Greatest Seafaring Nations/People of History

Cap Bon did not have a 1100 Roman ships involved. That claim was made by Kedrenos 600 years after the battle took place. It probably involved a few hundred Roman ships total. A significant number of which were not warships but rather merchantmen requisitioned to act as troop transports. Presumably, the Vandals just stuffed them full of whatever combustibles were to hand. Wooden ships burn surprisingly well truth be told without that much help.
 
ENGLAND!!!
 
Cap Bon did not have a 1100 Roman ships involved. That claim was made by Kedrenos 600 years after the battle took place. It probably involved a few hundred Roman ships total. A significant number of which were not warships but rather merchantmen requisitioned to act as troop transports. Presumably, the Vandals just stuffed them full of whatever combustibles were to hand. Wooden ships burn surprisingly well truth be told without that much help.

Yes, fire ships were often just a matter of wood and pitch - the latter of which was already available in quantity to make rope.
 
It's also not uncommon to put pitch on the deck... it's a much better surface to move across.
 
Cap Bon did not have a 1100 Roman ships involved. That claim was made by Kedrenos 600 years after the battle took place. It probably involved a few hundred Roman ships total. A significant number of which were not warships but rather merchantmen requisitioned to act as troop transports. Presumably, the Vandals just stuffed them full of whatever combustibles were to hand. Wooden ships burn surprisingly well truth be told without that much help.

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?
Once again, I regrettably note a tone of disbelief towards ancient/classical army/navy battle sizes, engagement descriptions.
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.
 
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?
Simple. Wait until the winds/tide/current ensured that the ships would be carried toward the Roman fleet. IIRC the sources for the Battle of Cape Bon generally agree that a freak storm carried the Vandal fireships right into the heart of the Roman fleet.

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.
The troops were in almost all cases carried on merchant ships (see Warren Treagold 'Byzantium and its Army' for detail on late Roman/ early Byzantine practices). Military ships didn't have enough extra space to store troops.
Besides, requisitioning merchant ships for military use is hardly uncommon. The Brits did it during the Falklands War with the Atlantic Conveyor. Given best estimates as to the size of the late Roman navy, there simply weren't enough military ships to carry all of the soldiers and supplies generally ascribed to a campaign the size of the failed North African campaign.
 
Actually, I would say that the US is not the greatest seafaring nation in history. Just the most dominant naval power in history. I think these are different things. We became a dominant naval power in a later age. An age where so much more was known. The Phoenicians sailed in an age where sailing was just being invented. The Polynesians headed off to the trackless unknown in tiny boats. The ancestors of the Aboriginal Australians somehow got there 40,000 years ago. The Age of Exploration had weak ships which mapped the world. The US was the heir of all of these.

In the 19th century, particularly the latter half of it, American ships went everywhere. And they were good ships. The best of the age. Whalers would spend a year or more at sea. Clippers would set speed records to China. There was great seamanship. But in a world already known by others. In contrast, the steel and steam age took so much of the challenge and risk out of it. And the electronics age took out even more.
 
Simple. Wait until the winds/tide/current ensured that the ships would be carried toward the Roman fleet. IIRC the sources for the Battle of Cape Bon generally agree that a freak storm carried the Vandal fireships right into the heart of the Roman fleet.


The troops were in almost all cases carried on merchant ships (see Warren Treagold 'Byzantium and its Army' for detail on late Roman/ early Byzantine practices). Military ships didn't have enough extra space to store troops.
Besides, requisitioning merchant ships for military use is hardly uncommon. The Brits did it during the Falklands War with the Atlantic Conveyor. Given best estimates as to the size of the late Roman navy, there simply weren't enough military ships to carry all of the soldiers and supplies generally ascribed to a campaign the size of the failed North African campaign.

Your explanation makes very good sense, I rest my case.
 
Actually, I would say that the US is not the greatest seafaring nation in history. Just the most dominant naval power in history. I think these are different things. We became a dominant naval power in a later age. An age where so much more was known. The Phoenicians sailed in an age where sailing was just being invented. The Polynesians headed off to the trackless unknown in tiny boats. The ancestors of the Aboriginal Australians somehow got there 40,000 years ago. The Age of Exploration had weak ships which mapped the world. The US was the heir of all of these.

