botully

I don't know what would be considered "corroborating evidence", but there is a new book out "The Battle of Midway" by Craig L. Symonds and published by Oxford University Press. Shattered Sword is in the bibliography, and it is cited several times in the main text. The author of this new book reports that the flight decks were empty except for a few CAP fighters. The reason that the decks could not have been loaded with planes is simple, and exactly as Shattered Sword concluded: The constant attacks against the Japanese carriers meant that they had to continually launch and recover the CAP, leaving no time to spot an attack. Furthermore, since Fuchida, the main source for the "Fatal 10 minutes" story, was on the Akagi. The only hit on Akagi hit in the center of the flight deck and penetrated to the hanger before exploding, not on the aft portion of the flight deck, where Fuchida claimed a bomb exploded among the planes waiting to launch.

I think the "Fatal 10 minutes" story has been officially laid to rest, however I imagine it will continue to be told, given the decades it has had to become entrenched.

Tuthmosis III

I am inclined to agree with the 17th and 19th century picks. (I know doodly-squat about the 20th, so dare not venture an opinion.)
But why DeGrasse? Graves and Hood were rather unimaginative (fortunately for the future USA) compared to Rodney who destroyed him at the Saintes. If we must go French, why not Suffren?

I join those who would add Themistocles to the list.

I'm also impressed with Yi Sun Shin of Korea. Yes, his "turtle ships" at Myeongnyang were sort of like the CSS Virginia unleashed at Hampton Roads before the Monitor showed up. Still, that was a neat one and not his only victory.

Kevinmeath

One name that should be put forward for the 20th century is Cunningham in the 'Med' during WWII, did very well with limited resources.

betgo

Yeh, I think technology and organization played a big role. Particularly around 1900 some navies of older imperial power were pretty obsolete. The way the Japan crushed Russia and the US crushed Spain were mostly due to better navies not brilliant admirals.

Ancientgeezer

Surely Blake deserves more than a passing mention. Even Nelson confessed that Blake was a better Admiral than he. He also detatched the idea of "Gentlemen" being in command of ships rather than skilled sailors and it was his "Fighting Instructions" that turned a collection of ships into a fleet.

rehabnonono

Yes, although from different times, Blake did something Nelson couldn't do... maul the Spanish at (Santa Cruz de) Tenerife. Actually (General) Blake, was considered the father of the RN, and did things nobody before him had even contemplated. Blake was an innovator, reformer and tactician that brought credit to the RN all over Europe.

Nelson on the other hand, led a fleet that was already considered far and away the greatest navy afloat and despite this advantage, only had one substantial victory against ships not at anchor. That was Trafalgar over the insufficient French and Spanish fleets who for all the good her landlubber crews were to the outdated ships, may as well had been at anchor.

Whereas Blake was successful at Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Nelson's attack was a complete fiasco. The Admiralty considered Nelson a bit of a duffer (n. a peddler especially of cheap flashy articles) at the time, although upon his return Nelson's fawning public still treated him, as Wellington had suggested later he could be, like some sort of lascivious opera star.

LuciusCorneliusSulla

Lysander? George of Antioch? Stephen Decatur Jr.? (Not sure he was officially an "admiral," but an interesting figure nonetheless.) Horatio Nelson?

Just thought I'd throw in a few names that stood out from my naval history class many moons ago.

I agree with Themistocles and Yi also.