Talk:Glorious First of June order of battle

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glorious First of June order of battle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Glorious First of June order of battle is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Glorious First of June order of battle is part of the Atlantic campaign of May 1794 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 25, 2008	Featured list candidate	Promoted
March 1, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured list

Military history: Maritime / British / European / French / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Mont-Blanc or not Mont-Blanc ?

After the matter was raised on my talk page [1], I have a few elements:

according to my sources (Dictionnaire des bâtiments de la flotte de guerre française de Colbert à nos jours, [2]), no ship of the French Navy was named Mont Blanc on 1 July 1794.
the ship Mont-Blanc was indeed present, but as Trente-et-un Mai
a 74-gun Mont-Blanc was reported with Indomptable in tow. The ship which did take Indomptable in tow was the 42-gun frigate Brutus, a razee 74-gun.

That's what I have for now. These elements would suggest to me that someone mistook the Brutus for a 74-gun ship of the line (which she used to be, so in the smoke and excitement...). Furthermore, French ships were renamed everytime political trends changed in Paris, so quite often; I assume that keeping informed of this would be problematic over the Channel. The problem is that this is OR-ish, so I don't know what to do with it. If someone has an idea, do let me know. Cheers ! Rama (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For keeping track of changing names, Alain Demerliac's Nomenclature des navires français 1792-1799 is a great book. --Ken Johnson (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rainiers attached squadron

Seems to be missing a few names :)

28 May Error

The Audacieux did not take part in the fight. It was actually part of Nielly's squadron that hadn't yet linked up with Villaret's fleet. When Nielly stumbled across the disabled Révolutionaire, he sent the Audacieux to take her under tow. Both ships eventually reached Rochefort safely. --Ken Johnson (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

29 May Error

Rama is right about the Mont-Blanc being the Trente-et-un Mai, the name should be changed. It did not take the Indomptable in tow. I don't have archival material at hand, so I'm not sure if the Brutus too it in tow, but it was rase ship, so it only had 50 guns and was more like a heavy frigate than a ship of the line.--Ken Johnson (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frigates

Due to the turbulent situation exisiting in France during 1794, accurate records regarding which frigates were with which fleet and which were present at which action do not exsist. Thus only an incomplete listing of French support craft can be created, based mainly on those recognised and reported by British officers That is BS. The sources exist,British authors are just too lazy to address French sources. I'll come back and fix this up a bit for the French side when I get a chance.--Ken Johnson (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]