h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Bob;


>NB the ships doctor was Dr. Sir William Beatty MD FRS

I am not sure of your abreviations 'NB' or 'FRS'

In the biography;

Horatio Nelson and Naval the Supremacy of England

published in 1907

Hardy is quoted as saying;
"Mr. Beaty, Lord Nelson is here. Mr Beaty, the Admiral is wounded."

The Victory crew list has a listing of

Beatty William 32 Irish Surgeon - WO

I read WO as Warrant Officer, it is consitant with the other listings, although it seems a rather menial post for a knight, could he have been given his title after Trafalger? It is also interesting that Hardy is quoted as using the title "Mr." rather than "Dr."

My first concern is to reconcile the two totals of entire crew.

I then want to break down the officers and crew by rank and ratings as I get them sorted, giving the duties expected of each group. I would like to know your souce for the 1075 total to put it into perspective.

I have total listing of compliment by rank and rate for all the classes of US ships in the 1830's, and have been thinking of doing something with that, but HMS Victory is a bit if we can get it sorted.

I will start an entry in "working entry" on my PS as we get going, with the time difference we will probaly only exchage one message most days, so try to make it count.



FS

>NB the ships doctor was Dr. Sir William Beatty MD FRS

I am not sure of your abbreviations 'NB' or 'FRS' MD doctor of medicine FRS - Fellow of the Royal college of Surgeons

Hardy is quoted as saying;
"Mr. Beaty, Lord Nelson is here. Mr Beaty, the Admiral is wounded." the title 'Mr' in the UK is a title given to a very senior doctor

Beatty William 32 Irish Surgeon - WO - Warrant officer it gave him a rank in order to be able to issue orders to the crew and some junior officers when necessary

Hope that clears that up

We may be getting a bit sidetracked by one man, the first point I wanted to establish is the difference of Commissioned, Warrant and Petty Officers, as well as the enlisted men and Marines in 1805 aboard Victory. In my sources Beatty did not receive knighthood until 1831, well after the battle. In the US a Warrant is issued by the President, while a Commission must be ratified by Congress. At the period Petty Officer status was at the will of the Captain of each ship.

I still find most sources place the full complement of Victory at a little over 800 men, consistent with the crew list at hand. Can you comment on British usage of these terms in 1805?



FS

tHIS THE BEST SITE FOR EXPLANATION

http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_nav_rankings.htm

The only way to do this is to work from the Trafalgar muster roll and that is a matter of record and as you say about the 800 mark. British warships were always short of full compliment.

Thank you Bob, very informative, and just the sort of thing I hoped we could share.

One of the sites I have been looking at on Beatty is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beatty_(surgeon)

Although I do not use Wiki as a source, it gives a good starting point for a search.

I was very surprised to see Midshipmen as a Petty Officer rating, in my world they were warranted.

I wish they had included the Enlisted rates.

I have been toying with the idea of reversing the format and going from Boys to Admiral, as almost every article starts beginning with most famous, any thought?

FS

Yes good idea afterall the Hornblower books are written from the bottom up.

The crew the lower orders were regarded as one rank 'Seaman' (there was a lower order 'the boys' most famously 'powder monkey') they were graded and paid extra if they were given extra specialist duties, Loblolly, Gunner, sail maker or sail-makers mate, bosuns mate, officers servant, cooks and those who work in the powder magazine, the list goes on. The marines were just soldiers on ships and can be regarded as army. You have read the Hornblower books that is a good indication of the community on board a British ship.

I hope that is the idea

Watch and learn. As I said this is not as easy as it looks. I have updated my working entry with a few thoughts on some of the lower ranks and re-ordered the headers.

This is still very much just a rough outline, but I think you can start to see my intent.

One thing I have not started to sort out is why some of the "specialist" are listed as Petty Officer while others are not? I suspect it is like the army's artificer.

Please keep all replies in this thread, the entry itself is just a template I keep for working entries, I like to create the new guide entry just before I post in Peer Review so it has a recent date stamp .

FS

I think we are getting close. it is posted at A87755755 if you want to take a look.

FS

Nice start well done
The section below needs an introduction/expatiation. The seaman
If I can make the following suggestion (the first of a few to see what you think).

The Crew
Owing to the method used to recruit the crew they had often to be trained on the job at sea. This meant there were men of different levels of experience and abilities on all the royal navy ships at this time. It must also be remembered that discipline was extremely harsh and punishment varied from the use of a ropes end as a goad, to flogging and the final sanction was hanginghanging was a punishment for all ranks even an admiral was recorded as hung for cowardice>. Life was hard on a ship of the line.
The seamen were classed (and paid) according to the following levels of experience and initially by recruitment, volunteer or (im)pressed man

Landsmen
Landsmen had little or no experience ………..
Ordinary Seamen
Anyone who could demonstrate to the Lieutenant's satisfaction ……………
Able Seamen
Able seamen were very experienced sailors …………………..


I like this entry excellent start

>The section below needs an introduction/expatiation. The seaman

I agree we can add a bit more here;

>If I can make the following suggestion (the first of a few to see what you think).

I would rather you make as many suggestions as you think proper, exchanging only a message or two a day let's not prolong this any more than necessary I suspect we will exchange more than one message before we agree. On a minor note I would rather you explain why something should be changed, with a supporting link or two, if possible, rather than just offering new words. I agree we can improve this.

>The Crew
If you are suggesting a title change I am not sure I disagree, except that I have always considered the officers as part of 'the crew'.

>Owing to the method used to recruit the crew they had often to be trained on the job at sea. This meant there were men of different levels of experience and abilities on all the royal navy ships at this time.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. All sailors had to learn their profession at sea. That was what I tried to imply in my section on impressment that fishermen and merchant sailors were preferred. Even today all naval academies still have several sessions at sea, the US Coast Guard still trains them under sail!

On another point the US navy never used impressment to fill their crew and had almost identical rates for the crew, and punishments.

All large organizations have a wide diversity of skill and training (except perhaps ocean racing crews) it is hoped that the boys and landsman of this crew will become the ordinary and able seamen of future commissions.

>It must also be remembered that discipline was extremely harsh and punishment varied from the use of a ropes end as a goad, to flogging and the final sanction was hanginghanging was a punishment for all ranks even an admiral was recorded as hung for cowardice>. Life was hard on a ship of the line.

I am not sure a line on discipline belongs here, it is a massive subject on its own right, and too little said could lead to misunderstanding. The execution of Admiral Byng almost a half century earlier can have little effect on the crew of Victory, and as I read the record it was for 'Dereliction of Duty' and primarily a despicable political move. With Nelson's well known aversion to flogging, it is not likely that it was extreme on the ship, although I an certain it happened regularly.

I have thought that I should add a paragraph on the Master at Arms as he held a very unique position as the most hated man of the ship.

On a more personal note there are several regular events in the life of the sailors, such as mess stations, laundry and slops that I would have loved to included, but I am trying to keep this as short and to the point as possible.


>The seamen were classed (and paid) according to the following levels of experience and initially by recruitment, volunteer or (im)pressed man

Once they had been entered into the ship's books all were paid equally, no matter how they had joined the ship. If you have any evidence to the contrary please provide it.


I like this entry excellent start
Thank you I look forward to your continued support and suggestions.


FS

'all were paid equally'

Should have been

all were paid equally in their individual rating


FS

Hello FS all well I hope

>The seamen were classed (and paid) according to the following levels of experience and initially by recruitment (see bonus statement below), volunteer or (im)pressed man

Once they had been entered into the ship's books all were paid equally, no matter how they had joined the ship. If you have any evidence to the contrary please provide it.

From Wiki but I have seen similar notes before this.

Royal Navy recruiting and desertion

Working and living conditions for the average sailor in the Royal Navy in the 18th century were harsh by modern standards and generally much worse than conditions on British merchant ships; their pay was around half that paid by merchantmen and was lower than that paid to a farm laborer. Until 19th century reforms improved conditions, the Royal Navy was known to pay wages up to two years in arrears and always withheld six months pay to discourage desertion. In fact, Naval wages had been set in 1653 and were not increased until April 1797 after sailors on 80 ships of the Channel Fleet based at Spithead mutinied.[1][2]

The main problem with recruiting, though, was a simple lack of qualified seamen during wartime, when it became necessary for the Navy to quickly recruit an extra 20,000 (early 18th century) to 40,000 men (late 18th century) — privateers, the navy, and the merchant navy all competed for a small pool of ordinary and able seamen in wartime, and all three groups were usually short-handed. The recruitment figures presented to Parliament for the years 1755–1757 list 70,566 men of which 33,243 were volunteers (47%), 16,953 pressed men (24%) while another 20,370 were also listed as volunteers separately (29%). Although there are no records that explain why volunteers were separated into two groups, it is likely these were pressed men who became "volunteers" to get the sign-up bonus, two months' wages in advance and a higher wage as it is known large numbers did do this. Volunteering also protected the sailor from creditors as the law forbade collecting debts accrued before enlistment. Other records confirm similar percentages throughout the 18th century.

All three groups also dealt with high levels of desertion. In the 18th century, desertion rates on naval ships averaged 25% with little difference between volunteers and pressed men, starting high, then falling heavily after a few months on board a ship, and generally becoming negligible after a year — navy pay ran months or years in arrears, and desertion might mean not only abandoning companions in the ship's company, but also the loss of a large amount of money already earned. If a navy ship had taken a prize, a deserting seaman would also forfeit his share of the prize money. In a report on proposed changes to the RN written by Admiral Nelson in 1803, he noted that since 1793 more than 42,000 sailors had deserted.


Is that enough or shall I keep searching

Regards Bob

Very well done, even if it is just Wiki. I was really only questioning your stand on difference in pay, I will readily agree that the signing bonus was paid to true volunteers. I know that when men were impressed, they were given a chance to volunteer, rather than be forced into service Personally I believe they volunteered because they thought it would look better on their record and eventual discharge, and service was inevitable, I doubt seriously that any bonus was offered, this could explain the two classes of volunteers, but I would like a bit more evidence to support it. I also think the proper term for an impressed man, is forced volunteer, but I could be wrong on that one.

This should probable be another section after we have introduced the methods of recruitment.

I will work on this for a day or two.


Thanks
FS

Hi Bob;

Added many of your thought to the opening on the crew.

One question I would like your expertise on is in the table of nationalities, there is a listing of "N.K." I am thinking it is an island like Mann or British colony, the only modern hit I keep getting is North Korea and I know that's not right

Thanks

FS

Try Not Known it is a universal cover all in the UK for no information

Thanks Bob;

I had thought of that but the 42 Unknown at the bottom of the list threw me, and I wanted to make sure it was not a territory I was not familiar with I guess we will go with 49 Unknown. Some of the other nationalities had conflicting spellings, including English

In the US we tend to use N/A for Not Available or sometimes Not Applicable.

Any other comments?

FS

I don't know who said it however some one once said The British and the Americans 2 notions divided by a common language (Oscar Wild or somesuch)

George Bernard Shaw, as I recollect.

That sounds about right

Yes go with the putting all the unknowns in together, Any more ideas yet I shall have another read through and we must consider a detailed description of gunnery on a Royal Navy ship of the late 18th some gunners fired 3 times in 5 minutes 2 times for the best average crews