Question about Zheng He

[ray245]

I was chance upon another board debating about Admiral Zheng He setting sail during the height of Ming Dynasty. One of them was arguing that we couldn’t trust most of the information, given that it might be PRC propaganda.

He also argued that the fleet size isn't that large as many believe, certainly not over 150 ships, and the fact that european ships and cannons are much better than the China at the age of Zheng He, around late 14th century BCE to early 15 century CE.

So what information about the expedition is fact, and which are fiction?

[AK-047]

If what Gavin Menzies posits is true, which I personally think it is as that era of China was prosperous, then perhaps the Chinese did map the world before the Europeans took the fame. Although at this point, it is very much up to the opinion of the reader.

And PRC propaganda? Isn't that a bit discriminatory?

[Ritterin Sophia]

If what Gavin Menzies posits is true, which I personally think it is as that era of China was prosperous, then perhaps the Chinese did map the world before the Europeans took the fame. Although at this point, it is very much up to the opinion of the reader.

Since I'm tired I just refered to wikipedia, but the Lady in charge of the carbon dating at the university didn't sound very truthful to me.

And PRC propaganda? Isn't that a bit discriminatory?

This from a citizen of The Peoples' Democratic Republic of Canuckistan!

[AK-047]

And PRC propaganda? Isn't that a bit discriminatory?

This from a citizen of The Peoples' Democratic Republic of Canuckistan! [/quote]

Perhaps I should have removed the waving flag and simply let people find me using the coordinates I provided

Anyway, I think the findings of modern human genetic ties between Orientals and Native North Americans seem to be proof enough. I still feel that the reason why people are so against this theory is because many people think that the Chinese are only good at making Chinese food and martial arts.

[Imperial Overlord]

Anyway, I think the findings of modern human genetic ties between Orientals and Native North Americans seem to be proof enough. I still feel that the reason why people are so against this theory is because many people think that the Chinese are only good at making Chinese food and martial arts.

Considering Native Americans came over the Bearing Sea from Asia, who did you expect them to be most closely related to? Sub-Saharin Africans? Of course they are more closely related to Asians than any other groups. Their ancestors are from Asia.

The Chinese did get around in their expansionistic phase, so contact wouldn't be much of a surprise, but the lack of impact on both Native and Chinese societies does tell us a lot about how important the contact was.

[weemadando]

Gavin Menzies is a lying fuck.

ABC's 4 Corners puts the hurt on the man. The actual episode was fucking HILARIOUS.

There was another really good 2 part doco done by PBS IIRC where the first episode is spent following up the story as recounted by Gavin Menzies and the entire second episode consists of the doco makers slamming Menzies to the ground and laying the boots into him for fully 45 minutes.

[Dooey Jo]

He also argued that the fleet size isn't that large as many believe, certainly not over 150 ships, and the fact that european ships and cannons are much better than the China at the age of Zheng He, around late 14th century BCE to early 15 century CE.

Uhm, from where is he getting this? Their biggest ships were supposed to be almost 150 metres long, while the Europeans at that time could only dream to build such things. Where is his evidence that it's all PRC propaganda? Seems pretty damned convenient to dismiss everything as propaganda and then make up new figures with information that might come from his own ass...

[Ariphaos]

Uhm, from where is he getting this? Their biggest ships were supposed to be almost 150 metres long, while the Europeans at that time could only dream to build such things. Where is his evidence that it's all PRC propaganda? Seems pretty damned convenient to dismiss everything as propaganda and then make up new figures with information that might come from his own ass...

Yeah, I'll think about respecting such a ridiculous claim when such a wooden vessel is actually built.

All of the arguments against Noah's Ark apply here. The claims are just as outlandish, if not more so since all that has been recovered for 'evidence' is a single plank that was supposedly part of a hull. Despite this fleet only being four centuries old and built in numbers instead of a single vessel four thousand years old.

