French privateer Adolphe

The British Royal Navy captured at least four French privateers named Adolphe during the period of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars:

French Revolutionary Wars

  • 1797:In May 1797 HMS Seagull, Nautilus, and the hired armed cutter King George captured the French privateer lugger Adolphe. King George led the chase with Nautilus and Seagull joining in before Nautilus succeeded in capturing Adolphe. Adolphe was pierced for 12 guns but had thrown some overboard during the chase. When the British captured her, Adolphe had five carriage guns, eight swivels, and a crew of 35. She was new, nine days out of Boulogne on her first cruise and had not taken any prizes.[1]
  • 1798: HMS Corso captured Adolphe, of six guns and 42 men, around 20 November 1798 near Tangier Bay.[2]

Napoleonic Wars

  • 1807:On 26 January 1807, the armed defense ship Norfolk captured the French privateer lugger Adolphe.
  • 1807:On 4 December 1807 HMS Leda captured the privateer lugger Adolphe.

There were other privateers by that name as well:

  • In 1799–1800, during the Quasi-War, Adolphe, César Cronstag, master, captured four American vessels.
  • Lloyd's List reported on 14 June 1811 that French privateer Adolphe had captured George and Mary, but that HMS Tonnant had recaptured George and Mary, which had been sailing from the West Indies and which arrived in Plymouth on 11 June.[3]

Citations and references

Citations

  1. "No. 14017". The London Gazette. 6 June 1797. p. 535.
  2. "No. 15090". The London Gazette. 18 December 1798. pp. 1212–3.
  3. Lloyd's List №4571.

References

  • Demerliac, Alain (2004a). La Marine de la Révolution: Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1792 A 1799 (in French). Éditions Ancre. ISBN 2-906381-24-1.
  • Demerliac, Alain (2004b). La Marine du Consulat et du Premier Empire: Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1800 A 1815 (in French). Éditions Ancre. ISBN 2-903179-30-1.
gollark: I've heard that Apple's Swift does it "properly", no idea about anything else.
gollark: I think most languages which don't have string handling explicitly designed for new Unicode thingies will have that sort of issue.
gollark: If JS was replaced with some other language but `script` tags and whatnot were still used, we would still have the exploits, probably.
gollark: It's mostly not really a JS problem.
gollark: I mean, the main reason JS is used in websites is just that you couldn't use anything else until... about three years ago with WASM, and that has a bunch of problems, more than its actual merits as a language, but I haven't heard much about it being particularly exploit-prone.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.