Judy Sidley
Guest
My class would like to know- exactly how many passengers and crew died and how many survived in the sinking of Titanic?
Okay what's the exact number who lived and who died
- Thread starter Judy Sidley
- Start date
>>>How many people died on the Titanic
The information that you are looking for is on this website: https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org
The information that you are looking for is on this website: https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org
Neil McRae
Member
I've heard numbers like 1502, 1503, 1522, 1523 and others. (I know about Fireman John Coffey deserting and some of these numbers may not take it into account) So what was it exactly?
Last edited by a moderator:
Joshua Gulch
Member
Neil,
Nearly every source I have that can be considered reliable (not those post-movie picture books) have given 1523 as the figure taking into account those who deserted or otherwise didn't make it.
Josh.
Nearly every source I have that can be considered reliable (not those post-movie picture books) have given 1523 as the figure taking into account those who deserted or otherwise didn't make it.
Josh.
Phillip Gowan
RIP
Neil and Josh,
After years of researching the passengers and comparing notes with other trustworthy researchers, the number of passengers and crew aboard appears to be 2208. The number of survivors, instead of being 705 as quoted in most sources, is 712. Using those figures it would appear that 1,496 people lost their lives.
I hope this helps.
Phil
After years of researching the passengers and comparing notes with other trustworthy researchers, the number of passengers and crew aboard appears to be 2208. The number of survivors, instead of being 705 as quoted in most sources, is 712. Using those figures it would appear that 1,496 people lost their lives.
I hope this helps.
Phil
Neil McRae
Member
I've heard a lot of different numbers for the dead. 1522, 1523, 1502, 1595, etc. (and yes I know about the fireman Coffey who deserted at Queenstown)
The number saved has almost invariably been 705, but I've heard a few times mentioned here that it was 712.
So what is it exactly?
The number saved has almost invariably been 705, but I've heard a few times mentioned here that it was 712.
So what is it exactly?
Lester Mitcham
Member
Hi Neil,
Excluding fireman Coffey there were 2208 persons onboard. Of that number 1496 were lost. 500 passengers and 212 crew survived.
1st Class 123/201. 2nd Class 166/118. 3rd Class 528/181 = 817/500. Crew 679/212 = 1496/712.
Lester
Excluding fireman Coffey there were 2208 persons onboard. Of that number 1496 were lost. 500 passengers and 212 crew survived.
1st Class 123/201. 2nd Class 166/118. 3rd Class 528/181 = 817/500. Crew 679/212 = 1496/712.
Lester
James Hill
Member
there were 2228 people on board and 705 people survived 1500 people perished.hope this helps.
Lester Mitcham
Member
James,
There were only 2208 Passengers and Crew on Titanic. Of that number 712 survived.
Lester
There were only 2208 Passengers and Crew on Titanic. Of that number 712 survived.
Lester
Dave Gittins
Member
James, you'll find that pretty well all the books get the numbers wrong, especially the older ones. Even the two big inquiries held in 1912 came up with incorrect numbers.
Lester Mitcham and others have done very careful work with the original documents and their figures are to be trusted.
Lester Mitcham and others have done very careful work with the original documents and their figures are to be trusted.
Maureen Zottoli
Member
Dear James,
"there were 2228 people on board and 705 people survived 1500 people perished.hope this helps"
Hi there James. Dave Gittins is correct in that many of the books including the official inquiries have wrong numbers. But even given that 705 and 1500 does not add up to 2228 in any case.
I think the problem comes up when the issue of "on board" comes up. If I am not mistaken, people boarded at all stops, but also some disembarked, plus the deserter. Some counts of crew members counted the band members and others did not. There were others aboard that were not of White Star, but worked the ship as a contractor, the marconi operators come to mind. Plus a host of others.
Its funny, but yours are the figures I used for a long time and then I started looking at the figures and where they came from and how people arrived that them.
Perhaps Lester can shed some light on this topic for us. As I believe that the total number of people who actually boarded Titanic was higher, but the number Lester sites as the figure is the actual figure of those on board when the ship was sinking. I agree with the numbers of survivors/victims that Lester posted.
"there were 2228 people on board and 705 people survived 1500 people perished.hope this helps"
Hi there James. Dave Gittins is correct in that many of the books including the official inquiries have wrong numbers. But even given that 705 and 1500 does not add up to 2228 in any case.
I think the problem comes up when the issue of "on board" comes up. If I am not mistaken, people boarded at all stops, but also some disembarked, plus the deserter. Some counts of crew members counted the band members and others did not. There were others aboard that were not of White Star, but worked the ship as a contractor, the marconi operators come to mind. Plus a host of others.
Its funny, but yours are the figures I used for a long time and then I started looking at the figures and where they came from and how people arrived that them.
