User talk:Rama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives : 1 - 50 | 51 - 100 | 101 - 150 | 151 - 200 | 201 - 250| 251 - 300 | 301 - 350 | 351 - 400 | 401 - 450 | 451 - 500


Hello, Rama. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Two probably dead-end Demerliacs[edit]

Hi Rama, I have implemented Hardi/Rosario as HMS Rosario (1800) - many thanks. I have also just completed HMS Saint Christopher (1806). She is the former French privateer Mohawk, captured in 1806. She herself captured the French privateer Entreprenante in January 1807. Unfortunately, these two captures took place in the Caribbean so it is likely that Demerliac will have little or nothing about them. Still, I would appreciate your checking. Thanks and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Mohawk rings a bell. I'll look that up in the evening hopefully. Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a Mohawk (1781 ship) that has an interesting history (three nationalities), but it is a different vessel. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, this one. Demerliac mentions Mohawk as an 18-gun corvette captured from the British, re-captured near St-Christopher in 1807. That's about it and I don't know how that squares with your dates. Unnumbered entry at page 338. Nothing on Entreprenante, though. Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The dates don't work, unfortunately. I am not surprised. The Admiralty too often did not know that they owned certain vessels when admirals in the Americas, or the Med, or India, bought brigs or other small vessels as tenders to a a ship of the line. I keep running into vessels that have a mention in the London Gazette, but no other record. And there is no Demerliac equivalent for British privateers. Thanks again, and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi Rama! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 11:52, Wednesday, August 3, 2016 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi Rama! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 20:51, Wednesday, August 3, 2016 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Three Caribbean Demerliacs[edit]

Hi Rama, here are three more low-probability requests. First, is there anything on the privateer Elizabeth, which HMS Kingfisher (1804) captured in December 1805. Elizabeth was Guadeloupe-based. Second, there is a London Gazette announcement awarding head money to the crew of HMS Melville for two privateers, Pensee and Favorite. I have not been able to find anything more in British records. The captures would have occurred in the Caribbean sometime in 1807-08. It is not even clear that Melville was the primary captor or merely in company. Thanks, and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for you patience.
  • Elizabeth: I have an Élisabeth, a schooner of 21.95 by 6.25 metres, 141 tonnes, with 102 men and 10 guns (unnumbered, p.335) Recomissioned and lost when she capsized in October 1814.
  • Pensée: was a schooner from Martinique, commissioned as a privateer in March 1807 under Captain Morisseau. Returned to Fort-de-France in April 1807, nothing more on her (no 2771 p. 324)
  • Favorite: I have a ship of unspecified sail plan 150 men and 16 guns, reported captured by HMS Jason in March 1807 (unnumbered, p.335). I don't know whether she is the one you want. There was also a corvette from Bordeaux from 1800, but I doubt she could be the one, as you said privateers, whether out of good or bad luck, had brief careers.
Cheers! Rama (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for this. I have added the info on Pensee and Favorite to the article on the French corvette Naïade (1793), but mentioning that the attribution is speculative. With respect to Elizabeth, does Demerliac refer to her having been captured in 1805/1806? Also, what does the "recommissioning" mean? She, HMS Elizabeth did founder in 1814 in the West Indies. Lastly, if this is the same vessel, does Demerliac give any info on her launch year, location of construction, or any early history? Thanks, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, no sorry, I have given everything Demerliac says. The unnumbered ships are those for which information is especially patchy, it seems that at some point many ships lying around in reasonably good shape were repurposed as privateers -- much like some people slap a ZSU23 on a Toyota and call it a Technical, good luck tracing the history of the vehicle... Rama (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Demerliac, Troude, & Roche request[edit]

