Talk:Galleon

message: I really think the main "Galleon" article should be about the ship, with a note saying "For ot
her uses of the term, see Galleon (disambiguation)." In my opinion, the ship is far more notable than any of the other things. -LtNOWIS 05:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig? 

message: Galleon (ship) → Galleon – The meaning referring to a type of ship vastly overshadows all other uses of this word. There is no need for the term's main page to be a redirect. --Yath 18:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Viv Hamaltin asked in May 2007 if I could do a sail plan. Here is one I came up with. It is based on what is readable on the Matthew Baker drawing, so I am confident on the acuracy. I propose entering it into the main article with the following text. Please advise. Comments are welcome. I could provide a table of sail dimentions as well.
The English galleon as drawn by Matthew Baker had four masts, main-mast, fore-mast, main mizzen-mast and a bonaventure mizzen. The main and fore-mast carried three square-rigged sails each, while the two mizzen-masts were lateen rigged with triangular fore and aft sails. A sprit sail was usually carried on the bowsprit. The English galleon of that time, circa 1550, would have flown the St George's Cross on all masts except the main-mizzen would have flown the Tudor rose.24.15.5.27 (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sail Plan

message: It has been brought to my attention that the comparison between galleons and ships of the line may be somewhat misleading. As I've understood it, a galleon is a hull type while a ship of the line is a classification based on armament. Any comments?
Peter Isotalo 05:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article makes it clear that galleons essentially predated the ship of the line classification.  It is also worth bearing in mind that hull type, sail and armament are not independent.  A clipper or frigate needs a fast hull form as well as the rigging to carry a lot of sail area, and rigging type that allows it to sail close to the wind; a first rate needs a hull form with multiple decks to accommodate the armament.  The rating classification wasn't purely based on counting cannons - the vessel had to be able to do what was expected of it in battle.  I guess it's like if we say 4x4 today, we are technically referring to traction, but this will also imply a vehicle that is heavier and more ruggedly built than a family saloon.  Viv Hamilton 08:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe it is more subtle than simply whether or not the weight of cannons makes the vessel top-heavy!  The sailing qualities of the bigger ship should allow it to dominate smaller ships when they close in battle, as well as it being able to carry more cannon and therefore give a bigger broadside.  There was significant evolution of hull-form in the 17th and early 18th century, with Britain copying the hulls of captured French ships, like Hazardous.  I know that when the ships were built they were given class names (e.g. Trincomalee was Leda class), but this is presumably a whole area of specialised naval history yet to be added to WP.  The other interesting question is the fourth mast, the bon aventure.  Later ships don't have it.  A maritime archaeologist friend of mine thinks that it was needed on galleons to counteract the effect of wind catching the stern castle.  The lower lines of the ship of the line, mean that you don't need it, and the more masts you have, the harder a vessel is to sail.  As I said, hull form, sail plan and armament are interrelated! Viv Hamilton 08:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I take it back, some of it has been added, see List of battleships of the Royal Navy and List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy.  Not a lot of explanation however! Viv Hamilton 08:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Possibly because from the 17th century, the navies of Europe became obsessed with the ship of line style battle, and presumably devoted their marine engineering skills to perfecting the concept.  Are you aware that ships didn't necessarily carry the number of cannons indicated by their rating?  I will try to find out about merchant vessels (although at that time merchant ships were armed as well!).  There was significant variation in sail plan, depending on the job you wanted the ship to do.  There are numerous types of ships classified e.g. brigs, cutters etc, my impression is that the sail plan is more significant than the hull, or perhaps the hull followed the sail plan.  Viv Hamilton 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hull types and lines of battle 

message: In the intro it says...
Carracks tended to be lightly armed and used for transporting cargo, while galleons were purpose-built warships, and were stronger, more heavily armed, and also cheaper to build (5 galleons could cost around the same as 3 carracks) and were therefore a much better investment for use as warships. 
But then a couple sections down it says...
 Hundreds of expert tradesmen (including carpenters, pitch-melters, blacksmiths, coopers, shipwrights, etc.) worked day and night for months before a galleon was seaworthy. To cover the expense, galleons were often funded by groups of wealthy businessmen who pooled resources for a new ship. Therefore, most galleons were originally consigned for trade, although those captured by rival nations were usually put into military service.
So one says warships, other says trade ships. Which one's right?...
:Reply:
It's not really a contradiction, although the wording looks that way viewed side-by-side. Both statements are true, most galleons were built for trade, but as a warship they were a better investment than a carrack.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yizzik (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict...

message: This link seems to say that galleon has a much broader meaning than what is defined here. This is not the first time I see this issue being raised from naval historians. Nicholas Roger, author of the most recent history of the Royal Navy, also has a lengthy discussion on what is or isn't a galleon in the first volume Safeguard of the Sea. I'm not sure if these two authors, or indeed other historians, are in complete agreement on how to properly define "galleon", but from what I can tell it's a lot more vague than in the article. As already touched upon previously, it's probably a bit misleading to describe an "evolution" from a galleon to a ship of the line since they're descriptions of very different aspects of ships.
Peter Isotalo 12:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not a carrack" 

message: Weight (tons) isn't much help. How long is a typical galleon?184.147.123.113 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size? 

message: How, post Anglo Dutch wars, "purpose-built ship-rigged warships" are different or distinguished from Galleons is unexplained.  The wiki-links in:
*  purpose-built ship-rigged warships"
...are generic links that do not distinguish Galleons from "purpose-built ship-rigged warships." In fact, (admittedly, I am not a naval architect) Galleons would also appear to fit the definition of a "purpose-built ship-rigged warship."  Reading the wiki-linked age of sail does not shed light on this subtle or not so subtle distinction... 
Enquire (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galleons v purpose-built ship-rigged warships 

message: I recommend users take a look at the galleon page in the Spanish wiki and I think it will be clear why this article could use some tidying up. On this one images are usually of worse quality and all over the place and a lot of statements are either dubious generalizations or just loose references lacking citations or proper sources. One thing in particular that the Spanish page has that I think is essential is a section dedicated to explaining how their design differed from nation to nation - Italian, English, Spanish and Portuguese galleons were all different from eachother (English race-built galleons were smaller and sleeker than Spanish galleons for example). Also, although galleons are mostly associated with the Spanish nowadays, it is far from unanimous that they invented them. Portuguese scholars for instance think they were either created by Italians (Monteiro) or are a development of the square-rigged caravel (Pissarra). Wareno (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Spanish wikipedia article mentioned above is almost totally deficient in references. I do not see how the recommendation to use that as a model for this article is of any value. ThoughtIdRetired  TIR 08:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Another potential source (which confirms the oared early examples of galleons) appears to be Konstam, Angus. Spanish Galleon 1530–1690  Bloomsbury Publishing, 2004. I have only dipped into this work, but it appears to cover the subject well. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article could use a cleanup

message: Over half of the History section deals with the carrack.  There's a separate article for the carrack.  If the carrack needs to be mentioned at all, it's treatment shouldn't overwhelm the treatment of the galleon.TwelveGreat (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The article's treatment of the early history of the galleon is completely wrong. A good explanation of the origin of the galleon can be found in volume 3 of the report into the Red Bay wreck. This makes clear that the galleon had a Mediterranean origin, with (unsurprisingly, from the name) oars being used in at least some of the early vessels with this name. Like many ship types, the first examples of the galleon differ from the classic example by being substantially smaller. 
It is surprising that the article does not use the chapter on galleons in the 1994 book Cogs, Caravels and Galleons Though this work is getting a tad dated now, it does cover most of the basics. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Another potential source (which confirms the oared early examples of galleons) appears to be Konstam, Angus. Spanish Galleon 1530–1690  Bloomsbury Publishing, 2004. I have only dipped into this work, but it appears to cover the subject well. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early history