FULMINANT by HAIIAPHNK - French stern castle

[druxey]

Like many of us, you wish for a 'way-back' machine to see how it actually was. All we can do is make an educated guess.

[HAIIAPHNK]

Mark, thank you for sharing your explorations and conclusions. In a way, I have encountered a very similar situation. However, while you decided to reduce the number of windows to achieve a more harmonious composition, I am considering increasing the number of windows from three to four. And the fact that my solution is turning out to be rather unsuccessful is precisely what is causing my confusion.

I don’t like the original three-window version by Beren, mainly because of the very long second window. But the alternative of splitting it into two doesn’t satisfy me either. I realize that over time, the concept of aesthetic taste has changed significantly, and what was not an issue for Beren now causes discomfort for me. But how do I determine where to stop and say, "This is the ideal solution"? For example, I used to perceive some of his other decisions differently. But now the time has come to examine them more closely.

Previously, when I looked at the eagles beneath the windows, I somehow thought that Beren was illustrating different levels of protrusions and that the oddly halved eagle was actually the figure placed in the central segment of the stern, where the wreath with the ship’s name is located. From the side, it is partially visible, and I believed this was what the artist intended to depict.

 

 

But now I see that it is something else entirely. It is actually positioned on the side castle. L'Ambitieux uses the same approach, but instead of a bird, there is an ornamental scroll. Budriot depicted it in the same manner, as if it were an accidental misalignment. To me, it looks like a clear mistake or a flaw. I cannot call such a composition a successful design. However, neither Beren nor Budriot seemed to have any issue with it. And if that was considered acceptable, how should I perceive my own discomfort with the elongated window?

 

 

There are many conflicting elements here that raise questions for me. If we compare the design of the transom and the side castle, we can notice discrepancies. For example, the upper frieze below the windows, where the lion heads are depicted, maintains roughly the same visual rhythm. From both the transom and the side projection, this line is executed in a fairly consistent manner.

 

 

However, at the lower level, where the eagles are located, the situation is completely different. The space between the eagles on the transom is filled with ornamental decoration. But as soon as this same strip transitions onto the ship’s side, everything changes. There is no decorative embellishment between the eagles—just emptiness.

 

 

Why? I could continue further, but that would take our discussion too far. I am trying to determine the best way to resolve these emerging questions, but so far, I have not found an answer that satisfies me.

[HAIIAPHNK]

33 minutes ago, druxey said:

Like many of us, you wish for a 'way-back' machine to see how it actually was. All we can do is make an educated guess

 

Oh, yes, you're right! A thousand times right! I'd give a lot if I could go back to that time for one minute and see the ships with my own eyes. The only thing that reassures me is that science fiction is not on my side. And as soon as I get my hands on a time machine, I'm going to regret it. ))))).

[HAIIAPHNK]

4 minutes ago, HAIIAPHNK said:

I'm going to regret it. )))))

 

Ouch! I've already heard that the labeling of emotions differs from country to country. And in America they don't understand the way Russians draw emoticons. So I'll explain, I wanted to depict unrestrained laughter. This does not mean that I read chat and cut my nails ). I hope the meaning of the joke is clear and I didn't make my posts even weirder. (emoticon that is embarrassed)

[empathry]

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.   

 

 

Edited April 5 by empathry

[empathry]

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 !

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5 by empathry

[druxey]

Too true. I'm actually writing a novel on time travel using a steam powered machine. Definitely dangerous! 

 

On a more serious note, the 'blank' panel of the lower gallery is logical, as it balances another blank one on the foremost panel. 

[HAIIAPHNK]

Chapter 16
In which the author feels like a character in a TV show, a sci-fi novel, or the movie “The Lake House,” and thus occasionally behaves like Keanu Reeves… although, perhaps, also like Sandra Bullock.

 

This will be a long chapter — in fact, more like an entire series of posts. And in it, it’s important for me to try to find a way out of a rather strange situation. I’m warning about the length right away.

Where should I start? Perhaps with the fact that the latest discussions on this forum have given my project an unexpected twist — almost a detective one. My client reads this forum, and we often discuss in private correspondence what participants write here. And recently, someone brought up the topic of windows and cannons in the side gallery. Seeing this, the client immediately picked up the idea and began sending me emails with questions — where do I plan to place the cannons, where will the glass windows go, and where will there be shields with imitations. He even proposed some options himself, and at that point, I felt confused.

The thing is, we already raised this question here on the forum — and discussed it exactly when we needed to: before starting work on the side gallery. I did the theoretical groundwork, found solutions, and started working based on them. By now, part of the structure has already been installed on the model — strictly according to the approved plan. But the client’s new version contradicts the previous agreements.

So now what? Tear everything down and redo it? To reach the hull, cut new gunports, carve out openings for regular windows? That’s an enormous amount of work and, essentially, a step backward. It wouldn’t be such a problem if the new idea really made the Fulminant more accurate or beautiful. But unfortunately, I see neither logic nor benefit in it — only compromises and questionable decisions.

And now, at this stage, another factor comes into play — a technical one. And it is precisely this that became the reason for this chapter’s appearance. It’s a problem with Google Mail.

From the very beginning of our correspondence, the client and I have occasionally encountered issues with email delivery. Sometimes he would write to me, wondering why I wasn’t replying and whether everything was okay, while I hadn’t even received the messages. Sometimes it was the other way around — my emails wouldn’t reach him. It used to happen rarely, but lately the problem has worsened. I send an email — and hours or even days later, I get a notification: the email wasn’t delivered. Either postponed, or blocked. And the system doesn’t specify which email was affected. Perhaps all of them. Or half.

It’s no longer just annoying. At a time when we need to actively discuss important technical details, such failures become critical. Those who’ve read my posts already know that brevity is not my strong suit. Yes, in Sparta, I would’ve been thrown off a cliff long ago. And now imagine the length of my emails — comparable to a volume of War and Peace. Especially when I’m trying to explain my position in detail.

I began searching for the cause. Is the problem on my end? Or on the client’s? Are the messages too large? Or does Google “stumble” because I attach the original Russian text? I often include it — so that if there’s any doubt in the translation, the client can refer to the original and do his own. It’s logical when discussing fine nuances. But maybe this format seems suspicious to the mail system?

I tried everything. Broke the text into parts and sent it in fragments. Sent emails with screenshots instead of text. Changed the format, removed Russian, changed fonts, shortened the volume... And still: messages don’t get through, and the notifications keep coming. Sometimes — several at once, delayed by several days.

I get responses from him — but only to fragments. What about the rest? Did he get the first part? The last? Or only the middle? How does he perceive it? What is he thinking about me? That Sasha has lost his mind?

I’m at a loss. I wrote to him that we have problems with the correspondence. I suggested switching to messengers. But did those messages reach him? Who knows. The only option I have left is carrier pigeons. Or a bottle in the ocean.

This post is not just another of my traditional digressions from modeling. This is a last attempt to make contact. If the client reads this forum (and I’m almost certain that all the current confusion began right here), perhaps he’ll see this message too. And maybe we’ll be able to reestablish communication.

Of course, turning the forum into something like the magical mailbox from The Lake House is a strange idea. Although it does sound amusing. He writes to me by email, and I reply here, on the forum. A ready-made script for a romantic comedy! But that’s a movie. In real life, it’s not funny, not romantic, and — alas — unethical. The forum is not the place for this kind of correspondence.

So why am I writing all this? What’s the goal?

If my client truly follows the forum, and if the reason for the misunderstanding lies in something he read and interpreted his own way, then maybe my analysis will bring the conversation back to a constructive direction. If the topic resurfaced again, it means it needs to be discussed. And so, I invite all participants to once again walk through the theoretical, technical, and aesthetic aspects of this part of the project.

In the next post, I’ll describe the initial situation — lay out the client’s opinion and my own point of view.

And in conclusion, I want to touch on a very important point.
To begin the actual discussion, I first need to outline which option my client prefers. As I already mentioned, my viewpoint is different, and I’ll try to explain in what way. But even the very format of presentation creates a somewhat unfair situation: I’m the one speaking, while my client, not having the opportunity to respond immediately, finds himself in a less favorable position.

Often, an outside reader may have an unconscious urge to support the one who’s speaking — that is, me. And, accordingly, to question the position of “the other side.” Therefore, I want to stress from the start: my goal is not to question the dignity or opinion of my client. I deeply respect and value this person.

It’s important to understand: I don’t consider myself automatically right. I fully admit that I might be mistaken. So I ask you to treat my viewpoint calmly and thoughtfully. If I’m wrong somewhere or in need of correction — please say so directly.

My task is not to sway the client to my opinion using public support. No. What matters to me is arriving at the most reasonable, fair, and well-founded decision.

That is why I consider it important to state this introduction before the main discussion begins.

And one more — truly final — clarification.

I’ve already spoken about the influence of translation and interpretation. Two people may speak about the same thing, be like-minded — but translation or personal perception can introduce distortions. And as a result, the meaning at “the other end” turns out completely different.

What am I trying to say? I will describe my client’s position — but it will not be a literal transmission of his words, rather my understanding of his viewpoint. And I’m well aware that this may not be the same thing. It’s quite possible that he’ll read my words and say: “What nonsense? That’s not what I meant at all!”

So I apologize in advance if I turn out to be that very “distorting prism” through which the meaning gets twisted. I will describe what I understood from what was said—but I do not claim absolute accuracy in conveying someone else's position.

What am I hoping to achieve with this post?
I hope that my client will be able to read everything I’m trying to convey. I also hope that the technical issues with email will be resolved. If necessary, I’m ready to switch to any other communication channels—for me, direct dialogue is extremely important.
And of course, with the support of other modelers, I sincerely hope that together we will find a logical and, ideally, historically documented solution.

With that, I conclude this post.

[HAIIAPHNK]

Chapter 17
In which the author remembers Porthos’s baldric and talks a lot (what a surprise)

 

Let me begin the topic of the side gallery from afar. Ornamentation in the military has an ancient history. Since time immemorial, men with weapons have sought to emphasize their status and impressiveness. Some painted their shields and armor, others covered their bodies with war paint and decorated themselves with feathers, some enlarged cockades and aiguillettes, embroidered patterns on lapels and sleeves. The desire to show one’s importance has always been present. How are we any worse than gorillas and baboons, showing off their silver backs and bright rear ends to rivals?

It's a good time to remember Porthos from Dumas — with his famous baldric, rich but fake. And now, let us imagine not mere soldiers, but high-born officers (yes, I know Porthos was also an aristocrat, but that’s not the point here).

 

 

Ships became the pinnacle of this drive for outward grandeur. A captain’s or admiral’s cabin turned into a splendid palace with carvings, sculptures, and luxury. But let’s step back from this general pomp to a narrower subject — windows.

The 18th century had already moved away from the medieval reality where castles served not just as homes but as fortresses. Back then, windows were narrow, adapted for defense. Later, castles became palaces — and the windows grew larger, adorned with stained glass and graceful frames. This trend spread to ships as well. Although a ship is not quite a palace but a war machine meant to fight in battle.

However, the practice of forming a line of battle allowed the stern to remain relatively safe. Which meant that large and beautiful windows could appear there. Naturally, there was a desire to show status not just from the rear, but from the sides as well. And thus, side galleries — "bottles" or "castles" — came into being, which were decorated just as lavishly.

This leads to a problem: stern windows, though vulnerable, are at least somewhat protected. But from the side, a beautiful glass window could easily be hit by a cannonball. So what could be done?

First, a real window could be placed high — in a spot where it’s hard to hit. Gets broken? No big deal, the crew will fix it. The captain himself won’t be playing glazier. Restoration after battle is a whole separate story — whether one window more or less...

As for the officer’s safety — he wouldn’t be sitting in his cabin during a battle anyway, wondering whether a cannonball will come through the glass. He’d be on deck. And the risks there are quite different.

Second, one could simply create an imitation. From a distance — it looks like a window, but up close — it’s a solid wall. Another Porthos’s baldric.

And so different options emerged: some had real side windows, some had false ones, and some had both. Each case had its own story. Even ships that looked similar on the outside could have variations. One shipyard decided one way, another — differently. Maybe they ran out of glass. Maybe a master wanted to try something new.

Now imagine us — 21st-century viewers. We walk into a museum and see several models of the same ship. All different. And we clutch our heads — what was it really like?

We’re used to standards, technical specs, clarity. You buy a spare part — and it’s supposed to fit. A different mindset. But in the 18th century, things were different. And we won’t find a universal answer.

As a teenager, this kind of ambiguity used to bother me. One day, I noticed different depictions of Nelson’s death in paintings — and on each canvas, his uniform was different. Sometimes a tricorne lies beside him, sometimes a bicorne. How could that be? Why is there no accurate report? This was an important event, surely someone documented it. But — alas.

And this is both frustrating and delightful. For a historical modeler, it’s a kind of freedom. The main thing is that my choices are well-argued. The viewer has their own criteria. They may disagree. But if, after seeing my work, someone says: “I’ll go build my own version!” — I’ll be only glad. One more ship modeler in the world. A celebration!

But what happens when I have one opinion and my client has another? On the one hand, this question has a logical answer from the start. I’m building the model for the client. Which means their opinion takes precedence. And that could be the end of the conversation. And I’m okay with that too. Except for one nuance. I sincerely believed that I was building with an eye toward what had previously been agreed upon. And that the current state of the structure and what I did completely matches our mutually accepted decision.

Which brings up a much more significant issue: what happens next? What if such questions arise at later stages too? Where is the guarantee that makes the next steps clear? And how can I be sure I understood everything correctly? That I’m not going down the wrong path, one I “painted” in my imagination? And what if tomorrow the client comes up with a new idea and takes things in a completely different direction? Or the opposite — we agreed, the client expects one thing, and along the way I made some adjustments or forgot something, and now the result and the expectations have diverged.

Then I’ll once again face the question: how do I redo it? When you have ready-made blueprints or a schematic in front of you, they serve as that very guarantee. Either of us can point to the plans and check whether we stuck to them. But when you’re working based on a concept, with a degree of creative freedom, that freedom can become a problem. Simply because each person might have their own vision of what the final result should look like.

A difficult situation. That’s why, at some point in history, people decided they needed specialists to write laws and standard contract templates.

There is another option. As I’ve already mentioned, it’s to try discussing our views. It’s very possible that I went down an overly complicated path, delved too deeply into history, and brought in far too much extra information. Why bring up basics and vague examples about Porthos and Nelson? I know perfectly well that my client already knows all this without me. And could probably describe all this unnecessary fluff much better than I did.

I also know that this post turned out to be a waste of time for many who have been following this topic step by step. But I decided to start the discussion from scratch. The previous conversation took place a long time ago. And if I were a third-party reader, I wouldn’t find it convenient to flip back through pages to figure out when that discussion happened and what was said. I might not even be sure what exactly was expressed back then.

So I decided to construct the topic now in such a way that regardless of whether you remember what happened many months ago, whether you were reading the topic back then or not, from this moment you’ll be able to understand everything, recall everything, and see the heart of the issue — starting from the very basics.

So I apologize in advance to anyone who is surprised and wondering why they wasted their time.

Now I can take the next step and begin describing my client’s opinion.

[HAIIAPHNK]

Chapter 18
In this chapter, the author will start cooking porridge out of cannons and watching the process from the windows. Does that sound unclear? That’s because the author himself doesn’t understand anything.

 

So, the question about real and fake windows is complicated and individual from the very beginning. If we are to look for any analogues, then it would be, of course, L’Ambitieux...
We will look at it, compare, take it into account, reject or rely on this example.
And it’s also time to voice the second component of the mystery with windows and gunport dummies. Somewhere in the area of the side castle, it is necessary to place an additional cannon. This question was also widely and thoroughly discussed last time. And I thought that a solution was found in the end. But now the client is raising this question again and suggesting his own version. And what exactly is this version? I will try not only to paraphrase it, but to bring it here directly from the letters:

 

"...Hello, Sasha;
If AMBITIEUX became famous (among ship modelers), it is because (a) in the first stage, Boudriot developed a monograph for AMBITIEUX. In the second stage, Frölich received a commission from the Naval Museum to build AMBITIEUX (based on Boudriot’s plans), and that commission was used to create a book for modelers (about the fleet of Louis XIV), which was translated into more than 5 languages.
Sasha, if I ask you to emulate (as much as possible) what Frölich did (for AMBITIOUS), it is because all modelers (looking at our FULMINANT) will immediately compare it with AMBITIOUS.
Let’s assume (for simplicity) that FULMINANT has a few more guns than AMBITIOUS... at least, as they were presented in Frölich’s model...
Therefore, we will follow Frölich’s design (for the stern castle), i.e., with a window drilled for gun No. 14)... and that way, we will not attract criticism (justified or not, it doesn’t matter) and controversy from all modelers who will ask us why we didn’t follow what everyone else follows, and why we tried to change something in Frölich’s well-known standard.
So it is reasonable (and wise) to make the middle window as Frölich did, and to make the upper window “real,” like in the English Naval Museum..."

----------

"...I’m going to show you my way of reasoning (which is adaptive), and don’t think it’s anything special... I reason this way because that’s how my brain is wired (or trained). I’m going to talk about the middle window, where gun No. 14 is located.
I base this on the fact that my modeling experience and historical knowledge (I’m a modest person) probably fall far short of Mr. Frölich’s, who was commissioned to build the model of L’Ambitieux (and, I presume, paid a considerable sum) by the Paris Musée de la Marine. I saw this model of L’Ambitieux with my own eyes, and its photographs have gone around the world, it became the subject of technical books, and I assume Mr. Frölich had to meet with all the experts in France and around the world to justify and explain how he made his windows. There must have been more than a dozen discussions (with arguments and counterarguments)... which eventually led to a certain outcome.
My pragmatism tells me to do what Frölich did..."

----------

"...Hello, Sasha;
I will explain the number of cannons in more detail, it’s not that complicated.
(a) For the lower deck everything is fine, and nothing needs to be added.
(b) For the middle deck, the 14th cannon must be added. This cannon goes through an already drilled hole (a door), but since I don’t have the model in front of me, I assume that this already drilled hole corresponds to the center of the three lower windows. Is that correct?
If so, then we will proceed as planned: all 3 windows (on the lower level) will be fake windows (i.e., with window frames installed on top of an ivory plate).
I will send you an example.
(c) Frölich made the upper window real (with mica), and the British Naval Museum also makes real windows, so I recommend making the upper window real.
(d) For the upper deck, the additional hatch openings we will make won’t interfere with the side bottles, so we’ll talk about that later.
Let me know if that’s clear, or if you need further explanation?
To sum up: the 3 lower windows are fake (thus covered with ivory), and the middle one must let a cannon pass through (see Frölich); the upper window is real (covered with mica), as done by Frölich and the British Naval Museum.
PS: model shipbuilders can make their own windows; in the British Naval Museum, all windows are real..."

 

 

 

 

 

this is an example from the British maritime museum

 

I have included several letters at once. All of them complement each other in meaning and form a single overall picture. To combine them into one answer, I will once again summarize the client’s wishes:

1. There should be a glass observation window on the upper deck.
2. On the lower deck, the windows should be false, and a cannon should be placed in the middle, which must come out through the toilet exit. In this case, there is no point in cutting an additional window in the hull next to it.

The letters also clearly show that the client has a special reverence for Froelich’s model and sees this particular model as an example. And therefore, it is also set as an example for me. I must rely on it.

Now I must try to respond to these words, since I am not sure whether my letters are reaching the recipient and whether the client is able to read them.

 

So where should I start? On the one hand, the client’s wishes seem logical. And what difference does it make to me? Is it really so hard for me to meet these wishes? After all, the client’s opinion is not very different from my own thoughts. The only significant difference in our approaches lies in the window on the second floor. The client wants it to be transparent. But I firmly believe that it cannot be an observation window and must be a false one. And below — both in my version and in the client’s — all windows should be false. So what’s the problem, then? That’s how it looks at first glance. But let’s go step by step. What is it that troubles me so much?

 

First, I want to address separately the issue of placing cannons inside officers’ quarters. Is there a certain order or rule about where a cannon could be placed and where it most likely could not? For me, this is now a question that goes beyond just the Fulminant. It is a topic for a more precise understanding of naval engineering and architecture. Something that will help me grow personally and will also be useful in the future. I want to understand correctly how I should think in similar cases. Are there any clear rules? Any prohibitions or taboos? Things that absolutely must not be done?

 

And from that point of view, let’s consider the question: can a cannon actually be placed in a doorway? It seems so logical and natural. The opening already exists. Just roll the cannon into the doorway, open the window, and let it fire! So simple.

 

But no. I see major problems here. What can we observe on L’Ambitieux? What disturbed me? How exactly do we want to position the cannon? There are two options here. In the first one, the cannon is rolled out through the toilet entrance and fires from there. In the second, it remains inside the cabin, and the firing is done from within. And now I will describe my doubts.

 

Let me begin with the fact that the construction of the officer’s toilet here involves a sharp floor drop. The officer, rushing to relieve himself, must not only go out the door, but also descend about half a meter lower. The toilet floor is lower. And this plays a significant role when it comes to firing. The difference in floor levels between the two rooms would not allow the cannon to be rolled out into the side balcony structure. A platform would have to be built. Or better yet, the entire toilet structure should be redesigned.

 

The blueprints of L’Ambitieux give no indication that there was even a theoretical intention to move a cannon toward the toilet window. The second problem lies in the doorway itself. It is not wide enough to accommodate a gun carriage. If we want to place a cannon in the toilet, then the doorway must be enlarged.

 

And finally, I would like to mention one more issue. The side balcony construction is not sturdy. It is more like a light shed that leans against a solid house. The planks and frame of this extension simply cannot support the weight of a cannon. The very first shot would rip its fastenings out along with the boards. So, in my imagination, rolling the cannon into the toilet itself makes no sense at all.

Then maybe we can use the second option. No need to move the cannon right up to the window. Let it fire from the cabin. In this case, a narrow doorway is even more convenient. It would prevent the cannon from rolling into the toilet. In this setup, all the fastenings would be attached to the strong inner walls of the ship, which is another huge advantage.

 

But even in this option, my imagination draws some unpleasant scenarios. Let’s imagine you are an artilleryman and for some reason you dragged your cannon into a house and want to fire from there. But you didn’t place it near the window — you left it in the middle of the room. There are a few meters to the window, certainly more than a meter and a half. The essence of the problem becomes clear. When firing, some of the gunpowder gases will not exit through the window. They will scorch both the room and you. There might be even bigger problems if you're firing canister shot. It’s no coincidence that ship cannons are always rolled out into the gun port before firing, so that the muzzle is as far from the ship as possible.

 

As a result, I see a problem in the idea of placing a cannon in the middle section of the side balcony. It would be much simpler to place the cannon so that the barrel lines up with the extreme section of the side balcony — the one closer to the bow of the ship. And there are plenty of examples of this configuration. Unlike the situations I’ve described above, this part of the side balcony is essentially false and leans against the ship’s hull. And a cannon placed inside the officer’s cabin has practically the same characteristics as any other standard cannon.

 

 

 

 

 

This is how I reason and the option that I currently have. I believe that if a cannon is to be placed in the area of the side balcony, it should only be in the outermost section.

Last time, the exact same decision was made. However, back then, neither I nor the others participating in the discussion spent time describing the situation in such detail. Now, I just want the client to have the opportunity to read everything — as wide and full an answer as possible. And at the same time, this won’t be just my opinion. Maybe others will add some thoughts to my words. Or perhaps, on the contrary, strong counterarguments will appear, and I will end up changing my opinion.

 

The question of counterarguments is also very important. And I myself have been looking for them. Because as I said earlier, I am very interested in understanding this question for myself. It fascinates me. I truly want to know how things were arranged on the ship. That’s why, along with my logical reasoning, I also have questions. One could say that these questions undermine my own logical line of thought.

How? And what kind of questions are these?

 

I will write about that in the next post.

[HAIIAPHNK]

Chapter 19
When we open our eyes, we let in a vast world. But beware: it may destroy your own. Sounds like a quote from a bearded old man in a strange book.

 

Now I will turn my reflections 180 degrees. And even if I don’t entirely destroy my own logic, I will at least do it serious damage. Just take a look at the huge number of ship models. Alongside examples where I found confirmation of my theory, there are just as many that confuse me. In those, everything is arranged the other way around: the cannons are located precisely in the central sections of the side galleries.

Here it’s important to pause for a moment. Side galleries were built in different ways. There are examples of ships where the lower parts of the stern galleries are open — without glazing or solid walls. There are also closed versions. It’s logical to assume that in the case of open balconies, nothing would obstruct cannon fire from the officer’s cabin. So such cases aren’t even worth considering — they do not contradict my theory. I’m putting all those ships aside and will not take them into account.

 

But the closed galleries deserve a closer look. They have a lot in common with our Fulminant, and at the same time, the cannons in the central section of the sterncastle are clearly visible on them.

Below I will provide a few examples of such ships.

Let’s start with this model — it’s fairly well known. You can clearly see what I’m referring to. So how can this be explained?

 

 

When I first saw this example, my initial thought was: this is a presentation model of a project that was never implemented. A real ship with such features never existed. That already provides some sort of explanation to satisfy my inner researcher. Moreover, the same can be said of many models currently displayed in museums and serving as sources of knowledge. Many of them were created as presentations, made by artists rather than engineers. Their goal — understandably — was to impress, to attract attention, to encourage investment in the construction. In other words — marketing. In this particular case, something went wrong, and the ship was never built.

This raises a valid question: should we trust museum models? Do they reflect actual design solutions, or are they more the fantasy of the model-maker, later adapted at the shipyard? The question remains rhetorical. There’s no definitive answer — each case must be examined individually. This is a task comparable in scale to the work of the ANCRE team.

A quote from the book on L’Ambitieux is relevant here: the very idea of the book was an attempt to systematize the available data and create a generalized image of the ship — a sort of calling card for an entire class. But, as Boudriot himself admits, the task turned out to be unachievable. The ships he studied were too different from one another.

It’s the same in our case with the cannons on the balconies: each vessel requires individual analysis. Only by delving into its structural features can we attempt to answer the question — is this an artist’s fantasy or a feasible engineering solution? And if it is feasible, then my theory doesn’t hold.

With this approach in mind, I began to study other examples. For instance, an English ship. Here we’re not talking about a particular school of shipbuilding, but about the very principle — and therefore, there’s no reason to ignore models from other countries.

 

 

 

I specifically chose photographs from different angles. At first, I thought the side sterncastle was just a flat decorative structure applied to the hull. In that case, it wouldn’t obstruct cannon fire. But the photos show that the “bottles” have real volume — this is not an imitation. You can also see that the gunport is just a small window. The barrel of the cannon would have to pass through it. Which means the cannon truly stood inside the projection.

But how was that structurally realized?

Are there any drawings that show how the cannon’s mounting was reinforced? Logic suggests that the hull frames in that area might have had a different construction — the structural part of the hull could have extended beyond the balcony. But that seems unlikely. An alternative would be strong beams inside the extension, on either side of the window, to which the cannon was mounted. But I’ve never encountered either of these solutions before. I don’t have a single source describing such an implementation. All I can do is shrug.

Maybe in such cases they used cannons with elongated barrels? But then how were they loaded? That creates additional complications.

In the end, I arrive at this: I can find images showing cannons positioned inside side sterncastles, and this applies not only to cases where the gallery is just a flat façade. How exactly this was implemented — I do not know. Which means I cannot state with certainty that such a solution was entirely impossible on the Fulminant.

But that’s not the end. I’ve traveled the path from confidence in my theory to doubt. And we haven’t covered everything yet. Now I will return to the construction of the Fulminant itself and offer one more argument — this time specific to this version of the ship.

[HAIIAPHNK]

Chapter 20
In which the author still won’t let it go and once again examines the balcony cannons — but from a different angle.

 

To present my final argument as to why I cannot agree with the client, I must return to the very beginning of this particular model’s story.

It all began with a completely different nameplate — the ship was originally being built as L’Ambitieux, strictly following the drawings from the corresponding monograph. Only at one stage, when the hull had already been completed, the client decided to make some changes. He discovered a previously unnoticed drawing showing the ship's stern decoration. And that’s when the idea was born to completely rework the project and turn L’Ambitieux into Le Fulminant.

These ships are very closely related, so in theory, there shouldn’t have been any serious problems. But structurally, we have a hull based on L’Ambitieux. Which means that the gallery exit has already been built according to its layout. Now, however, I’m working with a completely different stern structure.

If we recall previous discussions, I had posted a comparative analysis of the two sterns on the forum. Back then, the topic was that the stern of Le Fulminant was wider than in Boudriot’s book. The decision was made to preserve the appearance shown in Bérain’s drawing as closely as possible. As a result, we ended up with a combination of two different designs.

In Boudriot’s version, the toilet exit was precisely centered and aligned with the central section of the stern. But in the wider version of Le Fulminant, this centering is lost — the exit no longer ends up in the same place.

If this is simply a toilet exit — then there’s no problem. But if the plan is to place a cannon in this opening, as the client wants, then the gun won’t be in the center. And that — is my final argument.

 

 

 

 

So what now?

There are several possible options in this situation. The first is to place the cannon in the outer segment. In that case, I think many concerns would be resolved. But we shouldn’t start there. First, it’s important to clarify something else.

 

Last time, the discussion ended with the client writing that he didn’t plan to cut openings in the hull. The general consensus was that the entire lower row consisted of false windows without glass. That means I can safely proceed with the stern’s construction. In the final version, the shutters will be closed, no cannons will be visible, and there’s simply no reason to make cutouts in the hull.

So the main question to the client is: does this concept remain unchanged? If so — does it even matter where exactly a cannon could be placed? And is there any point in continuing this debate?

Last time, I myself raised the question: how was the situation resolved historically when a gun was hidden behind a false window? If it was a removable panel, then how was it removed? After all, the shield isn’t small and most likely heavy. How quickly could it be taken down to ready the cannon for firing?

 

That’s when one of the forum participants suggested an interesting idea: the shield didn’t necessarily have to be a solid panel. If it was built as shutters opening outward, the whole process becomes simple and realistic.

I really liked this idea. I even made a note to myself — be sure to return to this solution and make one of the false windows double-leafed. This way, I could elegantly show that something is hidden behind it — without revealing the cannon or making unnecessary holes in the hull. It could be presented as a subtle hint, without overt display.

 

At the time, I didn’t share this idea — I figured that after such a hint, everyone would come to the same conclusion naturally. Especially since practical work was still a long way off, and small details could wait.

 

But now I’m returning to this idea and suggesting it as a solution.
Yes, I’ve already written a lot, and others have probably had to read quite a bit.
You might throw your hands up and shout at the screen: “Couldn't you have just said that from the start?! You could’ve spared us all the long stories, the ‘museum tours,’ the knights and musketeers! Don’t you have anything better to do? You could’ve just made one window different — and that’s it!”

And yes, you’d be right. I really could’ve shortened it all.

 

But I really want to understand — what was the correct solution? How was it done in reality?

I could just build closed shutters, I could place a “hint” wherever I want.
But that doesn’t bring me any closer to answering the main question: did this have any technical sense? Could there really have been a cannon placed there?

 

That’s the state of things. I really want to figure it out. To do it right. To be sure I’m not mistaken.

If the client’s concept remains unchanged, and nothing has to be redone — I’ll build closed shields. And I’ll make one of the segments double-leafed. I’m ready to compromise and let the client choose where exactly he wants to hide a cannon. Even if that decision goes against my own opinion — I won’t argue. I’ve said everything I wanted. That means now the client can either accept my arguments or stick with his own decision.

 

Of course, other modelers’ opinions may emerge later, and the picture might become clearer. Perhaps I’ll be the first to line up and openly admit I was wrong.

With that, I consider the hidden cannon topic closed. I’ve tried to give it all due attention, laid out my arguments and doubts. I have nothing more to add — now it’s just a matter of waiting for the client’s response and that of the others.

 

But that doesn’t mean I’ve finished telling stories.
There’s still one more question — about the window on the second tier.
We’ll talk about that in the next part.

Edited yesterday at 07:20 AM by HAIIAPHNK

[HAIIAPHNK]

Chapter 21
In which the author is already tired of writing, but still continues...

 

Now I’ll move on to the window on the second floor. I believe, unlike the issue with the cannons, this won't take as much time. However, I can't completely set this topic aside—after all, this is where one of the most significant disagreements between my opinion and the client's arose.

Let me remind you: the client believes that this window should be glazed. As an argument, he refers to Frölich's model, which serves as an important reference for him. He also mentioned that in the British Museum, all models have mica windows—regardless of whether they are in actual openings or merely false panels imitating glass.

 

These arguments puzzled me. I can't agree with the idea that all models must necessarily have glass windows. I didn't set out to track and classify every window. Moreover, it seems to me that in museum models, there are at least as many blind windows—even in places where they were glazed in the original. Perhaps, during the creation of models, this detail wasn't considered important. It's possible the craftsman didn't have suitable mica, or he was dissatisfied with how it delaminated and became cloudy. I won't judge why windows were often made blind, but there are quite a few such models. And this isn't a "mistake," but simply one of the acceptable approaches.

 

Even if there is a consistent tendency in the British Museum to insert mica everywhere, it's unclear to me why this particular museum should be the standard. Why not French museums? Or German, Russian, Spanish, American ones? Why specifically England? I didn't understand the logic of this choice.

 

Let's try to look at the issue from another angle: how was it arranged on real ships?

Of course, on real vessels, cabins had actual windows—to let in light, provide a view of the sea, and create comfort for the inhabitants. But ships also had false windows. They were made for symmetry and beauty, creating the illusion for the observer that there was also a room inside. Such false windows could simply be painted, depicting glass with blue paint, and over it—drawing dark or yellow lines of the frame. And if the ship was particularly luxurious, such "windows" were decorated with mirrors or polished metal so that from the outside they sparkled and looked like real ones.

 

Based on this, it's quite logical that the same principle can be applied to the model. If even false windows were tried to be made as close to real ones as possible, then perhaps in models they were intentionally glazed. One can imagine that a monarch issued a decree: all models presented to him must have "real" windows—with mica. Or conversely: craftsmen, knowing their client's love for everything shiny, inserted mica into every window so that he would be pleased and approve the projects.

 

That is, let's assume that some models indeed have a reason to be fully glazed. But here it's important to emphasize: if glazing is to be done—then in every window. It doesn't matter whether it's a real window or a fake one—within the chosen approach, glass should be everywhere.

This is an interesting thought, and it's quite logical. If a viewer on the shore is supposed to see glass and not suspect that some windows are merely illusions, then why not reproduce the same concept on the model?

 

But here I notice a contradiction in the client's logic. If he truly wants to adhere to such a principle, then all windows on the model should be glazed. And if some windows are made with mica, and others—from ivory, then the idea falls apart. We immediately show: "Here is a real window, and here is a fake one." And in this case, the placement and design of each window become fundamentally important. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Now about the client's next argument: he claims that the starting point for his decision was the model L’Ambitieux, made by Frölich. Allegedly, in the upper part of the castle, there's a window with glass—so we need to do the same.

 

But, looking at the photo, I don't find confirmation of this. Moreover, the photographs sent by the client quite clearly show: there's no glass at all. It's an absolutely black background. Most likely—a plate of ebony or similar material. But definitely not transparent glass. Look more closely—you might have confused something.

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, the final model of L’Ambitieux gives an unambiguous answer: on the second tier of the side castle, there can't be a real window. Look at the reverse side—Frölich made half of the hull in the admiralty style, and it's clearly visible: there are no cutouts in the frames. It's a solid structural hull, with a decorative panel overlaid, imitating a window.

In our case, when we're building not L’Ambitieux, but Le Fulminant based on it, cutting a window at this level would fall right at the junction between decks. And that would look extremely strange.

 

 

The only way to install mica there is to follow the already described path. Adhere to the logic that can conditionally be called "a hook for the English king": insert mica into all windows without exception.

How will this affect the visual perception of the model? Will the hull be visible through the mica? I don't know. But you can simply try: carefully insert mica from the back instead of the ivory plate—without cutting holes in the hull. See how it looks. If the result isn't satisfactory—you can always revert everything back. It's not difficult.

On this note, I will probably conclude my descriptions. Earlier, I had already sent letters with similar reflections, but I'm not sure if you received them. Therefore, this is my last attempt to find a way out of the current situation.

 

I had sent letters with similar descriptions before, but I'm not sure if you saw them. So this is the last attempt to find a way out of the current situation. I really hope that sooner or later you will see this series of posts and read all of this. Then you will have the opportunity to make decisions, and I will be sure that I have expressed everything I could. For me, Le Fulminant has become a very interesting project. And I try to invest everything I can into it. And I do care about what the result will be.

 

I also hope that after this series of posts, hints and advice from other forum participants will appear. This series turned out a bit different from what I planned. And can such a thing be planned at all? But I always tried to engage in dialogue with all of you in not quite standard ways. I live, and building this model is also part of my life. I tried to share my thoughts, experiences, life events. This project is more than just a description of construction. I really hope that in the end, by deciding to voice the problems that have arisen, I haven't crossed the line. Therefore, I apologize to the client. I really hope he won't be offended when he reads that I decided to have some dialogue with him outside of personal correspondence. And I also hope that in the end, new responses will appear.

 

At this point, I’m typing with my toes — my fingers didn’t survive the previous chapter. Time to give my feet a rest too.

 

Edited yesterday at 07:22 AM by HAIIAPHNK

[Hubac's Historian]

It seems quite reasonable to me that all QG windows would be false.  You have given me good reason to black-out the single window on the Quarter Deck level of my model.  Observe Tanneron’s model of L’Agreable of 1697.  All QG windows are shown as false:

 

As for placement of guns within the quarter galleries, one thing seems pretty certain to me.  A gun would not have been rigged in the door opening to the QG.  This, for all the reasons you mention, but most especially because it must remain a clear pass-through - even in battle.  If one doubts that officers had the need to use the facilities during battle, they must consider that battle raged for hours and hours at a time, and they were certainly anxiety producing affairs.

 

The Tanneron model of Soleil Royal is a confusing representation of the structure and function of the QGs.  I will preface my following comments with the disclaimer that they are merely my observations, and not expert-verified facts.

 

Tanneron, in my opinion, has created a composite of what Soleil Royal may have looked like, both at the beginning of her career in 1670 and after the replacement SR was built in 1693.

 

Early features include the very tall stern, the completely open quarters and three stern balconies.  The overall shape of the QGs, on the other hand, suggests the style of ships built during the second major building program of the 1690’s.  The primary difference would be that the bottles, by this later date, would have been completely closed-in, in order to adhere to the reglements mandating this change in approach.

 

Tanneron shows an extra port on the main deck level, at the forward edge of the QG, where it makes structural sense to place a port within the QG.  Also, though, he shows a port in the middle of the QG at the middle deck battery.  This should be where the entry door to the QG is placed.  Instead Tanneron shows this door opening from the center of the lower stern balcony, which is represented as open and walkable.

Perhaps, Tanneron pulled this idea from the conceptual LeBrun drawing for the Royal Louis of 1668, and the finished Girardon drawing of the same.  Both show an open doorway in the center of the lower stern balcony, which suggests a walkable balcony:

In my view, though, there are several issues with Tanneron’s construction, at this level.  My primary issue is that it seems to ignore the practical function of the QG as a functioning toilet.  If the lower stern balcony wraps to the quarters, where is the seat of ease supposed to be?

 

The other issue has to do with the fact that even at this early time in the 1670’s, a lower stern balcony would be vulnerable to heavy following seas, and could be washed away.  It is my belief, that the lower stern balcony was always a bit of theatrical representation; a shallow decoration of the lower stern counter, made to look like a walkable balcony, but whose functional purpose is really to serve as a shelf for the Four Seasons figures that support the middle balcony.

 

As you mention, though, there are early contemporary drawings that support the idea that the QG’s were occasionally armed.  See the Royal Therese, below:

 

And, also, a contemporary drawing of the port of Rochefort:

The vessel above shows a gun through a panel opening, forward of center.  I think, perhaps, that your idea for a split panel has some traction.  That is the solution Lemineur applied to the middle deck stern chase ports of the St. Philippe of 1693:

As for your email problems, perhaps the issue might resolve itself, if you created a new email account for your client correspondences.  ‘Might be a glitch in your current account.  Computers and their inner workings remain a mystery to me.  I am like the dog that has no conception of what happens to their owner, when he walks out the front door.

Edited yesterday at 03:42 PM by Hubac's Historian

[HAIIAPHNK]

Hello, Mark.
Thank you for your participation in the discussion. I have filed your opinion in my notebook. You have given me food for thought in other topics beyond this issue. I will try to revisit your examples a little later. In the meantime, I'll take a moment to reflect on the situation. Plus, it's the right thing to do for my customer. Let him see other opinions without me interfering with them.

Thanks for the advice about the mailbox. I'll try to start another one and post from the new one. Unfortunately, I don't know if that will help. One of the last emails I got was about my customer having problems with other people too. From this I conclude that the problem is not with me after all, but with him.   It's so frustrating when something you're used to stops working. It doesn't matter what exactly it's about. When the car breaks down, when the light, water or electricity in the house goes out, or when the TV remote control is lost.