Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

  1. #1

    Default Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    While you may find it almost universally said that Zheng He Treasure Ship's were extremely large, some 450 ft by 180 ft or so, there are a number of problems with these very large dimensions.

    1. First off, contemporary and near contemporary documents to Zheng He voyages do not give these excessively large dimension for the Treasure Ships, and the first evidence for these large dimensions come from a fantasy work of fiction, Luo Maodeng’s 羅懋登 novel about ZhengHe’s exploits, Sanbao taijian Xiyang ji 三寶太監西洋記, published in 1597, more than 150 years after Zheng He's voyages. The non fiction works that give these dimensions are even further removed from the time of Zheng He's voyages, a fact by itself which makes these dimensions suspect.

    As Dr. Sally Church says in her "Zheng He: An Investigation into the Plausibility of 450-FT Treasure Ships", page 6:

    If the novel was the source, whether directly or indirectly, we must examinewhat it says about Zheng He’s ships. It contains much that belongs to the realmof the fantastic, and many events are overblown and exaggerated. The charactersoften rely on magic or supernatural help, in both design and construction of theships. In chapter 15, when the emperor consults the elder Jin Bifeng 金碧峰 foradvice on carrying out the expeditions, the elder shows him various divine manuals that tell him the route they should follow, the countries they should visit, thepersonnel that will be needed to man the ships, and the types of ship that will berequired. http://contacthistory.com/wp-content...nta_serica.pdf
    Such a work does not inspire confidence as to the reliability of what it reports.

    2. Second, nautical engineer experts have challenged the engineering feasibility of these dimensions.

    At a conference entitled “Venture Toward the Seas” held in Twinsies in a bit to in September2001,1 Xin Yuan’ou, shipbuilding engineer and professor of the history of science at Shanghai Jiaotong University, presented a paper entitled “Guanyu Zheng Hebaochuan chidu de jishu fenxi” 關於鄭和寶船尺度的技術分析 (A Technical Analysis of the Size of Zheng He’s Ships).2 In this paper he argued that ZhengHe’s ships could not have been as large as recorded in the official Ming history (Ming shi 明史). According to that work, the ships constructed for Zheng He’s maritime expeditions were 44 zhang 丈 long and 18 zhang wide, equivalent to 447 ft by 183 ft (138.4 m by 56 m).3 A ship this size would have been roughly 1.4 times the size of an American football field,4 and approximately the same size as the USS Minnesota (456 ft long by 78 ft 10 in wide), a steel battleship launched in 1905 and later used in the First World War.5 In arguing against this size, Xin was motivated in part by an immediate, practical concern... "Zheng He: An Investigation into the Plausibility of 450-Ft Treasure Ships" pg 2

    3. The size of the ship yard basis where it is thought the Treasure Ships were built do not support these large dimensions given. While the docks were long enough, they were not wide enough.

    This size contrasts sharply with the size of the gigantic treasure ships described in some of the Chinese sources, which were supposedly 44 by 18 zhang(丈). These dimensions work out to approximately 137 m (450 ft) long and 56 m (183 ft) wide. If theyhad been this size, Basin 6 would certainly have been long enough. In fact, three ships of this size could have fit along the 421 m length. However, the basin would not have been wide enough to accommodate even one of these ships. The width of the basin was only 41 m (134.48 ft), while the beam of the ships was supposedly 56 m (183.68 ft).
    .
    .
    .
    Allowing for an overhang of the bow and stern, as well as some space between the ships, the basin might then have been divided into 3 or 4 separate sections each 50–68 m (165–225 ft) long. This way of looking at the site would tally with the view that the largest ships were probably less than 75 m (250 ft) long.They may of course have been even smaller http://www.shipwreckasia.org/wp-cont...s/Chapter3.pdf
    4. While we do not have contemporary documents giving the length and width of Zheng He's Treasure Ships, we do have other dimensions of the Treasure Ships from contemporary sources indicating much smaller ships.

    There are only 2 brief and incomplete descriptions of treasure ships written before 1490; the Jin Hai stele inscription erected prior to 1420 commenting on the employment of 2000-liao and 1500-liao vessels, and Kong Jen’s ‘Records of Foreign Countries in the Western Ocean’ date to 1435.......the meaning of the word liao is the subject of an ongoing debate between Barker (2005; 1989), Sleeswyk (1996), Chalmers (2005) and most recently Church (2005b). Su (2005: 212) has estimated that a 2000-liao vessel would have the carrying capacity of approximately 140 tons and a displacement of about 300 tons. Although these dimensions represent a large vessel, it certainly would not have been extraordinary.
    https://www.academia.edu/4632863/Chi...e_Ming_Dynasty
    There was also a Ming Dynasty tomb of Hong Bao, who was an official in Zheng He's fleet, that references ship sizes of 5,000 liao. Based on Su's estimate for the 2,000 liao ship, this would work out to 750 tons displacement. While this is large, it is not exceptionally large for the time.

    Dr. Sally Church suggest the liao might be 500 lbs, which would give a size of 1,250 tons. While that would indeed among the very largest ships of that time, it was would not have been [/FONT]unprecedented in size. The Grace Dieu built by Henry V around the same time was about 1400 tons, and unlike the Treasure Ships, we actually have found its remains. https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/...s/0/steps/8007. The Roman grain ship the Isis is given to be around 1200 tons, and later Spanish Manila Galleons could be 2000 lbs. The HMS Victory was around 2,142 tons burthen or 3500 tons displacement.

    So, given all the evidence, I think we can discount the alleged size of Zheng He ships. The actual Treasure Ship size would have been much smaller than the 30,000 tons given in the following link https://www.thoughtco.com/zheng-hes-...e-ships-195235.

