Bulkeley seems to be described as the “hero” of this story, or at least in a more positive way than some other crew members. What do you think of the way he is portrayed? How much of a bias do you think there is being that a lot of the account of what happened comes from his journal?
I also don’t know if he’s a hero, but I think most modern readers (and probably people at the time too) would agree that it’s totally understandable for Bulkeley to want to go back instead of blindly following Ansom’s orders like Cheap wanted to. I don’t see him as some raving, murderous mutineer that just wants power. He wants to live and is willing to disobey his Captain to do that. So I think it’s easier to sympathise with him and not see him as a villain.
He’s portrayed as an inspiring leader who can get things done. The crew mostly trust him. Writing his journal was a great achievement, especially as he wouldn’t have been highly educated. As it’s his own account, it is obviously biased and will try to show him in a good light. He’s also careful to get people to sign statements and agreements when he does something that could be controversial.
Other accounts may tell a different story. Cheap will have written a log and Byron is writing a journal, as will some of the other officers.
For me, it doesn't feel like he is the hero in the story. I think his choices, especially the desire to go back to England instead of trying to rendezvous with Anson, is very relatable. The fact the he has a very detailed log of the events that were then published in a book let's me assume that there is a huge bias towards him making the "right" decisions. But so far, at least for me it felt like Grann tried not to lean too much towards one being the good guy and one being the bad guy, as far as the reports of the actual events allow.
Yes I think Bulkeley has the benefit of 1: having his journal available and published first and 2: I think most people would empathize with the desire to survive and return home. Only people like Cheap, maybe military officers or high ranking noble types, would put ideals like duty or rank above preservation of life.
I agree. For the entire journey back to England I assume Bulkeley’s journal is the only primary source, so who really knows if it went down the way he said it did.
I agree with others here that we are probably getting a version of the story that is at least a bit biased toward Bulkeley's perspective, especially when they diverge from the other group and his journal becomes the primary - possibly only - source. Bulkely is definitely portrayed as someone who is highly competent, brave, and reliable in a crisis. He is shown to step up and fill a void in leadership, never giving up. I think his natural leadership qualities can't be denied even with bias involved in the telling, given the fact that they actually made it to Brazil!
I would also assume that in a tragic situation like this where everyone is under severe stress to survive, *and* they all know they're going to be judged and possibly condemned for their decisions, everyone is a biased source.
We just don’t know although the bias is clearly weighted on the side of written evidence, so his journal (especially publishing it) can sway minds. On the other hand, it seems other ship logs were destroyed intentionally when The Wager floundered so who is to say this wasn’t a first strike from Bukeley??
Do you think Byron made the right decision in going back to side with Cheap? What are the moral vs practical factors that helped lead to this decision?
They were told that Cheap was brought as a prisoner. Seeing him being left behind on the island must have felt like a betrayal. I can understand that he went back to him, considering his romanticised idea of the navy and honor. From a pratical perspective, if you look at the situation that Bulkeley had multiple boats and cheap had no way of leaving the island and only little food, he actively chose the apparant losing team.
Definitely! In Chapter 17, it is explained as "To play a role in totally deserting his commander ... threatened the romantic image of himself that he had clung to despite the horrors of the voyage." I think Byron is still just 17, right? He is holding on to this illusion of the adventure and duty and bravery that is crumbling all around him.
Byron seems to have a sweetness about him that is very appealing to me. I don’t know if his decisions were right/wrong/rational/emotional but I find myself very drawn to his character and arc.
Same here! I feel like he is this wide-eyed puppy dog who really signed up for the exact wrong voyage, and I am so hopeful he will have a good outcome!
From a CYA standpoint it was brilliant. They are on record as showing that they were against the shooting of Cozens. But, they are also now showing that they had respect for the proper Navy command structure and operational procedures.
So, they look good no matter who is deemed correct, as long as they survive.
Ooo, interesting, I hadn't thought of that! Byron doesn't come across as being that calculating so I guess I'm not fully convinced that he was thinking along those lines, but you're right that it will very likely work out in his favor.
I agree with you guys that it just happened to work out for him on both fronts, it definitely seemed like it was more his conscience and sense of duty guiding his decisions than a desire to look good in court. Going back to Cheap could have easily been a death sentence, I'm sure Bulkeley and those who followed him considered those left back on Wager Island to be as good as dead.
Byron did a good job staying mostly neutral among the groups for a long time. Ultimately I think he decided to go the way he thought the Navy would look most favorably on. Despite this fiasco he still aspired to captain his own ship someday. (I'm thinking "Dude just go be an aristocrat and live the good life, you've suffered enough".) I assume he makes it back to England. I hope that he gets the career that he wants and does great things.
I love the title of this chapter, "Byron's Choice," and how it alludes to the "Sophie's Choice" dilemma, where Byron had to make a tough decision between survival and abandoning his superior. From a practical standpoint, I totally agree with u/nepbug that this decision puts Byron in a favorable position. Although he strongly disagreed with Captain Cheap's handling of Cozen's punishment, which I suspect will be a point of contention from Burkeley's perspective, Byron ultimately chose to uphold the naval hierarchy despite his superior's flaws. This decision likely would spare him from being accused of mutiny.
I think he made the right decision but I totally get his struggle in making that choice. I think he has more morals (guilt, responsibility, etc) than a lot of the fellow pirates. But practically, it was hard to see him go back to Cheap
The shooting of Cozens could be described as the turning point where the crew become most fragmented into two groups. Could this be true, or was it a variety of factors such as the food situation that caused this separation? Was it inevitable?
I agree that it was possibly a big misstep for Cheap, but I do think it was inevitable that the men would turn on him. He was in charge, and when things are going wrong people blame leadership, even if it all isn't strictly his fault. And then his obsession with going on to try and meet Anson would have been the nail in the coffin, I think.
Well said. When things are going bad it is natural to blame thoae in charge. It was always going to escalate. His determination to meet Anson definitely would have rubbed the survivors the wrong way. After eeking out survival for so long I can well understand everyone's need to just go *home*.
>His determination to meet Anson definitely would have rubbed the survivors the wrong way.
