On Sat, 27 May 2006 20:40:20 -0500, kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>In article
><1148733007.914251.12840@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>jacklinthicum@earthlink.net (Jack Linthicum) wrote:
>
>> Frame first construction is stronger and more suitable for
>> ocean sailing, but doesn't effect the size which was the
>> question asked and answered.
>
> I have never seen the overall dimensions of Columbus's ships
>quoted. The only measure given was tonnage, which in this case
>meant tuns berthen not tons displacement.
Length was, as I understand it, limited to the length of the longest
tree of suitable thickness that could be found for the keel and, IIRC,
the availability of a trenail of suitable size (these had to be
wooden, and in one piece ... which meant they had to be secured from a
natural tree) to anchor the bowsprit (well, not that, the chunk of
wood at the front of the ship that forms the bow) to the front of the
keel (iron was used later, but not then).
As I understand it, even at this stage (the late 15th century), lack
of decent sized trees in England was a problem ... and they had to be
secured from the Baltic.
I doubt seriously that the Portugese and Spanish would have had any
better luck with really big trees *in* Portugal and Spain at the time!
So, yes, the ships couldn't be too long because of materials
limitations as much as anything else.
That's my understanding of things, and I am always happy to be
corrected by the non-hyperbolic.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au |
