|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 7, 2014 21:35:01 GMT
Educated guess would be that the figures came from the French Surgeon. Of course 'casualties' would cover everything from men killed outright to those who were knocked out or stunned and taken below but who were able to go back to the guns later in the battle. It is also possible that the initial attack simply resulted in knocking one of the gun decks* out of action temporarily, and the British though this was down to killing most of the gun crews. (*The Bucentaure was an 80 gun ship, meaning she was a second rate ship of the line and hence actually outgunned by Victory. The paintings of the ship seem to show she had two full gundecks, plus there would have been additional guns on the weatherdeck.) It might also be a case that a lot of the initial casualties were from the soldiers rather than the sailors, which might not actually affect the ships ability to fight. Or or course the soldiers may have been able to replace some of the guncrews who had been injured or killed. The low quality of French gunnery, at least in 1805, was a side effect of the revolution. Revolutionary France got rid of practically all 'noble' personal in the military and navy. While this mainly removed experienced and skilled Captains and Admirals, I'd guess that this would also have included a lot of the gunners. (And Napoleon most likely had most of the remaining experienced gunners moved to the Army) Coupled with being stuck in port, and hence unable to do any sort of live-firing practice, this would have resulted in a very pitiful standard of gunnery in the French fleet (not helped by poor quality powder). The British in comparison had well trained and experienced gunners and gun crews - even those who had never fought at the Nile or in another fleet action would most likely have had a chance to fire at something when they were serving on Frigates. Aside; Line ships did occasionally open fire on Frigates, sometimes by accident (it could be easy to mistake a frigate for a larger ship in the thick of fighting, especially if aiming through a gunport and trying to look though thick smoke) other times because the Frigate was seen as a threat. Typically because the frigate had fired at the bigger ship or was thought to have done so. Usually Frigates were left alone, probably less to do with 'honor' and more to do with practicality; Why waste shot on a ship that wasn't a major threat when you could fire at something bigger and nastier? Besides, the Frigate you were firing into was most likely sailing around picking up sailors from the water. that reminds me of my brother's buddy's gulf war story - he was stationed on a vessel during the post-gulf-war (Desert Storm) period, and the ship would be periodically attacked by a "gunboat" which consisted of a light boat and one or two men with AK-47 rifles. the captain would release one turret to fire on the boat - and was only considered to have scored a point if they managed to swamp the boat without a direct strike. |
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Dec 8, 2014 7:18:38 GMT
Educated guess would be that the figures came from the French Surgeon. As I noted previously, the surgeon would not have been in position to give an accurate figure. It would be very doubtful in the confusion of the cockpit, with men coming and going with wounded, for the surgeon to keep a count of those receiving treatment at the time. Since those killed outright wouldn't be taken to the surgeon, he wouldn't have any way of getting an accurate count of the total casualties until after the battle. *The Bucentaure was an 80 gun ship, meaning she was a second rate ship of the line Under the British rating system of the time she was a third rate, while under the French she was a "vaisseaux de 80" (which was effectively the fourth rank). In terms of firepower, although only a two decker, she was very close to the Victory thanks to the heavier guns she carried. Her lower deck guns were 36 pounders and her upper deck guns were 24 pounders. As the French pound was heavier than the British, the 36 pounders were throwing shot of nearer to 40 pounds in British terms. Usually Frigates were left alone, probably less to do with 'honor' and more to do with practicality; Why waste shot on a ship that wasn't a major threat when you could fire at something bigger and nastier? While I agree that it was a matter of practicality, I think it was less a matter of wasting shot and more one of self-interest. In a fleet battle the frigates were primarily used to relay signals, as they could stand outside of the line of battle. It wasn't unknown for the flag officers to transfer to a frigate prior to a battle, so that they would be able to get a better view of what was happening and have some freedom of movement. They were also used as hospital ships and tugs after the battle. So everyone benefitted by keeping the smaller ships out of the fighting altogether (it was rare for frigates even to engage each other in a fleet battle). |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 8, 2014 15:53:44 GMT
there is a slim possibility that the dead would pass by the surgeon on their way to "out of the way" but you are correct that the likelihood of a detailed census being made of the dead and wounded after the first broadside is slim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 8, 2014 16:14:17 GMT
