Lately I've been thinking about the
Titanic. Like, a lot. Not the fictionalized movie, but the real thing, which is not something I ordinarily do at all, believe me. Though I've had a keen interest on the subject since childhood (I first learned of it from my mother, who told me about the 'unsinkable' ship that sank, in spite of those who claimed that "Even God Himself could not sink this ship", and how- at the time- the wreck had never been found in spite of many attempts to. Yes, I'm that old.), I've never been obsessed with it like some people are, never bothered to look beyond just the basic details that most everyone knows. At least not until now.
Growing up I saw several TV documentaries about
Titanic, including at least one that told how they planned to raise her if they ever found her (by using some very large balloons or some such nonsense, LOL!). And then came the discovery of the wreckage in 1985, and the realization that she was in no condition to ever come back to the surface.
Let's start with the popular 1997 movie, and get that out of the way. I did not go to see it in theaters, as I really wasn't interested at the time. I do have a DVD copy that was bought a few years ago, second hand. I honestly do like the movie for the most part, as much of it is very accurate, although I'm a bit disgusted with the inclusion of FICTIONAL characters and the turning of it into a stupid love story. To me, it seems insensitive to those who actually were a part of that horrible nightmare. They actually left out quite a few historically accurate scenes in favor of more screen time for 'Jack' and 'Rose'. Facepalm.
But anyway, to the point. Are some things just meant to happen? Are certain events- like the
Titanic disaster- written into the fabric of time, and are therefore unalterable? Fate, if you will? There are many, many things that can be mentioned as examples, but for now I'm sticking to the subject of the
Titanic, specifically.
It could almost be considered a comedy of errors, except that there was no comedy involved at all. Nothing even slightly funny about the tragic loss of over 1500 lives that night, in mid-April of 1912. It's been said that even if one tiny detail had changed...like had she been just a few minutes earlier or later in her voyage, that she most likely would have missed the iceberg completely. Or perhaps if the night sky had been illuminated by the moon (it was a very dark, moonless night), or the sea a little less calm (waves at night lapping against icebergs or other objects help mariners see things that otherwise would appear nearly invisible), that the iceberg would have been spotted in time to steer around it. But as everyone knows, it was not to be.
As the RMS
Titanic left her dock in Southampton, she nearly collided with a smaller ship, the SS
New York, that was moored nearby. The pull from
Titanic's great propellers was so strong that it caused the ropes holding the
New York to snap, and the ship to wander into
Titanic's path. At literally the last second, a tugboat managed to pull the smaller ship away. It was close- one eyewitness stated that there was only two or three feet between the two ships. Some passengers felt that this was a bad omen. Was this incident a forewarning of what was to come? And if
Titanic had hit the smaller ship, would that have delayed her course and possibly saved all those lives? Quite likely.
What compelled Captain Edward Smith, a well-seasoned, highly respected and experienced White Star Line captain nearing retirement (in fact, the maiden voyage of
Titanic was to be his last crowning achievement before retirement), to barge ahead at nearly top speed through an ice field even after receiving several warnings from other ships that had gone through the same waters hours before? Was he so sure of himself and of the ship that he was oblivious to the danger? Or was he merely following orders from his boss, J. Bruce Ismay? Even if he was just trying to please Ismay, Captain Smith should have recognized the risk.
What if
Titanic had collided head-on with the iceberg, instead of scraping against it? A head-on collision, some claim, would have severely damaged the bow, and probably killed those on and inside that part of the ship, but it might have spared the ship from sinking. Might. Or it might have caused her to sink even faster, no one knows for certain.
Had the iceberg punctured fewer than five of the sixteen water-tight compartments, most likely she would have been able to have handled it and stay afloat. Additionally, had one of the bulkheads not been already damaged and weakened by a fire that had been smoldering for several days in one of the coal bunkers, that bulkhead most likely would have held the sea back until either help arrived or they could sail on to safety.
Then there's the huge controversy surrounding the mystery ship that was close enough to her that night, after she began sinking, to have likely been of at least some help. That ship was later identified to be the SS
Californian, estimated to be about ten miles away (or less, according to some sources) from
Titanic's position. Trying to get the attention of the
Californian, the crew of the
Titanic were ordered to first attempt Morse lamp, then wireless calls, and finally to send up rockets (firecrackers used as distress signals), one every five minutes or so. Indeed, Captain Stanley Lord of the
Californian was awakened from sleep by a member of his crew, and did in fact see the distress rockets; but after watching them for a while and puzzling over and commenting on it all, thought nothing more of them and went back to sleep! To make matters worse, the wireless operator on the
Californian was off duty for the night- otherwise he would have received
Titanic's frantic distress calls. Neither Captain Lord nor anyone else aboard apparently thought to bother him or turn on the wireless set.
To be fair, the
Californian was a small vessel and had stopped for the night due to being surrounded by ice and may not have been able to reach
Titanic any sooner than the rescue ship
Carpathia (as some claim), yet that doesn't excuse her captain from doing nothing. Also to be fair, there is speculation about whether it really was the
Californian that was so close, or another ship. The possibilities include the
Mount Temple, and the
Samson, whose crew was believed to be engaged in an illegal seal hunting operation, and therefore wanting to remain discreet. But the fact remains that the captain and crew of the
Californian saw the distress signals and the strange appearance of the
Titanic in the distance as she was sinking, and failed to act. Why?
And the lifeboats. We all know that there weren't nearly enough of them for everyone aboard, but even with what there was, most were not filled to capacity. Some were only half full as they rowed away from the scene. And those that still had room- with the exception of two- never returned to the scene to pick up anyone from the frigid water. The excuse given was that had they done so, they would have been swarmed with people climbing on board, and perhaps putting everyone already on the boats in danger. There is no doubt truth in that theory, but it still seems rather heartless to just ignore hundreds of dying people when you had the room to save at least a few of them.
Next comes the premonitions. Several people claimed to have "a bad feeling" about the maiden voyage before it even started. Survivor Eva Hart's mother was so certain that something dreadful was going to happen, that she tried in vain to persuade her husband from boarding. And the feelings persisted to the point where she was convinced not only that something terrible was going to happen, but also that it would happen at night. This kept her awake and up all night long, and she would only sleep in the daytime.
A letter written onboard the
Titanic from Chief Officer Wilde, addressed to his sister, stated: "I still don't like this ship. I have a queer feeling about it." The letter was sent out when
Titanic got to Queenstown. Chief Officer Wilde perished in the disaster.
A British businessman named J. Connon Middleton had planned to travel to attend a business meeting in New York, and had booked himself on the
Titanic three weeks in advance of the maiden voyage. But soon thereafter, he was plagued with a nightmare wherein he saw the
Titanic (he seemed to be floating above the scene) lying on her side, with people thrashing and dying all around in the water. He did his best to ignore the dream, but it continued to haunt him. Then, just four days before the trip, a telegraph came to him that stated that the meeting was being postponed. He cancelled his trip, and lived to tell the tale.
A very similar scenario happened with newspaper editor and journalist William T. Stead, who was also traveling to New York to attend a peace congress at Carnegie Hall. Stead also had a terrifying dream in which he found himself struggling and crying for help in the water, with a huge ocean liner disappearing beneath him. Even more interesting, twenty-six years before
Titanic, in 1886, Stead had written an article with the title,
How the Mail Steamer Went Down in Mid-Atlantic, by a Survivor. It was a fictional account
of what he believed would occur eventually, and although the ship in his story struck another ship rather than an iceberg, the irony cannot be overlooked. Not only was Stead correct, but he lived (and died) his own story, just like in the dream he'd had.
These are just a few of many more premonitions from people who boarded, or who had planned to board, the
Titanic. To continue to tell of them would just take too long, and many would be redundant. (If ya wanna know more, Google is your friend!) But finally, there is one that stands out in particular, as especially uncanny.
In 1898, a short story written by author Morgan Robertson is first published. It wasn't a big hit at the time, but it was an interesting little morality story. One of the main scenes in the book is that of a terrible shipwreck. Even though this was written 14 years before the
Titanic set sail, there are eerie similarities between the fictional ship and the real one. Among them were:
-Both ships were said to be virtually unsinkable and were fitted with watertight compartments
-Both had three propellers ('Triple Screw')
-Both were hailed as the largest in the world at the time
-Both had too few lifeboats
-While not exactly the same size, weight, or speed, both ships were close to being the same
-Both strike an iceberg (although not on the maiden voyage of the fictional ship) in the same general vicinity of the Atlantic
-Both sink shortly thereafter, killing most onboard due to lack of lifeboats
These facts are startling enough, but not even half as much as the name of the ship in Robertson's story:
Titan. The title of the book? 'Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan'.
Now tell me, was it somehow just meant to be?
Sources:
www.premierexhibitions.com/exh… www.titanic-titanic.com/titani… www.hogueprophecy.com/2012/04/… hauntedohiobooks.com/news/ship… mathisencorollary.blogspot.com… www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_… www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/… everythingispointless.com/2007… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futility… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Calif…And many various books and DVD documentaries...