French FULMINANT rear castle

[HAIIAPHNK]

So, I will try to describe in order everything that may be relevant to the topic of the appearance of quarter galleries and how the number of guns may affect it. The topic is very big and complicated. I drew a lot, racked my brains with versions. Often from the outside I looked like this:

 

 

And sometimes, at particularly difficult moments, even like this:

 

 

For what reason, you'll soon find out.
What do we have? A ship hull that is already built from Ancre's blueprints and was, up to a certain point, Ambitious. Then the decision was made to redesign its appearance so that it would be the first model of the Fulminant. After all, the ships are twins in design. And theoretically all can be easily adapted to new tasks. However, the ships have differences. One of them is the different amount of artillery. At the same time in different sources you can find different amounts of this very artillery. In any case, the Fulminant must have more guns and somewhere to find porthole spaces. So I set about that search. I looked for different ways to find some space somewhere. And this was even before there were grisailles with the appearance of Fulminant's quarter galleries. That's why I started from the book version. The subtleties of design are not so important to me at this stage. It was necessary just to understand approximately what volume should occupy the total dimensions of these galleries. And that's what the options were. This is just the arrangement of all the places, if you do not look at the shape of the galleries and start from the distance to the cannons:

 

 

Here are the options now taking into account the drawing (approximate) quarter galleries. I will mention at once that there should be no additional cannons on the transom area, it was a condition from the customer. I do not want to break the decor, especially since on the only sketch to that moment there is no mention that there are chase guns. So we have to look for places on the sides of the ship. Here are what the options were:

 

 

 

I'll make a separate note of the cannon in the farthest corner. I found only one mention that this location could actually accommodate a carriage. 

 

 

 

 

 

Let it be a British ship, I did not find such a mention on the French ones. But one has to find places somewhere.

And now it's time to get to the numbers. How many guns should we add? As I have already said, in different sources the information on this matter differs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now on the hull there are 90 barrels (or more correctly places). I describe in more detail where exactly and in what quantity they are all located:
LD - 28
MD -26
UD - 24
QD - 4
plus 4 cannons on Lower counter and another 4 chase guns (most likely retirade) on Forecastle. Total: 90 gun emplacements.
And different sources say there should be between 94 and 98 guns on Fulminant.

At this point we received word that the archive would grant the request and we would soon be able to get Beren's grisaille. At this stage, the customer suggested to postpone assumptions for a while and wait for the sketches. And then it would be clearer. 
They are here. And what do we see? 

 

To be continued...

[HAIIAPHNK]

 

 

We see that there are no cannons drawn on the sketches, which could affect the appearance of the galleries. The customer wrote that he wants to leave these galleries in this form, to try to leave them in their original form. And all the additional guns should be inserted outside the galleries. And everything would be fine. My job is much easier. I don't have to think of anything, just take it and build it. That's great! So I started to do the adaptations. Which I tried to describe in detail. After all, even the question of leaving the gallery in the same form as on the sketch has already encountered questions. Will really look beautiful exact repetition of the drawing? Maybe it still makes sense to make changes and deform the original drawing to fit the existing hull. And plus it is still necessary to think about the fact that sooner or later cannons will have to be placed somewhere. And if you don't think about it now, it will be a problem later. And first of all it concerns the question whether to leave the quarter galleries so long or will have to shrink them? If we take into account that the customer has set a condition that there should be no cannons on the territory of the galleries, the width of these structures is a very important issue. Which I have tried to show with the help of the last diagrams.

And now our detective takes it to the next level! The customer sent a letter, in which he chose a specific description of Fulminant, where it is clearly described and the number of guns and where, on which decks they should stand. 

 

 

I don't know how to read it all from the outside. But for me, the plot became more than just detective story, it became sci-fi or even mysticism. I just don't know now how to put it all together at the same time.  I'm transcribing what Demerliac writes about weaponry into the text in a column:
LD - 28 (28)
MD - 30 (26!)
UD - 26 (24)
QD - 12 (4!)
poop - 2 (0)

The numbers in parentheses are what is currently available on the case. To make it easier to compare. To be honest I don't know exactly where to put the chase guns of both hull ends. The aft ones are LD and the forward facing ones are UD. But that's questionable. I also did not understand how to understand the number 12 in Demerliac's list on QD. There is not much space there. Where is it possible to fit that much in there? Maybe chase retirade positions in front should be included in the same line? But that's also a very strange thought. How can what is on the very bow of the ship be classified as QD? This is my misunderstanding after all, don't think Demerliac missed something. By the way, he has marked (most likely retirade) positions on the poop. Which means that if you put Domerliak's data as capitalized, you will have to modify the decor on the transom somehow. And it will be necessary to make there either open portholes, as on Forecastle, or to put hidden hatches. But it is not so difficult. What is more difficult is that in the existing realities it is impossible to make everything match exactly everywhere. It is possible, of course, to start construction from scratch.

But that's fantasy, isn't it? And any other attempt to solve this conflict without changing everything is definitely mystical. You'd need a magic wand or parallel space or something. Something has to be sacrificed. And that's either turning a blind eye to the exact number of guns on each floor, or accepting the fact that you'll have to adjust the appearance of the galleries quite a bit. Let's leave aside all other issues. Let's take a look at just one line.
MD - 30 (26!)

 

 

This means that not one, but two guns should be placed on the 2nd deck. That is, you need to compress the gallery a lot and at the same time place the second gun in the gallery window. And this gun will most likely have to be in the doorway. Which is not a bad solution. Then theoretically in the marching state the cannon can stand sideways inside the captain's cabin, and the captain can use his toilet. And during the battle the cannon is put in the combat position, the window is tilted and you can fire. These are purely theoretical speculations of how everything can be combined together in a single issue. As far as it all really met in practice I will not say for sure. 
And I put out of brackets the discussion of how much the interior space of cabins changes. It is difficult to think about it at all.
It's such a tangle of questions. And one part of the puzzle inevitably affects the neighboring parts. It's impossible to keep everything at the same time.

[HAIIAPHNK]

I really hope that my verbosity will not break heads and the translator will faithfully translate everything I want to express. 
I am very thankful for all of you being helpful and sharing your opinions. Maybe there will be some good advice with everything written. Maybe I am lost somewhere in my thinking.

[HAIIAPHNK]

2 hours ago, Theodosius said:

I'm late to this party :-). But you ask for personal oppinion, not necessarily with any know-how, so version B pleased my eyes the most! 

 

Welcome to the discussions. Personal opinions and proposed versions are just that. Get out your boarding swords, dusty scrolls and blueprints and join the raucous conversation! 

[druxey]

There is another thing to consider: The list of guns carried was a theoretical one (at least in British ships). What was actually on board at any time was often different and usually a smaller number! This might also be true of L'ambitieux and Fulminant. So, before you provide a Procrustean solution....

[Hubac's Historian]

Agreed.  There is a “notional” rating, if a ship were to actually carry guns through all available ports.  However, the French did not arm bow and stern ports with additional guns.  Adjacent broadside guns were simply moved into chase position, if needed.  

[empathry]

For chase guns, in reality, only 2 can be placed (and not 4 even if there are 4 portholes) because of riggings.

[HAIIAPHNK]

I can only agree. Yes, I know there are places on the ship where the gun is not permanently mounted. When necessary, some cannon portholes were dragged to some cannon portholes by neighbors, or those that were not in use during a given period of combat, such as from the opposite side where there is no one to shoot at. And this was the norm. First of all, such practice was for chase guns. It is simply impossible to put permanent cannons here. They would interfere with the guns on the sides. Plus you also have to take into account that during the battle the cannons need room to roll back. So each cannon on the end of the ship will interfere with 2 or 3 cannons on the sides at once. In Russian, a cannon porthole without a permanent cannon is called a retirade port. And how is it correct in English? 

 

 

 

Thank you for helping with advice. I am more interested in this question how to correctly perceive the list of cannons in reference books. Demerliac says that there should be 98 cannons. Is it meant by the number of portholes? So there are actually fewer cannons. Or is it exactly 98 cannons plus empty ports? I always thought that such data is about the first variant, am I wrong? 

