GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1997-07 > 0869702726


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Died at sea in 1120 ?
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 14:05:26 -1000


D DeFrank wrote:

<snip>

> The presence of livestock, sides of beef, or cooking facilities on
> board those ships are not mentioned at all by chroniclers.

This negative "proof" you offer up is not worth a tinker's dam. Cooking
facilities are rather mundane matters and would not necessarily be noted
by chroniclers. You have stated that the White Ship was "large" ---- it
reputedly was carrying 300 passengers. In the event of adverse sea or
wind conditions, this voyage and *future planned LONGER ones* would
encompass more than 24 hours --- at the minimum. It would be most
foolish, and therefore unseamanlike, not to have made some provision for
cooking onboard.

Ships' Galleys [Kitchens] were, in 1120, and still are, in 1997 ---
noisy, hot, often chaotic and smelly, certainly unpleasant and quite
frequently dangerous --- Chroniclers [scribblers of the day] would not
know much about their inner workings. How many folks today have even
the least glimmer of what goes on in the kitchens of even their favorite
restaurants?
>
> >Here again, you make the same mistake as to why a butcher might well be
> >aboard --- *to serve the nobles.* You weren't really a career sea-going
> >--- Officer of the Deck type, line naval officer, on a combatant ship,
> >were you? Why do you pretend to be one?
>
> I have never "pretended" to be one. I was, in fact commissioned as an
> unrestricted line officer, and retired as an engineering duty officer.

YOU raised the issue of your credibility by saying you were a "retired
naval officer" and employed it as an authority rattle. It turns out you
were an EDO --- you don't tell us about any specific sea-going
experience, ergo, your authority rattle has exploded in your face. Had
I not challenged you, you might well have gotten away with what was
certainly a very misleading statement ---- designed to impress your
audience.

I doubt that you would have passed muster as a commissioned officer in
the Nuclear Power program when Admiral Hyman G. Rickover was calling the
shots. Perhaps you worked only with high-pressure steam [certainly
dangerous enough] systems rather than with Nuclear Reactors. Given your
deficit of sound reasoning skills --- I doubt you would have made the
cut --- and survived the famous "Rickover Treatment". If you did ----
that is a frightening proposition.

<snip>

> However, the general sea conditions--provided on YOUR request, I may
> add ... <snip>

I did not ask for "the general sea conditions" ---- the only relevant
sea conditions are those prevailing in waters in close proximity to
Blanche Nef and along her projected track, on 25 Nov 1120 --- or another
probable date for the voyage.

<snip>

> Why does it get up your nose when the _only_ statement of cause I've
> made is that I do not believe the captain of the Blanche Nef would
> have permitted himself and his men to get drunk? I say that based on
> my disbelief in the credibility of the witness, and on my belief that
> a man who had so much on the line, who had built his ship out of his
> own resources, who wanted to have as his fief the honor of providing
> the king's ship, and who had been entrusted with the king's heir and
> treasure would have not taken that opportunity and responsibility
> lightly.

Your **NORMATIVE* belief of what the man who built the ship, *SHOULD*
have considered and how careful he *SHOULD* have been given the
circumstances, as you construe them, is not relevant here and carrys
absolutely *NO WEIGHT*. You totally ignore the very real possibility
that he was simply overruled by William, or one of his nobles ---- and
told to stick to his knitting.

This has frequently been the case in infamous maritime disasters.
Surely you recall the famous case of J. Bruce Ismay, on "Titanic" -----
and his stuffing "Baltic's" ice-warning into his pocket. Captain Smith
had a tough row to hoe with the Chairman and Managing Director of the
White Star Line in "Titanic" --- for her maiden voyage. Ismay is
alleged to have pressed Captain Smith for a rapid crossing, even in the
face of significant danger to the ship ---- which proved fatal to
Titanic and Smith, but not to Ismay, who exited stage left in one of the
too few lifeboats that he himself had provided. His reputation was
destroyed, however.

<snip>

> <snip> I can only conclude my overall acquaintance has been with a higher
calibre of individuals.

Again, this is a totally irrelevant non-sequitur. What you know about
engineering personnel in the United States Navy in the late 20th Century
---- has absolutly no bearing on the sobriety and seamanship of 12th
Century sailing masters and crews ---- on Blanche Nef and other
vessels. Surely you understand that basic truth. If you don't, it is
even more frightening to contemplate you at the control panels of a
Nuclear Reactor or even a High Pressure Steam Plant.

<snip>
>
>
> I can't claim credit for being the first person to doubt the account
> of the sole survivor. Ken Follett beat me to, in "Pillars of the
> Earth". Sharon Kay Penman apparently had such difficulty with _why_
> the butcher was on board that she felt she had to concoct a tale to
> explain his presence. (A young butcher lad has been robbed while
> trying to retrieve his brother from England before their father dies,
> and Stephen takes pity on him and installs him on the ship.)

????? Ken Follett is an accomplished writer of mystery novels and
historical fiction. He does good work and is quite entertaining. How
did you manage to elevate him into the sphere of respected Medieval
Historian???

> >Show us the Evidence.
>
> If you have evidence which controverts my position, I invite you to do
> the same.

The burden of proof is clearly on you to prove the "DeFrank Hypothesis"
I have no obligation to swat down every half-baked, wild-eyed theory
that comes down the pike.

Again I say, stop posturing as a "retired naval officer" and shaking
that sword at us. Then you should stop these idle opinings about the
way you think folks *SHOULD* have behaved --- and perhaps *WOULD* have
behaved had they been in YOUR Navy. Third, you should sit down and
compose a thoughtful post [if you are capable of that] delineating
relevant sources and evidence for your theories ----- and the best place
to do that would be in the Medieval History Newsgroup.

> Your offensive manner, sarcasm, and ad-hominem attacks have perverted
> what might have been a lively exchange of ideas and opinion into
> something quite distasteful, which quite simply isn't worth the
> effort. We will simply have to agree to disagree, because you're
> going back in my killfile.
>
> Deborah DeFrank

Well, given your obvious inability to carry the gravamen of your own
argument ---- that is probably the better part of valor --- cut and run
for cover ---- to a safe and protected berth. Isn't the Internet
wonderful? Fraud, deceit and sloppy thinking will sooner or later be
discovered ----- and exposed.

Or, as a former ship captain and experienced U.S. naval officer -----
and good friend of mine ---- once put it, "Skill and Daring Win Out Over
Blind Luck and Superstition Every Time."
--

D. Spencer Hines---"People will not look forward to Posterity who never
look backward to their Ancestors." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Reflections
on the Revolution in France [1790] ["The Good Burke"]

This thread: