The Building of East Indiaman Götheborg Pt 1 - Hur Ostindiefararen Götheborg byggdes del 1

[@BEdmonson85]

This kind of workmanship is absolutely stunning. The amazing people that built this ship most be overwhelmingly proud. Thank you for sharing this with the world.

[@gj3072]

I am impressed. As a matter of fact I am very much impressed. Great job, of rebuilding a classic ship.

[@amartinjoe]

this is amazing; I've always been fascinated by wood ship building. Making those frames was absolutely astounding...and steaming those planks, that's just brilliant. Those people were really smart back then!

[@Kimdino1]

It is great to see how each part is being made. It allows us to see what a big thing it was to build these ships. Just imagine the effort required when these were built without modern machinery; when those deck joints were shaped by muscles & all the wood was sawn by hand. And cording up 100,000km of hemp per ship. WOW Excellent video, thanks

[@blueskygoldensun]

Thank you so much. I am glad you like it! It's a very special ship, indeed.

[@beernd4822]

BTW this is a great series. Thank you for downloading.

[@Hexaphod]

Absolutely facinating

[@blueskygoldensun]

I very much value and love trees and I know their immense importance for this earth and what an enormous problem the disappearance of the great forests all over the world is to the ecosystem and to threatened species. However, the comparatively tiny amount of trees that went into this ship is absolutely nothing compared to the wrecking of forests due to the never ending demand for luxury wood flooring, furniture etc.

[@wayneparker9331]

+Sofie A Totally agree. The greatest threat to forests are found in developing nations where very large swathes of forest are cut down by the thousands of acres every year contributing to global warming. Great video, BTW!!!

[@blueskygoldensun]

+Wayne Parker Thank you! Yes, you are right. And once the countries are developed, probably only small remnants of once big and precious forests will remain.

[@abdellatifghoraini534]

+Sofie A hi

[@john123456889]

oaks in england are a protected species of tree now. England had the largest armada in the world and oak was the preferred choice of wood due to its tight grain from a slow process of ageing. So now there aren't many left. But has for deforestation, there is no ONE person or GROUP of people to blame. The problem is the consumers, the ones who buy wooden products. If you have wooden furniture, a wooden house, in fact anything made from timber then YOU are also responsible for the destruction of forests

[@stpracecar6729]

Talk to the Government of Brazil! they allow the destruction of 200 square miles of Rain Forest every year which is the REAL cause of Global Warming!

[@Mattiethekorbat]

Surprised not to find others commenting on just how much work went into this, even with all the modern equipment, and wondering what it must have been like to build these ships originally!

[@victorrodolfososa9225]

beautiful works , envy from sudamerica

[@sunrise_moondrop6810]

its amazing that the skill still exist for something like this...lost art props for doing things the old way

[@ManufacturedLack]

I think most trees would love to be boats. Their branches are pointing up bc they are saying "pick me, pick me". What stuns me is that all of this is for one ship. The people in the past made thousands of ships. Where did everything come from to make all those ships, what kind of organizational skills were required? I don't think history is telling us everything.

[@shannonlove4328]

The history is there but like almost all technical history, largely ignored. The organization is the early evolution of the corporate bureaucracy, which people at the time regarded as unimportant and even today we care more about politics wars and which historical figures bonked each other.

[@grejsancoprative]

Up until very late after the industrial revolution; most people lived around the place where they worked. Whole small towns and communites sprung up around these work places; like shipyards. There you had your pubs and small markets, places of leizure and so on. The people who moved there were all in some way either directly involved in the construction of the ship itself, or worked supporting those who worked in the shipyard... We do know quite a lot of how people lived and organized themselves in these places. The workers themselves stem from a long line of apprenticeship where they started learning a skill very early on in life; often by living with the craftman who thought them. They often started out doing very simple tasks; like someone learning to become a blacksmitg would start by making nails and horseshoes before moving to all the more complicated stuff. Much like today big projects like building a ship would be manged, much like today, by a form of foreman who were the middle man between the costumer and the workers. A lumber is a very ambundant resource in Sweden, even in those days.

