Talk:Square-rigged caravel

Beginning of article
I should have followed the path of the wizard approval (I'll do it in the next - in the future). As the matter is obviously historical relevant I do not judged necessary. My apologies. I submit of course the approval of the Adms. of wikipedia. If approved, I will try to develop the sources, improvements etc..--LuzoGraal (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of this term before. Are there any English-language sources that use this term? To me it just seems merely to be a type of caravel.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Peter isolato, first of all my apologies to everyone, because when I referred above to the need for more sources, I meant, of course (although there does not say), in the English language, as it is logical. I'll try to improve it. Or can also try other Wikipedians. The rest, not to improve this aspect, also had to do with pure "abandonment" by lack of time and professional life. Although (and I know some authors and classics in this area, but not all), some rare Portuguese credential Authors of these texts are in fact the most complete and most comprehensive and detailed on this type of vessel, which caused me a conformism and which resulted in delay. But I know the need and I want to improve it.


 * Your second question is also very relevant. From what little we know of the caravels of Columbus, for example, very important in history, but eventualy short-lived as an appeal and need in that moment (maybe c. two decades), have varied in sails (square and lateen), and little or no difference in the hull. Were sub-types(?), in principle, although with substantial differences. The answer on this Portuguese caravela redonda or square rigged caravel, and that was to last and have, it seems, a European influence, is clearly no. It's a whole new kind of ship, much closer to the galleon and even to the naus that the original caravel. The detailed arguments (which are in the limit of perfection in fidelity to the analysis in the sources below) dispense repetitions here. Another thing is as it is considered by most in the mainstream historiography, although unlike to the few top experts on the subject. Then the answer is to be reviewed by you and intervene as the mainstream see this and fit this in accordance with the rules of wikipedia. Thank you for your intervention, criticism, i.e. thanks for your (and of others) help.


 * Notable knowledgeable people of this subject as Francisco Contente Rodrigues (University of Lisbon - a text used here as a source), or Richard Unger (University of British Columbia), among other notable Experts, even in a TV documentary, of the National Geographic, "caravels and carracks, a technological shock in the sixteenth century", focus completely on classic 15th century caravels and on the different types of carracks. Then they make a quick reference to two remarkable new ships or new type of ships: the galleon and the square rigged caravel (essentially a warship). But back to the texts, it is unclear whether it is seen as a sub-type or not. In essence and characteristics described there, is not, especially in the hull, aftercastle, forecastle, beak etc.(and not so much on the issue of masts and sails, which were also different, of course).


 * There is the medieval-modern 15th century/16th century nau and the early modern carrack or great carrack. They are an evolution of the medieval carrack-nau, but remarkable different. They are no "sub-types" (different types of the same ship), but a new type of ship for most of the Authors (and here in the Encyclopedia).


 * As for the galleon, in particular the Portuguese galleon, as encyclopedic rule, faithfully follow the sources bellow, ie an evolution from redonda (square rigged caravel) and from the carrack (or with features of the last one aggregated to a large design of the first), and from large galleys in part. And this is a true and unquestionable possible fact, however among some of the proto-galleons, as the São Joao Baptista (c. 1533), a great "galley" without the galley oars, with a aftercastle more developed, huge even, multi-stored, in the case, and added diagonally backward, balanced - a hull as a galley, and long spurs (as some huge galleys) forward in the place that would have the beak. The galley proof as inspiration for years among some of the first. And we can find some agreement about it in accredited authors, including in english, if I´m right. And hence the name of the galleon in those cases. --LuzoGraal (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)