The legendary Soleil Royal. Said to have been one of the most
impressively decorated of all baroque ships, she led the French fleet at the
Battle of Beachy Head before being destroyed by British and Dutch forces whilst
undergoing repair in 1692.
The French Navy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
differed in some significant ways from its contemporaries across the Channel or
in the Netherlands, whose vessels and naval structures have been described in
other volumes in this series. Perhaps the most crucial differences between
French and other navies’ ships – certainly in the period before 1689 – were in
the structural levels of the various ships of the line of battle (vaisseaux in
French), and in the mixed calibres of cannon which armed these decks.
The Small
Three-decked Ship of the Line
While there were certainly small ships with three continuous
gun decks in the other major navies (in this article we use the term `gun deck’
to identify all the continuous cannon-bearing decks running from stem to stern,
rather than simply the British practice of reserving the term for the lowest of
these decks), mid-seventeenth century French practice was more widespread in
building three-decked warships with as few as fifty guns. We exclude from our
definition the fore and aft superstructures above the upper continuous deck –
the forecastle (where such existed), quarterdeck and poop as usually described.
Note the French did not employ the translations of the terms `lower deck’,
`middle deck’ and `upper deck’; instead they referred to these deck levels as
the `first deck,’ `second deck,’ and `third deck’ for three-deckers; as
English-speaking readers would not be familiar with this practice, we have
retained the more easily understood terms in this book. But we must caution the
reader that the French definition of a three-decked ship differed markedly from
that employed by the English.
On most three-deckers (prior to 1689), the upper gun deck
was not armed with a continuous battery of cannon, but was divided in the waist
of the ship. In some ships there was physically a continuous deck at this level
(to cover and protect the men on the middle deck below), with continuous
bulwarks along the sides (but no gunports), and supported below by transverse
deck beams across the full width of the ship to provide structural strength;
these ships carried no guns at this level when built, but in 1690 surviving
ships of this grade received extra guns to give them a full UD battery.
In other ships, there was a physical gap at the waist, so
that the central portion of the middle deck was open to the elements; on a number
of ships, this gap was filled by a residual structure (a centreline gangway
termed a `flying bridge’) linking the fore and aft sections of this deck. This
structure could be (and frequently was) removed in operational practice,
turning the type into what would by comprehended by the English as a
two-decker. Nevertheless, the French Navy categorised all these ships
officially as `three-deckers’, and described their non-continuous upper decks
as the `third deck’. This led to some confusion between the navies, as in 1672
when, during a period of Anglo-French alliance and co-operation, a small French
squadron visited Portsmouth, consisting of the 70-gun ships Superbe, Royal
Thérese (exParis) and Magnanime.
The main exceptions (prior to 1689) among 1st Rank ships
were the massive vaisseaux du premier rang extraordinaire – those few vessels
of 100 guns of more, which carried three full tiers of guns, plus smaller guns
on their forecastles, quarterdecks, and in some cases poops.
These small three-deckers were eliminated in stages. On 22
March 1671, a Regulation was laid down decreeing that ships with fewer than 70
guns should in future by built as two-deckers. In 1689 a fresh decree extended
the Regulation to cover all new ships with fewer than 80 guns. Obviously, these
regulations applied to new construction rather than to existing ships. In some
cases, it was possible to convert an existing three-decker into a two-decker by
the simple process of dismantling a `flying bridge’. On other vessels, a more
comprehensive restructuring was required, and clearly on many vessels no
changes were carried out and vessels remained three-deckers until the end of
their lives. After 1689 all new three-deckers carried three full decks of guns,
and none carried fewer than 80 guns.
Mixed Calibres on Gun
Decks
The other significant difference, not always clear from
certain writings, is that the lower – and on three-deckers the middle – decks
on almost all pre-1689 French warships carried a mixture of calibres. The
practice was clearly defined in the appropriate regulations, and there seem to
have been few exceptions. Thus, a typical three-decker might have had a
combination of 24pdr and 18pdr guns on its lower deck, and a combination of
12pdr and 8pdr guns on its middle deck, with 6pdrs on the upper deck (and
sometimes 4pdrs on the poop, as a 4th tier). At some date before 1689, single
calibres on each deck were adopted, and these became general after 1689 for new
construction (and for refitting some older ships), although some older vessels
were never re-armed.
Changes in Ship
Rankings, 1669-1716
A major complication in determining which chapter should
record details of individual ships is that the French Ranks were subject to
frequent alteration, with ships being moved from one Rank to another and often
back again. This was primarily true with the seventeenth century Ranks, but
re-classing also took place during the eighteenth century. This was also a
factor with the British Navy, but its more extensive employment by the French
may make it difficult to locate a particular ship. In general, it is preferable
to describe a ship under the Rank it held when it first entered French naval
service, but the position of a ship can be judged differently in Rank as it
more helpful to record the development of a particular ship type. There can be
no absolute rule adopted in this matter.
Appearance and Design
Further constructional factors contributed to differences
between most French-built ships (we shall ignore here French-operated ships
built abroad or captured from other countries) and those of other navies.
French ships were generally larger, but more lightly built; among smaller
ships, this is because they were not expected to remain at sea for such
protracted periods as the ships of the maritime powers. It meant also that they
tended on average to be faster.
The decoration of French ships, particularly the stern of
major ships, was both more prolific and more formalised than in other navies.
Under Louis XIV in particular, the carving and painting adorning their structures
was designed to be more magnificent and more impressive than that of their
likely opponents. The figureheads and sterns were distinct in their iconography
and in the skills of their artwork. Many of the artists and sculptors who
created the seventeenth century opulence of Versailles and Fontainebleau were
equally employed in creating masterpieces afloat. Louis XIV and Colbert
established sculpture academies in the three main dockyards, whose graduate
craftsmen brought to life the designs of Pierre Puget and others.
The ostentatious decoration, particularly the most ornate
sculpture which graced the bow and stern of each ship during much of the seventeenth
century, was subject to radical pruning as the century neared its end. The
decorators and sculptors, all gifted and often celebrated artists, outdid each
other and indeed themselves to satisfy the vanity of their monarch; but the
actual ship commanders, viewing the encumbrance and the fire danger of the
ornamental work when at sea – particularly in action – strongly opposed the
scale of the decoration, and often took steps to reduce it. The celebrated
Pierre Puget, for example, would have been horrified to know that much of his
careful artistic work was apt to be quietly jettisoned by a captain as soon as
it was out of sight of the dockyard. Obviously this could not happen to the
fleet flagships, which were likely to be visited by Louis and his senior
ministers; but such carvings clearly suffered in action – witness the
description of the ruined state of the magnificent stern sculptures of the
Soleil Royal when she was grounded in Cherbourg after the Battle of Barfleur
(where she would be burnt in a fireship attack a few days later).
Ordnance
The principal weapon carried by all naval ships during this
period was the smooth-bore cannon of varying sizes and weights mounted on a
truck (wheeled) carriage. All French guns were classified according to the
weight of the spherical solid shot that they could fire, but they could also be
separated into those manufactured from bronze (fonte verte) and those cast from
iron. During the seventeenth century, the limitations of foundry technology
means that the heavier pieces could only be manufactured in bronze, although
this situation changed significantly, when iron 24pdrs and 36pdrs (the
abbreviation `pdr’ signifying `- pounder’ is used throughout this article)
began to be introduced in 1688 and 1691 respectively. Nevertheless, bronze guns
remained the preference, and by 1689 it was decreed that the guns in ships of
the 1st Rank should all be of bronze.
Colbert’s Navy inherited in 1661 a variety of cannon of at
least seventeen different calibres, a confusing situation and one which greatly
hampered maintenance and supply of ammunition. A start was made in 1661 by
restricting the number of calibres to seven, although the changeover took time,
and the last ‘non-standard’ calibre weapons did not disappear until about 1676.
It can be seen that the supply of cannon at this time was
barely enough to arm more than a few ships. Colbert’s ambition to create within
a few years a Navy of some 120 vessels (an aim which he achieved by 1671)
required an equal effort in gun manufacture. Including the non-standard
calibres the Navy’s inventory rose to a total of 5,090 guns in 1671. During the
next quarter-century the inventory almost doubled, reaching its peak of 9,514
guns (including 631 interrompus, probably unfit for service) in 1696. The other
main development during this period was the development of the ability to
manufacture large calibre guns of iron (24pdrs in 1688 and 36pdrs in 1691),
with the subsequent decline in the production of bronze guns and the
near-disappearance in the inventory by 1696 of bronze guns smaller than 18pdrs.
The following quantities of guns of the standard calibres were available in
1671 and 1696:
By the early 1690s the 36pdr had become the standard heavy
weapon of the battlefleet. The Ordinance of 15 April 1689 specified a uniform armament
of bronze 36pdrs on the LD of first rank ships of 1690, and increased
production of these weapons was soon followed by the introduction of iron
36pdrs which gradually supplanted them.
Besides conventional cannon, two other items of ordnance
deserve mention (other than small arms). The pierrier (anglicised to `perrier’
in British usage, although this was also called a `swivel’ by them; but the
Ordnance Office generally called them `bases’ or `murderers’; the Spanish
called them `pedreroes’, while the Dutch called them `kamerstukken’, or chamber
guns) was – as its name implies – originally evolved to fire stone projectiles
rather than metal ones. The term in English originally referred to weapons (of
up to 24pdr calibre) firing stone shot. By the mid-seventeenth century the
larger calibres had become obsolete, but the pierrier survived as a lightweight
short-barrelled anti-personnel weapon, usually fitted into a metal stock
(between the arms of which it could be elevated or depressed), in turn mounted
on a swivelling base on an upright wooden post which was integral with a ship’s
structure. By the 1660s they used shrapnel ammunition in removable chambers
(usually 8 per gun), which were loaded in advance and could be removed and
replaced in a few seconds, making quick-firing guns. The name pierrier was
latterly employed by the French as a term by which to describe all their light
swivel-mounted guns.
The other item of heavy ordnance was the sea mortar. This
was adopted in the early 1680s as a shore bombardment weapon in vessels
specially designed for the purpose. Clearly not applicable for ship-to-ship
combat, the mortar-bearing vessel (usually constructed as a galiote) was the
seventeenth/eighteenth century version of the twentieth century monitor.
Whereas mortar vessels in the English Navy were built with mortars fitted along
the centreline of the vessel, usually one ahead of and one aft of the mainmast,
in French service the mortars were carried in pairs, mounted side by side
before the vessel’s mainmast to fire forward over the bows. The weapons were
fixed in place, and could not be trained to either side. Furthermore, there
were initially cast with an integral base-plate from which they could not be
moved, and fixed into the mortar vessel’s structure with a fixed elevation of
45 degrees. Consequently, they could not alter their elevation, and the sole
means of changing their range was by varying the size of the powder charge
used. Later in the eighteenth century mortars were fitted on mountings that
could be trained and elevated.
