Talk:Galleon

clinker-built versus carvel-built hulls

I refer to the second paragraph in the article and as far as I know Galleons were developed after the introduction of carvel hull building design. I dont know af any clinker-built galleon.

"As the ships' size increased in the 15th Century, the clinkerbuilt hull was found to be unsuitable as it wasn't tight enough -- the largest clinker built ship, the English Grace Dieu (1418) was a failure, and signalled the end of the building method in favour of the carvel-built hull." http://www.greatgridlock.net/Sqrigg/two-mast.html

Mem

Thanks for clearing that up.

Gurnard (the guy who wrote the original article)

The galleon is not connected with ships converting from clinker to carvel because carvel built ships had been standard in southern Europe for a long time before and that is where both the carrack and the galleon originated. In southern Europe, carracks had always been carvel built. --unsigned comment by Provocateur dated 2013-11-02

Disambig?

I really think the main "Galleon" article should be about the ship, with a note saying "For ot her uses of the term, see Galleon (disambiguation)." In my opinion, the ship is far more notable than any of the other things. -LtNOWIS 05:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Galleon (ship) → Galleon – The meaning referring to a type of ship vastly overshadows all other uses of this word. There is no need for the term's main page to be a redirect. --Yath 18:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Speed

What was a typical speed for a galleon? - anon

Depends on the point of sail and the amount of wind. If the wind is good (trade winds of 20 kts), perhaps around 8 kts on a broad reach, tacking upwind much slower. I can't find a good source though. - MW

Sail Plan

Viv Hamaltin asked in May 2007 if I could do a sail plan. Here is one I came up with. It is based on what is readable on the Matthew Baker drawing, so I am confident on the acuracy. I propose entering it into the main article with the following text. Please advise. Comments are welcome. I could provide a table of sail dimentions as well.

The English galleon as drawn by Matthew Baker had four masts, main-mast, fore-mast, main mizzen-mast and a bonaventure mizzen. The main and fore-mast carried three square-rigged sails each, while the two mizzen-masts were lateen rigged with triangular fore and aft sails. A sprit sail was usually carried on the bowsprit. The English galleon of that time, circa 1550, would have flown the St George's Cross on all masts except the main-mizzen would have flown the Tudor rose.24.15.5.27 (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hull types and lines of battle

It has been brought to my attention that the comparison between galleons and ships of the line may be somewhat misleading. As I've understood it, a galleon is a hull type while a ship of the line is a classification based on armament. Any comments?

Peter ^Isotalo 05:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the article makes it clear that galleons essentially predated the ship of the line classification. It is also worth bearing in mind that hull type, sail and armament are not independent. A clipper or frigate needs a fast hull form as well as the rigging to carry a lot of sail area, and rigging type that allows it to sail close to the wind; a first rate needs a hull form with multiple decks to accommodate the armament. The rating classification wasn't purely based on counting cannons - the vessel had to be able to do what was expected of it in battle. I guess it's like if we say 4x4 today, we are technically referring to traction, but this will also imply a vehicle that is heavier and more ruggedly built than a family saloon. Viv Hamilton 08:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah... But one would quite naturally expect that a functioning classification of armament would take into consideration that ship actually worked properly with as many cannons as it was assigned (unlike Vasa) and the fact remains that the various ratings are defined primarily by the number of guns. That still leaves a problem about the development from galleon to ship of the line being a bit like comparing apples and oranges. And this has quite obviously been misunderstood by many contributors since I've had to change information about, for example, Vasa being a ship of the line (before the tactic was even properly developed!) all over English Wikipedia. Apparently, it's not quite a galleon either, but at least it's not a complete anachronism.

The question I keep asking myself is: what came after the galleon hull-wise?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is more subtle than simply whether or not the weight of cannons makes the vessel top-heavy! The sailing qualities of the bigger ship should allow it to dominate smaller ships when they close in battle, as well as it being able to carry more cannon and therefore give a bigger broadside. There was significant evolution of hull-form in the 17th and early 18th century, with Britain copying the hulls of captured French ships, like Hazardous. I know that when the ships were built they were given class names (e.g. Trincomalee was Leda class), but this is presumably a whole area of specialised naval history yet to be added to WP. The other interesting question is the fourth mast, the bon aventure. Later ships don't have it. A maritime archaeologist friend of mine thinks that it was needed on galleons to counteract the effect of wind catching the stern castle. The lower lines of the ship of the line, mean that you don't need it, and the more masts you have, the harder a vessel is to sail. As I said, hull form, sail plan and armament are interrelated! Viv Hamilton 08:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it back, some of it has been added, see List of battleships of the Royal Navy and List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy. Not a lot of explanation however! Viv Hamilton 08:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The list of battleships is a bit dubious. The term "battleship" didn't even exist until the late 18th century, so why are ships from as early as the late 15th century included?

I'm not disputing the importance of hull design, but going by what just about all articles here explains, it seems as if the primary concern for classification was the number of guns, not the trim or number of masts or whatever. To someone who doesn't know much about the topic, it just seems as if there's a missing link between galleons and ships of the line. Are the only applicable terms really just "ship of the line" or the various class names?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly because from the 17th century, the navies of Europe became obsessed with the ship of line style battle, and presumably devoted their marine engineering skills to perfecting the concept. Are you aware that ships didn't necessarily carry the number of cannons indicated by their rating? I will try to find out about merchant vessels (although at that time merchant ships were armed as well!). There was significant variation in sail plan, depending on the job you wanted the ship to do. There are numerous types of ships classified e.g. brigs, cutters etc, my impression is that the sail plan is more significant than the hull, or perhaps the hull followed the sail plan. Viv Hamilton 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict...

In the intro it says... Carracks tended to be lightly armed and used for transporting cargo, while galleons were purpose-built warships, and were stronger, more heavily armed, and also cheaper to build (5 galleons could cost around the same as 3 carracks) and were therefore a much better investment for use as warships.

But then a couple sections down it says...

Hundreds of expert tradesmen (including carpenters, pitch-melters, blacksmiths, coopers, shipwrights, etc.) worked day and night for months before a galleon was seaworthy. To cover the expense, galleons were often funded by groups of wealthy businessmen who pooled resources for a new ship. Therefore, most galleons were originally consigned for trade, although those captured by rival nations were usually put into military service.

So one says warships, other says trade ships. Which one's right?...

Reply:

It's not really a contradiction, although the wording looks that way viewed side-by-side. Both statements are true, most galleons were built for trade, but as a warship they were a better investment than a carrack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yizzik (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Not a carrack"

This link seems to say that galleon has a much broader meaning than what is defined here. This is not the first time I see this issue being raised from naval historians. Nicholas Roger, author of the most recent history of the Royal Navy, also has a lengthy discussion on what is or isn't a galleon in the first volume Safeguard of the Sea. I'm not sure if these two authors, or indeed other historians, are in complete agreement on how to properly define "galleon", but from what I can tell it's a lot more vague than in the article. As already touched upon previously, it's probably a bit misleading to describe an "evolution" from a galleon to a ship of the line since they're descriptions of very different aspects of ships.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Date contradictions?

Intro: "A galleon was a large, multi-decked sailing ship used primarily by European states from the 16th to 18th centuries." Page on List of ships of the Spanish Armada: "a heavy square-rigged sailing ship of the 15th to early 18th centuries"

History section: "The galleon was an ocean going ship type which evolved from the carrack in the second half of (the) 16th century." Notable galleons: "São João Baptista nicknamed Botafogo, the most powerful warship when launched (1534)" (i.e first half of the 16th century)

Etymology: "The term "galleon" had been in use long before the ship type that it now technically refers to came into existence. Just like the term "frigate", the term "galleon" was originally applied to certain types of war galleys in the Middle Ages." Page on List of ships of the Spanish Armada: Etymology: Old Spanish galeón, from Middle French galion, from Old French galie. Date: 1529.

Intro: "Whether used for war or commerce, they were generally armed with the demi-culverin type of cannon." Demi-culverin page: "The demi-culverin was a medium cannon similar to but slightly larger than a saker and smaller than a regular culverin developed in the early 17th century." (i.e. after most of the "notable galleons" had been built) Theeurocrat (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

:"The galleon evolved in response to Spain's need for an ocean-crossing cargo ship that could beat off corsairs. Pedro de Menéndez, along with Álvaro de Bazán (hero of Lepanto), is credited with developing the protypes which had the long hull - and sometimes the oars - of a galley married to the poop and prow of a nao or merchantman. Galeones were classed as 1-, 2- or 3-deckers, and stepped two or more masts rigged with square sails and topsails (except for a lateen sail on the mizzenmast). Capacity ranged up to 900 tons or more. Menéndez' San Pelayo of 1565 was a 900 ton galleon which was also called a nao and galeaza. She carried 77 crewmen, 18 gunners, transported 317 soldiers and 26 families, as well as provisions and cargo. Her armament was iron."p.100 Menéndez: Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, Captain General of the Ocean Sea Albert C. Manucy, published 1992 by Pineapple Press, Inc

The word galleon was used as far back as the Crusades of the 12th century, so it meant something different from what we mean by it today. It is very likely that the São João Baptista or Botafogo was called a galleon when built, even though its highly likely to have been a nao or carrack as we understand those terms today. Galleons as we know them, weren't built so early. Note how the San Pelayo was also called a nao or a galeaza, even though we'd call it a galleon. Words have changing and multiple meanings over time, we must be careful.

Yes they were. It seems to me you need to know more the historical documentation of all countries and other countries. There was already a medieval "galleon" with this name around the 13th century, in Aragon and in some other parts of Europe, but it is not these ships and this type of galleys and the kind that we are talking about. In the portuguese case (portuguese croniclers, but not only), about the galleon São João Baptista - the Botafogo was a "nau" in the vox populi (sometimes a "galleon") and mostly a "galleon" than a "nau", by the most knowledgeable and accurate chroniclers in distinguishing between the technical carrack, the galleon, the round square caravel, the caravel (latin caravel), galeaça (galeass), caravelao, galley, galeota or pinnace (fusta), bergatim, parau etc. between vessels and ships of Portuguese origin, Eastern origin or from other parts and adopted by Portugal. The tapestries of the conquest of Tunis seem clearly demonstrate a nau evolved into a galleon (although bigger than normal) between the nau and the galleon and even with future characteristics of the galleons (or approximate), not only in the design, and more elongated, with 4 or 5 masts, 7 or more sails, including two Latin sails behind (rather than one), tipical in this type of ship by rule in Portugal. Some more powerfull caravels in the conquest, depicted or not depicted (but these would have to be above all of Portugal) and other naus and ships of other powers present there, though different in design, were not so distinct. Would that Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen who was there, drew that way?! Or Frans Hogenber reproducing after, drew the other ships much more in the type of Botafogo? And not or at the exact same way of the previous Author? Anyway, it was a gradual years-long maturation which in 1530 and even more in 1540 etc. (in the Portuguese case) was already relatively completed and perfected (see types of galleons in Tábuas of D. João de Castro), although the ship still evolve after. The study by the Prof. Dr. Rear-Admiral Antonio Silva Ribeiro (and not the only one Author among the sources that I put - altough in portuguese) uses multiple sources and extensive bibliography of the chronicles and doc. of the time, as the Portuguese and Anglo-Saxon historiography, among others, included there. Despite there being implicit and being a fact that the modern oceanic galleon comes first in Portugal (and we find that fact in these sources and in the chronicles), compared with Spain for exemple (albeit for possibly a decade or two maybe - in his maturation - but something that was a gradual process in Portugal and almost paralel with Castile(Spain) with its adoption of its own famous type after other previous alike ships - and with other European nations, all around 1530-1550s) and with other countries later; in none of these studies and articles they mention this claim, putting only emphasis on the technical study - and even critical (especially in relation to the types earlier in time, even overly stressing and overrating the hypothesis of a more gradual construction-adaptation of the prevoius ships, despite the clear early dates of the sources about the name-type) completely scientific and devoid of any nationalism. And in fact, regardless of the possible priority, is a parallel process in the European Atlantic powers. Any way, at least in part or great part, those 2 or 3 galleons depicted in the Routemap of the Red Sea (here we have only one) show a style that seems to have been emulated in Europe or in some European powers(?!). --LuzoGraal (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Until very recently British historiography ignored anything Spanish. One has to be careful with relying too much on information from or about one country since it tends to blind you to possible developments in other countries; ideas get around. The argument that the galleon came by evolutionary steps makes sense, especially in those days. I looked at the tapestry but I could not make out any significant difference between the Botafoga and the other ships but the tapestry was not meant to be a realistic depiction. I accept that there were likely to have been ships intermediate between the two and that Bazan's ships were most likely just another (albeit important) stage in the development. There were probably earlier ships that we would have trouble categorizing as carrack or galleon. It makes things more difficult that people in those day used these terms in a different way to us and a lot of information has been lost.

Size?

Weight (tons) isn't much help. How long is a typical galleon?184.147.123.113 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not an easy question to answer because of the inconsistency in how length is defined in different nations and its use. Is it the length at the waterline, the length between perpendiculars or the overall length? For example, the dimensions taken from the Baker drawing for these three measurements in feet respectively are: 137.4, 156.8, and 178.9. I suggest that these three lengths can serve to describe a typical galleon. But there are bigger galleons and much smaller ones. The overall length of Sir Francis Drake’s Pelican was only 120 ft.--Tvbanfield (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Galeasse

I know nothing about these ships. Are galeasse the same thing? Oldag07 (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

See galleass.

366 Guns...?

According to the page Botafogo (galleon), the vessel carried 366 guns. I consider that a ridiculous number. Even if they were very small guns, it would require 3 decks of 60 guns each (per side). I have listed a number of reasons why I consider that number impossible on the articles talk page. The only way you could get 366 guns on a wooden warship is by including guns being transported in the lowest holds in lieu of ballast. One other listed galleon (the Adler von Lübeck) shortly after the Botafogo claims that it was one of the largest in the world on launch, and lists only 138 guns, mostly 3 and 5 pounders. That is an infinitely more likely number..45Colt 08:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Four years passed... I think you'd need to think of those 'guns' not as of 'cannons' but as of 'pieces' and things will look more realistic then. Early 16th c. great ships were considered as a sort of floating castle. So, they had lots of anti-personnel weaponry - small-caliber perriers (stone-throwing cannons, serving also as hailshot-guns) and 'cannons' of up to 1-2 pounds of lead caliber (big muskets, really; also capable of doubling as shotguns). One of those would weigh up to 100kg and mount on a swivel. So, 366 of those would weigh up to 40 tons (realistically, even less than that) or about 160 tuns (barrels). Early 16th c. caravel would carry 60-100 tuns, even more. Finally, '366' might denote a listed number and those pieces wouldn't necessarily be mounted all at once, indeed, but they wouldn't be carried as a ballast, too. :)

Conversely, 'assault ships' of the period bearing big guns were small-ish -- caravels and galleys. Mediterranean galley could bear up to 40 pieces, out of which only up to 10 might be the 'real' cannons. Hope this helps. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Galleons v purpose-built ship-rigged warships

How, post Anglo Dutch wars, "purpose-built ship-rigged warships" are different or distinguished from Galleons is unexplained. The wiki-links in:

• purpose-built ship-rigged warships"

...are generic links that do not distinguish Galleons from "purpose-built ship-rigged warships." In fact, (admittedly, I am not a naval architect) Galleons would also appear to fit the definition of a "purpose-built ship-rigged warship." Reading the wiki-linked age of sail does not shed light on this subtle or not so subtle distinction...
Enquire (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Article could use a cleanup

I recommend users take a look at the galleon page in the Spanish wiki and I think it will be clear why this article could use some tidying up. On this one images are usually of worse quality and all over the place and a lot of statements are either dubious generalizations or just loose references lacking citations or proper sources. One thing in particular that the Spanish page has that I think is essential is a section dedicated to explaining how their design differed from nation to nation - Italian, English, Spanish and Portuguese galleons were all different from eachother (English race-built galleons were smaller and sleeker than Spanish galleons for example). Also, although galleons are mostly associated with the Spanish nowadays, it is far from unanimous that they invented them. Portuguese scholars for instance think they were either created by Italians (Monteiro) or are a development of the square-rigged caravel (Pissarra). Wareno (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The Spanish wikipedia article mentioned above is almost totally deficient in references. I do not see how the recommendation to use that as a model for this article is of any value. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

History

Over half of the History section deals with the carrack. There's a separate article for the carrack. If the carrack needs to be mentioned at all, it's treatment shouldn't overwhelm the treatment of the galleon.TwelveGreat (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Early history

The article's treatment of the early history of the galleon is completely wrong. A good explanation of the origin of the galleon can be found in volume 3 of the report into the Red Bay wreck. This makes clear that the galleon had a Mediterranean origin, with (unsurprisingly, from the name) oars being used in at least some of the early vessels with this name. Like many ship types, the first examples of the galleon differ from the classic example by being substantially smaller.

It is surprising that the article does not use the chapter on galleons in the 1994 book Cogs, Caravels and Galleons Though this work is getting a tad dated now, it does cover most of the basics. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Another potential source (which confirms the oared early examples of galleons) appears to be Konstam, Angus. Spanish Galleon 1530–1690 Bloomsbury Publishing, 2004. I have only dipped into this work, but it appears to cover the subject well. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

References

First-sentence citation problems?

There is an ungainly number of citation issues for the (extremely short) first sentence, here. Admittedly this is not my area of special knowledge, but it seems unnecessarily nitpicky, especially for a definition that seems as fundamental and broad as possible. And this really casts disproportionate doubt about the entire article, when one sees that many problems at the very outset. While I appreciate boat classes have their historical vagaries, I don't think this subject is so wildly controversial that it requires this level of inquiry.

The first two tags complain that the "large" aspect of the galleon definition is not mentioned in the refs. I feel like this is a bit unnecessary. We're talking about wooden ships in the multi-hundred to 2000-ton weight range, that, while not the largest class of ships at the time, are one or two steps down. Do we really need a reference that explicitly states they are "large?" If so, Cambridge, Meriam, and OED all have either "large" or "heavy" prominently featured in their entries.

But more than that, this seems a bit like fact-checking whether a skyscraper is a "large" building, or that a radio runs on electricity: it is part of every conceivable definition, and implied/established in the course of any discussion about it.

Similarly, the third ref demands a "full citation" for this Spanish-language reference, which I assume means page number? (the only thing missing). I guess that's always best practice, sure—but again, I'm wondering why. The ref in question is an eight-page academic paper or magazine article, which could conceivably address the multiple broad aspects of galleon definition throughout its short length; does any part of this short sentence really warrant this type of interrogation citations in the first place?

Everything in this summary is established later in the article; everything but the Portuguese historical aspect is listed in any dictionary, which are usually not cited in the first sentence of every article here; the "large" aspect is probably the least-operative (and indeed, subjective) part of this definition; and paradoxically, any source which could even precisely establish galleon size AND precise size of all other ships by comparison, would not spell out that it is subjectively "large," like the summary dictionary definition. And it seems to set a bad precedent, to say this extreme level of precision is required in the article section that is by definition summary, in the absence of clearly-elucidated controversy.

Someone went above and beyond to cite no less than four specialized refs to lend weight to this obvious definition—presumably in response to past discussions. Frankly this seems over-researched, if anything, and could do just as well with a dictionary lookup. But I don't think anything in that heading even approaches dispute...which makes the comprehensive critique seem unnecessary, confusing, and a bit passive-aggressive.

I'm not familiar enough with wiki policy...can these 3 problem tags all be removed? Or at least moved to sections where historical minutiae will not confuse every reader that comes here? (and problematics explained better, hopefully) Chronometric (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Several points here.

Firstly, dictionaries do not have a good track record in defining maritime terms. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are not. (And, what is the point of Wikipedia simply recycling readily available reference works – going to specialist references provides the reader with more.) Those who use the term "galleon" a lot (maritime historians and archaeologists) know that the terminology is complicated. Many ships that today are described as "galleons" were not described as that type by those who commissioned, built or sailed them. The type name was even applied inconsistently by those who did use it. Looking at a rather old, but still cited, source, Cogs, caravels and galleons: the sailing ship 1000-1650. London: Conway Maritime Press. 1994. ISBN 0851775608., we find that there is no simple definition. The lengthy discussion that replaces a definition differentiates the galleon from the carrack on size, with the galleon being the smaller one. The large galleons (Manilla galleon, for instance) were not representative of all galleons ever built. The Red Bay wreck was described in her builder's documentation as a nao, being too large to be a galleon. Maritime archaeologists do describe that ship as a galleon. But that wreck was 90 ft long, which is not large. Sea Venture is very much the same sort of size, perhaps a bit larger. But she is described as a "galleon type" retrospectively. The term was unlikely to have been used by those who sailed her. Overall, the article's definition is over-confident at best.

Secondly, the tag "failed verification" means what it says. Someone has added a reference that does not support the text with which it is associated. This is one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia: verifiability. The point of the tag is for someone to find and add a better reference. It also alerts the reader that someone has said the references do not support the article text. So the reader needs to be cautious about using the content of the article. You shouldn't go removing tags unless you or someone else has solved the problem they identify.

Third: The tags in the lead probably indicate that there is also something overall wrong with the article. It is one of those subjects where you can find lots of "coffee table books", but the question is: are they written by someone who understands the subject? So sources that appear useful for the article may well not be.

Full citation needed - the most obvious thing that is missing is a doi. Are you able to view that source? If so, provide the full citation. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 13:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

terminology versus etymology

User:Abatsuki, I question whether a source in Spanish is suitable for an English word in English Wikipedia. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The premise, according to reliable sources, appears to be that galleon comes from the Spanish galeón, which in turn derives from the Byzantine Greek γαλέα (galéa). If there is a more accurate alternative for the origin of the English word, I am open to it, and that would be welcome. At the moment I do not have enough alternative information on English etymology. Abatsuki (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I toned down the wording, just in case it has another likely etymologic origin. Abatsuki (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

My impression is that maritime historians writing in English avoid giving any precise etymology for galleon. Instead, they use cautious language, such as that which is now in the article. The Greek origin is one avoided by many.

Generally, much of maritime terminology is a confusing mess, with the same word having different meanings in different circumstances and the etymology being open to interpretation. When moving between languages, the subject becomes particularly hazardous. The classic example is that mizzen in English is the aftermost sail/mast, whilst in French the misaine is the foremast/foresail. Harland includes many square rig terms in several languages. Square rig needed absolutely precise definitions, because a misunderstanding could kill someone, yet even here there are confusing differences between languages (and a mix of nationalities has always been common on deep-sea ships). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I’ve found some acceptable references on the subject. There does not seem to be a definitive answer, and there is still a fair amount of uncertainty surrounding it as you said, so I have left it as uncertain. However, I have added that the some evidence may suggest that the English word galleon derives more directly from Italian rather than from Spanish, as I had previously suggested. You were right.

Please have a look when you have a chance and let me know whether you think this is a good change.

Best regards, Abatsuki (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

References

About the origin

The references I reverted regarding Portugal did not state that the galleon was of Portuguese origin.

By contrast, as anyone can check, the more explicit references about the galleon's origin state verbatim that it was of Spanish origin. Abatsuki (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The sources you have cited are not academic in nature, they link to Google Arts & Culture rather than to peer-reviewed or scholarly materials.

Additionally, the referenced item—the miniature model “Modelo de galeón flamenco” dated to 1593—is identified as being of Spanish origin, but this pertains specifically to the model itself, not to the origin of galleons as a ship type.

Your recent edits appear to systematically remove references to Portugal’s role in this context. This pattern raises concerns, as it may suggest an attempt to promote a particular national perspective by selectively omitting relevant information. Such behavior could be interpreted as tendentious editing.

As a reminder, Wikipedia’s guidelines require adherence to a neutral point of view (NPOV). This includes representing all significant viewpoints fairly and proportionately, without bias. Edits that aim to favor one national narrative over others, or that remove well-sourced content to do so, are considered inappropriate and may be flagged as conflicts of interest or disruptive editing.

I encourage a more balanced approach, supported by reliable academic sources, to ensure the integrity and neutrality of the article. WikiDorikin (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I have no objection to both countries being mentioned, and if you do not find the first of the three sources I added acceptable, I can remove it. However, after reviewing your references, I do not see where it is stated that the galleon originated in Portugal. Let us go through the five references you added:

1. Black, Jeremy (28 March 1996). The Cambridge Illustrated Atlas of Warfare: Renaissance to Revolution, 1492–1792. Cambridge University Press, p. 16.

This reference states on page 15, not page 16, that “the galleon was developed by the Portuguese as a warship able to sail great distances.” It does not say that the galleon was of Portuguese origin, only that it was developed or adapted by the Portuguese for their purposes.

2. Amaro, José; Pissarra, Virgílio (2013). “Portugal e o desenvolvimento das marinhas oceânicas: o galeão português. 1518–1550”. Universidade de Lisboa (in Portuguese). Faculdade de Letras (FL). Retrieved 30 January 2017.

This source also does not state that the galleon was of Portuguese origin. It only says: “To these were added two types of sailing vessels intended for war: the Portuguese war caravel, at an uncertain date but very probably in the early 16th century, and the Portuguese galleon, in 1518.”

3. Pereira, Rui (2003). “D'AQUÉM E D'ALÉM-MAR: Entre Portugal e o Desconhecido 1518–1550” (PDF). World of Discoveries (in Portuguese). Monografias. Retrieved 1 January 2003.

Here we have the same issue. It does not state that the galleon was of Portuguese origin, only that: “Later, after those first exploratory expeditions, the Portuguese, already in the 16th century, began to employ galleons. We can describe a galleon as a hybrid ship, capable of being used both for military purposes and for transporting cargo.”

4. Pereira, José (2012). “HISTÓRIA DA MARINHA PORTUGUESA: NAVIOS, MARINHEIROS E ARTE DE NAVEGAR 1669–1823” (PDF). academia.marinha.pt (in Portuguese). Academia de Marinha, Lisbon. Retrieved 1 January 2012.

The same problem appears here. It does not state that the galleon originated in Portugal, only that the Portuguese used the galleon in the early 16th century: “The Portuguese galleon, whose design has already been discussed in another volume of the History of the Navy, probably emerged during the first quarter of the 16th century, contributing to Portugal’s hegemony in the East.”

5. Contente, Francisco; Domingues (2005). “Navios, Construção e Arquitectura Naval”. Instituto Camões (in Portuguese). Retrieved 1 January 2005.

Again, this reference makes no claim that the galleon originated in Portugal. It only states: “The 16th-century Portuguese galleon was a high-sided round ship.”

I do not dispute that Portugal used the galleon during the early 16th century, but please add a reference that explicitly states that the galleon originated in Portugal. Abatsuki (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

References to Portugal’s contribution were removed from the article, which affects the overall balance of the discussion on the development of the galleon. Across the text, several passages mentioning Portugal or Portuguese maritime influence, in particular, were dishonestly omitted on purpose, which gives a strong the impression of exclusivity to Spain.

Throughout the article, references were carefully selected and removed that contained any wording in regards to Portugal... to give sole exclusivity and credit to Spain.

You erased and stated: “(13:29, 12 April 2026) ‘Galleon first originated in Spain’.”

The origins of the galleon are complex and not attributable to a single inventor, or nation. Rather, the origins of the Galleon remain unknown, there is not single name or country, much less of a name of a ship that singles out Spain as the creator of the galleon. However, Maritime technology at the time sprung in Portugal, where the Galleon is agreed to be an iteration of that Carrack, that took its invention in Portuguese ship building.

The sources referenced do not necessarily contradict each other, rather, they reflect different aspects of a shared maritime development. Recognizing both Portuguese and Spanish contributions provides a more accurate and balanced historical perspective. Hence, one source does not invalidate the other. Ergo, it does not give you the right erase or censor information to justify your personal interest and exalt Spanish superiority.

While Spain played a significant role in the development and refinement of the galleon as a naval vessel, earlier maritime innovations in Portugal, especially the carrack, contributed meaningfully to its evolution. The galleon is generally understood as an adaptation and progression of earlier Atlantic ship designs used by multiple maritime powers of the period.

Newspaper Gazetadopovo has an article that states:

https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/vozes/thiago-braga/como-os-portugueses-revolucionaram-a-navegacao-oceanica/

A larger, wider, taller ship, capable of carrying many more men and supplies for longer voyages—therefore a much more autonomous ship: this was the kind of ship the Portuguese needed if they wanted to conquer the seas and reach India; and such a ship they made... The carrack, or great ship!

... We also have the galleon and the carrack, two other later Portuguese inventions: everything indicates that galleons were warships par excellence, while carracks and carracks were more for transport.A larger, wider, taller ship, capable of carrying many more men and supplies for longer voyages—therefore a much more autonomous ship: this was the kind of ship the Portuguese needed if they wanted to conquer the seas and reach India; and such a ship they made... The Nau, or great ship!

WikiDorikin (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

What makes the newspaper article that you cite an WP:RS? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

(1) The references I have available and why I think they meet WP:RS.

(a) Phillips, Carla Rahn (1994). "The Caravel and the Galleon". In Gardiner, Robert; Unger, Richard W (eds.). Cogs, Caravels and Galleons : the sailing ship, 1000-1650. London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0851775608. This work is cited by Grenier et al and Jonathan Adams (both listed below). It is amply referenced with academic references and published by a notable academic publisher.
(b) Adams, Jonathan (2013). A maritime archaeology of ships: innovation and social change in late medieval and early modern Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ISBN 9781782970453. Definitely an academic work, by a senior maritime archaeologist with an extensive publication record. Also, relatively recent.
(c) Grenier, Robert (2007). Grenier, Robert; Bernier, Marc-Andre; Stevens, Willis (eds.). The Underwater Archaeology of Red Bay. Vol. 3: The 24M Hull. Ottawa: Parks Canada. ISBN 9780660196527. Cannot get more academic than the formal excavation report. As well as the very important excavation, there was a big effort on archival research in Spain.
(d) Kirsch, Peter (1990) [1988 (in German)]. The Galleon, the Great Ships of the Armada Era. London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 9780851775463. The author is a ship modeller, not a maritime historian. However, text is heavily referenced and he is cited by Adams and Phillips(above).
All therefore qualify as a WP:RS.

(2) What do they say?
(a) Phillips 1994:
(i) Starts with making clear that the origins of the galleon are not clear.
(ii) Refers to the oared galleoni of Venice.
(iii) "Full rigged varieties of galleons" used by both Italy and Spain before 1530
(iv) Spanish galeones were involved in fishing "off the Cantabrian coast" in 1513. We do not know what these looked like, but there is no suggestion that they were new or unusual.
(v) Venice's first sailing galleon is credited to Matteo Bressan c. 1528
(vi) a Venetian galleon fought at the battle of Prevesa in 1538

(b) Adams 2013
Skilfully dodges giving a definition of a galleon, but makes clear that the term is used to describe more ships now than when these vessels were in use. He uses "galleon type", but, again, without any formal definition. He amplifies Phillips's point that nationalistic pride has somewhat distorted the narrative on exactly what a galleon is or where it originated. He mentions that there are very few archaeological examples of the galleon-type surviving. Note that, like most maritime archaeologists, he applies the term galleon to ships over a much wider geographical spread than Iberia.

(c) Grenier et al 2007 (pg 14-16)
This work has the benefit of deep access to archives in Northern Spain.
(i) States that the galleon is "popularly associated with Spanish oceanic navigation" [bold added].
(ii) Galleons were substantially rarer than naos in the Basque fleet. However, Armada documents show that galleons were more common among the ships provided by Portugal.
(iii) This is where the inconsistent contemporary terminology by Spanish notaries is discussed.
(iv) The galleon appears to have been introduced to the Basque coast from Portugal.
(v) the nao is considered to be an Atlantic ship, whilst the galleon has a Mediterranean origin (Venice is mentioned).

(d) Kirsch 1990 [1988]
(i) "None of us can say exactly what a galleon is." "Origins cannot be precisely defined."
(ii) Mentions oared Venetian craft and the Venetian sailing galleon of 1547 (and a 1558 failure that capsized on sailing out of harbour).
(ii) Mentions Spanish galleons of 1540.
(iii) Covers English galleons, but we know that their users simply called them "ships". Points out that in England, "galleon" may be more used by shipwrights than sailors. (iv) (pg 33) Points out that the term "galleon" "started to disappear even before the middle of the seventeenth century". Not sure if this refers to outside the Iberian Peninsula, as it appears in a discussion of ships in other parts of Europe.

(3) Conclusions: The article should be totally clear that a lot is unknown about galleons generally, and certainly about their origins. The Terminology section is written with that in mind. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. How about I draft some more measured wording that makes clear the origin is uncertain, using the references you mentioned but combining them with the ones we currently have? Abatsuki (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence of the article is full of problems:
Galleons were large, multi-decked sailing ships developed in the early 16th century from ships such as the caravel and the carrack, in Portugal and in Spain.

• large: Whilst later versions of galleons were large (e.g. Manilla galleon), especially in early times, a galleon was typically small. Grenier et al (as cited in the article) make clear that the galleons used in the Labrador whaling enterprises were smaller than the naus in the same trade. The galleons used against the Spanish Armada were smaller than the ships they opposed.
• multi-decked: This is probably true (for instance the Red Bay wreck 24M was multi-decked), but how is this significant enough to be put in the first sentence as if it is a defining characteristic?
• developed in the early 16th century: This rather ignores the longer development period that stretches back to the prior century and Venice. Perhaps the problem word is simply developed.
• from ships such as the caravel and the carrack: I don't believe that we have a high quality source that says this. There may be plenty of sources that say this, but are they written by maritime archaeologists or historians with a solid academic background specifically in this type of vessel? My read of the few definitive sources suggests that the process of the development of the galleon is not well understood. If so, this is far too confident a statement for the first sentence.
• in Portugal and in Spain. Depending on the scope of the article, this may be misleading. There are many ships which are described by maritime archaeologists as "galleon type". If they are included in the article, then naming just these two countries is inappropriate. I note that the article attempts to use the work of Mathew Baker (shipwright), which suggests that the wider scope of "galleon type" is intended. This might be a better approach, as archaeological remains of just Portuguese and Spanish galleons are limited. Expanding the geographical spread gives more well researched sources.

The first sentence was multiply tagged with failed verifications, but these have disappeared in the recent flurry of editing. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 09:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)