Can anyone tell me in detail about battle ships of Ming and Japan?

Feb 2011
6,156
#91
Bart Dale said:
Analyizing the ships of the 16th century Athony Roll, the 59 ships on the roll had a total of 8320 crew (sailors, soldiers, gunners)
I cannot find this number, where did you get the number that the Anthony Roll and a total of 8320 crew size? And it should be noted that a fair number of ships in the Anthony Roll were galley types crammed with oarsmen, so not really an apple to apple comparison.
 
Mar 2012
4,279
#92
Except in China, most of the needs for the navy were for combating smugglers and pirates, where there was little need for large warships after the 15th century. Unlike European powers, China was usually not engaged in naval warfare with other countries of comparable naval power. Except for the Imjin war, most of China's conflict with the Japanese and others was with pirates, and for that the need was for small, manueverable ships.

That is why the Qing did not build large warships until after the Opium war, even though the China clearly had the capacity to build much larger warships than the Tongan ones they did build, as ships like the Keying and Tek Sing show. The Chinese were able to defeat the larger European ships with their more numerous smaller ships on the few occasions they fought the Europeans, until the Opium wars. Why would China build large warships comparable to size of European warships, when most of the time they had no need of them?

And large warships are a drain on the resources, while large commercial ships can make money. Scotland ended up selling it's 16th Great Michael. The largest warship of its time, to France because they did not want to pay the cost. The 15th century 800 ton Peter Von Danzig started off life as a commercial ship.

Only the larger first and second rate ships were bigger than the largest commercial ships like the East Indianman, and it is really only for a few centuries that warships would up bigger than the biggest commercial ships, and by the 19th century commercial ships were being built larger than warships again. Of course, occasionally rulers would build totally impractical warships for show, like the Grace Die or the Syracuse, but they were exceptions.

I already answered that question twice in the other thread. I will copy and paste it here:

Naval invasion of other states are all secondary pillars of grand strategy. The navy is there to maintain the stability of the empire in China itself. Potential rebellions from China are far more threatening than any foreign forces from the seas during this period. This can easily be seen when the Yuan ended merely a year after the grand canal was seized by the rebel's navies.

You are assuming ancient China is a nation state, its not. Southern China as a whole has the potential to rebel and seizing the Grand canal can be a checkmate to the ruling regime. This led to the speedy demise of the Yuan dynasty, and this was also how the British ended the Opium War, by sailing the gunboat Nemesis right into the canal. Most ships are for defense of potential rebellion. Pirates are secondary, as they don't threaten the Ming or Qing Empire's existence, but a large force was still needed to defend against them, its just not possible to prevent every intrusion in a coastline that is over 18,000 KM long.



I don't think you can say that, since we don't have rotals for European ships. European ships like the Peter Von Danzig in the 15th centuey, with 800 tons burhen, were comparable in size to Zheng He ships, and we don't know if Europeans were building bigger ships than that. Ibn Jubayr"s 12th century account of Genoese ship carrying 2500 passengers, and a 13th century Genoese ship thd Oliva was know to carry 1,100 passengers (Ships - The Crusades), implies ships comparable in size to any the Chinese were building.

Many commercial ships in the past had to be able to defend themselves, so they could be pressed into service as warships. Unless you plan to use the warship in a line of battle against other warships, you really don't need a specialized warship. Against smugglers and against pirates or as a privateer, you could still.convert regular ships to that use.
Haven't we done this topic already? These are ships of the 16th century:

In the mid-sixteenth century, galleons tended to be ships of moderate size, often about 200 tons, wiith high forecastles and sterncastles. They grew rapidly larger. The Spanish Armada in 1588 included three Portuguese galleons of 1,000 tons, and six Spanish galleons of 800 tons, which were among the largest ships of their time in the western world. -Champlain's Dream by David Hackett Fischer

In comparison:

It is known that during the Tang-Song Period, the loading capacity of an average sea vessel was around 230 metric tons, in Qing times, the loading capacity of the shallow water ship was between 100-200 tons. It is also known that in the Tang Dynasty over 2 million shi of grain (83,200 tons) was transported through the canals each year and in the Northern Song Dynasty, the amount reached over 6 million shi (278,900 tons), an average of 764 tons per day. This makes it possible to use the weight transported by ships as a base to estimate the size transportation fleets. -Gang Deng


Moreover, this was what Marco Polo said about contemporary Chinese ships compared to Italian ones:

Moreover I tell you that these ships want some 300 sailors, some 200, some 150, some more, some fewer, according as the ships are larger and smaller.

They also carry a much greater burden than ours.


Actually, I think European ships were bigger than Chinese ships in the 16th century. The Portuguese carracks, weighing up to 1000 tons, were bigger than the Chinese ships being built at that time. Analyizing the ships of the 16th century Athony Roll, the 59 ships on the roll had a total of 8320 crew (sailors, soldiers, gunners) and a total tonnage of 11,886 burthen, for an average of 141 men per ship.and and average ton burden of 200 tons. The Spanish Armada had around 24,000 men on 130 ships, for an average of 184 men per ship. In the Battle.of Noryang, the 63 Ming ships had 5000, which works out to only 80 men per ship, and even if you include the 2,600 Ming marines fighting on the Korean ships, still gives you only 121 men per ship. The evidence indicate by the later 16th century, Ming warships were smaller than European ones. I haven't seen any evidence yet for large size of 16th century Chinese commercial ships comparable to the 800 to 1000 ton European carracks.

It is only in the 19th century that I see evidence for 1000 ton Chinese ships post the Zheng He era. Do you have any examples of 1000 16th Chinese ship?
We do.
In Zhou Huang's Liu Qiuguo Zhilue, it was recorded that even late Ming boats still had exception sized ships. In 1533 the Ming boat that was sent to invest the Ryukyu king Shangqing had a length of 17 Zhang, width of 3.16 Zhang and a depth of 1.33 Zhang with a weight of some 537 tons. In 1633, the ship sent to Ryukyu to invest the king Shangfeng, was 1200 tons. The thickness of the bottom was 7 Chinese inches or one English feet. These dimension proportions (not absolute size) were comparable to large contemporary English warships.

I'm not sure why you are only comparing the biggest European ships either, when we already showed evidence that plenty of merchant ships in Europe and abroad were well below 100 tons. Dutch ships in Asia were also of quite small sizes.

