I know this was an early naval punishment, but under what circumstances was it administered and why wasn’t the transgressor just thrown to the sharks? He’d have the same chance of survival, wouldn’t he?
Thanks
Quasi
I’m afraid to say that Cecil’s description of keelhauling doesn’t entirely encompass the whole ordeal. The VOC (Dutch East Indies Company) pioneered new and innovative ways in the early 17th century. The victim would be put in a barrel like contraption, and then keelhauled (thus preventing the almost always fatal brutal clash onto the barnacles). The primary terror of keelhauling comes from the fact that less than 10% of people could actually swim back then. Must’ve been pretty frightening, but the VOC utilized it primarily for punishing mutineers.
Ah, the days of rum, sodomy and the lash.
Another version here
What percentage of people can swim now?
I would’ve guessed that more people could swim in the past.
I also would’ve guessed that the sort of people who go to sea would be more likely to know how to swim than the average population.
(I can’t swim.)
Apparently not. Throwing people overboard was tantamount to murder- even if there was land a hundred feet away, it was likely the person would drown nonetheless.
Sailors often purposely remained ignorant of the fine art of swimming.
If you fell overboard when no one was looking, you were almost certainly a gonner, so why suffer treading water for days?
Just drown and get it over with.
>> Sailors often purposely remained ignorant of the fine art of swimming.
Cite?
>> If you fell overboard when no one was looking, you were almost certainly a gonner, so why suffer treading water for days?
Just drown and get it over with.
If you fell overboard when no one was looking and it was in the middle of the ocean you were unlikely to survive. OTOH, if you fell in the port, or if someone saw you fall overboard your chances were greatly improved if you could swim.
Many sailors could not swim just because at the time they did not stress safety like we do today and they accepted much more risk than we would. But to say they “purposely remained ignorant” is something I will not accept unless you can provide some evidence to support it.
THat sounds fishy to me too. I think most people could naturally swim and I would think most man overboard accidents would happen at port since they will be people transfering ship to hore (I ment shore but after reviewing it I thought it was also appropiate) and taking cargo.
People naturally float. They do not naturally swim, and if you fall and in the water and don’t know how, you panic, start swallowing water, and drown.
In some history texts I read long ago, there were several mentions about sailors preferring a quick drowning rather than prolonging it, mainly because of a general fear of the sea and what was in it. They also talked about that if a sailor could swim, he was considered to be a very unlucky member of the crew because to know how to swim meant a belief that the ship could possibly sink. Keeping mind too that one of the ways of proving witchcraft was to see if a witch floated or a non-witch sank if tossed into water, there wasn’t too much incentive for people in them days to learn how to swim. Old day sailors being perhaps the most superstitious lot on the earth, I don’t discount too many things I’ve ever read about ships and sailors.
And if you floated and lived, they killed you for being a witch.
Especially if you weighed less than a duck.