[HAIIAPHNK]

Here's another question. Am I right in thinking that this line here

 

means that the two cannons Demerliac thinks were here? And there should be windows in Tafferel for artillery. I've drawn it roughly. Didn't measure the exact spot.

 

[Martes]

The British plan of the captured La Prompt may also provide some hints as to the construction of the gallery:

 

 

 

[HAIIAPHNK]

19 minutes ago, Martes said:

The British plan of the captured La Prompt may also provide some hints as to the construction of the gallery:

 

Thank you very much. Interesting information.

[empathry]

Thanks to Martes, we clearly see now how those _____ 15 x 2 cannons of the 2n battery are positioned ! 

Le Prompt (by Berain) being very similar to the Fulminant.  

[empathry]

 About this drawing of the vessel Le Prompt : it's written : << Représentation des Vaisseaux construits par ordre de Louis XIV, roy de France, sous le ministère de Jean-Baptiste Colbert, marquis de Seguelay, sur les dessins de Charles Lebrun, premier peintre du roy. Dessinez et mesurez exactement par Jean Berain >>.  Which means that the drawing by itself is drawn by Charles Lebrun, in his quality (privilege) of First painter of the King ... whilst this (same) drawing is anyhow checked and measured by Jean Berain. 

 

Yes, we are presently really living a fantastic investigation ... that maybe Boudriot has even not implemented. 

[HAIIAPHNK]

6 hours ago, Martes said:

The British plan of the captured La Prompt may also provide some hints as to the construction of the gallery

 

1 hour ago, empathry said:

Thanks to Martes, we clearly see now how those _____ 15 x 2 cannons of the 2n battery are positioned ! 

Le Prompt (by Berain) being very similar to the Fulminant. 

 

I'm already drawing new variations based on the new information. In fact, we've almost come to the same solution on our own. The idea of putting the cannon in the doorway was logical. Except that I missed with the second one, I put it outside the gallery. But somehow I think that after the next sketch we would return to the idea of leaving the gallery the same length as on the original. One can speculate a lot, would we have come to this option or not? But this drawing certainly sped up the thinking and searching.
Maybe someone has other drawings of this ship? It has become very interesting to look at it in more detail. 

For example, I have the impression that the outermost cannon on the MD stands higher than the others. This is tied in with the window here, most likely. So as not to break the drawing the cannon looks out of the window. But then it appears to be standing on some sort of bench or catwalk? It seems like a lot of complications for the sake of keeping the appearance intact. Is it just me or are there similar cases? Was there a very small caliber gun standing there that such a gun could be used on a table, raised, lowered?  Or was the catwalk permanent?
And could the balcony itself be used? Was there an exit left there, or was only a porthole left and the balcony not used as a room? In principle, the captain could climb out through the porthole, but it is still not very consistent with the position of the captain. And if the captain is also of advanced age? 

I think I just found the answer. And it has its own interesting nuances. The detective continues!

[Chapman]

The Louvre has all 3 views of the Prompt.
Here is the link to the sidegallery, and the Bow

It's great that there is a plan for this ship as it was built and the decoration as planned. This gives good insight into the final execution.

[Martes]

2 hours ago, Chapman said:

It's great that there is a plan for this ship as it was built and the decoration as planned. This gives good insight into the final execution.

 

It's slightly more complex than that, since the Prompt was heavily rebuilt in 1698, and the decorations could have been altered or replaced.

 

Whether she was shortened or not can probably be verified by her British plans

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-87616

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-87615

But it is relatively difficult in the available resolution and with no apparent scale.

 

Still, the Louvre views show that the quarter galleries were at least designed in a style very similar to the Fulminant.

 

 

[Martes]

12 hours ago, HAIIAPHNK said:

For example, I have the impression that the outermost cannon on the MD stands higher than the others. This is tied in with the window here, most likely. So as not to break the drawing the cannon looks out of the window.

The final configuration for the Prompt is 14 pairs of guns on MD, so the aftermost rectangle is most probably not a gunport, but a window.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Martes

[HAIIAPHNK]

2 hours ago, Chapman said:

The Louvre has all 3 views of the Prompt.
Here is the link to the sidegallery, and the Bow

It's great that there is a plan for this ship as it was built and the decoration as planned. This gives good insight into the final execution.

 

Thank you so much.

[HAIIAPHNK]

24 minutes ago, Martes said:

The final configuration for the Prompt is 14 pairs of guns on MD, so the aftermost rectangle is most probably not a gunport, but a window.

 

It's as simple as that. Then everything falls into place. I see that I'm not making any logical sense with the theories I'm coming up with. 
So now I leave the door alone, it is already in the hull and should be justified and the exit to the captain's toilet should remain. I make a cannon porthole next to it so it is in the gallery area. And the gallery itself doesn't need to be compressed now. 
It turns out roughly like this:

 

 

Now I need to transfer the gallery drawing from Beren's sketch and combine everything together.

The topmost oval porthole at the end of the QD remains a point of contention. And Demerliac's data about a pair of cannons on the poop. I'll leave this question aside for now, I'll finish drawing the gallery first, it should take up more space, there and the dome is more rounded. Let's see how much free space will be left in the end. 

[HAIIAPHNK]

Thanks a lot everyone! For your very valuable tips. I have found a lot of useful thoughts in a short time.

[druxey]

To my eye the gallery still looks a little compressed. If you expand it a little more, then the last gun port of the middle deck will fall directly under the last port on the quarter deck as it seems it should.

[HAIIAPHNK]

11 minutes ago, druxey said:

To my eye the gallery still looks a little compressed. If you expand it a little more, then the last gun port of the middle deck will fall directly under the last port on the quarter deck as it seems it should.

 

You have a good eye. I took one of the old drawings for the search. Here's a gallery from Ambitious. It's narrower than the Fulminant. When the right one comes up, it'll be wider. I need a little time to get it all aligned. We'll see what happens later.

[HAIIAPHNK]

The next step is in the works.
Redrew the quarter gallery design, taking into account the ship's hull. Here's what I got. Unfortunately, when transferring the drawing on paper to digital format, the quality is lost. 

 

 

After thinking about it, I decided to align the broken directions into a correct line. Maybe it's a mistake on my part, as I don't know the real reasons why it was done this way in Beren's drawing. But since I never figured out the reason, I did it the way I understand it. 

What does it look like from the outside with non-tired eyes? What do you think? Any comments? Maybe I missed something important and made mistakes?

 

[HAIIAPHNK]

The issue of the porthole in the quarter gallery remains unresolved. 
The construction of the gallery at Budrio on the ground floor is shown as a single room, inside of which one can stay. 
Now, when instead of one window (real or false) there will be a porthole for the cannon, it is necessary to think how it will look like. Will the lower tier remain a single room, as on Ambiteaux, or is it more correct to cut the room on the border of the window (which is in the middle) and the part of the gallery under the cannon will be blind, as for example on Fleuron? Also I have not yet come to an answer whether to leave the porthole as an open hole or to hide it behind the gallery window? How should this window be opened then? In my opinion, these questions are mutually influencing each other. If you leave the room whole, then inside this gallery you can go to the window and remove it completely or open it like a normal window. If the room is shortened, then it will be more difficult to reach the window and in this case it would be more logical to remove everything that could interfere. And leave the cannon porthole open. 

[Hubac's Historian]

It seems logical to me that the lower gallery tier would be one continuously open space; at the aft end, there will be the functional seat of ease, while on the forward end, there would be a removable false window panel concealing the gallery gunport.  I also think it likely that, within the gallery, the port would be equipped with a water-tight port lid.  In the event that the gallery is heavily damaged, or washed away in a rough seaway, there would still be a barrier for keeping sea water out of the hull.  The entry doorway to the gallery would have a door, for the same preventative purpose, so the gun port would have a port lid.

