Talk:Battle of Lissa (1866)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Croatian sailors[edit]

Hi there....

There is one big mistake in this article...marines on Austrian ships where mainly Croats, and not venetian sailors...out of 7,871 sailors on Austrian ships around 5,000 were Croats. They were mostly sailors, fishermen, people used to life near the sea and on ships. 89.172.7.80 19:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)s -That business about Venetians has been removed before and I'm sure it will be removed again.

Hello Folks. Thanks for cleaning it up. Was my stub any good? --rasmusdf 16:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure it was! I find it useful to start with a short article, gives a chance to view it in context (links to and from), before deciding how to expand. Stan 17:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some time later (1.5 years or so). Vauw, my original short stub has expanded into a really impressive article. Congratulations to all contributors - Great Job! rasmusdf 17:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No dramas I enjoyed writing it.

Crotian sailors were about 70%? dont know where you found it but i think it's wrong; and even if croats were the majority, i dont think they were so great sailor as venetians one: remind you republic of venice had been a great maritime power, and at that time officer were trained in venice - that's why they all speak venetian. Reinserted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanoff (talkcontribs) 10:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is true to some extent. The Austrians didn't even have a navy until they annexed Venice, but matters are being overstated. 67th Tigers (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Then if they were Croatian, let's try to understand why Tegethoff who learned sailing and naval fighting in VENICE, was used to speak to his men in Venetan which is the language of the Venetians and all those living in VENETO, the Region of 4 million people around Venice. As it is reported in the italian wikipedia, the men fighting against the Piedmonteses and their superior fleet were VENETIANS, ISTRIANS and DALMATIANS, i.e. all people belonging to the same ethnic group of VENETANS. If then ISTRIA and DALMATIA have been taken by former Yugoslavia at the end of WW2 ........this is another thing. Those Istrians and Dalmatians fighting at Lissa were as VENETAN as those living in VENICE, from an ethnic perspective. The same people that stopped the Turks at Lepanto and went back home in Canal Grande in Venice singing loud.
BTW .............most of them were not professional soldiers and when back home they took their former activities. Thanks to them the Turkish advance into Europe was stopped forever. This is VENICE, dude. Langbard talk 02:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling Istrians and Dalmatians Venetians will get you into a lot of trouble east of the Adriatic. Venetian is not a language, nor an ethnic group. Confusing historical events from centuries apart (so Venice's medieval empire included parts of Dalmatia, so?? THIS battle is in 1866) is not proof. Making up "ethnic" relationships between groups whose major relationship is they were once ruled from the same city is not proof. The one fact you have is that the Austrian naval academy is in Venice. This is a little like saying that because the Royal Navy fleet base was at Scapa Flow, the RN sailors must have spoken old norse. Can we clear this unsubstantiated and unbelievably silly stuff? If the Austrian sailors used a battle-cry derived from venetian custom, that's interesting, but it needs to be proved with something better than this ranting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.125.84.182 (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You did a lot of confusion: Venetian empire was not medieval, but lasted until 1797, and both Istria and Dalmatian cities belonged to it for several centuries; the Kingdom of Croatia was a Medieval short-lived state, which never included Istria; and Venetian actually is a recognised language. Nor there was any concept of modern day "nationalism", as we intend Croatia or Italy today, at that time: the only rulers they had at that time were Venetians until 69 years before, and Austrians since 1797, but for a small period the French Empire; even, until 1945-1954, nor Istria or Zara did belong to Yugoslavia, so neither to Croatia; and indeed many "Slavic" surnames can be found among post-war refugees in Italy, as well as Venetian dialects are commonly still spoken in Istria, since until 1866 there was no Italian/Croatian division in Istria nor Dalmatia but they all referred to the same old culture. ~~
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.57.35.158 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 

I corrected the article in a neutral way: It is interesting to point out that out of 7,871 sailors on Austrian ships around 5,000 were Istrians or Dalmatians (today Croatia).. I think it is the better way not to hurt Croatian or Venetian people (out of fanatic nationalists) and also to be more precise (surely almost no sailor was coming from Zagreb or Osijek, and I know that there is a lot of difference between e.g. Istrian croats and inner lands croats). ~~

Tegetthoff[edit]

"Tegetthoff returned home a hero, was promoted Vice Admiral, and is considered one of the greatest naval commanders in history." By whom? I ((fact)) tagged this, cite needed. If it said "in Austrian history" that would be another matter. But in world naval history? Herostratus 08:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to reflect that; I think that was the original intent. Trekphiler 12:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Affondatore: Winnebago at Sea[edit]

I no longer have the source alleging frightful handling characteristics to the Italian turret ship. Should I remove comment?

