So what, exactly, is a sloop?

What I know today as a sloop is a one masted fore & aft sail ship with a boom and gaffed rigged main sail. With a jib and staysail with a gaff top sail,A sloop usally carrie a center board.

Now in earlier times boyh the Britsh & US navy used the term Sloop to cover ships serving as auxiliares that didn't fit into any other class of warship.A "Sloop Warship' had 10 to 20 guns. Later on there were other divisions of this class.

The Constellation I believe has always been in the Frigate class. I've never heard of it as a sloop.
Rod

Rod,

The first Constellation was a frigate, the second, existing one is a sloop of war.

And, in fact, Websters give the following definition for sloop of war:

QUOTE: a small warship with guns on only one deck

That fits much better with what I know of the Constellation. I simply needed to look a bit further in the dictionary.

Regards,

Oooohhhh boy. "Sloop" is one of the most vexing words in the English language. It's had at least a dozen definitions over the centuries. In the museum where I used to work I was once asked to come up with a definition of it that could be used to classify ship models, paintings, artifacts, etc. in a computer program. I gave up. I also had to write a definition of it for a reference book on the American Revolution some time back. That wasn't quite as impossible, due to the limited time frame involved, but was still frustrating.

Part of the confusion comes from the fact that the word was sometimes used to describe the vessel's rig and sometimes to describe its military function. In eighteenth-century English the word seems to have had at least three meanings. A "sloop" (with no modifier attached) seems to have been a single-masted, square-rigged vessel (merchant or naval) with a fixed (as opposed to shifting) bowsprit. A "sloop-of-war" (sometimes, particularly in the nineteenth century, also known as a "corvette") was a three-masted, square-rigged warship with all (or nearly all) of its guns on one uncovered, full-length deck (as opposed to a frigate, which had a substantial number of guns on its long quarterdeck and forecastle). And a "brig-sloop" (otherwise known as a brig-of-war) had about the same armament as a sloop-of-war, but only two masts. The term "brig-sloop" doesn't come up often, but it does seem to have been used.

The distinction between a sloop and a cutter seems to have been a matter of whim. At least one source says a sloop had a fixed bowsprit and a cutter had a shifting bowsprit (i.e., one that slid in and out). But there's at least one documented case of a British naval vessel being reclassified from a cutter to a sloop because (drum roll, please) the commanding officer got promoted from lieutenant to commander.

In the merchant service the word seems to have been used even more carelessly. There are references to "sloops" that, according to most textbook definitions, were brigs. In this context the word seems to have implied more about the size of the vessel than anything else.

In more recent years the British Royal Navy has applied the word "sloop" to several classes of steam-powered warship. And, of course, a modern yachtsman regards almost any single-masted, fore-and-aft-rigged sailboat as being sloop-rigged.

I suspect somebody else can come up with several other meanings, but this is the point where I give up. Some people think sailing ship jargon is precise and consistent. They're mistaken.

Thank you very much Mr. Tilley! Your explanation really does help me put things into their proper perspective.

Regards,

Actually, the sailing age naval terms "sloop" does not refer to a particular type of vessel. Instead, it refers to any highsea vessel of war under the permanent command of a officer of the rank "Master and Commander", which is intermediate between Lieutenant and full captain.

In practice:

1. vessels with more than 28 guns are always commanded by a full captain, and so are never called "sloops".

2. the upper end of sloop range does overlaps with lower end of Frigate range. If a ship with 24-28 guns is commanded by a master and commander, then she is called a "Sloop". If she is commanded by a full captain, she is called a "light Frigate"

3. if a ship or brig with less than 24 guns is commanded by a master and commander, then she is still called a sloop. but if she is commanded by a full captain, she is called a "post ship".

4. Vessels of 14 guns or less are sometimes commanded by a Lieutenant, in which case the vessel would be called a "cutter". If she is commanded by a Master and Commander, she would still be called "sloop".

just to add to the mix here, all which are correct. A Sloop was the term given for a "ship rigged" Brig or a large brig with three masts that were square rigged. Sloops were at minimum commanded by a Master and Commander or a Junior Post Captain (less than 3 years seniority), while the smaller brigs (even those rigged square on two masts) were commanded by Lieutenants.

Some larger sloops were actually more heavily armed than the smaller 26-28 gun frigates, carrying 18 carronades and long nine stern and bow chasers.

Most confusing is'nt it?

cheers

Mike

The last two posts are, of course, correct regarding the use of the word in describing the military function of a vessel. (I've never encountered the word "brig" in reference to a vessel with more than two masts, but I wouldn't be surprised if it got used that way.) Much of the confusion, though, comes from the fact that the word "sloop" was also used to describe a RIG - whether in the navy or the merchant service.

