What was the average capacity (passengers+crew) of a first-century Roman transport ship? In Acts 27, the Bible, Paul sails in a vessel with a total of 276 people (verse 37). Was it normal or possible at that time?
Scratched into plaster at Pompeii:Lucian described a huge, grain ship, but this was exceptional.Imperial Rome did not have passenger ships; they had merchant (cargo) vessels and warships.A typical cargo would be 5800–7800 amphora, each weighing 50 kilos, giving a total cargo of 290–390 metric tons. Most had a capacity of 100–150 tons. The Isis, described by Lucian, carried 1,000 tons.Those that carried passengers, had them sleep on deck, sometimes in tents. They could number in the hundreds. Wealthy Romans could hire a crew cabin, in the stern.
What is the most common form of transportation in France?
For the whole of France, the train would be the most common form of public transportation. France has an excellent rail network ran by SNCFm with fast trains (TGV) to connects between main cities (as well as international destinations), Corail for destinations not covered by TGV, TER for regional travel, Corail Intercites for one main regional city to another, Corail Lunea for travelling overnight. This is a good site that explains how these different rail type works (http://www.francerailpass.com/frp/Our-Tr... ) Otherwise, in terms of private transportation, people do drive. Domestic air travel is also available but the time taken sometimes doesn't beat travelling by train. E.g. from Paris to Marseilles on the TGV takes only 3 hours from city to city. If one is flying time to airport from Paris centre is about an hour, he/she will have to be there at least 90-120 mins ahead of time for check in and security and whats not, then travelling time, plus time to get out from Marseille airport to Marseille itself. If you want to consider the most common form of transportation in Paris, then metro and RER would be the ones. The network is well linked and there's never an address in Paris that's not about 600 meters away from a station. They run regularly and are the most reliable mode of transport (when there isn't a worker strike, that is). Public transport system in Paris is run by RATP, which includes the metro, RER, buses and trams.
How did people travel from England to France in the 18th century?
People would normally catch the "packet" (sailing ship) across the channel - wind and weather permitting. You would also have to wait for the tide. The wealthy might have had their own boats moored ready for use. The voyage would have taken a lot longer than it does today! http://www.plimsoll.org/SeaPeople/TravellingBySea/FerryPassengers/default.asp http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/background/ferries.htm "We left London July 28th, 1814, on a hotter day than has been known in this climate for many years. I am not a good traveller, and this heat agreed very ill with me, till, on arriving at Dover, I was refreshed by a sea-bath. As we very much wished to cross the channel with all possible speed, we would not wait for the packet of the following day (it being then about four in the afternoon) but hiring a small boat, resolved to make the passage the same evening, the seamen promising us a voyage of two hours. The evening was most beautiful; there was but little wind, and the sails flapped in the flagging breeze: the moon rose, and night came on, and with the night a slow, heavy swell, and a fresh breeze, which soon produced a sea so violent as to toss the boat very much. I was dreadfully seasick, and as is usually my custom when thus affected, I slept during the greater part of the night, awaking only from time to time to ask where we were, and to receive the dismal answer each time -- "Not quite half way." The wind was violent and contrary; if we could not reach Calais, the sailors proposed making for Boulogne. They promised only two hours' sail from shore, yet hour after hour passed, and we were still far distant, when the moon sunk in the red and stormy horizon, and the fast-flashing lightning became pale in the breaking day. We were proceeding slowly against the wind, when suddenly a thunder squall struck the sail, and the waves rushed into the boat: even the sailors acknowledged that our situation was perilous; but they succeeded in reefing the sail; -- the wind was now changed, and we drove before the gale directly to Calais. As we entered the harbour I awoke from a comfortless sleep, and saw the sun rise broad, red, and cloudless over the pier." http://www.english.upenn.edu/Projects/knarf/MShelley/sixweek1.html
Why did England send convicts to Australia toward the end of the 18th century?
England sent convicts to Australia as part of their ‘The Australia Solution’ which was a concept conceived and enacted by politicians in England in the 1780′s who were forced to deal with their overcrowding and ‘wretchedly insanitary’ jails. To the pressured politicians, it seemed that ‘The Australia Solution’ would eradicate England’s convict problems forever, because it called for 80 years of systematic transportation of 160,000 convicts to a land 13,000 km away. In the latter part of the 18th century, English law still prescribed transportation as a punishment, even though transportation to the previously preferred American colonies, was no longer an option due to the American War of Independence. The prisons in England soon became wholly insufficient to hold the condemned persons. Every month saw more and more sentences of transportation inflicted, more hulks on the Thames river filled with offenders, and still there was no place to which they could be exiled. There were said to be 100,000 persons in England under sentence of transportation in the latter part of the 18th century. Many other options were explored as a destination for these convicts (i.e. west coast of Africa) but none seemed suitable until a Corsican who had been with Cook in the ENDEAVOUR, directed attention to the suitableness of Botany Bay in New Holland (New South Wales, Australia), so named by the Dutch. Admiral Sir George Young then submitted to the British Government a detailed plan for the settlement of convicts in New Holland. The fact that New Holland was such a long distance from Europe appeared to him to be a particularly strong argument in favour of it. He thought that, by sending the convicts there, England would get rid of the convicts ‘for ever.’ The King’s speech to Parliament in January 1787 definitely announced that a plan had been formed for transporting a number of convicts ‘in order to remove the inconvenience which arose from the crowded state of the jails in different parts of the kingdom.’Pitt as the English Prime Minister was a practical politician immersed in the problems and perplexities of the hour. He defended 'The Australian Solution' to send convicts to Australia because ‘in point of expense no cheaper mode of disposing of the convicts could be found.’So, Australia represented the cheapest way of disposing of the convicts in overcrowded English jails, so that's why they were sent here.
Ugh! What is this type of boat thing they use in Venice?
I am having a complete blank out! Can someone please tell me what the boat things are called that they use in Venice? The ones with one person on the back with a giant pole pushing them along? I know its a dumb question, but my brain is moving slowly today! Thanks!
Could an eighteenth-century pirate ship be classified as a firm?
Yes.They were franchises, funded by beneficaries for certain things - trade, theft, transport/ snuggling etc. They were paid for carrying out acts, they also traded what they took - you take a galleon, keep the ship, kill the crew, sell the cotton/ tobacco/ rum etc. this is the reason that the British were so successful at first, they used piracy to take the ships of other nations, we stole some ideas of how they build theirs, used them to better our own, had massively superior naval training to our enemies and they got greedy so more and more were funded by Elizabeth as the pirates originally funded went rogue and went on their own.the Spanish were plundering Peru and Mexico of hundreds of tonnes of silver, this in turn was being stolen and sold by the pirates - making them formidable and also more influential in the local settlements around where they operate.
How often did people move around in late 17th century/early 18th century Britain?
My understanding is that before the railways the main methods of transport were walking, horse, horse and cart, stagecoach and boat. My understanding is that because long-distance roads were often so bad and plagued by highwaymen, inshore boats were commonly used to transport people from one coastal community to another. As the canals were built, they were utilized to some extent, as were navigable rivers. The stagecoach started in the seventeenth century and became a major transport medium. As far as I know, people generally did not travel far from their communities. The few who did were either wealthy or seeking their fortunes in new places. I know that my Scottish ancestor left Scotland in 1715 and settled in Greenwich, London, where he worked as a shipwright, a highly sought after trade that enabled him to become rich enough to pay for a son to go to medical school. I am descended from the doctor. However, in order to make the move, he probably had to be enterprising and though I don't know how he got to London, I'd guess that his connection with ships may have given him a chance to take a ship or boat around the coast, rather than endure the stagecoach. Ships were relatively safe, while the stage coach was quicker but had risks. Not only were there highwaymen but the coaches themselves often suffered serious mechanical failure that could result in a serious accident. Then there were accidents not caused by mechanical failure.In the 1980s I gave a lift to a hitch-hiker who I vaguely knew from meeting in a local pub. We both lived in a village called Chobham to the south-west of London. He was going to Woking, the nearest town and he told me that he'd never been any further, not even to London, which is just 25 minutes on a train from Woking. In the 1980s, my guess is that he was incredibly unusual never to have travelled more than 4 miles from his home. Circa 1700 I think that the majority of people wouldn't even have travelled 4 miles from home in their lives.
What ship used trade winds a 130 years ago?
Pretty much all of them. There were very few steamships then. All the rest were sailing ships, and they would use whatever winds were available. If heading for the Equator, they would use the Trades.