Talk:List of world's largest wooden ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Deleted Noah's Ark 2 Zheng He 3 5th February 2007 4 Subject of the article 4.1 Title of the article -> List 4.2 Length of ship 5 Format 5.1 Table 5.2 Confirmed - unconfirmed dichotomy 5.3 Three divisions 6 Entries 6.1 In 6.2 Potential to do 6.3 Out 6.4 Other sources 7 Miscellaneous 7.1 an irrelevant but huge planned ship 8 Not liking the new format 9 Experiment 10 Re treasure ships 11 History Channel Program 12 Two new candidates

[edit] Deleted Noah's Ark

There is no physical or textual evidence supporting an ark that was capable of holding 2 of all animals in the world - which, btw would have to be the size of a small country. Noah's ark story most likely came from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, where the main protagonist survived a flood of 7 days and 7 nights on a boat. Intranetusa 16:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zheng He

I believe they found a 15 ft rudder post stern, and by modern calculations, that would place the ships over 350+ feet. And there were surviving documents that referred to the treasure ship flagships at 400 feet. Also, I added info regarding the treasure ships, and moved the Noah's ark ship.

intranetusa 15:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5th February 2007

Shall we put Noah's Ark in the unconfirmed largest ships???? Orangemarlin 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure why not. Of course, we have only put down lengths in most cases, not widths and draughts, so we might need more information to make it easier to compare. But this page is just a start, obviously.--Filll 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should re-order the ships. Oldest to newest? Biggest to smallest? Alphabetical? Orangemarlin 04:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is ordered right now roughly shortest to longest. But if you think another order would be better, then we can try it.--Filll 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I added a ship right next to the other Swedish one. I'll have to place it correctly. Orangemarlin 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We should make articles for the redlinks. And it needs a LEAD that does not have a section heading over it. We can have both a LEAD and an introduction. But it needs a LEAD for the WP:MOS.--Filll 05:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Time for bed. However, I didn't know about the Lead vs. Introduction thing. I'll work on it in the morning, if you don't. This is becoming a nice article. I actually visited the Vasa museum in Stockholm a couple of times. The ship is amazing, but from today's knowledge, it was obvious that it was going to sink. But what a work of 17th century engineering. Orangemarlin 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subject of the article

[edit] Title of the article -> List

Congrats to this interesting subject. Suggestion: rename the article 'List of largest wooden ships' or 'List of wooden ships by size' as this will include your page in the corresponding category, leading people easier to this article. Regards Gun Powder Ma 18:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok OM, which do you prefer? I do not really care personally.--Filll 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the former, but only by a narrow margin. I don't care either, really. Orangemarlin 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This should be one of those "Did you know" articles. How do we get it nominated? I read the rules, and typical of Wikipedia, I have no clue what the right way to do it. I wish there were just buttons here and there to do things. Orangemarlin 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I figured the best way to learn is just to try it. So I nominated it at Template talk:Did you know as you can see. I do not know its chances, or if I did it correctly or not.--Filll 00:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I need to know what your definitional criteria is: maximum length or length of the keel? Gun Powder Ma 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So far we are using maximum length, including bowsprit usually.--Filll 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't read this, so if we're using the bowsprit, let's reference it on the table. By the way, it looks nice.Orangemarlin 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of ship

I know we are using the Length to be the determinative factor for "largest wooden ship", but it brings to mind a couple of issues. How do we define length--do we use the bowsprit or a jib? And is length the best factor, or could it be some other measurement? I personally think we should stick with length, but let's define what we mean in a footnote to the table. Of course, let's make sure every entry uses that measurement. Orangemarlin 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am currently semiofficially using total length including bowsprit, although I might not be totally consistent. We could also get tonnage of various kinds (one type of tonnage is a volume measurement I found out) for many of these. To start with, I just figured I would go with length since that is fairly easy to get for most and understandable. Then as it develops, we could add more information in footnotes or other columns in the table, etc.--Filll 19:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format

[edit] Table

I propose you put your material in a list. There are two types of lists: - For individual ships: HMS Shannon (1875) - For lists: List of world's largest domes Gun Powder Ma 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a preliminary table. Other criterias may be added like 'keel length', 'beam', 'home harbour', 'builder', etc. Gun Powder Ma 13:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about this format. I think it would be better to have a combination of table and a separate list for more details, quotes, discussion, etc.--Filll 15:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not. But there has to be obviously a list ordering the ships by a definite criteria. Also, that "separate list" should be closely on-topic, that is concentrating on things in close connection with the length & size of the ships, since the ships as such are already discussed at other places. Regards Gun Powder Ma 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmed - unconfirmed dichotomy

I find the classification useful when it comes to distinguishing between modern (and many late medieval) ships on the one hand and ancient vessels on the other hand. But, then again, to classify ships like the Isis or the Syracusia on which quite a considerable amount of serious scholarship has been spent in the same breath with Zheng He's Alice Wonderland 400 ft Treasures ships does not do justice to the former. I find the current solution unsatisfying. Gun Powder Ma 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a 3rd category is appropriate? We have 1 category for ships for which we have great records, photos, archaeological evidence etc. I put those as confirmed. We have one category for those which are really sort of doubtful. Maybe an intermediate category, those which are supported by serious scholarship but no archaeological evidence? It is hard for me to judge a 2500 year old claim for a ship when there is just a written text. On the other hand, there was a large rudder found in one of the Zheng He shipyards apparently. What I find a bit disconcerting about that story is that the Chinese were not particularly seafaring. It is very different to pilot a craft close to shore or in a river than it is to go across thousands of miles of open ocean. And the claim is that with minimal deep water experience, they set out with a force of 30,000+ sailors and hundreds of ships or more, some big enough to have little farms on them, growing crops, with animals on them being tended so that no sailors would have to eat strange food in strange lands? And in one fell swoop, from smallish junks plying rivers and local waters to wooden craft bigger than have ever been produced even to this date, even with advanced materials and computer modeling ? And then the technology just vanishes into thin air after a few years? It seems AWFULLY hard to swallow. Possible, but seems like a very low probability event.--Filll 01:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I know that evidence on the Isis, although widely accepted, has also been questioned by at least one scholar. In fact, there are strong counter-opinions to all ships in the unconfirmed category and even to some in the confirmed table. That means we should avoid preselections as far as possible, which could be regarded as POV. On the other hand, the 400+ ft of the Treasure ships are plainly ludicrous given later ship building experiences. Right now, I cannot think of a satisfying solution, but I am very much for a policy of giving the myth of the super-colossal Treasure ship not another innocent propaganda platform for spreading. Regards Gun Powder Ma 01:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a bit of history of why we did these articles. There is a claim amongst biblical literalists that Noah's Ark is literally true based on Genesis. And to defend their point, they claim that there have been ships built as large as the Ark. The Treasure Ship is a myth that supports the myth (yeah Creationists do this all the time). I started with writing the article on the Wyoming, since it really proves that building a boat that big is impossible. Filll started the new article. We need to point out ships that have no evidence of existence. Vasa is proven. The Treasure Ships--not so much. Orangemarlin 01:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

When there are pictures, we know it was real. When there are multiple books and newspaper accounts from the last couple of hundred years describing a vessel, it seems pretty likely that it is real. When there are wrecks that can be measured, then it is fairly clear what size the ship was. When there are decommissioned ships sitting in dry dock or at dock or in museums that can be measured, then it is fairly clear the claimed sizes are real. Tessarakonteres was claimed to be an immense ship. But what evidence do we have? We have one or two accounts from 2200 years ago. We have no pictures. We have very minimal documentation. We have no shipwrecks. And in the case of Tessarakonteres, the claimed size is so large that it is highly doubtful that it is correct. If we currently had to build a ship of wood of that size, I do not think we could do it. I think that these ships might have had copper nails, from what I have read. Did they have iron nails? I did not read anything about that. What about more advanced bracing and ironwork? It is very difficult for me to imagine that the ancient Greeks or ancient Romans or ancient Egyptians had this incredible level of technology, and it took the Europeans 4 or 5 hundred years to recreate it by trial and error and tremendous effort and investment, and still were not able to make 450 foot long ships of wood, even with iron and/or steel keels, braces, arches, nails, and so on. So how credible is a claim for a 420+ foot Tessarakonteres? How credible is a 400-600 foot Zheng He ship which seems to have materialized out of nothing in a very short period of time, and then disappeared without a trace with no proper records of technology or shipwrecks etc (I know there are all kinds of claims that the confuscians hated the eunuchs and destroyed the records, but this was only 5-6 hundred years ago !). How credible are the very thin claims of Noah's Ark with no documentation? I realize that Isis and Syracusia are not accompanied with such outrageous claims of length, and sound much more reasonable, but to be fair, I moved them down to the uncomfirmed category because we have the same sort of evidence for them as we do for Tessarakonteres. Do I have that wrong?--Filll 03:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three divisions

I have added a third category. I suggest all ships that seem a bit difficult to believe be in the last category. I suggest all ships that seem credible, but with weaker evidence, go in the 2nd category. And all confirmed ships go in the first category. And based on what I read about the Great Michael, it definitely belongs in the 3rd category.--Filll 04:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entries

[edit] In

For large wooden ancient ships check out Syracusia (Greek) and Isis (Roman). For those in the MA, see Grace Dieu. Gun Powder Ma 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out also the German Flying P-Liners, many of them among the largest sailing ships of all time, though most featured steel hulls, but perhaps not all. The Padua (ship) ? Gun Powder Ma 14:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

They all appear to have steel hulls. I did look however. I might have missed one, so if anyone finds one of these with a wooden hull, then lets see it and put it in.--Filll 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential to do

1. add HMS Colossus (1787)?? How big was it compared to other ships of that time?