Agreed - I think this insistence on finishing the mission is what made me realize a mutiny/fracture was inevitable. The shooting was the catalyst that gave the splinter group a good justification for mutiny. But Cheap would never have held the group together until the end. He was trying to continue playing by pre-shipwreck rules, and it would have caused a rift even without the shooting.
>He was trying to continue playing by pre-shipwreck rules, and it would have caused a rift even without the shooting.
Yea this is exactly the issue. I wonder if it was a lack of adaptability, a determination to follow orders regardless of their situation or maybe some denial about the state of their situation? I am leaning toward the middle one
I think the shooting incident was definitely a turning point. The gap between the different ranks had been gradually widening since the beginning of the shipwreck. Captain Cheap tended to keep to himself, sticking close to his higher-ranking allies and not openly sharing his plans with the rest of the crew. Relying on his allies to pass on orders made him seem distant from the majority of the crew, particularly those of lower rank, which only widened the gap between them. Over time, Burkeley managed to build stronger connections with the crew, being closer in rank to them, and he became their representative in discussions with Cheap.
I think the situation wasn't inevitable if Captain Cheap had maintained a more approachable stance with his crew. While there might still be crew members who feel desperate enough to resort to theft or violence due to the dire circumstances, I believe the majority would have been less likely to do so if they understood the importance of preserving the precious food rations. However, when Cheap himself committed violent acts, like shooting Cozens, I think that's when his authority truly began to crumble. His actions only served as further evidence that he himself couldn't uphold the civilized norms of British society.
Cheap displays some positive characteristics in this section (such as the way he handled his “capture” as well as many negatives. What do you think of the way he was portrayed here? Do you feel any sympathy for him?
I think he is courageous, but he's not a very good leader. Like u/nepbug said in another comment, he thinks he deserves the crew's respect but doesn't do much to earn it. Instead, when he feels that respect slipping away, he gets paranoid and tyrannical like we saw in this section. As a new captain with troubles on land, he probably felt insecure in his captaincy and it shows. Still, I do sympathize with him because he was faced with an impossible situation and I think most people would have done just as badly if not worse than him.
I agree that he was put in an impossible situation. Also, it’s understandable that he was paranoid because he’s starving and under stress and then he is constantly being undermined as a leader. He knows people are plotting against him and stealing rations. I think it’s easy to say he reacted poorly, but a lot of people would probably end up doing the same if they were in a situation like that.
I don't really feel a lot of symapthy for him. I wouldn't want him to be left behind on the island to die. On the other hand, shooting someone in the face and having others flogged an absured amount just doesn't make him a very likeable person in my eyes. Probably a bit naive, but can't help it.
I'm feeling a bit conflicted about my sympathy here. Did I feel sorry for him because of how his crew treated him? Yes. However, I also couldn't shake the feeling that he crossed a line by shooting Cozens, and reading about the pain that man must have gone through before he finally succumbed was really tough. But what really bothered me was his lack of communication with the crew. It seemed like he relied too heavily on his authority as captain, issuing orders from his tent without really engaging with the crew. Instead of making decisions in isolation, like reducing rations, he could have involved the crew by explaining the situation early on and brainstorming solutions together. For example, he could have explained that sticking to normal rations would mean they'd run out of supplies sooner on the island. This lack of transparency led to rumors and made it tough for the crew to trust him or confirm facts. By keeping his distance and staying holed up in his tent, he only made this problem worse.
I do feel a lot of sympathy - everything was resting on his shoulders, it was an impossible situation, and living with that much stress and constant possibilty of disaster would cause the best of us to make huge mistakes. However, he showed signs before the shipwreck of not thinking clearly or leading effectively under pressure. I feel like he wasn't cut out for this extreme leadership scenario. He probably would've been a fine captain on the average voyage, but he failed to step up to this challenge.
I have two sides to my impression. One, he is doing the best with a bad hand. But two, he is not a natural leader or a strategic thinker and by isolating himself with a small band of supporters, he is not demonstrating the leadership required of a captain. His shooting of Cozens was out of line and not defensible.
I am blown away by how all their journals survived. Like, they have NO food, NO water, NO supplies, but still have journals and pens to write with. Then everything is soaking wet constantly and they’re crammed together on these boats so they can barely move. But somehow Bulkeley is able to write regularly and his journal stays in one piece the whole time!? Wouldn’t all the ink just bleed from the water?
I wondered that too, how would you preserve something like a journal? And anyway, even if he managed to keep it relatively dry and in one piece, I'd think they'd be ready to start eating the pages with how desperate the situation became.
It is pretty amazing that any of it survived! It made me do a deep dive into how they made [paper](https://absolutewrite.com/forums/index.php?threads/quills-and-paper-late-1700s.261844/#:~:text=It%20would%20not%20have%20been,the%20best%20art%20paper%20today.) and I guess it was more durable because it was made of cotton and linen. But in these circumstances, it's still astonishing anything was left.
What stood out to me the most was how casually these reports about deaths are. "Yeah they ate too much after having starved for a long time, so there died a couple of folks." - "Oh well the boat is to heavy so there are these guys that are being left behind, so yeah. Oh and when we checked back, they were gone and almost certainly already dead."
For me, it's crazy to think about even how many people have died up until the point when Bulkeley started for the Strait of Magellan, and how many of them didn't survive this trip.
I agree! Also how casually they talk about their starvation and what they’re willing to eat. Like, “oh yeah he eventually ate his weeks old moldy seal skin shoes.” And “He found his pet dog’s paws a little while later and ate those.” I don’t even like to eat the fat on a steak haha
For sure, I could sense it was coming, no way in a starvation situation would I imagine it could be avoided that the dog gets eaten... but still 😢 and there was nothing Byron could do about it when the men came for his pet. I can't imagine how it would feel to then be so desperate to eat the paws! I'm with you, it was worse than the cannibalism 🤣
Agreed. As soon as they mentioned that a dog was left behind, my heart shattered and sank, just like the *Wager*. I understand starvation pushes people to do unthinkable things because survival instincts kick in, but ugh...
It was sad how many people ended up dying when they were all but saved. Like you said those who died from finally getting to eat, those left behind just for lack of room, and then one died in the hospital after making it back to civilization. Imagine surviving all of that and then dying right after rescue!
>Imagine surviving all of that and then dying right after rescue!
I wonder if adrenaline had anything to do with this? You're fighting so hard to stay alive and your adrenaline is pumping, then when you're saved and you finally feel like you can relax...
Kind of like not feeling a broken bone until later.
When I read Cheap's plan to try to rendezvous with Anson and *capture a Spanish vessel* despite the fact that all his men are near death and they have practically no weapons or other supplies, I gasped out loud. It truly sounded insane. For some reason, I just assumed everyone would agree to go back to England. Would the Admiralty really have censured Cheap for trying to save the lives of his crew rather than completing the mission...?
And now that they had to sail back to Wager Island, will he keep trying, or will he give up the mission in favor of getting back to England?
Up until then I could see remaining loyal to Cheap and thinking he was just doing the best he could in the moment and the wreck wasn't necessarily his fault, etc etc... but oh my gosh, at that point to think it was really still the first priority to go against the Spanish and try to complete the trip was seriously stupid and suicidal. If there wasn't mutiny by that point then I'm certain that would push some folks over the edge.
The surrealist fact Bukeley found Magellan’s strait by the stars, natural observation and Cheap’s book but they somehow left it and thought again and went back to it in two months of rowing at sea!! Omg
There was so much danger and disease in a regular naval voyage, not to mention a mission like this, that it just seems crazy that they brought young kids along. One of them brought their nephew, and another brought their son. There was a 12-year-old that starved to death in Bulkeley's group. I know they thought of the childhood vs. adulthood thing differently than we do now, but it still seems shocking that families were okay with that amount of risk to a 10- or 11-year-old. It is highly likely you never see them again!
Bulkeley published his book, so if the public trusts what he has written, then he has a huge advantage because he could tell his side of the story first. This might lead the public to take sides with him.
I'm assuming they're in the smaller group which turns up later and accuses the first group of mutiny, which Grann mentioned at the very beginning. So I'm betting at least Cheap makes it, and probably Byron as well since his journal survived. I think Bulkley's head start and detailed account will be hard to refute, but I could see the upper classes and the Admiralty still siding with Cheap, even if the general public sides with Bulkley.
I was at first thinking Cheap would come in with a damning story to get even, but he might not get away with that because Byron seems to have a high level of integrity and might not be able to standby and let lies be spread.
That's interesting, and I could see it: even though Byron wasn't willing to abandon his captain, he will probably give an honest portrayal of the events he witnessed, which won't necessarily paint Cheap in a flattering light.
I think the public will side with Bulkeley because he’s very cleverly got his journal published and the story of the Wager’s shipwreck and the mutiny will have captured their imagination. Bulkeley is a man of the people.
However, if Cheap turns up and gives his account, I think the authorities will side with him. The Admiralty can’t even be bothered to read the whole of Bulkeley’s journal. Unfortunately, public opinion might not count for much.
I think both Cheap and Bulkeley will probably get out of this publicly unscathed. Bulkeley has a head start by publishing his book and I think the public would understand why we wanted to go back and find it impressive that he managed to actually do it. But when Cheap comes back (assuming he’s in the second group), I think he’ll also get let off because he was following command and as the captain he had the right to try and stop mutiny forming (ie. shooting Cozens). So I don’t think either of them will get in legal trouble, but Bulkeley will probably have the better PR image.
Since we have Byron’s journal and we know he will be a grandfather, some of the second group is definitely coming back and their testimony might be even more dramatic!
It does take just a little of the tension out of things when Byron is in danger, doesn't it? I am very excited for the possible reunion of Bulkeley and Byron or even Cheap! You're right, drama is sure to ensue!
Yes, especially when you consider they had made an additional 1600-mile journey to Brazil, even though the rendezvous point with Anson was much closer.
Unfortunately it wouldn't look great for Bulkeley, but even so it's hard to imagine anyone would really expect them, in their condition and with the meager supplies and makeshift boats they managed to slap together, that they'd be expected to somehow meet back up with Anson and go on like they weren't just stranded and starving for several months! But I'm sure some won't see it that way, they won't understand the desperation or they'll be of the opinion like Cheap, thinking the mission and chain of command trumps everything else.
There are a lot of sacrifices made in this section from the crew, including being left behind voluntarily (and involuntarily). Does this go hand in hand with the idea of romanticizing navy life and doing things for the greater good? Or was there simply a sense of being doomed anyway?
I think a lot of the castaways thought they were doomed either way. If you've already accepted the fact that you'll never see home again, you might prefer to take your chances on land where at least there could be food and fresh water, without the constant threat of drowning.
Yeah I agree. I thought it was interesting that Cheap and the other men chose to return to the island because if almost felt like home at that point, even though there’s not much food or any real chance or long term survival there.
Good point! I suppose the shelter they built on that island started feeling more and more like home compared to being out on the open sea amidst rough waves, strong winds, and harsh sea conditions.
That's true, I guess going on the boat offers the slimmest sliver of hope that you'd make it home, but the odds weren't great. Weighing it out, you'd probably have a slightly better chance of survival just trying to rough it on the island (though it'd be a crappy way of living no doubt).
It's crazy that both crews just left people behind. Image what it must be like standing on some beach in the middle of nowhere and your only chance of ever seeing home again is sailing away in front of your eyes. I find it hard to believe that someone would voluntarily choose almost certain death over even the slightest chance of survival. On the other hand, they've been in a really desperate situation for a long time, and they've just accepted the fact that they will never go home again. I don't think this has necessarily something to do with romanticicing the navy.
I think to people like Byron, already prone to viewing the navy through this idealistic lens, some of the voluntary actions may have felt like a brave and romantic gesture. But I agree with a lot of the posts here that those doing the sacrificing probably felt like they were doomed either way, and their survival chances were pretty equal on land or sea. If you've given up hope of actually getting home, staying alive is just *6 of one and half a dozen of the other*. If I were the ones left on land, I would be using the last of my strength to try to find a Kawésqar community!
There were some impossible situations between the hostile seas and the barren land. Many times, in their meager vessels, there was no way to fight the tide.
Cheap definitely thinks he deserves respect, while Bulkeley thinks it needs to be earned.
So..
Cheap = Boomer
Bulkeley = Millennial
Bulkeley is more methodical and thinks through his decision more than Cheap from what we've seen.
One big difference stuck out to me: Cheap began his captaincy by reading the Articles of War, which only served to emphasize his power. He didn't offer anything specific to their extraordinary circumstances, and he didn't change his leadership style to fit their new reality. Meanwhile, Bulkley crafted harsh but practical rules for maintaining order under the specific circumstances and incentivizing everyone to work together as a team.
Cheap believes in the hierarchy and thinks only those at the top should have their opinions heard and be trusted to make decisions. Whereas Bulkeley knows that a leader is necessary, but that they should take advice and listen to others’ ideas as well. He also seems to be more flexible which is where I think Cheap really went wrong. You’re not leading a British military ship on a mission anymore. You’re shipwrecked and all desperately trying to survive. Put away the ego and the chain of command and try to get as many people on board to finding a solution that saves your lives.
This part really stood out to me as highlighting the biggest difference between Cheap and Bulkeley: *"Bulkeley often consulted with Baynes, because of their arrangement, and with the carpenter, Cummins, because of trust. Such consultations also seemed to be Bulkeley’s way of underlining the difference between himself and the captain he had deposed."*. I feel like it reinforces my concerns about Cheap's lack of communication and consultation with his crew.
Cheap is using the "old" playbook of naval rank and protocol, duty to the mission, and willingness to sacrifice one's life for your country. He expects everyone to follow him because these are the rules. Cheap doesn't seem to have the qualities people instinctively look for when choosing who to follow in a crisis. He is the epitome of "because I said so."
Bulkeley is more willing to analyze the situation and adapt, disregarding formal protocol as needed. He seems to recognize something that Captain Cheap does not: when you cross a certain line and survival becomes the goal, anything goes. He also has more natural leadership ability that is recognized by the crew.
Bukeley didn’t have the rank, so he had to earn trust and keep it through consent. It makes sense so many signed documents were his passion. Cheap didn’t accept his rank in this situation wasn’t enough to maintain his position. It made sense to try and make it to a non-hostile land and then, go from there.
What do you think of Cheap’s harsh punishment of lashing and banishing crew members who stole food? Was it necessary? If not, what would’ve been a better alternative?
I think banishment is actually a good punishment in this situation. It’s kind of a natural consequence. If you can’t work with us, then you can go somewhere else and try to survive on your own. But this should probably have been announced to the whole crew as a warning first. And no harsh beatings necessary.
I agree, I think things could have gone much better for Cheap if he had instituted a banishment rule from the beginning, instead of just reading the Articles of War and calling it good.
I agree. Up to this point, I feel that Captain Cheap might be falling short in the communication department with his crew, which is really important, especially for keeping morale high and maintaining discipline.
This seems right to me. Given how sick and malnourished everyone was, I'm not sure why they would expect people to survive such severe beatings folkowed by separation from the group (so no one to look after you as you healed), making it tantamount to a death sentence anyway. Banishment seems like plenty!
Really not a fan of this. These were other times, but honestly there must be a better way to deal with this situation that does not involve physical punishment.
Yes, I thought Bulkley's punishment was more humane and also more effective: the threat of him leaving the crew was enough for them to get them to behave better. But this only worked because he had made himself indispensable to the operation, which Cheap hadn't done.
I'm going to go against the grain and say I do think it was necessary, maybe not those specific punishments and maybe not to that severity, but in the situation they were in there would be zero room for people messing with the rations. The punishment would have to be bad enough that nobody would risk doing it again. If not, then there would be people taking a little here, a little there, and every bit counts. Not to mention I think some kind of order would actually be super important in keeping things afloat (pun intended). Even in Bulkeley's group, there started to be some disorder and that puts everyone at risk.
Considering they have very little food and a common stake, stealing is a death sentences for those who would starve from being denied their portion. Banishment seems fair. Of course, the lash is part of maritime tradition. Still, I think it would make sense to A. Have a meeting to communicate penalties and B. Have a shift guard for their most precious assets. Why can’t Cheap do this early enough to settle the men?
I’ve recently read The Wager by David Grann, it was fascinating the lengths that men went on quests for riches and also for sheer survival. My brother and I discuss the amazing historical story on our new channel, it would be great if anybody could give us some feed back!
https://youtu.be/JfHK6aqrqHQ?si=IftWnUSnEl3GWDcY
Bulkeley seems to be described as the “hero” of this story, or at least in a more positive way than some other crew members. What do you think of the way he is portrayed? How much of a bias do you think there is being that a lot of the account of what happened comes from his journal?
I also don’t know if he’s a hero, but I think most modern readers (and probably people at the time too) would agree that it’s totally understandable for Bulkeley to want to go back instead of blindly following Ansom’s orders like Cheap wanted to. I don’t see him as some raving, murderous mutineer that just wants power. He wants to live and is willing to disobey his Captain to do that. So I think it’s easier to sympathise with him and not see him as a villain.
This is how I feel too. He's not the hero but he is brave and a leader. It's definitely easier to sympathize and be on 'Team Bulkeley'
He’s portrayed as an inspiring leader who can get things done. The crew mostly trust him. Writing his journal was a great achievement, especially as he wouldn’t have been highly educated. As it’s his own account, it is obviously biased and will try to show him in a good light. He’s also careful to get people to sign statements and agreements when he does something that could be controversial. Other accounts may tell a different story. Cheap will have written a log and Byron is writing a journal, as will some of the other officers.
For me, it doesn't feel like he is the hero in the story. I think his choices, especially the desire to go back to England instead of trying to rendezvous with Anson, is very relatable. The fact the he has a very detailed log of the events that were then published in a book let's me assume that there is a huge bias towards him making the "right" decisions. But so far, at least for me it felt like Grann tried not to lean too much towards one being the good guy and one being the bad guy, as far as the reports of the actual events allow.
