Le Royal Louis

Posted by F.F. on Wednesday 12th of February 2025 17:45

The too heavy 48-pounders with which, according to Duhamel du Monceau, le Royal-Louis wouldn't have bear her guns high enough out of the water, never mounted these guns, also according to him:
Henri-Louis Duhamel du Monceau, Élémen[t]s de l'architecture navale, 1752 (Google Translate):
«It is also necessary to be warned that the most advantageous calibers for combat are the 36 and the 24 [pounders]; those of 48 stun the ships, and tire the crews very much: for these reasons [making them in bronze is obliged]. The ship le Royal-Louis built at Toulon, for which the guns of the royal battery of Brest had been melted, never carried anything but 36 calibre;»
In French:
« Il eſt encore néceſſaire d'être prévenu que les calibres les plus avantageux pour le combat , ſont le 36 & le 24 ; ceux de 48 aſſomment les Vaiſſeaux , & fatiguent beaucoup les équipages : on eſt obligé pour ces raiſons de les faire de bronze. Le Royal-Loüis conſtruit à Toulon , pour lequel on avoit fondu les canons de la batterie royale de Breſt , n'a jamais porté que du 36 ; »

Posted by F.F. on Tuesday 4th of February 2025 15:02

Sorry for the incomplete comment I submit by an incorrect operation.

Wikipedia, about the second le Royal-Louis:
«Displacement
3928 French tons[a]
[…]
Brest Dockyard noted in 1715 that she was usable only in summertime and her upperworks were beginning to rot. She was condemned in 1723 at Brest and broken up there in 1727.»

A plan of that ship still exists, in Denmark, either copied from a French one or made from measurements. The diplacement is that calculated by the renowned Blaise Ollivier; 3928 tonneaux de poids were equal to 3846ｔ, and that figure matches with sea water density 1.025.

Dimensions, 176 pieds × 48 pieds × 23 pieds ≈ 57.17 ｍ × 15.59 ｍ × 7.47 ｍ ≈ 187' 6⅚" × 51' 2" × 24' 6⅛", are those according to measurements made in Europe. In the British Navy, where beam was measured outside planking, not inside, and where depth of hold was considered instead of depth to deck, her measurements would have been some 187' 6⅚" × 52' 9" × 22' 9⅔", and her burthen, between 2200 and 2300 tons.

Le Royal-Louis launched in 1682 was regarded as a masterpiece. In the abridged lists of the French Navy («états abrégés»), she is said to be a good sailer («bon voilier»), carrying a good sail («porte bien la voile»), a well-made and good ship («beau et bon»). Henri-Louis Duhamel du Monceau, in Élémen[t]s de l'architecture navale, in 1752, wrote : «The Royal Louis who, according to all the sailors, was a masterpiece, wouldn't have had her guns high enough out of the water if she had been fitted out in war with the artillery she was expected to mount. It is not that a sufficiently high tier of guns could not be provided for ships of that rate; but there would be every reason to fear that it would be at the cost of the other good qualities that have made the reputation of the Royal Louis.»
In French:
« Le Royal-Loüis [de 1692] qui , ſuivant tous les Marins , étoit un chef-d’œuvre , eut manqué de batterie ſi on l'eut armé en guerre & avec l'artillerie qu'il devoit porter. Ce n'eſt pas qu'on ne pût procurer une batterie ſuffisamment élevée à des Vaiſſeaux de ce rang ; mais il y auroit tout lieu de craindre que ce ne fût aux dépens des autres bonnes qualités qui ont fait la réputation du Royal-Louis. »

The too heavy 48-pounders were not good guns!

Pierre Bouguer, Traité du navire, de sa construction et de ses mouvemen[t]s, 1746, said she was, «it seems», built without a general plan, which was a risky way:
«Yet the ship [of the line] who in the recent times has been regarded as a masterpiece of her kind and of whom it would be to be hoped that whe had since taken as a model in the construction of first-rates, the Royal Louis * (* margin note: Ship [of the line] built at Toulon in 1692, by François Coulomb) who we were obliged to dismantle in our time at Brest, because of her tumbledown state, has only been built in that way, it seems, so risky. It is sad that shipwrights cannot work for posterity, like architects and sculptors. All that could be done further, when they have succeeded perfectly, would be to perpetuate their ships by replacing them with other ones built exactely on the same pattern, and who still be regarded, as the work of the first master. It would have been even more useful than just to pay this honor to the skilful workman of the Royal-Louis.»
In French:
« Cependant le Vaiſſeau qui dans ces derniers tems a été regardé comme un chef d'œuvre dans ſon genre & qu il ſeroit à ſouhaiter qu'on eût depuis pris pour modéle dans la conſtruction des Vaiſſeaux de premier rang , le Royal Louis * [* Vaiſſeau conſtruit à Toulon en 1692 , par François Coulomb.] qu'on a été obligé de défaire de notre tems à Breſt , à cauſe de ſa caducité , n'avoit été bâti que de cette maniere , ce ſemble , ſi hazardée. Il eſt triſte que les Conſtructeurs ne puiſſent pas travailler pour la poſtérité , comme les Architectes ou les Sculpteurs. Tout ce qu'on pourroit faire de plus, lorſqu'ils ont réuſſi parfaitement , ce ſeroit de perpetuer leurs Vaiſſeaux en les remplaçant par d'autres conſtruits préciſement ſur les memes gabaris , & qu'on regardât toujours , comme l'ouvrage du premier Maître. Il eût encore été plus utile que juſte de rendre cet honneur à l'habile ouvrier du Royal Louis. »

The poor state of Le Royal Louis was reported by all the états abrégés, from 1716 to 1723, when she was stricken:
• 1716:
« A besoin d'un radoub » [«Needs repairs»]
• 1717:
« A besoin d'un grand radoub » [«Needs large repairs»]
• 1718:
« Il a besoin d'un grand radoub » [«She needs large repairs»]
• 1719, 1723:
« A besoin d'un grand radoub » [«Needs large repairs»]

Posted by F.F. on Tuesday 4th of February 2025 14:58

gabaris , & qu'on regardât toujours , comme l'ouvrage du premier Maître. Il eût encore été plus utile que juſte de rendre cet honneur à l'habile ouvrier du Royal Louis. »

The poor state of Le Royal Louis was reported by all the états abrégés, from 1716 to 1723, when she was stricken:
• 1716:
« A besoin d'un radoub » [«Needs repairs»]
• 1717:
« A besoin d'un grand radoub » [«Needs large repairs»]
• 1718:
« Il a besoin d'un grand radoub » [«She needs large repairs»]
• 1719, 1723:
« A besoin d'un grand radoub » [«Needs large repairs»]