Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Wagram

Members
  • Content Count

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wagram

  1. You've been detected by the enemy ... and he has surrendered ... to the unbeatable French cuisine ... http://www.napoleon-series.org/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?page=1;md=read;id=189214
  2. Faint excuses ... all of them.
  3. Well, ok, I really tried my best. So far, I refrained from commenting on the commander's "authentic" AWI period uniform (what is he meant to represent? A capitaine de vaisseau?, in "petite uniforme"? Whatever. That cut of the coat tails ...too narrow for the period, the material used ... so cheap! The red collar (for undress uniform) missing, the cravat (stock is missing entirely, a no go for the period!), epaulettes are post Ancien Régime style, the waistcoat - what a strange cut (that horizontal section in the middle), the swordbelt high over the waistcoat, arrgh! Etc., etc. (check your Boudriot and contemporary portraits to find out what's just inacceptable here) ....Oh my! But now, with this second in command ... It's simply too much ... That's ( meant to be) the uniform of a lieutenant de vaisseau, 1er Empire, "conforme au règlement de prairial an XII"! Of course - as for the quality of this Second in command's uniform - better but, still, overall, the same as what was said on the quality of the AWI period commander's uniform ... Believe me, I know terribly well why I hate re-enactment...
  4. Unfortunately, the design and colours of Revolutionary/Napoleonic flags (pavillons, guidons, flammes) are of no help when it comes to getting an idea of the design and colours of the respective arming cloths. Arming cloths decorated with fleurs de lys may well have lasted into the Constitution (as was the case with army flags) but it's very unlikely that they survived the abolition of the monarchy (21 September 1792). BTW, the arrangement of the stripes on the 1790 tricolour differed from the 1794 version. In 1790 the hoist side stripe was red and the fly side stripe blue, while in 1794 it was (and still is today) the other way round.
  5. Thank you. Here we are: https://books.google.ru/books?id=Lx0PAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=pavoi&f=false 🙂
  6. Still looking for positive pictorial or written evidence. "Pavois" (Revolutionary period) are mentioned several times here but, unfortunately, without further description: https://books.google.ch/books?id=TsNCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=pavois+marine+1830&source=bl&ots=9SCUhN1UUB&sig=ACfU3U1CNFyDB1FQxAKpyQzgKI_3__vs_w&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLvLDDz67hAhWB3OAKHeSmCZwQ6AEwBXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=pavois&f=false
  7. Interesting. What's your source?
  8. I noticed. Perhaps, some cloths had yellow edges later but wrong perception on the viewer's part or soiling on the painter's part may be more likely options. I'd give the white strips the benefit of the doubt.
  9. More French ships with "pavois fleurdelisés": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Naval_manoeuvres_toulon_1777_img_9379.jpg https://troisponts.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/commerce-de-marseille-2.jpg and, again: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Vaisseau_de_guerre_fran%C3%A7ais_de_80_canons_pavois%C3%A9_en_1814.jpg
  10. Pavois https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavois_(marine) An 18th century source (p.102, s.v. pavois and pavoiser): https://books.google.ch/books?id=lKoWAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=aune+de+pavois&source=bl&ots=wOUOtSV1UN&sig=ACfU3U0On77gFQo_JTwqZbkRTeKmdEc3_g&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix5bCKwqzhAhVLvxoKHSXmBX0Q6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=pavois&f=false
  11. Hardly a mistake, in my opinion, as it was quite the habit to paint the upper parts of the hull wall in a different/emblematic colour, and certainly not intended to fake or replace arming cloths. As far as I can see arming cloths - of both decorative and, to some extent, protective value -were mainly used to cover open railings, apparently often repeating the paint scheme of the upper walls. Lavish extra decoration of the upper wall with fleurs de lys was no longer the fashion in the later 18th century (and probably deemed too costly as well), so they usually were omitted on the ship's wall but, evidently, not (always) on the arming cloths which, after all, were moveable items, easily stowed and reusable on any vessel.
  12. Keep searching, you'll find more, e.g. here... La Ville de Paris (along quarter deck only): Le Terrible (Fleurs de lys painted over - like the flags - during the Revolution): https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b550024054/f1.item.r=le%20terrible%20vaisseau.zoom Originally, it looked like that (bad quality picture only, sorry): https://www.google.ch/search?q=le+terrible+vaisseau+110&tbm=isch&source=hp&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVw7-Yg6jhAhUHsaQKHeALDiEQsAR6BAgIEAE&biw=1178&bih=622#imgrc=I_QoNAWTzjTBZM:
  13. For clarification: The period I'm referring to is the late 18th to the early 19th centuries (in essence, the two last decades of the Ancien Régime, the Revolutionary and Napoleonic eras, the era of the Restauration in France, c. 1770 - c.1830).
  14. Are you sure? I think "doppio passo" was the same as the French "pas redoublé", or "pas accéléré", or "pas de manoeuvre", or "pas d'attaque", or "pas de charge" - the latter not to be confused with the step used when the signal "La Charge" was given (all these terms denote a pace from between 100 to 120 steps per minute; exceptionally up to 140 steps per minute for specific light infantry units such as the Légion Corse [according to a 1772 document related to this unit]). In German, this pace is called "Geschwindschritt" or "Doppelierschritt", etc. It was used on the battlefield when large formations marched against the enemy lines, but also quite often on parades, etc. The "pas de course" was a lot faster than the "pas redoublé", etc. Actually, the "pas de course" was used for storming when the signal "La Charge" was given. It was effective only on the last few meters before clashing with the enemy as it was virtually impossible to keep good order within one's own lines over a longer distance. It was also used by light infantry skirmishers. In German, this pace was called "Laufschritt" or "Sturmschritt".
  15. I suggest: Kill them all (Gebt) kein Pardon! / (Gebt) kein Quartier! Double Quick (Run) Im Geschwindschritt, Marsch! / Doppelierschritt, Marsch! [or, if you really mean "Run" - Im Laufschritt, Marsch! / (Im) Sturmschritt, Marsch!] Form square Bildet (ein) Karree! Save yourselves Rette sich, wer kann! But if you want to know the exact historical commands you should perhaps consult something like the "Reglement für die Königlich Preussische Infanterie" (1788), or the "Exerzir-Reglement für die Artillerie der Königlich-Preussischen Armee" (1812), or the "Unterricht der Compagnien betreffend die Pflichten aller und jeder Stellen..." (1795): https://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/id/PPN682442984 https://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10785091_00005.html https://books.google.ch/books?id=PZM7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PP5&lpg=PP5&dq=Unterricht+der+Compagnien+betreffend+die+Pflichten+aller+und+jeder+Stellen&source=bl&ots=5pTY3KVTgl&sig=ACfU3U1pn90NcIe95NnJ72KiNylGoC7Y-g&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiA7qaNlPTfAhVHjqQKHSiAD58Q6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Unterricht der Compagnien betreffend die Pflichten aller und jeder Stellen&f=false
  16. "Martinique had overseas departments and Fort-de France likely" ??? Martinique was a French overseas colony (not a department, at the time) itself, and it did not have "overseas departments" but "dependencies" (in essence, the nearby island of Sainte-Lucie). Fort-de-France (ex- Fort Royal) was the capital of Martinique. The governor (with the title of Capitaine général de la Martinique) was Vice-admiral Villaret de Joyeuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Thomas_Villaret_de_Joyeuse Guadeloupe was another French overseas colony whose governor (Capitaine général de la Guadeloupe) was Général de divison Jean Augustin Ernouf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Augustin_Ernouf The eastern, i.e. Spanish part of the island of Santo Domingo was under French government only as long as the French-Spanish alliance was in existence and was an improvised undertaking anyway as the French" governor", Général de division Jean-Louis Ferrand, had sought refuge there with the defeated French troops after the failed attempt to reconquest the western part of the island, the former French colony of Sainte-Domingue, now independent Haiti. So, Ferrand was not actually governing a French colony but a Spanish one, tolerated by - or with the enforced (by Napoleon) "consent" of - the Spanish Crown, presumably in anticipation of a possible reconquest of Haiti for France. Logically, his "rule" came to an end when the French-Spanish alliance broke up. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Ferrand As far as I can see, there was no hierarchy among the various French governors (they all received orders directly from the ministry of the navy), so not really a single HQ for the French in the Caribbean but, as a naval station, Fort-deFrance/Martinique certainly was the most important.
