Talk:Chinese treasure ship

message: Jesus Christ... I never knew the ancient world had ships this large.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.136.39 (talk) 19:23, July 8, 2006
No way these ships would displace around 25,000 tons when a modern steel hulled ship of similar size wouldn't.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.242.83 (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Shock

message: This ship is a myth using the following definition from the Oxford English Dictionary, the foremost dictionary in the English Language:
A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.  We do not mean myth in the form of something of supernatural origin.  This ship is a myth, because it is a widespread story with no supporting documentation, save for some burned documents.  There has been no archeological or historical proof of its existence.  Hence it is mythological.  Orangemarlin 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference, the primary definition of "myth" given by the Merriam Webster Dictionary (at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/myth) is "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon".  This does not have the same meaning as the Oxford English Dictionary version. Dr. Submillimeter 21:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Myth

message: Joseph Needham in Science and Civilization in China Volume 4 Section 3 p.480, the authority that many of the more recent works build upon, states:
:... As for the size of the junks, the biography of Cheng He [Zheng He 鄭和] in the Ming Shih [Ming Shi 明史 The Official History of the Ming Dynasty], which is likely to be reliable, tells us that the 62 largest ships were 440 ft. long, and at the broadest beam 180 ft. [Note d: Ming units (1.02 ft.); 449 ft. and 184 ft. our measure respectively]  Each one carried a crew of 450-500 men. [Note e: It is not clear whether this figure includes mariners and other passengers, or whether they were as many again.]  The poop had three superimposed decks, and there were several decks below the main one.  From other sources, no less than nine masts were stepped in the largest Treasure-ships. [Note f omitted]
The passage goes on to discuss how various European scholars worked to discount these figures as fantastical.  The disbelief expressed in this talk page sounds similar to that.  These ships were up to 450 feet long, and they did sail, and there is documentation.  Also, if I recall correctly, the Treasure Ship was first conceived and built during the Song dynasty around 1000 AD.
In other parts of the section on Chinese nautical technology, there is a long discussion on the difference between Chinese and European ship construction.  If memory serves, Chinese ships used something like bitumen for a sealant.  However, Mr. Needham makes it clear that the sealed bulkhead based design, which was an emulation of the natural properties of bamboo, created sealed watertight compartments which enabled the boat to continue to float even when some compartments were flooded.  They even punched holes in the sides to allow water to enter the forward cavities in river vessels to minimise the shocks when pitching and rolling in rapids.  This invention, which enabled the construction of iron ships generally, was transmitted to England around 1795AD by Sir Samuel Bentham.  Both he and his wife repeatedly stated that he got the idea from Chinese ships.  This information is from Science and Civilization in China Volume 4 Section 3 pp.420ff.
In summary, the Europeans could not have built large ships before the introduction of the sealed bulkhead or watertight compartment.  The Chinese, having invented it could.  I will edit the page when I have a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuYu  (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 June 2007
UPDATE:  I have edited the article to reflect the numbers in the above passage.  However, another reference to a rudder-post discovered in 1962 (pp. 81-82) following the above passage contains extrapolated calculations for boat lengths between 480ft and 536ft, so the 600 foot claim might not be that far off in reality.  It is certainly possible.
Further, in the Marco Polo passage, the traveller claims that the boats were sealed with a mixture of lime, finely chopped hemp, and the "oil" from some tree.  Marco Polo claims it is better than pitch.  Evidently, the Chinese had a sealant that worked very effectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuYu  (talk • contribs) 18:43, 1 June 2007
: Watertight bulkheads don't make much sense for wooden warships. The first thing to do when preparing for battle in the age of sail was to remove all internal walls because they were a major source for splinters and while I unfortunately don't know enough about European warships in the 15th century, I do know that 16th century craft would have shot the treasure ships to pieces even if they were a quarter the size.
: Now even for non-warships watertight compartments wouldn't have helped that much. Most ships were lost in storms or pushed onto reefs or captured by pirates. Compared to that holes in the hull are relatively easy to fix on wooden ships.
: You can build iron ships without compartments but as iron doesn't splinter, now the bulkheads provide an added layer of protection and iron rudders and steam engines make storms much less dangerous and your much more likely to have a hole in the hull than catastrophic damage. 82.135.13.167 (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Joseph Needham

message: That dinosaur vs. mammal pic does not reflect accurately the true proportions of the respective ships, even if we ignore for a moment that the size of Zheng He's treasure ships is largely speculation anyway. See For example, the Jan Adkins 1993 illustration below shows a mast comparable to the world record carbon fiber mast of Mirabella V, built in 2004.  As it is wrong (it appeared in a veritable Sinocentric pamphlet) I take it out. Gun Powder Ma 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The comparison pic

message: The treasure ships are either a myth or an imperial white elephant worthy of the "worst ships" list.
A Length to beam ratio
In the "List of world's largest wooden ships" all ships have length to beam ratios far in excess of 3:1.
The treasure ships in their suggested size (L: 137m B: 55m) have a length to beam ratio of 2.5:1.
It should be obvious that this ratio has a direct impact on the speed the ship can achieve. More beam means more resistance when moving through the water. This ratio also influences the stability of course, a ship with a low ratio is harder to keep on course and may be prone to "spinning". Low speed aggravates this effect as course stability increases with speed.
B Shape, draught and scaling
It is interesting that the draught of these treasure ships is hard to come by.
If you expand the "Peter von Danzig" to the dimensions of the Treasure ships by using only their length ratio for draught you get a displacement of a whopping 23.000 tons.
PvD weighs 800 tons which must be multiplied by the scaling of the three dimensions L(137 / 51) x B(55 / 12) x D(137 / 51).
Note that potential wind utilization is restricted by the enormous beam of the ships. There is no way to compensate for the relative increase in beam because mast size is restricted by the size of the available trees and the mechanical strength of wood, increasing mast height also reduces stability. Sometimes suggested parallel masts will disrupt each others airflow.
Resistance to bending does increase overproportionally with size (force x lever, where force is determined by the mass and lever by dimensions, but mass is determined by dimensions raised by power 3), if strength is to be kept at the same level, more material must be used further increasing displacement.  Note that in the list of the biggest wooden ships there is no ship longer than 115m and that all ships above 100m were failures or white elephants even when strengthened with iron they suffered from criticism about their structural integrity.
By the way, this displacement does not compute with the suggested displacement of 1500 tons from section "Size of the ships" in article "Zheng He"
Possible Solutions
My own opinion is, that these ships were built to impress and demonstrate the power of the chinese emperor. In such a situation exaggeration is commonplace, so that quite possibly the smaller estimates are true.
Perhaps the ships were built by combining several smaller hulls or segments into one large supership. This would explain the "bulkheads" as such a ship is naturally compartmentalized. This shiptype would lack the genius of an engineering breakthrough and still be burdened with a very bad maneuverability. But it could impress visitors and delight the eye of an Emperor. If lucky the ship could even travel (in the form of drifting) an ocean with predictable and favourable wind and current conditions. If unlucky the typical emperor would order to build another and bigger one. Taking this into account, even the suggested maximum dimensions (length and beam) might be true, but draught would have been rather shallow.
Being essentially a raft the suggested type of construction can be expanded without limit if you are willing to sacrifice ever more seaworthiness and maneuverability. Depending on the skill of your fortune-teller, it is even possible to successfully navigate the Cape of Good Hope.
Given the recklessness of Chinese Emperors in the fields of taxation and wall building it is quite possible that one of them ordered the construction of those ships and even ordered people to set to sea with them. I doubt that these ships travelled dangerous waters like the Atlantic or Pacific with a significant rate of return. Perhaps a real seamen anchored the Emperor's pet ships out of sight, travelled with ships of seaworthy although less spectacular dimensions and picked up the clunkers on the way back.
I almost forgot to mention that the hypothetical construction of ships from segments is indeed a technical advance in its own right.
Brathirn 11:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very good analysis of this ship.  I'm pretty much convinced that these ships are mythical or possibly one was built to impress foreign visitors as you say, but it could not sail. Most empires have exaggerated claims about something or another.  For example, Americans convince themselves that theirs is the richest country in the world. Orangemarlin 15:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what make you believe that monsoon seas handling characteristic is exactly the same as ship that sail in open water? all this is speculation. the best means of estimation is to take records from port where the ship reach. their description would be most accurate in the exact class of ship to have sail and make the jounery. Akinkhoo (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Myth or Raft