[the wicked prince]

It is grand that the accomplishments of the Ming are publicized but Gavin Menzies is a quack.

Uhm, from where is he getting this? Their biggest ships were supposed to be almost 150 metres long, while the Europeans at that time could only dream to build such things. Where is his evidence that it's all PRC propaganda? Seems pretty damned convenient to dismiss everything as propaganda and then make up new figures with information that might come from his own ass...

Yeah, I'll think about respecting such a ridiculous claim when such a wooden vessel is actually built.

All of the arguments against Noah's Ark apply here. The claims are just as outlandish, if not more so since all that has been recovered for 'evidence' is a single plank that was supposedly part of a hull. Despite this fleet only being four centuries old and built in numbers instead of a single vessel four thousand years old.

You are in error; it is extrapolation from a rudder post. The premise has been accepted by more reputable scholars since long before Menzies. I will not here discuss right now whether their judgment is accurate.

Chinese also pioneered the use of drydock and watertight bulkheads, stern rudders and .. something to do with the sail system (here my memory fails)

[the wicked prince]

Although it may be said that their true expansionist phase is in the remote past pre 1000 ad, not counting Manchu led annexations

[Frank Hipper]

Uhm, from where is he getting this? Their biggest ships were supposed to be almost 150 metres long, while the Europeans at that time could only dream to build such things. Where is his evidence that it's all PRC propaganda? Seems pretty damned convenient to dismiss everything as propaganda and then make up new figures with information that might come from his own ass...

Yeah, I'll think about respecting such a ridiculous claim when such a wooden vessel is actually built.

All of the arguments against Noah's Ark apply here. The claims are just as outlandish, if not more so since all that has been recovered for 'evidence' is a single plank that was supposedly part of a hull. Despite this fleet only being four centuries old and built in numbers instead of a single vessel four thousand years old.

The Chinese Treasure Ships were no myth.

150 meters IS a ridiculously fantastic size, of course, but the more rational estimates for the Treasure Ships, 100 meters or less, is not, and wooden ships that size most certainly have been built; Canadian lumber transport ships of the early 19th century, the Great Republic, and USS Dunderberg, the largest wooden ship ever built at 377 feet long (fifty feet of that length were a solid oak ram).

Some ships of the Yuan Dynasty Japanese invasion fleet are estimated to have been 230 feet long going on unambiguous archeological evidence; tacking on another 50-70 feet in length to ships by 100 some-odd years later is no great stretch.

Anyway:
As to European cannon being better, so what? Show me evidence of shipboard cannon in 1402-25 that were anything but anti-personel weapons, and that wrought iron European pieces of the time were better than Chinese.

Conversely, as to European ships being toys in comparison, that isn't an especially honest way to view things:
France's Louis IX contracted with Venice and Genoa to provide ships for his crusades of 1248-54, and 1270. The largest of these were 120 feet long, or more.

Henry V's Grace Dieu of around 1420 was monster clinker-built version of the carrack, and had a capacity of 1400 tons. Henry VIII's Henri Grace a' Dieu of 1513, largely recognised as the largest ship of it's time, was of only 1000 tons.

The Persian Nasir i Khusrau recorded the length of seven ships beached in Egypt belonging to the Fatimid Caliph al-Mu'izz in 1046 as being more than 200 feet. While those may not be technically European, but they did belong to western shipbuilding traditions.

Typically when you find Zeng He wankers in operation, they invariably use Columbus' ships as a comparison to demonstrate Chinese superiority; not only is the comparison of the smallest European seagoing types (which Columbus' ships were) to the largest Chinese types an extraordinary fallacy, but by the time of Columbus Europe was producing prestige flagships that were at least approaching the size range of the Treasure ships.

It comes down to this; the accomplishments of Zeng He, the size of his ships, and the size of his fleets in the original Chinese records are not especially implausible, I've never seen a good argument for doubting those original sources.
When you let the Menzies crowd claims for these things be your source, however, then you get into Noah's Ark country.

