General Question

Dog's avatar

Why must the Captain go down with the ship?

Asked by Dog (25152points) October 27th, 2009

What is the origin of the saying?
Do modern ship Captains follow this motto?
Did Captains ever really follow it, and if so was it only under specific circumstances? If so what were the circumstances?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

20 Answers

Grisaille's avatar

I don’t know, but the tag “avast, ye maties” put the goofiest smile on my face.

:}

YARNLADY's avatar

I believe it means since the Captain is responsible for his crew, he must see that everyone get off safely, and if he cannot do that he must be stay with the remaining crew, to the point of no return.

PretentiousArtist's avatar

O Captain! My captain!

sevenfourteen's avatar

all I can think of when I see this question is The Perfect Storm when George Clooney stays behind while his friend goes above

Chikipi's avatar

I would think that back in the day the boats didn’t have as many lifeboats as we do today so it was probably the captain putting his passengers first and being a hero. If the captain is guiding the ship- whether it wrecks by his fault or not- it’s probably a honor of the ship type deal. Also if the captain came home, but his crew didn’t…it might raise a few eyebrows even though it was for survival.  It would be the same as if a pilot bailed on an aircraft by jumping out of the plane in a parachute and leaving everyone else for dead. It just wouldn’t go over well.

trailsillustrated's avatar

It was part of their naval code at the turn of the century and before. Nowadays I don’t think they feel like they have to go down witth the ship.

shockrocks's avatar

I always heard that captains only did that if their “folly” caused the catastrophe (like the Titanic)... I could be wrong…

Ansible1's avatar

It’s an honor thing. Back in the day sailors lived by : “treat your ship right and she will treat you right” Crossing the atlantic was a great risk, many captains acknowledged that they might die trying to complete this journey and if it was their time to go then so be it. Kind of like : “My ship and I will share the same fate”.

dpworkin's avatar

If I remember correctly, while a ship was at sea maritime law provided that he was fully empowered, and that there were no appeals to his rulings until he returned to shore. That would have made him fully responsible for whatever occurred, and, in fact he sometimes had to answer to the Admiralty for storm losses, certainly for a mutiny, etc.

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

It’s usually the captains decisions that led up to the sinking.

nunoAfonso's avatar

because someone has to steer it going down.

SeventhSense's avatar

It’s the law and I know a few captains and they take this very seriously. They feel fully accountable for the ship and all it’s occupants.
As per Wikipedia:
“The Captain or Master of a merchant vessel is a licensed mariner in ultimate command of the vessel.[1] A Ship’s Captain, also called Shipmaster or Skipper, is responsible for its safe and efficient operation, including cargo operations, navigation, crew management and ensuring that the vessel complies with local and international laws, as well as company and flag state policies.
and furthermore
No other official authorities on board, during the navigation, are in power to override the Captain from his important office. All persons aboard, crew and passengers, conforming to the nautical and navigation laws, must remain under the command and authority of the Captain.

jaytkay's avatar

Going down with the ship is not the law or custom.

The captain has absolute authority and responsibility. So he may be the last to leave the ship, after getting everyone else off safely. But he’s not going to stay aboard when there’s a seat in a life raft.

hiphiphopflipflapflop's avatar

Occasionally, flag admirals and captains of the Japanese Imperial Navy who could have evacuated chose to go down with their ships during WW2, presumably out of their personal interpretations of Bushidō (the samurai code of conduct). Even in that service, fanaticized as it was by a combination of fascism and the intertwining of religions (Zen Buddhism and Shintoism) with a hereditary warrior caste in their history, I don’t believe it was officially mandated or even seen by the majority of officers as necessarily morally binding.

SeventhSense's avatar

I think the commonly held belief is that he’s the last one to leave and unfortunately at that point it’s often too late.

Darwin's avatar

OTOH, if the disaster is indeed the captain’s fault, he might prefer going down with his ship rather than facing the reaming out he will get once back ashore.

oratio's avatar

I think it’s more “The captain is the last to leave the ship”, since he is the one in charge and responsible for every life, and if the ship goes down with people left on it, so does the captain.

eyeballpaul's avatar

The Captain goes down with the boat as a Tradition. In the old days when boats where first discovered they where not built right or well manufactured the Captains never seen the point in trying to save there life’s because if the ship was going down the ship was going down there was not much they could do. But now a days the Captain doesn’t go down with the ship it would be inhumane if that was supposed to happen it would be taken as suicide

well thanks for reading hoped this helped :)

SeaTurtle's avatar

Its all down to responsibility.
A captain is responsible for the crew and passengers.
A captain should never abandon ship until others are safe and he should stay with the ship until he has assured and affirmed and concluded his responsibilities..
The last we see of chivalry IMO.

(My Father was in the Zeebrugge disaster , this is why I stumbled upon this 3year old question)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther