Looking for a Gardiner book

[maturin]

Does anyone here happen to own a copy of Robert Gardiner's Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars?

 

I'm a cheap bastard who gets his books from the library, so I can't track down a footnote I wanted to check.

 

If someone owns the book, could they post the citation attacked to Footnote #11 in the Performance chapter?

 

Thanks!

[akd]

I have this tome. Will check the footnote when I get home.

[Surcouf]

I do not have this book, but you seeking exactly?

It's just curiosity ...

[maturin]

I'm looking for the source indicated by the footnote in this paragraph: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pwrC9JR7ahM3g3aExEeVlhTkU/view?usp=sharing

 

I'm very skeptical that Gardiner is correct here. However, he does open up a can of worms, since the nautical mile (and thus the knot) was re-measured in the 1760s, when we first here of 32-gun frigates making 14 knots.

[admin]

I'm looking for the source indicated by the footnote in this paragraph: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pwrC9JR7ahM3g3aExEeVlhTkU/view?usp=sharing

 

I'm very skeptical that Gardiner is correct here. However, he does open up a can of worms, since the nautical mile (and thus the knot) was re-measured in the 1760s, when we first here of 32-gun frigates making 14 knots.

 

I have the book - will check the notes. But as far as i remember Gardiner says in the book that we should not trust speed reports much because captains often exaggerated the data to appear to be faster in reports. 

[akd]

Sorry, I was press-ganged by wife when I got home yesterday.

11 The practice is detailed in Burney's 1815 edition of Falconer's Marine Dictionary, and elaborated at length in Nares' Seamanship of 1862 and Smyth's Sailor's Wordbook of 1867, so clearly persisted.

[admin]

Sorry, I was press-ganged by wife when I got home yesterday.

 

 

 

thank you google and archive org

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26000/26000-h/26000-h.htm

https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=CFsBAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22George+Strong+Nares%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjG0eKG0ujLAhVJp3IKHau9ByQQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://archive.org/details/universaldiction00falc

[maturin]

Many thanks! And for the sources too.

 

The only online text that matches Gardiner's editions exactly is the Sailor's Wordbook below:

 

 

LOG-LINE and LOG-SHIP. A small line about 100 fathoms long, fastened to the log-ship by means of two legs, one of which passes through a hole at the corner, and is knotted on the opposite side, while the other leg is attached by a pin fixed into another hole so as to draw out when stop is called, i.e. when the glass has run out. This line, from the distance of 10, 12, or 15 fathoms of the log-ship, has certain knots or divisions, which ought to be 47 feet 4 inches from each other, though it was the common practice at sea not to have them above 42 feet. The estimate of the ship's way or distance run is done by observing the length of the line unwound whilst the glass is running; for so many knots as run out in that time, so many miles the ship sails in an hour.—To heave the log is to throw it into the water on the lee-side, well out of the wake, letting it run until it gets beyond the eddies, then a person holding the glass turns it up just as the first mark, or stray-line, goes out, from which the knots begin to be reckoned. The log is, however, at best, a precarious way of computing, and must be corrected by experience. The inventor of it is not known, and no mention is made of it till the year 1607, in an East India voyage, published by Purchas. The mode before, and even now in some colliers, and in native craft in the East Indies, is to throw a log or chip overboard at the foremost channel-plate, and to walk aft, keeping up with it until it passes the stern, thus estimating (and closely too by practice) the rate of motion. Other methods have been invented by various people, but Massey's Patent Log gives the most accurate measurement. The same principle is also applied to the deep-sea sounding-lead.

So this source doesn't state that the 42-foot knot was a safety feature. On the other hand, I can't help but notice that 42 is divisible by 6, making it easy for a deckhand to count off 7 fathoms and make your knot.

 

Furthermore, every source mentions that a different hourglass (twice as fast) was used for high speeds. So the results of the log had to be corrected mathematically in any case. I'm just skeptical that the speed was deliberately underestimated. How were they supposed to accurately estimate landfalls with up to 11% error in their accounting of distance traveled? Especially given the fact that speed measurements were adjusted quantitatively, I suspect that the 42-foot loglines were taken into account, and the speeds corrected.

 

It just strikes me as impossible that modern replica vessels could dramatically outperform their historical counterparts (e.g., tallship Rose being faster on the wind than Trincomalee), given that captains seemed to be reporting their 'best ever' speeds. Sure, modern sailcloth is better, but you can't rival the vast experience of those mariners, and above all their willingness to put everything--their topmasts, the lives of their crew--on the line in pursuit of speed.

 

 

Maybe if I find the exact editions, there will be something to back up Gardiner's explanation. All we've got so far is the pre-1815 edition of Falconer, which doesn't go into detail about log lines. That e-book of Nares seamanship may be the wrong edition as well (1868 vs. 1862), because it says that loglines should be 47.1 feet long.

[Malachi]

I´m pretty sure captains converted the 42 feet/knot measurements to the proper 47 feet 4 in for their distance travelled calculations and the max speeds they put in their log books. It just wouldn´t make sense if they did otherwise.

Interestingly, the french had 47 pdr 6 po per knot, so I assume some of the numbers given in History of the French Frigate have to be converted if one wants to compare them to british sources. And in the case of La Medée, Boudriot seems to have done it himself as he he gives two different speeds for this ship (9 knots close-hauled / 10 1/2 beam reach / 11 wind astern vs. 10 1/2 ch / 13 large / 11 running)

[maturin]

I´m pretty sure captains converted the 42 feet/knot measurements to the proper 47 feet 4 in for their distance travelled calculations and the max speeds they put in their log books. It just wouldn´t make sense if they did otherwise.

I'm glad you agree and I'm not just offended on behalf of Jack Aubrey.

 

Now if only someone with more knowledge than me could pin down the meanderings of the nautical mile.

 

 

 

Interestingly, the french had 47 pdr 6 po per knot, so I assume some of the numbers given in History of the French Frigate have to be converted if one wants to compare them to british sources. And in the case of La Medée, Boudriot seems to have done it himself as he he gives two different speeds for this ship (9 knots close-hauled / 10 1/2 beam reach / 11 wind astern vs. 10 1/2 ch / 13 large / 11 running)

Can you elaborate?

Surely the 2-inch discrepancy is insignificant here? Or is the French foot different?

 

Which two sailing reports for La Medee are you referring to? Both in History of the French Frigate?