Hi Rama, I am working on the Loire class flutes Loire and Seine, which were destroyed in the battle at Anse à la Barque, Guadeloupe, on 18 December 1809. James states that they were armed with twenty mixed long 18-pounder guns and 36-pounder carronades, but Winfield and Roberts describes them as being armed with twenty long 8-pounder guns. Can Demerliac or Roche resolve the discrepancy? Also, I do not have searchable on-line access to Troude, Vol. 4. Does he have anything on the battle, or the earlier battle with Junon? If yes, what pages? Thanks and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'll get on this this evening, along with your previous request above. Cheers! Rama (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello again,
Of course these depiction are entirely possibly both true reflecting different moments of the careers of the ships; that being said, 18-pounders and large carronades (or Obusier de vaisseau, often what is refered to as a 36-pounder carronade on French ships) sounds quite heavy for fluyts, I would tend to lean towards Winfield. Demerliac (Loire no 1230 p 150, Seine no 1231 p 150) gives their armament at 20 8-pounders, but pierced for 24 (The plans are at the Service Historique de la Marine at SH 320 C2).
You will find a tale of the battle in Volume 4, pp. 78-81, as well as in Guérin's Histoire maritime de France, vol 6, p.473 . Do not hesitate to ask if I can help you with anything there. Cheers! Rama (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
With the page numbers from Troude I was able to access the relevant discussion. I have added the info to several articles that discuss the action at Anse à la Barque. Troude contradicts James in a couple of places and I always like it when I can deliver the other side's report. I agree re the 8-pounder guns and that's what I have put in my article Loire-class flûte. I couldn't find a vol. 6 for Guérin, but not to worry; it looks like his description is so short that Troude is more than enough. Thanks again for the Troude info. I was really pleased to be able to get the other side, especially where James is concerned - he is not that objective. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, would you like a copy of my archives of digitalised naval documents? I could put up a copy on a Cloud drive for you to download, these are all public domain documents after all, and you would have both PDF and text versions for the key ones such as Troude. Do tell if interested. Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I would certainly appreciate the Troude. Am less sure about the others as I haven't had any need of them in the past. Still, computer data storage is today cheap.
In the meantime, here is another Demerliac request. I have just finished the article Hired armed cutter Albion. In 1803 she captured one privateer Marengo. Then in Jan 1804 she is reported to have captured three more privateers: Marengo, Tureen de Naab, and Mercurius. Mercurius was a lugger/lougre. I think the second Marengo was a different ship, but obviously I can't be sure. As usual, I appreciate your help. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
If I may add a vessel to this request: San Façon, a sloop of four 2-pounder guns, that HMS Jackal (1801) captured on 29 September 1803. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Marengo: Privateer cutter from Cherbourg, commissioned in 1801. In June 1803 she was under Jean-Pierre Granger with 26 men and 4 guns. (no 1936, p.258) Dermerliac mentions her capture by Albion, but does not know whether it was a 22-gun or a 74-gun, so we are once again going to have the best resource available on the matter.
  • Marengo: I do not have a Marengo captured in 1804, sorry.
  • Tureen de Naab: Nothing on her. An intriguing name
  • Mercurius: nothing again :(
  • Sans Façon: I have three ships by that name, but the dates do not match. It's going to be "Sans" (French for without) rather than "San" (Spanish for saint), "sans façon" means "without undue niceties" (you still use the expression nowadays to politely say "no thank you").
Not a very rich harvest this time, sorry. Cheers! Rama (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rama, given that we are dealing with a period now over 200 years ago and mostly minor entities out in the Western hemisphere, 1 out of 5 is not bad. I figured that San Façon should be Sans Façon, but I am always torn between putting down the name exactly how it is in the record, and what I think it probably should be. Certainly in the article I will put it in as the record has it just in case someone wants to verify my info. Part of the trick in searching these old docs is trying to figure out what a non-Francophone printer made of a report by a (generally) non-Francophone British officer, and then how optical character readers have modified things. In the London Gazette I had to look both under Jalouse and Jaloufe, and Obfervateur and Observateur, for example. Anyway, I should have some more for you soon, all taken in the Channel, so we may have more luck. Thanks, and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I assure you, the French registers and author make an utter pig's breakfast of British names as well. More fun for us to have, I suppose. Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Demerliac requests[edit]

Hi Rama, I have just uploaded French corvette Jalouse (1794). There are five privateers of interest, three of which she captured.

Naiade - operating March 1797
Jason - captured February 1799
Fantasie - captured November 1799
Inattendu - captured April 1800
Victoire - operating early 1801

You had mentioned Wikipedia having the best info re Albion. We have the advantage of being able to compare and contrast, particularly from opposing sides of an engagement (see Jalouse vs. Tisiphone for example. Again, thanks for your efforts. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting ship, I'll try to do something about these privateers this evening. Might have a look at this Plucket character, I think this is not the first time I head of him, he might warrant an article. Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I just can't stand Gallois. His style, flourishes, exaggerations, and constant calls to hatred give me a headache. Rama (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Nice work on Plucket. It is good to have successful Frenchmen of the era on the English wikipedia. There is a French article, and I assume you have checked if it has anything else. I agree with you re Gallois. His style is painful to read (and try to make sense of in English), and he is sloppy with his chronology. James has some of the same nationalistic tone, but he isn't as over-the-top flamboyant, and he is careful on chronology and detail. Marshall is much calmer. Of course, we are talking about the the beginings of the era of nationalism, so it is not surprising that the authors we read are showing it (often more so than the men they write about). Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Naïade (or archaic spelling Nayade): I only have a naval corvette
  • Jason: Privateer from Dunkirk, commissioned in 1797 under Pierre-François Sagot with 14 guns and 51 men. Second cruise in 1798 under J-J Seille, and last one in early 1799 under Charles-Adrien Parquet, concluding with her captured by Jalouse. (no 1716, p 217 of 1792-1799)
  • Fantasie: 14-gun privateer, home port and captain not known, 60 men. (no 3099, p 323)
  • Inattendu: Small privateer with 25 men and 2 guns. (unnumbered, p.337 of 1800-1815)
  • Victoire: I have several that could fit the dates; the most likely candidate in my opinion would be a privateer from Dunkirk under Ensign Jean-Louis Fromentin, a 14-gun, 45-ton ship with 60 men (no 1553). The others look smaller and I would not venture to Norway on ships that look more designed for coastal service than for long cruises. I'll try to see if I can cross that with information from my sources on privateers and get a better lead.
Cheers! Rama (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Excellent results. I think you are right on 'Naïade. We have a WP article on her that I believe I wrote, and she is in the same theatre, and of the same force, as Jalouse. I get a sense that during the Republic, the line between privateers and naval vessels became blurred The info on Jason is super. As far as Fantasie and Inattendu are concerned, I suspect that Demerliac's source is the info in the London Gazette. Even so, I have included the Demerliac references as guideposts to future researchers as to available sources. Your assessment of Victoire makes sense. What is the 45 tons, displacement or "of load"? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, of load ("tonneaux").
Yes, the Republic itself commissioned privateers, which is the strict sense of "corsaire de la République": not only privateers during the Republic, but privateers whose shipowner was the Republic. Different rules than naval ships, but you did get quite a lot of back and fro for lower rank officers between these and ships of the Navy proper. Might warrant an article of its own, now that I think of it. Cheers! Rama (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Demerliac requests[edit]

Hi Rama, I think an article on privateering under the Republic might be a worthwhile addition to the corpus. One of the interesting issues would be figuring out how to find logical links to the article. In the meantime, here are three more requests, all from the Channel/North Sea, and all involving Hired armed cutter Marechal de Cobourg. 1) Espoir captured 12-12-1796; 2) Revanche captured 25-2-1798); and 3)Bien Venu/Bienvenu captured 2-3-1801. Thanks, and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Late additional request: Does Demerlia have anything on the privateer Brave, launched at Nantes c. 1797 and captured 24 April 1798. She became HMS Arab (1798). Thanks, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I am freshly returned from the WikiConvention.
  • Espoir: A 40-ton (load) lugger commissioned in Boulogne in May 1793 under Pierre-Louis-Nicolas Hardouin with 8 swivel guns and 6 smaller pieces (sort of pivot-mounted blunderbusses, I am struggling to find a proper term for that) and 37 men. She was under Jean-Pierre-Antoine Duchenne from October to November 1795, and under Pierre-Antoine-Joseph Sauvage, with 20 men and 2 guns, until her capture by Coburg. (no 1835, p.225)
  • Revanche: Lugger from Calais, commissioned in January 1798. Laid on keel in November 1798 and planned to be launched in December. 62 feet long (57 at the keel), with 55 men and pierced for 12. Commissioned under Jean Hedde with 6 6-pounders according to French records, but seems to have been reported as carrying 16 after her capture. Captured by Coburg, sustaining 7 killed and 8 wounded. Sunk after her capture. (no 1819, p.224)
  • Bienvenue: ship of undetermined type, with 80 men and 14 guns. (unnumbered, p. 333. of 1800-1815)
  • Brave: Goodness, this one is a frigate! 400 tons, 700 full load, commissioned in Nantes circa June 1797. 106 feet long (97 keel), 30'8" beam, 13 to 15 draught, pierced for 22. Under Joseph Robin with 160 men and 22 guns. Captured by HMS Phoenix and recommissioned as Arab with 20 9-pounders and 2 36-pounder carronades. Her plans are at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwitch. (no 2242, p.258)
Cheers! Rama (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rama, No worries re delay as I am in your debt; I hope you enjoyed the WikiConvention.

Great info. Again, the closer we are to the Channel, the better the info is on both sides. Brave/Arab is another of those cases where WP comes into its own. Not only are we combining Demerliac and Winfield, but a few days ago I found a great database on British whaling voyages and was able to pin down her civilian career and fate.
Here's another Demerliac request: the article Capture of the Brillante mentions the French slaver Brilliante that British anti-slavery patrols captured c.1832. It would be great if we would add some Demerliac into the story. Also, she apparently twice fought British warships, sinking one. Is there anything in your records about that?
Lastly, you are an admin and may know something about these things. A few days ago an admin had a ship article of mine deleted as "not notable", and admittedly, the current state of knowledge about this vessel is slim. As you may have noticed though, I am an inclusionist by temperament and this action offended my greatly. What can a mere editor do vis-à-vis an admin when the topic is specialized and the article minor, and so unlikely to stir up a wave of support? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, the only Brillante I have is a naval corvette of the Commission, I doubt it bears any relationship. But there might be information in literature on slavery, I might give it a try. This is an important and much underrated subject.
I have a look at Hired armed tender Elizabeth, is that the one you are thinking about? The admin who deleted to article was merely implementing a deletion procedure initiated by somebody else, so you should not take the deletion to heart; as for the deletion request itself, it was probably initiated by somebody who does not realise that seemingly minor ships can constitute pieces of puzzles. We could put up a Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and explain the issue.
Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rama, Too bad about Brilliante. Despite the name, she may not have been French. As for the Hired armed tender Elizabeth, I was not that angry with the admin that deleted it; he was merely unthinkingly implementing an action started by someone else, as you noted. The admin I was angry at was someone by the WP name of "Fram". I tried to get him to undo his action when he listed it for deletion. He clearly believes allowing non-notable articles in Wikipedia undermines its prestige - makes it trivial, rather than an important encyclopedia. Furthermore, he also believes that he is perfectly able to judge what is and is not notable, regardless of the knowledge domain. I disagree with him on notability. I doubt that anyone except high school students is delighted about articles on the big name topics; what he doesn't appreciate is the delight and awe that people feel when they find an article on an obscure topic that only they care about. Anyway, next time I will wait before replying to the deleter so that I am calmer and perhaps more diplomatic, even if the person is a blithering idiot. :-) Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Fram did not act in his capacity as an administrator, what he did is strictly editorial.
As for the rest, I am at a loss to explain the deletionist mentality. Maybe the experience of paper documents is so deeply ingrained that having more information causes some sort of deep-running angst that expresses itself in rationalised ways... I find similar notions when it comes to sexual topics, for instance: bizarre conjecture that people who do not want to see the article will mysteriously stumble onto it and be offended (seriously if your teen child comes running seeking comfort after seeing some really weird sexual practice, reassuring them is a thing to do, believing that they saw it by pure chance is not).
Also, frustration management on Wikipedia is nothing trivial. We are deeply passionned about what we do, we are typically highly sensitive and intelligent people, so we tend to grow attached to the way we think things should be, becoming vulnerable when they are upset. This had caused suicidal episodes in highly valuable members of the community, a mass of departures from the project, and a great amount of unneeded pain (been there, done that, got a t-shirt). Dismissing such episodes as "drama queens" or simply loss of self-control that should be addressed with more stiff upper lip is in my opinion mistaken and creates a haven for toxic people; and that goes both from one user to another, and also from the little voice in your head that blames you for being upset for nothing: it's wrong and unhelpful.
At the Wikiconvention francophone, a friend recently diagnosed with autism, and whose Special Area of Interst on horse landed 180 her Featured Articles (one hundred and eighty, yes) told us that a fellow user casually dismissing her work (gest of it was he was annoyed at seeing horses all the time on the front page and wanted the material moved to a specialised "horse-pedia") caused her three days of insomnia and taking pills. Nobody in their right mind can say that she should not have feld the way she did, or should have controlled herself better.
