How did Jack Aubrey do that?

Twister_Ken

Twister_Ken

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 May 2001
Messages
27,584
Location
'ang on a mo, I'll just take some bearings
Visit site
Just re-reading some of the Patrick O'Brian stuff. Aubrey seems quite fond of racing to the mast head with his telescope to have a good look at the opposition. Or sending a midshipman aloft with his best glass for the same purpose. Is this sort of behaviour a figment of Mr O'Brian's excellent imagination? Even with a pair of modern binoculars from deck level it's difficult to hold the image of a distant vessel steady in any sort of a seaway. At the top of a mast with a telescope, penduluming through a girt big arc, it must have been nigh on impossible.

Subsidiary question. What sort of magnification factor did 19th century ships' telescopes have?

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>
 
Interesting point. I seem to recall both Horatio Hornblower and Richard Bolitho being similarly keen on the view from the top of the mast. One possible thought is that the motion of a Ship of the Line would be more measured and predictable than - f'rinstance - a Twister* in a seaway and therefore that it might be possible to hold an image more or less steady.

Another possible explanation is that it's a bit of literary license but I don't see Messrs O'Brian, Forester or Kent as being the kind to take such a liberty.

Interested to see what others think.


*and both p'raps more predictable than a Benjanbavateria (runs for cover)

<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
 
Practice

You and I would need ten pairs of arms and legs just to hang on for our lives up there, let alone to hold a telescope. But I think Jack Aubrey and his chums were brought up to it and from birth could hang on to a swaying spar by their toenails whilst steadycamming a telescope.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
What sort of magnification factor did 19th century ships' telescopes have? >>
As much as you want. They were hand ground lenses. The problem is 'how much light would pass through them' and the answer is not a lot. That's how come rare earth lenses were developed late in the 19th century.
As for crows nests, my father had been in one on a steamer in the 2nd world war, though of course it wouldn't have been so wobbly. Like you I think scanning with a telescope in a gyrating crows nest would be nearly impossible. Surely the reason to go up there would be to see beyond the horizon, in which case you would just send a young chap with no telescope but v good eyesight.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Surely you know Ken. Jack can do anything he wants!

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://hometown.aol.co.uk/geoffwestgarth/myhomepage/travelwriting.html>Click for website!</A>
 
According to the sea shanty greenland shores, the mate went aloft with spyglass in his hand to sight whales. Better eyesight in those days. Most of the planets were discovered before good optics were available.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Oneof the early O'Brien books refers to Jack Aubrey having devised some sort of device to counteract or damp the swinging of the telescope with the ship's motion. Can't remember much about it though.

- Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>
 
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://members.aol.com/antqoptics/telpage.html> this </A> suggests that the average power was about 20 times, which seems remarkable.

Anyway, given the importance of the telescope to them in both battle and for navigation, why didn’t they just have them fixed at points around the ship?


<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by FlyingSpud on 28/01/2004 23:08 (server time).</FONT></P>
 
Re: far side of the world ...

well .. in the film .. Capt 'lucky' aubrey (Mr R Crowe) trotted off to the pointy bit or hung one-handed with 'scope in t'other to the lower rigging so hollywood didn't believe he could do it either ....

boats of course had high initial form stability in those days, much like a benny etc, so didn't roll much in light seas so he could have had quite a steady platform on a good day ...

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: far side of the world ...

Horatio Nelson was sea sick every trip! and killed a polar bear single handedly with a shovel.
They were real men in those days! (yea right!)

Rob:o))

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.rejuvanu.com>RejuVanu</A>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top