Full Version: Chinese warships
Are this ships the forerunners in creation of Japanese Tekkokusen and Omatakebune?
QUOTE(warhead @ Feb 14 2005, 02:52 PM) [snapback]4700720[/snapback]
Nice pictures.
"A larger paddle-wheel Sung warship breaks the Mongol blockade at Xiangyang, 1272
"
That boat's label is Jin not Yuan, I think its implying the Jin-Song wars.
"A larger paddle-wheel Sung warship breaks the Mongol blockade at Xiangyang, 1272
"
That boat's label is Jin not Yuan, I think its implying the Jin-Song wars.
Very late reply I know but I have the osprey book that these pictures come from. It's a mislabelling error in the book.
The picture labelled "A Sung dynasty paddleboat warship." is the picture of Song paddle-wheel warships running the mongol blockage at Xiangyang.
The picture showing the large Song paddlewheel ship fighting with the Jin ship (and small launch) is from the Song-Jin wars.
QUOTE(Yun @ Feb 15 2005, 01:56 PM) [snapback]4700969[/snapback]
Naval warfare in China took place in a very different context from the Mediterranean. Almost all Chinese naval battles took place on relatively calmer but more confined rivers or lakes, and thus while the Mediterranean was dominated by fast galleys, Chinese warships developed into waterborne fortresses that opted for size, firepower and protection over speed, stability or maneuverability. Instead of ramming or boarding, which was the favoured method for sinking/capturing galleys, the Chinese warship was most vulnerable to fire. So I don't think there's much point in comparing Chinese tower-ships to Mediterranean biremes and triremes - no galley was ever armed with traction trebuchets launching incendiary projectiles. One similarity was the use of striking arms for holding enemy vessels in place so they could not escape - the Romans also used this against Carthaginian ships. But while the Romans did this to allow boarding, the Chinese mainly held enemy ships close alongside to bombard them and set them on fire.
When comparing Mediterranean and Chinese naval warfare, besides venues (open seas vs. river warfare), ship construction also defines the differing tactics. Chinese warships had no keel and were flat bottomed, so they did not ram opposing ships like the Romans did. So, as Yun noted, Chinese warships were massive and depended on projectories to sink or set fire to a ship. In Medieval Chinese Warfare, David Graff writes:
Most vessels carried archers and crosbowmen, and the larger warships deployed level-operated trebuchets on theri topmost decks. The outcome of the battle could be greatly influenced by a difference in the size and range of the crossbows [ . . . ] As protection against missiles, some vessels had their upper decks roofed over or their sides 'armored' with ox hides. Crewmen took refuge behind wooden battlements or shot their weapons through loopholes in the sides of the ships." (130)
I believe I should modify my earlier statements in light of more recent research I did. The striking arms are known for Chinese warships from the last century of the Age of Fragmentation onwards, and the trebuchets are known for Tang, Song, and later warships. But in early AOF, Three Kingdoms, Han, and pre-Han naval warfare, the main method of warfare would seem to still have been boarding and capture of enemy ships using marines. Crossbows (including giant crossbows) and bows could be used to kill enemy crewmen, but only to either deter boarding or make boarding easier.
Graff is only partly correct in his description of AOF naval warfare on p. 130. It is true that ramming was not a standard tactic, and that bombardment of enemy ships was important. But the large number of decisive naval battles in ancient Chinese warfare makes it implausible that such battles were purely defensive stand-off engagements, without much effort made by either side to board and capture enemy ships. It is more likely that ancient Chinese naval warfare was similar to European naval warfare in the age of sail and gunpowder, where enemy ships were first disabled or damaged as far as possible through bombardment, and then boarded with marines. Trebuchets and crossbows should certainly not be equated with the big ship guns of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which could sink a ship on their own strength.
The lack of any reference to striking arms before the 6th century means that the Chinese made use of such devices far later than the Romans did, since the Roman corvus was invented in the Punic Wars.
Graff is only partly correct in his description of AOF naval warfare on p. 130. It is true that ramming was not a standard tactic, and that bombardment of enemy ships was important. But the large number of decisive naval battles in ancient Chinese warfare makes it implausible that such battles were purely defensive stand-off engagements, without much effort made by either side to board and capture enemy ships. It is more likely that ancient Chinese naval warfare was similar to European naval warfare in the age of sail and gunpowder, where enemy ships were first disabled or damaged as far as possible through bombardment, and then boarded with marines. Trebuchets and crossbows should certainly not be equated with the big ship guns of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which could sink a ship on their own strength.
The lack of any reference to striking arms before the 6th century means that the Chinese made use of such devices far later than the Romans did, since the Roman corvus was invented in the Punic Wars.
QUOTE(Yun @ Nov 8 2006, 04:41 AM) [snapback]4860115[/snapback]
I believe I should modify my earlier statements in light of more recent research I did. The striking arms are known for Chinese warships from the last century of the Age of Fragmentation onwards, and the trebuchets are known for Tang, Song, and later warships. But in early AOF, Three Kingdoms, Han, and pre-Han naval warfare, the main method of warfare would seem to still have been boarding and capture of enemy ships using marines. Crossbows (including giant crossbows) and bows could be used to kill enemy crewmen, but only to either deter boarding or make boarding easier.
Graff is only partly correct in his description of AOF naval warfare on p. 130. It is true that ramming was not a standard tactic, and that bombardment of enemy ships was important. But the large number of decisive naval battles in ancient Chinese warfare makes it implausible that such battles were purely defensive stand-off engagements, without much effort made by either side to board and capture enemy ships. It is more likely that ancient Chinese naval warfare was similar to European naval warfare in the age of sail and gunpowder, where enemy ships were first disabled or damaged as far as possible through bombardment, and then boarded with marines. Trebuchets and crossbows should certainly not be equated with the big ship guns of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which could sink a ship on their own strength.
The lack of any reference to striking arms before the 6th century means that the Chinese made use of such devices far later than the Romans did, since the Roman corvus was invented in the Punic Wars.
Graff is only partly correct in his description of AOF naval warfare on p. 130. It is true that ramming was not a standard tactic, and that bombardment of enemy ships was important. But the large number of decisive naval battles in ancient Chinese warfare makes it implausible that such battles were purely defensive stand-off engagements, without much effort made by either side to board and capture enemy ships. It is more likely that ancient Chinese naval warfare was similar to European naval warfare in the age of sail and gunpowder, where enemy ships were first disabled or damaged as far as possible through bombardment, and then boarded with marines. Trebuchets and crossbows should certainly not be equated with the big ship guns of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which could sink a ship on their own strength.
The lack of any reference to striking arms before the 6th century means that the Chinese made use of such devices far later than the Romans did, since the Roman corvus was invented in the Punic Wars.
So, then did the Chinese naval fleets have ships of the line or something close?
Do we know how the chose to engage? Like Nelson chose to drive his ships through the line instead of along side it, so if they had ships of the line would these come in along side and smaller ship would be support?
I always here alot about pirate hunting in Chinese history. Was there any record of how naval fleets would fight pirates and would pirates like those in the west have the same ships?
The pinned topic left out Zheng He's fleet during the Ming Dynasty...he had 9 masted "treasure ships" that were over 440 feet long and displaced 1500 tons...which is about 11 times bigger than biggest European ships a century later. Complete with rows of bronze cannons
*and recently on the history, they had a program on this.
*and recently on the history, they had a program on this.
Intranetusa, check out the models of Zheng He's ships in this thread: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2935
QUOTE(Intranetusa @ Dec 14 2006, 03:52 AM) [snapback]4867336[/snapback]
The pinned topic left out Zheng He's fleet during the Ming Dynasty...he had 9 masted "treasure ships" that were over 440 feet long and displaced 1500 tons...which is about 11 times bigger than biggest European ships a century later. Complete with rows of bronze cannons
*and recently on the history, they had a program on this.
*and recently on the history, they had a program on this.
And it's nonsence......
600-700 ton carracks were reasonably common in 15th C Europe, they were 140-150 feet long, much better design (keels etc) and much better sailing characteristics. The huge treasure ships were deliberately oversize as a symbol of the power and inportance of the Middle Kingdom.
:-)
Intranetusa; quote
Don't believe everything you hear.
To expand on Tadamsons reply to the above;
Although I do doubt the sailing chatacteristics of the huge treasure ships, as do experienced naval commentators, I think the Chinese need credit for advanced boat designs even in the Han period (early keels) Song waterwheels and watertight seperate compartments by the Ming period, although it should be noted boats in the Treasure fleet were still lost during the journey.
That being said this enthusiasm for the Treasure Fleets boat building technology does need to be tempered with the fact this modern new interest in Zheng He has to do with the plainly silly and fictious works of the incompetent and eccentric historian Gavin Menzies.
The pictures of a Zheng He ship looming over a European ship like a star destroyer at the beginning of Star Wars 1978 are just to me the nauctical & psychological equvialent of the big car as a penis extension. It is just ostentatious.
The actual 'treasure' ships were a small part of the combined fleet, built to statisfy a monumental ego, and probably sailed with the dynamics of a brick.
Combat by the treasure fleet fell on smaller and swifter boats for obvious reasons.
Most assuredly the massive boats were about awe, which goes a way to explaining why if there was any benefit to these that such ships were never built like this for seafaring anywhere again.
The limiting of # masts after Zheng He does not explain why nobody before or over the next 400 years ever revived such a design, i.e in crucial periods such as facing the navys of Europeans for example.
The huge boats were an addition for reasons of grandeur, and in the truest sense of the word.....a show boat.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1702333.htm
I found one picture of Zheng He's fleet said to be from the 17th century.
The # masts is rather more ordinary which is why the character of the fleet should not focus on just the remarkable & largest treasure ships. Of main masts it appears the number in this vision of several boats of the fleet is 4. Even if the huge ships (of uncertain size) existed it seems the character of the greater # vessels of the main body were perhaps not quite as grand....and a little more practical than the treasure ships.
There is evidence that really huge boats were built (including some recovered timbers that support huge dimensions), but just because they were built...does that make the treasure ships a really good idea?
Edit;
The 17th century image of Zheng He's fleet is on Wikipedia;Zheng He.
When China Ruled the Seas
The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne 1405 - 1433
Louise Levathes
It is the source of the figures for different ships in the fleet on Wiki.
It does give some doubt to the practicality of the largest ships, but suggest ego may have won over in the end. The precise figures are even doubted by this author too, and using even Ming dynasty figures there is a potential to inflate or deflate the figures by around 25% (*see below)
QUOTE
The pinned topic left out Zheng He's fleet during the Ming Dynasty...he had 9 masted "treasure ships" that were over 440 feet long { see below for an upper limit >10% smaller, and with the drawbacks of this still outlined} and displaced 1500 tons...which is about 11 times bigger than biggest European ships a century later. Complete with rows of bronze cannons.
*and recently on the history {channel}, they had a program on this.
*and recently on the history {channel}, they had a program on this.
Don't believe everything you hear.
To expand on Tadamsons reply to the above;
Although I do doubt the sailing chatacteristics of the huge treasure ships, as do experienced naval commentators, I think the Chinese need credit for advanced boat designs even in the Han period (early keels) Song waterwheels and watertight seperate compartments by the Ming period, although it should be noted boats in the Treasure fleet were still lost during the journey.
That being said this enthusiasm for the Treasure Fleets boat building technology does need to be tempered with the fact this modern new interest in Zheng He has to do with the plainly silly and fictious works of the incompetent and eccentric historian Gavin Menzies.
The pictures of a Zheng He ship looming over a European ship like a star destroyer at the beginning of Star Wars 1978 are just to me the nauctical & psychological equvialent of the big car as a penis extension. It is just ostentatious.
The actual 'treasure' ships were a small part of the combined fleet, built to statisfy a monumental ego, and probably sailed with the dynamics of a brick.
Combat by the treasure fleet fell on smaller and swifter boats for obvious reasons.
Most assuredly the massive boats were about awe, which goes a way to explaining why if there was any benefit to these that such ships were never built like this for seafaring anywhere again.
The limiting of # masts after Zheng He does not explain why nobody before or over the next 400 years ever revived such a design, i.e in crucial periods such as facing the navys of Europeans for example.
The huge boats were an addition for reasons of grandeur, and in the truest sense of the word.....a show boat.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1702333.htm
QUOTE
QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: In Hong Kong, at the city's maritime museum, there's an equally sceptical critic.
And your argument of course is that if the junks had been as big as Gavin Menzies claims, then there would have been illustrations to show that.
STEPHEN DAVIES, DIRECTOR, HONG KONG MARITIME MUSEUM: There's no question. I mean, I'm sure if we've got a contemporary illustration, had there been an absolute behemoth, somebody would have drawn a picture. There's a lot of graphic art in China of that era, and I can't imagine that it would have been completely ignored.
QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Stephen Davies, the maritime museum's director, doesn't buy Gavin Menzies' theory that fleets of gigantic junks circumnavigated the world in two years.
STEPHEN DAVIES, DIRECTOR, HONG KONG MARITIME MUSEUM: If the ships were as big as he says it was, they would be barely mobile. The drag, everything, would have meant that they would barely have moved at all, unless it was blowing a gale. Now, Zheng He, his fleet is supposed to have headed off around the world, mapping as they went, scientifically observing everything that they saw, and to have averaged something like four to five knots. Forget it. It didn't happen.
GAVIN MENZIES, AUTHOR: I said in my book, in my view, the junks were over 400ft long and 200ft wide, and a lot of very-well respected marine engineers say this is nonsense. A ship that size would hog and sag and break up in heavy sea, impossible to build - and I'm not saying that - that - that - the people who say they couldn't be built that size might eventually be proved right.
And your argument of course is that if the junks had been as big as Gavin Menzies claims, then there would have been illustrations to show that.
STEPHEN DAVIES, DIRECTOR, HONG KONG MARITIME MUSEUM: There's no question. I mean, I'm sure if we've got a contemporary illustration, had there been an absolute behemoth, somebody would have drawn a picture. There's a lot of graphic art in China of that era, and I can't imagine that it would have been completely ignored.
QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Stephen Davies, the maritime museum's director, doesn't buy Gavin Menzies' theory that fleets of gigantic junks circumnavigated the world in two years.
STEPHEN DAVIES, DIRECTOR, HONG KONG MARITIME MUSEUM: If the ships were as big as he says it was, they would be barely mobile. The drag, everything, would have meant that they would barely have moved at all, unless it was blowing a gale. Now, Zheng He, his fleet is supposed to have headed off around the world, mapping as they went, scientifically observing everything that they saw, and to have averaged something like four to five knots. Forget it. It didn't happen.
GAVIN MENZIES, AUTHOR: I said in my book, in my view, the junks were over 400ft long and 200ft wide, and a lot of very-well respected marine engineers say this is nonsense. A ship that size would hog and sag and break up in heavy sea, impossible to build - and I'm not saying that - that - that - the people who say they couldn't be built that size might eventually be proved right.
I found one picture of Zheng He's fleet said to be from the 17th century.
The # masts is rather more ordinary which is why the character of the fleet should not focus on just the remarkable & largest treasure ships. Of main masts it appears the number in this vision of several boats of the fleet is 4. Even if the huge ships (of uncertain size) existed it seems the character of the greater # vessels of the main body were perhaps not quite as grand....and a little more practical than the treasure ships.
There is evidence that really huge boats were built (including some recovered timbers that support huge dimensions), but just because they were built...does that make the treasure ships a really good idea?
Edit;
The 17th century image of Zheng He's fleet is on Wikipedia;Zheng He.
When China Ruled the Seas
The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne 1405 - 1433
Louise Levathes
It is the source of the figures for different ships in the fleet on Wiki.
It does give some doubt to the practicality of the largest ships, but suggest ego may have won over in the end. The precise figures are even doubted by this author too, and using even Ming dynasty figures there is a potential to inflate or deflate the figures by around 25% (*see below)
QUOTE
The shipwrights at Longjiang created a new vessel for the treasure fleet, combining these two boat designs. In keeping with the enormity of the emperor¹s desire to show the world the greatness of his reign and the righteousness of his claim to the throne, the grandest of the treasure ships in the fleet was enormous. Some historical records give its dimensions in complicated accounting characters rather than simplified ones, leaving no doubt as to the exact figures. The bao chuan (treasure boat) or long chuan (dragon boat) were "44 zhang 4 chi long and 18 Zhang wide." However, the official length of a chi, or Chinese foot, varied considerably throughout the Ming Dynasty, from 9.5 inches to over 13 inches. Moreover, the chi varied depending on what it was being used to construct and where it was being used; building standards in the empire were not uniform.
Early calculations of the size of the treasure ships were based on a chi of 12.129 inches (Ming gong bu chi) or 13.338 inches (Huai chi), which were the standards in Jiangsu province for the building of shachuan. Based on these chi, a ship of 44 zhang (1 Zhang equals 10 chi) would be 448.8 to. 49 3.5 feet long. A wooden sailing ship of this length would be very difficult to maneuver, if indeed it were seaworthy, which seems doubtful. Most scholars now believe that the treasure ships, though built in Nanjing, were fuchuan in their basic design, and that the Longjiang shipwrights, the majority of whom were from the coastal provinces, would have brought their tools with them. Based on actual shipbuilding chi unearthed in Fujian province, which varied in length from 10-53 to 11.037 inches, the largest of the treasure ships is now thought to have been between about 390 and 40 8 feet long and 160 to 166 feet wide‹still one of the largest wooden sailboats ever built anywhere in the world.
The number "444" (44 zhang, 4 chi, or 444 chi) prescribed for the length of this important imperial ship was certainly no accident. Four was the symbol for the earth, which was thought to be "four cornered." The Middle Kingdom was imagined to be in the middle of four seas. There are four cardinal directions, four seasons, and, according to Confucian philosophy, si wei, "four bonds" or virtues: propriety, integrity, righteousness, and modesty. All were auspicious associations for the treasure ships.
The treasure ships were longer than any oceangoing boat previously built in China but not inconsistent with the style and stature of early ship models. In the Tang dynasty ships were 20 zhang long, and in the Song they approached 40 zhang. The ke zhou (guest ships) of the Song emperor Huizong were 10 zhang long and 2.5 zhang wide; and the shen zhou (spirit ships) he sent on emissarial missions were reported to be three times as big. The ships of Khubilai Khan each had more than ten sails and were said to hold a thousand men. On the large lake west of Hangzhou, grand pleasure boats from the Song dynasty called Xihu zhou chuan (West Lake ships) were presumed to be more than 50 zhang long. They "were skillfully made with engraved railings and painted pillars. They moved through the water with great stability and made the passengers feel as if they were on dry land."
&
......Most of the drydocks at Longjiang were 90 to 120 feet wide, but two of them were 2 10 feet wide, big enough to accommodate a ship 160 to 166 feet wide.
......It is not clear just how many large treasure ships were among the fleet of 317 ships that the emperor assembled in Nanjing in the spring of 1405. As Ming novelist Lou Maotang suggests in San Bao taijian Xiyang ji tongsu yanyi, his sixteenth-century novel about Zheng He¹s voyages, there may have been only four such splendid boats for the eunuch commander and his principal -deputies.
....The second-largest boats were eight-masted "horse ships", some 339 feet long by 138 feet wide. These ships did, in fact, carry horses, which were an important part of the tribute trade, as well as other, tribute goods and all building materials necessary to repair the fleet at sea. The large holds of the seven-masted "supply ships"‹about 257 feet long and 115 feet wide-were packed with food staples for the crew, who numbered 28,000 on some voyages. Six-masted "troop transports"‹approximately 220 feet long and 83 feet at the beam‹were used to carry the treasure fleet¹s large contingent of soldiers. The fleet had two kinds of warships, five-masted, 165-foot-long fuchuan and smaller, faster-oared ships, some 120 or 128 feet in length, that terrorized pirates.
Early calculations of the size of the treasure ships were based on a chi of 12.129 inches (Ming gong bu chi) or 13.338 inches (Huai chi), which were the standards in Jiangsu province for the building of shachuan. Based on these chi, a ship of 44 zhang (1 Zhang equals 10 chi) would be 448.8 to. 49 3.5 feet long. A wooden sailing ship of this length would be very difficult to maneuver, if indeed it were seaworthy, which seems doubtful. Most scholars now believe that the treasure ships, though built in Nanjing, were fuchuan in their basic design, and that the Longjiang shipwrights, the majority of whom were from the coastal provinces, would have brought their tools with them. Based on actual shipbuilding chi unearthed in Fujian province, which varied in length from 10-53 to 11.037 inches, the largest of the treasure ships is now thought to have been between about 390 and 40 8 feet long and 160 to 166 feet wide‹still one of the largest wooden sailboats ever built anywhere in the world.
The number "444" (44 zhang, 4 chi, or 444 chi) prescribed for the length of this important imperial ship was certainly no accident. Four was the symbol for the earth, which was thought to be "four cornered." The Middle Kingdom was imagined to be in the middle of four seas. There are four cardinal directions, four seasons, and, according to Confucian philosophy, si wei, "four bonds" or virtues: propriety, integrity, righteousness, and modesty. All were auspicious associations for the treasure ships.
The treasure ships were longer than any oceangoing boat previously built in China but not inconsistent with the style and stature of early ship models. In the Tang dynasty ships were 20 zhang long, and in the Song they approached 40 zhang. The ke zhou (guest ships) of the Song emperor Huizong were 10 zhang long and 2.5 zhang wide; and the shen zhou (spirit ships) he sent on emissarial missions were reported to be three times as big. The ships of Khubilai Khan each had more than ten sails and were said to hold a thousand men. On the large lake west of Hangzhou, grand pleasure boats from the Song dynasty called Xihu zhou chuan (West Lake ships) were presumed to be more than 50 zhang long. They "were skillfully made with engraved railings and painted pillars. They moved through the water with great stability and made the passengers feel as if they were on dry land."
&
......Most of the drydocks at Longjiang were 90 to 120 feet wide, but two of them were 2 10 feet wide, big enough to accommodate a ship 160 to 166 feet wide.
......It is not clear just how many large treasure ships were among the fleet of 317 ships that the emperor assembled in Nanjing in the spring of 1405. As Ming novelist Lou Maotang suggests in San Bao taijian Xiyang ji tongsu yanyi, his sixteenth-century novel about Zheng He¹s voyages, there may have been only four such splendid boats for the eunuch commander and his principal -deputies.
....The second-largest boats were eight-masted "horse ships", some 339 feet long by 138 feet wide. These ships did, in fact, carry horses, which were an important part of the tribute trade, as well as other, tribute goods and all building materials necessary to repair the fleet at sea. The large holds of the seven-masted "supply ships"‹about 257 feet long and 115 feet wide-were packed with food staples for the crew, who numbered 28,000 on some voyages. Six-masted "troop transports"‹approximately 220 feet long and 83 feet at the beam‹were used to carry the treasure fleet¹s large contingent of soldiers. The fleet had two kinds of warships, five-masted, 165-foot-long fuchuan and smaller, faster-oared ships, some 120 or 128 feet in length, that terrorized pirates.
QUOTE
Naval warfare in China took place in a very different context from the Mediterranean. Almost all Chinese naval battles took place on relatively calmer but more confined rivers or lakes, and thus while the Mediterranean was dominated by fast galleys, Chinese warships developed into waterborne fortresses that opted for size, firepower and protection over speed, stability or maneuverability. Instead of ramming or boarding, which was the favoured method for sinking/capturing galleys, the Chinese warship was most vulnerable to fire. So I don't think there's much point in comparing Chinese tower-ships to Mediterranean biremes and triremes - no galley was ever armed with traction trebuchets launching incendiary projectiles. One similarity was the use of striking arms for holding enemy vessels in place so they could not escape - the Romans also used this against Carthaginian ships. But while the Romans did this to allow boarding, the Chinese mainly held enemy ships close alongside to bombard them and set them on fire.
Actually Alexander the Great placed catapults on his ships and the Roman quinqueremes used ballistas that probably launched incendiary projectiles. At that point in time Mediterranean warships were not built for speed and maneuvrability anymore though.
