Which ship is more important:Titanic or Lusitania?

[montgomery69]

Hello everyone!!

I am a Titanic historian and I am just curious to know what people think for my question.
For me Titanic should be considered equally important to Lusitania. Because, approx 500 more folks died on Titanic and no ship can beat Titanic in her significance in changes to Maritime laws and is surely the most fascinating ship to be a fan off.

I do not agree to the fact that people believe that Lusitania was THE reason US joined WW1 because, the Zimmerman note is FAR FAR more crucial than a ship sinking because, Germany had indirectly threaten to attack US in intimidating Mexico to join Germany to gain the lost Mexican land which was then acquired by US.

And anyways I as a historian claim that Lusitania was not the most important, best ship on the high seas at that time because, in comparison to R.M.S Olympic, Lusitania was a baby in size and in level of famousness at that time. So a minor sinking can't lead a nation into war(that is just my opinion). Lusitania was a express/ heavy bodied liner so, it's pretty obvious that the ship will get "over-hyped" due to sinking AND IT WAS NOT A AMERICAN LINER BUT, IT WAS 100% BRITISH and I can't understand why people claim it to be American.

So, guys what do you think is a more important ship in history?? Titanic or Lusitania
Please be serious and answer accordingly.

[drystan]

I consider the Lusitania more important.The fact that America went to war because of the Zimmerman telegram is irrelevant. The sinking of the Lusitania paved the way for that. And that makes the Lusitania more important.

The size of the Titanic doesn't really matter. It is the enormous loss of life that counts. Which is, as you probably know, dwarfed by the sinking of the Wihelm Gustlaf. There are more martime incidents that come pretty close to the disaster of the Titanic.

The only reason why the Titanic is still remembered today is the sinking. Had this not happened, hardly a soul would know about it. She was the biggest and fastest ship of her days, true. But not in a spectacular way. When she was launched, keels were laid for bigger & faster ships.

A modern cruise ship today beats the Titanic in every possible field: they are cheaper, faster, far more luxurious in all classes, provide much more entertained, much better quality food.

The Titanic was not a bad ship, mind you. But the records she said or could have set in any field were broken almost the year after. That makes here stand out in just one field, and that doesn't really count, because it was an accident.

[bellden]

The British Royal Navy did ok at the Battle of Heligoland 28/08/1914
and the Battle of Jutland 31/03/1916 without the help of the US.
http://www.battle-of-jutland.com

[unss94]

The Allies certainly did NOT lose every battle before the Americans joined. They held at the Marne, they held Verdun, among others.
Also the Mauritania and Lusitania were faster than the Titanic and Olympic. White star claimed more luxury, Cunard claimed more speed.

[jamilah38]

The Allies certainly did NOT lose every battle before the Americans joined. They held at the Marne, they held Verdun, among others.
Also the Mauritania and Lusitania were faster than the Titanic and Olympic. White star claimed more luxury, Cunard claimed more speed.

You have a good point. These sister ships, including the Mauritania were Famous for their tragic sinking. All are shrouded in mystery.
I think the Titanic was the more interesting one. It was a solo event, tragic, could have been avoided.
The Lusitania was part of a Chorus of events. The Lusitania was a ship sailing into harm's way. She was loaded with enough ammunition, that she lifted 30 feet from the explosion and then sank like a rock. The british hushed up the ammunition part, and launched a propaganda campaign.
The Allies lost every battle until the Americans showed up. But they won the propaganda campaign hands down.