"National characteristics of ships' hulls and rigging" Topic

The sailing/rigging experts here have given me some good answers before, so here's another head-scratcher for you: In the late 18th century (say the American and French Revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic period), what specific national characteristics identified British, French, Spanish, and anybody else's ships?

I know it's a vague question, but my Google-fu isn't coming up with anything. Historical fiction tells us that we can tell a Frenchman by "the cut of his jib"; I think C.S. Forester wrote that French and Spanish ships' foretop- and maintopmasts were equal in height. French (and American) frigates maybe had an oval-shaped taffrail.

Was there a difference in rigging? Anchor stowage? Sailplan? Boat stowage?

I'm really stumped here, so anything you can tell me would be greatly appreciated!

One rigging detail that has been pointed out to me (I believe from Rod Langton's model making book) is that on British and American ships the stays of the mizzen top sail and topgallant sail go back to the spanker gaff, while on ships of other navies they go forward to the main mast. I have no idea how universal this was, but given the perpetual difficulties in identifying the nationalities of other ships at sea, I would suspect it was not a hard and fast rule.

More the pity, as it has deprived us of the idiom we might have been enjoying all this time: "I like the lines of his spanker."

what specific national characteristics identified British, French, Spanish, and anybody else's ships?

Given the fact that a lot of ships were captured and served in the opposing fleets I would say "not a lot".

Ah, but when the British accepted a capture into the Royal Navy, they would replace ALL the ropes, blocks and tackle aboard. Most other navies used much lighter rigging, which didn't meet RN standards.

So even a capture would be RIGGED British-style, even if the hull construction didn't conform to British practice.

One thing I've always wondered about were the beams in the waist of the ship above the top gun deck, which ships boats sat on. Why do these show up more often in British vessels than in French or Spanish?

A question not 'rigged' in your favour, Major?

I believe Whitejames is right. I can add that Spanish war ships Rigged from the mizzen to the main mast. But unlike the rest of the non-British nations. They rigged to the middle of the lower mast or all lines below the fighting tops.
The waist was open to deck below. Most nations filled the hole by housing some of the ships boats on the said deck below (Gun-deck). The British said Langton, build "Skid Beams" across the waist to hold the ship boats and spare yards. This left the gun deck free.
Be safe
Rory

Ah, but when the British accepted a capture into the Royal Navy, they would replace ALL the ropes, blocks and tackle aboard. Most other navies used much lighter rigging, which didn't meet RN standards.

Is there any evidence to support this?

And if so did the French rerig captured British ships?

One thing I've always wondered about were the beams in the waist of the ship above the top gun deck, which ships boats sat on. Why do these show up more often in British vessels than in French or Spanish?

I believe the French designed more flush decked ships, especially late in the period, which might account for this. Although L'Hermione has an open waist. US as well – USS Constitution is essentially flush decked. The difference may be that the British designs separated the forecastle and quarterdeck only having gangways connecting the fore and aft whereas the French or US ships just had a smaller open grating.

Just my 2 c.

I don't have my books handy but in most cases the captured French ships used by the RN were loved by their Captains as having exceptional sailing qualities. The problem was they weren't built to withstand the beating based on how the RN used their ships, like being out to sea for long periods of time. Most French ships were built to protect their shores, support their Army, and not stay out to sea for extended sea duties. This was more evident during the French Revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic period though from what I remember reading though.

They had habits, and each captain and ship a local way too. i remember two decades ago asking this to a comander of the French naval historical office:
They were hand recoded in ports and at sea.. We have tons. In crates in that little stone building near xxx jetty in Brest, ferl free to come, decipher and sort it out.
Occasinnaly you find in reading tjis one has a blue hull ( from memory Généreux?) or whatnot.
But in period times they recognized themselves a lot, a bit like Roman Legions and cohorts for which AFAIK we don't know the colours or if they had a uniform.
In professionnal circles this was widely known, and to our chagrin, no need to tell.

-Given the fact that a lot of ships were captured and served in the opposing fleets I would say "not a lot".-

And where's the evidence for this assertion, Major?

And where's the evidence for this assertion, Major?

Just look at the names of the ships.

Yep, supposedly the British really liked the French vessels they captured, since they were faster, and "smarter" sailors, meaning they could point a little higher in the wind, and were more maneuverable.

French ships were longer, which, all other things being equal, translated into a slightly faster ship.

When it came to "who makes better ships?", there was a strong divide in opinion between captains and the Admiralty. Captains liked French prizes because of their speed, a function of high length:width ratio, shallow draft, and light construction. The Admiralty preferred British-built ships, which were much sturdier (longer careers, less time in dock) and generally deeper for a given tonnage (more stowage and thus endurance for world-wide operations and blockade; improved performance against the wind, especially useful in pursuit.)

In general, the smaller a French ship the better it did in the RN – frigates and below did very well, two-deckers adequately, three-deckers poorly. (The brand new & extremely powerful 'Commerce de Marseilles' was so fragile that it saw no active service at all after capture.) The pattern was reversed with Spanish ships, which tended to be extremely sturdy. Dutch ships were disliked, being small for their rates and rather old-fashioned; Danish were very well liked indeed aside from their shallower than ideal draft.

(Note that every Navy tried to design ships to meet its particular requirements and to fit its budget; and with the exception of the Dutch, who had fallen behind the curve for political and economic reasons, the major powers all largely succeeded. Note also that requirements changed over time – consider the history of British two-deckers, for example.)

No simple answers on this one. Rigging and design changed in all navies, even in the short period mentioned. On rebuild, ships would look entirely different after leaving dock. Add different national practices and there are no simple rules.

Ah, but when the British accepted a capture into the Royal Navy, they would replace ALL the ropes, blocks and tackle aboard. Most other navies used much lighter rigging, which didn't meet RN standards.

Is there any evidence to support this?

[…]the captured French ships used by the RN were loved by their Captains as having exceptional sailing qualities. The problem was they weren't built to withstand the beating based on how the RN used their ships, like being out to sea for long periods of time.

The Admiralty preferred British-built ships, which were much sturdier (longer careers, less time in dock) and generally deeper for a given tonnage (more stowage and thus endurance for world-wide operations and blockade; improved performance against the wind, especially useful in pursuit.)

N.A.M. Rodger goes on at length about all this in his book "The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain 1649-1815". I don't have the book in front of me, but it's got a bibliography as thick as your arm, so the man's clearly done his research. According to him, British (and Spanish) ships tended to be very solidly built, while French ships tended to work themselves apart after a few years.

As I recall, he also attributes the higher incidence of French ships being dismasted to their lighter cordage, blocks and tackle. A sprung or shot-through French mast simply didn't have as much support as a British one would.

Of course, Rodger can be accused of being rabidly Francophobic, so I'd be inclined to take his conclusions with a grain of salt! Clearly French ships were better than he gives them credit for, especially since the most successful classes of British 74s and heavy frigates seem to have been copies of French prizes.

For a similar discussion that doesn't require slogging your way through 600 pages, try link

And if so did the French rerig captured British ships?

I don't know. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear about it. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information on the Marine Nationale in French, let alone English.

Just look at the names of the ships.

A ship's name was actually a pretty poor indication of its origin. Sometimes ships were renamed after capture, either because a similarly-named vessel already existed in the capturing navy, or often simply arbitrarily.

"Ownership" of the name was also considered to lie with the captor, so a new ship could be constructed and yet be given a "foreign" name. For example: HMS Magnanime, HMS Téméraire, HMS Ville de Paris, HMS President, HMS Sans Pareil, HMS Achille… The list goes on. All of these were British ships, built in Britain.

The pattern was reversed with Spanish ships, which tended to be extremely sturdy.

One of the major Spanish naval shipyards was in Havana de Cuba, where ships were built using tropical hardwoods (e.g. mahogany--imagine how much a 3-decker made of mahogany would cost today!). These had a reputation of being the best-built and most resilient warships in the world, but they were disliked in the RN because splinter wounds from tropical woods tended to go septic. EIC ships built in Bombay out of teak had the same advantages and disadvantages.

In general, the smaller a French ship the better it did in the RN – frigates and below did very well, two-deckers adequately, three-deckers poorly.

I believe the Admiralty had a habit of adding quarterdecks to French corvettes (in the RN, these were considered 6th rates, commanded by a post captain, and thus demanded a certain luxury in accomodations), which made them handle far worse than as originally constructed. Even the British were not immune to doing stupid things with their vessels!

imagine how much a 3-decker made of mahogany would cost today!

I had never thought about it that way. Holy cow!

- Ix

"There doesn't seem to be a lot of information on the Marine Nationale in French, let alone English."

The works of Jean Boudriot (recently passed away) are an excellent source of information on French warships of the Age of Sail. His four volume set, "The Seventy Four Gun Ship" is a magnificently detailed study (somewhere around 2400 pages). The name belies to a degree the true nature of the work. Not only is it a minutely detailed and lavishly illustrated (line drawings by the talented author) of every aspect the ship type itself, but it also examines in similar OCD detail all other related aspects – management of the Royal forests where crucial ship timbers were grown, the organization and tactics of the navy, gunnery, sailing, navigation, shipboard medicine, ad infinitum. It was translated into English in the early 80s.

Go here for more info ancre.fr/en

B

Some distinguishing features of rig visible from a distance were rake of masts and the height of the topmasts relative to the lower masts.

Re the Navweaps essay "French versus British Shipbuilding", link
I suggest treating its assertions with some care, as it includes (from my point of view at least) several important inaccuracies and some items of epic hyperbole.

For example -

> "In every case, French ships were downgunned after capture. 24 pounders were replaced by 18s and 18s by 12 pounders…" – Demonstrably untrue.

> The author's description of the action between Droits de l'Homme and Pellew's Indefatigable is dramatically at odds with Pellew's own account.

After reading this essay, one would for example be unable to conceive why the Admiralty would be so insane as to have sent three such French-built ships to fight with Nelson at Trafalgar. A MUCH fairer appraisal will be found in Brian Lavery's work, "The Ship of the Line".

B

Lavery should definitely be at the top of the reading list for anyone really interested in the subject.

A MUCH fairer appraisal will be found in Brian Lavery's work, "The Ship of the Line".

I'll have to see if I can track that one down at a library. Buying the set is outside my budget at the moment!

The Boudriot set is better bang for your buck (4 volumes instead of 2 in the Lavery set), but alas! is still too expensive.

> "In every case, French ships were downgunned after capture. 24 pounders were replaced by 18s and 18s by 12 pounders…" – Demonstrably untrue.

I think this particular sentence in the essay is just poorly written and ambiguous. If you re-read the entire paragraph, what I believe the author is actually asserting is that French prizes were all downgunned after undergoing a "great rebuild", i.e. after a considerable period in service. As wrtitten, the sentence makes it sound as if all French prizes were downgunned immediately after capture, which, as you say, is demonstrably untrue.

Of course AFAIK many British (and other nations') ships were also downgunned after their great rebuilds, and the article fails to mention that at all. Gives the impression that the author has an axe to grind against the French! I don't know what percentage of British ships were downgunned, but even limited research suggests it was quite common. Even HMS Victory was downgunned and reclassified as a 2nd Rate eventually.

The author's description of the action between Droits de l'Homme and Pellew's Indefatigable is dramatically at odds with Pellew's own account.

Agreed. This action is often mentioned, and often misrepresented.

The Droits de l'Homme (74) was attacked by two British frigates (Indefatigable and Amazon), which were able to maneuver so that one of them was always able or threatening to rake; furthermore, the sea state was such that the 74 couldn't open its lower-deck gunports; because of this, Indefatigable (a razee carrying the lower-deck guns of an old 3rd rate) actually had the heaviest broadside in the encounter.

Even then, the 74 might have escaped, except the action had carried all three combatants close to a lee shore. It was the shore that wrecked Droits de l'Homme, not the British frigates; in fact the British were apparently nearly out of ammunition without having caused any catastrophic damage to the 74, despite their tactical advantage during the encounter. HMS Amazon (the 2nd frigate) was wrecked alongside the French 74, and Indefatigable was extremely lucky to escape the same fate.

It was certainly a ballsy showing on the part of the British frigates, but it didn't really reveal anything about the construction or relative worth of French and British shipbuilding.

Anyway, I agree with Blutarski; French ships must have been better than some modern historians give them credit for.

Another unmentioned feature of the Droits de l'Homme engagement:

> The Droits de l'Homme had already lost her fore and main topmasts to storm damage prior to the start of the battle and was also heavily laden with a battalion of infantry and supplies for the aborted landing in Ireland.

Kniaz has also pointed out the broadside weight issue.

As they say, the Devil is always in the details.

B

Some distinguishing features of rig visible from a distance were rake of masts and the height of the topmasts relative to the lower masts.

Do you have any more specific information about this? This is exactly the sort of thing I was initially wondering about!

Kniaz – I am desperately trying to recall where I read it (my AoS library is about 120 books). My recollection is that it was to be found in Harland's book, "Seamanship in the Age of Sail". I will look for it and advise.

B

Generally speaking, a rounded transom indicates a French design, a squarer one British. British sterns also more commonly had an admirals walk.( balcony)

Hi Kniaz,
I did not find the source I was looking for, but I found another very useful one: Sam Willis – "Fighting at Sea in the Eighteenth Century – The Art of Sailing Warfare", Chapter 1 – Contact, summarized as follows -

NATIONALITY
The physical characteristics of a ship could offer important clues to her nationality.

Hull form was a common telltale … as a general rule British warships were shorter than their French counterparts … French ships had more guns per tier … British warships, being shorter, tended to have more freeboard … Those (British) of the 1780s were well known for carrying more and larger gun ports along their upperworks to house the carronades … 80 gun two-deckers were characteristically French, whereas Dutch warships were traditionally small for their class … Height of the poop, shape of the head and design of the bowsprit were other distinguishing features. Spanish ships in particular wer known for their foreshortened beak-heads … The shape and decoration of the stern and quarter galleries were also important. The horseshoe shape was characteristically French … Spanish ships were known for their almost vertical sterns …

There were also national characteristics associated with rig construction and style. Towards the end of the century an equality in the height of the fore and main topgallant masts suggested a Frenchman … The shape of the sails was another tell-tale ("very square' sails = English).

B

Re-rigging of captured ships.
All ships in the RN where refitted every 3 to 5 years,

Captured Ships for use in the RN would be re-gunned,
refitting would also accrue.

The USS President captured in the war of 1812 was re-gunned with British 24pdrs,
This is why the USS Constitution's 24pdrs have a George III Royal cipher on them today.

Hi Mac – Re Constitution, actually not the case. She never carried any British manufactured guns during her service. See following link -
link

The English pattern broad-arrow guns were actually cast in the USA (from the mold of an original preserved British gun) in the early 20th century as part of Constitution's restoration project. The research upon which the decision was taken was later found to be inaccurate.

B

Hi B That's what I meant,

When in the 1920s The US Navy wished to restore the Constitution to it's 1812 glory but they had no drawing,
in RN archive the RN had full set of drawing for her sister USS President but RN had re-gunned her, so the drawings used by US Navy where wrong so the guns cast for the Constitution had George III Royal cipher(an intertwined G R 3 with a crown) on them.

This is the reply I received in 2009 when I Visited her and asked the "Officer of the watch""why do your 24pdr have a George III Royal cipher on them".
He believes that they are going to be ground off before 2012 to save embarrassment.

Mac

Hi Mac – Ahhhh! Understand now.

B

A simple point regarding the re-rigging of prizes;

Most warships wouldn't be taken without a lot of their rigging and masts shot away in the action that led to their capture. Thus, they would have to be re-rigged before entering service under their new colours.

Another point –

Certainly within the RN, the manner in which a ship was fitted-out was at the discretion of her Captain. Thus, even if a vessel was already rigged, it may have significant changes to the rigging following a change in command. It is merely a matter of familiarity that British Captains preferred rigs that differed somewhat to their French or Spanish counterparts.