Pioneering the Atlantic Route

 The full name of my future article is "Pioneering the Atlantic Route: The Genoese Vessels Paving the Way to the North Sea." 

This manuscript provides a detailed examination of the shift from overland trade to the North Atlantic maritime route, highlighting the agency of Genoese entrepreneurs and the technological evolution of the Mediterranean Cog.

While preparing this account, I received unexpected aid from two sources. 

Academia introduced an option called CiteRight, which marked my controversial claims and suggested a closer look on additional literature. This advice helped me rewrite my essay in a more nuanced way.

Additionally, I submitted my updated opus for consideration by Jenni.AI, a new reference site for researchers, and received volumes of friendly critique. It is very important for me to study new suggestions before re-editing my article, though I don't accept some of their suggestions at face value.

The first issue is the sunset of the Champagne Fairs in the first decades of the Trecento (1300-1399). Jenny.AI sees the main reason in decentralized financial innovations in Bruges, which made Champagne techniques obsolete. I claim it was one of the reasons; however I can't ignore the xenophobic politics of the French kings that led to the fairs deterioration. 

The second issue is the Mediterranean cog. Jenny.AI points to a ttransition from shell-first to frame-based ship construction as one of the primary features, forgetting that by the early Trecento this tradition was firmly embedded in ship construction in the Middle Sea (for several centuries already). Southern shipwrights borrowed other features from their northern counterparts, such as the square rig and the stern rudder. 

Jenny. AI wants me to reconsider the Genoese Black Sea monopolies as the necessary engine for the vertical commodity chain described in the Atlantic shift. I have to re-examine what I wrote about the Genoese monopoly on Anatolian alum, but this mineral could be distributed through continental (i.e., overland) or mixed overland and maritime chains). I reckon the Atlantic route as a supplementry channel and emphasize the insecurity of land routes between the 1290s and further, culminating in the Hundred Years' War between England and France (which also interfered with sea trade). 

Jenny.AI wants me to add a Discussion or Conclusion section as if I wrote a scientific paper. However, I am a writer researching scientific issues. I can endorse a certain platform but see no point in arguing against other explanations. Besides, my paper is part of a unit, and I will probably conclude in the end. 

I am currently reworking the next paper, titled "The Venetian Response: The Inauguration of the Great Galley." 

 

The Flanders Galleys (3)

 As I extend my research, I begin to understand the scope of my task, which exceeds the size of a short article. I decided to divide my essay into working blocks. 

The outline of the first block:

1. Uncorking the Atlantic route

2. The Venetian response

a. Propulsion

b. Speed

3. Safety and security

a. General

b. Safety

c. Security

The first topic focuses on the Genoese merchants' response to an unfriendly reception in France on their way to the Champagne Fairs and their search for an alternative route, which led them to Bruges. Initially run by light galleys, the Flanders line soon switched to round ships. The shipbuilders designed a new type, the three-masted Mediterranean cog, which combined the construction traditions of North and South Europe, to transport bulky commodities. 

The Venetians responded to the launch of a new route by designing a great galley, a hybrid craft that could serve both as a warship and a cargo vessel. The boat could sail in all seasons but could not withstand adverse winds, which often kept the crews penned in the harbor. 

To compete with round ships, such as the Mediterranean cog, the constructors of the great galley occasionally experimented with mixed rigging, i.e., hung square sails together with fore-and-aft sails. 

The renowned speed of the great galley is a controversial issue. First of all, the voyage under favorable winds took much less time than traveling against opposing air currents. Then, one has to take into account frequent breaks due to bad weather and provisioning (to say nothing of stops for trade) in addition to pure traveling time. 

I am still developing the section on safety and security, i.e., seaworthiness, safety regulations, arms, and armor. The last topic will cover naval artillery on board the great galleys.