Editing Mary Rose (section)

== Design ==

[[File:MaryRose-ship hall.jpg|alt=A diagonal section of a wooden ship resting upright on a yellow steel frame inside a building with bare, drab walls and sprinkler systems in the ceiling|thumb|The remains of the ''Mary Rose''{{'}}s hull. All deck levels can be made out clearly, including the minor remnants of the sterncastle deck.|left]]

The ''Mary Rose'' was substantially rebuilt in 1536. The 1536 rebuilding turned a ship of 500 tons into one of 700 tons, and added an entire extra tier of broadside guns to the old [[carrack]]-style structure. By consequence, modern research is based mostly on interpretations of the concrete physical evidence of this version of the ''Mary Rose''. The construction of the original design from 1509 is less known.

The ''Mary Rose'' was built according to the [[carrack]]-style with high "castles" fore and aft with a low waist of open decking in the middle. The hull has [[tumblehome]]: above the waterline, the hull gradually narrows. This makes boarding more difficult and reduces the quantity (and so weight) of heavy structural timbers that carry the higher guns.{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|p=90}} Modern understanding is that tumblehome does not improve stability by positioning the guns closer to the centreline, though that may have been the belief and intention of her builders.{{sfnp|Adams|2013|p=179}}

Since only part of the hull has survived, it is not possible to determine many of the basic dimensions with any great accuracy. The {{nautical term|moulded breadth}}, the widest point of the ship roughly above the waterline, was about {{convert|12|m|ft|abbr=off}} and the keel about {{convert|32|m|ft|abbr=off}}, although the ship's overall length is uncertain.{{sfnp|Barker|Loewen|Dobbs|2009|p=36}}

The hull had four levels separated by three [[deck (ship)|decks]]. Because the terminology for these was not yet standardised in the 16th century, the terms used here are those that were applied by the [[Mary Rose Trust]]. The ''[[hold (ship)|hold]]'' lay furthest down in the ship, right above the bottom planking and below the waterline. This is where the [[galley (kitchen)|galley]] was situated and the food was cooked. Directly aft of the galley was the mast step, a rebate in the centre-most timber of the [[keelson]], right above the [[keel]], which supported the main mast, and next to it the main [[bilge pump]]. To increase the stability of the ship, the hold was where the [[sailing ballast|ballast]] was placed and much of the supplies were kept. Right above the hold was the ''[[orlop]]'', the lowest deck. Like the hold, it was partitioned and was also used as a storage area for everything from food to spare sails.<ref name=Marsden-details>See {{harvp|Marsden|2009}} for details of the deck design and construction.</ref>

Above the orlop lay the ''main deck'', which housed the heaviest guns. The side of the hull on the main deck level had seven gunports on each side fitted with heavy lids that would have been watertight when closed. This was also the highest deck that was caulked and waterproof. Along the sides of the main deck there were cabins under the forecastle and aftercastle which have been identified as belonging to the carpenter, [[barber-surgeon]], pilot and possibly also the master gunner and some of the officers.<ref name=Marsden-details/>{{sfnp|Rule|1983|pp=117–133}}

The top deck in the hull structure was the ''upper deck'' (or [[weather deck]]) which was exposed to the elements in the waist. It was a dedicated fighting deck without any known partitions and a mix of heavy and light guns. Over the open waist, the upper deck was entirely covered with a [[boarding net]], a coarse netting that served as a defence measure against boarding.{{sfnp|Rule|1983|pp=117–133}} Though very little of the upper deck has survived, it has been suggested that it housed the main living quarters of the crew underneath the aftercastle. A drain located in this area has been identified as a possible "piss-dale", a general urinal to complement the regular toilets which would probably have been located in the bow.<ref>Peter Marsden, "The Upper Deck" in {{harvp|Marsden|2009|p=216}}</ref>

The castles of the ''Mary Rose'' had additional decks, but since almost nothing of them survives, their design has had to be reconstructed from historical records. Contemporary ships of equal size were consistently listed as having three decks in both castles. Although speculative, this layout is supported by the illustration in the Anthony Roll and the gun inventories.{{sfnp|Hildred|2009|pp=340–341}}<ref>Peter Marsden, "Reconstruction of the ''Mary Rose'': her Design and Use" in {{harvp|Marsden|2009|pp=371–378}}</ref>

During the early stages of excavation of the wreck, it was erroneously believed that the ship had originally been built with [[clinker (boat building)|clinker]] (or clench) planking, a technique in which the hull consisted of overlapping planks that bore the structural strength of the ship.<ref>See for example {{harvp|Rule|1983}}.</ref> Later examination indicates that the clinker planking was never present throughout the ship; only the outer structure of the sterncastle is built with overlapping planking, though not with a true clinker technique.{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|pp=94, 96}}

=== Construction method ===

The hull of ''Mary Rose'' is [[carvel (boat building)|carvel]] built. The ship is an early example of this method of construction in England. Her hull shape is now known to have been set out using the three arc method of producing the hull cross section. This geometric process is similar to that known to have been used some two hundred years later, so giving a much earlier date for this technique. This, and studies of other ships specified in the 15th century, is suggestive that the three arc methodology was probably already in existence before the time ''Mary Rose'' was built.{{sfnp|Adams|2013|pp=73-78}}

The construction sequence began with laying the keel and setting up the stem and sternpost. The midships {{nautical term|frame}} and a few other frames (master frames) controlled the shape of the hull, so the {{nautical term|floor}}s in those positions were fastened to the top of the keel. Then planking started with the {{nautical term|garboard}}s being fastened to the keel and those floors that were already installed. A temporary timber batten (called a ribband) was fastened across the floors that had been fitted and the remaining floors were shaped to fit the curve delineated by the ribbands and the garboards. The keelson was fastened over the top of the floors and planking continued up from the garboards to near the end of the floors. The first {{nautical term|futtock}}s were then installed, again using ribbands to achieve a fair shape relative to the master frames. The hull construction continued with phases of planking and the fitting of second and third futtocks until deck level was reached.{{sfnp|Adams|2013|p=76}}

''Mary Rose'' does not have the characteristic dove-tailed mortises seen joining the floors and first futtocks in [[Basques|Basque]]-built ships such as the [[Red Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador#24M|Red Bay wreck 24M]]. There is some fastening of floors to timbers in ''Mary Rose'' that is less systematic and robust, but there are no treenails connecting frame elements to each other as seen on later vessels. This demonstrates that the hull was not made by first building the hull framework and then adding the planking once that was complete. Instead planking and framing were carried out in alternating steps, with later futtocks being added as planking carried on up to the weather deck level. This is in sharp contrast to the usual way of building a carvel hull today.{{sfnp|Adams|2013|p=187}}

The construction sequence used for ''Mary Rose'' was typical for a ship built during the lengthy transition period during which carvel became established in Northern Europe and the precise detail is one of the milestones in that story.{{sfnp|Adams|2013|pp=130-131}}

=== Sails and rigging ===

[[File:MaryRose-rigging blocks2.JPG|alt=Five well-preserved rigging blocks on a white background|thumb|right|A small selection of the many [[block (sailing)|rigging blocks]] raised from the ''Mary Rose'']]

Although only the lower fittings of the rigging survive, a 1514 inventory and the only known contemporary depiction of the ship from the [[Anthony Roll]] have been used to determine how the ''Mary Rose'' was rigged. Nine, or possibly ten, sails were set from four masts and a bowsprit: the [[foremast]] had two square sails and the [[mainmast]] three; the [[mizzen]] mast had a [[lateen]] sail and a small square sail; the [[bonaventure mizzen]] had at least one lateen sail and possibly also a square sail; and the [[bowsprit]] set a small square [[spritsail (square-rigged)|spritsail]].<ref>Peter Marsden, "Propulsion, Masts and rigging" in {{harvp|Marsden|2009|pp=242–249}}</ref> According to the [[Anthony Roll]] illustration (see top of this section), the [[yard (sailing)|yards]] (the [[spar (sailing)|spars]] from which the sails were set) on the foremast and mainmast were also equipped with sheerhooks – twin curved blades sharpened on the inside – that were intended to cut an enemy ship's rigging during boarding actions.<ref>Richard Endsor, "Propulsion, The rigging" in {{harvp|Marsden|2009|p=261}}</ref>

The operation of ''Mary Rose''{{'s}} rig and some of its fitments were substantially different from several phases of later versions of square rig. All the yards were hoisted and lowered as part of the normal processes of setting, {{Nautical term|hand}}ing or reducing sail. The furling of the square sails pulled much of the bulk of the sail into the centre of the yard, so the work aloft did not involve a lot of work on the yards (the foot-rope did not come into use until the early 18th century), with much being done from the tops. Ships of this era generally did not have reefing points (though they existed on boats' sails). Instead a square sail might be equipped with a bonnet{{snd}}an extra section of sail that is laced onto the foot of a square sail. Instead of reefing, the bonnet was removed. Lacing that would suit a bonnet was found on ''Mary Rose''.<ref>Richard Endsor, "Propulsion, The rigging" in {{harvp|Marsden|2009|p=264}}</ref><ref>{{harvp|Burningham|2001}} gives a helpful account of sailing with this version of square rig, though this refers to a replica of a ship built around 85 years later than Mary Rose.</ref>

===Performance===

When the wreck of Mary Rose was first recovered, there was surprise that this was not the beamy vessel that was expected. The relatively narrow length to breadth ratio was accompanied by {{Nautical term|fine lines}}, particularly in the run (the underwater hull shape {{nautical term|abaft}} the midship section). Even in the full sections in the forward part of the hull there are some hollow lines. Generally, hull shape is a major contributor, in conjunction with the efficiency of the sails, to good sailing performance. This hull shape can certainly explain the reported good sailing qualities that ''Mary Rose'' displayed prior to her rebuild.{{sfnp|Adams|2013|pp=73, 76}}{{sfnp|Palmer|2009}}

The sailing capabilities of the ''Mary Rose'' were commented on by her contemporaries and were once even put to the test. In March 1513 a contest was arranged off [[The Downs (ship anchorage)|The Downs]], east of [[Kent]], in which she raced against nine other ships. She won the contest, and Admiral Edward Howard described her enthusiastically as "the noblest ship of sayle [of any] gret ship, at this howr, that I trow [believe] be in Cristendom".{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|pp=7–8}} Several years later, while sailing between [[Dover]] and The Downs, Vice-Admiral William Fitzwilliam noted that both the ''Henry Grace à Dieu'' and the ''Mary Rose'' performed very well, riding steadily in rough seas and that it would have been a "hard chose" between the two.{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|p=14}} The reports of good sailing performance early in her career did not continue after successive repairs and the major rebuild altered her characteristics.{{sfnp|Adams|2013|p=18}}

=== Armament ===

[[File:BattleofSluys.jpeg|thumb|alt=Four sturdy wooden ships lying side by side filled with men armed with shields, swords and bows fighting in a confused melee|An illustration from a [[Froissart of Louis of Gruuthuse (BnF Fr 2643-6)|French edition]] of the [[Froissart's Chronicles|Froissart Chronicle]] depicting the [[battle of Sluys]] in 1340. The picture clearly shows how medieval naval tactics focused on close combat fighting and boarding.]]

The ''Mary Rose'' represented a transitional ship design in naval warfare. Since ancient times, war at sea had been fought much as on land: with melee weapons and bows and arrows, only on floating wooden platforms rather than battlefields. Though the introduction of guns was a significant change, it only slowly changed the dynamics of ship-to-ship combat.{{sfnp|Rodger|1997|pp=205–206}} As guns became heavier and able to take more powerful gunpowder charges, they needed to be placed lower in the ship, closer to the water line. Gunports cut in the hull of ships had been introduced as early as 1501, only about a decade before the ''Mary Rose'' was built.{{sfnp|Rodger|1997|p=207}}

