Fluffy Fishy

That's an entirely different statement, reality is the scope of the famous warships used in the 1750-1815 period demanded plans, often they were built to much higher demands and the social and work lives of the period, often working in multiple shipyards across large distances the top architects needed to be in plenty of other places at once, overseeing different tasks so using a model was difficult. Plans make much more sense as you can put in much more technical information to leave to other people, accompanied by notes and writing you could explain what is going on and why you are doing it, which might not make sense or come to light properly just using a model. Lots of people also wanted copies of these plans, for example the Admiralties, Bursars, The Shipwrights themselves, Rulers and councils, various archivers and more, copying models is a huge amount of work to do it accurately and finely and it was just more economical to produce plans, they weren't better and the people who used them weren't more technically skilled because of them, but more the most technically skilled were forced to use them through convenience. Its about scale and resources not skill. Using a model isn't something to be looked down on, its just a different method, both methods have advantages and disadvantages but the scale of production meant that notes and plans made more sense during the period. Today we use both simultaneously for a reason.

Some shipyards even used shed based production, I will leave you some pictures of the Venetian Arsenal, perhaps the most impressive shipyard in the world from any point of history. The Venetians also employed partial sinking and raising of their ships for general maintenance, using shallows and a makeshift marina made up of other boats to work on the ship that needed repairs. An old sketch of the Arsenal, with some artistic liberties taken from views atop the Campanile Another artists impression of the Arsenal, notice that they decided to leave the shed roofs off, This would not be the case, rigging would be finished off in one of the dry or wet docks after main construction had been finished in the sheds. The modern Arsenal as seen by Air A map of the Arsenal showing the arrangements of the sheds and waterways. Here is the ship based marina system I spoke about earlier Hope this all helps That is simply not true, I would say that its more difficult to keep records of men who used models, they rarely have the survivability of normal plans that can be sent into archive. Its not the fact that shipbuilders who used models were simply worse at their jobs than the ones who drew up lines its just that models survived less readily. The problem is historians tend to be academics working from treatises and documents so they end up finding more information about shipwrights who write a little text about their design theories, which is often supplemented by models along the way, paper trails are hugely easier to follow than a string of models, its just easier so we remember the shipwrights who used paper.

Well I would reckon it was a Venetian under the supervision of a French commissioner as the ship wasn't fully completed until after Venice was occupied by Napoleon, I would also suspect that the lion was likely carved at this point but I cannot be certain. It would make more sense for it to be the standard naval lion but I was just curious, if someone could confirm.

If anyone wants some more specialist info or a chat I will gladly talk in a PM, so the conversation doesn't get too off topic here. If it is something that can be posted here with relevance I will possibly throw it up here too but I am more than willing to talk to people about almost anything Venice, so feel free to ask

I was trying to get a better view of the figurehead, is it the fairly standard venetian lion figurehead or did the French plant something of their own on the front? I can't quite see, but probably because im on a tablet right now. if so the usual venetian lion figurehead wouldn't usually be painted white, perhaps that was done later by the French during some maintenence?

Its fairly clear who Venice's opponents were, the last major conflicts of the Venetian Republic were; The Fourth Ottoman-Veneto war (1570-73), The Fifth Ottoman-Veneto war 1645-69), the Sixth Ottoman-Veneto war (1684-99) and the Seventh Ottoman-Veneto war (1714-18) I personally don't really count the Napoleonic Invasion as a major conflict, it was too short. During this period Venice was propped up mostly by Austria and Spain, but also by the Papal states. The Venetian navy had shrunk quite a staggering amount through the fifth and sixth Veneto-Ottoman wars, Did I say Veneto-Ottoman wars enough ? If you want an interesting comparison you can compare the Venetian Navy to the Dutch navy, both have a rating system geared towards smaller ships, both due to the shallow nature of their home ports. The main restriction of Venetian ships was the depth of the Arsenal watergate during the period, although they did sometimes contract shipbuilding out to larger shipyards situated on the Adriatic side of lido or other towns in Venetian territory. I have posted a map earlier on in the thread showing a map of the Arsenal. So really what the purpose of the Venetian navy was at this point was mainly a deterrent, there was still a sense of invincibility given to them by the lagoon, but as Napoleon showed, once guns could fire the mile and a half over the lagoon the protection had lost its meaning. I can go into more detail if you like but I hope this helps The Zustinian Class was used from 1690 to 1746, The design was modified slightly 3 times over the period of use but one of the plans is posted in the previous page of this thread if you want to look in more detail

