Apples and banana's again.Originally Posted by Liare
Take two very similar sail-plans on two very similar ships, and the move from one to the other or vise versa isn't very difficult. No shit Sherlock. But we weren't talking about two very similar sail-plans on two very similar ships now were we? The difference isn't about the number of foresails, it is about completely redoing a mast, one integral to the whole ship design. That means moving, removing, or extending the mast, the rigging to keep it in place, putting a very different sail-plan on top, and then still making with work within the hull. It is not the same as changing the oars on a row-boat! Unless you have very similar ship designs, like a sloop, cutter, or ketch, you cannot easily re-rig a ship 'as required'. And we weren't talking about sloops, cutters, ketches or rowboats. We were talking about sizeable ships that differ in hull design significantly. You know, yachts, Carracks, Galleons, Fluyts ...
I bring them up because that is what the Spanish and the Portuguese were sailing at the time of the Duyfken! And long after as well. And not just in the Mediterranean either. Their Galleons were their small faster ships (still outclassed but there you go).both Caravels and Carracks are a mostly Mediterranean thing, not sure why you are obsessing so much over them, the Scandinavian nations build mostly galleon type ships until switching to the "modern" square rigged three master for their ships of the line and Indiaman type vessels, everything else was done in schooner and snow sized ships, or smaller.
ironically that's why both the danish and swedish navies where historically so sluggish to get into things, rounding up the crews from the large number of trading vessels could take several months at the best of times, and up to a year in some cases.
Compare it to an "Oostindievaarder"? Man, what are you talking about? The Indiaman is the East-Indies version of the Fluyt! It ditched the Baltic deck for a wider poop and weather deck, and early Indiamen were practically indistinguishable from Fluyts. Fluyts, furthermore, pre-date Indiaman, as the Baltic Merchant fleet for the Dutch existed well before they went to the Indies. You know, there's a reason why they're officially called 'East Indiamen': the East-Indies are what now is Indonesia, a former Dutch colony! The Dutch designed the early Indiamen off the Fluyt, or their common ancestor, the yacht.comparing Fluyt to Carrack is disengenious at best, the two designs are separated by roughly 200 years, certainly the Spanish kept building them, but up until the late 1700's but then they where still making Galleons, despite these ships being hilariously outperformed by everything else.
its more reasonable to compare it to Indiaman type vessels, but there's so many variations of that one that it's not even funny, and most larger Fluyts can be considered part of the same class of vessel, their distinctive feature that makes them stand out being the "Baltic deck" needed for passage past Denmark.
It is useless to compare something to itself: you won't find much difference. But it is perfectly reasonable to compare Fluyts or Oostindievaarders to Carracks, because that was what the Spanish, in the early years the biggest merchant navy in the world, were using for cargoships. And there's a massive difference between the two designs. In hull design. Sailplan. Usage. Basically everything.
So now the Mary Rose and the Duyfken are also the same design?the Mary rose certainly sharequite a few of the lines.
the same design, not at all, try comparing the Dufken, the Golden Hind and a "modern" flush decker like the Constitution, see what i am on about now ?
Listen: they are completely different ships, used for completely different purposes, and it shows in the design! The Mary Rose, the Golden Hind, the Duyfken: completely different ships from each other!
Even before flushdeck ships like frigates (also a Dutch design BTW) came round, there were really different ship design philosophies around.
The Spanish didn't keep building Carracks because they couldn't think of something else to build! They didn't much care about speed or handling or even having to wait for favourable winds. They needed to get massive amounts of gold and cargo from their colonies in South-America safely across the Atlantic back to Spain. So they had massive ships, with lots of heavy (short ranged) guns and soldiers, with a lot of cargo space, and a lot of protection, sailing in convoy: the Silverfleet, or La Flota. These were constantly prayed upon by privateers, pirates, and the Dutch, French, and English, and not least the weather. But you would be an idiot (or Piet Hein, one of the most successful privateers ever) to try to tackle La Flota head on! The whole design of those ships was slow and defensive. And that includes hull, sailplan, armament and crew complement.
The Dutch, English, French? They needed fast, manoeuvrable ships to either hunt those Spanish ships, or to quickly get to the East-Indies (or elsewhere), get the spices, china, whathaveyou, and then quickly back again. The longer it took, the less money was made. So their whole design philosophy was different. Speed, agility, longer range guns, smaller crews. That gives you completely different ship designs!
And that resulted in ships floating about with completely different designs. Concurrently. For a reason. For the same reason that you wouldn't arm a Duyfken with a demiculvert, you wouldn't chop off the excellent fire platform of the high forecastle from a Carrack (or a Spanish treasure fleet Galleon).
To say that somehow all those ship designs are, really, all the same until flushdeck ships came round is just ... stupid.
Here, have a picture of a replica of a late version Oostindievaarder; "Amsterdam":
Here, have a picture of a replica of the Carrack Santa Maria:
Sure, exactly the same design right? Nooooo difference whatsoever!
Apples and bananas ...
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks