The “same type of trick”? Hogswallop!
The officers of the Surprise discarded their whaler’s clothes and raised their colours before they fired a shot. That is nothing like that French poltroon’s action…
Sure it’s the same type of trick; ie pretending to be something else to gain a tactical advantage. Discarding their clothese and showing their flags at the last minute doesn’t really change that. Obviously in the case of the French captain there is no equilvalent last-minute gesture possible, at least in the part we see.
Disagree, CyberPundit: flying false colours as a ruse de guerre is accepable practice, but you must drop the disguise and declare yourself before (or almost simultaneous with) opening fire; at least when you come face-to-face with the enemy. The Frenchman’s subterfuge in the face of defeat was completely outside the 19th century code of conduct of a naval officer–French or British. (Which of course, underlines his status as a privateer, and not an officer in the French Navy)
So what about having Pippin at the wheel? It seemed to me they might want someone with a little more heft in that position.
“The Frenchman’s subterfuge in the face of defeat was completely outside the 19th century code of conduct of a naval officer–French or British”
Source for this? I have read otherwise elsewhere; specifically that the captain could legitmately continue the fight so long as he hadn’t surrendered his own sword.
A ship which struck its colours was deemed to have surrendered by order of the executive officer; anyone continuing to offer resistance, or not complying with legitimate orders of captors could be considered a renegade, captain included, whether he had surrendered his cutlery or no.
This is one reason that so many warships went into action with multiple national colours fixed to several locations on the ship (and we have the phrase “nailing one’s colours to the mast”); they tended to get shot away in battle, or fall overboard when a mast went by the board (but the ship was still capable of fighting).
I’m at work and have no direct cite to give, but based on many years of study of 19th century British military history, I can state my opinion with some confidence that anyone who gave his surrender, or parole, or otherwise his word as a gentleman, then broke it would face universal opprobrium–for breaking his word, as well as the “unwritten law of the sea.” This would have been the opinion of any French naval officer, as well as British.
OK but here is someone who directly contradicts what you say:
It’s about half-way down the page by mpalotay:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0311113/board/flat/4261029
“Ah, but the French captain didn’t give Aubrey his sword; he gave Aubrey the sword of an anonymous dead sailor, while posing as the ship’s doctor. It might seem like a minor difference, but it’s not. If the captain had given up his actual sword, as captain, then he’d be honor-bound not to retake the ship. As it is, he’s still at war with Aubrey, and thus anything goes.”
Since you don't provide cites I have no way of telling who is correct. However there is nothing in the film to suggest that Aubrey is disgusted at the French captain's trick. If anything he seems amused by the situation. This seems to suggest that the tactic is legitimate.I read your IMDB link, and I still do not agree.
No, Cyberpundit, the handing over of any sword by the French captain, whether it was actually his property or not, would betoken the formal surrender of the ship, and his personal word that hostilities between the two crews had ceased. The passing of a sword–any sword–in the circumstances is a symbolic understanding that the state of affairs has changed; no gentleman of the period would ever have considered his word of honour worth a betrayal in such a manner by a poor thin damned lawyer’s quibble such as “it wasn’t my sword” (which wouldn’t hold up in any subsequent investigation, anyway); he would be immediately labelled a “scrub,” or as DrFidelius so aptly put it, a poltroon.
To bring an enemy within battle range by certain subterfuges–including disguise (but not, for example, misusing distress signals)–is perfectly legitimate, as long as you “show your true colours” when battle commences. However, to lie outright, to dissemble, to connive in such a manner to save your own skin by denying your identity following a fair fight (in which a smaller, lesser-gunned opponent beat you outright) is downright shameful. Jack Aubrey could not, would not have any admiration for such a man as this.
It may not have made this explicitly clear in the film: I saw it on opening night, and perhaps will have to go back and see it again! Let’s hope for a sequel to tie up the loose ends…
OK, like I said it’s your claim versus that other guy’s and I have no way of telling who is right. Regardless of naval conventions of the time, in the movie there is no sign that Aubrey is disgusted with the French captain; instead he appears amused by the situation.
Anyway a wonderful film and I hope it gets an BP Oscar nomination and manages to make some money. The big studios really deserve some credit putting so much money into a film like this and giving it someone like Weir.
Rodd Hill: which novel(s) have them captured and taken to Boston and on the winning British ship in the frigate battle?
“One Flew Over the Aubrey’s Nest,” AKA “The Fortune of War,” and “The Surgeon’s Mate.” Two of my favourites; it’s a shame that they shied away from US-UK conflict (although I understand the reasons) for this film; I actually suspect that a good Shannon-Chesapeake (or a Constitution-Guerriere) battle would have brought a lot more non-O’Brien movie fans in, just for the notoriety engendered.
"They were all equipped with the Captain’s simple, ingenious, robust brass sights and with flint-locks. Jack preferred the old slow-match to any lock, "
-The Fortune of War
So maybe I am projecting; I am appalled at the French craven’s action and I presumed that Jack would feel likewise.
Touche, carniverousplant! It’s been too long since I re-read Fortune…I wonder where the last copy I bought is…I keep loaning them out and not getting them back.
I think Jack does grow as the novels progress, and is less reluctant to embrace new ideas, Tory though he may be. But you have put your finger on the peccant quote without doubt.
DrF, I don’t think you’re projecting; although I have only seen the film once, I took the look on Aubrey’s (Crowe’s) face at the end to be one more of anger at being done brown (mixed with concern for Pullings and the prize-crew) than one of amusement or admiration…
Dammit, I thought it was because they were cur-tailed.
Dog Watch is the name given to the 1600-1800 and the 1800-2000 watches aboard a ship. The 1600-2000 four-hour watch was originally split even to prevent men from always having to stand the same watches daily. As a result, Sailors dodge the same daily routine, hence they are dodging the watch or standing the dodge watch. In its corrupted form, dodge became dog and the procedure is referred as “dogging the watch” or standing the “dog watch.”
Searching for the surrener question; it seems that Cornwallis gave his sword to a proxy to surrender to Washington.