Not if it had been a Spanish ship. Apparently they didn't throw the dead overboard as Catholic law required proof that a man was dead before his wife would be considered a widow. So they kept the dead on board so they had the proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 8, 2014 16:21:18 GMT
Not if it had been a Spanish ship. Apparently they didn't throw the dead overboard as Catholic law required proof that a man was dead before his wife would be considered a widow. So they kept the dead on board so they had the proof. I would not expect them to just pitch the dead overboard at random anyway. it would mess with the accounting. - this would make it advisable to put them someplace out of the way - which might parade them past the surgeon on their way to the hold. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 8, 2014 17:27:20 GMT
The dead were just dumped over the side during heavy combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 8, 2014 17:42:08 GMT
The dead were just dumped over the side during heavy combat. then they must have had some method for accounting for them |
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Dec 8, 2014 18:06:19 GMT
The dead were just dumped over the side during heavy combat. then they must have had some method for accounting for them In the case of the British ships, the dead were thrown overboard as a general practice. It kept the decks clear and the remaining crew weren't constantly tripping over the bodies. They worked out who was dead by checking the ships muster after the battle against the living. As Cyber noted, on French and Spanish ships the practice was to keep the bodies on board. With the French the bodies were simply piled in the centre of the deck (between the guns) to be stored in the hold after the battle. The obvious consequence of doing that in an on-going battle is that the pile of bodies becomes a gruesome pile of body parts as further shot comes through. One British marine captain described how, on boarding a captured French ship, he saw ‘The dead, thrown back as they fell, lay along the middle of the decks in heaps, and shot passing through these had frightfully mangled their bodies… an extraordinary proportion had lost their heads.’ |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 8, 2014 18:17:31 GMT
then they must have had some method for accounting for them In the case of the British ships, the dead were thrown overboard as a general practice. It kept the decks clear and the remaining crew weren't constantly tripping over the bodies. They worked out who was dead by checking the ships muster after the battle against the living. As Cyber noted, on French and Spanish ships the practice was to keep the bodies on board. With the French the bodies were simply piled in the centre of the deck (between the guns) to be stored in the hold after the battle. The obvious consequence of doing that in an on-going battle is that the pile of bodies becomes a gruesome pile of body parts as further shot comes through. One British marine captain described how, on boarding a captured French ship, he saw ‘The dead, thrown back as they fell, lay along the middle of the decks in heaps, and shot passing through these had frightfully mangled their bodies… an extraordinary proportion had lost their heads.’ so there we have some hint as to how the french might have had an idea how many they lost in the broadside - though cyber still has a point that they had to have more pressing matters on their minds. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 8, 2014 21:28:12 GMT
In the case of the British ships, the dead were thrown overboard as a general practice. It kept the decks clear and the remaining crew weren't constantly tripping over the bodies. They worked out who was dead by checking the ships muster after the battle against the living. As Cyber noted, on French and Spanish ships the practice was to keep the bodies on board. With the French the bodies were simply piled in the center of the deck (between the guns) to be stored in the hold after the battle. The obvious consequence of doing that in an on-going battle is that the pile of bodies becomes a gruesome pile of body parts as further shot comes through. One British marine captain described how, on boarding a captured French ship, he saw ‘The dead, thrown back as they fell, lay along the middle of the decks in heaps, and shot passing through these had frightfully mangled their bodies… an extraordinary proportion had lost their heads.’ so there we have some hint as to how the french might have had an idea how many they lost in the broadside - though cyber still has a point that they had to have more pressing matters on their minds. This is, of course, assuming that the muster book was correct - that is that everyone who was on board was listed in the ships records. The fact is that muster books were only accurate up to a point, since not everyone who was on a ship was there officially - especially not women. We know that women were on board a fair number of ships; A baby was born on one of the British ships during the battle of the Nile, and the Captain of another ship listed seven women as being on board as 'dressers' (nurses) after the battle in the hope that they would be eligible for a share of the prize money. (That was the only way he could have rewarded them for what must have been superb if otherwise unofficial service). Others were never on board to start with, even if their names happened to appear on the ships books. Several men were 'ghost's', who's pay went to the sick and hurt board (I forget the official term). In other cases young boys might have their names placed on a ships books so they could get the required time at sea before taking their lieutenants exam. This was technically illegal, but unless badly abused or someone REALLY had it in for the Captain in question was usually ignored. In the case of the French and Spanish ships at Trafalgar it is not clear if all of the men were actually on the ships books, as the French had made up for difficulties in finding enough sailors to man the fleet by using soldiers. This could mean that the Bucentaure's compliment was higher than her official one, but that many of those men might have been listed in a different ledger or not at all. This would explain a lot, not only the high casualty figure but the Bucentaure's ability to stay in the fight afterwards. If her actual complement was closer to 900-1000 then she could have lost a third of her crew and still been only slightly below her official complement. (And of course soldiers would be quite capable of working the ships guns if they had to, especially at such short range). One thing I have noticed is that the British do seem to have been fairly good at getting casualty figures from enemy ships, at least when they captured said ship. Another thing to consider is that the casualty figures I've seen for ships in combat usually show that for every man who was killed three more suffered injuries that kept them out of the fighting, but didn't kill them (or at least not at the time, infection is a different matter). So even if we use the official complement of the Bucentaure of some 690, a third casualties would *only* translate as maybe 60 or so men killed outright, and a probable fighting complement sometime afterwards of around 600 - roughly seven men per gun. That is more than enough men to work all 80 guns on the ship, even if you'd see a very low rate of fire from the bigger guns. Heck, even if you assume that a third of the crew was out of action you'd still have five men per gun, which was enough to allow the guns to be used. So not really much surprise that she could and did keep fighting. |
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Dec 8, 2014 22:20:56 GMT
This is, of course, assuming that the muster book was correct - that is that everyone who was on board was listed in the ships records. However, if you weren't on the ship officially, you couldn't be a casualty officially either...so in that respect they didn't count. Several men were 'ghost's', who's pay went to the sick and hurt board (I forget the official term). They were known as "widows men", there was a fixed number allowed depending upon the rating of the ship. In the case of the French and Spanish ships at Trafalgar it is not clear if all of the men were actually on the ships books, as the French had made up for difficulties in finding enough sailors to man the fleet by using soldiers. This could mean that the Bucentaure's compliment was higher than her official one, but that many of those men might have been listed in a different ledger or not at all. This would explain a lot, not only the high casualty figure but the Bucentaure's ability to stay in the fight afterwards. If her actual complement was closer to 900-1000 then she could have lost a third of her crew and still been only slightly below her official complement. French ships usually carried soldiers but they were usually deployed in the same role as the Royal Marines were in the British Navy. In the case of Trafalgar, all of the allied fleet were carring additional soldiers because they were intending to reinforce the French army in the Mediterranean. (And of course soldiers would be quite capable of working the ships guns if they had to, especially at such short range). I'm not sure that would have been as easy as you might think. Working the great guns in the cramped conditions of the main gun decks was actually a fairly skilled job. A step in the wrong direction could easily loose you a foot (or worse) as a couple of tons of gun & carriage rolled over it. Knowing where to be and what to do next kept everyone safe. Which is where the gun drills came in. Especially, when the discharge of the guns has rendered you temporarily deaf. One thing I have noticed is that the British do seem to have been fairly good at getting casualty figures from enemy ships, at least when they captured said ship. They got a casualty figure, whether it was an accurate figure is a different matter. In many respects, it didn't matter because they didn't get paid per casualty. Another thing to consider is that the casualty figures I've seen for ships in combat usually show that for every man who was killed three more suffered injuries that kept them out of the fighting, but didn't kill them (or at least not at the time, infection is a different matter). So even if we use the official complement of the Bucentaure of some 690, a third casualties would *only* translate as maybe 60 or so men killed outright, and a probable fighting complement sometime afterwards of around 600 - roughly seven men per gun. That is more than enough men to work all 80 guns on the ship, even if you'd see a very low rate of fire from the bigger guns. Heck, even if you assume that a third of the crew was out of action you'd still have five men per gun, which was enough to allow the guns to be used. You do need to bear in mind that the ship's crew count included the ships officers (and their 'servants'), warrant officers, as well as support staff such as the surgeon (and assistants), carpenter (and assistants, who would be running repairs during the battle), gunner (and assistants, in the powder room) and various other idlers, in addition to the men engaged in 'sailing' the ship. So not all of the ship's complement would be available to man the guns (nor, as I mentioned above, would they have been in a position to do so with any degree of competency had they so wanted). Also, the state of medical care available on a warship of the time was fairly rudementary. There were no pain-killers, no blood transfusions and very basic surgical tools. So the numbers of seamen, getting treated and returning to their posts within the timespan of the battle would have been relatively low, even if they ultimately made a full recovery. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 8, 2014 23:14:47 GMT
The complement of a man of war was based on the number of men needed to work the ships guns, and the Royal Navy had a minimum number for each size of gun - off the top of my head the minimum number was five for a nine or twelve pounder. Saying that you could probably work a gun with three men at a pinch - two holding the gun in place and one doing the loading. (Hernia's all around if the gun was an eighteen pounder or above no doubt).
There were, ideally at least, three men on a gun crew who had secondary jobs, Boarder, Trimmer (worked the sails when needed) and Fireman. Any of whom could be called away to do those roles without warning.
The skills needed to work a cannon on a ship were not that hard. But doing so to get a decent rate of fire took practice. So a soldier would be quite capable of filling in for a missing member of a gun crew, it would just most likely lower the rate of fire. In fact it was this principle that led to the RN bolstering its number of 'sailors' with Landsmen in large numbers. It didn't take much to teach even a novice how to load and fire a cannon.
We can also determine that you didn't need that many men to work the guns from the continual decrease in the complement size of RN Frigates between 1793-1815. Again, figures off the top of my head show a 36 gun Frigate going from a complement of some 360 to around 290 or less without any loss of combat ability. (Beyond complacency and lack of live-fire training)
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Dec 9, 2014 22:34:07 GMT
The complement of a man of war was based on the number of men needed to work the ships guns The complement of a man of war was based on the number of men needed to work the ships guns and operate the other vital functions of the ship. As noted above, there were many roles that needed to be performed at the same time as manning the guns. A simple look at the quarter bill (aka order of battle) for a warship would show that not everyone is stationed at a gun in battle. The skills needed to work a cannon on a ship were not that hard. But doing so to get a decent rate of fire took practice. So a soldier would be quite capable of filling in for a missing member of a gun crew, it would just most likely lower the rate of fire. In fact it was this principle that led to the RN bolstering its number of 'sailors' with Landsmen in large numbers. It didn't take much to teach even a novice how to load and fire a cannon. The skills required to drive a car are not that hard but you wouldn't hand the wheel to a beginner on a motorway. The same thing goes for working with a cannon. With practice anyone would be able to work the guns but the middle of a battle with the smoke and deafening noise is not the place to try learn those skills. In a warship, the gunports were 8-11 feet apart depending on the size of the ship and the guns. When you subtract the width of the carriage and give room for the various ropes and tackle, that leaves a strip of about 2-3 feet on each side in which as many as half a dozen men needed to work. If you move too far one way, you interfere with the men on the next gun, too far the other and several tons of gun will ruin your day. The men all need to work together and work around each other to operate the guns efficiently. The gun crews were trained in the knowledge that they could take casualties. The gun crews trained in swapping jobs so that in the event of, say, the loader or gun captain being killed or seriously wounded, another could step into their role. If you introduce a complete novice into a team that's used to working together, they're just going to get in the way, slow everyone down and possibly put themselves or others at risk. On joining a ship, most landsmen would be allocated roles during battle, such as handing up powder and shot to the gun decks, which didn't involve much skill and didn't require much in the way of teamwork. If and when there was sufficient time, then they would be integrated into the gun crews. Repeatedly working the gun drills would