Talk:USS Bonhomme Richard (1765)

It was my understanding that the Bonhomme Richard was crewed mostly by French sailors and marines under the command of the Continental Navy. Throughout the article, however, it references the "Americans" aboard her.

Edit: "Ships and Seaman of the American Revolution" by Jack Coggins (1969) states the crew was made up of "...187 crewmen, 81 British, 62 Americans, 29 Portugese, 10 Scandinavians, and 5 others. Besides these were 36 French landsmen (cooks, stewards, etc.) and a force of 137 French Marines. The total compliment, including officers, totaled 380." The book is unfortunately unclear as to the makeup of the officers.

All men onboard were, following Coggins' figures, 360. Let's asume to complete the 380, that 20 were officers (whose nationality is to determine, even if the odds are in favour of frenchmen). The percentages for the remaining 360, including the 137 French Marines, are: French: 48 %; British: 22.5 %, Americans: 17,22 %; Portugese: 8.05%; Scandinavians: 2.78%; others: 1.39%. All this, plus the ships previous owner, should explain the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.110.110.81 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The French word for "poor" is "pauvre". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.254.42.211 (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

"Bonhomme" means "good man" which in those days was a way of reffering to a man of nominal means, as the old way of thinking that money is inherently dirty and more money makes one not as "nice." That's also where the phrase "the filthy rich comes from." So literally you're right, it isn't the French for "poor." But it was the connotation for the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.160.51 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/16/usa Shady18n (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article has "built in France", but the info box has "Builder: Randall & Brent Shipyards", which were in Rotherhithe on the River Thames in London. --Robkam (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

She was a sixth-rate frigate, she was *not* a line-of-battle ship. There is no comparison. For one thing, 64-gun ships of the line were uncommon by the Revolutionary War and unheard-of by the end of the century; look up the line of battle for the Battle of the Chesapeake. I realize Americans have a vested interest in making it seem like JPJ was in command of something more consequential than a rowboat, but the difference between a 44-gun ship with 12-pounder cannon, and a 64-gun or 74-gun ship of the line with 24- and 36-pound cannon cannot be compared, and certainly not by diving by the number of guns as if that were the only thing that mattered. A 3.5 foot child is not equivalent to half of a 7-foot viking warrior. 67.160.133.226 (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Adding the designation "USS" to ships of the United States Navy did not become normal practice until the turn of the 20th century (during the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt). So... the Bonhomme Richard was never actually designated with "USS" at the time she was in service. Obviously the designation has been retroactively applied. What I would like to know is if that retroactive application is "official" (ie approved by the Navy or Congress or something) and if so, when was it made official? Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/wreck-of-american-warship-which-sank-in-1779-discovered-off-yorkshire-coast-1-9430425 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7F46:B601:DDBF:98E5:69FE:9972 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can more be added about Stack? 65.39.82.84 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply