Hacker News Reader

Comment by kstrauser | Hacker News Reader

> It was Castellan who had made the decision to scupper L’Utile by cutting her rudder in the hope that more men might be saved.

Why would that improve their chances? That intuitively seems like a bad idea, but the people who know what they're doing thought otherwise.

View on HN

That sentence as written is nonsensical. I think they meant "scuttle" (intentionally sink), not "scupper" (a hole in the side wall at deck level to drain water off the deck).

The principle of scuttling the ship is to remove the buoyancy so that the ship settles firmly on the bottom (which is shallow because it is grounded) and does not get pounded to bits as the waves pick it up and slam it back down. This helps keep the ship intact and allows the people more time to get off.

> I think they meant "scuttle" (intentionally sink), not "scupper"

When used as a verb, "scupper" means to destroy or thwart.

If it was intended that way it's an extremely poor choice of words given the very likely confusion in a nautical setting.

That makes a lot more sense than anything I could come up with. Thanks!

A contemporary account states "Il y a eu de si violents coups de talon que la barre du gouvernail a fait sauter le tillac de sa chambre, malgré six barreaux en plusieurs endroits, et qui fit déterminer Mr. de Castellan a L’aller couper luy meme." which roughly translates to "There were such violent blows to the rudder, the tiller burst through the deck of its room, despite six bars holding it in place, and Mr. Castellan made the decision to cut it."

(From the document linked at the bottom of this page: http://www.histoire-genealogie.com/spip.php?article1533&lang...)

That makes even more sense. The waves would be slamming the ship onto the bottom which would be attempting to drive the rudder through the ship every time. This would threaten to break the ship up very rapidly.

By cutting the rudder free, it would no longer be breaking the ship up, but it would leave a major hole where the rudder post came in, resulting in scuttling the ship.

I think the part about "scuppering" is just some nautical-sounding nonsense that the author of the article threw in. If you read the account I linked to above, it's saying they jettisoned the masts, then cut the rudder, then threw the cannons overboard, but despite these the ship eventually broke apart. Like you say, it sounds like they were trying to stabilize it to reduce the damage, but my impression is they were trying to make it lighter and less top-heavy rather than intentionally sink it.

In British English if something is 'scuppered (often someone's chances) it is destroyed or sunk. I assume the author was going for this verb usage.

In British English, 'scupper' can act as a verb effectively a synonym of 'scuttle'. The Economist used British English.

I think that was meant to provide access to men trapped in the ship, which was not going to go anywhere with or without the rudder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com