Talk:Longship/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

Do we know of examples of other cultures using ship burials? And does "shallow going" mean shallow draft or relatively flat-botomed? Rmhermen 19:54 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Knorr

I've seen longships described as knorr, displacing 10 tons, with 1m draft full load, crew 35, & usually rowed, not sailed. Comment? Trekphiler 17:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Knorr (or Knorre, Knarre, Knarr, depending on who you talk to) is not a longship. It's another model of Viking ship, used for trade. It's shorter, wider, with higher freeboard and generally even more sea-worthy. Many of the Viking long-distance expeditions were probably done in Knorrs. However, Knorrs are neary exclusively sailed, and very rarely rowed. Some mix-up, I guess. --Stephan Schulz 22:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice that there is a page for Knarr, which is a stub and some modern boating content, and a long and detailed Knaar ship information. Hope nobody minds if I change links from knarr to knaar. Anca 05:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Longships vs. longboats?

There's also an article at longboat: is there a case for merging these? Alai 20:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NO!Haabet 23:17, September 2, 2005 (UTC)Autochthony writes.

I agree with Haabet, although his understatement does him/her credit; had I been the first responder, I suggest I might have been a little more emphatic.

Different animals entirely, longship and longboat. Autochthony wrote 2219z 01 December 2009. 86.151.60.238 (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The ship of Olaf Tryggvason

There are two problems:

• The name of the ship is not correct
• the link from the wrong name leads to an irrelevant page.

1. The correct name of his ship is

Ormen hin Lange

as is well known in Norway and Denmark. The translation of the name goes like this:

Ormen - the snake (in fact: The worm)

hin - this

Lange - long (one)

The word "hin" is a bit archaic, adding a flavour of awe and veneration for the ship. According to [1] the ship was built in 995. That article lists ship names from the viking ages and later.

Wikipedia is an English language encyclopedia, and the customary English name is Ormen Lange. Why don't you add the other information, e.g. "(original: Ormen hin Lange, literally The Long Worm)"? --Stephan Schulz 17:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

2. The link in this article refers wrongly to Ormen Lange, which is apparently a Norwegian oil field that has no connection to this subject.

Check the end of that article. As long as we do not have a seperate article on "Ormen Lange (Ship)", this is about as good as it gets. --Stephan Schulz 17:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sir48 profile in English

Now we apparently have an article at Ormen Lange longship. Considering who is named after who, it strikes me as a bit odd Fornadan (t) 09:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

In norway the name is Ormen Lange not ormen hin lange as that's danish And althou danish where the official language in norway and denmark entered a union I realy don't think that was how regular people wrote or spoke the word. The faeroese name of the ship is Ormurin_Langi That's the name used in the old faeroese "kved" (roughly tranclated: song) Luredreier 18:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vendelsnekke and nazism

Vendelsnekke was from Wend/Slavonic states, and was very flat-bottomed, slim and seal by moss not by wool as common.

The vendelsnekke is well-known from the history and archaeological finds.

But have problems by the nazism, becorse Slav is only slaver in nazi way of thinking.

Haabet 07:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is very badly documented. I could not find it in any of my books, and Google finds exactly 5 hits, representing just 2 original texts. I'd be interested in seening some sources. However, the main reason for taking it out of the article is that I don't think it is a longship, i.e. a light, sharply clinker-built (potentially) sea-going vessel originating around Scandinavia. I don't know what Nazism has to do with it, and as far as I know, the name "Slav" is the origin of the modern word "slave'" (not the other way round), and is only indirectly connected with "slaver". Moreover, it goes back to Roman times and is a lot older than Nazism. --Stephan Schulz 10:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The long & short of it

Calling an 11.4:1 fineness ratio "extaordinary" is a bit strong. WW2 submarines were 11.3. Trekphiler 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Autochthony writes.

'A bit strong' - agree. However, that sort of fineness is distinctly unusual. Boat Race sculling eights have a fineness of - as an estimate - 20 (about sixty feet long at the waterline, and about three wide (to accommodate the number four and five, across their hips - usually)).

Many early ships were decidedly round - with beam to length of five or less.

they werecalled 'round ships'.

Modern container ships - designed for service at twenty-five knots [44 kph] or so - have fineness of about eight. Tankers maybe seven, and bulkers - being quite slow (so susceptible to pirate attack) sometimes below seven. Autochthony wrote. 2230z 1 December 2009. 86.151.60.238 (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the Oseberg ship a true longship?

I am a bit confused by this article. I have always thought the Gokstad ship was more of a typical longship than the Oseberg. The Oseberg is constantly referred to as a vessel for coastal voyages or some sort of royal yacht, on the account that it is so much more fragile than, say, the Gokstad ship Grumpy444grumpy 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) The short anwer is yes it is a long ship. All longships are one offs -there was no mass production as we have today.Viking boat builders were very sophistocated in the knowledge and could produce a vessel to match diferent conditions. At any one time there was probably at least 200-500 plus longships in existence. The Oseberg is more of a sheltered water craft with lower freeboard. It also has some fine detailing/artwork not found on many longships as far as we can judge by the limited number of ships found so far. The detailed art work carving on the cut water of the stem and the forward gunwhale is very fine indeed. Each plank was etched with 2 fine lines along their lower outer edge accentuating the fine upward sweep of the bow.This is art work pure and simple and nothing to do with seaworthyness or sailing/rowing efficiency.The Oseburg was probably built about 50 years prior to the Gostad at a time when the Vikings were still predominantly focused east in their trading relationships. When Lindisfarne was attacked in 793 it was unlikely to have been a ship like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dragon ships

I have deleted the Dragon ship section of this article as the information could not be verified. The term Dragon ship is an outdated term which should be avoided. The section also claimed that a dragon ship was held at the Viking Ship Museum in Oslo. Apparently it was 30m long and could hold 121 rowers. This is not the case. Only three ships are held at this museum. These are the ships from Oseberg, Gokstad and Tune. The longest of these is the Gokstad ship at 23m. Grumpy444grumpy 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Haabet disagrees with my decision. The fact remains, though. There is no "dragon ship" in the Viking Ship Museum in Oslo. If it is referring to the Skuldelev 2 ship in Roskilde, the specs for that ship are as follows: 28m long, 4.5m broad. Crew: 50-60, not 121! The Skuldelev [2] is the longest longship found.

Is in the correctly Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, it was 30 meter, not 28m as first assume. It has 30 pair of oar and one steer-oar. It been 61 (or 121 if they are two about one oar). It is not the longest longship/dragonship found becorse in the port of Roskilde they have get a dragon-ship on 35m. http://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/page.asp?objectid=289&zcs=402 Haabet 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) http://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/page.asp?sideid=598&zcs=402

Where is the reference to there being 121 rowers? Where is it called a dragon-ship? Where is the reference to a 35m long ship?

Skuldelev-2 is 30 meters, 60 oars (30 per side), total crew up to 80, according to the museum. As usual for ancient ships, naming is inconsistent between original sources, 1000 years of romanticising stories that have been told hence, older and current research papers, and popular science books. I'm certain someone called this a dragon ship. I'm a lot less certain that we should call it this. On a seperate angle, I've always been dissatisfied with the state of this article, but I had (and have) not enough time to do more than minor corrections. Maybe we should nominate this for a collaboration of the week? --Stephan Schulz 18:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is a bit flimsy at the moment. The term dragon ship is an archaic term, normally used by scholars of the 19th century (Romanticism, anyone?) I think in a modern encyclopedia such terms should be avoided. Grumpy444grumpy 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The dragon ship was a invention of Alfred the Great who have dragon as symbol in war. The translation of dragon to Old Norse is Orm (worm). see Ormen Lange in article.

Do not make a new terminology in Wikipedia, please. People in olddays was also romanticist, who make romantic name. Haabet 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you have to check your dictionary on this one. Dragon translates as drage/drake in old norse. The word Orm in Ormen Lange translates as the Long Serpent, Worm means maggot. I hardly think anyone in the Viking age would name their ship the long maggot!! What is this new terminology you are talking about? All I am saying is that in current academic/scientific circles the term dragon-ship is generally avoided. Just look up any reliable book on maritime archaeology. Grumpy444grumpy 07:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You translate first from Anglo-Saxon to old Norse, second you translate from old Norse to Danish; third you translate from Danish to english. And been surprise of the disappeared of the sense. The dragon was unknown of the Old Norse, but they know one Serpent/maggot so big as the circumference of the earth.

The archaeology only know two dragon-ship. It is rare type of Longship. Not al cars is cadillac.Haabet 12:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And which ships are these? Orm=snake/serpent Worm=mark/maggot/makk Grumpy444grumpy 12:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

They was 3.

1. Wreck 2(-4) 30 meter, Skuldelev 1967. http://www.rgzm.de/Navis/Ships/Ship002/Ship002Engl.htm
2. Wreck 6, 36 meter, ROSKILDE, 1997. http://www.rgzm.de/Navis/Ships/Ship092/Ship092.htm
3. Haithabu 1. ship008/Ship008Engl.htm

http://www.havhingsten.dk/index.php?id=72&L=2

14:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And are they referred to as dragon-ships or longships? Grumpy444grumpy 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/sagaships.htm This page tell about the big dragon-ships. All dragon-ships are longships. Some book had misunderstood and say longships is dragon-ships, but the sources only use the term "dragon-ships" about the biggest ship by 30 pair of oars or more. Haabet 21:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, should I trust the Roskilde museum folks or this guy... Tough choice, that, but you know, I think I'll stick to the experts on this one. The ones that don't call the ships dragon-ships but longships. I can find you a page on the internet that will tell you that the ships had ice-skates attached to them so that they could cross frozen lakes if you want that added too! It is just as trustworthy!Grumpy444grumpy 08:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This part needs to be updated in light of the 1997 discovery of "Skuldelev 7" at Roskilde- 35m, even longer than Skuldelev 2.Solicitr 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the Vikingship museum in Roskilde this ship was "only" about 36m (118ft) long, i.e. only about 6 m longer than Skuldelev 2 which could fit about 30 rowers. According to historical sources the Drakkar ships were capable of carrying hundreds of armed men. No such ship has yet been found. Grumpy444grumpy 20:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Structure of article

I suggest that this article be split up into one part which deals explicitly with the archaeological evidence i.e. the solid evidence, and one which deals with the historical evidence i.e. how viking ships have been portrayed in historical sources. Further to this, I am a bit concerned that when you search for "Viking ship" you get redirected directly to "Longship". Surely "Longship" should be a sub-category of "Viking ship" as there were several types of ships used during the Viking period? Grumpy444grumpy 08:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Longship was used befor and after the Viking period, but been bigger by time. Haabet 11:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. Therefore "Viking ship" should not link directly to "longship", as the longship was only one of many types of ships used in that period.--Grumpy444grumpy 12:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the bit about historical evidence vs. archaeological ones, the later ones can also be contested, or rather the inturpitations of them.
The danish scientists that try to figure out how the ships is constructed sometimes make papire models of each of the ships parts they find and try to fit them together, this is a nice way to get a idea of how the ships looked ofcourse if you have no idea to start with.
Truble is the old vikings where likly to have used the same building teckniqes that where in use here in norway later one, where the wooden hull is bent into shape during the building, allowing the ship to have a different shape then it would have if you just changed eash wooden part without bending them after they're fittet in.
Hum, that was hard to explain...
Sorry if I didn't make myself understood :/ I'm not a native english speaker..
Anyways, some (not realy that few) people in norway talk about the viking ship models of the danes they disagree with the shape
I think the complain was something about the keel being to deep in the middle compeared to fore and aft althou I might remember wrong..
Anyways, the point was that people see different stuff in the archaological evidences just like they do when writing history..
Luredreier 18:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luredreier (talk • contribs)

When I think about it I think the debate I heared about was regarding the new reconstruation of one of the norwegian long boats in particular and not long boats in general althou it might tru for other long boat reconstructions too..
Anyways, my point still stands, althou archaeological profes for something might be true the scientists analysing them sometimes come to the wrong conclutions and it's therfor important to be critical to both modern and old sources.
Therfor I wonder if it's realy that good idea to split the article into a history part and a archeological part...
Luredreier 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luredreier (talk • contribs)

Rooms

There should be an explanation & description of the "room" here, since that was the traditional way of measuring size of longship Fornadan (t) 09:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think is was a Nordic term for "pair of oar"Haabet 11:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As i understand it, a room was a term used to describe the space between two ribs of the ship, because this distance was a constant along the ship and i believe the oars were spaced 1 per room (per side). So that each rower, his seachest he would be seated on and the oar would be evenly between the ribs.Tyranowulf 23:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Tyranowulf is correct, that's more or less how the term is used in the fishing boats used in Trondelag in 1800 or there about..
Luredreier 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luredreier (talk • contribs)

By the way that don't mean that pair of oars or other ways of classefying boats wheren't used
In the fishing boats in Trondelag several different ways of mesuring the size of the boats where used depending of what use the boat had
A cargo boat could be mesured by how much cargo it took, while in some of the rowboats the number of oars where more important, and ships used in fishing might be messured how much room there was for fish and fishing equipment and other stuff
I might remember something wrong thou, it's been a while since I was in any of those boats and I'm not realy an expert either as I've only sailed a little in a few of those boats.
Luredreier 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luredreier (talk • contribs)

History/Earlier Types

I quite appreciate the new information on the Hortspring boat and so on, and I think it helps the article. That's why I went over what was there yesterday evening with a usually reliable reference book (Landström's "The Ship") on my desk, fixing both English language errors, stylistic matters and some minor factual stuff (e.g. the Hjortspring boat was roughly contemporary with the Nydam boat (according to Landström, the more primitive vessel is even 100 years younger)). However, all my changes were reverted without explanation when User:Shafeeqjr added new material. Was that intentional (if yes, I would like to hear some reasons so we can discuss it) or just an accident (in which case I would just restore my the changes into the current state of the article). --Stephan Schulz 06:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited the full article in part of a research project for my Vikings course at Loyola Marymount University. I tired to use the original article and new findings to fufill my project as well as provide more information to everyone who is interested on information on longships. I will check back later for your response, but to restore what you original wrote would be damaging to the Wikipedia community as well as the world. If you would like to add, by all means I would love that, but to restore, would be distasteful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shafeeqjr (talk • contribs) .

Hi Shafeeqjr! I of course don't want to remove all your new stuff. But check out the edits I made to your first few section here. Many of the things are minor (e.g. adding SI units), toning down the language a bit, and so on. As an example. "Hjortspring" is the name of the farm where the boat was found. As far as I know, the boat has not received a proper name, bit is referred to as the "Hjortspring boat", not just "Hjortspring". On some, our sources seem to disagree (Landström dates the Nydam find to "around 300 B.C"., Hjortspring to "second century before Christ"). Bye and thanks for your contributions! --Stephan Schulz 06:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: You can signe your contributions (on talk pages only!) using four tildas: ~~~~. That expands to your name and the date automatically.

Stephan Schulz: I like the changes, I hope others can contribute also to make this a wonderful site. I thank you once again for the contributions, they truly added more clarity and better information to the site. Shafeeqjr shafeeqjr

Thanks. I've put the changes back in, with some extra editing. --Stephan Schulz 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Where'd the other types go? And why? Don Blake 09:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tidy

I've tagged this article as needing a tidy. The article is in my opinion without a good structure, reads like a school project and is full of inaccuracies, generalisations and nonsense. --Grumpy444grumpy 10:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the tidy request (and I think we are working on it). The article has a lot improved in the last few weeks. --Stephan Schulz 11:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly has! There is still however a few things that need sorting out. Would like to see this article up to "featured article" standard! --Grumpy444grumpy 11:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I've also listed the article at Wikipedia:Cleanup#May_1.2C_2006.--Stephan Schulz 11:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the citations? Is there any work needed there, cause i'll do it if it will be accepted..! --Fenigan Brack 17:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the fact that it needs to be cleaned up and more facts need to be represented, but I do not think it is full of inaccuracies and generalisations. Grumpy, I fail to see what you have done to make the article better or even contribute to the page. Please do something and complain less.--64.95.198.126 19:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What, like yourself? --Grumpy444grumpy 21:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Did a bit of tidying up - there are still quite a lot of irrelevant or repeated links and some repetition that might be removed by a revamp of the structure. As well, the English is still a bit non-native in places Kahuroa 07:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've been through this article and made a lot of fixes to the wording, as well as a few fairly minor organisational changes. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about longships, and I haven't been concerned with verifying or enhancing the content. I've just tried to turn the existing content into something approximating normal English. It reads largely OK to me now, so I have removed the cleanup banner. For the record, here are a couple of things that I noticed as I went through but couldn't make enough sense of to fix:

The introduction says that the longship is characterised as "narrow", and yet in other places (e.g. under "Legacy") it is described as "wide". Someone needs to decide which it is!

The section about the Oseberg ship says that these new hulls had "poor lateral stability", but then seems to immediately contradict this with another statement about "greater stability".

Under "Navigation" the name of the quoted Viking is Almgren in one place and Algrem in another. I don't know which is correct.

poor lateral stability is specific to the lateral sort, the Oseberg has greater stability just more generally.

Almgren and Algrem is just typical english of the time like Knor, Knorr, Knarr, Knaar, Knar... they are all correct but since the language at this point was purely spoken the writen forms vary according to accent and other variances.

however i agree with the need to alter the "legacy" bit saying they were wide, unless who wrote that was refering to the knaar.Tyranowulf 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt 13:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

Etymology

As part of the cleanup I have removed the information about the etymology of the word "longship" on the grounds that it is totally incomprehensible and adds no value to the article. The explanation read:

The name longship originates from the Insular Celtic word for "ship", Old Irish long, and Welsh llong is commonly assumed to be an adaptation to the longships as they appeared to the British population (McCone).

Matt 11:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC).

'Master of all trades'?

The longship was a master of all trades: it was wide and stable, yet light, fast and nimble. With all these qualities combined in one ship, the longship was unrivaled for centuries, until the arrival of the great gunboats and galleons.

This leaves out the fact that, as the header states, the longship had one weakness the English tried to exploit: it was a terrible platform for ship-to-ship engagements as the crew could only either row or fight, not both at the same time. The crews of English vessels, on the other hand, could do both, and as such they could steer their ships while in combat, gaining an advantage. As far as I understand it. I don't have a better source for this than the kid's book The Vicious Vikings by Deary, though.

If true, shouldn't this be included in the paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safe-Keeper (talk • contribs)

The longship been replaced by ships by a top platform. From the platform stone be able to hit the longshipd and sink them. The longship was build of light, for speed, as stone can get serious damage.Håbet 08:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know exactly what you all mean, but as far as I remember the long boats where excelent sailing and rowing ships but where beaten in ship to ship fight agains the "Hanseatene" (donno the english word, german traders of some sort) The boats where also excelent in attacking land in that it was fast of get in to land fast to get off the boat to attack, and so one.
I guess the platforms used in later ships would increase the range of archers, whichs could be important in ship to ship fight.
Hum, I remember emberasingly little about all of this...
Luredreier 19:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luredreier (talk • contribs)

Long ships and other viking ships

I think there still is confusion in this article. From the introduction:

The vessels were also used for long distance trade and commerce, and for exploratory voyages to Iceland, Greenland, and beyond.

The ship used for trade by the sea and for crossing the Atlantic was (mainly) the knarr. On the Sea Stallion they had place for only five days' water and food (having safety equipment instead of arms), not enough for crossing the Atlantic. Not much place for goods to trade either. A bit later:

its light weight enabled it to be carried over portages

I am quite certain that the ocean going longships were not used on river routes. Even reconstructions of the Oseberg ship has proven very heavy and cumbersome in that use. The vikings did have fast and light longships, oceangoing trade ships and ships that could use the rivers to get through modern Russia, but they were not the same ships (and not all the types are longships). That should be made clear. 130.232.213.59 (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, different ships, the word Knarr is mostly used for the trading wessels.
I don't know about whether the deffinition of longships says anything about size but I've always been thinking of the difference knarr-longship being that the knarr had deeper bottom, better abilety to handle the sea but less manuverabilety and length and so one(I'm probably forgeting something here but it's geting late in the evning)
Ah, there is something in the article about Snekke, that sounds like how I'm imagining the everyday longboat, only rich people had something bigger.
That kind of ships could be carried just like the more "modern" (from 1800 to early 1900) fishing boats in trondheim, those fishing boats could be carried a long distance with just two boat crews and since they usualy sailed two and two ships for securety reasons(so one of them could help if the other got in truble) that was realy practical and often done over short distances(they where sometimes carried longer distancs thou but this was less common) over land.
Luredreier 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luredreier (talk • contribs)

Illustrations

The Dutch (Nederlands) article on Longships has excellent technical illustrations. Maybe someone who knows how to implant pics can put them on this article? Krastain (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well atleast one of the illustrations is simply wrong I think. If I'm not much mistaken one of the special fetures of a knarr is that there was a ery special borrom on it.
If you take the shape of the bottom of a narrow boat and put it on the bottom of a boat that wasn't narrow at all, so that there is sort of a inwards edge on it...Ugh, I'm not making much sence here...I'll try to get a picture or something later one..
Luredreier 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Viking Age vs. Category:Vikings