1551076343185.png


If anything, while the largest European ship might have been slightly larger, the average ships might have been smaller, for even in the 16th we have European hints that Chinese ships were still larger:
Such artillery as the friar Gerrarda and his companions did see at their being there, they say it was antiquated, and very ill wrought, and was for the most part these pieces shoot stones, or murderers: but it was given them to understand that in other provinces of the kingdom, there be that be very curiously wrought and fair, which may be of such which the Captain Artreda did see: who in a letter that he wrote onto King Phillip, giving him to understanding of the secrets of this country, among which he said, the Chinese do use all armour as we do, and the artillery which they have is excellent good. I am of that opinion, for that I have seen vessels there of huge greatness, and better made then ours, and more stronger.

The History of the Great and Mighty Kingdom of China and the Situation Thereof
 
Mar 2012
4,279
#93
I don't think you can say that, since we don't have rotals for European ships. European ships like the Peter Von Danzig in the 15th centuey, with 800 tons burhen, were comparable in size to Zheng He ships, and we don't know if Europeans were building bigger ships than that. Ibn Jubayr"s 12th century account of Genoese ship carrying 2500 passengers, and a 13th century Genoese ship thd Oliva was know to carry 1,100 passengers (Ships - The Crusades), implies ships comparable in size to any the Chinese were building.

Many commercial ships in the past had to be able to defend themselves, so they could be pressed into service as warships. Unless you plan to use the warship in a line of battle against other warships, you really don't need a specialized warship. Against smugglers and against pirates or as a privateer, you could still.convert regular ships to that use.
More on size of European warships:

The weight of artillery aboard Mediterranean galleys grew steadily, and with it the displacement of the ships: up to 200 tonnes for an ordinary war galley around 1550, and 300 tonnes around 1650. -Louis Sicking, Naval warfare in Europe, c. 1330– c. 1680 p.246

In Portugal, the caravel of between 150 and 180 tons with two covered decks, four masts, and narrow hull (to be distinguished from its smaller namesake, which had been used for discoveries in the fifteenth century), was probably mainly developed for naval purposes in the sixteenth century.
Sicking: p.253

The average size of Mediterranean galleys was 200 tons in displacement and caravels were 150-180 tons in the 16th century. If anything, the English warships on the Anthony Roll seem to have been quite above the average size for its time.

Ships of the early 15th century and before were on average, miniscule. In Henry V's invasion of France he called upon about 800 ships and they can only carry 12,000 men. Edward's invasion in 1346 used about 750 ships to transfer 10,000 men.

Also, we have to be careful in listing any ship as sea vessels just because they sailed on the seas. The Louchan of China could easily carry up to 2,000 men and it can also sail on the seas for some time. For example, in the invasion of Nanyue, the Han navy send many Louchuan along the sea coasts of Canton. However, compared to the later Treasure Ships, the Louchuan is far less sea worthy. Earlier European ships of such sizes seem to be of the same type of ship, that is, they mostly sailed close to the coast or across narrow straits.

I cannot find this number, where did you get the number that the Anthony Roll and a total of 8320 crew size? And it should be noted that a fair number of ships in the Anthony Roll were galley types crammed with oarsmen, so not really an apple to apple comparison.
The comparison becomes even more problematic the further back we go considering European warships were mostly galleys until the 13th century, and a mix of oar powered and sails until the 15th century. It's not until the 15th century that sail ships became more prominent. Sails in general had an advantage over oars because of their higher platforms for boarding, at a time when boarding was decisive in naval warfare:

"Oar-powered vessels dominated Baltic warfare until 1210, when the crusading order of the Sword Brothers switched to cogs. The French at the battle of Sluys in 1340 used both the royal galleys and 170 sailing ships, of which many were certainly intended for the fray. In England , not until around 1400 did the fighting vanguard become almost entirely sail-driven, oared craft forming only a small part of its navy.

Ships that did not need to be propelled by oars could have higher freeboards, offering them an important advantage in a time when height was a crucial tactical criterion . As a result, oarless craft played a grow-ing – albeit slowly growing – role in Mediterranean warfare too. The raids carried out by cogs from Bayonne in the Mediterranean in 1304 impressed the Genoese, Venetians, and Catalans who had started to build coches or cogs themselves. Medieval sailing ships were equipped with superstructures fore and aft – castles – which allowed for attacking the enemy. In time these castles became higher and higher, making the ships top-heavy and causing them to look like floating fortresses. As a result it was almost impossible for a galley crew successfully to board and enter a sailing ship. The attack on the Venetian Levant convoy by a Genoese fleet of eighteen galleys in 1264 offers a good illustration. The Venetian convoy, consisting of twelve single-decked sailing vessels of about 150 tons’ displacement; half-a-dozen smaller craft; and a single large, round ship of 750 tons (the Roccaforte ), although outnumbered by the Genoese, managed to resist for hours. When the Venetians finally retreated aboard the Roccaforte , the Genoese were unable successfully to assail the vessel. Almost 200 years later, in 1453 during the Turkish siege of Constantinople , 150 Turkish boats gathered around four sailing vessels in the Bosporus but were unable to capture them. By the 1420s the Genoese were building carracks of 600 to 900 tons’ displacement. Such vessels, prestige state warships, were ‘essentially immune to attack by galleys’. In the fifteenth century the Venetian state, too, commis-sioned large sailing warships for operations against corsair galleys. "

-Sicking, p.247
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#94
1) The battle the Chinese had with the Portuguese were not standard warships from either side. Using such logic, the average Portuguese fleet was also less than 100 tons.
Provide the actual evidence for your claims. For the 16th centuy, adding up the tonnage on the Anthony Rolls give an average of 307 tons displacement (200 tons burthen), significantly more than 100 tons. Unless you add up all the weight of all the Portuguese warships.wnd average them, you can't make a claim of what the average weight of the Portuguese ships was.

2) As I already cited twice from Gang Deng's book in the other thread, this is what's recorded in Table 2.2 on p.52 on all the naval operations recorded in every dynasty:
And I have used Deng's own figure and others to repeatedly show that the Chinese ships engaged in naval combat in the he Yuan, Ming, and Qing were small.

Gang Deng himself assumed an average tonnage of 100 tons for Chinese warships, he says that quite explicitly, which is smaller than the average ships size on the Anthony Rolls.


Year Person-Ship ratio

242 AD 100
401 AD 100
388-411 AD 100
612-614 AD 133
644 AD 86
1274 AD 17
1281 AD 32
1284 AD 75
1292 AD 20
1405 AD 134
1412 AD 455
Contemporary accounts by Gong Zhen give crew sizes on Zheng He ships as 200 -300, so the 1412 average is way high compared to contemporary accounts and compared to Zheng He other voyages. Most likely resulted from other ships not being included in the account, with only the Treasures ships listed. We know for that official Chinese sources exaggerated when it came tobsize of Zheng He ships, and if they exaggerated the size, then they equally could have exaggerate the number of men as well.

1661 AD 125
1683 AD 50
1683 AD 67
These figures support my claim of Chinese warships being smaller since even 16th century Anthony Roll had more people per ship, an average of 141, and European warships of the 1600's were larger.

In the majority of these naval operations, there were close to or over 100 men per ship on average, which would easily yield 200-300 tons of displacement.
You are making unwarranted assumptions. The Mayflower carried 102 passengers and a crew of perhaps around 40, more than the Chinese ships you mentioned, yet it was only 180 tons burthen. Since these are naval ships we are talking about, the 2.5 ton per man rule do not apply, since that figures is clearly based only on number of sailors, and does not include marines or gunners.

And note, In general, the evidence for European ships is superior to that of Chinese ships before he 19th century. No only do we know the names of individual European ships, we also have far more archeological evidence, and starting in the very late Medieval period, we have ship remains that we can match up with specific ships and know their life history including fate, a claim we can't make for any Chinese ship before the 19th century. No Chinese document compares in detail to the Anthony Rolls.

Since on the Anthony Rolls alone you have a dozen ships or most larger than 200 tons, and if we know for a fact there were more than a dozen English ships greater than 200 tons in existence, but none listed on HackneyScribe source, we can question the accuracy of his source.

What is the same breakdown of ship sizes and number for the Chinese at the same? If you are going to do it for European ships, you should make the same comparison for Chinese ships.

If you can prove to me that China had significant different design between transport ships and warships, you are welcome to cite it here.
The burden is on you to show that the largest Chinese commercial ships were also used as warships.fornrhe Ming dynasty. That burden of proof you have met not even tried to meet. We know that Qing sailing warships were far smaller than the largest commercial Qing ships, and if you want to say the Ming warships were different, you need to prove it.

You need to show that the largest transport/commercial ships of the Ming were being used as warships, not me to show the reverse. We know that Qing warships were much smaller than the largest commercial/transport ships, so we can't assume the Ming dynasty was any different.


We know large warships were used on Riverine fleets, there is no reason why they wouldn't be used on the seas if ships that large exist. [/Quote=]

We know no such thing for the Ming dynasty. Please provide Ming dynasty sources that these Tower ships existed and were being used during the Ming dynasty. We know they did not exist in the 16th century and later, since we have Europeans traveling to China by then, and none a Tower ship. The accounts of Tower ships exist only before there were Europeans in China.

Also, a ship for use on the river is unsuited for combat at sea, a five story tower ships is likely to sink on the open sea, a tower ship.wouls not be stable in open waters. There were large steam power river boats on the Mississippi in the 19th century, but they were never used on the open sea for that very reason.

If we use the 2.5 tons per sailor rule, which was derived rom Chinese sources (Song Li), then the crew sizes of 200 - 300 given for Zheng He ships by contemporary Gong Zhen imply a size of 750 tons, or less, not the 5,000 liao (1,250 tons). Given that Chinese also claimed a ridiculous figure of 450 ft for Zheng He's ships, there is no reason not to believe these figures are not also exaggerations, just less extreme.

Unlike for Chinese ships, which are just nameless numbers, we have specific names for the large European ships, and sometimes some of their life history, and even at times some of their names, all of which is lacking for Chinese ships. We don't know the name of these alleted largd Chinese ships, nor any of their life history and fate, nor the names of the specific wrecks. All your evidence rest on the mere say so of the nation whose records have been known to grossly exaggerate, as in the case of the Zheng He's ship dimensions.

Qing ships in general were smaller than Ming ships. We almost never hear of Qing ships above 1000 tons ...
What evidence do you have to support that claim for Ming warships?. Can you cite a single Ming dynasty ship or earlier by name that was more than 800 tons burden? As I already pointed out, we actually have names of Qing dynasty ships that were 800 tons (Keying) and a 1000 tons (Tek Sing), but don't have a single Ming ship of more than 600 tons by name. If anything, we have far more solid evidence for large Qing ships than Ming, since we at least know the name of the Qing ships.

I thought you were talking about the battle of Boyang Lake, in any case, the battle did not mention small ships nor it is representative because its not a sea battle.
Yah, right. You clearly wrote Noryang, and I clearly talked about Korean and Ming ships.

You still haven't provided any contemporary documentation that supports you claims about the Tower ships as I have repeatedly requested from you

Song Li did not say they were sailors, he said it was the crew, period. To quote Church:

"The standard num-ber of men on an ocean-going grain transport seems to have been 100, and the ratio of crew to capacity on these ships was one man per 10 liao, or 2.5 tons. ....."
You have done this a couple of times now, of not quoting revelant passages that just follows your quote where Church discusses that military ships often had less than this 2.5 tons per sailor ratio.

That Song Li didn't mention the word sailor because he didn't have, since there would be only sailors on the ships of his example. A grain ship would not be including a large staff of soldiers, blacksmiths, potters and carpenters.

Military ships may have been designed to carry more men per ton than cargo ships in order to maximise the num-ber of combat soldiers transported.51 Lo Jung-pang mentions that some military ships of 700 liao (175 tons) in the early Ming were manned by 400 men – almost one man for every two liao, or one man per half-ton. Some combat ships of 400 liao (100 tons) had a crew of 100 men, which is equivalent to one man for every four liao, or one man per ton. "Zheng He: An Investigation into the Plausibility of 450 FT Treasure Ships" Sally Church 2005 (PDF) ZHENG HE: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PLAUSIBILITY OF 450-FT TREASURE SHIPS
Since we are talking about naval craft, i.e military ships, the 2.5 tons per man rule clearly does not apply.

Looking at the Anthony Roll, the Mary Rose was 700 tons, and had 200 sailors, for a ratio of 3.5 tons per man. But including gunners and soldiers it had a total.compliment of 415 men, for a ratio of 1.7 . If the Mary Rose was only hauling grain, it wouldn't need all the soldiers and gunners, and so he 3.5 Ra I would apply. But as a warship, the ratio would be 1.7.
 
Mar 2012
4,279
#95
Provide the actual evidence for your claims. For the 16th century, adding up the tonnage on the Anthony Rolls give an average of 307 tons displacement (200 tons burthen), significantly more than 100 tons.
Because its clearly listed in numerous sources that the main Chinese boats present were incendiary boats. Incendiary boats were small kamikazee boats, not warships. There was at most 50 junks and 100 incendiary boats.