    Also, the oft made comparison between Zheng He ships and that of Columbus ships are off based. Columbus largest ship, the Santa Maria, was not a particular large European ship for the time, Columbus wanted small ships since he was merely exploring the feasibility of a proposed route for future exploration, and a small ship can explore areas where large ships cannot go. The Venetian Senate felt compelled to limit the size of their galleys in 1440 to 200 tons.
    the Senate complained that the galleys werebeing built with capacities as high as 500 or 600 milliaria (260 to 300 tons), resulting ina large, unwieldy vessel.230 A 1440 law capped the merchant galleys at 400 to 440milliaria (200 to 220 tons) below deck
    http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bit...pdf?sequence=2
    Note, the advantage of the Venetian galley over cogs and Mediterranean round ships were in their greater manueverability, so making them too large defeated their very advantage. European cogs and round ships did not have such a limitation, and as the Grace Dieu showed, could be made much larger.

    These ships carried primarilyluxury goods and traveled long distances. Great galleys could carry between 140-200tons below deck, plus have room for over 200 men, of whom at least 20 were archersemployed to protect the vessel.79 There were around 170 oarsmen who were alsoexpected to defend the vessel if attacked. In comparison to the Mediterranean roundships and the cogs from northern Europe, merchant galleys were more maneuverable andsafer................Between the more crewmembers to pay, the license of a regulated voyage, and time spent waiting in ports aftertrade was completed, and longer voyages overall, merchant galleys were more expensiveto operate than were round ships. http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bit...pdf?sequence=2
    5. A 11 m rudder post is often cited as evidence for the very large Zheng He ships. However, Chinese ships typically had very large rudders for the ship size compared to European ships. In a contemporary description of the 19th century Chinese Keying, of about 800 tons, it describes the rudder as having 24 feet (7 m) in the water when fully lowered, and the rudder would have to be extended further than this just to reach the deck that it was steered on. 11 m certainly would not represent a ship vastly greater than the Keying as Zheng He's Treasure Ships would have to be. If fact, adding in the extra length required to reach the deck the rudder was steered at, the Keying rudder might have been 11 m overall. The 800 tons of the Keying would agree with some estimates for the size of the 5,000 liao ship listed on Hon Bao's tomb.

    Close by these is the most astonishing part of the vessel, theenormous RUDDER, not hung with pintles and gudgeons,the vessel having no stern post, but suspended to two windlasses by three large ropes made of cane and hemp: oneround a Windlass on the next deck, and two round a windlass on the upper deck of all, so that it can be raised orlowered according to the depth of the water in which thevessel sails. When the rudder is lowered to its full extentfor going to sea, it draws about twenty-four feet, beingtwelve feet more than the draught of the vessel ..http://library.umac.mo/ebooks/b35929352.pdf
    So, in summary, while Zheng He's ships were large for the time, they do not seem to be exceptionally so.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; October 07, 2019 at 11:16 PM. Reason: spelling spacing corrections

  2. #2
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,243

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    I think the best evidence for the high estimates of the treasure ship sizes rest with the discovered rudders, which you have mentioned with critical examination. The 19th century Chinese Keying junk ship doesn't necessarily have to corroborate or match the exact design of earlier Ming dynasty era ships from the 15th century, though. I'm no expert in Chinese nautical technology and evolution of Chinese shipbuilding, but from my laymen's view, a five hundred year difference between these two ship models could be the answer to that, especially after the Treasure Fleet was disbanded and scrapped for parts, without a subsequent imperial naval tradition to supplant it beyond a small insignificant naval force to patrol China's interior lakes and rivers as well as the coasts to fend off Japanese "Wokou" pirates. There were no more massive fleets like those of the Mongol Yuan dynasty invading Japan and Vietnam. Like the previous Ming dynasty, the Manchu Qing dynasty was also incredibly inward looking and isolationist when it came to dealing with foreign powers (especially colonial Europeans like the Italian Jesuits and Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and English who came to trade in the 16th-17th centuries). Like the Ming, the Qing did not care to expand their influence beyond the South China Sea. Instead the Manchus focused on expanding into Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang in Central Asia.

    Do we have comparisons of the Keying ship to incredibly older models of Chinese ships like those of the Song dynasty and beforehand? The junk-style ship with a steering post rudder seems to have developed during the ancient Han dynasty, as proven by clay models found in Han era tombs, but IIRC previous warship designs of the Warring States and Qin periods were basically like square-shaped floating castles on calmer lakes and rivers and weren't meant for oceangoing voyages. It seems like different eras of Chinese history produced different ship types that evolved from one form into another. For instance, Chinese junks don't seem to have featured bulkhead partitions until the Northern Song dynasty as evidenced by the writing of Zhu Yu in the 12th century.

    With that in mind, it's completely plausible to me that the huge 11-meter tall rudders discovered by archaeologists at the Ming era shipyards could have fit into ships that were proportioned more like late medieval European carracks, cogs or galleys, only much larger than them on average if the fanciful figures by Luo Maodeng are to be believed.

  3. #3
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Big or small rudders aside the key problem is the simple engineering stability of wooden construction. At the end of a Google its easy find bandied about size of the Zheng He ships that if build and did not sink immediacy are harbor queens at best.

    With that in mind, it's completely plausible to me that the huge 11-meter tall rudders discovered by archaeologists at the Ming era shipyards could have fit into ships that were proportioned more like late medieval European carracks, cogs or galleys, only much larger than them on average if the fanciful figures by Luo Maodeng are to be believed.
    Different rudders absolutely for ships that are absolutely different. Different tech.
    Last edited by conon394; October 09, 2019 at 06:39 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    I think the best evidence for the high estimates of the treasure ship sizes rest with the discovered rudders, which you have mentioned with critical examination. The 19th century Chinese Keying junk ship doesn't necessarily have to corroborate or match the exact design of earlier Ming dynasty era ships from the 15th century, though. I'm no expert in Chinese nautical technology and evolution of Chinese shipbuilding, but from my laymen's view, a five hundred year difference between these two ship models could be the answer to that, especially after the Treasure Fleet was disbanded and scrapped for parts, without a subsequent imperial naval tradition to supplant it beyond a small insignificant naval force to patrol China's interior lakes and rivers as well as the coasts to fend off Japanese "Wokou" pirates. There were no more massive fleets like those of the Mongol Yuan dynasty invading Japan and Vietnam. Like the previous Ming dynasty, the Manchu Qing dynasty was also incredibly inward looking and isolationist when it came to dealing with foreign powers (especially colonial Europeans like the Italian Jesuits and Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and English who came to trade in the 16th-17th centuries). Like the Ming, the Qing did not care to expand their influence beyond the South China Sea. Instead the Manchus focused on expanding into Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang in Central Asia.

    Do we have comparisons of the Keying ship to incredibly older models of Chinese ships like those of the Song dynasty and beforehand? The junk-style ship with a steering post rudder seems to have developed during the ancient Han dynasty, as proven by clay models found in Han era tombs, but IIRC previous warship designs of the Warring States and Qin periods were basically like square-shaped floating castles on calmer lakes and rivers and weren't meant for oceangoing voyages. It seems like different eras of Chinese history produced different ship types that evolved from one form into another. For instance, Chinese junks don't seem to have featured bulkhead partitions until the Northern Song dynasty as evidenced by the writing of Zhu Yu in the 12th century.

    With that in mind, it's completely plausible to me that the huge 11-meter tall rudders discovered by archaeologists at the Ming era shipyards could have fit into ships that were proportioned more like late medieval European carracks, cogs or galleys, only much larger than them on average if the fanciful figures by Luo Maodeng are to be believed.

    I don't know why you focus on the rudder, and ignored all the other evidence I presented. I only presented the Keying to prove that the 11 m size of the rudder does not prove the large dimensions of the treasure ship as many have claimed (rudder sizedoes not rule out the large ships either, it should be said). If the Keying, far smaller, could have a rudder similar in size, then the 11 m proves nothing.

    In fact, the rudder evidence is the least useful evidence I presented. Unless you know the design of the ship, and the dimensions of the rest of the rudder that the rudder post attached to, we can't make any definite claim of how big the ship was that the rudder post went with.

    The Keying looks like like picture of some Song dynasty ships I have seen, and given the conservative nature of Chinese ship construction it looks to be similar, but as I said, I mentioned the Keying only to illustrate a point - that a large rudder of 11 m does not prove a treasure ship of 450 feet actually existed, as some have done.

    The whole point of the thread was to prove Luo Maodong fanciful figures are not to be trusted. In light of all the contrary evidence, the 11 m rudder does not make the giant treasure ship plausible. Smaller, but still large ships of say 250 ft in length, yes, but even then the ships could still be smaller. The Keying was only 160 ft long, yet had a rudder that went 7 m into the waters implying a rudder post longer than that, maybe even 11 m. What size do you think the Treasure Ships were? If you think the rudder plausibly makes the treasure ships similar in sizes to the largest carracks, then I don't have any dispute with that.

    But if you think the 11 m rudder implies ships bigger than the largest carracks, then you have to know how big the largest carrack's rudder post were. What what the size odnrhe Grace Dieu:s rudder post? I have no idea, do you?
    Last edited by Common Soldier; October 08, 2019 at 09:22 PM. Reason: fix typo's

  5. #5

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Big or small rudders aside the key problem is the simple engineering stability of wooden construction. At the end of the Google easy find bandied about size of the Zheng He ships if build and did not sink immediacy are harbor queens at best.
    Indeed. Widespread acceptance of the unrealistic dimensions of the Treasure Ships has compelled me to created this thread. The dimensions commonly quoted for thr Treasure Ship are clearly fantasy, going against all actual experience.

    If these structures were ever actually built, they didn't sail on Zheng He's voyages, and so really are not the Treasure Ships. But I don't see why we should not regard these dimensions as sheet invented fantasy, with no reality at all to them. That Treasure Ships existed isnwithout a doubt, but these ships might have merely been large ships of the time, no bigger than the largest of other countries ships.

    Different rudders absolutely for ships that are absolutely different. Different tech.
    Very true. The HMS Victory had a rudder nearly 12 m tall, but a similarly tall rudder for a Chinese ship doesn't imply the Chinese ship was of a similar size. As I said, Chinese ships tended to have large rudders for their ship size, as the Keying, Princess Failing and illustrations of Chinese ships show. So a 11 m rudder post might imply a ship a lot smaller than the HMS Victory.

    I think the emphasis on the rudder post size is because that is the only evidence for the size of the Treasurer Ships they have. Unlike for Western Ships, where we have physical remains of very large ancient and medieval ships such as the Giant Caligula ships, the Lake Nemo Ships, and the Grace Dish, we don't have similar evidence for any very large Chinese ship. A single rudder post is all there is.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; October 09, 2019 at 06:15 PM. Reason: spelling

  6. #6

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    One thing I only touched on briefly, is that if the dimensions in the official Chinese sources fornrhe dimensions of Zheng He's Treasure ships are wrong, then what were the size of Zheng He's ships.

    I mentioned ready that a stele mentioned Zheng He 7th voyage ship sizes of 2000 liao are mentioned, and based on estimates of the value of the liao, that would mean ships of 300 to 500 tons. And another inscription, the Jin Hai stele effected before 1420, mentioned ship sizes of 2000 Liao, and 1500 Liao.

    But we also have indirect evidence of the ship size based on contemporary accounts of ship sizes. Gong Shen sailed on Zheng He's 7th voyage, and he gives crew sizes of 200 to 300 for Zheng He ships. A Ming official reported that a 100 man crew was required for a ship carrying a 1000 piculs (liao) of grain, implying 1 man per 2.5 tons* ("Zheng He: An Investigation into the Plausibility of 450-Ft Treauee Ships", Dr. Church page 15) which gives a figure of 200 men for a 2000 Liao ship, consistent with the crew sizes of 200 given by Gong Zhen. A ship that was going on a long voyage and might be expected to fight would likely have carried more men per its size than a grain carrying ship of the same size, which could account for the difference.

    Also, we know the number of ships and the number of people involved Zheng He's voyage. From that we can roughly estimate the crew sizes and hence the ship sizes. There are potential sources of error in this approach, since the number of ships given might not have included all the ships of the voyage but only the primary ones. Fei Xin, another participant on Zheng He's voyages, mentions on 48 Treasuee Ships sailing on the 3rd voyage, and we know from other accounts that Zheng He's fleet was composed od other ships than just the Treasure Ships. And the manpower for Zheng He's fleet likely included soldiers, scholars, and other passengers, so the figures are more than just the ship crews, would would inflate the ship's size. There was an contemporary inscription in Chan-Lo in Fuschian province that mentioned "more than a 100 ships" (see "Chinese Whispers: Zheng He's Treasure Ships in the context of Chinese Maritime Policy" Sarah Ward, pg 9), which would imply crew sizes of around 300.

    If we use Fri Xin's figure of only 48 Treasure Ships (and as noted, likely Fei Xin did not give the number of the ships in Zheng He's fleet), we can estimate of around 1400 tons for the Treasure Ship. But as noted, this number is almost certainly inflated, since there were likely more than just the 48 ships in the fleet, and many of the people in Zheng He's fleet would not be sailors but soldiers, and taking in both into account would lower the ship size of the Treasure Ships.

    In summary, for the Zheng He ship's sizes:

    1. Several independent lines of inquiry based on contemporary sources indicates Zheng He's ship sizes of around 300 to 500 tons.

    2. Zheng He had multiple voyages, and possibly had different sized ships on the different voyages. The estimate on ship size using Fei Xin gives 1400 tons, not too far off from the 5,000 Liao (1,250 tons) ship figure given on Hong Bao's tomb. As noted, Bao was an official in Zheng He's fleet.

    3. A size of 300 to 500 tons would not be extraordinary for the time, but would still be large

    4.1250 tons would be large, but not unprecrncently large. Roman grain ships like the ISIS were 1200 tons, and the Lake Nemi and Giant Caligula ships were bigger. However. 1250 tons would be an exception large ship for its time. Only a few other contemporary ships such as the Grace Dieu could exceed od match that size. However, the lines of evidence for a 1250 tons ship are much less strong than for the ships. Only a single piece of contemporary evidence givez that figure and calculations of questionable accuracy.

    5. The dimensions of 450 feet or even smaller 300 feet have no reliable basis.

    PS - There is some evidence to consider with regard to the Treause Ship sizes:

    1. Niccol de Conti described very large ships in his trip to India during the early 15th century. While his work is often cited to justify the size of Zheng He's ship, there are a few points to be made:

    A. De Conti never says the ships are Chinese and the paragraph where he gives the size is nestled in among comments about Indian customs and practices. The implicstion is that these could be Indian ships, not Chinese ships, he is discussing

    B. While some translations of Conti give the ships dimension as 2000 tons, other translations of Conti give 2000 butts instead. A butt is half the value of ton. 2000 tons would make these ships far larger than any in the West St the time, and only to be matched by the largest Spanish Manila Galleons a century or 2 later, and exceeds in the 18th century. 1000 tons, however, would have been matched by the very largest ships available in the West, but ships of these sizes would have been exceptional.

    2. Ibn Battuta and Marco Polo talk about large Chinese ships, but they are in the Song/Yuan dynasty, more than a century before Zheng He, and they lack specific descriptions of the ships. Ibn Battuuta mentioned the Chinese ships could carry 1000 passengers; for comparison. The Tek Sing 19th century junk, carried 2000 persons onboard when it sank. The Tek Sing was 50 m (165 ft) long and 1000 tons
    Last edited by Common Soldier; October 09, 2019 at 02:01 PM. Reason: add additional info.

  7. #7
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Very true. The HMS Victory had a rudder nearly 12 m tall
    Interesting. By eyeball the USS Constitution looks to be 8-9 meters.

    https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/20...shing-touches/

    But perhaps more interesting in terms of what a rudder tells you is the Nemi stern quarter rudder. They were big guys over 3 tons and nearly 12 meters in length. They ran a huge barge. But same basic ideal quarter rudders from bills of sale in Pisa and France over 11 tons and over 18 meters long (13th century AD). For round ships meant for the Atlantic coast and Med - I mean really working and sailing. But they would, even the largest have been smaller than the Nemi pleasure barges in dimensions and likely displacement (*). In this case the bigger rudder does not imply bigger boat.

    * The Development of the Rudder 11-1600 AD A Technological Tale. Lawrence Mott. (Book Now) but thethesis it was based on was available although the link has moved from the one I saved.

    ----------------

    Roman grain ships like the ISIS were 1200 tons, and the Lake Nemi and Giant Caligula ships were bigger. However. 1250 tons would be an exception large ship for its time


    And both were very specialized ships with very circumscribed 'missions'. No Greek/Hellenistic/Roman sailor would put out to sea on either to make the monsoon run to and from India.

    ------

    Another edit: Logic and the reality of wooden ships that work and don't send you men to the bottom does lead to the conclusion that the shall we say generous estimates of the ships is too large. But let's not forget just because the ships that did the work for Zheng He were of likely smaller size there is no reason to not maybe allow super sized prestige ships were also built and carefully stage manged at home ports for effect. Even the
    Grace Dieu was mostly an ego trip and harbor queen.
    Last edited by conon394; October 09, 2019 at 01:29 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    I can see a 100m river or lake barge being possible, especially on Yangtze, but for any wooden oceangoing ship, the practical limit is around 80 meters deck length.

    Te largest wooden oceangoing ship built was the Wyoming at 110m deck and 140m overall length, and it suffered and sunk due to its wooden construction. Due to its length and weight (roughly 3600 metric tons empty, 9100 metric tons at full load), the structure had to be steel reinforced, and even then, the keel flexed as its wood couldn't hold the shape well enough under load when encountering waves, thus loosening the planking and leaking water. The ship had to run pumps on full power, driven by a steam donkey engine on board, even at calm weather, and it foundered in storm.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Interesting. By eyeball the USS Constitution looks to be 8-9 meters.

    https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/20...shing-touches/

    But perhaps more interesting in terms of what a rudder tells you is the Nemi stern quarter rudder. They were big guys over 3 tons and nearly 12 meters in length. They ran a huge barge. But same basic ideal quarter rudders from bills of sale in Pisa and France over 11 tons and over 18 meters long (13th century AD). For round ships meant for the Atlantic coast and Med - I mean really working and sailing. But they would, even the largest have been smaller than the Nemi pleasure barges in dimensions and likely displacement (*). In this case the bigger rudder does not imply bigger boat.

    * The Development of the Rudder 11-1600 AD A Technological Tale. Lawrence Mott. (Book Now) but thethesis it was based on was available although the link has moved from the one I saved.


    Thank you fornthr post.. the only point I wanted.o make and proved, was that you cannot ship size from.just a rudder post. Thanks for more information from proving my point.

    ----------------


    And both were very specialized ships with very circumscribed 'missions'. No Greek/Hellenistic/Roman sailor would put out to sea on either to make the monsoon run to and from India.


    We.don't know the sailing capabilities of these grain ships or Caligula's Giant ship. Carrying soolid stone block of some 260 tons is no mean feat, carry single block of 200 tons is a lot challenging than a 1000 tons of grain. Maybe those ships could sail the monsson if they chose. Sailing on the Mediterranean can be no picnic if you hit the wrong weather. Still, I agree these ships would not be advisable.to.sail on the monsoons to India

    We also know the Romans had large ships that sailed.ro India, although I have not seen any specific sizes, so for all we know the Romans did sail ships that large to India. Unlikely, but possible.


    Another edit: Logic and the reality of wooden ships that work and don't send you men to the bottom does lead to the conclusion that the shall we say generous estimates of the ships is too large. But let's not forget just because the ships that did the work for Zheng He were of likely smaller size there is no reason to not maybe allow super sized prestige ships were also built and carefully stage manged at home ports for effect. Even the
    Grace Dieu was mostly an ego trip and harbor queen.
    But if the ships stayed at home, they would not be the Treasure Ships that were referred to. The sources quite clearly made it clear these ships were sailing to India and beyond with Zheng He. If the Chinese built such large floating barges, they had nothing to do with the story of Zheng He or sailing ships, and so we should be discussing them elsewhere, in line with floating bridges or wooden palaces. They certainly don't belong with a discussion of ships.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; October 10, 2019 at 04:17 PM. Reason: spelling

  10. #10
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    [Gavin Menzies intensifies]

    Good to see the silly myths about megaships being dispelled. Its a human failing to spin yarns about the great days of old, my dear great-uncle was one of those who believed in giants, a technologically advanced Atlantis etc.

    We can put the 140 metre Treasure Ships on the pile with the Pharaoh's monorail and Vedic nukes.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  11. #11

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    I can see a 100m river or lake barge being possible, especially on Yangtze, but for any wooden oceangoing ship, the practical limit is around 80 meters deck length.

    The largest wooden oceangoing ship built was the Wyoming at 110m deck and 140m overall length, and it suffered and sunk due to its wooden construction. Due to its length and weight (roughly 3600 metric tons empty, 9100 metric tons at full load), the structure had to be steel reinforced, and even then, the keel flexed as its wood couldn't hold the shape well enough under load when encountering waves, thus loosening the planking and leaking water. The ship had to run pumps on full power, driven by a steam donkey engine on board, even at calm weather, and it foundered in storm.
    Even if the ships the size of Zheng He were feasible from an engineering point of view, that still does not prove the ships actually existed. Ming officials could have been grossly exaggerating the size od real ships. Or made the whole thing up for propoganda purposes.

    Even if the Chinese had the technical ability, that does not mean they were actually willing to spend the time and money. Just as devastating to the claim for the large Zheng He ships as the engineering issues is the lack of evidence:

    1. The lack of contemporary supporting textual evidencez and in fact, the contemporary evidence that goes against rhe claims of the super large Chinese ships. Contrary to popular myth, we do have a few xontemporary accounts of Zheng He's voyages, and those contemporary accounts gicr dimensions of ships far, far, far smaller than what the later accounts give. It is one the cardinal rules of history that earlier sources oare to be preferred. And the earlier sources talk about ships of 2,000 Liao (500 tons), no where near large enough for the claimed dimensions of the Treasure Ships

    2. The lack of physical evidence for ships of these super large dimensions. The excavation of shipyards where it is believer these ships were built don't support the super large dimensions of these ships. And the only physical piece of evidence that is alleged might have come these super large ships did not support the claimed.dimensions. We have no proof the rudder post found had any association with Zheng He ships. This is in contrast to Europe, where evidence for very large ships going back to Roman times. Lake Nemi ships in the 1st century. Thr Grace Dieu in the 15th century, the Mary Rose in the 16th century, and the Vasa in the 17th century just to name a few..

