Talk:Longship

Do we know of examples of other cultures using ship burials? And does "shallow going" mean shallow draft or relatively flat-botomed? Rmhermen 19:54 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Knorr

I've seen longships described as knorr, displacing 10 tons, with 1m draft full load, crew 35, & usually rowed, not sailed. Comment? Trekphiler 17:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Knorr (or Knorre, Knarre, Knarr, depending on who you talk to) is not a longship. It's another model of Viking ship, used for trade. It's shorter, wider, with higher freeboard and generally even more sea-worthy. Many of the Viking long-distance expeditions were probably done in Knorrs. However, Knorrs are neary exclusively sailed, and very rarely rowed. Some mix-up, I guess. --Stephan Schulz 22:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice that there is a page for Knarr, which is a stub and some modern boating content, and a long and detailed Knaar ship information. Hope nobody minds if I change links from knarr to knaar. Anca 05:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Longships vs. longboats?

There's also an article at longboat: is there a case for merging these? Alai 20:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NO!Haabet 23:17, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The ship of Olaf Tryggvason

There are two problems:

• The name of the ship is not correct
• the link from the wrong name leads to an irrelevant page.

1. The correct name of his ship is

Ormen hin Lange

as is well known in Norway and Denmark. The translation of the name goes like this:

Ormen - the snake (in fact: The worm)

hin - this

Lange - long (one)

The word "hin" is a bit archaic, adding a flavour of awe and veneration for the ship. According to [1] the ship was built in 995. That article lists ship names from the viking ages and later.

Wikipedia is an English language encyclopedia, and the customary English name is Ormen Lange. Why don't you add the other information, e.g. "(original: Ormen hin Lange, literally The Long Worm)"? --Stephan Schulz 17:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

2. The link in this article refers wrongly to Ormen Lange, which is apparently a Norwegian oil field that has no connection to this subject.

Check the end of that article. As long as we do not have a seperate article on "Ormen Lange (Ship)", this is about as good as it gets. --Stephan Schulz 17:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sir48 profile in English

Now we apparently have an article at Ormen Lange longship. Considering who is named after who, it strikes me as a bit odd Fornadan (t) 09:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Vendelsnekke and nazism

Vendelsnekke was from Wend/Slavonic states, and was very flat-bottomed, slim and seal by moss not by wool as common.

The vendelsnekke is well-known from the history and archaeological finds.

But have problems by the nazism, becorse Slav is only slaver in nazi way of thinking.

Haabet 07:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is very badly documented. I could not find it in any of my books, and Google finds exactly 5 hits, representing just 2 original texts. I'd be interested in seening some sources. However, the main reason for taking it out of the article is that I don't think it is a longship, i.e. a light, sharply clinker-built (potentially) sea-going vessel originating around Scandinavia. I don't know what Nazism has to do with it, and as far as I know, the name "Slav" is the origin of the modern word "slave'" (not the other way round), and is only indirectly connected with "slaver". Moreover, it goes back to Roman times and is a lot older than Nazism. --Stephan Schulz 10:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The long & short of it

Calling an 11.4:1 fineness ratio "extaordinary" is a bit strong. WW2 submarines were 11.3. Trekphiler 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the Oseberg ship a true longship?

I am a bit confused by this article. I have always thought the Gokstad ship was more of a typical longship than the Oseberg. The Oseberg is constantly referred to as a vessel for coastal voyages or some sort of royal yacht, on the account that it is so much more fragile than, say, the Gokstad ship Grumpy444grumpy 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dragon ships

I have deleted the Dragon ship section of this article as the information could not be verified. The term Dragon ship is an outdated term which should be avoided. The section also claimed that a dragon ship was held at the Viking Ship Museum in Oslo. Apparently it was 30m long and could hold 121 rowers. This is not the case. Only three ships are held at this museum. These are the ships from Oseberg, Gokstad and Tune. The longest of these is the Gokstad ship at 23m. Grumpy444grumpy 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Haabet disagrees with my decision. The fact remains, though. There is no "dragon ship" in the Viking Ship Museum in Oslo. If it is referring to the Skuldelev 2 ship in Roskilde, the specs for that ship are as follows: 28m long, 4.5m broad. Crew: 50-60, not 121! The Skuldelev [2] is the longest longship found.

Is in the correctly Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, it was 30 meter, not 28m as first assume. It has 30 pair of oar and one steer-oar. It been 61 (or 121 if they are two about one oar). It is not the longest longship/dragonship found becorse in the port of Roskilde they have get a dragon-ship on 35m. http://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/page.asp?objectid=289&zcs=402 Haabet 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) http://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/page.asp?sideid=598&zcs=402

Where is the reference to there being 121 rowers? Where is it called a dragon-ship? Where is the reference to a 35m long ship?

Skuldelev-2 is 30 meters, 60 oars (30 per side), total crew up to 80, according to the museum. As usual for ancient ships, naming is inconsistent between original sources, 1000 years of romanticising stories that have been told hence, older and current research papers, and popular science books. I'm certain someone called this a dragon ship. I'm a lot less certain that we should call it this. On a seperate angle, I've always been dissatisfied with the state of this article, but I had (and have) not enough time to do more than minor corrections. Maybe we should nominate this for a collaboration of the week? --Stephan Schulz 18:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is a bit flimsy at the moment. The term dragon ship is an archaic term, normally used by scholars of the 19th century (Romanticism, anyone?) I think in a modern encyclopedia such terms should be avoided. Grumpy444grumpy 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The dragon ship was a invention of Alfred the Great who have dragon as symbol in war. The translation of dragon to Old Norse is Orm (worm). see Ormen Lange in article.

Do not make a new terminology in Wikipedia, please. People in olddays was also romanticist, who make romantic name. Haabet 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you have to check your dictionary on this one. Dragon translates as drage/drake in old norse. The word Orm in Ormen Lange translates as the Long Serpent, Worm means maggot. I hardly think anyone in the Viking age would name their ship the long maggot!! What is this new terminology you are talking about? All I am saying is that in current academic/scientific circles the term dragon-ship is generally avoided. Just look up any reliable book on maritime archaeology. Grumpy444grumpy 07:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You translate first from Anglo-Saxon to old Norse, second you translate from old Norse to Danish; third you translate from Danish to english. And been surprise of the disappeared of the sense. The dragon was unknown of the Old Norse, but they know one Serpent/maggot so big as the circumference of the earth.

The archaeology only know two dragon-ship. It is rare type of Longship. Not al cars is cadillac.Haabet 12:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And which ships are these? Orm=snake/serpent Worm=mark/maggot/makk Grumpy444grumpy 12:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

They was 3.

1. Wreck 2(-4) 30 meter, Skuldelev 1967. http://www.rgzm.de/Navis/Ships/Ship002/Ship002Engl.htm
2. Wreck 6, 36 meter, ROSKILDE, 1997. http://www.rgzm.de/Navis/Ships/Ship092/Ship092.htm
3. Haithabu 1. ship008/Ship008Engl.htm

http://www.havhingsten.dk/index.php?id=72&L=2

14:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And are they referred to as dragon-ships or longships? Grumpy444grumpy 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/sagaships.htm This page tell about the big dragon-ships. All dragon-ships are longships. Some book had misunderstood and say longships is dragon-ships, but the sources only use the term "dragon-ships" about the biggest ship by 30 pair of oars or more. Haabet 21:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, should I trust the Roskilde museum folks or this guy... Tough choice, that, but you know, I think I'll stick to the experts on this one. The ones that don't call the ships dragon-ships but longships. I can find you a page on the internet that will tell you that the ships had ice-skates attached to them so that they could cross frozen lakes if you want that added too! It is just as trustworthy!Grumpy444grumpy 08:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This part needs to be updated in light of the 1997 discovery of "Skuldelev 7" at Roskilde- 35m, even longer than Skuldelev 2.Solicitr 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the Vikingship museum in Roskilde this ship was "only" about 36m (118ft) long, i.e. only about 6 m longer than Skuldelev 2 which could fit about 30 rowers. According to historical sources the Drakkar ships were capable of carrying hundreds of armed men. No such ship has yet been found. Grumpy444grumpy 20:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Structure of article

I suggest that this article be split up into one part which deals explicitly with the archaeological evidence i.e. the solid evidence, and one which deals with the historical evidence i.e. how viking ships have been portrayed in historical sources. Further to this, I am a bit concerned that when you search for "Viking ship" you get redirected directly to "Longship". Surely "Longship" should be a sub-category of "Viking ship" as there were several types of ships used during the Viking period? Grumpy444grumpy 08:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Longship was used befor and after the Viking period, but been bigger by time. Haabet 11:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. Therefore "Viking ship" should not link directly to "longship", as the longship was only one of many types of ships used in that period.--Grumpy444grumpy 12:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Rooms

There should be an explanation & description of the "room" here, since that was the traditional way of measuring size of longship Fornadan (t) 09:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think is was a Nordic term for "pair of oar"Haabet 11:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As i understand it, a room was a term used to describe the space between two ribs of the ship, because this distance was a constant along the ship and i believe the oars were spaced 1 per room (per side). So that each rower, his seachest he would be seated on and the oar would be evenly between the ribs.Tyranowulf 23:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

History/Earlier Types

I quite appreciate the new information on the Hortspring boat and so on, and I think it helps the article. That's why I went over what was there yesterday evening with a usually reliable reference book (Landström's "The Ship") on my desk, fixing both English language errors, stylistic matters and some minor factual stuff (e.g. the Hjortspring boat was roughly contemporary with the Nydam boat (according to Landström, the more primitive vessel is even 100 years younger)). However, all my changes were reverted without explanation when User:Shafeeqjr added new material. Was that intentional (if yes, I would like to hear some reasons so we can discuss it) or just an accident (in which case I would just restore my the changes into the current state of the article). --Stephan Schulz 06:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited the full article in part of a research project for my Vikings course at Loyola Marymount University. I tired to use the original article and new findings to fufill my project as well as provide more information to everyone who is interested on information on longships. I will check back later for your response, but to restore what you original wrote would be damaging to the Wikipedia community as well as the world. If you would like to add, by all means I would love that, but to restore, would be distasteful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shafeeqjr (talk • contribs) .

Hi Shafeeqjr! I of course don't want to remove all your new stuff. But check out the edits I made to your first few section here. Many of the things are minor (e.g. adding SI units), toning down the language a bit, and so on. As an example. "Hjortspring" is the name of the farm where the boat was found. As far as I know, the boat has not received a proper name, bit is referred to as the "Hjortspring boat", not just "Hjortspring". On some, our sources seem to disagree (Landström dates the Nydam find to "around 300 B.C"., Hjortspring to "second century before Christ"). Bye and thanks for your contributions! --Stephan Schulz 06:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: You can signe your contributions (on talk pages only!) using four tildas: ~~~~. That expands to your name and the date automatically.

Stephan Schulz: I like the changes, I hope others can contribute also to make this a wonderful site. I thank you once again for the contributions, they truly added more clarity and better information to the site. Shafeeqjr shafeeqjr

Thanks. I've put the changes back in, with some extra editing. --Stephan Schulz 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Where'd the other types go? And why? Don Blake 09:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tidy

I've tagged this article as needing a tidy. The article is in my opinion without a good structure, reads like a school project and is full of inaccuracies, generalisations and nonsense. --Grumpy444grumpy 10:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the tidy request (and I think we are working on it). The article has a lot improved in the last few weeks. --Stephan Schulz 11:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly has! There is still however a few things that need sorting out. Would like to see this article up to "featured article" standard! --Grumpy444grumpy 11:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I've also listed the article at Wikipedia:Cleanup#May_1.2C_2006.--Stephan Schulz 11:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the citations? Is there any work needed there, cause i'll do it if it will be accepted..! --Fenigan Brack 17:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the fact that it needs to be cleaned up and more facts need to be represented, but I do not think it is full of inaccuracies and generalisations. Grumpy, I fail to see what you have done to make the article better or even contribute to the page. Please do something and complain less.--64.95.198.126 19:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What, like yourself? --Grumpy444grumpy 21:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Did a bit of tidying up - there are still quite a lot of irrelevant or repeated links and some repetition that might be removed by a revamp of the structure. As well, the English is still a bit non-native in places Kahuroa 07:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've been through this article and made a lot of fixes to the wording, as well as a few fairly minor organisational changes. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about longships, and I haven't been concerned with verifying or enhancing the content. I've just tried to turn the existing content into something approximating normal English. It reads largely OK to me now, so I have removed the cleanup banner. For the record, here are a couple of things that I noticed as I went through but couldn't make enough sense of to fix:

The introduction says that the longship is characterised as "narrow", and yet in other places (e.g. under "Legacy") it is described as "wide". Someone needs to decide which it is!

The section about the Oseberg ship says that these new hulls had "poor lateral stability", but then seems to immediately contradict this with another statement about "greater stability".

Under "Navigation" the name of the quoted Viking is Almgren in one place and Algrem in another. I don't know which is correct.

poor lateral stability is specific to the lateral sort, the Oseberg has greater stability just more generally.

Almgren and Algrem is just typical english of the time like Knor, Knorr, Knarr, Knaar, Knar... they are all correct but since the language at this point was purely spoken the writen forms vary according to accent and other variances.

however i agree with the need to alter the "legacy" bit saying they were wide, unless who wrote that was refering to the knaar.Tyranowulf 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt 13:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

Etymology

As part of the cleanup I have removed the information about the etymology of the word "longship" on the grounds that it is totally incomprehensible and adds no value to the article. The explanation read:

The name longship originates from the Insular Celtic word for "ship", Old Irish long, and Welsh llong is commonly assumed to be an adaptation to the longships as they appeared to the British population (McCone).

Matt 11:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC).

'Master of all trades'?

The longship was a master of all trades: it was wide and stable, yet light, fast and nimble. With all these qualities combined in one ship, the longship was unrivaled for centuries, until the arrival of the great gunboats and galleons.

This leaves out the fact that, as the header states, the longship had one weakness the English tried to exploit: it was a terrible platform for ship-to-ship engagements as the crew could only either row or fight, not both at the same time. The crews of English vessels, on the other hand, could do both, and as such they could steer their ships while in combat, gaining an advantage. As far as I understand it. I don't have a better source for this than the kid's book The Vicious Vikings by Deary, though.

If true, shouldn't this be included in the paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safe-Keeper (talk • contribs)

The longship been replaced by ships by a top platform. From the platform stone be able to hit the longshipd and sink them. The longship was build of light, for speed, as stone can get serious damage.Håbet 08:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Long ships and other viking ships

I think there still is confusion in this article. From the introduction:

The vessels were also used for long distance trade and commerce, and for exploratory voyages to Iceland, Greenland, and beyond.

The ship used for trade by the sea and for crossing the Atlantic was (mainly) the knarr. On the Sea Stallion they had place for only five days' water and food (having safety equipment instead of arms), not enough for crossing the Atlantic. Not much place for goods to trade either. A bit later:

its light weight enabled it to be carried over portages

I am quite certain that the ocean going longships were not used on river routes. Even reconstructions of the Oseberg ship has proven very heavy and cumbersome in that use. The vikings did have fast and light longships, oceangoing trade ships and ships that could use the rivers to get through modern Russia, but they were not the same ships (and not all the types are longships). That should be made clear. 130.232.213.59 (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Illustrations

The Dutch (Nederlands) article on Longships has excellent technical illustrations. Maybe someone who knows how to implant pics can put them on this article? Krastain (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)