Editing Mary Rose (section)

== Causes of sinking ==

[[File:Southsea castle from the east.JPG|thumb|alt=Southsea Castle |[[Southsea Castle]], from where Henry&nbsp;VIII witnessed the last battle and demise of the ''Mary Rose''. The castle has been heavily altered since that time.<ref name=Corney>{{cite book |title=Southsea Castle |last=Corney |first=Arthur |year=1968 |publisher=Portsmouth City Council |isbn= <!-- some sources claim X006399533 --> }}</ref>]]

=== Contemporary accounts ===

Many accounts of the sinking have been preserved, but the only confirmed eyewitness account is the testimony of a surviving Flemish crewman written down by the Holy Roman Emperor's ambassador [[Francis Van der Delft|François van der Delft]] in a letter dated {{Nowrap|24 July}}. According to the unnamed Fleming, the ship had fired all of her guns on one side and was turning to present the guns on the other side to the enemy ship, when she was caught in a strong gust of wind, heeled and took in water through the open gunports.{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|p=19}} In a letter to [[William Paget, 1st Baron Paget|William Paget]] dated {{Nowrap|23 July}}, former [[British Admiralty|Lord High Admiral]] [[John Russell, 1st Earl of Bedford|John Russel]] claimed that the ship had been lost because of "rechenes and great negligence".{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|p=178}} Three years after the sinking, ''[[Edward Hall|Hall's Chronicle]]'' gave the reason for the sinking as being caused by "to[o] much foly&nbsp;... for she was laden with much ordinaunce, and the portes left open, which were low, & the great ordinaunce unbreached, so that when the ship should turne, the water entered, and sodainly she sanke."{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|pp=19, 179}}

Later accounts repeat the explanation that the ship heeled over while going about and that the ship was brought down because of the open gunports. A biography of [[Peter Carew]], brother of George Carew, written by [[John Hooker (English constitutionalist)|John Hooker]] sometime after 1575, gives the same reason for the sinking, but adds that insubordination among the crew was to blame. The biography claims that George Carew noted that the ''Mary Rose'' showed signs of instability as soon as her sails were raised. George's uncle [[Gawen Carew]] had passed by with his own ship the ''Matthew Gonson'' during the battle to inquire about the situation of his nephew's ship. In reply he was told "that he had a sorte of knaves whom he could not rule".{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|pp=20, 181–182}} Contrary to all other accounts, [[Martin du Bellay]], a French cavalry officer who was present at the battle, stated that the ''Mary Rose'' had been sunk by French guns.<ref>For summaries and comments on the various accounts see {{harvp|Marsden|2003|pp=18–20, 130–134, 178–179}}; {{harvp|Rule|1983|pp=36–38}}; {{harvp|Stirland|2000|pp=22–23}}.</ref>

=== Modern theories ===

The most common explanation for the sinking among modern historians is that the ship was unstable for a number of reasons. A strong gust of wind hit the sails at a critical moment and the open gunports proved fatal, causing the ship to flood and quickly founder.{{sfnp|Rodger|1997|p=183, 210}}{{sfnp|Rule|1983|p={{page needed|date=January 2025}}}}{{sfnp|Stirland|2000|p={{page needed|date=January 2025}}}} Coates offered a variant of this hypothesis, which explains why a ship unexpectedly foundered after serving for several decades without sinking, even fighting in actions in the rough seas off Brittany: the ship had accumulated additional weight over the years in service and finally become unseaworthy.{{sfnp|Stirland|2000|pp=22–23}} Marsden has questioned whether the ship was turning after firing all the guns on one side, after examination of guns recovered in  the 19th and 20th centuries; guns from both sides were found still loaded. This has been interpreted to mean that something else could have gone wrong, since it is assumed that an experienced crew would not have failed to secure the gunports before making a potentially risky turn.{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|pp=132–133}}

The most recent surveys of the ship indicate that she was modified late in her career, lending support to the idea that the ''Mary Rose'' was altered too much to be properly seaworthy. Marsden has suggested that the weight of additional heavy guns would have increased her [[draft (hull)|draught]] so much that the waterline was less than one metre (c. 3 feet) from the gunports on the main deck.<ref>Peter Marsden, "The Loss of the ''Mary Rose'', 1545" in {{harvp|Marsden|2009|pp=391–392}}</ref>

Peter Carew's claim of insubordination has been reinterpreted by James Watt, former Medical Director-General of the Royal Navy, based on records of an epidemic of [[dysentery]] in Portsmouth which could have rendered the crew incapable of handling the ship properly.{{sfnp|Watt|1983|p=17}} Historian Richard Barker has suggested that the crew actually knew that the ship was an accident waiting to happen, at which they balked and refused to follow orders.{{sfnp|Barker|1992|p=439}} Marsden has noted that the Carew biography is in some details inconsistent with the sequence of events reported by both French and English eyewitnesses. It also reports that there were 700 men on board, an unusually high number. The distance in time to the event it describes may mean that it was embellished to add a dramatic touch.{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|p=130}} The report of French galleys sinking the ''Mary Rose'' as stated by Martin du Bellay has been described as "the account of a courtesan" by naval historian Maurice de Brossard. Du Bellay and his two brothers were close to king [[Francis I of France|Francis&nbsp;I]] and du Bellay had much to gain from portraying the sinking as a French victory. English sources, even if biased, would have nothing to gain from portraying the sinking as the result of crew incompetence rather than conceding a victory to the much-feared gun galleys.{{sfnp|de Brossard|1984}}

Dominic Fontana, a geographer at the University of Portsmouth, has voiced support for du Bellay's version of the sinking, based on the battle as it is depicted in the Cowdray Engraving and modern [[GIS]] analysis of the scene of the battle. By plotting the fleets and calculating the conjectured final manoeuvres of the ''Mary Rose'', Fontana reached the conclusion that the ship had been hit low in the hull by the galleys and was destabilised after taking in water. He has interpreted the final heading of the ship straight due north as a failed attempt to reach the shallows at Spitbank only a few hundred metres away. This theory has been given partial support by Alexzandra Hildred, one of the experts who has worked with the ''Mary Rose'', though she has suggested that the close proximity to Spitbank could also indicate that the sinking occurred while trying to make a hard turn to avoid running aground.{{sfnp|Hildred|2009|pp=307–308}}<ref>For a detailed account of Dominic Fontana's theory on the sinking see [https://web.archive.org/web/20110725170212/http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~fontanad/maryrose/ "The Cowdray engravings and the loss of the Mary Rose"].</ref>

=== Experiments ===
In 2000, the [[Channel 4]] television programme ''What Sank the Mary Rose?'' attempted to investigate the causes suggested for her sinking by means of experiments with scale models of the ship and metal weights to simulate the presence of troops on the upper decks. Initial tests showed that the ship was able to make the turn described by eyewitnesses without capsizing. In later tests, a fan was used to create a breeze similar to the one reported to have suddenly sprung up on the day of the sinking as the ''Mary Rose'' went to make the turn. As the model made the turn, the breeze in the upper works forced it to heel more than at calm, forcing the main deck gun ports below the [[waterline]] and foundering the model within a few seconds. The sequence of events closely followed what eyewitnesses had reported, particularly the suddenness with which the ship sank.<ref>[[Channel 4]], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWEH_zNEhok&t=41m45s"What Sank the ''Mary Rose''?"], 2000.</ref>