Out of interest, the fire on the Palestro, according to William McElwee's "The Art of War: Waterloo to Mons", was started by a shell hitting the paint locker. The article seems to give the impression it was a result of "Ferdinand Max's" sideswipe.

Dodge ram?[edit]

My impression from what I've read is, the success of the ram @Lissa & the subsequent mania by naval architects for it inhibited the development of gunnery. Can anyboy substantiate? Trekphiler 12:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ramming was such an integral part in the Austrian success that people assumed that the iron ram, combined with the power of a steam engine, was the weapon of the future. Advancements in gunnery however, continued, although architects kept equipping ships with rams well into the late 19th century.

Actually no, the ram didn't really make a comeback as a weapon. It is true that a lot of ironclads had "ram bows" (even Warrior did), but the reason was to cut the seas better and give several extra knots of speed under steam. 67th Tigers (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Warrior did not have a ram bow. Quite the reverse.

2. Ramming had also been used successfully in the American Civil War - for example the sinking of USS Cumberland. The Peruvian Huascar benefited from the deterrent effect of its ram when it was engaged by a more powerful British force in 1878.

3. Lissa clearly did not affect progress the material development of guns. For example in 1867-68 the British undertook a an expensive rearmament programme for existing ironclads - giving them a new generation of guns, which gave them the ability to penetrate what had been near-invulnerable armour. There were also improvements in gun carriages. There was then a 'calibre race' - even 200-ton guns had been developed by the late 1870s, though the largest guns of that technology that were put on ships were 100 ton guns. There was then another technological jump in gun technology, followed by another 'calibre race', followed by yet another technological jump in gun technology...

As for ram bows - the ram was useful - giving ships a ram bow had some good hydrodynamic effects. Ramming was still used by destroyers against submarines in both World Wars.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Naval ranks[edit]

Hello. I would like to discuss a problem of major Italian naval officers' ranking. In this article, Faa di Bruno, Vacca and Ribotti are called just "Admirals", but neither of them was a complete Admiral. Vacca was a Rear Admiral, like Tegethoff, and the two others were "capitano di vascello"
This Italian word means "captain of the battleship" and it is approximately similar to the English "Commodore". Look at the Italian page of this battle in Wiki to insure. Regards, Feanfox 13:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Croats[edit]

HI there

There were no croats on Venetian boats (and that was a Venetian fleet or Austro-Venetian fleet or Osterraich-Venetianitsche Marine if you prefer) , just Venetians, Istrians and Dalmatians. Maybe were Istrians and Dalmatians some kind of croats ? No croats lived in those lands before the end of WW2 and just after the end of WW2 Istria and Dalmatia have been filled with croats. When in history have croats had a fierce naval force ? And Austrians and Hungarians ? The English have had it, the Spaniards too...........and VENICE. I edited the text of the battle but my editing has been nullified by someone who cares to report what he wants but that doesn' t change history. In Italian wikipedia you can read the true report of the battle including that Mr. Tegetthoff had to learn Venetan to lead the fleet besided that he had to learn how to lead it in VENICE and that he told his men that the battle was won speaking in Venetan. In Italian wikipedia it's also said that it has to be rewarded as the last great Venetian victory over the seas. Austro-Hungarian fleet ..........laughable..................not even by name.

Just tell us when croatia displayed a war fleet anywhere in any sea (that you like) of the world. Maybe against the Turks at Lepanto as well ? The fact that someone removed the truth about that Venetian fleet..............let all of us understand who he is, and how wikipedia works...............in its italian version you can read the truth ........which names Venetians, Friulans, Dalmatians, Istrians. Do you see any croats ? On a boat ?

Dalmatians are "Croats" in the modern sense, since Dalmatia is part of Croatia. And is "Venetian" actually a language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.125.84.170 (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Just get a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_language —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filippo83 (talkcontribs) 01:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, someone wrote ....................Calling Istrians and Dalmatians Venetians will get you into a lot of trouble east of the Adriatic........................................................... ................................................................... Do you think any of us keeps in some count what anyone East of the Adriatic thinks or believes ? Istria and Dalmatia were populated till WW2 by a people genetically and linguistically closely related to the Venetians, talking more or less the same language. Those lands became Yugoslavia just after WW2 because the Allies gave them to you and since then those lands were populated with croats. Nowadays true Istrians and Dalmatians are a minority in their historical lands. And there were no croats on Venetian boats. Never in history.

Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.57.45.105 (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And to the one who wrote .............Venetian is not a language, nor an ethnic group............................................................

Venetian is not a language nor a people ...............infact the same italian state recognize Venetans as a people and what they speak is called language istead of dialect. The same italian state that is centralist at the most possible extent (as a remedy to the fact that ethnical unity is a dream in a place that extends itself for more than 1000 KM from North to south and historically has been, and still is, populated by different peoples). In other words, politic italian power well knows differences are too large and is always worried about anything that could lead to break this weak unity. That's why it's so centralist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.57.45.105 (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Operational Context[edit]

This article would benefit from a few sentences at the front to place it in the context of the larger campaign. Passages such as "They were busy preparing for landings when the news that the Austrian fleet was at sea and seeking battle reached them. Persano cancelled the landings..." don't make much sense when the reader doesn't know where they were landing (presumably Lissa), who was landing (obviously Italian troops, but how many, from what units), or why they were landing there (It's not clear how landing on an island well to the south of Venice contributes to capturing Venice). I'm sure the answers are out there, but I'm not the person to be writing this, otherwise I would do it myself.

On a totally different note, the passage "The Fort of Lissa was put under the authority of the Transsylvanian Romanian Oberst David Urs de Margina" reads like a nationalist violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Anyone who cares to can see that Transylvania is currently part of Romania, and it's equally true that it has been under other governments in the past. At the time of this battle Transylvania was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and didn't come under Romanian control until after World War I. Why not just say he's Transylvanian and leave it at that? On second thought, the fort is not mentioned again in the article and seemed to play no part in the battle, so why is it's commander mentioned at all? Darkstar8799 (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Lack of inline sources"[edit]

Can someone be more specific? Which part of the text? Kubura (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The following sections lack adequate citations:

  • The infobox
  • Plans for the battle
  • 10 o'clock — the fleets engage
  • The decisive moments — the ramming attacks
  • The aftermath
  • Order of battle
  • Namesakes

If the article were adequately cited, then it would have citations (footnotes referencing books, etc.) for all important statements.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sad fact[edit]

The armoured frigate SMS Erzherzog Ferdinand Max was broken up for scrap in 1916, even though that ship must have been to the Habsburg Empire an equvlent what the HMS Victory meant for Britain. 82.131.131.147 (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Background of battle?[edit]

Currently the article merely presents a tactical description of this battle on the Adriatic. Unless a reader had already read the article on the Prussian-Austrian war, he would not know why the battle occurred, since no motives for the battle are presented in the article.

Would someone therefore provide the political motives for the battle? For example, a mention of the Risorgimento, and of Italy's alliance with Prussia against Austria, and of Napoleon III's role (did the Italians know of Prussia's provisions for Italy which Prussia had negotiated with Napoleon III?). Who persuaded the Italian government to try to seize Venice? Why did the Italians think that they would win?

Also, perhaps a mention of the preparations for the battle: Who built the ships that were involved in the battle, and when were they built? How did the Austrians prepare their response to the Italians' threat? How long did each side require to mobilize for the battle?

Cwkmail (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote[edit]

I recently removed the hatnote on this article linking to Battle of Lissa (1811) and referred to this guideline in my edit summary. My edit was reverted by User:Toddy1 and I proceeded to initiate a discussion on Toddy's talk page. As we could not agree about whether or not the hatnote is valid, I am moving the discussion here. The reason that I believe the hatnote to be inappropriate is because it serves to disambiguate an article name that is not ambiguous, something that is prohibited by the guideline I quoted in my edit summary. Toddy has suggested that the hatnote is "obviously useful, and not obviously against the guideline". I disagree fully; I find the hatnote quite obviously against the guideline and see it to be far more detrimental to the project than helpful. Several reasons for not disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous are outlined on the guideline itself. There is nothing that sets this case apart from any others; the hatnote should be removed. Neelix (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to leave the hatnotes on both articles: someone searching for info on "The Battle of Lissa" (and who might arrive at either article through a Google etc search) might not realise there are two battles of that name, and thus not notice they are at the wrong article. This feels different, to me, from most other cases where we apply the guideline of not adding a hatnote to disambiguated headings. Sometimes we have to WP:IAR, and I think this hatnote is on balance beneficial to the encyclopedia. PamD (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
If there's any chance of confusion, the hatnote might be helpful. It is possible to have technically disambiguated titles that still might not make the distinction obvious to readers without additional context. olderwiser 19:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Neelix is quite obviously right and anyway, since the Battle of Lissa disambiguation page lists three entries, we should at any rate be linking back to DAB, not the 1811 battle. Albrecht (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
One could easily enough claim WP:SIMILAR as WP:NAMB. This is an editing guideline only and not intended to be an ironclad rule. BTW, the mention of the Battle of Leuthen on the Battle of Lissa disambiguation page was not supported by the linked article -- I've hidden it until reliable sources in the linked article support the claim. olderwiser 20:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You couldn't take five seconds and run it through Google Books?
  1. THE BATTLE OF LEUTHEN OR LISSA. ...and a troop of hussars after dark, and reached the village of which they ... numbers that his Majesty inquired where they came from, and heard to his surprise that the whole army was on its way to Lissa.
  2. Article I. — Battle of Leuthen or Lissa, gained by Frederick II., 5th December, 1757...
  3. Rosbach and Leuthen (Lissa) have no parallels in history. Leuthen is undoubtedly the greatest fighting triumph of military genius on record. Macaulay, unjust to Frederic generally, is here compelled to do him the fullest justice...
  4. Immediately after the battle of Leuthen (Lissa), "the most complete of all Frederick's victories," he laid siege to Breslau, which, after nine days, had to capitulate...
Albrecht (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Then by all means add the information to the target article. It is not my area of expertise -- all I have to go on is what is provided in the articles -- disambiguation pages are not the place to introduce new information. olderwiser 20:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Back to the main subject of this discussion, one cannot just as easily claim WP:SIMILAR as WP:NAMB. WP:SIMILAR is explicitly for use "When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not" (italics mine). Both are disambiguated in this case; the hatnote is not appropriate. Neelix (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

True enough, but this page is nothing more than a backwater editing guideline. Like disambiguation pages, the purpose is to help readers find articles that might otherwise be confused, not to define an all-encompassing set of programmatic rules. As the nutshell summary indicates, it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. olderwiser 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not everybody is completely familiar with 19th Century history. Some people will search for the Battle of Lissa in 18-something, and when they find it, realise that they may not be where they want to be, so the "hatnote" is still useful. The guideline states "However, a hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator)." This seems analogous to someone confusing Battle of Lissa (1866) with Battle of Lissa (1811).--Toddy1 (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The analogous scenario would be something like First Battle of Lissa (1866) (Adriatic Sea) and Second Battle of Lissa (1866) (Philippine Islands). But a better example may be Hudson Bay expedition: though it commonly refers to the French expedition of 1782, the phrase itself is ambiguous and could easily refer to other events, thus the hatnote. I don't see a similar justification here. At any rate, it should point to the DAB page, as per above. Albrecht (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not mind whether the "hatnote" points to a disambiguation page or the 1811 battle page.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Albrecht's assertion; the reference to exceptions to the rule is not valid in this case as his example aptly demonstrates. No one has provided a reason to include a hatnote in this specific instance that does not apply to all other hatnotes disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. The arguments that have been presented against this hatnote are arguments against the guideline itself, not simply against this specific instance. These concerns should be moved to a discussion on the guideline's talk page and this hatnote should be removed in the meantime until concensus on this issue changes there. Neelix (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
So basically you are saying that there is little or no possibility that a casual reader might confuse the two. I would say that it is not unreasonable that the battles might be confused. Consider for example the hatnote on Treaty of Paris (1783). Would you also want to remove that hatnote, since, at least technically, the article titles are already fully disambiguated? The core problem is that a technically disambiguated title might not provide enough context for readers to instantly recognize which article is meant from the title alone. Applying a narrow interpretation of this guideline without taking into consideration the purpose of having hatnotes seems unhelpful. olderwiser 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You write that my position is that "there is little or no possibility that a casual reader might confuse the two"; that is correct, because there is no situation in which a reader would be looking for one and end up at the other. Typing "Battle of Lissa" into the search bar, the reader is presented with both options and, if the wrong one is chosen, the reader may simply go back and choose the right one. Selecting one from the list automatically generated from the search bar, the same is the case; the reader is presented with both options, is informed of both's existence, and already has an expedient way of choosing the other without the need of a hatnote. If the reader comes across this article via an internal link, the internal link would have directed them to the correct article or else it would have directed them to the disambiguation page. There is no situation in which the hatnote would be helpful and it is a hindrance because it clutters the top of the article and gives the suggestion to editors that disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous is good practice.
Again, this is a matter for discussion at the guideline talk page, not the talk page of a specific instance where the guideline is not followed. If you believe that disambiguators that solely consist of years should be an exception, start a discussion on the guideline talk page suggesting that such an exception be appended to the guideline. Neelix (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Discussion about whether a hatnote is appropriate for a specific page, which is what this has been, belongs on the talk page of that article. The guideline quite clearly and explicitly allows for exceptions. Discussion about whether an exception is warranted in a particular case is not the same as changing the guideline, although if there are a lot of similar such exceptions, it might indicate that the guideline does not accurately describe consensus of the community. olderwiser 19:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Neelix says "there is no situation in which a reader would be looking for one and end up at the other": not so. The reader may have Googled (or otherwise searched) "Battle of Lissa", oblivious to the fact that this is not a unique name like "Battle of Hastings". This feels quite different from the situation where someone might Google "Joe Bloggs" and find a boxer when they want a theologian. The hatnotes to distinguish the two dated battles seem useful. I wonder if there's some geo-political undercurrent here which I know nothing about, which explains the passionate urge to remove helpful navigational aids? PamD (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not appreciate personal attacks. My passion is for seeing articles conform to guidelines, nothing more. When Googling "Battle of Lissa", the disambiguation page comes up right next to the 1866 battle, indicating to the searcher where to find an article about the other battle. In response to older ≠ wiser, the guideline does not allow for whatever exceptions a user sees fit to enforce; the acceptable exceptions are stipulated. Please start a discussion on the guideline talk page if you continue to disagree with the guideline. Neelix (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't a personal attack, just a musing as to why these harmless, useful, hatnotes, seemed to be causing such angst. But looking again at the geography (ie not in Balkans or Middle East), the geopolitics seemed less likely! I don't care enough to waste any more time on this, though I still believe that these hatnotes improve the encyclopedia. PamD (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
@Neelix, in this particular case it really doesn't make much of a difference one way or the other as far as I can tell. However, I think you are quite mistaken about the guideline and I am firmly opposed mindless adherence to backwater guidelines that ignore the context of the situation. olderwiser 00:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Faà di Bruno was also a submarine[edit]

Unfortunately I cannot find the source (an old magazine devoted to such matters), but I'm sure there has also been a WWII Italian submarine called Faà di Bruno. Mb 3r7864 (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, during WWII was sunk in October 1940. See http://www.sommergibili.com/faadibruno.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.140.180 (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Many of the queries raised in this article are answered in my "Emergence of the Modern Capital Ship" (1979) a peer-reviewed academic press publication,inexplicably omited from this article's biblio. Stanley Sandler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.104.115 (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Nationality of sailors[edit]

I corrected the article in the (I think) more neutral way: Tegetthoff's victory was saluted by his mariners - mainly Croats and Venetians, from Venetia, Istria and Dalmatia. Stating their nationality in the contemporary way is misleading, and it is better to consider their ethnicity, but remember that in 1866 things were a bit different:

  • all of them were "Austrian" citizens by passport;
  • preceding state was Republic of Venice for 80-90% of sailors (the others, Austria or Dubrovnik/Ragusa);
  • officers were mainly Austrians, but educated in Venice or Trieste;
  • there were many sailors from mainland Veneto and Friuli, first of all the helmsman Vianello; you can see the list of medals of Venetians, which includes mainland Venetians only (not from Istria or Dalmatia);
  • until 1947, Istria was inhabited by a 40% of "Italians" (i.e. Venetians) by language, above all on the coast towns where many of sailors came from;
  • until 1918, it was the same for many inhabitants of Fiume/Rijeka and of Dalmatian coastal towns, above all Zara/Zadar and Spalato/Split; Fiume and Zara were under Italy de jure until 1947 (de facto until 1943);
  • as proven and undoubtful, Tegetthoff and his officers used Venetian dialect as the communication language with sailors.

I hope that we will not go to fight for nationalist reasons!

Filippo83 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)