QUOTE
then there is greek fire
What about Greek Fire? It came after the era of triremes and biremes. Greek fire was used by the large Byzantine dromons and quinqueremes. At that point in time, tactics of naval warfare were completetly changed and seemed to coincide more with those of Chinese seafarers.
QUOTE(Johnny @ Jan 29 2007, 09:00 PM) [snapback]4873936[/snapback]
What about Greek Fire? It came after the era of triremes and biremes. Greek fire was used by the large Byzantine dromons and quinqueremes. At that point in time, tactics of naval warfare were completetly changed and seemed to coincide more with those of Chinese seafarers.
By the time Greek Fire came into existence (probably after the fall of the Western Roman Empire), the quinqueremes had long been out of service. The First Emperor Augustus had used use more manoeuverable trireme-like ships outfitted with the harpago to inflict a crushing defeat on Antony's quinquereme dominated fleet, hence showing that size did not matter in naval combat. It would be these ships that evolved into the dromons later on.
As for the other posts regarding Zheng He's 400 feet ships, it was possible they existed, but their use in war would most likely be that of a supplying role, as smaller, more manoeuverable ships could overwhelm it. The Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt was said to have built a quadrigarireme (having 40 banks of oars!), but it is recorded that the ship could not even be put into water. Similarly, during the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, the Spanish had a four-decked battleship called the Santissima Trinidad, with 140 odd guns. It now rests at the bottom of the ocean because its size proved a nice target for the English ships, including the famous Victory. Furthermore, the storm after the battle completely destroyed the ship. Size is not everything in naval battles.
While most Chinese warships did not have keels (being one reason for the failure of the Mongol Invasion of Japan, as boats without keels would capsize in a typhoon), by the time the Romans dominated the Mediterranean, the Chinese were already using rudders. The rudders, along with navigation would be paramount in the discovery of the New World by the Spaniards much later. By contrast, the galleys were being primarily propelled by oarsmen.
QUOTE(Scott Webb @ Feb 24 2007, 12:02 PM) [snapback]4877897[/snapback]
...by the time the Romans dominated the Mediterranean, the Chinese were already using rudders.
You mean stern-mounted rudders. Their role had been rather exaggerated by the Needham school. Lawrence Mott has shown in his excellent study and defense of the quarter rudder "The Development of the Rudder, A.D. 100-1600: A Technological Tale" that quarter rudders can absolutely do the job ven with fairly big sized ships.
http://nautarch.tamu.edu/pdf-files/Mott-MA1991.pdf
Btw stern-mounted rudder were also common in Pharaonic and Roman river navigation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudder (see pics)
QUOTE
The rudders, along with navigation would be paramount in the discovery of the New World by the Spaniards much later.
The European pintle-and gudgeon rudder was an independent invention from the Hanseatic cogs and differed structurally strongly from the Junk rudder. It was not the junk rudder which made the age of exploration possible, it was the PG-rudder with its strong iron fastings.
Again, the Needham school likes to give the expression that it were the Europeans who, after adopting it, sailed with a Chinese device around the world. This is simply an unhistorical assumption. The junk rudder was neither conceptually the first stern-mounted rudder, nor was it genealogically the predessor of the European rudder.
QUOTE
The only actual concept which can be claimed to have been transmitted from the Chinese is the idea of a stern-mounted rudder, and not its method of attachment nor the manner in which it was controlled. Since that idea of putting a rudder on the stern can be traced back to the models found in Egyptian tombs, the need to have the concept brought into the Middle East is questionable at best. There is no evidence to support the contention that the sternpost-mounted rudder came from China, and no need to call on exterior sources for its introduction into the Mediterranean.
Source: The Development of the Rudder, A.D. 100-1600: A Technological Tale
Source: The Development of the Rudder, A.D. 100-1600: A Technological Tale
Hi Snafu,
Just got here..
Awesome pics!
More if you have...
hee hee.. moving down the posts...
Cheers!
Just got here..
Awesome pics!
More if you have...
hee hee.. moving down the posts...
Cheers!
I keep meaning to add a link to the Ancient Greek super size warships (equally impractical), this site has a lot of detail, including the over the top tesseraconteres (a 40 bank galley, cf a Trireme 3 bank) with its 7000+ crew
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/GiantShips.htm
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/GiantShips.htm
oh,i saw it!
The Sung dynasty paddleboat warship.
The Sung dynasty paddleboat warship.
So Chinese did not use keels?
Does that mean all their ships were flat bottomed
Does that mean all their ships were flat bottomed
QUOTE(tadamson @ Apr 7 2007, 03:27 AM) [snapback]4883278[/snapback]
I keep meaning to add a link to the Ancient Greek super size warships (equally impractical), this site has a lot of detail, including the over the top tesseraconteres (a 40 bank galley, cf a Trireme 3 bank) with its 7000+ crew
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/GiantShips.htm
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/GiantShips.htm
This page makes sufficiently clear that
a ) other civilizations seem to have built super ships at a time when the Chinese still did not dare to venture out of their bath tubs.
b ) that the claim that the treasure ships were many time bigger than (almost) contemporary European ships is nonsense.
c ) that the supposed size of the Treasures ships (400 ft long) is fiction. Just compare the largest wooden ships which were built with steel components and scientific know-how.
d ) that many of these super ships were simply oversized and impractical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_wooden_ships
^Is that just trying to edge people in a flaming war? Jeez, more discretion?
btw, it really bothers me that you list sources in which you have a large hand in, not that that would automatically make it wrong, per se, but why not use the other sources available?
btw, it really bothers me that you list sources in which you have a large hand in, not that that would automatically make it wrong, per se, but why not use the other sources available?
Hi,
Great pics, I would just wish to see more like these, either war ships or any other items used in warring by the chinese. They have a really great history and many items that are yet to be discovered by man and a lot of them to be discovered by me.
Thanks for all the great work and research you guys and gals are doing.
Have a great day
Pierre from Montreal
Great pics, I would just wish to see more like these, either war ships or any other items used in warring by the chinese. They have a really great history and many items that are yet to be discovered by man and a lot of them to be discovered by me.
Thanks for all the great work and research you guys and gals are doing.
Have a great day
Pierre from Montreal
QUOTE(Snafu @ Feb 14 2005, 02:19 PM) [snapback]4700715[/snapback]
For anyone interested I figured I'd post some pics of various Chinese warships through the ages.
These are from the book "Fighting ships of the fear east part 1" by Stephen Turnbull. Small book (less than 50 pages) but interesting pics.
Early Han Dynasty warship, battle canoes, and fire-boats.
A Southern Tang dynasty Lou chuan ("tower ship") fights off a Sung war junk.
A Sung dynasty paddleboat warship.
Jin and Sung dynasty warships.
A Yuan dynasty sea-going war junk fighting off Vietnamese war canoes.
A Ming dynasty detachable mine-layer
These are from the book "Fighting ships of the fear east part 1" by Stephen Turnbull. Small book (less than 50 pages) but interesting pics.
Early Han Dynasty warship, battle canoes, and fire-boats.
A Southern Tang dynasty Lou chuan ("tower ship") fights off a Sung war junk.
A Sung dynasty paddleboat warship.
Jin and Sung dynasty warships.
A Yuan dynasty sea-going war junk fighting off Vietnamese war canoes.
A Ming dynasty detachable mine-layer
Hi,
I am just wondering how many men is needed to row a Ming big sized warship?
QUOTE(Johnny @ Jan 30 2007, 05:00 AM) [snapback]4873936[/snapback]
What about Greek Fire? It came after the era of triremes and biremes. Greek fire was used by the large Byzantine dromons and quinqueremes. At that point in time, tactics of naval warfare were completetly changed and seemed to coincide more with those of Chinese seafarers.
Which dynasty in China used Greek Fire? Also, did the Japanese navy used Greek Fire?
Also, could anyone post up any pics on merchant ships? Thanks
QUOTE
I am just wondering how many men is needed to row a Ming big sized warship?
Well, for any ship it would be one, but don't count on him doing much though
The question is a little vague. The Ming has different sizes of ships, some with sails, some without, while others are paddled rather than rowed, so it depends.
QUOTE(Anthrophobia @ Apr 16 2007, 09:14 AM) [snapback]4884137[/snapback]
Well, for any ship it would be one, but don't count on him doing much though
The question is a little vague. The Ming has different sizes of ships, some with sails, some without, while others are paddled rather than rowed, so it depends.
The question is a little vague. The Ming has different sizes of ships, some with sails, some without, while others are paddled rather than rowed, so it depends.
Hi,
I am referring to the big sized warship with sails. Those used by Cheng Ho.
You mean the Treasure Ship? He had various sizes of ships too, but the Treasure Ship would be the biggest one. I don't recall any of the ships really rowing anything, but rely on wind power. Keep in mind they're going all the way to eastern Africa, so rowing might be a little energy inefficient.
QUOTE(TMPikachu @ Apr 8 2007, 11:47 PM) [snapback]4883445[/snapback]
So Chinese did not use keels?
Does that mean all their ships were flat bottomed
Does that mean all their ships were flat bottomed
No. Chinese DID use keels.
There's a well known diagram of a Fuchuan- it clearly shows a keel, named a "Dragon's Bone (龙骨）".
Which is not to say, of course, that there weren't flat bottomed boats such as the Shachuan.
As a landlubber I would say that Chinese blue ocean ships must have used a keel. However, the standard river and coast junk did not.
QUOTE (Gubook Janggoon @ Feb 14 2005, 12:22 AM) 
Great stuff! Does he include pics of non Chinese ships?
yeh maybe in a different forum....who wants to look at other stuff..seen enuf of other ships btw there was a very important one u missed out, gaint ships of the ming dynasty, Zhen heu who went to europ southern hemisphere and africa, they have recorded his exploration and also there are some of his bases he built in christchurch in New zealand under a park , haggley park or something i forgot.
QUOTE (General Guan Yu @ Apr 15 2007, 09:21 PM)
Hi,
I am referring to the big sized warship with sails. Those used by Cheng Ho.
I am referring to the big sized warship with sails. Those used by Cheng Ho.
lol yeh trhu i have my own sketch of his warships, its really just my prediction but yeh those pics he put up r great but im pretty sure theyre bit small for an actual chinese warship xD meh i really want to show you some pics of larger chinese ships. maybe i can leave an email/msn mm3r@hotmail.com
QUOTE (Kenneth @ Dec 14 2006, 03:37 PM)
Intranetusa; quote
Don't believe everything you hear.
To expand on Tadamsons reply to the above;
Although I do doubt the sailing chatacteristics of the huge treasure ships, as do experienced naval commentators, I think the Chinese need credit for advanced boat designs even in the Han period (early keels) Song waterwheels and watertight seperate compartments by the Ming period, although it should be noted boats in the Treasure fleet were still lost during the journey.
That being said this enthusiasm for the Treasure Fleets boat building technology does need to be tempered with the fact this modern new interest in Zheng He has to do with the plainly silly and fictious works of the incompetent and eccentric historian Gavin Menzies.
The pictures of a Zheng He ship looming over a European ship like a star destroyer at the beginning of Star Wars 1978 are just to me the nauctical & psychological equvialent of the big car as a penis extension. It is just ostentatious.
The actual 'treasure' ships were a small part of the combined fleet, built to statisfy a monumental ego, and probably sailed with the dynamics of a brick.
Combat by the treasure fleet fell on smaller and swifter boats for obvious reasons.
Most assuredly the massive boats were about awe, which goes a way to explaining why if there was any benefit to these that such ships were never built like this for seafaring anywhere again.
The limiting of # masts after Zheng He does not explain why nobody before or over the next 400 years ever revived such a design, i.e in crucial periods such as facing the navys of Europeans for example.
The huge boats were an addition for reasons of grandeur, and in the truest sense of the word.....a show boat.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1702333.htm
I found one picture of Zheng He's fleet said to be from the 17th century.
The # masts is rather more ordinary which is why the character of the fleet should not focus on just the remarkable & largest treasure ships. Of main masts it appears the number in this vision of several boats of the fleet is 4. Even if the huge ships (of uncertain size) existed it seems the character of the greater # vessels of the main body were perhaps not quite as grand....and a little more practical than the treasure ships.
There is evidence that really huge boats were built (including some recovered timbers that support huge dimensions), but just because they were built...does that make the treasure ships a really good idea?
Edit;
The 17th century image of Zheng He's fleet is on Wikipedia;Zheng He.
When China Ruled the Seas
The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne 1405 - 1433
Louise Levathes
It is the source of the figures for different ships in the fleet on Wiki.
It does give some doubt to the practicality of the largest ships, but suggest ego may have won over in the end. The precise figures are even doubted by this author too, and using even Ming dynasty figures there is a potential to inflate or deflate the figures by around 25% (*see below)
Don't believe everything you hear.
To expand on Tadamsons reply to the above;
Although I do doubt the sailing chatacteristics of the huge treasure ships, as do experienced naval commentators, I think the Chinese need credit for advanced boat designs even in the Han period (early keels) Song waterwheels and watertight seperate compartments by the Ming period, although it should be noted boats in the Treasure fleet were still lost during the journey.
That being said this enthusiasm for the Treasure Fleets boat building technology does need to be tempered with the fact this modern new interest in Zheng He has to do with the plainly silly and fictious works of the incompetent and eccentric historian Gavin Menzies.
The pictures of a Zheng He ship looming over a European ship like a star destroyer at the beginning of Star Wars 1978 are just to me the nauctical & psychological equvialent of the big car as a penis extension. It is just ostentatious.
The actual 'treasure' ships were a small part of the combined fleet, built to statisfy a monumental ego, and probably sailed with the dynamics of a brick.
Combat by the treasure fleet fell on smaller and swifter boats for obvious reasons.
Most assuredly the massive boats were about awe, which goes a way to explaining why if there was any benefit to these that such ships were never built like this for seafaring anywhere again.
The limiting of # masts after Zheng He does not explain why nobody before or over the next 400 years ever revived such a design, i.e in crucial periods such as facing the navys of Europeans for example.
The huge boats were an addition for reasons of grandeur, and in the truest sense of the word.....a show boat.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1702333.htm
I found one picture of Zheng He's fleet said to be from the 17th century.
The # masts is rather more ordinary which is why the character of the fleet should not focus on just the remarkable & largest treasure ships. Of main masts it appears the number in this vision of several boats of the fleet is 4. Even if the huge ships (of uncertain size) existed it seems the character of the greater # vessels of the main body were perhaps not quite as grand....and a little more practical than the treasure ships.
There is evidence that really huge boats were built (including some recovered timbers that support huge dimensions), but just because they were built...does that make the treasure ships a really good idea?
Edit;
The 17th century image of Zheng He's fleet is on Wikipedia;Zheng He.
When China Ruled the Seas
The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne 1405 - 1433
Louise Levathes
It is the source of the figures for different ships in the fleet on Wiki.
It does give some doubt to the practicality of the largest ships, but suggest ego may have won over in the end. The precise figures are even doubted by this author too, and using even Ming dynasty figures there is a potential to inflate or deflate the figures by around 25% (*see below)
zheng heus record where burnt but then the last time he told people to record his voyages and description of his ships on stone tablets which still stand today, wat other way do you prove things that are so long before europeans great sailing age...all they did was went robbing other people around the world. proves to me their all just barbarians who r hungry for gold, eyh well thanks for bringing back tomatoes from south america i love tomatoes, yeh thanks alot
QUOTE
Zhen heu who went to europ southern hemisphere and africa, they have recorded his exploration and also there are some of his bases he built in christchurch in New zealand under a park , haggley park or something i forgot.
Comments on Gavin Menzies' theory should not be made on this thread. Please go to our pinned Menzies thread in the Ming section. However, from the look of your comments so far, I have a feeling you will not bring anything really constructive to the discussion. If that is so, moderators are standing by to show you the door.
QUOTE (青島Aoshima @ Feb 6 2008, 04:52 AM)
Zhen heu who went to europ southern hemisphere and africa, they have recorded his exploration and also there are some of his bases he built in christchurch in New zealand under a park , haggley park or something i forgot.
You are almost incoherent, and haven't even gotten the Admirals name right.
Of the 'evidence' in NZ it is completely fraudulent and laughable. Only a fool would be impressed.
Part of the 'lost cities' remains were supposedly behind the Canterbury museum and other parts in the botanical gardens but it took a believer like Cedric Bell to find it!
Funny how no artefactual of evidence for Han Chinese cities have ever turned up during all the decades of earthworks and trenching in Christchurch...yet in China they are found all the time. I know both Chinese artefacts and NZ pre-historic artefacts quite well, and I dare say there were no Chinese here untill the 19th century.
For more on the NZ falsehoods (I am a NZer and personally familiar with some of the real archeaological sites Gavin is clearly falsifying):
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=10888
Ming discovery of New Zealand: Menzies 'evidence'., Rebuttal based on what Menzies misrepresents
For more specific commentary on the idea of Chinese cities in NZ from Han times and other outrageous claims Gavin makes from long distances:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...p;#entry4809612
Lol. He even writes about how wild horses in NZ could only have been bought by Ming Chinese, despite there being no horses here untill just over 100 years ago. Lol.
There is also a very long thread on the 1421 book in general, which is rife with factual errors, distortion, and ommisions.
"1421" is a fantastic work of fiction that made one man rich and many many people a whole lot stupider.
I suggest you use the google search on the forum at the base of the page and type in "Menzies-1421" and perhaps "fraud"
(PS; Yun. I can't help myself).
QUOTE
(PS; Yun. I can't help myself).
I understand. However, I will not be giving Aoshima any right of reply to you on this thread, lest it get hijacked by the 1421 issue.
To steer the discussion towards something more constructive, here are some descriptions of typical Song-era warships that I recently wrote for Yang Zongbao.
The main classes of Song warships as described in the Wujing Zongyao are, in descending order of size:
1. Louchuan 樓船 (tower-ships): Huge fortresses on water, with three concentric layers of ramparts on the deck forming a three-step tower that is covered with fire-resistant wet leather. Ports in the ramparts for crossbows and spears. Rowers are partly shielded by a crenelated wall running along the edge of the deck, with ports in the base for oars to extend out. Armed with wheeled trebuchets that throw stones, as well as "iron juice" (molten iron?). Drawback is low maneuverability in strong winds.
2. Doujian 鬥艦 (battleships): Rowers are partly shielded by a crenelated wall running along the edge of the deck, with ports in the base for oars to extend out. Much of the rest of the deck is covered by a bunker-like structure on top of which is another crenelated rampart for marines. Basically a reduced version of the tower-ship, without trebuchets.
3. Mengchong 蒙衝 (covered chargers): Upper deck shielded by a roof of leather that covers both marines and rowers, with ports on the sides of the leather for oars to extend out. Ports for crossbows and spears on all four sides. Fast, maneuverable, and well-protected from projectile weapons (including trebuchets), these are relatively small but essential in defending friendly towerships and battleships, and attacking enemy ships of all classes.
4. Zouge 走舸 (running ships): Fast, small ships with many rowers partly shielded by a crenelated wall running along the edge of the deck, with ports in the base for oars to extend out. Main function is to carry elite marines to pursue, surround, and board enemy ships.
5. Youting 遊艇 (roaming boats): Small, without crenelated wall, but very fast. Main function is scouting and reconnaissance.
6. Haihu 海鶻 (sea falcons): The design of these ships was inspired by falcons - they are broad and low at the bow, and narrow and high at the stern, with boards extending outwards on port and starboard for increased stability in rough seas. These are therefore more suited for warfare along the sea coast than other warship classes (which are mostly designed for river warfare). There are shields of leather on both sides of deck. The early Southern Song Haihu ships were 15 meters long, with only four rowers each. In 1203, the Song general Qin Shifu designed an enlarged version of Haihu that was 30m long and had both oars and paddlewheels. It carried 42 rowers and a maximum of 108 marines.
Yun,
Are the various vessels you described river vessels or sea going? To mean they seem like river vessels.
Chris
Are the various vessels you described river vessels or sea going? To mean they seem like river vessels.
Chris
All except the Haihu are primarily river-going ships or boats.
Thanks Yun,
I noticed you used the source, Wujing Zongyao. Can you give me a page number where you obtained the info?
Cheers
Chris
I noticed you used the source, Wujing Zongyao. Can you give me a page number where you obtained the info?
Cheers
Chris
Chris,
Unfortunately I don't have a copy of Wujing Zongyao. I got the WJZY quotations from a Chinese-language reference work on ancient Chinese ships, entitled 《中國古船圖譜》. That book only gives the reference for these quotations as 《武經縂要前集》卷十一戰船 (Wujing Zongyao Volume 1, Chapter 11: Warships).
Unfortunately I don't have a copy of Wujing Zongyao. I got the WJZY quotations from a Chinese-language reference work on ancient Chinese ships, entitled 《中國古船圖譜》. That book only gives the reference for these quotations as 《武經縂要前集》卷十一戰船 (Wujing Zongyao Volume 1, Chapter 11: Warships).
Yun,
Does it describe sea going vessels of the Song Dynasty?
Chris
Does it describe sea going vessels of the Song Dynasty?
Chris
It describes three wrecks of ocean-going Song ships that were discovered in 1974, 1979, and 1992. However these were merchant vessels and not warships.
QUOTE (ih8eurocentrix @ Feb 15 2005, 06:26 PM)
then there is greek fire
zhen heu 鄭和 had a pretty awsome fleet but im pretty sure he wanted peace instead of war
How do you think he made everyone pay tribute to Ming? By being nice? No, he did so by showing them he got a kick a** fleet, and if they don't do what he wants, they can prepare for iron and fire.
QUOTE (mariusj @ May 13 2008, 11:25 AM)
How do you think he made everyone pay tribute to Ming? By being nice? No, he did so by showing them he got a kick a** fleet, and if they don't do what he wants, they can prepare for iron and fire.
To my understanding, that is partially correct, but there are not many records of the Chinese fighting battles overseas. It may well have been unnecessary, since the sheer size of the fleets deterred others from challenging them.
Of course, there may be some important lessons to take from this. If this is how the Ming dynasty co nducted its foreign affairs policy, might it not also be a clue to the way in which a modern China might conduct itself with its neighbours?
Actually, there were times that Zheng He did resort to force--he fought some battles to destroy a group of powerful Chinese pirates in the Indian Ocean, captured one of the feuding pretenders to the throne of Ceylon and sent him to the capital, and shelled Mogadishu into submission when it refused to let his ships enter. Though his flotilla was not necessarily a fleet of war, Zheng He did show willingness to use force when necessary.
QUOTE (Yang Zongbao @ May 19 2008, 01:30 AM)
Actually, there were times that Zheng He did resort to force--he fought some battles to destroy a group of powerful Chinese pirates in the Indian Ocean, captured one of the feuding pretenders to the throne of Ceylon and sent him to the capital, and shelled Mogadishu into submission when it refused to let his ships enter. Though his flotilla was not necessarily a fleet of war, Zheng He did show willingness to use force when necessary.
Yes, I am aware of the fleet actions, especially the one with the South Sea pirates.
Perhaps I was a little obtuse in my wording. I was thinking of land actions. It is my understanding that the only sbstantial land actiion was in what is now Sri Lanka. Are there any others I have missed?
Oh, my bad William.
As for land action, Sri Lanka is the only significant instance I know of as well. Ah, though war is a horrible thing, it'd have been interesting to have more stories of similar battles..
As for land action, Sri Lanka is the only significant instance I know of as well. Ah, though war is a horrible thing, it'd have been interesting to have more stories of similar battles..
QUOTE (Yang Zongbao @ May 21 2008, 10:09 AM)
Oh, my bad William.
As for land action, Sri Lanka is the only significant instance I know of as well. Ah, though war is a horrible thing, it'd have been interesting to have more stories of similar battles..
As for land action, Sri Lanka is the only significant instance I know of as well. Ah, though war is a horrible thing, it'd have been interesting to have more stories of similar battles..
Yes, I have a sneaking suspicion there was some engagement on land near the Malacca Straits. I shall try to find it. We do know, however, that te large troop carrying vessels did make it to the Persian Gulf, but they didn't fight any battles.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.