Megalithic shipping and trade routes

[Boreades]

You're slipping! You used to be a lot sneakier at moving the goalposts when anyone tried to pin down what you mean.

Ever wondered, Borry, why the slave trade started in the sixteenth century? Yes, that's right! It's when they invented the Viking long ship!

Now you're saying the Romans did have slaves but playing with semantics about slave trade and slave supply.

Tut tut, could do better. 2/10. Stay after class and try again.

[TisILeclerc]

Who invented a Viking longship in the sixteenth century?

And why invent a ship that couldn't go to sea except for twentyfirst century replicas.

We do know that the Romans didn't like going to sea because their paddle boats were not fit for it them being used to the Med. Unlike the British. And later on the Norse.

The Basques were sailing merrily to Newfoundland in the sixteenth century for the fish. But they didn't use Roman galleys.

[Mick Harper]

Who invented a Viking longship in the sixteenth century?

I must remember not to make jokes.

And why invent a ship that couldn't go to sea except for twentyfirst century replicas.

The replicas are not of ocean-going boats.

We do know that the Romans didn't like going to sea because their paddle boats were not fit for it them being used to the Med.

The Romans were excellent sailors and shipbuilders. They made 'round' boats for heavy freight; they made 'long boats' for speed and naval purposes. They did not however build 'ocean-going' ships because they had no ocean they needed to sail in.

Unlike the British. And later on the Norse.

Who did. Neither the British nor the Norse would dream of using 'Roman-style long-ships. If you find an example of one in an ocean-going situation, let me know.

The Basques were sailing merrily to Newfoundland in the sixteenth century for the fish. But they didn't use Roman galleys.

Precisely so. By the sixteenth century round ships were capable of routine mercantile ocean-crossing voyages. (Borry and I have stood on one in Bristol docks). Hence the world's first recorded ocean-crossing slave trade. However, as I pointed out, it wasn't transport costs that 'proves' the Vikings never slave-raided the British Isles. They could technically have done so using round ships. Just think about the other cost. Go on, just a little bit.

[TisILeclerc]

I did put a link up of a replica Norse ship that went from Scandinavia to New York.

I call that crossing the Atlantic.

I posted another link to a video of another replica longship that crossed the north sea, the north Atlantic, the Irish sea and finished up in Dublin. I call that sea going with a bit of ocean thrown in for good measure.

The Barbary slave pirates crossed into the Atlantic and kidnapped people from England, Wales, Ireland and Iceland as well as other places. I call that sailing across an ocean. And they were doing that for nearly a thousand years.

The Phoenicians sailed into the Atlantic to get to the British Isles. Again crossing the ocean.

You can say you don't believe it. You may not need proof to say you know it. You just need to say, I know everything. And that's it. But the earth still goes around the sun whatever you may think.

[Mick Harper]

I did put a link up of a replica Norse ship that went from Scandinavia to New York.

Tissie, I don't mind you disagreeing with me but I do mind you repeating yourself endlessly. The replica, I say, is not of an ocean-going ship. There is no significance in it getting to New York. You can sail a bathtub to New York. Let's just leave it there.

I call that crossing the Atlantic.

It soitenly is.

I posted another link to a video of another replica longship that crossed the north sea, the north Atlantic, the Irish sea and finished up in Dublin. I call that sea going with a bit of ocean thrown in for good measure.

See above

The Barbary slave pirates crossed into the Atlantic

So did everybody else from vast antiquity onwards.

and kidnapped people from England, Wales, Ireland and Iceland as well as other places.

As I have agreed. If you think 'kidnapping people' is the same as a 'slave trade' then you are making a category error. There are records of this happening twice to my knowledge -- once in Dorset, once in Carmarthenshire -- but let me know if you know of more. Hundreds more will be required.

I call that sailing across an ocean. And they were doing that for nearly a thousand years.

No it isn't. It's sailing on an ocean. Everybody's been doing that since vast antiquity.

The Phoenicians sailed into the Atlantic to get to the British Isles. Again crossing the ocean.

As I say, in vast antiquity.

You can say you don't believe it. You may not need proof to say you know it. You just need to say, I know everything. And that's it. But the earth still goes around the sun whatever you may think.

Slow down, m'heartie, always remember my evidence is exactly the same as your evidence. But I apply one critical rule to the evidence: does it make sense? Now that we have agreed that everybody is technically capable of sailing from Norway to Britain to Africa to Turkey to America from vast antiquity onwards, consider why slave trading is never an economic proposition for maritime slave raiders. All you have to do is come up with the bigger cost than transport costs facing all slave traders, and you will arrive at the answer.

[TisILeclerc]

The replica ships were ships. They crossed the ocean. I can't see what is wrong with saying that.

The Vikings settled Iceland and Greenland. They didn't walk there.

Baltimore in Ireland was captured. I agree kidnapping is not slavery. But kidnapping to take to the slave markets in Algiers is.

Was it Gregory who commented on the Angle children being sold at the Roman slave market being more like Angels?

Or was that made up in the seventeenth century?

[Mick Harper]

I think I've agreed to these points seventeen times which is enough.

[Boreades]

However, as I pointed out, it wasn't transport costs that 'proves' the Vikings never slave-raided the British Isles. They could technically have done so using round ships. Just think about the other cost. Go on, just a little bit.

It must have been the priests on their hermitages and islands who complained about the Vikings bad manners and sloppy seamanship. That's obviously what put a stop to it. Like the ones on Craggy Island. There's no slave trade there.

[Boreades]

Of course, what we mean by the "slave trade" is itself a moving target.

I stand to be corrected, but I don't think there's much of a slave trade in Shepherds Bush market these days? (Despite the area still being home for some of the descendants of many of London's finest slave traders).

For an active market, Harpo, you need to go further afield. If you want the biggest and the best these days, you need to head into Daesh territory. Good luck with that. If your bus pass won't get you that far, and you want to stay domestic, I would tentatively suggest you head Oop North. You don't need to go as far North as Tisi. Somewhere like Rotherham would do.

[Mick Harper]

So, what is this major cost? Capturing slaves. We never think about this because we are fixated on three kinds of slavery:
1. The modern triangular slave trade -- where the slave is a traded commodity, none were captured by the European slavers.
2. The Romans -- and other ancient civilisations -- who captured slaves for free as a by-product of expansionary wars.
3. Pirates who capture slaves for free as a by-product of capturing ships.

However, capturing slaves to order is a very difficult and therefore a very expensive business. The only commercially valuable slaves are young, fit men and young fit men can either fight back or run away. That's what makes capturing them difficult. So, how do you capture young, fit men on a scale commensurate with 'a slave trade'? There's only one way which is to send out what amounts to an army in order to surround/occupy a territory long enough to do the necessary. Anything less and either the slavers will be enslaved or the fit, young men will simply run away. Or at any rate live far enough away.

None the less, in certain circumstances it can be done. The triangular trade was at the end of such a circumstance. The native west African coastal states were essentially slaving-states organised on the principle of capturing slaves in the hinterland. They would be fools to do anything else once the Europeans had provided the cash (and the weapons) to create and sustain armies on the scale required for large-scale slaving expeditions.

What's all this got to do with the Vikings and Britain? Well, you just need to apply the same principles to them and then and there, and draw the correct conclusions.