Talk:USS Constitution vs HMS Guerriere

Number of guns
The Constitution was rated at 44 guns, but it is well-established that she carried 56 guns into this battle. In fact, there are several other articles on Wikipedia where it mentioned that the American "44-gun" frigates actually carried upwards of 50 guns and were actually considered fourth-rates by the Royal Navy. 72.148.45.37 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is more than well-established that the Constitution carried 50 guns into this battle and the Guerriere carried 44 Guns at the time. Capt. Dacres had let it be known for quite some time that he looked forward to a fight with an American "44". I've read that Capt Dacres was even a dinner guest at Capt Hull's home and issued a challenge if war should be declared. The "sinking condition" of the Guerriere only seemed to bother Dacres *after* the battle. The London Times had early on ridiculed the new American frigates as "fir built". Dacres probably just believed his own countries propaganda. Anyway there's the old British saying "any excuse in a storm". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.20.166 (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Large Ship
Ian W. Toll describes the initial sighting of HMS Guerrier in his Six Frigates thus: "At 2:00 p.m. on August 19, in 41degrees 42' North by 55degrees 48' West-about 750 miles east of Boston-the lookout caught sight of a big, full-rigged ship on the southern horizon. *** Captain Hull gave one of the midshipman his telescope and sent him aloft. The midshipman hailed the deck to report that the stranger was a "tremendous ship." " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.40.14 (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

How could Capt. Hull discern the relative size of the ships at such a distance? If the initial sighting is to be described at all in the article it should be as a "large ship." I'll wait a few days before I change it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.40.14 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be ongoing issue in the article, known in colloquial terms as 'bigging it up' when the reverse was true, HMS Guerriere was much smaller than the USS Constitution yet the Royal Navy known for the bulldog-like doggedness decided without a second thought, to do their duty as laid down by the Admiralty. To give students and editors an idea, the USS Constitution had TWICE the displacement of HMS Guerriere. Twobells (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed split sections
I have added the Split template, suggesting that some sections (Background and Pursuit of USS Constitution) be split into a new article, to be titled Pursuit of USS Constitution. These two sections as they stand are rather tangential to the action between Constitution and Guerriere, except for the coincidence (although not entirely happenstance) of Guerriere being involved in both events. A sentence or three on general background would suffice to put the rest of the article in context.

The pursuit of USS Constitution remains of some importance since it demonstrated both the material capabilities of the big US frigates and the qualities of American seamen and officers. Also, had Constitution been captured so early in the war, it would (with the news of American defeats on the frontiers of Canada) have had results on American morale and determination. HLGallon (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Importance notwithstanding, there is certainly not enough material to justify splitting this into a new article. I would focus first on expanding this section, and if enough citations and references (and material) can be added I would re-propose at that time. Until then I'll remove the split/merge tags in favor of an "expand section" tag. Garchy (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

...the Constitution sighted a large ship to leeward...
User:Twobells has three times now removed the word "large" in this line referring to Constitution's first sighting of Guerriere. He has been reverted twice by User:HLGallon and now by me. Edit summary's on these actions below:


 * Twobells: 'In comparison to the Constitution it wasn't large by any measure.'
 * HLGallon: 'It was large compared to the average trading vessel or brig or sloop of war.'
 * Twobells: 'With respect, not compared to the Constitution, if you want me to source that I will.'
 * HLGallon: 'Comparison of the two ships' sizes utterly irrelevant in this paragraph, no matter whether cited (and as if not already laid on with a trowel throughout the article). "Large ship" is what appears in first-hand US accounts.'
 * Twobells: 'Well of course they would, wouldn't they?'
 * JuanRiley: 'I am reverting due to cynical nature of editor's eidt summary. Am taking this to the talk page. Please don't yoyo revert until issue addressed.'

