Titanic forum and community
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Fitness

This discussion on "Fitness" is in the Health Medicine and Hygiene section; I'm extreme when it comes to fitness and health--I'm really into it so I was ...

      
   
  1. #1
    Cory Schaub
    Guest
    I'm extreme when it comes to fitness and health--I'm really into it so I was just wondering how big of a deal fitness was to people in the gilded age. I think first class had gyms on the Titanic, I was just wondering if washboard abs and pecs were anything to people in those days. Yes, I know this post is a little different. :-)

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    Interesting question, Cory - as you would be aware, the Titanic was equipped with a gymnasium, squash court and swimming pool. Free weights (dumbells), the electric camel and horse etc were available. 'Physical culture' was a popular pursuit, and even women (at least of the more affluent classes!) were engaging in physical recreation...cycling, tennis, golf, archery, etc. Edith Wharton writes about bit about the enthusiasm for young women for sports in novels such as 'Age of Innocence'. Aboard the Titanic, passengers such as Colonel Gracie took an interest in a semi-structured physical regime (i.e. they tried to keep their excercise up while at sea!). I understand, however - and someone more versed in social history could perhaps correct me - that it was WWI that underlined for American society at least just how unfit many men were, and led to the implementation of more physical education classes in schools.

    I don't know about the abs and pecs...obviously no ab-rollers available, and I'm not too sure about the history of crunches! I imagine - and, again, I could be wrong here - that the physical ideal of the time reflected ancient or classical revival statuary...Classical Greek and Roman works, Renaissance nudes such as Michaelangelo's David, etc. These demonstrate a well-defined musculature without being heavily muscled...swimmers rather than body-builders.

    Good to see someone else who shares an enthusiasm for sport here - I do a little weight training, running, inline skating, circuit training etc, and try to horseride and scuba dive when I can!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    295
    Hello!

    A thing I want jump in on here, is one has to remember that sport, working out, etc., to us today was a different concept in 1912. And yes, it depended on one's station in life. A workout for health's sake meant one had the time for that; and the desire. Let's say a farmer or factory worker, what with the long hours of exhausting labor, would just about rather drop dead than jog miles or play a game of touch-footbal on the lawn (if they even had a lawn!). Not just the poor or middle class: recall the claim that Mrs. Widener (after the library donation) gave a stipulation that in order to graduate from her son's alma mater Harvard a student must be able to swim a two-lap test! Harry couldn't swim, and a great deal of people couldn't simply because access to beaches or pools was limited. Women were of course expected to be more doll-like, so sport was lost on a great many of them.

    By all that I do not want to project that the entire generation were either worn-out zombies, or sedate blobs! There was always an emphasis of healthy living/excercising, usually promoted by doctors (many tried to banish the corset from the 18th cen. on; and smoking, and drinking...you get the idea). Many did perform activity either for health or just plain fun! I guess it really depended on one's stamina, interest, and ability...not unlike today!

    But at a time when people were multi-clothed from head to toe (a shirtless man on the streets could get arrested even to 1940!), working out for vanity sake was probably rare. A plump, robust-- meaning well-fed and the money to afford a good meal-- was more desirable. Children were allowed to be more active, but when the time came for them to be little Ladies and Gentlemen (or contributors to the family's income) a more practical approach to spent energy took over.

    One thing in defence of this time frame: people WALKED! Which from my understanding is probably one of the best excercises out there. Climbing stairs, etc.; the normal day-to-day exurtions benefit an active lifestyle...and they probably didn't even think of it!

    Whew! Where's the Gatorade?!

    Your rather slothy friend-
    Kris

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    4,549
    At least some men fancied themselves as body builders. Often they were in the world of the circus and general entertainment. For a photo of a famous example from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, got to http://www.sandowmuseum.com/01elliott.jpg

    No drooling, ladies!

    This chap was an early Olympic medallist in one- handed weight lifting. I have another photo of him posing almost nude, perhaps trying to look like a Greek statue.

    Many working men found enough energy for sport, though time was short. All the main football codes were played, though social class played a part. For instance, Rugby Union was for gentlemen and Rugby League was for the lower classes.

    Particularly in Britain, it was the era of the gentleman amateur. It was considered good to participate in sport, but excessive training was considered 'bad form'. While researching Titanic I came on a newpaper discussion that considered whether Britain should participate in the Olympics. It seems some nations were taking things seriously and doing some training!
    Dave Gittins
    Titanic: Monument and Warning.
    http://titanicebook.com/Book.html

  5. #5
    Harold Douglas Willis
    Guest
    Greetings! I thought I would add my two cents here re fitness in 1912. I have done some research into fitness history (especially the early 20th century) and have found that: the use of weights and weightlifting (aka "bodybuilding") is largely a German contribution, while the rowing machine (such as the one used by the Titanic's gym instructor) was made popular by college rowing teams on both side of the Atlantic. And if you had peeked into a gym locker on the Titanic you would no doubt find the famous "medicine ball" (I used to think they were a joke until I tried one out at New Orleans Athletic Club with a friend and was worn out in five minutes!). But the most common fitness exercise seems to have been swimming (recall old photos of bathouses at the famous resorts of 1900-1930's?) and, of course, taking a turn 'round the decks (not, mind you, jogging!). As some of you have already noted, all of this activity was to be done with maximum decorum.

  6. #6
    Camron Miller
    Guest
    I understand that at this time, particularly in England, there was some concern regarding the physical fitness of the youth of the day. The most fit were probably those in third class, who worked for most of the day, performing physically demanding tasks in primary or secondary industry. Although things like swimming, rowing and cycling were available to the upper-classes, these were more for leisure than fitness - most ladies preferred to squeeze any fat into a nice shape with a corset. On the whole, I'd say that less emphasis was placed on fitness in 1912, the main reason for playing sports being leisure. People were much less healthy, and things like jogging, weight-lifting and aerobics would not become popular until over-eating, office jobs and T.V sent obesity levels soaring in the '70's and '80's.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    1,459
    Well Cook and I could win the pie eating contest!

    Geoff

  8. #8
    Pat Cook
    Guest
    As long as we don't have to walk far to get to the table, that is!

  9. #9
    Bob Cruise
    Guest
    You asked for it - you got it - THE NAKED TRUTH:

    I know that at Yale during this time - being the all-male, WASPY bastion that it was - no clothes were worn in the gym. I'm assuming Harvard was the same. Photos taken back then of various athletes half-dressed show bodies that are devoid of the rolls and bulk one sees on today's under-exercised people of today. At the same time, however, you don't notice anyone really "buff". I think the popular concept of what we today regard as gym-developed "hot bodies" was virtually non-existent. For one thing, people pretty much didn't go around showing off their bare assets.

    What's also important to remember is that, while the boys prior to "The Great War" may have been deemed "unfit", that didn't mean they were fat (just lacking in the necessary muscle). Back then, diet was much different. Fast and processed packaged foods (high in salt, carbohydrates and transfats) were not in wide use. Thus, the earlier-mentioned male bodies displayed pretty much revealed whatever musclularity either occurred naturally, or which had resulted from the sport they were playing (rowers tend to have the most development overall - both then and now - just check out the Thomas Eakins exhibit currently at the Met here in NYC).

    As for women, well, I have two words for you: "hourglass figure". Marie Dressler and Diamond Lil. Being "hip" and getting "busted" back then meant different things. Once again, I think diet played an important role. These women ate well - with little to no oppurtunity to ingest the aforementioned flab-producing fast and processed foods. Thus, their figures filled out gradually, by way of a pretty-much all-natural diet (like corn-fed cattle!).

    For you voyeurs who feel unsatisfied - or who feel the need to judge these things for yourself - I recommend the motion studies done by Eadweard Muybridge (ca. 1880). Because he wanted to study how the human figure operates (muscles flex, weight shifts), Muybridge rigged up a crude forerunner of the motion picture camera and photographed his nude models in all their all-together doing a variety of tasks.

    And if that still don't calm ye, well then there's always them danged, hi-falootin' "French postcards".

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    295
    Well, here I go again...

    Has anyone seen those old photos of Coney Island, or other beach scenes from this time? Apart from the bathing attire- the thing that I notice most is the number of people who are NOT in the water!

    Bob-
    Going "Classical" at the gym is not as ancient as we may believe...my Dad told me that when he was taking swimming class in High School, (early-mid 60's) the guys swam in the buff. Classes were segregated by gender of course; and no one thought it odd (maybe embarassing!). I believe that on Titanic, since the swimming bath was also gender-segregated, men probably dispenced with a bathing suit.

    Camron-
    I understand your take on laborors possibly being in the most fit state; but I feel for only so long. Physically demanding work takes it's toll, and many were were quite injured (at a young age) as a result. The reason I say this is that in period catologues (Sears, Montgomerey, etc.) pages were devoted to back braces, magnetic belts(?) and trusses: for hernias- or "...rupture is large or small....say whether rupture is on right or left side, or both." (Sears- 1902). Ouch!

    Judging from accounts, journals, literature, etc., it seems alot of people were in alot of pain! And unfortunatly back then, most had no idea what to do about their maladies.

    Kris



  11. #11
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,518
    Well Cook and I could win the pie eating contest!

    Wanna bet?


  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    1,687
    Here's another thought: most of the pictures taken, at the ship's gymnasium, showed most people in their full suits: shirt and tie, coat, women's full dress.
    These must have been "photo moments", both on the Titanic and the Queen Mary (part of the "Sunday On the Ship With Ron" series).
    That's one thing you'll never see, now. I, too, am serious about working out, and nobody at the local Ballys centers would consider working out unless they changed into their workout clothes.

    Of course, many of the entrees that we might indulge in, today, were probably not available in 1912. However, that does not mean that what we, today, consider unhealthy was not deemed acceptable in the early part of the 20th century.
    What was the average life span?

    BTW, Kris, when I was in 6th grade, 1975-1976, we had both Boy's and Girl's P.E. classes. That was the last year, as our teachers informed us that the next year the classes would be co-ed, per Title IX.

    Now, "for the final question", when will Mark, Geoff, and Pat head to the finals of the pie eating contest.

    John Clifford

  13. #13
    Pat Cook
    Guest
    Wait - does that mean I have to get up?!

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    4,566
    Good stuff Kris! Let me slice a hefty wedge of treacle tart with cream for the boys and then we can chat about sneakers- or "trainers" as our British cousins will have it. I was amazed at all the Olympic records set considering the quality of the footwear as it appeared in Chariots of Fire, the film about Eric Liddle. Got me to thinking about sneakers. A rubber-heeled shoe was patented in 1899 by Irish-American, Humphrey O'Sullivan. The "plimsoll" shoe appeared about 1892 when the nine major American rubber companies formed a conglomerate called U.S. Rubber Co.-of which Goodyear was the frontrunner. Goodyear had been around making rubberized ground sheets during the Civil War- and in 1892 Charlie Goodyear came out with the vulcanization process whereby rubber could be melded onto canvas or cloth. So from 1892-1913 over 30 brands came out under various names, of rubber footwear. Looking for a catchy name, PEDS was considered, being the Latin for "foot" but we all know what PEDS are- the name was taken by a hoisery company! So, in 1916 the shoes became KEDS. The word "sneaker" was coined in 1917 by Henry McKinney, an advertising agent, because that was the stealthy sound made by the sneaky rubber soles. In 1979 Stride Rite Co. bought out KEDS- and ther rest is history. More pie anyone?

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    4,566
    A delightful series of photographs of bathing beauties and commentary on women's athleticism from 1892-1920, design and fabric of swimsuits and bathing footwear, and a detailed article can be found on the Victoriana.com site at
    http://www.victoriana.com/library/Beach/suit-3.htm
    Hope this is not too thrilling for you fellas! Lots of shapely ankles are exposed!

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    295
    Shelley-
    A thing about rubber-soled shoes: in Gimbel's (Spring 1915) advertised were White Canvas Oxford's;
    "Rubber soles. A shoe suitable for tennis, yachting, country or beach wear. The toe is not extreme, allowing perfect freedom for the foot. Sizes, 6 to 10. Widths, D and E. $1.25 pair."

    Now, these shoes look like regular Oxfords, but with sole/heel in one piece. The laces: rather wide, "ribbon" style.

    Oh! BTW- "Arch Supports" were sold on page 155!

    Kris

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    1,273
    Kris:

    Not to forget the "Coney Island" photographs of your aforemention were of the period when another ocean menace was stalking the Jersey Shores...and some lesser known rivers.

    A furthur inclusion fitted into the OLYMPIC CLASS Liner (SEE: New York Times review - "OLYMPIC is like a city".), was to have been an *ice* skating lane...perhaps a section of promenade
    cordoned off?

    After TITANIC's fateful encounter with *ice*, certainly those amended plans were abruptly ended.

    Michael A. Cundiff
    USA

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    295
    Michael-

    The other menace you speak of, would that be the garbage, sewage, etc. dumped in there? If so, yes...I understand why there would be little swimming sport happening. Heck- I'd risk SHARKS than...the other stuff!

    Kris

  19. #19
    Bob Cruise
    Guest
    Shelley: treacle tart with cream??? Sounds deliciously inviting. Does it come replete with a storytelling dormouse?

    Kris: I believe it's called "the black goo". (Didn't Steven King write a story about it? I think it made an appearance in the movie "Creepshow II". I know, for sure, that I once read something about it in an Alfred Hitchcock horror anthology.)



  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,337
    Just don't take the new(ish) book about the 1916 New Jersey attacks, Close to Shore, too seriously...although the author makes a great show of seeing the events in the context of the era (lots of material on how swimming was viewed in America during the Gilded Age that has some bearing on this thread) etc, I found it a hopeless mismash of fact, fiction and speculation masquerading as non-fiction. It seemed to be attempting an approach along the lines of The Perfect Storm, but missed the mark utterly. I've seldom found a book so utterly irritating.

    The final kicker was his decision to go virtually without question with the theory that all the attacks were the work of a single, rogue Great White. He makes only passing, slighting reference to the recent work by Ellis and McCosker (among the most prominent and respected of Great White shark researchers), who posit the theory - which I'm inclined to favour - that at least some of the attacks were caused by another species, most probably a Bull Shark. But then, this wouldn't fit with the sensationalistic, simplistic narrative of the story...a prototype Jaws, one shark terrorising a community.

  21. #21
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    If i can recall correctly, that Gymnasiam and Gymnastics is actually from the German culture,not from the English Edwradian days.
    I always figued that German men were more in to muscles and keeping fit than English men were.Since Titanic was British Ship most first and second class were English(i know there was Germans and other nationaliies on board)and therefore the gym was not popular on the Oylimpic class liners. What do you guys think!

    Regards

    PS..........Sorry about my bad spelling,never been a good speller.

    Cheers

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,866
    A large proportion of the 2nd Class passengers were British, but in 1st Class they were heavily outnumbered by Americans, who made up roughly two thirds of the total.

  23. #23
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Well of cause Titanic 1st class was full of Americans.Americans have to have the best of everything lol,which Titanic at the time was the best!

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>Americans have to have the best of everything lol,which Titanic at the time was the best!<<

    Odd as it may seem, that's not entirely accurate. The Titanic, like other period liners, sought to emulate the grand hotels which could be found in any metropolis, good points, vices, pretentions and all. I would say that the Olympic class, in terms of arrangements, furnishings, and decor were a study in restrained good taste compared to the rest of the pack and a lot more comfortable.

  25. #25
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Titanic was equal to other ships at the time ?

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>Titanic was equal to other ships at the time ?<<

    I'm not sure that equal or superior in the sense that you seem to mean is anything more then a highly subjective matter of opinion. There were a lot of ships that were way more lavish in what I would call "eye candy" then any of the Olympics could even think of attempting. Heavy wood paneling, wroght iron, stonework and the like certainly looked good to some eyes, but you could hardly sit on iron bulestrades or sleep well on marble vanities.

    Such ships also paid a penalty in terms of topweight which made them very lively seaboats. They may have been luxurious and a couple of them were much faster, but once the rocking and the rolling started, you wouldn't find lunch all that appealing.

    The real magic of the Olympic class, if any can be said to exist, is that they just didn't overdo it. While they may have been somewhat plain compared to their rivals, they were better seaboats and a lot more comfortable.

  27. #27
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    I do recall at Titanic's time,i saw another ship's swimming pool and she did have marbel,it was so beautiful.Think it was just after Titanic sank and it was a German liner.I see what you are getting at

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    4,549
    Alyson, you are right about the Germans and the gym. They supplied the exercise machines for Olympic and Titanic. Their own ships had these features and the British followed them. We tend to forget that the Germans set the pace on the Atlantic for many years up to WW I.

    The pool you are thinking of was probably on Imperator. It was much bigger than Titanic's, which always suggests to me something built by a local council on a small budget. Plenty of modern homes have better pools.

    Titanic was really rather tame, sometimes in order to save money. For instance, many ships had big domes or vaults over the main dining saloon. They reduced the space for money-making cabins, so on Titanic the fancy dome was placed over the staircase, where no cabins could be fitted anyway.
    Dave Gittins
    Titanic: Monument and Warning.
    http://titanicebook.com/Book.html

  29. #29
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    I'm chuffed here,never of thought an expert would say i'm right!I'm thrilled.
    Dave,
    Did German liners have any British technolghy?

    Well in that case Thomas Andrews was thinking smartly by putting the fancy dome over the grand stair case,he was making room for more people and more money.

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>I'm chuffed here,never of thought an expert would say i'm right!<<

    Most experts and historians aren't taken in by the hype of the time or the myths perpetuated in a lot of pop culture accounts. They acknowladge the fact that they exist but then look beyond that to find the reality behind the myth.

    A lot of the superlatives used in relation to the Titanic were often little more then an ad man's take and spun to make a ship look better then she really was. In fairness, you see this sort of thing in all period advertising for any ship. In some way, they always sought to latch onto some point, however trivial, to make a ship look a bit bigger or in some fashion a bit better or a little more special then her rivals.

    It's not as if somebody playing up any of the Olympic class is going to promote them by calling them "Plain but sensible." Anybody that dumb would be invited to look for a different line of work.

  31. #31
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    So you mean companies play up there ship, even if the companies know that there ship is not that great?

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>So you mean companies play up there ship...<<

    Of course they do. The idea is to sell berths to anybody wanting to travel. The eye candy is part of the sales pitch too.

  33. #33
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    So When Titanic Documentries state that Titanic was the most luvish luxuish biggest ship of her time,it was not even true then?

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>So When Titanic Documentries state that Titanic was the most luvish luxuish biggest ship of her time,it was not even true then?<<

    Nope.

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,866
    Well, it was the biggest but only by a small margin over its older sister the Olympic, and there were much bigger ships already under construction. The Titanic's main claim to lasting fame is that it sank and they didn't.

  36. #36
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    I feel the sinking feeling lol.
    Yes it was it the imeriour from Germany and what other ships that were going to pinch Titanic's biggest Title?

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    The Titanic had a greater enclosed volumn which served to ratchet her gross registered tonnage up somewhat higher then the Olympic, but that doesn't speak to the actual weight of the ship, both of which were 52,310 long tons at a full load navigation draft of 34 feet 7 inches. They had the same machinary and the hulls were of exactly the same dimensions.

    Since most of the public didn't know the difference between GRT and displacement, and still don't to this day, it was easy to just let them think that the Titanic was physically the larger vessel even though she really wasn't. This was one of those deceptions which was easy to get away with since the line could put out the information and let John Q. Public leap to his own conclusions.

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,866
    Owing to the weight of its extra side screening, room partitions etc the Titanic was surely marginally heavier and not just in terms of GRT. Just a few hundred tons of actual added weight, I believe, but that did make it the heaviest liner afloat by a very narrow margin. Weight of course is not the only criterion for size, and I fully agree that for all practical purposes (and certainly by the perceptions of their passengers) the Olympic and the Titanic were the same size.

  39. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>Owing to the weight of its extra side screening, room partitions etc the Titanic was surely marginally heavier and not just in terms of GRT.<<

    Yes, true, but as you probably saw coming, it wasn't quite as simple as that. The bare hull with the furnishings and fittings would be heavier, and the extra steel in the so-called Ismay Screen would have added some to the topweight, though not likely to any really signifigent degree. The actual weight of the ship at the time would depend on how much was loaded aboard her in terms of fuel, people, cargo, stores, victuals, and supplies, and that could vary by quite a bit.

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    4,549
    As Michael says, Titanic's lightweight was marginally greater than Olympic's. However, they both worked on the same designed draft and their loadlines were set up in the same way. This effectively meant that Titanic could carry slightly less coal, cargo and so forth than Olympic when both were loaded to their maximum draft.

    In practice, the extra weight made no real difference, as the ships were not loaded right down in service anyway.
    Dave Gittins
    Titanic: Monument and Warning.
    http://titanicebook.com/Book.html

  41. #41
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    In my opinion,After the sinking the Titanic had with her the Madian Voyage and she was a brand new ship,so in the the media's eyes to make it more dramatic they stated that Titanic was the biggest ocean liner at the time,which really she was not.

  42. #42
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,518
    they stated that Titanic was the biggest ocean liner at the time,which really she was not.

    Yes, she was. Liners were ranked by their gross tonnage, and by that measure when she sailed Titanic was the largest ship in the world. When she sank the title reverted to Olympic until Imperator came along in 1913.

    For a list of the largest ships from the time the 10,000 ton mark was passed until the advent of QE, look here.

  43. #43
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Oh my god ,you're that guy (MAB) from the other Titanic forum!It's very hard to class Titanic as the biggest when you can't see any difference in sizes from Olympic and Titanic. The Imperator would of been a different story?

  44. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    4,549
    As Mark said, passenger ships are traditionally rated by Gross Tonnage, a measure of volume, so Titanic was bigger than Olympic. Sometimes owners played little games, notably in the case of Normandie and Queen Mary. They added extra enclosed spaces in attempts to have the biggest ship. I forget who won.

    For your information, Mark Baber is a very diligent researcher, with a record to be proud of. Heed his words of wisdom.
    Dave Gittins
    Titanic: Monument and Warning.
    http://titanicebook.com/Book.html

  45. #45
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,518
    Oh my god

    I harbor no pretensions of divinity, Aly, so "My Lord" will do fine.

    ;-)

    you're that guy (MAB) from the other Titanic forum!

    Yep. As I suggested to you on T-T yesterday, there are quite a few folks who participate regularly on both boards.

    It's very hard to class Titanic as the biggest

    No it's not, since it's correct.

    The Imperator would of been a different story?

    Yes. Imperator was significantly larger---by more than 5,000 tons---than Titanic.

    Normandie and Queen Mary...I forget who won.

    Although QM was larger than Normandie in her original form, Normandie's alterations were finished before QM entered service so Normandie remained the largest until QE came along.

    Mark Baber is a very diligent researcher

    Thanks for the kind words, Dave, much appreciated.

  46. #46
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    MAB.Question,when Britannic was launched in 1914,was she bigger than the Imperator?

  47. #47
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Dave. I never said i was not lisening to MAB.I respect him like i do with you.

  48. #48
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    5,518
    when Britannic was launched in 1914,was she bigger than the Imperator

    No.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •