Talk:Battle of Lepanto (1571)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg/37px-Napoleon(1850).jpg){kind=small}
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing! |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
 |
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Battle of Lepanto (1571): |
|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
|
 |
Battle of Lepanto (1571) is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
Crusades task force | ||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Comment
"Battles of Diu, 1509 and 1538". Do you mean the battle of Preveza in 1538? SpookyMulder 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason that the title of this article has the year mentioned in it? If there was more than one Battle of Lepanto, I can see why the year would be included, but I can't seem to find any mention of another battle of the same name. Am I mistaken about that, or should this article be renamed to match the format of most other battles in the list of naval battles? If I am indeed mistaken (as is very possible), there should probably be a disambiguation page created at Battle of Lepanto (currently empty). -- Vardion 05:15, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There were battles in the Lepanto area in 1499 and 1500, which were both won by the Turks. There was also a battle during the Second Peloponnesian War, but as it wasn't known as Lepanto then it isn't counted. (Source - Collins Encyclopaedia of Military History) Average Earthman 19:20, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What was it called then? (Given the general area I guess it may have been the Battle of Naupactus (429 BC)) Adam Bishop 19:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- See alsoList of battles where we disambiguate battles. But Battle of Lepanto needs to be a disambiguation page. I'll do it presently. Rmhermen 19:24, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
"Ottomans lost their control of the seas, especially in the western part of the Mediterranean." - Shouldn't this be Eastern instead of Western? Europeans already had a fair play of the western european, and I'd think that Lepanto would make more of a different to the Eastern part than the western. Other Internet sources have also indicated Eastern.
---I disagree, if the Venetians and allies would have been defeated, it would have caused Turkish expansion into Italy and Western Europe. Therefore, it was most definetly a decisive victory for the West...--User:JMG 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for the Portugese connection below. I am writing a paper for school, the thesis being that Lepanto wasn't such a big deal as it is played out to be. More stuff like the Portugese connection would be most valuable. But references would be a plus, because I have to use them for my paper. Not that I am afraid of doing leg work and Harvard has a great library. Perhaps I'll take some of the results of my research and add them here. - Bobk, 9 December 2004
Lepanto is a huge deal for the West, I can't believe you are saying that....If the mighty Turkish empire win that battle, Italy is left vulnerable and in time the Turks would have taken Italy and the rest of Europe. That battle decimated the Turkish navy and forced them to consolidate their Eastern Empire and forego the West....I can't imagine anyone actually believing that the Battle of Lepanto was not a huge deal. If the battle at Lepanto did not crush Turkish expansion then what other major event stopped them then? It wasn't the goodness of their own hearts. The Turkish empire was a powerhouse, in my opinion far more powerful than the Holy Roman Empire or France, or both combined. The Turks were virtually unstoppable on land, because they fought out of there element and they were decisively crushed.--User:JMG 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)'
[edit] The Portuguese connection
One very interesting fact, relatively unknown, is that in 1570, one year before Lepanto, a large offensive ecloded in India against the Portuguese East Indian empire. The Indian powers send an embassy to Sultan Selin II taking a large sum of money to finnance the Ottoman naval forces in the red sea if the Sultan agreed with an alliance against the Portuguese in India. In May 1571 the Ottoman fleet of 25 large galleys and 3 galions with some 3000 combatants was ready for action in the Red Sea and set sail. But this fleet never made it to India, having problems on the way they had to stop in Moca until November, when it was again ready but shortly before they set sail, news come from the mediterranean reporting the major defeat of the Sultans force at Lepanto. Along with those the fleet received orders to get back to Suez to enforce the efort of rebuilding the fleet(the ships where disasembled and carryed all the way to the mediterranean).
At Lepanto, 25 large galleys of the Ottoman empire whare absent, this was the Portuguese contribution to the war efort.
Also:, It is not true that Lepanto was the first major victory of any European army or navy against the Ottoman Empire
In 1509 in the battle of Diu, India, the Turks under Meliqueaz had 10 carracks and galions, 6 large galleys, 50 regular ones and 50 smaller ships, the Portuguese under D. Francisco d'Almeida had 9 carracks, 2 galleys, 6 caravels and a brigantine, in all 18 sails against some 116, 66 of them beeing main vessels. In this Battle the turks lost all ships, sunked or captured along with some 3.000 man killed.
The flag-ship "Frol de la Mar" alone, fired some 1900 rounds sinking 1 carrack, 10 galleys and many smaller ships.
The Turks received a huge blow since from then after the vital commercial lines with India where reduced to a small fraction. Without the large revenues they had with such commerce the Turk's military might was somewath reduced. Diu was in fact a battle of capital importance making the way for the Mediterranean powers to defeat the Turks at Lepanto.
So what...The Turks were a powerful empire, the battle of Diu hardly counts as a major battle, losing that route would hardly affect them, that would be a tiny setback for a major power. Look even after 4 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, the USA is still more than formidable, so 1 minor loss in a minor battle means nothing.
Unlike Venice losing Cyprus which was a major blow to the small Italian city-state. Venice was a small but rich city-state and the fact they defeated a major power(probably the greatest power in the 16th century) speaks volume for their accomplishment. I am sensing major bias, Why? This was a major, major battle, despite any bias and prejudice.
And besides you are missing the point. If the Turkish navy defeated the Venetians, it would have left the Adriatic in the hands of the Turks and Italy undefended. No this battle was huge for the West, as big as the Battle at Thermopylae and Platea.--User:JMG 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Number of the ships
Ottomans couldn't have had 280 ships in this battle!
The Ottoman sources say that number of Crusader sips was 250 while Ottomans have 245 ships.If Ottomans have had 60 more ships than the Crusaders,certainly they couldn't have been defeated.
I corrected it,but it was changed.
Please take care of it.
----You sound so uppity and arrogant. You should at least leave your signature...You are also biased and innaccurate. The number of ships means nothing. But to make it simple for you...The Turkish empire was an extremely powerful land and siege empire, which is no suprise considering they are a tribe that came from the Central Asian Steppes. Whereas Venice is an island empire whose sole life-blood relies on their naval power and commerce. DO you have any clue as to what Venice even looks like, if you did you would not be suprised by there superior sea-manship as compared to the Turks. It was a matter of survival and from the 11th century until the 16th century no country/empire, etc... exceeded the Venetians.
Here is a qoute from Ulich Ali, the govenor of Algiers and in charge of the right flank of the Turks:
"Superiority is not determined by the number of ships. This is a matter of arnaments. Our ships are generally smaller than theirs and we are clearly inferior to the enemy in terms of firepower--especially when up against those six monster ships. Counting those as if they were normal galleys would be a fatal mistake. Furthermore, Sebastiano Veniero is leading the Venetian navy. Have no doubt that the Venetians fllet under him will hit us with all their might as soon as they see us."(from, "The Battle of Lepanto" by Nanami Shioni)--User:JMG 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
there is an accurate reord of every allied galley in "naval battles of the levant 1559-1853". it says 28 privately owned galleys (giving all the owners names!), not several. why change to "several"? it also separates the naples, spanish and tuscan galleys. why combine them?
- Justification for the changes in my edit can be found here. I've obscured the exact number of privately-owned galleys to conform to the given total of 206 galleys. Obviously, something must be done to reconcile the two sets of figures, and I would be glad to hear suggestions. Albrecht 21:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Some other versions of the numbers involved (all from rather general secondary sources, so the original provenance is unclear):
-
- As given in J. J. Norwich's A History of Venice, pp 482-485:
- Christian left: 63 galleys under Barbarigo
- Christian center: 64 galleys under Don John
- Christian right: 64 galleys under Doria
- Christian reserve: 14 galleys under Cardona
- Christian vanguard: 18 galleasses (6 per division)
- Total Christian strength (computed from above): 205 galleys, 18 galleasses
- Christian losses: 12 galleys sunk, 1 galley captured, under 15,000 casualties
- As given in J. J. Norwich's A History of Venice, pp 482-485:
-
-
- Ottoman right: 54 galleys under Saulak
- Ottoman center: 87 galleys under Ali Pasha
- Ottoman left: 61 galleys under Uluch Ali (but 93 "vessels" cited later)
- Total Ottoman strength (computed from above): 202 galleys
- Ottoman losses: 113 galleys sunk, 117 galleys captured, over 30,000 casualties and 8,000 captured
-
-
- As given in B. L. Montgomery's A History of Warfare, pp 258-260:
- Christian left: 63 galleys under Barbarigo
- Christian center: 63 galleys under Don John
- Christian right: 64 galleys under Doria
- Christian reserve: 35 galleys under Santa Cruz
- Christian vanguard: 6 galleasses (2 per division)
- Total Christian strength (computed from above): 225 galleys, 6 galleasses
- Total Christian strength (cited directly): 200+ galleys, 6 galleasses, 24 transports, 50 light rowing craft
- As given in B. L. Montgomery's A History of Warfare, pp 258-260:
-
-
- Ottoman right: 55 galleys under Saulak
- Ottoman center: 90 galleys under Ali Pasha
- Ottoman left: 60 galleys under Uluch Ali
- Ottoman reserve: 10 galleys and 20 fustae
- Total Ottoman strength (computed from above): 215 galleys, 20 fustae
- Total Ottoman strength (cited directly): 250 galleys, 40 galliots, 20 fustae
-
-
- Neither source explains what part, if any, the Ottoman reserve played in the battle, so other writers may be ommitting it from the list as well. -- Kirill Lokshin 01:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
According to Naval battles in the Levant 1559-1853:
.................Left....Center..Right...Reserve.Total
Spain............-.......10......-.......3.......13
Naples..........8.......3.......6......12......29 (really 30, see below)
G. A. Doria..2.......4.......3.......2.......11
Sicily............-.......1.......4.......2.......7 (really 6, see below)
N. Doria.......-.......-.......2.......-.......2
Imperiale......-.......1.......-.......1.......2
Lomellini......1.......1.......2.......-.......4
Negroni........-.......-.......4.......-.......4
Grimaldi.......-.......1.......1.......-.......2
De Mari.......-.......1.......1.......-.......2
Sauli.............-.......1.......-.......-.......1
Genoa..........-.......2.......1.......-.......3
Savoy..........-.......1.......2.......-.......3
The Pope.....1.......7.......2.......2......12
Malta............-.......3.......-.......-.......3
Venice.........41.....26......25....16.....108 plus 6 gallesses, 2 in each section
TOTAL.......53......62.....53....38.....206
It adds that 1 galley listed here as Sicilian was really Neapolitan. Doesn't say which one.
From Las armadas de Felipe II:
Total - 207 galleys, 6 galleasses, 20 naves mancas (1200 guns total)
Venice - 109 galleys, 6 gallesses
Santa Sede (the pope) - 12 galleys
Saboya (savoy) - 3 galleys
Malta - 3 galleys
Genova - 3 galleys
Spain - 77 galleys, 20 naves mancas
Spanish galleys are as follows: (some have "escuadra" or "asentada" next to them, I'm not sure what they mean...squadron?)
Spain - 13 (escuadra)
Naples - 30 (escuadra)
Sicily - 10 (escuadra) including 2 from David Imperial and 2 from Nicolas Doria
Doria - 11 (escuadra, asentada)
Juan Negron - 4 (asentada)
Juan Bautista Lomelin - 4 (asentada)
Jorge Grimaldo - 2
Stefano Mari - 2
Birindello Sauli - 1
This agrees with the last one except that Venice has 1 extra galley, making the total 207. The following squadron numbers differ, and they also only add up to 200 galleys:
Juan Andrea Doria - 51 galleys
Juan de Austria - 64 galleys
Agustin Barbarigo - 55 galleys
Alvaro de Bazan - 30 galleys
Francisco Duodo - 6 galleasses
Cesar de Avalos - 20 naves mancas
Turks - 221 galleys, 38 galliots, 18 fustas (750 guns total) as follows:
Uluch Ali - 67 galleys, 27 galliots
Ali Pacha - 91 galleys, 5 galliots
Mohamed Sirocco - 55 galleys, 1 galliot
Amurat Dragut - 8 galleys, 5 galliots, 18 fustas
When Ali Pacha was captured, if my Spanish is correct, he claimed that the fleet was 230 galleys and 70 galliots.
Hi, "asentada" mean hired, usually ships of merchants, the Crowns taked it with the promise of pay money... As you see, all the hired galleys have a personal name, surely the name of the owner. The other galleys are property of the Crown. "Escuadra" can be translated like Group, or squadron umm yes; the 10 galleys from Sicily form the squadron or group of Sicily.
[edit] ottoman ships
What did the ottoman ships look like ?, Im not very sure to trust those paintings because they were painted by european artist that probly never seen a turkish war ship
--- western galleasses were copied from turkish mahons, i think? mostly i think turkish galleys looked much the same as western ones, slightly faster and more weatherly though.
the trade competition wasn't the only reason for the battle. cyprus had just been conquered, and the turks were raiding italy and taking slavse etc. also, why include tuscans etc all under "habsburg spain"? thsee were fleets which had separate commanders and operated from different places...
i have another source for numbers of turkish vessels. Ill add ti later. I've never seen a source which had anything other than 6 allied galleasses, though.
I'd like to see the numbers for Ottoman losses changed the correct number for Ottoman losses the number was close to 200 not 280 See Daniel Goffman "The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe" Also I have changed the name of the conflict from Ottoman invasion of Europe, this title was inacurate as the Ottoman empire already had sizable holding in europe and had for some time. (Hungery, the Balkans, Transylvania, etc. -Gordon
- I'm sorry; I misunderstood your edit and reverted it, and then did some other stuff. I'm open to discussion about the conflict name, though I'm not sure "Ottoman-Venetian conflict" is quite right. Ottomans vs. the Holy League for the western Med? That seems awkward. I guess it depends how large-scale a conflict we're talking about. Probably something short of "Islam vs. Christendom." (signed later) Tom Harrison (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Islam vs christianity, yes. that's how the fleets are sometimes named in battles any christian country could've joined, and any muslim state on the other side.
- Actually, the Turks were fighting the Persians around the same time. Certainly religion was an important part of the conflict, but I wouldn't want to exaggerate it. From my reading, it looks like to some extent a war for expansion, trade, and control of the Med. Based on the references I just added (New Cambridge Modern History vol 1, and Harbottle's Dictionary of Battles), I have changed the Conflict from Conflict: Ottoman invasion of Europe to Conflict: Turkish-Venetian Wars. This also makes the page consistent with Battle of Lepanto (1500) and with the disambiguation page. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- If you have a good figure for casualities, by all means put it in. Feel free to add Goffman's book to the references as well, if you think it's appropriate. Tom Harrison (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Identification
I propose that all references to the forces be to "League" or "European" (or more specific terms, as appropriate) for the western forces, and "Ottoman" or "Turkish" for the eastern. The use of Christian and Muslim, while accurate, is misleading, as I understand it. The fight seems to be more as geopolitical rivals than religious ones. Any thoughts? Mdotley 16:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I agree with that assessment. If this had been a Crusade against the ottomans and the Muslim world had responded with a Jihad to defend the ottomans saying "chrstian vs Muslim" would make sense. A historical fact to remember is that at this time the Turks and France were allies against the Hapsburgs who ruled spain and germany. Note that very christian france is not involved at all. This was certainly a geopolitical action.
- So if noone objects to this in about a week I will come back here and do a find and replace on the articles text "Christian"==>Coalition Muslim ==>Ottoman. --Hfarmer 11:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It was not a European vs. Turkish War.... It was a Italian/Latin/mediterranean vs. Turkish/Ottoman powers.
[edit] Disrespect?
Isn't it a disrespect to Ali Pasha to have a cross next to his name?--4.245.248.27 02:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, that's just a convention to indicate that he was killed in the battle: it's a dagger, not a cross. Mdotley 21:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Link Issue
The Giovanni Andrea Doria link incorrectly sends you to Andrea Doria. They're two different people... I would fix it but I honestly don't know how. - Justin
- You're quite right, Andrea Doria was a decade dead at the time. Now fixed. As for how, click the edit button at the top of the section. This shows you the section with all the code visible. A link is created by double square brackets around the text to be linked. Remove these, explain what you've done in the box below, click preview to be sure that it all works, if it does click save page. I actually reworded slightly to keep the link to Andrea Doria, in case people might be confused and think that it was him and not his less-famous near-namesake at the battle.
- 81.154.197.153 08:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Background
A lot of battle articles have a section on historical background and what led to the battle and why it happened. It would be nice to see it here, especially, as I understand it, this was a major battle in the history of Europe.
mkehrt 05:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sloppy Overall Analysis
The overall analysis doesn't even indicate this was considered a major victory for the Europeans/Italians. The writing in this article is very poorly worded, unclear and unhelpful, someone should radically clean it up.
Benwetmore 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I added language to clarify the consequence of the battle in the introduction.
Benwetmore 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Irrelevant Information in Cultural References Section
"Scenes from an Execution" is not a notable play, I removed the few sentences that look as though they were added by the playwright himself.
Benwetmore 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Maps, Graphics?
It seems that two things are missing from this article.
1. A map that should be shown under the "Forces" section. A simple color map showing the extent of the Ottoman Empire's territories, and its North African allies with two shades of green. This same map could then also show the extent of the Spanish, Venetian, Papal, and their other allies involved in the league. They could be shown in shades of red or blue.
2. A mape shown under the "Deployment" section. A simple map showing the basic geography of the area of the battle and the two formations.
I think adding these two suggestions would really help the reader understand the physical enormity of the two powers that were clashing. Thanks. Oh, and I'd like to have it done by COB today.Furtfurt (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
