Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

French ship Mont-Blanc (1791) Plans?!


Recommended Posts

Could someone help me look for plans for this Téméraire-class ship of the line

and since this was such an iconic french vessel and i gladly would lik to see this ship in the game and ill post this image.

Mb-vista-montblanc-min.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Le Mont Blanc is not the first name of the 74-gun ships.

This ship was built in 1789 under the name le Pyrrhus. It changed its name to le Mont Blanc in 1793 and le Républicain in 1795.

Built in Rochefort on general plans of Sané.

Written off in 1809

172 '- 44' 6 '' - 22 '

28-gun of 36-pdr

30-gun of 18-pdr

16-gun of 8-pdr

Tomorrow, I will post a photo of the original plan of the 74-gun ship of Sané. The General Plan to 1782.

:)

Edited by Surcouf
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is expected that we will have the "Trout" in Naval Action. As one of the first Jean-Gaspard de Vence ship, the privateer, what do we know about this boat? There is talk of a barge 20 guns have been reclassified in frigate of 12 guns. If you have any information about this boat. Thank you in advance and best regards JGdV

Edited by Jean-Gaspard de Vence
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
On 3/14/2015 at 11:01 PM, Surcouf said:

Le Mont Blanc is not the first name of the 74-gun ships.

This ship was built in 1789 under the name le Pyrrhus. It changed its name to le Mont Blanc in 1793 and le Républicain in 1795.

Built in Rochefort on general plans of Sané.

Written off in 1809

172 '- 44' 6 '' - 22 '

28-gun of 36-pdr

30-gun of 18-pdr

16-gun of 8-pdr

Tomorrow, I will post a photo of the original plan of the 74-gun ship of Sané. The General Plan to 1782.

:)

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wagram said:

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 -".

My bet :

1) The whole panting is :

Mb-vista-entera-min.jpg

2) Christie's calls it 'The French '74' Mont Blanc and other vessels off Marseille"

3) In the right third of the painting, the tower may represent a part of the Fort Saint-Jean (la tour du fanal, also here) at the entrance of the Vieux-Port of Marseille. And the two vessels on the right side may sail to and from the Vieux-Port.

4) In Roux' archives (bill of sales, letters...) or wherever, a painting representing "The French 74 Mont Blanc and other vessels off Marseille" made in 1803 by Roux may be mentioned, meaning he may be known to have painted this subject.

5) The main ship looks like a ship of the class of the 74-gun Mont-Blanc (?)

6) Roux' manner and style (?)

7) Roux' signature and date

Edited by LeBoiteux
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LeBoiteux said:

My bet :

1) The whole panting is :

Mb-vista-entera-min.jpg

2) Christie's calls it 'The French '74' Mont Blanc and other vessels off Marseille"

3) In the right third of the painting, the tower may represent a part of the Fort Saint-Jean (la tour du fanal, also here) at the entrance of the Vieux-Port of Marseille. And the two vessels on the right side may sail to and from the Vieux-Port.

4) In Roux' archives (bill of sales, letters...) or wherever, a painting representing "The French 74 Mont Blanc and other vessels off Marseille" made in 1803 by Roux may be mentioned, meaning he may be known to have painted this subject.

5) The main ship looks like a ship of the class of the 74-gun Mont-Blanc (?)

6) Roux' manner and style (?)

7) Roux' signature and date

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.

Edited by Wagram
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your question was :

12 hours ago, Wagram said:

Do you know on which basis this 74-gun ship painted by Antoine Roux was identified as the "Mont-Blanc"

My answer is

The following elements have certainly been verified by experts :

8 hours ago, LeBoiteux said:

My bet :

1) The whole panting is :

Mb-vista-entera-min.jpg

2) Christie's calls it 'The French '74' Mont Blanc and other vessels off Marseille"

3) In the right third of the painting, the tower may represent a part of the Fort Saint-Jean (la tour du fanal, also here) at the entrance of the Vieux-Port of Marseille. And the two vessels on the right side may sail to and from the Vieux-Port.

4) In Roux' archives (bill of sales, letters...) or wherever, a painting representing "The French 74 Mont Blanc and other vessels off Marseille" made in 1803 by Roux may be mentioned, meaning he may be known to have painted this subject.

5) The main ship looks like a ship of the class of the 74-gun Mont-Blanc (?)

6) Roux' manner and style (?)

7) Roux' signature and date

If so, they are a body of evidence.

I am not the man who will bring you... :

2 hours ago, Wagram said:

the evidence I'm looking for. 

as I am no expert in naval paintings and don't have the elements at disposal. That's why I used 'may' and '(?)' in my post.

Neither do I know the content of the research of Christies' experts and others, unlike you (?) :

2 hours ago, Wagram said:

To sum up, the identity of this ship still has to be verified, in my opinion.

 

Edited by LeBoiteux
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

😐

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Found out who commanded the Mont-Blanc after Magon:

Cosmao-Kerjulien, at the time capitaine de vaisseau/chef de division (i.e. Commodore), took over on 10 August 1802, apparently till 8 March 1805 (when Lavillegris took over officially). On 16 March 1805, Cosmao took command of le Pluton. (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k33369055/f289.item.r=cosmao.texteImage).

Still, in my opinion, the identity of the ship painted by Roux remains open as there is no original caption revealing the ship's name. As mentioned before, the flag hoisted on the main mast is that of a chef de division but the rank had been abolished in 1800, i.e. long before Cosmao became captain and even longer before Roux finished the painting in 1803. As suggested, it may represent the Mont-Blanc when commanded by Ganteaume but equally well some other ship may be meant commanded by some other chef de division present in the Mediterranean in the late 1790s, such as e.g. Emeriau (promoted to chef de division on 12 January 1797) who took part in Brueys campaign in 1798, commanding the 74-gun Le Spartiate (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k33369055/f447.item.r=cosmao.texteImage) ...

Edited by Wagram
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Ganteaume …

Wikipedia are notorious for presenting a lot of inaccurate information - due to incompetent contributors.

Just one striking example of how justified this charge is is the entry on Ganteaume on the French Wikipedia.

There, a contributor calling himself "Jaugrand" has posted a portrait of a French naval officer whom, with utter conviction and without bringing up further evidence, he claims to be Ganteaume.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Honoré_Joseph_Antoine_Ganteaume.jpg

This is impossible.

Ganteaume was appointed contre-amiral on 7 November 1798 and was promoted to vice-amiral on 30 May 1804 which rank he kept until his death in 1818.

However, the portrayed person is wearing the dress uniform of a capitaine de vaisseau as prescribed by the decree of 7 prairial an 12 (27 May 1804). Instead of being scarlet, as prescribed for the "habit grand uniforme", the collar is blue, as prescribed for the "habit petit uniforme", or undress uniform. As a matter of fact, this was not unusual. There are several contemporary portraits showing capitaines de vaisseau in dress uniform but with blue instead of red collars, the most famous example being, perhaps, the Kinson portrait of Jérôme Bonaparte as a capitaine de vaisseau.

https://www.cairn.info/revue-napoleonica-la-revue-2016-2-page-21.htm

Further, there is a star on each epaulette, which was the insignia of a capitaine de vaisseau/chef de division (i.e., commodore), a rank that was first introduced in 1786, abolished in 1800, but reestablished under the Restauration.

Also, he sports, besides the Order of the Légion d’Honneur (one had to establish which version in order to decide whether he had received it already during the Empire or only under the Restauration), what looks like the Décoration du Lys (created in 1814, specifically for the National Guard, but later awarded to others as well, among them general officers), and the Order of Saint-Louis.

So, the person portrayed is not wearing the uniform of a vice-admiral but the uniform of a Restoration era capitaine de vaisseau/chef de division. Whoever the man is, he cannot be identified with Ganteaume. Apparently - as the seemingly portly man bears, to some degree, the likeness of Ganteaume as represented on an anonymous 19th century picture -, the incompetent poster thought that they were the same, which is completely wrong.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ganteaume.jpg

Edited by Wagram
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...