 

So, the question then becomes a matter of display;  do you want to show that there is a gunport hidden behind a false window panel, or do you want to present the un-interrupted facade of the gallery, and presume that the viewer understands there would be concealed gun ports within the gallery?

 

It seems unlikely to me that the French would disrupt the continuity of their design with a missing panel in the gallery.

 

I suspect that this modeler was indicating in a stylized way that there is an active cannon port behind this middle false window panel:

Although, it would make more sense for that port to be placed in the panel space to the right, as you are indicating with Le Fulminant.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Hubac's Historian

[Martes]

There are several examples of a similar style of stern on a contemporary models - but all of them belong to a somewhat later period (click for large version of each image).

 

1. Le Tonnant at Rochefort Museum

 

2. Le Magnanime at RMG:

 

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66430

 

And three depictions of L'Invincible:

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Invincible_74_guns_commanded_by_Sir_John_Bentley_Kt_in_the_years_1749-1752_RMG_PU8491.jpg

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:To_the_Honble_Peter_Warren...This_plate_is_most_humbly_Dedicated...An_Exact_View_of_his_Majesty's_ship_Invincible,_of_74_Guns,_one_of_the_six_French_men_of_war_taken_the_3rd_May_1747_by_the_British_Fleet..._RMG_PZ5887.jpg

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Invincible_French_Ship_of_War_mounting_74_Guns,_Captured_from_France,_May_3d_1747,_by_Vice_Admiral_Anson_and_Rear_Admiral_Vernon_RMG_PW7937.tiff

 

All of them seem to show a straight cut through the gallery, and what effect firing a gun would have on the surrounding structure can only be guessed.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Martes

[empathry]

5 hours ago, Hubac&#x27;s Historian said:

 

Although, it would make more sense for that port to be placed in the panel space to the right, as you are indicating with Le Fulminant.

Martes is judiciously pointing out that historically, it clearly shows that portholes can directly be inserted into the "bouteilles".  Then, would it be appropriate to have (a) the gunport hidden behind a false window as shown for this Italian built Ambitieux IF you can manage (easily and without distording too much the bouteilles) to set the right window panel there ... or (b) simply represented by a square cutout IF it's too difficult to position the gunport adequately. 

 

What do you think of it so far ?     

[HAIIAPHNK]

Thanks for the feedback and great examples.
I will try to respond to your comments and explain what exactly I am trying to clarify. There are two separate topics in my post with the photo of my interpretation that were important for me to show and listen to advice.

1 thought: This is a general view. After a number of discussions, I took educated advice and tried to combine your opinions, namely to leave the overall width of the side gallery design uncompressed and to compose the cannon porthole so that it falls within the gallery area. Along with this I have tried to take into account the advice that the slope of the horizontal directions should be combined with the walles. 
And I would like to get an outside opinion. Whether the overall pattern is correctly designed. Whether the slopes of the balconies do not look erroneous. I have already written that I can not explain for what reason Beren broke the vertical directions? Why in his sketch they don't go straight? So I took the risk of doing it differently. Suddenly someone knows the reason and will see that I "tweaked" Beren for nothing? This is the first main thought with which I posted my drawing. 

[HAIIAPHNK]

The second thought is separate from the first and has to do with the cannon porthole, which is what you gave me good examples and advice on.
I will try to explain what exactly concerns me about this issue.
As you have noticed, I have dived deeper into the description of this topic than just appearance. Yes, of course, I can just do the ultimate "picture" of this issue. And either show the cannon itself, or cover everything with a window (real or false) altogether and remove the presence of the cannon from view. But! This would all be enough if I was building a regular, classic model.
In my case we are talking about the Admiralty version. I use the term I am used to. I hope that in English the type of model, when deliberately not made the outer skin and shown internal engineering device is called by the same term. 
And since I will be able to see both the cut porthole and the structural skeleton of the gallery from one side, I need to understand as accurately as possible what exactly the details look like, which in a classical model I would not need to show. That is my task: to understand the correct construction. Different situations may well arise as the construction progresses, but if I need to leave something open I care about correctness on all layers. And I am very grateful for your help.

[druxey]

What about this possibility? (A very rough version!)