This made [[Broadside (naval)|broadside]]s{{efn|It was not until the 1590s that the word "broadside" in English was commonly used to refer to gunfire from the side of a ship rather than the ship's side itself; {{harvp|Rodger|1996|pp=312, 316}}}} – coordinated volleys from all the guns on one side of a ship – possible, at least in theory, but in practice this was a relatively minor part of the gunnery tactics of the time. Throughout the 16th century and well into the 17th century the focus was on countering the oar-powered [[galley]]s that were armed with heavy guns in the bow, facing forwards, which were aimed by turning the entire ship against its target. Sailing warships did this first with their [[chase gun]]s. Combined with inefficient gunpowder and the difficulties inherent in firing accurately from moving platforms, this meant that boarding remained the primary tactic for decisive victory throughout the 16th century.{{sfnp|Rodger|1996|p=308, ''passim''}}{{sfnp|Rodger|1997|pp=206–208, 215}}

==== Bronze and iron guns ====

[[File:Bronze Demi Cannon Culverins Pmoth.png|thumb|upright|alt=A view of four very large cannons leaning towards the inside wall of a building with a high ceiling|Two [[culverin]]s and two [[demi-cannon]]s from the ''Mary Rose'' on display at the [[Mary Rose Museum]] in [[Portsmouth]]]]

''Mary Rose'' served during a period of both the development of ship-borne guns and the design features of ships that deployed these weapons. By the time of her sinking, the number of heavy guns had roughly doubled. The heavy armament was a mix of older-type [[wrought iron]] and more modern cast bronze guns, which differed considerably in size, range and design. The large iron guns were made up of staves or bars welded into cylinders and then reinforced by shrinking iron hoops and [[breech loader|breech loaded]] and equipped with simpler [[gun-carriage]]s made from hollowed-out elm logs with only one pair of wheels, or without wheels entirely.{{sfnp|Hildred|2009|p=297-303, 311-312}}

The bronze guns were cast in one piece and rested on four-wheel carriages which were essentially the same as those used until the 19th century. The breech-loaders were cheaper to produce and both easier and faster to reload, but could take less powerful charges than cast bronze guns. Generally, the bronze guns used cast iron shot and were more suited to penetrate hull sides while the iron guns used stone shot that would shatter on impact and leave large, jagged holes, but both could also fire a variety of ammunition intended to destroy rigging and light structure or injure enemy personnel.{{sfnp|Hildred|2009|p={{page needed|date=January 2025}}}}

The majority of the guns were small iron guns with short range that could be aimed and fired by a single person. The two most common are the ''bases'', [[breech-loading swivel gun]]s, most likely placed in the castles, and ''hailshot pieces'', small muzzle-loaders with rectangular bores and fin-like protrusions that were used to support the guns against the railing and allow the ship structure to take the force of the recoil. Though the design is unknown, there were two ''top pieces'' in a [[Anthony Roll|1546 inventory]] (finished after the sinking) which were probably similar to a base, but placed in one or more of the fighting tops.{{sfnp|Hildred|2009|pp=313–316}}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|+ Distribution and range of guns at sinking<ref>Based on tables in {{harvp|Marsden|2009|pp=318, 332, 338, 341}}</ref>
|-
! Gun type !! Main deck !! Upper deck !! Castle decks !! Fighting tops !! Range in metres (feet)
|-
! Port pieces
| 12 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 130+ (425+)
|-
! Culverins and demi-culverins
| 2 || 4 || 2 || 0 || 299–413 (980–1355)
|-
! Cannons and demi-cannons
| 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || c. 225 (740)
|-
! Sakers
| 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 219–323 (718–1060)
|-
! Fowlers
| 0 || 6 || 0 || 0 || "short"
|-
! Falcon
| ? || ? || ? || 0 || 144–287 (472–940)
|-
! Slings
| 0 || 6 || 0 || 0 || "medium"
|-
! Bases
| 0 || 0 || 30 || 0 || "close"
|-
! Hailshot pieces
| 0 || 0 || 20 || 0 || "close"
|-
! Top pieces
| 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || "close"
|}

[[File:Mary Rose Guns ForeBronzeCulverin RearWroughtIronCannon.png|thumb|alt=Two large metal cannons of differing designs, one in front of the other|A cast bronze culverin (front) and a wrought iron port piece (back), modern reproductions of two of the guns that were on board the ''Mary Rose'' when she sank, on display at [[Fort Nelson, Portsmouth|Fort Nelson]] near Portsmouth]]

The ship went through several changes in her armament throughout her career, most significantly accompanying her "rebuilding" in 1536 (see below), when the number of anti-personnel guns was reduced and a second tier of carriage-mounted long guns fitted. There are three inventories that list her guns, dating to 1514, 1540 and 1546.<ref name=roll>The last record is the illustrated [[Anthony Roll]], which was compiled after the sinking, when it was apparently still believed that the ''Mary Rose'' could be raised and restored.</ref> Together with records from the armoury at the [[Tower of London]], these show how the configuration of guns changed as gun-making technology evolved and new classifications were invented. In 1514, the armament consisted mostly of anti-personnel guns like the larger breech-loading iron ''murderers'' and the small ''serpentines'', ''demi-slings'' and stone guns.{{sfnp|Hildred|2009|pp=298–303}}

Only a handful of guns in the first inventory were powerful enough to hole enemy ships, and most would have been supported by the ship's structure rather than resting on carriages. The inventories of both the ''Mary Rose'' and the Tower had changed radically by 1540. There were now the new cast bronze ''cannons'', ''demi-cannons'', ''culverins'' and ''sakers'' and the wrought iron ''port pieces'' (a name that indicated they fired through ports), all of which required carriages, had longer range and were capable of doing serious damage to other ships. The analysis of the 1514 inventory combined with hints of structural changes in the ship both indicate that the gunports on the main deck were indeed a later addition.{{sfnp|Hildred|2009|pp=298–303}}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|+ Type of guns<ref>Based on table in {{harvp|Marsden|2009|p=302}}</ref>
|-
! Date!! Total !! Carriage-mounted !! Ship-supported !! Anti-ship !! Anti-personnel
|-
! 1514
| 78 || 20–21 || 57–58 || 5–9 || 64–73
|-
! 1540
| 96 || 36 || 60 || 17–22 || 74–79
|-
! 1545
| 91 || 39 || 52 || 24 || 67
|}

Various types of ammunition could be used for different purposes: plain spherical shot of stone or iron smashed hulls, spiked bar shot and shot linked with chains would tear sails or damage rigging, and [[canister shot]] packed with sharp flints produced a devastating [[shotgun]] effect.{{sfnp|Rule|1983|pp=149–168}}<ref>David. Loades, "II: The Ordnance" in {{harvp|Knighton|Loades|2000|pp=12–14}}; Alexzandra Hildred, "(ii) Munitions" in {{harvp|Knighton|Loades|2000|pp=16–19}}</ref> Trials made with replicas of culverins and port pieces showed that they could penetrate wood the same thickness of the ''Mary Rose's'' hull planking, indicating a stand-off range of at least {{convert|90|m|ft|abbr=on}}. The port pieces proved particularly efficient at smashing large holes in wood when firing stone shot and were a devastating anti-personnel weapon when loaded with flakes or pebbles.{{sfnp|Hildred|2009|pp=311–312, 341}}

==== Hand-held weapons ====

[[File:MaryRose-bollock daggers.jpg|alt=Five dagger handles with bulbous guards with the badly corroded remains of a few steel blades against a white background|thumb|upright|Some of the [[bollock dagger]]s found on board the ''Mary Rose''; for most of the daggers, only the handles have remained while the blades have either rusted away or have been preserved only as [[concretion]]s.]]

To defend against being boarded, ''Mary Rose'' carried large stocks of melee weapons, including [[pike (weapon)|pikes]] and [[bill (weapon)|bills]]; 150 of each kind were stocked on the ship according to the [[Anthony Roll]], a figure confirmed roughly by the excavations. Swords and daggers were personal possessions and not listed in the inventories, but the remains of both have been found in great quantities, including the earliest dated example of a British [[basket-hilted sword]].{{sfnp|Childs|2007|p=57}}<ref>{{cite web |website=BBC News |url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/6917780.stm |title=Sword from Mary Rose on display |date=26 July 2007}}</ref>