message: Can we remove the tag?  While it is clear that there are factual disputes about whether or not these ships ever existed (or existed but were nothing like the size claimed), all of this dispute is expressed in the article.  Similarly, the article text flags non-mainstream positions as controversial and presents both sides of the debate, so the article would now appear to have achieved neutrality.  Viv Hamilton 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove tag

message: In the Description section, there are several references to "Fuchuan", presumably another type of ship (chuan).  However, this term isn't adequately explained or referenced.  --Matt Whyndham (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained reference to Fuchuan 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support The article is about Baochuan and term treasure ship is certainly ambiguous.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: According to ancient sources those ships were about 140 meter long an had a crew of over 6000... European historians have no problems accepting that. 
But god forbid if the Chinese come up with claims of such huge ships. 
--90.149.188.205 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And Plutarch said "this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger". And it's not 'ships', it's 'ship'. You don't seem to know much about it. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Tessarakonteres of the Ancient Greeks?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chinese treasure ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314232155/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1802&MainCatID=18&id=20101024000001 to http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1802&MainCatID=18&id=20101024000001
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: It's a detail, but the description of the balanced rudder having the same area before and aft of the rudder post is almost certainly not right. That would be overbalanced, and would cause enormous feedback. A balanced rudder normally has at most 25% of its area in front of the pivot axis. 
Is there a citation for this description? I'm reluctant to change it just on theoretical grounds, but it really is unlikely. 
Uaneill (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balanced rudder 

message: Hi,
Is it just me/my browser, or are the sources messed up in the article?
Thank you,
Maperseguir (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and notes in the article 

message: A variety of Chinese sources from the time of Zheng He talk about 1500 and 2000 liao ships, with the largest being mentioned as a 5,000 liao ship. These sizes don't support the dimensions of length and width given in the Ming Shi-lu and other late sources for the Chinese Treasure Ships.  If the Chinese Treasure Ships were anywhere near the length claimed, they should have been a lot more than even 5,000 liao.  
Also, the fact that these dimensions for the Chinese Treasure Ships come from sources a long time after Zheng He's trips makes them highly suspect in the first place, let alone their issues on engineering feasibility.   Going on the actual evidence from contemporary sources, these Treasure Ships were big, but only somewhat bigger than the very biggest European ships of the same time. But Zheng He had an entire fleet of these large ships, not just a couple as was the case of the European ships.  A ship of 2000 tons burthen is well within the feasibility of the Chinese  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepencies between length and width and weight of Chinese Treasure Ships 

message: Added commend and reference for optimum tiller length of Keying.  According to "East Sails West: The Voyage of the Keying" Stephen Davies, the optimal length of a tiller for a ship Keying size would be 10 m or more.  So a tiller length of 11 m does not dictate as large a ship as the 444 chi Treasure Ships.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiller length of Keying ==

message: The tone of the article is highly biased. Instead of stating the scholarly dispute, it actively tries to say "Those are myths. Whoever supports their existence are not credible. Who doesn't support are "experts."" First, those aren't myths. Only dimensions are in dispute. Only Western academics dispute those. In addition, there are many other Western academics who list many factual evidence in support. See, for example, Zheng He: China and the Oceans in the Early Ming Dynasty, 1405-1433. Overall, I have read more sources supporting the existence than sources not supporting it. Sherwilliam (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone