Who was the most negligent Captain on the night of the Titanic disaster?

Jim I do understand the thread is: Who was the most negligent captain on the night of the Titanic disaster.
But like so many other threads does at time drift of the subject.
I still say Smith was the negligent captain on the night. As for my opinion Rostron, Lord and Moore where not negligent.
 
You cannot understand, Mike, because you are incapable of doing so. This thread was not entitled " Who was the most gallant captain " on the night.
Do you enjoy insulting people who have an opinion that differs from yours? I think you are the one who is incapable of understanding what Mike is saying because you already formed your own opinion about Rostron, and for whatever reason, it is not a good one. I really have to wonder what you would have done that night if you were in command of Carpathia?

At10:36pm NYT Yperanga picked up this transmission from MGY:

10.36 MGY sagt CQD here corrected position 41 46 N 50 14 W require immediate
assistance, we have collision with iceberg sinking. Can nothing hear for noise of steam.

So by time the "corrected" position was being sent out, Titanic was informing other vessels that she was sinking, not just needing assistance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Arun Vajpey

Member
Do you enjoy insulting people who have an opinion that differs from yours? I think you are the one who is incapable of understanding what Mike is saying because you already formed your own opinion about Rostron, and for whatever reason, it is not a good one. I really have to wonder what you would have done that night if you were in command of Carpathia?
Sam, we both know (along with a lot of others here) that there are things that are far more unyielding that the iceberg that the Titanic collided with. Not a lot can be done about them except grin and bear it.
 
Jim,

I don't know what axe you have to grind against Rostron and Cottam, but I consider it misplaced utterly and goes against all the primary source evidence with a little bit extra added later and a bit of conjecture in respect of Cottam and Phillips knowing each other that was never made that explicit at the time. Go to the 1956 BBC interview, then compare with the USA Inquiry stuff, of Rostron and Cottam, and the British Inquiry.

Cottam was in no doubt that what was received as a reply from Phillips was URGENT. Phillips' further reply a few seconds later added to the import of the first reply, and Cottam's report of messages for Titanic was ignored by Phillips.

You suggest Rostron had in mind salvage, but then before this you
state he believed Titanic had not sunk, which is a peculiar dichotomy that I can understand, but I really don't think this fits at all with what we know of Rostron or what he did on the way on what can only really be regarded as a rescue of souls.

I think to suggest that Rostron was only interested in salvage ( which for the uninitiated has a legal definition in Maritime Law, and which I have only a very limited knowledge of ) is a terrible accusation.

On the other hand, you might be deliberately promoting debate without foundation and just for the hell of it, and on other forums such conduct would be considered as 'trolling'.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users

Arun Vajpey

Member
I think to suggest that Rostron was only interested in salvage ( which for the uninitiated has a legal definition in Maritime Law, and which I have only a very limited knowledge of ) is a terrible accusation.
I fully agree. Rostron perhaps did not do everything by the book that night but I think most people with rational minds believe that he was 'rushing to the rescue' as it were and perhaps considered that certain risks had to be taken. I know that he had his own passengers and crew to think of but decided to take a calculated risk and compensated for tat by alerting everyone, placing additional lookouts etc. Unlike Captain Smith and his crew, Rostron and the others already knew that there was trouble and were reacting to it; that's not the same atmosphere on board as a calm, "all's well" voyage.

I doubt very much if salvage even crossed Rostron's mind at that stage.
On the other hand, you might be deliberately promoting debate without foundation and just for the hell of it
We are not allowed to use the T-word but I think your conjecture might be the size of it, especially if it is about an opinion that Sam Halpern has mentioned and the rest of us agree with it.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I would add just 2 points this evening.

Jim himself pointed out (on another thread some while ago) that the Carpathia had an additional platform above the bridge, which others might like to comment on, and I have investigated this and believe Jim to be correct on this elevated platform.

The second is a contemporary newspaper article from Southwell in Nottinghamshire regarding Cottam which has been added to Paul Lee's website, and suggests that Cottam's quarters were below the Marconi apparatus i.e. on the top deck.

Lloyds (recently) have downloaded the plans and drawings of The Californian, and I am pretty sure they have done the same for the Carpathia.
 

Seumas

Member
Lloyds (recently) have downloaded the plans and drawings of The Californian, and I am pretty sure they have done the same for the Carpathia.
They found the Carpathia's blueprints o_O

If true, that is pretty big news !

There were researchers who spent years trying to find them and came up with nothing. Swan-Hunter did not even have a copy in their own archives.
 

Jim Currie

Member
I am still waiting for a reply as Sam too. What Jim would of done different if he was in Rostron shoes at the time?
I Gave it to to you in in my post #616 But in case you and others missed it. here it is again:
"
What I would have done is neither here nor there, since I am not the one under the microscope.
But guess who said this, and he WAS there:
" I thought of sending rockets up, but I thought it far better to let it alone, because if other ships - they thought they saw them - might be coming to me, and I had not seen anything of the Titanic and did not know exactly where she was; because I think, after all, the Titanic was farther east than she gave her position, or, in fact, I am certain she was."
 
What I would have done is neither here nor there, since I am not the one under the microscope.
In other words, you choose not to tell what you would have done, but to tell a small detail of what you would not have done.

(By the way, the who was there bit was Capt. Moore who went at full speed to the reported position until he started to encounter ice. The same Capt. Moore who you also expressed a distrust of. But you knew that I knew that.)
 

Jim Currie

Member
I would add just 2 points this evening.

Jim himself pointed out (on another thread some while ago) that the Carpathia had an additional platform above the bridge, which others might like to comment on, and I have investigated this and believe Jim to be correct on this elevated platform.

The second is a contemporary newspaper article from Southwell in Nottinghamshire regarding Cottam which has been added to Paul Lee's website, and suggests that Cottam's quarters were below the Marconi apparatus i.e. on the top deck.

Lloyds (recently) have downloaded the plans and drawings of The Californian, and I am pretty sure they have done the same for the Carpathia.
Here you are, Julian
 

Attachments

  • Carpathia upper bridge platform.jpg
    Carpathia upper bridge platform.jpg
    79.2 KB · Views: 14

Jim Currie

Member
Do you enjoy insulting people who have an opinion that differs from yours? I think you are the one who is incapable of understanding what Mike is saying because you already formed your own opinion about Rostron, and for whatever reason, it is not a good one. I really have to wonder what you would have done that night if you were in command of Carpathia?

At10:36pm NYT Yperanga picked up this transmission from MGY:

10.36 MGY sagt CQD here corrected position 41 46 N 50 14 W require immediate
assistance, we have collision with iceberg sinking. Can nothing hear for noise of steam.

So by time the "corrected" position was being sent out, Titanic was informing other vessels that she was sinking, not just needing assistance.
I will not dignify your opening gambit with an answer, Sam.

I was answering a question that required an opinion. I examined all the evidence in the light of that question and gave you and others my qualified opinion. You have voiced your unqualified opinion - so be it.
As for quoting the Ypernga picking up that answer? Wow!, he must have been clairvoyant, that lad.
You and your followers should read the evidence in full.

Cottam did not hear the CQD at 10-35pm EST, but contacted Titanic at that time to give Phillips 4 messages and was told "Come at once. It is a distress message; C. Q. D." or as he said in the UK " She said, "Come at once; we have struck a berg," and sent his position, and then he sent C.Q.D." No mention of sinking.
Whatever version takes your fancy. Cottam took that evidence to the bridge and it was relayed to Captain Rostron. Thereafter Rostron and his OOW produced a DR for Carpathia and calculated the distance to the casualty. Only after that, did Cottam get back in touch with Titanic and advise him that they would turn around and be there at 4-30 pm. That second contact had to have been close to 10-50 pm EST. No magic involved. (except by Marconi?).
Heavens! Titanic did not even mention the word "sinking" to sister-ship Olympic, and you will not find the word "sinking" mentioned in the pv of the Mount Temple - the nearest listener -until 10-48 pm EST - a full 12 minutes after the Ypiranga allegedly heard it, and strangely enough, when the Frankfurt is logged as making a first contact.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Jim,

I don't know what axe you have to grind against Rostron and Cottam, but I consider it misplaced utterly and goes against all the primary source evidence with a little bit extra added later and a bit of conjecture in respect of Cottam and Phillips knowing each other that was never made that explicit at the time. Go to the 1956 BBC interview, then compare with the USA Inquiry stuff, of Rostron and Cottam, and the British Inquiry.

Cottam was in no doubt that what was received as a reply from Phillips was URGENT. Phillips' further reply a few seconds later added to the import of the first reply, and Cottam's report of messages for Titanic was ignored by Phillips.

You suggest Rostron had in mind salvage, but then before this you
state he believed Titanic had not sunk, which is a peculiar dichotomy that I can understand, but I really don't think this fits at all with what we know of Rostron or what he did on the way on what can only really be regarded as a rescue of souls.

I think to suggest that Rostron was only interested in salvage ( which for the uninitiated has a legal definition in Maritime Law, and which I have only a very limited knowledge of ) is a terrible accusation.

On the other hand, you might be deliberately promoting debate without foundation and just for the hell of it, and on other forums such conduct would be considered as 'trolling'.
Where to start, Julian?
1. I have no "axe to grind", I simply clear my mind of the emotional part of the subject, read the evidence without any pre- conceived idea of guilt or innocence (as you and others should do) and thereafter give my opinion based on the balance of evidence.
2. Proper examination of the evidence shows that neither Cottam nor Rostron knew Titanic was sinking. for the first half-hour of their rescue dash.
3. Rostron may have been a "Holy-Willie" but he was human and the £ sign would have much the same effet on his thought processes as it would on the thoughts of others.
4. The Rules were very clear... you do not risk souls to save other souls.

if my answers are considered by others as "trolling" then they do not wish to read my answers.
 
Top