FANDOM


ship classEdit

The Endeavour is NOT an East Indiaman, if you know anything about ships of the time you would know that an East Indiaman only has one deck. Due to Beckett's military resources his vessel is obviously a first-rate ship of the line with its three decks. All ships that belonged to the EITC were not classified as East Indiaman, that was a specific type of vessel. This should be corrected. Unsigned comment by TPrice180 (talk • contribs).

  • Feel free to correct it. I don't know much about ships; the Wikipedia entry designated it an East Indiaman, so I simply used that - Kwenn 08:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Kwenn, both the Endeavour and the Dauntless are the exact same class of ship, if you observe closely they are identical. Now as for the length of the ship i cannot confirm at this time, but just from counting the number of cannons onboard from watching the movie three times one can tell that there's ATLEAST 96 guns (15 in a row, times 3 rows equals 45, times 2 equals 90 plus the 3 on the quarterdeck at the stern times 2 equals 6 plus 90 equals 96). Now through thorough examination of the vessel its obvious that it is the same, however, other than the 96 guns I cannot account for the other information such as the ship length or EXACT number and TYPE of guns. So feel free to remove the information.

I believe you could supply the article with the information that it has 96 total cannons, just be sure to state that it is estimated or approximate, not exact. Lieutenant Groves 05:42, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

The dauntless and the endeavour are both exactly the same ship and both are based on the hms victory ... LOOK IT UP.....*Thanks. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but I'd rather have official confirmation of the Endeavour's stats, though - \\Captain Kwenn//Ahoy! 07:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That's completely understandable, I don't have any objection, simply making my point known. --TPrice180 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Its pretty apparent that Endeavour is a Ship of the Line, whether first or second rate The term "Warship" was not even used officially in the 1700's. Its a good idea to keep Warship there in the infobox, since its sourced, but I think Ship of the Line should also be added. Like Captain Kwenn said, Endeavour, Dauntless, and Victory are one and the same. -- Smeagol630 (talk) 23:03, January 11, 2014 (UTC) --

Registry Edit

I'm aware the movie script has her as HMS Endeavour, but shouldn't she be registered as HEIC? Seeing as she's a EITC ship an' all - just asking.

  • Possibly, but we have to go with official published material - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 14:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • EITC ships had no prefix, and the EITC didn't build First-rate ships of the line, so the Endeavour must originally have been a Navy ship, which they lent or sold to the EITC. El Chupacabra 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Governor SwannEdit

  • Unlike on the Dauntless, Governor Swann actually worked on the Endeavour. Should he be included in the crew?--Lord Cutler BeckettPort Royal 19:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Destruction of the Endeavour Edit

How come the Endeavour is destroyed so quickly at the end of "At world's end"? Did a shot hole her below the waterline and hit her magazine? After all, it was very unusual for ships to blow up in action during the age of sail, unless they'd been boarded and their magazines rigged, like H.M.S. Interceptor. Ships often didn't sink as a result of battles, but of storms or running aground in the aftermath. Endeavour heavily outguns both the Black Pearl and the Flying Dutchman, her broadside being more than the total number of guns on either vessel. Does anyone know whether either of those ships has any supernaturally powerful guns that could explain this? Other than the magazine being pierced theory? BritishNavySeaCadet1759 21:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ships could easily explode if their gunpowder store got on fire. (most famous example is the Kronan). I assume something similar happened on the Endeavour. El Chupacabra 08:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your view on the destruction of Endeavour. She looks new in the film, and could possibly have been built rapidly, explaining the appalling damage she recieves, as her wood may not be seasoned or may be weak wood (Fir, Pine) instead of oak. For example, only a few shots have to hit the mainmast before it collapses, and all her paint is bright and spotless. This could be because she may have been rapidly built for the Navy then transferred to the EITC, as Beckett's fleet needed every ship it could get.BritishNavySeaCadet1759 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Becket would take a piece of crud as his flagship. The Endeavour was definately new, though, and even oak needs time to settle in a bent position. You may already know, that when you steam-bend the planks of a ship to put them on, they will keep trying to straighten for a while, causing lots of preassure and strain on the holding timbers and bolts. That makes even a few cannonballs skipping across her sides loosen the bolts, until the timbers split, giving the shots a clear hit for the gunpowder store. Just an opinion.
Smeagol630 (talk) 16:23, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