Category:Vikings is itself a category within Category:Viking Age. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Starboard

I just left the following at Talk:Starboard#Visual_memory_aid

Wictionary starts the etymology of "starboard" with Derived from the Scandinavian term "steerboard", which was hung off the right side of the boat. The explanation at starboard only refers to "early" ships. A clear image or diagram of a longship showing the steerboard might make a good memory aid (the verbal mnemonics have never sufficed for me) The best image at longship from a tapestry sort of serves this purpose. A suitable image/diagram with a little explanation at starboard or longship with a cross-reference might be a good addition. Fholson 12:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson (talk • contribs)

More advanced than others

All watercraft evolve and many reach a renaissance. While these ships are arguably the prettiest, advanced means best adapted to a use and environment. I say removed the obvious bias!--John Bessa (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Dont know what specific part in the text you are talking about, but "advanced" is not "best adapted" per se. "Advanced" describes the technological level. Both the level that went into build said construction and also the level of operation. Just saying. Example: A canoe would be much better adapted for sailing small rivers than Titanic would have been. Titanic was nevertheless a much more advanced vessel than a canoe. I think you make the mistake of putting "advanced" = "better", which is not true?

In its days the longship was the most advanced sea vessel, due to the level of craftsmanship and technological skill that went into building them and operating them. No question. One easy explanation: If anybody could have built a sea vessel with the same abilities as a longship, they probably would, since these ships gave great advantages in warfare. And there would have been archaeological traces from such ships. RhinoMind (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

umiak

The article says "The longship’s design evolved over many years, beginning in the Stone Age with the invention of the umiak...", but according to umiak, the latter is "is a type of boat used by Eskimo people, both Yupik and Inuit, and [...] originally found in all coastal areas from Siberia to Greenland." So what does this have to do with the Vikings and longships? 86.160.220.131 (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The information appears to have been introduced with this edit (no blatant vandalism). That's all I know. Njardarlogar (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Merger is proposed because of the considerable common content. It would be possible to maintain separate articles if there was a clear division in scope between them e.g. that one had a wider time or geographical range than the other or that one focused on a particular ship type. Both in fact cover the same ship types of the Viking period, plus similar information on navigation and construction. It could be argued that Longship has the wider range, as it could cover the development of this ship type outside the Viking period e.g. in England, Ireland and the Scottish Isles. Monstrelet (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed AusJeb (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Opposed OKelly (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Opposed (I think that this article contains enough information not included in Viking ships to justify its separate existence. Karmos (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Opposed I agree with the last contributor to this debate, that the Longship article contains sufficient, distinct information - on a significant and distinct type of vessel - to maintain its separate identity without merger. As the debate seems to have petered out, I shall remove the Merger proposal template. Paul James Cowie (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

width of planking (strakes)

At least 4km of original planking have been recovered from at least 12 longships. The planking was very thin for such long boats. The larger the boat the more status and the more likely the wood was oak which although heavy is very strong and durable. A good deal of each plank overlapped two others, so much of the hull thickness was close to 50mm. It is well known that the longer hulls experience considerable hull twist in a seaway,especially when straddling two waves. This knowledge comes from the many facsimiles that have been made (and sunk!)1% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this in response to this question:

Each plank was hewn from an oak tree so that the finished plank was about 25 mm wide[dubious – discuss]

if so then should then I assume the 25 mm wide should read 25 mm thick? Vsmith (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support your additions to the article. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My error -it is thickness of course . Some writers give measurements for the chamfered plank edge, ie where the planks overlap, while others give thickness in the mid section of the plank. This accounts for the approximate 4-5mm difference.Captain 1% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Light ships?

Although described as light, a large longship was about 12tons which is a very heavy weight. There have been comments about longships being dragged ashore and moved over rollers. I dont think these larger ships say 50-80ft plus would be easy to move this way. It would need a great deal of man power. It may well have been that earlier craft were moved over land say between 2 river headwaters but I suspect that they would have been much lighter,shorter vessels.

Maori in NZ portaged their waka taua(war canoes)several miles between harbours by dragging them with ropes but these 50ft canoes were 2-4 tonnes and built of a lightweight timber called Totara-much lighter than Oak. The waka hull was built by hollowing and joining logs so the surface was smooth and rounded-far easier to drag over mud. The typical powerful mesomorphic build of Maori males suited them to this kind of severe manual work.Portages such as these were fairly routine matters.

Vikings always seemed to favour sheltered harbours which strongly suggests some kind of jetty system. I note that some ships had 10-12 feet long gang planks ,with carved foot holds which were presumably used when loading from some fixed docks, however rudimentary. As routine traders hauling up on a beach would have been very time consuming. Most authorities agree that the smaller sailing long ships had small crews with few oars-about 4 seems standard, perhaps 6 crew-not enough crew to be hauling even 4 ton ships up a beach-particularly when the block and tackle had not been invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

keels related to sailing ability-theory and evidence

It has been generally stated that the early long ships with light keels were not sailing ships as the keel was not robust enough to take the downward pressure of the mast. However this seems to have been undermined by the fact that the half sized version of the Sutton Hoo longship sails very well with its substancial spread of sail. This could be explained by the difference in rigging. Modern taunt SS wire, stiff "air proof" sails and highly geared sheeting systems means the mast produces huge downwards thrust. By contrast in the viking days the stays were at best hemp rope-very flexible. Probably just enough tension to stop the mast falling over board. The sails were very "air leaking" wool and also blocks had not been invented. Down wind sailing does not produce the high loads that upwind sailing does-Viking ships could not sail upwind. At issue is that no direct evidence of masts etc were found at Sutton Hoo, but this can be explained by the fact that the central area of the ship was always gutted to take a body plus slaves,goods etc. Also the Sutton Hoo ship was far more degraded than some of the Scandinavian finds,maybe the sails etc just rotted way. The earlier excavations -very unscientific by today's standards, could have easily overlooked or destroyed the minute evidence of sails etc that may have been present. The assumption that these early boats could not be sailed seems now to be wrong -we just need the evidence-next ship please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Roerich painting not a Viking Longship

The painting in 1903 can be excused many failings. The ships construction in in a ship yard-no such yard for new ships has ever been located. The ships are carvel construction not clinker /lapstrake. The shape of the boats is more late medieval than Viking longship.The angle of the stem is all wrong as is the actual dragon-none of the 20?? longships found so far has a dragon head. The construction method shows frame first construction which is a much later development in ship building and is associated with building multiple ships of the same shape as frames can be duplicted.Slavic?Sweden was once part of the slavic region but by 9th century South sweden was under Viking influence. Vikings did however take many boats south east via the rivers through the Slavic region to the Black Sea but they were nothing like the painting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rus, Aleutean Kayak and the origins of the construction - and other biased speculations.

Okay, so someone writing under the headline "Construction" feeds this article with - not few - far fetched speculations. Firstly, this part lacks proof. That is still bearable. Secondly, the writing style emphasizes narratively on minor matters. It is, e.g., not only old-fashioned to express that "The shape suggests mainly river use", but also irrelevant. The ships have been used on rivers, we know that, and the ships have been used on open water, we know that as well. To speculate about purpose or intention without any further evidence than phenotype has been outside scientific standards since half a century at least.

Thirdly, this chain of arguments insinuates an actual relationship between an Aleutan small vessel called "Kaidarka" and early vessels in the Baltic-Sea-area. Now if something is far-fetched, this is. To confirm this nonsense, he/she refers to the word "Kaidarka" being "Rus". Which is another absurdity, as if their would be a language that we would have any knowledge about called "Rus". It is Russian, yes, should "Rus" here stand for the abbreviation of "Russian"? That would be correct, but it does not seem so. It is further claimed that assumed similarities of the form of the Aleutan Kayak and early versions of Scandinavian vessels "(...) suggest that it was the Rus who influenced the Hjortspring boat design,especially the bow design,which is found nowhere else in the world."

The conclusion of this seems to be that the influence in technology is supposed to transfer from far-away Kamchatka (or why not even Alaska?) via the Russian rivers (somehow crossing all this huge landmass), only to flourish exceptionally in the domain of the Rus. When claiming that "Modern Sweden was originally part of the ancient Rus territory" the author finally reveals himself not only to be clueless of north european history, but also to have an agenda. I can debate with rational nationalists, I can see rational points in being a nationalist, but I cannot accept when nationalist simple-minds try to put a twist into history, be they as transparent as this one or not. I will delete those passages, and hope they will remain that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.14.239.40 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't the iron nails rust?

