Was China really that far ahead of everyone else in the past?

[HackneyedScribe]

Really which ones?

For Athenian wages in the fourth century (1 drachma = 6 obols):
343 BC: Undersecretary gets 2-3 drachmas per mont
4c: Scythian policemen paid 3 obols per day
328 BC: Temple construction workers were paid 3 obols for slaves, 1.5 drachmas (9 obols) for unskilled labor, and 2-2.5 drachmas (13.5 obols) for skilled labor
351 BC: 2 obols a day for soldiers, but Demosthenes have an incentive to understate the payment
330s BC: Ephebos get 4 obols a day for military training
L 4c: Archons paid 4 obols a day

Ergo unskilled temple construction workers (non-slave variety) were paid well above the wages of Archons, Ephebos (military trainers) , soldiers, policemen, and of course slaves doing the same work(which made a large portion of the economy). Yet it was temple construction workers which were used as representative of the average wage of adult men in Athens. That should raise alarm bells.

Source: Takeshi Amemiya, Economy and Economics of Ancient Greece

Touche. But... no worse than claiming a soldier on a monthly retainer is representative. Fine use the slightly less secure data for hired farm data from the 5th century and correct for inflation and you slightly over a drachma a day in pure silver. Which still gives a higher welfare ratio than Rome or Han. Also wage is of course difficult since money wage is difficult to pin down but if allow three tricks for a street walker (unskilled but freelance prostitution) in Athens a day (a low number) for Metic or Citizen than 9 obols is a fair return. 124 grams of silver a month (250 working days). Recall prostitution was legal and Athenian citizens were executed for hubris against working girls. He or she would owe the prostitution tax, but like the Metic tax it was either a small fixed amount that was allowed to dwindle via inflation over 150 years or it may have been a 1% tax. But again small time operators could easily fly under the radar such as was in Athens. But even if identified 1.24 grams of silver is hardly a stiff tax.

You haven't shown any calculations to give a consumption basket, nor did I say anything about the ancient Greek economics.

Where is that specified in you Chao Cuo's quote.

I said I used the ploughing rate of light soils from Pliny, in case Chao Cuo's ploughing rate was for light soils. I didn't say that light soils was specified in the Han source, only in the Roman source. So in all probability the Roman source was given the advantage. Still, the ploughing rate for a yoke of oxen was .625 acres per day in Pliny's source, and 1.19 acres per day in the Han Shu using an inferior type of Han plough.

Ahh but it was. But just not a one based on taxing peasants growing grain. Rather one based on exporting cash crops olives and olive oil, figs, honey. and wine for example.

Then the wages of the slaves growing those things should be counted, which would decrease the average wage of Athenian workers.

I was waiting for that which is why I have be using the 4th century - the one where the Democracy had no empire.

As said above,
For Athenian wages in the fourth century (1 drachma = 6 obols):
343 BC: Undersecretary gets 2-3 drachmas per mont
4c: Scythian policemen paid 3 obols per day
328 BC: Temple construction workers were paid 3 obols for slaves, 1.5 drachmas (9 obols) for unskilled labor, and 2-2.5 drachmas (13.5 obols) for skilled labor
351 BC: 2 obols a day for soldiers, but Demosthenes have an incentive to understate the payment
330s BC: Ephebos get 4 obols a day for military training
L 4c: Archons paid 4 obols a day

Ergo unskilled temple construction workers (non-slave variety) were paid well above the wages of Archons, Ephebos (military trainers) , soldiers, policemen, and of course slaves doing the same work(which made a large portion of the economy). Yet it was temple construction workers which were used as representative of the average wage of adult men in Athens. That should raise alarm bells.

Source: Takeshi Amemiya, Economy and Economics of Ancient Greece

All fallow is not created equal. Some fallow in the Med region is driven by water retention needs. Much as in the Palouse in WA now you have to fallow some land to restore retained moisture.
In any case please consider me stupid and describe with small words the alternate fields of Han as if I am not sure what you are talking about.

The primary Han grain is millet which requires less water than the primary grain of the Roman empire (wheat). The point is, the Han require less fallow lands than that of Rome. Otherwise why don't you show sources from Chinese agricultural manuals which mention how much land farmers should leave fallow?

Alternating Fields: . The Lushi Zhunjiu written during the Qin dynasty described the method of ploughing followed by distributing seeds along the ridges created by the furrows. This system was replaced by the Alternating fields system, introduced by Chao Cuo during the reign of emperor Wudi. This involved planting the seeds in the furrows rather than the ridges. When weeding, soil would naturally fall from the ridges into the furrows, allowing roots to be grounded deeper into the earth. The ridges protected the seeds from wind and also conserved water more efficiently. Also, each year the position of the furrows and ridges were switched. Thus the system not only allowed the ridges to protect the seeds from the elements, but also allowed the soil to maintain its fertility. Thus Chao Cuo introduced a system equivalent to biennial fallowing but without the necessity of having half the land lie fallow.

He[Wudi] made Chao Kuo the chief commandant for grain. Kuo knew how to make tai-t'ien, or "alternating land," in which one mu had three furrows whose position was exchanged yearly. Hence it was named alternating land. This was an old method, Hou chi being the first to arrange fields with furrows.....Kuo experimented by having the guards at the detached palaces till the side lots of the palaces. A check of their harvest showed that they all obtained over a hu per mu more than adjoining fields. He ordered that the soldiers teach their relatives to cultivate the government lands of the three metropolitan districts. He also taught the border commanderies and of Chu-yen city. Later he also taught the border commanderies and of Chu-yen city. Later he also taught the people of the border cities, of Ho-tung and Hung-nung commanderies, and the three metropolitan districts, and of the territory under the jusrisdiction of the grand minister of ceremonies; all found the tai-t'ien system advantageous. They expended less labor and obtained more grain - Han Shu

But even if you rotating every year to a different crop in the same field it still means last years crop is a weed and you would to plough once to control its regrowth and and left over

How does that dispute anything I said? I admit that Han farmers did plough their fields "once", generally speaking. I don't recall ever denying that.

You have examples?

Examples of cash crops? Like silk, paper, tea, lacquer, etc? Those are cash crops.

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e0...ournal+article

Not han but at least 1000 AD cash cropping did not seem like a big thing.

First of all, if you doubt my sources because it used references that you have no access to, then you should doubt your own sources which used references that we still have no access to.
Second of all, the land per capita during the Song dynasty is way smaller than the land per capita during the Han dynasty. The Song had more people on less land.

You can potentially in ideal circumstances. But at the end of the day if you wealth is locked up in grain it more risky than silver. Bugs and leaks and damp don't really affect silver. Or put it this way the rice I have in a sealed plastic tub in a relatively climate controlled environment in my pantry will indeed last for years (white not brown so much). In a not sealed container in a my former garage in Houston subject to Houston humidity every year not so much at all. The Romans could store grain in Egypt for up to maybe 15 years. But its notable the oldest grain did not fetch the same price as the current year harvest. In York the Romans look had burned down the dockside grainy storage every couple of years to destroy pests and molds.

This is arguing over piffles. The point is a Han soldier with a family of five (himself included) would be paid well above 500 cash in grain equivalent, in fact about twice more. If they are all making scratches for a living then whether they could store their wages indefinitely is irrelevant considering they would be using up nearly all their monthly wages per month.

Yes but that would still be a particular place correct or were they a survey of all of the Han dominion?

They were a survey of the Han northern periphery, ie the buffer zone against the Xiongnu, which I can't imagine to be the riches place of the Han empire.

Your logic is not entirely sound. US soldiers get paid more than burger flippers, but a surprising amount of Americans opt for burger flipping and not the military.

US soldiers aren't conscripts.

Also conscripts don't have a choice either way. But even if the solider pay is individually equivalent to unskilled labor in other fields None of those come with family benefits, so its still poor example.

We are talking about wage rates, not family benefits. Now, Leeuwen gave a source why the 500 cash per month wage rate was representative at least for that area of the Han empire. You doubt it because you have no access to the source which proves it. Ergo you shouldn't use references with sourcing that I have no access to, because by your standard you shouldn't expect me to gulp it down without question.

You also used the Nine Chapters of Mathematical Art to claim that wages were 1-10 cash per day. I'm still waiting on how you got the information. For example, the transport laborer was paid 1 cash per every li traveled, and a cart was said to travel 50-70 li per day depending on whether it was full or empty. That's well above 1-10 cash per day.

Yes it is, all the items in the basket are priced in silver. I still need to see some evidence that 500 cash (the converted wheat in cash) is worth as much pure silver as indicated as far as I can tell is simply asserted as fact.

No it's not. When you convert both the wage and the cost of all items in silver, your spending power remains the same.

A further thought in choosing a soldier. What of weapons, armor, uniform, equipment. In Imperial Rome this was deducted from your pay. What of the Han?

I see no mention that Han soldiers had to pay for equipment.

[HackneyedScribe]

Again, if the artist left some details out, they could have left others out as well.

Again, if the artist left out a crossbow mounting bed as you claim, then it's even likelier that the artist would have left out a prop (which he drew in). You are arguing in favor of a much less likely scenario.

The prop holding the rear up is not showing in the drawing, saying something is so does not make it so. You can't even have an arrow pointing to the prop holding up the rear end of the crossbow, because it doesn't exist.

I highlighted the prop in blue, it exists. Saying it doesn't exist doesn't make it so.

You arrows point to the crossbow itself, enlarging and enhancing the drawing still does not show a prop rod holding up the rear. Maybe the artist left out a simple detail, maybe he left out further details, but given the fact this is the only evidence you could provide makes you argument very, very weak.

