empathry

Louis XIV visited several naval arsenals during his reign ; Dunkirk, Marseille and Toulon. - In 1660 and 1665, he visited Marseille and Toulon. - In 1680, Louis XIV visited Dunkirk to attend naval exercises. Therefore, during it's 72 years of reign, this is the (incredibly low) number of royal visits dedicated to naval arsenals ! We also know that Berain never set foot in an arsenal. ... so how were important decisions made ? In a bizarre (and funny) manner : by scale model exhibitions navigating on the Grand Canal at Versailles ! In 1680, Blaise Pangalo built a scale model of a double-decker ship, which had to be compared with other scale models built by other master shipwrights (such as Laurent Hubac) ; Pangalo's model ship was then presented to the King on the Grand Canal at Versailles. Blaise Pangalo worked as a master shipwright from 1681 to 1689 in Toulon and Brest, and in 1689 he was permanently attached to the port of Brest. This means that the Ambitieux and Fulminant, built in 1691, were never built by Pangalo, but by Pierre Masson (for the Fulminant) and Honoré Malet (for the Ambitieux) respectively. This gives Boudriot's monograph a certain margin of error, since the << Pangalo + Ambitieux >> combination never existed historically. Moreover, Berain drew two sketches ; that of the Ambitieux and that of the Fulminant, and he must (normally) have known that these would be constructed as twin ships ... ... so why are the port holes different on those two sketches ? This suggests that Berain is primarily an artist (and courtier), not a naval architect, and that his sketches could be interpreted in a very large manner. Philosophically speaking (and in the absence of the ability to go back in Time), nobody on Earth will ever be able to form a historically accurate representation of what the Fulminant and the Ambitieux were, and the wish to respect Boudriot's monograph at all costs, in all its details, is not necessarily a guarantee of total historical veracity. I suppose that ship models main purpose, while navigating on the Great Canal was, first, to flatter the King (le roi Soleil) and that all which was possibly glittering and ornamented was warmly welcomed and encouraged, much more than the actual nautical capacities of those represented scale vessels. The Fulminant is one of the last (beautifully decorated) vessels built within the period called "première marine de Louis XIV" which ended in 1692 with the battle of Barfleur, where (just after the battle) Tourville received orders to beach his ships near the Tatihou Island. The Ambitieux (and the well known Saint Philippe) finished their career there. And then, Colbert reconstructed "la Royale" again, during this further period called "deuxième marine de Louis XIV" ... with strong limitations and restrictions concerning those costly (and heavy) profusional decoration. Those vessels models we are making out (this being our beloved hobby), from the "first marine of Louis XIV" period are (logically) far more beautiful and aesthetical to construct !

The unbreakable rule for the arrangement of guns has always been (since Colbert) a minimum (and constant) distance to be respected between two guns side by side, so that their two crews do not jostle each other during combat. It should be noted that Frölich's model has a defect in the 2nd battery equipped with 18-pounder guns. Frölich model has 13 portholes, whereas historical references give 14 or even 15 portholes. Precisely speaking, the Ambitieux should have had 14 gun ports (as per historic references), while the Fulminant should have had 14 or even 15 gun ports (historic references are somehow controversial about 14 or15) ! You therefore should try to add an extra porthole to the 2nd deck in order to point out this (slight) difference between Ambitieux and Fulminant. Moreover, it's clearly stated that Fulminant is described to be over gunned v/s Ambitieux. Instead of asking yourself the question : should this supplementary 14th gun port be situated through the door leading to the officers' toilets (or not?), it could maybe clever to calculate : If I respect the "pitch" minimal obligatory distance (standardised at the time of Colbert) between the gun portholes of the 2nd battery, where should I pierce my new 14th porthole ? We have seen (on several models) that the rear castles can be pierced to create an additional gunport and we also observe that in the 18th century, the main room (the counsel or dinner room) accepted cannons that were rolled and positioned only at the time of combats. You should now calculate, from bow to stern, by incrementing by one new interval (pitch) to see where the 14th gun's port's position could be ... and how this can be arranged either into or outside the decorated rear castle. I hope it helps.

I beg you to listen carefully to me ; as I'm trying now my best to persuade you (for your own safety) that Time travel isn't possible, simply because the place you arrive at (after your Time travel) is a “normal” place where air molecules "normally"are (and maybe mosquitoes too and microbs) ... How are you going to (are you really able to) push-away those air molecules, mosquitos and microbs (which are taking your new body's emplacement) out of the way ? To avoid this, all you should have to do is travel back in Time, taking care to arrive in an 100 % free and empty place where there are NO other air molecules, NOR mosquitoes and NOR microbs ... i.e. in the absolute vacuum ... then you wouldn't have to “dislodge” all this stuff, while they wouldn't be present in such a perfect vacuum place ... ... but traveling through Time to find yourself into a perfect vacuum environment ... that's hardly an interesting hobby ! I HOPE IT HELPS ! Important notice : Time travel is a dangerous business, so don't leave your kids alone when they're tinkering with weird machines without telling you what they'll be used for !

I like your analogy with the Jules Verne's Nautilus ; with this fantastic decor made by Disney, including extra large glass portholes ... and even an organ ! ... but maybe should we stick a little more to historic reality as per the number of pierced portholes : - We know that the Fulminant was pierced @ 14 for the lower deck ... there is no problem about it and this doesn't concern the port windows. - For the mid deck, it was pierced @ 15 (for it's 18 pdrs guns) as the best reference historic study by Demerliac indicates ... ... anyhow, some other information indicates "pierced @ 14" ... but I am quite certain that "15" is more correct because the Orgueilleux and the Formidable, which were 1st rank vessels launched earlier (in 1690), were already pierced @15 for the 2nd battery, whilst their dimensions being a little bit shorter than the Fulminant (and the same is for the Ambitieux pierced @ 15 portholes for the 2nd battery). Moreover, the Ambitieux, Fulminant's sister ship, had the (bad) reputation of being overgunned ... which was not good for its inner sailing maneuverability. Honestly, this point (14 or 15 portholes for the 2nd battery) can be fairly discussed as there are as many "pro" examples" than "against" example (please refer to the attached files). (a) Then, PRACTICALLY, your model should (I suppose) show 15 portholes for the 2nd battery. In a logical point of view (and I rejoin here your conclusions), all the windows N°s 2 ; 3 and 4 should be false, because a real window with glasses would explose due to the blast of your own cannons when firing. Moreover, your idea for 4 windows instead of 3 may be interesting, as far as you can increment the 15 portholes REGULARLY along the hull of the vessel ; then, the question is : are the 15 portholes equally and regularly balanced with 3 or 4 false windows ? (b) Another alternative is to pierce it @ 14, if it appears that the implementation of the extra portholes (one or two) into the rear castle appears too inadequate or aesthetically disastrous.

Thank you Hubac's Historian for this reminder about the Soleil Royal, which I shall endeavor to complete, as there have been 2 Soleil Royal ... and even 3 ! Let me tell you their interesting stories ! The “historic” first Soleil Royal (N° 1) was built in 1669 and remained unused (non-operational) for 14 years, from 1671 to 1685, when it was literally left to “rot” along the quays of La Penfeld. Its completion and total reconstruction (restoration) has been undertaken in 1688, including the entire decorations of the rear castle ; let’s name it “Soleil Royal 1 bis”. An interesting further information ; this restauration was held under the supervision of the famous Louis Hubac. Thereafter, it (N° 1 bis) was burnt at the Battle of La Hougue in June 1692. Then, angered by this loss, king Louis XIV decided to rename another 1st line vessel, originally called the “Foudroyant”, to “Soleil Royal”. As for the Tanneron magnificent model, it dates 1840 and, according to Claude Lemineur's study, it seems highly likely that this model was mainly based on the “Soleil Royal 1 bis” (refitted in 1688), the new drawings for which were carefully been preserved in Lorient.

The original drawing of the Unicorn, imagined by Gérard Liger-Belair for his friend Hergé.

Hello HAIIAPHNK ! The progress of your work is really beautiful and meticulous ; it's indeed first-rate work that we can admire here, and this is a tribute to “real” handwork, which we see less and less often, so much is it driven out by laser pre-cut kits and computer-made sculptures. Now, let's try to answer your important question about the side windows : (a) first of all, there's a naval military constraint to consider : a warship is built to receive cannonballs (during combat), so it's not encouraged to put too many "real" windows on the sides (because it structurally reduces the ship's strenght). (b) On the other hand, there's the aesthetic example of "real" side windows as drawn by Hergé (in The Secret of the Unicorn), which makes us fantasize aesthetically about beautiful side openings ... How do you choose between these two trends (a) or (b) ? ? ? Should we absolutely respect the notion of naval engineering structure and limit "true" side windows, or can we somehow dream, a little bit, and imagine a more pretty side profile of the castle, by putting in beautiful “true” windows (instead of "false" windows) ... and which ones to be chosen ? That's here the crucial question to be discussed !

Happy New Year dear Sasha ; Reading (eagerly) your sudomodelism adventures really makes me saving me a subscription to Netflix, whilst your adventures are worth a Netflix serie ! I am thinking about your glueing problem, and a logical opinion could be that it's not really worth trying to select a glue permitting the quite unprobable occurence of having a modification to do (or a little repairing). I have myself some ship models I realized three decades (and more) ago and sometimes, the wood works is such a manner that cracks may appear, but whilst the ship models are protected by glasses, there is no wind, no dust, and no need to clean the model, so that the probability of a little bit of something needing a fixing is quasi nil. Your photos are always excellent ! I hope for all the people you love the best, and particularly for you a good health !

I send you other symbols of the French king hereunder, some with wings : Please note that France symbol (the country) is similar to the one of the King ; in other terms, the King is France (as Louis XIV told to French Parliament in 1655 << L'Etat, c'est moi >> )

The inner ring is named the "Sankt Michael" (with the shells) ; the exterior one is the "Sankt Esprit" (with the "H" letter). Here are the reference pictures. I hope it helps !

We have in France a poem (By Jean de Lafontaine) telling a fox who (after making many complimentings) eats a cheese belonging to a crow : Master Crow perched on a tree, Was holding a cheese in his beak. Master Fox attracted by the smell Said something like this: “Well, Hello Mister Crow! How pretty you are! How beautiful you seem to me! I’m not lying, if your voice Is like your plumage, You are the phoenix of all the inhabitants of these woods.” At these words, the Crow is overjoyed. And in order to show off his beautiful voice, He opens his beak wide, lets his prey fall The Fox grabs it, and says: “My good man, Learn that every flatterer Lives at the expense of the one who listens to him. This lesson, without doubt, is well worth a cheese.” The Crow, ashamed and embarrassed, Swore, but a little late, that he would not be taken again. This pretty looks like the Kolobok's story you told us ! And as for the spherical "bombs" you are sculpting in tagua, maybe should you interested to know about natural veneered wood spheres, used in rosaries. I send you a photo of them.

Hi there ! I remain highly favourable to the "ancient traditional style" workmanship, sculpting the pearwood with one's hands, just as you do Haiiaphnk ! Realizing a model is a true adventure with high (enlighted) moment ... and also more difficult moments ; and the new generations prefer to throw away those (supposed) difficult moments by using computers. Therefore and for the fun (because I don't wish start a combat), I wish to post hereunder the realizations of some vessels made by AI programmed softwares ... Please feel free to comment !

Hi there ! There's a saying that “perfection is achieved when there's nothing left to remove”, and that's the impression given by the latest photos taken from the upper side dome. The whole thing you've created blends in so nicely with the initial support (the customer's base) you're working on, that it seems as if your work had already been done all along. There's no visible discrepancy (difference / gap) between your personal work and your customer's initial support, as all harmonizes well ! Well done chap ! The sculpting phase is about to begin ! What I appreciate through your "step-by-step" images (and comments) is that you are both a geometer and an artist. In so many (complicated) shipmodels of this type, we often see flaws due to geometrical difficulties and/or flaws due to artistic (sculpture) difficulties. We are eager to see how it all will turn out as we are now probably predicting a highly skilled finished shipmodel.

... and in such a case, why not set the entire ship model on fire and analyse the wave lenght(s) emitted by its raw products through a spectrometer ? The customs would get from its ashes all the requested (legal) answers ! Are we turning to Ray Bradbury Farenheit 451 ? Will books be burnt ? Will art be burnt ? We'll ourselves be burnt and euthanized (... obviously for "our" security) in order to fertilize this planet ?

Hi José ; the ORIGINAL plan exists and has been published in 2002 by the French review BATEAU MODELE. This plan is an official one with Moulisart authorisation (and licence).