Was the Dauntless really the ship Norrington lost at Tripoli? was it stated anywhere? El Chupacabra 14:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not specifically stated, but norrington said the pusuit cost him his crew his commision and his life. - Lord KAJ Company Office 14:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the movies never state that the Dauntless was destroyed. Norrington only lost his crew, but that doesn't mean they died, he could have meant that he just lost command of his crew. After all, Mullroy and Murtogg were still alive, so others could have survived, so much so that the ship couldn't have been destroyed. Admirals in the Royal Navy have been known to be executed for losing battles before, so it's unlikely the Royal Navy would have let Norrington get off very easy for losing a large, not to mention expensive, ship-of-the-line; especially one so crucial to colonial protection. Losing Sparrow and important resources could have shamed Norrington enough to have pressured him into resigning, as was stated in the movies. In fact, the Dauntless may have been in the harbour when Lord Beckett arrived in Port Royal. So we may have to reconsider the concept of the Dauntless being destroyed. I mean can we safely assume that a large ship like the Dauntless could have been destroyed by a hurricane in the lower Atlantic? I think not. At any length the topic is debatable.--Lord Cutler BeckettPort Royal 01:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Murtogg and Mullroy (who both cannot swim!) are alive, as well as Groves. And remember that the Dauntless was'nt Norrington's normal ship (originally he captained the Interceptor), he took her for purchasing the Black Pearl in CBP because it was the only Navy ship in Port Royal after the commandeering of the Interceptor, so when he started to chase Sparrow he probably took a faster ship. At all, The Dauntless can be the ship he lost, but it can also be any other, and we don't know which one until anything will be stated in any canon material. El Chupacabra 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
We still don't know if his ship was destroyed, just that he lost his crew. But as I stated above, that could just mean that he lost command of his crew.--Lord Cutler BeckettPort Royal 11:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've read somewhere (I think in the visual guide) that Norrington lost a ship (and the crew) in a hurricane at Tripoli while chasing the Black Pearl. El Chupacabra 14:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay. If that's the case then remove information of the Dauntless being destroyed, at least for now.--Lord Cutler BeckettPort Royal 00:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It was confirmed on the official Disney POTC website (in the Lore section), that the Dauntless was lost in a hurricane off the coast of Tripoli. Unfortunately, the page is now redesigned in the OST style, and the Lore section was removed. --UskokSea Queen, Nemesis 05:30, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
Not to critisize Norrington or anything, but that was a stupid choice of ship if he wanted to chase the fastest ship in the Caribbean across the world. 3 deckers are SO unstable, INCREDABLY slow, and COMPLETELY un-manouverable. I've built a model of the Императрица Анна, a Russian first rate very similar to the Dauntless, and her lines are so bulky, that you could not imagine this thing sailing across the ocean without turning over. The Dauntless (apparently) is only armed with 35 lbers. Such an armament makes it difficult even to sail in calm Mediterranean Sea waters, much less across the world. I guess that the Dauntless was the only ship avalible at the time he needed to sail, but he should have taken some frigate or a post-ship. Ships of the line only get manoverable when you hit third rate 74 gunners, and stable when you hit two deckers. A first rate 100 gunner with three gundecks is completely inadiquite for such a chase. Any other opinions?
Smeagol630 (talk) 21:17, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
Not really, if you think about it. They had to make do with the Dauntless, which seemed appropriate as it was the renowned "power of these waters". Plus the pressing issue of finding Jack was more important (to Norrington at least, as it became an obsession at the time) than finding a better ship. Besides, I'm don't think Norrington would want his fearsome Navy crew sailing on a fishing boat. -- CJSFanOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 00:19, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Guns Edit