In the 19th century, particularly the latter half of it, American ships went everywhere. And they were good ships. The best of the age. Whalers would spend a year or more at sea. Clippers would set speed records to China. There was great seamanship. But in a world already known by others. In contrast, the steel and steam age took so much of the challenge and risk out of it. And the electronics age took out even more.
Precisely my opinion. The Polynesians were going off into the unknown. The Phoenicians explored coastlines and set up regular shipping lanes and trading ports. The Portuguese combined a lot of previous inventions, explored very distant lands that were pretty unknown to them, managed to dominate trade in places on the other side of the world in an age where voyages to Angola, Japan, or India took months or more, set up major outposts in those areas, and generally went from a small kingdom on the edge of Eurasia to a globetrotting empire through maritime prowess. By the time the US became a major naval power, most of the exploration had been done. There were no new lands to explore beyond Antarctica. Few major feats of navigation left to achieve. And by the time that the US gained its unequaled naval dominance during and after WWII, technology made naval navigation and travel very fast, easy, and safe compared to the days of sailing ships. By now, what with satellite navigation, computers, fast and safe ship designs, and so on, the sea surface is all mapped out and sea travel is easy.
 
That argument doesn't really hold water for me (pun only partially intended).
For example, ENIAC was one of the first real computers and was groundbreaking, but my laptop is superior by every single meaningful measurement. In comparing my laptop to ENIAC, I would say my laptop is greater.
 
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.
 
The Portuguese combined a lot of previous inventions, explored very distant lands that were pretty unknown to them, managed to dominate trade in places on the other side of the world in an age where voyages to Angola, Japan, or India took months or more

My understanding is that what the Portuguese did in the Indian Ocean was less trade and more protection racket, but anyway.

Hi Masada.
 
Hi TK.

You're also correct. Portuguese did some trade but profited a lot more from taxing other people's trade.
 
Yeah, now that you mention it I seem to recall the peoples in the area being unimpressed with the goods that Portuguese like da Gama had to offer--but when he showed his naval power and sheer brutality, they were rather more willing to "do business." Bags of severed ears, hands, and noses will do that.
 
Yeah, now that you mention it I seem to recall the peoples in the area being unimpressed with the goods that Portuguese like da Gama had to offer--but when he showed his naval power and sheer brutality, they were rather more willing to "do business." Bags of severed ears, hands, and noses will do that.

It's more that they were able to secure key ports on the shipping lanes like Aden.
 
Kuril Islands, Japanese, Russian or perhaps the Ainu?
Whose claim is historically most accurate?
 
Kuril Islands, Japanese, Russian or perhaps the Ainu?
Whose claim is historically most accurate?
I, for one, believe the Polish claim is strongest.

You, however, can decide for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute


My actual opinion says screw historical claims and just give it to Japan; based solely on the fact in Ghost in the Shell: Second Gig the islands were mentioned as being part of Japan.
 
Wouldn't that count as anecdotal evidence, however? I say we give the Russians the benefit of doubt.
 
It's more that they were able to secure key ports on the shipping lanes like Aden.

Actually Aden was never conquered by the Portuguese. You're probably confusing that with Ormuz which allowed control over the Persian Gulf trade. Controlling choke points such as Ormuz and Malacca was certainly useful but arguably other cities that provided safe harbors, shipyards, and supplies were more important for a fleet months or years away from home port in that age. It was the fact that the Indian Ocean was already well known to local pilots and had plenty of cities capable of serving as bases and in competition with each other (thus some willing to trade or ally against the interest of others) that allowed the quick expansion of european presence in that area. The exploration of the south Atlantic was much slower.

The old method of setting up (or conquering) colonies as bases for logistics remained important from the phoenician/greek era to the steam ship era (coaling stations). The vikings did it, the polynesians did it too, even if in both cases without some kind of long-plan. I don't think we could attribute age of exploration european seafaring to long-term plans, rather they followed up on previous profitable voyaged and occasionally some ruler was more enthusiastic in betting resources on that.

Once the world was mapped and know the whole thing became more "scientific", less "epic". The sea is either a routine trade route or a battleground between nations that know very well what they're up against. I guess that the last real surprise was the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War?
 
Top Bottom