HMS Victory found by Americans [Archive]

Roadtoad

1st February 2009, 01:43 PM

666

1st February 2009, 01:57 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090201/ap_on_bi_ge/shipwreck_discovery

Very cool.
Ah. That HMS Victory. Not this (http://www.hms-victory.com) HMS Victory.

Gravy

1st February 2009, 03:02 PM

This is very nice. As a fan of the Hornblower and the Aubrey/Maturin novels, I will be following this.Sounds like you're thinking of Nelson's Victory, which this is not. :) Cool find nonetheless.

ETA: what 666 said.

BenBurch

1st February 2009, 03:04 PM

geni

1st February 2009, 03:54 PM

My opinion; When a wreck has been on the bottom longer than anybody has been alive, it ought to belong without encumbrance to anybody who can find it and salve it.

This BS about governments owning something they lost centuries ago makes me ill.

The problem is that history makes it pretty clear that the finders keepers approach to archeological sites tends to result in the destruction of rather a lot of useful material.

Ownership in this case is secondary. The ship is in somebody's teritorial waters (british or french) and as sovereign nations they can put whatever conditions they like on hauling stuff off the bottem.

Jeff Corey

1st February 2009, 04:56 PM

The problem is that history makes it pretty clear that the finders keepers approach to archeological sites tends to result in the destruction of rather a lot of useful material.

Ownership in this case is secondary. The ship is in somebody's teritorial waters (british or french) and as sovereign nations they can put whatever conditions they like on hauling stuff off the bottem.
So is it in French territorial waters, then? Or are there any international waters in the Channel.
"Federal court records filed by Odyssey in Tampa seeking the exclusive salvage rights said the site is 25 to 40 miles from the English coast, outside of its territorial waters."

geni

1st February 2009, 05:14 PM

So is it in French territorial waters, then? Or are there any international waters in the Channel.
"Federal court records filed by Odyssey in Tampa seeking the exclusive salvage rights said the site is 25 to 40 miles from the English coast, outside of its territorial waters."

Well the wreck is a bit over 50 miles of Alderney. A lot of French territorial waters in that area. Still I suspose it could be in international waters if it was somewhere off start point.

Roadtoad

1st February 2009, 05:14 PM

With respect, I disagree with you, Ben, and with others.

First, this is not just a wrecked ship. It is a storied ship of the line of the British Royal Navy. It is a part of naval history, and should be preserved as much as possible. That cannon have already been salvaged, rather than recorded in situ, represents a significant loss. It destroys the chance to for us to learn as much as possible about this wreck, and about other wrecks in the future. Keep in mind that Mel Fisher, in his recovery of the Atocha, was required to record as much as possible in this manner before bringing anything to the surface. This made is possible for us to learn a great deal about the construction of Spanish war vessels, as well as the effects of the ocean on wooden ships and their appurtenant parts. It's helped us to not only preserve such vessels, but to better understand how to date them, and how to interpret what information we gather.

Secondly, this ship, while old, still belongs to Britain. Spain had lost the Atocha and other vessels due to their being within US territorial waters. According to the story, the Victory is within International waters. However, a law on the books in Britain makes it clear that England still holds claim to this ship. For a court in Tampa, FL, to start issuing such declarations seems more than a little arrogant to me.

BenBurch

1st February 2009, 05:47 PM

If the law was; Its YOURS, but only if you let us study it, we would not have the looting we have now.

And not everything is valuable as history once you have measured it and understood it; How many identical gold coins from such a ship do museums need to retain? There is 120 million in gold in that wreck, assuming it was not found and looted long ago, and the interest of France or Britain seems to be entirely that gold.

Well, as far as I am concerned it ceased to be theirs several Monarchs ago.

Roadtoad

1st February 2009, 05:53 PM

We differ in our opinions, then.

I'm not sure the interest on the British side is solely the gold, though I could be wrong on that. I'll read up some more on it.

Have to agree, though, that if the law were as you suggested, it might cut down on the loss of information.

geni

1st February 2009, 06:07 PM

If the law was; Its YOURS, but only if you let us study it, we would not have the looting we have now.

Not so. Studying it can take decades. No company would accept that.

And not everything is valuable as history once you have measured it and understood it; How many identical gold coins from such a ship do museums need to retain?

The damage done to the wreck getting them out is the problem. Most ships from that period were broken up. A few cannons exist in collections not much else that I'm aware of.

There is 120 million in gold in that wreck, assuming it was not found and looted long ago, and the interest of France or Britain seems to be entirely that gold.

Depth means that previous discovery is unlikely.

Well, as far as I am concerned it ceased to be theirs several Monarchs ago.

Common law generaly doesn't place a Statute of limitation on property rights. As far as the law is concernded the ship still belongs to the crown. Given how much radar coverage there is of the channel (mostly there to try and prevent ships hitting each other. Doesn't entirely work) and the size of boat needed to do even basic recovery the UK and french goverments probably have a pretty good idea where the ships are. Both would have little trouble in recovering coin from the wreck before anyone else got a look in if that was what they wanted.

Damien Evans

1st February 2009, 06:14 PM

So is this another HMS Victory?

Because the famous one isn't very hard to find...

geni

1st February 2009, 06:22 PM

So is this another HMS Victory?

Because the famous one isn't very hard to find...

There have been six of the things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victory_(disambiguation)

BenBurch

1st February 2009, 06:26 PM

This is the ship referred to; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victory_(1737)

This is the (later) famous one; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victory

MG1962

1st February 2009, 10:56 PM

So is this another HMS Victory?

Because the famous one isn't very hard to find...

Yes that was my reaction as well

gdnp

1st February 2009, 11:24 PM

Common law generaly doesn't place a Statute of limitation on property rights. As far as the law is concernded the ship still belongs to the crown. Given how much radar coverage there is of the channel (mostly there to try and prevent ships hitting each other. Doesn't entirely work) and the size of boat needed to do even basic recovery the UK and french goverments probably have a pretty good idea where the ships are. Both would have little trouble in recovering coin from the wreck before anyone else got a look in if that was what they wanted.

Is there some sort of universally recognized maritime law that adjudicates these things? Or are the people who found it filing their claim in Florida because US law differs from British law?

It's great for Britain to say that it's theirs under their laws, but if other laws differ it comes down to who has the loot, who has the biggest guns, and who is willing to fight.

Since the story claims that the Victory was carrying coins for merchants, I wonder if the British plan to return them to their owners. ;)

Ove

2nd February 2009, 02:38 AM

As a maritime history nut, this is incredible. I'm glad they've found it.

OTOH, though, I'm freaked that this will now become a treasure hunt, a chase for the gold coins, ignoring the history of this wreck and what it represents to all naval history, and particularly for the British people. And how a Tampa court can okay the salvage of a ship in the English Channel is well beyond me.

They can't :

"Assuming the wreck is indeed that of a British warship, her remains are sovereign immune," he said on condition of anonymity in keeping with government policy. "This means that no intrusive action may be taken without the express consent of the United Kingdom."

You don't just go around salvaging ex. men-o-wars, not even very old ones.

gumboot

2nd February 2009, 02:51 AM

Is there some sort of universally recognized maritime law that adjudicates these things? Or are the people who found it filing their claim in Florida because US law differs from British law?

Yes, it's called Admiralty Law, and it has a long tradition, as does the Law of the Sea. In fact maritime matters were the first ones to fall under the realm of international law.

Under Admiralty Law the owner of a ship retains "interest" in their property, but a salvager is entitled to reward for their efforts (I think it's normally 50% of the cargo's value).

However in the case of historic wrecks, it is accepted that in normal situations the salvager is entitled to most of the value, even though the owner retains "interest".

This situation is three times complicated however. Firstly, the owner in this instance is the British Crown, which is still very much a functioning entity.

Secondly, the wreck itself is of historic importance - archaeological artifacts are specially protected by law.

Lastly, the wreck is a military ship and also the final resting place of military personnel. There are specific international laws that afford special protection to such sites.

TX50

2nd February 2009, 03:06 AM

Sounds like you're thinking of Nelson's Victory, which this is not. :) Cool find nonetheless.

ETA: what 666 said.

I see that the linky in the news item points to the sixth (or fifth, depending
on whether you think the 1664 Vicky was a new ship or not) "Victory",
though.

I've been to see her at Pompey oodles of times. A truly gorgeous thing, she
is. And now that they've got rid of the stupid rule that only ex-navy persons
can be guides then the tours might improve now too! ;)

I hates it when the goddamned lubbers always say "cannons", though.
Cannons were 42 lbers! The proper generic word is "guns".

De_Bunk

2nd February 2009, 03:32 AM

If the US don't give it back..the UK could always declare war...

DB

MG1962

2nd February 2009, 07:16 AM

Lastly, the wreck is a military ship and also the final resting place of military personnel. There are specific international laws that afford special protection to such sites.

I dont know about older wrecks, but WW1 and WW2 wrecks are protected. When the Bismark and Prince Of Wales were dived, very special conditions had to met by the divers before permission was granted. I cant tell you the specific details, but it links to international war graves conventions

MG1962

2nd February 2009, 07:18 AM

I hates it when the goddamned lubbers always say "cannons", though.
Cannons were 42 lbers! The proper generic word is "guns".

LOL - I have the same reaction to people calling ships, boats. I explain the difference.....does no good :(

Roadtoad

2nd February 2009, 09:53 AM

I see that the linky in the news item points to the sixth (or fifth, depending
on whether you think the 1664 Vicky was a new ship or not) "Victory",
though.

I've been to see her at Pompey oodles of times. A truly gorgeous thing, she
is. And now that they've got rid of the stupid rule that only ex-navy persons
can be guides then the tours might improve now too! ;)

I hates it when the goddamned lubbers always say "cannons", though.
Cannons were 42 lbers! The proper generic word is "guns".

Understood. But I was speaking to lubbers.

And as to the difference between cannon and guns, there's other considerations, such as rifling, position, etc.

If the US don't give it back..the UK could always declare war...

DB

You can have it. It's not ours. No matter what Odyssey says.

ArmillarySphere

9th February 2009, 02:56 AM

According to the linked article in the OP (you did read it, right? ;) ), the UK government and the diving company had come to an agreement prior to this find.

TX50

9th February 2009, 04:47 AM

[...]And as to the difference between cannon and guns, there's other considerations, such as rifling, position, etc.

Naval ordnance in those days wasn't rifled. Then, "cannon" referred to 42
or 32 pounder long guns only ("cannon-royals" or "demi-cannon"). It's
likely that the Victory in question actually did have "cannon'" on her lower
gundecks (only), though. "Nelson's" Victory did for a while too before they
were replaced by 32 pounders. A 42 pounder on its carriage is a fearsome
looking monster. I can't imagine serving one of them on a heaving gundeck.

Even the guides on HMS Victory (and of the Vasa in Sweden) were calling
them "cannons" last time I visited (and they should at least know better).
One did make me smile, though when he said "These are the 24 pounder
cannonballs that were used at Trafalgar. These aren't the originals of
course...the French and the Spaniards got all of those" :D

P.J. Denyer

9th February 2009, 05:19 AM

Ah. That HMS Victory. Not this (http://www.hms-victory.com) HMS Victory.

As someone born and raised in Portsmouth that was my reaction too!

geni

9th February 2009, 05:33 AM

According to the linked article in the OP (you did read it, right? ;) ), the UK government and the diving company had come to an agreement prior to this find.

Yup . Problem is Odyssey didn't come to an agreement over the HMS Victory and started messing with it before they had one.

Kestrel

9th February 2009, 09:03 AM

Lastly, the wreck is a military ship and also the final resting place of military personnel. There are specific international laws that afford special protection to such sites.

Actually it's just where their ghosts are hanging out if you believe in such nonsense. Any actual remains of the military personnel were recycled by the sea long ago.

MG1962

9th February 2009, 04:03 PM

Actually it's just where their ghosts are hanging out if you believe in such nonsense. Any actual remains of the military personnel were recycled by the sea long ago.

You would think so, however the remains of at least one crew member have been found

Kestrel

9th February 2009, 05:29 PM

You would think so, however the remains of at least one crew member have been found

Do you have a source for that?

Achán hiNidráne

9th February 2009, 05:34 PM

Whoa! I just picked up a 1/1200 scale miniature of the Victory for wargaming at Little Wars last Saturday.

MG1962

9th February 2009, 06:01 PM

Do you have a source for that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/7866103.stm

Part of a skeleton, including a skull, a wooden rudder, remains of the ship's hull, an iron ballast, two anchors, a copper kettle and rigging have been spotted on the sea bed.

I dont know where you are. But in the US the people who made the discovery have a weekly program on the Discovery Channel. The skeletal remains were featured in last weeks show

Apparently the thinking is, under normal circumstance ships like this break up and the human remains are spread to the four seas. In this instance they think the vessel went down so fast, many were trapped below decks. The discovery was found under the cannon on the sea floor.

Kestrel

9th February 2009, 08:19 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/7866103.stm

Part of a skeleton, including a skull, a wooden rudder, remains of the ship's hull, an iron ballast, two anchors, a copper kettle and rigging have been spotted on the sea bed.

I dont know where you are. But in the US the people who made the discovery have a weekly program on the Discovery Channel. The skeletal remains were featured in last weeks show

Apparently the thinking is, under normal circumstance ships like this break up and the human remains are spread to the four seas. In this instance they think the vessel went down so fast, many were trapped below decks. The discovery was found under the cannon on the sea floor.

Interesting.

Even when the ship doesn't break up, human remains don't last long. Ships sunk in the Pacific during WW2 that went down with hundreds of men have no sign of human remains. The same is true of the Titanic. Ocean life forms do a great job of recycling.

MG1962

10th February 2009, 06:20 PM

Interesting.

Even when the ship doesn't break up, human remains don't last long. Ships sunk in the Pacific during WW2 that went down with hundreds of men have no sign of human remains. The same is true of the Titanic. Ocean life forms do a great job of recycling.

You are preaching to the converted. I was as suprised as you when I heard about it. The only other remains I have heard of was from 2000 year old wreck in Crete. There the body was pushed into the mud by debris.

When it happened (The discovery of the Victory) The whole expedition came to a halt because no one knew what the legal status was, and they needed clarification.

Kestrel

11th February 2009, 01:07 PM

You are preaching to the converted. I was as suprised as you when I heard about it. The only other remains I have heard of was from 2000 year old wreck in Crete. There the body was pushed into the mud by debris.

When it happened (The discovery of the Victory) The whole expedition came to a halt because no one knew what the legal status was, and they needed clarification.

The same probably happened to protect the remains of this sailor. Leave those bones exposed on the ocean floor and they will not last long.

I find it strange that this is considered a "final resting place" of military personal. When we find remains in a WW2 airplane that crashed in a swamp, we don't fence the spot off forever. We identify the remains if possible and reinter them in an appropriate place.