I didn't draw an arrow. If you think what I drew was intentionally an arrow, then you haven't been reading. I don't know if you're deliberately misreading or not, pretending I was drawing an arrow when I specifically mentioned that I was highlighting the crossbow string and prop, ergo not drawing an arrow.

I said in the reconstruction picture you showed, not the Han picture. I don't know if this is a honest mistake, or a deliberate one, pretending I was talking about the reconstruction crossbow picture you showed. So you don't make the mistake again, if you look at that RECONSTRUCTION picture below, it is clearly an European crossbow in it.

1. The nut clearly shows in the middle of the stock
2. The stock narrows at the end, as you see some European crossbows do.
3. The string is not drawn all the way back to the nut, but is only drawn part way back, as you can clearly see.

You still aren't being clear. I showed three reconstructions, two of them being Zhuge Nu and one of them being a European crossbow. Just saying "reconstruction" don't narrow it down. I displayed them side by side to show that the lever of the Zhuge Nu was used similarly to that of the European goat's foot lever, as you disagreed with that notion. I don't know if you are deliberately misconstruing my pictures or not, I thought it was obvious that I was comparing pictures of the lever of the Zhuge Nu to that of the European goats foot, ergo I would be showing pictures of Chinese repeating crossbows and a European crossbow side by side. I made no claim that the European crossbow I've shown was anything un-European. My apologies if I made you think otherwise.

Even when the Chinese went to shorter powerstroke lengths, and could have benefited from mechanical assist, they still didn't use mechanical assist for regular crossbows (Zhugenu is a special case, and served a different function from regular crossbows).

A Chinese 387 lb crossbow without mechanical assist can shoot to around 249 joules.
A European steel windlass crossbow with mechanical assist shoots to 140 joules.

There's a reason why Chinese didn't use mechanical assist for most of their crossbows even though they had the technology to do so (as can be seen by the Zhuge Nu). Choosing not to is not the same as not being able to. On the other hand, Medieval European crossbows cannot have long powerstrokes unless if they are willing to lengthen the stock to a ridiculous degree, or sacrifice ergonomics in trigger pull. Because they didn't use a compact triple compound lever as their trigger design.

That does seem to operator as a wippe (gaffe), rather than a goats lever as you said. It lacks the changing geometry of the goats lever, but does appear similar to the wippe. The mechanical advantage of the gaffe seems slightly less, whereas the crossbow maker Tod said that a goats foot lever could go up to 500 lbs, the gaffe (wippe) could only go up to 400 lbs crossbow.

The Zhuge Nu lever is not a wippe, a wippe pushes the string back. A goats foot lever uses a "claw" to PULL the string back. The Zhuge Nu's lever mechanism pulls the string back, so it's more similar to the goat's foot lever than the wippe contrary to your claim.

Here is the picture again to show that the lever allows the claw to pull the string back similar to a goat's foot lever


Wippe:

The Zhugenu powerstroke is short, the design doesn't allow for a long powerstroke, and the short block that pulls the string also reduces the potential mechanical advantage as well, less than the gaffe device, which is why the Zhugenu was a weak device, and required poison arrows to be effective. I suppose the Chinese could have scaled up the a Zhugenu device to make it more powerful, but the Chinese didn't, nor did they adapt it to work on regular crossbows. Even when the crossbow powerstroke was shortened, the Chinese did not use mechanical assist like the cranequin, windlass pulleys, gaffe or goats foot levers to make more powerful crossbows, and these devices helped keep the crossbow a popular instrument well into the 17th century, long after they were abandoned by the Chinese. Although, based on another thread, the Chinese were not into sport of hunting as Europeans were, so after the military market dried up for crossbows, there was nothing to keep powerful crossbows around as in Europe, where they were still appreciated for hunting.

When the Chinese miniaturized their crossbows, they were using harder-hitting gunpowder weapons that could probably shoot at around 1000 joules, compared to the 250 joules of Han long powerstroke crossbows and 140 joules of European steel windlass crossbows. In short, the Chinese could have used mechanical advantage in their crossbows but chose not to. The Medieval Europeans couldn't have adopted a long powerstroke crossbow unless they heavily sacrificed ergonomics.
Todd Todeschini's reconstruction of a Medieval crossbow using a goat's foot lever only managed 54 joules despite being 450 lbs in draw weight. So it's not as if it's going to penetrate armor anyways, so one can see why the Chinese used their mechanical advantage crossbow for massed shooting in the form of a repeating crossbow, and used gunpowder firearms for their hard-hitting weapons.

[HackneyedScribe]

Over the centuries, ships tended to become larger, a trend that continued on to present times.

And roads became wider over the centuries, a trend that continued on to present times. That doesn't mean Qin highways (20 meters wide) were more advanced than Roman roads.
Ships today are made out of steel and can be made bigger because our engines are more powerful. Roman ships didn't have modern engines, they are made out of wood and they relied on oars and wind power.

short powerstroke, and the short length of the block that pulls on the string, would have produced relative low energy arrows. Given that the Korean devices were much larger, their power was greater, probably more around a handheld gaffe crossbow - the arrows would be lethal, but a similar size normal crossbow would be much more powerful and lethal, but with lower rate of fire. The lack of accuracy would have hindered its effectiveness, and it doesn't seem that Korea's next door neighbor China adopted the weapon, which raises questions on how effective it was. If China was willing to adopt the foreign arquebus, then their failure to adopt the Korean large Zhugenu suggest it wasn't as an effective weapon as you might think.

I didn't claim that the ZhugeNu was effective. I claimed that its lever could be used for much higher draw weights, and that it provided a mechanical advantage. Still, despite the ability to use mechanical advantage on their crossbows, the Chinese and Koreans chose not to for most of their crossbows, most likely because they didn't need to considering the long powerstroke of their crossbows. On the other hand, the Medieval European crossbow makers did not use a triple compound lever for their crossbow, which necessitated that they use low powerstroke crossbows, hence they were forced to use mechanical advantages in an attempt to make up for it.

For relatively close markets, small ships might prove effective, but for longer voyages you needed bigger ships. The 17th century Dutch ship the Batavia was 650 tons. If you can find any Dutch ship of 25 tons or proved the average size of Dutch ships was only 25 tons that sailed to places like the East Indias, produced that the data.

I don't know if you are deliberately tossing smokescreens. The largest Roman ships do not sail to the East Indies from the Netherlands, especially their largest grain ships which travels from Egypt to Italy, while their biggest pleasure barge just floats in the same lake all day. SO examples of Enlightenment ships sailing from much further distances is irrelevant. Dutch ships of 25 tons was what outcompeted English shipping, not their 650 ton batavia. Also the Batavia didn't accomplish much of anything before it got shipwrecked, which really shows how you shouldn't compare the effectiveness of your overall shipping to the size of your biggest ship.

Flat-bottomed ships were also in the tradition of the fluyt, the classic Dutch cargo ship. Such ships could carry large loads and were fine for conditions in the Baltic, but on the high seas they held course less well. Some fluyts were used in the East India trade and Bruijn et al. have shown that they sailed considerably slower than the East Indiamen, especially towards the end of the eighteenth century: after 1750, East Indiamen made the voyage to the Cape in 125–126 days, while fluyts made the trip in 161–197 days. On the return trips, the difference was less spectacular however: 105–120 as against 117–126 days.32 While they were slower, they were relatively cheap and had considerable carrying capacity. https://qz.com/1193455/the-speed-of-...al-revolution/


The faster speed of English ships allowed the English to eventually dominate the ocean trade

The faster speed of the English ships allowed them to dominate the ocean trade of the high seas. Roman shipping mostly revolved around the Mediterranean, not the high seas. The large Roman grain ships were also for the Mediterranean, not the high seas. Ergo your example is irrelevant to the effectiveness of Roman shipping.

Although economic historians have portrayed the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th century as “anything but revolutionary” outside sectors such as cotton, iron, and steam, the authors argue ”a growing literature now highlights how widespread progress occurred across the British economy.” Oceanic freight by sail can now take its place alongside the rest of the transformations aided by the Industrial Revolution. https://qz.com/1193455/the-speed-of-...al-revolution/

Speed is important, and in general, larger ships can go faster, and speed is an important factor in shipping, the faster you can go, the better. But it is not the only factor - if you need a much larger crew to go faster, the cost of the additional manpower can offset what is gained by going faster. So in the days of the Clipper ships, even though they were fast, regular ships still predominated, because overall they were cheaper to run. The Dutch small ships were fine for short trips to the Baltic, but on long voyages, they were not as effective. And all things equal, a larger ship can go faster.

Your examples are about ships sailing in the high seas. The largest Roman ships did not sail in these seas, ergo your examples are irrelevant to the current discussion. Plus we have no record on the amount of manpower required for these large Roman grain ships.

We don't have sufficient records to say what ancient Chinese did or did not do with regard to ships, so you have no basis to make that claim.

Sounds like you haven't read sufficient records, not that records don't exist. There are recorded Han laws regarding ships, so I do have basis to say that there are so far no evidence to show the Han government providing incentives for merchants to build larger ships.

For example, from the "Statues on Finance":
For one who hauls out a lost boat that can be used: reward two liang of gold. When it is shorter than seven zhang, reward fifty cash per zhang. For the case of a boat that has [identifying] marks, give [it back to the owner], but order him to personally reward the one [who salvaged the boat].

We know that Chinese governments were heavily involved in building large ships in later centuries such as the Ming dynasty. We have so little information on the Han dynasty sea going ships that we don't even have a picture of them from the Han dynasty.

We also don't have sufficient excavation to say that their largest ships were only 60 tons. You based that off of the excavation of only one shipyard. How many others do you know that shows the size of Han ships?

And your assertion that large Roman ships would not have been built except for government incentives is again just speculation on your part. That Claudius did offer incentives is true, but that does not mean large ships would not have been built anyways, or that they weren't.

I never denied that large Roman ships wouldn't have been built or weren't built. They could have been built to impress or out of prestige. However, Claudius' incentive meant that it artificially increased the number of large Roman ships. It's not speculation that Claudius' incentive would have turned some merchants to build ships larger than they otherwise would have wanted, because if this weren't so then there wouldn't be a need to provide such an incentive. I repeat the source again:

From Ports in Perspective: Some Comparative Materials on Roman Merchant Ships:

The first item is a decree of the Emperor Claudius. In the 40s A.C., Claudius granted certain civil rights to men or women who built ships of at least 10,000 modii and used them to transport grain for six years (Gai. Inst. 32c; Suet. Claud. 18-19). Casson argued that the terms of this decree suggest that "a 70-tonner was the smallest-sized carrier the government considered useful." While we may readily agree that the decree indicates that 70-ton ships and larger were considered desirable, two further points need to be made. First, the decree clearly implies that, in Claudius's day, there were many ships in the grain fleet which were not as large as 70 tons; and this is the grain fleet, ships carrying a single product over a long-distance route, rather than the general merchant fleet, which must have included many coasters like those discussed above. Second, the decree contains not one, but two, conditions: not just the size of the ship, but the length of service in the annona (six years are specified) is of concern. This helps clarify the purpose and background of the decree. It is presumably designed at least in part for administrative convenience, for it will be much easier to deal with a small number of ships, each committed to a long period of service, than with many ships each making only one or a few voyages. And this implies that, at least down to the time of Claudius, a significant percentage of Rome's grain was in fact being transported by a large number of presumably smaller vessels, each spending fewer than six years in the service of the annona.
Our second item indicates that, however much the Roman government may have wanted only large ships in the grain fleet, it found it difficult to achieve that goal. Over a century after Claudius, exemptions from liturgies were offered to those who built and placed in the service of the annona either one ship of 50,000 modii (=350 tons) or several (perhaps five) of 10,000 modii (=70 tons each). While the decree clearly shows that large ships of 350 tons were in use, it also implies that there were still many ships of less than 100 tons in the grain fleet, and that despite Claudius' earlier concessions there continued to be a shortage of ships even as large as 70 tons. Left to their own devices, merchants and ship-builders seem to have preferred to construct ships of less than 70 tons burden, and/or to have used their ships to carry freight as opportunity arose rather than commit them to a long-term service.
Finally, we may note three further items which, taken together, imply the existence of large numbers of smaller ships. First, a series of passages in the works of Hero of Alexandria: in his Stereometrica, Hero gives the formulas for calculating the capacity (in amphorae and modii) of merchant vessels of various sizes. The ships he deals with are relatively small. The three he gives as examples have capacities according to his calculations, of 7,680 modii (=about 58 tons), 12,600 modii (=about 95 tons), and 19,200 modii (=about 144 tons). In other passages, he mentions ships with lengths of only 24 and 60 ft, and nowhere does he mention a merchant vessel with a capacity of more than 144 tons.............
Second, the famous lex Claudia of 218 B.C., prohibited senators and sons of senators from owning ships with a capacity of more than 300 amphorae (=15 tons). This law implies that ships in use at that time were often of low tonnage, certainly below 100 tons, for if ships were regularly over 100 tons burden, the same result could have been achieved by setting the limit at(for example) 50 tons. Third and last, a passage in Cicero seems to imply that a ship of 2,000 amphorae (=100 tons) was considered large; vessels of this size are cited by the writer (Lentulus) in a passage where it is in his interest to imphasize the impressive nature of his enemy Dolabella's preparations.............
There is at present very little evidence to suppor tthe view that ships of 500 tons burden or more were anything but extraordinary, and much of both our comparative and ancient material suggests that small ships-ships of, day, 60 tons burden and less, comprised the vast majority of Roman merchant vessels.

Nor have you shown that the incentives were still in place under other emperors, when large ships were still being built.

You must have not read what I gave from my source all the way through, which justifies me giving the quote again above. I will do it again below, which shows that Claudius' incentive was still in effect over a century after Claudius:
"Much the Roman government may have wanted only large ships in the grain fleet, it found it difficult to achieve that goal. Over a century after Claudius, exemptions from liturgies were offered to those who built and placed in the service of the annonea either one ship of 50,000 modii (=350 tons) or several (perhaps five) of 10,000 modii (=70 tons each). While the decree clearly shows that large ships of 350 tons were in use, it also implies that there were still many ships of less than 100 tons in the grain fleet, and that despite Claudius's earlier concessions there continued to be a shortage of ships even as large as 70 tons. Left to their own devices, merchants and ship-builders seem to have preferred to construct ships of less than 70 tons burden.

The Madrague de Giens was built before the time of Cladius, and there were no indications that either Augustus or Julius Caesar gave incentives for building large Roman ships, yet its size show they were being built. Produce the documentation that the Romans were giving incentives under Augustus or Caesar.

Madraguede Giens6000-7000 amphorae, mostlyDressel 1B; Campanian finewares c.350-450 tons 70-50 B.C. http://www.ancientportsantiques.com/...eckCargoes.pdf

If that is the only largest Roman ship you can find pre-Claudius, then it doesn't speak to the largest Roman ships as Roman grain carriers were said to be 1000 to 1200 tons. Using your logic, perhaps there were Roman government incentives to build ships pre-Claudius whose text simply didn't surive to the modern era.
Also, the dimensions and tonnage of the Madrague de Giens doesn't seem to match well. The estimation of ship tonnage came from estimating the weight of the combined amphora. Did the estimation of tonnage assume that the amphorae are all filled?

Once again, you are making stuff and present no facts to support your claims.

That Roman merchant ships used amphorae as containers is a fact. That these don't degrade as fast as wooden barrels is a fact. That later ships used wooden barrels rather than amphorae to store goods is a fact. So what I said there is a fact.

We shall see that there are several reasons why the graph of known wrecks is not a simple reflection of ancient maritime trade levels - and Parker himself did not assume it was; indeed, he stressed that the wrecks needed to be studied on their own terms and drew attention to biases in reporting, and to archaeological factors (transport of amphorae, roof tiles, and marble cargoes) which might over-represent Hellenistic and Roman wrecks.....
Attempts to equate the graphs of wrecks over time with fluctuationations in maritime trade rest on two fundamental assumptions:
1. The probability that any voyage will end in a wreck is the same at all periods
2. Wrecks are equally visible archaeologically at all periods.
The first of these assumptions might be questions, if climatic change is felt to have increased the incidence of storms at certain periods; or if changes in shipbuilding technology over time affected (reduced?) the propensity to wreck, or if there were changes in sailing practice and the balance of long-distance open-water voyages to shorter coastal voyages, entailing a difference in risk at different periods.....Moreover, if practices of winter sailing became more common at different periods - as there is some evidence that they did under the Roman empire - then this will have increased the risk of sailing and therefore the likelihood of wreck.
The second assumption is demonstrably false. Shipwrecks are found, usually by SCUBA divers in relatively shallow coastal waters, because they show up as a mound of cargo on the seabed, or, in the case of early modern wrecks, the iron cannon are seen. The ship's timbers, where not protected by the cargo, have usually rotted or been scattered. Ships are therefore unlikely to be found if they were carrying largely non-durable cargo, like slaves, grain, textiles, or other perishables in sacks. The main durable cargoes likely to preserve ancient shipwrecks are therefore cargoes of stone, or of goods carried in amphorae, the main container until at least the early Imperial period. Although a few of the wrecks in the dataset are represented only by shipboard equipment, or have been found as sunken hulls in terrestrial excavations of harbours or river ports, the vast majority were discovered because their cargoes were spotted on the seabed. The 'wreck' graphs may therefore be considered as graphs of known cargoes.
-Wilson, A. I. (2011) “Developments in Mediterranean shipping and maritime trade from the Hellenistic period to AD 1000”

The famous wreck where the Antikythera mechanism was found by sponge divers, and not because of its amphorae.

The Antikythera mechanism too was made out of bronze, which like amphorae degrades slower than wood, so it doesn't help your point.

And Greek ships before Roman times also carried amphorae, so according to your logic we should find just as many ancient Greek ships as Romans, yet we don't. You have made a claim, show even 3 or 4 Roman ship wrecks that were only found due to their amphorae. The simplest and most probable reason more Roman shipwrecks were found was because their was more Roman ships.

According to my logic there were less Greek ships than Roman ships. You don't seem to understand my logic.
Medieval ships used wooden barrels. Roman ships used amphorae. Ergo all else being equal Medieval ships are less likely to be discovered.
If Greek ships used amphorae and are still found less than Roman ships, then "all else being equal (which it isn't)", Greek had less ships.

The 53 million broken olive oil amphorae found in Mount Testaccio testifies to a large scale shipping that we find no evidence of in ancient China.

European accounts also show the magnitude of Ming Chinese shipping in its canals/rivers, but we have precious few excavated evidence for Ming riverine ships. The Han were more than 1000 years before the Ming dynasty, ergo even if they had the same amount of shipping as the Ming, the amount of excavated Han ships would still have been far less. So you haven't addressed the positivist fallacy. How many Ming riverine ships was excavated so far? Yet we have this description...
From Gaspar Da Cruz (16th century):
As in this country there is a great store of timber and very cheap, and much iron and cheap, and it is very good, there is an immense number of ships and vessels, for throughout the country there are infinite groves of fir-trees and of other trees, whereby it is easy for any one thought of a little substance, to make a ship and own a vessel, and this causeth the great profit and gain that is of them with the necessity the country hath of them; for it hath not only a great number of islands along the coast, but also a very great coast where they navigate. And besides this, all China within is navigated, and run through with rivers which do intersect and water it all, which are many and very great, so that you may sail and navigate in boats unto the ends of the land.
Any captain along the coast may in a little space join two hundred, three hundred, even to a thousand ships, if he can stand in need of them for to fight. And there is no small town along the river that is not plentiful in small and great ships. Along the city of Cantam, more than half a league by the river, is so great a multitude of ships that it is a wonderful thing to see them; and that which is most to wonder is that this multitude never decreaseth nor faileth almost all the year, for if thirty, forty, or a hundred go forth one day, as many do come in again. I say, the multitude never do diminish nor fail, for though sometimes there be more, some less, always there remaineth a marveloous multitude, and what is more, all those that go forth, go laden, and all that come in, come laden, taking goods and bringing goods.

Producing extra food does not do any good if you can't get it to where you need it. If you don't live on a canal, and canals didn't run everywhere, you will need roads and bridges to transport food and services. Rome could support larger cities than could contemporary China, the 3 top largest cities in the Roman empire were larger than the largest Chinese city. It would take the Chinese 800 years to build a city as large.

Cities are built as according to the environment. People don't decide to build a city out of nowhere and THEN say "let's build a river next to it".. Chances are the locations of cities are chosen because there's already a river next to it.

Rome had the largest cities, but the amount of large cities in the Roman empire was lacking.

Here is the number of families of 10 Han cities (from the Hou Han Shu):
1) Chang'an: 80,800
2) Chengdu: 76,256
3) Maoling: 61,087
4) Luoyang: 52,839
5) Lu: 52,000
6) Changling: 50,057
7) Yanling: 49,101
8) Wan: 47,547
9) Yangdi: 41,650
10) Pengcheng: 40,196

Compared to number of families in Rome (Assuming average family size of 5):
1) Rome: 250,000
2) Alexandria: 120,000
3) Antioch: 100,000
4) Carthage: 80,000
5) Ephesus: 70,000
6) Apamea: 40,000
7) Pergamon: 30,000
8) Lugdunum: 20,000
9) Jerusalem: 20,000
10) Cesarea: 20,000

Even with more modern technology and machinery abilities, Tully multi-tube seeders didn't instantly replace hand sowing, it took a while for his invention to take over. Using less advance manufacturing abilities, such seeding might not have overcome the inertia.

They had the option to invest or not invest. At least some of them invested. Likewise Romans had the option to build large or small merchant ships. Even with government incentive, the vast majority of Roman ships were less than 70 tonnes.

I don't recall using Egyptian obelisk as an example in this thread, can you point out where I said it? And can you provide the evidence for Han dynasty China having more large cities? Certainly, we have far more remains from Roman cities than Chinese ones.

Here is the number of families of 10 Han cities (from the Hou Han Shu):
1) Chang'an: 80,800
2) Chengdu: 76,256
3) Maoling: 61,087
4) Luoyang: 52,839
5) Lu: 52,000
6) Changling: 50,057
7) Yanling: 49,101
8) Wan: 47,547
9) Yangdi: 41,650
10) Pengcheng: 40,196

Compared to number of families in Rome (Assuming average family size of 5):
1) Rome: 250,000
2) Alexandria: 120,000
3) Antioch: 100,000
4) Carthage: 80,000
5) Ephesus: 70,000
6) Apamea: 40,000
7) Pergamon: 30,000
8) Lugdunum: 20,000
9) Jerusalem: 20,000
10) Cesarea: 20,000
Starting from the fifth largest city, Han cities start to outpopulate Roman ones. Rome was artificially populated by the grain dole, probably too many people for its own good considering the constant unemployment problem.

A few villages is not the same thing as providing water to a large urban area. In a few cases, water too was brought directly to Roman houses.

By the 4th century A.D., Rome would have 11 public baths, 1,352 public fountains and cisterns and 856 private baths. In Pompeii, some homes had 30 taps.https://www.plumbingsupply.com/pmroman.html

So that's 185 fountains/cisterns shared per family. Most people live in rural areas, not the capital. In some Han villages one well was shared by several homes, in others like Sanyangzhuang there was one well per dwelling, in others like SanDaoHao there were nearly 2 wells per dwelling, so people didn't have to walk far for water.

I did not say they were not ruins, but the Roman forts were more than just a flat area where a building used to stand. Qasr Bshr for one. But some of the others I was thinking about were reconstructed, as you said. And Castel Sant'Angelo is for another - although it was originally built as the Masoleum of Hadrian, it was converted into a fortress in 401 AD.

By that logic you know full well there are Han forts which are more than just some "flat area that a building used to stand". My picture was one of them.

Ships come in all sizes, and the majority of ships in most ages would be smaller than the largest. That is true also for the Song and other Chinese dynasties as well. But it is speculation that it was only due to incentives large ships were built. Large ships require large investments and risk, and so the government might at times encourage them, but that does not mean they were unprofitable, that again is speculation.

Large ships required so much investment and risk that the government felt the need to provide incentives in order for people to build them, and even with incentives the Roman government was hard-pressed to persuade enough Roman merchants to build their preferred amount of large ships (proof given above). Ergo to think that the largest Roman ships were built with economy would be speculation.

[conon394]

You haven't shown any calculations to give a consumption basket, nor did I say anything about the ancient Greek economics.

I did say I was trying to work on one. They are not exactly trivial to construct. Although in working on a certain luster has worn of Allen's original Roman attempt and also the way his decisions have been somewhat uncritically followed... In any I will respond to you when I finish a basket. The choices for the respectable one are of course large and require more thought and work but I might have a least a few variant bare bones ones ready in a bit. But one thing more

343 BC: Undersecretary gets 2-3 drachmas per mont
4c: Scythian policemen paid 3 obols per day
328 BC: Temple construction workers were paid 3 obols for slaves, 1.5 drachmas (9 obols) for unskilled labor, and 2-2.5 drachmas (13.5 obols) for skilled labor
351 BC: 2 obols a day for soldiers, but Demosthenes have an incentive to understate the payment
330s BC: Ephebos get 4 obols a day for military training
L 4c: Archons paid 4 obols a day

Your list is confusing different categories.

1. "4c: Scythian policemen paid 3 obols per day".
This is a bit baffling the Scythian 'Police' were state owned slaves. They were not paid. And its only a minority onion that survived at all after the restoration of the Democracy in the 4th century. You source might be confusing the Scythian 'archers' for the Athenian military archers. Given the late dat they may be thinking of the late war pay reductions to the regular standing froces cavalry and archers that had previously received a higher payment.

2. "351 BC: 2 obols a day for soldiers, but Demosthenes have an incentive to understate the payment"; "330s BC: Ephebos get 4 obols a day for military training"
Soldiers were of course conscripted. The money they received was an allowance not a competitive market rate. Demosthenes is certainly proposing a low rate because he is looking to in this occasion to establish a permanent but small citizen force to raid Philip's territory year round. Problem is the Athenian finances were still recovering from their nadir of the 4th century. 2 obols for infantry and 1 drachma for a cavalryman was bare bones ration money and they were supposed to get 'paid' out of plunder... The Ephebes likewise are getting just a mess wage. The trainer being a adult citizen got the standard solder drachma form being on duty. None of those really speak to what unskilled labor could earn. Just what the Athenian state could afford and decided to pay conscripted Athenians.

3. "Archons paid 4 obols a day"
Yes but around the same time in the late 4th century Dikasts got only 3 obols. Ekklesiasts drew 1 drachma for a regular session, and 9 ob for principle sessions of the ekklesia. Bouleutai drew 5 ob, the prytaneis got 1 ob more (they had to be in counsel chamber 24/7 as the acting government). The governor of Salamis got 1 dr. The Amphiktyons on Delos got 1 dr. But none of these were bureaucratic positions that were a career. This was the minimum the state deemed necessary to take you away from you work in real life. More generous than US jury pay today, but not designed to to provide a living wage either. The Archon pay does indeed stand out as low compared to other longer term public jobs, but given the history and quasi religious nature of some of the Archon posts and the whole lot together, it is possible it was deemed proper to only get what amounts to a meal wage for a prestigious service to the state and not a profit

"Temple construction workers were paid 3 obols for slaves, 1.5 drachmas (9 obols) for unskilled labor, and 2-2.5 drachmas (13.5 obols) for skilled labor" the point here is the state had to bid in the open market for these hires. So in some ways it is a better indication of what the cost of hired labor was than any actual state service stipend.

4 "343 BC: Undersecretary gets 2-3 drachmas per month" undersecretary of what?

Generally see 'Wages, Welfare Costs and Inflation in Classical Athens' William Loomis

----

Edit:

Roman shipping mostly revolved around the Mediterranean, not the high seas.

Well except for that blue water monsoon route to India and back.

[HackneyedScribe]

1. "4c: Scythian policemen paid 3 obols per day".
This is a bit baffling the Scythian 'Police' were state owned slaves. They were not paid. And its only a minority onion that survived at all after the restoration of the Democracy in the 4th century. You source might be confusing the Scythian 'archers' for the Athenian military archers. Given the late dat they may be thinking of the late war pay reductions to the regular standing froces cavalry and archers that had previously received a higher payment.

If public slaves weren't paid then that's 0 obols rather than 3 obols.

2. "351 BC: 2 obols a day for soldiers, but Demosthenes have an incentive to understate the payment"; "330s BC: Ephebos get 4 obols a day for military training"
Soldiers were of course conscripted. The money they received was an allowance not a competitive market rate. Demosthenes is certainly proposing a low rate because he is looking to in this occasion to establish a permanent but small citizen force to raid Philip's territory year round. Problem is the Athenian finances were still recovering from their nadir of the 4th century. 2 obols for infantry and 1 drachma for a cavalryman was bare bones ration money and they were supposed to get 'paid' out of plunder... The Ephebes likewise are getting just a mess wage. The trainer being a adult citizen got the standard solder drachma form being on duty. None of those really speak to what unskilled labor could earn. Just what the Athenian state could afford and decided to pay conscripted Athenians.

First I must apologize as I thought the Ephebos were military trainers, not conscripts receiving their two years of military training. If Ephebos were conscripts then they are comparable to the Han soldier wages as Han adult males also must serve two years in the military upon reaching adulthood.
You were suggesting that Han dynasty conscript soldiers were paid over the wage of unskilled laborers, but here you are saying that Athenians conscript soldiers were paid "just what the Athenian state could afford".

3. "Archons paid 4 obols a day"
Yes but around the same time in the late 4th century Dikasts got only 3 obols. Ekklesiasts drew 1 drachma for a regular session, and 9 ob for principle sessions of the ekklesia. Bouleutai drew 5 ob, the prytaneis got 1 ob more (they had to be in counsel chamber 24/7 as the acting government). The governor of Salamis got 1 dr. The Amphiktyons on Delos got 1 dr. But none of these were bureaucratic positions that were a career. This was the minimum the state deemed necessary to take you away from you work in real life. More generous than US jury pay today, but not designed to to provide a living wage either. The Archon pay does indeed stand out as low compared to other longer term public jobs, but given the history and quasi religious nature of some of the Archon posts and the whole lot together, it is possible it was deemed proper to only get what amounts to a meal wage for a prestigious service to the state and not a profit

"Temple construction workers were paid 3 obols for slaves, 1.5 drachmas (9 obols) for unskilled labor, and 2-2.5 drachmas (13.5 obols) for skilled labor" the point here is the state had to bid in the open market for these hires. So in some ways it is a better indication of what the cost of hired labor was than any actual state service stipend.

It was also when Alexander was conquering Persia, in which case Athens would have reaped the benefits. One must also consider that during this time there was a very significant rise in prices.

4 "343 BC: Undersecretary gets 2-3 drachmas per month" undersecretary of what?

hypogrammateus, probably not a high position becauseDemosthenes is trying to deprecate Aischines

For most other societies I might not make slaves as representative of average wage, but Athenian society is special as a big portion of the population were slaves, with some estimates giving around or over 50 percent of the population.

Well except for that blue water monsoon route to India and back.

Not very relevant unless you can find Roman ships the size of the larger Roman grain carriers in that area. The discussion is about the large size of Roman ships, in which I stated that 25 ton Dutch ships managed to outcompete larger English ships. Common Soldier responded by saying larger English ships eventually ruled the high seas through long distance trading. The problem being the largest Roman ships did not sail in the high seas(Atlantic/Pacific Ocean), they sail in the Mediterranean Ocean.

Generally see 'Wages, Welfare Costs and Inflation in Classical Athens' William Loomisp

Thank you, this is more comprehensive than my source.

Also Ellen Wood has argued that Athenian agriculture was mostly subsistence grain, not cash crops. From where did you get the data that Athenian agriculture was mostly cash crops?

[conon394]

If public slaves weren't paid then that's 0 obols rather than 3 obols.

You know I'd be interested in how your source got to the conclusion. There is as far as I know know no really good evidence for how state slaves of all the various duties were clothed, fed , housed. Or vague at best, the Scythians for example seem to have a dorms provided by the state. But how were they fed? The Athenian disliked bureaucracy and a state kitchen and commissary seems out of the question. On consideration since the Athenians liked a market solution, handing over 3 obs a day (the mess portion of a soldier's 1dr) would be credible guess. The Scythian only worked in Athens largest cities (mostly just Athens and its port). Theoretically that would leave open the chance for a thrifty Scythian to buy his freedom (?) some day - and that was the glue that kept the Athenian slave economy from experiencing uprising and overt discontent - and still eat a working mans meal. So I will recast what I posted. I kwno of no positive evidence of how any state slave was maintained. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. So realistically cash payment was the kind of thing that would appeal to Athenians. Some board of 3, 5 10 or so only had had to record they properly handed out the silver each day or week and need do no work to mange mess provision. Its worth noting that critical anti democratic lit produced by the 'good and the beautiful' at Athens generally decries how well the state slaves lived. I'll have to re read the Old Oligarch and see if he mentions pay to state slaves that would have bugged him let alone the fact he could not beat them.

You were suggesting that Han dynasty conscript soldiers were paid over the wage of unskilled laborers, but here you are saying that Athenians conscript soldiers were paid "just what the Athenian state could afford".

More or less yes. Different times different places. For Athens it might be better to think militia vs conscripts. You call up was always a possibility (under normal circumstances 20-45 but out to 60 if need be) You might serve for just a quick clash at the boarder or 2 years or something in a really long siege or the years and years of Egyptian venture. In the early 5th century the 'pay' was more clear just 3 ob. That is just cash for rations per day for a man and his attendant. Later in the 5th the Athenian upped that to 1 dr and it stuck across the 4th mostly (sans an economic crunch). Athenian forces would have been a cross section of society so 1 dr a day has very little connection to money men might forgo over time. If I had to guess - with the democracy and the long Persian wars it became necessary to to provide ration stipends to hopliites (certainty the lower economic tier of hoplites would need such for long or distant campaigns). Obviously the rowers in the fleet would. With success clearly the Athenians moved to 1dr a day. Since this uniform across services it might well have been a market rate for labor at least with respect the men at the oars. in the later 5th century. But like Dikast pay the amount seems to have become fossilized at that level. The apparent downward trend in grain prices over the 200 years or so in question might explain that. After the nadir of the mid forth century in and around the 350s the evidence seems to show a really health economy eventually producing the tax revenues of Lycurgus of over 1200 T a year. It seems to me its likely wages rose to do demand more than anything else.

So the Han soldier as a conscript is also similar in that he and his family they are receiving compensation. But only you say for 2 years so its not a career he can depend on and once back in the world we are left with in this case the model (the baskets as they have been used) of seeing what one wage earner can provide. The ex conscript would be earning only his own wage in normal live and his family would have no stipend.

It was also when Alexander was conquering Persia, in which case Athens would have reaped the benefits. One must also consider that during this time there was a very significant rise in prices.

How exactly would Athens reap any benefits?

Also They may have been an Alexander inflation, but not quite yet. Alexander's great takings of the Persian bullion occur after 331 BC. The rise in wage at Athens has been occurring before 333/2. In broad stokes the release of so much gold did eventually change the Silver:Gold ration. But its difficult to find a vector for the silver released to create much inflation at Athens. A great deal of the bullion was passed directly to Alexander's troops and spent/wasted/lost/destroy in Asia during is continuing campaigns. Only frankly a small number of allied contingents were actually muster out to return home with a bag o money. Very little money arrived home to Antipater in Macedonia. Alexander' corrupt governors wasted money - in Asia. Alexanders generals than proceeded to waste more almost entirety in ex Persia with their wars. With sudden monterization and massive amounts of war spending and disruption look for Alexander based inflation in ex Persia (1). There is the possibility of some gradual general wage inflation, which is usually a good thing for wage earners but no particular spikes over the democracy. Compare the typical price wheat had settled down to 5 dr per metretes in the 4th century BC from a more typical 6dr in the 5th and that is price points even when you could start looking for Alexander inflation say after 322 BC.

For most other societies I might not make slaves as representative of average wage, but Athenian society is special as a big portion of the population were slaves, with some estimates giving around or over 50 percent of the population.

50% is a rather an overestimation. But every society has its exploited workers. In greece they were distinctly one class - slaves. In China you had a range some Han slaves, more notably the rather large and hash convict labor system, I would say the peasantry to some extent shade into this particularity with the corvee obligation added. Also not all slaves are created equal it notable that with rather no systemic policing power, The democracy suffered no slave revolts, nor slaves escaping into banditry nor seeming any particular fear of slave unrest - contra the Roman late republican system.

Not very relevant unless you can find Roman ships the size of the larger Roman grain carriers in that area. The discussion is about the large size of Roman ships, in which I stated that 25 ton Dutch ships managed to outcompete larger English ships. Common Soldier responded by saying larger English ships eventually ruled the high seas through long distance trading. The problem being the largest Roman ships did not sail in the high seas(Atlantic/Pacific Ocean), they sail in the Mediterranean Ocean.

Casson (2) reckons the Greeks and Romans used the large 350-450 ton very sturdy for the India run. Makes sense for a trip season run and since they aimed to sail in worse parts of the monsoon than the Arabs they need large sturdy ships. The very large roman grain carries were special purpose vessels of (proof of technical ability I suppose in this Thread) why would they do anything but one job?


1 See Frank Holt's "Treasures of Alexander the Great" for a long review of how all the wealth Alexander took was mostly dissipated almost entirely in what had been Persia. There was no quick passage of that money in Greece to cause inflation, or al least not probably till after his death. The wars of his successors as they rolled into greece and the Aegean did cause price shocks via supply disruption but that is of course different. Also the shock of his monterization of Silver would have again been mostly felt in Asia, not highly monetized Greece where Athens and Philip had been expanding the money supply at a consistent rate with good silver.
2 Casson, Lionel. "Rome's Trade with the East: The Sea Voyage to Africa and India." Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-) 110 (1980): 21-36. doi:10.2307/284208.

[HackneyedScribe]

You know I'd be interested in how your source got to the conclusion.

I got it from you. You questioned whether Scythian police were paid three obols a day on the basis that they were public slaves and public slaves don't get paid. I was going to ask where you got your information. All I did was equate "don't get paid" as getting "0 obols per day"

For Athens it might be better to think militia vs conscripts. You call up was always a possibility (under normal circumstances 20-45 but out to 60 if need be) You might serve for just a quick clash at the boarder or 2 years or something in a really long siege or the years and years of Egyptian venture.

The same could be said of the Han soldiers, they were more like militia than conscripts because they could be called up after their terms of service.

How exactly would Athens reap any benefits?

It's in the source you provided. Can you quote from your source that in Alexander's campagins, very little money made it back to Athens?

50% is a rather an overestimation. But every society has its exploited workers. In greece they were distinctly one class - slaves. In China you had a range some Han slaves, more notably the rather large and hash convict labor system, I would say the peasantry to some extent shade into this particularity with the corvee obligation added. Also not all slaves are created equal it notable that with rather no systemic policing power, The democracy suffered no slave revolts, nor slaves escaping into banditry nor seeming any particular fear of slave unrest - contra the Roman late republican system.

What is the evidence that 50 percent is an overestimation? Also the point is slaves were paid three times less than an unskilled laborer in the list, and as long as slaves remain a significant part of the population than that decrease in wage must be considered.

Also, can you quote the evidence from your source on how the wages on the Eleusinian list was determined?

Casson (2) reckons the Greeks and Romans used the large 350-450 ton very sturdy for the India run. Makes sense for a trip season run and since they aimed to sail in worse parts of the monsoon than the Arabs they need large sturdy ships. The very large roman grain carries were special purpose vessels of (proof of technical ability I suppose in this Thread) why would they do anything but one job?

That's not relevant unless you can find those excavated ships In those waters, because the argument equates lack of excavated ships to lack of ships. It's not my logic. Plus, sailing from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean is still quite a bit different from sailing across the Atlantic Ocean.

[Common Soldier]

I got it from you. You questioned whether Scythian police were paid three obols a day on the basis that they were public slaves and public slaves don't get paid. I was going to ask where you got your information. All I did was equate "don't get paid" as getting "0 obols per day"

He Scyhian police were still provided food, clothing, and housing hat a paid worker would have o provide our of their won wages. That needs to be taken into account, and it is not zero as it is assumed.

[Quote]
The same could be said of the Han soldiers, they were more like militia than conscripts because they could be called up after their terms of service.
[/Quoted]

And did the Han soldiers sti train after their term of service? Militia of city often trained periodically.

What is the evidence that 50 percent is an overestimation? Also the point is slaves were paid three times less than an unskilled laborer in the list, and as long as slaves remain a significant part of the population than that decrease in wage must be considered.

What is your contemporary evidence for the 50 percent? You need to prove it, no others to disprove it. Also, slaves were provided food, clothing and housing that workers had to pay out of their wages, and the value of that needs to be included
.

That's not relevant unless you can find those excavated ships In those waters, because the argument equates lack of excavated ships to lack of ships. It's not my logic. Plus, sailing from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean is still quite a bit different from sailing across the Atlantic Ocean.

[/Quot e]

Then by the same logic we can dismiss all the claims of large Song and Ming dynasty ships, since none larger than 300 tons have been excavated. By your logic, we can dismiss a claims for any larger ships. 300 tons ships have been found, it is irrelevant if they were not found in a particular set of waters. We know that ships of that size were being built.

[conon394]

I got it from you. You questioned whether Scythian police were paid three obols a day on the basis that they were public slaves and public slaves don't get paid. I was going to ask where you got your information. All I did was equate "don't get paid" as getting "0 obols per day"

You missed my point. But anyway never mind it is actually buried in Loomis in a long convoluted sub noted discussion of a badly damaged stele. It would be like the Athenians to just gave public slaves 3 ob a day for rations. Seeing as they were neither chained and expected to act independently seems reasonable. But of course that still was not pay which would be money beyond ration allowances. Contra my own statement however you can construct a scenario where a Diakast could provide a for a family of four (not grand mind you) on his 3 ob for a day in court, so a 3 ob ration voucher is not chump change. Since is nothing on how Athens retired state slaves one could wonder if the intent was that they buy out at some point.

The same could be said of the Han soldiers, they were more like militia than conscripts because they could be called up after their terms of service.

Fair enough. I'd be very much interested to know how equipment and what not was handled. One of my problems with the basket models so far is lack of taxes and transfers in them they are so far using gross amounts all over the place. So the Han conscript was not libel to provide any kit. Did he get to keep it or was locked up under government control. Was a conscript expected to train?

It's in the source you provided. Can you quote from your source that in Alexander's campagins, very little money made it back to Athens?

You need to more direct where. Athens benefited not much at all from Alexander. In any case as I noted his action post dated almost all the wage data I would consider useful for the Democracy and its labor markets.

Can you quote from your source that in Alexander's campagins, very little money made it back to Athens?

How would it? But re the source I posted above by Holt. The critical year is the unskilled labor 329/28. It was not until 331 and 330 that anyone in the original army or the previous flows of replacements had the chance to muster out and go home. Again to the extent Alexander was spending money or his troops it was overwhelmingly in Persia. Antipater got a small injection of funds but its not like the Treasury of Ecbatana was sent to him and he spent it in a year. Athens had no men fighting with him anyway. When you can only track a potential modest rise in wages but no corresponding rise in prices you don't have in inflation (you know the general rise in prices)

What is the evidence that 50 percent is an overestimation? Also the point is slaves were paid three times less than an unskilled laborer in the list, and as long as slaves remain a significant part of the population than that decrease in wage must be considered.

What were slave and convict labor paid in Han China. I can only assume the covree requirement exited to get labor under market wages.

Also, can you quote the evidence from your source on how the wages on the Eleusinian list was determined?

I can but since it was a market hire one assumes somebody suggusted more or less the market rates.

That's not relevant unless you can find those excavated ships In those waters, because the argument equates lack of excavated ships to lack of ships. It's not my logic. Plus, sailing from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean is still quite a bit different from sailing across the Atlantic Ocean.

How so the Romans chose high monsoon season for speed, and thus rather foul weather. And it fair long blue water shot.

[HackneyedScribe]

He Scyhian police were still provided food, clothing, and housing hat a paid worker would have o provide our of their won wages. That needs to be taken into account, and it is not zero as it is assumed.

You need to provide a source for that and not have others do it for you.

And did the Han soldiers sti train after their term of service? Militia of city often trained periodically.

And did Ephebos train after their term of service? Western Han militia still served one month per year after their term.

What is your contemporary evidence for the 50 percent? You need to prove it, no others to disprove it.

I only need to prove it if I claimed it was true. I said that some estimates give around 50% of the Athenian population to be slaves. If you claim that it's wrong, it's your job to prove it.

Table 2.2 of Economy and Economics in Ancient Greece shows a range of different population estimates, with slave population going from 50,000-150,000 and total population going from 154,000 to 320,000.

Also, slaves were provided food, clothing and housing that workers had to pay out of their wages, and the value of that needs to be included

Prove slaves were provided those things rather than having those things deducted from their wage. You made the claim, you prove it instead of having others disprove it.

Then by the same logic we can dismiss all the claims of large Song and Ming dynasty ships, since none larger than 300 tons have been excavated. By your logic, we can dismiss a claims for any larger ships. 300 tons ships have been found, it is irrelevant if they were not found in a particular set of waters. We know that ships of that size were being built.

That's your logic not mine. I specifically said it's not my logic, and it sounds like you don't want this logic to be applied to Roman ships. If you are going to retract said logic, and hence don't dismiss claims of Song/Ming ships based on said logic, then you shouldn't dismiss claims of ancient Chinese ships based on that logic too.

[Common Soldier]

A few points to bring up:

1. Technically, the Romans did sail the Atlantic, since you have to sail thr Atlantic to reach Britain from Spain or the Mediterranean. The Romans had ports in Wales. Also, there is evidence of Roman trade with the Canary Islands, and rhd Canary Islands are not in the Mediterranean.

2. The heyday of Athens was in the 4th and 5th century, before the Qin and Han dynasty. Some of things like the multi-tube seeder didn't arises until around the 2nd century, after Athens was part of the Roman Republic/Empire.

3. Athens and ancient Greece were known for their olive oil and wine exports. Olives and grapes were certainly days crops. What days crops were ancient Chinese farmer in the 4th century BC exporting? Silk, for one, but what others?

4. Slaves still have to be fed, clothed and housed. Things that would come out of the wages of paid workers. These things have value, and need to be accounted for.

5. Average Roman ship size is irrelevant unless we know the average Han dynasty sea going ship size for comparison. Largest size is a valid comparison, since it requires merely a sample, not a statistically significant number of samples, and largest size demonstrates the capability of ship building. A large ship is more challenging to build than a small ship, and requires more financial investment. As noted, we have more physical evidence fornlargr Roman ships that we do for even Song and Ming dynasty ships. The Nanhai No. 1 isnthr largest premodern Chinese shipwreck and was around 30 m long and 300 tons, smaller than the 40 m Madrague de Giens Roman shipwreck of.a thousand years earlier, not to mention smaller than the Lake Nemi ships, and the Caligula Giant Ship. ,

[Ludicus]

The only thing better than the past belonging to China is the future belonging to China.