  17. Agreed. What we see on the left is the Peter and Paul fortress and cathedral: http://www.goingrussia.com/portfolio-item/peter-and-paul-fortress/?lang=de The Admirality should be on the right? https://www.alamy.de/stockfoto-panorama-admiralitat-winterpalast-einsiedelei-und-peter-und-paul-festung-in-st-petersburg-russland-39296206.html Anyway, it's Saint Petersburg.
  18. This heavily damaged model of a 74-gun ship of the line, apparently kept in the Musée de la Marine, Paris, is said to be the Héros (just called "Héro" and erronenously described as a 64-gun ship on the website): https://www.google.ch/search?q=vaisseau+le+heros+74+1778&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CQbZQ7_19b1oIIjgnkXXmJtZwFuc0DOHQplV9FE7Ke239_15qSzk7uINa0bekf094u8HYNVQdc-rs-Eo3IaEvoEQig8CoSCSeRdeYm1nAWEflBuAP121RrKhIJ5zQM4dCmVX0RKtYFS8wz-14qEgkUTsp7bf3_1mhEq1gVLzDP7XioSCZLOTu4g1rRtESrWBUvMM_1teKhIJ6R_1T3i7wdg0RNQ-_1SYKaJLoqEglVB1z6uz4SjRE_1ZuYCXX-4nCoSCchoS-gRCKDwERiox1WtLwEE&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj64YuvpJXfAhVBYVAKHb6iA30Q9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1063&bih=615&dpr=2#imgrc=BtlDv_1vWgjjAM: Another foto of the same model from De la Roncière, Histoire de la Marine Française, Paris 1934, p.171. In my opinion, it resembles very much the ship represented on the anonymous portrait I posted above but, unfortunately, the figurehead is not recognizable or, more likely, it's even missing:
  19. I may have found two of the three ships shown in the painting. According to Sozaev and Tredrea (https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/author/JOHN-TREDREA,-EDUARD-SOZAEV), p. 167f., the following ships of the line were launched at St. Petersburg on 3 May 1800: - Zachatie Sviatoi Anny, 66/74 guns, constructor M. Sarychev - Arkhistratig Mikhail, 64/72 guns, constructor A. S. Katasanov However, according to Chernishev (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/5203017883/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1), Vol. 1, p.102, Arkhistratig Mikhail was launched on 5 May 1800. So, contrary to what the title of the painting implies, the three ships may not actually have been launched the very same day. Perhaps, the ship already in the water is Zachatie Sviatoi Anny, launched on 3 May, and the ship about to be launched is Arkhistratig Mikhail, actually launched on 5 May? I couldn't find any other ship - ship of the line or other - that was launched in May 1800. So, assuming that I did not miss anything, the third ship which is still on the stocks may actually have been launched at a later date?
  20. That's exactly what I consider the most plausible explanation. These were three ships of the line to be built - by decree of the "Grandmaster" Paul I - for an envisaged "reconquest" of the headquarters of the Knights of St John, i.e. Malta, but the building took place in Russia, most likely at Saint Petersburg. I can even imagine that Paul was obsessed enough to spontaneously baptize the facilities (within the Saint Petersburg shipyard) where those ships were being built the "Malta shipyards". Just an idea of course, but this tsar appears to have been whimsical enough...
  21. Yes, completely agreed! I'm also under the impression that the shipyard we see has nothing to do with Malta. Actually, that pointed tower at the left of the painting very much reminds me of the tower of the Saint Petersburg Admirality...: http://spbiir.ru/nauka/kultura-sankt-peterburga/hronika-kultury-sankt-peterburga/1703-1725-gody/admiraltejstvo/
  22. Interesting. Any historical sources to corrobarate your statement? If those ships were launched on 3 May 1800, when the French, enemies of the Russians, were still masters of the island and trying to suppress the Maltese revolt - why should the French then have launched three ships of the line hoisting the flags of the Maltese insurgents and the Russian enemies?
  23. Commission-built for the Russian navy by whom? Malta was still occupied by the French - enemies of the Russians...
  24. I found an image on the official website of the Russian navy which looks awfully strange to me: The painting may be contemporary, but I'm not sure. We see Maltese and Russian flags. Its title in the English version of the site is: "Descent to water three ships on the Malta Shipbuilding Yard, May 3 1800." See here: http://rusnavy.com/mess/epictgal.htm The Russian version reads: "Спуск трех кораблей Мальтийской эскадры 3 мая 1800 года." ("The descent of the three ships of the Maltese squadron May 3, 1800."). See here: https://flot.com/mess/pictgal.htm?sphrase_id=9461749 Quite different a meaning, I'd say. Anyway, it's well known that, at the time, Tsar Paul I considered himself Grandmaster of the Order of the Knights of St John. However, if I am not completely mistaken, in May 1800 the island was still occupied by the French. So how could it have been possible to launch three ships of the order there? Or do we have to understand that "Grandmaster" Tsar Paul I launched three ships of the line intended to reinforce the navy of the Knights of Malta in some Russian shipyard? Someone out there who could shed some light on this very strange matter? Any Russian friends, perhaps?
  25. Of course...😇 BTW: En fait, on y trouve: - Simone Guglielmo LORENZI, de Nonza. Corsaire à Malte comme Angelo FRANCESCHI. Corsaire moscovite fusillé en 1799 à La Valette (Malte) pour avoir conspiré contre les Français. Pour Lorenzi on avait construit une galiote [galeot(t)a], selon ce livre. https://books.google.ch/books?id=uVrVDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT164&lpg=PT164&dq=Simone+Guglielmo+LORENZI,+de+Nonza.&source=bl&ots=tfCfYXpiva&sig=L3mVRQCY-x6EvwAjE9Kzx8JBRXc&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio1-fqj4zfAhVOTBoKHV7vCv4Q6AEwBXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Simone Guglielmo LORENZI%2C de Nonza.&f=false C'est donc très probablement le navire sur le dessin... et - Giovan Battista comte PEREZ ou PERI, né en 1724 et décédé en 1774. Inhumé à la cathédrale d'Ajaccio. Chevalier de Malte et chevalier de Saint-Louis. Sous-lieutenant de grenadiers au Royal-Italien en France. Condamné à mort par contumace pour avoir blessé en duel M. de BELVAL, le colonel de son régiment, il se sauve. Rentré en Corse, il commande le chebec "La Galeotta", bateau maltais, puis la felouque nationale "Il Terrore". BOSWELL indique qu'il dirige la marine avec beaucoup de sagesse et d'habileté. Il se détourne de PAOLI et combat en 1768 dans les rangs français à Vescovato & Île Rousse. Vivait à Ajaccio en 1769. Sa postérité n'est pas connue. Il était le fils de Francesco Maria (167-1721), Comte de PERI ou PERES, Colonel au service de France en 1691 & Chiara Maria N. Bon, je reconnais m'être trompé (😏). Selon le même livre, "La Galeotta" était vraiment un chebec. Difficile à croire pour moi, mais bon...
×
×
  • Create New...