"Fifteen minutes before morning, the Chinese fleet appeared, they were divided into two squadrons, their number were between 140-150 ships, among them 50 were very big and from the looks of it, they are equipped with numerous cannons and soldiers...at this time they all drew closer to us, three of them hooked on to Brouckerhaven(Dutch ship), and one of them, without regard to the lives of their own men, set the ship on fire, like those who abandoned their life and with frenzy and anger rushed at the cannons, muskets and flames without any fear of them, this immediately set the ship(Brouckerhaven)'s tail on fire. The ship Slooterdijck got hooked on by four of their largest Junk boats, and they jumped on to the ship, twice we beat the Chinese back, but in the end we got overwhelmed by the continuous assaults of the numerous Chinese and they took that ship. The ships Bredam, Bleyswijck, Zeeburch, Wieringen and Salm tried their best to get away from the numerous incendiary boats. After this defeat, our strength has been reduced so much that we could no longer have any power over the Chinese coasts."

The Ming general Yu Dayou also mentioned his tactics of defeating the Portuguese fleet with small incendiary boats: in melee, "these people's only weapon is a soft sword, their naval combat ability is inferior to our soldiers, and on the ground, long spears would have subdued them...only their muskets are sophisticated and their large cannons are powerful...in a battle, against their big ships, we must use incendiary attacks...the bandit's fleet only number between 10-20, while we use 70-80 ships, with a greater number of ships, what is there to fear in not winning against them?"


Now, provide the actual evidence that the ships at Tamao or Liaoluo bay were standard warships or even sea vessels. We know that there wasn't a single large Fuchuan present because the Dutch warships there were all small in size and the Chinese ships were no bigger.

Europeans also used incendiary boat attacks. For example, in a 1693 attack on the French port of Saint-Malo, Commodore Benbow loaded a galliot with 100 barrels of powder and 340 chests containing cannon balls and destructive missiles. It was hardly a standard warship.


Unless you add up all the weight of all the Portuguese warships.wnd average them, you can't make a claim of what the average weight of the Portuguese ships was.
By such logic, unless you add up the weight of all Chinese warships and average them, then you can't make a claim of their average weight either, yet I don't see you stopping.
The Anthony Roll is just that English warships, which seem to have been bigger than Portuguese ships.

Sickings clearly stated the typical Portuguese naval caravel was 150-180 tons.
In Portugal, the caravel of between 150 and 180 tons with two covered decks, four masts, and narrow hull (to be distinguished from its smaller namesake, which had been used for discoveries in the fifteenth century), was probably mainly developed for naval purposes in the sixteenth century.
Sicking: p.253

And I have used Deng's own figure and others to repeatedly show that the Chinese ships engaged in naval combat in the he Yuan, Ming, and Qing were small.
And I have shown that you were choosing samples selectively, three times already. I know reading isn't your strong point, but I already addressed your issues repeatedly and you have not responded with anything productive.


This is what's recorded in Table 2.2 on p.52

Year Person-Ship ratio

242 AD 100
401 AD 100
388-411 AD 100
612-614 AD 133
644 AD 86
1274 AD 17
1281 AD 32
1284 AD 75
1292 AD 20
1405 AD 134
1412 AD 455
1661 AD 125
1683 AD 50
1683 AD 67


In the majority of these naval operations, there were close to or over 100 men per ship on average, which would easily yield 200-300 tons of displacement. Yet you selectively chose the years under Mongol invasions (where Deng specifically said was an anomaly due to Mongol unfamiliarity with naval matters) and 1683, where there was only 50 men per ship and used that as something reflective. Sorry, but that is not how you measure average carrying capacity.


Even if you use the smallest Yuan ships, they were still much bigger compared to contemporary English ships.
In Henry V's invasion of France he called upon about 800 ships with 12,000 men, that's on average 15 men per ship. Edward's invasion in 1346 used about 750 ships to transfer 10,000 men, that's on average 13 men per ship.

Even the smallest Yuan invasions still had 17-32 men per ship.



Gang Deng himself assumed an average tonnage of 100 tons for Chinese warships, he says that quite explicitly, which is smaller than the average ships size on the Anthony Rolls.
Don't distort.
This is what he actually said:


By the end of the thirteenth century, in the two coexisting navies of the Southern Song (over 13,500 warships) and the Yuan (17,900 warships), the total number of vessels reached 31,400. The corresponding approximation of aggregate tonnage of the Song and Yuan navies is 550,000 to 1,200,000 tons, assuming that they were 100-tonners because of their advantage of maneuvrability in sea battles. Thus, the present estimates are conservative.


Deng also stated that Ming total tonnage probably rivaled those of the Yuan, yet there were only 5,500 Ming ships, while the Yuan had twice that amount, meaning if you take strictly what he said, he also implied that Ming warships were twice as heavy on average.

This is closer to the average weight of an actual Chinese sea vessel:



It is known that during the Tang-Song Period, the loading capacity of an average sea vessel was around 230 metric tons, in Qing times, the loading capacity of the shallow water ship was between 100-200 tons. It is also known that in the Tang Dynasty over 2 million shi of grain (83,200 tons) was transported through the canals each year and in the Northern Song Dynasty, the amount reached over 6 million shi (278,900 tons), an average of 764 tons per day. This makes it possible to use the weight transported by ships as a base to estimate the size of transportation fleets.


Contemporary accounts by Gong Zhen give crew sizes on Zheng He ships as 200 -300, so the 1412 average is way high compared to contemporary accounts and compared to Zheng He other voyages. Most likely resulted from other ships not being included in the account, with only the Treasures ships listed.
Gong Zhen wasn't talking about the 1412 expedition, there are seven expeditions total, so there is nothing contradictory here. This has already been addressed, you are making this very repetitive.

We know for that official Chinese sources exaggerated when it came tobsize of Zheng He ships, and if they exaggerated the size, then they equally could have exaggerate the number of men as well.
Except the Ming Shi wasn't a primary source, whereas it was the Ming Shilu, which was a primary source which recorded the expedition of 1412.


These figures support my claim of Chinese warships being smaller since even 16th century Anthony Roll had more people per ship, an average of 141, and European warships of the 1600's were larger.
And that selective list purposely cut off the following, even though they make up more numbers than the Qing warships:

242 AD 100
401 AD 100
388-411 AD 100
612-614 AD 133
644 AD 86
1405 AD 134
1412 AD 455


Hackneyedscribe already asked you where you got the crew size numbers from, you haven't answered him. So cite your source or stop making things up.



You are making unwarranted assumptions. The Mayflower carried 102 passengers and a crew of perhaps around 40, more than the Chinese ships you mentioned, yet it was only 180 tons burthen. Since these are naval ships we are talking about, the 2.5 ton per man rule do not apply, since that figures is clearly based only on number of sailors, and does not include marines or gunners.
You are making even bigger assumptions, that warships are smaller than transport vessels, despite all evidence to the contrary we've cited on how merchant ships docking in England were much smaller than the warships on the Anthony Roll. Even the Dutch merchant ships listed weigh well less than 100 tons on average.
Song Li mentioned a standard, even if it might not be dogmatically strict, its better than your blind assumptions.
And if you want to be selective that way, Venetian ships weighing over 100 tons had an average of 26-27 men in the 15th century.



Since on the Anthony Rolls alone you have a dozen ships or most larger than 200 tons, and if we know for a fact there were more than a dozen English ships greater than 200 tons in existence, but none listed on HackneyScribe source, we can question the accuracy of his source.

What is the same breakdown of ship sizes and number for the Chinese at the same? If you are going to do it for European ships, you should make the same comparison for Chinese ships.

I assume you are just going to ignore the list of merchant ships docking in London in 1567-1568 which were mostly 21-100 tons. These are much smaller than the average warship in the Anthony Roll. Sorry, but your claim that transport ships are bigger just doesn't stand:

1551266402432.png
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
4,279
#96
The burden is on you to show that the largest Chinese commercial ships were also used as warships.fornrhe Ming dynasty. That burden of proof you have met not even tried to meet. We know that Qing sailing warships were far smaller than the largest commercial Qing ships, and if you want to say the Ming warships were different, you need to prove it.

You need to show that the largest transport/commercial ships of the Ming were being used as warships, not me to show the reverse. We know that Qing warships were much smaller than the largest commercial/transport ships, so we can't assume the Ming dynasty was any different.
No Bart, its you who made the claim that European ships were larger than Chinese ones in the 16th century, I merely said they were probably comparable in size and I even cited primary sources stating that. You are also the one who made the claim that Chinese commercial ships were larger than warships, even when European trends shows the exact opposite. The burden is hence on you to prove that. You have yet to even prove how commercial ships were designed differently from warships. Even the treasure fleet needs to be defended on the seas, you think its not armed with soldiers onboard?



We know no such thing for the Ming dynasty. Please provide Ming dynasty sources that these Tower ships existed and were being used during the Ming dynasty. We know they did not exist in the 16th century and later, since we have Europeans traveling to China by then, and none a Tower ship. The accounts of Tower ships exist only before there were Europeans in China.
Read up before you make a claim.

Chen Youliang’s formidable fleet sailed downstream in the spring of 1363. The core of the fleet was massive three-deckers, with iron-armored castles, holdingas many as 2,000 or 3,000 men each. Including the personnel on the many smaller vessels, Chen had nearly 300,000 men.

Peter Lorge, War, Politics and Society in Early Modern China, 900-1795 p.103

Also, a ship for use on the river is unsuited for combat at sea, a five story tower ships is likely to sink on the open sea, a tower ship.wouls not be stable in open waters. There were large steam power river boats on the Mississippi in the 19th century, but they were never used on the open sea for that very reason.
There are no evidence any of the large European ships cited in medieval times were suitable for open seas either. That was the point.


Unlike for Chinese ships, which are just nameless numbers, we have specific names for the large European ships, and sometimes some of their life history, and even at times some of their names, all of which is lacking for Chinese ships. We don't know the name of these alleted largd Chinese ships, nor any of their life history and fate, nor the names of the specific wrecks.
China doesn't have a tradition of naming all the ships, why that matters to you in a prove is beyond me, as you can easily fabricate a name for a ship as well.



All your evidence rest on the mere say so of the nation whose records have been known to grossly exaggerate, as in the case of the Zheng He's ship dimensions.
It's not a primary source, while we have a primary source in the form of Hongbao tomb inscription found in Nanjing mentioning 5,000 liao ships.
I ask you for the forth time, are you so bigoted that you think all Chinese sources are the same in credibility just because they are Chinese? You know I'm going to continue busting your chops each time you make the same stupid racist comment.

Furthermore, European sources are known for even greater exaggerations of the same time period. The battle of Zeelandia for example shows Chinese accounts on European casualties are much closer to what the Europeans recorded about their own casualties, whereas Europeans bloated the Chinese numbers to several times the size of what the Chinese actually recorded about their own.
One only have to look at battles such as Cagayan to see how they've utterly exaggerated the size of Japanese soldiers for literary effects.

What evidence do you have to support that claim for Ming warships?. Can you cite a single Ming dynasty ship or earlier by name that was more than 800 tons burden? As I already pointed out, we actually have names of Qing dynasty ships that were 800 tons (Keying) and a 1000 tons (Tek Sing), but don't have a single Ming ship of more than 600 tons by name. If anything, we have far more solid evidence for large Qing ships than Ming, since we at least know the name of the Qing ships.
Did I not just cite that in post 92? Do you not read what people post before you respond or do you not understand what I posted?

In Zhou Huang's Liu Qiuguo Zhilue, it was recorded that even late Ming boats still had exception sized ships. In 1533 the Ming boat that was sent to invest the Ryukyu king Shangqing had a length of 17 Zhang (~50 meters), width of 3.16 Zhang and a depth of 1.33 Zhang with a weight of some 537 tons. In 1633, the ship sent to Ryukyu to invest the king Shangfeng, was 1200 tons. The thickness of the bottom was 7 Chinese inches or one English feet.

Chinese ships are not all named, and I have no idea why you need to know their names to prove their existence when primary sources blatantly recorded their existence.



Yah, right. You clearly wrote Noryang, and I clearly talked about Korean and Ming ships.

You still haven't provided any contemporary documentation that supports you claims about the Tower ships as I have repeatedly requested from you
I was thinking Boyang when you wrote Noryang because they were similar in pronounciation and the former was much more famous.
Do you think I am purposely saying Noryang even when I explicitly mentioned Chen Youliang and his tower ships in my post?

Read above for evidence of tower ships.



You have done this a couple of times now, of not quoting revelant passages that just follows your quote where Church discusses that military ships often had less than this 2.5 tons per sailor ratio.

That Song Li didn't mention the word sailor because he didn't have, since there would be only sailors on the ships of his example. A grain ship would not be including a large staff of soldiers, blacksmiths, potters and carpenters.
You assume grain ships didn't have soldier, Church said nothing of the sort. Merchant ships were frequently armed at the time because they had to defend themselves when they are attacked. It's clear that Song Li talked about person-ship ratio. Ships often have more soldiers because there is a shortage of ships, there are also many cases where ships were undermanned compared to the average grain ship. Lastly, you have yet to prove any fundamental difference between grain ships and warships at all in their design.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
6,156
#97
Bart Dale said:
Since on the Anthony Rolls alone you have a dozen ships or most larger than 200 tons, and if we know for a fact there were more than a dozen English ships greater than 200 tons in existence, but none listed on HackneyScribe source, we can question the accuracy of his source.
Your logic is questionable at best, it's just plain grasping at straws ===>
I gave a source on the ships docked at London through a combined period of half a year, in which no English ships were over 200 tons
Anthony Roll shows some English ships over 200 tons, ergo you conclude my London list may be inaccurate.

What source did you use to show that the >200 ton English ships in the Anthony Roll were docked in London in the months of "October and November 1567" or "May through August 1568"? None? Then your argument have no basis, and that is just one hole in your argument.

My source shows the tonnage of ships docked in London from a combined period of 6 months in 1567 and 1568. Just because there are some English warships bigger than 200 tons, does NOT mean they just HAD to dock in London during that time, as that is what your logic dictates. That's something you need to prove.

Here's my source again on the Anthony Roll Call:


Source: The Anthony Roll of Henry VII's ships, by DM Loades
Note: Tonnage of the Holy Bark was not provided in above source

^If anything, it listed well ABOVE a dozen English ships with over 200 tons (nearly 30). However, it also listed nearly 30 ships of 100 tons or less. Something that your cherry-picked statements haven't mentioned. On the other hand, English and other European ships docking at London are much smaller, with none being over 200 tons, and only 2 foreign ships being over 200 tons:


From Ports in Perspective: Some Comparative Materials on Roman Merchant Ships
Quote from same source: "In the months of October and November 1567 and May through August 1568, 339 ships of known registry and tonnage docked at the Port of London. Their capacities, as estimated by the port's customs officials, are given in Tble 1. In this sample, ships of 40 tons burden or less make up 56% of the total, ships of 60 tons or less 82%, and ships of 100 tons or more only 4.7%." Author also states that 61 of the 400 vessels recorded did not give tonnage records.

Any reasonable person would take a good look at both sources and come to the conclusion that the largest warships in the Anthony Roll are simply not representative of typical English ships. But when you looked at it, you conclude that the source you don't like lacks credibility, based on very questionable logic.

Second, at least heavenlykaghan and I have sourcing. Heavenlykaghan is the one doing all the quoting, whereas all you do is question the validity of sourcing using very questionable logic, if not outright racist logic [ie trying to paint the credibility of all Chinese sources under the same brush]. On the other hand, the one time you were asked on sourcing, you've ignored the request.

This is a thread about East Asian Ships. This started when somebody gave the tonnage of one excavated East Asian ship, with zero mention about European ships, and you went on a tangent about how European warships are bigger, and hence we're talking about European ships. So next time you, as you are so prone to do, accuse people of "boasting" abut non-white achievements, look in the mirror. At least the people you accused of boasting either 'boasted' in the appropriate thread for it, or replied to the appropriate statement for it.
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#98
Your logic is questionable at best, it's just plain grasping at straws ===>
I gave a source on the ships docked at London through a combined period of half a year, in which no English ships were over 200 tons
Anthony Roll shows some English ships over 200 tons, ergo you conclude my London list may be inaccurate.
London is not the only port in England, and it is not even directly on the seas. Large ships might well have chosen different ports to dock at, where they did not have to fight tidal currents of the Thames river.

The West Indian Docks were created to handle the large ships that went to the West Indies, and later the East India Docks were created as well, but those docks did not exist in the 16th century.

At the same time, evidence is that Chinese ships are even smaller.

Dated one hundred years after Zheng He, but still before 1597, the two ship-
yard treatises, Nanchuan ji and Longjiang chuanchang zhi also contain illustra-
tions of ships and many details that shed light on this discussion.79 The second
chapter of the Longjiang treatise includes illustrations of all twenty-four types of
ship that were being built at the shipyard in 1553 when the treatise was written,
with the dimensions of each ship given in a panel above its illustration........
.
.
.
Considerable detail is given about the ships that are covered in Longjiang
chuanchang zhi. In addition to their length, width, and height, as noted above,
we are also told the amount of the various materials (including wood) that were
needed to construct them, and the number of man-days needed for construction
and repair. The largest ship for which such details are given is 400 liao. Zheng He: An Investigation into the Plausibility of 450 FT treasure ships Sally Church, pg 25


Noe, the Chinese documents demonstrated ships smaller than those of the London records you cited. 400 liao is only 50 tons, and that is the largest of the Chinese ship types listed. By you own evidence the Chinese ships, even Chinese commercial ships, were smaller, much smaller than European ships of the same time. None of the Chinese ships listed, and there was considerable details, shows any ships comparable in size with even your own London port records. There isn't even a ship type listed in any detail larger than 50 tons, and that doesn't even take into quantity. Your own records shows European ships much larger than that.


What source did you use to show that the >200 ton English ships in the Anthony Roll were docked in London in the months of "October and November 1567" or "May through August 1568"? None? Then your argument have no basis, and that is just one hole in your argument.
What evidence to you have from the other English ports? What evidence do you have that London was the primary port of England at this time? Bristol and Liverpool were major English ports, and since ships would not have to travel upriver, could very well be prefered

My source shows the tonnage of ships docked in London from a combined period of 6 months in 1567 and 1568. Just because there are some English warships bigger than 200 tons, does NOT mean they just HAD to dock in London during that time, as that is what your logic dictates. That's something you need to prove.
I never said large ships did have to dock. But I know that Medieval cogs were often 200 tons, 300 tons, and ships of this time would be larger - unlike for China, there is a general increase in ship sizes over time in Europe. The fact your source doesn't reflect those larger sources indicates a problem with its reliability or accuracy. The data may be accurate, but it could reflect a bias, that just as today larger ships don't dock at London but other English ports, the same thing



And you need to proved that larger English ships did not simply dock somewhere besides London. We know that Bristol and other places were major English ports, and not having to go upriver, might have caused large ships to preferrentiall dock at those port. Even today, the larger commercial ships don't dock at London directly.

Here's my source again on the Anthony Roll Call:


Source: The Anthony Roll of Henry VII's ships, by DM Loades
Note: Tonnage of the Holy Bark was not provided in above source

^If anything, it listed well ABOVE a dozen English ships with over 200 tons (nearly 30). However, it also listed nearly 30 ships of 100 tons or less. Something that your cherry-picked statements haven't mentioned. On the other hand, English and other European ships docking at London are much smaller, with none being over 200 tons, and only 2 foreign ships being over 200 tons:


From Ports in Perspective: Some Comparative Materials on Roman Merchant Ships
Quote from same source: "In the months of October and November 1567 and May through August 1568, 339 ships of known registry and tonnage docked at the Port of London. Their capacities, as estimated by the port's customs officials, are given in Tble 1. In this sample, ships of 40 tons burden or less make up 56% of the total, ships of 60 tons or less 82%, and ships of 100 tons or more only 4.7%." Author also states that 61 of the 400 vessels recorded did not give tonnage records. [/quote]

You are the one cherry picking your data. You provided data for a single port, for a single year, and even then it shows 34 ships LARGER than the largest ship size even listed for the Chinese

Any reasonable person would take a good look at both sources and come to the conclusion that the largest warships in the Anthony Roll are simply not representative of typical English ships. But when you looked at it, you conclude that the source you don't like lacks credibility, based on very questionable logic.

Second, at least heavenlykaghan and I have sourcing. Heavenlykaghan is the one doing all the quoting, whereas all you do is question the validity of sourcing using very questionable logic, if not outright racist logic [ie trying to paint the credibility of all Chinese sources under the same brush]. On the other hand, the one time you were asked on sourcing, you've ignored the request.

This is a thread about East Asian Ships. This started when somebody gave the tonnage of one excavated East Asian ship, with zero mention about European ships, and you went on a tangent about how European warships are bigger, and hence we're talking about European ships. So next time you, as you are so prone to do, accuse people of "boasting" abut non-white achievements, look in the mirror. At least the people you accused of boasting either 'boasted' in the appropriate thread for it, or replied to the appropriate statement for it.[/QUOTE]

London is not located directly on the sea, and is not and has not been England's primary seaport. Very large ships would like have docked where access to the sea was greater. like Bristol or Liverpool
 
Feb 2011
6,156
#99
Bart, let me get this straight:

-I gave the average ships docked in 16th century London. You say this is "cherry-picking" data because it only shows one city, not all of England, and you demand that I show data from all of England.
-You gave the shipping size from one Chinese port from the source of Sally K Church, and you misrepresented what she said completely, a half-truth at best. You do not say this is "cherry-picking" data even though Sally K Church mentioned larger Chinese ships, nor did you demand from yourself data from all of China.
When I provide data from London you say it's not enough because it's just one port, yet you provide data from just one shipyard and you misrepresent it.

Also this is my third time asking you to provide sourcing for your statement: Analyizing the ships of the 16th century Athony Roll, the 59 ships on the roll had a total of 8320 crew (sailors, soldiers, gunners)
Which source said that the Anthony Roll listed a total crew size of 8320 men?

Now you make even more unsourced statements with no quotes: Which source said that London is limited to small sized ships as you claim, then you should show it but you have not. Only unsourced statements.

Bart Dale said:
Noe, the Chinese documents demonstrated ships smaller than those of the London records you cited. 400 liao is only 50 tons, and that is the largest of the Chinese ship types listed.
As usual you are misquoting your source once again, I am really sick and tired of this habit:
The one quote you gave so far is misrepresented, here is the whole quote: Considerable detail is given about the ships that are covered in Longjiang chuanchang zhi. In addition to their length, width, and height, as noted above, we are also told the amount of the various materials (including wood) that were needed to construct them, and the number of man-days needed for construction and repair. The largest ship for which such details are given is 400 liao. Two ship types are designated by this size, a combat ship 9.85 zhang in length and a patrol ship of 8.8 zhang, both approximately 91 ft long. Nanchuan ji also has 400 liao combat patrol boats, both 8.6 zhang long, but this is not the largest ship recorded in this work. There is also an entry for a 1,000 liao ocean-going ship. Unfortunately its dimensions are not given, but curiously the amounts of the different types of wood that were used for its construction are specified...

Ergo 400 liao is NOT the largest Chinese ship listed as you claim, it is not even close. 400 liao is simply the largest type of ship in which the most technical details are given, but it is not the largest ship listed, not even close. And it is only from one shipyard. You accuse me from bringing port records for only one city (London), yet you do the exact same thing AND you misrepresent your source on top of that.

Bart Dale said:
I never said large ships did have to dock. But I know that Medieval cogs were often 200 tons, 300 tons, and ships of this time would be larger - unlike for China, there is a general increase in ship sizes over time in Europe. The fact your source doesn't reflect those larger sources indicates a problem with its reliability or accuracy. The data may be accurate, but it could reflect a bias, that just as today larger ships don't dock at London but other English ports, the same thing
The fact that my primary source doesn't reflect your idea that European ships were often 200 to 300 tons (most being 40 tons), means that your idea that Medieval cogs being around 200-300 tons is incorrect as well. That is, until you have sources of the same quality or above to prove otherwise. 'Same quality or above' means primary sourcing, as my source was drawn from London's contemporary port custom officials whereas all we have from you is your own word.

Now let us continue, since London isn't enough for you:
Within the tonnages recorded for the period 1686-91, ships coming from England [to Port Royal] enjoyed a clear predominance in their total tonnage, which in almost every case amounted to more than half the total. This did not mean, of course, that the English ships were more numerous. In fact, 240 ships came from England and Africa between 1686 and 1691, as opposed to 363 from the North American colonies. However, the latter vessels' total tonnage was only 9720 against a total tonnage of 28025 for the transatlantic vessels. The North American boats were quite small, averaging a little over 25 tons, whereas the others averaged about 120 tons. - Port Royal, Jamaica by Michael Pawson, David Buisseret, pg 87
The statistics came from the registers of "Reginald Wilson, naval officer, in pursuance of the provisions of the Navigatin Acts"

So even near 1700 AD average ship size was not 200-300 tons, so how could Medieval cogs be commonly 200-300 tons? Remember, it was you was claimed "there is a general increase in ship sizes over time in Europe".
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
Your logic is questionable at best, it's just plain grasping at straws ===>
I gave a source on the ships docked at London through a combined period of half a year, in which no English ships were over 200 tons
Anthony Roll shows some English ships over 200 tons, ergo you conclude my London list may be inaccurate.
London is not the only port in England, and it is not even directly on the seas. Large ships might well have chosen different ports to dock at, where they did not have to fight tidal currents of the Thames river.

The West Indian Docks were created to handle the large ships that went to the West Indies, and later the East India Docks were created as well, but those docks did not exist in the 16th century.

At the same time, evidence is that Chinese ships are even smaller.

Dated one hundred years after Zheng He, but still before 1597, the two ship-
yard treatises, Nanchuan ji and Longjiang chuanchang zhi also contain illustra-
tions of ships and many details that shed light on this discussion.79 The second
chapter of the Longjiang treatise includes illustrations of all twenty-four types of
ship that were being built at the shipyard in 1553 when the treatise was written,
with the dimensions of each ship given in a panel above its illustration........
.
.
.
Considerable detail is given about the ships that are covered in Longjiang
chuanchang zhi. In addition to their length, width, and height, as noted above,
we are also told the amount of the various materials (including wood) that were
needed to construct them, and the number of man-days needed for construction
and repair. The largest ship for which such details are given is 400 liao. Zheng He: An Investigation into the Plausibility of 450 FT treasure ships Sally Church, pg 25
Noe, the Chinese documents demonstrated ships smaller than those of the London records you cited. 400 liao is only 100 tons, and that is the largest of the Chinese ship types listed. By you own evidence the Chinese ships, even Chinese commercial ships, were smaller than European ships of the same time. None of the Chinese ships listed, and there was considerable details, shows any ships comparable in size with even your own London port records. There isn't even a ship type listed in any detail larger than 100 tons, and that doesn't even take into quantity. Your own records shows European ships were bigger than the Chinese ships, both warships and commercial ships.


What source did you use to show that the >200 ton English ships in the Anthony Roll were docked in London in the months of "October and November 1567" or "May through August 1568"? None? Then your argument have no basis, and that is just one hole in your argument.
What evidence to you have from the other English ports? What evidence do you have that London was the primary port of England at this time? Bristol and Liverpool were major English ports, and since ships would not have to travel upriver, could very well be prefered

My source shows the tonnage of ships docked in London from a combined period of 6 months in 1567 and 1568. Just because there are some English warships bigger than 200 tons, does NOT mean they just HAD to dock in London during that time, as that is what your logic dictates. That's something you need to prove.
I never said large ships did have to dock. But I know that Medieval cogs were often 200 tons, 300 tons, and ships of this time would be larger - unlike for China, there is a general increase in ship sizes over time in Europe. The fact your source doesn't reflect those larger sources indicates a problem with its reliability or accuracy. The data may be accurate, but it could reflect a bias, that just as today larger ships don't dock at London but other English ports, the same thiing was probably true in the 17th century. The Largest ships would likely have preferred to dock at other ports than London, where they would have to fight the currents of the Thames River, will meant the sample size is preferentially skewed to smaller ships sizes.

COG typical dimensions:
Tonnage: 140 tons Renaissance ships - naval encyclopedia
Note, your dock information does not reflect what would have been a typical Cog size, which was a typical ship in northern waters, and cogs could be larger, up to 300 tons. I suspect the data was skewed, perhaps as I said because having to go up the Thames discouraged the larger ships. In any case, you own data proved that Chinese ships were smaller, since even a detailed listing of number of Chinese ship types show to be smaller than the English ships - even the largest listed in detail is smaller than the English ships ships we have a number of listings for.

The Peter von Danzig, originally a commercial ship, was 45 m long and was 833 tons ( Medieval Maritime Warfare Charles D Stanton Medieval Maritime Warfare [/quote0





Here's my source again on the Anthony Roll Call:


Source: The Anthony Roll of Henry VII's ships, by DM Loades
Note: Tonnage of the Holy Bark was not provided in above source

^If anything, it listed well ABOVE a dozen English ships with over 200 tons (nearly 30). However, it also listed nearly 30 ships of 100 tons or less. Something that your cherry-picked statements haven't mentioned.



On the other hand, English and other European ships docking at London are much smaller, with none being over 200 tons, and only 2 foreign ships being over 200 tons:


From Ports in Perspective: Some Comparative Materials on Roman Merchant Ships
Quote from same source: "In the months of October and November 1567 and May through August 1568, 339 ships of known registry and tonnage docked at the Port of London. Their capacities, as estimated by the port's customs officials, are given in Tble 1. In this sample, ships of 40 tons burden or less make up 56% of the total, ships of 60 tons or less 82%, and ships of 100 tons or more only 4.7%." Author also states that 61 of the 400 vessels recorded did not give tonnage records.
You are the one cherry picking your data. You provided data for a single port, for a single year, that is really cherry picking and even then it shows 5 ships LARGER than the largest ship size even listed for the Chinese ships in sources at the same time., and that does not even take quantity into account.

Even taking the all the small ships of the Anthony Rolls into account, the average size works out to 200 tons, well above even the largest ships that were listed in detail.

Second, at least heavenlykaghan and I have sourcing. Heavenlykaghan is the one doing all the quoting, whereas all you do is question the validity of sourcing using very questionable logic,
Both you and Heavenlykaghen use the very sources I provided, such as the Anthony Rollo, and Sally Church's "Zheng He: An Investigation", so what you say is a flat out lie, and both you and have been flat out deceitful and dishonest. You use evidence of one year, of just one port, to make a claim, that isn't even relevant to the topic. The topic is battle ships/warships, not any old ship as you and heavenlykaghan try to convert it to. And even then your own evidence supports what I said, that European ships were larger.

And it is heavenlykhaghan is the one making claims of that not only have no actual evidence to support, but are refuted by other evidence. Simply because some one could have done something does not prove, as Heavenlykaghan repeatedly asserted, they must have done it. It is up to him to prove that that the Chinese did, not me to prove that they did not. Proving that the Chinese were building ships of 5,000 lia, does not mean the Chinese were building warships of 5,000 liao.

For example, I know that the Qing build ships of 1,000 tons. But I find no evidence that the Qing built sailing ships even close to that size. The largest Qing sailing ship, the Ji Tongan ships, were only 26 m long [Rebuilding the Tongan Ships _Introducing the artifacts] versus 60 m of the Tek Sing [Tek Sing wreck | SILK ROADS] It is Heavenlykaghan, not I, who has been making unsubstantiated claims.