The Wager

The Wager Plot Summary

Introduction

In the spring of 1741, on a desolate island off the coast of Patagonia, a remarkable human drama unfolded that would challenge conventional notions of authority, duty, and survival. When HMS Wager, part of a British naval expedition against Spanish colonies, was wrecked in a violent storm, the survivors found themselves thrust into an extraordinary moral crisis. Should they maintain naval discipline despite their desperate circumstances, or did shipwreck release them from military obligation? As starvation, violence, and despair took hold, the castaways divided into rival factions, culminating in one of history's most controversial mutinies. This fascinating story illuminates timeless questions about the limits of authority in crisis situations. Through the competing narratives of Captain David Cheap, who insisted on maintaining naval hierarchy even after disaster, and Gunner John Bulkeley, who led the mutiny in the name of survival, we witness how quickly civilized behavior can collapse under extreme pressure. The Admiralty's subsequent handling of the case reveals how imperial powers manage uncomfortable truths that threaten their legitimacy. Perfect for readers interested in maritime history, survival stories, and the psychology of leadership, this tale offers profound insights into human nature when stripped of society's protective structures.

Chapter 1: Imperial Ambitions: Britain's Naval Expedition Against Spain (1740)

In September 1740, a squadron of British warships departed England on a secret mission that embodied the growing imperial ambitions of a nation determined to challenge Spanish dominance in the Americas. Led by Commodore George Anson, this naval expedition was officially part of the War of Jenkins' Ear – a conflict ostensibly triggered when Spanish coast guards cut off the ear of British merchant captain Robert Jenkins. In reality, the war represented Britain's determination to break Spain's monopoly on South American trade and expand its own commercial empire across the globe. The squadron consisted of six warships and two supply vessels, including the flagship Centurion and a converted East India merchant vessel called the Wager. Their mission was audacious: sail around Cape Horn, raid Spanish settlements along the Pacific coast, and potentially capture the legendary Manila galleon that annually transported vast wealth from the Philippines to Mexico. Such a prize would not only enrich the officers and men but also demonstrate British naval supremacy in waters long dominated by Spain. Among the officers was Captain David Cheap, initially serving as first lieutenant on the Centurion before being appointed to command the Wager after its original captain died early in the voyage. From the beginning, the expedition faced serious problems that foreshadowed disaster. The ships were poorly equipped and undermanned, with the Wager particularly "worm-eaten" and barely seaworthy. Unable to find enough experienced sailors, the Admiralty resorted to filling the vessels with inexperienced landsmen, elderly Chelsea Hospital pensioners described as "the most decrepit and miserable objects that could be collected," and men forcibly recruited through press gangs. Many were already sick with typhus before the voyage began. The squadron's departure had been delayed by months, ensuring they would reach the treacherous waters around Cape Horn during the worst season for storms. These practical challenges reflected deeper tensions within British imperial policy. The expedition represented an ambitious projection of naval power, yet it was undermined by hasty preparation and inadequate resources. This disconnect between imperial ambition and practical reality would become a recurring theme in colonial ventures. For the officers, the voyage offered potential glory and wealth through prize money. For the common sailors, many forced into service against their will, it meant facing unimaginable hardships with little hope of reward. This stark division between the ambitions of those in command and the suffering of ordinary men would later become a crucial factor in the events that unfolded after the Wager's destruction. As the squadron sailed south, stopping at Madeira and then Brazil, tensions mounted between officers and men. The expedition was already falling behind schedule, and Spanish authorities had been alerted to their presence. A Spanish squadron under Admiral Pizarro was dispatched to intercept them, setting the stage for a desperate race around Cape Horn. None of the men aboard could have imagined the catastrophe that awaited them or how their ordeal would raise profound questions about authority, duty, and the human capacity for both heroism and savagery when pushed to the extreme limits of endurance.

