Wagram

Et pourtant... non? Peut-être, nous avons un dialogue de sourds? A vrai dire, je ne comprends pas tout à fait ce que tu veux me dire. Mais, sans doute, c'est ma faute. Je ne suis pas le "native speaker".

Ah non Monsieur, ça ne va pas se passer comme ça! Il ne faut pas comparer des pommes avec des oranges! Si, au 17e ou au 18e siècle, on baptise un vaisseau "La Frégate", c'est gaga (ou, à la fin du 18e siècle, un chebec "Galeotta", c'est ... corse ). Si on appelle dans la deuxième moitié du 17e siècle une barque longue "La Corvette", c'est autre chose: "Jusqu'en 1746, cette catégorie de navire est associée à celle de barque longue. C'est d'abord un petit trois mâts, qui n’est jamais armé de plus de vingt canons en batterie, qui sert à effectuer des missions de découverte1. Il sert aussi de liaison pour transmettre des ordres ou des courriers2. De nombreuses corvettes serviront par la suite au transport marchand. Sa taille au fil des siècles augmente au point que les corvettes de l'ère révolutionnaire valent les frégates légères, de 6 et de 8, du siècle précédent..." https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_(navire)#Corvette_historique (Je ne suis même pas sûr si "La Corvette" était vraiment le nom de cette barque longue - ou plutôt une désignation alternative...mais, peut-être, oui, tu le sais mieux...)

For those who wonder what they see here next to l'Hermione ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Boyard_(fortification)

I missed the most important entry on gw.geneanet.org about Henry Jean (Jehan) François de Gueydon and his father which clarifies a lot: https://gw.geneanet.org/skrebs1?lang=en&pz=serge&nz=krebs&ocz=0&p=henri+jehan+francois&n=de+gueydon So, it seems that Henry Rodolphe de Gueydon had not recognized officially his marriage and son for more than twenty years. It was only on 29 Mai 1799 (10 Prairial An VII) he legitimized both marriage and son. Moreover, the report from 17 August 1797 (30 Thermidor An V) appears to indicate that the father, though being a staunch royalist and catholic (see here: https://books.google.ch/books?id=De5TtT-JtXsC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=Henri+Rodolphe+de+Gueydon+"Essai+sur+l'opinion,+considérée+comme+une+des+principales+causes+de+la+Révolution+de+1789"&source=bl&ots=pqKSev-6h2&sig=ACfU3U2w5b3QjmBRABph1IJoF346f5kx0Q&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJk6vL0dDjAhXEQUEAHbguA1oQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=Henri Rodolphe de Gueydon "Essai sur l'opinion%2C considérée comme une des principales causes de la Révolution de 1789"&f=false and here: https://books.google.ch/books?id=565cAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT1&lpg=PT1&dq=gueydon+"Arreté+des+Patriotes+du+Club+du+Café+national+de+Bordeaux"&source=bl&ots=tZRxOecefe&sig=ACfU3U2qYz7d_0ZK20oqvdL2QbP4nSTEzw&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1hvi20tDjAhUSO8AKHXExATEQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=gueydon "Arreté des Patriotes du Club du Café national de Bordeaux"&f=false , p. 3f.) had never emigrated to England and it also reveals that it must have been the son who was taken prisoner and deported to England: "...qu’elle reconnait pour son fils le dit Henry Jean François, lequel est classé en ce port sous le nom de Jean François Henry, a fait deux voyages dans l’Inde, a servi en qualité de commis aux vivres sur l’Anonime, s’est embarqué dernièrement à Nantes sur le Corsaire l’Aimable Manette qui a été pris et conduit en Angleterre, ..." As for the ships, see Alain Demerliac, Nomenclature des navires français de 1792 à 1799, Nice 1999. p. 258, N°.2240: "1797/1798 ANONYME: Brick corsaire de Nantes armé en 12-1797...En 3-1798 il rentra à La Rochelle." p. 316, N°.2998: "1797/1797 AIMABLE NANETTE ou AIMABLE MANETTE Brick corsaire d'un port d'attache non connu [Nantes, to judge from our document] armé en 1797...1-5-1797: Capturé par les Anglais, par HMS SPITFIRE..." (Note: As Anonyme was armed only in December 1797 but Aimable Manette had been captured in May 1797 already, Henry Jean must have served on board Anonyme long before she had been "armed", and then embarked on Aimable Manette - sometime before 1 May 1797. The question is, when was Anonyme built? Or was there another Anonyme at the time? Demerliac, p. 106, N°.668, mentions a "lougre" also called Anonyme but that ship had foundered in June 1795 and was broken up in August 1795 already. Vichot, Répertoire des navires de guerre français, Paris, 1967. p.12, mentions still another Anonyme, built in 1795, and called a "transport", no further information ...?) So, it looks as if it was the son indeed who had painted the two pictures. If he actually was at Mill Prison in 1798, he may still have been there when his father married his mother officially and recognized him as his son (in 1799). Just a guess: Henry Jean may have been released and returned home after the Peace of Amiens in 1802 and painted the pictures thereafter (sometime between 1802 and his death in 1836).

An apparently not very well known contemporary portrait of this ship is kept in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts: https://collections.mfa.org/objects/32448/sovereign-of-the-seas?ctx=556e234d-fe34-44f4-a732-16e9958db243&idx=0 The other portraits, by Van de Velde and Payne, are rather well known, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sovereign_of_the_Seas#/media/File:Morgan-Drawing.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sovereign_of_the_Seas#/media/File:Sovereign_of_the_Seas.jpg

Excellent guess ... especially as the legend says "La Sybille" ... Apparently, there is a contemporary French portrait of L'Égyptienne (specifications regarding armament as given by Wikipedia seem to differ from Boudriot's), attributed to "Jean-Jacques Baugean". But who is Jean-Jacques Baugean? I only know of Jean-Jérôme Baugean, and from him of nothing from before the 1er Premier Empire and the Restauration era ...: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_frigate_%C3%89gyptienne_(1799)

Je ne vous promettrai rien, mais peut-être que ces livres vous seront utiles: https://www.amazon.fr/Quand-voguaient-gal%C3%A8res-Collectif/dp/2737307066/ref=sr_1_2?__mk_fr_FR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=quand+voguaient+les+galeres&qid=1561736101&s=gateway&sr=8-2 https://www.amazon.de/Age-Galley-Mediterranean-Vessels-Pre-Classical/dp/0785812687 https://www.amazon.de/Die-gro%C3%9Fe-Zeit-Galeeren-Galeassen/dp/3768801632

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

Faint excuses ... all of them.

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...

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.

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 🙂

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

Interesting. What's your source?

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.

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

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

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.

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:

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

"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.

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.

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:

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?

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...