Perhaps Lester can shed some light on this topic for us. As I believe that the total number of people who actually boarded Titanic was higher, but the number Lester sites as the figure is the actual figure of those on board when the ship was sinking. I agree with the numbers of survivors/victims that Lester posted.
Dave Gittins
Member
Even now the figures are not perfect. I'm working with Lester on yet another revision. I think I've found a mistake by Captain Smith in his crew numbers. Maybe I'm wrong, so I'll say nothing for now. Watch this space!
Lester Mitcham
Member
Hi Maureen,
You ask about the total number who boarded Titanic. I have never counted the number of cross-channel passengers; so someone else will have to answer that one for you.
With regard to the figures of 2228 and 705 it is my understanding that these come from Eaton and Haas [hereafter E&H]. Their total of 2228 seems to have been arrived at based on a number of misunderstandings. For what it may be worth I believe that they may have erred as follows:
1st Class: The US figure of 329 seems to include the counting of a small additional list thought to be maids and valets; but who are already included in the main list. However, since E&H add 8 to 329 to = 337; it would seem that they are counting the 8 bandmen as 1st Class.
Since the US figure is already too high when compared to the British figure that seems to further involve E&H taking the correct figure of 324 [the British figure is 325] less Alfred Nourney and also adding to it the 6 members of the H&W Guarantee Group who travelled as 2nd Class Passengers as well as the 8 bandmens. Thus 323 plus 6 plus 8 = 337.
That they have done this sems to be confirmed by their 271 for 2nd Class. The British and US figures of 285 include 6 members of the H&W Guarantee Group as well as the 8 bandmens; and also Nourney.
For 3rd Class E&H talk about 4 American Line crewmen who are also mistakenly included as Crew. They also say: The figure also includes 8 Chinese seamen who were also travelling as 3rd Class passengers. The 8 Chinamen [that is how they were ticketed] held a 3rd Class ticket and are counted in the US figure as Passengers; not as part of the 899 Crew. So having accepted that these two groups were in fact 3rd Class passengers; why have E&H increased the number of Crew? While the 5 Postal workers need to be added to the Crew, the Band needs to be removed from the 899 US figure, as do the 4 American Line crewmen. So 899 less 8; less 4; plus 5 should give E&H a Crew figure of 892, but they say 908; which suggests that they have either re-added 4 American Line crewmen and the 8 Chinese seamen; who are not included in the US figure; and who E&H agree were 3rd Class Passengers; or alternatively perhaps they have failed to note that the 8 bandsmen are already included in the US Crew total of 899 and have added them again. Thus 899-4+5+8 = 908. However, if they believe that both the 4 Amereican Line crewmen and the 8 Chinamen have been included in the US figure [they also need to take off the bandsmen]; then they should have reduced 899 by 4; 8 and 8 to = 879 to which the Postal workers could be added = 884. However only one reduction of 8 is needed because the US figure does not include the 8 Chinamen.
Since I can see no other explanation for their high 1st Class figures other than it includes the bandsmen [and seemingly with such a low 2nd Class figure the 6 members of H&W Guarantee Group who also had 2nd Class tickets] then E&H have seemingly counted the bandsmen once as Passengers and twice as Crew.
This indicates to me that 2228 is immediately overstated by 16.
With 3rd Class why E&H have added 2 to the US figure is a mystery. Since 3rd Class is over-stated in the US figure when compared to the British figure [710/706] then E&H also have this excess of 4 in their 3rd Class figure. In round figures they are now overstated by 16 Crew and 4 Passengers; which means that their 2228 becomes 2208.
While E&H accept 705 survivors based on Rostron's report we can prove a figure of 712.
I hope this helps,
Lester
You ask about the total number who boarded Titanic. I have never counted the number of cross-channel passengers; so someone else will have to answer that one for you.
With regard to the figures of 2228 and 705 it is my understanding that these come from Eaton and Haas [hereafter E&H]. Their total of 2228 seems to have been arrived at based on a number of misunderstandings. For what it may be worth I believe that they may have erred as follows:
1st Class: The US figure of 329 seems to include the counting of a small additional list thought to be maids and valets; but who are already included in the main list. However, since E&H add 8 to 329 to = 337; it would seem that they are counting the 8 bandmen as 1st Class.
Since the US figure is already too high when compared to the British figure that seems to further involve E&H taking the correct figure of 324 [the British figure is 325] less Alfred Nourney and also adding to it the 6 members of the H&W Guarantee Group who travelled as 2nd Class Passengers as well as the 8 bandmens. Thus 323 plus 6 plus 8 = 337.
That they have done this sems to be confirmed by their 271 for 2nd Class. The British and US figures of 285 include 6 members of the H&W Guarantee Group as well as the 8 bandmens; and also Nourney.
For 3rd Class E&H talk about 4 American Line crewmen who are also mistakenly included as Crew. They also say: The figure also includes 8 Chinese seamen who were also travelling as 3rd Class passengers. The 8 Chinamen [that is how they were ticketed] held a 3rd Class ticket and are counted in the US figure as Passengers; not as part of the 899 Crew. So having accepted that these two groups were in fact 3rd Class passengers; why have E&H increased the number of Crew? While the 5 Postal workers need to be added to the Crew, the Band needs to be removed from the 899 US figure, as do the 4 American Line crewmen. So 899 less 8; less 4; plus 5 should give E&H a Crew figure of 892, but they say 908; which suggests that they have either re-added 4 American Line crewmen and the 8 Chinese seamen; who are not included in the US figure; and who E&H agree were 3rd Class Passengers; or alternatively perhaps they have failed to note that the 8 bandsmen are already included in the US Crew total of 899 and have added them again. Thus 899-4+5+8 = 908. However, if they believe that both the 4 Amereican Line crewmen and the 8 Chinamen have been included in the US figure [they also need to take off the bandsmen]; then they should have reduced 899 by 4; 8 and 8 to = 879 to which the Postal workers could be added = 884. However only one reduction of 8 is needed because the US figure does not include the 8 Chinamen.
Since I can see no other explanation for their high 1st Class figures other than it includes the bandsmen [and seemingly with such a low 2nd Class figure the 6 members of H&W Guarantee Group who also had 2nd Class tickets] then E&H have seemingly counted the bandsmen once as Passengers and twice as Crew.
This indicates to me that 2228 is immediately overstated by 16.
With 3rd Class why E&H have added 2 to the US figure is a mystery. Since 3rd Class is over-stated in the US figure when compared to the British figure [710/706] then E&H also have this excess of 4 in their 3rd Class figure. In round figures they are now overstated by 16 Crew and 4 Passengers; which means that their 2228 becomes 2208.
While E&H accept 705 survivors based on Rostron's report we can prove a figure of 712.
I hope this helps,
Lester
Lester Mitcham
Member
Hi Dave,
Not quite correct. You have indicated to me that you accept 899 Crew. On the other hand I accept Hermann's figure of 891. Without a name by name breakdown of your figures I'm not going to change from Hermann's figures. Initially I'm waiting to hear from you if you have Lazor Sartori in your numbers. If not; after you add him; then you are still [based on Hermann's List] missing one Crew member.
Lester
Not quite correct. You have indicated to me that you accept 899 Crew. On the other hand I accept Hermann's figure of 891. Without a name by name breakdown of your figures I'm not going to change from Hermann's figures. Initially I'm waiting to hear from you if you have Lazor Sartori in your numbers. If not; after you add him; then you are still [based on Hermann's List] missing one Crew member.
Lester
Maureen Zottoli
Member
"once, twice, ....three times a bandsman....." hmmmm....think I've heard this sung many times. hehehehehehehehe Most musicians count for three times what they really are. hehehehehehehehehe
Seriously, thanks Lester, and Dave. I think at times when folks do these sorts of "counts" they probably simply split the list for checking and when one added people not listed there was no cross checking to see if the name appeared elsewhere. I was not there for the compilation of E&H, but that is a possible scenario of what transpired to give the skewed facts.
So, it is great that you guys are cross checking your facts.
In regards to Dave's post, "Even now the figures are not perfect. I'm working with Lester on yet another revision. I think I've found a mistake by Captain Smith in his crew numbers. Maybe I'm wrong, so I'll say nothing for now. Watch this space!"
He said he was working with you and that he thinks he has found a mistake and that he could be wrong....I understood where he was coming from. Gittins has the patience of a saint and will sift through the data and gleen from it new facts and then check them and I have full confidence that he will get back to you on his findings, when he feels all theories have been checked and rechecked. He takes his time, but he is good.
Thanks for your detailed information.
Maureen.
Seriously, thanks Lester, and Dave. I think at times when folks do these sorts of "counts" they probably simply split the list for checking and when one added people not listed there was no cross checking to see if the name appeared elsewhere. I was not there for the compilation of E&H, but that is a possible scenario of what transpired to give the skewed facts.
So, it is great that you guys are cross checking your facts.
In regards to Dave's post, "Even now the figures are not perfect. I'm working with Lester on yet another revision. I think I've found a mistake by Captain Smith in his crew numbers. Maybe I'm wrong, so I'll say nothing for now. Watch this space!"
He said he was working with you and that he thinks he has found a mistake and that he could be wrong....I understood where he was coming from. Gittins has the patience of a saint and will sift through the data and gleen from it new facts and then check them and I have full confidence that he will get back to you on his findings, when he feels all theories have been checked and rechecked. He takes his time, but he is good.
Thanks for your detailed information.
Maureen.
Similar threads
