Bligh's own assumption was that the mutineers had plotted to overthrow him so that they could return to Tahiti and avoid a comparatively mundane existence in England or the hardships of navy life. In the 200 years since no one has provided a definitive answer to the questions of whether Bligh was a villain or victim and why the mutiny occurred.

Speculation about what could have driven so many respectable men to commit so disgraceful a crime became widespread. Though the debate raged inconclusively, Bligh's reputation had been irreparably damaged. Peter Heywood, who had sided with the mutineers but did not play a major part in the crime, presented a lengthy defense of his actions that cast Bligh in a less favourable light than had previous accounts. Unhappily for Bligh, the captain of the expedition that had brought the mutineers to justice had, in fact, treated his captives so brutally that the public began to sympathize with them. The emotional testimony of some of the defendants, along with the efforts of some influential families, including the Christians, had swayed popular opinion against the Bounty's commander. He found, however, that while he was away 14 of the mutineers had been captured and put on trial. He became the subject of romanticized accounts of the mutiny and was given the chance to return to Tahiti, this time with two ships under his command, in order to complete his original mission.Īfter succeeding in this second attempt to introduce breadfruit to the West Indies, Bligh again returned to England on 9th September 1793, expecting that his accomplishment would have earned him even greater acclaim.

A court-martial cleared him of all responsibility for the loss of the Bounty he was promoted to commander and then to post-captain. Upon his return from the ordeal in the South Pacific, Bligh was regarded as a heroic victim.

Mutiny on the bounty captain