[@Deftonesdsm]

God the labour costs alone on a ship this large in the modern world are unimaginable. I build 200 million dollar stadiums and cannot imagine building a ship this large

[@R.E.HILL_]

Who's idea was it to NOT include the sourcing of timber and construction of the keel? Mind blown...

[@oskich]

This is such a great project - I sailed onboard the vessel between Africa and Australia 13 years ago, and it's a shame it can't sail anymore due to loosing it's certificates because of lack of funding :-P

[@1339LARS]

I "own" one nail !!

[@Anonymous-bf5cs]

Lars Jönlid My teacher ”owns” one nail too!

[@beernd4822]

Wood is THE most ecofriendly material. It leaves the smallest Carbon Footprint possible. Just think about it. Cut down a tree, plant another one. Trees don't need fertiliser or whatever. They only thing you have to do is find the tree suitable for your purposes and cut it down, and cut it to size, you don't have to resmelt or repurify it or whatever. Wood is the building material that makes the most sense, period. Oh yeah, there are people saying that metals can be recycled. Yeah, the metals can, but not the coal and limestone and the fuels to create the heat. The french politician living in the early 17th century, (I think his name was Colbert)already saw this and from that time on there have always been oak forests with 350 year old trees up for sale, after the cut, they are replanted with young oak trees.

[@beernd4822]

Compare wood to steel or concrete. Than tell me why they are more ecofriendly. And there are ecofriendly ways to conserve even a wood like pinus striata. google "Accoya" There is a lot of forestation going on to. And how ecofriendly is strip mining, melting steel, thus producing radioactive slag. Properly treated wood can last for centuries. . Ships became all metal because ships were getting bigger and bigger, google up on wooden 5 masters. Oh and BTW Steel has to be very well protected with all kinds of chemical goo, for ocean going ships that iss an allmost continuos process if not they will rust to peaces. Google up the ecofriendlyness of concrete. So give me some examples of more ecofriendly materials. Besides saying that steel replaced wood is your way of proving that steel is more ecofriendly than wood is absolute nonsense. Your whole comment is so totally not to the point it is rightout rediculous.

[@beernd4822]

Yeah trees can 't grow back but steel can, and coal and limestone, they all grow back. And wood doesn't. You are the champion of talking stupid. It is a pity that "Monty Python's flying circus" does not exsist anymore you would have done great in that show. Grow your iron trees and cultivate that concrete garden of you. Finland plants more and more trees. Hungary is planting lots and lots of "Robinia pseudo acacia". You convinced me, I will not plant anymore trees, instead, I will plant iron ore and concrete plants. I thought that your last comment was stupid as stupid can get, but you have outdone yourself. So skyscrapers can't be build out of wood, really? Well there are lots of things that can't be buit of wood, like computers trains, etc. Now explain to me why concrete and steel are more ecofriendly. You never answered that one. EXPLAIN TO ME WHY CONCRETE AND STEEL ARE MORE ECOFRIENDLY THAN WOOD. And BTW you cut down many trees, now how many did you plant?? I will stop now because I have to water my steel bushes, and my concrete producing trees. Oh and go see a psychiatrist. You are going to explain to me why concrete and steel are so much more ecofriendly Oh and offcourse it doesn't take any energy to mine iron ore, it pops out all by itself, and it will pop out the coal and limestone too. And again I am not saying that everything can be build off wood. And that is all I am going to say to a stawman champion good bye..

[@shannonlove4631]

