Jump to content

Talk:Queen Anne's Revenge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frigate

[edit]

I found no scholarly reference to Queen Anne's Revenge as a frigate. Thus I have replaced all reference with the description as a fully rigged ship. In some languages it is in fact proper to describe a fully rigged ship as such, but otherwise I haven't seen it referred to as a frigate anywhere. Feel free to revert if you can find a source.

169.199.30.128 (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further Reading

[edit]

Found a very interesting and lengthy article regarding the discovery and scouring of the QAR wreak. The article begins with an intro regarding the QAR and Blackbeard's on-goings through the Caribbean and other various seas, and then goes deeper into how the wreack was discovered, mapped out, and finally the process of recovering the items within the wreckage. Also provides some good info on how items within a wreckage in general are affected by ocean water and depth, and then how the majority of these Items are recovered. The citation and the link to the reading: McNinch, J., Wells, J., & Drake, T. (2001). The fate of artifacts in an energetic, shallow-water environment: Scour and burial at the wreak site of qeen anne. 40(1), 19-27. Retrieved from http://www.qaronline.org/rcorner/mcninch.pdf

From User: Roseanob

Untitled

[edit]

Oh my, I think Dr. Rodgers may have had a heart attack if he'd seen the previous version of this page...

I fixed the history of this section - Blackbear'd encounter with Maynard was well after he wrecked the Queen Anne's Revenge. In fact, he was killed during that encounter. I don't know enough about the early history of the ship to comment on anything in the first paragraph, but if it is as accurate as the rest of thie information in this page's previous incarnations, I'd take it with a grain of salt. I don't know of any evidence that the Concorde was built in England, though it definitely was a slave-ship. I don't know about it being captured by Hornigold or used, either.

General information about the loss of the vessel can be found in A General History of the Pyrates by Charles Johnson (sometimes attributed as Daniel Defoe). For information about the debate surrounding the identity of the wreck, see Bradley Rodgers, Nathan Richards, and Wayne Lusardi, "'Ruling Theories Linger': Questioning the Identity of the Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck," International Journal of Underwater Archaeology 34(1) (2005): 24-27.

Elanya 03:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question, The Article in the "International Journal of Nautical Archaeology" was this in Issue 34.1; http://www.nasportsmouth.org.uk/ijna/ijna34-1.php titled "'Ruling theories linger': Questioning the identity of the Beaufort inlet shipwreck by B.A. Rodgers, N, Richards and W.R. Lusardi ?

Size of ship

[edit]

The ship is described as mounting twenty guns—a lot, I think, for a pirate vessel. I have therefore deleted as gross exaggeration a short sentence which describes her as mounting forty guns. J S Ayer (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Frigate sized vessel: frigates by definition carried between 28 and 48 guns (9/12 pounders, later variants or razzees with larger calibre's). Most frigates were around 32-38 guns (The 28 gun variants being mostly phased out quite quickly for the larger variants). This doesn't include chasers (most frigates carried at least 2) or carronades (most carried between 2 and 6). Earlier variants carried a further 2-6 smaller calibre guns... even for a "28 gun" frigate - the smallest - 40 guns was possible. A 32 would almost certainly carry 40 guns total, a 38 would be guaranteed to carry over 40 guns. Audigex (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Concorde (as she was called in French service) was a small ex-merchant vessel of 250 tons, much smaller than a frigate, and only 31 metres in length. She was armed by the French who captured her with fourteen smallish 4pdr guns, and she would not have had space or the gunports to mount much more than that number of cannon. If Teach did put extra guns in her, they would probably have been small portable weapons (the sort described by the British as swivels). The larger cannon described could not have been operated, although it is possible that they may have been stored in the QAR's hold.Rif Winfield (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I HIGHLY doubt the claim that QAR had 44 guns, considering I've yet to find evidence of any ship less than TWICE it's length carrying such an armament in it's broadside, though they it could have carried many swivels. 169.199.30.128 (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man o war/Frigate

[edit]

Excuse me for asking, but is the Queen Anne's Revenge really a Man o war? Because from my research in piratical history, the QAR was a frigate. 75.91.14.251 (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if it was a frigate by design, but it was in fact, a man o' war. Unlike the portrayals of man o' war in media, a man o' war was simply a ship outfitted for combat, or the flagship of a fleet. There were many pirate man o' war that had not a single cannon and were still able to be a good vessel for pirating expeditions, such as the canoe and piragua. 13BG (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A frigate is a specified type of ship-rigged vessel: between about 28 and 38 guns (although there were later examples shipping 44/48 or even 50 guns total, still described as frigates). The designation Man'o'War is often used about a sloop or brig (being more common and varied), but actually referred to any powerful vessel from a sloop upward. The terms Frigate and Man'o'War aren't mutually exclusive, it's just that we would tend to refer to a frigate as a frigate. Audigex (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a direct quote from the source that describes the ship as a frigate? A frigate is a naval vessel, and in none of the exceedingly vague or unsourced statement I have found, is QAR described as being built or operated by the navy. 'Frigate' is also a problematic term, given that Wikipedia's frigate article will primarily describe a form of warship that did not exist for several more decades.24.97.231.242 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ship was not a frigate, and certainly was never owned or operated by the British Navy! She was originally a merchant ship, built in 1711 under the name Concorde. She was captured later that year by French privateers, given to the (French) Crown, and then handed over to another privateer consortium (led by René Duguay-Trouin) for use as a supply ship for a privateer squadron operating in the Pacific. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Mate

[edit]

Regarding this sentence: "Teach's first mate, Christopher Blackwood (known as Blackbeard's Claw), was feared as a ferocious fighter and led many of Blackbeard's boarding parties." I have not seen any reference to this in any other sources. Not sure if this is vandalism or just a little known fact, but if the latter it should still at least have a source citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voidman99 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen Anne's Revenge. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From "Impossible" to "Unclear"

[edit]

I've edited a sentence in (what is currently) the first section of the article, regarding the date and location of the ship's first construction. It had said that these things are "impossible" to determine; such a statement is both semantically problematic, and of a tone which is unencyclopedic and thus improper for Wikipedia. Moreover, the cited source makes no speculation, as to whether this information (about the ship's construction) lies forever beyond our grasp, but merely says that it is "unclear". Therefore, based upon these three reasons, I have changed this sentence, to state (in a manner which reflects the source) that the forementioned facts are "unclear," and not "impossible" to discover. catsmoke (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen Anne's Revenge. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

[edit]

This item has some information (all good I am sure) about QAR, but much more about Intersal and their activities. It's all very interesting but not always that relevant. It would be nice (while recognising the work of Intersal) to return the article to being mainly about QAR. What does everyone else think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plingsby (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beam

[edit]

The infobox gives the beam as "7.1 m (24.6 ft)". But 7.1 metres is 23.29 feet, or just over 23 feet 3+1⁄2 inches. Which is correct? Hairy Dude (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • NCGenWeb claims that her beam was 25 feet, which is 7.62 metres, while Interesting Engineering gives a more precise figure of 24.6 feet. I'm inclined to trust the latter, since it matches the imperial measurement given here, and bearing in mind it would have been constructed using imperial measurements. But a more reliable source (such as a contemporary account or an archaeological report) would be helpful. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artillery and anchor

[edit]

I've modified a number of facts around the ship's artillery, and one anchor. Please check edits.

Updated artillery counts and artefact weights based on more up to date publications and sources from the official project website. Added a summary of artillery at the bottom. This was partly to deal with a mistranslation/misinterpretation of a 2013 source [1] which references the contemporary recovery of five 6-pounders, but the quote from Roth is in reference to (at the time) three 1-pounders identified from Ehrendalbruk.

Total cannon count is variable between 29-31 depending on source. All official sources currently cite 30.

Corrected the weight of the ships anchor. Prior source cited 2011 news report, estimating 1.4 tonne weight. Changed to 2017 citation to one from QAR website at 0.9 tonnes. ArchaeoArtillerist (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Kapten Svartskägg sköt svenskt". NyTeknik. November 4, 2013. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 28, 2015.

New section - Ownership and Legal Controversies?

[edit]

I suggest splitting the discussion of ownership, image rights, copyright, legal agreements, and court cases into a separate section (tentatively titled 'Ownership and Legal Controversies') so that this information is no longer intermixed with the "Discovery and excavation" section. I do not think this necessitates any change to the content, just re-categorizing of information. I think this new section should include the paragraphs beginning "Recognizing the significance of..." and "Archaeological recovery ceased on...". I suggest locating the 'Ownership and Legal Controversies' section after "Discovery and excavation," but before "National Register of Historic Places."

ArchaeoArtillerist (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. Marked as approved to implement the proposed change. SpencerT•C 22:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ship's origins

[edit]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no peer-reviewed academic or primary source with knowledge of Queen Anne's Revenge prior to its use as a privateer in 1710. There are suppositions based on the similar name of a Bristol-built frigate Concord, but all archaeological evidence points to a French construction instead. I have corrected the article to reflect the actual state of academic knowledge on the vessel, and would note that a virtually identical correction was made once before (20:08, 7 April 2019). The quality of evidence should be carefully evaluated for any edits made regarding the vessel's origin and construction. ArchaeoArtillerist (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Anne%27s_Revenge&oldid=1226809402"