A total of 250 [[longbow]]s were carried on board, and 172 of these have so far been found, as well as almost 4,000 arrows, bracers (arm guards) and other archery-related equipment.<ref>{{harvp|Rule|1983|p=172}}; {{harvp|Stirland|2000|p=21}}</ref> Longbow archery in Tudor England was mandatory for all able adult men, and despite the introduction of field artillery and handguns, they were used alongside new missile weapons in great quantities. On the ''Mary Rose'', the longbows could only have been drawn and shot properly from behind protective panels in the open waist or from the top of the castles as the lower decks lacked sufficient headroom. There were several types of bows of various size and range. Lighter bows would have been used as "sniper" bows, while the heavier design could possibly have been used to shoot fire arrows.{{sfnp|Rule|1983|pp=181–182}}

The inventories of both 1514 and 1546<ref name=roll/> also list several hundred heavy darts and lime pots that were designed to be thrown onto the deck of enemy ships from the fighting tops, although no physical evidence of either of these weapon types has been identified. Of the 50 handguns listed in the Anthony Roll, the complete stocks of five [[matchlock]] [[musket]]s and fragments of another eleven have been found. They had been manufactured mainly in Italy, with some originating from Germany. Found in storage were several ''gunshields'', a rare type of firearm consisting of a wooden [[shield]] with a small gun fixed in the middle.{{sfnp|Hildred|2009|pp=324–325}}<ref>see also Balfour, Metcalf & North, "[http://www.vam.ac.uk/res_cons/conservation/journal/number_39/gunshield/index.html A Gun-Shield from the Armoury of Henry VIII:Decorative Oddity or Important Discovery?] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100120064924/http://www.vam.ac.uk/res_cons/conservation/journal/number_39/gunshield/index.html |date=20 January 2010 }}" in ''V&A Online Journal'' No. 39 for more information.</ref>

=== Crew ===

Throughout her 33-year career, the crew of the ''Mary Rose'' changed several times and varied considerably in size. It would have a minimal skeleton crew of 17 men or fewer in peacetime and when she was "[[laid up in ordinary]]" (in reserve).{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|p=13}} The average wartime manning would have been about 185 soldiers, 200 sailors, 20–30 gunners and an assortment of other specialists such as surgeons, trumpeters and members of the admiral's staff, for a total of 400–450 men. When taking part in land invasions or raids, such as in the summer of 1512, the number of soldiers could have swelled to just over 400 for a combined total of more than 700. Even with the normal crew size of around 400, the ship was quite crowded, and with additional soldiers would have been extremely cramped.{{sfnp|Gardiner|2005|pp=11–12}}{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|pp=9–10}}{{sfnp|Stirland|2000|pp=53–54}}

[[File:George Carew-painting by Holbein.jpg|alt=Admiral George Carew|thumb|upright|Vice-Admiral [[George Carew (admiral)|George Carew]], who perished with the ''Mary Rose''; contemporary miniature by [[Hans Holbein the Younger]]]]

Little is known of the identities of the men who served on the ''Mary Rose'', even when it comes to the names of the officers, who would have belonged to the gentry. Two admirals and four captains (including [[Edward Howard (admiral)|Edward]] and Thomas Howard, who served both positions) are known through records, as well as a few ship masters, [[purser]]s, master gunners and other specialists.<ref>For a detailed list of officers and other named people who served on the ship 1513–1545, see {{harvp|Marsden|2003|p=9}}</ref> Forensic science has been used by artists to create reconstructions of faces of eight crew members, and the results were publicised in May 2013. In addition, researchers have extracted DNA from remains in the hopes of identifying origins of crew, and potentially living descendants.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/archaeology/10087527/Living-relatives-of-Mary-Rose-crew-may-be-identified-through-DNA.html Richard Gray, "Living relatives of Mary Rose crew may be identified through DNA"], ''The Telegraph'', 30 May 2013. Retrieved 27 April 2015</ref>

Of the vast majority of the crewmen, soldiers, sailors and gunners alike, nothing has been recorded. The only source of information for these men has been through [[osteology|osteological]] analysis of the human bones found at the wrecksite. An approximate composition of some of the crew has been conjectured based on contemporary records. The ''Mary Rose'' would have carried a captain, a master responsible for navigation, and deck crew. There would also have been a purser responsible for handling payments, a [[boatswain]], the captain's second in command, at least one carpenter, a pilot in charge of navigation, and a cook, all of whom had one or more assistants (mates). The ship was also staffed by a [[barber-surgeon]] who tended to the sick and wounded, along with an apprentice or mate and possibly also a junior surgeon.{{sfnp|Gardiner|2005|pp=11–12}} The only positively identified person who went down with the ship was Vice-Admiral [[George Carew (admiral)|George Carew]]. McKee, Stirland and several other authors have also named Roger Grenville, father of [[Richard Grenville]] of the Elizabethan-era ''[[English ship Revenge (1577)|Revenge]]'', captain during the final battle,{{sfnp|Stirland|2000|pp=53–54}} although the accuracy of the sourcing for this has been disputed by maritime archaeologist Peter Marsden.{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|pp=9–10}}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|+ Crew{{sfnp|Marsden|2003|p=10}}
|-
! Date !! Soldiers !! Mariners !! Gunners !! Others !! Total
|-
! Summer 1512
| 411 || 206 || 120 || 22 || 759
|-
! October 1512
| ? || 120 || 20 || 20 || 160
|-
! 1513
| ? || 200 || ? || ? || 200
|-
! 1513
| ? || 102 || 6 || ? || 108
|-
! 1522
| 126 || 244 || 30 || 2 || 402
|-
! 1524
| 185 || 200 || 20 || ? || 405
|-
! 1545/46<ref>Dating uncertain since the [[Anthony Roll]] was made over a longer period of time that extended beyond the sinking of the ''Mary Rose''.</ref>
| 185 || 200 || 30 || ? || 415
|}

The bones of a total of 179 people were found during the excavations of the ''Mary Rose'', including 92 "fairly complete skeletons", more or less complete collections of bones associated with specific individuals.{{sfnp|Stirland|2000|pp=74–76}} Analysis of these has shown that crew members were all male, most of them young adults. Some were no more than 11–13 years old, and the majority (81%) under 30. They were mainly of English origin and, according to archaeologist Julie Gardiner, they most likely came from the [[West Country]]; many following their aristocratic masters into maritime service.{{sfnp|Gardiner|2005|pp=11–12}} There were also a few people from continental Europe. An eyewitness testimony right after the sinking refers to a survivor who was a [[Flemish people|Fleming]], and the pilot may very well have been French. Analysis of oxygen [[isotope]]s in teeth indicates that some were also of southern European origin.{{sfnp|Gardiner|2005|p=12}}{{sfnp|Stirland|2000|p=149}} At least one crewmember was of North African ancestry.<ref>{{cite news |last=Morris |first=Steven |date=May 5, 2021 |title=Mary Rose ship had multi-ethnic crew, study shows |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/may/05/mary-rose-ship-multi-ethnic-crew-tudor-england |access-date=May 5, 2021}}</ref>{{sfnp|Scorrer |Faillace |Hildred |Nederbragt |2021}} In general they were strong, well-fed men, but many of the bones also reveal tell-tale signs of childhood diseases and a life of grinding toil. The bones also showed traces of numerous healed fractures, probably the result of on-board accidents.{{sfnp|Stirland|2000|pp=113–114}}

There are no extant written records of the make-up of the broader categories of soldiers and sailors, but since the ''Mary Rose'' carried some 300 longbows and several thousand arrows there had to be a considerable proportion of [[longbow]] archers. Examination of the skeletal remains has found that there was a disproportionate number of men with a condition known as ''[[os acromiale]]'', affecting their [[shoulder blade]]s. This condition is known among modern elite archery athletes and is caused by placing considerable stress on the arm and shoulder muscles, particularly of the left arm that is used to hold the bow to brace against the pull on the bowstring. Among the men who died on the ship it was likely that some had practised using the longbow since childhood, and served on board as specialist archers.{{sfnp|Stirland|2000|pp=118–130}}

A group of six skeletons was found close to one of the 2-tonne bronze [[culverin]]s on the main deck near the bow. Fusing of parts of the spine and [[ossification]], the growth of new bone, on several [[vertebrae]] evidenced all but one of these crewmen to have been strong, well-muscled men who had been engaged in heavy pulling and pushing, the exception possibly being a "[[powder monkey]]" not involved in heavy work. These have been tentatively classified as members of a complete gun crew, all having died at their battle station.{{sfnp|Stirland|2000|pp=139–142}}