Chapter 2: Disaster at Cape Horn: The Wager's Destruction (May 1741)

By March 1741, Anson's squadron faced the most dangerous part of their journey: rounding Cape Horn. This treacherous passage at the southern tip of South America was feared by sailors worldwide for its violent storms, mountainous waves, and freezing temperatures. The timing couldn't have been worse – they had arrived during the equinoctial gales when the westerly winds reached their peak ferocity. What followed was a maritime nightmare of epic proportions that would test human endurance to its limits. Massive waves taller than the ships themselves crashed over the decks, while hurricane-force winds tore sails to shreds and snapped masts like twigs. Temperatures plummeted, covering rigging with ice that cut sailors' hands as they struggled to control the vessels. Below decks, men were thrown violently from their hammocks as the ships pitched and rolled. Simultaneously, scurvy ravaged the crews – men's teeth fell out, old wounds reopened, and their bodies turned "as black as charcoal." On the Centurion alone, nearly 300 of the 500 men eventually died from disease and exposure. The Wager, already the squadron's least seaworthy vessel, suffered catastrophically in these conditions. Its sails and rigging were destroyed, the rudder damaged, and the hull leaking badly. Captain Cheap fell down a hatchway during the storm, breaking his shoulder and becoming dependent on opium for pain relief – a circumstance that would later affect his judgment at critical moments. By May 1741, the ship was completely lost, separated from the squadron and drifting helplessly along the desolate coast of Patagonia. On May 14, disaster struck – the Wager smashed into rocks off a remote island in what is now Chilean Patagonia. As the ship broke apart, some men drowned in their hammocks below deck, while others scrambled to launch the small boats. Many immediately broke into the liquor stores, becoming drunk even as they fought for survival. The survivors dragged themselves onto what would later be called Wager Island – a forbidding landscape of dense forests, rocky shores, and near-constant rain and sleet. Of the approximately 160 men aboard, only about 140 made it to shore alive. They found themselves in one of Earth's most inhospitable environments, with little food, inadequate clothing, and minimal shelter. The island offered almost nothing edible except shellfish, wild celery, and occasional birds. Within days, starvation became their constant companion, weakening bodies already ravaged by months at sea. The wreck of the Wager represented more than just the loss of a ship – it marked the moment when naval discipline and hierarchy began to crumble. As one survivor noted, "things began to have a new face" once they were stranded. The disaster had thrust these men into a primitive state where survival, not military objectives, would become their primary concern. This transformation revealed how quickly the structures of civilization could dissolve when humans are pushed to their limits. The castaways' ordeal would become a case study in how authority functions – or fails to function – in extreme situations, raising profound questions about leadership, duty, and the social contract that would eventually be debated in the highest courts of the British Admiralty.

Chapter 3: Divided Command: Captain Cheap's Fatal Decision

In the weeks following the shipwreck, Captain David Cheap attempted to maintain naval discipline and hierarchy on Wager Island. Despite his broken shoulder and increasing dependence on opium for pain, he established a store tent where all salvaged provisions were kept under guard and continued to enforce the Articles of War – the strict naval code that governed behavior aboard Royal Navy vessels. Cheap believed that strict order was essential for their survival and eventual rescue, assigning watches and organizing salvage parties to retrieve supplies from the wreck. He severely punished anyone caught stealing food, even as starvation drove men to desperate measures. This insistence on naval protocol quickly created tension among the survivors. Many sailors, particularly those who had been pressed into service against their will, believed that the shipwreck had freed them from military obligation. As one survivor wrote, they considered themselves "released from their former articles" and "their own masters." John Bulkeley, the ship's gunner, emerged as an alternative leader, especially appealing to the common sailors. Unlike Cheap, who remained aloof and authoritarian, Bulkeley was practical and resourceful. He organized hunting parties, taught men how to gather shellfish and seaweed, and helped construct rafts for fishing. His leadership style was more collaborative and focused on immediate survival rather than maintaining naval traditions. The breaking point came on June 6, 1741, when Captain Cheap shot and killed Midshipman Henry Cozens during a confrontation. Accounts of the incident vary dramatically – Cheap claimed Cozens was leading a mutiny, while others described it as an unprovoked murder of an unarmed man. What seems clear is that Cozens had been drinking and had spoken disrespectfully to the captain, who responded by shooting him in the face at point-blank range. Cozens did not die immediately but lingered for two weeks in agony before succumbing to his wounds. This shocking act of violence destroyed whatever remaining respect many had for Cheap's leadership and created a permanent division among the survivors. The shooting revealed how the stress of command in extreme circumstances could lead to fatal misjudgments. It also demonstrated the fragility of authority when it relies solely on force rather than consent. As one survivor observed, Cheap thought he could "establish his command ashore by his courage, and suppress the least insult on his authority." Instead, his violence only accelerated the breakdown of order and pushed the castaways toward open rebellion. The incident became the central grievance that would later be used to justify mutiny against the captain. This pivotal moment in the Wager saga illustrates a timeless truth about leadership in crisis: authority maintained through fear alone becomes increasingly brittle as conditions deteriorate. Cheap's fatal decision to shoot Cozens transformed what might have been a unified struggle for survival into a fractured community with competing power centers. It set in motion a chain of events that would lead to one of history's most controversial mutinies and raise profound questions about the limits of military authority in extreme circumstances – questions that continue to resonate in modern discussions of leadership ethics and crisis management.

Chapter 4: The Breaking Point: Mutiny and Moral Choices

By October 1741, after five months on the island, the castaways faced a critical decision that would divide them permanently. The ship's carpenter, John Cummins, had supervised the modification of the longboat salvaged from the wreck into a makeshift vessel they called the Speedwell. At just thirty feet long, it was drastically inadequate for carrying all survivors, yet it represented their only hope of escape from the island. Two competing plans emerged: Captain Cheap insisted they should sail north along the Chilean coast to find Spanish settlements and potentially rejoin Anson's squadron, while Bulkeley advocated sailing south through the Strait of Magellan to reach Brazil and eventually England. This disagreement was not merely tactical but reflected fundamentally different values and priorities. Cheap remained fixated on military duty and the chain of command, believing that abandoning the mission would be dishonorable and potentially treasonous. Bulkeley and his supporters prioritized survival and returning home, arguing that their small boat could never withstand combat with Spanish ships and that their first duty was to preserve their lives. As starvation claimed more victims and winter deepened, this philosophical divide became increasingly bitter and personal. Bulkeley strategically built support for his position, circulating a petition advocating for the Strait of Magellan route that was signed by most survivors, including many officers. He carefully documented every incident that questioned Cheap's fitness for command, particularly the shooting of Cozens. On October 9, 1741, after months of deteriorating conditions, Bulkeley led an armed party to Captain Cheap's tent, arrested him for murder, and formally removed him from command. The mutineers drafted formal documents justifying their actions, demonstrating remarkable attention to legal formalities even in this lawless situation. They claimed their actions were necessary for survival and that Cheap's killing of Cozens had invalidated his authority. What followed was effectively a mutiny, though Bulkeley and his supporters carefully avoided using this term, which carried the death penalty under naval law. Instead, they framed their actions as a necessary response to abandonment, arguing that naval hierarchy no longer applied after shipwreck. The ethical complexity of this situation defies simple judgment. Were these men mutineers deserving execution, or desperate survivors making rational choices in an impossible situation? The Articles of War provided no clear guidance for such extraordinary circumstances. As one survivor noted, "desperate diseases must have desperate remedies." When the Speedwell finally departed on October 13, 1741, only 81 of the original survivors were aboard. Captain Cheap, midshipman John Byron (who would later become a famous admiral and grandfather to the poet Lord Byron), and a handful of loyalists were left behind, either by choice or force. This division created two distinct groups of castaways, each facing their own harrowing journey home. The mutiny represented a fundamental challenge to the hierarchical structure of naval authority and raised profound questions about natural law versus military discipline that would later be debated in the highest courts of the British Admiralty.

