The Ship Model Forum

by **Laurence Batchelor** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:08 pm

Anonymous wrote:

The opponent at Copenhagen were the Danes, whose country was not quite the maritime nation that could be described as "powerful". I trust this slip was prompted by the guilty conscience that every decent Briton should have regarding the way the British treated the Danes in that war.

No no I have no guilty conscience for my fore fathers.
It was genuine error due to posting before reading!
Duly corrected and the point being the Danes were not and did not have the potential to be a global or even European maritime super power to challenge Britain.
France and Spain certainly were European and were trying to be global.

Before someone comes back at me about the Nile defeating the French.
It did not, it merely pushed them out of Egypt and stopped their protentions of further eastern expansion.
Only Trafalgar relegated them to a subservient maritime role to Britain globally.

by **Guest** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:10 pm

Laurence Batchelor wrote:
Looking at Copenhagen it was certainly a masterful battle and the Dutch were a powerful maritime nation, but the very nature of their country and its geography meant it would always be hard for them to challenge Britain into the 19th Century across the globe.
On the other hand one cannot say the same for France or Spain.
When picking the bones out of these battles, think about the opposition and also what that opposition meant to Britain.
France and Spain were the only two other naval super powers which could threaten British global dominance of trade and colonialism, the Dutch could not.

The opponent at Copenhagen were the Danes, whose country was not quite the maritime nation that could be described as "powerful". I trust this slip was prompted by the guilty conscience that every decent Briton should have regarding the way the British treated the Danes in that war.

by **Werner** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:30 pm

How about the Glorious First of June? It set a model for what was to come.

by **Laurence Batchelor** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:21 pm

Anonymous wrote:
Laurence Batchelor wrote:This poll is a bit of a no brainer surely?
Only one of those battles ensured Britannia ruled the waves unchallenged for a full Century.

Then which of these battles would that one be? And if one of these battles did indeed "ensure" Britannia ruled the waves, could that battle have been fought to its historical outcome if none of the others were fought to their own respective historical outcomes?

And if outcome in those other battles were indispensible to the outcome of the one that "ensure" British rule, would not those others also be indispensible?

The Nile and Copenhagen paved the way for Trafalgar I agree.
However, only the later delivered what I stated earlier.
If we had lost at Traflagar we may very well have been invaded by Boney and it does not matter about Britain having no india etc etc as there would be no Britain if Trafalgar was lost!
Whats the more important?

Looking at Copenhagen it was certainly a masterful battle and the Danes were a powerful maritime nation, but the very nature of their country and its geography meant it would always be hard for them to challenge Britain into the 19th Century across the globe.
On the other hand one cannot say the same for France or Spain.
When picking the bones out of these battles, think about the opposition and also what that opposition meant to Britain.
France and Spain were the only two other naval super powers which could threaten British global dominance of trade and colonialism, the Danes could not.
Trafalgar is Nelson's most important battle as after then no power ever threatened Britain from the sea either through invasion or a full fleet action until the 20th century.
This meant she could monopolise world trade, prosper and become the first modern industrial nation in the world.

by **Guest** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:07 pm

Laurence Batchelor wrote:This poll is a bit of a no brainer surely?
Only one of those battles ensured Britannia ruled the waves unchallenged for a full Century.

Then which of these battles would that one be? And if one of these battles did indeed "ensure" Britannia ruled the waves, could that battle have been fought to its historical outcome if none of the others were fought to their own respective historical outcomes?

And if outcome in those other battles were indispensible to the outcome of the one that "ensure" British rule, would not those others also be indispensible?

by **kennylibben** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:04 pm

just curious chuck,

but why aren't you logging in? you even post with your name so if not for secrecy what then?

by **Guest** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:03 pm

Rodders wrote:

21st October 1805 Chuck baby !!!

Trafalgar was the most important sea battle of ALL time.
It paved the way for the Colonial expansion of Great Britain.
That in turn led to the Industrial Revolution and the building of a huge navy the like of which has never been seen nor will be seen again.
It made my country the world super power and a rich country. What broke us was paying America for its help in defeating Nazism.
Biased, moi? Yeh just a wee bit mateys

Actually, It did none of these things.

-Chuck

by **Laurence Batchelor** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:01 pm

This poll is a bit of a no brainer surely?
Only one of those battles ensured Britannia ruled the waves unchallenged for a full Century.
Furthermore a Trafalgar style victory was what every Captain in every Navy after 1815 dreamed of!
The battle immortalised Nelson forever, perhaps in way that could only come about by his loss.
But also lets not forget he defeated two mighty fleets in battle and was outnumbered and outgunned.

When comparing all three naval battles you put forward it was the crushing nature of Traflagar which also sets it apart from others in my opinion.
Both in terms of crushing the two fleets of the other two naval super powers in Europe - Spain and Europe - and also forever making them feel subsevient psychologically.

by **Rodders** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:45 pm

21st October 1805 Chuck baby !!!

Trafalgar was the most important sea battle of ALL time.
It paved the way for the Colonial expansion of Great Britain.
That in turn led to the Industrial Revolution and the building of a huge navy the like of which has never been seen nor will be seen again.
It made my country the world super power and a rich country. What broke us was paying America for its help in defeating Nazism.
Biased, moi? Yeh just a wee bit mateys

by **Dave Wooley** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 3:27 pm

Jorit you make some very interesting points and one that historians have pondered over for years. Looking at the situation regarding the German army re-1900-1914 and the Navy over the same period. The army always took the largest share of the funds allocated to the Military and was of course a major factor in the limitation talks that were under taken regarding the Novelles submitted by Tirpitz from 1900 onwards. The British governments of the day were constantly stating that Germany had a decisive factor in its army whilst Britain having only a small army, of little consequence when compared to that built up by Germany and relied heavily on its Navy for national as well as Empire defence. Were as the HSF was essentially designed to operate around the North Sea and by implication being seen rightly or wrongly as a direct challenge to the British . If the German army had broke through at the Marne and seized Paris in 1914 then she would have been de-facto master of the continent able to dictate the peace. However in order to do this successfully there was a overriding need to neutralize Britain and by implication the British fleet. Thus Tirpitz was well aware he needed a HSF equal to that of the British hence all the intrigue concerning the ratios during the years prior to 1914 and his personal fear of a �Copenhagen�.
Dave Wooley .

by **JWintjes** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:02 pm

Dave Wooley wrote:I would disagree, not so much on the tactical and strategic implications of a French Victory at the Nile but on the long-term implications of each of the great battles. In fact it could be said that each and every major battle fought by Nelson was going to, in some way alter the course of History and quite so. But Tirpitz did not fear a Trafalgar or a Battle of the Nile in fact he relished the thought of beating the British at sea, which occurred at Jutland!. But the very thought of being in the same position as the Danish fleet at Copenhagen was `his worst nightmare particularly in the period Tirpitz called the "danger zone" when the developing High Sea Fleet was most vulnerable. For me it has to be Copenhagen because of the influence it had on Tirpitz and ultimately the build up of the HSF which in turn lead to the calamity of 1914.In fact it was known that in 1905 Fisher was keen on a "Copenhagen" of the fledgling HSF but was over ruled and actually told he was "mad" for even considering such a move. .
Dave Wooley

While I find your reasoning very compelling, it directly leads to the question how much importance Tirpitz' planning and the ensuing arms race - which was over by 1912 - really had for the future of Europe. Even a disaster on the magnitude of Copenhagen would have made little difference had the German army broken through at the Marne, and that was a closer call than is commonly thought of.

Actually, one could make the point that the army reform of 1912 which had just about been completed when the war started might have been done one or two years earlier had the army high command managed to gain imperial attention earlier. This might have given the German army a decisive equipment edge.

Jorit

by **Dave Wooley** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:44 pm

I would disagree, not so much on the tactical and strategic implications of a French Victory at the Nile but on the long-term implications of each of the great battles. In fact it could be said that each and every major battle fought by Nelson was going to, in some way alter the course of History and quite so. But Tirpitz did not fear a Trafalgar or a Battle of the Nile in fact he relished the thought of beating the British at sea, which occurred at Jutland!. But the very thought of being in the same position as the Danish fleet at Copenhagen was `his worst nightmare particularly in the period Tirpitz called the "danger zone" when the developing High Sea Fleet was most vulnerable. For me it has to be Copenhagen because of the influence it had on Tirpitz and ultimately the build up of the HSF which in turn lead to the calamity of 1914.In fact it was known that in 1905 Fisher was keen on a "Copenhagen" of the fledgling HSF but was over ruled and actually told he was "mad" for even considering such a move. .
Dave Wooley

by **ARH** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:32 am

JWintjes wrote:I have to agree with Chuck here - victory in Egypt could well have made a Russian campaign unnecessary and thus altered the political landscape of Europe not only dramatically, but also permanently.

Jorit

WHATS THIS , JORIT AND CHUCK AGREEING, MY HOW THE SITE HAS CHANGED,

by **JWintjes** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 5:43 am

I have to agree with Chuck here - victory in Egypt could well have made a Russian campaign unnecessary and thus altered the political landscape of Europe not only dramatically, but also permanently.

Jorit

by **chuck** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:27 pm

How about the battle of the Nile? Without that battle, it seem conceivable that Napoleon would have succeeded in subduing the Turkish east, gained access to the Persian gulf, and from there evicted the British from India, and established French hegemony in the Laventine coast and a French Oriental empire on the Indian subcontinent. Since Napoleon couid undoubted defeat any Russian force, the French might even lay the foundation of a French empire stretching from Istambul to Bay of Bangal.

If this were to transpire, it seems almost certain that Britain would be defeated rather quickly afterwards, and Pax Britainnica would never have transpired, and French, rather than English, would be the dominant language of the world.

I vote for battle of Nile for steering the world from a vastly different might-have-been.

by **Dave Wooley** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:19 pm

With out a doubt the �Battle of Copenhagen� had the most far-reaching implications. The one situation that Admiral Tirpitz feared most and was obsessed with whilst he was building up the Imperial navy during the early years of the 20th centaury was to be "Copenhagened� by the British the word he constantly used from 1900 until 1912, and the one single type of battle that he knew the German Navy could not win.
Dave Wooley

by **Mac** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:51 am

Paul,

You have to be a registered member of the forum (and logged in) to vote in the polls or use some of the other features of the messageboard. HTH

Mac

by **CaptainBill03** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:49 am

I keep seeing these polls, but don't see any way to cast a Vote?

Paul

by **chuck** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:31 am

Much has been made about Trafalgar, whose anniversary is 20th of this month. It has been said, for example, that Trafalgar is "the most decisive naval battle in history, strategically and tactically". What is your opinion of that battle's ralative significance?

Which of Nelson's battles were in fact the one that most easily could have gone the other way, and whose actual outcome had a greater impact on the later events of the world?

The Ship Model Forum

Nelson's most important battle

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Nelson's most important battle

Re: Trafalgar

Trafalgar

voting?

Nelson's most important battle