Earlier Clipper Ships?

Delta Force

Banned
I was reading an article about technological transitions, and it claimed that sailing ship technology had been stagnant for centuries before steam ships were introduced. According to this argument, clipper ships were then developed to help better compete against steam ships, and they were able to successfully do so on some long distance routes until the late 1800s (some clippers soldiered on into the 1920s).

Obviously there were some material advances over the centuries, such as the introduction of iron hulls, but could clipper ships have been developed earlier? They could have been useful scouting for battle fleets and quickly supplying information to benefit imperial control and traders and merchants looking to get an upper hand.
 
What. How could one say that sailing ships were stagnant for several centuries? Just compare the caravels of 1500 to the standardized, proto-industrial ships of the line of Sané-de Borda. About the only common point between them is the sails.
 
Clipper and economics

A clipper ship carries a small cargo and has a large crew. In short, the cost per ton of freight is very high, so you need a good reason to build them.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Comparing 1750s battleships to 1800s battleships to 1840s battleships shows a distinct progress and refinement, so I think the thesis is problematic. (Steam doesn't come in for ships of the line until 1850.)
 

Driftless

Donor
A clipper ship carries a small cargo and has a large crew. In short, the cost per ton of freight is very high, so you need a good reason to build them.

Tea was an important cargo for OTL Clippers. Perhaps the spice trade for earlier days?
 
I see two problems with the idea of earlier clippers:

First technology: A lot of developments need to be made before you can built a full blown clipper. That just starts with a ship´s wheel, which was not introduced before the 18th century and until it was really matured technology we are almost in the middle of the 18th century. A tiller steered clipper seems hardly workable. Also frigates (as ships of comparable size) became fully rigged ships only during the 18th century. For the hulls it is even worse. A large enough, not too heavy nor too expensive, but stable wooden hull really becomes possible only with new ways of planking as introduced for example in the later ships of the Leda class in the 1810s. There is a reason why the immediate precusors of real clippers, like the Baltimore clippers, were small ships. Some parts of the clipper might be introduced earlier, especially the bow form. But not full sized clippers. It is technologically impossible.

And second the role. Clippers have some very few roles they can fill, namely the express transport of limited amounts of bulk cargo. For almost everything else they are either too large, too small, too light or too expensive in operations. Which explains why most sailing ships built at the same time or later adopted some features of clippers, but were no clippers.
 
historyfool, I basically agree with you but want to comment on the role you overlooked--military (and related, piracy). I read the Wikipedia article on Clipper Ships and it offered very little insight into the whys and wherefores of the timing of their introduction; many points raised in these replies here could be usefully incorporated into its history section I suspect. But it did remark that clippers were used both by navies and by pirates.

However, just as the low capacity points to a constraining limit in the commercial sphere, so does the importance of running light with heavy rigging to a clipper's speed suggest why their marital role would be peripheral and limited despite the clear advantage of speed. The Wikipedia article also comments that clipper ships had short service lives; being lightly built they did not wear well. Whereas, in the age of sail after the battle of the defense of England against the Spanish Armada, when cannon clearly tipped the balance away from the ancient dominance of boarding actions as a major, if not quite the only, mode of combat at sea, what mattered was being able to bring a devastating mass and rate of heavy, ship-killing firepower to bear on a foe. And although an advantage in weaponry might enable one ship to threaten to pepper another at such a long range the latter's inferior guns cannot threaten the attacker at all (the English in the Armada fight enjoyed just such an advantage, with superior guns) what was found to be the case, starting already with the Armada battle was that standing off that far, far enough to be perfectly safe, would do little damage to the enemy and use up all the powder and shot in short order. In order to inflict really punishing, crippling, ship-killing damage on the target, it was necessary to be willing and able to come into range of even an inferiorly armed ship's own weapons--a disparity in gun quality might mean the ship with the advantage suffers relatively little while the other is pounded into splinters. But the attacker will not get out unscathed!

Thus, however obvious it is that a British ship of the line of the Napoleonic War era was much evolved beyond 16th century galleons, both shared the characteristic of being quite strong, robust structures. A ship built on clipper lines with such a strong structure would have little room for provisions, much less extensive ammunition. It seems from comments above that new technology in basic ship construction had to be developed to allow the light hulls of the clippers, and apparently these new techniques were taken in the direction of doing more with less, rather than doing a lot more in terms of strength with the same masses as were used before. Thus clippers could handle the considerable stresses of their mode of operation--marginally. Taking shots at it from a set of cannon, though, one supposes the thin, carefully approached margins would be broken up completely in very short order.

Now with speed comes maneuverability, I would suppose--rather, at a high speed generally it is harder to steer, but the same heavy sail on a light sharp hull that can give speed can also give superior maneuvering at lower speeds. A clipper with a decent broadside (perhaps with not a lot of ammo to feed it for a long slugfest it could hardly survive anyway, but enough to give a punishing blast to a lightly armed merchantman) might well be able to outsail and threaten such a merchant ship caught out alone--thus the role of commerce raider and pirate is open to it, using high speed to evade naval forces that might come belatedly to the prey's aid or to avenge it. In a large navy, they could also serve as scouts and couriers, and perhaps even deliver crucial supplies. But clearly in a navy, the main battle line would have to consist of heavier, more conventional hulls that could slug it out with an enemy line.

A key feature defining a clipper, as set forth in the Wikipedia article, is that in addition to a light, water-slicing hull and a mass of sail aloft, is that the clipper keeps the sails up even in bad weather. How the light hull handles strong wind forces on its masts is partially a matter of technology, I suppose, but also (though the article fails to mention this and I might be mistaken somehow) seamanship. I don't know if a clipper crew was unusually large compared to a more conventional sailing ship of similar tonnage, but I would expect it must have been, and they would be constantly busy adjusting the rigging to take best advantage of the wind while avoiding overstressing the ship too much.

Thus, a clipper that tangles with other ships violently runs the additional risks that a defender can target the sails and rigging as well as the hull, and that vitally needed crew might be killed or otherwise taken out of action in a fight.

Something the article does mention is that clippers, tacking in powerful winds, often heeled over so much their leeward rails neared the waterline; it would be tricky and risky installing gunports to make for a broadside in hulls sailed in those conditions! I believe that watertight gun ports was something that had been developed in previous generations so it would not be impossible, but it would be another thing for a busy crew to keep an eye on. Along with securing the cannon against such drastic lists!

Thus perhaps it is more evident why, despite the obvious utility to a navy of faster communications, we don't hear a lot about naval clippers. Perhaps they existed but being relegated to an auxiliary role, never got the fame more robust if slower ships might earn.
 

Delta Force

Banned
What. How could one say that sailing ships were stagnant for several centuries? Just compare the caravels of 1500 to the standardized, proto-industrial ships of the line of Sané-de Borda. About the only common point between them is the sails.

Comparing 1750s battleships to 1800s battleships to 1840s battleships shows a distinct progress and refinement, so I think the thesis is problematic. (Steam doesn't come in for ships of the line until 1850.)

I think it means more in terms of the propulsion technology, or at least ship speeds, as in sailing technology (not sail ships) stagnating for centuries.
 
I think it means more in terms of the propulsion technology, or at least ship speeds, as in sailing technology (not sail ships) stagnating for centuries.
In its propulsion the clippers were not all that revolutionary though: They essentially took a standard rigging (either full or barque rigging) and just added higher masts with more sails. And it came at a cost. The Great Republic had with her full clipper rigg 130 men in her crew. Later she got a standard full rigging and the needed crew was reduced to "only" 60 men. Cutty Sark likewise got a reduced rigging after the tea routes went to steam ships and needed then only 2/3rds of its former crew.
 
The clipper ship's main advantage was also it's greatest weakness. Its narrow hull allowed for great speed, but like any sailing vessel it could be becalmed. It also could not haul large amounts of heavy freight so its cargo tended to be low weight/high value like spices, silk, tea and mail, as well as passengers. As a warship it made for a good raider but it didn't stand a chance against a broadside from a man-o-war.

There were two things that really did it in. The first was the opening of the Suez Canal. This meant ships from Europe didn't have to sail around Africa but only steam ships could use it because using it meant sailing into a headwind and the canal was too narrow for sailing ships to tack. The second was the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad, which meant cargo could be shipped overland instead of around South America.
 
Too light for military

Clippers were lightly built; if you armed them, the recoil from their own guns would tear them apart!
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I think it means more in terms of the propulsion technology, or at least ship speeds, as in sailing technology (not sail ships) stagnating for centuries.
I'm still not sure it quite applies. There's a lot of refinement going on - indeed, the first Clipper designs were used to run British blockades some decades before they became more widespread.

So you could probably have them in the 18th century, but it may be that it took until the early-mid 19th for them to be economical overall.

Hmm... perhaps a "reefer" type trade? Pack a ship's hold full of ice and Argentinian/Rio de la Plata beef carcases, sail north at maximum speed, and you might have some make it to market edible!
 
Top