Greatest Naval Leader?

[fhaessig]

Originally Posted by HJ Tulp

Wikipedia has the Battle of Agosta listed as a Dutch victory and Duquesne as the French commander. Tourville never defeated de Ruyter. Who is, I needlessly add, the best Naval Commander ever. He was fantastic as a fleet commander and magnificent as captain.

Funny, as the same wikipedia states that DuQuesne followed Tourville's plan to beat Ruyter, in the Tourville article.

Just shows one really shouldn't use wiki, even to refresh one's memory.

I'll get to my paper reference to check if I was completely off or not and come back.

[HJ Tulp]

Even so, in the Med De Ruyter wasn't decisively beaten even though he fought with a neglected and outnumbered fleet.

Wikipedia has Tourville not as commander nor as squadron commander in either the Battle of Stromboli or Augsta

[antisocrates]

Ruyter most definitely. He consistently fought against superior, more numerical fleets of the two of the great naval powers of the day, England and France. Nelson, OTOH, consistently fought with superior, better trained fleet against inferior, undertrained fleets of the day. It doesn't take anything away from Nelson to have fought as the bully and won, but I think Ruyter is more impressive for being the underdog and winning against the odds.

[larpsidekick]

Originally Posted by antisocrates

Ruyter most definitely. He consistently fought against superior, more numerical fleets of the two of the great naval powers of the day, England and France. Nelson, OTOH, consistently fought with superior, better trained fleet against inferior, undertrained fleets of the day. It doesn't take anything away from Nelson to have fought as the bully and won, but I think Ruyter is more impressive for being the underdog and winning against the odds.

Not sure how you're using superior and inferior in that sentance - but the French Marine was, by the time Nelson faced them, a higher quality organisation than many give them credit for. Granted, the RN was superior in the quality of its personnel, but French ships were widely considered the best in the world (including by the RN), and at Trafalgar the Combined Fleet outnumbered and outgunned Nelson by a significant margin. At the Nile, the French again outgunned Nelson in a strong position and were defeated. It's also not so much the fact of the defeats, as the manner of them - in each of Nelsons 3 big battles, he achieved the necesary results - at the Nile and Traf, overwhelming defeat for the enemy - where previous admirals had been unable to achieve decisive battle and decisive results.

This is to take nothing away from De Ruyter - as well as in victory, he was excellent in preserving his nations Navy in the St James' Day defeat and I would rate him highly on the list of Naval commanders.

[Neroon]

Yi Sun Shin hands down.

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by HJ Tulp

Togo.....very good naval commander for sure. But the best? What did he really do besides destroying an outdated Russian fleet at the end of a trip around the world?

I would have to place Togo in the same league as George Dewey, and in many instances they were the first true naval heroes produced by their nations' 'New Navies'. Togo's success during the Russo-Japanese is well earned, but his share of mistakes are glossed over.

Recently there was a Military History Quarterly that had a fantastic cover of Admiral Togo and the Japanese battle flag. It looked beautiful.

[Metro]

It seem that Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha was also a good naval leader.
He caused many problems for the non- friendly nations of the Ottoman Empire..

Holy League (comprising the Papacy, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, the Republic of Venice and the Maltese Knights) against the Ottomans, but Barbarossa defeated its combined fleet

Battle of Preveza in September 1538. This victory secured Turkish dominance over the Mediterranean for the next 33 years

This some wiki info on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayreddin_Barbarossa

This seems to be portraits of him and maps from the Ottoman era: http://www.barbaros.biz/Barbarossa.htm

[Mike]

Not sure how you're using superior and inferior in that sentance - but the French Marine was, by the time Nelson faced them, a higher quality organisation than many give them credit for. Granted, the RN was superior in the quality of its personnel, but French ships were widely considered the best in the world (including by the RN), and at Trafalgar the Combined Fleet outnumbered and outgunned Nelson by a significant margin.

While it is true that the French had new ships; they had poor sailors to operate them, many who were on their first commisions. Better sailors are more important than better ships. Moreover, the French commander, Villeneuve, was seving its first commission and therefore had little experience. By contrast, the British had far more experienced sailors, many of them serving many years, and Nelson himself was an experienced commander of many years. The lack of skill for the French navy was a serious disadvantage.

The combined Frenhc-Spanish fleet was only larger by 5 or six ships, hardly a big advantage in numbers.

At the Nile, the French again outgunned Nelson in a strong position and were defeated.

No, at the Nile, the French was in a weaker position. The French was even were caught napping at night with many of the French ships undermanned and anchored.

This is to take nothing away from De Ruyter - as well as in victory, he was excellent in preserving his nations Navy in the St James' Day defeat and I would rate him highly on the list of Naval commanders.

De Ruyter is still the greatest naval commander in my opinion. He was battling against long odds and triumphed repeatedly going undefeated. Nelson could not claim that and he did not go undefeated either.

[larpsidekick]

Villeneuve had been vice-admiral at the Nile, and had been in command of the French fleet for a number of years. Granted the French and Spanish seamen were of a lower quality than the RN, but a six ship advantage is not to be sneezed at, even with lower quality crews. (And, tbh, the RN crews of the C17th were certainly of lower quality than the Dutch)

Traditionally, a protected anchorage (as at the Nile)is a significant position, one which should not by C19th naval orthodoxy be assaulted, especially with an uncertain land breeze. Nelson saw the weaknesses in Bruyes position and attacked - a lesser admiral would have held off - or at best not doubled the line

Nelson was great because he twice destroyed the enemy fleet - when since the introduction of heavy cannon into fleet actions this had been a rare occurrance, actually discouraged by fighting instructions in all naval services. Nelson restored the decisive battle and an ultra aggressive spirit into the RN, making it the preeminent Naval service in the world until the 1940s. Essentially, he re-wrote the rulebook for Naval battle, something which few, if any others managed to do.

Not wanting to seem arsey - but de Ruyter did suffer defeat - St James' Day, for one.

[sahaidak]

Originally Posted by HJ Tulp

Togo.....very good naval commander for sure. But the best? What did he really do besides destroying an outdated Russian fleet at the end of a trip around the world?

He, through carefully planned battle (Yellow Sea, 10th of August, 1904) and amphibious operations, destroyed Russian fleet in Port Arthur before arrival of not-so-outdated second fleet from Europe. And after that he sunk or captured all Russian battleships at Tsushima. It is not mean feat for an admiral to annihilate two enemy fleets, each of them almost equal to that admiral's own forces, and to do it in one year's time.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I would have to agree with those who chose Nelson. Three great, but very different victories, showing his aggresiveness, determination and flexibility in very different circumstances.
However, honorable mention to someone alluded to above but not mentioned, David Farragut. Two major victories showing Nelsonian aggressivness and flexibility of tactics.
I would not vote for Yamamotto. Knowing the risks of war with the U.S. better than anyone else in Japan, he embarked upon a strategy that could only, in his own words, "awaken a sleeping giant". He then over reacted to Dolittle's Raid and sent his fleet across the Pacific in an overly complex battle plan that reduced his temporary advantage of numbers by scattering his ships over the Pacific.

[NHBL]

Admiral Souchon's achievements in 1914 definately deserve honorable mention. By his actions, he sunk or defeated little--but through the actions of his squadron, Germany brought the Ottoman Empire into the war on the side of the Central Powers, a feat that aided them greatly in the course of the war.

For those who haven't heard of him, check SMS Goeben's history. (Wiki looks to be essentially on target at the moment.)

Who else has done as much for his side in time of war? Not in his own actions, but the direct consequences?

[Flocculencio]

Originally Posted by CaptainAmerica

i agree with you that Dewey is a one hit wonder but sometimes all it takes to be considered at great commander is to be in the right place at the right time once and i have never heard of Lord Cochrane, what did he do?

He was basically made of win and awesome.

[MrP]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

He was basically made of win and awesome.

I've got the first volume of his autobiography; it is unspeakably cool.

[Melvin Loh]

How bout Maarten van Tromp ? Didn't he sweep the Egnglish from control of the seas for a long time during the 17th C ?

[Mike]

Villeneuve had been vice-admiral at the Nile, and had been in command of the French fleet for a number of years.

Wrong. Villeneuve was only in command for a few months before Traflagar. He replaced Latouche-Tréville, who died suddenly in 1804 and who defeated Nelson twice. After only a few months in command, Napoleon was unimpressed with Villeneuve's timidness and lack of aggressiveness and was about to replace him when the battle of Trafalgar started.

Granted the French and Spanish seamen were of a lower quality than the RN, but a six ship advantage is not to be sneezed at, even with lower quality crews. (And, tbh, the RN crews of the C17th were certainly of lower quality than the Dutch)

That is debatable

Traditionally, a protected anchorage (as at the Nile)is a significant position, one which should not by C19th naval orthodoxy be assaulted, especially with an uncertain land breeze.

that is also debatable

Nelson saw the weaknesses in Bruyes position and attacked - a lesser admiral would have held off - or at best not doubled the line

You seem to forget the detail that Nelson caught the French napping at the middle of the night. Many of the French sailors were sleeping ashore and was not on board the ships that were attacked. The ships were sitting ducks.

Essentially, he re-wrote the rulebook for Naval battle, something which few, if any others managed to do.

I agree that Nelson was a great naval commander but he did not write the rulebook. What did he do that was so revolutionary? He was just another one in a long line of successful British admirals and beneffiting from experienced sailors in his command.

Not wanting to seem arsey - but de Ruyter did suffer defeat - St James' Day, for one.

I stand corrected. But Nelson suffered defeat too.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by lothaw

I'd have to go with Admiral Yamamotto too. This man knew his business and was good. He was just given an impossible task in the end. As distasteful as it is, it is something of a professional compliment that the US went out of their way to assassinate him.

I'm not sure why everyone likes Yamamoto so much. I think it might be because he always has really cool and sympathetic actors play him.

I think he had a disastrous and Wile E. Coyote-esque attraction to unnecessarily complicated plans. He was sort of a proto-Bond villain. "And now, Mr. Nimitz, I shall send a diversionary force to attack the Aleutians for no apparent reason while my carriers advance on Midway with my massive force of battleships and cruisers with their crucial scoutplanes hundreds of miles to the rear to form my Evil reserve. There is no escape for you this time, Mr. Nimitz! Bwa-ha-ha!"

[galveston bay]

Richard Blake, General of the Sea under Cromwell during the 1st Anglo-Dutch War,

from Wikipedia (other better sources are out there, but not immediately handy)

Blake was appointed General at Sea (a rank corresponding to Admiral) in 1649, and is often referred to as the "Father of the Royal Navy". As well as being largely responsible for building the largest navy the country had then ever known, from a few tens of ships to well over a hundred, he was first to keep a fleet at sea over the winter. He developed new techniques to conduct blockades and landings; his "Sailing instructions" and "Fighting Instructions", which were major overhauls of naval tactics written while recovering from injury in 1653, were the foundation of English Naval tactics in the Age of Sail. He was also the first to repeatedly successfully attack despite fire from shore forts.

Note that Nelson considered him the best Admiral in English history

Other admirals listed, such as the Asian ones, did not have the long range impact that Blake did, nor did the Dutch Admirals or even the American ones... Blake essentially developed the art of naval warfare in the modern age.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Hayreddin Barbaros has to be on the list - that guy was seriously badass.

Also, I'm surprised none of our British members have nominated Andrew Cunningham, whose brilliant leadership in the Med in WWII snatched victory from the jaws of certain defeat.

He also has one of the best quotes of all time when he refused to abandon the army at Crete: "It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition."

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by NHBL

Admiral Souchon's achievements in 1914 definately deserve honorable mention. By his actions, he sunk or defeated little--but through the actions of his squadron, Germany brought the Ottoman Empire into the war on the side of the Central Powers, a feat that aided them greatly in the course of the war.

For those who haven't heard of him, check SMS Goeben's history. (Wiki looks to be essentially on target at the moment.)

Who else has done as much for his side in time of war? Not in his own actions, but the direct consequences?

The Young Turks were already pro-German at the time and were negotiating an alliance of sorts with Germany at that particular time in 1914. The exploits of the Goeben are certainly overrated.