"Cut down a tree, plant another one." Let me speak slowly so you will understand Wood... without ... protection from ... things like ... concrete and... petroleum derived protectants... rots ... faster... than ... trees ... grow... replacement ... wood ... Since we're talking about ships, the pre-steam, pre-metal ships of the age of sail are a classic example. Those ships should be you're dream tech since they we're all organic, windpowered and biodegradable. Unfortunately, biodegradable is marketing speak for, "it rots." It took a minimum of 50 years and as a practical matter, more around 100 years, to grow the hardwood oak necessary for the ship's frame. But, even with seasoning the wood in salt for a couple of years, covering the hull with pitch and later copper, few ships operated longer than 20 years. See the problem? Sure you can cut down a tree, plant a replacement, build the ship, use it for 20 years and then what... do without ships for the next 75 years until the tree grows back? No, you either spread out the AREA where you source your wood, or you perform a technology shift use some other material. The Europeans switched to metal, slowly over 150 years. The Chinese used a form of cement to splice together smaller weaker pieces of wood and made compromises like lateral bulkheads (which are structural not safety elements.) Even so, ship building contributed massively to the deforestation of Europe and then North America. "Trees don't need fertiliser or whatever." Actually, most farmed trees, where most modern wood comes from, are fertilized and employ other techiques of modern agriculture. That's because they're really not in a natural forest but a field of crops. It's just the crop plants are very large and take decades to grow. "They only thing you have to do is find the tree suitable for your purposes and cut it down, and cut it to size, you don't have to resmelt or repurify it or whatever." No, you have to build a extensive network of roads spread out all over the harvest area and then use giant trucks to hall the wood to the mill. Those roads and trucks have an enormous environmental impact. Shipping to point of use, shaping, erecting etc. All that generates environmental impact. Then you must repeat the entire process several times for each single time you build from metal/concrete/plastic. Go look at wooden buildings. Look at the foundation, notice the foundation is concrete? That's because unless the building is in the desert, the wood can't contact ground moisture. If it does, it starts to rot immediately. If you don't use petroleum based products to pre-treat and then paint the wood, it's lifetime is measured in years, not a decades. Again, faster than the trees can grow back. The vast majority of "wood" you think you see is actual a wood/toxin/polymer combination. Most of the wood in modern building is "engineered" wood like plywood, particle board or MDF. Most furniture as well. Engineered woods are combinations of petroleum based polymer adhesives. Wood used unpainted outdoors is saturated with a toxin that kills microbes and insect. They're usually 20%-40% by weight, toxins. They used to used arsenic based but have switched to copper sulfate, and some other compounds that take more energy to produce and don't work as well. Then you have the problem of "wood sprawl" i.e. since you can't build more than 5-10 stories out of wood, even in theory, you have to lower your population density and spread out cities, wiping out the natural ecosystem in the process. BTW: Colbert was a commoner who rose to be the French equivalent of Minister of Finance under the IIRC Louis 14th. He funded the sun king's war but also so that France, despite being a land power, need a big navy. Prior to Colbert, France, unlike Britain, and all of Scandinavia, had no navel forest management system. England started a system in the early 1300s and by 1500 or so, the vast majority if not all of the English forest were managed (in addition to other things) for trees for the navy. Even so, England had to import vast amounts of wood from Scandinavia and so did France.

[@shannonlove4631]

Limestone? What idiots are you blithely listening to? I hate to have to tell you this in front of the entire internet but limestone does "grow back". (1) It's constantly generated by the action of CO2 dissolved in rainwater to produce carbolic acid which combines with calcium in rock to produce calcium carbonate aka Limestone. (2) Many microbes, make it as well e.g. coral reefs. Limestone generations is part of the carbon regulation cycle of tectonic plates that keeps the earth from turning into either Venus or Mars. And t's generated at blistering speed in geological terms, so much so that in the worst case scenario of CO2 production in global warming models, all the excess CO2 we add will be converted to limestone in as little as 1,000 years. Also, it's one of the most common minerals in the crust, and we've used a minuscule amount of it. We couldn't use more than a tiny fraction to make cement, which I'm guess whatever unaccountable, televangelist-style activist told you was the problem, without turning the earth to Venus. Steel doesn't grow back because they're no steel or iron in nature. Instead, they're artificial materials wholly made by human effort. Granted, it does require iron ores and iron ores are only... oh, right, every iron containing mineral in the crust. The iron ore de jure is simply, what every iron containing mineral is most economical at given time or place. Since iron containing mineral comprise 5% of the Earth's crust is made of iron, we won't run out anytime soon. What you don't understand, which is common, is that there is no such thing as "natural" resources. The earth isn't some giant barrel of iron, limestone, copper or whatever and someday we'll empty the barrel. That's not how it works. Instead, we make materials that we need using a wide and ever shifting base of ubiquitous elements. As such, all "resources" are artificial. As our technology grows, the number of artificial resources grows as well. In the 1800s, aluminum was considered a precious metal, more valuable than gold because like gold, it didn't corrode and it could be produced only at great expense by laborious chemical means. Then the electrolysis method of extracting it was discovered and today we think of of a cheap disposable material and make cooking foil and soda cans out of it. 150+ years ago, petroleum was obtained from natural seepages and was largely useless anyway. People used whale body parts instead. Then the walled pipe drill was invented, oil became common as lubricant, then fractionation lead to kerosene and then hundreds of other derivatives, then plastics. Today, we can replace oil completely if we wanted to, making it literally out air (water + CO2 == hydrocarbons.) A team a University of Texas has made the necessary catalytic system so works from any heat source, from solar furnaces to nuclear power. "So skyscrapers can't be build out of wood, really?" No, because woods strength to weight ratio is to low. Really, this KINDERGARTEN LEVEL engineering knowledge and it staggers me you're are so profoundly ignorant as to think you could build the Empire State Building, out of wood? I won't bother to explain. Google, "structural properties" of wood, steel and concrete and puzzle it out yourself. " Now explain to me why concrete and steel are more ecofriendly. You never answered that one.EXPLAIN TO ME WHY CONCRETE AND STEEL ARE MORE ECOFRIENDLY THAN WOOD." Yes, I did, first thing. (1) The biosphere is very thin, 99% of it occurs within 100m vertical of local surface of the earth. It's like the orange rind on orange except in true scale vastly thinner. You might have noticed that only one tree grows in one particular area, they don't stack. (2) That means the biosphere is damaged way, way, way, way, way more by human activity that take up more AREA, than any other activity. The most ecologically destructive activity humans engage in is the extermination of natural ecosystems by clearing fields for agriculture. We just don't think about it because agriculture is so old and we have all these cultural preprogrammed positive feelings about the good old family farm. But it should be obvious to even someone like you educated by, I presume, brochures and advertisements, that converting huge AREAS of natural ecosystem which contain hundreds or thousands of species and replacing them with fields of one species, is a huge whammy on the environment. (3) Steel and concrete are environmentally superior, all tradeoffs considered, because their creation takes literally hundreds of times less AREA out of the biosphere than does wood. "And BTW you cut down many trees, now how many did you plant?" Well, none, because I was on a farm clearing out land for agriculture and fire prevention, and not harvesting wood, and replanting the trees would have defeated the purpose. Although, I must admit, I never wanted to be a Sci-Tech geek, I wanted to be.... A lumberjack! ... Leaping from tree to tree as they float down the mighty rivers of British Columbia . . .The giant redwood, the larch, the fir, the mighty scotch pine. The smell of fresh-cut timber! The crash of mighty trees! ) With my best girlie by my side ... We'd sing ... sing ... sing! *Sigh* Just couldn't walk in heels. BTW, don't try to insult a Sci-Tech geek like myself by suggesting we belong in Monty Python. We view it as a compliment. But I digress "And again I am not saying that everything can be build off wood." Just skyscapers... I'm not saying we can't use wood. I know wood, I did carpentry (not very well) in my youth and I do woodworking. I was educated as a biologist. I'm just saying that (1) lumbering has a vastly larger ecological impact, owing the AREA it takes out the biosphere, (2) we've maxed out long ago what we could do with natural wood (3) most "wood" today is more plastic than living plant and (4) protecting the environment is complicated and often involves counter intuitive choices.

[@shannonlove4631]

"And there are ecofriendly ways to conserve even a wood like pinus striata" Google didn't tell me much except that Pinus Striata is a taxonomic synonym for Abies spectabilis. What was I supposed to find? Since the tree is listed as endangered, it seems like we need to avoid using it as a structural material even if it can be preserved. I am quite aware that some some trees produce highly durable wood. Lignum Vitae is a rare hardwood from the Caribbean. It's hardest, most dense wood known, plus it contains a natural preservative oil in every cell so it's waterproof and self-lubricating. In past it was used in place of light steel in applications like gasket blocks for ship's propeller shafts. There's a clock in England whose mechanisms are made of the wood, it's been running non-stop for 300 years and never had a part fail. It's simply an amazing wood. But... you want to guess how fast it grows or how narrow it's ecological range is? Let's put it this way, no living human being has seen a Lignum Vitae tree grown from seed to adult tree. The trees harvested today, very carefully regulated, sprouted in the early 1800s. You can buy it from speciality wood suppliers but it's so expensive and rare, it's used almost exclusive to produce pens and small works of art. "There is a lot of forestation going on to." Yes, I know, deforestation peaked in North America in the 1920s and reforestation has been accelerating ever since then. But don't you understand it's because we build mostly in concrete and steel, and that fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, selective breeding (accelerated with chemical and radioactive mutagens) and other technologies have vastly reduced the AREA chunk we take out of the biosphere? "And how ecofriendly is strip mining,..." Trivial compared producing the equivalent usages in wood. Besides, as you pointed out, we can't make everything out of wood, so we'll always have surface mines. BTW, surface mining (the technical term, as opposed to the manipulative ) produces less environmental damage because it usually does collect as much water as subsurface mines. Water outflow containing concentrated minerals e.g. mercury released from some forms of coal, is the primary problem in mining. And the again, the AREA used by surface mines again is trivial in the amount of material per AREA as compared to wood. "... melting steel," Uhmm, you only melt steel when you recycle it in which case it produces very little waste, all of which is captured and reused these days. Do not understand that steel is not natural material. It a family of related artificial materials, merely based on iron, nickel, carbon, chrome etc. Did you mean, "smelting" iron etc to produce steel? "...thus producing radioactive slag." Whoa, wait what? Surface mining and melting steel produces "radioactive slag"? I... I... I don't know what to say. Please, tell me that's a typo of some kind. The idea that steel producing in any form produces radiative slag is just.... uugh. It defies common sense. We've been producing steel for centuries, long before we even discovered radioactivity. If any part of the process was radioactive we'd have wiped our civilization centuries ago. Look, based on your grammar etc, you don't primarily have a intellectual problem. You have a moral problem. Managing the impact of human activity on the environment is arguably the major problem humanity faces going forward. It is not a trivial subject and the answers are not only not obvious but often counter-intutive. It requires study, thought and time and you have obviously not cared enough to invest any time, thought or study into even the basics of ecological and technological studies. You need to grow up and accept your responsibilities. You can't just wing such serious matters. You have the brains to delve into the issues and hopefully you have the emotional discipline to suppress the temptations to elitist, self-rightouness that traps so many people's minds these days. But you have to make the decision to care and exert the effort.

[@spencer23dollars34]

Did I miss the bit where they show how they bent those ribs? I would really like to know!

[@wallacewithoutgromit]

Wonder how they did all this before power tools? Google up . This is not on KZbin, The National Sailing Hall of Fame is in Annapolis, Maryland several blocks fron the U. S Naval Academy. This video narrated by he late actor Jason Robards is spectacular.

[@thebentley71]

I would have thought they would at least use giant bronze wood screws for all the planking, & the areas where the planks need lots of force & big clamps to hold them in place. Those areas should use long bronze bolts with large washers & nuts. They should never use nails. That's counter intuitive.

[@noname-kv3xu]

3:28 that tree has a face! :O :O :O

[@bullettube9863]

They had 37 ships and made a total of 135 voyages to China in 82 years. Were these also the slowest ships ever built or were they just bad at navigation?

[@blakewharper]

is that Norm Abram at 8:00

[@rekov]

Det är kanske svårt att hitta information på kanonerna :(

[@stevenlarabee3439]

There's a lot off checking so in the wood

[@zoesdada8923]

Can you imagine sailing on a ship for thirty months only to have it sink 900 yards from the finish? Jesus what a slap in the mouth. I wonder if the crew still got paid?

[@johncarous8503]

there they go again taking the best trees for their ships and throwing away the rest.