Talk:List of ships captured in the 19th century

Sources

List new sources here.

Syren

How could the Syren have been captured in 1814 and then later blown up in 1804? Agricolae (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have omitted that claim -- for the life of me I don't know why I listed that. Sometimes I will have several pages (tabs) opened at once, with references to ships on each, so I must have used info on one page for the wrong ship. Thanks for catching that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Merrimack?

Should the list include the USS Merrimack? Sunk and abandoned at Norfolk Naval Yard in 1861, refloated and rechristened the CSS Virginia? Agricolae (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Agricolae, -- Thanks for your help in managing this list. With all the (very) many ships and sources it sometimes gets a little overwhelming trying to keep everything in perfect order. Have replaced the ship with USS Merrimac (1864) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? Other ships abandoned or surrendered in port have been listed - this one was just a little wetter and more singed at the time, and hence a bit harder to convert to enemy use, but convert it they did. This is the only USN ship that fell into CSA hands, and they used it in what is probably the most famous single-ship action in the 19th century. I am going to put it back and move Merrimac down to its chronological place. Agricolae (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I removed it with some reservation as the ship was recovered, not captured during the course of a battle. A capture involves force. Finding something that was discarded (sunk) is not exactly a capture in the normal sense of the word, but for the sake of historical context I have no qualms about including it in the list as it can be argued that it was 'captured', force or no force. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The CSA first blocked the mouth of the harbor with sunken hulks to keep it from fleeing (the other ships got out the day before but they had problems getting the Merrimack's engine started), then surrounded the base where it was stationed in order to capture the yard and all of the ships, stores and cannon therein. There followed this failed attempt to destroy the ship right before the surrender. It is no less forced, no less a capture just because the ship happened to have been intentionally (and ineptly) sunk the day before in an attempt to avoid just that eventuality. They didn't just find a discarded ship. That's my view, at least. Agricolae (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, no force was used to get the ship itself, it was sunk and recovered and the naval yard was abandoned, but it still can be called a capture, for reasons you mentioned which is why it is allowable in this list. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just saw your note about the spelling - Merrimack (with a 'k') was the official spelling of the ship when launched and in subsequent Navy records (see the Navy ships site), while Merrimac is apparently the mistaken form picked up by the U.S. press in reporting on the famous battle (a double error given that the ship had been renamed the Virginia), and was also the form used for the steamship that later became USS Merrimac (hence the 1855 ship is Merrimack II on the Navy site, while the 1864 ship is the first of three named Merrimac). Agricolae (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Wish the Naval site (i.e.DANFS) would cite its sources, for the sake of matters like this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Presumably it comes from Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (vol. 4), which drew primarily from naval records. Agricolae (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Letter of marque v Privateer

In the various sources the terms Letter of marque and Privateer are both used on the same page. For example, in John William Norie's The naval gazetteer' ..., p.259 (and the other listed pages) he refers to some vessels as Privateers and others as Letter of marque, so now I am wondering why he just doesn't use one term or the other. We know that Privateer refers to the vessel, while the Letter of marque refers to its authorization and that sometimes the vessel is simply referred to as a Letter of marque, but this still doesn't explain why both terms are used in the same page. Apparently some privateers acted with just the understanding that it was 'open season' on a given country's ships, while those referred to as a Letter of marque had the actual written authorization, again, apparently. Also, in the WP Privateer article in the Legal framework section both terms are used in the same sentence. Your thoughts please. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It was the letter of marque that made the vessel a privateer. If it didn't have the letter, what it was doing was piracy and anyone doing it subject to hanging if captured, a pointless risk when the governments were so happy to pass out the paper. None of the ships we are talking about would not have had the letter or else not just the ship would have been condemned. As to using the terms together, I suspect that Norie is just using them interchangeably. Perhaps this reflects his sources. A professional source (Royal Navy official or one of its officer class) would likely call a ship a Letter of marque, while a popular source, a newspaper or perhaps even a man before the mast, would likely call it a privateer. The Wikipedia page is using it under its other meaning in that sentence - 'letter of marque' as the actual letter, unlike Norie (and our sources for the Deux Anges - Haswell in his formal letter to the Navy on arrival at Newport calls it a "corvette letter of marque") who are using it for the ship. They wouldn't want to say 'the letter of marque of a Letter of Marque', so they use the synonym. By the way, I just found a list of 74 ships captured from the French during the Quasi-War. Unfortunately, it does not provide dates and many fell in 1798 and 1799 and it would take a lot of original research to sort it out. Agricolae (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I also submitted this question and issue to the WikiProject Ships talk page and was also informed of the same thing, but my inquiry to Rif Wilson, a prominent Naval historian and author who is also an editor here at WP, provided some helpful insights. He explained that a privateer is quite different from a merchantman/cargo ship, both of which can, but not always, act under a Letter of marque. In the future I will use the same designations found in the sources, and in some cases will use the terms together as all privateers and merchant vessels are not in possession of a Letter' and are not considered pirates because they are acting with the blessing of the country to which they are helping. Also, historians J.F.Cooper and T.Roosevelt use both terms interchangeably and both men served in the U.S. navy. Also, for the sake of the readers who may not know that a privateer is (usually) acting with a letter' I will sometimes use the terms together, this way it won't be necessary to link the Letter' every time it is used throughout the list.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate Rif Wilson's expertise, I think the clear distinction between strict privateers (that would not infrequently carry something in their hold for ballast and to supplement income), and the broader letters of mark that were carrying cargo and just had guns for protection, is more theoretical than actual. Les Deux Anges was an armed trader, carrying a full load of coffee. When it saw sails on the horizon, it sailed toward them to attack and take the ship flying them, only to discover that it had gone after USS Boston. Agricolae (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Captured ships

Agricolae, where is this list of 74 ships you spoke of? Since most of the ships were captured before 1800 their inclusion would still be helpful to the List of ships captured in the 18th century -- and it is not required that the exact date be used in order to include it in any of the lists, the year by itself will suffice for use in a list, so your help here also would be appreciated. Also, finding the exact dates of capture in the various reliable sources would not be considered 'original research'. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

It is in a contemporary newspaper account, and hence definitely a primary source, but here it is (numbers, where given, are guns and men) - "Since the establishment of the navy the following captures have been made of French armed vessels: L'Insurgente, 40, 409; Le Berceau, 26, 300; Deux Anges, 20, 54; Sans Pareil, 20, 87; Le Croyable, 14, 54; La Jelonx, 14, 70; Magacienne, 14, 63; Brilliant Jeunesse, 12, 62; Italic Conquest, 12, --; L'Active, 12, 60; Marsain, 11, --; L'Amour de la Patre, 6, 60; Tartousse, 8, 60; Le Vanquear, 8, 85; Les Amis, 6, 16; La Mutine, 6, 60; Favorite, 6, 41; Sandwick, 6, --; Syren, 4, 36; La Voltigeuse, 10, 61; Fly, 4, --; L'Esther, 3, 36; La Fouguese, 2, 70; Le Frippon; Buonaparte; Le Diligente; Louise Rabateuse; L'Onze Vendemaire; Ocean; Vegues; Le Gourge; Le Pelicaine; L'Esperance; Atalanta; Hereux; La Jaison (50 men); Peggy; Heureuse; Recontre; Gen. Massena; L'Piege; L'Unite; La Victoire; La Jeaune; La Fortune; Cygne; La Decade; Manuel; Reuomme; L'Aigle; Flambeaux; Couchon; Flying Fish; Hope; Gambeaux; Felix; Dove; Fortune; La Poline; Vengeance; La Cuillie; La Dorade; Lespoir; Piege Dolphin; Phenix La Fortune; and Aerial. The captures are 74 in number; and the vessels re-captured by our cruisers exceed Eighty." Connecticut Journal, 29 Jan 1801.

Some time in contemporary newspapers would likely provide approximate dates, but that would definitely qualify as OR. Agricolae (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

DANFS a primary source?

If Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is using naval records as the source for the historical accounts they offer, and since this is a naval institution itself, wouldn't this be considered a primary source and a 'no-no' for use as a citation here at WP? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Just received plenty of feedback on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. DANFS is good to go. (i.e.OK) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No concern there. As explained, this is a compilation drawn from primaries, and not a primary itself. What it is not is an independent source, so possible bias must be taken into account (for example, when it says "Operating with this mighty peacekeeping force, King helped to check Communist aggression in Southeast Asia" as highlighted on the Wikipedia page for the original books). Agricolae (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Decades and Centuries

I note that the 18th century page is categorized using the traditional definition of decades and centuries, while this page uses the 'popular view'. This results in the French Revolutionary war captures of 1800 being given on the 18th century page, which runs from 1701 to 1800, while the Quasi War captures of 1800 are given on the 19th century page running from 1800-1899. This difference carries through to the decades, in one they are 1701-10, 1711-20, etc, while in the other 1800-1809, 1810-1819, etc. I think these should be harmonized. (There are other issues with the 18th century page, particularly with regards to a uniform usage of flags and the names of nation-states - two entries for Maltese vessels in 1798 have different flags and different names ('Knights of Malta' vs. 'Sovereign Military Order of Malta'.) Agricolae (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion regarding page style, format, etc and agree that there is no one size suits all for the many different lists here at WP. If we were to approach all the lists in this fashion there would be perpetual discussion and debate taking away from the time and effort needed to fill the page with history, the most important element to the readers. Earlier you added some correct flags, this was great. If there is a pressing issue, an outright error in historical content or a policy violation of some sort by all means fix it, otherwise effort is best spent writing and citing. Not nearly enough editors doing that. There are many hundreds, perhaps thousands of ships that need to be listed. Help is urgently needed finding and bringing them to the list with their basic info (i.e.commanders, etc) along with the sources/citations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to unify every single list on Wikipedia, but a set of lists that clearly represent a single series should have some minimal level of coordination on such a simple question, so that 1800 isn't given twice and 1900 not at all because the separate pages in the series are using different definitions of what a century is. Agricolae (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Info of all sorts overlaps and appears more than once throughout WP. No big deal, and certainly nothing to create an issue over with other editors, esp when it doesn't effect the readers and there are no policy violations involved. Again, what is needed the most, by far, is effort doing writing and citing. i.e.Creating content. If you are concerned that 1900 doesn't appear at all, then include it with some ships. If 1800 appears in more than one list, no big deal, and actually, this is good, as again, info of all sorts overlaps among the various articles and serves as a connecting theme. So I guess it's a matter of perspective. Is overlapping information good or bad -- do you see the glass of water half full or half empty? If for some reason you would like to spend your time and effort pursing this particular matter further rather than building the page I can only suggest that you file a 'Request for comment' or poll other editors for their opinions. -- You mentioned a list of 74 ships. I was hoping you were going to take on the tough job and cite this material and bring it into the lists. I am also hoping you will help me gather info on ships needed for this list, cause let me tell you, there are many hundreds to go and I don't know if I can do this all by myself, esp when I have to stop every other day and address issues that don't effect the readers either way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I too had hopes for this page that appear destined not to be fulfilled. However, I wouldn't want to distract you further. Agricolae (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it was and is not my intention to put you off or infer that your overall activity here was nothing but a distraction. It is not. You corrected some flags, improved the TOC, pointed out an error in content and have given me second thoughts about when and how to use the terms 'privateer' and the 'letter of marque'. This is welcomed! I am still hoping you will use the list you spoke of and get some more ships into the fold here. I just wanted to emphasize that before one takes on an issue they should ask themselves, will this benefit the readers and are there outright errors and/or policy violations involved. If not then these matters are (usually) better left alone -- while other things are (greatly!) needed. Please -- don't give up the ship(s)! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

War of 1812 and Battle of Lake Erie

Since the entire British squadron was surrendered, shouldn't those ships be included here? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Danish ships included in Quasi-War

The last two ships included in the Quasi-War (1798-1800) list were described as being captured in 1809 by Danish ships. This suggests that either they were captured at a different time or as part of another struggle. Kiore (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of ships captured in the 19th century. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222032521/http://www.milhist.dk/englandskrigene/erobringer/britiske_tab.htm to http://www.milhist.dk/englandskrigene/erobringer/britiske_tab.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/index.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of ships captured in the 19th century. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331215440/http://www.usskidd.com/battles-lakeborgne.html to http://www.usskidd.com/battles-lakeborgne.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140513160120/http://www.armada.cl/prontus_armada/site/artic/20090719/pags/20090719224025.html to http://www.armada.cl/prontus_armada/site/artic/20090719/pags/20090719224025.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)