Firstly I say 'used to' only because I have not heard of it happening recently although I will happily retract this statement.
I have read a lot of literature about the Naval forces of the world during WW1/2 (both miltary and merchant) and am startled by the unmber of Captains who chose to stay on board a doomed ship, and I was wondering why?
Is it because they felt linked to their vessel, and as such their failure to get the ship safely to port meant they were no longer fit to command (and therefore live)?
Did they only do this when there will still crew/ passengers left on board who couldn't be rescued (If they don't go, neither do I,'), or did it still happen was everyone else was either dead or rescued?
I am intrigued as I find this behaviour very brave and herois, although somewhat pointless- what's the point in losing one more man who could be saved, or of staying with what is, essentially, merely a big (albeit well crafted) lump of steel on it's way to the bottom?
2007-01-26 02:56:29 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I would like to add that I admire such bravery and integrity and in no way wish to cause grievance or offence to anyone with family/ friends who died in such circumstances.
2007-01-26 02:57:29 · update #1
Tradition??
2007-01-26 03:00:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Primary reason is that the Captain is utimately responsible for the safety of the ship. He should never give up on the ship and should be fighting to keep his ship all of the way.
Imperial Japenese Captains went down with thier ship as a method of apologizing to the Emperor, similar to an army officer committing Seppeku. For many other navies, officers may decide that they cannot live with the shame of loosing a ship. Even in the US Navy, a Captain who looses a ship will probably be court martialled.
In British Tradition, Investors would not sue the family/estate of a captain for the loss of a ship....but they would sue a surviving captain.
2007-01-26 03:05:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think your right, the captain feels linked to their ship. When it comes to honor, losing your greatest charge and failing your men, maybe losing your life with the ship will help restore some of their honor. On some level, it may be cowardice (all though I garuntee not for everyone) it may be that its easier to die, then it is to face the aftermath, dealing with grieving families, the gov. etc.
I think mostly it was honor, strike the ship, kill the men, destroy the captains honor. Going down indicates that the Captain cares more about the rest of the crew than he does himself and helps restore the honor.
As to your last paragraph - What would you say to a Captain who jumped ship first, yes he is now saved, but now he is not working to save everyone else. He would be viewed as a coward and a traitor. If he gets off at the last minute, the perception would still be "he could have done more"
2007-01-26 03:04:03 · answer #3 · answered by Adam W 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I believe tradition has it that they were supposed to love the ship as thier lady. A gentleman is not supposed to desert his lady in the need of the hour. Secondly it is difficult to rescue all the men on the ship, when the ship is going down as time shall never be enough and a captain has to see all his men possible to be saved are saved. In such a case he can not desert his people who remain.
2007-01-26 03:08:04 · answer #4 · answered by anilg 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, it started many years ago during at least the age of sail. Most, if not all, seamen... Captains included.. COULD NOT SWIM... so if the ship went down, their choice was to either try to cling to a piece of flotsem or jetsome and hope to be rescued... only to drown eventually... or to just get it over with quickly and drown at the time the ship sank.
In the case of a Captain, there was the added fact that, if he did manage to survive... his career was probably over anyway and... if the Naval Board of Inquirey fround him guilty of negligance or inpropriety, he could be hung...
Dying quickly when the ship went down was considered a more honorable way to go.
2007-01-26 03:07:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A captain in the Royal Navy was always submitted to a Court Martial to ascertain the facts of the loss of a vessel. In today's terms, losing a ship in that time was like losing a nuclear weapon.
Building a ship took years, and equipment and stores for that ship was worth billions of today's dollars. For a captain to face a court martial, usually comprised of an admiral and two or more post captains, getting grilled as to his personal decisions may have been too much to bear. Often they would be disrated, dismissed, jailed, and sometimes executed, depending on their conduct in combat. To have to live with that might have been less preferable to death in battle. At least that way they would be remembered as heroes, not treated as criminals.
2007-01-26 03:04:39 · answer #6 · answered by anon 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The Captain has ultimate responsibility for the ship, its crew and cargo. If he abandoned the ship and it did not sink it could be salvaged and the cargo claimed as salvage, the ships owner would lose out. He was also resonsible for knowing his crew were safely evacuated from the ship. Further back in history, it was suspected the Captain had sold the ship and cargo if the ship was 'lost' and he survived.
2007-01-26 03:06:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Captains are not supposed to go down with their sinking ship, the Maritime Law requires a captain to be the last person to leave the ship, and many times this proved fatal for the captain because by the time everyone was off the ship, it was too late for the captain to leave it. Some captains are so dedicated and attached to their ship that they choose to sink with it.
2007-01-26 03:04:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
It is not a Tradition for a Captain of a ship to go down with it. A captain is known to be the last man of a sinking ship, they don't necessarily have to go down with it. he made certain that everybody was off the ship before he would leave. A captain of a ship is very valuable person to the Admiralty because of the years of training that he has and his knowledge of seafairing. If every Captain went down with his ship in WW2 we wouldnt have had any navy left.
2007-01-26 07:35:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think the tradition was for the captain to be the last person off the ship for which he was responsible. In the case of larger vessels, there was no way to determine everybody was off.
It is called taking responsibiltiy, something the modern CEO is generally quite lacking in.
-Dio
2007-01-26 03:03:10 · answer #10 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Because they went down with the ship, the contents stayed the property of the owners, if he abandoned the ship, the contents would belong to anyone who found them, bit like salvage rites today
2007-01-26 03:02:15 · answer #11 · answered by sunnybums 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