Bloodiest naval battle of all time
Alan Lothian
I brought this up in another thread, with WWII's Battle of the Atlantic
taking at least 60,000 lives. But that was over a period of years.
Actual time-restricted battles? (I don't insist on 24 hours)
Most naval actions have tended to cost relatively few lives, at least
in comparison with wholesale land slaughters. Historically, far more
sailors have died of shipwreck or malnutrition than by enemy shot.
(Disease was just as bad a problem for armies, so we'll leave that
out.)
But there have been exceptions.
Trafalgar was pretty bloody, at least for the losers. Quite a few chaps
cashed their chips at Jutland, too. Oh, and going back a bit, Sluys was
pretty nasty, but you really can't trust mediaeval figures.
So I am going to vote for Lepanto.
Wow, an on-topic post.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
La N
> I brought this up in another thread, with WWII's Battle of the
> Atlantic taking at least 60,000 lives. But that was over a period of
> years.
>
> Actual time-restricted battles? (I don't insist on 24 hours)
>
> Most naval actions have tended to cost relatively few lives, at least
> in comparison with wholesale land slaughters. Historically, far more
> sailors have died of shipwreck or malnutrition than by enemy shot.
> (Disease was just as bad a problem for armies, so we'll leave that
> out.)
>
> But there have been exceptions.
>
> Trafalgar was pretty bloody, at least for the losers. Quite a few
> chaps cashed their chips at Jutland, too. Oh, and going back a bit,
> Sluys was pretty nasty, but you really can't trust mediaeval figures.
>
> So I am going to vote for Lepanto.
>
> Wow, an on-topic post.
The (naval) Battle of Guadalcanal was pretty bloody, eh? Six months,
though.
- nilita
Matt Wiser
>
> - Show quoted text -
Very bloody: more USN sailors died at sea during that campaign than
Marines or Army soldiers. The same can't be said for the Japanese,
though.
Ray O'Hara
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_kpNm.52819$Db2.40956@edtnps83...
that was really several battles.
a single battle would be like Cape Esperance or Tassafarona.
not an entire campaign.
I think Lepanto might be it. if the casualty figures can be believed.
frank
Start talking money the ships cost, Midway sent a hunk of change to
the bottom. Or the Yamato sinking. The early Pacific war around Dutch
Indies was pretty bloody also, not sure all the ships are even listed
that went down. I'd argue IJN losses were pretty high in the war.
Possibly highest of all combatants.
Keith Willshaw
"Alan Lothian" <alanl...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:201120090546116923%alanl...@mac.com...
>
> I brought this up in another thread, with WWII's Battle of the Atlantic
> taking at least 60,000 lives. But that was over a period of years.
>
> Actual time-restricted battles? (I don't insist on 24 hours)
>
> Most naval actions have tended to cost relatively few lives, at least
> in comparison with wholesale land slaughters. Historically, far more
> sailors have died of shipwreck or malnutrition than by enemy shot.
> (Disease was just as bad a problem for armies, so we'll leave that
> out.)
>
> But there have been exceptions.
>
> Trafalgar was pretty bloody, at least for the losers. Quite a few chaps
> cashed their chips at Jutland, too. Oh, and going back a bit, Sluys was
> pretty nasty, but you really can't trust mediaeval figures.
>
> So I am going to vote for Lepanto.
>
> Wow, an on-topic post.
>
Lepanto with around 27,000 casualties certainly beats the 8,000 or
so at Jutland. The Spanish Armada is an interesting one as although
the Spanish went on to lose 85 ships and around 20,000 men
compared to the 100 or so British casualties most of those died
in subsequent shipwrecks and the massacres of the survivors.
The heaviest toll during a time bounded event in WW2 is probably
the 12,000 or so killed during the series of actions of Leyte Gulf
Keith
Peter Skelton
THere were some pretty bloody afairs in the far east. Lake Poyang
was possibly the largest naval engagement ever. (Casualty counts
are hard to come by.)
Peter Skelton
William Black
Does the destruction of the Spanish Armada count?
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Jack Linthicum
Salamis, estimated 30,000 died, both sides. Lepanto similar numbers.
Richard Casady
wrote:
>Trafalgar was pretty bloody, at least for the losers.
