Talk:Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant

First comment
Stephen Decatur commmanded Constitution from May 1803 to October 1804, per the official USS Constitition Museum website. Charles Stewart was commmanding the last engagement of the War of 1812 and the battle noted in 1815, as noted in this after action report by that officer. The current article looked as if it were lifted from this letter and is likely false. The name of the British ship also appears to be inconsistent: "Cyane" is also seen in the after-action report. Are we talking of a second, earlier Cyanne? --Spencerian 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the source is this http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const7.htm

I've removed your tag. I've reviewed my sources... Perhaps you should take up your case with the U.S. Navy and the U.S. National Archive. In the future perhaps I'd use a bit more caution before throwing those kind of accusations around given how well this battle is documented... Tirronan 05:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I did some checking while I was reverting changes to the minutes of action by AWB... the National Archive and USN Historic website changed their tune. Charles Stewart was the Captain at this time and Captain Decatur enclosed the report among other reports he was sending the the Deptartment of the Navy at that time and thus the confusion. My mistake and that of the two contributors appologies all around. Tirronan 14:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyane 34-gun frigate?
Cyane was rated a 22-gun ship in the Royal Navy, she was not even rated a frigate (see Rif Winfield: British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817, pp 235/236; Robert Gardiner, The Naval War of 1812, p 95). Levant was a flush-decked sloop-build ship, rated a 6th rate with 20 guns. Although both ships mounted more guns than they were rated, their actual rating does say a lot of their relative strength. A British 32-gun frigate, which mounted 42 guns was a much more larger ship than Cyane, so you can't call Cyane a 34 gun frfigate! When you describe Cyane as a "34-gun frigate" and Levant as a "21-gun ship" you have to describe Constitution as a 53 gun frigate, because she mounted that number in 1815 (30 x 24-Pounder, 22x32-Pounder carronades, 1x24-Pounder, source: Donald Canney, Sailing Ships of the US Navy, pp 32-33)! Whe should stick to the official ratings, because both sides did so in 1812-1815.--Galab 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually at times USS Constitution mounted upwards of 55 guns HMS Leander (rated at 55 guns) was constructed in response to Consitution and her sisters. The problem you run into is that I have seen Cyane rated anywhere from 22 to 34 guns.  Short of traveling back in time I am not sure where that leaves us.  I don't have a problem calling her a sloop or a frigate but I sure wish I didn't have so many contradictory sources. Tirronan 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I do not think, i run into that problem ;) Cyane was rated a 22-gun ship as long as she served in the Royal Navy, from her launch until her capture. She was a member of the Banterer-Class and all ships of this class were rated 22s. When you use other rating the Americans gave her after her capture, we indeed run into a problem: Then we have to say - to be consequent - that Endymion 40-gun fought against the President 60-gun, because President was rated a 60-gun ship in the Royal Navy. But this would overestimate the Presidents force in relation to Endymion. When you describe Cyane during her fight as a 34-gun ship, she would be vastly overrated in relation to Constitution (and all other ships). She was a very tiny ship, and it can be said, that even Levant was the better warship, because the was not significantly lesser armed, but she was build to better design for ships of this force. The victory Constitution achieved here, was not that remarkable in that she won against two ships, as ist has been described in many sources - and as her captors had done in 1815. Remarkable was her Commander's skill in handling to capture both at once. The modern historian Robert Gardiner writes: "Although the British had a slightly larger aggregate weight of metal at short range, in the absence of any modern command and control system, it would be impossible to co-ordinate any simultaneous attack that could turn that superiority to practival advantage. The Constitutions 24-pounders main battery could defeat either ship with great ease, and Stewart's only problem was how to take both." (...) "There is no finer example than Stewart's defeat of these two ships, in which he used his advantages to maximum effect, so it is doubly regrettable that his report empahsied the enemy's 'divided and more active force, as also their superiority in the weight and numbers of his guns' rather than pointing to his considerable tactical feat in taking both".
 * Leander, btw. was rated a 60-gun ship!--Galab 16:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither ship was anything close to Constitution and as I have said I don't take issue with rating her at 22 guns. Steward did however really did give a master's sailing lesson in how to use a large ship against 2 smaller vessels. Constitution had a choice crew as well, being considered a "Lucky" ship.  Our seamen were no less supersitous than the British and I am sure that her crew had an effect on how well the ship sailed and handled in this battle. USS Chesapeak would have the devil's own time getting crew in comparison. Tirronan 19:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Both Roosevelt and Tucker rate Cyane at 24 and Levant at 18. in regard to the frigate-ship-sloop debate, the Adams is referred to as a 28 gun corvette, which would put it in-between frigate and sloop too. Adams is also referred to as a "flush deck" similar to the Levant's physical description. in regards to the President-Endymion fight the goal of British historiography was to conclude that the 44s were actually disguised ships of the line, or even razees (Leander, Newcastle). in this controversy William james is one of the chief culprits.  the re-rating of the president at 60 is a way james and others can support that assertion. when comparing the president to a 64 like the Africa, the former is slightly more in tonnage than the smallest ship of the line and the president's weight of shot was about 100 pounds more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.179.185 (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll get Toll's book out on the subject. I think that at best Cyane was a 5th rate and Levant probably a 6th rate.  They were no match for one of the 44's even together still it was quite a display of sailing mastery the way she was handled against 2 ships.Tirronan (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Move
I've moved this page from Capture of Cyane to here ("Capture of HMS Cyane") to be more consistent with other pages in this category. I've also revised the section headings to match those other pages.

