December 10, 2003
But I digress. In order to take a break from this morning's necessary but tedious reading, I pose a question to those more militarily-historically informed than I. A bit of background and meandering: the family went to see Master and Commander the other night. I am no great movie-goer, and have no sophisticated taste in cinema; I generally rouse myself to the theater only for adventure stories/"ripping yarns", so naturally I enjoyed Master and Commander well enough. (And just as naturally, though only familiar by a few novels with the series, I snitted at any departures in the story from the "facts" and my own convictions about that fictional world.) Contra Michael Blowhard, and possibly because I have no familiarity with the actor whatever and therefore don't associate him with anything else, I thought Russell Crowe made a satisfactory Aubrey. (A Charlton Heston in the role? Ludicrous.) But Michael's exactly right in noting how well director Weir conveys the business and logistics of managing such a ship. (Fleck leaned over and Maturin-ly whispered, however, that the "weevils" were not weevil larvae but meal worms.)

I did tend to get confused about who and what was getting damaged in the battle scenes, and was a bit perturbed over coffee the next morning when we got to musing about sails and I couldn't bring up an accurate image of the sail configuraton of the Surprise. Fortunately there are enough Patrick O'Brian fanatics online to aid in the accurate consolidation of memory.

Oh yes, that question I mentioned. The daughter asked how a captured enemy captain would have been dealt with at that time. I thought I could answer that, and I did answer that, though when I had finished answering that, it occurred to me that I had been talking out of my ass. My assumption was that a captured captain or other person of rank would be detained and kept from the action for the duration, but treated as a respected guest. (Am I remembering correctly that Maturin was so treated by his American captors in one of the novels?) Then I cogitated a bit on the fact that the capture in question proceeded from a battle that was not initiated as a straight-up fight between warships, but from a mistaken attempt at the privateering that everyone was practicing right and left. How would the commander of an enemy vessel, an officer and not officially a criminal pirate, have been treated in such circumstances? In reality, not novels, that is. I fear I've been feeding my child a load of rancid lobscouse on this issue.


Posted by Moira Breen at December 10, 2003 10:33 AM
Comments

Technically your answer is correct but during the wars of the French revolution the British were not willing to part with captured "skilled" sailors. The would exchange men on a one to one basis (one captain for one captain) but the French had problems capturing English captains, so the British tossed most into prison, though ranking officers could expect better treatment than sailors, that does not really say much. I have seen phrases like "debilitating confinement" used when discussing captured sailors (including officers). The only country in this era that had an advantage on captured sailors with the British was the US, and I cannot say how are men were treated and how we treated the British.

As an aside, if the enemy ship was sunk or severely damaged AND the capturing ship was in for a long tour the captured sailors would be dropped at an inconvient port. (I had an Argentine student who was decended from a French Officer who had been dropped off in 1805, as I remember). Also, at Trafalgar the British captured the French Admiral Pierre de Villeneuve. But he was for some reason let go to go back to France where he killed himself.

David

Posted by: Gurgle on December 10, 2003

Based on what I've read, I'd say that captured officers were kept in surprisingly good conditions. They were unpleasantly in prison, of course, but they had comforts you'd think would be denied prisoners (wine, good food, tobacco and the like). They were allowed to purchase things if they had the money, and an officer who gave his parole---his promise not to escape---would be allowed a certain amount of liberty in the town.

Unfortunately, I can't remember whether what I've read was mostly fiction, or mostly fact. I do remember being surprised at factual accounts that matched C.S. Forester's fictional ones.

Also, as you say, those were naval officers, and not privateer captains.

We went to see Master and Commander yesterday, and enjoyed it very much. I particularly liked the shots of Crowe standing on the maintop, etc. I doubted the ease of making the Surprise look like a whaler, though.

Posted by: Angie Schultz on December 11, 2003

I haven't seen the movie, but a privateer carried a letter of marque, issued by a belligerant nation, which in effect made it a "private warship," and allowed its people to be treated as combatants, and not pirates.

In one of O'Brian's books, Aubrey captures an American privateer, which has been put at the disposal of a French philosophe, for an expedition to colonize a Pacific Island. But the Frenchman himself has no papers. Aubrey can threaten him with hanging as a pirate.

It was a most satisfying story; that Frenchie was the very type of the utopian socialist who creates a hell-hole. (Today he would be a "progressive" who supports Saddam.)

Eventually the athiestical wretch attracts the attention of the Holy Inquisition in Lima, and gets what he deserves...

Posted by: John Weidner on December 17, 2003

Thanks for the info, guys.

Angie - yes, I liked the running about the rigging, too, and the fierce winds and high seas, etc. Makes up for the claustrophobia induced by descriptions of conditions below decks. Haven't read Forester.

John - which "episode" is the one you've described? Perhaps I should read that one next. Sounds satisfying indeed, even for this atheistical wretch...

Posted by: Moira on December 18, 2003

Read them all, Ms. Breen, if you can possibly find the time. The later books (ten and up) get a bit thin and formulaic at times, but they still have many passages as fine as any in the early ones. In his search for fresh material, Mr. O'Brian ranges ever further into the literature, science, and culture of the time. For more background I would recommend Paul Johnson's history, The Birth of the Modern.

Posted by: Alan Sullivan on December 18, 2003

The mischievious Frenchman, Citizen Dutourd, appears in The Wine-Dark Sea, which, despite its title, is set in the Pacific.

Posted by: John Weidner on December 18, 2003

Mr. Weidner, Mr. Sullivan, thanks. The Johnson book is on the list of "things I should have read long ago but of course never have". I will eventually read all the O'Brian books, and should probably read them in order for best effect, but am afraid I can't resist the prospect of a tale featuring a Rousseauvian utopian enjoying the hospitality of the Peruvian branch of the Inquisition. That has to be next up.

Posted by: Moira on December 18, 2003

Matthew Flinders was imprisoned by the French in Mauritius for seven years, as described at http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/0/55BAD42B930F430FCA256C2B00158AB1?OpenDocument .

He was treated well enough despite bureaucratic harrassment, wrote there, and drew the map which first named Australia. He wrote a memoir of his cat, Trim, which can be found at http://www.library.uq.edu.au/hotnews/flinders/trim.html

Posted by: David Tiley on January 31, 2004

All posts on Inappropriate Response are closed to comments.
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?