Jump to content

Talk:Manila galleon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 15 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Goatmanatee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is so tiring

[edit]

holes in every wiki article, what were the galleys used for ! Juror1 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

We need a good image of a Manila galleon with references, NOT an Atlantic Ocean class Spanish galleon. The Manila galleons had a distinctive design for practical reasons.

Galleon coins

[edit]

Could "Manila Galleons" be interpreted as "magic" currency of Manila? I remember somewhere that "galleon" refered to gold coins...

why "magic" ?? if galleon also refers to gold coins a disambiguation link could be inserted at the beggining of the article, but I've never heard of this before. Intersofia 18:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have heard of this use too. Ingolfson (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bullion? Doubloon? There's no coin called a "galleon".--Wetman (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Money_in_Harry_Potter#Economy. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sizes compared

[edit]

The article states that the Manila Galleon was the largest wooden sailing vessel. This contradicts Junk_(ship), stating Chinese junks of the 15th to 17th century were much larger. Perhaps a reference can clear up these claims? Robogun 07:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim for the biggest Ming Dynasty Chinese junks under Ze Heng are disputed on practical engineering and sailing grounds. The largest indisputable wooden sailing ships ever built, like the 19th century Orlando of the US, undulated visibly with the sea waves even though they had iron braces. The biggest Manila galleons were as heavy or heavier than these much larger legendary junks. This means that at sea these giant junks would have been lightly built for their size and would have been uncontrollable in heavy winds and seas of the ocean and would have been destroyed in a storm. The only possibility is that these mammoth ships, if they were actually built, were for the emperor to sail about on the lower Yangtze River to show off. We can be quite sure that the largest class of sea going ships built in sixteenth, seventeenth and the early eighteenth centuries (apart from a few huge warships), were the Manila galleons and there were none anywhere near their size before.

One-way ships

[edit]

I read (and the article seems to imply) that the Manila Galleons were essentially not intended to travel back to the Philippines, but were rather broken up on arrival. Is this true / referencable? Ingolfson (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. And there were usually several operating at any one time even though they were referred to in the singular as "the" Manila galleon.

The present map

[edit]

An improved map that shows the direction of the route and the volta to use the tradewinds would materially improve the article.--Wetman (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need another line to show the transatlantic connection - in the same colour but a different shade.

Hawaii

[edit]

Earlier visitors to Hawaii could also have been Dutch off William Adam's epic voyage to Japan in 1600. It is known that a number of the crew from one of those ships abandoned the ships on an island "somewhere in the Pacific". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianwiki2010 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many islands are in the Pacific? Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much space in this article given to these speculations. Even the speculations should have good references, they should not come from wikipedian editors.

I added what I thought was a relevant question at the end of the section: "Then there is the question: if these Spaniards never left Hawaii, nor left any written or other visual records, can their visit be considered discovery?" User 203.206.34.128 reverted the edit, saying "Irrelevant; this section deals with whether any Manila galleons encountered Hawaii, not whether Spain as a country knew about Hawaii.". Fair enough - it wasn't important information, just a question that's better asked here rather than in the article anyway. Maybe the section title should use the word "encounter" rather than "discovery"? WCCasey (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Westbound Route-Guam?

[edit]

It seems unlikely that the westbound route would include a stop in Guam, since this adds considerable sailing distance and the leg from Guam to The Philippines would be a dificult one, primarily upwind. Probably, if there was a regular Guam stop it would be on the eastbound voyage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingssail (talk • contribs) 06:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't speculate, find good references or at least ask for them. Somebody may know some. Remember, Wikipedia:NOR

Manila History

[edit]

Shipwrecks of Hawai'i by Richard W. Rogers has a lot of valuable information on what the ship was used for and the history behind it. The book tells us that the ship was used for trading spices and would sail to Hawaii and other parts of the world just to sell thier spices. (Wfjones (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Notable Manila Galleons

[edit]

The histories of a number of Manila Galleons are known -- including where some wrecked. Should a section on Notable Galleons be added that then links to the pages on each individual ship? We could start it with a few entries such as Cermeño's San Agustin and add as we can. Since this east-bound part of the voyage was more dangerous, it has most of the interesting stories. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeVdP (talk • contribs) 06:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human cargo

[edit]

Human cargo on the manila galleons

http://books.google.com/books?id=e8DooQav850C&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=lmPFnzXU7o0C&pg=PA369#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=OSqhZphG_gQC&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=kk_iU0f-iT8C&pg=PA295#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=bDIwZ8BieWcC&pg=PA59#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=00FMIzzsv4MC&pg=PA243#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=uRwRwJa4FEAC&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=H7dBmBsd-XgC&pg=PA194#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=uyqepNdgUWkC&pg=PA390#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Yk-vlHYi8cQC&pg=PA312#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=yl0-LkNBsHMC&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZR4dCvH34_QC&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6nFxAAAAMAAJ&q=Manila+galleons+slaves&dq=Manila+galleons+slaves&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rMDSUNqlHtOC0QHxpoHYDg&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBg

http://www.mb.com.ph/node/297527/dark-#.UKcG_2t5mSM

http://www.mb.com.ph/node/298329/filipino-#.UKcHOmt5mSM

http://books.google.com/books?id=QKgraWbb7yoC&pg=PA1077#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=J9W4QO1b_A8C&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=HixA6ntrEygC&pg=PT58#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cHvZKzlznvUC&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Iq7_jDoi5PEC&pg=PA321#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=oGUt7-7sGRIC&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manila galleon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Size of the ships

[edit]