I trust that is OK with everyone (though this page still needs a lot of work to improve it). Xyl 54 (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Information added/deleted by blocked user(s)
Is it accepted to make an edit in support of information added by a blocked and/or socked user? Previous versions of this page seem to fit more appropriately, but I thought I'd exercise my discussion ability about this particular situation first because it's evidently a touchy one. To be safe, I'll wait a couple of days for any feedback before making changes myself. Drugsby (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless it is a citation, no. Llammakey (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, okay. Thank you for your feedback. Drugsby (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When you are another puppet, however, the edits may be reverted on sight. See Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox changes
Well first off, Natty10000, my sincerest apologies. Edit-warring was not my intention. The changes themselves just seemed logical enough to make without discussion. The current version now, in my opinion, is very cluttery and fails to mention the number of guns and the participation of the Royal Marines in the infobx as it does U.S. Marines. The references provided mention Marines and Sailors on both sides - but not the specific numbers, only the general number. That's why I added the units in general instead of a specific number of any. It [the infobox] also fails to mention the fact that, in all, the belligerents' guns were equal in numbers and the Americans were not as outgunned as the caption suggests. Any thoughts on all of this? Maybe you and I can reach a consensus on this.. which is clearly what this article needs. Ameriwikipedian (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)}}
 * Another sock puppet. See Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was a bit unexpected. I've taken a look at your investigation and it claims that I'm using other accounts but this is my only - I have no need for another account. I find its title too catchy, honestly. I don't mean to be a hastle, I'm just trying to improve a few cluttered, vague articles. My accusation aside, JohnInDC and Natty10000, can we discuss this article and come to a consensus on it? Like I said before, it clearly needs one. Ameriwikipedian (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)}}
 * Well, they're running a CU right now so we'll know soon enough. JohnInDC (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * CU confirms puppetry, account blocked. JohnInDC (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So what is the verdict now, JohnInDC? Confirmed puppetry but practical contextual additions. I vote to keep the previous changes, but obviously that depends on the consenus. BrixtonBox (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC), Typo Team}}
 * I think a user account created twelve hours after the last puppets were blocked, who professes the same typographical vigilance as one of the prior socks, and whose very first edits are to come here to - helpfully sort things out, is in all likelihood a sock himself. JohnInDC (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it's not exactly rocket science - just because someone is a sock and it's a rule to delete content added by them after blockage doesn't mean their information is wrong, it just means they went about adding the information the wrong way. And technically my first edit was the pledge I took when I joined the Wikipedia Typo Team to make a commitment to correct articles like these. Had to start somewhere. I'm really not looking for a paragraph back and forth, I'm just focused on improving the article so I can move on to other articles. BrixtonBox (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Typo Team}}
 * Not surprisingly these observations echo those made by (confirmed sock) User:Drugsby above, here. Again I am content to await the results of the CU, and suggest that you do as well.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently I don't have much of a choice. As you were. BrixtonBox (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Typo Team

