Talk:Man-of-war

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbasel1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Disputed 1

The revised phrasing implies that "man of war" has/had a rather precise definition, which is news to me. What's the authority for that? Stan 04:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have seen the term "man of war" used many times to refer to any fighting naval vessel. For example, Daniel V. Gallery and several others call the German submarine, U-505, a "man-of-war". Websters' Dictionary agrees. I changed this page to reflect that but Gdr removed my addition. I have revised it again, I hope in a way that is accepable to all. Rsduhamel 08:29, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disputed 2: Man of War vs. Galleon, etc

This article claims that the Galleon evolved out of the Man of War by way of the carrack, while the Galleon article claims that the Man of War succeeded the Galleon as the standard warship. Which is it?

The "man o' war" is a very general term. There's not one ship type that can be precisely labeled as the man of war. If it's a purpose-built warship, it's a man of war. 152.23.196.162 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Plural Please?

Please, does anyone know the plural form of the word, man of war? If so, pray tell.

Men of War. Just like Commanders in Chief. And other terms like that. =) 152.23.196.162 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(Organism) Man of War

So the Man of War, e.g. Portuguese man of war is named after the this naval vessel? May someone please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gouki88 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories

The article states: "As two more centuries passed, the man-of-war became even more popular. It became so popular that it was separated it into eight classes, the battleship, the 6th-rate, The 5th-rate, the 4th-rate or Monitor, The 3rd-rate, 2nd-rate, 1st-rate, and the ship of the line. The frigate and man-of-war are the same except that the man-o'-war is slightly larger."

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Everything from a 4th-rate to a 1st-rate was considered a ship of the line, and 5th-rates and 6th-rates were considered frigates. Battleships are just big warships. I am referring to the Ship of the Line article and the Battleship article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.87.229.138 (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much nonsense. I've replaced most of the text with a See also link to the Royal Navy rating system. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah it is nonsense. besides, there was only 6 classes, not eight, plus the frigate only has two decks. the 5th a d 6th rates were mainly used for war purposes. the frig and galleon are around 3rd rate, but there are the war version's which are rates 5 and 6.

Are sailors also "men-of-war"?

Does man-of-war also refer to the sailors of naval ships? I ask this because I had read Master and Commander recently, and I think it had mentioned the sophies as men-of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.1.218 (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since O'Brian's Aubreyad is technically fiction, we can't use it as a source for this article, BUT he was generally quite careful about these things, so if he says it, it's probably true. --Badger151 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a sailor was occasionally (according to the Oxford English Dictionary) called a man of war.

The OED provides two sources that document the usage—from 1599 and 1884.

• "Hee is first broken to the Sea in the Herring mans Skiff ... once hartned thus, hee will needs be a man of warre ... and weare a siluer Whistle."

— Thomas Nashe, Nashe's Lenten Stuffe, (London: 1599), p. 27. [Page 19 of Nina Green's 2001 modern spelling edition (linked).]

• "My father ... led the way to the library, with the skipper following. ... When the man-o-war rejoined us, the first thing he did was ..."

— Harry Collingwood (nom de plume of William Joseph Cosens Lancaster), Under the Meteor Flag, (London: Sampson Low, Marston & Co. Ltd., 1884), 24:258. [Chapter 24, page 322 of the BiblioBazaar 2008 edition (linked).]

Hope that helps clear things up. Friedrich Müller (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: French WP has an incredible site to borrow from

The French WP has a great entry on Man O War. --Smilo Don (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

The intro states the man-of-war was developed in the Mediterranean in the 15th century, however, the section Development states, "The man-of-war was developed in England in the mid-16th century." Also of note, the article Warship has that the man-of-war developed in the 16th century, but no country is given.

This is a point-of-fact contradiction which needs to be resolved. It would be greatly appreciated if those who are in the know would either discuss the issue here and come to consensus, or fix the error and then remove the contradiction tag. Thanks so much Kjnelan (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually live just moments away from the college where I work so I went to the library and found: Seamanship in the Age of Sail: An Account of the Shiphandling of the Sailing Man-Of-War 1600-1860, Based on Contemporary Sources by John H. Harland (Hardcover - Aug 1984), which states it was British developed in the 1600's. I will change the article to reflect this information. Kjnelan (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. In British context Harland is mostly right that the (British) class of "Man-Of-War" ships was developed in Britain in the 1600's. However in the international context this term was used almost a century before to designate Portuguese patrol vessels. From what I gather, the term was more that anything else a synonym for today's word "warship". (ihosama) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.217.133 (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This looks like it needs an authoritative source on English language usage.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Man-of-war (mæ:nəvwōˈɹ). Pl. men-of-war. 2. A vessel equipped for warfare; an armed ship belonging to the recognized navy of a country.

• "As he cam to Callez wardd ij men of warre of Frensche mett wt hym and fawght with hym."

— Wylliam Cely [1484], The Cely Papers, (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1900), p. 144.

• "In sight of the King of Spaynes men of warre, which were twenty two sayles."

— Edward Glenham [1594], "Newes from the Levane Seas", in John Payne Collier, Illustrations of Old English Literature, 2 volumes, (London: 1866), 1:4.

• "It [Tangier] will always, be Serviceable, as well for our Men of War to resort to ... as for the protection of our Merchant-men."

— [1680], Debates in Parliament, (1681), 120. [I've been unable to reproduce the OED's source for this.]

Clearly, English sources refer to French and Spanish men-of-war as early as the 15th and 16th centuries.

Friedrich Müller (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Dutch man of war.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dutch man of war.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Dutch man of war.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Prince (1670).JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Prince (1670).JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Prince (1670).JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete Man-of-war article

It is clear from the discussions above (see 'Contradiction' and 'Disputed 2:Man of War v Galleon, etc' above) that the term man-of-war is simply an obsolete expression for "warship" and does not refer to a specific warship design. This article is therefore another "Warship" article under a dated label. The term "man-of-war" belongs in a dictionary and therefore this article breaks the WP:not a dictionary rule. This article should be deleted.Provocateur (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(also noted at WikiProject Ships) I would agree. A quick usage "reference grab" just in U.S. terms at NHHC reveals A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE Several General Duties of Officers, OF SHIPS OF WAR; FROM AN ADMIRAL, DOWN TO THE MOST INFERIOR OFFICER in which "Thus a first-rate man of war has twenty-four [midshipmen], and the inferior rates a suitable number in proportion" in context of "ships of war" (warships). In The Reestablishment of the Navy, 1787-1801 with "on 27 April 1798 Congress authorized the President to acquire, arm, and man no more than twelve vessels, of up to twenty-two guns each. Under the terms of this act several vessels were purchased and converted into ships of war. One of these, the Ganges, a Philadelphia-built merchant ship, became "the first man-of-war to fit out and get to sea" we see the same mixed use. It has been a while since I really looked at the history of the term but my recollection is that it originated in context of a "king's" (national) ship, as opposed to a private ship, equipped and intended purely for combat, as opposed to the also common armed merchant ships. If I recall correctly, in English it was generally reserved in technical use to rated ships, "sloop of war" for example used for the small unrated sloops, though in popular usage it might be applied to any warship. If someone up on Wiki procedure proposes a merge, with a useful paragraph noting the archaic usage, I would support the term being redirected. Palmeira (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)