I tend to agree that the US is not the greatest seafaring culture ever even if it is the most dominant at sea.
daft said:
But how did they stuff them? And with what? I mean, to get to a ship with an open flame to an enemy vessel you need to be very close to it. How do you suppose the Vandals achieved this?
Ajidica was on the money. But he also missed a few things: first, the chief danger of a fire-ship isn't setting one's ships on fire. Rather, it's the need to scatter your ships to avoid the fire-ships that tended to cause the most problems historically. In rare cases, e.g. with very favorable winds, a storm or ships being caught at anchor, fire-ship use pays off in the most spectacular of ways e.g. Cap Bon. The more usual outcome of a successful fire-ship attack goes something like this:
On the night of 28 July 1588, the English lit 8 fire-ships and sent them into the Port of Calais. The Spanish fleet waiting in Calais - the infamous Spanish armada - upped anchor and fled to avoid them. No ships were lost due to the fire-ships and no damage was done. But the Spanish fleets dispersion and the fact that it was now leeward of the wind gave the English fleet waiting outside a huge advantage in the Battle of Gravelines. The English used the wind that was now behind them and their superior maneuverability to concentrate on isolated sections of the Spanish fleet. The result was the loss of five Spanish capital ships for few English casualties and the flight of the remaining Spanish fleet piece-meal, a situation which allowed it to be picked off by storm and cannon.
Second, the Vandals achieved it by loading their ships with anything flammable. The English used pitch and tar primarily and only a small amount of gunpowder. The Vandals would have had access to pitch and tar both of which have important uses for ships of the period and could have also used wood and straw for example.
Third, fire-ships use the wind or current to move them in the right general direction. But prior to being set alight, a skeleton grew would guide it in or take it under tow before lighting it. The later the better.
daft said:
I do not believe they were a bunch of merchant ships, such descriptions are not based on historical records. Scepticism and lack of respect for ancient era campaigns baffle me quite a bit.
As Ajidica noted, the use of merchant ships is based on historical records. Given that you seem to only have the most cursory knowledge of the battle, I'm honestly not sure why you would have reason to think it wasn't. I also note with amusement that the source you've referenced, Kedrenos, was writing 600 years
after the fact and that sources closer to the date generally put the number of Roman ships rather lower. Furthermore, ancient historians could be skeptical and treat their fellow historians with little respect. Why? Because it was
often deserved. Not to mention that the skeptical treatment of sources... underpins the whole historical method.
Phrossack said:
Precisely my opinion. The Polynesians were going off into the unknown.
Kinda, sorta. It's true that Polynesian seafarers hadn't seen the islands they settled, necessarily. But it's false to say that they just went off into the unknown. It's pretty well understood now that there was a method underpinning their voyages. It went something like this:
1. Discover wood/coconuts/whatever at sea.
2. Determine the direction of the current.
3. Using (1) and (2) extrapolate likely distance (based on extent of waterlogging/presence of marine pests) and direction (based on current).
4. Wait until the current reverses or come up with a favorable alternative and send out a search party.
5. The search party returns usually after a set period. If no land is found, send out another search party.
6. Once land has been discovered, ascertain whether or not it's worth living on. If the answer is yes, return if possible/if not wait.
7. Start life on a new island.
8. Rinse and repeat.