Tanneron soleil royal, first or second, that is the question

A

aurélien wolff

Joined
Oct 25, 2022
Messages
273
Points
103

Hello, while doing my research on the ship, I've seen both theories that Tanneron model doesn't represent the first soleil royal but instead the second, then I see others saying it's the first, I'm a bit confused but lean more toward Tanneron model representing the initial soleil royal thant the ship after the radoub, I wonder what give people the idea Tanneron did the second soleil royal.
Thanks for your answers, I'd be interested to see the multiple POV/theories.
 
The issue being would tanneron knew this when he was making his model, and his sculptures/ornaments are verry differents from the one associated with the post radoub soleil royal(vary drawings per example), and on tanneron model being the second SR, there seems to be differences between the 2d SR and tanneron model too.
 
Tanneron built this model in the 18th century, my guess is it represents the first Soleil Royal, how accurately we will never know.He must have based it on something and that could have well been lost between then and now.The model shows a ship that is inherently top heavy. In 1670 steps were taken to change the geometry of new vessels to lower their metacentre and make them more stable.Is it before or after rebuild? Before is my guess as an order was made to start enclosing quarter galleries before the rebuild.

Far too much is wrong for it to be a model of the new Soleil of 1693

Kind Regards

Nigel
 
I agree with the idea Tanneron could've based his model on something that got lost considering not much original drawings of the soleil royal exist.
 
Michel Saulnier (who's now sadly deceased) was convinced the tanneron SR represented the second one, not the first https://5500.forumactif.org/t3416-soleil-royal-1693v I'm not really convinced due to the Tanneron model not representing a accurate 2nd soleil royal either, the interpretations I've seen of the 2nd soleil royal are also verry different of that of Tanneron's on the sculpture/ornaments. The 104 pages document Guy-M sended me on the soleil royal also disagree with the idea Tanneron represented the second one.
 
Hi:) to answer the question not an easy task, (I know that quite well with the research work I did); so, since there no definitive answer on how the Soleil Royal would have ''exactly'' looked like in the spring of 1671 when it was being prepared for the king's trip, here is what I found in relation to the Tanneron model. First, the hull itself is only a ''vehicle'' to support the decors on the bow nd the stern; it's shape, not considering the upper rear planking (in black) would be quite close to the 1693 Soleil Royal, the real second one; the dimension are quite a bit closer to that ship than it is for the second one. So why use that? because Tanneron had the plans for the scond ship, which by that time were mandatory for the naval archives. The decor is the description of Puget's drawing which is stored somewhere deep in the old archives at the naval museum of Paris, or depp in the archives of the Louvres museum and it carries a number between 691 and 695. I still haven't found it and will need to go there to dig..... The rear facia could be considered very close to what the first Soleil Royal looked like, so did the front part.
As for the side galleries or ''bottles'', Tanneron had the description of the decor, but didn't have the sructure description or the dimensions so he most probably refered to the Louis XV model at the museum, the only model which was made in the 1720's and refurbished a few times since. If we look at the shape of the side galleries from the Louis XV and compare, the similarity in the overall shape comes into view.
When the ship was rebuilt, the decor was altered, the statue became a bit smaller, it now had 6 instead of 5 rear windows because it had been vertically straightened and somewhat lowered a bit, which is reflected in the rear main board decoration.
In a summary, the story goes like this; Le brun drew the first iteration of the decor; Colbert changed his mind after the Royal Louis and the Royal Dauphin were built, and contracted Puget to modify extensively the stern's decoration to make it lighter and with less full busts statues which would create ''hooks'' in battles for fire ships; and it had to be ''in very good taste''....
With what I have researched, The Tanneron is an execution of the Puget's stern and the Lebrun bow decors; the side do not have any specific decorations as there is no description of them. The hull is the dimensions and the number of canon ports the second Soleil Royal would have had in 1705......
I hope this answers a few questions, and there are more, I'll be glad to answer to the best of my information...
 
OUPS! slight error.....'' would have been closer to the second one than the FIRST.......'''

Sorry:)
 
As Hubac said, more of a hybrid, I wonder why Tanneron chosed to remove 2 gun ports at the rear when it's verry visible on the berain/vary drawing soleil royal had 2/4 ports, he thought it wasn't the same in the first one?
PS: you don't mind if I do what you did on your port holes on mine?
 
The reason for Tanneron to make 100 canon ports is because in 1705, the second Soleil Royal had 100 canons....
From what I read, they did the same modifications as the rebuilt version right before the confrontation of La Hougue by adding a fifteeth 12 lbs port on the top main battery and reduced the number of forecastle and quarter deck to 6 on each side, probably all located at the back...
Tanneron probably chosed the 100 canon set up but didn't do that modification since he may not have had the information at the time.
The original set up for the first one is: bottom battery of 30 ports including the unarmed chase ports at the front leaving 28 armed ports with 20x36 lbs and 8x48 lbs ( those were never installed though). The second, or middle battery had 30 armed ports with 30x18 lbs canons including the one in the bottles at that level. the top main battery had 28x12 lbs, the forcastle had 6x6 lbs, the quarterdeck had 10x6lbs and the poop deck 4x4 lbs canons....
That would the best set up for a proper amount of canons....
 
As for the rebuilt version, it actually got many set ups; starting with 110 canons at the end of the reconstruction, incuding 24x36lbs, 4 48 lbs.
the second row doesn't change and there had to be an exit point in the bottles for the canons on that battery; the top row did change; the forecastle still had 6 but the quartedeck was stacked with 14, and the poop its usual 4...; then when Tourville came back from a missed interception in 1691, the 48 lbs were replaced by 36 lbs, and 6 x6lbs were removed, quite possibly all of them in the front, all in an effort to lighten the ship and make it a bit quicker to the commands. before La Hougue, two more 6 lbs were removed and two more 12 lbs were added inside the bottles on the top row, and that's how it burned........
 
To get enough guns for the stern, I think I'll close some ports on one side or the other (was going to do that even without the correction to break the uniformity a bit).
 
You can, for the second battery row for one on each side; but you can't close the forecastle, the quarterdeck's ports or the poop deck ones....
It is easier just to buy 4 canons in the right size ( the very small 20mm long metal ones)....As for the chase ports in front which need to be made, they stay closed anyway so, no nned for canons there....
 
If you need extra canons from the kit, I have a lot of them since I'll be putting the metal ones....
 
I'm planning to do the modification Hubac did on his guns on mine, thanks but since I'm closing some ports, I think I'll have enough guns for what I intend to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top