- Author
- Lancaster, John
- Subjects
- Ship design and development, History - pre-Federation
- Tags
-
- RAN Ships
- None noted.
- Publication
- March 1996 edition of the Naval Historical Review (all rights reserved)
The Master eventually became the foundation stone of a newly formed specialist Navigation Branch of the Navy (‘Professional Wreckers’, as they were affectionately nicknamed) and also became one of the pillars of the Hydrographic Branch (‘Professional Explorers’!) when that was formed.
In the Mercantile Marine, ‘Master’ happily has never been allowed to die out and to this day the Captains of merchant ships are their Masters. In the Fremantle Division of the Guides alone, we have 7 of them with one of our Guides married to another.
It has been necessary to explain this social structure before moving on, otherwise confusion may rage.
The effect in the 17-18th centuries, before the kingdoms of Scotland and England were united, was that there were two large and separate merchant fleets together with two separate Navies. The latter were largely bolstered by merchant ships pressed into the service of their respective sovereigns when the need to do battle with the French, Dutch, Spanish and other passers-by arose.
Not to confuse the issue, but pertinent to this part of the paper is the union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England in the 17th century, to form the United Kingdom. This eventually brought the navies and merchant navies of both countries under the same ensign, namely the red ensign, with the James Union (Union Jack) in the (top left hand) canton. This is the ensign flown today by ENDEAVOUR when in the Museum role, alongside.
So much for the two families of ships, ‘Merchant’ and ‘War’ and who commanded them. Now for the classification or categorisation of the ships themselves and the complex terminology, names and words that have come into maritime usage. A large proportion borrowed from other languages, but then that’s what the English language is all about.
Leaving the Mercantile Maritime aside for a spell, we now have arrived at the stage in history where naval vessels were built to meet the specific requirement of destroying one another by cannon fire, and it was found the destruction of the enemy was most effectively achieved if the maximum amount of fire-power available could be focused on the same target at the same time.
This was achieved by forming ships into squadrons collectively commanded by senior officers, Commodores or Admirals, and then when going into action, to form columns or lines of battle; hence ‘battleships’ (from ‘line of battle Ships’). Gaining the ‘weather’ or windward position, in order to bear down on the enemy and maintain the initiative was an all important tactic which required a high degree of collective control, manoeuvrability and communications, another important reason to fight in lines, or columns.
To explore the organisation a little further, a battle fleet, although not termed as such, usually comprised three squadrons of front line ships, each squadron being known by one of three colours, with each ship flying the coloured ensign of their squadron; hence the red, white and blue ensigns, red being the senior squadron (and colour) and the Admiral commanding the red squadron being the Fleet Commander. In support were the store ships and similar non combatant vessels.
Line of Battle ships, or Ships of the Line, were built to accept a lot of damage from enemy gunfire, consequently they were large, to very large, heavy vessels which paid a penalty in speed. To identify ships of the Navy they were either allocated a ‘Rating’ from 1 to 6 or ‘Classified.’ Large Frigates and above were rated from 1 to 4 and classed as Ships of the Line, but the smaller ‘flash’, or fast Frigates and Sloops, although classed as 5th and 6th rates, were not employed in the line of battle. They were the scouting, reconnaissance and signal repeating ships and to be fast were lightly timbered and relatively undergunned. They were therefore unsuitable for the line of battle.
As an example, one of the better known wooden walls was Nelson’s flagship at Trafalgar which was identified as: ‘VICTORY, 1st Rate, 104 (guns)’ – she could fire 30 tons of shot from the guns on one side alone, in one hour.
The fighting ships of the navy were therefore identifiable through a relatively straightforward system. The problem arose with ships purchased into the navy or built for the navy, for employment in support of the fleet and other operations. These included barks, brigs, sloops, cutters, buss’s (two masted fishing vessels armed as warships for inshore operations), ketches – required for duties as Bombs [colloquial] (Mortar firing vessels), Fireships, Powder or Ammunition Ships, Stores Ships, Hospital Ships, Exploration Ships (ENDEAVOUR, bark 366 tons, RESOLUTION sloop 462 tons, ADVENTURE bark 366 tons and DISCOVERY bark 298 tons), Troop Transports, Horse Transports and many more.
Practically all the ‘rated’ ships were ‘ship’ rigged, that is to say they were square rigged on all three masts. Because the word ‘ship’ was used in the context of describing a ship’s rig, rather than its function, the word in the Georgian navy had a far more restricted meaning and limited use than it does today.
In the 19th century as rigs became more diversified the vocabulary was enlarged to accommodate and describe them. Some, but not all, of those words also described a ships function and this is where we finally come to ‘bark’ and ‘barque’.
Both words have their roots in the Latin ‘barca’ meaning, broadly, ‘boat’. Barca still survives in the Italian language today and for example is to be found in ‘barcarolle’ – a gondolier’s song.
Barca found its way into the middle European languages where in the Dutch it popped up as ‘bark’ and was used to classify a mid sized cargo vessel, but note – not its rig. The French, who can’t handle ‘ca’ as well as they can phonetically manage ‘que’, altered barca to suit their own means, which was to describe the rig of a three masted ship which set square sails on the fore and main but a fore and aft sail on the mizzen. A three masted version setting squares only on the foremast was (and still is) named a barquentine. To really make things difficult and perhaps this is where all the confusion comes from, the Americans when using barque and barquentine to describe ships rigs, use a K in place of the QUE!
So bark came into the English language from the low countries to describe a stubby cargo vessel which happened to have three masts. The word therefore describes the type of ship, not its rig.
When is a CAT not a BARK? Now that’s another story. The reader who has lasted the distance will have realised that once more the biter has bitten. BARCA may be Latin for Boat, whereas both BARKS and BARQUES are most definitely ships!
John Lancaster (A.K.A. “Captain Mannering”)