Medieval Ship Crews
Ben Krauskopf
Hi,
I am running a role playing game where my players are going to join
the crew of an exploratory vessel. I have been trying to find information about
life on a caravel or galleon of the 15th-16th centuries. I am particularly
interested in the size crew required to sail one of these ships. Can anyone
tell me anything about this or direct me to a source of data?
Ben Krauskopf
bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu
186,000 Miles per Second: It's not the law. It's a challenge!
Walter Nelson
Ben Krauskopf (bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu) wrote:
: I am running a role playing game where my players are going to join
: life on a caravel or galleon of the 15th-16th centuries. I am particularly
: interested in the size crew required to sail one of these ships. Can anyone
: tell me anything about this or direct me to a source of data?
The answer depends very much upon the size, rig and mission of the ship.
I do not have any figures for the 16th Century on the tip of my mind, but
for the 19th Century (when crews were, admittedly, much smaller) I recall a
few:
The Alert, a full rig ship (three masts, square rigged), went round the
horn the 1830s with 18 hands, two mates, a cook, a steward and a captain.
She was a merchant ship, and like all merchant ships of the time, the crew
(and thus the expense) was kept at a minimum.
A single masted schooner could have a crew of two hands, one mate, a cook
and a captain.
The Brig Pilgrim, a two masted square rig, went around the Horn with a crew
of eight hands, two mates, a cook and a captain. A few years later, the
US Navy Brig Somers, which was a man o' war of almost the same size as the
Pilgrim, had a crew of over two hundred.
I give you these somewhat out of date figures just to give you an idea of
the tremendous variation in the numbers you might find in a crew. The
smaller numbers from the 19th Century are provided to suggest what the
minimum necessary to sail a ship might be--given the more primitive
technology of the 16th Century, you should probably double that number for
a minimum.
However, if your mission involves more than just carrying guano and grand
pianos from point "a" to point "b", you will have to increase the crew
significantly. If you have guns that must be served, you will have to have
enough men to crew every gun on at least one side, with at least one man to
watch each gun on the other side (you generally don't need to fire a
broadside from both sides at once, but it is nice to have someone there to
touch them off if you have to). This will be around five men per gun
(this includes a powder monkey to run back and forth to the magazine).
While you are firing, you will need to maneuver the ship, so you will need
a separate division of the crew (the "topmen") to manage the sails while
the guns are blazing. While merchantmen are content to use the same bunch
of guys to handle each job involved in maneuvering one job at a time, men
'o war like to be able to do everything at once, so each mast will need a
crew of perhaps a dozen men (for square sails--fore and aft sails will need
fewer)
You will also need people to snipe from the rigging, board and repel
boarders, tend to the wounded, and repair damage.
Also, if you are on a long voyage in ye goode olde days, you pretty much
expect a significant portion of your crew to be laid up with disease, and
probably even die, so you will add perhaps a third over your basic needs
just for wastage. Also, if you are a ship of war, you just like to have a
huge crew on basic principles, to make sure every important job can still
be done, even while your gunwales are running with gore.
Now, when your explorers reach El Dorado, are they planning to march inland
and slaughter the natives? This will also require some more people.
Which is a roundabout way of saying that the question is not so simply
answered. There is however, no single right answer, and for your purposes,
if you make a basic calculation, and then pad it alot, you will probably
have a plausible number.
Cheers,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Nelson | INSERT PITHY WITTICISM HERE
RAND |
walter...@rand.org |
___________________________________________________________________________
H.D. Miller
In article <4ps3al$7...@rand.org>, wal...@thoreau.rand.org (Walter Nelson)
wrote:
> Ben Krauskopf (bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu) wrote:
> : I am running a role playing game where my players are going to join
> : the crew of an exploratory vessel. I have been trying to find
information about
> : life on a caravel or galleon of the 15th-16th centuries. I am particularly
> : interested in the size crew required to sail one of these ships. Can
anyone
> : tell me anything about this or direct me to a source of data?
>
> The answer depends very much upon the size, rig and mission of the ship.
>
> I do not have any figures for the 16th Century on the tip of my mind, but
> for the 19th Century (when crews were, admittedly, much smaller) I recall a
> few:
>
> The Alert, a full rig ship (three masts, square rigged), went round the
> horn the 1830s with 18 hands, two mates, a cook, a steward and a captain.
> She was a merchant ship, and like all merchant ships of the time, the crew
> (and thus the expense) was kept at a minimum.
(Snip)
> The Brig Pilgrim, a two masted square rig, went around the Horn with a crew
> of eight hands, two mates, a cook and a captain. A few years later, the
> US Navy Brig Somers, which was a man o' war of almost the same size as the
> Pilgrim, had a crew of over two hundred.
>
> I give you these somewhat out of date figures just to give you an idea of
> the tremendous variation in the numbers you might find in a crew. The
> smaller numbers from the 19th Century are provided to suggest what the
> minimum necessary to sail a ship might be--given the more primitive
> technology of the 16th Century, you should probably double that number for
> a minimum.
(snip)
>
> Which is a roundabout way of saying that the question is not so simply
> answered. There is however, no single right answer, and for your purposes,
> if you make a basic calculation, and then pad it alot, you will probably
> have a plausible number.
>
> Cheers,
> Walter Nelson
> RAND
> walter...@rand.org
Sorry to nitpick, but you forgot the sailmaker and the capenter, who
were counted among the crews of both the Alert and the Pilgrim, according
to Dana.
Your overall point is quite well made. Barring specific information,
there are simply too many variables to give a generalized answer. A lot
depends on the quality of the sailors (Americans and Englishmen were the
best in the 18th and 19th centuries), the type of vessel, the mission, and
so forth. Events on land frequently effected the make up of a crew. The
best example for this is Columbus's voyage in 1492. Columbus was forced
to hire less-than experienced sailors because of the expulsion of the Jews
from Spain, who were flooding into Cadiz in late July and securing passage
at outrageous rates. All of the good sailors were getting the big money,
and Columbus hired the losers (which undoubtedly accounted for many of his
problems.) Also, Cadiz was so crowded that the voyage left from a
different port.
I think a better plan for your game would be to find the accounts of one
of the famous voyages and use it as a basis. I would think that there
should be some good English accounts of Columbus, Magellen, and Drake
(especially Drake).
.
Paul J. Gans
Ben Krauskopf (bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu) wrote:
: Hi,
:
: the crew of an exploratory vessel. I have been trying to find information about
: life on a caravel or galleon of the 15th-16th centuries. I am particularly
: interested in the size crew required to sail one of these ships. Can anyone
: tell me anything about this or direct me to a source of data?
This is a little out for soc.history.medieval, but I think you will
find your answers if you consult the written sources on the great
explorers. Start with Columbus.
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Pyotr Filipivich
Ben Krauskopf (bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu) wrote:
}I am running a role playing game where my players are going to join
}the crew of an exploratory vessel. I have been trying to find information
}about life on a caravel or galleon of the 15th-16th centuries. I am
}particularly interested in the size crew required to sail one of these ships.
}Can anyone tell me anything about this or direct me to a source of data?
Probably the easiest to find would be about the Golden Hind of Francis
Drake fame.
If memory serves, that little boat shipped with over a hundred men,
mostly redundant. You expect loses to disease, and if you intend
battle, both to wounds and for a prize crew.
Magellen's galleons returned to Spain with 18 men and one ship. (he'd
left with 5 ships.)
tschus
pyotr
--
py...@halcyon.com Pyotr Filipivich here, Nikolai Petrovich in the SCA.
If all men were brothers, would you want your sister to marry one?
Dick Wisan
In article <31C0BE...@tam2000.tamu.edu>, Ben Krauskopf
<bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu> writes:
> I am running a role playing game where my players are going to join
> the crew of an exploratory vessel. I have been trying to find information
> about life on a caravel or galleon of the 15th-16th centuries. I am
> particularly interested in the size crew required to sail one of these
> ships. Can anyone tell me anything about this or direct me to a source
> of data?
Best thing I can think of might be Carla Rahn Phillips' "Six Galleons for
the King of Spain". You might find some useful things in J. H. Parry,
"The Age of Reconnaissance", and Samuel Eliot Morrison has some good
chapters on ships and sailors in "Admiral of the Ocean Sea", and in "The
European Discovery of America" --in the volume on the Northern Voyages,
I think.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: internet WIS...@hartwick.edu
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <4ps3al$7...@rand.org>,
Walter Nelson <wal...@thoreau.rand.org> wrote:
>The answer depends very much upon the size, rig and mission of the ship.
>
>I do not have any figures for the 16th Century on the tip of my mind, but
>for the 19th Century (when crews were, admittedly, much smaller) I recall a
>few:
>
18th - 19th centuy numbers are fine for getting an idea. Your points
are all certainly valid. I am trying to learn as much as I can about ships
so all of your commentary is extremely helpful (I'm a landlubber and I have
a player who like sailing, so he knows the operational stuff far better than
I do.)
To address your points: I have already considered most of the crew factors
mentioned (extra crew for doing more jobs at once, disease, battle losses,
exploring on land). My problem is that I didn't have a good idea of a base
number to start from. I had game materials listing minimum crews for a
galleon from about 12 to 80!
The ship is on an exploratory mission that best matches the real world search
for the northwest passage (or any passage around or through N.A.) on an
newly discovered continent. They are planning for possible shore mission and
have hired extra crew for the purpose (along with some "heavy guns" - the
players of course!) It looks like I may have a galleon with about 60-80
crew aboard if 24 men is the right number to run it normaly.
The latest thing I have run up against is the crew positions. Most of my
game materials and such were pretty straightforward and simplistic on the
matter. I have found excerpts from somthing called a Sea-Mand Vadevicum (Sp?)
on the web. These and other things have me confused about crew positions.
As far as I can tell, we have:
Captain - Obvious.
First Mate - The officer below the captain who is also responsible for
loading, unloading, and inspecting supplies. Appears to
also be called the "Master".
Purser - The officer responsible for keeping track of the people aboard
and discovering and reporting awols and such.
Clerk - Keeps the ships records, but also seems to have some of the
same duties as the purser.
Pilot - Makes sure the helmsman keeps the ship on course.
Navigator - Decides what course is best and tells the Pilot.
Gunner - Fires the ships weapons. Also called an armorer?
Powder Monkey- Brings powder up from the magazine. Apparantly young boys.
Quartermaster- Responsile for a few things like lanterns, but not supplies
like a modern one might be.
Boatswain - Responsible for ships boats, the sails, and for keeping the crew
in line.
Bosun's mates - Help the bosun thump heads.
Carpenter - Makes repairs and the like.
Cook - Cook.
Able bodied seamen, Seamen, Boy - I have seen all of these ranks used for the
"common seamen". I assume an Able bodied seaman is very experienced or is
capable of doing all of a set of jobs, Seamen can only do a couple of jobs
or not very experienced, and boys are apprentice seamen. Boys could have other
jobs I suppose. We have all heard of Cabin Boys who waited on the officers
in exchange for training as officers (based on something I read somewhere) or
they could have been powder monkies. Seamen might be specialists, but I
think their specialty would have been listed.
Thanks for all the help!
--
Ben Krauskopf bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu
Gun control is being able to hit your target!
186,000 miles per second: It's not the law, just a challenge.
The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us are going to the stars.
H.D. Miller
In article <4purua$r...@news.tamu.edu>, bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Ben K
Krauskopf) wrote:
> The ship is on an exploratory mission that best matches the real world search
> for the northwest passage (or any passage around or through N.A.) on an
> newly discovered continent. They are planning for possible shore mission and
> have hired extra crew for the purpose (along with some "heavy guns" - the
> players of course!) It looks like I may have a galleon with about 60-80
> crew aboard if 24 men is the right number to run it normaly.
> The latest thing I have run up against is the crew positions.
(snip)
With a crew of 80+ you'll also need a Second Mate and a Third Mate to
round out your officers corps. On most ships, the Captain is responsible
for setting the overall destination and making the grand decisions, and
rarely talks to common sailors. The First Mate issues the orders and is
responsible for the day-to-day running of the ship. (The Captain only
steps in when something unusual or dangerous happens) The Second and Third
Mates usually are the leaders of watches (or shifts) and directly
supervise the work of the sailors. Another person you will most certainly
need is a Sailmaker, who, naturally, makes and repairs the sails. If your
crew is large enough you might also consider a couple of Midshipmen, who
are officers-in-training. This position is distinct from "Boys" who were
simply common lads taken aboard to become common sailors. The Midshipmen
were usually from better backgrounds, and were placed into the care of the
officers who directed their education, while the boys were with the
sailors. The distinction between officers and sailors was a very real
one. Officers lived in the rear of the ship and ate halfway decent food,
while the sailors ate salt beef and hardtack and bunked in the front of
the ship called the "forecastle" (Signing up as a common sailor was called
"going before the mast," Hence Richard Henry Dana's "Two Years Before the
Mast," a book well worth reading).
The number of men who shipped on a man-of-war could be enormous. The
Independence, an American ship which carried 60 guns, had a crew of 700.
At 60 guns she was only fair-to-middling in size. Some of the biggest
European ships-of-the-line could mount 100 or more guns with a crew of
over 1000. For more information on men-of-war and the British Navy I
suggest both the "Horatio Hornblower" series by C.S. Forrester and any
book by Patrick O'Neill.
Bill Bedford
Ben K Krauskopf <bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu> wrote:
> In article <4ps3al$7...@rand.org>, Walter Nelson <wal...@thoreau.rand.org>
> wrote: >The answer depends very much upon the size, rig and mission of the
> ship. > >I do not have any figures for the 16th Century on the tip of my
> mind, but >for the 19th Century (when crews were, admittedly, much
> smaller) I recall a >few: >
>
> 18th - 19th centuy numbers are fine for getting an idea. Your points are
> all certainly valid. I am trying to learn as much as I can about ships so
> all of your commentary is extremely helpful (I'm a landlubber and I have a
> player who like sailing, so he knows the operational stuff far better than
> I do.)
>
>
> The latest thing I have run up against is the crew positions. Most of my
> game materials and such were pretty straightforward and simplistic on the
> matter. I have found excerpts from somthing called a Sea-Mand Vadevicum
> (Sp?) on the web. These and other things have me confused about crew
> positions. As far as I can tell, we have: Captain - Obvious. First Mate -
> The officer below the captain who is also responsible for loading,
> unloading, and inspecting supplies. Appears to also be called the
> "Master". Purser - The officer responsible for keeping track of the
> people aboard and discovering and reporting awols and such. Clerk -
> Keeps the ships records, but also seems to have some of the same duties as
> the purser. Pilot - Makes sure the helmsman keeps the ship on course.
> Navigator - Decides what course is best and tells the Pilot. Gunner -
> Fires the ships weapons. Also called an armorer? Powder Monkey- Brings
> powder up from the magazine. Apparantly young boys. Quartermaster-
> Responsile for a few things like lanterns, but not supplies like a modern
> one might be. Boatswain - Responsible for ships boats, the sails, and for
> keeping the crew in line. Bosun's mates - Help the bosun thump heads.
> Carpenter - Makes repairs and the like. Cook - Cook. Able bodied
> seamen, Seamen, Boy - I have seen all of these ranks used for the "common
> seamen". I assume an Able bodied seaman is very experienced or is capable
> of doing all of a set of jobs, Seamen can only do a couple of jobs or not
> very experienced, and boys are apprentice seamen. Boys could have other
> jobs I suppose. We have all heard of Cabin Boys who waited on the
> officers in exchange for training as officers (based on something I read
> somewhere) or they could have been powder monkies. Seamen might be
> specialists, but I think their specialty would have been listed.
>
Most of the positions have an overlap on big (navy) ships they may have
been seperate people but not on samller ones.
This is how you work out the crew numbers.
Each watch (there were usually 3) had :-
1 officer
1 petty officer
1 helmsman
2 men for each yard (sail) [For bigger ships these numbers would have to
be increased but there would usually be more men anyway see below]
in addition they would be some day men, as a minimum these would be:-
Captain (usually but not always)
carpenter/bosun
cook
If the ship was armed then each carriage gun would need 4 men and a boy,
in addition to the deck crew. Smaller fixed guns would need 2 fewer men.
--
Bill Bedford bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk
Shetland
Brit_Rail-L list auto...@mousa.demon.co.uk
A R BREEN
In article <hdmiller-150...@acs-arap10.cis.yale.edu>,
>Independence, an American ship which carried 60 guns, had a crew of 700.
>At 60 guns she was only fair-to-middling in size. Some of the biggest
>European ships-of-the-line could mount 100 or more guns with a crew of
>over 1000. For more information on men-of-war and the British Navy I
>suggest both the "Horatio Hornblower" series by C.S. Forrester and any
>book by Patrick O'Neill.
The Forester or O'Brien (not O'Neill) books would, I think, be seriously
misleading. It would be rather like trying to write a story about aircrew
in 1914 and using descriptions of Strategic Air Command as your references.
The technology had changed quite a lot... (the first 100 gun ship, Pett's
'Sovereign of the Seas' - wasn't built until over 50 years after your
period, and she wasn't really an ocean-going warship)
A good book to look at would be Rayner Unwin's 'The defeat of John
Hawkins', which describes Hawkins' expedition to Africa and the Gulf
of Mexico in the early 1570s (slave-trading illegally to the Spanish
colonies).
Hawkins had two great ships (large Carricks, not Galleons: the first
Galleons - low, lean, fast gunships - were being contemptated at the
time he sailed, but I don't think any had yet taken the water) -
The 'Jesus of Lubeck' of about 1200 tons and the 'Minion' of
about 900 tons. Both were old ships of Henry VIII's navy, hired by
Hawkins for the expedition. They were large, tough ships but sailed
poorly. Hawkins had armed them according to his theories, with
heavy anti-ship guns mounted and the small man-killers mostly
shipped below as ballast. This was a peaceful trading expedition,
remember... He also had 3 or so 'Pinnaces' - smaller, lighter
ships perhaps carrying a small gun.
This was very much a 'maximum' expedition for the time. Anything
else would be smaller and less well equipped.
The crew sizes are given in Unwin's book - they are much smaller
than the complements of 18th century warships (even allowing
for Hawkins sailing with smaller crews and more provisions than
was usually the practise).
Only one of the pinnaces (commanded by Hawkins' nephew, Francis
Drake) and the 'Minion` made it back, the 'Jesus' having been
captured at San Juan de Ulna. The 'Minion' had about 18 or
so survivors fit to sail the ship (mybe 30-odd alive) at the
end of her voyage...
Not sure if this one is still in print: it was publised (in the UK)
by Pelican books (Penguin).
The book you *MUST* refer to if you're going to have a hope of
accuracy is, of course, Hakluyt (sp?) 'Voyages'. This is an almost
contempory record to the early English exploration, trading and
raiding expeditions, written originally about 1590, revised about
15 years later. Yu really can't hope to manage without this one..
| Andy Breen | Adran Ffiseg/Physics Department, UW/PC Aberystwyth |
| a...@aber.ac.uk | http://www.aber.ac.uk/~azb Tel: (44) 01970 621907 |
Unless this posting concerns the solar wind all opinions are purely personal
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <1996061523...@mousa.demon.co.uk>,
Bill Bedford <bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Most of the positions have an overlap on big (navy) ships they may have
>been seperate people but not on samller ones.
>
>This is how you work out the crew numbers.
>
>Each watch (there were usually 3) had :-
>
>1 officer
>1 petty officer
>1 helmsman
>2 men for each yard (sail) [For bigger ships these numbers would have to
>be increased but there would usually be more men anyway see below]
>
First of all, I would like to thank everyone who has replied for their help
and advice.
The above brings up a couple of questions: What officers ranks were used?
What is the difference between a officer and a petty officer? A petty
officer is like a sergeant, right? (In other words a common sailor that is
in charge of other common sailors rather than a "full" officer.)
Officers ranks: Captain, Leutennant, Ensign. Is this usual? Which positions
are officers? Captain, First mate, navigator/pilot types, clerk, purser?
What is a "Master"? Is this a quartermaster? What did a quartermaster do?
I understand it was not the usual supply job, but keeping track of lanterns
and such.
Thank you,
Lisa Steele
I strongly suggest any books on the 14-15C exploration of the African
coast. Lots of fun stuff on sea voyages, new navigation techniques, etc.
There are some fun historical differences between sailors trained in
the Med (which has minimal tides, fairly mild weather, a high salinity,
and lanteen rig sails) and the No. Atlantic (which has areas with massive
tides, horrible weather, lower salinity, and square rigged sails).
--Lisa
Bill Bedford
Ben K Krauskopf <bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu> wrote:
> In article <1996061523...@mousa.demon.co.uk>,
> Bill Bedford <bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Most of the positions have an overlap on big (navy) ships they may have
> >been seperate people but not on samller ones.
> >
> >This is how you work out the crew numbers.
> >
> >Each watch (there were usually 3) had :-
> >
> >1 officer
> >1 petty officer
> >1 helmsman
> >2 men for each yard (sail) [For bigger ships these numbers would have to
> >be increased but there would usually be more men anyway see below]
> >
>
> First of all, I would like to thank everyone who has replied for their help
> and advice.
>
> The above brings up a couple of questions: What officers ranks were used?
> What is the difference between a officer and a petty officer? A petty
> officer is like a sergeant, right? (In other words a common sailor that is
> in charge of other common sailors rather than a "full" officer.)
Thats about right - the officer gives the orders and the petty officers
make sure they are carried out
>
> Officers ranks: Captain, Leutennant, Ensign. Is this usual?
These are naval ranks and would not apply to your period. Master 1st
mate, 2nd mate would be more normal but such names varied with time and
place.
>Which positions
> are officers? Captain, First mate, navigator/pilot types, clerk, purser?
That would depend on the circumstances The first two almost always were
officers the others may or may not have been officers. If you think of
officers as being part of the enterprise and other ranks as hired hands
you won't be far wrong.
By way of illustration consider Cook. He was mate and then master of a
coasting ship. He was then recruited into the navy as navigator but not
made an officer until commissioned to take the Endeavour to the Pacific.
> What is a "Master"?
The person in change of the ship, usually the Captain.
> Is this a quartermaster? What did a quartermaster do?
> I understand it was not the usual supply job, but keeping track of lanterns
He was responsible for the stores - which included the arms etc.
Walter Nelson
Ben K Krauskopf (bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu) wrote:
: >Each watch (there were usually 3) had :-
: >
: >1 officer
: >1 petty officer
: >1 helmsman
: >2 men for each yard (sail) [For bigger ships these numbers would have to
: >be increased but there would usually be more men anyway see below]
It was not so simple as that. On a 19th Century merchant ship, each watch
would have half the regular hands, commanded by a mate (the 1st Mate
generally commanded the "starbord" watch and the 2nd Mate the
"Larbord"(Port) Watch). Specialists like cooks, carpenters, sailmakers
etc. generally had "all night in" and did not stand watch. There was no
formula of men per yard--it was just half the men you needed to sail the
ship. (Note: some ships had three watches, but most, as far as I know, did
not--even on men o' war). Each watch, of course, was a four hour shift,
with two hour shifts in the late afternoon (4PM "Dog Watches") so everyone
would alternate watches and no one's sleep patterns would have a chance to
settle down. The helmsman was generally not a permanent position, but
fell to the fellow who could lay aft first, and land that plum job during
his watch. Steering in good weather is not a tough job, and is quickly
taught to a green hand. In bad weather, an officer, mate or experienced
hand would take the wheel.
On a warship in the 18th/19th Centuries, the 1st and 2nd Lieutenants would
take the place of the 1st & 2nd Mates, and the watches would consist of
all the topmen, and some fair number of the other specialists (gunner's
mates etc.).
: Officers ranks: Captain, Leutennant, Ensign. Is this usual? Which positions
: are officers? Captain, First mate, navigator/pilot types, clerk, purser?
Actually, I don't know how they were assigned in the 16th Century. Captain
was certainly a valid rank, but Lieutenant and Ensign were Army ranks at
the time. I do not think they were actually used among sailors, but I
might be wrong.
: What is a "Master"? Is this a quartermaster? What did a quartermaster do?
: I understand it was not the usual supply job, but keeping track of lanterns
: and such.
The "Master" is one rank I do know for the 16th Century. In Ye Goode Olde
Daies, any undertaking of any importance had to be commanded by a man of
social rank. The Captain had to be a gentleman, but he did not have to be
a sailor. The Master, on the other hand, was an experienced sailor whose
job it was to sail the ship--the Captain would say "Go that way, be quick
about it, and I'll be in my cabin" and the Master would make it so. His
importance in the running of the ship was inversely proportional to the
competence and experience of the Captain.
As captains became more capable and professional, the position of Master
and 1st Mate began to blend together--though on warships the postion
remained, though it declined in importance.
Oddly enough, the Quartermaster was primarily responsible for steering the
ship. How this became so, and when exactly it happened, I do not know. He
was the chief helmsman. Note, as mentioned above--helmsman on a merchant
ship was generally a rotating position. On a man o'war, it was a full time
specialty--like every other little function on those over-stuffed sea
monsters, crammed with hundreds of idle men for whom some employment needed
to be found.
The boatswain, of course, had little to do with boats, but was primarily
responsible for driving the crew. The coxwain handled the boats.
The purser was chief clerk and handled the supplies. He was generally
assumed to be corrupt.
There is an excellent book, called, simply, "Galleon", which gives a minute
description of the construction of the Galleon, as well as a very nice,
succint description of the crew positions as they existed in the 16th and
17th Centuries. Unfortunately, so much of what I remember is tainted with
19th Century examples, that I am unsure of all my details for the earlier
period.
bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu
bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk (Bill Bedford) wrote:
>Ben K Krauskopf <bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu> wrote:
>> What is a "Master"?
>The person in change of the ship, usually the Captain.
In one of the sources I had it intimated that the master reported to
the captain. Is there another position by that name?
Someone told me yesterday (who I think should know more than I) that
the captain and officers were waited upon at the table by a bosun who
also acted as the captain's bodyguard. Is this true? I always
thought it was the cabin boy / midshipman types. What then were the
duties of a midshipman/cabin boy? (Was there any difference between
the two?
Thanks all for your help!
Ben Krauskopf
bkk5806@tam2000..tamu.edu
Walter Nelson
bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu wrote:
: Someone told me yesterday (who I think should know more than I) that
: the captain and officers were waited upon at the table by a bosun who
: also acted as the captain's bodyguard. Is this true? I always
: thought it was the cabin boy / midshipman types. What then were the
: duties of a midshipman/cabin boy? (Was there any difference between
: the two?
Captains didn't, as a general rule, have an official bodyguard, though on
later men o'war, the marines generally fulfilled that function, among
their other duties (there was always a Marine posted at the door to the
captain's cabin, and one on the quarterdeck, as I recall). For a Captain
to have a "bodyguard" would be a terrible admission--he would be
announcing openly that he feared his men. Formal "Marines", of course,
are a later invention. In the 16th Century, marines were just soldiers
who had been transplanted to the sea, to spend their days in idle
contemplation or barfing over the rail.
I do not think midshipmen are appropriate to the galleon era, but since you
ask, I will address them. They were not servants or ship's boys--they
were officers in training. They were instructed in such subjects as
navigation, mathematics and history by the officers or by sea-going
tutors, and they performed duties of minor importance. As they grew in
maturity and experience, and passed their examinations, they became
"Passed Midshipmen", and actually functioned as junior officers while they
awaited a vacancy and appointment to Ensign. This, however, is all
18th/19th Century stuff, and not applicable to the era in question.
The "cabin boy" was not a midshipmen. He was an assistant to the Steward,
whose job it was to bring the captain and officers their meals and do
general servant stuff. The steward, BTW, was the Captain's chief servant.
The cabin boy, is not a midshipman, and he is also not a "ship's boy" or
"boy". Many crews had boys as young as 9 or 10 on board, who worked along
side the men. The boys were particularly prized for working on the topmost
yards, which tended to be built more or less in miniature anyway--and
the youngsters tended to be fearless. The position of "boy" on the pay
roll however, does not necessarily indicate a child. Officially, a "boy"
was a hand with no experience of the sea, and could be a 50 year old man.
He would get paid the same as the 9 year old however. A man with a little
experience would rate as an "ordinary seaman" and a hand with a great deal
of skill and experience would rate as an "able seaman".
Note: ship's boys might do additional duty waiting upon the Captain, and
thus also be cabin boys--but the two functions are different and distinct,
and it is a common mistake to call all ship's boys "cabin boys".
I do not believe it was ever customary for the boatswain to wait upon the
Captain, or to serve as his bodyguard. He would do far better service
protecting the Captain by being forward, beating, kicking and shouting at
the crew in that quaint traditional way old boatswains had, than pacing
along behind the Old Man, watching his back.
Pyotr Filipivich
bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu writes:
}bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk (Bill Bedford) wrote:
}>Ben K Krauskopf <bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu> wrote:
}>> What is a "Master"?
}>The person in change of the ship, usually the Captain.
}In one of the sources I had it intimated that the master reported to
}the captain. Is there another position by that name?
}Someone told me yesterday (who I think should know more than I) that
}the captain and officers were waited upon at the table by a bosun who
}also acted as the captain's bodyguard. Is this true? I always
}thought it was the cabin boy / midshipman types. What then were the
}duties of a midshipman/cabin boy? (Was there any difference between
}the two?
If memory serves:
Young boys would be hired to serve as "powder monkeys" and between
engagements would have other duies "as assigned" - clean this, polish
that, fecth the other. (The access to the powder room was through a
small hatch normally, to reduce the chance of getting spark, flame,
ember, into the powder magazine and blowing the ship into kingdom come.
Boys were used to pass charges and powder as they fit the smaller sapce
better. Hence "powder monkey".)
A Midshipman was a navy cadet. Not yet an officer, and so called be
cause they slept midship between the officers and the crew in the
focsle. Some midshipmen got long in the tooth and never made rank.
Career students sort of.
Their duties might overlap, in terms of keeping quarters clean and neat.
But a middy was expected to someday be an officer, so he was expected to
learn some of the responsibilities.
At least, that is what I recall.
tschus
pytor
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <4q4arj$o...@rand.org>,
Walter Nelson <wal...@thoreau.rand.org> wrote:
>The "Master" is one rank I do know for the 16th Century. In Ye Goode Olde
>Daies, any undertaking of any importance had to be commanded by a man of
>social rank. The Captain had to be a gentleman, but he did not have to be
>a sailor. The Master, on the other hand, was an experienced sailor whose
>job it was to sail the ship--the Captain would say "Go that way, be quick
>about it, and I'll be in my cabin" and the Master would make it so. His
>importance in the running of the ship was inversely proportional to the
>competence and experience of the Captain.
Does this mean that there were no "professional" officers in 16th-17th century
sailing? The officers were generally gentlemen who may or may not know
what they were doing (the navigator, I expect, being an exception), and the
sailors ran the ship??
>There is an excellent book, called, simply, "Galleon", which gives a minute
>description of the construction of the Galleon, as well as a very nice,
>succint description of the crew positions as they existed in the 16th and
>17th Centuries. Unfortunately, so much of what I remember is tainted with
>19th Century examples, that I am unsure of all my details for the earlier
>period.
I looked in the local bookstores yesterday and found them extremely wanting.
There was one book on the life of Sir Francis Drake and, in the juvenile
section, a book called "Man of War" with cutaway views of a ship and
descriptions of a number of things (apparantly aimed at the 10-14 crowd).
I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that it is sorta useful to someone like me
who has never even been out of sight of land (I've only been on the ocean like
3 times and seen it about 6.)
I will certainly look for this book at the university library and at the order
desk of the bookstore.
Thanks,
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <4ps6jh$9...@news.nyu.edu>,
Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.nyu.edu> wrote:
>This is a little out for soc.history.medieval, but I think you will
>find your answers if you consult the written sources on the great
>explorers. Start with Columbus.
I'm sorry. I looked for a more appropriate newsgroup and found none. The
people here are also much more professional that those in soc.history. All
I see there is "AMERICA IS GREAT", "NO, AMERICA SUX" threads.
Perhaps it's local, but my local bookstores don't carry anything about the
explorers.
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <4q4sc5$h...@rand.org>,
Walter Nelson <wal...@thoreau.rand.org> wrote:
>I do not think midshipmen are appropriate to the galleon era, but since you
>ask, I will address them. They were not servants or ship's boys--they
>were officers in training. They were instructed in such subjects as
>navigation, mathematics and history by the officers or by sea-going
>tutors, and they performed duties of minor importance. As they grew in
>maturity and experience, and passed their examinations, they became
>"Passed Midshipmen", and actually functioned as junior officers while they
>awaited a vacancy and appointment to Ensign. This, however, is all
>18th/19th Century stuff, and not applicable to the era in question.
>
>The "cabin boy" was not a midshipmen. He was an assistant to the Steward,
>whose job it was to bring the captain and officers their meals and do
>general servant stuff. The steward, BTW, was the Captain's chief servant.
>
>The cabin boy, is not a midshipman, and he is also not a "ship's boy" or
>"boy". Many crews had boys as young as 9 or 10 on board, who worked along
>side the men. The boys were particularly prized for working on the topmost
In article <4q4sc5$h...@rand.org>,
Walter Nelson <wal...@thoreau.rand.org> wrote:
>I do not think midshipmen are appropriate to the galleon era, but since you
>ask, I will address them. They were not servants or ship's boys--they
>were officers in training. They were instructed in such subjects as
>navigation, mathematics and history by the officers or by sea-going
>tutors, and they performed duties of minor importance. As they grew in
>maturity and experience, and passed their examinations, they became
>"Passed Midshipmen", and actually functioned as junior officers while they
>awaited a vacancy and appointment to Ensign. This, however, is all
>18th/19th Century stuff, and not applicable to the era in question.
So, what kind of minor duties did a midshipman do? Did they stand watches?
Before the era of midshipmen, how did one learn the trade? Were there
just apprentices aboard serving in the manner of apprentices?
>The "cabin boy" was not a midshipmen. He was an assistant to the Steward,
>whose job it was to bring the captain and officers their meals and do
>general servant stuff. The steward, BTW, was the Captain's chief servant.
The cabin boy was hoping to become a Steward someday I take it?
>I do not believe it was ever customary for the boatswain to wait upon the
>Captain, or to serve as his bodyguard. He would do far better service
>protecting the Captain by being forward, beating, kicking and shouting at
>the crew in that quaint traditional way old boatswains had, than pacing
>along behind the Old Man, watching his back.
Kinda like a drill sergeant, huh?
On the subject of the pay of "boys": How much were sailors and officers paid
for their work? I understand this can vary greatly and there was probably
some kind of profit sharing plan for the officers (you get x money and X% of
what cargo gets through.) I'm looking for ratios or relationships. Saying
someone got 1 piece of eight per day (or whatever, I know it is not a reasonable
price) means little without knowing what others in the crew got or how much
that piece of 8 could buy (for my purpose).
On the subject of combat at sea: Before the era of cannon, what were sea
battles like? My game materials talk of ballista and catapults mounted on
ships, but this seems wrong to me. I was under the impression they would
close, shooting arrows at each other all the while, and board. (No ramming
in the days of sailing ships).
Thanks for all the great help.
<INSERTED SPACE BECAUSE MY NEWSREADER THINKS IT HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE FOR ME
HOW MUCH INCLUDED TEXT IS TOO MUCH>
Walter Nelson
: sailing? The officers were generally gentlemen who may or may not know
: what they were doing (the navigator, I expect, being an exception), and the
: sailors ran the ship??
Well, "professionalism" among both naval and military officers was not as
it is today understood. There were men who had dedicated their lives to
following the sea or following the drum, and were generally titled
"captain", but there was no formal establishment or permanent ranks.
Armies and ship's companies were formed ad hoc, and people were assigned
ranks based upon the commander's assessment of their skill, experience and
social prominence.
Social promince often took precedence over all other factors, and such
officers relied heavily on "masters" if at sea, and "councils of war" or
"sergeants major" if on land (note, the "sergeant major" is not an NCO at
this period [16th-17th C], but an officer). The more experienced,
"professional" types would actually run the show, but were often
subordinate to men whose sole qualification was birth.
Walter Nelson
: Before the era of midshipmen, how did one learn the trade? Were there
: just apprentices aboard serving in the manner of apprentices?