After what I said above, it does now occur to me that Twobells may have in good faith mistaken the sense in which "large" was meant, i.e., relative to typical ships not relative to Constitution--as HLGallon kept pointing out. I concur with HLGallon. If the adjective were meant to be relative to the particular (i.e. large relative to the Constitution) twould it not have said "sighted a larger ship to leeward"? Can we bury this one or need it go further? Juan Riley (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Another revert...though this time by User:N0n3up. He apparently did not look at this talk page topic and so appears to miss the difference in interpretation also. I reverted (and this will be my last time) and asked him to talk page: Juan Riley (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * N0n3up: 'Nothing to support this. Twobells' summaries were of transparent nature (please see definition), now do we have a size comparison for the talk page?'
 * JuanRiley: 'As I said before see talk page...and discuss there to clear up edit conflicts.'
 * Juan Riley There might be different interpretations. Even though I saw what you put in the talk page, it still doesn't seem to add up to any reason why you reverted Twobells. Mistake? or nah, you tell me. (N0n3up (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC))


 * N0n3up In the newspaper Columbian Centinel (Boston, MA) dated Sep 13, 1812.

At 2:00 p.m. on 19 August, the Constitution sighted a large ship to leeward, and bore down to investigate. The weather was cloudy, and the wind was brisk. The strange ship proved to be the Guerriere, whose crew recognised Constitution at about the same moment. Both ships prepared for action, and shortened sail to "fighting sail", i.e. topsails and jibs only. As the Constitution closed, Dacres first hove to to fire a broadside, which fell short, and then ran before the wind for three quarters of an hour with the Constitution on her quarter. Dacres yawed several times to fire broadsides at the Constitution, but the Guerriere‍‍ '‍s broadsides were generally inaccurate, while the few shots fired from Constitution‍‍ '‍s foremost guns had little effect. After one cannonball bounced "harmlessly" off the side of the Constitution, a crew member is said to have yelled "Huzzah! Her sides are made of iron!" I found a copy of the paper at http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1812-War-1812-display-newspaper-Naval-Battle-USS-Constitution-v-HMS-Guerriere-/271906003307?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f4edc596b. Reb1981 (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank You Reb1981! (N0n3up (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC))

"at 2 PM being in lat 42, 42, and log. 55, 48, with the Constitution under my command, a sail was discovered fron the mast head bearing E. by S. or E.S.E. but at such a distance we could not tell what she was." Reb1981 (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * N0n3up I may stand correct to, it seems they may have copied this article, in the paper I read:


 * Thanks User:Reb1981. Does this mean original sentence (i.e.,"large ship") is okay by consensus? (Note that consensus is not needed to revert to original..but it is a satisfying end when possible.) Juan Riley (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I undid the deletion of "large". Juan Riley (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Reb1981. Does that mean the word needs to be deleted? And Juan Riley the answer isn't clear yet. (N0n3up (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC))
 * Lots of things are clear. Juan Riley (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Juan Riley Uhm.. no. (N0n3up (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC))

Will revert to original language subject of course to a consensus to change this single word. Juan Riley (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reb1981, so should the word "large" be removed? (N0n3up (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC))
 * Juan Riley and N0n3up though I am not able to read the book referenced. I think just stating it was a ship would suffice. From my knowledge they were not able to tell what it was until it came close to them as the newspaper article states. Reb1981 (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank You Reb1981. (N0n3up (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC))
 * I have given up with reasoning with Nonesuch anyway. Let him have his way. He obviously cares a lot about his rightness vis a vis me without caring a lot being right. Juan Riley (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for editing this article since it brought Nonesuch trailing me here. Juan Riley (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Juan Riley Are you kidding me? you reverted Twobells' edit which I perceived had no reason whatsoever, which it did apparently but it was only a matter of discussion. And in regards of "caring a lot about my rightness" as you say, I would cordially invite anyone to view your caustic interaction with other editors such as Twobells and Hawkeye7 and more, I'm sure anyone can see your bitter reaction when you get reverted or contradicted, they'll love that. Btw it's N0n3up, (not Nonesuch), get it right. (N0n3up (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC))
 * yada yada yada...go report me then as you kept threatening to do on my talk page. Get a life. Never mind. Juan Riley (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Juan Riley And this just proves my point, thank you JuanRiley, good boy. And about "getting a life" as you told me, I should say the same to you since I go about making my own changes and you happen to creep on my edits, I felt compelled to follow you to make sure you don't keep trolling in my edits like you always did, or at least make edits and stubbornly defending them whether right or wrong, as long as you win, right? And those so-called "threats" are messages to tell you to stop stalking my edits. (N0n3up (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC))

N0n3up and Juan Riley My advice just don't take anything personal we all want to make the information as accurate as possible in these articles, and Lets just move on from this small occurrence. I take history very seriously myself, and I also have spoken to Non3up before in prior article issues. He has been learning about the processes and has been learned. Edit Warring is a big No-No here. Though JuanRiley you did the right thing and brought it here on the talk page. I was just personally stating instead of calling it a large ship it would be just fine to just say ship. In all honesty that what they would have stated if view from such a long distance. Reb1981 (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reb1981 You were referring to our discussion in [Talk:United States], right? Anyways, you're right, although this isn't the first time we had a problem with each other (me and Juan Riley). I'm a history lover and apparently so is Juan Riley (his user name apparently comes from [John Riley (soldier)|John Riley], a soldier who defected from the US to Mexico in the Mexican-American war). This precipitation arose from a dispute in the article of the [British Empire]. He reverted my edits and I reverted his in a later edit he did in the same article. I have nothing against him and I'm sure he's of good intention. But what I don't like is when he has an attitude like he had with other editors besides myself. The reason I reverted him in this page was because of his conflict with Twobells, in the very same article if the British Empire. I assumed he snooped his edits as he did in mine, not to mention his tendency to stubbornly defend his edits in a robust way (as he did in his second edit of the British Empire). But I probably over precipitated myself in regards to his intention and shouldn't have accused him of many things as I did. So that's just a review of things. (N0n3up (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC))
 * Hey everyone, sorry I've been busy. My edits are always transparent with context, Royal Naval logs describe the Constitution as being way out of their league size-wise and I believe that should be mentioned, otherwise​ the student will get the impression​ that these were two ships of equal stature when the opposite is true. To give students and editors an idea, the USS Constitution had TWICE the displacement of HMS Guerriere, think about that, twice...In regards to edits on other articles, I do not 'snoop' on another editors work and take their edits on face value and in good faith, I can only hope that others act in a similar manner, one that policy dictates, regards. Twobells (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Where did this "twice the tonnage" come from. What is its reliable source? From their own articles, Constitution measured 1576 tons, Guerriere 1092. Ok, a substantial difference but nothing like twice as much; and the Constitution's tonnage may have been slightly exaggerated due to differing methods of measurement (source: Roosevelt, not immediately to hand). By all accounts Guerriere was leaner than but almost as long as Constitution, and would have had almost as lofty a rig. Describing Guerriere as "much smaller than" Constitution is not only unsourced but verging extreme POV. The article already makes abundantly clear that Constitution was larger than Guerriere, more heavily armed and had a more numerous crew. Continually using a shovel to make the point is risking bias. Please do not insert opinionated "facts" like this without clear sources or failing that, concensus. HLGallon (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why must you assume bad faith every time? Read Hollis or Martin, page 127, 176, 224 and 227 or check NRHP Reference #66000789 US Navy Fact File they categorically state that the Constitution displaced 2,200 long tonnes which is twice that of the Gurriere. Why you would suggest that a multitude of easily obtainable sources are 'opinionated and 'using a shovel' seems extremely unfair to say the least, regards. Twobells (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You cannot cherry pick sources. Heaven knows what the 2200 tons in the Navy Fact file represents. Is it dead weight, gross tonnage, what? When was it measured? From Roosevelt, Constitution was 1576 tons register, Guerriere 1338 tons, but the systems of measurement (US and British) were slightly different, and the Americans had no opportunity to measure Guerriere by their own systems. I'll go with the 1092 tons on Guerriere's own page, as favourable to the Americans as reasonable. (The Royal Navy incidentally agreed with a tonnage of 1576 for the captured USS President, a ship very similar to Constitution.) Continually claiming that Guerriere was "much smaller" than Constitution when this is not supported by any contemporary source is original research. If need be, continued edit warring will go to the administrators. HLGallon (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed many times and I thought it was brought under agreement. There is not enough to state that it was much larger, The ships could vary in weight all the time depending on how many cannons are on the ship and other factors. I think just stated it was a ship or large ship is fine in this case. I honestly don't know why this is still a debate. Reb1981 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with User talk:Reb1981. Let it go. The word large in original text meant large relative to typical vessels in those waters. However, perhaps someone could misconstrue this accidentally (or intentionally). So fine "they sighted a tiny ship in sight". :) Juan Riley (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The word 'decisive' can sometimes be divisive.
User:Reb1981 and User:Red Rudy: When we are talking about a single ship action a victory is a victory. 'Decisive' used say for the victory at Midway or Trafalgar has a strategic connotation not a tactical one. In this context deletion of 'decisive' is fine with me. Or we could say 'whupped them'? :) Juan Riley (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I like how you think Juan Riley, lol. In regards the the compromise I don't think stating HMS Guerriere was sunk in results in needed IMO since it listed in losses. I think keeping as decisive is fine its been like that for a good while and is agreed on in past. Reb1981 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This was added on 27 May by an IP and overlooked since then, surviving the lack of sources. Red Rudy (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did find a source and when I changed it last I did note that in the edit summary yesterday. Reb1981 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think that decisive is either pushing it or redundant in an action which is seemingly just tactical. Victory at all means captured or sunked. An indecisive result would mean one or the other high tailed it and got away. One of the reasons I suggested the compromise which gives as a result in the infobox the sinking of the Guerriere. True, it is somewhat redundant since 'Casualties and Losses' at the bottom of infobox notes on Brit side one frigate sunk. However, putting it up front and using the ships name characterizes the result of the action more exactly--especially for readers that don't delve deeply into the infobox or the article. Parenthetically, we all know Hull would have preferred capturing the Guerriere--and having her sent back into Boston harbor as a prize. Juan Riley (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you all think that is the case. I will be fine with just American Victory. I just hunt for the truth in references. I will revert.Reb1981 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reb1981I concur. And please take this as the joke it is meant to be: "Lick em tomorrow". Juan Riley (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Juan Riley Grant, Battle of Shiloh, :) Nice one I ain't her that quote in a long time since my days when I use to reenact Reb1981 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wondered if you would get it. Goodnight Reb. Juan Riley (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Significance
I propose to delete this entire section. It has had an "unreferenced section" template for almost three years, and consists of nothing but uncited personal opinion and speculation. HLGallon (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

USS President ?
The second paragraph of the background includes "…a bursting cannon aboard USS President which injured Rodgers." is this an error, or a statement which needs clarification? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * From Roosevelt, "The Naval War of 1812":

At 4:30 the President's starboard forecastle bow-gun was fired by Commodore Rodgers himself, the corresponding main-deck gun was next discharged and then Commodore Rodgers fired again. These three shots all struck the stern of the Belvidera, killing and wounding nine men... A few more such shots would have rendered the Belvidera's capture certain, but when the President's main-deck gun was discharged for the second time it burst, blowing up the forecastle deck and killing and wounding 16 men, among them the Commodore himself, whose leg was broken. This saved the British frigate. Such an explosion always causes a half panic, every gun being at once suspected.

Thanks. I had no idea such a thing could happen. What confused me is that an incident on President was significant with regard to Constitution vs. Guerriere. My mind went immediately to "what was Rodgers doing on President when the battle was with Constitution." I will read Roosevelt and Mahan. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The big frigates
I believe the US government made a conscious decision to build larger vessels than the British frigates. that fact would be worth adding. Unfortunately, I can’t quickly locate a reference. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)