Terpsichore 1818-1827 Greek armed schooner

I did not realise that the drawings were not inserted correctly. So I send it now in PDF format.
I hope you can read it!! If not kindly inform me which format to use or better if our administrator/moderator can make it visible.
Thanks
Denis
 

Attachments

Dear Denis hello.
I just got back from vacation in which consciously I kept myself away from pc and ship modeling, so I just read your conclusion of your research.
Well, in my research for the same subject, I have found elements which might suggests something else, more believable …
I really can’t see how you’ve came to this Russian carronade choice, unless you also came across to my finds and for some reasons you rejected rhem…
My research started from what the closer co-fighters to Tombazis, have wrote relative to that legendary gun of his schooner and among others, I noticed a description by Konstantinos Nikodemos(1795-1879).
Ιn his memoirs («Απομνημονεύματα εκστρατειών και ναυμαχιών του ελληνικού στόλου») page 7, says that the Tompazis’ schooner at the naval battle in Eressos-lesbos, at her prow was caring an «οβούζιο» (obusier in French-Obus in Spanish) that it could fire hot shots…

I search the word “obusier” to find that as a term, was used only by French, indicating a short naval gun of large caliber that was used between 1787–1805 but had only 36pdr calibre.( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obusier_de_vaisseau).
However the most interesting is that, “Accounts by British warships of the armament of captured French ships, tend to describe them as carronades and were only named as “obusier” when-if the description included the remark that the weapon was brass.
That could explain why T. Gordon and F. A. Hastings (both Englishmen) are calling as “carronade” whatever saw in Tombazis’ schooner.

Searching for that 48 pdr, I found that in the naval battle of Trafalgar (1805) the Spanish ships except standard cannons, were also armed with a number of Obusiers (Obuses) of 48pdr…!

That 48pdr obusier, was an improvement version by Francisco Javier Rovira.See below sources.
a. http://www.histarmar.com.ar/InfHistorica/ArtilleriadeMarina/8-obuseros.htm (Σχέδιο)
b. Armamento que portaban los buques de la Real Armada Por Juan García
c. Artilleria de antecarga lisa de ordenanza en la Armada 1728-1872 (Juan L. Calvó)

So now making the connection, what do you think as more possible?
Tombazis had to choose a gun which could use ammo (48pdr) captured from Turks, been tested in battle and ready to be placed on his schooner, without any adjustment on a special carriage.

In your research, you state that in Captain Frank Abney Hastings "Memoirs" and by saying about ”enormous recoil" of Tombazis’ “carronade”, that indicates the need of some special carriage…But if you read carefully, you’ll see that the "enormous recoil" was happening because of wrong amount -load of pounder, which Tombazis was loading the gun, probably to gain more range.(?)

You also state that Sir Charles Gascoigne, left Scotland in 1801, …and the Alexandrovsky foundry in Olonetsk developed a carronade of 36 pdr which re-bored for 48 caliber! Do you have a specific date-year where that happened?
According to the below source that happened in 1841.
http://fort1854.narod.ru/

I’m not sure for anything, I just set the finds of my researsh.
And to my opinion George’s model even with the allowance in its armament, is not just a “beautiful” model. It’s one of a kind.

Thank you
Thanasis
 
Last edited:
Dear Thanassis,

First, thank you for commenting my conclusions on the present subject though I am rather surprised to see that it took you so long to make it and even more that you chose to do it on this forum while you could have done it in Greek by e-mail to my address as we have done so in the past.

Before engaging in an argument on what was the weapon arming “Terpsicore”, let me tell you and the readers on this forum that I performed a thorough search for the past two years. My conclusion has been considered as a plausible, logical and verified study on other forums where you are not present due to language issues (I suppose).

When we discussed three years ago over the type of weapon, I made it clear to you (and that was our first disagreement) that considering the caliber of 48 Lb., a GUN (Cannon) of such caliber could by no means arm a 30 ft. schooner due to artillery basics: weight, volume, recoil and handling. You then asked me to look into the possibility of a “canon obusier à la Paixhans” (I will come back on the term “obusier”). I made also an extensive search on this weapon, which started its first (conclusive) trials in 1824 but production for the French Navy started in 1827. Therefore, I had to discard this possibility too.

The term “obusier” as you state in your study is exclusively French and probably J. H. Paixhans used it in his 1821 study “Nouvelle Force Maritime”, term that became usual later by adding his name.

I take this opportunity to precise that the “obusier de vaisseau” mentioned in your study disappears completely at beginning of the French Empire (1801) (read carefully the dates) and is replaced by carronades, often keeping the old denomination of “obusier de vaisseau”.
https://fr.wikipedia.org › wiki › Obusier_de_vaisseau

Jean Boudriot (famous Naval Archeologist) describes thoroughly the evolution of the terms in his book “Artillerie de Mer 1650-1850”.

I can add here that even in Spanish (I quote here the site you mention – histarmar) the term obusier is often mixed up with the term carronade: “Contrariamente, en opinión de un inglés como Howard, los "obusiers" no eran otra cosa que una carronada mal entendida…”

Now, we have to settle another argument: Is it possible that General Gordon and Commander Hastings, both high rank naval officers, could misjudge and not recognize a carronade? I sincerely doubt it!

As far as ammunition is concerned, Tombazis did not use only the one he captured from the Turks, as there is a letter dated July 23. 1821 sent to him from Paris (when I took the picture, I omitted the second page and the author) where it is suggested to purchase ammunition from England and Sweden as it was the best quality at the time. For the enormous recoil, it has to be noted that beside the quality and amount of powder used by Tombazis, there is that I did not mention in my study: the length of the tube and the chamber. Comparing the dimensions of the British carronade with its Russian counterpart, though of different calibers, we see clearly that the Russian carronade (36/48 Lb.) has a longer tube than the British one (68 Lb.). What does that mean? First, we can say that the model developed by Charles Gascoigne as early as 1802 (he died in 1806) is something hybrid between a carronade and a gun. The use of lateral trunnions instead of a single one under the tube adds to this. Second, the longer the tube is, longer will be the recoil. Finally, the only swivel carriage (mentioned by Commander Hastings) available at the time was the one designed by Fredrik Henrik af Chapman for 36 Lb. caliber (“Architectura Navalis Mercatoria” 1768 translated in French 1781 by Vial de Clairbois, author of the “Encyclopédie Méthodique Marine”). Both are in my library. My choice is in anyway only a plausible and logical one and does not imply that Tombazis did the same! We will never know… unless the wreckage of “Terpsicore” is explored and if the weapon is still there!!!

To close this argument, the re-boring of Russian carronades is to be found in the extensive book “Russian Warships in the age of sail 1696-1860” by John Tredrea & Eduard Sozaev.

To end the chat, I will reiterate here to you and our readers what I always believed in making my models: when documents fail to prove exact data for the construction, use the logical and plausible solution in accordance with the historical available data.

Aside from the above, I agree with you about George’s model… but not only this one!... All of them!

Whenever you feel like it, call me and we will “cross our swords” again.

I wish you a pleasant Sunday

Denis
 
Denis.
It took me so long to comment you, because as I said, during my vacation I was away form pc-forums and it’s just two days before when I saw your post.
I can’t understand why you’re surprised and would like to email you, since the subject of Terpsichore in this forum is accessible and free to every one (I guess) to say his opinion and even to disagree with someone else. I’m not commenting you for nothing else (as you might think) but just for the knowledge and as I said to place my finds.
Over all, the readers are able to make their judgment.

I don’t have doubts about the time of your research and also my point of view as yours, can be considered as plausible-logical. And yes, except for my English, I can use very well the Greek language and good enough to understand what Nikodemos wrote about the Obusier on Terpsichore.

We are loading the readers with no meaning conversation that we had in the past…but because you set it, I will remind you that Paixhans started making his artillery tests with 48pdr since 1810 and back then my opinion was, that maybe Tombazis had bought something from those experimental weapons. As about the ability of a schooner to be armed with a 48pdr cannon, you had agreed with George’s option (and his drawings of the ship) that the wider (than the usual) bow of Tombazis’ schooner, was made for that reason.
And if that now you find it wrong, what drawings are you using for your model to install the Russian carronade?

There is no meaning what you state about the “obusier de vaisseau” since I used it to point out the term and how the British used to be referring to those weapons. Unless you want to say that Nikodemos was referring to something else.(?)

You say about the mixed up of the term “obusier” and “carronade” because a British and to his opinion said so.. See back how the British were calling the French obusiers.

About Gordon and Hastings and the use of the term “carronade” by both of them.
Gordon was not a naval officer-wrote the history but I doubt if had ever seen the weapon, since there was in Greece only 2-3 months in 1821 in Peloponnesus and later in 1826-27. He probably wrote what Hasting said-wrote.(?) But I will remind you that it was my surprise when we were together on this search…why no one of them said anything about the Nationality of the weapon. Even Hastings in his “Memoir on the use of shells- hot shot and carcass shells from ship artillery” is giving lessons… and sets the example of the recoil of Tombazis’ “carronade”, without saying anything more than a “carronade on swivel”…What you guess?

To shorten the discussion, and the use of purchased ammo from another source by Tombazis, to reduse the recoil odf his weapon.
I will also remind you that Hastings came in Greece to join the revolution one year later (March 1822) than the date on the letters, with (as you mention) Tombazis was dealing to buy ammo. So you can’t know what pounder he was using and had that recoil, in their discussion.

Allow me (as an ex Army officer) to say that the length of the tube might take minor place in the recoil of a weapon.
The main effect is related to the weight of the load-the burning rate of the charge and the weight of the weapon.
You can’t have conclusion because Hastings hear by Tombazis about “enormous recoil” of a weapon and you know-come to a conclusion, what kind weapon it was.

Please, I would like to see the exact sources (and the texts) about the Charles Gascoigne hybrid weapons and the date of the re-bore on those Russian 36pdrs.

I will agree with your : “when documents fail to prove exact data for the construction, use the logical and plausible solution in accordance with the historical available data.” but sometimes the solution is much simple than you might think.

Take care
 
Last edited:
Good morning Thanassis,
I must put an end to this discussion as it brings us nowhere.
Since you agree that my conclusion is logical and plausible and I leave it to you to find the "much simpler solution" but
as I stated, we will never know unless the wreckage is explored and if the weapon is there.
Have a good day
Denis
 
Hi Denis.
You called me to “cross our swords” and now what?
I don’t think that this discussion brings us to nowhere…and yes we will never know what the real weapon was.
However it might brings some knowledge to members of the forum and maybe we can have both a third opinion.
At least it gives you the chance to study an alternative plausible solution.
If you have also come across my finds for the "obusier" version, I would like to see your arguments and the reasons for which you rejected it.
I would like also to have answers to my previous post queries.
Thank you
Thanasis
 
Last edited:
Hello Thanassis,
"Cross our swords" Only on a personal level since we have a direct contact. (this is of no interest to our readers)
The members of this forum (except those who have an extensive knowledge on the specific ship or the Greek Revolution) will not be interested to follow it.
As long as we do not have tangible artefacts to confirm any of the solutions proposed, it remains in the domain of speculation.
I am sorry to say that for the sake of the construction of my model, there is no purpose to continue arguing whether there is an
alternate choice.
In order to satisfy you over the "obusier", I have in my library the book of Jean Boudriot "Artillerie de mer 1650-1850" (300 pages + 90 drawings)
which has not been translated (yet) and contains 2 extensive chapters dedicated to the carronades and the "canon-obusier à la Paixhans".
I am again sorry not having the time and wish to translate them for you, but they are both the reason of my choice.
For your remaining queries, I gave you the sources of my informations and you are free to consult them.
To the readers of this thread, kindly note that I will no longer reply to messages refering to this particular subject.
As my build advances, I will provide the corresponding documents and photos.
Denis
 
Hi Denis.
You decided what the readers are interested on and on what queries of them you will respond...! Nice.
I'm not satisfied with your answers, in fact you avoid to answer.
And since you state that you exclude any other option, also me I don't have anything more to say.
I wish you the best
Thanasis
 
Denis Gaille said:
Hello everybody,
This is my first post for the above mentioned vessel for which I must give a small historical information as she was, the least I can say,
a very peculiar schooner:
She was laid down in 1816 on the island of Hydra at the time of the Turkish occupation (1463-1821) and launched in 1818
as a merchant vessel as the Turcs did allow Greeks to build and sail small units (not larger than brigs).
The shipowners were the brothers Emmanuel and Jacob Tombazis from Hydra. Beside being a successful merchant Jacob Tombazis
studied naval engineering and design in Portsmouth until 1816 where he bought (or copied) the lines of the freshly captured
American schooner Lynx, renamed by the British Navy Musquidobit.
When the Greeks convinced England, France and Russia to help them for freeing the country in 1820, one of the main concerns was
to create a fleet able to counter the almighty Turkish one. Naturally, all Greek shipowners joined forces to arm their vessels.
The Tombazis sailed to Italy, France and Malta aiming to arm their Terpsichore with innovative armament and we assume that
Jacob purchased 6 12 pounder guns and one huge 48 pounder gun. We do know about the 12 pounders that were acquired from
France but a mystery remains about the latter as, although duly reported in the archives of the historical Museum of Hydra with
a drawing of a French gun built in 1680, no document can confirm such a purchase.
We do have several documents confirming some of her deeds during the independance war but unfortunately, except for the
general measurements, (27,45 m hull lenght and 256 burden tons) no drawings or sail plan exist, which made for me and my fellow
modeler Georges Bouzounis (unfortunately he does not speak any other language but Greek) the task to redesign the vessel
extremely arduous.
Nevertheless we have decided to build 2 models of the same vessel. One is the shipyard model with a partially open hull and rigging without
sails and the other is a fully rigged and colored model appearing as she sailed during the war.
I already posted the only existing painting of Terpsichore in my presentation when I joined SOS but I post it here below to have
the entire subject under the same thread.
You will also see the first completed drawing of the hull belonging to the "Monographie" to be printed with the presentation of the 2 models
somewhere in 2021.
Below, also I show the first photos of the building of both models.
George and I will be glad to read your comments
Click to expand...
Hallo @Denis Gaille
we wish you all the BEST and a HAPPY BIRTHDAY
Birthday-Cake
 
Denis Gaille said:
Hello everybody,
This is my first post for the above mentioned vessel for which I must give a small historical information as she was, the least I can say,
a very peculiar schooner:
She was laid down in 1816 on the island of Hydra at the time of the Turkish occupation (1463-1821) and launched in 1818
as a merchant vessel as the Turcs did allow Greeks to build and sail small units (not larger than brigs).
The shipowners were the brothers Emmanuel and Jacob Tombazis from Hydra. Beside being a successful merchant Jacob Tombazis
studied naval engineering and design in Portsmouth until 1816 where he bought (or copied) the lines of the freshly captured
American schooner Lynx, renamed by the British Navy Musquidobit.
When the Greeks convinced England, France and Russia to help them for freeing the country in 1820, one of the main concerns was
to create a fleet able to counter the almighty Turkish one. Naturally, all Greek shipowners joined forces to arm their vessels.
The Tombazis sailed to Italy, France and Malta aiming to arm their Terpsichore with innovative armament and we assume that
Jacob purchased 6 12 pounder guns and one huge 48 pounder gun. We do know about the 12 pounders that were acquired from
France but a mystery remains about the latter as, although duly reported in the archives of the historical Museum of Hydra with
a drawing of a French gun built in 1680, no document can confirm such a purchase.
We do have several documents confirming some of her deeds during the independance war but unfortunately, except for the
general measurements, (27,45 m hull lenght and 256 burden tons) no drawings or sail plan exist, which made for me and my fellow
modeler Georges Bouzounis (unfortunately he does not speak any other language but Greek) the task to redesign the vessel
extremely arduous.
Nevertheless we have decided to build 2 models of the same vessel. One is the shipyard model with a partially open hull and rigging without
sails and the other is a fully rigged and colored model appearing as she sailed during the war.
I already posted the only existing painting of Terpsichore in my presentation when I joined SOS but I post it here below to have
the entire subject under the same thread.
You will also see the first completed drawing of the hull belonging to the "Monographie" to be printed with the presentation of the 2 models
somewhere in 2021.
Below, also I show the first photos of the building of both models.
George and I will be glad to read your comments
Click to expand...
Hallo @Denis Gaille
we wish you all the BEST and a HAPPY BIRTHDAY
Birthday-Cake
 
Thank you Uwek, I hope to be back modelling as from next January... I have been dealing with a lot of
domestic problems that kept me away from my workshop for almost a year!!!!!!!
Merry Xmas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top