The Battle of Lepanto: An educational journey.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

You can only learn so much from Wikipedia.

Confrontation at Lepanto: Christendom Vs. Islam
https://books.google.com/books?id=4a...20Cruz&f=false

It's the same in every book about the subject. There isn't any debate on what went down.

Order of battle at Lepanto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...rder_of_battle

I won't list every single ship but as people can see the vast majority of ships were commanded by Italians, from Venetians to Sicilians, and more than half of the Spanish galleys were based in Naples and Sicily (26 of 49).

Obviously they're mostly commanded by Italians. It's the Mediterranean Sea. The Ottomans is as much the problem of Italians (more so, actually) as they are of Spaniards. Spanish sea captains (heavily represented by Basques) were directed towards the Atlantic. Catalans rarely involved themselves in Spain's military affairs (in fact they rebelled when conscription was forced on them for the first time) and hence why you rarely see Catalan surnames among captains of Tercios or as naval captains until later in history when Catalunya lost its autonomy after the War of the Spanish Succession and even then it wasn't common.

Even when Naples and Sicily was conquered (again) in the 1500s it was done by soldiers from Castile and not by the Aragonese/Catalans. Once they became the weaker side of the union with Castile they pointed to their rights that was guaranteed in the union. Their tax dollars was to be kept in their regions and they wouldn't be forced to provide men for the military (which from the 1500s to around the 1630s was based on volunteers and not conscripts in Castile).

If you look at ship captains for war ships in the Atlantic it's a different story. That being said, the Italian captains almost lost the battle of Lepanto. Don Juan de Austria and the Marquis of Santa Cruz went against their advice. Doria wanted to take off (pg. 128) to fight another day (when would that be?). Spaniards were at the heart of the line led by Don Juan with Santa Cruz in reserve (pg. 127). The heaviest fighting happened in the center (pg. 127) The Venetians actually faltered once the battle became hand-to-hand. (Pg. 134) The left and right flank were tentative.

While Spanish soldiers technically formed the "bulk" of fighting men, they hardly outnumbered the amount of Italians (7,000 to 6,000, both of whom were paid by the Spanish crown). In fact, one could argue that the 5,000 Venetian soldiers on board would equate to the majority of fighting men actually being Italian (it's all on the wiki page you referenced).

It was 6,000 and neither they or the Venetians had the toughest part of the battle (as shown above). Traditionally you put your best soldiers in the center. Italians had a bad reputation as mercenaries but you can't exactly get Swiss pikemen on the cheap and so soon when you know you'll be out numbered any way. This reputation isn't my opinion. This is a belief held over generations by various military historians. It's so ingrained in military historical circles that someone actually published a book trying to disprove the stereotype. It's the only attempt made to rehabilitate the reputation of a group's military history.

btw, for MineveraItalic. One of the important Italian figures in the battle had a Catalan surname (Cardona). I know he has an interest in Spanish nobility's influence on the Italian nobility. You might want to pass that along to him. This doesn't mean I think he was Catalan as some of you weaker minds (or deceptive) think but is just another example of the influence on Italian nobility I spoke of (which isn't even debatable).

[catgeorge]

A European day of rememberance and public holiday if ever there was one.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

A European day of rememberance and public holiday if ever there was one.

Good to raise Christian spirit but it didn't lead to anything tangible, though. Within a year or two the Ottomans were back to their pre-Lepanto naval strength and Venice signed a humiliating treaty with the Ottomans. They didn't take advantage of that 'window of opportunity' they had when the Ottomans were rebuilding their fleet because each state had their own particular interest that the other didn't care for (why would Philip of Spain or the Pope risk their men and resources for Venice to control Crete and Cyprus? They don't benefit. Why would the Venetians care about Spain being in control of Oran and other north African cities? If anything it would make them nervous.) The only thing they had in common was the Ottomans were threatening all of them.

[catgeorge]

Good to raise Christian spirit but it didn't lead to anything tangible, though. Within a year or two the Ottomans were back to their pre-Lepanto naval strength and Venice signed a humiliating treaty with the Ottomans. They didn't take advantage of that 'window of opportunity' they had when the Ottomans were rebuilding their fleet because each state had their own particular interest that the other didn't care for (why would Philip of Spain or the Pope risk their men and resources for Venice to control Crete and Cyprus? They don't benefit. Why would the Venetians care about Spain being in control of Oran and other north African cities? If anything it would make them nervous.) The only thing they had in common was the Ottomans were threatening all of them.

The aftermath is complex - but the mere fact that Europeans came together as a united front against all odds is something that should be celebrated as the E.U does not even have a day to celebrate but this should be up there in terms of coming together as a united front.

[Tacitus]

You can only learn so much from Wikipedia.

Confrontation at Lepanto: Christendom Vs. Islam
https://books.google.com/books?id=4a...20Cruz&f=false

It's the same in every book about the subject. There isn't any debate on what went down.



Obviously they're mostly commanded by Italians. It's the Mediterranean Sea. The Ottomans is as much the problem of Italians (more so, actually) as they are of Spaniards. Spanish sea captains (heavily represented by Basques) were directed towards the Atlantic. Catalans rarely involved themselves in Spain's military affairs (in fact they rebelled when conscription was forced on them for the first time) and hence why you rarely see Catalan surnames among captains of Tercios or as naval captains until later in history when Catalunya lost its autonomy after the War of the Spanish Succession and even then it wasn't common.

Even when Naples and Sicily was conquered (again) in the 1500s it was done by soldiers from Castile and not by the Aragonese/Catalans. Once they became the weaker side of the union with Castile they pointed to their rights that was guaranteed in the union. Their tax dollars was to be kept in their regions and they wouldn't be forced to provide men for the military (which from the 1500s to around the 1630s was based on volunteers and not conscripts in Castile).

If you look at ship captains for war ships in the Atlantic it's a different story. That being said, the Italian captains almost lost the battle of Lepanto. Don Juan de Austria and the Marquis of Santa Cruz went against their advice. Doria wanted to take off (pg. 128) to fight another day (when would that be?). Spaniards were at the heart of the line led by Don Juan with Santa Cruz in reserve (pg. 127). The heaviest fighting happened in the center (pg. 127) The Venetians actually faltered once the battle became hand-to-hand. (Pg. 134) The left and right flank were tentative.




It was 6,000 and neither they or the Venetians had the toughest part of the battle (as shown above). Traditionally you put your best soldiers in the center. Italians had a bad reputation as mercenaries but you can't exactly get Swiss pikemen on the cheap and so soon when you know you'll be out numbered any way. This reputation isn't my opinion. This is a belief held over generations by various military historians. It's so ingrained in military historical circles that someone actually published a book trying to disprove the stereotype. It's the only attempt made to rebuild the reputation of a group's military history.

btw, for MineveraItalic. One of the important Italian figures in the battle had a Catalan surname (Cardona). I know he has an interest in Spanish nobility's influence on the Italian nobility. You might want to pass that along to him. This doesn't mean I think he was Catalan as some of you weaker minds (or deceptive) think but is just another example of the influence on Italian nobility I spoke of (which isn't even debatable).

I think the narrative that "The Italians sucked, the Spanish did all the work" is a bit harsh and underestimates the contribution of the Venetians in the battle. The Venetians were initially outflanked on the left, but soon recovered and had the Ottomans on that side pinned to the shore (they were also able to use their "galleasses," heavily cannoned, refitted merchant vessels to good effect). Also, there was a tactical reason behind the formation, which didn't have to do with the supposed shoddiness of the Italians.

From "Empires of the Sea: The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Contest for the Center of the World" by Roger Crowley (a book I'm holding in my hands right now).

p. 257:

Forty-one of the fifty-seven galleys on the left wing were lighter, more maneuverable Venetian galleys, whose function was to operate hard up against the shore...

p.267:

Shuluch looked close to success, but the Venetians had come for revenge; many of their ships were from Crete, the Dalmatian coast, and the islands, all ravaged by Ali Pasha's summer raids. They fought desperately and without regard. Slowly the tide started to turn. Galleys from the reserve swung up to help; troops were fed onto the stricken ships from the rear.
...
One of the galleases crept toward the shore and began to pulverize the Ottoman ships...Following Shuluch's ship, the whole squadron had drifted toward the shore and was now pinned there. "In the vast confusion," wrote Diedo, "many of our galleys, especially those nearest the centre of the fleet ... made a general turning movement toward the left in good order and came to envelop the Turkish ships, which were still putting up a desperate resistance to ours. By this adroit maneuver they held them enclosed, as in a harbor."

Doria was the weakest link in that he wanted to take the least amount of risk with his ships, and he nearly blew it were it not for Venier, Colonna, and Don John.

p. 273:

More likely Doria had understood from the start the gravity of his position and was working furiously to avoid being caught out. Uluch Ali had more sips; the possibility out outflanking the Christians was considerable. (N.B. which is exactly what happened).
...
Doria regrouped to attack Uluch's ships from one side; Colonna, Venier, and Don Juan brought their galleys around to confront him on the other...Steering to the north with fourteen galleys, he slipped off.

In all honesty, I think the successful defense of Malta was more important than Lepanto even if it's less celebrated. If Malta was taken, then a full Ottoman assault on Sicily would have been next, and if they succeeded there, then it's a quick jaunt over the Strait of Messina onto the Italian mainland. I don't think Sicily strategic location in the middle of the Mediterranean needs to be mentioned in detail.

[Böri]

Congratulations a very honorable Catholic victory. 1571 is already end of Ottoman greatness (circa 1300 to 1520) as multi-culti spread. We lost in Lepanto because commander-in-chief was a European slave Janissery Ali Pasha from Enderun school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi_Ali_Pasha
If commander was Anatolian Turk we would win İ guess but we never know now just thoughts.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

[QUOTE]

I think the narrative that "The Italians sucked, the Spanish did all the work" is a bit harsh and underestimates the contribution of the Venetians in the battle. The Venetians were initially outflanked on the left, but soon recovered and had the Ottomans on that side pinned to the shore (they were also able to use their "galleasses," heavily cannoned, refitted merchant vessels to good effect). Also, there was a tactical reason behind the formation, which didn't have to do with the supposed shoddiness of the Italians.

From "Empires of the Sea: The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Contest for the Center of the World" by Roger Crowley (a book I'm holding in my hands right now).

p. 257:Forty-one of the fifty-seven galleys on the left wing were lighter, more maneuverable Venetian galleys, whose function was to operate hard up against the shore...

You didn't finish the quote from the book.

https://books.google.com/books?id=xz...hose+function+

It was to make it easier for Venetian soldiers to flee from their ships if they lost. This was a suggestion made by a Spaniard for what the Venetians should do. Why did you cut off this particular quote and not the others? It supports my statement that they weren't held in high regard as soldiers.

As soon as I saw you didn't complete the sentence I knew something wasn't right. You attempted to pass this off as a battle tactic when it wasn't.

p.267:

That's very dramatic but they were having difficulties against the less able of the Ottoman fleet. As your own source points out the the hardest hit was the center of the Allied fleet (where the Spaniards were). That was the focus of the Ottoman fleet. The Venetian wing later had support because they hadn't finished the job. They hadn't finished the job against a weaker element of the Ottoman fleet, mind you.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Congratulations a very honorable Catholic victory. 1571 is already end of Ottoman greatness (circa 1300 to 1520) as multi-culti spread. We lost in Lepanto because commander-in-chief was a European slave Janissery Ali Pasha from Enderun school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi_Ali_Pasha
If commander was Anatolian Turk we would win İ guess but we never know now just thoughts.

Aren't pretty much all Ottoman military leaders European slaves? Or Balkan converts?

[Tacitus]

[QUOTE=Colonel Frank Grimes;4327817]

You didn't finish the quote from the book.

https://books.google.com/books?id=xz...hose+function+

It was to make it easier for Venetian soldiers to flee from their ships if they lost. This was a suggestion made by a Spaniard for what the Venetians should do. Why did you cut off this particular quote and not for the others? It supports my statement that they weren't held in high regard as soldiers.

Believe me or not, but I wasn't entirely sure if the line referred to the Venetians themselves or the enemy. Either way, no one side particularly trusted nor cared for the other, with the Genoese being disliked the most.

I also forgot to mention that in the order of battle, the ships were not grouped by nationality (thanks to Genoa's risk-aversion and Venice's enmity for it during the Battle of Preveza) but by the role in which they could play so having more maneuverable ships out wide makes sense than the larger, heavier ships.

That's very dramatic but they were having difficulties against the less able of the Ottoman fleet. As your own source points out the the hardest hit was the center. The Venetian wing later had support.

Less able is debatable. The Ottomans knew the lay of the battlefield better than the Holy League so they exploited a narrow channel that was too shallow for the Venetian ships. Venier also later described that it was extremely difficult to get the lighter galleys on the flanks lined up against the wind, and it took nearly three hours to get properly in shape. The lighter Ottoman ships took advantage of this.

"Shuluch and Kara Ali, outpacing all the other Ottoman galleys, drove furiously towards our line," wrote Diedo. "As they neared the shore, they slid between the shallows with the foremost ships of their squadron. These waterways were familiar to them; they knew exactly the depth of the sea above the shoals. Followed by four or five galleys, they planned to take our left wing in the rear."

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

[QUOTE=Tacitus;4327877]

Believe me or not, but I wasn't entirely sure if the line referred to the Venetians themselves or the enemy. Either way, no one side particularly trusted nor cared for the other, with the Genoese being disliked the most.

That's obviously bullshit. What you cut out is a Spaniard (Don Garcia) making a suggestion. Who are the Spaniards fighting with? The Turks or Italians? Even if the Spaniard wasn't mentioned it's pretty friggin' clear they're referring to the Venetians and their ships. There is no confusion.

I also forgot to mention that in the order of battle, the ships were not grouped by nationality (thanks to Genoa's risk-aversion and Venice's enmity for it during the Battle of Preveza) but by the role in which they could play so having more maneuverable ships out wide makes sense than the larger, heavier ships.

You also forgot to mention all the Spaniards were in the center. No one thought the Spaniards would run.

Less able is debatable. The Ottomans knew the lay of the battlefield better than the Holy League so they exploited a narrow channel that was too shallow for the Venetian ships. Venier also later described that it was extremely difficult to get the lighter galleys on the flanks lined up against the wind, and it took nearly three hours to get properly in shape. The lighter Ottoman ships took advantage of this.

No, it's not debatable. No one disagrees that the Turks main objective was the center of the Christian fleet and that this is where the battle was decided.

I'm not even discussing this subject further with you after that deception you attempted to pull on me. You're another one who got caught lying. Dishonesty is another popular stereotype and is certainly justified at this forum.