However, I noticed that the number of guns is tagged as not sourced, but in the Making of and in the commentaries to CBP she was referred to as a "100 gun ship". The current number is from wikipedia, and we know that it is a source for fanon and speculations, the 100 guns would fit (3 decks with 30 guns each, 6 guns on the upper deck, 2 Long Nines and 2 carronades on the poop deck = 100 guns total). El Chupacabra 11:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever number exists can be considered viable, as it is within reason.--Lord Cutler BeckettPort Royal 00:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Dauntless would have at least 100 guns seeing as cannonades arent always counted-Admiral James Kaizer 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it not kind of strange that the page mentions the Dauntless carrying all 35 lb's in the 'Design and Appearance' section? That would make a three-decker ship flip over completely from any sort of breeze. the HMS Victory had 32's only on her bottom gun deck, and the Dauntless is based off her. Fifty 35 lb's per broadside would make an incredible 1750 lb broadside!! 
Smeagol630 (talk) 16:46, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
I'm with you there. Ships of the line usually had smaller guns as you went up, like you said, with 32's on the bottom, 24's on the second, and 18s on the top, but since we never really get a look at the guns, then it's impossible to really know. I have know idea where the 35-pounder number came from, since I'm not aware of any country that used that caliber. The French used 36s, but that's as close as it gets. Thunda792 (talk) 19:10, January 10, 2014 (UTC)
If there's one thing I've learned here, however, Wikipedia is the place for historical facts. If POTC canon says it has 35 lb's, then that's what we'll go with. However, I do not see a citation in the Design and Appearance section for the 35 pounder guns line. I feel that it is possible to challenge it. -- Smeagol630 (talk) 18:05, January 11, 2014 (UTC) --
As far as I'm aware of, there is no description on the cannon type in any POTC books or other material. The only statements I've seen regarding the armament of the Dauntless is that it has 100 guns. Anything else inserted like cannon type (correct or not, I don't really know) I can only assume is based on the opinion of historians who watched the movies. -- CJSFanOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 23:31, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

Sets Edit

What is the source of the informations about floating barge sets? As far as I know, Dauntless set wasn't reused for the third movie. It was more elaborate, with complete deck, and aft, middle and front section, while Endeavour barge is just part of the afterdeck... I might be wrong, of course, which is why I'm asking for some sort of confirmation :) Kazeite, 14.04.08

As far as I know, several sets were used, this section as well as the big one and the information is from DVD features. El Chupacabra 10:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC) the dauntless wasnt sunk it,s only not used anymore. and the dauntles en the endeavour ar the same

BritishNavySeaCadet1759 21:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)== H.M.S. Dauntless couldn't have been a first rate ==

I have noticed that Dauntless was referred to as a first rate 100-gun ship, however this is highly unlikely for several reasons. One, she was stationed overseas in Port Royal, which by the 18th century was a minor port, the most important port in Jamaica was by then Kingston. Not once was a first-rate stationned overseas, especially with the Royal Navy, as they were far too valuable, and in most cases unesscessary. The only reason that she would be there if indeed she was a first-rate was if she was attached to a fleet, which she clearly isn't. Two, she is in the wrong port. The only place where there could have been a first-rate even for a short period was Kingston, as this was the seat of British power in the Caribbean. The most likely type of ship she would have been is a second rate, or 90+ gun, ship. This would fit entirely with her role in the film, as 2nd rates could have been used as Pirate hunters as they were able to outgun virtually every ship they encountered bar a first rate. Also, they were often used as regional flagships under the command of a relatively junior commander (i.e. Norrington) and were of virtually the same dimensions as a first rate, usually being only five feet shorter. For example, give a model of H.M.S. Victory (the ship Dauntless is based on-the resemblence is uncanny ) a 1700s blue ensign, change the name on the nameplate to Dauntless, and you have H.M.S. Dauntless. However, remove 4 guns and she looks even more like her, whilst at the same time bringing her weight of metal down to 96 guns, making her a second rate. Because the answer to this question could either validate or render my comment moot, forgive me for not knowing, but does it say anywhere in the film whether Dauntless is a First rate or not? It is perfectly possible that she was a 90 or even 80 gun ship, as both these types had three decks, were of virtually the samedimensions as a first-rate, and were often used for the above role. However, I do believe Endeavour to be a First-rate, as she is flagship of the East India Company fleet. Posted by BritishNavySeaCadet1759 21:07 03 november 2008

Actually, the Dauntless was never refereed to as a first rate in any source, but in the commentaries and in the Making Of she was called a ”100 guns ship”, which is true (the arrangement of her cannons is given in the “guns” section of this talk). However, I don’t know whether the 18th century gun counter included all cannons aboard or only the ones used for firing broadsides. In this case the Long Nines weren’t counted and she was a 98 gun second-rate ship. However, I have another suggestion: According to the wikipedia article second rate ships had not only less guns but also someother differences from first rates (smaller gun calibre, less crewmen, slightly shorter etc.) I think,the Dauntless could have been build as an ordinary 98 guns second-rate ship, but when she was send to the Caribbean for hunting pirates, the Long nines were additionally installed, bringing the number of cannons to 100. However, since allother characteristics remained the same, she remained rated a second-rate. Do you think this is a realistic scenario? El Chupacabra 08:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly plausible, as there were a few occasions when Frigates were up-gunned for a certain purpose, and in the photo on the article dauntless looks slightly stubby. I think you might have something there. Thank you for the information about the first rate reference as well. BritishNavySeaCadet1759 19:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dauntless is by no means a frigate (unless you call her a 'great frigate', another name for a Ship of the Line). HMS Victory herself was a 98 gunner during the Battle of Trafalgar. Cannons are not in the least a permanent asset to the ship. They are state-owned, and are "lended" to the ship for a certain period of time. I don't think it unlikely that the Crown would send a first-rate to the New World. During the War of 1812, HMS St Lawrence, 112, was built to protect Lake Ontario, meaning she stayed there and couldn't come out. I realize that Port Royal is not an important settlement, but that doesn't mean its a bad base for a first-rate to operate from. -- Smeagol630 (talk) 18:05, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
According to the first draft of the CotBP's screenplay, the Dauntless was a "first-rate ship of the line", and the film's presskit says the Dauntless is a warship. Both claims are currently sourced within the article. -- CJSFanOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 23:31, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

Profile PictureEdit

Can we please change the Main Picture fot the HMS Dauntless? It is vary blurry and hard to see the details. Unsigned comment by Snippets of Jack (talk • contribs).

All of the wide shots of it had it from a distance, so therefore we can't do anything about the bluriness other than trying to sharpen the picture up. Also, remember to sign your name after every talk post with four tildes. (~~~~) Captain Teague (talk) 20:55, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

Ensign Edit

I have a small question regarding the ensign of the HMS Dauntless and the HMS Interceptor as well. Both ships seem to have a blue ensign of the British Royal Navy but it was to my believe that the squadron of the navy that patrolled the Caribbean and the northern Atlantic Ocean was the red. The white was up at the Northern sea, around Britain, and the Mediterranean and the blue was down in the southern Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans. Can someone please explain to me the meaning of this as it is kind of confusing. (Sharkfin1997 (talk) 07:55, October 2, 2012 (UTC))

Unfortunately, there are several historical inaccuracies in POTC. The Blue Ensign on the Dauntless and the Interceptor could be one of them. UskokSea Queen, Nemesis 17:01, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Urrrrrrr that's unfortunate, on a different but not unrelated topic, why does the HMS Providence have a Union Jack on the back of it instead of an ensign. Judging by its home port it should have the white. Maybe it's because it wasn't part of a squadron or something. Although I remember reading that a ship that wasn't in a specific squadron still had the red ensign. It could be another mistake but I hope not......Anyway sorry if this is a bit off topic but its about the same problem. (Sharkfin1997 (talk) 23:54, October 2, 2012 (UTC))

Don't know about the Union Jack, the bigger problem to me is that this Union Jack is a modern one, instead of the one from the 18th century. On the other hand, I can assure you that the Providence is part of the White Squadron. Take a look at this image. --UskokSea Queen, Nemesis 06:32, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oh at least they got the squadron right. The Union Jack might be because it was the pride of the Royal Navy. Yeah, having the modern version was annoying. Also Grove's rank that hadn't been invented yet :/. (Sharkfin1997 (talk) 10:12, October 3, 2012 (UTC))

I was just watching DMC and noticed in the background of the Port Royal scenes you can see some navy ships with red ensigns as well as some with blue.--Sharkfin1997 (talk) 07:45, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
Those ships were probably part of Cutler Beckett's Armada. --UskokSea Queen, Nemesis 07:54, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
But all of Beckett's ships had EITC flags on them, even the former navy ships.--Sharkfin1997 (talk) 11:20, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
As Uskok already explained, there are historical inaccuracies in the POTC world. No matter how close to history they make it, POTC is still a fictional universe - there is nothing we can change about that fact. As for the flag issue, you're guess is as good as ours. --J Fan SigOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 12:19, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
HMS Providence was a privateer, she's not allowed to fly an ensign. Smeagol630 (talk) 16:49, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
A privateer with a Navy crew? Very unlikely. --UskokSea Queen, Nemesis 05:30, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely it may be, but considering there were no marines onboard, her crew may not be completely RN. Disney did alot of weird things with the Providence. HMS with no marines, a modern UK flag instead of a Union Jack, calling her a privateer run so strictly...for goodness sake, Barbossa even said 'All hands, battle stations!' instead of 'Beat to Quarters' which is really the command for readiness. Thay are not the same thing, but 'battle stations' is just completely improvised. Then again, he was a privateer...apparently.
Smeagol630 (talk) 18:18, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
Just a small clarification: Disney doesn't control what is in the movie - they only accept the story made. So anything "wrong" or "inaccurate" with the Pirates movie should be pointed at either the writers (for developing the script) or even the director (who makes the changes to what we ultimately see onscreen)...but it's impossible to know the one solely responsible. Though I will say, Gore Verbinski seemed to be more careful on historical accuracy than Rob Marshall...just sayin'. -- CJSFanOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 18:54, June 27, 2013 (UTC)