If the planks of the Viking longships were put together with iron rivets, why didn't the iron rivets rust in all that salt sea water? I would think they'd of used wooden dowels (treenails) instead. The iron nails they used must have caused nail sickness--wherein even the surrounding wood rots. (Never use ferrous materials in a boat say the old sailors.) Did the Vikings coat the iron rivets with something? 50.202.81.2 (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Rust is far less active in cold climates than in the tropics-scientific fact. This is probably the main reason. The nails/rivets were very thick compared to modern nails so when they did rust they retained strength for many years. There are various methods for limiting rust in steel and iron such as dipping in oil while still hot(called back iron) or coating nails in oil. The Vikings used linseed (flax based) oil extensively in ship building -the residue has been found on buried ships. You have to remember that the Vikings were the world leaders in steel use and experimented with the material over many centuries to improve it. It is possible that the steel they were making had additional mineral in it ie impurities that may have enhanced rust resistance. Im thinking of nickel, chrome and copper in particular. I have never seen a definitive study on this topic in relation to Viking ships. Another factor is that longships were hauled out of water in winter.Possibly the ironwork was recoated with linseed. Many of the very early ships which were more like long canoes were used in fresh water rivers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've read that the Vikings used iron nails below the waterline and wooden dowels above the water line. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've read that the boat would be painted in several layers of pine tar. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Iron Pillar of Delhi (q.v.) rusts very slowly because it has a high phosphorous content. Maybe primitive, early smelting methods didn't use lime and all early iron was rust resistant. --So iron was different back then. Perhaps the Vikings made their iron in such fashion. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Is this issue closed? If so I would like to know what the answer was. I have found some on-line information on Viking ship technology that might be interesting in this context here: Bottom paint. There are more information on the website and perhaps the "rust problem" is discussed directly somewhere? Just wanted to share. RhinoMind (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW. The Kattegat and Baltic Seas are not as salty as the oceans and as the climate of former times was also slightly different, this difference in saltiness might have been even bigger? Just a thought. RhinoMind (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Speed claims are totally outrageous

I know, there is some kind of fishy source for it, but please hold on a second: A viking longship is supposed to be 23% faster (the claimed 15 knots in the introduction) than the olympic record for a modern carbon-fibre racing eight on 2000m? Are you kidding me? Hirsch.im.wald (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The viking longship in a gale force wind with mast and sail aloft could probably do 15 knots, maybe faster. The Yankee Clipper ships could go 20 knots. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hull Speed comes into play here--the speed/length ratio. According to a Wave Speed Scale, a 70 foot sailboat should not exceed 11 knots and a 109 ft. sailboat should not exceed 14 knots. Sounds weird, but apparently a deep trough develops under the sailboat if speed is too much and the sailboat sinks itself, it "sails under" the water. Maybe the Vikings knew about this; maybe that's why they had such high prows on their longships. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)The speed claim I suspect is for one of the modern replicas which were often quite different to the original -especially as far as sails are concerned . The speed / length ration to speed is correct but is not the only factor at play. In large waves a longship was probably capable of surfing to some extent. The hull bottom being reasonably flat was possibly capable of limited planing under strong wind conditions. A key factor was how brave or stupid was the crew? The modern replicas had far bigger and superior sails compared to the original from what we currently know.

Here's something interesting--apparently the lapstrake construction allowed bubbles of air to force themselves along beneath the overlapping planks as the boat moved through the water so that the longship rode on a cushion of air. RS, "Vikings" by J.M. Clements, pg. 28, 2007, Sterling Publishing, N.Y. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The shape of the longship is totally wrong for both surfing and planning. Both require a lot of flat or near flat surface aft -the longship was very fine aft. With so little displacement aft it would have easily been pooped by a following wave -this is indeed what happened to a replica -twice-in only moderate winds. The small, poor quality rudder which required a large amount of strength to operate in moderate conditions would have made the ship uncontrollable when surfing. The canoe shape hull is ideal for displacement sailing-especially the longer versions. The long thin hull shape derived from rowing-similar to the shape of a modern 8. The shorter tubbier versions with few crew were better suited to sailng with the cargo acting as ballast.

I have found multiple references that state that the Sea Stallion, a modern replica, reached speeds of over 15 knots during the crossing to Dublin in 2006. However, in the "Legacy" section there are 2 contradictory and un-referenced claims about a completely different speed. I will remove these now. Mhilhorst (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)