A single-masted, square-rigged naval vessel commanded by a lieutenant would be referred to as a "sloop." If the same vessel was commanded by a commander (who would indeed be a "master and commander," since he commanded the ship - but wouldn't necessarily be addressed as "master" if he didn't) it would be, technically, a "sloop-rigged cutter" (unless it had a shifting bowsprit, in which case it would be, I suppose, a "cutter-rigged cutter"). But two contemporary documents might refer to that vessel as either a "sloop" or a "cutter."

That word "cutter" is almost as bad. It refers, in various contexts, to (1) a small boat with notches in its gunwales instead of oarlocks, (2) a single-masted, square-rigged vessel with a shifting bowsprit, (3) a single-masted, square-rigged warship commanded by an officer with a rank higher than lieutenant - and (4) a vessel of the Revenue Service, regardless of rig. In 1790 the U.S. Congress, presumably borrowing British terminology, authorized the construction of thirteen "revenue cutters," thereby establishing the "Revenue Cutter Service" (or "Revenue Marine"; nobody was picky about that terminology either), the first predecessor of the modern U.S. Coast Guard. Nobody batted an eye when those "cutters" turned out to be (in terms of rig) schooners. And today's Coast Guard, of course, uses the word "cutter" to refer to any vessel (other than a tender) that's more than a hundred feet long - including the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Eagle, which is a three-masted barque.

All this stuff is interesting and fun to mess around with. In recent publications, though, I've noticed a tendency on the part of erudite authors to suggest that all this terminology was used with great precision in the eighteenth century. It wasn't. The private letters, official reports, orders, etc. written by eighteenth-century British naval officers were pretty sloppy in their use of teminology. (They used the phrase "H.M. Sloop," for instance, quite casually; you have to look up the vessel by name to find out whether they're talking about a vessel with one mast or three.)

Most of the research I've done myself in such documents dealt with the American Revolution. I have the general impression that the jargon of British naval officers did get more precise during the next few decades, but I don't think those guys were ever as meticulous in their use of the language as some of the modern writers would have us believe.

I've never become even remotely literate in nautical-speak in any language other than English. I wonder whether French or Spanish - or, for that matter, any of the Asian languages - has created such an impenetrable morass of jargon to talk about ships as English has.

Fascinating, frustrating stuff. It's neat to have a forum like this in which to talk about it. Back in the real world, if I can convince my colleagues and students that there's a difference between a ship and a boat I feel like I've accomplished something. (The chair of the history department where I work once came back from a vacation trip to England with a photo of what he referred to as "the ****** end of H.M.S. Victory." Not having tenure at the time, I just smiled.)

Either the computer program operating this forum is astonishingly sophisticated, or the Webmaster is going beyond the call of duty in getting up this early on Saturday morning. " ***** " materialized in my last post within seconds after I posted the original language. Bravo. To borrow a phrase from the great movie "A Man For All Seasons," I'm well-rebuked.

I would like to thank everyone in this thread and for all their input. I have always been interested, if not at times totally frustrated, with the ratings of a sloop of war. Many books have sloops as main vessels, yet when reading them, one would get the impression than they are a large ship, which, as refering to the legal definition of a sloop as JTIlley explained, would leave a reader questioning why the author is calling a ship, when it is described as to what could be a frigate, a sloop? Your comments have helped cleared up this matter.
Scott

Confusing nautical terminology is not unique to the eighteenth century. When I was working in a maritime museum I was once approached by a young computer programmer (who was there on a grant-related project). She asked me whether the S.S. United States was a steamship, a passenger ship, or an ocean liner. I told her "all three," and tried to explain. Her eyes quickly glazed over. I guess I don't blame her. I suspect that, by this time, the originator of this thread, Lufbery, is in a similar condition - and wishes he'd never brought the subject up.

Ah, this is a good discussion to have over a pot of coffee eh?

My wife was puzzled a few years ago when she got a package from the "United Steamship and Telegraph Company". She thought they'd change their name since they don't use steamships or telegraphs anymore.

A year or so later, I was at a convention where there were owners of a container ship line. They still call the ships "steamers" and still refer to wireless communications as telegraph and direct wire as telephony.

Technology may change, but the terminology may not.

We got into a discussion about the meaning of "steamship" at the Mariners' Museum once. The Steamship Historical Society announced that it was going to donate a special award for the museum's once-every-five-years ship model competition. The award was to go to "the best model of a steam-powered vessel." The Society further specified that the means used to generate the steam would not be specified. Since nuclear submarines use nuclear energy to boil water, and the steam produced by that process is what makes the propellers turn, models of nuclear submarines were deemed eligible for the award. Fortunately for us, none of them got it. Something tells me that, if one of them had, the howls of protest from the folks who'd entered riverboats and ocean liners would have been audible all over Virginia.

QUOTE: Originally posted by jtilley I suspect that, by this time, the originator of this thread, Lufbery, is in a similar condition - and wishes he'd never brought the subject up.

Not at all! This is fascinating stuff.