Quite bloody enough for Nelson.
Casady
Dean
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:46:11 +0100, Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Trafalgar was pretty bloody, at least for the losers.
>
> Quite bloody enough for Nelson.
>
> Casady
Do sinking liners crowded with refugees count as naval battles? If so
the sinkings by the Russians in the Baltic in 1945 must rank up there
as well.
Dean
Richard Casady
wrote:
More than 5000 on a single ship.
Casady
Daniel
Hataka Bay, estimated two thirds of a Sino-Mongol force of 200,000
died in 1281, most of them drowning. Combination of Omaha on the
beachfront and Kamikaze bliss at sea.
Ray O'Hara
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:66a7d616-1201-45f3...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
================================================================
the Greeks were known to exagerate. really really exagerate. no numbers they
give in respect to the Persians can be believed.
Jack Linthicum
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
I was using Barry Strauss, The Battle of Salamis, "fourth century
Roman writer" said the Greeks lost more than 40 triremes (crew = 170
oarsmen, 17 officers and ratings) which would be about 7,000 men. The
Persians lost 200. ie 35,000 men. The Persians probably died while not
all of the Greeks would have been drowned or killed as they reached
shore as the Persians were. page 204. Generously letting 5,000
Persians live.
Strauss estimates the lowest total dead Persians at 12,000 and the
probable 20,000 "not surprising".
Jim Yanik
news:klbdg5puehkgl4t7e...@4ax.com:
I don't think torpedoing an unarmed commercial ship constitutes a "naval
battle".
how many died at Midway,on all those Jap carriers that got sunk?
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
dott.Piergiorgio
> THere were some pretty bloody afairs in the far east. Lake Poyang
> was possibly the largest naval engagement ever. (Casualty counts
> are hard to come by.)
meh, the largest actually recorded in detail is Leyte, and by far the
largest by tonnage involved, incl. two of the three Japanese Leviathans...
Also, as another poster point, because of Japanese mindset of yore, IJN
was much more prone to KIA casualties, and was not so one-sided battle
as the balance of ship lost suggests, thanks to the top-notch US damage
control, so I fear was also the bloodiest, perhaps by far....
Best regards from Italy,
Dott, Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
I precise, the True Kamikaze, that was, the Divine Wind....
sinister note, some has ever noticed that ominously a very strong
typhoon hit Philippine and southern Japan exactly in the timeframe
scheduled for the execution of OLYMPIC ?
aside the damage & disarray caused by the (true) Divine Wind, the
OLYMPIC carnage will be monstruous, because of the obvious impact on
Japanese morale & fanaticism.....
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
La N
> Daniel ha scritto:
>>> Salamis, estimated 30,000 died, both sides. Lepanto similar numbers.
>>
>> Hataka Bay, estimated two thirds of a Sino-Mongol force of 200,000
>> died in 1281, most of them drowning. Combination of Omaha on the
>> beachfront and Kamikaze bliss at sea.
>
> I precise, the True Kamikaze, that was, the Divine Wind....
>
"Divine Wind". Such a pretty metaphor. Deserving of a haiku ...:)
- nilita
Ray O'Hara
===========================================================
again that's if one accepts the greeks numbers.
I just don't see either side being able to maintain these large fleets, the
huge land forces and the supply train needed to move all this. look at what
the later europeans were able to maintain in the 17th-18th century in an
area with more people and better resources.
Marlborough was able to march to the danube in 1703 with 25,000 men and that
required a many depots and constant stopping to rest and resupply.
triremes had to stop every night on shore, they had no room for supplies so
they required a large land component.
fleets of hundreds of ships doesn't seem realistic.
Jack Linthicum
Got it
In blossom today, then scattered;
Life is so like a delicate flower.
How can one expect the fragrance to last forever?
Admiral Takajiro Onishi, Father of the Kamikaze
La N
Hmmm .... very nice ....
Roger Conroy
Many kamikaze pilots composed haikus as part of their "legacy" before their
final takeoff.
Poetry and calligraphy were among the "required arts" for Samurai.
Kamikaze volunteers frequently adopted/adapted some Samurai traditions.
Keith Willshaw
"Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:he6p6k$neo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> I was using Barry Strauss, The Battle of Salamis, "fourth century
> Roman writer" said the Greeks lost more than 40 triremes (crew = 170
> oarsmen, 17 officers and ratings) which would be about 7,000 men.
Only if you assume a 100% fatality rate which is unjustifiable given
that Herodotus mentioned that the Persians took proportionately
more casualties because unlike the Greeks most of the Persians
couldnt swim.
Keith
La N
That's interesting. I enjoy reading and writing haikus my own self.
- nilita
Jack Linthicum
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Best response is "(w)e hear nothing about prisoners at Salamis,
although there were usually prisoners in naval battles. Wealthy
captives could be ransomed and the rest enslaved. It may be that at
Salamis the Greeks were too angry to spare enemy lives and the
Persians too hard-pressed to stop to take captives". page 230. The
Persians still held much of the land on one side of Salamis and the
Greeks the other side.
Peter Skelton
You're several centuries out.
Peter Skelton
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk (Keith Willshaw) wrote:
> most of those died
> in subsequent shipwrecks and the massacres of the survivors.
From memory the Spanish lost two or three ships during the run down the
Channel and another one or two when the fire ships were sent in. All the
others were lost trying to get back to Spain.
As for the bloodiest battle while Lepanto may be it I think some of the
Ancient period battles would have been bloodier. Possibly Salamis.
Ken Young
dott.Piergiorgio
> In blossom today, then scattered;
> Life is so like a delicate flower.
> How can one expect the fragrance to last forever?
>
> Admiral Takajiro Onishi, Father of the Kamikaze
beh, I hope that a bit of National Pride can be pardoned, but the
Italian Invocation of the Intruders has a similar ring:
� Prego bens� che l'una e l'altra cosa,
la vittoria e il ritorno, tu conceda,
ma se una sola cosa, o Dio, darai,
la vittoria concedi sola! �
translation:
"Indeed I pray that both things,
the Victory and the Return You grant,
But if only one thing, My God, gives,
Victory alone grant ! "
Best regards, e Viva l' Italia !
Dott. Piergiorgio.
William Hamblen
wrote:
>So I am going to vote for Lepanto.
Actium, maybe.
Bud
Dennis
>>Do sinking liners crowded with refugees count as naval battles? If so
>>the sinkings by the Russians in the Baltic in 1945 must rank up there
>>as well.
>
> More than 5000 on a single ship.
Sasha Marinesko in S-12 accounted for more than 10,000 in a single
patrol, with the Gustloff and the General Steuben.
Dennis
Dennis
> The heaviest toll during a time bounded event in WW2 is probably
> the 12,000 or so killed during the series of actions of Leyte Gulf
What about Okinawa? The navy was taking more casualties than the
Army on land!
Dennis
Dennis
> sinister note, some has ever noticed that ominously a very strong
> typhoon hit Philippine and southern Japan exactly in the timeframe
> scheduled for the execution of OLYMPIC ?
For that matter, if OVERLORD had been put off, the Great Gale would
have hit the Normandy invasion fleet!
> aside the damage & disarray caused by the (true) Divine Wind, the
> OLYMPIC carnage will be monstruous, because of the obvious impact on
> Japanese morale & fanaticism.....
Yes. I've read that the US was going to use poison gas to eliminate
Japanese defenders in caves. I've also read that the Japanese had kept
some fairly good planes for kamikaze use, and that they could coordinate
attacks through mountain valleys by landline - very bad.
Dennis
Ray O'Hara
"Keith Willshaw" <ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zsCNm.746$Z_5...@newsfe10.ams2...
you snipped what Iwrote and left what Jack wrote and you deleted Jack from
the header
my comments were under the double line
David E. Powell
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:36:04 +0100, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>
Possible contenders:
Battle of Trafalgar
Divine Wind battle (Mongol fleet hit by storm)
Actium
Some of the Greek vs. Persian stuff must have been pretty nasty,
especially when ships were loaded with troops. Armor is no fun if you
fall overboard.
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>
>I brought this up in another thread, with WWII's Battle of the Atlantic
>taking at least 60,000 lives. But that was over a period of years.