endeavour's destruction Edit

i don't understand, the flying dutchman: 46 6-Pound cannons(weak) and 2 triple cannons(not of use for sideways shooting) the black pearl:32 standard cannons vs HMS endeavour who has 106 standard cannons !calculate this! crew:well trained soldier pirates crew:rumbaggs or guys who just became human form the endeavour could take the dutchman and the pearl in almost one wave of cannonballs so what's the reason? -beckett was sooo confused that he was unable to take action(shock theory?)???

oh and if the endeavour is based on the HMS victory, the the heaviest canon is 32 pounds

The crew abandoned ship before the broadsides started. No crew = no-one to fire the guns. Raven's wing 16:10, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

The Dutchman wiki page finally settled on its armament including 36-pounders and 24-pounders, rather than just 6-pounders. A 36 is more than capable of putting a ball through the side of the Endeavour at that point, which is sufficient to cause the magazine to detonate. I'm somewhat skeptical of the Pearl's 12-pounders doing significant damage against a first-rate, but the Dutchman's guns should have been more than capable. Thunda792 (talk) 19:23, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

Another thing to note is that in the days of sail, there was normally only enough crew on a warship to fully man one broadside's worth of guns, with the crews being split to engage targets on both sides. The confusion of having to split the crews to deal with both the Pearl and the Dutchman rather than the single target that they were anticipating might have at least played a role in its lack of response to the attack. Thunda792 (talk) 19:25, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that there weren't enough for a double broadside. A first-rate such as Endeavour would probably have 500 to 800 men on her. Divide that by around five (or possibly six for the heavy 24 lb's and 32 lb's) per gun, that would probably be way more than enough to man both the guns and the rigging on deck. -- Smeagol630 (talk) 22:49, January 11, 2014 (UTC) --

I'm not arguing that there weren't enough crew for a double broadside, I'm just saying that they weren't anticipating it and had to adjust. Planning to engage one target (the Pearl) and then having another (the Dutchman) turn against you with only a minute or two's notice might have caused a scramble and delayed any return fire. Also keep in mind that while you could technically man each cannon with 5 or 6 sailors, 24-pounders had an ideal crew of 12, and 32-pounders a crew of 14. The guns weigh between two and three tons a piece, so a diminished crew would have a tough time adjusting for aim (particularly from the upper decks who would have had to aim down), loading, or running them out. Assuming a compliment of 850 (using Victory as a model) and every single man on the guns, as well as an average crew on each gun of 13 (between the sizes of the cannons on the two lower decks), you'd only be able to effectively use around 60 (or around one broadside when you factor in the third deck) with a full crew on each weapon. While a double broadside would have been possible and trained for, it'd have not been particularly easy and probably confusing in the heat of the moment. Thunda792 (talk) 00:04, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

Okay then. How does this sound: Due to the confusion, Becket was unable to give orders to fire, therefore the main armament, swivels, and marines held their fire until the situation was hopeless, and then abandoned ship for their own sake. Sounds reasonable. Think about what would have happened if Becket actually gave orders to fire, or his first lieutenant followed his own gut, and ordered 'fire'? POTC would have ended up very differently. I wouldn't call Becket the best man to lead a naval campaign. If he ordered the whole armada to attack in a line of battle, avoiding the maelstrom, maybe the Dutchman wouldn't have been commandeered. -- Smeagol630 (talk) 18:08, January 12, 2014 (UTC) --

Sounds perfectly reasonable. Sorry if I came across as pushy, by the way, I'm just trying to throw in another theory.Thunda792 (talk) 07:51, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