He would command the magazine guard in battle, he would supervise ship's
maintenance details, and generally do things that required responsible
supervision, but not much intelligence. He was, as far as the men were
concerned, still an officer, and entitled to the same respect and
obedience as any other officer. Middies were often not well liked because
they would command the men to do stupid things, yet if they did not obey
instantly, they could be whipped every bit as soundly as if they had
disobeyed the 1st Lieutenant. As to what was done before midshipmen came
along, I think it was essentially the same system, yet far less regularized
and codified. A young gentleman would sign aboard under the protection of
one of the officers, and learn as he went.
: >The "cabin boy" was not a midshipmen. He was an assistant to the Steward,
: >whose job it was to bring the captain and officers their meals and do
: >general servant stuff. The steward, BTW, was the Captain's chief servant.
: The cabin boy was hoping to become a Steward someday I take it?
Probably not. It was just a job. It was a good way for a boy to work his
passage if he were, for instance, looking to get across the Atlantic for
free.
: >I do not believe it was ever customary for the boatswain to wait upon the
: >Captain, or to serve as his bodyguard. He would do far better service
: >protecting the Captain by being forward, beating, kicking and shouting at
: >the crew in that quaint traditional way old boatswains had, than pacing
: >along behind the Old Man, watching his back.
: Kinda like a drill sergeant, huh?
Worse. Think of a drill sergeant in the Brown Boot Army, on a really bad
day. They generally carried a rattan cane or a knotted rope end, called a
"starter", with which to encourage the men to greater alacrity.
: On the subject of the pay of "boys": How much were sailors and officers paid
: for their work? I understand this can vary greatly and there was probably
: some kind of profit sharing plan for the officers (you get x money and X% of
: what cargo gets through.) I'm looking for ratios or relationships. Saying
: someone got 1 piece of eight per day (or whatever, I know it is not a reasonable
: price) means little without knowing what others in the crew got or how much
: that piece of 8 could buy (for my purpose).
I do not recall the figures off the top of my head, but the officers would
draw many times the pay of the men. It could be in terms of wages, or
shares in the profits of the voyage. It was all laid out in the articles
the men signed when they signed aboard.
: On the subject of combat at sea: Before the era of cannon, what were sea
: battles like? My game materials talk of ballista and catapults mounted on
: ships, but this seems wrong to me. I was under the impression they would
: close, shooting arrows at each other all the while, and board. (No ramming
: in the days of sailing ships).
Ballistae and catapults did not play a really big role in sea warfare,
though if you were facing the Byzantines, you might get a healthy dose of
Greek Fire, shot out of a tube in the bow (think of liquid napalm). It was
extremely effective.
In the Mediterranean, ramming continued as a viable and important tactic
for as long as galleys were in use, which is much longer than most people
realize. The great victory of Lepanto, where the Venetians and
Imperialists clobbered the Turks in 1572 was fought with Galleys. Some
galleys even accompanied the Spanish Armada in 1588, though they were
extremely vulnerable to cannon fire, which had this way of raking down
their oarsmen as they tried to ram the English galleons.
There were still galleys in service in the 18th Century.
However, among medieval sailing ships, the tactic was as you have described
it, and it really boiled down to a land battle at sea, with archery and
boarding being the decisive tools.
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <4q6vph$p...@rand.org>,
Walter Nelson <wal...@thoreau.rand.org> wrote:
>and codified. A young gentleman would sign aboard under the protection of
>one of the officers, and learn as he went.
I don't know just how accurate this was,but one of the drawings in a book
called Man of War showed two kinds of midshipmen. One kind looked to be
younger teens with uniforms like the sailors and the others were older and
wearing uniforms similar to the sailors. Both were clearly indicated to be
midshipmen. I presume that you started as a lowly type, learned your lessons,
and eventualy graduated to a higher form of midshipman?
>I do not recall the figures off the top of my head, but the officers would
>draw many times the pay of the men. It could be in terms of wages, or
>shares in the profits of the voyage. It was all laid out in the articles
>the men signed when they signed aboard.
What did articles contain? Does anyone know where I can find an example of
articles for a ship?
>
>There were still galleys in service in the 18th Century.
<UGH>
Thanks everyone (and especialy you Mr. Nelson) for you help and patience.
MSCob
Quote:
So, what kind of minor duties did a midshipman do? Did they stand
watches?
Before the era of midshipmen, how did one learn the trade? Were there
just apprentices aboard serving in the manner of apprentices?
In the 18th and 19th c's, they went up to the top of the mast to look
around with telescopes, they read signal flags, they turned the glass and
marked the time, I think they stood watch, they commanded gangs of sailors
on fighting expeditions and on work activities around the ship, they
commanded small crews put in captured vessels which they sailed back to
the home port. These duties weren't so minor. Mary
Coberly
Dick Wisan
In article <1996061709...@mousa.demon.co.uk>,
> [snip]
>>
>> First of all, I would like to thank everyone who has replied for their help
>> and advice.
>>
>> The above brings up a couple of questions: What officers ranks were used?
>> What is the difference between a officer and a petty officer? A petty
>> officer is like a sergeant, right? (In other words a common sailor that is
>> in charge of other common sailors rather than a "full" officer.)
>
> Thats about right - the officer gives the orders and the petty officers
> make sure they are carried out
>>
>
> mate, 2nd mate would be more normal but such names varied with time and
> place.
is no such thing as a naval officer --well, that's too strong, but the
idea of a naval officer is just emerging, emerging more rapidly in
Britain and Holland, say, than in Spain. The old way of creating a
warship was to put soldiers in a ship. The soldiers, of course, are
commanded by gentlemen. The ship is run by a master, who ranks as a
kind of craftsman, like a mason or a baker. The difference is partly
a matter of skills, but largely a matter of class. "Master" is a guild
term, isn't it?
In the 17th Century, a Spanish warship would usually have a Capitan de
Guerra (nobleman commanding the troops, and in overall command of the
vessel). It would also have a Capitan de Mar --the sea captain who runs
the ship. There were some officers, though, who ranked as both, Capitan
de Mar y de Guerra.
When Drake issued his famous statement that the "gentlemen will hale and
draw with the mariners," he was taking a step towards the creation of
a _naval_ system and _navel_ personnel, as opposed to purely military or
purely maritime ones.
I'm getting this mostly out of Phillips' "Six Galleons for the King of
Spain."
--
David Lloyd-Jones
py...@coho.halcyon.com (Pyotr Filipivich) wrote:
>}Someone told me yesterday (who I think should know more than I) that
>}the captain and officers were waited upon at the table by a bosun who
>}also acted as the captain's bodyguard. Is this true?
Bodyguard is perhaps putting it a little bit decorously. There is a
famous Churchillism, half of which I forget so I'll have to render it
in American: "Newt Gingrich without lies, lobbyists and money, would
be like the Navy without the lash, rum and buggery."
-dlj.
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <1996Jun19....@hartwick.edu>,
Dick Wisan <wis...@hartwick.edu> wrote:
>a matter of skills, but largely a matter of class. "Master" is a guild
>term, isn't it?
>In the 17th Century, a Spanish warship would usually have a Capitan de
>Guerra (nobleman commanding the troops, and in overall command of the
>vessel). It would also have a Capitan de Mar --the sea captain who runs
>the ship. There were some officers, though, who ranked as both, Capitan
So, was the Capitan de Mar also a/the "Master"?
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <4q81da$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, MSCob <ms...@aol.com> wrote:
>In the 18th and 19th c's, they went up to the top of the mast to look
>around with telescopes, they read signal flags, they turned the glass and
>marked the time, I think they stood watch, they commanded gangs of sailors
>on fighting expeditions and on work activities around the ship, they
>commanded small crews put in captured vessels which they sailed back to
>the home port. These duties weren't so minor.
Commanding gangs of sailors on fighting expeditions or on captured vessels?
I can understand all of the rest, but these seem to be quite a responsibility.
I guess these would have to have been the older midshipmen. (I understand
one became a midshipman at about the age of 12-13. Am I wrong?) Just how
young did they send a person into combat? Combat is a real good way of
getting one of these guys dead if they're not ready yet. Same question for
ships boy's. I would think they would be powder monkies in combat.
Thanks
Walter Nelson
MSCob (ms...@aol.com) wrote:
: Quote:
: So, what kind of minor duties did a midshipman do? Did they stand
: watches?
: Before the era of midshipmen, how did one learn the trade? Were there
: just apprentices aboard serving in the manner of apprentices?
: In the 18th and 19th c's, they went up to the top of the mast to look
: around with telescopes, they read signal flags, they turned the glass and
: marked the time, I think they stood watch, they commanded gangs of sailors
: on fighting expeditions and on work activities around the ship, they
: commanded small crews put in captured vessels which they sailed back to
: the home port. These duties weren't so minor. Mary
As I stated before, a midshipman who had passed his examinations and did
his time, would still be waiting for an appointment, since an appointment
required a vacancy. During this time, a "passed midshipmen" would serve as
a junior officer, and be given duties of real substance, like commanding a
prize crew, while some child in a blue buttoned coat would not be trusted
with anything of substance.
However, in the "galleon" period, things were not nearly so formal, and
young men would be given responsibilities as their commanders thought fit.
They would, most likely, have signed on as "gentlemen adventurers" or
"gentlemen of the company", who had all the priviledges of officers, but
none of the responsibilities. Such gentlemen (who were found on ships and
in armies) were prized because they set a good example in battle, where
they stood in the ranks with the men, and because they generally served at
their own expense (though they would get a share of prize money) and
provided their own equipment.
Walter Nelson
: >In the 18th and 19th c's, they went up to the top of the mast to look
: >around with telescopes, they read signal flags, they turned the glass and
: >marked the time, I think they stood watch, they commanded gangs of sailors
: >on fighting expeditions and on work activities around the ship, they
: >commanded small crews put in captured vessels which they sailed back to
: >the home port. These duties weren't so minor.
: Commanding gangs of sailors on fighting expeditions or on captured vessels?
: I can understand all of the rest, but these seem to be quite a responsibility.
: I guess these would have to have been the older midshipmen. (I understand
: one became a midshipman at about the age of 12-13. Am I wrong?) Just how
: young did they send a person into combat? Combat is a real good way of
: getting one of these guys dead if they're not ready yet. Same question for
: ships boy's. I would think they would be powder monkies in combat.
Powder monkey would have been a typical job for a boy, but not necessarily
the only one. It would have a lot to do with who owned him when the ship
was not in battle. If he was a topman, he would probably spend the battle
aloft with the other topmen, or if he worked for the Steward, he would
probably spend the battle in the wardroom dressing wounds.
On a ship of war, no one is too young for combat. Even if they leave you
below, a ball can come right through the hull and carry you away. There is
no safe place--and if the ship sinks or burns, you will die with everyone
else. Everyone did a job, and everyone did their share of dying. This
included children and even women (yes, there were women on men o' war).
They would probably not send a child over the rail with a boarding party or
landing party, but a good strong teenager--sure. He would be able to keep
up and handle a weapon as well as an older man.
Walter Nelson
Bill Bedford (bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I've just read this description of Hanseatic ships that were trading
: around the North Sea from the 15th to the end of the 18th century.
: ... Their ships were of average size, - 30 to 40 last, or 60 to
: 80 tons - each carrying between five and eighteen in their crews
: These boats trading to Shetland did not appear to
: differentiate between sailors and merchants: all on the ship,
: the merchant, and the skipper, the mate, the bosun, the cook,
: the cooper and the boy, were all part of the same 'maschup', a
: corporation with the aim of successful sea trade. This kind of
: group gives us an insight into Hanseatic society. The crew were
: built up according to the purpose of the undertaking. A skipper
: and merchant gave continuity but the other members of the crew
: changed frequently. A sum was settled at the begining for the
: keep of the crew and for all other expenses: and money that
: remained at the end of the voyage was given to charity - to the
: old, the sick, and the bereaved at home.*
This arrangement sounds absolutely identical to the arrangements made by
merchant ships into the 19th Century (and to some extent, to this day).
There is some continuity among the officers but each individual crew man
signed up for that voyage only--drawing his pay an becoming a free agent at
the end of the voyage. Even the US Navy was using this system into the
1840s (Melville signed aboard the USS Essex in Hawaii, and was paid off and
discharged when she reached port in Baltimore a few months later).
The crews also sound comparable to later merchant crews, which is to say
that they are small, and thus cost little. 18 men would have been a large
crew for a craft of similar size in the 19th Century (7 or 8 would be more
like it), but given the more primitive rigging and tackle, a larger crew
would have been needed to work the ship in the Middle Ages.
Of course, in those dangerous days many "merchant" ships were pretty well
armed and must have carried crews sufficient to the task of handling that
ordnance. The Baltic to Shetland run must not have been much troubled by
pirates, but the Channel certainly was, as was, of course, the "Spanish
Main" or the East Indies.
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <4q9grh$b...@rand.org>,
Walter Nelson <wal...@thoreau.rand.org> wrote:
>Ben K Krauskopf (bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu) wrote:
>included children and even women (yes, there were women on men o' war).
I thought there was a fairly extreme bit of superstition about women on ships.
When did this change?
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <4q90i5$a...@news.inforamp.net>,
Just how harsh was discipline in the age of discovery and in the later navies?
I know the bosun and bosun's mates carried various types of whips and sticks
around for beating on people. I saw a comment in a book last night that went
something to the effect of: "The sailors didn't consider it a monday morning
until the ship's boys had all been over a chest." Wouldn't this kind of thing
get counter productive? The above comment was made in context of a statement
about how the ship's boys had it easier than the men (if I recall correctly).
How often did misbehavior and punishment happen?
The book was "Galleon" (IIRC), but I don't know if it was the same volume
recommended here earlier.
How were officers punished at sea? A court martial would have happened back
at port for really serious things, but what about relativly minor infractions?
Perhaps I should ask *IF* officers were punished at sea? It would seem you
would have to make some provision given the presence of midshipmen and other
young and inexperienced types who might misbehave (as well as those who might
be prone to getting drunk or disobeying orders.)
Walter Nelson
: Walter Nelson <wal...@thoreau.rand.org> wrote:
: >Ben K Krauskopf (bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu) wrote:
: >included children and even women (yes, there were women on men o' war).
: I thought there was a fairly extreme bit of superstition about women on ships.
: When did this change?
That superstition is much overblown, given the fair smattering of
documentable women on board men o'war and working ships. Women were
viewed with suspicion, due to their possibly disruptive influence, and
they were never very numerous (except as passengers), but they were still
there. Captains occasionally excercised their perogative to bring wives
and children (and the requisite female servants) aboard, and some small
number of women seem to have found their way aboard men o'war in some other
capacity. They are generally invisible in descriptions of the ships until
battle, when they suddenly appear in the wardroom, helping the surgeon.
This is not really surprising, given the large number of women who could be
found following armies from the Middle Ages up to the early 19th Century,
and armies frequently shipped aboard as marines. In armies, they generally
performed domestic tasks, and those same tasks would need to be performed
in armies afloat.
This is not to say that all ships had women aboard, nor even most, but they
were far more numerous than is generally thought.
Bill Bedford
Dick Wisan <wis...@hartwick.edu> wrote:
> In article <1996061709...@mousa.demon.co.uk>,
> bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk (Bill Bedford) writes:
> >
> > These are naval ranks and would not apply to your period. Master 1st
> > mate, 2nd mate would be more normal but such names varied with time and
> > place.
>
> You want to keep in mind that in the period you're after, there really
> is no such thing as a naval officer --well, that's too strong, but the
> idea of a naval officer is just emerging, emerging more rapidly in
> Britain and Holland, say, than in Spain. The old way of creating a
> warship was to put soldiers in a ship. The soldiers, of course, are
> commanded by gentlemen. The ship is run by a master, who ranks as a
> kind of craftsman, like a mason or a baker. The difference is partly
> a matter of skills, but largely a matter of class. "Master" is a guild
> term, isn't it?
I've just read this description of Hanseatic ships that were trading
around the North Sea from the 15th to the end of the 18th century.
... Their ships were of average size, - 30 to 40 last, or 60 to
80 tons - each carrying between five and eighteen in their crews
These boats trading to Shetland did not appear to
differentiate between sailors and merchants: all on the ship,
the merchant, and the skipper, the mate, the bosun, the cook,
the cooper and the boy, were all part of the same 'maschup', a
corporation with the aim of successful sea trade. This kind of
group gives us an insight into Hanseatic society. The crew were
built up according to the purpose of the undertaking. A skipper
and merchant gave continuity but the other members of the crew
changed frequently. A sum was settled at the begining for the
keep of the crew and for all other expenses: and money that
remained at the end of the voyage was given to charity - to the
old, the sick, and the bereaved at home.*
I don't think expeditions by any other groups out side the monopoly
companies would have been very different.
* Taken from and essay by Klaus Friedland, published in Shetland and the
Outside world 1469 - 1969, ed D. J. Withrington, University of Aberdeen
Press, 1983
Ben K Krauskopf
Does anyone have any idea where examples of ships articles can be found?
What kinds of navigation instruments were in use in the 16th century? I
understand that a astrolabe was in use, but the sextant required detailed
star charts that were not yet in existance. What is a jacobs ladder?
Ben K Krauskopf
In relation to the question on navigation: It is my understanding that one
of the later methods of navigation required accurate timekeeping. When did
the mechanical clock become accurate enough for the purpose and when did this
method of navigation come into use?
Thanks all,
Bill Bedford
David Lloyd-Jones <d...@inforamp.net> wrote:
> py...@coho.halcyon.com (Pyotr Filipivich) wrote:
>
>
> >}Someone told me yesterday (who I think should know more than I) that
> >}the captain and officers were waited upon at the table by a bosun who
> >}also acted as the captain's bodyguard. Is this true?
>
> Bodyguard is perhaps putting it a little bit decorously. There is a
> famous Churchillism, half of which I forget so I'll have to render it
> in American: "Newt Gingrich without lies, lobbyists and money, would
> be like the Navy without the lash, rum and buggery."
The bosun was resonsible for the maintainance of the ship. Anything else
was extra curicular
Paul J. Gans
: Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.nyu.edu> wrote:
: >This is a little out for soc.history.medieval, but I think you will
: >find your answers if you consult the written sources on the great
: >explorers. Start with Columbus.
:
: I'm sorry. I looked for a more appropriate newsgroup and found none. The
: people here are also much more professional that those in soc.history. All
: I see there is "AMERICA IS GREAT", "NO, AMERICA SUX" threads.
:
: Perhaps it's local, but my local bookstores don't carry anything about the
: explorers.
Well, the thread has certainly become established here.
I'd try the library or interlibrary loan.
I've been a bit put-off by some of the postings here. I don't
consider myself well-read on this subject, but what I have read
indicates that a fair number of the posts here have applied to
later times, not the 15th century.
A number have confounded two different situations. Ships were
always (i.e. from the middle ages on) sailed by Masters. Warships
carried military personel, commanded by a Captain. In the British
and French navies of later times (later than the 15th century) the
Captain's "advice" became more or less an order since the ship
existed to serve the military aims of the Captain.
To make matters more confusing the Master of a normal (non-military)
ship carried the curtesy title of "captain". The general title means
the commander of a group of men and is quite appropriate.
The set of ranks (Captain, 1st Lieutenant, 2nd Lieutenant, ...
is a set of military ranks having nothing directly to do with
sailing the ship, at least originally. This, of course, changed
later. The normal nautical assistant ranks were mates. These
included the Master's mate(s) (plural only for large ships), the
Bosun's mate, the Carpenter's mate, etc.) And on small ships none
of these folks would have had mates.
Non-military ships would have carried no fighting men at all.
Which is not to say that the crew might not have had to fight
at some time or other.
As to how large the crew was in the 15th century of course depended
on the size of the ship. Normally, in non-military ships the
crew was very small--cuts the profit to have a large crew. Certain
skills had to be present to be sure, but small nevertheless.
For actual numbers I'm somewhat at a loss. One must be aware that
certain changes in ship technology occured about this time and that
changed the crew requirements.
As you know Mediterranean and Atlantic vessels were different.
In the Atlantic the ships were designed to deal with the very
rough seas and high winds normally experienced there. By the
time of the Crusades such ships were square-rigged, but with
a single sail to each mast. In the Mediterranean ships were
different; the lateen rig standard and the ships built more
like galleys.
The Atlantic ships needed a much smaller crew than their
Mediterranean counterparts. In particular, men did NOT have
to often climb the masts in order to trim the sails, it was done
from the deck.
By the 13th century the Mediterranean ships began to adopt
Atlantic characteristics. But soon thereafter another revolution
began: the adding of superimposed sails, i.e. topsails. Typically
there was a suite of six sails: a bowspritsail on a short spar
sticking out in front (very helpful in tacking), two superimposed
sails on the foremast, two more on the mainmast, and a single
lateen sail on the mizzenmast. It is reported that Columbus'
ships were rigged like this, except that the _Santa Maria_ had
no topsail on the foremast. Magellen's ships had the full suit.
Of course, the number of sails on each mast increased later.
Now you see why I suggested that you consult books on the subject.
It is complex and difficult. Exactly what the situation would
have been in any given period depends on what the period was.
Although nautical folks are rather conservative when it comes to
invention, there was steady progress, (actually enormous progress)
in ship technology throughout the middle ages.
------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Walter Nelson
: I know the bosun and bosun's mates carried various types of whips and sticks
: around for beating on people. I saw a comment in a book last night that went
: something to the effect of: "The sailors didn't consider it a monday morning
: until the ship's boys had all been over a chest." Wouldn't this kind of thing
: get counter productive? The above comment was made in context of a statement
: about how the ship's boys had it easier than the men (if I recall correctly).
: How often did misbehavior and punishment happen?
It very much depended on the Captain and the Mate. Some were more lenient
than others. However, old sailors had come so much to expect brutal
treatment that they tended to regard kindness as weakness, to be exploited
to the detriment of the officers. Yes, it was counterproductive, and often
downright stupid. A favorite trick of some of the more neanderthal
officers was to flog the last man up or the last man down when the topmen
were ordered aloft. This meant a great deal of unnecessary danger with men
scrambling over each other in the rigging, and it also meant that the man
who had climbed the highest was the most likely to be flogged.
: How were officers punished at sea? A court martial would have happened back
: at port for really serious things, but what about relativly minor infractions?
: Perhaps I should ask *IF* officers were punished at sea? It would seem you
: would have to make some provision given the presence of midshipmen and other
: young and inexperienced types who might misbehave (as well as those who might
: be prone to getting drunk or disobeying orders.)
Officers were seldom punished, since to do so would be to weaken his
authority and undermine the whole officer class on ship board. Since it
was essential for the officers to present a united front to keep the crew
in line (mutiny was a constant fear), it would not due to create a rift
that malcontents could exploit. Serious punishments would be saved for
Courts Martial ashore, unless the ship was in immediate danger of mutiny,
in which case the Captain would have the option of hanging the mutineers
(including officers) on the spot. If he did so however, he would be
required to justify his actions to a Court Martial once he reached home.
However, when an officer was to be punished, it generally took the form of
arrest, which would not involve being clapped in irons, but just confined
to quarters. Midshipmen were frequently punished however. For minor
infractions, they would be "topmasted", which meant sent to the highest
point on the main mast for many hours. In fine weather, this was hardly a
punishment at all, but more of a vacation. In bad weather, it could be
very dangerous.
For more serious infractions, the middies would be made to "Kiss the
gunner's daughter", which involved bending over a gun to present the
backside, which was then smacked a few times with a cane. Nasty perhaps,
but not near so bad as a flogging.
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <4qa53q$q...@rand.org>,
Walter Nelson <wal...@thoreau.rand.org> wrote:
>Ben K Krauskopf (bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu) wrote:
>that malcontents could exploit. Serious punishments would be saved for
>Courts Martial ashore, unless the ship was in immediate danger of mutiny,
>
How about merchant ships or ships not otherwise connected with a military?
How was it handled when an officer disobeyed orders or committed some crime?
They couldn't wait for a courts martial as they were not naval personell?
>to quarters. Midshipmen were frequently punished however. For minor
>infractions, they would be "topmasted", which meant sent to the highest
>
>For more serious infractions, the middies would be made to "Kiss the
What constituted a minor or serious infraction? I would assume a middie
would be held to the same rules as everybody else. I also assume he would
possibly recieve some punishment for the pranks I have heard they pulled (as
, indeed, almost all teenage boys will pull.) Were there any special
rules they had to obey? (Pass inspection or exams or ELSE?)
Thanks,
Paul J. Gans
: Walter Nelson <wal...@thoreau.rand.org> wrote:
: >and codified. A young gentleman would sign aboard under the protection of
: >one of the officers, and learn as he went.
:
: younger teens with uniforms like the sailors and the others were older and
: wearing uniforms similar to the sailors. Both were clearly indicated to be
: midshipmen. I presume that you started as a lowly type, learned your lessons,
: and eventualy graduated to a higher form of midshipman?
If you did not pass your exam for Lieutenant, you were stuck as
a midshipman. Some were quite old.
But all of this pertains to the 18th century. I thought you
were interested in the 15th? This didn't exist in the 15th.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Walter Nelson
: Walter Nelson <wal...@thoreau.rand.org> wrote:
: >Ben K Krauskopf (bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu) wrote:
: >that malcontents could exploit. Serious punishments would be saved for
: >Courts Martial ashore, unless the ship was in immediate danger of mutiny,
: >
: How about merchant ships or ships not otherwise connected with a military?
: How was it handled when an officer disobeyed orders or committed some crime?
: They couldn't wait for a courts martial as they were not naval personell?
Mates who failed to perform their duties properly would be "sent
forward", which is to say, banished from "officer's country" in the stern
and reduced to common sailor. A likely lad from the crew would then be
appointed in his place. This worked on small merchant ships, where all the
crew, including the mates, came from the same general social class. It
would not work if the officer was a "gentleman", since to set him to work
would undermine the very fabric of society.
: >to quarters. Midshipmen were frequently punished however. For minor
: >infractions, they would be "topmasted", which meant sent to the highest
: >
: >For more serious infractions, the middies would be made to "Kiss the
: What constituted a minor or serious infraction? I would assume a middie
: would be held to the same rules as everybody else. I also assume he would
: possibly recieve some punishment for the pranks I have heard they pulled (as
: , indeed, almost all teenage boys will pull.) Were there any special
: rules they had to obey? (Pass inspection or exams or ELSE?)
Again, I would like to point out that midshipmen are off-topic. They
didn't exist in the 15th/16th Century. However, to answer your question,
they were capable of any sort of infraction, from foolish pranks, to
laziness, to ducking duty, to sleeping on watch, to incitement to mutiny.
They were not held to the same standards as everyone else, since common
sailors were routinely beaten and flogged, and officers were seldom
punished at all (beyond a severe dressing-down behind closed doors). They
occupied a strange middle ground. They also got away with a lot more,
especially in the area of abuse of the crew, than perhaps they should
have--but this very much depended on the attitudes of the Captain and
Lieutenants. Also, since punishments were arbitrary and inflicted without
"due process", the definition of "serious" or "minor" depended very much
upon the moood of the offended officer, and how fondly that officer looked
back on his own days as a middie.
fleur-de-lis
>The bosun was resonsible for the maintainance of the ship. Anything else
>was extra curicular
Isn't "bosun" the same as "boatswain", the supreme NCO of the ship ?
I'd recall he acts as the quartermaster of the ship, not unlike the
company quartermaster sergeant in Army, and is responsible of the
nourishment of the crew and maintenance of the vessel.
In the Finnish Navy, "boatswain" (pursimies) actually is a name of a
certain NCO rank as well as the office.
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <4qbs7t$p...@rand.org>,
Walter Nelson <wal...@thoreau.rand.org> wrote:
>Again, I would like to point out that midshipmen are off-topic. They
>didn't exist in the 15th/16th Century. However, to answer your question,
True, I just got interested in the thread as it was going.
I have run across the mention of "ship's articles" in a number of places. It
was mentioned that each member of the crew had to agree to them. Does anyone
know how old this practice is? Was it practiced in the 16th century and, if
so, who used the articles? Do the articles (assuming use) of any of the
explorers still exist?
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <4qaadt$k...@news.nyu.edu>,
I am, but <blush> this discussion got interesting, so I am sorta satisfying
my curiosity.
Walter Nelson
: was mentioned that each member of the crew had to agree to them. Does anyone
: know how old this practice is? Was it practiced in the 16th century and, if
: so, who used the articles? Do the articles (assuming use) of any of the
: explorers still exist?
The signing or swearing to "articles" was a standard procedure before any
undertaking by a corporate body, like a ship's crew or an army or a
trading expedition.
Landsmen soldiers swore to obey the "articles of war", some of which have
been preserved from the 16th Century (the Earl of Liecester's come to
mind). I have seen ship's articles, but I do not recall the location of
any primary sources. Generally, they would set down the rate of pay, and
then list all infractions and the punishments to be inflicted for them
(like burning through the tongue with a hot iron for blasphemy).
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the explorer's articles have survived,
but I don't really know where to find them.
Bill Bedford
fleur-de-lis <ha...@delta.hut.fi> wrote:
Yes ..... one of the oddities of this thread (and of others it must be
said) is that that it has ranged so far over time and place that some
thing have become confused. Chief amongst these is the difference
between position and rank. As I said the bosun responsibility was to the
maintenance of the ship, but because he was able to use any or all of
the daytime off duty watch, he was able to wield a great deal of power
amongst the crew. This lead in time and in certain circumstances to the
position being consolidated into a rank and his function changing
towards managing the crew while at the same time delegating the
maintenance work to others, eg the carpenter, sailmaker etc.
Dick Wisan
In article <4q9b37$r...@news.tamu.edu>, bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu
>
>In article <1996Jun19....@hartwick.edu>,
>Dick Wisan <wis...@hartwick.edu> wrote:
>>term, isn't it?
>
>>Guerra (nobleman commanding the troops, and in overall command of the
>>vessel). It would also have a Capitan de Mar --the sea captain who runs
>>the ship. There were some officers, though, who ranked as both, Capitan
>
>So, was the Capitan de Mar also a/the "Master"?
Century, looks something like the Capitan de Mar, but also something
like the "navigator" you find on Spanish ships of Columbus' day. But,
look, "Master" is not a term of opprobrium. A guild master is not a lord,
but a fully-certified practitioner of the art (whatever it is), qualified
to define its standards and regulate its practice. Think how musicians,
if they address their conductor or their teacher as "Maestro" are expres-
sing the highest respect. But, "Music, Maestro, please," combines respect
for expertise with a touch of condescension. It depends who's talking.
Compare the account of Hanseatic ships in Bill Bedford's post: (Message:
<1996061923...@mousa.demon.co.uk> bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk)
I had said
> You want to keep in mind that in the period you're after, there really
> ...The old way of creating a
> warship was to put soldiers in a ship. The soldiers, of course, are
> commanded by gentlemen. The ship is run by a master, who ranks as a
> kind of craftsman, like a mason or a baker. The difference is partly
> a matter of skills, but largely a matter of class. "Master" is a guild
> term, isn't it?
I've just read this description of Hanseatic ships that were trading
around the North Sea from the 15th to the end of the 18th century.
... Their ships were of average size, - 30 to 40 last, or 60 to
80 tons - each carrying between five and eighteen in their crews
These boats trading to Shetland did not appear to
differentiate between sailors and merchants: all on the ship,
the merchant, and the skipper, the mate, the bosun, the cook,
the cooper and the boy, were all part of the same 'maschup', a
corporation with the aim of successful sea trade. This kind of
group gives us an insight into Hanseatic society. The crew were
built up according to the purpose of the undertaking. A skipper
and merchant gave continuity but the other members of the crew
changed frequently. A sum was settled at the begining for the
keep of the crew and for all other expenses: and money that
remained at the end of the voyage was given to charity - to the
old, the sick, and the bereaved at home.*
with Columbus' or Magellan's ships --size for size. The Hanse was
about as townish as anyplace could be. Still they must have had to
fight, sometimes. What soldiers would they have embarked? Speaking
under correction, I'd guess it would be something like a town militia.
Even a professional military officer in a place like that would probably
be something more like a Master soldier than like a Spanish hidalgo.
Note how the author points out that the organization here gives us a look
at Hanseatic society.
How sharply do you want to focus on 15th-16th century ships? We've
been clobbering you with 18th centuryish naval lore. (The pleasantest
place to pick up a lot of that would be O'Brien's Aubrey-Maturin novels).
You didn't even mention naval vessels in your original post, and it's
turning out to make rather a difference. If you really want to stick
to the earlier period, I'd concentrate on accounts of the voyages of
discovery.
Ben K Krauskopf
In article <1996Jun21....@hartwick.edu>,
Accounts of these are actualy relativly hard to find in my area (in the stores
anyway. The library probably has something, but I can't get there easily with
all the construction on campus.
I have picked up the first of the Aubrey-Maturin novels along with a reference
to be used with them. I have ordered a second reference that is listed as
being by the author himself.
The 18th century stuff has been interesting, but I should change my focus
back to where I started. Does anyone know if the ships articles for any of
the exploratory missions have survived?
What we would have on a exploratory ship:
Captain
First Mate (2nd in command)
Navigator (probably captain, 1st mate or both).
a couple of qualified pilots (so each watch can have one. Again 1st mate is
probably one).
Quartermaster (in the traditional sense. The guy in charge of supplies)
Clerk/Purser (the guy in charge of keeping records and keeping track of the
ships crew.)
Boatswain (in charge of knocking heads and keeping the sails in shape)
Carpenter
Armorer/Master of Arms (in charge of weapons, both the big ones like cannon
as well as the small arms.)
some 'mates to help the above people do their jobs.
"Gentleman Adventurers" Kids who are nominaly learning to be officers and who
do a few things as they are seen fit to do.
Seamen - self explanitory.
"Boys" apprentice seamen (perhaps another name at this point)
Soldiers
Officer (s) of soldiers.
Servants for officers.
Sound about right?
I understand that navigation was mostly dead reckoning with crude latitude
detection. Is this correct?
Walter Nelson
Ben K Krauskopf (bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu) wrote:
: Captain
You might interpose a "Master" in here if the Captain is not really a
sailor.
: First Mate (2nd in command)
: Navigator (probably captain, 1st mate or both).
Actually, I would think the Master and Pilot would be the navigators--and
possibly the Captain.
: a couple of qualified pilots (so each watch can have one. Again 1st mate is
: probably one).
If you have an individual who bears the title "pilot", one is sufficient.
He is basically a navigation specialist, who could be dispensed with if the
other officers are sufficiently skilled. A side note: when approaching a
port with difficult waters, ships would hoist a signal and a local pilot
would row out to them to bring them safely past reefs, shallows etc.
: Quartermaster (in the traditional sense. The guy in charge of supplies)
: Clerk/Purser (the guy in charge of keeping records and keeping track of the
: ships crew.)
: Boatswain (in charge of knocking heads and keeping the sails in shape)
: Carpenter
: Armorer/Master of Arms (in charge of weapons, both the big ones like cannon
: as well as the small arms.)
: some 'mates to help the above people do their jobs.
Actually, the big guns, should be handled by a "Master Gunner", who is a
very specialized individual, and generally not much concerned with small
arms.
: "Gentleman Adventurers" Kids who are nominaly learning to be officers and who
: do a few things as they are seen fit to do.
Gentlemen adventurers could also be adults, who have come along for, dare I
say, "adventure" (though actually, the term had a different meaning back
then--it meant something more like "investor"). They might, in fact, be
just that, given the commercial nature of nearly every voyage, be it war or
exploration.
: Seamen - self explanitory.
: "Boys" apprentice seamen (perhaps another name at this point)
: Soldiers
: Officer (s) of soldiers.
: Servants for officers.
: Sound about right?
Yeah, not bad.
: I understand that navigation was mostly dead reckoning with crude latitude
: detection. Is this correct?
As I understand it.
Good luck,
Warren Grant
bkk...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Ben K Krauskopf) wrote:
Where you should go to find a good source of information on this topic
is :
http//www.synergy.net/homeport.html
which is the site of the "Mary Rose Virtual Maritime Museum".
The Mary Rose was an English Naval vessel of the 16th century, that
went down in (I think) 1543, near Portsmouth, and has been recently
excavated. The site has all sorts of detailed information on the
wreck, and on sailing at that time.
Hope this is of help.
Warren Grant
wgr...@saltspring.com