This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
These ships are referred to as Brennus and Charles Martel. I have not found sources calling them the Brennus class or the Charles Martel class. This is probably because they were never completed.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both ships were completed.
They are not known as Brennus class or Charles Martel class because, although close in design, they did not constitute a real "class", but were part of the series of "prototype ironclads" that the French built in the late 19th century. Rama (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles and images of both ships. They are not always considered to be a coherent type, they belong to the series of "prototype ironclads" that the French Navy build in the late 19th Century.
I have taken the liberty to convert the units into metric, not only because it is better according the the MoS, but because French engineers work in mm and converting back and fro from imperial units entails bizarre and imprecise numbers. Rama (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have assumed that the Brennus and Charles Martel completed in the 1890s were the same ships as the Brennus and Charles Martel laid down in 1884 and 1883. They were not. According to Conways, your Brennus and Charles Martel were laid down in 1889 and 1891 respectively.
No, these are indeed the same ships. Their design was already obsolete when they were laid down, so their construction was interrupted several times between 1882 and 1890 as plans were modified. This is also the reason why their construction took so long. 1891 is the launch date of Brennus. Rama (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check that this evening in the Dictionnaire des bâtiments. I strongly urge caution against using British sources to document French ships. They may give insights, but they are very liable to be as riddled with errors as French sources are about British ships. Rama (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted alterations made on 25 August. The original had inline citations for everything. The altered version has different data set against the original inline citations; that is not acceptable. The original article says the ships were cancelled, and that a different ship Brennus was the next class. An image of the next Brennus is not appropriate.--20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
French engineers work in metres, not in feet. Similarly, these ships were completed, albeit after a long construction time. Sourced errors are errors nonetheless. Rama (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Janes Fighting Ships of 1898, which is the earliest Jane available, gives the laying-down date of Charles Martel as 1893, and Brennus as 1891. Conceding that the laying-down dates do not accord with those quoted in『Dictionnaire des bâtiments』it would appear that only one ship of each name was in reality in existence in the period in question.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"20:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though this thread is long-since dead, I figured I'd add a comment. It's fairly clear that the two pairs of ships are not the same vessels. This is confirmed both by contemporary publications (such as Brassey's) and by modern experts (Ropp, for instance). For further evidence, here's a quote from Luc Feron's article on Marceau:
"Don't confuse this one [Charles Martel] with the 12,000-ton battleship of the 1890 program which was actually built, once more on Huin's plans."
As Rama said, sourced errors are errors nonetheless, though in this case, the error is on the part of the Dictionnaire des bâtiments. Parsecboy (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to disagree with any comments you dislike... some more to come tomorrow
"class of ironclad barbette ship" -> "class of ironclad barbette ships"?
Fixed
"In the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871" -> "After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871"?
Done
"though by 1877" -> "but by 1877"
Done
"to design a response" -> "to respond"?
Works for me
"100-guns" Perhaps you mean "100-ton guns"? otherwise it would be apt to remove the hyphen
Fixed
"the very large guns" -> "large guns"
The ships in question still carried large-caliber guns, just not the monstrosities that had been in vogue in many European navies in the late 1870s
"which was to have comprised four ships" I'm confused: wasn't the class originally supposed to have four ships?
That was the original plan, yes - I've added a bit that hopefully clarifies things
"the plans proved to be unfeasible" in what way? I don't know if this needs to be added, I would just like to know
I've clarified it a bit, see if that works for you
"the Marceaus and Hoche" were these both ship classes? maybe rephrase as "the Hoche and the remaining Marceaus" to clarify that Hoche was a ship and Marceau was the class?
How about just inserting "three" before "Marceaus"?
"en echelon" needs {{lang}} if it's not english, and perhaps a link or something for those of us less linguistically inclined.
Added a link
"called for a ship modeled" -> "proposed a"?
Done
"According to John Jordan and Philip Caresse" add a qualifier to explain why their opinions matter (like 'historians' or 'professional skiers')
Done - unfortunately, I don't know how well they ski ;)
"as immediately suspending work on the new ships" perhaps clarify that this was in January 1886 and not before he became minister (for all we know he could have been minister of ship construction approval right before)
Added "upon becoming the naval minister"
"completed by that point" by what point?
Clarified
"future shape of the French fleet" perhaps -> "future of the French fleet"? shape here strikes me as a bit awkward
How about "composition" instead?
"Again, there is some confusion as to the ship's fate" -> "There is some confusion as to the ship's fate"
Done
also maybe clarify which ship you are referring to (the Brennus battleship or Brennus ironclad)
Well, that's the issue - there is some belief that the two were the same ship
"stated more plainly, instructing readers to " -> "instructed readers to"?
Parsecboy, Looks good to me! Prose is good, reasonably comprehensive, no copyvio, as far as I can tell referencing is good, well-illustrated, and the images look fine to me. Happy to promote. Good work! Eddie891TalkWork17:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
