Oceanic Navigation
Oceanic integration was not a frictionless shrinking of distance. Winds set calendars, navigators combined knowledge systems, shipyards assembled materials and labor, and monopolies shaped which risks people took.
The five claims move from one exceptionally documented trans-Pacific route to route geometry, navigation, shipbuilding, and the ecological and coercive consequences of connection.
Key Insights on Oceanic Navigation
A legal bottleneck made each trans-Pacific departure unusually valuable—and encouraged dangerous delay and loading.
The Manila galleon crossed the Pacific through a two-ship monopoly—and one in five voyages failed
Asian manufactures crossed to Mexico; silver returned toward Manila. Yet the Crown’s two-ship cap created rents around scarce cargo space.
Across the Manila-to-Acapulco sample, 20% of voyages failed. Late departures show the higher descriptive failure share.
The Manila galleon crossed the Pacific through a two-ship monopoly—and one in five voyages failed
The Manila Galleon route linked the Philippines and Mexico for roughly two and a half centuries.
route chronologyThe Crown legally capped departures from Manila at two galleons per year.
monopoly ruleOne fifth of Manila-to-Acapulco voyages in the estimation sample failed.
shipwreck or damaged returnThe descriptive failure share was lower among on-time departures.
subgroup shareThe descriptive failure share was higher among late departures.
subgroup shareMethods & sourcesEvidence notes, definitions, and downloads
Evidence standard
The opening visual uses Arteaga, Desierto, and Koyama’s universe of Manila-galleon voyages. “Failure” includes ships lost at sea or heavily damaged and forced back to port.
The on-time and late percentages are descriptive subgroup shares. The paper’s controlled analysis strengthens the association, but this page does not treat timing as the only cause of failure or this route as the whole oceanic world.