You apparently didn't even read the Wikipedia article you link in your rush to assert an authority you don't possess.
Here is a quote from that wikipedia article:
"The term 'frigate' during the period of this ship
referred to a method of construction, rather than a role which did not develop until the following century
Note the fact that the definition changed
. Something that might be a frigate by the earlier definition will not necessarily be a frigate by the later definition.
Another wikipedia article:
"The classic sailing frigate, well-known today for its role in the Napoleonic wars, can be traced back to French developments in the second quarter of the 18th century. The French-built Médée of 1740 is often regarded as the first example of this type. These ships were square-rigged and carried all their main guns on a single continuous upper deck. The lower deck, known as the 'gun deck', now carried no armament
, and functioned as a 'berth deck' where the crew lived, and was in fact placed below the waterline of the new frigates."
This article is a bit inaccurate though. Médée may well have been the first French frigate, but those Baltic frigates came decades earlier.
Here is something from Encyclopedia Britannica (I do not know if this link will work for non-subscribers):
"The Seven Years' War (1756–63) marked the definite adoption of the term frigate for a class of vessel that was smaller than the three-decked ship of the line but was still capable of considerable firepower. A frigate was a three-masted, fully rigged vessel, with its armament carried on a single gun deck
and with additional guns on the poop and forecastle."
Here is a review of a book about frigates:
"The book traces the development of the frigate chronologically. The first chapters cover frigate predecessors, rather than true frigates. Gardiner uses these ships to trace the evolution of the cruising warship from the small two-deckers of the seventeenth century to the proto-frigates. (These ships called demi-batteries by the French, and built between 1689 and the 1740s, retained some guns in the lower gun deck.)
The final chapters describe the evolution of the true frigate, with its main guns on the upper gun deck, the lower gun deck used exclusively for habitation
, and guns on the forecastle and quarterdeck. These chapters cover the period from the true frigate’s introduction in 1748 until the end of the sailing frigate in the 1850s."
This book makes the same mistake as above. The Baltic frigates came first.
Here is something from Google books:
"It was in fact French stimulus which had prompted the emergence of the true frigate in the first place. The criteria set for the type were that she should carry her main armament on a single gundeck
, be supremely weatherly, a good if not an excellent sailer, and possess immense endurance. Almost self sustaining, the frigate was expected to operate anywhere in the world and such ships frequently exerted an influence far outweighing their size. The reasons as to why the French pursued this concept will be dealt with in Chapter Eight.
'Esteemed as excellent cruisers', the frigate became 'a light, nimble ship, built for the purposes of sailing swiftly'. In fact the name had earlier referred to both a small two-decked warship and to a class of merchant ship which was said to be frigate-built and which we shall examine in the next chapter. Like many other common nouns in maritime use, the meaning of the word later crystallized around a particular type of vessel
. After the demise of the wooden frigate, her grander, steam-powered iron and steel successors came to be called 'cruisers', defining a specific ship type. The name 'frigate' was revived in 1943 for an entirely different form of warship, but one which was destined to play an equally crucial role in a very different war."
Many early frigates had guns only on the forecastle and the quarter deck--that doesn't mean they weren't frigates.
That depends on which definition of the term frigate is being used. The definition that was used at the height of the age of sail would indeed exclude them.
Take this political thread style of argument somewhere else. I don't want you trashing this thread with it.
By providing interesting, cool, and historically accurate facts, I have made the thread a hundred times better than it was before I posted in it.
Especially since the facts that I provided are otherwise little-known. Note all the highly-expert sources that are completely wrong in their belief that the first true frigate came in the 1740s.
So, i don't consider you an authority.
How many people in this thread have provided comprehensive proof that the first true frigate came decades earlier than most of the established experts say it did?