3 ms·

To me the biggest culprit seemed to be the artificial scarcity introduced on the trade route to protect local businesses. This created an enormous incentive fo

To me the biggest culprit seemed to be the artificial scarcity introduced on the trade route to protect local businesses. This created an enormous incentive for the captain to cheat even though it made the trip far more dangerous. One would think there would be a strong smuggling economy happening given the situation, but I guess ocean going vessels that could make the trip were rare enough to be accounted for by the governments. One could imagine as ships got bigger and transatlantic capable vessels became more commonplace people would be talking about how the new ships are so much better and hardly ever sink due to their improved technology, when it's really just that more ships make the journey so there is enough capacity that captains aren't incentivized to take outrageous risks with every trip, and in fact have a strong incentive to play it safe since they will need to make multiple trips if they want to retire.

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
Article said a voyage could take four months. I suspect only a huge government financed vessel was capable of making the duration with appreciable cargo. Which is going to severely curtail opportunities for smuggling.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  Where does it say that? I searched & came up empty. Oddly enough, I'm just now reading 1493 and there's a very extensive section on China and the effect of Spanish silver on the economy. Smuggling was very common as the emperors tried ineffectually to control it. On the other side, Chinese silk proved devastating to European clothing makers, despite requiring TWO ocean voyages. Manila was the exchange point. (Apparently this ship was headed to/from Vietnam, though?)
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
    MALONE: Now, in Mexico, the ship would get loaded up with silver and then sail to Manila. It took about four months. And actually, this part of the route - no unusual shipwrecking problems. CHILDS: Totally fine. The problem was the other direction - the return trip. Ships going from the Philippines back to Mexico were four times more likely to not make it.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      are we looking at the same article? I search for "malone" and come up empty. https://mymodernmet.com/ming-dynasty-shipwreck/ https://mymodernmet.com/ming-dynasty-shipwreck/
      - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
        It’s from the podcast at the top of this sub thread.
        AlbertCory 2y ago
        got it

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago

Article said a voyage could take four months. I suspect only a huge government financed vessel was capable of making the duration with appreciable cargo. Which is going to severely curtail opportunities for smuggling.

AlbertCory 2y ago
Where does it say that? I searched & came up empty. Oddly enough, I'm just now reading 1493 and there's a very extensive section on China and the effect of Spanish silver on the economy. Smuggling was very common as the emperors tried ineffectually to control it. On the other side, Chinese silk proved devastating to European clothing makers, despite requiring TWO ocean voyages. Manila was the exchange point. (Apparently this ship was headed to/from Vietnam, though?)
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  MALONE: Now, in Mexico, the ship would get loaded up with silver and then sail to Manila. It took about four months. And actually, this part of the route - no unusual shipwrecking problems. CHILDS: Totally fine. The problem was the other direction - the return trip. Ships going from the Philippines back to Mexico were four times more likely to not make it.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    are we looking at the same article? I search for "malone" and come up empty. https://mymodernmet.com/ming-dynasty-shipwreck/ https://mymodernmet.com/ming-dynasty-shipwreck/
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
      It’s from the podcast at the top of this sub thread.
      - AlbertCory 2y ago
        got it