Ratings of ships ?

[oderlesseye]

I am still readin "Under the Black Flag" / I'm a slow reader.. Anyways I came across the term 5th rate ship, 3rd rate, ect. I don't understand the classification. I suppose size is one but which is bigger and so on. are there any other distictions like weight ?

[Dorian Lasseter]

Off th' top o' me head...

The 1st through 6th rate system changes through the years, as ships got bigger...

A 1st rate is a ship-of-the-line, meaning the biggest battleship of the navy...

A 6th rate would be the smallest rated ship of the navy, however their are also smaller, unrated ships... so a 6th rate might be a ship rigged sloop/sloop of war...

This rating system for British ships first appeared in 1626 by order of King Charles I...

Not being at home where my library awaits, I can only give you this vague bit...

Hope it helps...

I just found this, but it gives no date as to when this list is from, I assume the 1800 because of the sizes of the ships...

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.17841

[capnwilliam]

It has to do primarily - or at least, the simplest way to conceptualize it is via - the number of great guns (cannon) carried aboard.

A first-rate carried 100 or more guns; a second-rate, between 90 - 98; a third-rate, 64 - 80; a fourth rate, 50 - 60; a fifth rate, 32 - 48; and a sixth rate, 20 - 32. The size of the vessel and crew, of course, varied correspondingly.

This is from John B. Hattendorf's essay, "The Royal Navy During the War of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic War", which appeared in A SEA OF WORDS, by Dean King.

Capt. William

[Fox]

Darn it, not at home to check details but...

At least one document I've seen from the GAoP era lists the primary 6 rates, much as described here, but also includes two further classifications which, IIRC, were "Sloops and large yachts" and "small yachts" for those vessels too small to be otherwise rated.

[oderlesseye]

-According to the link Dorian Lasseter provided.

Unlike the First Rates, which were too valuable to risk in distant stations, the Second Rates often served overseas as flagships. They had a reputation for poor handling and slow sailing.

One wonders why build a ship "too valuable to loose" YE EYEs would build ship to fight not scare...

Foxe : Eyes await to see what ya find..

[Fox]

I suspect that the real reason for not sending first rates to foreign stations was that their principal job was the defence of the home nation. Although they could make long journeys this is not what they were designed for, and generally there weren't enough of them to send off to the four corners of the globe. The enemy's most powerful fleet will be at home, so to counter any threat of invasion you have to keep your own most powerful forces at home. The early first rate ships were kind of the first deterrent weapons. The Sovereign of the Seas was the first true three-decker, and remained the largest ship in the world (by quite some way) for decades. She wasn't often taken out of her mothballs, but she scared the s*** out of the enemy admirals when she was.

The earliest record I know of which deals with the rating of ships is the minutes of a meeting of the Privy Council, Whitehall, Sept 4, 1626:

This day the Lord Admiral presented to the Board a proposition and list in haec verba-a proposition for the proportioning of His Majesty's gracious allowance to mariners and seamen employed in his Highness's service by increasing the medium from fourteen shillings to twenty shillings per mensem, wherein the number and quality of the officers are respectively considered according to the burden and countenance of the ships, viz.

1 rank -  400-500 men

2 rank - 250-300

3 rank - 160-200

4 rank - 100-120

5 rank - 60-80

6 rank - 40-50

This clearly leaves gaps in the system, such as whether a ship with 140 men qualified as a 3rd of 4th rate ship, for example. I can find no record of this being rectified until the 1650s, but it does not seem to have caused any practical problems. The fleet survey of the Royal Navy made in 1642 by William Batten gives a good idea of the number and size of the different rates then in service.

1st rate: 3 ships, 40-90 guns, 350-600 men

2nd rate: 13 ships, 38-48 guns, 240-300 men

3rd rate: 10 ships, 30-40 guns, 140-200 men

4th rate: 3 ships, 14-25 guns, 100-110 men

5th rate: 2 ships, 14 guns, 60 men (two other non-effective ships belonged to this rate)

6th rate: 4 ships, 6-12 guns, 25-50 men

A letter from the Navy COmmissioners to the Admiralty Committee dated January 20th 1652/3 yet again redefines the rates:

Right Honourable,

We have considered how to distinguish the State's ships into ranks and are of the opinion that the respective numbers of men set under each rate, and so upwards to the ranks next before should be settles, and so all officers receive their pay accordingly, viz.:

1st rank - 400 Men and upwards

2nd - 300 Men

3rd - 200 Men

4th - 140 Men

5th - 80 Men

6th - 40 Men

And for all small vessels under forty men to be without rates, and to be paid as the service shall deserve, which, if  your Lordships approve of, we pray your direction for our government therein.

As this document makes clear, the principal reason for dividing the fleet into rates was to ascertain how much the officers of each ship should be paid, and therein lies the crux of the problem. Ships were not rated for any other reason (though the rates of ships mentioned in documents are a good pointer for researchers), so there is often confusion. For example, in the 1642 survey the Merhonour of 40 guns was placed in the first rate, while the Lion of 40 guns was considered a third rate, and in fact 12 of the 13 second rate ships had 40 guns or more. In terms of tonnage however the Merhonour was considerably largr than the Lion, and had a larger crew, hence the higher rate of pay for her captain. (Presumably the Merhonour also carried significantly larger guns). The practice of rating ships for their own sake probably did not become common until the second half of the 18th century, and thus it was not standardised until that time.

The scale of pay drawn up in 1686 includes provisions made for the 1st-6th rates, and also "Large yachts" and "Small yachts and sloops" (a correction of my earlier post). By the time the pay scale was revised in 1700 these distinctions were reduced to 1st-5th rates plus "6th rates and smaller".

Some idea of the number of men on ships at this time can be gleaned from Sir William Coventry's "A proposal for reducing the Charge of the Navy..." (1667), in which Coventry sets forth suggested numbers of ships from each rate to be included in the following year's Summer Guard:

Of the 2nd rate,      1,      bearing 280 men.

          3rd rate,      2,                    400

          4th rate,      5,                    625

          5th rate,      9,                    720

          6th rate,      7,                    245

By the time of Pepys's "The solemn, universal, and unalterable adjustment of the gunning and manning of the whole fleet" (1677) the rates of ships seem to have changed somewhat as more large ships had been built during the Commonwealth and early Restoration periods. The largest and smallest ships of each rate are listed in the document, together with the number of guns:

1st rate: largest, Sovereign (100 guns), smallest, St. Michael (80)

2nd rate: Royal Katherine (84), Rainbow (54)

3rd rate: Edgar (72), Dunkirk (52)

4th rate: Leopard (54), Nonsuch (36)

5th rate: Sapphire (32), Rose (26)

6th rate: Lark (18), Young Spragge (10)

This document is perhaps the first proper attempt to classify the ships into rates for purposes other than pay (though pay was still a large determining factor). The rates set down by Pepys were regularly changed, made lighter in 1703, and subesequently changed in 1706, and 1719. Therefore, although it is a useful guideline the rating of ships during the GAoP was so often changed, and was dependent on so many factors, that it should not be relied on to furnish us with any kind of detail.

Hope that helps.

[oderlesseye]

THat took me a few minutes to read . I thank you for the exquisite detail of your post. I now have a well rounded understanding of Rating of ships in the day. Thank you.