Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>>Out of interest, Winfield, British Warships in the Age >>of Sail 1714-1793, has the date as 1st May 1746 >>Greyhound ..."in action with two privateers on the >>West coast 1.5.1746" >>Baltimore "in action with privateer off West coast of >>Scotland 1.5.1746" >>Terror "Action with privateers on Scottish coast >>1.5.1746" >> >>I can find no indication in the book whether the dates >>are old style (as I would expect as they preceed the >>change to gregorian in 1752) or new style having been >>converted. >> >>Cy >> >I have previously consulted Henri Malo, <i>Les >Derniers Corsaires: Dunquerque (1715–1815)</i> for >the action between Prince Charles' escort, ><i>Elizabeth</i>, and HBMS <i>Lion</i>. I will try to >get another look at it this coming week to follow up >the citation on the incident with the French >privateers on the west coast of Scotland around the >beginning of May 1745. Since the French records >should have been in the Gregorian calendar ("new >style") and French historians have no reason to >convert to the Julian ("old style"), this should give >us Gregorian dates. One-day dating discrepancies can >be caused by the beginning of the nautical day at noon >rather than at midnight, so that afternoon events were >dated by mariners one day earlier than they were by >landsmen in this period, regardless of the calendar >being used. I think historians are often careless >about this discrepancy or don't recognize it. > >The location is also confusing, with the names of two >different lochs (Loch nan Ceall and Loch nan Uamh) >being used for it. I haven't figured out a resolution >to that yet. Both of them are quite small and do not >appear on large-scale maps, but I have found Loch nan >Uamh before.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.