>
>Actual time-restricted battles? (I don't insist on 24 hours)
>
>Most naval actions have tended to cost relatively few lives, at least
>in comparison with wholesale land slaughters. Historically, far more
>sailors have died of shipwreck or malnutrition than by enemy shot.
>(Disease was just as bad a problem for armies, so we'll leave that
>out.)
>
>But there have been exceptions.
>
>Trafalgar was pretty bloody, at least for the losers. Quite a few chaps
>cashed their chips at Jutland, too. Oh, and going back a bit, Sluys was
>pretty nasty, but you really can't trust mediaeval figures.
>
>So I am going to vote for Lepanto.
I wonder if this could be quantified in a deaths/time manner? For
instance the Hood/Bismarck encounter lasted around 11 minutes (IIRC)
and left 1415 dead - or 128.6 deaths per minute. Can any other naval
battle beat that death rate?
>Wow, an on-topic post.
Shame on you! Off to bed without your single malt!
Eugene L Griessel
If automobiles had followed the same development cycle as the
computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles
per gallon and explode once a year, killing everyone inside.
- I post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Keith Willshaw
"Dennis" <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC9BF2EF3EB7ts...@130.133.1.4...
Total USN casualties in the 3 month campaign were about 5,000 killed
The land forces lost around 7,000 killed while the Japanese had 107,000
killed and 20,000 missing, mostly sealed in caves.
Now the Japanese navy may have lost enough men to take the total above
that at Leyte but it was over a prolonged period rather than in a single
battle.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
> dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>
>> sinister note, some has ever noticed that ominously a very strong
>> typhoon hit Philippine and southern Japan exactly in the timeframe
>> scheduled for the execution of OLYMPIC ?
>
> For that matter, if OVERLORD had been put off, the Great Gale would
> have hit the Normandy invasion fleet!
>
Only if the weather forecasters were asleep. The allies had a serious
edge in weather forecasting over the Germans due to the weather
readings they were getting from the Atlantic.
Keith
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<ricfg5lavqipde3cfpset15r6q7n24ej4k@4ax.
com>,
Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za>
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:46:11 +0100, Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I brought this up in another thread, with WWII's Battle of the Atlantic
> >taking at least 60,000 lives. But that was over a period of years.
> >
> >Actual time-restricted battles? (I don't insist on 24 hours)
> >
> >Most naval actions have tended to cost relatively few lives, at least
> >in comparison with wholesale land slaughters. Historically, far more
> >sailors have died of shipwreck or malnutrition than by enemy shot.
> >(Disease was just as bad a problem for armies, so we'll leave that
> >out.)
> >
> >But there have been exceptions.
> >
> >Trafalgar was pretty bloody, at least for the losers. Quite a few chaps
> >cashed their chips at Jutland, too. Oh, and going back a bit, Sluys was
> >pretty nasty, but you really can't trust mediaeval figures.
> >
> >So I am going to vote for Lepanto.
>
> I wonder if this could be quantified in a deaths/time manner? For
> instance the Hood/Bismarck encounter lasted around 11 minutes (IIRC)
> and left 1415 dead - or 128.6 deaths per minute. Can any other naval
> battle beat that death rate?
(Gallipoli) Battleship Bouvet, having
made a turn to starboard into Eren Koy
Bay, struck a mine, capsized and sank
within a couple of minutes, killing 600
men
Or I suppose Arizona
Jack Linthicum
bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <ricfg5lavqipde3cfpset15r6q7n24ej4k@4ax.
> com>,
> Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za>
>
>
>
> wrote:
HMS Hood 1418 3 minutes
Dan
crews got off safely. One of the biggest loss rates (besides the "black
crew") were the maintenance/armorers who were in the hangars when the
bombs smashed through the decks. Few pilots were lost. A captain or
two purposefully went down with his ship...
Dan
Ray O'Hara
================================================================
the battles didn't end when Hood , Arizona or Bouvet sank.
the BCs at jutland went up quickly too. thats how ships go , KABOOM!
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<e0ababba-3a5e-498f-95bc-88e587ecc354@p2
8g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Jack Linthicum
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
You win
Eugene Griessel
I think the defining term is "battle" rather than an action in a
battle. The battle of the Denmark strait between Bismarck, Hood, POW
and PE lasted 11 minutes from commencement until POW broke off the
action, made smoke and turned away.
Eugene L Griessel
The meek shall inherit the earth -- they are too weak to refuse.
Roger Conroy
"dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
message news:6qFNm.40811$813....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
I'm afraid that prayer was not answered yesterday.
Italy lost a rugby match against South Africa's Springboks.
ha4h...@kent.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
That is one of the most poignant and tear-jerking displays at Chiran, in
Kagoshima.
ha4h...@kent.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
> "Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:44e77801-246d-4aa4...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 20, 11:18 am, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:66a7d616-1201-45f3...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 19, 11:46 pm, Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I brought this up in another thread, with WWII's Battle of the Atlantic
>> > taking at least 60,000 lives. But that was over a period of years.
>>
>> > Actual time-restricted battles? (I don't insist on 24 hours)
>>
>> > Most naval actions have tended to cost relatively few lives, at least
>> > in comparison with wholesale land slaughters. Historically, far more
>> > sailors have died of shipwreck or malnutrition than by enemy shot.
>> > (Disease was just as bad a problem for armies, so we'll leave that
>> > out.)
>>
>> > But there have been exceptions.
>>
>> > Trafalgar was pretty bloody, at least for the losers. Quite a few chaps
>> > cashed their chips at Jutland, too. Oh, and going back a bit, Sluys was
>> > pretty nasty, but you really can't trust mediaeval figures.
>>
>> > So I am going to vote for Lepanto.
>>
>> Salamis, estimated 30,000 died, both sides. Lepanto similar numbers.
>>
>> ================================================================
>>
>> the Greeks were known to exagerate. really really exagerate. no numbers
>> they
>> give in respect to the Persians can be believed.
>
> I was using Barry Strauss, The Battle of Salamis, "fourth century
> Roman writer" said the Greeks lost more than 40 triremes (crew = 170
> oarsmen, 17 officers and ratings) which would be about 7,000 men. The
> Persians lost 200. ie 35,000 men. The Persians probably died while not
> all of the Greeks would have been drowned or killed as they reached
> shore as the Persians were. page 204. Generously letting 5,000
> Persians live.
>
> Strauss estimates the lowest total dead Persians at 12,000 and the
> probable 20,000 "not surprising".
>
> ===========================================================
>
> again that's if one accepts the greeks numbers.
> I just don't see either side being able to maintain these large fleets, the
> huge land forces and the supply train needed to move all this. look at what
> the later europeans were able to maintain in the 17th-18th century in an
> area with more people and better resources.
> Marlborough was able to march to the danube in 1703 with 25,000 men and that
> required a many depots and constant stopping to rest and resupply.
> triremes had to stop every night on shore, they had no room for supplies so
> they required a large land component.
> fleets of hundreds of ships doesn't seem realistic.
Well, one might surmise that most of the Persion rowers weren't perhaps
Persian, but rather slaves of the same. Or otherwise volunteered from
the empire.
Ray O'Hara
<ha4h...@KENT.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> wrote in
message
news:yoliqd0...@KENT.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me...
yes, the Persions were a polyglot bunch, but they still had to be supplied
and the Greeks numbers border on the fantastic.
guy
tickle-me wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Very few members of the Persian army were Persians either, (or even
Medes)
Guy
Joe Osman
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:46:11 +0100, Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So I am going to vote for Lepanto.
>
> Actium, maybe.
>
> Bud
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_naval_battle_in_history.
It has some Asian battles as well. No casualty figures though.
Joe
Ray O'Hara
"guy" <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:761a1217-480a-4cac...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
Guy
================================================================
The Persians were a great empire, Cyrus the Great was happy if you paid your
taxes and obeyed the Imperial edicts.
for ancient times living under them was as good as it got.
they weren't evil like the Babylonians or Assyrians or as rapacious as the
Romans.
David E. Powell
> "guy" <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
Keep your gods? No problem! Just, well, if he's calling up an army or
collecting taxes, have to chip in and all....
guy
> I brought this up in another thread, with WWII's Battle of the Atlantic
> taking at least 60,000 lives. But that was over a period of years.
>
> Actual time-restricted battles? (I don't insist on 24 hours)
>
> Most naval actions have tended to cost relatively few lives, at least
> in comparison with wholesale land slaughters. Historically, far more
> sailors have died of shipwreck or malnutrition than by enemy shot.
> (Disease was just as bad a problem for armies, so we'll leave that
> out.)
>
> But there have been exceptions.
>
> Trafalgar was pretty bloody, at least for the losers. Quite a few chaps
> cashed their chips at Jutland, too. Oh, and going back a bit, Sluys was
> pretty nasty, but you really can't trust mediaeval figures.
>
> So I am going to vote for Lepanto.
>
>
> --
> "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
>
> If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
> Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
In loser percentage terms how about Coronel and Falklands?
Gy
Ray O'Hara
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:c96fb7c5-c663-4dd2...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
===================================================
Yup., Cyrus was probably the best/greatest conqueror of all time.
if our govt calls up the people for an army, say like WWI or WWII or VN you
have to chip in.
only the Chimperor tried it without asking for us to chip in. and thus we
are in hock to China and we have a burnt out Army that will require a lot of
counseling in the coming years.
Keith Willshaw
>
>
> The Persians were a great empire, Cyrus the Great was happy if you paid
> your taxes and obeyed the Imperial edicts.
> for ancient times living under them was as good as it got.
The Achaemenid Empire was certainly an enlightened one, the rulers
followed the teachings of Zoroaster which promoted human rights,
equality and went as far as banning slavery. However by the time
of Darius III the empire was falling apart from internal strife.
The previos two monarchs Artaxerxes III and Arses had been killed
off by a classic example of the scheming Grand Vizier (Bagoas).
When the last surving heir was appointed heir he poisoned Bagoas
first and took the title Darius III. he inherited an empire fragmented
and ruled by local satraps many of whom backed Alexander the Great
when he invaded. As a military leader he was a disaster and a coward.
He fled the battlefield on every occasion long before the issue was decided.
Indeed at the Battle of Gaugamela where he had a good position and
a larger army he turned and ran when the Greeks launched their attack.
> they weren't evil like the Babylonians or Assyrians or as rapacious as the
> Romans.
Describing an ancient empire as evil is an error IMHO. The Babylonians
in particular had some very enlightened rulers for the period. The Code
of Hammurabi is famous as one of the earliest and most complete
codifications of law both civil and criminal. It not only established
penal codes but the rights of all levels of society including slaves.
The principle of lex talionis (an eye for an eye) adopted by the jews
is taken from the Babylonian legal system as are many other
aspects of mosaic law.
Keith
Peter Skelton
Glasgow and Ortanto (sp?) escaped Coronel, Dresden escaped the
Falklands.
Peter Skelton
Keith Willshaw
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:hnhvg5htbpufa5ceh...@4ax.com...
The Battle of Tsushima must come close to winning that accolade.
The Russians lost all 8 of their battleships, all 3 small BB's , 4 out
of the 8 cruisers with another 3 being interned by the Americans and
6 of their 9 destroyers. Essentially the Russian fleet was completely
wiped out within only 1 cruiser and 2 destroyers making it to safety
in Vladivostok.
Keith
guy
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
For a very good one volume history of the Achaemenid empire try
'Persian Fire' by Tom Holland.
Guy
dott.Piergiorgio
> The Battle of Tsushima must come close to winning that accolade.
> The Russians lost all 8 of their battleships, all 3 small BB's , 4 out
> of the 8 cruisers with another 3 being interned by the Americans and
> 6 of their 9 destroyers. Essentially the Russian fleet was completely
> wiped out within only 1 cruiser and 2 destroyers making it to safety
> in Vladivostok.
I wonder if is ever possible to 100% wipe a convoy/squadron/fleet, by
the very nature of ships & seas, there can be always some ships whose
manage to slip/escape away....
(no, nukes can't wipe a fleet, ABLE shows well this....)
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
David E. Powell
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Peter Skelton" <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
Or the US Asiatic Fleet's battles in WW2. Or the second battle of
Admiral Graf Spee in WW1, only Emden got away.
The Japanese Southern force at Leyte got hit pretty badly too.