Wagram

No offence. - None taken. Thank you.

Err...Did you notice that there is a marked discrepancy between that reconstruction of the Leon Trionfante class (1st picture) and the following second and third pictures, apparently contemporary, which you seem to look upon as representations of the Leon Trionfante class was well? Yes, in the reconstruction there are no stern galleries and just a single storey quarter gallery, while those contemporary pictures show a stern gallery and two storey quarter galleries... In my opinion, different ship types, maybe, but, definitely, different designs. Could you comment on that?

I'm not an expert either... But... First, maybe you just don't know all the Venetian ships captured by the French? Second, maybe, a "fregata grossa" should not be confused with a ship of the line? The "Fama" is also mentioned in Demerliac and explicitly called "vaisseau...désigné 'fregata grossa' ", while the ex-Eolo and ex-Medea are just called "vaisseau", i.e. ship of the line. So, Demerliac seems to be aware of different designations which may not describe the same type of ship (and, possibly, with different stern designs?). Third, I don't see your point concerning the armament of Eolo and Medea. Yes, they belonged to the "Leon Trionfante" class (70 guns), but to the Third (Medea) and Fourth (Eolo) Series of that class. Medea was launched in 1793 and had 66 guns, Eolo in 1785, number of guns not mentioned but apparently 66 as well. So, both ships could easily have been considered 64-gun ships when serving in the French navy. Fourth, the stern could have been reworked by the French in 1798 or later (unless it was different from that of a "fregata grossa" anyway)? Et maintenant, retour au français, s'il vous plaît. ICI ON DISCUTE EN FRANÇAIS!

En parlant de navires vénitiens...Que pensez-vous du vaisseau représenté sur la planche ci-jointe signée et datée "Ant Roux Toulon 1806"? Il semble que c'est un vaisseau de 64 canons. À ma connaissance il n'y a plus de 64 dans la marine française mais quelques vaisseaux ex-vénitiens de 64 se trouvent à Toulon, à l'époque, notamment - le "Robert", ex-Eolo vénitien, radoub à Toulon en 1798, condamné et mis en ponton-amiral 1807-1816, bagne flottant en 1817, dépécé en 1818. (selon Demerliac) - Le "Frontin", ex-Medea vénitien, radoub à Toulon en 1798, mis en flûte en 1800, condamné en 1808, ponton bagne en 1809, dépécé en 1825. (selon Demerliac) Ça pourrait être donc un vaisseau vénitien de 64 - ou non? Et la figure de proue semble être le lion vénitien... Que dites-vous?

Looks like a contemporary view of Le Zélé: And another one of Le Tonnant (was not at the Chesapeake but at the battle of Grenada, 1779): From here: http://abedehem.blogspot.com/2017/06/amiral-entre-oceans-et-revolution-paul.html

Your English is fine enough, just exercise your observation skills.

Surcouf, I don't understand exactly what's your problem. Yes, of course, la Bretagne , rebaptised le Révolutionnaire in 1793 and broken up in 1796, was a three-decker. So, actually, what we see on Hue's painting (on the far left) is "Le Révolutionnaire", ex-"La Bretagne"... However, you twice asserted that it was the ship seen here on the right that was la Bretagne, while it was the ship on the left: and that ship on the right is a two-decker, ergo NOT la Bretagne, anyway.

Surcouf, I'm afraid you are mistaken. This is definitely not the Bretagne as it is a two-decker! Actually, the ship described as the Bretagne e.g. by Boudriot in Neptunia 122 (1976) or by Forrer in Neptunia 202 (1996) is the ship on the very left edge of Hue's painting of which you see just the foremost part of the hull with bow and figurehead (a trumpet blowing "Renommée"): BTW, there is another painting representing the Bretagne which is kept in the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem. It was published in Navies and the American Revolution 1775-1783, Robert Gardiner (ed.), London: Chatham Publishing, 1996, p.82. It's a portrait by Joseph François (or François Joseph) Emeric, dated 1782. Quote from the book: "The caption [to the painting] gives the dimensions (in French feet) as length on deck 185ft 6in, maximum breadth 50ft, depth in hold 25ft, height of battery amidships 5ft 6in." One interesting detail is the figurehead. According to Boudriot and Forrer, the trumpeting Renommée probably dates from the Revolutionary period (or from the later 1780s?). The original figurehead, designed by Lubet, represented a woman wrapped in a robe ("Brittany"?) holding an escutcheon (with the coat of arms of Brittany, I presume). Forrer assumes that this figure had been replaced by 1778 by a lion holding the escutcheon with the arms of Brittany, quoting from a report of 1777 which recommended the replacement of the original figure, which was accepted (as making a new lion figurehead was deemed cheaper than restoring the original figure which was in want of repair). However, in my opinion, there is no evidence at all that the original figurehead actually was replaced by a lion. First, because there is a model of the ship kept in the Musée de Brest, presumably made or commissoned by Forfait in 1780(!), which still shows the original figurehead. Second, because Emeric's portrait dated 1782(!) clearly represents not a lion at all but, evidently, the original figurehead again. Unfortunately, the photo as printed in the book looks overexposed. So, many details are obscured but clearly the figurehead is a human being, wrapped in clothes, the right arm is being held backwards, as with the original figure.

"You meant that the blueish white spot was the lion, right ?" Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you. As for the 'blue Bidule': I'm really angry with myself because I failed to note down the source of this picture. That was in January 2011, and now I can't find the picture anymore. Blast! I am quite sure that the caption said it was "Le Héros", otherwise I would not have noted the name down. However, as the picture seems to have vanished from the net, I have no chance of verifying the said attribution. Consequently, I cannot be sure a 100% of the ship's identity and I can't say anything definite about the painter. Very vexing!

To be compared with the figurehead of "Le Triomphant", 80 guns, launched in 1779 at Toulon, the flagship of admiral de Vaudreuil. From here, p.4, n°. 23: https://docplayer.fr/12539674-Antiquites-de-marine-sciences-voyage-file-d-site-rdv-galerie-tmp89xbj8s60m-htm.html This portrait has been attributed to Joseph François Emeric. In my opinion, he may well have been the author of the portrait of "Le Héros" as well (equally launched at Toulon, in 1778).

Hey, that's French...⛔ Sorry, but despite the poor quality of this blueish reproduction, the animal anatomy of the figurehead's body is clearly recognizable...

It's definitely not a human but an animal leg, that much is for sure. I doubt that what you colorized red is actually part of the figurehead.

In case I should come across the source of the picture I've posted above I will inform you, of course. As for the lion as a figurehead: Due to the poor quality of the reproduction of this painting, the figurehead is not clearly recognizable but, in my opinion, it's the body of a lion...

Found a contemporary view of "Le Héros" a few years ago but can't remember where. Sorry.

Tu parles du "Patriote"? D'abord, il y a, entre autres, assez de maquettes datant du 1er Empire dont le bas mât d'artimon est pourvu de cercles. Par exemple, Le Triomphant, Le Friedland, L'Océan, ... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Triomphant-MnM_17_MG_2-IMG_5877.JPG http://mnm.webmuseo.com/ws/musee-national-marine/app/collection/record/9028 http://mnm.webmuseo.com/ws/musee-national-marine/app/collection/record/8952 (Eh, minute! Ou sont les fanaux chez le Triomphant et le Friedland? ...) En ce qui concerne la "peinture" du bas mât d'artimon. Sur le tableau, tout le bois à été représenté assez pâle. Je dirais qu'il est loin de certain que les bas mâts sont peints.

Autre représentation d'un vaisseau de 74 (lancé en 1786, mais plusieurs fois refondu et radoubé, selon Demerliac); naïve, mais assez intéressante, à mon avis: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Tableau_"Le_Patriote"_-_non_signé,_artiste_inconnu_1813._Collection_privée.jpg Le fanal dépasse le couronnement de la poupe, la dernière fenêtre de l'étage supérieur des bouteilles n'est pas vitrée (on le reconnaît à gauche), même schéma de couleurs pour la coque comme chez le "Lis"...

D'accord, mais tu as dit: "Ce n'est en principe pas démontable ces trucs." Mais c'est l'inverse qui est vrai: en principe, on peut les démonter. Tu n'est pas le seul chien, hein? 🤤

Parce qu'on pouvait démonter les fanaux lors de radoubs, ou de refontes, ou quand les vaisseaux étaient hors service, semble-t-il? https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/illustration/port-of-brest-with-view-of-shipping-by-jean-francois-hue-oil-grafiken/479656681

"Pour les fanaux on en trouve aussi avec une bôme, mais ils sont placés plus bas sur le couronnement." Pourquoi penses-tu que le fanal du "Lis" est placé plus haut que le fanal de ce vaisseau là, par exemple: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8413884q/f1.item.zoom 🤔? Plutôt je pense qu'on a pas obstinément tourné la bôme vers la gauche ou vers la droite horizontalement, mais qu'on l'a levé un peu, si nécessaire... En cas du "Lis", j'ai l'impression qu'on a mis la bôme sur le couronnement intentionnellement - et provisoirement. On a aussi installé le mât du pavillon - provisoirement, puisqu'à cette époque on n'installa ce truc que lors d'occasions spéciales (solennelles), si je ne me trompe pas: https://fr.muzeo.com/reproduction-oeuvre/lempereur-et-limperatrice-visitant-lescadre-mouillee-dans-lescaut-devant-anvers/matthieu-ignace-van-bree-0 ou https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Van_Bree-Le_Friedland.jpg "Ce n'est en principe pas démontable ces trucs." J'en doute, j'en doute...😜

Ok, I try to rephrase. The evidence I'm looking for is twofold. First, one would have to establish whether the Mont-Blanc was stationed at Toulon in or around 1803. It was in the West Indies from 22 August 1801 till 9 July 1802, under the command of Charles-René Magon de Médine (Chef de division, 3 September 1799; promoted Contre-amiral, 16 March 1802). Magon returned not to Toulon but to Brest, apparently, presumably on the Mont-Blanc. As a Contre-amiral he wouldn't continue to command the Mont-Blanc, so who took over and what happened to the Mont-Blanc? According to this site http://garde-chauvin.free-h.net/laflotteimperial/index.html, the ship joined the Toulon forces in 1804 only, but I don't know where they have the information from: LE MONT BLANC Vaisseau De 86 Escadre de Toulon en 1804. Reçoit une Aigle 1804. Trafalgar If so, the ship would not have been at Toulon in 1803. Second, one would have to establish who became commander of the Mont-Blanc after Magon? The ship's commander at Trafalgar, Guillaume-Jean-Noël Lavillegris (Chef de division 1797/1799, then, after the abolishment of that rank on 23 September 1800, reclassed Capitaine de vaisseau de 1re classe) took over on 8 March 1805 only (Quintin, Capitaines de vaisseau de Napoléon, p. 201). So, who was commander of the ship between July 1802 and March 1805, and why does Roux' painting of "1803" show a Chef de division's pennant when the rank had been abolished three years earlier? Ganteaume had been for quite some time the ship's commander (from 1794 to 1798). He was Chef de division in the Mediterranean c. 1796-98 (appointed Contre-amiral 8 November 1798). So, if this ship were meant to represent the Mont-Blanc and its commander a Chef de divison (Ganteaume?), the painting would probably have been painted long before 1803 or, perhaps, it was executed in 1803 using sketches from the later 1790s...? Anyway, I don't claim the ship isn't the Mont-Blanc but there are some strange discrepancies which make me wonder...sorry for that. 😐

Thank you but that's not the evidence I'm looking for. 1) I've known the complete painting before. 2) Unfortunately, that proves nothing. This seems to be the title Christie's have given to the painting but contrary to other of Roux' paintings this one lacks a legend describing the scene and ship(s) represented. If there was one it must have been lost long time ago as the German catalogue of 2002 doesn't mention it either. 3) The scenery is typical of several of Roux's painting. It doesn't answer the question as to which ship is represented. 4) That's an assumption of yours? If there were any documents proving the case, they would have been quoted, I assume. Apparently, there are none (or none have been found, so far). 5) There were many ships of this class (actually, the Téméraire-class) and the Mont Blanc was not the only one in the Mediterranean at the time. Another one was the Dix Août, renamed Brave in 1803 (according to Demerliac), also painted by Roux. However, the hulls of the Dix Août and of our "Mont Blanc" are painted differently, and there are more differences, so, in all probability, they are different vessels, indeed. I wonder whether the chef de division's pennant could help to reveal the identity of the ship definitely. I also wonder whether our "Mont Blanc" actually was a Téméraire class ship. In a way, it looks so unlike the Dix Août. But ok, as I remarked elsewhere, not all the ships built on the same plan look alike... https://www.google.ch/search?q=dix+aout+74+roux&rls=ig&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjz7Z7Ao6veAhVJbFAKHbgJBooQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1171&bih=623#imgrc=ktOLlRy0cs12PM: (Strangely, this painting is signed and dated "Ant Roux Dix aout 1806". The name on the stern also reads "Le Dix Août". But if the ship was renamed Brave in 1803, why then is the painting dated "1806"...?) 6) Yes, of course, it's a painting by Roux, which doesn't help as the name of the ship remains unknown. 7) Same as 6). Roux' signature and date don't help. To sum up, the identity of this ship still has to be verified, in my opinion.

Do you know on which basis this 74-gun ship painted by Antoine Roux was identified as the "Mont-Blanc" and by whom? I tried to read the name of the ship on the stern but failed. The first time I have seen the name of "Mont-Blanc" attributed to this ship was in Christie's Maritime Art catalogue of Wednesday 29 October 2008, without proper reference. They just pointed out that the painting was published in a German exhibition catalogue of 2002, but there the name of the ship remains unmentioned. Actually, the painting was just signed and and dated "Ant[oin]e Roux a Marseille 1803 = 45 -". BTW, isn't that a chef de division's pennant on top of the main mast? As for the fate of the Mont Blanc. According to Demerliac and Lyon, it was captured in 1805 by the British. It was incorporated into the Royal Navy but never fitted for sea, hulked in 1811, and sold to be broken up in 1819.

"Tous ces détails décrivent un vaisseau d'une conception 1770/80 de la guerre d'indépendance Américaine." Vraiment? La galerie est "ouverte", mais elle est aussi encadrée - ou masquée - latéralement par les bouteilles, ce qui n'est pas typique des vaisseaux des années 1770/1780. On trouve un aménagement similiaire chez "Le Génois" de 74 (lancé à Gênes en 1805), par exemple (voir Boudriot, Les Vaisseaux 74 à 120, p.350s.), ou chez "Le Pluton" de 74 (Toulon, 1804): https://www.google.ch/search?rls=ig&biw=1171&bih=623&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=TADWW9bZDITUwALt1KWAAw&q=vaisseau+le+pluton+74&oq=vaisseau+le+pluton+74&gs_l=img.3...11977.12814.0.13458.3.3.0.0.0.0.56.160.3.3.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.0.0....0.lwmiFbC3rdM#imgrc=j_yGkZBMEpaKtM: Seule différence: Chez "Le Génois" et "Le Pluton", à l'étage supérieure des bouteilles, toutes les fenêtres sont vitrées, tandis que chez "Le Lis" la fenêtre au niveau de la galerie reste sans du verre. Mais on trouve cette caractéristique ailleurs, par exemple: Chez "Le Commerce de Paris" (lancé à Toulon en 1806), tout en étant un vaisseau de 110 possédant deux galeries, l'aménagement des galéries est à peu près identique à celle du "Lis" - et même trois fanaux de poupe... 😌 Je suppose qu'ils étaient démontables? (voir la dernière illustration): http://ecole.nav.traditions.free.fr/ecoles_borda_commerce.htm Regardez aussi les galeries du Bucentaure de 80 ici: https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-us/auction-catalogues/charles-miller-ltd/catalogue-id-srcharl10011/lot-ed980ca1-6645-4716-b2db-a8ba00d530bb. Le même aménagement! A vrai dire, les galeries fermées semblent devenir la norme vers 1810+ seulement. (La forme de bouteilles elle-mêmes est assez rectangulaire en comparaison de celles des années 1770/80, et d'un style assez répandu sous le 1er Empire. Celles du "Génois" sont à peu près du même design. Consultez Boudriot, op.cit. Elles deviennent plus rectangulaire après 1810 seulement.) De même, les proues des vaisseaux du 1er Empire sont conçues pour être ouvertes même après 1810 (voir les dessins d'ornements chez Boudriot, op.cit., par exemple). Ils ont été "fermées" provisoirement seulement, il me semble, comme moyen de protection, je suppose (au moyen de filets ou de planches). Le sabord de chasse ne se trouve pas sur les plans de l'époque 1er Empire, normalement (voir de nouveau Boudriot, op.cit.), mais très souvent sur les tableaux des Roux, c'est vrai. Au bout du compte, je pense qu'on peut dire qu'il est optionnel et on est loin de savoir si tous les vaisseaux en étaient munis.

Moi non plus. C'est pourquoi j'ai écrit: "...à condition que "Le Lis" - qui est stationné à Cherbourg en 1814, puis aux îles du Vent, puis à Brest (en janvier 1815) - soit en Méditerranée (Toulon, Marseille, Sète) dans la seconde moitiè de l'an 1815 ou dans la première moitié de l'an 1816 (ce que je ne sais pas) puisque - pour autant que je puisse en juger - Antoine Roux n'a peint que de navires qu'il a vu de ses propres yeux." 😉 Pour le reste: Jusqu'à présent, je ne vois pas d'arguments assez convaincants pour réfuter l'identification du vaisseau et de son commandant. Mais je ne dis pas non plus que tu as tort... 😁 Tu sais, aujourd'hui les chercheurs ont souvent une confiance inconditionelle en les règlements / prescriptions réglementaires de l'époque. Et beaucoup ont tendance à généraliser et extrapoler même s'ils n'ont pas assez de documents pour évaluer les faits au cas par cas. Je connais ce phénomène des uniformologues... puis, en regardant les sources iconographiques contemporaines ou les descriptions des soldats mémorialistes, on trouve des "erreurs" en abondance en ce qui concerne les détails de l'uniforme réglementaire...Quels méchants, ces soldats! Bon, ce que je veux dire, après tout, c'est que, peut-être, tous les vaisseaux ne sont pas toujours construits exactement selon les (mêmes) plans et le règlement, surtout en ce qui concerne les détails de la poupe, de la proue, des ornements, de la mâture / du gréement même? Peut-être, il y a des "déviations"...? Bien entendu, je ne suis pas du tout avocat de la devise "anything goes". Au contraire. Mais il ne faut pas se soumettre à l'autre extrême et exclure, a priori, ce qui est parfaitement possible sous l'angle de la plausibilité...