This was a pressing issue at Wikimania, so I think I can say in confidence that highly knowledgeable and experienced Wikimedians are recognising that we can only go so far by denying problems. At some point we deserve to pay attention to our own feelings, recognise that an emotion is always legitimate, and work from there to find explanations and way to mitigate and manage things. Wikipedia attracts the rational sort, more passioned by hard facts than by folk psychology, but at some point we are intellectual athletes and we deserve to take care of ourselves if we want to keep up on the long term.
Anyway, sorry for the lengthy rant, and rest assured that you work is immensely valuable and that some appreciate it greatly. I certainly do. Cheers! Rama (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rama, Not to worry about my feelings. As you may have inferred from my nom-de-wiki I am a part-time academic, which means that I frequently have the time to do this, and I have a thickish skin. Anonymity often brings out the worst in people:student evaluations can be vicious, and the anonymous referees on scholarly papers submitted for consideration for publication are frequently arrogant, cruel, or simply stupid. As for "Fram", even if they are acting as an editor and not an admin, they are in a position of power: access to tools, familiarity with WP:Whatver policy, etc. But I think there is an insoluble problem. First, Wikipedia is not immune to Michel's Iron law of oligarchy. Second, at Wikipedia we self-select into roles. I suspect that article creators are inclusionist, article polishers (typos, grammar, wiki syntax, etc.) are tolerant, and admin draws disproportionately from people that like rules and enforcing them, and that have a strong view of how standards and central direction make wikipedia better. The only thing I can think of that might help is strengthening the positive reinforcement system; the "Thank" button is a great tool. I use it to thank article polishers that catch my abundant typos on new articles. Anyway, on to more intriguing things. Barnstars and the like need to be easier to award; I know a negative review weighs more on the soul than a dozen positive ones, but your horsewoman might have felt comforted if she could could see that many people liked her articles. 180 FAs - Wow! Anyway,
Vulture was a privateer out of Nantes that HMS Caroline captured on 15 Feb 1800. Her master was Citizen Bazill Aug. Ene Laray. I can't prove anything, but I think she is a piece of a puzzle that fits perfectly into Vulture (c.1800 ship). What can Demerliac tell us? He can't prove anything, but he could disprove the fit. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, as Vautour. This is a copper-hulled corvette, built by Bourmaud Brothers in Nantes in 1797, 300 tons. Commissioned in December 1797 under Jacques François with 171 men and 20 guns (4 12-pounders, 10 6-pounders and 6 others), cruise from December 1797 to May 1798. Second cruise under Joachim Barbier from January 1799 to February 1799, and third from March 1799 to May under Jacques Moreau (22 guns: 4 12-pounders, 16 6-pounders and 2 36-pounder howitzers). Last cruiser under Mathurin (?) Leroy, until her capture by Caroline (no 2177, p.277 of 1800-1815).
Interesting ideas you have on the sociology of interactions on Wikipedia, I feel very much the same way about the "thanks" button. Your observation on power is a classic and there is much truth in it, but you also have lots of people complaining on other users actions by mentioning power they have but did not use, which is not necessarily helpful (the innuendo that they might have done something improper holds admins and above to impossible standards). This has the effect to push the less vindictive outside of policing, with a tendency to leave the rashest of the lot in effective power. It is an interesting subject and quite a useful nut to crack.
Cheers! Rama (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Vautour: that's beautiful. It will shortly make its way into the article. I am finishing an article on HMS Echo (1797) that has two interesting French vessels. One is Alliance/Bonaparte that you found for me last November and that I can finally fit in where it belongs. The second needs Demerliacing, if I may coin a term. She is the corvette Africaine that the British privateer Garland captured on 4 May 1804 outside Charleston and that gave rise to an important legal case whose outcome continues to affect Anglo-Saxon common law to this day. The French government, through their commercial agent in Charleston, was the (unsuccessful) plaintiff in the case. Though Africaine was referred to a corvette, and may have been acting earlier as an escort to a convoy, she was not a naval vessel. (For example, she does not appear in the Fonds Marine or Winfield and Roberts 2015.) Her commander was an enseigne de vaisseau and she may fall into that ambiguous area of semi-official vessels that you were talking about above. I am quite pleased with both Vulture and Echo. Although they will never be any better than B-class, I feel quite chuffed when I succeed in tracking down and putting together pieces from disparate sources. As for admins and WP, I am going to follow Voltaire/Candide's advice and "Je vais cultiver mon propre jardin." (Please forgive my limited French.) Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk)