No harm done. Endeavour is quite a touchy subject, since so little has actually been revealed about her. I personally think that the bothersome lax quality template can be removed by now. By the way, if you want to indent your comments, just put a : (colon) before each paragraph (in source mode). It helps identify what's who's. -- Smeagol630 (talk) 17:13, January 13, 2014 (UTC) --

Captain of the Endeavor? Edit

The article says that Beckett was the ship's captain which seems unlikely. Where does it say anywhere that he was the ship's captain? The ship did belong to Beckett (it was where he commanded the entire EITC navy, making him more as an Admiral). I would think that Greitzer would be the captain of the vessel rather than Beckett who acted as the admiral/commodore. Beckett didn't do much commanding of his ship anyway, so someone with the official navy rank of commander must have done it for him. I know I am over analizing this, but it does not seem to make very much sense. Mrcharlton 02:59, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Because Beckett was the overall commander of the vessel. What you're saying is like saying that Gibbs was captain of the Interceptor while Jack Sparrow was in command as captain. --J Fan SigBlack Pearl, HMS Interceptor, Queen Anne's Revenge 03:02, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
I was more comparing Beckett to someone like Governor Swann in COTBP, an Elite passenger. Either that, or he could be like Admiral Horatio Nelson (or any other Admiral for that matter) and command the entire fleet out of the Victory (his personal flagship) while have someone actually worry about captaining the ship. Also, it seems kind of strange that someone of Beckett's importance would take the time to actually captain a ship when he has "good buisiness" to take care of.
Mrcharlton 03:09, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
Governor Swann technically wasn't in command of the Dauntless because he wasn't leading a war, unlike Beckett. --J Fan SigBlack Pearl, HMS Interceptor, Queen Anne's Revenge 03:11, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
Then wouldn't make that more of an admiral than a captain? He was the commander of all the forces and ships of the EITC which each had a commanding officer onboard. If this was the case, someone else would be captain of the Endeavor and Beckett would be mearly using it as his HQ to give out his orders to everyone else.
Mrcharlton 03:23, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
Barbossa was also Admiral of the HMS Providence, so I guess Beckett would have been admiral of the Endeavour(but sadly it's not said anywhere officially). --J Fan SigBlack Pearl, HMS Interceptor, Queen Anne's Revenge 03:26, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
In that case, should we change Beckett and put him under the Admiral catergory? Also, unless it has been already stated that Greitzer was a lieutenant, maybe we should add him as a captain instead (as he did appear to be the one in charge of the Endeavor, apart from Beckett of coarse)
Mrcharlton 03:29, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
No. As I just said, it hasn't been officially stated. And Greitzer was already stated as a lieutenant by Beckett in AWE. But I don't think he was in charge(in the second-command way), compared to Groves. --J Fan SigBlack Pearl, HMS Interceptor, Queen Anne's Revenge 03:32, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
You say Groves and Greitzer are the first and second officer of Beckett, but in a scene after the battle of singapore, when Mercer is talking to Beckett in his cabin behind there is a group of officers among them, two appear to be commander. One of them was on the pearl in the skirmish of the black sands, he died. I think the first officer of Beckett was Norrington and the second was one the was a commander. When Norrington from the Flying Dutchman and the commander died abord the Pearl, I think the other commander became the first officer and Groves is the second officer. Omaha 3945 09:37, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Endeavour Length Edit

they said the endeavour was 200 feet (61 meters). That seems unlikely because when I compare the pearl (50m) to the endeavour, the endeavour seems much longer than just by 10 meters. -- FlamingShipwreck 05:32, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Correction: 200 feet is exactly 60 meters. Also, looking at the picture, the Endeavour really isn't all that much longer than the Pearl as I look very closely. The sails make the Endeavour look much larger than it actually is, I suppose. 98.127.96.128 23:18, June 15, 2013 (UTC)