Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Wagram

Members
  • Content Count

    156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wagram

  1. 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).
  2. 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".
  3. 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
  4. "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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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:
  7. 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?
  8. 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...
  9. 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/
  10. 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?
  11. Commission-built for the Russian navy by whom? Malta was still occupied by the French - enemies of the Russians...
  12. 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?
  13. 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...
  14. Je ne crois pas tout à fait à l'existence d'un chebec nommé "La Galeotta" tant que je ne vois pas un plan contemporain qui la prouve indubitablement. Pourquoi pas? Devinette: Est-ce qu'il existe un vaisseau qui s'appele "La Frégate"? Je crois que non. C'est un fait que "galeot(t)a" était une désignation d'un type de navire, tout comme "chebec", à savoir - comme le dit la désignation - pour une "petite galère", ou "demi-galère". La flotte maltaise en possédait plusieurs, tout aussi comme quelques chebecs. À mon avis, il serait totalement absurde d'appeler un chebec "Galeotta". D'après ce que je vois, ces gens qui veulent reconstituer un "chebec La Galeotta" ne disposent pas d'un plan contemporain du ledit navire, et, à mon avis, ils ont mal interprété le dessin ci-dessus qui nous montre exactement une galère (avec apostis) ou, au mieux, peut-être, une petite galère (sans apostis), mais certainement pas un chebec. À mon avis, cela ne sont très simplement pas les lignes d'un chebec (et d'abord, je ne sais pas si ce dessin devrait vraiment représenter "La Galeotta". Par exemple, le nom du capitaine ne semble pas être Giovan Battista Peri, mais Giuliermo? Lorenzi...?). Pire encore, faute de mieux, on se sert du plan du chebec "Le Requin" pour reconstituer un "chebec La Galeotta" - en miniaturisant le navire planifé puisque le "Requin" était un grand chebec de 24 canons tandis que cette "Galeotta" n'en a que 10. Je ne sais pas si, peut-être, une relation contemporaine parle d'une "galeot(t)a" donnée par les chevaliers de Malte à Paoli? Peut-être elle y est comparée à un chebec - les qualités des deux types étaient similaires, ils étaient de vehicules rapides et apte à la guerre de course. Peut-être, on a compris de travers cette relation? Peut-être, l'auteur de la relation lui-même ne connaissait pas exactement la différence entre un chebec et une galeot(t)a? Quoi qu'il en soit, je répète: Si on me présente un plan contemporain de ce prétendu chebec "La Galeotta", je vais réviser mon opinion...peut-être... Voilà le portait d'une "galeot(t)a" maltaise du 18e siècle (d'après Robert L. Dauber, Die Marine des Johanniter-Malteser-Ritter-Ordens, Graz 1989, p.148), à comparer au dessin ci-dessus:
  15. Silly me! Just click "закрыть и перейти к сайту" and the pop up disappears. There you are... Sorry, I'm always reluctant to click pop ups... https://radikal.ru/lfp/s017.radikal.ru/i417/1110/4d/d9b77422a418.jpg/htm https://radikal.ru/lfp/s48.radikal.ru/i120/1110/9f/7d0189bfbc02.jpg/htm https://radikal.ru/lfp/s017.radikal.ru/i403/1110/13/93228735c3dd.jpg/htm
  16. Autre "projet": La goélette "La Comtesse Emeriau" https://www.midilibre.fr/2014/05/08/une-histoire-exhumee-par-le-marseillanais-antoine-golf,858320.php
  17. Bon, je suis Suisse, mais pas LA Suisse, malheureusement...
  18. Aucune raison de chagrin. Après tout, ce beau vaisseau avait été réduit à néant par les Anglais il y a plus de 200 ans...Si les Français l'avaient récupéré - what would have been French about it? La poupe seul de l"Implacable"... comparée à celle du Duguay-Trouin... http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/145178.html Any further questions?...
  19. According to this Russian website the (modern) plan posted by @russian is definitely not representing the "Pobedonosets" of 1780 but, most likely, the "Slava Ekaterina" (if I understand correctly): http://forum.modelsworld.ru/topic5535start15.html Quote: Все это убедило меня, что реконструкция "Ладьи" к Победоносцу 1780 г. никакого отношения не имеет. И тогда в полный рост встал вопрос - что это за корабль. Окончательную точку в этом деле позволили поставить два чертежа: один выложенный на этом сайте Александром Добренко и второй 66-пуш. СВ Павла найденный Галиной Александровной в РГАВМФ. Поэтому то, что многие из Вас строили под названием "Победоносец" на самом деле один из первых кораблей ЧФ и судя по декору возможно "Слава Екатерины".Денису.Шпигаты до Азова были. На 100-пуш. в гон-дек палубе 8 + 2 в клюз-баке на борт. The correct plan is this one by A. S. Katasanov, dated 1801 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ytkcpk5t3vqj5z0/AAA0py_d8tewg2SB35LTzODua?dl=0&preview=b5ec4ce4e4cd.jpg ... already posted by Mighty_Alex here: The Russian site also provides links to coloured drawings of the decorations and colour scheme of the Pobedonosets - very different from those of the Slava Ekaterina, in my opinion - , apparently by A. S. Katasanov, but, unfortunately, I cannot open the thumbnails to see the full pictures (see post by Alex Greb dated 21 Oct 2011, Fri 09:54). Access anyone?
  20. Second thoughts about the identity of the artist: As Henry Rodolphe de Gueydon had a son born in 1775 who was also called Henri (or Henry), the artist could just as well have been the son, of course. If so, both watercolours would have been painted by Henri Jehan (also: Henry Jean) François de Gueydon (who was an "agent comptable maritime", maritime accounting officer - apparently a post in the administration of the navy - at Granville in 1807), the "Mars" painting specifically to bring to mind a memorable event in the life of his father. This would certainly explain the inaccuracies of the painting much better...
  21. A naïve but very vivid painting showing a burning French ship of the line (fire caused accidentally), kept in the Brown University Library: https://repository.library.brown.edu/studio/item/bdr:240758/ Some misleading information from the Brown University Library on this picture: 1. The name of the ship is not "Mara", but "Mars". The title reads: "incendie du Vaisseau Le Mars dans le Port de l'ile de France". 2. The event has absolutely nothing to do with the campaigns of the War of the Second Coalition. Actually, this incident took place in 1773, and the painter too has distorted some facts. The "Mars" was built by Groignard and Cambry (fils) for the French Compagnie des Indes. It was launched in 1769 at Lorient. It burnt down in 1773 at Port-Louis, Ile de France (Mauritius) by accident, as described by an eye witness, Jacques Dozouville, premier pilote of the Royal ship of the line "La Victoire", which was also at Port-Louis at the time. Oddly enough, the painter has represented "Le Mars", which actually was a 64-gun ship, as an 80-gun ship typical of the late 1780s and 1790s. "La Victoire", which is also shown in the background on the right and was a 74-gun ship, has also been represented as an 80-gun ship, which is all the more strange as in 1773 "La Victoire" seems to have been armed with the peace time establishment of 38 guns, only. The uniforms and costumes of the officers and sailors are also more reminiscent of the late 1780s and 1790s, in my opinion, especially the top hats. Dozouville's report and more information can be found here: http://cduic.chez.com/pub/victoire.htm So who painted this watercolour and when was it painted? Brown University says the painter was a certain Henry de Gueydon and that it was painted in 1798. Honestly, I can't recognize a proper signature and date on the painting. Can it be found on the back? Regarding the painter, he may indeed be an Henry de Gueydon, but then, which one? A clue is given by the caption which mentions the presence of a "Monsieur de Gueydon, Lieutenant du vaisseau Le Mars" ( N°.8, the officer abseiling from the bowsprit). Assuming that this man actually was the artist, he can only be Henry (or Henri) Rodolphe de Gueydon (1738-1807), the grandfather of the 19th century admiral Louis Henry de Gueydon. He became a lieutenant de vaisseau in 1772 (apparently serving on the "Mars"), and was promoted to capitaine de vaisseau in 1781. In 1790, he was politically active, apparently a staunch royalist and catholic, and therefore denounced as an enemy of the Convention and a traitor. It seems possible, in my opinion, that he eventually emigrated to Britain, but that's just an assumption. Next question: was this watercolour executed in 1798? As mentioned above, I can't see a date on the painting. If there should be none at the back, Brown University Library may have infered from the title of a second watercolour by the same Henry de Gueydon (also devoid of recognizable signature and date) that both watercolours were made in 1798. This second watercolour has been titled "Vue de l'Intérieure de Mill-Prison de Plymouth et de Ses Environs en 1798": https://repository.library.brown.edu/studio/item/bdr:240699/ As already mentioned, I consider it not unlikely that Henry Rodolphe de Gueydon had emigrated to Britain in the 1790s. If so, he would have painted his "Mill prison" painting - as a free man, not as a war prisoner (let out on parole) - in or after 1798, indeed. His "Mars" painting may have been painted at about the same time but not necessarily in 1798 (unless explicitly stated somewhere on the painting or on some other contemporary document). It may equally well have been painted before or after 1798. If de Gueydon had returned to France after the Peace of Amiens, accepting the amnesty offer by Napoleon Bonaparte (his son, Henri Jehan François de Gueydon [1775-1836], married at Granville, France, in 1807, so the father may have been there as well), both watercolours could have been painted even after 1802 (but before 1807, when de Gueydon died), from memory and sketches, in France. At any rate, the "Mars" painting was clearly "embellished" in several respects and, to some degree, must be looked upon as an anachronistic - though very interesting - view of an event that took place in 1773.