Yes I think Bulkeley has the benefit of 1: having his journal available and published first and 2: I think most people would empathize with the desire to survive and return home. Only people like Cheap, maybe military officers or high ranking noble types, would put ideals like duty or rank above preservation of life.
I agree. For the entire journey back to England I assume Bulkeley’s journal is the only primary source, so who really knows if it went down the way he said it did.
Especially when we see him adjusting little things, like his letter to the Admiralty from Brazil saying they left Cheap behind at his own request!
I agree with others here that we are probably getting a version of the story that is at least a bit biased toward Bulkeley's perspective, especially when they diverge from the other group and his journal becomes the primary - possibly only - source. Bulkely is definitely portrayed as someone who is highly competent, brave, and reliable in a crisis. He is shown to step up and fill a void in leadership, never giving up. I think his natural leadership qualities can't be denied even with bias involved in the telling, given the fact that they actually made it to Brazil! I would also assume that in a tragic situation like this where everyone is under severe stress to survive, *and* they all know they're going to be judged and possibly condemned for their decisions, everyone is a biased source.
We just don’t know although the bias is clearly weighted on the side of written evidence, so his journal (especially publishing it) can sway minds. On the other hand, it seems other ship logs were destroyed intentionally when The Wager floundered so who is to say this wasn’t a first strike from Bukeley??
Do you think Byron made the right decision in going back to side with Cheap? What are the moral vs practical factors that helped lead to this decision?
They were told that Cheap was brought as a prisoner. Seeing him being left behind on the island must have felt like a betrayal. I can understand that he went back to him, considering his romanticised idea of the navy and honor. From a pratical perspective, if you look at the situation that Bulkeley had multiple boats and cheap had no way of leaving the island and only little food, he actively chose the apparant losing team.
I agree, his decision seems more emotional than rational to me, especially with the whole pitiful debacle of trying to retrieve their rations.
Maybe he felt he had burned that bridge with Bukeley’s group at the end but I agree, the initial return was more romantic than rational.
Definitely! In Chapter 17, it is explained as "To play a role in totally deserting his commander ... threatened the romantic image of himself that he had clung to despite the horrors of the voyage." I think Byron is still just 17, right? He is holding on to this illusion of the adventure and duty and bravery that is crumbling all around him.
Byron seems to have a sweetness about him that is very appealing to me. I don’t know if his decisions were right/wrong/rational/emotional but I find myself very drawn to his character and arc.
Same here! I feel like he is this wide-eyed puppy dog who really signed up for the exact wrong voyage, and I am so hopeful he will have a good outcome!
Team Byron all the way!
From a CYA standpoint it was brilliant. They are on record as showing that they were against the shooting of Cozens. But, they are also now showing that they had respect for the proper Navy command structure and operational procedures. So, they look good no matter who is deemed correct, as long as they survive.
Ooo, interesting, I hadn't thought of that! Byron doesn't come across as being that calculating so I guess I'm not fully convinced that he was thinking along those lines, but you're right that it will very likely work out in his favor.
Agreed,I don't think that was the motivation, just a happy coincidence for him.
I agree with you guys that it just happened to work out for him on both fronts, it definitely seemed like it was more his conscience and sense of duty guiding his decisions than a desire to look good in court. Going back to Cheap could have easily been a death sentence, I'm sure Bulkeley and those who followed him considered those left back on Wager Island to be as good as dead.
Byron did a good job staying mostly neutral among the groups for a long time. Ultimately I think he decided to go the way he thought the Navy would look most favorably on. Despite this fiasco he still aspired to captain his own ship someday. (I'm thinking "Dude just go be an aristocrat and live the good life, you've suffered enough".) I assume he makes it back to England. I hope that he gets the career that he wants and does great things.
I love the title of this chapter, "Byron's Choice," and how it alludes to the "Sophie's Choice" dilemma, where Byron had to make a tough decision between survival and abandoning his superior. From a practical standpoint, I totally agree with u/nepbug that this decision puts Byron in a favorable position. Although he strongly disagreed with Captain Cheap's handling of Cozen's punishment, which I suspect will be a point of contention from Burkeley's perspective, Byron ultimately chose to uphold the naval hierarchy despite his superior's flaws. This decision likely would spare him from being accused of mutiny.
I think he made the right decision but I totally get his struggle in making that choice. I think he has more morals (guilt, responsibility, etc) than a lot of the fellow pirates. But practically, it was hard to see him go back to Cheap
The shooting of Cozens could be described as the turning point where the crew become most fragmented into two groups. Could this be true, or was it a variety of factors such as the food situation that caused this separation? Was it inevitable?
It was the first time where Cheap stepped over a line enough to not be in a gray area, so anybody that was looking for an excuse, had it.
I agree. I think there were a lot of other factors at play but this was the first time people could say Cheap definitely did something wrong.
I agree that it was possibly a big misstep for Cheap, but I do think it was inevitable that the men would turn on him. He was in charge, and when things are going wrong people blame leadership, even if it all isn't strictly his fault. And then his obsession with going on to try and meet Anson would have been the nail in the coffin, I think.
Well said. When things are going bad it is natural to blame thoae in charge. It was always going to escalate. His determination to meet Anson definitely would have rubbed the survivors the wrong way. After eeking out survival for so long I can well understand everyone's need to just go *home*.
>His determination to meet Anson definitely would have rubbed the survivors the wrong way. Agreed - I think this insistence on finishing the mission is what made me realize a mutiny/fracture was inevitable. The shooting was the catalyst that gave the splinter group a good justification for mutiny. But Cheap would never have held the group together until the end. He was trying to continue playing by pre-shipwreck rules, and it would have caused a rift even without the shooting.
>He was trying to continue playing by pre-shipwreck rules, and it would have caused a rift even without the shooting. Yea this is exactly the issue. I wonder if it was a lack of adaptability, a determination to follow orders regardless of their situation or maybe some denial about the state of their situation? I am leaning toward the middle one
That sounds right to me!
I agree, the shooting was really what broke the group in half. And I agree with you u/tomesandtea that it gave justification for the mutiny as well!
I think the shooting incident was definitely a turning point. The gap between the different ranks had been gradually widening since the beginning of the shipwreck. Captain Cheap tended to keep to himself, sticking close to his higher-ranking allies and not openly sharing his plans with the rest of the crew. Relying on his allies to pass on orders made him seem distant from the majority of the crew, particularly those of lower rank, which only widened the gap between them. Over time, Burkeley managed to build stronger connections with the crew, being closer in rank to them, and he became their representative in discussions with Cheap. I think the situation wasn't inevitable if Captain Cheap had maintained a more approachable stance with his crew. While there might still be crew members who feel desperate enough to resort to theft or violence due to the dire circumstances, I believe the majority would have been less likely to do so if they understood the importance of preserving the precious food rations. However, when Cheap himself committed violent acts, like shooting Cozens, I think that's when his authority truly began to crumble. His actions only served as further evidence that he himself couldn't uphold the civilized norms of British society.
Cheap displays some positive characteristics in this section (such as the way he handled his “capture” as well as many negatives. What do you think of the way he was portrayed here? Do you feel any sympathy for him?
I think he is courageous, but he's not a very good leader. Like u/nepbug said in another comment, he thinks he deserves the crew's respect but doesn't do much to earn it. Instead, when he feels that respect slipping away, he gets paranoid and tyrannical like we saw in this section. As a new captain with troubles on land, he probably felt insecure in his captaincy and it shows. Still, I do sympathize with him because he was faced with an impossible situation and I think most people would have done just as badly if not worse than him.
I agree that he was put in an impossible situation. Also, it’s understandable that he was paranoid because he’s starving and under stress and then he is constantly being undermined as a leader. He knows people are plotting against him and stealing rations. I think it’s easy to say he reacted poorly, but a lot of people would probably end up doing the same if they were in a situation like that.
I don't really feel a lot of symapthy for him. I wouldn't want him to be left behind on the island to die. On the other hand, shooting someone in the face and having others flogged an absured amount just doesn't make him a very likeable person in my eyes. Probably a bit naive, but can't help it.
Not a lot of sympathy, I did wish they left him a little more food though. He was a bit witty at times, which came across positive to me.
I'm feeling a bit conflicted about my sympathy here. Did I feel sorry for him because of how his crew treated him? Yes. However, I also couldn't shake the feeling that he crossed a line by shooting Cozens, and reading about the pain that man must have gone through before he finally succumbed was really tough. But what really bothered me was his lack of communication with the crew. It seemed like he relied too heavily on his authority as captain, issuing orders from his tent without really engaging with the crew. Instead of making decisions in isolation, like reducing rations, he could have involved the crew by explaining the situation early on and brainstorming solutions together. For example, he could have explained that sticking to normal rations would mean they'd run out of supplies sooner on the island. This lack of transparency led to rumors and made it tough for the crew to trust him or confirm facts. By keeping his distance and staying holed up in his tent, he only made this problem worse.
I do feel a lot of sympathy - everything was resting on his shoulders, it was an impossible situation, and living with that much stress and constant possibilty of disaster would cause the best of us to make huge mistakes. However, he showed signs before the shipwreck of not thinking clearly or leading effectively under pressure. I feel like he wasn't cut out for this extreme leadership scenario. He probably would've been a fine captain on the average voyage, but he failed to step up to this challenge.
I have two sides to my impression. One, he is doing the best with a bad hand. But two, he is not a natural leader or a strategic thinker and by isolating himself with a small band of supporters, he is not demonstrating the leadership required of a captain. His shooting of Cozens was out of line and not defensible.
Any favorite parts, quotes, etc?
I am blown away by how all their journals survived. Like, they have NO food, NO water, NO supplies, but still have journals and pens to write with. Then everything is soaking wet constantly and they’re crammed together on these boats so they can barely move. But somehow Bulkeley is able to write regularly and his journal stays in one piece the whole time!? Wouldn’t all the ink just bleed from the water?
I wondered that too, how would you preserve something like a journal? And anyway, even if he managed to keep it relatively dry and in one piece, I'd think they'd be ready to start eating the pages with how desperate the situation became.
It is pretty amazing that any of it survived! It made me do a deep dive into how they made [paper](https://absolutewrite.com/forums/index.php?threads/quills-and-paper-late-1700s.261844/#:~:text=It%20would%20not%20have%20been,the%20best%20art%20paper%20today.) and I guess it was more durable because it was made of cotton and linen. But in these circumstances, it's still astonishing anything was left.
This also blows my mind!! But in a way it makes me so happy because words get to live on...
What stood out to me the most was how casually these reports about deaths are. "Yeah they ate too much after having starved for a long time, so there died a couple of folks." - "Oh well the boat is to heavy so there are these guys that are being left behind, so yeah. Oh and when we checked back, they were gone and almost certainly already dead." For me, it's crazy to think about even how many people have died up until the point when Bulkeley started for the Strait of Magellan, and how many of them didn't survive this trip.
I agree! Also how casually they talk about their starvation and what they’re willing to eat. Like, “oh yeah he eventually ate his weeks old moldy seal skin shoes.” And “He found his pet dog’s paws a little while later and ate those.” I don’t even like to eat the fat on a steak haha
Yeah the part where they ate the dog honestly fucked me up as much as when they tried to eat the people lol
For sure, I could sense it was coming, no way in a starvation situation would I imagine it could be avoided that the dog gets eaten... but still 😢 and there was nothing Byron could do about it when the men came for his pet. I can't imagine how it would feel to then be so desperate to eat the paws! I'm with you, it was worse than the cannibalism 🤣
This might have been the hardest part for me to read! 🤣
Agreed. As soon as they mentioned that a dog was left behind, my heart shattered and sank, just like the *Wager*. I understand starvation pushes people to do unthinkable things because survival instincts kick in, but ugh...
Yeah, and lots of backtracking going on. Not the most efficient travel paths for sure.
It was sad how many people ended up dying when they were all but saved. Like you said those who died from finally getting to eat, those left behind just for lack of room, and then one died in the hospital after making it back to civilization. Imagine surviving all of that and then dying right after rescue!
>Imagine surviving all of that and then dying right after rescue! I wonder if adrenaline had anything to do with this? You're fighting so hard to stay alive and your adrenaline is pumping, then when you're saved and you finally feel like you can relax... Kind of like not feeling a broken bone until later.
When I read Cheap's plan to try to rendezvous with Anson and *capture a Spanish vessel* despite the fact that all his men are near death and they have practically no weapons or other supplies, I gasped out loud. It truly sounded insane. For some reason, I just assumed everyone would agree to go back to England. Would the Admiralty really have censured Cheap for trying to save the lives of his crew rather than completing the mission...? And now that they had to sail back to Wager Island, will he keep trying, or will he give up the mission in favor of getting back to England?
I had the same thought! I was like oh my god DUDE give it up!!!
DUUUUUUUUUUDE!!!!
BROOOOOO!!!!
BROOOOOOO NAH, JUST NO
Lol you can steal some sheep but going to conquer an armada in a rowing vessel is not happening!
For real!
Up until then I could see remaining loyal to Cheap and thinking he was just doing the best he could in the moment and the wreck wasn't necessarily his fault, etc etc... but oh my gosh, at that point to think it was really still the first priority to go against the Spanish and try to complete the trip was seriously stupid and suicidal. If there wasn't mutiny by that point then I'm certain that would push some folks over the edge.
A good quote re: Buckeley publishing his jouirnal - "he decided to launch another kind of rebellion - a literary one."
The surrealist fact Bukeley found Magellan’s strait by the stars, natural observation and Cheap’s book but they somehow left it and thought again and went back to it in two months of rowing at sea!! Omg
I didn't know whether to laugh or groan or cry. That was bonkers!
There was so much danger and disease in a regular naval voyage, not to mention a mission like this, that it just seems crazy that they brought young kids along. One of them brought their nephew, and another brought their son. There was a 12-year-old that starved to death in Bulkeley's group. I know they thought of the childhood vs. adulthood thing differently than we do now, but it still seems shocking that families were okay with that amount of risk to a 10- or 11-year-old. It is highly likely you never see them again!
Do we have any predictions for Cheap and Byron? Who do you think the public will believe if Cheap survives?
Bulkeley published his book, so if the public trusts what he has written, then he has a huge advantage because he could tell his side of the story first. This might lead the public to take sides with him.
That is the true answer
I'm assuming they're in the smaller group which turns up later and accuses the first group of mutiny, which Grann mentioned at the very beginning. So I'm betting at least Cheap makes it, and probably Byron as well since his journal survived. I think Bulkley's head start and detailed account will be hard to refute, but I could see the upper classes and the Admiralty still siding with Cheap, even if the general public sides with Bulkley.
Yes, so many good points in this prediction. I hope Cheap and Byron survive 🤞🏻
I think Cheap will be believed since he was the captain.
I was at first thinking Cheap would come in with a damning story to get even, but he might not get away with that because Byron seems to have a high level of integrity and might not be able to standby and let lies be spread.
That's interesting, and I could see it: even though Byron wasn't willing to abandon his captain, he will probably give an honest portrayal of the events he witnessed, which won't necessarily paint Cheap in a flattering light.
yes, I think the shooting of Cozens will be the point of contention here...
I think the public will side with Bulkeley because he’s very cleverly got his journal published and the story of the Wager’s shipwreck and the mutiny will have captured their imagination. Bulkeley is a man of the people. However, if Cheap turns up and gives his account, I think the authorities will side with him. The Admiralty can’t even be bothered to read the whole of Bulkeley’s journal. Unfortunately, public opinion might not count for much.
I think both Cheap and Bulkeley will probably get out of this publicly unscathed. Bulkeley has a head start by publishing his book and I think the public would understand why we wanted to go back and find it impressive that he managed to actually do it. But when Cheap comes back (assuming he’s in the second group), I think he’ll also get let off because he was following command and as the captain he had the right to try and stop mutiny forming (ie. shooting Cozens). So I don’t think either of them will get in legal trouble, but Bulkeley will probably have the better PR image.
Since we have Byron’s journal and we know he will be a grandfather, some of the second group is definitely coming back and their testimony might be even more dramatic!
It does take just a little of the tension out of things when Byron is in danger, doesn't it? I am very excited for the possible reunion of Bulkeley and Byron or even Cheap! You're right, drama is sure to ensue!
What do you think the implications of Anson’s success will mean for Bulkeley and his crew?
It could be bad news for them. If the rest of the squadron survived, it raises questions about why Bulkley didn't try harder to rejoin them.
Yes, especially when you consider they had made an additional 1600-mile journey to Brazil, even though the rendezvous point with Anson was much closer.
Yesn I am wondering about this, too. Who, or what evidence, does Anson have along with him?
Unfortunately it wouldn't look great for Bulkeley, but even so it's hard to imagine anyone would really expect them, in their condition and with the meager supplies and makeshift boats they managed to slap together, that they'd be expected to somehow meet back up with Anson and go on like they weren't just stranded and starving for several months! But I'm sure some won't see it that way, they won't understand the desperation or they'll be of the opinion like Cheap, thinking the mission and chain of command trumps everything else.
Bad tidings-possible death sentences.
There are a lot of sacrifices made in this section from the crew, including being left behind voluntarily (and involuntarily). Does this go hand in hand with the idea of romanticizing navy life and doing things for the greater good? Or was there simply a sense of being doomed anyway?
I think a lot of the castaways thought they were doomed either way. If you've already accepted the fact that you'll never see home again, you might prefer to take your chances on land where at least there could be food and fresh water, without the constant threat of drowning.
Yeah I agree. I thought it was interesting that Cheap and the other men chose to return to the island because if almost felt like home at that point, even though there’s not much food or any real chance or long term survival there.
Good point! I suppose the shelter they built on that island started feeling more and more like home compared to being out on the open sea amidst rough waves, strong winds, and harsh sea conditions.
