Talk:Largest naval battle in history/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reliability of classical sources

It's almost certainly the case that the Ecnomus numbers were exaggerated by the ancients, since they simply did not have the logistics needed to feed 200,000 of anybody (the modern age couldn't manage that until the development of canning). I'd like to see what modern historians believe such spectacular numbers. Stan 05:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I'm not imagining it, this seems to be a claim that modern figures are accurate. I doubt this very much. Every armed force at all times and places in history suffers under the desire of people to be officers rather than grunts, so there is constant pressure to chivvy up new regiments, companies, armies. The pitiful parade of the Queen's Own past my window every few months consists of several straggly platoons, in two lines, and those each short. The whole bunch of 'em wouldn't add up to a respectable platoon, but you'd have enough officers left over to conduct a bridge tournament back at the mess.

If you call a dozen men a platoon, two platoons a company, three companies a regiment, and so on up, you can get 600,000 people to Mount Sinai in a few strokes of a historian's pen. Republicans make up budgets with the same sort of, uh, assiduity.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

If the point of this article (point that i dont grasp at the moment) is to discuss the issue, Stan's comment above is certainly a thing to include. Propaganda has always an influence on numbers. And Romans were damn good in propaganda. Muriel G 14:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ecnomus wasn't even all that big; if you believe Herodotus, there were about 1600 ships at the Battle of Salamis. Adam Bishop 14:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think all of the above issues have a place on this page, which originated with one of the Ecnomus-obsessed persons who take perverse pleasure in mentioning it on Battle of Leyte Gulf. And wouldn't it look weird if Leyte was mentioned on Battle of Ecnomus? Grant65 (Talk) 14:49, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we do have quite a good idea about numbers of ships and men in ancient Roman battles. The Romans kept excellent census records for military purposes. The quaestors kept records of financial arrangements. The senate had to approve all the warships they built. I don't believe the patriotic Polybius, but I do believe the bugdet records. Historians these days believe that Napoleon's armies were the first armies in Europe that were larger than the ones Romans had. --128.214.70.222 10:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Few original records have survived, different historians have reported different numbers (Livy quotes many such examples of mutual inconsistency), and we don't always know what the raw data even means, in terms of whether they were referring to individuals or groups, or how much they could be inflated for partisan political purposes. If you think any of those numbers are reliable, you need to go back and study the recent literature a little more closely (I'm on the road, don't have specific titles at hand). Many of the numbers are known to be simply impossible, given the amount of arable land around the Mediterranean and what we know today about crop yields from subsistence farming. Stan 15:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, the ancients had much more productive forms of agriculture than subsistence farming. The dominant form of agriculture was commercial farming as show in the agricultural manuals of roman writers. This form of agriculture generated large amounts of agricultural surplus, sufficient to supply armies numbering hundreds of thousands.--201.11.209.168 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is true. Roman agricultural efficiency was not equalled until well into the industrial revolution. Under Roman latifundia, an individual farmer (slave) was able to feed 30 other people. EK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.53.13 (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

-Agricultural efficiency and military logistics are not the same thing. In any event, the Romans (and bear in mind that the ancient world is MUCH more than just golden-age Rome) gave rather....swollen...numbers for their enemies as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.238.106.104 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also seen the Battle of Jutland mentioned as a contender for the largest naval battle in history.--128.193.242.90 08:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, there were about 300 ships at Leyte to Jutland's ~250. I am told that the US personnel alone at Leyte Gulf would be about equal to all personnel at Jutland, but I haven't verified this. But maybe Jutland could be mentioned as an "also-ran" along with Salamis (etc.) ? Grant65 (Talk) 10:24, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the battle of Lepanto (1571)? Best reports put the number of ships involved at something over 500.Anthony.bradbury 23:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't the Battle of Normandy included in the main article? With 1,213 warships, 4,125 transport vessels (landing ships and landing craft) and 1,600 support vessels, wouldn't this battle qualify as the largest in history in terms of tonnage of ships?

That really wasn't a "naval battle" though, it was an amphibious assault where the actual battle was primarily between ground units, as opposed to naval warfare where the battle would be between seafaring ships. Trypsin24 (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Most SIGNIFICANT naval battle?

The number and size of engaged forces seem to me to be just one criteria in determining the most significant naval battles. Is there interest in developing the topic of the most significant Naval battles? I have applied the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to develop a ranking of the most significant American battles, and could modifiy the criteria to to this purpose. If there is any interest, I'll develop the pages, of which Largest naval battle in history will be referenced.File:AHP Ranking of Major US Battles.jpg (Gaoptimize 18:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

Largest does have a sort of American "bigger must be better" attitude (Or as a book I read suggested: "If numbers are all you go by, the Taiping Rebellion was a hundred times more significant than the American Revolution"). Some suggestions, besides Salamis and Lepanto are Trafalgar and Tsushima. Palm_Dogg 16:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The article was started because of a disagreement over the text in Battle of Leyte Gulf. It was never meant to be about "most significant naval battles", although that would be a worthwhile separate article. Grant65 | Talk 00:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

While I don't completely disagree with the methodology it has a spurious ring of objectivity about it. Who assigns the weighting factors? I've run enough design competitions in the past to be able to swing these things my way. Typical techniques : add more columns for factors where your design excels, keep a running count of weightings so know when to push hard for a given weighting to ensure a favoured outcome, use a mixture of linear and non linear factors, compare objective numbers from wildly different scenarios. The table above suffers from all those. Greg Locock (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ships present and ships engaged

Grant65 removed my reference (in the Leyte Gulf entry in the candidates' list) to the tonnage of 'ships engaged' and remarked that there is 'no indication that every single ship was actively engaged in the other battles mentioned'.

However, his way of putting it loads the issue. It is of course unlikely that in the other battles every single ship was 'actively engaged' (the inclusion of the word 'actively' also helps to load the question), but in the case of, say, Jutland it is clear that the overwhelming majority of the ships of the Grand and High Seas Fleets were in action - not just in the action, not merely present. It is equally clear in the case of Leyte Gulf that very many of the US ships cited in the orders of battle for Third and Seventh Fleets were not only not in action but were not even physically present at any of the relevant engagements - were not only not engaged or in action, but were not even in the battle in any meaningful sense at all.

Wild Surmise (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My objection was really about the form of expression. I understand your point about Jutland, but bear in mind we are writing an encylopedia for a lay readership, who (like me) often don't have the time and patience to wade through a series of cascading subordinate clauses. Grant | Talk 10:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the article

Many of the recent inclusions in "Other large battles" beg the question of what the article is about and I suggest that they are really candidates for most significant naval battle (see above), rather than largest naval battle. What do others think? Grant | Talk 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to make sense of the above, on several counts. The most recent inclusions are(I think), the Spanish Armada, the Saintes, Trafalgar, the Bismarck sortie, Pearl Harbor, Midway, the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, and the South China Sea. They are all inclusions made by yours truly (which is probably no coincidence). Several of them, but not all, are exceptionally decisive and/or important battles (the word 'significant' is best avoided here), but I did not seek to include them on grounds of that decisiveness or importance. I included them on grounds of their being (in keeping with the title of the list) in some sense, or by some criterion, 'large battles'.

The first of these I included (ironically the most recent of the battles) was Ten-Go (the South China Sea). I did this on the grounds of the displacement tonnage sunk in the battle (tonnage sunk having been given at the outset as one of the criteria for 'largest naval battle'. I thought it interesting that a battle which one would not normally think of as exceptionally large is exceptionally large by this criterion.

I then began to think about rivals to South China Sea regarding displacement tonnage sunk. This led me to include the Bismarck operation (Rheinubung), Pearl Harbor, Midway and the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal - two of which would certainly merit inclusion even if the tonnage sunk had been far smaller (e.g. the British response to Rheinubung would still be an exceptionally large operation even if Bismarck had succeeded in escaping to Brest, as very nearly happened).

The Midway operation is the largest naval operation in Japanese history (at least in terms of the tonnage involved, and probably in terms of the numbers of personnel) and would still be the largest even if not one Japanese or US ship had been sunk during the operation.

Pearl Harbor is very much a special case, since it is at least slightly infelicitous, a little off-key, to describe it as a 'battle'.

The Armada, the Saintes and Trafalgar all merit inclusion simply by virtue of their size. Two of them are of course exceptionally decisive battles, among the most decisive in history. There is (not surprisingly) something of a correlation between the relative size of a battle and its decisiveness and/or historical importance (this too is no coincidence).

Despite all this I feel obliged to remark that the questionable use of the word 'significant', and even more so the almost criminal misuse of 'beg the question' are of as much concern as the contents of our little list.

Wild Surmise (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That begs the question: "why you are questioning my use of beg the question on a informal talk page, instead of just dealing with the issues of the article itself"? :-D

The "largest naval operation in Japanese history" Midway may be, but that is not what the article is ostensibly about. I means there is nothing to stop someone starting a largest naval operation in Japanese history article. Anyway — Midway makes the grade for sheer scale. Ditto Pearl Harbor, Guadalacanal and Ten-gō. It wasn't them I was referring to.

But I can't see any justification for Saintes's and Trafalgar's inclusions. Maybe I'm missing something(?) Grant | Talk 08:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That raises (although it doesn't beg) the question how it can be appropriate to misuse an expression on an informal talk page (or on 'a [sic] informal talk page', or "a (sic) informal talk page"), but not appropriate to jib at its misuse. It is (at least sometimes) impossible to discuss 'the issues' (or "the issues") without also discussing the language used to discuss the issues. Clarity tends to require this.

Incidentally, since you are apparently rather keen on the correct use of quotation marks, your 'beg the question' (or "beg the question") needs to be in its own set of quotes (as you are referring to the expression itself, not to the thing to which the expression refers).

Wild Surmise (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing two different lists within the article. The list to which I added these battles/operations/actions was 'Other large battles'. The list wasn't my creation, and I suppose a tiresome pedant (if there happened to be one around) might object to such a list being included in this article. I've all along rather assumed that it was an 'and by the way . . . ' sort of enhancement - just something interesting and informative. An, as indeed you might say, 'informal' addition to the article. I was quite obviously not advancing Midway as a candidate for 'largest naval battle'. If I had been doing so, I would have put it in the primary list.

Wild Surmise (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So you won't mind if I cut Saintes and Trafalgar then? Grant | Talk 12:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I will not greatly mind , but I would be puzzled, and I might begin to suspect you of having, so to speak, 'French connections'.

I've been doing a little relevant research - statistics will follow.

Wild Surmise (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at Trafalgar then, and compare it with Lowestoft, 1665.

Lowestoft 109 English ships vs. 103 Dutch (212 total)

Trafalgar 33 British ships (incl. 27 of the line) vs. 41 French or Spanish (incl. 33 of the line)

Obviously Lowestoft looks like a much larger battle.

However, figures for Royal James and Royal Oak, two of the largest English ships at Lowestoft, give 'tons burthen' of 1108 and 1021 respectively. Revenge, one of the larger English ships, is credited with tons burthen of 766.

At Trafalgar several of the British ships each had a tonnage burthen of 2,000+ (Victory 2142, Royal Sovereign 2175, Dreadnought 2110 etc.) Even third-rate two-deckers typically had a tonnage burthen of 1500-1800.

It is therefore not evident which is the larger of these two battles in terms of tonnage.

In terms of numbers of personnel it is pretty clear.

For Lowestoft we have figures of: English 22,000 and Dutch 21,600.

For Trafalgar: British 21,000+ (17,500 excluding detached ships), French/Spanish at least 25,000, probably closer to 30,000.

If you want to cut Trafalgar from the list then Lowestoft ought to go as well.

Wild Surmise (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Grant | Talk 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Trafalgar appears to have been the largest line action of the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, and possibly the largest of the entire age of sail, although perhaps only marginally. On the other hand the total casualties for the 1805 battle (about 14,500 including captured) are equalled by few naval battles in history, and this isn't marginal.

Wild Surmise (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The list is a list of 'Other Large Battles' (and is described as such) - are you really contending that Trafalgar, Lowestoft and the Saintes are not large battles?

Wild Surmise (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, just not close to the largest in history. Maybe the "Other large battles" section should be scrapped altogether. Grant | Talk 12:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Wild Surmise (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What for?

Wild Surmise (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If they aren't really in the running, then why include them? Grant | Talk 14:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I rather thought that I'd anticipated this question and already answered it, the answer being "because it's interesting and informative" (and also likely to be at least, in some sense, "relevant" to someone who is interested in the question "What is the largest naval battle in history?").

Incidentally, the more I think about it the less I'm sure that Trafalgar (at least) isn't in the running. If one cites certain criteria (sorry about the accidental alliteration) or sets of criteria, it does get to be pretty much up there with the biggest, it does get to be "in the running".

Wild Surmise (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Few questions about "other very large battles"

1.Why is there so much information about Trafalgar an so litle about Cartagena de Indias? Can anyone, please, tell me the outcome of the Cartagena de Indias Battle?

2. Why the Spanish Armada is specifically called "Defeat of the Spanish Armada"? For the most pro-Brittish versions only four spanish vessels were actually sunk or taken by de English, the oter (about) fifty ship were wrecked by the Scottish and Irish coast. If the very english biased want to make it clear that the Spanish Armada didnt succes you could call it "failure" to be more imparcial and enciclopedic :) According to the number of casualties (not of ship lost) the 1589 Norris-Drake expedition against Spain were far more deadly

3. Has anyone ever heard about the Battle of La Rochele (1371)? The whole of the English fleet was sunk or captured by the Castillian. It established the unchallenged Spanish supremacy in the Atlantic until the Battles of the Downs and Gravelines in mid 17th century. Compared to that period, the Brittish dominance period (Trafalgar 1805-Jutland 1916) is anecdotic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.1.199 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There should be also Juminda mine battle (or Evacuation of Talinn). In 28.08.1941 started evacuation of Tallinn about 200 ships in 4 convois evacuated to east. Soviets lost 55-64 ships and about 15000 men sunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.32.21 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Salamis

The numbers given here for the Battle of Salamis are much higher than those given in the article about the battle. DES (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Naval War in the Baltic Sea 1941

Operation “Beowulf II” is one more candidate
Soviet Union lost 217 ships (126 military and 89 civilian ships)
Estonia lost 71 ships (2 military and 69 civilian ships)
Germany lost 52 ships (35 military and 17 civilian ships)
Latvia lost 32 ships (4 military and 28 civilian ships)
Sweden lost 4 ships
Finland lost 3 ships (3 military ships)
Lithuania lost 3 ships (1 military ship and 2 civilian ships)
Sunk (total loss of life was in excess of 14.000 people)
Naval War in the Baltic Sea 1941-1945 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qkkise (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? At best that is a campaign, not a battle, and frankly it looks more like various dodgy civvie ships got sunk, than a naval battle. Set phasars to stun. Greglocock (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

Removed it from the list. Pearl Harbor, as great and significant as it was, hardly contends with the 'largest naval battle in history.' Especially considering the attacker's reliance on airplanes which even had land targets. World War II has plenty of examples were more "conventional" navy battles occurred so lets not say submarines and bombers can be counted evenly against traditional navy vessels. 69.253.207.233 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Coral Sea

I'm surprised the Battle of the Coral Sea isn't even mentioned in the article. It was the direct cause of the Battle of Midway. The Battle of the Coral Sea was a tactical Japanese victory, but was a joint American/Australian victory in the long run, as it stopped the Japanese from invading Australia. It was also the first naval battle in history to be fought entirely by naval aircraft. A total of 79 ships and 255 aircraft participated. (5 aircraft carriers, 18 cruisers, 28 destroyers, 5 smaller combat ships, and 24 other support ships.) So, what is the verdict? 98.174.219.212 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Traflgar

Not clear why Collingwood is listed as the commander at tralalgar, as he only would have taken over theoretical command once Nelson was dead, by which time in was a series of ship to ship actions. Nelson had at least a years seniority over Collingwood. If no one complains I will amend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.66.231 (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

does this article need to exist?

I'm not a scholar but I have a very strong interests in US naval history. I've read books about the USN from the very beginning through WWII. And I don't ever recall seeing discussio of the Largest Naval Battle in History as if its some pressing topic either highly controversial or noteworthy. Usually when the topic comes up everyone I've read seems to think Jutland and Leyte Gulf were the two biggest with Leyte winning out by most ways of measuring. I'm not convinced there's much more to say which makes me wonder if an article is needed at all. Mad Scientist (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If the article as it is right now is to be believed, then while Jutland and Leyte Gulf are the biggest in terms of tonnage, they aren't the biggest in terms of sailors involved. I think therefore the article is worth keeping. Banedon (talk)

Well Jutland and Leyte Gulf are surely largest by some or other measure, but it would not be be tonnage alone. For the Battle of the Atlantic must have had much greater total tonnage participating. Counting both sides there were more than 900 warships (including submarines) sunk, let alone ships that survived participation in the Battle of the Atlantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.52.71 (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Tsushima?

With 6 battleships sunk, permanently, the largest number in any battle ever (beat only by the scuttling of the german fleet after WW1, at 10) why is Tsushima not on this list? Nickjbor (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)