  22. Great to hear this assessement. Couldn't phrase it better. Missiessy's ideas came true, but only a long time after the end of the 1er Empire. Personally, I'm glad about this as I very much prefer the "old ways"... 👍
  23. The idea of painting the ships in black, white and green appears to have been developed as early as the Directoire, possibly by Édouard de Burgues de Missiessy (then contre-amiral), the author of the treatise "Installation des vaisseaux", published in An VI (1797). The only paints suggested there are white, black and olive (e.g. for the interior walls of the upper decks). The paint scheme of La Créole actually seems to follow the suggestions made by Missiessy (if we accept a rough equivalence of "olive" and "vert de mer/vert empire"), except for the red insides of the gun ports. So, the tendency - or intention, at least - to give up yellow ochre in favour of white - is certainly recognizable. However, contemporary evidence such as most of the Roux paintings or the Trianon models appear to indicate that the old paint scheme was not easily abandoned - a period of transition, as you say. Above I said: Well, I concede that, in the case of this ship of the line, there is a possibility that what I described as a very pale shade of yellow ocre, or "whitish", or cream-colour, may have been an original white indeed - but maybe turned yellow soon (due to meteorological effects)? As for the gun ports, it may well be that vermillion (only rarely used during the Ancien Régime, according to Boudriot) was substituted for red ochre during the Revolution, Consulat, or Empire. Interestingly, Missiessy does not mention reds (neither red ochre nor vemillion), not even for the gun ports. So, the tradition to paint the insides of gunports red seems to have continued well into the Restauration period (to judge from the example of La Créole). Here are two links to Missiessy's treatise (very interesting in many respects, not only in terms of paint schemes). For finding information on the paints try the search function (by entering the word "peinte"): https://books.google.ch/books?id=P73mKT-kv8gC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (foldouts at the end of the book were not opened, as always , a bad habit of Google book policy; but, at least, the search function works quite well) https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k8596353.image (foldouts at the end of the book have been fully opened but there is no search function, not for this book, at least)
  24. Ok, a few more, all of them dating to the late 18th/early 19th centuries (Directoire, Consulat, Empire, early Restauration; some of which I have posted elsewhere already; no Roux, except the last, perhaps) : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Vaisseau_de_guerre_français_de_80_canons_pavoisé_en_1814.jpg http://www.tessier-sarrou.com/html/fiche.jsp?id=7269314&np=1&lng=fr&npp=100&ordre=1&aff=&r= https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Incorruptible-m071201_0012558_p.jpg https://www.google.ch/search?rls=ig&biw=1202&bih=623&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=uRv4W8mmG4zQaLqArOAO&q=vaisseau+de+74+aquarelle&oq=vaisseau+de+74+aquarelle&gs_l=img.3...79656.83772..84613...0.0..0.66.597.10......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i19j0i30i19.F37dTrJFAM0#imgrc=oVNxNRe_gOFGOM: https://www.proantic.com/display.php?mode=obj&id=274227 http://www.tessier-sarrou.com/html/fiche.jsp?id=1270099&np=4&lng=fr&npp=50&ordre=&aff=1&r= http://www.artnet.de/künstler/antoine-roux/le-vaisseau-le-lis-de-74-canons-commandé-par-7L9F70txWUhhfVZNcZojyA2 But now I have to go and get my tafia...😜
×
×
  • Create New...