My take on it is that the debate becomes much more complicated because it's misled by our modern interpretation.
First problem - the 'law' as far as the navy went in that era wasn't really clear-cut. What we're referring to, really, are the Articles of War (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/sta...vol5/pp311-314). They were amended a few times prior to the Napoleonic Era, but this is the general thrust.
and11. Every Captaine Commander and other Officer Seaman or Souldier of any Shipp Frigott or Vessell of Warre shall duly observe the Commands of the Admirall or other his Superior or Commander of any Squadron as well for the assailing or setting upon any Fleete Squadron or Ships of the Enemy Pirate or Rebells or joyning Battel with them or making defence against them as all other the Commands of the Admirall or other his Superior Commander upon pain to suffer death or other punishment as the quality of his neglect or offence shall deserve.
Key point to note in 11 is "or other punishment", which basically means 'use your discretion'. And that's what usually happened - if a court martial was assembled, they weren't in the habit of passing the death penalty. Here you're talking about officers, so 11 would be the relevant article, rather than 19.19. Noe Person in or belonging to the Fleete shall utter any words of Sedition or Mutiny nor make or endeavour to make any mutinous Assemblies upon any pretence whatsoever upon pain of death.
Second problem - the 'law' didn't get involved. Nor did the admiralty, most of the time.
NAM Rodger - 'mutiny was part of this system of relations; it was the safety valve which blew when complaints were not heeded... lower-deck mutinies... were in the nature of a strike or demonstration over one of a small list of traditional grievances... never with violence... in most cases authority smoothed over the matter as quickly as possible by conceding the demand...'
Third problem - in order to answer a hypothetical, we ideally need to refer to historical cases, and as you can see from the above there just isn't much to go on here.
Fourth problem - in this example we're putting a lot of stead in the role of doctor, and based on what I know I'm very sceptical that a physician / surgeon would play that significant role in such a scenario. I'm still trying to find a good reference for this, but that's my gut instinct.
What we could do though, is consider a similar circumstances, when in 1756 Admiral John Byng was accused of cowardice in the face of the enemy. By this token, we might say that he acted with incompetence, and that other officers should have recognised this and seized control of the situation.
The court martial addressed several officers. Starting with Vice-Admiral Temple West, who was on a different ship.
"Q: Did you... express your opinion... of the behaviour of proceedings of any officer or ship?"
"The question objected to by the witness and not repeated"
"Q: You saw no impediment to the admiral... going down to engage the enemy... did the admiral... engage... in that manner"
"... it was agreed that an Answer should not be insisted on"
So as one of the senior officers, they were keen to know whether he thought that the Admiral was incompetent, and he refused to answer. He said plenty about the facts of the battle, but my takeaway is that he was not required to question the competency of the Admiral through his actions from a distance. It seemed reasonable for him to presume that unless something was obviously wrong, that he should go about his duties in the normal way and not make wild assumptions.
According to Augustus Hervey, a friend of Byng, "The next day Admiral West's evidence was given, and appeared greatly in favour of Mr. Byng... [he was asked] to give the court his opinion with regard to the action... greatly astonished at such a question being put to him, very warmly told the court he was surprised... he thought himself not at all obliged to answer... as they could rest no opinion or evidence upon it; that he was there to answer facts and not to his own opinion"
But... there's something interesting when looking at those who were in closer proximity. When the court summed up their opinion, they said:
'Unanimously, the court are of opinion that Admiral Byng... did not do his utmost...'
'Unanimously, it appears by the evidence of... officers of the ship who were near the person of the Admiral that they did not perceive any Backwardness in the Admiral during the action... but that he seemed to give his orders coolly and distinctly, and did not seem wanting in personal courage...'
Here, I think we can say that for those who were actually on board the ship with him, there was an expectation that they should be assessing his person for signs of incompetence.
The questioning of the Captain of Byng's flagship details this further:
"Q: Do you think going down to the enemy... would have been proper"
"A: Its a matter of opinion that the Admiral only was accountable for"
So strategic / tactical moves laid with the Admiral, not the ship Captain. That makes sense.
"Q: Did the admiral... express... a willingness and desire to join battle..."
Unclear here whether they are just probing, or whether they are expressing a requirement to assess. The answer more or less says that he did express a willingness, so it doesn't tell us much more than we already know. A similar question was asked to other officers on board the ship, about his immediate appearance.
We can't conclude therefore exactly what they might have been expected to do, but we can say that they were expected to be observing and considering other officers' behaviour. If they had seen him doing something 'backward' and taken no action, then it seems to me based on the questions the court asked, that this would have been unacceptable.
Overall - I don't think anyone can say for sure, unless there's an example of this happening, and I don't know of one. In general mutinies were over mundane things and dealt with in a mundane manner. If this actually happened, then I'm sceptical that a mutiny would be the answer - more likely there would be a more senior officer available who could make the decision to stand them down. If not, then we can see from the court-martial that the more junior officers were expected to be looking out for it, and therefore likely expected to do something, but exactly what that should be is not really mandated anywhere. If they did decide to mutiny as a response, then I suspect that provided they took a sensible and measured approach no court martial would arise. If it did, then it would be completely at the mercy of who sat on the court-martial. If it was full of captains equivalent to the rank of the individual who was 'sectioned', then they might want some kind of retribution but I think that's unlikely because it would look dreadful and reflect badly on the admiralty. I think it's more likely that it would go away quietly.
But there are a lot of presumptions there, because I'm basing this on tangentially related subjects rather than direct ones, and presuming out people would act in similar but different scenarios is always tricky.
Sorry guys, been away a bit. Thanks for all the replies! Enjoyed reading through them.
Jim, thanks sir! Appreciate your input!
Here's another one I've been pondering though, if anyone's interested - are there any sort of statistics/records on how many death/injuries occurred from climbing the rigging or any other work while aloft? I would assume that these days there would be health and safety requirements bringing harnesses into play - although I'm not sure how that would work with the rigging in use back then. Seems like water, the motion of the boat, and other pressures might have been a rather dangerous combination. Or were deaths and injuries less common that one might think?
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
It's a good question... it's not something I recall reading much about.
I did come across an article here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...00867-0009.pdf which suggests that the main causes of accidental injuries / deaths were from a) gunpowder exploding and b) mishandling of guns, and doesn't mention anything to do with rigging. The suggestion seems to be that injuries relating to combat, i.e. explosions and fire, were far more significant than injuries relating to general sailing.
I'm sure you're right that people were injured or died doing that kind of work, but it does seem plausible that it was insignificant compared to the other kinds of hazards that were around.
Not at all.
The document title specifically addresses injuried in warfare, not everyday sailing life. The primary driver seems to be justification of the expense and academic medical progress of keeping sailors alive, versus the cost of losing men with decades of seamanship... and more importantly, losing officers and commanders.
However, historical chroniclers often omit things precisely because they are so commonplace.
Page 12 of this document even mentions in casual passing that falling accidents occur with tall ships in battle, the implication being that they're such an everyday thing, so obviously inherrent in high rigging, that they don't need to cover it.
I've not found much on the matter myself, although historians Ralph Davis and Marcus Rediker both note that few records exist documenting exact cause of death, likely because it was such a frequent occurrence.
You might instead seek out records of compensation monies paid, especially by pirate crews, for injuries incurred in service. These may mention how the injury occurred, although falls from rigging, to the deck or the drink, were probably fatal.
Certainly looking at today's H&S conscious culture and much smaller number of rigged vessels, the news reports that several people have fallen from aloft in the past year... Now imagine it's 1760, with no H&S and rigged ships abound.
"In one 19th century officer's autobiography he records that when he was no more than twelve years old, on his first day aboard his first ship, and had been aboard only a minute, a sailor fell from the rigging and lay dead at his feet".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)