Carracks in use after the 16th century?

May 2019
238
Earth
If wikipedia is to be believed...

"The galleon design came to replace that of the carrack although carracks were still in use as late as the middle of the 17th century due to their larger cargo capacity."
Carrack - Wikipedia

Would these have just been leftover ships from the later 16th century, or were there any shipwrights still building the carrack design after 1599? And did the design of carracks change much into the 1600s, or remain more or less the same as those of the later 1500s?

If there's any pictoral sources, or written info, on carracks that were in use after the 16th century, I'd like to see them.
 

MG1962a

Ad Honorem
Mar 2019
2,161
Kansas
If wikipedia is to be believed...

"The galleon design came to replace that of the carrack although carracks were still in use as late as the middle of the 17th century due to their larger cargo capacity."
Carrack - Wikipedia

Would these have just been leftover ships from the later 16th century, or were there any shipwrights still building the carrack design after 1599? And did the design of carracks change much into the 1600s, or remain more or less the same as those of the later 1500s?

If there's any pictoral sources, or written info, on carracks that were in use after the 16th century, I'd like to see them.
Well as I understand it the carrack sort of evolved into the galleon over a number of years. So I don't think anyone could set a definitive date for the last carrack or the first true galleon.
 
May 2019
238
Earth
Well as I understand it the carrack sort of evolved into the galleon over a number of years. So I don't think anyone could set a definitive date for the last carrack or the first true galleon.
I believe the Carrack tended to have a higher superstructure at the fore and a more rounded stern (in comparison to the lowered forecastle and squared off stern of the galleon). Galleons were also a bit less "squat" in appearance, with longer hulls. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in the later 16th century there was still a distinction being made between ships of the "carrack" and "galleon" type, with the former primarily used as a large bulk cargo carrier while the latter filled both commercial and military roles.
 
Aug 2019
16
SPAIN
Galleons were originally very small and didn´t evolve from the big beamy carracks. Yes, galleons had a higher ratio length/beam than merchants like the carrack and other merchant ships like the portuguese “nau” and the spanish “nao”; making it a handier vessel and more apt to be a warship.

The portuguese used big “naus” as indiamen until at least 1640. Some of them were very big, like the Madre de Deus, but the normal in first half 17th century were 600 ton naus.
It seems that english and dutch sailors used to call these big naus "carracks", but not the portuguese themselves:
The Affair of the Madre de Deus
 
  • Like
Reactions: hyuzu

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,803
United States
I believe the Carrack tended to have a higher superstructure at the fore and a more rounded stern (in comparison to the lowered forecastle and squared off stern of the galleon). Galleons were also a bit less "squat" in appearance, with longer hulls. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in the later 16th century there was still a distinction being made between ships of the "carrack" and "galleon" type, with the former primarily used as a large bulk cargo carrier while the latter filled both commercial and military roles.
If I remember correctly the galleon typically had a width-to-length ratio of 1:4 while the carrack had 1:3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hyuzu