Talk:Naval battle

Merge with Naval warfare
The Naval warfare article contains much more information on the same topic, which this one is brief, generalized, and unsourced. David (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Naval warfare is a wider domain than naval battles: a battle is simply a crisis point within wider politico-military history. A taxonomy of naval warfare could start with military R&D (vide World War I), continue with political strategy, passing through the subject at hand, and concluding with the use of naval power as a detailed point of influence (anything from the Victorian send-a-gunboat policy to the Balkan Sharp Guard peacemaking blockade, picking up on the WWII, and arriving at modern-day practice in anti-piracy patrols off Somalia and the numerous tasks HMS Iron Duke is tasked with in the Caribbean, running from intercepting drug-running to being first with the most for hurricane relief).


 * On the other hand, as a subordinate domain of Naval Warfare, keeping it apart allows its development as a study of tactical theory and practice. I certainly agree that as it stands it is inadequate and in desperate need of enhancement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reject I agree with IP81.241.227.84. It is in need of a lot of information and enhancement, to borrow his statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirplanePro (talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Never be categorical about the "first" when dealing with ancient history
The Gebel el-Arak Knife shows two different designs of naval craft at odds with each other: it appears to record a naval incident preceding 3200BCE. It's insufficient to claim as a battle for certain, however. It would also be interesting to ask the Chinese to research backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)