Talk:East Indiaman

Google
Why is this google's first choice when searching for "largest poop" ?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=largest+poop+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2F&btnG=Search&meta=

Class?
In the table of East Indiamen, what does "Class" mean? So far none of the entries have been assigned a class so should we keep it? Dabbler 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is LoneWolfJack from his vacation PC. Don't have my login handy right now. I intended "class" to specify the ship type like "schooner", "clipper", etc. However, I wouldn't know myself where to find that piece of information. My second thought was, "class" could be used to indicate whether the ship was a regular HEIC ship, a charter or a licensed one.

The vast majority if not all East Indiamen in British service were full rigged ships and they were almost all built either in Britain or India and chartered by the company while it had its monopoly. Later there may have been other types of ship sailing on their own trade, but they were not what is usually considered East Indiamen. Dabbler 22:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can see that despite major differences in weight, there is no need to list the ship class. However, I do not share your opionion on the regular/chartered vessel issue. Splitting hairs, the list should only show regular vessels, but there are so many (major) HEIC ships that were not regulars, which would lead to a significant loss of information. I would opt for changing "class" to "type" and use the shortcuts REG (regular), CHA (chartered) and LIC (licensed). LoneWolfJack 10:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC) East Indiamen → East Indiaman — WP:NC says article titles should generally be singular, and I can't see any reason for this one to be plural. FiggyBee 02:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * 1) Support as nom. FiggyBee 02:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom; is this controversial? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but I always feel like I'm being presumptuous if I claim something as non-controversial. :) FiggyBee 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but I always feel like I'm being presumptuous if I claim something as non-controversial. :) FiggyBee 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Support per nom. Recury 16:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other companies
There were other East Indian companies other than the British one, all had armed merchantmen, either retitle this article to something like "British East indiaman" or be less protectective in allowing material about those other companies ships to be included in this article. KTo288 (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why this article should not include East Indiamen of other countries too, especially as the British East India Company is covered in its own article.   Socrates2008 ( Talk )   09:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There at least should be a linkable section here for large East Indies merchantmen of any flag. Dutch, Portugese?. Also having trouble trying to find an article re. Guineaman. Corella (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Banned from English ports"
This is what the article says at one point but it does not elucidate. I am a history machine but naval history generally I am quite shaky on and I don't even know where to begin to get the information I want. Could someone please expand on precisely why some ships of this class would be banned in English harbors? Racism, mercantilism, or some such?Lazarus Plus (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't my area either, but I too was struck by the comment. I know one instance where it doesn't hold- I understand that East Indiaman General Hewitt, 973 tons, was launched in Bengal in 1811 sailed to London; London-Sydney 1814; 1814 Sydney- Colombo Ceylon; 1816 Sydney, Madeira, Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town, Anjere and Batavia, Peiho. We need someone with some specialist knowledge to say if this is an exception and qualify the statement, or to simply remove it.  Rough Red Buinne (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is 2015, the remark is still in the article. I added citation needed to that phrase, in hopes someone has a reference. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked up Fernand Braudel on Google Books and found Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century, Vol. III: The Perspective of the World. On page 506:
 * And it was indeed in India that the finest Indiamen were built, vessels of enormous size for the time, which did the China run. In eastern waters, until the coming of the steamship in mid-nineteenth century, the English in fact relied exclusively on Indian-built ships. None of them sailed for Europe: indeed English ports were forbidden to them. In 1794, the war with France and the urgent need for transport ships was responsible for the ban being lifted for a few months. But the appearance of Indian ships and sailors caused such hostile reactions in London that English merchants quickly decided to not use their services.
 * To this, Braudel cited "Moscow, C.S.A. 50/6, 490, 1/2." I'm guessing that's some sort of publication but I can't find anything more. However, in looking up some of the ships Braudel named, it does not seem the assertions hold up. Historic Shipping has a brief history of the Surat Castle and it's clear the ship did indeed visit the British Isles from 1807 onward. This will take some more investigation, to find out what source Braudel quoted and compare it to the logbooks of known Indian-built ships. Perhaps if there was some sort of ban on Indian ships and sailors visiting Britain, it did not last long. 68.251.60.204 (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That is a good start, and meshes with ships known to sail in the years of the Napoleonic Wars, from China to India to England. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Friendship of Salem
Friendship of Salem is labeled as a replica of the East Indiaman Friendship (1787) of Salem, but I think it a case of using "East Indiaman" loosely. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Better title for list of ships -- how are they selected?
The list is not the list of all East Indiamen that sailed, right? What are the features of those selected for inclusion? The list needs a better title to indicate how they were selected. For now, I am adding Examples of Indiamen until the reason for putting a ship in the list is clearer. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Who owned the ships?
I deleted a line in the lead that has no explanation in the article about the ships not being owned by the East India Company. For Britain, the company gained an exclusive right to the trade in 1600, but it is not clear who owned the ships if the Company did not own them. This section of the article on the British East India Company, East India Company suggests that the company did own the ships, and had exclusive shipyards in England. If there is some other source explaining the ownership of the ships, and if it varied by nation, that would be a good source for this article. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

awful
This article is horrible. No, really. It's really bad. I suspect that a ship sailing in the year 1600 would be different from one in 1700 or 1800. I'd expect an article about a particular type of ship would include specifications for the things. You know, things like displacement, length, number of (main) masts, crew size, average speed, year built, voyages, etc. All we learn reading this article (as well as the "Ships" section of the HEIC article is which ships were bought by the Royal Navy (and how they wrecked). Come on.207.155.85.22 (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is the length of the ship and its tonnage, when known. Number of masts? - - Prairieplant (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)