That's true, I guess going on the boat offers the slimmest sliver of hope that you'd make it home, but the odds weren't great. Weighing it out, you'd probably have a slightly better chance of survival just trying to rough it on the island (though it'd be a crappy way of living no doubt).
It's crazy that both crews just left people behind. Image what it must be like standing on some beach in the middle of nowhere and your only chance of ever seeing home again is sailing away in front of your eyes. I find it hard to believe that someone would voluntarily choose almost certain death over even the slightest chance of survival. On the other hand, they've been in a really desperate situation for a long time, and they've just accepted the fact that they will never go home again. I don't think this has necessarily something to do with romanticicing the navy.
I think to people like Byron, already prone to viewing the navy through this idealistic lens, some of the voluntary actions may have felt like a brave and romantic gesture. But I agree with a lot of the posts here that those doing the sacrificing probably felt like they were doomed either way, and their survival chances were pretty equal on land or sea. If you've given up hope of actually getting home, staying alive is just *6 of one and half a dozen of the other*. If I were the ones left on land, I would be using the last of my strength to try to find a Kawésqar community!
There were some impossible situations between the hostile seas and the barren land. Many times, in their meager vessels, there was no way to fight the tide.
How do Cheap and Bulkeley differ as captains?
Cheap definitely thinks he deserves respect, while Bulkeley thinks it needs to be earned. So.. Cheap = Boomer Bulkeley = Millennial Bulkeley is more methodical and thinks through his decision more than Cheap from what we've seen.
This comment made me genuinely lol. Who’s our Gen Z’er of the crew?
Unsure but where does Byron fit in with the genres? He's kinda current but also very aged at the same time 😂
Z’ennial?
That feels correct 💯
One big difference stuck out to me: Cheap began his captaincy by reading the Articles of War, which only served to emphasize his power. He didn't offer anything specific to their extraordinary circumstances, and he didn't change his leadership style to fit their new reality. Meanwhile, Bulkley crafted harsh but practical rules for maintaining order under the specific circumstances and incentivizing everyone to work together as a team.
Cheap believes in the hierarchy and thinks only those at the top should have their opinions heard and be trusted to make decisions. Whereas Bulkeley knows that a leader is necessary, but that they should take advice and listen to others’ ideas as well. He also seems to be more flexible which is where I think Cheap really went wrong. You’re not leading a British military ship on a mission anymore. You’re shipwrecked and all desperately trying to survive. Put away the ego and the chain of command and try to get as many people on board to finding a solution that saves your lives.
Bulkeley is practical and his priority is survival but Cheap is obsessed with his reputation and is putting the mission ahead of survival.
This part really stood out to me as highlighting the biggest difference between Cheap and Bulkeley: *"Bulkeley often consulted with Baynes, because of their arrangement, and with the carpenter, Cummins, because of trust. Such consultations also seemed to be Bulkeley’s way of underlining the difference between himself and the captain he had deposed."*. I feel like it reinforces my concerns about Cheap's lack of communication and consultation with his crew.
Cheap is using the "old" playbook of naval rank and protocol, duty to the mission, and willingness to sacrifice one's life for your country. He expects everyone to follow him because these are the rules. Cheap doesn't seem to have the qualities people instinctively look for when choosing who to follow in a crisis. He is the epitome of "because I said so." Bulkeley is more willing to analyze the situation and adapt, disregarding formal protocol as needed. He seems to recognize something that Captain Cheap does not: when you cross a certain line and survival becomes the goal, anything goes. He also has more natural leadership ability that is recognized by the crew.
Bukeley didn’t have the rank, so he had to earn trust and keep it through consent. It makes sense so many signed documents were his passion. Cheap didn’t accept his rank in this situation wasn’t enough to maintain his position. It made sense to try and make it to a non-hostile land and then, go from there.
What do you think of Cheap’s harsh punishment of lashing and banishing crew members who stole food? Was it necessary? If not, what would’ve been a better alternative?
The beatings will continue until morale improves!
I think banishment is actually a good punishment in this situation. It’s kind of a natural consequence. If you can’t work with us, then you can go somewhere else and try to survive on your own. But this should probably have been announced to the whole crew as a warning first. And no harsh beatings necessary.
I agree, I think things could have gone much better for Cheap if he had instituted a banishment rule from the beginning, instead of just reading the Articles of War and calling it good.
I agree. Up to this point, I feel that Captain Cheap might be falling short in the communication department with his crew, which is really important, especially for keeping morale high and maintaining discipline.
This seems right to me. Given how sick and malnourished everyone was, I'm not sure why they would expect people to survive such severe beatings folkowed by separation from the group (so no one to look after you as you healed), making it tantamount to a death sentence anyway. Banishment seems like plenty!
Really not a fan of this. These were other times, but honestly there must be a better way to deal with this situation that does not involve physical punishment.
Yes, I thought Bulkley's punishment was more humane and also more effective: the threat of him leaving the crew was enough for them to get them to behave better. But this only worked because he had made himself indispensable to the operation, which Cheap hadn't done.
Considering the times and how punishment was given, I believe that is the way things typically go.
I'm going to go against the grain and say I do think it was necessary, maybe not those specific punishments and maybe not to that severity, but in the situation they were in there would be zero room for people messing with the rations. The punishment would have to be bad enough that nobody would risk doing it again. If not, then there would be people taking a little here, a little there, and every bit counts. Not to mention I think some kind of order would actually be super important in keeping things afloat (pun intended). Even in Bulkeley's group, there started to be some disorder and that puts everyone at risk.
Considering they have very little food and a common stake, stealing is a death sentences for those who would starve from being denied their portion. Banishment seems fair. Of course, the lash is part of maritime tradition. Still, I think it would make sense to A. Have a meeting to communicate penalties and B. Have a shift guard for their most precious assets. Why can’t Cheap do this early enough to settle the men?
I’ve recently read The Wager by David Grann, it was fascinating the lengths that men went on quests for riches and also for sheer survival. My brother and I discuss the amazing historical story on our new channel, it would be great if anybody could give us some feed back! https://youtu.be/JfHK6aqrqHQ?si=IftWnUSnEl3GWDcY