Talk:Chinese treasure ship

Shock

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)

size discrepancy

This page and the Zheng He page states that the ships were as much as 600 feet long; however, the schooner Wyoming, said to be the largest documented wooden hulled ship ever, was only 350 feet (see schooner, and also Noah's Ark – which claims that the treasure ships were only 400 feet at most, and that the Ark was 450 feet) and apparently required a steam pump (not generally considered to be available around Zheng's time) to keep up with the leaks.

Anyone have any kind of a reference to figure out which number is the right one? The citation link on the Noah's Ark page is busted.

So, in response to the previous commenter; maybe they didn't. --Andymussell 22:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In actuality, the ships were 400' long, 160' wide, and 1500 tons. the fleet consisted of 317 ships.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Striker1246 (talk • contribs) 18:20, March 6, 2007

There is no proof of this comment. It appears that a lot of the size description is based upon conjecture and a bit of exaggeration. Orangemarlin 14:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Plausibility check: at 120m x 50m the ship has an approximate base area of 6000 m^2 (rectangle estimate). At 1500 tons and taking light wood of a density of 0.5 tons/m^3 the "ships" would literally be rafts consisting of wood 0.5 m thick. As an alternative you can have five decks of 10 cm each (and nothing else) which as far as I know is rather thin ... So I would rather say that there is proof that the ships were NOT 120 m x 50 m at 1500 tons Brathirn 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Brathirn

Possible that 1500 ton may refer to the cargo capacity rather than the overall mass of the ship? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Factual dispute

Please see Largest wooden ships and Wyoming (Schooner), both of which have more up-to-date information about the actual size of these treasure ships. The sizes stated in the article are not factual, and this article needs to be rewritten. I'll probably do so when I have time after helping edit a couple of other articles about these large wooden ships. Orangemarlin 04:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The primary material used in the ships' superstructure (the bits except for the keel) was bamboo, which is much lighter and stronger than wood, doesn't rot in salt water, and is naturally buoyant, having built-in air chambers. The sizes given in the article appear on the larger end of the possible spectrum of size, since we don't know for certain what the measurements were because of the difficulty of converting ancient units. will dig up some refs. Also see John Keay, The Spice Route: A History (London: John Murray, 2006).

"The primary material used in the ships' superstructure " No, the sources say the material was pine & fir wood, which was common where the ships were built. Bamboo is not a material for creating ocean going ships. -intranetusa

Rimi talk contribs 07:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

We know what was claimed for these treasure ships. But it is all a bit difficult to swallow. A non-naval people without deep-sea experience raises an immense amount of money and produces an unprecedented flotilla of the world's largest ships and sets sail for months in the unexplored, unknown open ocean? The accounts of these voyages and the dimensions of the ships are staggering. Did you know that they supposedly conducted farming on some of these ships? They grew crops and raised farm animals and fed tens of thousands. They brought a staggering number of gifts to these lands thousands of miles from China that they had never visited before, and where people spoke different languages. These voyages were organized by a Muslim in nonMuslim China? How on earth did he have the influence to do this? Then after incredible success during their first couple of attempts, China just turns its back completely on voyages of discovery? This is all very hard to swallow. After all, there are accounts of dragons and magic and all kinds of other things from China at this time, all of which we no longer believe. Why should we believe that the details of these treasure ships were real? Even if bamboo has waterproof compartments in it? --Filll 19:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fill, actually of this has been documented.

>"Did you know that they supposedly conducted farming on some of these ships?"

No, they didn't. No one claims this happened. They had water tanker & supply ships: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Zheng_he#Voyages

>"These voyages were organized by a Muslim in nonMuslim China? How on earth did he have the influence to do this?"

He was a court enuch who had immense influence. Also, there were tens of thousands of Muslims & Arabs living in Southern Chinese cities.

>" They brought a staggering number of gifts to these lands thousands of miles from China that they had never visited before, and where people spoke different languages."

Actually they had. The Indian Ocean & East Coast of Africa was well documented by Chinese, Indian, and Arab traders. This was not a voyage of discovery - it was a voyage of diplomacy.

>" Then after incredible success during their first couple of attempts, China just turns its back completely on voyages of discovery? "

Historical records show that the Confucian scholars destroyed much of the fleet & records after the emperor died.

>"After all, there are accounts of dragons and magic and all kinds of other things from China at this time, all of which we no longer believe. "

Many people in Europe still thought the world was flat. People today still believe that an Abrahamic God literally created the world in 6 days(creationism). Just because you believe in some supernatural aspects doesn't discredit other aspects.

>"should we believe that the details of these treasure ships were real?"

Because they have historical records & drawings not from just China, but from India, SE Asian nations, Arabs, & European. They have also found 15+ ft rudder post sterns, and huge dry docks.

Here is a Natl Geographic video that has two parts. Part 1 examines the historical facts of the fleet of Zheng He, part 2 examines the unsubstantiated theory of Gavine Menzes's 1421 idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOXeWmQz8DU&mode=related&search=

--Intranetusa 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

a book called 1421 written by Gavin Menzies backs up the claim about treasure ships this large. Try this link: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/1421:_The_Year_China_Discovered_The_World — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.160.77 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 May 2007

Myth

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)

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)

Joseph Needham

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)

The comparison pic

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)

Myth or Raft

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)Brathirn

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)

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)

Remove tag

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)

Peacock terms

“ If reports of their great size are correct, these ships would have been by far the largest marine craft the world had ever seen up to that point, and the largest wooden ships ever. ”

See Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms. 22:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spa toss (talk • contribs)

I am not sure how to respond to this. The claimed size is larger than any other. If the claimed size is accurate, they would be the largest wooden ships ever. However, that is a huge "if" of course and I personally think the claimed size is nonsense, as do most scholars in the field.--Filll 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, or I would have changed it. Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Improving_weasel-worded_statements says this:

“ Peacock terms are especially hard to deal with without using weasel words. Again, consider the sentence "The Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history." It's tempting to rephrase this in a weaselly way, for example, "Some people think that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history." But how can this opinion be qualified with an opinion holder? There are millions of Yankees fans and hundreds of baseball experts who would pick the Yankees as the best team in history. Instead, it would be better to eliminate the middleman of mentioning this opinion entirely, in favor of the facts that support the assertion:

"The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships -- almost three times as many as any other team.".[1] This fact suggests that the Yankees are a superlative baseball franchise, rather than simply the greatest baseball team in history. The idea is to let the reader draw their own conclusion about the Yankees' greatness based on the number of World Series the Yankees have won. Objectivity over subjectivity. Dispassion, not bias.

”

If you disagree, just remove the tag. I just read the policy and thought it applied. Pattern matching gone awry? Spa toss 22:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I have tried to reword using a quote from Gould - any improvements? Viv Hamilton 07:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Spa toss 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Anyone who wants more detail and references to include here can see the corresponding entry at List of world's largest wooden ships.--Filll 16:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed

I must say I was extremely dissapointed with the editing. If you(not pointing to anyone specifically) personally disagree with the size of the treasure ships, it doesn't give you the right to just snatch "facts" from "verifiable sources" when in fact these sources said nothing about them(sometimes no sources at all, or sometimes copy/pasted from reader's posts from Amazon). I, for one, have read these sources and I must say people need a lesson in historical ethics here. I have deleted much of these personal opinions and replaced them with actual critiques, with sources that say what I claim them to say. Just be lucky(you know who you are) I don't have the tenacity to look back on the edited posts to see who did this and report it. Gnip 3:28 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly did you not like? I see you deleted some of the technical analysis, which probably needed more references. I agree with that. And changed the lengths from meters to feet in some places. If the sources were from a post on Amazon, we cannot have that. However, my impression was it was not as bad as you claim. And I do not know much about personal opinions, unless you referred to the computations of the naval architect, which as I said probably needed a source or two.--Filll (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You said about a third of it. I must say having sources from posts in Amazon is REALLY bad. Besides that it would be the claims of sources, in which much was claimed of what they said but the truth of what they said is different(actually this was more on the Zheng He page than on this page, I got the two mixed). I don't know about you, but that's completely unacceptable. I don't know, maybe they didn't mean it, but that won't mean the quality of the article is still intact. I will add some more criticisms and sources when I have the time to patch things up. Btw, I didn't change the meters to feet because I prefer it that way, but because the 59 meters does not equal 200 feet, and 84 meters does not equal 250 feet. And I knew that the author mentioned put it at 200ft-250ft Gnip 10:11, 29 December 2007

Intro

I took out the line with the "purported size" on basis of Wikipedia:Lead section (see below).

The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article.

The problem is obviously once we introduce the wild ancient claims in detail (that is meters), a just as detailed modern counter-opinion has every right to be introduced as well. To prevent that, it is better to exclude both parts to treat them adequately in the paragraphs below .

Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you read it, none of these "detailed accounts" ever state how large they were, besides one with 2000 tons(a large ship, but not a treasure ship), while the ones that did are also said to be not taken for granted(it's full of "if it's factual, etc...). They're just proof that ships existed. Nor do these "modern research" have anything to do with other sources/info that are deleted along with it. Which is why I'm reverting it because the deleted sources on the structure(not size) of the Treasure ships is pretty important. Feel free to delete things that has to do with the source, though. If you want to give professor Xin more prominence than the interpretations of other authors, that would be an easy concession I can make, but please make them in the same paragraph with the rest of the criticisms though. Thanks

Gnip ([User talk: Gnip|talk]]) 11:20, 11 Feburary 2008 (UTC)

I favor having both ancient and modern estimates, because the modern estimates sound more reasonable, and the ancient estimates are of historical interest.--Filll (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We can reach common ground by agreeing that the purported, most probably hugely overstated dimensions do not have any place in the intro. Why? Because Wikipedia:Lead section says so, and because we do not want to give what is most probably wrong the most prominent place in the article. That would set a bad precedence. As for the modern estimates, a place in the beginning of section 'criticism' is alright for me, as long as the ancient lengths are gone from the intro. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't mind if the entire intro was replaced, because there were "treasure ships" before and after Zheng He. The term "treasure ship" could refer to a variety of ships of different sizes all the way to the Qing dynasty, and the name doesn't have to relate with Zheng He at all, although it usually does because of the prominence of the figure in Chinese history. Thus, just feel free to do what you had said, but as I stated before, please don't delete the other info not related with your source. Gnip (talk) 12:10, 17 Feburary 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the article deals witb the ships used by Zheng He. If we add additional material to give a perspective on treasure ships of all sizes and eras, then we can edit the intro paragraph to reflect that. At the moment, what the article deals with is whether the ships really existed (consensus of reliable sources seems to be that some ships existed and some voyages did occur) and the controversy about what size they were (consensus of reliable sources is that we don't know, but they were not as big as the quotes from the historical sources). I agree with Fill that we do need to keep the historical estimates in, even though modern (reliable sources) reinterpret the sizes, because the historical context is important too. If the article was about the myth of pegasus, we wouldn't ignore the fact that this was supposed to be a flying horse until somewhere in the depths of the article. Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

1421

Why is their no reference to Gavin Menzies' "1421?" Whatever your opinion of his theory, its not as if he hasn't done a massive amount of research on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.48.1 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 29 July 2009

Unexplained reference to Fuchuan

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Chinese treasure ship. Though lots of opinions have been expressed, I'm detecting a rough consensus that this isn't the primary meaning of the term "treasure ship" in English. The article will be moved to the suggestion with the best support, Chinese treasure ship, while treasure ship will become a dab listing this article, Spanish treasure fleet, and potentially others. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As a disambiguation page listing these two articles already exists at Treasure fleet, I've redirected "Treasure ship" there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Treasure ship → Baochuan – These ships are known more distinctly by their Chinese name. A "treasure ship" is any ship with treasure on it. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey

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)
  • Ambiguous with regard to what? —  AjaxSmack  01:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Any ship carrying treasure. Google Web and Book searches turn up many instances of pirate ships and Spanish ships being called treasusre ships. My Google Scholar search [1] for "treasure ship" turns up far more Spanish results than Chinese ones. The term "treasure ship" is just a translation of baochuan. Srnec (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
      • My search results were essentially the same as Srnec's. Far more hits for spanish ships, some pirates and some of the recent treassure ship discoveries over the past coule years (e.g. Odyssey Marine Exploration projects). I'd support Treasure junk (certainly hits for that) or Treasure ship (Baochuan) or frankly any workable title other than the curret one. Given how widley the term is applied to other ships the current title is certainly ambiguous.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article's sources, where they use a specific term for the ships, use "treasure ships". Baochuan does not appear to be used much in English sources. —  AjaxSmack  01:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per AjaxSmack supra. I would imagine that English speakers would be more likely to know the term Treasure Ship and would naturally seek to find information on them here. I agree that the term Treasure Ship could be applied to ships other than Baochuan, but is there any evidence that it actually is in a context that would make sense to add knowledge about them into Wikipedia.Kiore (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, namely the Spanish treasure fleet. Srnec (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support though some other target name may be better. The current name does not work though. As there are many "treasure" ships in the world, particularly Spanish treasure galleons of the Pirates of the Caribbean era. Perhaps Treasure junk ? Or Chinese treasure ship, or Chinese treasure junk. Treasure ship (China) , Treasure junk (China); At any rate, these suggested names should become redirects if they are not used. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - The current title does say "Spanish." I'd propose Treasure ship (Baochuan) but that would help Googlers and people using the right hand search box, exactly the sort of people we don't want finding articles. No idea. Treasure ship (China) probably sounds the best of 65.92.180.137's options, but he will suffer bad karma in the next life for the sin of parenthetical disambiguation in this one. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I would accept Chinese treasure ship as an improvement. Srnec (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term "treasure ship" is mostly used for these ships in English sources. The later-suggested "treasure junk" is definatly not more common than "treasure ship". --Cold Season (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, the term "treasure ship" is mostly used for Spanish ships or pirate ships in English sources. Srnec (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Nuh, uh... Anyway, I was talking in context to your nomination statement. You said that "baochuan" is more common than "treasure ship". However, google book hits for "treasure ship" china vs "baochuan" china tells otherwise. --Cold Season (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I never said that baochuan is more common than "treasure ship". Srnec (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Then the nom arguement ignores the topic's common name.--Cold Season (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
          • No, the nomination rationale is just WP:NATURAL: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." Srnec (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
            • The term boachuan is hardly a natural disambiguation, it's complete shift of what's common. A natural disambiguation would be along the lines of Chinese treasure ship if needed, which I'm not necessarily opposing. --Cold Season (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Baochuan is "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English". Srnec (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
                • The term "baochuan" does not apply to WP:NATURAL, since this does not provide a more-complete article title for precision (because it's a completely different term) and this alternative term is not that common enough in English for the article title (far from the second best). --Cold Season (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • It doesn't need to be "more complete", it just needs to be, I repeat, quoting the guideline, "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English". As for precision, the current title is, as demonstrated, far worse. The term baochuan is common enough that all the top images in a Google search are of Chinese junks. Srnec (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
                    • I stated two conditions for WP:NATURAL, which is more clear at WP:NCDAB. I said that the first one can't apply, so you're just argueing against nothing. The second one, you just supported through looking at google images, which holds no real value in establishing a secondary common name in English. Now back to context... I don't see how that guideline you invoked applies to "baochuan". --Cold Season (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support a move, but maybe not as proposed. Bottom line, when someone says treasure ship, this is probably not the one they are thinking of. Treasure ship is simply ambiguous. If renamed, the redirect should probably point to Spanish treasure fleet. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Later comments seem to show growing support for Chinese treasure ship as an alternative. Based on the comments so far, I can support this one. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I certainly don't support it, but it is at least more logical than the current proposal of "baochuan".--Cold Season (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Treasure junk" could be misread as an oxymoron. Perhaps something like Chinese treasure ships, Ming Dynasty treasure fleet or Zheng He's treasure fleet would most clearly identify the topic to the typical English-speaking reader? If the Chinese term is chosen, it may be written as two words, as in the Zheng He article. —rybec 08:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps.. Out of those, "baochuan" (or variations) and especially "treasure junk" should definately be rejected, since these are not most-commonly-used terms. --Cold Season (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• Rename to something - Chinese treasure ship seems the best suggestion at present, though ideally the plural Spanish treasure fleet and this should be made consistent as to singular or plural - I don't really mind which way. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What about the Tessarakonteres of the Ancient Greeks?

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)

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)

External links modified (January 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Balanced rudder

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)

Hi Uaneill, apparently the Nankin rudder has been been the object of some fierce fighting. The harder naval technique is a bit stranger to me, but I    think you will find relevant arguments here if you are still interested: http://www.academia.edu/15367663/A_Naval_Architectural_Analysis_of_the_Plausibility_of_450-ft_Treasure_Ships_Complete_Paper , and http://contacthistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/monumenta_serica.pdf Maperseguir (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources and notes in the article

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)

Discrepencies between length and width and weight of Chinese Treasure Ships

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)

differences between sources on Conti quote ==

There is major differences between the sizes of given in the account by Niccolo de' Conti as to the size of the ships. The translation by J. Winter Jones from the Italian gives 2000 butts, which is only 1000 tons burthen, which is only have the size given in the reference used by Needham, which appears to be based on an old English translation from the Tudor times. It is constructive and important to know that these differences exist, and so the reference should not be removed. If can be established which translation is correct, it can be updated later, but for now, the reference to alternate values should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC) ..

I replaced with a non Wikipedia derived reference for the Wikipedia one. I see now that Wikipedia guidelines discourage use of Wikipedia as a reference.

Reading the complete passage, it not clear that Conti is actually talking about Chinese ships. The claim that they "they are unacquainted with the use of the compass" would seem to rule out these ships being Chinese, since there is nothing in his writing that suggest he was talking about different ships of a different nationality in the passage on the 2000 butt size than in the preceding sentences. Java ships were know to be big, and at this time Java was still Hindu, so Conti might very well perceive them as "Indian". If these ships are not Chinese, then they wouldn't have a bearing on the discussion of Chinese Treasure ships. The reader can read the passage and decide for themselves if Conti is talking about Chinese ships or not.

Tiller length of Keying ==

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)

Tone

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)