Units involved infobox add-on
I'd like to add the units involved in this battle, but only because both land (Infantry) and naval forces were actively involved in the battle on at least one side of the conflict. The pages would be based off other users' reverted edits, so the credit is not actually all mine. Nevertheless, the page would be significantly improved and reference-matching. Wowser Bowser (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)}}.
 * Marines are not considered land infantry at this time. Also sailors at this time could be landed as infantry when assaulting a fort and were used up until WWI in what were known as Naval Divisions. That is an anachronism you're trying to advance here. Llammakey (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Marines have always been land Infantry - in fact, they were originally raised to fight in all aspects, which only extended to land and sea in that era. U.S. Sailors, often called "bluejackets", were trained by Marines in musketry tactics for particular operations. They were not infantry. Wowser Bowser (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)}}
 * US Marines did not form until 1834. Before that they were nothing more than weapons specialists, no units, no formations. As for British Marines, they are considered part of the Royal Navy, therefore not considered a separate force when casualties are counted. As for sailors not being infantry, check out Naval brigade. Since the Marines were being paid for in both the US and British ships by their respective navies, they would be considered naval personnel and the Department of the Navy and the Admiralty would be paying their widows. Llammakey (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For starters, just no. The Marines were formed on 11 November, 1775, specifically as an amphibious infantry force and proved their durability on land the same year. They became a component of the Department of the Navy in 1834, increasing efficiency and responsibility - as Marines were now training bluejackets (sailors) in musketry tactics for joint landing parties. Such is the case with the Royal Marines - part of Her Majesty's Naval Service but not a part of the Royal Navy itself. And the Naval Brigade consisted of Royal Marine redcoat infantry, not sailors (wow). This isn't rocket science, boys, marines are troops and always have been. Blade of a Ka-Bar (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}}
 * Those 1775 Marine units were disbanded. No current Marine unit carries those honours. The USMC only uses that date as a ceremonial date. Royal Marines are part of the British Navy. They have never been a separate institute. Also the naval brigade was comprised of Marines and seamen. You are using modern anachronisms to prove your point. Llammakey (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We're drifting from the point at hand. Nevertheless, the disbandment was temporary, thanks to the French, and the Marines were raised from the old lineage, which is why their birthday is celebrated by the year 1775 (Tun Tavern). Royal Marines initially formed part of the English Army, then later became a service branch, ultimately joining HM's Naval Service and becoming a component of it WITH the Royal Navy, not part of the Royal Navy. But regardless, there were both infantry troops and sailors involved in the battle and "crew" cuts out the in-depth information Wikipedia is known for while being misleading - implying only sailors fought. Blade of a Ka-Bar (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}}
 * Yet another sock. JohnInDC (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As on several prior occasions, we here have a sock puppet of the globally blocked user UnbiasedVictory trying to gain legitimacy for this edit by pretending to be a brand-new, unbiased (sic) editor innocently suggesting that other editors acquiesce in it. See Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've noticed, welcome to the world-wide web I suppose. I'll do my best to assist. Wowser Bowser (talk)`}}
 * Wowser Bowser has been blocked as a sock puppet of UnbiasedVictory. JohnInDC (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant. 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/20061208015318/http://history.navy.mil:80/docs/war1812/const7.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const7.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

=Number of crew= The ref from the Constitution museum mentions the number of crew at 450–500 aboard for each cruise. The existing refs list, "over 450 crew," without providing specifics. I figure the specific number for the battle would range from the given to 500. MarkMcCain (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No! The Constitution Museum reference states how many crew the Constitution might have had on a cruise at any time during the War of 1812. Roosevalt, as former Secretary of the Navy and with access to official rescords (including presumably the nominal roll) states how many men Constitution did have on the specific occasion. HLGallon (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Where? I've searched on and off the better part of the day for a ref to support that, but I've been unsuccessful. If you have one, please add it because the existing ref doesn't support that claim either. If nothing else there's more to support there being, simply put, over 450 crew. MarkMcCain (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Source now to hand after having been mislaid during renovations to house. Roosevelt, p.232, The verbatim quote: "The Constitution had started on her cruise very full-handed, with over 470 men, but several being absent on a prize, she went into battle with about 450." Roosevelt adds a footnote: "410 officers and seamen, and 41 marines, by her muster roll of Feb 19th. (The muster rolls are preserved in the Treasury Department at Washington." Given this cite, I will allow a figure of about 450, allowing for a difference of maybe three or four wither way, but emphatically not anywhere near 500. HLGallon (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)