Lastly; some of the fiercest opposition to the myths that Gavin Menzies has been propagating has come from Chinese historians!
I don't how someone can accept that the tales of Zeng He are PRC propaganda, not if they bother to inform themselves on the subject.

[Simplicius]

All of the arguments against Noah's Ark apply here. The claims are just as outlandish, if not more so since all that has been recovered for 'evidence' is a single plank that was supposedly part of a hull. Despite this fleet only being four centuries old and built in numbers instead of a single vessel four thousand years old.

The steering post found was 36 feet long; the evidence for the rudder which would have been attached indicated 452 square feet, according to the National Geographic.

The upper limit for wooden ship construction seems to be in the vicinity of 330 feet o.a. The longest wooden sailing ship with an all-wood keel is the schooner Wyoming. Extensive internal steel bracing wasn't enough to prevent the hull from flexing greatly when underway, and a photograph of another six-master hauled out shows a very wavy sheer, as the hull sagged under its own weight and length. Sprung planks were also constant problem for ships that size. So assume intead that the junks fell somewhere in the vicinity of Wyoming's 329 feet o.a./50 foot beam/30 foot draught, 3730 tons displacement.

[Ariphaos]

The Chinese Treasure Ships were no myth. *snip*

I'm more focussed against the claim that they did reach 150m in length. There's a lot of records regarding their existence, but to their numbers I'm not convinced and I would have high doubts that - if these are supposed to be oceanworthy - that they would be much longer than their European counterparts.

Also, the Wyoming needed mechanical pumps, didn't it?

[ray245]

If anyone wants to know where the PRC propaganda came from, here's the link.

http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums/sh ... hp?t=13725

I'm a bit angry that that guy is totally ignoring my post that other country historians are also looking into Zheng He.

[ray245]

Ok...He did address some of my points...my bad.

[Dooey Jo]

All of the arguments against Noah's Ark apply here. The claims are just as outlandish, if not more so since all that has been recovered for 'evidence' is a single plank that was supposedly part of a hull. Despite this fleet only being four centuries old and built in numbers instead of a single vessel four thousand years old.

Yeah, there are just a few more problems with Noah's Ark, perhaps not the least being that no evidence at all have been found for it, and it supposedly being built by a single person from a culture with no previous sea-faring or ship-building history...

...by the time of Columbus Europe was producing prestige flagships that were at least approaching the size range of the Treasure ships.

While Europe wasn't extremely far behind in ship-building technology, they were hardly

much better than the China

[Frank Hipper]

The Chinese Treasure Ships were no myth. *snip*

I'm more focussed against the claim that they did reach 150m in length. There's a lot of records regarding their existence, but to their numbers I'm not convinced and I would have high doubts that - if these are supposed to be oceanworthy - that they would be much longer than their European counterparts.

Also, the Wyoming needed mechanical pumps, didn't it?

Every large wooden ship I'm aware of has needed mechanical pumps.
All wooden ships leak from one extent to another.

Big American working schooners of the late 19th-early 20th century aren't exactly stellar examples of the shipbuilder's art, either.
They were built cheaply (as a matter of fact as cheaply as possible), most often of pine, and were of very shallow draft and broad beam for their length. Flimsy is a word that comes to mind, as does dangerous. A lot of them met with very messy ends.

As to Treasure Ships and original sources, I retract what I said earlier and conceed that it most definitely appears that something bullshit-ish is going on; Ming and/or immediate post Ming sources supposedly give their length as being approximately 400 feet. That's short of the ridiculous 150 meter claim, but no more believeable because of it.
There were some bizarre things to be found on inland Chinese waterways, and if something that large ever truly existed it most definitely wasn't ocean-going.

The shipwrecks of the Mongol invasion fleet, however, do confirm that medieval Chinese ocean going ships could be very much larger than contemporary European ships.