Anatomy of an oceangoing ship

No, several sailing lanes crossed the Mediterranean. The Egyptian grain ships crossed from south to north. They didn't circumnavigate the Med. Ships direct sailed across the Med from various ports. Few of these voyages were over two or three days. The size of cargo was similar or larger during the Roman period to Middle Age ships. The desire to remain close to coasts was due to the navigational technology of the time and, more importantly, the economy in replenishing fresh water daily over carrying large amounts of water. The circum-African and Hanno's voyages used galleys primarily for their maneuverability in unknown seas. Galleys require larger crews than sailing ships. Romans and Greeks utilized hybrid rowing/sailing ships which could travel with smaller crews at the loss of maneuver in adverse winds. The Portuguese and Spanish used caravels with fore-and-aft sails (lateen), but included sweeps for calms and inshore work. The maneuvarability of square sails is also underestimated by most folks.
I didn't deny that they sailed outside the Mediterranean and even circumnavigated Africa. What I said is that this circumnavigation of Africa was done by sailing only close to the African coasts, which is why they weren't true ocean-going ships.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
I am not contradicting you about the ancient African voyages. I am merely pointing out the issues with strictly sailing and combined sailing/rowing ships of the time were not due to technology, but the navigational technology, logistics, ignorance of the currents and lack of purpose for a trans-Atlantic voyage.

The question is what ship characteristics were required for trans-Atlantic voyages. These are a strong, watertight hull, reasonable sails, preferably with some upwind ability, decent maneuverability, a relatively large load capacity for burden, and a skilled and brave crew. These are available in the west by the Punic wars. Now, provide them with a compelling reason to sail away from the known world into the unknown.
 
I am not contradicting you about the ancient African voyages. I am merely pointing out the issues with strictly sailing and combined sailing/rowing ships of the time were not due to technology, but the navigational technology, logistics, ignorance of the currents and lack of purpose for a trans-Atlantic voyage.

The question is what ship characteristics were required for trans-Atlantic voyages. These are a strong, watertight hull, reasonable sails, preferably with some upwind ability, decent maneuverability, a relatively large load capacity for burden, and a skilled and brave crew. These are available in the west by the Punic wars. Now, provide them with a compelling reason to sail away from the known world into the unknown.

They may be able to reach, but in a shipwreck way, impracticable for the round trips that the Spaniards achieved in the 16th century. There's a reason why the Romans didn't circumnavigate Africa to trade with India like the Portuguese did and preferred to do it from the Red Sea which was infinitely easier. There's also a reason why the Romans were incapable of conquering any part of India by sea despite the not insignificant maritime trade. They simply lacked the ship technology. So you may be right that Mediterranean ships by the 3rd century BCE were capable of crossing the Atlantic, but they were not capable of doing a round trip. Even for Polynesians, it took thousands of years to perfect their ship technology to be able to make constant trips between the many islands of the Pacific and also reach the Americas, which they didn't do until around the 7th or 8th century CE, and that's with the incentive of doing so due to the necessity of finding new islands to survive.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
I am confused by your arguments. You state the Romans could only reach the America's in a "shipwreck way" noting the Spanish round trips. The Spanish suffered numerous shipwrecks in their voyages. You state the Romans never circumnavigated Africa to get to India, using the Red Sea instead. The Portuguese explored the African route BECAUSE they did not have access to the Red Sea route. The seafaring technology of the Polynesians was decidedly poorer than that of the Romans.

The Roman ships were not as advanced in structure, steering and sail technology as the Spanish. However, the question is whether the ships were capable of Trans-Atlantic voyages. The answer to this is yes. The Spanish had the incentive to try the passage.
 
Top