|
Post by the light works on Dec 30, 2017 12:13:57 GMT
and maybe 1% of it is worth reading. I would say thats an overly generous estimate... so your on holiday, your sending 20 shots an hour to the cloud, you REALLY think anyone is going to be sat at home viewing every single one?. Does ANYONE at all go through the last 50 meals you had to look at the food?. My estimate therefore is less than 0.000000001% is worthy of wasting the space its in. remember that at the same time, you have 50 fiction authors, 50 non fiction authors, 1000 media people, and 100,000 students banging out books, articles, and essays. and us.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 31, 2017 8:29:07 GMT
same thing different name?I can do that in a very noisy factory, its called BSL, sign language?.. They had semaphore?.
Over 100 yrs ago, its still history, and sudden. And even at that time, many of the ratings, did not have the book smarts, they could barely read or write. Who was keeping records?. Well, yes, the Govt, but they tend to not like even releasing the fact that Margaret Thatcher once refused to share an aircraft with a Panda. [thats true, its just been released by HM Govt in its records of the time....]
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 31, 2017 16:15:50 GMT
same thing different name?I can do that in a very noisy factory, its called BSL, sign language?.. They had semaphore?. Over 100 yrs ago, its still history, and sudden. And even at that time, many of the ratings, did not have the book smarts, they could barely read or write. Who was keeping records?. Well, yes, the Govt, but they tend to not like even releasing the fact that Margaret Thatcher once refused to share an aircraft with a Panda. [thats true, its just been released by HM Govt in its records of the time....] was she afraid it would hog all the peanuts?
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Dec 31, 2017 17:29:18 GMT
She was afraid of the imagery of the British Prime Minister flying on the same aircraft as the one was taking London Zoos beloved Panda out of the country.
She was aware of the damage little things could do, for years she was known as "Maggie Thatcher Milk Snatcher" when the government took away the free milk ration to school children.
Semaphore had not yet been invented in the Napoleonic period.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 31, 2017 17:39:26 GMT
Crows nests are higher up and smaller than fighting tops.
The fighting tops were the wooden platforms where the masts connected. On a square rigged sailing ship there would be two such platforms, one where the lower and upper masts met, then another where the upper and top masts met. These platforms were also where the shrouds for the mast above were connected.
A crows nest is its own platform or structure typically much higher up than the fighting tops that serves no other fuction than to act as an observation platform. Many are located at the very top of a mast, or halfway up them.
Sailors were far more literate than we think they were, sailors as opposed to officers who needed to be literate. We can see this from two places. First in almost every letter sent to the admiralty at least 2/3rds of the sailors were able to sign their own names. Second when Captains were looking for crew they would frequently put up posters or hand out flyers. As I've noted elsewhere this would be a rather strange thing to do if sailors were incapable of reading. The Royal Navy kept extensive archives, and while some records were damaged or lost over the years we have a LOT of information - not just from the archives in England but also by archives in Gibraltar. It's only been over the last 10 years or so that historians have started to look through these records in detail, and they themselves have noted that they have barely scratched the surface. (Much of this seems to have been prompted by copying these records into digital formats). What is clear however is that the records are not simply all technical in nature, they also include personal letters. Almost none of these come from the sailors, although this is probably less to do with literacy and more that such letters would probably not end up at the admiralty or in homes where they might be stored and survive. If indeed many sailors had any reason to write a letter in the first place. We do know that mail was delivered to ships at sea, and the quantity of letters would seem to imply that it wasn't just the officers who were sending and receiving mail.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 1, 2018 11:30:37 GMT
Sailors were far more literate than we think they were, sailors as opposed to officers who needed to be literate. cut We do know that mail was delivered to ships at sea, and the quantity of letters would seem to imply that it wasn't just the officers who were sending and receiving mail. Long reply lost in vagaries of error 404 on pressing send... However, quick point, what do you consider literate?. There is the tale of an ancient Monk who surprised many people by being able to read without having to speak the words out loud. That wasnt common back then?. We start to teach literacy as soon as our Kids hit primary school, so being unable to read and write these days is almost unthinkable as the norm in these westernised worlds that we live in. So at what "age" do you consider literate in the world of todays kids?. I know a few eloquent 5 yr olds who can read by the time they start school... I was one of them, because my Mum was a teacher, so I got a head start, I had a reading age of 7/8 by the time I started school, and had finished the whole reading scheme of 5 to 11 yr olds by the time I was 9. But my reading ability at the age of 5 was not fully literate, and many words I needed to read out loud, so as far as literate goes, I would have said "Barely", which I suggest would have been the ability of many mature sailors back when school wasnt free, and in may cases, being taught to read and write happen ON the ship, not before. Flyers?. Word of mouth from those as could read would have helped there, and a picture of a ship, with the right number of masts and rigging, would have been enough to identify which ship. What else would that flyer be advertising?. Iconology, we still have a picture of a Greying haired male head with a crown on it over a public house doorway, three guesses not needed, the name of that pub would be "The old King"?. If you see a helicoil striped red-and-white pole outside a shop, will it be selling fruit?. Three brass balls above a door, yes, they sell odd brass monkey idols in there. Therefore, the picture of a ship on a piece of paper would identify the ship, and having possession of the paper would identify that the person heading out the flyer thinks you are fit enough to be considered?. On calm days at sea, when there is not a lot to do, you would be taught how to read and write better. Those who could already by the time they got to being on a ship, showed signs of higher intellect maybe, or signs of wealth in the family, so attracted promotion.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 1, 2018 13:08:05 GMT
Gunners at least were Warrant Officers and had to be literate and numerate enough to pass exams for that position. dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/16966/1/95%283%29Cole.pdfFrom the Royal Navy regulations of the time. They were also expected to keep accounts of the stores used by their guns and pass those accounts to the Captain to show there was no,fraud.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 1, 2018 13:39:41 GMT
Literacy rates were probably higher in general than you might think some estimates say that in the late 1700s around 60% of men were capable of reading.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 1, 2018 16:39:31 GMT
Gunners at least were Warrant Officers and had to be literate and numerate enough to pass exams for that position. dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/16966/1/95%283%29Cole.pdfFrom the Royal Navy regulations of the time. They were also expected to keep accounts of the stores used by their guns and pass those accounts to the Captain to show there was no,fraud. shoplifting cannonballs?
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 1, 2018 17:16:43 GMT
Gunners at least were Warrant Officers and had to be literate and numerate enough to pass exams for that position. dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/16966/1/95%283%29Cole.pdfFrom the Royal Navy regulations of the time. They were also expected to keep accounts of the stores used by their guns and pass those accounts to the Captain to show there was no,fraud. shoplifting cannonballs? Is that a cannon in your pocket are are you just really pleased to see me.😀
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 1, 2018 17:32:03 GMT
Gunners at least were Warrant Officers and had to be literate and numerate enough to pass exams for that position. dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/16966/1/95%283%29Cole.pdfFrom the Royal Navy regulations of the time. They were also expected to keep accounts of the stores used by their guns and pass those accounts to the Captain to show there was no,fraud. shoplifting cannonballs? Not far from the truth. There were a lot of items on ships that could be illegally sold for money, and such practices (known as 'Capabar') were fairly common. Such corruption was accepted at that time at all levels of society, providing it didn't go too far and damage a ships ability to fight. Keeping records was one way to prevent major loss of material, as the records had to be counter signed by the Captain. Warrent officers, Purser, Gunner, capenter, Doctor and bosun were all responsible for maintaining and recording the stores within their specific areas - the purser was responsible for items related to the sailors such as food, clothing and tobacco. The Gunner the shot, powder and guns. The Doctor medical supplies. All of these had mates to help them with their work, and it seems that these mates needed to be able to maintain the records in case the warrant officer was unable to do so themselves. As it wasn't unusual for mates to have come from the lower decks (ie; common sailors) this is futher evidence that literacy was higher on ships, at least with professional sailors, than it was on land. Within the context of the Royal Navy this makes sense, as the Royal Navy had its origins as a professional military force in the English Republic which was obsessed with 'improving the morals of the population' through religion and required all ships have a chaplin. I would guess that such a navy would have been delighted in the idea of the common sailor knowing how to read the bible. Those sailors who did learn to read, regardless as to why, would have had an advantage over those that could not as it would open the doors to more and better paid work - such as becoming a masters mate or one day owning and commanding their own ship. (In the merchant service, rather than the RN. Although the latter was possible in theory) It would also give them an advantage when looking for work, as flyers (which would rarely include pictures) would given them a heads up as to any ships that were looking for crews. The 60% figure is interesting, as by the late 1700's this was probably more or less the percentage of able seamen (Experienced, professional sailors) within the Royal Navy. This would also seem to imply that the majority of professional seamen were at least capable of reading, although I'd guess a lower percentage would have also been able to write - having little need to do so. Or if they could write it would have been of a low standard - which would explain one of the reasons that most complaints sent to the Admiralty were written by officers on behalf of sailors.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 1, 2018 17:41:37 GMT
there's a difference between being able to write, and being able to write well enough to make official records.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 1, 2018 22:46:07 GMT
there's a difference between being able to write, and being able to write well enough to make official records. That's true but you only need a certain proportion of those people who need to be at that level. Cyber will know the precise ratios of warrant officers to seamen on a typical ship of the period . But if you think about it part of the Protestant Refirmation was about allowing the people to be able to read the Bible in their own languages rather than Latin, and many people were taught in Church schools to be able to do so. It's why people such as the Puritans and the Roundheads in the English Civil War were able to form their own ideas, indeed even the Amerian War of Indpendence was probably influence by this in some ways.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 1, 2018 23:35:05 GMT
I do have more specific figures somewhere, but it seems that on a warship with roughly 200 men (say HMS Surprise) there would be 19 officers; This would include commissioned officers (the Captain and First officer) but probably not the ships Doctor and his mate (I think the later would be listed as a 'waster'). I'm unclear if the Captain of the Marines stationed on the ship (roughly 20 men) was included as one of the officers in this context or not.
This would seem to work out as roughly 1 'officer' per 5 men, but its not quite as clear cut as that since some of these officers wouldn't have much to do with maintaining disipline.
With a two watch ship it seems that you'd have one duty officer, the First officer and probably the ships Master, then three or so Midshipmen and the Bosun or one of his mates. So probably in effect 5 'officers' per 80-90 men or 1 officer for 16-18 men. (I'm deducting the 10 or so Marines here)
This is for a small frigate. Bigger ships had more officers and mates, but also far larger crews so the actual figures would work out as more men per officer.
This was another reason that sailors seem to have been a lot happier serving on frigates than Line Ships. It was a lot easier for the officers and crews to get to know each other. Off the top of my head it seems that when there were serious problems on warships it was usually on the Line Ships rather than the smaller Frigates. But even on the Line ships it seems the crews got to know the officers well enough to treat them with respect even when they were otherwise refusing to obey orders - such as the Spithead Mutiany.
I'll see if I can find the more specific breakdown, although this will be for HMS Surprise circa 1799.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 2, 2018 3:51:16 GMT
there's a difference between being able to write, and being able to write well enough to make official records. That's true but you only need a certain proportion of those people who need to be at that level. Cyber will know the precise ratios of warrant officers to seamen on a typical ship of the period . But if you think about it part of the Protestant Refirmation was about allowing the people to be able to read the Bible in their own languages rather than Latin, and many people were taught in Church schools to be able to do so. It's why people such as the Puritans and the Roundheads in the English Civil War were able to form their own ideas, indeed even the Amerian War of Indpendence was probably influence by this in some ways. I am somewhat remotely descended from Martin Luther, who sort of pioneered the idea of having the common people able to read the scriptures for themselves. also, THE King James was an atheist, and had the bible published in English for the same reason. - so people could read it for themselves. instead of depending on the clergy to tell them what it said.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 2, 2018 3:52:09 GMT
I do have more specific figures somewhere, but it seems that on a warship with roughly 200 men (say HMS Surprise) there would be 19 officers; This would include commissioned officers (the Captain and First officer) but probably not the ships Doctor and his mate (I think the later would be listed as a 'waster'). I'm unclear if the Captain of the Marines stationed on the ship (roughly 20 men) was included as one of the officers in this context or not. This would seem to work out as roughly 1 'officer' per 5 men, but its not quite as clear cut as that since some of these officers wouldn't have much to do with maintaining disipline. With a two watch ship it seems that you'd have one duty officer, the First officer and probably the ships Master, then three or so Midshipmen and the Bosun or one of his mates. So probably in effect 5 'officers' per 80-90 men or 1 officer for 16-18 men. (I'm deducting the 10 or so Marines here) This is for a small frigate. Bigger ships had more officers and mates, but also far larger crews so the actual figures would work out as more men per officer. This was another reason that sailors seem to have been a lot happier serving on frigates than Line Ships. It was a lot easier for the officers and crews to get to know each other. Off the top of my head it seems that when there were serious problems on warships it was usually on the Line Ships rather than the smaller Frigates. But even on the Line ships it seems the crews got to know the officers well enough to treat them with respect even when they were otherwise refusing to obey orders - such as the Spithead Mutiany. I'll see if I can find the more specific breakdown, although this will be for HMS Surprise circa 1799. modern span of control still recommends 10 supervisees per supervisor.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 2, 2018 9:58:01 GMT
Gunners at least were Warrant Officers and had to be literate and numerate enough to pass exams for that position. dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/16966/1/95%283%29Cole.pdfFrom the Royal Navy regulations of the time. They were also expected to keep accounts of the stores used by their guns and pass those accounts to the Captain to show there was no,fraud. shoplifting cannonballs? And again TLW beats me to the punchline... But then again, I still ask, to what level of literacy?. Being able to "read a few common words", to being able to understand a full shakespere play, at what level do you agree is to the level of todays Primary school ability, and what level is to the abilities of a fully graduated school lever of todays standard?. I see mention of the Kind James Bible. He was not an atheist... that is fake news. He just didnt adhere to the common faith of the day, and therefore, a "Heretic", because he didnt toe the party line and agree with Rome. Just because you do not belongum the church of rome, or Roman Catholic to give its full title, does not make you an atheist, but, they will claim that you are, because why let truth get in the way of a good smear campaign?. He did NOT believe in Rome, was no way on earth going to be a "good catholic" and a Popes plaything, he was supreme governor of the Church of England, and had decided that enough was enough, an end to all the Bull-Feathers in the way of doing things, I do NOT believe in the way religion is being taught, and the stranglehold the church has on the people, time for some reform. He did not believe in the religion being forced upon the people, but that no more makes him an atheist than me saying that all LDS are atheist... we just have different ideas on how religion should be. Lets bet a basic difference between Church of England and Catholic here. We in CofE parts of england do NOT believe the Pope is more powerful than anyone else on earth. We do not believe he is capable of rule by force. We do not pray to him as an idol. We do not accept icons of Catholicism as "Holy relics" that have power over us. However. Its the same Bible. Its the same God. Its the same number of people at the last supper. Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera same pig different squeal?. Nothing else changes, except we dont believe in a "Franchise" religion that pays taxes to Rome. Therefore, we do not see catholic's as a different religion, we just see it as a different church than the one we attend, and thats it?. There were a few wars over this, agreed, because Rome wasnt for letting us do our own thing. Well who knew?. 'Enery the eighth was a prophet who could predict Brexit..... But back to James. At that time, "middle english" was a kind of second language, nothing official was recorded in true english, because the poor of the country did not deserve to know, and keeping them in ignorance was a form of control. James decided that wasnt exactly the right thing to do. Its the change of a small screw that can change the whole balance of the thing, and James, like many of his descendants, decided to modernise this country. We have always been progressive since 'Enery the Eighth decided we can and will, and whats more, DESERVE the right to self determination over our own rule. Education became a hot topic, literacy and numeracy started to matter, and yes, there was a widespread start of literacy, but, compared to todays standards, extremely poor.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 2, 2018 13:09:00 GMT
Actually the are not exactly the same bibles, not only was the Catholic bible for many centuries only in Latin it actually contains several books that are not included in Protestant ones.
There are several doctrinal differences between Protestant and Catholic Churches such as married clergy, the status of the Virgin Mary etc.
The core belief is very similar between the two churches but there are important differences between the two of them.
It's not just about Henry and the Church of England, the reformation caused upheaval in many places Luther was German for example.(LTW can correct me in this if I am wrong).
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 2, 2018 15:26:57 GMT
Actually the are not exactly the same bibles, not only was the Catholic bible for many centuries only in Latin it actually contains several books that are not included in Protestant ones. There are several doctrinal differences between Protestant and Catholic Churches such as married clergy, the status of the Virgin Mary etc. The core belief is very similar between the two churches but there are important differences between the two of them. It's not just about Henry and the Church of England, the reformation caused upheaval in many places Luther was German for example.(LTW can correct me in this if I am wrong). yes, Martin Luther was on the german side of my family. I found an interesting essay on the two: mzellenwrites.blogspot.com/2005/12/compare-and-contrast-martin-luther-and.html
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 2, 2018 15:27:52 GMT
Commissioned officers, Midshipmen, The Doctor, Purser, Bosun, Carpenter, Master and Gunner were all expected to maintain detailed records of their stores and to account for any loses or uses of said stores.
