Talk:Caravel

INFORMATION

What was a typical speed for a caravel? 71.162.227.105 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Estimates of typical crew size & cargo capacity would be nice as well.[reply]

ISSUES

What are the sources for this article??

Input from someone more knowledgeable would be appreciated...

it would be about 35 knots per minutes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.96.36 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get this number from (35 knots per minutes)? Part of the problem with this article is that it does not cite it sources, and while I think it is good that information is being contributed, I don't think one can simply put down numbers without a source behind it. It takes away Wikipedia's authority on a topic.Spartemis (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis[reply]

The rigging of the "caravela redondo" in the third photo is very inauthentic -- the sails are too small, the booms at the base of the sails should not be there, and the mizzen mast should have a lateen sail on it. Are there no better illustrations available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.114.210 (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC) it is amazingly crappy[reply]

qarib

According to the source (The Eastern origins of Western civilisation ) it is a small fishing boat that is based on the Arab qarib John M. Hobson (2004), [1], p. 141, and the caravel is based on the small fishing boat. Could we find a neutral source that names the fishing boat, describes the "qarib", and documents the ancestry ? This could be included in a more straight forward manner.J8079s (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Islamic maritime law: an introduction By Hassan Salih Khalilieh pg 23 [2]"qarib" is just means "boat"

ok here is a good source for the history of the caravel The Portuguese caravel and European shipbuilding: phases of development and diversity Volume 183 of Série Separatas Martin Malcolm Elbl UC Biblioteca Geral, 1985 [3] (full view at google books) unfortunately it seems to mean the entire history section needs to be re-written if anyone has the time. The qarib (caravo) is not the problem.J8079s (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, this is more than speculative. There hadn't been any muslim ships in Portugal since the foundation of the country. In Portuguese, "cara" means face and "vela" means sail. Until proven otherwise, this has nothing to do with Arabic. Utter nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.74.192 (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, contributors have provided multiple sources for the origin of the word caravel as arabic qarib or latin carabus and the origin of the design of the caravel as fishing vessels like the qarib, while you have provided speculation based on your own personal knowledge of Portuguese, violating WP synth. Since they have sources and you have none, your guess is more likely a false etymology.Pwoodfor (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Versifying

We sailed away on a winter's day
With fate as malleable as clay
But ships are fallible, I say
And the nautical, like all things, fades
And I can recall our caravel
A little wicker beetle shell
With four fine masts, and lateen sails
Its bearings on Cair Paravel

— Joanna Newsom (2004), "Bridges and Balloons", Track 1, The Milk-Eyed Mender

203.217.150.69 (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution appended. AukusRuckus (talk)

Multiple Issues

There are several recurring issues that seem to be being repeatedly reintroduced in the article. First, ships don't "weigh" a given number of tons, they displace them ... their actual weight is significantly less than their displacement (or they would sink, in fact). Secondly, a caravel is known primarily by its hull, not its rigging...it can be square rigged or lateen, or a combination of both, depending on the needs of the moment. Thirdly, the Santa Maria was not a "smaller" ship it its companions; it was larger, and wasn't even a caravel at all in fact (though the Nina and Pinta were). Fell Gleaming^talk 19:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, displacement, for a ship, is just a more obscure way of meaning weight, as they are exactly the same. The notion that a vessel must weigh less than their displacement, otherwise they would sink, is ridiculous. The fact that a floating vessel remains stable at the surface of water means that its weight and that of the displaced water is exactly the same. Therefore, drawing up a distinction between displacement and weight is completely pedantic, unless one is referring to sunken ships (or to magical flying ships, for that matter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.210.97.251 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no, this isn't true at all. The displacement of a ship is the maximum rated amount of water the hull will displace -- the weight of the ship and all cargo when fully loaded. The ship itself weighs considerably less, or it would indeed sink the minute the crate of cargo or passenger went on board. The term is used in a precise manner, it's not simply some "obscure way of saying weight". Fell Gleaming ^talk 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the amount of water displaced by a ship must necessarily be the exact same weight as the ship itself. It's physically impossible for a ship to displace more or less water than the ship weighs. What you're talking about is the maximum displacement. Most ship specifications give both their loaded and unloaded displacement. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I know it's six years later, but it didn't seem right that some unsigned ignoramus got the last word. Fell was right about everything. The weight of a ship is basically a constant; add up the weight of all the materials its made of and you get the weight. Maximum displacement is also a constant and it represents the amount of weight the ship can carry, in addition to its own weight, without sinking. Displacement is not a constant, it varies based on how much cargo is aboard and even factors like the type and temperature of the water. An unloaded ship rides high in the water, displacing less of it. A loaded ship rides lower and displaces more. So, when the article says that a ship has "a tonnage of 50 to 160 tons," it's talking about maximum displacement. The ships don't weight 50 to 160 tons any more than a half-ton van weighs a half-ton. The van is rated to carry a half-ton. Pwoodfor (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for improving the article

I've found a couple of interesting sources for the article. I'll work them in eventually if nobody else does it.

Schwarz, George R. "Caravel". Texas A&M University. Retrieved 24 November 2010.
Schwarz, George R. (2006). Filipe Vieira de Castro and Katie Custer (ed.). "The Iberian Caravel: Tracing the Development of a Ship of Discovery" (PDF). Proceedings of the Symposium "Edge of Empire". Society for Historical Archaeology: 23-42. Retrieved 24 November 2010.
Schwarz, George R. (2008). The history and development of caravels (PDF). Texas A&M University. Retrieved 24 November 2010.
Custer, Katie (2006). Filipe Vieira de Castro and Katie Custer (ed.). "Exploration and empire: iconographic evidence of Iberian ships of discovery" (PDF). Proceedings of the Symposium "Edge of Empire". Society for Historical Archaeology: 23-42. Retrieved 24 November 2010.
Keith, Donald H. (1992). "Replicating a Caravel". Historical Archaeology. 26 (4): 21–26. (I got a copy via WP:WRE)
Keith, Donald H. (1989). Arnold III, J. Barto (ed.). "Ships of Exploration and Discovery Research". Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference. Denise C. Lakey, Joe J. Simmons III, and Mark D. Myers. Society for Historical Archaeology: 87-109. (ditto)
Lyon, Eugene (1992). "Navigation and Ships in the Age of Columbus". In James R. McGovern (ed.). The World of Columbus. Mercer University Press. pp. 79–98. Retrieved 25 November 2010.
Wilford, John Noble (October 14, 1986). "Translated Documents Capture Ambience and Aroma of the Nina". New York Times. Retrieved 25 November 2010.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are very good, I've found some more myself that I hope to work in if the article doesn't change.

Smith, Roger C. “Vanguard of Empire: Ships of Exploration in the Age of Columbus.” Oxford University Press, New York: 1993 This source not only goes into what ships were used in Iberia, but it also goes through the basics of how the ship functioned (actual reasoning behind rigging, hull etc). The other source gives a rather general, but insightful view of ships: Culver, Henry B. “The Book of Old Ships: And Something of Their Evolution and Romance.” Garden City Publishing Company, Inc. 1924. Spartemis (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis[reply]

One source that should be mentioned is "Columbus' Ships" by Jose Maria Martinez Hidalgo (Barre Publishers, 1966). I am surprised that it was somehow overlooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRLittle (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Vandalism

Someone changed all references to Portugal and the Portuguese to "Korea" and the "Koreans" so I reverted it and then did by hand the references that weren't caught by the undo. Hope I did it correctly. Grumpy otter (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ETYMOLOGY

It seems that there is some controversy as to where the caravel received its name. This is not just an issue on Wikipedia, but rather with all sources documenting the caravel. I found a source that gives some possibilities for the origin, and I'll add them, but before I do, just wanted to get some feedback from the community and/or see if you agree.

"The origin of the name of this type of vessel has elicited at various times considerable divergence of opinion. But the weight of the modern authority is in agreement with M. Jal in ascribing the word to the Greek Kαραβος (a light vessel." reference: Henry B. Culver. "The Book of Old Ships." Garden City Publishing Company, INC. 1924, p.91 Spartemis (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis[reply]

Assuming that fifteenth-century Portuguese sailors knew Greek, that may be right... But considering that not even today that is the case, I would take such etymologies with a large pinch of salt. The vast majority of Portuguese words that can be traced to a Greek origin were received through Latin. So what would be the Latin, Medieval Latin or Galician-Portuguese equivalent for that term? The truth is there is no evidence of any such Greek (or even more bizarrely Arabic) etymology. As far as we know, "caravella" (or "caravela" in its modern rendition) is a modern term. Strangely most of the authors quoted in wikipedia entries regarding Portuguese haven't got the faintest of the language, but find it feasible for etymologies and historical origins to derive from everywhere else but the language itself. For anyone acquainted with Portuguese both "cara" and "vela" are common words meaning literally "face" and "sail". How the two came to be together to form a word, something like "facesail", is the question that should be asked, along with what that meant for fifteenth-century sailing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.74.192 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I responded to this same issue above, but since this is specifically about etymology and not design, I'll give it another go. There is controversy about the origin of the word caravel, but it pretty much boils down to either the late latin carabus (which came from the greek), or the arabic qarib (which probably also came from the latin). As for your "strangely" and "bizarrely," words very rarely come from the language itself. Are we to look at a documented history of ships similar to the caravel with names similar to the word caravel in languages that are either the origin of portuguese (latin), or closely related by geography and culture (Muslims ruled portugal only two centuries before the first modern caravels were built and trade continued, so yeah, arabic), and then say "sail-face, I guess they just made it up?" Since this is wikipedia, why don't we go with the sources instead.Pwoodfor (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

ok this article just sucks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.7.122 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

Please, if you're an artist, draw a big one and upload it, without a cross, because not all Earthlings are followers of the same metaphysical belief(s) (including atheism, and quantum field theory) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4104:3b00:7d34:c50a:b735:10de (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lateen sail

in the article reads "The lateen sails gave it speed and the capacity for sailing windward (beating)." However in article 'lateen sail' it says square sail performs equally, even windward. So one of those must be wrong. 217.140.211.220 (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, consider which article has references to support the text. Secondly, Lateen says their performance was actually very similar. Similar is not equal. The point made in the Lateen article is that considerations other than windward ability are believed to have contributed to the steady replacement of square rig with lateen at the end of the classical period.

However, this article is deficient in repeating many of the misunderstandings and oversimplifications made by some maritime historians. The bit about lateen being more manoeuvrable is, without qualification, utter nonsense. The rudder mounted on the sternpost (as opposed to the quarter rudder of the Mediterranean) would have given caravels better performance. However square rig is much more useful if entering confined waters, such as a river mouth. Lateen rig is actually difficult to tack in a vessel of any size, with a heavy yard that has to be moved over to the other side of the mast. In contrast, square sails can be backed to slow or stop a vessel and the process of backing and filling can be used to manoeuvre in the main channel when drifting with a tide or current (as in a river mouth). See for instance the comment on the re-rigging of HMS Grenville (1754) by Captain James Cook as he wanted a better handling rig for working surveying unknown waters. Cook particularly valued the ability to stop a square rigged vessel quickly. Overall, this article is less than satisfactory, but some of that is a function of the poor quality of sources available on the subject – not helped by the complete absence of any surviving archaeology of caravels. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]