I've seen some back and forth in other articles re the size of these ships. That came to mind when this edit to the History of the Philippines article caught my eye. That edit cited this source, which I looked at, intending to just verify support. What I found was that, though it might be read to support the much simplified assertion in the article, that really requires more detail and that article was not the place for that detail; this article probably is. As I read the source, it was ordered in 1593 that the ships could not exceed 300 tons capacity and that was reduced to 200 tons in 1604. It was later thought, however, that larger ships meant more profit and tonnages increased to 400-500 tons by the 1580s. By the 1620s, though, the ideal dimensions were thought to range from 500 to 700 tons, but ship tonnages increased to 2,000 tons by 1633. in 1693, Governor Domingo de Zabalburu wrote a discourse against large ships and ordered that the largest ships were to be built at 800–900 tons capacity from then on and that an annual Manila-Acapulco run was to be undertaken by two of these. There is more detail on tonnage figures than that in the source. Perhaps some regular editor of this article could work that information into it, citing the source I've mentioned and linked. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where that source supports that edit. The only comparison I found is only to "the Atlantic world" and only during one period, and the later "It was praised as one of the largest ships ever built" is immediately followed by "but its scantlings point towards a size of 2,000 tons burden". The edit also separated the note on colonial income from its source (and I note that the whole paragraph is effectively copied from that source). CMD (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though I did not remove the assertion from that other article or argue the point on the talk page there. My suggestion for the addition of details re this from that source to this article stands. I would have tried to do that myself but it looked to me that the info would need to be interwoven into the current content and I didn't want to make a mess of that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current structure of the article is inadequate. The section currently titled "Spice trade" is a mishmash of all sorts of information, and there should really be a section on the ships themselves. We could pull the ship information out of "Spice trade" (not really directly about spice or trade), and put it into its own section. Then this new source could be added to that. Thoughts? CMD (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just glanced at the article before deciding not to try to add in this content about ship sizes. I'm not familiar with the article or with the details of the topic and past my experience in similar situations has been that I quickly get in over my head; I don't have time to cope with that right now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:CMD007

[edit]

@CMD007: You don't even read the sources you are using, don't you? Most of the chino slaves in the Manila Galleons consisted of slaves purchased from the Portuguese. And they come from India, Africa, etc., with the exception being Muslim Moro captives from the Spanish-Moro Wars, and for a few decades in the early Spanish Philippines, indigenous alipin slaves purchased by the Spanish while skirting the laws. THIS SOURCE does NOT verify your claim.

Chinos like Francisco followed in the path of free natives of the Philippines who emigrated to Mexico. These Filipinos (confusingly called chinos as well) laid the groundwork for chino slaves, who,like themselves, became indigenous vassals of the Spanish crown after chino slavery was abolished in 1672. Over time, all of their diverse ethnic identities were folded together into one Indian identity. Priorto abolition, however, Filipino immigrants had to contend with the legal and conceptual ambiguities that connected them to chino slaves of various ethnic backgrounds. Filipino immigrants were indeed Indians – the legal term for all indigenous peoples of Spanish colonies –but they nonetheless had to secure membership in the Republic of Indians in Mexico to benefit from the rights, privileges, and protections given to natives of Mexico.2 Filipinos, in other words, distinguished themselves from slaves by joining the Republic of Indians.The evolution from chino slave to indigenous vassal depended on theearly presence of native people of the Philippines who emigrated freely to Mexico after Spanish conquest.3 These free immigrants were impressed sailors who opted not to endure the return journey across the Pacific,traders and artisans, or simply adventurers who decided to seek their fortune in Mexico and profit from the recent launch of the ManilaG alleon trade. In Mexico, the viceregal government incorporated them,though not without resistance and hesitations, as indigenous vassals into existing judicial and fiscal structures. Filipinos thus became part of an increasingly multiethnic population and took part in redefining Indian identity in Mexico. They also pioneered a path to corporate membership followed by chino slaves after abolition.

...

Ramos’s definition of the term “chino” reflects a unique understanding of the transpacific slave trade and the origins of some of these people. He wrote,“in these parts, natives of India are called chinos; they all come from the Orient, by way of the Philippines, brought by the Portuguese.”5 This explanation strongly implies that most chinos were slaves, taken by Portuguese traders from South and Southeast Asia to the Spanish colony in the Philippine Islands, where they then boarded the Manila Galleon bound for Mexico.

...

The term “chino” generally referred to individuals who traveled on the nao de China (another name for the Manila Galleon); they were people from “the orient [who] came to stay or simply passed through.”6 Ramos thus described an important distinction: there were chinos who were slaves, and there were also chinos, generally natives of the Philippines, who were free immigrants, itinerant traders, or sailors. All chinos traveled to Mexico on the same ships of the Manila Galleon; the slaves, like Catarina, generally stayed, whereas free chinos had more mobility.

...

The presence in Mexico of free immigrants from the Philippines added further complexity to questions regarding where chinos came from, and who they were. Ramos makes several comments about countrymen from the Philippines who lived in Puebla.7 According to Spanish law, these native people were indigenous vassals, just like the natives of Mexico; they were Indians who owed tribute to the crown in exchange for certain rights and protections. In Mexico, the natives of the Philippines were called Filipinos, Indian chinos (referring to their legal status as indigenous vassals), as well as simply chinos. This confusing nomenclature caused some problems in Mexico, as free natives of the Philippines were sometimes confused with chino slaves and treated as such. For the most part, however, their presence in Mexico encouraged officials to conceive of all chinos as free Indians.  OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manila_galleon&oldid=1258424549"