Talk:Largest naval battle in history

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 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)

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)

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. (138.88.163.46 18:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC))