12

Wikipedia's article on scurvy asserts:

During the Age of Sail, it was assumed that 50 percent of the sailors would die of scurvy on a major trip.

This is cited to an article by Catherine Price, who does not provide further citation to primary sources. It's unclear what would count as a "major trip," but for the purposes of this question, I would imagine that it has to be around the time needed for scurvy to appear (one to three months).

I am uncertain about this claim, since the cumulative financial costs of losing (more than) 50% of the crew on all major trips would be extremely high, because it is unclear how many sailors would have signed up for a trip that was more likely to kill them than not, and most importantly, because some recorded trips did not produce such high casualty numbers. In "Sailors' scurvy before and after James Lind—a reassessment" (Baron, 2009), the author provides various examples of sailors who traveled with citrus and suggests that despite the "scientific consensus" around the causes of scurvy, experienced sailors knew otherwise and frequently consumed foods that contained vitamin C. Baron also cites figures for the famous Lancaster trip and notes that all-cause mortality rates, from April to November, on the ships that did not carry lemon juice (all but the flagship) were around 30% to 40%, with about 3/4 of the deaths due to scurvy.

The most famous example that I know of with a fatality rate of close to 50% from scurvy was George Anson's circumnavigation, which Baron cites at 997 scurvy deaths out of 1854 sailors, but more than just a major trip, this was a four-year trip where a substantial proportion of the crew consisted of elderly or sick people recruited from a hospital.

Was it generally assumed during the Age of Sail that on a major trip (for some reasonable definition of "major"), 50% of the crew would die from scurvy? And if so, was this assumption correct?

Improve this question
12
  • 4
    Many sailors did not "sign up" but were pressed into service. See press gangs. But you need a date too, because it was discovered that a source of vitamin C such as limes was needed. Hence I became known as a Limey. Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    The question is "Did 50% of sailors die from scurvy on long voyages?" But you seem to have defind a long trip as the length a time it took for scurvy to appear, ie self referencing. Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    Is the Wikipedia misrepresenting Price's article, saying 50% of sailors would die from scurvy, not the reason for 50% of all the sailor's deaths? According to historian Stephen Bown scurvy was responsible for more deaths at sea than storms, shipwrecks, combat, and all other diseases combined. which would bring the total death date way above 50%. Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    @WeatherVane - No, I don't think so. "A 50% death rate from scurvy" is a claim that 50% of the crew would die from it, particularly in conjunction with the subsequent claim that "scurvy was responsible for more deaths at sea than storms, shipwrecks, combat, and all other diseases combined," i.e. the author is suggesting that scurvy was the cause of well over 50% of all fatalities (which is almost certainly true, based on what I have read). Commented 2 days ago
  • 2
    I've had several possibly related issues with Wikipedia articles. The issues I've had always seem to boil down to the definition of a "reliable source". An added complication is Wikipedia's rule disallowing "original research" in an article. Perhaps Wikipedia is following "journalistic standards"? ... I'm not a journalist by trade or training, but I will say that some of their so-called "reliable sources" are nincompoops with advanced degrees. Commented yesterday

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
9

The claim is backed up by real evidence. However it seems that a "major trip" means a really long one.

Some specific figures are found in this BBC History article by Jonathan Lamb, Mellon Professor of the Humanities at Vanderbilt University. In it he says:

Scurvy did not emerge as a problem for maritime explorers until vessels started penetrating the Indian and the Pacific Oceans.

So for most voyages such as "short" ones across the Atlantic or South to the West coast of Africa scurvy would not be a major factor. But:

Vasco da Gama lost two thirds of his crew to the disease while making his way to India in 1499. In 1520 Magellan lost more than 80 per cent while crossing the Pacific. Two voyages made by Pedro de Quiros early in the 17th century resulted in huge mortality from [scurvy].

and

Commodore George Anson led a squadron into the Pacific in the 1740s to raid Spanish shipping. He lost all but one of his six ships, and two thirds of the crews he shipped (700 survived out of an original complement of 2000), most of them to scurvy.

So the figure is true for major voyages of exploration, but not necessarily for more run-of-the-mill voyages. This makes Wikipedia correct, but possibly in need of some clarification.

Improve this answer
8
  • 7
    Anson's trip is mentioned in the question, and is very unusual, being a four-year trip where at least a quarter of the crew were elderly and had disabilities, but the other two examples are fairly persuasive. The only thing that is missing, I think, is some demonstration both that these were typical fatality rates for such "major" trips and that governments/shipping companies considered them as such. Commented 2 days ago
  • 3
    Fact check on Magellan's voyage per Wikipedia: "approximately 270 crew" set out, but something like 18+55+4 = 77 survived (I find the "survivors" section in the box a bit confusing), which is 28.5%. Conversely, it is said to have endured "sabotage, mutinies, starvation, scurvy, storms and hostile encounters with indigenous people". It is possible that 80% of those that made it to the Pacific died from scurvy alone. But quite honestly, I find it a bit hard to believe. ... Commented yesterday
  • 5
    ...Also TBH, the author of that BBC History article specializing in literature (rather than, say, history) and being "interested in the relation between literature and diseases such as scurvy and madness" does not, uh, fill me with confidence. Commented yesterday
  • 3
    The "Early modern era" section of the Wikipedia article for scurvy contains this paragraph: "Researchers have estimated that during the Age of Exploration (between 1500 and 1800), scurvy killed at least two million sailors.[44][8] Jonathan Lamb wrote: "In 1499, Vasco da Gama lost 116 of his crew of 170; In 1520, Magellan lost 208 out of 230; ... all mainly to scurvy."[45]" However, note that all three references are to either literature journals or to grey literature, not to actual, y'know, history publications. Kinda hard to buy that. Commented yesterday
  • 5
    For instance, one of the two "sources" for that "two million dead" figure is this general interest article, which also says that "shipowners and governments assumed a 50% death rate from scurvy for their sailors on any major voyage" - but gives no source for these numbers. Fair enough, it's not an actual academic publication. But I echo Obie's observation: such a death toll would be known to sailors, so why would they sign up for something like that? Honestly, this does not seem to make sense. Commented yesterday

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.