2007-12-18 09:10:48 · 6 answers · asked by M G 1 in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
Traditionally the Captain was the ultimate servant to the passengers on his ship. Rather strangely the crew were expected to still serve passengers in the event of the ship sinking and put them before themselves. The Captain, being the most responsible officer on board was expected to be the last to leave the ship after ensuring the safety of his passengers. Naturally this would entail him being in the most dangerous position of all, often trying to escape as the ship sank. This was not always possible so he would 'go down with his ship'. Another explanation would be that if the ship sank it would be because of his mismanagement and to die with the ship would ensure a glorious end rather than the ignominy and humiliation of facing a court martial for losing his ship and passengers.
2007-12-18 09:22:53 · answer #1 · answered by quatt47 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
By the way, the captain isn't bound to go down with the ship, he's bound to be the last one off. It's not a matter of a bond. It's a matter of accountability. The captain is responsible for the safety of everyone on the ship, and nothing speaks to that better than a commitment to be the last one off.
2016-03-14 09:18:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/aviea
Back in the seventeenth century when this saying came about, a sea captain was out at sea so much that he would probably not even recognize the members of his actual family. The Crew were his practical family. And if his family were going to perish, then he wouldn't want to survive them. If his crew can be saved, it is because of the Captain's success. If his crew is gong to die, then it is the Captain's fault, and he should die trying to save his crew--they had families, too. Not like the (detached) beyond honor Titanic Captain who just walked away as his ship started to sink. But actually do something...Save your ship and its crew, or die trying!
2016-04-08 06:23:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is a matter of the code of honor and if they dont do it and they survive and the ship doesnt then it is kind of like losing family almost, because the captain puts so much effort into his ship that it is kind of hard just to let it go.
2007-12-18 12:33:45 · answer #4 · answered by saxman 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is a matter of honor.
If the ship is in trouble, the captain is responsible, no matter who did it. He is top dog. No excuse will do.
If one person is hurt and the captain survives, he would feel tremendous shame. The implication is that he escaped and let his ship and men die instead of him staying to the end and ending up with his men..
In the old days, shame was worth dying to prevent living with.
Nowadays, shame is on sale everywhere.
2007-12-18 09:22:35 · answer #5 · answered by Lottie W 6 · 14⤊ 0⤋
Because sometimes a Captain puts so much into a ship, that he doesn't want to let it go. Lol that's what I thought of.
2007-12-18 09:18:13 · answer #6 · answered by setter #3 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think I because it the captain responbible
2015-05-10 13:44:35 · answer #7 · answered by Brenda 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