1715 fleet --- SAN MIGUEL DE EXCELSIS - where did it go?

[ivan salis]

humm as I thought for a long time ---after reading the book by john christopher fine "treasures of the spanish main @ 2006 "and reviewing the records, it seems that in echeverz's fleet in havana there were a total of 7 vessels --on oct 2, 1714.

#1 the san miguel (nao) sent from puerto rico on the inbound trip to load tobacco in havana , which rejoined the fleet upon its return to havana on oct 2,1714

#2 the vessel (nao) concepcion (with some treasure)

#3 the capitana --neustra senora de la carmen

#4 the almiranta -- neustra senora de la rosario

and a total of 3 prize vessels

#5 the dutch prize --

#6 the french prize

#7 also awaiting them on arrival was a small english prize vessel (bilandera / sloop type vessel) taken earlier --a 15 man crew was put on her and sent onward to havana to await the fleet -- it was renamed by echeverz --san miguel de excelsis *

now only 6 vessels are recorded as leaving port with echeverz when he departs on july 27,1715 -- so what happened to the san miguel excelsis ?* vessel #7 --

records show ubilla buys and renames a small vessel he buys in havana --- "neustra senora de la regala"^--- note salmon later after the 1715 fleet wrecks happened sends the preist off the "patache --nuestra senora de la regala" off to st augustine to get help ,--ubilla only had 2 small vessels of "patache" class status the "nieves" was one --the other must be the cuban bought vessel ^ thus it is "the patache -nuestra senora de la regala"

now my thoughts ******was this vessels original name "maria galante" before echeverz got her and called her "san miguel de excelsis" ? if so she could be the vessel "maria galante" that records say Ubilla buys in cuba --- note ubilla adds a vessel to his fleet and echevez loses one

(thru this process echeverz would score a quick bit of cash and curry favor with ubilla the overall commander of the "joint" fleet ) and echeverz would still have the 2 better "personal" prize vessels

thanks for looking feel free to tell me what you think happen to the "san miguel se excelsis*" of echeverz fleet -- clearly it made havana harbor since it rejoined ecjeverz fleet on Oct 2,1714 upon its arrivial -- and according to records only only 6 vessels left in echeverz fleet in 1715 ---so she is is not the vessel ubilla bought then where did she go?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[brethren of the coast]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

[FISHEYE]

No one should ever rename a boat or ship.It will bring you bad luck from the ocean godz.

 

[SebastianSam]

The sinking of the Capitana (Ubilla's) took place 6 leagues from the point of Cape Canaveral, not far from shore. The Almiranta (Ubilla's) lies 5 leagues from the said point. * * *
From this document one more piece of evidence is introduced that the shipwreck off the Cabin Site is the Almiranta of Salmon.

Looking at the distances provided above, one might argue that the Cabin Wreck and Corrigans are not either Ubilla's capitana or almiranta!

Both are much further south than 5 and 6 leagues....too much so in fact to be a mistake.

 

[billinstuart]

So a league is 3.45 statute miles?

 

[mad4wrecks]

At sea, Spanish sailors used the usual marine league (3 nautical miles or 5556 meters) or Philip V's "geographical" league of 1/17.5 degree (3.429 nautical miles or 6350.5 meters).

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictL.html

 

[Darren in NC]

From this document one more piece of evidence is introduced that the shipwreck off the Cabin Site is the Almiranta of Salmon.

Salmon consistently refers to the capitana as being south of his wreck. I've always assumed that the gold of Corrigan's was Ubilla's ship. Time will tell if Salmon's (Cabin wreck) will turn up any gold.

 

[ivan salis]

what of the old spanish league of 2.6 miles ? while "offically" outlawed, it was commonly used by folks in south america for land measures and sailors of old used it on their "sea" charts which later folks used for referance / navagation -- note at sea "old habits" die hard .

3 miles was the english "standard" league

with more accurate navagation happening due to accurate time pieces in the mid 1700's -- things got much more exact location wise. (lat / long) itude .

 

[Chagy]

Most of the documets proof that they used 3.5 nautical miles for each league. Do your homework and you will come to the same conclusion......

 

[ivan salis]

now odd thing is salmon said 15 leauges leeward of this port --wreckage was found * ----- we know this port was st augustine --if leeward was north -- 15 at 2.6 per league (the old measure)--39 miles and the spotswood report (about 40 miles add up fairly closely )--however at 3.5 per thats 52 1/2 miles --12 1/2 miles differant

now for giggles lets say I was forcing it a bit and the spanish and english reports are not about the same wreck.(nassau sound)

if so they might not be speaking of the same wreck --humm whats about 52 1/2 niiles SOUTH OF ST AUGUSTINE? --- taking leeward as south, and 3.5 per leauge.

 

[mad4wrecks]

'Leeward' is a nautical term, that, in regards to direction, means "of, in, or moving in the direction towards which the wind blows."

Typically, the winds along the east coast of Florida blow from the south or southeast.

I think it would be safe to assume they were talking about north of St Augsutine, and I would rather take the word or a mariner (Salmon) than that of a Governor from Virginia. (and just where did his report originate from?)

As Chagy mentioned, using Philip V's "geographical" league of 3.429 nautical miles the distances of the wrecksites add up.

 

[ivan salis]

its well known that spotswood was active with english "silver" raiders and a war had just ended -- I 'm quite sure that the english spying network was still intact --even in peace time the english and spanish thru spys and merchant captians ship "reports" kept tabs on one another.

hum -- #1""the coast north of st augustine" or was it meant as #2 "the north coast of st augustine --- #1 meaning on the coast farther north away from st augustine -- #2 the other meaning nearby st augustine (on its northern most coast) -- (a little bit of wording that could make a very big differance.)

remember spanish and english vary

spanish -- la casa rojo (the house red) --(the main item HOUSE is modifer RED) -- english (the red house) --(the modifer RED main item HOUSE )--

now if a english speaker is reading an old spanish document and doing a "word swap type translation " not taking the langauge differance into account -- it would read --- " wreckage was found on the COAST NORTH of st augustine " ----when it should be read "wreckage was found on the NORTH COAST of st augustine"

 

[Salvor6]

Ivan you have too much free time. Are you retired?

 

[ivan salis]

why yes I am --and now that I am , I'm free to research and read and think,

errors could have been made in the old real 8 translation data that most folks read --long hard hour upon hour of translation of old documents from mircofilm --no easy task to be sure ,and people are only human after all--- ( a fine sample of this was the Aug 6, 1716 (typo) in the old original translated data that should have been corrected to aug 6, 1715 * (a minor error to be sure) but one that chagy "repeated" as he replied to me , showing how these errors are "passed on" --since it stated that the padre arrived august 12th,1715 in st augustine (6 days later) the date must be august 6, 1715*

 

[Chagy]

Ivan I have found many typos in many books including on Duro's books

 

[ivan salis]

thats exactly my point chagy --typos and other small errors can cause misunderstandings or incorrect translation of things -- the folks that wrote these books were only human , after all. duro too.

look at how long the east / west translation ---one word goof stalled mel fisher from finding the atocha * one must read carefully and still think a bit while reading these books and documents written by others --to catch these minor blips and correct them,. to be sure you getting the right read.

 

[FISHEYE]

52 1/2 miles south of st augustine would be daytona shores area.just about even with hwy 92 on a map.Some items have been found on the beach there.I know the exact area to look offshore.The vis there is bad all the time.Lots of sharks too.The hardpan if there is one is down at about 50 feet or more.

 

[SebastianSam]

thats exactly my point chagy --typos and other small errors can cause misunderstandings or incorrect translation of things -- the folks that wrote these books were only human , after all. duro too.

Where are you going with this Ivan in regards to the topic of this thread? If you feel you have discovered an error in translation of the 1715 documents, especially pertaining to the location of one of the missing vessels, please enlighten us.

If not, I think you have beat a dead horse, in the very late stages of rigor mortis.

 

[ivan salis]

yes sam, you are 100% correct I think there might have been a slight but important error , in reading / translation the from the old documents from spanish to english .

so here it goes --the error is in the changing of spanish to english and not taking the differance of how it spoken and just "word swapping "and reading it later on ---- instead of reading it as "wreckage of a large vessel or vesselswas found on the coast NORTH of st augustine" (say maybe the jacksonville, area ) -- it should have be properly translated /read as meaning "wreckage of a large vessel or vessels was found on the NORTH coast of st augustine. (meaning just to the north of st augustine)

now do you get my point ? --this got folks to think there was a original 1715 fleet vessel wrecked NORTH of st augustine (say in nassau sound *--due to 1715 fleet items found there) when in fact it was a later on barcaloga ( about 60 ft single masted vessel ) a 1715 fleet rescue and recovery vessel sent from cuba that had 1715 vip's and carrying fleet treasures on her that was wrecked in the sound (thus the finding of 1715 stuff at nassau sound) -- spotswood's letter very clearly spells out in detail exactly what this vessel was and what her cargo was and about where she sank. -- (spotswood had a great spy network)

now with the nassu sound site not fitting in as salmons wreckage site at 52 1/2 miles -- (if as chagy says they used 3.5 miles per league )-- since salmon said 15 leagues (52 1/2 miles) to the "leeward" (wind direction ) of this port (st augustine ) wreckage was found on the coast -- just what wreckage WAS salmon speaking OF ?

now 52 1/2 miles is way too far off if salmon is speaking of nassau sound (about 40 miles )---( however the location of the wreck site in the nassau sound agrees with spotswood's letter distance to a tee "about 40 miles" )-

-- so think for a minute --what else could it be ? 12 1/2 miles farther up the coast from nassau sound ?--if "leeward" was indeed north? -- or was "leeward" south -- meaning 52 1/2 miles to the south of st augustine? --- (note southerly is the way winds normally blow in florida generally) -- if the wreckage salmon spoke of is not the nassau sound wreck ( if so he way off distance wize) then where is it at and what vessel it ?

 

[ScubaDude]

Why don't we start yet another 1715 and Governor Spotswood thread. I think we've clubbed him beyond death too.

Surely with all the flap and headache that the loss of this fleet caused Spain there is more archival information. I hate to break it to people but most wrecks aren't found based on what's currently available at Barnes & Noble, Google, or Google earth. It requires someone to actually go out on the water and drag things behind a boat, and actually get wet from time to time. You also get further ahead by looking for different original sources of information. There has got to be a pile of documents in Spain, Havana, and elsewhere that tell more of the story. I'm sure there are some that have seen it. You don't just smash an entire treasure fleet into a coast line and not have more information than the two or three paragraphs that keep getting beat apart here, and the same books that get quoted again and again.

How about someone espouse some original information for a change, please.

You really get a better picture when you look at everything, not just one tidbit. Too many people are too quick to shove a pin in a map and say it's here and no where else. Too many people are also too quick to not finish what they start and leave before they've looked much. If your not careful you wind up locked into one theory and never explore the rest. People twist and turn and generate elaborate theories to support their beliefs, meanwhile they've likely been sitting on information to the contrary. I have watched people look all over creation for what was right under their nose the entire time.