Disagreements on nautical terms

[Daniel]

In this thread I found myself falling afoul of our good Capn Enigma, who protested my use of nautical terms.

First, we disagree about the use of the words "ship" and "boat," when I described the beurtschip as a "cargo boat."

Now, frankly, I never heard of a beurtschip before that thread. But Gentleman of Fortune gave us a picture of one, and from what I see, that is no ship, because it only has one mast. I don't know what to call that spar holding up the weather clew of the sail, but it clearly can't support the sail by itself, so it's not a mast.

A ship, in the 17th, 18th cand early 19th centuries, was a vessel of three or more masts, square-rigged on all masts. Falconer, for example, says that a ship is properly a "vessel furnished with three masts, each of which is composed of a lower mast, top-mast, and top-gallant-mast, with the usual machinery thereto belonging. " Lauchlan McKay's Practical Shipbuilder from 1839 defines a ship as a "three-masted vessel," which would include barques and barquentines, but still would not include our beurtschip.

Is the beurtschip a boat? I think so. Darcy Lever's A Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor defines boats simply as "small vessels." Falconer says a boat is "a small open vessel, conducted on the water by rowing or sailing." Only Brindley's Naval Architecture would exclude the beurtschip from being a boat.

Capn Enigma and I also clashed on the word "sailor." It went like this.

Capn Enigma: "You did not seriously consider that those kind of boots were worn by a sailor (the guys working in the rigging) for one second, right? "

Daniel: "Certainly I did. Not every sailor is a topman; there are fo'csle hands, waisters, afterguard, and officers too. "

Capn Enigma: "Those are in ascending rank order servants, NCOs, warrant officers and officers. They are emphatically not sailors. "

I have always used "sailor," "seaman" and "mariner" interchangeably, as a general word for the guys who are attached to the ship and know how to work it. Maybe I was wrong about that. But what Capn Enigma has said can't be right.

Starting with Harland, Seamanship in the Age of Sail, chapter 6, this is what we find about waisters. "'[W]aisters' were 'green hands and worn seamen, employed as sweepers and cleaners.'" There's no way these green hands could be "NCOs" as Capn Enigma has it. Furthermore, NCO is an exclusively military rank, so that would suggest there could never be waisters on merchant ships.

Harland further notes that the afterguard is the "men who are stationed on the quarterdeck and poop, to work the after sails. It was generally composed of ordinary seamen and landsmen, constituting with the waisters the largest part of the crew, on whom the principal drudgery of the ship devolved." Again, these were ordinary seamen and even landsmen, not "warrant officers" as Capn Enigma has it.

I can find no warrant for the idea that fo'csle hands, waisters, and other guys who spend most of their time down on deck heaving braces, tacks and sheets aren't sailors. As described in Harland, most of them are "seamen." Falconer's entry on "seaman" uses the term interchangeably with "sailor." "SEAMAN, (homme de mer, Fr.) a mariner or person trained in the exercise of fixing the machinery of a ship, and applying it to the purposes of navigation. The principal articles required in a common sailor to intitle him to the full wages, are, that he can steer, found, and manage the sails, by extending, reefing, and furling them, as occasion requires. When he is expert at these exercises, his skill in all other matters relative to his employment is taken for granted. "

So to sum up, foc'sle hands, waisters, and afterguard were usually seamen, and seamen were sailors. Over to you, Capn.

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

Here's my 2pens...

I was in the U.S. Navy as a Hull Maintenence Technician, which included welding, carpentry, sheetmetal, pipefitting, shipfitting, damage control and firefighting training for us and we were ressponsible for training all other MOS's in DC and Firefighting in addition to our other duties.

I never sailed a craft or handled any rigging other than the mechanical booms and winches that were part of our jobs. I did have to go aloft to make repairs at times.

I was a SAILOR, and anyone who says different can swab my deck!

Capt. Bo

[Capn_Enigma]

"A boat can fit on a ship, but a ship can't fit on a boat"

From Wikipedia, Sailor:

A sailor is also specifically an enlisted member of a naval force.

@ Capt co.: We are talking 17th, 18th century here. Sailors like welders were exceedingly hard to find back then. Coming to think of it, so are masts, today.

BTW: I was a member of the merchant navy.

[Fox]

In 17/18thC parlance a seaman or mariner could be anyone who was involved in the working of a vessel (as opposed to, say, marines or supercargoes who spent time at sea but whose function was not primarily the working of the vessel). Even masters and captains often described themelves as "mariner".

Waisters were certainly seamen - perhaps not very good ones, but undoubtedly seamen. As well as the swabbing and whatnot they were also the guys who hauled on lines and suchlike from the deck.

Daniel, the spar you couldn't identify is called a "sprit", the vessel is "sprit-rigged" and confusingly the sail is a "sprit-sail". The connection at the bottom end of the sprit to the mast is called the "snotter"

[Daniel]

"A boat can fit on a ship, but a ship can't fit on a boat"

Well, so you say, but on what basis? Did somebody in period say that?

One thing that I believe qualifies the beurtschip as a boat is that it appears to be open. I don't see any portholes or any other sign of a lower deck. But even if it isn't, it still can't be a ship, in 1625, without three masts.

From Wikipedia, Sailor:

A sailor is also specifically an enlisted member of a naval force.

I'll agree with Wikipedia that that is one meaning of "sailor." But that would in no way disqualify waisters, foc'slemen or afterguard, all of whom could be found enlisted in the Navy and serving in those roles on Navy ships.

[Capn_Enigma]

One thing that I believe qualifies the beurtschip as a boat is that it appears to be open.  I don't see any portholes or any other sign of a lower deck.

Then I suggest that you take a good look at these pictures of the Beurtschip "B71" at the Bataviawerf:

There are several decks.

You wrote: "One thing that I believe qualifies..." Well, belief certainly doesn't qualify for fact.

We've had so many beliefs and opinions here that it'd take a cutlass to hack through them and get to the bottom of things.

But even if it isn't, it still can't be a ship, in 1625, without three masts.

This is so silly that I will not even respond to it.

You believe what you want, leave the knowledge to others.

[Fox]

I don't believe that a boat needs to be open. Yachts, for example, are invariably described as boats rather than ships and yet they have two decks.

Dictionary.com, for example, befines boat thus:

Boat: n.

1: a. A relatively small, usually open craft of a size that might be carried aboard a ship.

b. An inland vessel of any size.

c. A ship or submarine

and ship thus:

ship: n.

1: a. A vessel of considerable size for deep-water navigation.

b. A sailing vessel having three or more square-rigged masts.

According to the definitions then a buertschip qualifies as a boat, but not a ship.

Here's an idea Enigma, instead of being rude and personal (yet again...) you could explain why you think Daniel's reasonable thought about ships being three-masted in 1625 is so silly - actually he has a point.

[Daniel]

You wrote: "One thing that I believe qualifies..." Well, belief certainly doesn't qualify for fact.

We've had so many beliefs and opinions here that it'd take a cutlass to hack through them and get to the bottom of things.

But even if it isn't, it still can't be a ship, in 1625, without three masts.

This is so silly that I will not even respond to it.

You believe what you want, leave the knowledge to others.

I hadn't see those pictures of the beurtschip you found. You're right, it does have lower decks on it, which would disqualify it from being a boat under Falconer, though maybe not by the sources Foxe quoted.

It is true that belief does not qualify as fact. Since, in regard to sailors and ships, all you have done is state your belief, it indeed does not qualify as fact. I, on the other hand, have provided sources as close to the period as I can find, that so far stand unrefuted.

I will add that of course I would not apply the period definition of a ship to modern ships. But we are talking about a period vessel here.