 The exact cause of the sinking was also the subject of dispute. Barère's account describes Vengeur as sinking from the shots that would have holed her hull; actually, Cyprien Renaudin mentions only two such holes in the lower hull of Vengeur and a noise "like a strong waterfall" at the poop, which he could not identify; this is consistent with James' account of "the Brunswick, by a few well-directed shot, split the Vengeur's rudder, and shattered her stern-post; besides making a large hole in her counter, through which the water rushed in great quantity." In any case, the superstructures were very much battered, prompting Lieutenant Rotheram, of Culloden, to report that he "could not place a two-feet rule in any direction, he thought, that would not touch two shot-holes". Claude Farrère attributes the sinking to ineptitude of the crew who had failed to close damaged lower gunports. The later study conducted by Captain Diaz de Soria in the 1950s suggests that water did enter from the gun ports of the lower battery, ripped off in the collision with Culloden and shattered by artillery fire, and that the crew failed to obstruct them with temporary contrivances. The panicking crew would have aggravated the situation by failing to man the pumps, explaining why it took four hours for Vengeur to sink between her surrender around 14: 00 until her sinking between 18: 00 and 18: 30.
