Talk:São João Baptista (galleon)

Disputed

Wasn't this ship too early to be a "galleon" as we understand that word now?

Great painting. Still hard to tell, unfortunately. She looks like the other ships, are they also galleos? or perhaps a transitional form? Remember, the words "nau"/"carrack" were used simply to mean "ship" at that time, and only gradually got the technical meaning we understand today, even galleons later in the century were often called carrack or nau. The word "galleon" dates all the way back to Roman times. We need some experts on the history of ships.

Guns

How is "366" guns physically possible, especially in such an old ship? Can't be done. That's like triple the largest number of guns I've ever heard of, and those were massive vessels that suffered from being top-heavy anyway. I just can't imagine how one could possibly fit 180 guns in a broadside. Three decks of 60 guns!? The HMS Victory has decks of 15!. Even if they were very small guns, you can only make a gunport so small, and you can only cut so many holes in a ship without making it so weak it won't swim. And you can only make a wooden ship so long, even with 19th Century techniques. Decks of 60 guns per side? Hah!

The ship would have to be far larger than the biggest 100+ gun 1st Rate line-of-battle ships that were the most powerful and largest in the world by the early 1800's. If it was possible to put 300+ guns in a ship, I think that the British and French would have tried, especially given how much advanced shipbuilding techniques had become by the 19th Century. According to the articles Ship of the line and French ship Valmy (128 guns), she was "the largest sailing three-decker ship of the line ever built in the West", and "Valmy was thought to be the largest sort of sailing ship possible, as larger dimensions made the manoeuvre of riggings impractical with mere manpower" (let alone the action of "hogging and sagging" which was an issue for larger vessels even after the adoption of iron/steel hulls. Plus, it would take easily 2-3,000 men to crew the guns and rigging on a ship that size.) And she was so unstable she needed underwater stabilizers to keep from rolling over!

No, sorry; I don't buy the "366" number for a moment. Maybe half that, and it'd still be amazing. I bet someone mistakenly wrote that "it had a broadside of 180 guns", meaning ALL the guns, but someone else read it to mean "180 guns per side" and doubled it. I mean seriously, even 180 seems implausible..45Colt 07:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, .45Colt, interesting your points. Hard to believe? Modelist that I mention in the next section, points to a value close to 200 - admits the possibility someting closer to 200. See my links bellow. And another possibility or reason: Imagine heavy guns, "medium-size" guns etc., in reserve(?) etc. See the carrack (not all were heavy cannons as cannons centuries after, but included many breech-loading swivel-guns, carronades etc. - this could be another reason why so many weapons(?)) in the Santa Catarina do Monte Sinai carrack, who, contrary to Frol de la Mar (1502 - with an exp. large number of guns, maybe around 40, or 50 guns, or even near or around 60 pieces), also a nau, and other European, did not have gunports cut in the hull, but even in this case (the Santa Catarina) had around the uncommon number at the time of 140 cannons (but only some a dozen(?) of great havy cannons in the center, if correct, altough all of them (the more smaller ones) caused heavy damage to solid enemy coastal structures, if you judge by the Chronicles). See also other heavily armed early ships as the Great Michael (carrack). Even so (about the possible number, near to 200 or something, if possible) in 200 years wouldnt almost be beaten. Counting arms in reserve and something strange? The possible "miscalculation" you mean? (Interesting). Are possibilities. 366 its from from historical source. Of course, Troy and other archeological cases teach us to be humble and wise before the oral and written traditions. This galleon had many decks and "floors" to guns in the its long aftercastle (those cannons located on several decks-floors, back and and on both broadsides), as some more guns in the center and surrounding all the small forecastle - and including Gunports cut in the hull to some more guns (see historical images).--LuzoGraal (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

External link: model of the galleon São João Baptista, the "Botafogo"

I added this:

• [1] Accurate historical model of the São João Baptista, the "Botafogo", under construction, from the pictures and surviving tapestries - Modelism - by Genésio Machado Jr.

According to Wikipedia rules, blogs are largely not acceptable, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

But it's a blog, by a Brazilian artist and author, Genésio Machado Júnior, without promotional purposes, and not for sale anything, only a truly exceptional individual historical work, with historical accuracy (with extensive historical research and experience), and with extensive credentials among their peers. Removed (for now) because I also do not requested permission yet to him (although it seems unnecessary because the author implicitly already showed to authorize final photos in the future to Wikipedia (for example), to other people and readers (by readears intentions and messages, not denied in any way by the author). But removed from the article page, by prudence (the ambiguity on both sides of the issue)and to make sure it is right to do so, maybe in the future. Here (not being a problem, I think), another insight: His Model of Carrack Santa Catarina do Monte Sinai (1512-20s): [2]. Enormous historical research and rigorous models virtually unparalleled, including museums (well known) accredited in Europe and other parts --LuzoGraal (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Characteristics

This is not for original research. But is not original research, because I have read something very similar to experts, if I remember correctly. And its my idea for now about this galleon:

This is not a "galleon" as the average later ones. This is a real (one of them at the time) proto-galleon, and a true galleon (by that). Its a long galley, with a narrow hull of a galley (but maybe wider as a whole - in gradation to its center of course, long and larger as a whole), still with a fine beack (front), with a bronze or iron spur (a spur more or less used in the Mediterranean? in galleys and possible in galeasses (maybe in France also?) - something similar, if I´m not mistaken, but rare - used in Portugal`s galleons of this first type). But with new important innovatioons. A new elongated aftercastle, more projected backwards, and more complex, in 3, 4 or 5 floors or many-decks castle-like, on diagonal gradation in length, and with two gradations: from a narrow hull bellow to a progressive wider center and then to the progressive very narrow decks/floors above. Many decks-"floors" to guns in the on long aftercastle, as some more guns in the center and surrounding all the small forecastle - and including Gunports cut in the hull to some more guns (see historical images). And with 2 latteen rigged sails in the two mizzen-masts and 4 or 5 square-rigged sails in the foremast and the main-mast (a compromisse between the carrack and the caravel (and the square-rigged caravel)). --LuzoGraal (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Broadside Power

The line about "artillery power" is almost certainly incorrect. When gauging artillery strength of ships in English, the general measurement is "broadside weight" - the combined weight of shot available in a single broadside. These are usually measured in pounds during the Age of Sail, and for comparison the Santissima Trinidad, one of the most comically oversized ships of the late 18th century, threw a broadside weight of about 1500 pounds, or about 680 kilograms.

1000 US tons of weight would be 907,185 kilograms. This is beyond insane. Even the IJN Yamato, largest battleship of the 20th century, only threw a broadside weight of 13,141 kilograms. Most likely what the author intended to write was that the broadside weight was 1000 pounds - a figure which when compared to the broadside weight of 18th century vessels strongly supports the idea that "366 guns" includes a lot of very small guns. Possibly the 366 figure included not just artillery pieces, but handguns as well.--210.6.45.238 (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with previous commenter

1000 tons appears two times in the article: as "artillery power" and as "displacement". I feel that should be displacement in both places. There is also the possibility that the original author meant that the total artillery weights was 1000 tons, but I do not suppose that this is the correct interpretation.

At Lepanto (1571) the christian galleasses were a new weapon, clearly at odd with a 366-gun vessel of 1535.

In the Armada expedition (1587) a major cause of the spanish defeat was that the spanish ships had man-killing guns to be used as a preliminary to the boarding, while the english ones had ship-smashing guns to make boarding useless (this should be well known, but I may find the source if needed).

On the whole, I agree with the previous commenter that most of these guns were little more than rifles.

pietro151.29.25.24 (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)