Where is the Nemesis today? Is it simply 'lost at sea', at a museum somewhere, or more likely (as it was an EIC vessel), was it sold for scrap?

I did a brief search (of the web), but couldnt find it. I would very much like to find it!

Because everyone likes visual stimulation: enter image description here

  • The Nemesis was operational it appears until the early 1870s. After that I cannot find mention of her, so a guess would be that she was scrapped sometimes in the mid 1870s, but that is just a guess. – Tyler Durden Nov 5 '14 at 17:44

It would appear that some of the confusion about the fate of the Nemesis is due to the naval tradition of naming new vessels in honour of their famous predecessors. In this case, when the famous Nemesis was taken out of service at the end of February 1855, her engines were placed into the hull of a new troop boat which took her name too.

The original Nemesis was scheduled to be dismantled, however,

...her hull was saved: later that year the annual report mentions the expenditure of 5,140 rupees on "Hulk Nemesis partly for accomodation of Harbour Master's assistants." And so she ended her days, a hulk on the banks of the Hooghly River, her engines beating in another hull.

Nemesis: The First Iron Warship and Her World, A.G.Marshall (History Press, 2016)


Nemesis was sold in 1852, and I would presume (but can't confirm) that it was sold for scrap. I can't locate any indications that it was ever re-registered though.

See Warships of the World to 1900 by Lincoln P. Paine, p 115-6

  • 1
    Considering the book in its entirety is not online, I take it you have the book itself to which you are referencing. Could you possibly quote the bit about the selling of the Nemesis. In particular, to whom (if that is listed). – Matthew Peters Nov 5 '14 at 3:24
  • @MatthewPeters - The quote is simply "She was sold in 1852". You can lick on the preview link in Google Books and either search for "Nemesis" or scroll to page 115. – Comintern Nov 5 '14 at 4:04
  • The Nemesis was still operational in the 1860s and 1870s. – Tyler Durden Nov 5 '14 at 17:43
  • 2
    @tyler, where is your source? – Matthew Peters Nov 5 '14 at 17:48
  • @TylerDurden Are you sure it was the same ship? Navies reuse names, particularly names of famous ships. – David Thornley Nov 27 '18 at 23:12

Edward Cecil Rose is recorded as being engaged on the Nemesis on 4 Mar 1865 before being drowned at sea on 15 Apr 1865. Whether this was the same ship or another with the same name is not known. He was a merchant seasman with his Second Mate's certificate

  • 2
    Given that the original ship appears to have been taken out of service in 1855, it would seem likely to be another vessel, quite possibly the one that took the original ship's engines. – Steve Bird Nov 27 '18 at 19:13

The Nemesis was apparently involved in the Opium Wars and other small Asian wars for at least 10-15 years from 1840.

Here I did see a news article from Australia about a ship named Nemesis sinking.









The worst fears, entertained by old sea salts that a shipping disaster on our coast would be associated with the late terrific tempest have unfortunately been realised. The Nemesis, a well-known passenger and cargo steamship belonging to the fleet of Messrs. Huddart, Parker, and Co. Proprie- tary, Limited, is missing, and there is lit- tle room for doubt that she foundered with all hands.

This is from 1904 and probably is from another ship entirely, as the ship would be 60 years old. But on the other hand, a warship might be sold out of service and used for a long time in private hands.

  • I saw a different article referencing the same incident but I find it dubious that this is the original Nemesis for the simple fact that this ship was somewhat of a legend and for it to have unceremoniously transferred into a cargo/passenger ship role (as your article states) despite of the obvious military role (built for armour and not spaciousness) it seems odd. Nonetheless, I might trace down the company's history (if I can) if I do not get any other answers. Thanks though! – Matthew Peters Nov 4 '14 at 20:10
  • 1
    I agree it is dubious..age is the major one. Ships were often unceremoniously sold off or broken up with age in that era. Points in favor is that the article mentions the ship as 'famous'. Point against is that it doesn't mention its war service. – Oldcat Nov 4 '14 at 20:14
  • from a preservation perspective, I wonder why if this is the right Nemesis, the wreckage was never listed on some registry for landmarks (watermarks?). That is, it seems there is a smallish search area for modern divers to search for the hull... – Matthew Peters Nov 4 '14 at 20:22
  • 3
    This is a different Nemesis. The "Nemesis" steamship that sunk off of Cronulla NSW was built in 1881 and was listed at 1393 tons. The original warship "Nemesis" was about 700 tons and was built in 1839. – Tyler Durden Nov 4 '14 at 20:28
  • Good catch @tyler! It's actually rather nice how much detail went into news articles back then (as opposed to now and days tweets). – Matthew Peters Nov 4 '14 at 20:38

My last research did throw up mention of Nemesis being scrapped in Bombay 1856 or '57, but i cant remember where i read that.

Phlegethon was surely done for at around the same time, but it's very frustrating that such a lack of detail exists. Someone is gonna have to go to India and dig deep in the archives.

  • According to the source I quoted in my answer, the Phlegethon became unserviceable in February 1855 and was towed to Calcutta, There she was condemned and broken up over the next few months. – Steve Bird Mar 20 '17 at 9:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.