Chapter 5: Separate Journeys: Rival Narratives of Survival

The journey of Bulkeley's party in the Speedwell began with immediate hardship. Crammed into a vessel designed for far fewer men, they faced constant danger from massive waves that threatened to swamp their tiny craft. Food and water quickly became scarce, with daily rations reduced to a few ounces of flour and occasional seawater-soaked bread. As they navigated the treacherous Strait of Magellan, several men died from exposure and starvation. Others simply lost the will to live, becoming "ripe for death" as Bulkeley described it. When food supplies reached critical levels, the crew made a fateful decision to send a party ashore in Patagonia to hunt for provisions. In the chaos of deteriorating weather, the boat departed without retrieving these men, effectively abandoning them on a desolate coastline. Despite these horrors, Bulkeley's leadership proved remarkably effective. Through careful navigation and resource management, he guided the remaining survivors to Rio Grande in Brazil in January 1742. Of the 81 men who had departed Wager Island, only 30 survived the journey. Upon reaching civilization, Bulkeley immediately began documenting their ordeal, preparing a narrative that would justify the mutiny as necessary for survival. His account emphasized Cheap's shooting of Cozens and portrayed the decision to abandon the captain as a reluctant but necessary choice rather than an act of rebellion. Meanwhile, Captain Cheap and his small band of loyalists, including young John Byron, faced their own desperate situation on Wager Island. After the mutineers departed, they attempted to sail north in the remaining small boat but were forced to return to the island when it was wrecked. They survived primarily through the assistance of indigenous Kawésqar people, who provided food and guidance. After enduring another winter on the island, they were led by these indigenous navigators through the labyrinthine channels of Patagonia to Chiloé Island, where they surrendered to Spanish authorities. As prisoners of war, they endured harsh conditions in various Spanish prisons before eventually being transported to Europe. By 1744-1745, survivors from both groups began arriving in England, bringing with them conflicting accounts of what had transpired. Bulkeley quickly published his journal, titled "A Voyage to the South-Seas," which became an immediate sensation. His narrative skillfully appealed to popular sentiment, presenting the mutineers as ordinary men forced into extraordinary actions by their captain's cruelty and incompetence. When Captain Cheap finally returned in 1746, his supporters emphasized the sacred nature of naval command and the existential threat that mutiny posed to Britain's maritime power. These competing narratives transformed the Wager disaster from a remote maritime tragedy into a public debate about the nature of authority and the limits of obedience. The published accounts became part of a growing genre of maritime disaster literature that fascinated the British public. They influenced later works, including Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe and Samuel Taylor Coleridge's The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. More importantly, they revealed how historical truth is shaped by perspective and power – a lesson that remains relevant to historical understanding today. The story of the Wager became not just a tale of survival against the elements, but a case study in how narratives are constructed to serve particular interests and how historical memory is contested terrain.

