I had occasion to write a brief comment on a Facebook post comparing the Titanic to modern cruise ships and was somewhat surprised as to the response I received which seemed to lack any thought or research, so I thought I would post it here to see what comments I might receive, as I was wondering, ‘is it me!’

JOE WELLS

Class and style have nothing to do with size, quality not quantity!

JOSHUA GOSS

Quality is not sinking as well

JOE WELLS

Not sinking would also apply to these modern-day disasters.

Costa Concordia 2012

MS Estonia 2012

The Eastern Star 2015

The Carnival Triumph 2013

The Celebrity Mercury 2010

The Viking Sky 2019

The Anthem of the Seas 2016

The Queen of the North 2006

So, I suppose if I had to die on a sinking cruise ship, I think I would still prefer the Titanic rather than these gigantic Disneyland on sea style of ships. Better to slip quietly under the waves to the sound of the band playing, “nearer my God am I to thee” than the awful racket you hear at modern amusement parks but that’s just my personal preference.

JOSHUA GOSS

How long did it take each one of those to sink? I guarantee that each one of them went multiple years prior to failing. I’m a logical thinker, so comparing apples to spoiled oranges is quite drastic. You could argue that it was the first of its kind, but there were actually larger cruise ships tested prior to the Titanic that lasted longer as well so…

JOE WELLS

In answer to your comment, regarding how long before the modern ships were in service before they sunk compared to the older ships, the most modern Costa Concordia was launched in 2005 and went into service in 2006 but sadly sunk after only 6 short years in service in 2012. As for your logic of comparing apples to spoiled oranges, I tend to view them as both the same after all they were all the biggest ships of their time which tends to make them all apples. I certainly wouldn’t argue, as you suggest, that Titanic was the first of its kind as the sister ship to Titanic, named Olympic was in fact launched in 1911 a full year before Titanic and was a bigger ship. I’m not sure the longevity of the ship was the point of the comparison as the original post said, “Titanic VS Modern cruise ship,” merely a comparison between the two ships. There were three ships of similar design, the third being the Britannic which was in service from 1915 as a medical ship during World War One but was sadly sunk when hitting a German mine in the Aegean Sea a year later in 1916, having never seen service as a passenger liner. Now for a comparison as to how long it took before some of the earlier ships were sunk and we come to the Olympic which was launched in 1911 and was the largest ship in the world for over 20 years until the Queen Mary was built in 1936. She also had the distinction of being in service for 24 years before being retired in 1935, some considerable improvement on the short-lived Costa Concordia. A similar long life may well have been the fate of the Titanic had the captain not ploughed ahead during fog when they knew they were entering an ice field full of icebergs, apparently in an attempt to gain the Blue Ribbon for the fastest crossing of the Atlantic on her maiden voyage. Such a shame, but that’s history for you.