    3. That the source for the super large dimensions of Zheng He's ships come from late documents written long after the voyages. The first reference ofnthr dimensions comes from fiction novel written a 150 years after Zheng He, and first official sources giving the dimensions are 200 years later. The span in time between the voyages and she we first see the dimensions would raise concerns of historians of the reliability of the claims even without engineering feasibility issues, especially in light of.of the fact that not only do contemporary accounts support the dimensions, but give evidencr of different sizes than what is claimed.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Indeed. Widespread acceptance of the unrealistic dimensions of the Treasure Ships is.compelled me to created this thread.
    You had me at 羅懋登.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    3. That the source for the super large dimensions of Zheng He's ships come from late documents written long after the voyages. The first reference ofnthr dimensions comes from fiction novel written a 150 years after Zheng He, and first official sources giving the dimensions are 200 years later. The span in time between the voyages and she we first see the dimensions would raise concerns of historians of the reliability of the claims even without engineering feasibility issues, especially in light of.of the fact that not only do contemporary accounts support the dimensions, but give evidencr of different sizes than what is claimed.
    I'm not sure if the time span necessarily makes much difference to such grandiose claims. Kind of depends on the agenda of the particular authors as well. A contemporary claim would still be suspect in my opinion. Although it's fun to imagine by your logic just how great and unmatched Trump's wisdom will be said to be 150 years from now. Likewise, Goliath appears to have grown almost a meter in height due to scribal error.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  13. #13

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    You had me at 羅懋登.

    I'm not sure if the time span necessarily makes much difference to such grandiose claims. Kind of depends on the agenda of the particular authors as well. A contemporary claim would still be suspect in my opinion. Although it's fun to imagine by your logic just how great and unmatched Trump's wisdom will be said to be 150 years from now. Likewise, Goliath appears to have grown almost a meter in height due to scribal error.
    The only thing with the technical argument against these.super large dimensions of Zheng He's ships is that someone could always claim that those super Chinese found a way around all those engineering limitations, as I have heard some actually assert.

    Since we don't know how these ships were constructed. I have heard some say that you can't claim they couldn't be built, that somehow the Chinese found a.solution. that is why the other arguments against these fanciful dimensions are important too.

    As a historian, even knowing nothing of engineering, I could rule out these super large ships having actually existed. Looking at the sources is the standard practice for historians and the sources for those super large dimensions are completely untrustworthy. The gap in time raises a kinds of red flags, it's far enough away in time to ask where they got the information from. Not written sources, according the Chinese themselves they were a destroyed. Not from eyewitnesses, they were all dead of old age, as were any second hand or third hand eyewitnesses. Historians get suspicious when sources are too far removed in time the events they are talking about, unless we know the writer had older reliable sources available to them. Primary sources are always preferred. Who is more likely to be right, someone who was there or someone who heard about an event second or third or fourth hand?

    When evaluating an historical claim, you want to look at of facts. Engineering feasibility is one criteria, but not the only one. Even if you could show Ming Chinese ships could have sailed to the Americas, that it was technically feasible, did not mean it actually happened.



    And if Trump can say the about today that are dubious, then image what he could say bout 200 years in the past with no one to prove him wrong? All.things equal, an contemporary source is better than a someone writing 200 years after the fact. Of course, the contemporary person could be wrong or a liar, but then. even more so, could the person writing 200 years later. On top of the potential for being equally dishonest, there is also the greater possibility that they could be honestly mistaken well. And despite your Trump bashing. Even Trump isn't going to claim Americans landed on Mars when we haven't. Nor is Trump going to claim we landed on the.moon during his presidency when we haven't. Likewise, contemporary accounts are not going to claim the existence of fantastical 450 feet ships that don't exist, since they know everyone would claim "B*S". Gavin Menzies claims Zheng He went to America because that happened long ago and it is a lie he can get away with. He can't claim the Chinese landed a man on the moon, because that is a lie that would be exposed.


    .
    Last edited by Common Soldier; October 10, 2019 at 04:24 PM. Reason: spelling correction

  14. #14
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    You had me at 羅懋登.
    Great. Now i have a mental image of a Jerry McGuire remake with Ken Jeong (yes I know he's Korean-descended, but can you get him out of you head either?) shouting "SHOW ME THE YUAN!"

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I'm not sure if the time span necessarily makes much difference to such grandiose claims. Kind of depends on the agenda of the particular authors as well. A contemporary claim would still be suspect in my opinion. Although it's fun to imagine by your logic just how great and unmatched Trump's wisdom will be said to be 150 years from now. Likewise, Goliath appears to have grown almost a meter in height due to scribal error.
    So cynical, must be a STEM thing. Over here in the comfortable humanities were cross our corduroy-clad legs and, puffing on our pipes, accord more validity to eyewitness statements than non-eyewitness ones on almost no basis whatever. Then (developing a southern drawl a la Shelby Foote or perhaps Matlock) we make wry comments about a blind man having a better chance of seein' a hound that's theyah, than some fellah with 20-20 vision seein' a hog that ain't.

    As for Mr Trump's claims about Wisdom, well surely the beginning of wisdom is foolishness so he has begun more thoroughly than ... dammit did I just receive a masters in Philosophy...how the hell?
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  15. #15

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    And if Trump can say the about today that are dubious, then image what he could say bout 20/ years in the past with no one to prove him wrong? A things equal, an contemporary source is better than a someone writing 200 years after the fact. Of course, the contemporary person could be wrong od a liar, but then even more so.the person writing 200 years later. On top of the potential for being equally dishonest, there is also the greater possibility that they could be honestly mistaken well. And despite your Trump bashing. Even Trump isn't going to claim Americans landed on Mars when we haven't. Nor is Trump going to claim we landed on the.moon during his presidency when we haven't. Likewise, contemporary accounts are not going to claim the existence of fantastical 450 feet ships that don't exist, since they know everyone would claim "B*S"!
    I don't think there is anything wrong with your approach in attempting to address all potential counter-arguments. Being written 150 years after the fact just isn't your strongest argument, but then the reason I say so is equally applicable to the potential counter-argument you're addressing.

    I saw the USS Nimitz up close from the waterfront in Seattle. It was surreal how ridiculously out of scale it appeared next to the city. I'm pretty sure I could have confidently turned to someone nearby and said "You realize that carrier is literally almost a mile long" and no one would have corrected my more than four fold exaggeration unless they were particularly knowledgeable or had recently looked it up, because it really seemed like the carrier stretched the length of all of downtown. And that's not even in the context of people being hesitant to dispute the grandeur of the empire, and by extension insult someone important within its hierarchy or the emperor himself. Sometime you should check out the claims that Shulgi of the Third Dynasty of Ur made about himself and his power, which we have no record of anyone disputing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Mendenzies claims Zheng He went to America because that happenrdong ago and it is a lie he can get away with. He can't claim thr Chinese landed a man on the moon, because that is a lie that would be dxlosed.
    Well, we really don't know how their spacecraft would have been constructed, so we can't claim that they couldn't build them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    So cynical, must be a STEM thing. Over here in the comfortable humanities were cross our corduroy-clad legs and, puffing on our pipes, accord more validity to eyewitness statements than non-eyewitness ones on almost no basis whatever. Then (developing a southern drawl a la Shelby Foote or perhaps Matlock) we make wry comments about a blind man having a better chance of seein' a hound that's theyah, than some fellah with 20-20 vision seein' a hog that ain't.
    Yeah, you got the gist of my point. This obnoxious compulsion probably comes from living halfway in each world - STEM and the humanities. Like when I hear or read heated debates about periodization. I'm thinking uh... you guys do know you're arguing about how we imagine things, right? Useful abstractions for the sake of communication, but (obviously?) not objectively real. Probably leads to all sorts of Sapir-Whorf biases as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  16. #16

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I don't think there is anything wrong with your approach in attempting to address all potential counter-arguments. Being written 150 years after the fact just isn't your strongest argument, but then the reason I say so is equally applicable to the potential counter-argument you're addressing.

    I saw the USS Nimitz up close from the waterfront in Seattle. It was surreal how ridiculously out of scale it appeared next to the city. I'm pretty sure I could have confidently turned to someone nearby and said "You realize that carrier is literally almost a mile long" and no one would have corrected my more than four fold exaggeration unless they were particularly knowledgeable or had recently looked it up, because it really seemed like the carrier stretched the length of all of downtown. And that's not even in the context of people being hesitant to dispute the grandeur of the empire, and by extension insult someone important within its hierarchy or the emperor himself. Sometime you should check out the claims that Shulgi of the Third Dynasty of Ur made about himself and his power, which we have no record of anyone disputing
    Rather bad analogy. The sailors who served on the Nimitz would not saying was a mile.longz and if the nightly anchor said factually the Nimitz was a mile long, thr station would be flooded with calls correcting him. In the case of your Shugli, if we have no other evidence we might accept his claims, since we likely don't have any other evidence. An inscription out up at the time claiming how the king conquered Ll these lands might be just propoganda, but it is still more reliable that a writer making the same boast 200 years later.

    But I see I am not going to convince you of anything. While I think the argument is stronger than what younthonk it is .it is just one of several arguments all proving the same point. Given how common the claim of 450 feet Treasure Ships is, clearly the engineering feasibility argument isn't persuading s lot of people. It didn't even persuade Joseph Needham, who did have technicsl backgrounder. He bought into the 450 ft treasure ship claim.

    Well, we really don't know how their spacecraft would have been constructed, so we can't claim that they couldn't build them.
    But we can say they didn't land on the moon. We would have seen their rocket, heard their transmissions. US has proven it can go to the moon, if someone says the US didn't land on the moon during Trump's presidency, it is not because the US didn't have the ability, but because it didn't happen.

    Most of the time in history, it is not a question about whether it was possible, but whether it actually happened. Was it possible that Caesar could defeat and conquer rhr Britains? Sure. Did he? Different question. Caesar's claims might be just propoganda .


    ��
    Yeah, you got the gist of my point. This obnoxious compulsion probably comes from living halfway in each world - STEM and the humanities. Like when I hear or read heated debates about periodization. I'm thinking uh... you guys do know you're arguing about how we imagine things, right? Useful abstractions for the sake of communication, but (obviously?) not objectively real. Probably leads to all sorts of Sapir-Whorf biases as well.
    Not sure what your are saying, but since it wasn't addressed to me, it doesn't matter.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; October 10, 2019 at 08:30 AM.

  17. #17
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    ...
    Yeah, you got the gist of my point. This obnoxious compulsion probably comes from living halfway in each world - STEM and the humanities. Like when I hear or read heated debates about periodization. I'm thinking uh... you guys do know you're arguing about how we imagine things, right? Useful abstractions for the sake of communication, but (obviously?) not objectively real...
    People can't stay on their own turf, because our knowledge base is so immense there's a lot of crossover but its not thorough.

    I've read a respected historian try to give an opinion on sports (in a historical context) that shattered the illusion of his omniscience (AND he got a basic fact about Australia's most famous racehorse wrong-HANG HIM!).

    I see it all the time in the cross over between the forms of history, above all military historians whose general knowledge is so often bizarrely out of date. Traditional narrative historians tend to butcher the military side (and of course this is my opinion as an amateur, but I have studied formal history and have a clue about the sources), eg a lecturer who told my class about Andrew "Stonewall" Jackson (that was just sloppy, but there's also failues to understand tactics and strategy, eg in the Napoleon industry).

    There's other instances, such as legal points (Australian lawyers were taught 19th century Whig propaganda as legal history until recently, and historians botch their descriptions of legal matters all the time).

    It'd be worth getting subject specialists to run over the "broad state of play" in any given discipline to see what imported artefacts are past their use-by date.

    Credit to the Chinese propaganda hacks who didn't blunder into lionising Menzies rubbish.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    ...Probably leads to all sorts of Sapir-Whorf biases as well.
    Allow me to Google that before I agree...
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  18. #18

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    People can't stay on their own turf, because our knowledge base is so immense there's a lot of crossover but its not thorough.

    I've read a respected historian try to give an opinion on sports (in a historical context) that shattered the illusion of his omniscience (AND he got a basic fact about Australia's most famous racehorse wrong-HANG HIM!).

    I see it all the time in the cross over between the forms of history, above all military historians whose general knowledge is so often bizarrely out of date. Traditional narrative historians tend to butcher the military side (and of course this is my opinion as an amateur, but I have studied formal history and have a clue about the sources), eg a lecturer who told my class about Andrew "Stonewall" Jackson (that was just sloppy, but there's also failures to understand tactics and strategy, eg in the Napoleon industry).

    There's other instances, such as legal points (Australian lawyers were taught 19th century Whig propaganda as legal history until recently, and historians botch their descriptions of legal matters all the time).
    I think the worst example was that until the last few years, you could not pick up a history book that taught medieval Europeans thought the world was flat, and Columbus had to prove them wrong. That idea is so completely wrong, you wonder how the idea ever became so universally accepted. Even a brief review of actual medieval sources like the Venerable Bede proves the claim was completely false. That is why I stress contemporary, primary sources - had the historians of the 19th and 20th century actually studies the contemporary medieval documents, they would have known that the medieval Europeans didn't think the world was flat.

    The problem, once a false idea gets entrenched, it is very difficult to remove. People remember what they were taught years ago, schools still use outdated history books because they can't or wont spend money for more up-to-date ones, so students are still taught the long since proven history.

    But real history is can be complex, and in some cases there is no one definitive answer. How many natives were living in what is now the US? That is a subject of great debate. How many people lived in the Roman Empire? Again, an area of debate.


    It'd be worth getting subject specialists to run over the "broad state of play" in any given discipline to see what imported artefacts are past their use-by date.
    I think it is worthwhile to re-examine commonly held historical beliefs, and see whether they really are valid. Sometimes, a commonly held belief arises just out of real ignorance, and sometimes, new archaeological discovers and recently found old sources force us to re-evaluate old beliefs that were based on the best available evidence at the time, but are, as you said, "past their use-by date".


    Credit to the Chinese propaganda hacks who didn't blunder into lionising Menzies rubbish.
    You will want propaganda to be believed, and even the Chinese propaganda hacks know that Menzies' claims are rubbish that most reject. If they were to lionize them, it might cause people to seriously examine their other propaganda claims, undoing all their hard work. People might start to examine the claims for Zheng He ships, and find them equally rubbish.

    As it is, most people don't know that among unbiased engineering analysis the dimensions given for Zheng He's ships are completely unrealistic, and that the first time those dimensions show up are in a fantasy novel written 150 years after the fact. If most people knew those facts, you wouldn't see all the nonsensical comparison of Zheng He's ships to Columbus. Comparing Zheng He's ships to Columbus' is like comparing a large cruiser liner to a fishing boat, and boasting how much bigger the cruise liner is.

    But I do think that the issue of Zheng He's ships dimensions raises serious questions about the reliability of Chinese sources claims for other Chinese achievements. Many of the lauded Chinese achievements are based on just what the Chinese themselves say. We don't have a trace of the famous Su Song Tower Clock, and we don't have any physical evidence to support the alleged power of the Chinese crossbows. Are the exaggerated Chinese claims for Zheng He's ships just an isolated occurrence, or is this just the first time such exaggerations have been exposed?

    When it comes to the claims of Chinese, many scholars simply have not subjected those claims to the same scrutiny as they would have for Western ones. If someone was claiming there were Western wooden ships in 15th century 450 feet long with a little evidence as for Zheng He's ships, those claims would have long ago been completely dismissed.

  19. #19
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    ...
    You will want propaganda to be believed, and even the Chinese propaganda hacks know that Menzies' claims are rubbish that most reject. If they were to lionize them, it might cause people to seriously examine their other propaganda claims, undoing all their hard work. People might start to examine the claims for Zheng He ships, and find them equally rubbish. ...
    Yes but consider this: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/stor...149-2014-11-21

    While there is debate over the exact age of the Hindu epics, historians say they were probably written at least two millennia ago. Rao says this in itself is proof the texts are factual because humans did not develop the art of fiction writing until a few centuries back.


    The stupidity of nationalist propagandists knows very few limits. Maybe the Chinese suspected some 4D chess.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  20. #20

    Default Re: Zheng He Treasure Ships actual size?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Yes but consider this: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/stor...149-2014-11-21



    The stupidity of nationalist propagandists knows very few limits. Maybe the Chinese suspected some 4D chess.
    True, the claims of 450 feet Treasure Ship are not as nearly as outrageous as that. On the other hand, nobody but Indian nationalist takes those claims seriously, but noted and respected scholars like Joseph Needham do take the claims of the 450 feet Treaure Ships seriously.

    You have to have to wonder if they really believe the nonsense they are spoutinng about fiction not being invented until a few centuries ago. Do ey really believe that works like the Golden Ass, and all the Aesop Fables were works of actual history? Wow. I never knew people could literally turn into asses, I have known some to figuratively turn into ones. The really sad part of this is that both India and China have so many undisputed real achievements that they don't have to invent some clearly fantastical ones. I think these exaggerated claimz tarnish the genuinely great achievements both these cultures have. .

    The

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •