Greatest Naval Commander in History

[Mon Mauler]

I know the subject of the Greatest Military Commander in History has been breached in these forums many times. However, I do not recall seeing any postings concerning the Greatest Naval Commander in History.

I was wondering who you guys thought were some of the greatest commanders in the history of naval warfare?

Unfortunately, my knowledge in this specific area of military history leaves much to be desired. For my part, I can offer a few names that spring to mind when thinking of naval commanders. Many of these men may not have been great commanders at all. These few names are only intended to get the discussion started. Hopefully some of the guys here with more knowledge will help educate me.

I offer the following names as a basis for discussion (in no particular order)...
Themistocles, Yamamoto, Suffren, Robert Blake, Francis Drake, Horatio Nelson, Seniavin, Tegetthoff, Nimitz.

What do you guys think?

 

[Rambuchan]

What do you guys think?

I think you should have posted this in the History Forum.

 

[Mon Mauler]

Just for the record...

With my limited knowledge, I would put Nelson atop the list.

 

[sanabas]

Bligh .

 

[Kozmos]

Keptin Jack Sparrow.

 

[IglooDame]

Yamamoto was an excellent political strategist, but his spanking at Midway (dividing his forces, not anticipating early discovery, keeping a major task force in reserve almost uselessly) really makes it tough to keep him on the short list. Perhaps Togo instead?

Nelson probably takes it on the British side.

Nimitz was more of a grand strategist and I wouldn't call him a naval commander per se (indeed Yamamoto falls the same way). The US actually doesn't have much in the way of "always win no matter what the odds" type admirals through its history. Spruance probably comes closest.

 

[jamiethearcher]

Keptin Jack Sparrow.

I'll second that motion!

 

[North King]

Themistocles,

Themosticles' brilliance was in his politics, not his commanding.

 

[Paradigne]

I've always been a fan of Capt Morgan

 

[Mon Mauler]

@ IglooDude - I never have been able to get a full grip on Yamamoto's contributions. I included him on my list because the Japanese Navy was the world's preeminent Naval power at the time, and Yamamoto was responsible for many of their tactical and technological innovations, particularly in the field of naval aviation. And I also thought he was responsible for much of the makeup of the Japanese fleet. Furthermore, I always understood him to be the brains behind the Pearl Harbor bombing. Of course, the execution of that battle was little more than shooting fish in a barrel, and the idea of a "decisive battle" was a little disingenuous, but it was a success nonetheless. Yamamoto also had siginificant success in the early months of 1942 as the Japanese navy basically cleared the Pacific of significant allied threats. As you point out, Midway was a total disaster. There was almost no reason to leave such a large portion of his fleet in reserve. It also was not prudent to proceed with his plan after his reconnaissance attempts failed. Nevertheless, he was lulled into a trap by brilliant strategery on Nimitz's side.

@ North King - My knowledge of ancient naval history is even more limited than my knowledge of WWII naval history, but I always had the same problem evaluating Themistocles' contributions. The reason I included him was because of Salamis. Eurybiades (sp?), I think, was in charge of the Greek navy, but IIRC most of the command decisions were made by Themistocles. Are there any other ancient mariners that you would think to include?

 

[.Shane.]

I read a pretty good biography of John Paul Jones a couple years ago. Good stuff.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

My vote goes to Admiral Horatio Nelson. He was the perfect combination, a great man, and a great commander. I have read both his biography and detailed recounts of his battles, minute by minute. He was a brilliant commander and seaman, who knew how to take on any challenge given to him.

 

[nc-1701]

Rear-Admiral Tanaka japanese ww2

He won a battle cant remeber the name with no losses to his fleet of seven destroyers and took out like 3 us cruisers and a bunch of destroyers.

 

[EdwardTking]

I vote William Sidney Smith:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Smith_(admiral)

Once the siege began in late March 1799, Smith anchored HMS Tigre and Theseus so their broadsides could assist the defence. Repeated French assaults were driven back, several attempts to mine the walls were prevented. By early May, replacement French siege artillery had arrived overland and a breach was forced in the defences. However, the assault was again repelled and Turkish reinforcements from Rhodes were able to land. On May 9 after another fierce bombardment, the final French assault was made. This, too, was repelled and Napoleon began making plans for the withdrawal of his army to Egypt. This was Napoleon's first major land defeat of his career and it had been brought about by a naval officer's leadership. Shortly after this, Napoleon abandoned his army in Egypt and sailed back to France evading the British ships patrolling the Mediterranean.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Wait I forgot Commodore Dewey and the Battle of Manila Bay! Granted the Filopino-Spanish Fleet was kind of obsolete, but The Pacific Squadron did a nice roundup job, not suffering a single casualty from enemy fire.

@EdwardTking: William Sidney Smith hardly caused the withdrawl form Egypt. I'd cite the Battle of the Nile and Admiral Nelson (whom I voted for) as the culprit for that one. Even if Nelson did get lucky and happen upon the French Fleet when it was there (he didn't know where the French were attacking, he kept thinking Cyprus or Sicily), but the Battle of the Nile was the big one.
Other than that one thing that Smith did (which was indeed ingenious, I'm not denying that), I don't know of anything else that he did that was particularly noteworthy. I would say that repeated feats would be more in the line of what we are looking for, not a one-time moment of military enlightenment; else i could cite MAS-15 's captain for sinking Svent Izvan.

 

[Elrohir]

From any period of history? It's kinda hard to decide who was the better commander when we're dealing with thousands of years of history - does it take more skill to lead an Athenien fleet of triremes at Salamis, or fight the long-range Battle of Midway? While both sea battles, they were conducted in entirely different times, with very different weapons.

In ancient history, I would say Themistocles, although apparently Alcibiades was a good general, by land and sea. (Although perhaps not as good as he believed )

In the Medieval-Renaissance era, I would say Yi Sun-sin wins, hands down. He reportedly won every battle he fought, despite being outnumbered, and often without losing any ships - quite likely as a result not only of his military genius, but his creation of the Turtle Ship, which was, for it's time, a very effective warship.

In the Revolutionary-Napoleonic era's, I believe Admiral Nelson would be considered to be the best, or one of the best commanders.

For the WW2 time period, that's a tough call. Both Donitz, and Nimitz were both good commanders.

 

[skadistic]

Adm. Nimits........

 

[IglooDame]

Wait I forgot Commodore Dewey and the Battle of Manila Bay! Granted the Filopino-Spanish Fleet was kind of obsolete, but The Pacific Squadron did a nice roundup job, not suffering a single casualty from enemy fire.

Succeeding at live-fire target practice doesn't automatically qualify someone to be the greatest Naval Commander in History.

 

[tomsnowman123]

The greatest naval commander is the one that chose peace over war.

I don't know who that is, and I doubt that a person exists.

 

[EdwardTking]

My alternative to William Sidney Smith is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Ruyter

Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter (24 March 1607 - 29 April 1676) was one of the most famous admirals in Dutch history. De Ruyter fought the English in the first three Anglo-Dutch Wars and scored several major victories.