew during battle to avoid capture

Mars - 12 years, captured by Denmark

Jupiter - 45 years, sank (not sure why)

Venus - 39 years, though was rebuilt and renamed Finland after 18 years

Kronan (aka Stora Kronan) - 4 years, exploded and sank during battle

Solen - 25 years, sunk on purpose

Mercurius - 48 years, though was captured by the Dutch 5 years after it was launched

Please note that these dates are the time that passed from launch to sinking or decommissioning, and that not all of them had a service life that long.

9

fiendishrabbit t1_itpnjg3 wrote

Depends on the era, building material and size.

A well-built 74-gun ship-of-the-line built out of well-dried oak were on average in service for maybe 30-50 years. British second rates (90-gun ships) tended to be in service for 60-80 years unless they were wrecked.

On the opposite end we have ships like the Endymion class frigates, which served for about a decade. But these ships were built out of fir instead of oak (because of a shortage of oak and the need to complete them quickly)

Swedish ships tended to live a hard life though, and a very large amount of them were sunk or captured. The longest serving ship was Äran (Glory), with it's 90 years in Swedish service before sinking (due to fire).

4

EzKafka t1_itpqj4r wrote

We had such a long coast but yet we had a horrible trackrecord on the sea. The Danes beat us to it many times.

1

fiendishrabbit t1_itpurev wrote

The swedish navy has always played second fiddle to the swedish army.

Also, while the "örlogsflottan" (open water navy) frequently performed poorly the archipelago fleet (consisting of galleys, gunsloops and the smaller archipelago frigates) mostly performed quite well (like Frisches Haff, Nöteborg and the second battle of Svensksund).

5

EzKafka t1_itq5eqh wrote

Yeah, thats a big point to be honest. Sweden was mainly an inland sea. Danes had much more oceanic waters to handle. Also, the inclusion of British and Dutch navies screwing us both over to keep the balance was also a big help.

1

grambell789 t1_itq9mh5 wrote

I'm curious how ship building tech changed from about 1400 to 1600. I have read that steel for tools improved much during that period especially big rip saws that could cut the hull planks so they can be edge joined (carvel).

1

NavyThrone t1_itrybbr wrote

Vote. You need to vote and ask anyone you know to go vote.

1

citoloco t1_its2zxc wrote

Crap, who designed those ships and did he ever work again?!

1

Fezbot420 t1_itrxxny wrote

Is this the ship from Black Sails? Or am I totally off lol

0