Chapter 6: The Admiralty's Verdict: Justice and Imperial Image

In April 1746, nearly five years after the Wager's wreck, the British Admiralty finally convened a court-martial to address the affair. This was no ordinary trial – it represented a profound dilemma for the British naval establishment. The court faced competing imperatives: upholding naval discipline by punishing mutiny, while avoiding a public spectacle that might damage the Navy's reputation during wartime. The thirteen senior officers who served as judges had to determine whether Bulkeley and his followers were justified in overthrowing Captain Cheap, and whether Cheap himself should face charges for killing Midshipman Cozens. The proceedings took an unexpected turn that revealed much about imperial priorities. Rather than addressing the mutiny or the killing, the court focused narrowly on the technical question of responsibility for the shipwreck itself. After brief testimony, the court ruled that Captain Cheap had "done his duty" in trying to preserve the ship, and Lieutenant Baynes received only a mild reprimand for failing to report a land sighting before the wreck. No charges were brought regarding the subsequent events on the island. This remarkably limited inquiry appeared designed to avoid confronting the more explosive issues of mutiny and murder. As historian Glyndwr Williams later observed, it became "the mutiny that never was" in official records. The Admiralty's handling of the case revealed its concern with preserving imperial image over pursuing justice. A full examination would have exposed uncomfortable truths about the breakdown of discipline and the brutality that emerged among supposedly civilized Englishmen. Such revelations would have undermined Britain's claim to moral superiority – a key justification for its expanding empire. Moreover, the case arose during a period when Britain was still recovering from military setbacks in the War of Jenkins' Ear. Commodore Anson's capture of a Spanish treasure galleon in 1743 had provided a rare victory, and the government was reluctant to tarnish this achievement by dwelling on the squadron's earlier disasters. This judicial sleight of hand relied on a technicality in naval regulations. Since shipwrecked sailors were no longer entitled to wages, the Admiralty suggested they might not have been subject to naval discipline on the island. This "escape clause" conveniently ignored other regulations stating that men salvaging materials from a wreck remained under naval authority. The court's approach revealed how imperial powers selectively applied rules to protect institutional interests. The aftermath of the trial saw the survivors return to remarkably normal lives. Captain Cheap was given command of another ship and later captured a Spanish vessel carrying silver – finally achieving the prize he had sought with the Wager. John Bulkeley emigrated to Pennsylvania, where he republished his account. John Byron continued his naval career, eventually rising to vice admiral and commanding his own circumnavigation of the globe. The apparent reconciliation of these bitter enemies suggests a tacit agreement to move beyond the controversy, perhaps encouraged by authorities eager to bury the scandal. The Wager affair ultimately faded from public memory, overshadowed by Anson's celebrated circumnavigation and treasure capture. Yet its legacy persisted in subtle ways. The disaster influenced naval reforms implemented by Anson himself when he later became First Lord of the Admiralty, including improvements in ship construction, crew selection, and clearer guidelines for command succession. More profoundly, the case exposed tensions between naval discipline and natural justice that would resurface in later mutinies, most famously on HMS Bounty in 1789. The Admiralty's handling of the Wager case – prioritizing institutional reputation over transparent justice – established a pattern that would be repeated throughout the imperial era.

Summary

The Wager mutiny reveals a fundamental tension between institutional authority and individual survival that continues to resonate today. Throughout this extraordinary saga, we see how rigid hierarchical systems – embodied by Captain Cheap's insistence on naval discipline even after shipwreck – can become dangerously maladaptive in crisis situations. Conversely, Bulkeley's more democratic approach to decision-making, while potentially saving more lives, challenged the very foundations of military and imperial authority. This tension between hierarchy and adaptability, between duty to institution and duty to humanity, forms the central conflict not just of the Wager disaster but of many organizational crises throughout history. The Admiralty's deliberate burial of the scandal offers profound lessons about institutional self-preservation. By refusing to officially recognize the mutiny or fully investigate Cheap's shooting of Cozens, naval authorities created a convenient legal fiction that protected the institution at the expense of truth. This pattern repeats across history – organizations often respond to failures by controlling narratives rather than embracing accountability. The silencing of indigenous voices and the erasure of figures like John Duck, the free Black seaman who survived the wreck only to be kidnapped and sold into slavery, further demonstrate how power operates through selective storytelling. True resilience, however, requires confronting uncomfortable truths rather than burying them. Only by acknowledging the full complexity of human behavior under extreme conditions – including both our capacity for selfless heroism and our potential for desperate self-preservation – can we develop more humane and effective approaches to leadership in crisis situations.

About Author

Loading...

David Grann

David Grann is the author of the #1 New York Times bestsellers Killers of the Flower Moon and The Lost City of Z. Killers of the Flower Moon was a finalist for The National Book Award and won an Edgar Allan Poe Award. Look for David Grann’s latest book, The Wager, coming soon!He is also the author of The White Darkness and the collection The Devil and Sherlock Holmes . Grann's storytelling has garnered several honors, including a George Polk Award. He lives with his wife and children in New York.

Read more