Nelson & His World

...No, not that one. The wreck of the Victory, lost in 1744 with Admiral Balchen and over 1,000 men, may have been found by a US based diving team.

See:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 627477.ece

That'll be interesting to follow. The tragic loss of Balchen's flagship was, of course. the reason why the sixth, and present, Victory was so late in being given the name - as it was thought it might bring bad luck. The decision was finally taken to name her Victory on 30th October 1760, over a year after the commencement of her building, when she was named after the 'year of victories', 1759.

I couldn't open the link given by PN, so I hope the comment in today's Times - obtained before the heavy snowfall this afternoon - didn't also appear in that link

I thought this point was of interest:

'With reports emerging over the weekend of the discovery, the Ministry of Defence warned; 'Assuming the wreck is indeed that of a British warship, her remains are sovereign immune . [my emphasis] This means that no intrusive action may be taken without the express consent of the United Kingdom.'

The 100,000 gold coins said to have been on Victory when it sank in the Channel have not yet been found but the salvage company is said to be negotiating with the MOD over collaborating in further exploration.

Anna -

in an isolated house at the end of a three mile farm track in Wales, with all roads blocked, but food, coal and wood in store and the power supply - notoriously unreliable in these parts - still functioning!

Not to mention the internet connection!

I thought it might be an interesting exercise to compare the size of Admiral Balchen's 'Victory' with Nelson's flagship, both of course first rates:

Balchens 'Victory' (1737): Length on gun deck 174' 6"; Beam 50' 6"; Tonnage 1,921; Complement approx. 1,000 (all drowned off the Casquets 1744)

Nelson's 'Victory' (1759): Length on gundeck 186'; Beam 51' 10"; Tonnage 2,162. Complement approx. 820 at Trafalgar 1805.

(Figures from 'Countdown to Victory' by Peter Goodwin.)

In the twenty two years between the construction of the two ships, as would be expected, the size of the later ship has increased although not by a great amount, so to all intents Nelson's 'Victory' was just a little larger. It would seem that the significant difference would be in the crew numbers, a difference of 180. I wonder why such a difference, when Balchen's ship was the smaller of the two? It also shows how undermanned the Victory actually was at Trafalgar and perhaps points to the difficulties in obtaining crew during the later Napoleanic Wars.

For Odyssey's 46 page paper on the wreck, with lots of photos, see here: http://www.shipwreck.net/pdf/OMEPapers2-HMS_Victory.pdf

Definitely essential reading!

More info & photos here: http://www.shipwreck.net/hmsvictoryfaqs.php

It seems the size of the Victory's crew is very uncertain. The complement in the last pay book was 880, but an often quoted figure in accounts of the wreck was 1160.

The full complement of Nelson's Victory was 850, so 820 at Trafalgar was about 30 down.

Many thanks Tony for posting the report, which will take some time to read and digest, happily!

Additionally to my earlier post, the large compliment of Balchen's Victory - of whatever figure - can probably be put down to the number of supernumaries that she was probably carrying. The ship, part of a fleet, was returning from Lisbon and Gibraltar carrying as we know thousands of pounds in gold coins. There would very likely also have been agents and officials who had business with the cargo, plus other naval and army officers and conceivably their wives and families.

This obviously puts the tragedy of the shipwreck in a somewhat different light, but one expects that Odyssey - or whoever else dives on the ship - will treat the wreck and any human remains found with respect.

The actual complement of a 1st rate did not change much - the 1733 and 1741 establishments set the figure at 850. The figure for 1805 was 837.
The actual number of men lost in Balchen's Victory is somewhat obscure - contemporary figures range from 'near 1000' to '1200'.

There's a nice "page-and-a-half" spread in the Daily Mail today (Thursday) if anyone wants to track down a copy.

At the end there is reference to an upcoming T.V. programme.



I don't have the Discovery Channel so I would be interested in feedback on the programme.

MB

Below is a link to the Times of 7 February - sorry for the delay; I am just catching up with the newspapers at home after being snowed up in Wales without newspapers or TV.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 678770.ece

The report mentions 'bronze cannons' whereas a related link in the box alongside the text is headlined 'brass' cannons. Any comments from the experts?

Many people feel uncomfortable about the blatantly commercial nature of these explorations. This ship, presumably, is, or will be declared a war grave with the attendant obligations to show respect to the dead. And yet, these advances in understanding, and the immediate contact with the past are thrilling and moving - perhaps a necessary trade-off has to be made with those with the time, money and entrepreneurial zeal to undertake these complex searches.

I wonder if they might take a lesson from the 'Mary Rose'. One seaman from the wreck was buried in Portsmouth Cathedral with a solemnity and dignity that few who saw it will forget. The coffin was carried by sailors wearing springs of 'rosemary for remembrance'; the music sung was of the period, and the ship having sunk in pre-Reformation times, every care was taken to ensure that the religious rites and the priests' vestments were authentic. The whole ceremony was as close as possible to what it would have been in the sixteenth century, and very moving it was.

....The report mentions 'bronze cannons' whereas a related link in the box alongside the text is headlined 'brass' cannons. Any comments from the experts?...

They were bronze - i.e. an alloy of copper and tin, not brass (copper and zinc). The best copper was reckoned to be Swedish, the tin from Cornwall.

Many thanks for the clarification, P-N.

Actually, on re-reading the brass cannon link more carefully, I note that the report mentions 'a cargo' of 100 brass cannons. Could these have been separate from the bronze cannons that were part of the ship's armament, referred to in the main link?

There was also the cargo of gold coins that are of such interest to the salvage team.

Was it common for RN ships to carry cargo, particularly something as heavy as 100 brass guns? Was there really much room on a warship, even one of this size, to carry much beyond the men, guns, provisions and equipment necessary for its voyage?

"... I note that the report mentions 'a cargo' of 100 brass cannons. Could these have been separate from the bronze cannons that were part of the ship's armament, referred to in the main link? "

I cannot believe this was extra to her armament; I would suspect that the journalists writing the piece referred to her armament as the 'cargo'. The references to both bronze and brass guns are also confusing. Brass was used in the 16th and 17th centuries in gunfounding as iron was heavier and more liable to defects leading to failure (i.e. guns bursting). By the late 17th century bronze had largely supplanted brass.

However .... according to Adrian Caruana in "English Sea Ordnance", by the 1730s, ships carried an odd mix of iron, bronze and brass guns, from Britain, Holland and Spain, with some dating back to 1616.

He comments that "...it is reasonable to suspect that the armament of the Victory, launched in 1733 and lost in 1744 (allegedly on the Casquets, but probably not, since the area has been thoroughly searched), would be a similar cross section of the history of European brass gunfounding, contained in a single time capsule"

P-N, many thanks for that clarification.

The following letter appears in Today's Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 775531.ece

I have recently finished watching the Discovery Channel DVD, 'Treasure Quest, HMS Victory Special', about the finding and exploration of Balchin's Victory, by Oddysey Marine. It runs for approximately 90 minutes.

Apart from anything else, I believe it shows that Odyssey is not a 'cowboy' operation and have qualified divers, archeologists and historians on their team. Although, naturally, the gold that the Victory was carrying was somewhat of an attraction, the team appear equally interested in the historical and human dimension and this is shown by the painstaking work undertaken in pinpointing and plotting the wreck. Part of the DVD shows a ruse they made to lure any 'eavesdroppers' away from the wreck site, when they went off to investigate another much later wreck, before they return to the actual location. Almost until the end, when they are certain as to the wreck's identity, it is referred to as the 'legend' and throughout they had been in contact with the MOD and an arrangement was reached as to any finds discovered.

The most definite proof that she was the Victory was in the ships bronze 42 pounders guns, one of which was retrieved along with a twenty four pounder. These guns had the arms of George I and ll on them. A heart-stopping moment came when the gun first selected came to be excavated, and disturbed a human skull. The MOD called a halt to the operation and it was only later that another gun was decided on and raised. This is where the DVD ended, but I hope they are going to make another!

Well worth watching!