Commissioned officers were required to keep official logs as well as making observations for maps and noting anything of interest to the Admiralty. After any combat action they were expected to write an official account of the action. So they would be the most literate of those on the average ship followed by the Purser, who was basically a shop keeper at sea. The Midshipmen would most likely be next in the education ladder. As they were 'officers in training' they would be expected to be learning the skills of their trade, which required learning how to keep logs and a lot of reading on various topics related to said trade. (Not, interestingly, tactics as such as there were no books that specifically dealt with this at this point. The closest would be reading about past battles) The actual degree of literacy of the Midshipmen would vary considerably, as this would cover kids of 12 to men of 35 and in at least one known case a freed slave who was promoted to Midshipman due to his skills and knowledge of the waters where slaver ships operated.
The Doctor, interestingly, was probably not the most literate person on board as at this time 'Doctor' didn't mean someone with a Medical Degree (That was a Physician). The ships Doctor did need to be able to read and write, the former because they were given medical text books the latter so they could write reports for the Sick and Hurt Board.
The rest of the Warrant officers are a different matter. Clearly they had to be literate enough to keep records, although we can't usually say much more than that; Although given that Captain James Cook started as a Warrant officer we could probably guess that most were probably far more literate than we'd think. That we don't have written letters for such officers might not be all that surprising, as the standing officers (those who stayed with a ship as long as she was in commission) often had their families living on the ship with them but not included on the crews roster. (If they had a son of the right age they might be included as 'captains servant', mate or even be a Midshipman). Wives and daughters would not be included however. Technically it was illegal for women to be on a warship, unless as passengers, but this seems in the case of the standing officers to have been ignored by everyone unless they were disrupting the running of a ship in some way or they provided some service to a ship in action the Captain thought so impressive they should be mentioned in the ships official log. (One of the ships at the Battle of the Nile mentions almost a dozen women by name in the official report of the action. In this case as 'dressers', meaning nurses, and on another ship it is mentioned that a woman gave birth during the battle. These were almost certainly the wives and/or daughters of the standing officers*).
The regular sailor we are less sure about. Although it is worth noting that a fair number of them must have been literate due to concerns that were raised about pamphlets being passed around the fleet circa 1800. Plus we know that some organizations would hand out bibles to sailors or literature of a religious nature - the temperance movement being one. (Although that was probably a wasted effort on men who in home waters were drinking a gallon of beer a day).
So there is certainly a lot of indirect evidence that sailors were, and were certainly known, for being literate on the whole. This would not apply to all sailors of course, but it would seem that the majority were at least able to read.
Judging exactly HOW literate they would be today is difficult, as any reading even of the official ships logs would result in a modern reader wincing at poor to none existent grammar and the spelling causing your eyes to water. But this was before there was such a thing as a 'standard' for English spelling and grammar. And even where words were standardized the actual spelling was different to what is used today.
For those who were better educated, Commissioned officers, Midshipmen, Chaplin (if carried), Physician (VERY rare) and the Purser their level of literacy would probably, for the time, be higher than modern schooling in some areas. For one thing they would known English and almost certainly some amount of French. Many would also know Latin and Greek, both to read and even speak, and may well have known a smattering of other languages beyond that depending on where they had been. The same goes for the average 'Foremast-Jack', who were probably reasonably fluent in at least one or two other languages if they had served on ships from other nations at some point. Commissioned officers would certainly have known French well enough to read and write, as French was the diplomatic language of the era and they were defacto ambassadors for their country. For other languages, such as Arabic, they would usually have a translator with them.
As far as mathematics goes the base standard for Commissioned officers and Midshipmen would be FAR higher than modern basic schooling levels. This is because navigation relied on such math's, and as I noted elsewhere the maps produced by the late 1700's navy were so accurate they were only surpassed when GPS appeared. All of this was done by hand and without any aids to calculation beyond a pencil and a notebook. In fact anyone who needed to navigate would be required to have very good math's skills.
(*Note; The fleet Nelson fought with at the Nile was basically the Fleet Lord St Vincent created, or at least part of it. This was the same fleet where he famously ordered than 'no women shall be aboard the ships'. That there was still so many women on some of Nelsons ships would appear to indicate he was either not including the wives of the standing officers, or at least was willing to pretend they were not there. If I had to guess this was most likely a practical decision, as these women probably performed (unofficial and unrecorded) duties on the ships. Most likely helping care for the livestock on board a ship and in action aiding the ships Doctor in tending for the wounded; Which as I noted seems to have been the case at the Nile)
|
|