To expand my question just a bit. I'm pretty sure I've read of sloops being referred to as corvettes. How did the term corvette come into being, and what kind of ship does the term refer to?

For a bonus, how did the sports car get its name? From a type of ship?

Regards,

I'm in danger of getting out of my depth here. My impression is that "corvette" was originally a French term. I don't recall encountering it in any of the original documents I've read, which dated mainly from the late eighteenth century.

The glossary in the relevant volume of Conway's History of the Ship, The Line of Battle: The Sailing Warship, 1680-1840, has this to say: "Corvette, French term for small unrated cruising vessels from the barque longue (qv), equivalent to the British sloop. By the nineteenth century corvettes were sometimes regarded as intermediate vessels between frigates and sloops."

Conway is a British publisher, and the books in this series tend to have a gentle British slant. I would add that "corvette" also appears in American documents from the nineteenth century, and in American parlance there seems to be little, if any, difference between a sloop of war and a corvette. I think I remember, for instance, several documents that refer to the U.S.S. Constellation (the one now at Baltimore) as a corvette, and at least one that refers to her as a sloop.

How the car got its name, and whether it has a nautical connection, I have no idea. I do remember, from my days as a hobby shop employee, an ad in some magazine or other that offered a special deal on a "Matchbox Corvette" for something less than $5.00. I suspect more than one poor schlepp sent in his check expecting a 1/72 British WWII warship, and got back a diecast automobile. Ah, the wonders of the English language - and the nefarious uses to which some people put it.

Sorry guys. The current Connie is a frigate. She has four guns on the top deck and three masts. I always thought the British during the 17 and 18 centuries classified a sloop of war by how many guns she carried? If you have ever read the Dudley Pope novels, Lord Ramage started out on a sloop of war. the Kathleen had two masts and carried 12 guns on one deck....Maybe different countries have different ideas on what is a sloop of war. Hope this helps.
Capt. Chris
Arlington, VA.

Sorry for the brain dead act

The Constellation web site lists the ship as a "sloop of war" but being much larger than any other sloop. This is a topic that has come up on more than one night of Navy drinking. For this to be a sloop of war. The Connie would have to remove three guns and a mast. There are two 10" pivots located on the spar deck and one 12 pound boat gun located aft on the quarter deck. I have to say that you guys are right. Depending on who you talk to, a sloop can be just about anything. All I can say is the HMS Victory can never be called a sloop of war. Any other ship can be down classed at any time. All those years I thought I was on a carrier, turns out I was on a escort vessel......

I'm not a ship modeler, but I enjoy coming to this forum and getting an education.
Thanks
John
Helicopters don't fly, they beat the air into submission

My position on this stuff is that how we define all these terms in 2004 doesn't matter much; what counts is how the professionals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries used them.

I haven't had occasion to look at any genuine documents related to the Constellation, but I've done some reading about her in good secondary sources that quote those documents in some detail (though I don't have any of them in front of me). My recollection is pretty clear that they referred to her as "the corvette Constellation" or "the new sloop-of-war Constellation." I agree that, by some perfectly reasonable definitions, she could be called a frigate, but that doesn't seem to be what the Navy called her.

Part of the confusion may come from the fact that the documentation about the Constellation has gotten messed up in the last few decades. There was a long period when the people responsible for preserving her were trying to convince themselves and everybody else that she was the frigate built in 1797. (That ship was, indeed a frigate; there's not much room for argument about that.) The book Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered, by Dana Wegner and Colin Ratliffe (I apologize if I've misspelled the latter's name) contends that some forged documents about her were planted in several repositories around the country; it's a bizarre story. But as I understand it the current management of the project calls her a sloop-of-war or a corvette, built in the 1850s. One reliable piece of modern scholarship that I do happen to have in front of me, the relevant volume in the "Conway's History of the Ship," calls her a "spar-decked corvette." In my opinion those are accurate descriptions.

The original distinction between a sloop-of-war and a frigate was (I think) that the former had all its guns on one deck and the latter had them on a raised quarterdeck and forecastle as well. But over time "sloops-of-war" got built with small raised quarterdecks and forecastles, and a few guns got placed on them - without changing the classification of the ship.

The distinctions between classes really did get blurry as the years went by -especially in the U.S. (Chrisstedt is right: different countries defined the words differently - and the divergence got worse over the years.) By the middle of the nineteenth century, for instance, American naval architects and shipyards were producing "frigates" that were pierced for guns all along their upper decks - but nobody called them "ships-of-the-line."

An eighteenth- or nineteenth-century naval officer probably would call this whole discussion silly, because he'd think the definitions were so obvious that they weren't worth arguing about. Today, unfortunately, we have to use documents, pictures, plans, and inferences to figure out how that intricate, obsolete vocabulary worked. It's interesting but frustrating. At least those eighteenth- and nineteenth-century guys didn't have to worry about sports cars with nautical names getting thrown into the mix.