Blasphemy, you are doomed Gromovnik.
-----
So, this new old thread is "I Hate China", also called Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China. Part II.

I have nothing more to add to what I sad before, except the fact that looking at the big picture, in the balance between the "East" and the "West", that is between the rich, industrialized and advanced economies of the East (South and East Asia) and the previously impoverished economies of Europe, this adverse balance did not swing decisively in Europe's favor until the early 19th century for India and not until well into the second part of the same century for China.The future? well, even in the 19th century, when the Chinese imperial expansion faltered, the export of people went under the shell of our Western hegemony. The Chinese have supplied more colonists to more places than any other people in the world.
So, beware China! What China will do next?
Some people thought Horace was exaggerating, parodying Maecenas's anxiety! "Your troubled fear is for the City What are they plotting in China..?"

[HackneyedScribe]

1. Technically, thr Romans did sail the Atlantic, since you have to sail thr Atlantic to reach Britain from Spain or the Mediterranean. The Romans had ports in Wales. Also, there is evidence of Roman trade with the Canary Islands, and rhd Canary Islands are not in the Mediterranean.

By that logic the small 25 ton Dutch ships which outcompetes English shipping of the 17th century also sailed the Atlantic. Even the Medetterranean Sea would be the Atlantic Ocean but sailing in the latter and coastal skimming is a far cry from sailing from England to the New World

Also some things to note:
1. Slave masters are generally not angels. If they can't take from their slave wages more than the upkeep of the slave (housing, clothing, and food expenses for example), then the slave probably isn't bought for financial purposes and wouldn't be outside constructing temples.

2. A sample size of three do not get the largest Han dynasty ship. If anything it gets the 33rd largest out of a 100 ships, or the 66rd largest out of 200 ships, etc....

[Cyclops]

A few points to bring up:

1. Technically, thr Romans did sail the Atlantic, since you have to sail thr Atlantic to reach Britain from Spain or the Mediterranean. The Romans had ports in Wales. Also, there is evidence of Roman trade with the Canary Islands, and rhd Canary Islands are not in the Mediterranean.

This occurred to me also. IIRC Claudius took an elephant to Britain for the lulz.

2. The heyday od Athens was in the 4th and 5th century, before the Qin and Han dynasty. Some of things like the multi-tube seeder didn't arises until around the 2nd century, after Athens was part of the Roman Republic/Empire.

Yes my impression is that China was (if we accept the idea of being in front or behind) was in many ways "behind" the Mediterranean and Fertile Crescent until the Ch'in united the Middle Kingdom.

3. Athens and ancient Greece were known for their olive oil and wine exports. Olives and grapes were certainly days crops. What days crops were ancient Chinese farmer in the 4th century BC exporting? Silk, for one, but what others?

Substantial contacts between China and India seem to have commenced 200-100 BCE with the development of the Silk Road and the transmission of Buddhism, although there's traces of silk trade going back to the Bronze Age IIRC. There's evidence of Chinese trade into Africa as far back as the Shang, which exceeds even the extensive European/Mediteranean trade net in extent. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep23304

Of course an extensive trade net is not a sign of being "advanced", there's a central Asian bowl found in pre-Columbian Canadian context (it either came via Norse/Turkic or Inuit/Siberian routes) and I don;t think anyone's claiming the Athabaskans as an advanced civilisation.

4. Slaves still have to be fed, clothed and housed. Things that would come out of the wages of paid workers. These things have value, and need to be accounted for.

IIRC the classical Mediterranean model of slavery was rather nuanced, with the possibility for slaves (or at least some types of slaves) to earn wages (and could use the money to buy their freedom), as well as managing their owners funds, and even owning their own slaves. Its likely a high status warrior (soldiers weren't "grunts" in the Skythian world, they were individuals with the resources and social standing) would require more upkeep than a toilet scrubber: the obols as you say might be their bowstring money, their petty cash or even negotiated wages.

5. Average Roman ship size is irrelevant unless we know the average Han dynasty sea going ship size for comparison. Largest size is a valid comparison, since it requires merely a sample, not a statistically significant number of samples, and largest size demonstrates the capability of ship building. A large ship is more challenging to build than a small ship, and requires more financial investment. As noted, we have more physical evidence fornlargr Roman ships that we do for even Song and Ming dynasty ships. The Nanhai No. 1 isnthr largest premodern Chinese shipwreck and was around 30 m long and 300 tons, smaller than the 40 m Madrague de Giens Roman shipwreck of.a thousand years earlier, not to mention smaller than the Lake Nemi ships, and the Caligula Giant Ship. ,

I didn't know about the Madrague de Giens wreck, interesting find thx. That's not a ceremonial or "Spruce Goose" style vanity ship, it looks like it worked.

[Common Soldier]

You need to provide a source for that and not have others do it for you.

No, I don't. The slaves had to eat, and since they had no money, it had to be provided for them. I don't need to proved that the Scythian police needed air, or water to drink either. If you know of any slaves who were forced to buy their own food and clothing. I would you to provide that information..

And did Ephebos train after their term of service? Western Han militia still served one month per year after their term.

Why are we comparing the Ephebos to the Han dynasty armies at all? Would not the comparison be better with the Roman army, since fornmuchnofnrhr Han period, Athens and Greece were part of the.Roman Empire.

😙
I only need to prove it if I claimed it was true. I said that some estimates give around 50% of the Athenian population to be slaves. If you claim that it's wrong, it's your job to prove it.

Table 2.2 of Economy and Economics in Ancient Greece shows a range of different population estimates, with slave population going from 50,000-150,000 and total population going from 154,000 to 320,000.

Ok, you have answered the question. I disagree with yournposition that you don't need to, but since you did anyways, it is a moot point.

Prove slaves were provided those things rather than having those things deducted from their wage. You made the claim, you prove it instead of having others disprove it.

Was the money paid directly to the slave or to the person who owned the slave? Doesn't all the property of a slave belong to the owner? Ifnthd money was paid to the owner, ornrhr slave turned over all money to the owner, then the owner would have to provide the food and clothing for the slave. If thr Mone was given directly to the slave, then yes, perhaps the cost of food and clothing was taken from the slaves wages

That's your logic not mine. I specifically said it's not my logic, and it sounds like you don't want this logic to be applied to Roman ships. If you are going to retract said logic, and hence don't dismiss claims of Song/Ming ships based on said logic, then you shouldn't dismiss claims of ancient Chinese ships based on that logic too.

If you want to apply thr logic, then it applies to all ships, not just Roman ships. Dismmis the claims fornrhe Roman ships, we equally can dismiss claims for the Song and Ming ships as well. We do have Romans ships that were 400 tons, and I.said, we don't need to provide an example fornevery shipping run they sailed. The logic says there were no large ships from the early Ming, and the largest Song ship we have evidence for is a mere 300 tons, so we can't ships any larger actually existed in Song and Ming China.

As a matter of fact, some analysis of the contemporary evidence does indicate that Zheng He treasure ships were only 300 tons, consistent with the Chinese shipwreck remains we have found (Nanhai No. 1 shipwreck). Contemporary records mention 2000 Liao ships. Which works out 300 tons depending on the value you assign to the Liao. The Madrague de Giens supports the existence of 300 tons ships mentioned in the Roman written records. And the Lake Nemi and Caligula Giant ships do support the existence od 1400 tons ships like the Isis mentioned in the written refords. The hulls of the Lake Nemi ships were lined with lead, which served no purpose in fresh water, indicating the 60 meter hulls were adapted from sea going vessels of that size.

[HackneyedScribe]

No, I don't. The slaves had to eat, and since they had no money, it had to be provided for them. I don't need to proved that the Scythian police needed air, or water to drink either. If you know of any slaves who were forced to buy their own food and clothing. I would you to provide that information..

If slaves have no money then their "wage" is equivalent to just their upkeep. If you think slave masters provide for their slaves more than what slaves earn for their masters, I would like you to provide that information.

Was the money paid directly to the slave or to the person who owned the slave? Doesn't all the property of a slave belong to the owner? Ifnthd money was paid to the owner, ornrhr slave turned over all money to the owner, then the owner would have to provide the food and clothing for the slave. If thr Mone was given directly to the slave, then yes, perhaps the cost of food and clothing was taken from the slaves wages

If money was given to the slave owner: Slave workers earn nothing but their upkeep
If slave masters take money from their slaves: Slave upkeep comes from the money they originally earned anyways

Either way it doesn't make slaves earn more money than what's shown on paper.

If you want to apply thr logic, then it applies to all ships, not just Roman ships. Dismmis the claims fornrhe Roman ships, we equally can dismiss claims for the Song and Ming ships as well.

That's your logic, don't you already do that? As I said for the third time, I'm not using my logic. In fact I'm using yours and applying it to Roman shipping rather than Chinese ones.

We do have Romans ships that were 400 tons, and I.said, we don't need to provide an example fornevery shipping run they sailed. The logic says there were no large ships from the early Ming, and the largest Song ship we have evidence for is a mere 300 tons, so we can't ships any larger actually existed in Song and Ming China.

It sounds like you want to discard the practice of solely using archaeological evidence to prove the existence of large ships. In which case Simaqian recorded that Tower ships were over 10 zhang high.

是时越欲与汉用船战逐,乃大修昆明池,列观环之。治楼船,高十余丈,旗帜加其上,甚壮
Yue and Han were using ships for combat, Kunming Lake was greatly repaired.... Tower ships were built, over 10 zhang high, when a banner is added on top, then they are very magnificent.

As a matter of fact, some analysis of the contemporary evidence does indicate that Zheng He treasure ships were only 300 tons, consistent with the Chinese shipwreck remains we have found (Nanhai No. 1 shipwreck). Contemporary records mention 2000 Liao ships. Which works out 300 tons depending on the value you assign to the Liao. The Madrague de Giens supports the existence of 300 tons ships mentioned in the Roman written records. And the Lake Nemi and Caligula Giant ships do support the existence od 1400 tons ships like the Isis mentioned in the written refords. The hulls of the Lake Nemi ships were lined with lead, which served no purpose in fresh water, indicating the 60 meter hulls were adapted from sea going vessels of that size.

Contemporary evidence shows that Zheng He's Treasure ships were 5000 liao in size (1250 tons), not 300 tons, as you should well know considering you participated here: https://historum.com/threads/can-any...1#post-3104735

Sally K Church:
A ship of about 200-250 ft would make much more sense than the 450 ft one. Such a ship would be large enough to transport the required number of people and amount of supplies and treasures. Although this was the maximum size of wooden ships in the West, this is not the reason why we should accept it as an optimum size. Gong Zhen’s evidence is perhaps the soundest – his statement that there were 200-300 men on the ships. This number of men could not have man- aged a ship of 20,000 tons, but would have been quite adept at handling ships of a smaller size, such as the Razee Corvette, a Ship-of-the-Line manned by 205- 220 men, or the Fifth Rate (46-gun) ship with a complement of 280-300 men.The Razee Corvette was 145 ft long, and 38.5 ft in the beam with a burden of 944 tons and a displacement of 1,280 tons. The Fifth Rate was over 150 ft long and 40 ft in the beam with a capacity of 1,063 tons burden and a displacement of 2,154 tons.132 Ships that are too large also have certain disadvantages, foremost among which is a loss of maneuverability. This lesson was learned by the Spanish Armada

She didn't have the evidence from Hong Bao's tomb which was excavated after her article. The tomb gives the first primary source evidence which says that Zheng He had 5000 liao ships, which is equivalent to 1250 tons burthen and 2000 tons displacement. This coroborrates with Sally K.'s estimation using Gong Zheng's quote that the ships were crewed by 200-300 men, from which she concludes that a ship of 300 crewmen would be the size of a fifth rate ship (1063 tons burthen, 2154 tons displacement, 150 feet in length). Still very large for the time period.

[HackneyedScribe]

So, this new old thread is "I Hate China", also called Reliability of reporting on Chinese History - you can't believe all the claims you read about China. Part II.

It actually started in historum and spilled over to this forum: https://historum.com/threads/can-any...1#post-3104735

[Common Soldier]

By that logic the small 25 ton Dutch ships which outcompetes English shipping of the 17th century also sailed the Atlantic. Even the Medetterranean Sea would be the Atlantic Ocean but sailing in the latter and coastal skimming is a far cry from sailing from England to the New World

Also some things to note:
1. Slave masters are generally not angels. If they can't take from their slave wages more than the upkeep of the slave (housing, clothing, and food expenses for example), then the slave probably isn't bought for financial purposes and wouldn't be outside constructing temples.

2. A sample size of three do not get the largest Han dynasty ship. If anything it gets the 33rd largest out of a 100 ships, or the 66rd largest out of 200 ships, etc....

The fact is that the Romans were also sailing on the Indian ocean, and from the Mediterranean. What is there average size of rhd Dutch ships sailing to the Indies, and give example of Dutch ships that were only 26 tons sailing to thd Indies.

1. Slaves are long term investments. If the owner had no particular use for the slaves at the time, say it was after harvest time, they might rent the slaves out for use.

2. It is more than 3, more like at least, a half dozen ships all larger than the largest Han ship, and a half dozen is singicant, it means the large ships were not just a fluke. On top ifnthd ancient text also confirm the existence of ships, and the transportation of large obkjectz like the pillars of the Pantheon and the Egyptian obelisk also testify to thr existence ofnthr large ships. In contrast, we have no similar evidence of large Han dynasty ships. s

[Common Soldier]

I found an excellent article on Roman shipping. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:fb...k=Book+section

While the article does acknowledge the type of cargo can affect the detection of the shipwreck, it nonetheless does show the rise in shipping during the Roman per was real, and that large ships (> 100 tons) did become more common. Shipwrecks I f 100 tons, even 350 tons or greater have been found from 100 BC to 300 AD, but none before or from 400 to 1000 AD. Also, a number of harbors were enlarged and improved, ND artifical harbors like CAesaria create, which enabled larger ships to use the harbors. No similar evidence exists for contemporary China of similar sized sea going ships nor of rhe harbor improvements seen during Roman times.

I was surprised to find from the article that a couple of inventions I though were later were used durinf Roman times. Archeology from a number of shipwrecks indicated the Romans were using chain pumps to bail out their ships, and the Romans used cranes to load and unload their ships. Chain pumps I I though were a Chinese invention, but but Roman use ofnthrm was contemporary with the Chinese.

[Common Soldier]

[QUOTE=HackneyedScribe;15847141]If slaves have no money then their "wage" is equivalent to just their upkeep. If you think slave masters provide for their slaves more than what slaves earn for their masters, I would like you to provide that information.



If money was given to the slave owner: Slave workers earn nothing but their upkeep
If slave masters take money from their slaves: Slave upkeep comes from the money they originally earned anyways

It sounds like you want to discard the practice of solely using archaeological evidence to prove the existence of large ships. In which case Simaqian recorded that Tower ships were over 10 zhang high.

The Tower ships were river ships, not sea going ships, and essentially nothing more than very large barges. In any case, unlike Roman ships, we have no evidence they actually existed.

Contemporary evidence shows that Zheng He's Treasure ships were 5000 liao in size (1250 tons), not 300 tons

The 5000 liao ships you mentioned were not specifically said to be Zheng He's ships. While, given that the size was mentioned on a Hong Bao's tomb who was an official on Zhrng He's voyages, it is likely the 5000 liao ships did refer to Zheng He's ships, it is still not certain. It is possible that the 5000 Liao were some other ships, like thr river going Tower ships you mentioned earlier.

Actual contemporary inscriptions thst mention Zheng He's ships only give sizes of 1500 and 2000 liao ships. There are different opinions on the size of the Liao, with some estimates of it being 300 lbs, making a 2000 liao ship only 300 tons as said. Even using the larger value of the liao and a size of 5000 Liao, the 1250 tons bm would still be less than the 1400 tons bm of the contemporary Grace Dieus, for which we have actual archeological evidence of, unlike Zhrng He's 5000 liao ship. And still.smaller than the 1400 tons Roman ISIS from a 1000 years earlier, or Caligula's Giant Ship, which again we have actual remains.

Sally K Church:
A ship of about 200-250 ft would make much more sense than the 450 ft one. Such a ship would be large enough to transport the required number of people and amount of supplies and treasures. Although this was the maximum size of wooden ships in the West, this is not the reason why we should accept it as an optimum size. Gong Zhen’s evidence is perhaps the soundest – his statement that there were 200-300 men on the ships. This number of men could not have man- aged a ship of 20,000 tons, but would have been quite adept at handling ships of a smaller size, such as the Razee Corvette, a Ship-of-the-Line manned by 205- 220 men, or the Fifth Rate (46-gun) ship with a complement of 280-300 men.The Razee Corvette was 145 ft long, and 38.5 ft in the beam with a burden of 944 tons and a displacement of 1,280 tons. The Fifth Rate was over 150 ft long and 40 ft in the beam with a capacity of 1,063 tons burden and a displacement of 2,154 tons.132 Ships that are too large also have certain disadvantages, foremost among which is a loss of maneuverability. This lesson was learned by the Spanish Armada

Sally Church argument is weak here. The 5th rate HMS Serapis was 879 tons and a crew of 280, and the 44 gun USS Constitution was 1575 tonnage, and 2,200 tons displacement, with a crew of 450. In addition, the far closer in time 16th century Harry Grace a Dieu was 1000 tons burden, and had 300 sailors with a total compliment of 600 including Marines and that is probably a better guide than the later 18th 5th rate ship example you used, being closer in time. Churrch's example tends to inflate the size of Zheng He's ships.


In addition, in a section of Church's work you did not mention, the reports a Ming official reporting of a 500 liao train ship with a crew of 100. For a crew of 300, that would imply a ship of 1500 Liao, consistent with the sizes mentioned in the conetmporary inscriptions of Zhrng He's voyages.

[quote]
She didn't have the evidence from Hong Bao's tomb which was excavated after her article. The tomb gives the first primary source evidence which says that Zheng He had 5000 liao ships,[/quote=]

As I mentioned, the tomb did not specifically state they were Zheng He's ships

which is equivalent to 1250 tons burthen and 2000 tons displacement. This coroborrates with Sally K.'s estimation using Gong Zheng's quote that the ships were crewed by 200-300 men, from which she concludes that a ship of 300 crewmen would be the size of a fifth rate ship (1063 tons burthen, 2154 tons displacement, 150 feet in length). Still very large for the time period.

Only if you use the larger value for thr Liao. Using other estimates of the liao only gives a size of 750 tons for a 5000 liao ship. Even at the larger 1250 tons, that is still smaller than the 1400 tons of the contemporary Grace Dieus, and the 1000 year earlier Roman ISIS and giant Caligula ship.

Using a size of 2000 liao found in the inscriptions, and the lower value of 300 lbs, gives 300 tons, the size of actual Song Dynasty shipwrecks we have found.


PS There is a entire thread where the size od Zheng He's ships are discussed, which you you did not post on, but instead chose to refer to post from another rwebsite. In the future, please contain your references to this website od actual references, not post in a completely different forum.