Answer: smaller. See French ship Orient (1791) for instance.--Filll 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Other triremes and related?
2. more from links
3. discussion of Square-cube law?--Filll 21:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

add Peter von Danzig? Quite big for its time, though small compared to other entries.

Michael (ship). But me thinks, the given length needs double-checking, since it greatly exceeds that of the Great Harry which was meant as an English response. Gun Powder Ma 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out

France II: I propose that we delete this entry, since it really isn't a wood ship. Orangemarlin 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I guess I will take it out. I sort of liked it because it comes up when you search for "world's largest wooden ship" on some search engines, but then I found out it had a steel hull. And if we include it, we will have to include a huge number of other hybrid metal-wood ships, and it is hard to know where to draw the line.--Filll 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other sources

• [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

--Filll 01:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[2] Another source--Filll 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[3]--Filll 02:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [4]--Filll 14:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [5]--Filll 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

[edit] an irrelevant but huge planned ship

Take a look at this puppy: Freedom Ship--Filll 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Of course all the creationists will now claim that Noah could do it to. Orangemarlin 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is just planned. I am not sure it is possible. And it will take all kinds of advanced materials and a huge amount of money to do it if it is ever done.--Filll 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not liking the new format

I don't mind splitting up the ships into the three sections, but I really don't like the first table. Not readable, especially with all the extra information in a list below. I'd vote to have it back to the old table. IMHO. Orangemarlin 07:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You didnt find the big list in the right hand column difficult? And the strangely sized boxes in the table?--Filll 13:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What about a hybrid, with the longer details put in footnotes, potentially put in smaller font?--Filll 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the old table gave the reader a better general idea. I used that format for this voluminous list: Spread of printing and I think it works. :-) Gun Powder Ma 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I propose to go back to the old format, but use footnotes to hide away some of the longer parts of the text, so the table is not so clogged.--Filll 18:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that would work, although I'm not a fan of footnotes. Maybe some of the text in the boxes could be placed in a footnote. Let's see how it looks. Orangemarlin 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am faily sure that material in footnotes is lost on readers. I have yet to read a WP article which features important material in footnotes, it is just not the style of WP and, more generally, the Internet. One table with comments each about 3 to 6 lines long, and for the limits of wooden ships a separate intoducing section would be IMHO the best way to present the material. Regards Gun Powder Ma 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experiment

As an experiment, I trimmed down the text part of the section Other claimed large wooden ships and made the font smaller, and slipped more material into the footnotes. Comments?--Filll 05:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix the spacing, and to make the comment section as succinct as possible, with very mixed results so far.--Filll 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Better. I wish that coding of Wiki was easier. I'm impressed at how you do all of this. Orangemarlin 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If we can come up with a reasonable format, we can then make it uniform for all 3 tables, and then maybe add some more content. --Filll 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to add a comment when I edited, but I reformatted the table. It took a bit of experimenting to get it right, but it looks right now. The table was a bit wider than the rest of the page, and it required scrolling side to side to read it. I think it works better now. Orangemarlin 06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re treasure ships

I don't know anything about the veracity or lack thereof of the various size claims of Zheng He's treasure ships. But the description of the treasure ships as is seems to cast undue doubt. Doesn't the caveat "...but there is no solid evidence for this, and these claims are disputed" apply to all of the last three ships? If anything, it seems like it should apply to the last two more so. Surely the size of the treasure ships is not more doubtful than Noah's Ark? Or the Tessarakonteres, which seems to be described by only a single author a thousand years earlier? -- bcasterline • talk 16:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course. All three ships are probably mythological, although if I were to order them in probability of maybe being true, the Treasure Ships would be first and Noah's Ark would be dead last, bordering on impossible. I'll rework the language. Orangemarlin 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. Very interesting list, by the way; good job to those involved. :) -- bcasterline • talk 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History Channel Program

I just saw an ad for this program: [Ancient Discoveries--Superships] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 07:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Two new candidates

I have found two new potential entries. I know the list may now be regarded as, say, doing its job, but I believe the two new entries can further strengthen the notion that lengthes of 60-75 meters were widely deemed by pre-19th century shipwrights as the practical upper limit of wooden vessels:

• Grosser Adler von Lübeck (Great Eagle of Lubeck) of 1565: 64 m long, 14 m wide
• Vettor Fausto's Venetian Quinquereme, 75 m long, 10 m wide, 300 cannon

Who has more information on them? Regards Gun Powder Ma 14:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you should add this information to the list. If you have references, that would be great. Orangemarlin 15:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have two reliable print sources to quote from, but they limit themselves to the dimensions of the ship and other aspects. But for a three-liner we need more material on the history of these ships. ;-) Gun Powder Ma 15:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)