For Vautour, her armament has me thinking: on single-decked ships, I am used to seeing the mostly larger guns for the main battery and smaller ones to arm superstructures or as chase guns, but here we have a minority of larger guns; do you think they would be installed amidship? If so, that would make an arrangement similar to central battery ironclads, which would be amusing.
Africaine: I have found nothing in either Demerliac, not in Roche or any of my other usual sources. I find that very odd for a ship of that strength, with naval officers on board and with this interesting legal case; could she possibly have had another name in French service? I tried Africaine, Africain and Afrique.
Cheers! Rama (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Roche request[edit]

Hi Rama, I have just been doing some sorting out of a confusion between two French brigs, both launched in 1811. French brig Inconstant (1811) carried Napoleon from Elba for the Hundred Days. Swiftsure (1811 brig) (originally Inconstant), didn't, and was wrecked on the coast of Queensland around 1831. Question is, does Roche have anything on the naval Inconstant' service history? The Fonds Marine only goes to the late 1820s, and Inconstant continued to serve until around 1842. As for Vautour, I could make a case for putting the 12-pounders at either end of the broadsides to act as chase guns, and to avoid hogging. I could also put them in the middle to be sure of their being fully available for broadsides. The first scenario would be consistent with a flush-deck vessel. The second scenario better fits a vessel with galliards. As for Africaine, she is a complete mystery. The judge's decision gives the name of the British privateer, and her master, but says nothing about Africaine. Normally I can use a master's name or other detail as a hint for further search. I also searched the Fonds Marine for the period around May 1804 for any mention of anything like the British story, and found nothing. I think this is one of those stories that will simply have to sit in our memories in the hope that someday we will accidentally find a clue. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

We have entries in both Roche and Demerliac. I'll give you elements not present in our article.
Roche, vol.1, p. 253: Abeille-class (our article says Sylphe class, same thing) squared brig built in Livorno. She was rebuilt in Toulon from September 1822 and relaunched on 14 March 1823. She took part in the war in Spain in 1823, notably recapturing the merchantman Nativité, from Marseille, on 26 June. Station of Brazil from 10 December 1823 to 6 March 1826, École navale from 1827 to 1829. From 1 February 1829 to 9 January 1832 cruise from Brest to Newfoundland and Brazil. Refit in 1834. Cruise from Saint Louis (Senegal) to France from 6 February 1835, ferrying officers of Africain (which was the first steam aviso built for the French Navy). On 8 December 1835 departed Brest, bound for Cayenne. Ran aground in the Amazon river on 8 December 1835 but manager to refloat herself. Station of Guyanne from 1838 to 1840. Condemned on 17 August 1842 and broken up on dry dock no 6 in Brest from 4 December 1843.
Demerliac (no 866 p.114 of 1800-1815) says she was built under supervision of Jean-Baptiste Marestier upon plans by Sané. He says that she was painted yellow and grey in 1814, and was repainted in black and white in February 1815 for the so-called "Retour de l'Île d'Elbe" (as painted by Garneray). Complement between 100 and 159 men in January 1813, and 60 in late 1814. 18 guns: 2 6-pounder long guns and 16 24-pounder carronades, replaced with 18 18-pounder carronades in 1815.
Also, we have an article on her captain, Abel Aubert Dupetit Thouars [1]
Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Well that certainly fills out the picture. Thanks. Some detail questions though. What was the war with Spain in 1823? When did Inconstant ground in the Amazon? (You have 8 Dec '35 both for the departure from Brest and the grounding.) The first steam Africain served 1819-1827. The second served 1832-38, making her the more likely one for Inconstant to carry officers for. Could Roche accidentally have conflated the two? Lastly, which Abeille-class? Was the Sylphe class a modification of the earlier one, or a precursor to the later Abeille. All had different designers. I also have one detail question re Vautour. When you say above that she was of 300 tons, is that displacement or "of load". Apologies for the compulsive detail, but I do like our articles to be the definitive word. Again, thanks for the great info. Acad Ronin (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)