Size comparison between a Venetian first rate and the British first rate HMS Victory, I am unsure quite which first rate it is, I have strong a feeling its the San Lorenzo Zustinian, but sella will no doubt do his magic and tell us

The video doesn't but some of the records like to state that the Victory could quite happily keep to a line of thirds, there are also numerous accounts of the ability of Sir Thomas Slade as a naval architect suggesting he was by some weight the finest shipwright of the time, surpassing even his French contemporaries. There has to be something said of someone who designed 8 of the 27 line ships used by the British at Trafalgar and another 2 used by the French.

If you want a bit more detail of ship recordings you might be interested in this website http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=home

It would be so great to have our own little place that can let the PVE voices be heard, we might be a minority but we are a loyal minority who want the best for the game, it would be nice to see us receive a little bit more air time because too often when suggesting something you meet a whole barrage of abuse because its something that would benefit PVE but not PVP, I have suggested things numerous times that has had this kind of response, you can even see the negative responses for the idea of the PVE having its own little sub forum. The voice of PVE needs to be louder.

It's not surprising that ships start to look more similar as we get to modern times, more mathematic lines start to really take over from the more traditional family secret style of building. You could probably find tons of examples of ships that look very identical but these days there's not much difference beyond the 8 or so basic hUll designs. Then again it could be to do with journeyman shipwrights travelling around Europe. I am fairly sure this period was fairly liberal to where venetian ship builders could travel and learn their skills, I will have to look for more information on the two sister ships later

Polacca Generic 18th century Venetian Polacca, able to be used as a half galley.

Pallade and Venere Information thanks to Sella22, Thank you friend

You are obviously very knowledgeable about French shipbuilding, I am impressed while those are some very influential examples but you still see a lot of death and destruction taking place throughout France, this caused a substantial dip in the industry in both skill and output, you see this effect showing through the revolution period, the output shrank dramatically and those that were built were much smaller in scope and weren't of the calibre of the ships produced in the enlightenment period, if you look at the ships in service during the conflicts of the period the backbone of those combat ships were built between 1750-85 and then 1800+ there is a distinct almost blank period of about 15-20 years where you don't see many good ships being built, those that are have a pattern of being smaller. You then see a recovery and rediscovery period, reusing the techniques and influences of the enlightenment period and scientific age, showing just how far ahead of its time the French were during the 1750-60s, this was combined with the resources they looted from Italy and Spain especially from Venice and its arsenal to bring things back to the same kind of progression. Despite the influential key names of the French rebuilding their fleet following the battle of the Nile you still see some of the magic lost, and not really regained until the post the Napoleonic period. On a side note we should probably get back on topic

Before the revolution sure it was incredible and a world leader but the aftermath meant knowledge was lost for a period of about 20-30 years, during this time things got a bit sloppy and lost, especially by their previous standards. Perhaps terrible is too strong a word but there was a noticeable dip in the ability to create the kind of things the french could before the chaotic periods of change and executions, its sad really.

There was a general consensus that Venetian ships during the long decline period were terribly made and weak, especially amongst the post-rivals of Venice, The French, The Ottomans and the Austrians all rubbished the Venetian ability to build and design ships, again I would treat this with caution, its not necessarily true, but its not going to be false either, these are the emerged nations of the Mediterranean that want to create their own superiority over the region and one way to do it would be to rubbish the predecessor. There is a huge amount of subjectivity in the contemporary accounts, I'm not saying they are entirely wrong, but we also have to remember this period of French ship building and commanding was fairly terrible, having guillotined their most prestigious shipwrights and captains in the revolution which just had the effect of creating a massive skill vacuum that wasn't really fixed for a couple of generations. When it comes to Venice, being squeezed as it was between 3 fairly hostile super powers it didn't really have the same resources that they could get hold of, you don't see a huge amount of the sturdier woods like oak in the region so there was still a reliance for some warships to be built from weaker woods, the private Arsenal woodland in Montello was only so large, and generally the trees there were still mostly grown from the galley period which required a lighter wood so to be more agile, this could also have a factor in foreign nations accounts. I also believe that model doesn't show the framing as was, so as to be able to access and view the inner workings of the ship, if you look at the frame construction and diagrams of any other Venetian ship they aren't anything like that far apart, she probably would have had slightly larger frame spacing than the other nations but again I stress that it is due to the experimentation and technological pathway that comes from making and specialising in galleys long after other nations had moved towards almost entirely using round ships. If you read on the combat records of La Muiron it served the French very well during its short period of service, but its a shame we don't have the information from Venetian records of intent.

I would treat the French records and Gerard Delacroix with some very careful footing, The Venetian ship building was surprisingly different from the Atlantic nations, coming from reliance on Galleys changed the way naval technology developed significantly. I'm not surprised the French would have said that but then they come from a very different path. The two worlds are very different and if you look at how a Venetian light galley, and to a lesser extent the great galleys were built and operated it reflects on the Venetian ships of later date, this is why you get the Atlantic nation line ships taking on a very different form from the Venetian super heavy frigates, Venice could design and operate ships on the level of 3rd rates that behaved more like super frigates while still maintaining the strength and rigidity of their line ship counterparts. The real restrictions on Venice as a nation during this period was cost, they could still create ships beyond the level of any other nation, but due to their income being restricted by loss of trade because it being easier and cheaper to navigate spices around the cape of good hope, and also the restrictions that are in competing as a medium size city in a world of superstates, never really quite escaping the threat of the Ottomans or Austrians. Relating that back to La Muiron, you wouldnt try to break and run a blockade in a ship if you were told it was flimsy, especially with the most important person in France on board, I think the concern over the build strength by the French contemporaries is one that reflects the french ship building industry at the time, while in france it was scientific and ahead of its time it still lacked the technological advantages living wholly a maritime lifestyle and how naval technologies change when you are working primarily on Galleys for the majority of naval history, the Venetians also had a lot more records to relate to when it comes to ship design and what worked due to their excessive bureaucratic nature and the record keeping of the Lords of the Arsenale and other such positons. Apologies for making the above paragraphs so long winded and fairly poor english

To be fair almost every ship was dismantled at some point, you could almost count the major surviving ships on one hand, its a terrible fate for so much craftsmanship and history, I just wish the thinking of the early 20th century where they decided to keep some of the most historic ships going as museums had hit earlier. At least its a kinder fate than being demolished with TNT like some of the other unfortunate victims of progression in naval technology.

I have been speaking to Sella about the ship for a few days now, its good to see it make its own way with its special post. I love the way that traditionally so many other navies prized French captures but the French were astounded by the ships and designs they captured and looted in 1797. The ship is fantastic, although I do feel somewhat like its a bit of a kick in the teeth to people who like Venice due to the way Napoleon looted the north of Italy, then used La Muiron to escape certain death/capture after his campaign in Egypt. I would love to see this ship, and a few other of the Venetian ships put in the game, if you like super frigates then you haven't seen anything until you meet the Fama

Carlotta Venetian Corvette-Brig with sail plan

This isn't strictly a ship (fairly obviously) but this is a map of the Venetian Arsenale, the rectangles shaded yellow are the ones specifically used as sheds for building and maintaining large frigates, the largest being the yellow labelled 1-8 with the writing "Isolotto" written over them You can also see the location of the main water gate positioned in the transparent rectangles with NA written over them, this is to allow larger ships to easily be produced and access the Arsenal for maintenance and refitting.

Venetian "1780" Class 2nd Rate

San Lorenzo Zustinian Venetian First rate

Venetian Galleass 18th Century

Use it as an opportunity to complain about the in game low agility victory stats