teach them how to work as part of the team. We can also determine that you didn't need that many men to work the guns from the continual decrease in the complement size of RN Frigates between 1793-1815. Again, figures off the top of my head show a 36 gun Frigate going from a complement of some 360 to around 290 or less without any loss of combat ability. Except that if you're starting with a reduced crew, your ability to tolerate casualties (or men being drawn off for other duties) is already diminished. For example, lets say that you need 280 men to operate all of the guns (and operate the ship itself). If you start with 360 men and you take 10% casualties, you've still got enough to operate the ship. However, if you only start with 290 and take 10% casualties, then the ship's fighting ability is compromised. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 9, 2014 23:34:57 GMT
The number of officers was determined by the ships rating, as where the number of Captains servants and the number of mates the warrant officers were allowed. VERY few members of the crew had nothing to do with the working of the guns during battle. Those who didn't were the captain, his secretary, the purser (although a few do seem to have been actively involved in combat on occasion). The carpenter and his mates, the ships doctor and his assistants (which probably also included some or all of any women who were on board), the captain of marines, the bosum and his mates and the ships master. Most of the midshipmen would have been in charge of a section of guns, with maybe one or two acting as runners.
Everyone else would have been working the guns or involved in ensuring they had the shot and powder they needed. The Marines were something of a participial exception, as some did run the after-most quarterdeck guns (a tradition that remains). However the Marines could not be ordered up into the rigging to help sail the ship - even though period accounts indicate that more than a few marines were not only happy to go up into the rigging but were skilled enough to be considered able seamen in their own right.
You didn't need that many men to actually sail a ship in battle, since most battles (certainly fleet actions) involved little movement. More evidence of this is comparing civilian and military ships of the same size and type. A typical brig circa 1790 would have a crew of around 80 men in the navy, the same ship in civilian hands might have had a crew of 14. More hands meant you could work the sails faster, but it didn't mean you couldn't sail the ship at all. The same holds for the guns, in that unskilled or fewer hands would drastically lower the rate of fire but wouldn't actually prevent the guns from being used. That was my point; Even soldiers would have been capable of taking over from gun crews and using that gun, especially if the target is at such a close range aiming involved little more than running the gun out of the port. Your not getting the three shots per five minutes rate of fire, or anything close to that, but the gun will still be firing at the opponent.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 10, 2014 10:01:48 GMT
I have to disagree....
So there you are below deck doing the whatever you do thats important, and the other ship puts one through the sails.
Who is there to do the now important work of getting the damaged rigging out of the way and perhaps even replacing and repairing of the sails?...
The ship has to manoeuvre, and to do that, you have to have the main crew who run about changing sails?...
Yes grab a weapon when its close quarters fighting, but when the ship is dodging about trying to get a target to fire at, I would say most of the experienced sailors on board are doing exactly that, sailing, and keeping it sailing?...
I would say that they had a man for every station, they had gunners for the guns and riggers for the rigging.
Yes there were multi-skilled who could swap and change as required, that was more or less every man on board, "Eventually", many were still in training, as ships took on new crew quite often.
The powder monkeys were usually young lads, who could run between gun and powder magazine without getting in the way too much, when they werent doing that, they would have other ships duties, wherever a small young apprentice would fit, even they were multi-skilled.
Multi-skilled was important, it would take at least two shifts of sailors to keep the ship under way, 24hrs a day sailing duties, so the gun crew during battle would be the part of the crew you would usually have off shift sleeping/eating/whatever... including those in training to do other work...
In battle, all men to battle stations, not everyone to a gun, some had more important duties keeping the ship either under way steering or damage control.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 10, 2014 15:21:41 GMT
As I said, one man in a gun crew was a 'trimmer'. He would leave the gun to work the sails and rigging when called on to do so. This would give you more than enough men to work the sails and do general damage control, as the number would (at least ideally) be the same as the number of guns which was denoted by the physical size of the ship. So the average Brig of 14 guns would have around 14 men available to work the guns, more than enough for a ship of that size and type.
Most of the work done on a ship didn't require a lot of skill, just physical effort. This is why the RN could get away with manning their ships with over half the crew having no discernible sailing skills. Likewise this was the reason you could take men from the guns to do other duties - most of them were there to help run the gun out and hold it in place. Actually loading a great gun didn't require that many men, and could have been done by one man in a pinch. Running that gun back out so it was ready to fire again is a different matter, as even a light twelve pounder massed around one and a half tons. Two men might be able to do this, as the tackle used pulleys and they might also be able to take advantage of any roll to help them. But the rate of fire would be very low to put it mildly.
Ships typically worked two watches, four hours on, four off and two 'dog watches' of two hours. Some ships did have a three watch rotation, but this was usually impractical as there was rarely enough space to house more than half the crew at a time down below.
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Dec 10, 2014 20:06:47 GMT
VERY few members of the crew had nothing to do with the working of the guns during battle. I didn't say they had nothing to do with working the guns, I said they were performing other vital tasks in running the ship, such as avoiding crashing into things and supplying ammunition to the guns. According to the quarter bill of HMS Goliath[1] (in 1805), those not directly serving the guns were: In addition to the Captain, there would be the 1st Lieutenant, the ship's Master, 2 Midshipmen as aides-de-camp, a Midshipman and the Captain's cleck to receive and record signals on the quarterdeck. At the wheel would be 2 Quartermasters and 4 seamen. In the rigging and tops would be 16 men. On the forecastle would be the Boatswain and 2 Boatswain's Mates, and a Mate to command the guns. On the main deck would be the 3rd & 5th Lieutenants, 2 Midshipman and 2 Mates to manage the 18 pounders, plus a Boatswains Mate, a Gunner's Mate and a member of the Carpenter's crew. On the lower gun deck, were the 2nd & 4th lieutenants and 5 Midshipmen commanding the guns, the Gunner, the Carpenter, the Carpenter's Mate and two carpenter's crew and the Caulker. In the fore magazine were the Gunner's Mate, 4 Gunner's crew, a Marine, the Gunner's Yeoman, the Carpenter's Yeoman and 5 other men (to hand out the cartridges) plus the Cook manning the lightroom, the Boatswain's yeoman (in the Boatswain's stores) and one of the carpenter's crew. In the after magazine and passage were 5 men (one of which was called the "jack of the dust"!) with the ship's schoolmaster manningt the lightroom. In the after cockpit were the Ship's Corporal, a Carpenter and one of the afterguard plus the Surgeon, 2 assistants, the 1st and 2nd Mates, the purser and purser's steward. So a total of 87 men not directly working the guns but all performing tasks that allowed the ship to fight and keep fighting. Even soldiers would have been capable of taking over from gun crews and using that gun, especially if the target is at such a close range aiming involved little more than running the gun out of the port. The chances of a number of soldiers replacing an entire gun crew is even less likely to succeded than trying to integrate them into an existing crew. The average infantry soldier of the napoleonic period is extremely unlikely to have been trained in the use of cannon (most only had basic training in using their muskets). They're even less likely to have been trained in the use of naval cannon with its befuddling wrapping of breeching rope and training tackle in the dark, cramped, smoke-filled, rolling & heaving decks of a warship. The British gun drill involved a strict, ordered sequence of actions (invoked by 13 different commands)[2] and sometimes with addtions in the Captains orders[3]. With minor differences in terminology, the French gun drill was essentially the same. Missing one of these actions or getting them in the wrong order could result in the gun not discharging or, worse, discharging prematurely or in the wrong place. For example, the simple mistake (and one that an inexperienced crew could easily overlook) of forgetting to stop the vent when the barrel was sponged could leave hot embers in the breech, with the result that when the next cartridge was rammed it would explode killing or maiming the loader. Also, assuming that the previous gun crew were killed, the chances are that their tools and equipment are scattered about the deck too. So any novices trying to step into their roles will be faced with a game of hide-and-seek before they can start (especially if the gunlock was removed). If they find them all, they have the not so minor task of figuring out what they're all for, when and how to use them in the confined space around the gun. Most of the work done on a ship didn't require a lot of skill, just physical effort. There are plenty of tasks that are "easy" to do conceptually that take on a whole extra degree of difficulty when you're on a pitching, rolling, crowded deck with little light, where you can't stand up straight and the noise of battle means you can't hear anything. Actually loading a great gun didn't require that many men, and could have been done by one man in a pinch. So you think that one man can push a sponge down the barrel and stop the vent, ~9 feet away, at the same time? He might manage it with a carronade but even with a 'short' 24 pounder cannon (which was a mere 6'6" long) he's not going to reach. I seriously believe that safely operating a great gun at sea was a lot more involved than you think. [1]Shipboard Life and Organisation 1731-1815, NRS Vol. 138 (1998), ed. B. Lavery, pg 276 [2]The Trafalgar Companion, Aurum Press (2005), Mark Adkin, Pg 262 [3]Shipboard Life and Organisation 1731-1815, NRS Vol. 138 (1998), ed. B. Lavery, pg 171 |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 10, 2014 21:32:39 GMT
Discount the Schoolmaster and Chaplin, as those were 'optional' positions.
Line ships usually carried a Schoolmaster since they had a large number of kids on board (that is midshipmen). Smaller ships often lacked the room, or didn't have enough kids on board to warrant the cost of a Schoolmaster.
Chaplins were only there at the discression of the Captain, and it seems that most Captains considered them either bad luck or a waste of space on a man of war.
The figures you are showing are for a ship of the line, with a crew of some 600. Which works out as some 7 men per gun even after all of those positions were taken into account. My point, however, was made nicely - you didn't need that many men to actually sail a ship in combat - assuming that the men in the tops were seamen rather than Marines you'd only have some 20 men to sail the ship. A figure that is in fact fairly reasonable unless you needed to furl all the sails within five minutes or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Dec 10, 2014 22:30:48 GMT
Discount the Schoolmaster and Chaplin, as those were 'optional' positions. I included the schoolmaster because the Goliath had one and he had a station in the quarter bill. I didn't mention a Chaplin at all, or even a Chaplain. The schoolmaster was a warrant officer whose primary role was the tuition of the volunteers (i.e. the captain's servants and midshipmen) in the arts of navigation, writing and arithmetic. He was also required to teach the "other youths" as the ship's Captain directed.[1] Chaplins were only there at the discression of the Captain, and it seems that most Captains considered them either bad luck or a waste of space on a man of war. Your evidence for that is??? Since Chaplains were appointed by the Admiralty[2], I doubt that the Captain's superstitions would come into it. [1]Regulations and Instructions Relating to His Majesty's Service at Sea, 1808, pg 370 [1]ibid, pg 149 |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 11, 2014 9:41:18 GMT
Hmmm... ok, so those "wiling" to be a chaplain at sea were "Approved" by the admiralty board and therefore got the appointment.....
It was a sort of where can we put this man rather than that ship can not function without....
More of a "Would like" than a "Must have" when it came to crew list?...
Some captains would refuse because of the religion problems at that time, if it was at the time when 'Enery fell out wiv da Vatican sort of thing.....
In times of Catholic rule when Protestant had been deposed, or vice versa, religion could be tolerated mildly, but not "Forced upon the men", as I have heard that one captain termed it.
So having a mostly Protestant crew and being ordered to carry a catholic?...
Can anyone do the voice of Eccles shouting "oh dear, he's fallen in the water..."
I suppose that depended on the ship, the captain, and the relationship with the Crew.
Being a captain at that time could be considered as sort of being the "Lord" of a small independent island with its own rules under the reign of the king.
Some military ships followed strict admiralty rules.... but they all ran slightly different.
And then there were freelance mercenaries alongside them.
Schoolmaster, sort of a good term for the one in charge of education the crew....
Again definitely needed to be multi-skilled, preferably a salty old dog who has many years experience, is too old to go up the rigging at any speed, but is bloody good in telling the greenhorn where to stow that bale.
|
|
