Wagram

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/

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?

Commission-built for the Russian navy by whom? Malta was still occupied by the French - enemies of the Russians...

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?

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...

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:

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

Autre "projet": La goélette "La Comtesse Emeriau" https://www.midilibre.fr/2014/05/08/une-histoire-exhumee-par-le-marseillanais-antoine-golf,858320.php

Bon, je suis Suisse, mais pas LA Suisse, malheureusement...

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?...

Faites-moi plaisir. Reconstruisez le "WAGRAM"!

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?

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...

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.

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"... 👍

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)

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...😜

It was not me who posted that but I think Boudriot will not rotate in his grave and his heirs wont lose any money. First, because it's such a low-quality reproduction of his work. Second, because he's been named as the author. Third, because it serves to discuss an academic matter. BTW, I don't disagree with Boudriot or you. I'm just of the opinion that ochres of all kind were still widely used till the end of the Empire. No need for me to add more contemporary evidence as I've posted more than enough... So...Lâchez-vous, il y a du tafia

I think one should not generalise. Maybe red ochre was less used for painting the interiors of the upper decks but even during the Empire virtually all gun port insides were still painted red (red ochre). Look at Antoine Roux's paintings or the Trianon models, for example. So, vast parts of the interiors, especially perhaps the lower deck insides, must still have been painted red ochre. An English eyewitness of the battle of Aboukir even reports ships of the line whose hulls, i.e. exterior walls, were painted red (Le Timoléon, completely red; L'Aquilon, red and black). As for the yellow ochre I think that it was still extensively used throughout the Empire. The hull of almost every ship was sporting some shade of yellow ochre and black. Again, look at contemporary paintings and ship models. Even the Wagram appears to have been painted with a shade of yellow ocre, albeit very pale. This may be considered "whitish", or cream-coloured, or Naples yellow, but I'd not say it's actually white.

A colour table showing the paints used in the French navy, from an instruction sheet by Boudriot; however, the hues are slightly distorted on this scanned copy (second post) : http://www.laroyale-modelisme.net/t17630-le-superbe-1-150-de-louis-xvi-par-heller

Grand "mais". Impossible, à mon avis à cause du fait que le Dix-Août, ex-Cassard, est un 74 mais le vaisseau non identifié est un 64 (regarde le nombre des sabords).

Alors il s'est trompé. Ou il a compris de travers quelque information dans le net. Par exemple, les informations données ici sont complètement déformées: http://www.artnet.de/künstler/antoine-roux/le-dix-aout-toulon-lrgr-pair-DA2lmL1HeI3EGG-jhEpv9w2 Les descriptions initiales pour les deux vaisseaux telles qu'ils ont été communiquées lors d'une vente aux enchères sont les mêmes qu'on trouve sur les portraits eux-mêmes: Tu peux agrandir les illustrations et lire toi-même les inscriptions dans le coin inférieur droit: Pour le Dix-Août: "Ant Roux Dix aout 1806" Pour le vaisseau non identifié: "Ant Roux Toulon [?; je n'ose pas interpreter cela comme "Frontin", et définitivement pas comme "Robert"] 1806" En tout cas, l'un vaisseau n'a absolument rien à voir avec l'autre et les commissaires-priseurs n'ont jamais dit que les deux portraits représentent le même navire.

Non. Voilà Le Dix-Août de 74. C'est un vaisseau entièrement différent:

Leurs devenirs (selon Demerliac): - Dubois = ex-Fama vénitien, ...condamné à Alexandrie et dépécé en 1800 > exclu - Causse = ex-Vulcano vénitien, ...capturé par les Turcs à la reddition d'Alexandrie en 1801 > exclu - Robert = ex-Eolo vénitien, ... (voir ci-dessus) > candidat - Banel = ex-Gloria Veneta vénitien, ...naufragea près d'Oran en 1802 > exclu - Sandos = ex-San Giorgio vénitien, ...capturé par les Russes à Corfou-Gouvy et mis en ponton en 1799, repris à Corfou par les Français en 1807, démoli en 1808 > exclu - Frantin (Frontin, selon Demerliac) = ex-Medea vénitien, ... (voir ci-dessus) > candidat - Laharpe (La Harpe selon Demerliac) = ex-N°24 vénitien, vaisseau de 74, 1804 rayé à Venise > exclu - Beyraud (Beyrand ou Berand, selon Demerliac) = ex-N°19 vénitien, ...coulu à Ancône en 1799 > exclu - Stengel = ex-N°13 vénitien, puis Stengel...capturé à Ancône par les Autrichiens en 1799 et renommé Megera, rasé en ponton en 1805, repris par les Français et renommé Stengel en 1805, ponton-amiral pour la marine italienne [à Venise], mis en prame à Venise et renommé Diamant en 1808, repris par les Autrichiens en 1814, dépécé en 1825 > exclu

Trop tard pour le dessin de Roux et, en outre, ces vaisseaux n'étaient jamais à la Mediterranée. Vous savez ce que je pense des sujets de peintures d'Antoine Roux: seuls les navires vus par Roux lui-même sont représentés ...