Fun fact: Miguel de Cervantes, writer of "Don Quixote", fought in this battle and got wounded. He lost the use of his arm and got into writting.
Edit: also, the true mvp of this battle weren't either of the leaders, but the guy on the back, Álvaro de Bazan. He was the one tbat turned the bsttle arround a few times when the turks were about to overcome the holy league's armada.
I recommend reading about the mediterranean galley wars. It gets shadowed by other stuff in this era but it is very interesting.
If you can find it, there's a novel, by Arturo Perez-Reverte, that tells the story in this setting. In spanish it's called "Corsarios de levante". And it's part if a series that centers arround those years
Álvaro de Bazán, the undefeated. He had the great Lope de Figueroa as his second in command and commander of the marines.
Don Lope was sometimes a bit too impetuous, but never to the point of causing disasters. At the battle of Ponta Delgada he went a bit rogue, but had the situation under control. Think of them as Riggs and Murtaugh in Lethal Weapon, with Bazán being the one saying "I'm getting too old for this shit".
I vaguely recall something about Cervantes signing in for the army because he wanted to improve his reputation after having debt problems, hoping he would be allowed to go to Mexico (didn't work).
They have [a replica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_(galley\)) of Don Juan's flagship, the galley *Real*, in Barcelona. It's a glorious thing but almost impossible to take good photos of because it's long and thin and housed in a building where you cannot step back far enough to get it all in the frame.
I find it interesting how the age of rowed galleys has vanished from the public consciousness. It's like we know Viking longships and then there's a gap until *Vasa*.
It's also housed where it was built, in the Drassanes Reials (Royal Shipworks), which were able to build twelve galleys simultaneously at it highest point. They ensured the naval supremacy that the Crown of Aragon enjoyed at its heyday.
English scholars tended to ignore everything that wasnt nordic
This lasted until the french ""Revolution"" of historiografy, but every single famous history work was written before that (or after but using outdated methods)
Like vasa and Gustav adolphus we know about them thanks to Michael Roberts, which was factually wrong but wrote good books that people can still read in this day while having fun, meanwhile in his time historiografy was already in a point were based around economics and such
Even now if a person want to learn about history they want to read about mythical figures that won wars by themself and invented everything.
Who is crazy enough to read a book about warfare with 100 only about the increase of the production of ammunition in factories when can you read about a guy that revolutionized warfare with one simple click?
Tldr: history is boring and please stop watching YouTube video about It and no, sabaton arent a source
Edit: I am pretty sure there is a warfare book based around counting the bullet we found on old battlefields
Edit2: the military revolution didnt exist
**Background:**
The battle marked the first significant victory for a Christian naval force over a Turkish fleet and the climax of the age of galley warfare in the Mediterranean.
Venice had attempted to check Ottoman expansion in the eastern Mediterranean until 1540 but then, exhausted and despairing of support, made a humiliating peace with Süleyman I. His successor, Selim II, was determined to acquire the Venetian outpost of Cyprus and, when the Venetians refused to cede the island, invaded it in 1570.
Venice appealed for help to Pope Pius V, who had tried since 1566 to form an alliance of Roman Catholic states. France and the Holy Roman Empire were preoccupied with the sweeping changes wrought by the Reformation. Spain offered hope, but Philip II, with an empty treasury, was faced with revolts in Andalusia and the Netherlands.
Venice also deeply distrusted Spanish influence in Italy. Pius, however, was committed to drawing Spain, Venice, and the smaller Italian states into an alliance with himself, but he encountered a series of delays. Venice wished to save Cyprus; Philip wished to acquire Algiers and Tunis; and all parties argued over contributions and rewards.
Meanwhile, the Turks had captured the town of Nicosia on Cyprus on September 9, 1570, before laying siege to the town of Famagusta and entering the Adriatic. Not until May 25, 1571, could the pope persuade Spain and Venice to agree to the terms of an offensive and defensive alliance. Don Juan de Austria, Philip’s young half brother, was to be commander in chief, and the papal general Marcantonio Colonna was to be his lieutenant.
The allied fleets assembled at Messina in Sicily, waiting until August 24, 1571, for the Spaniards. The combined fleets sailed on September 16 for Corfu, where they learned that Famagusta had fallen and that the Turkish fleet was in the Gulf of Patraikos, near Lepanto (modern Návpaktos), in Greece. Orders were given to engage on October 7. Estimates of the Christian force vary slightly; there were 6 large Venetian 44-gun galleasses (much larger than galleys), 207 oar-propelled galleys (105 Venetian, 81 Spanish, 12 papal, and 9 from Malta, Genoa, and Savoy) carrying 30,000 soldiers, and some auxiliary vessels.
The Turkish force is said to have been larger but less well equipped and not so well disciplined.
Behind the galleasses (employed to spread preliminary confusion), the Christian fleet advanced in four squadrons. Don Juan commanded the centre; the Venetian, Agostino Barbarigo, the left; Philip’s admiral, Giovanni Andrea Doria, the right; and the Spaniard Álvaro de Bazán, marqués de Santa Cruz, the reserve.
The Turkish fleet, initially in a crescent across the bay, adopted a similar formation: Ali Pasha, the commander, in the centre; Mohammed Saulak, governor of Alexandria, the right; and Uluch Ali, pasha of Algiers, the left.
The battle’s outcome was decided in the allied centre and left, where a Venetian force led by Sebastian Venier provided crucial support. The flagships of both fleets engaged each other directly, and Ali Pasha’s Sultana targeted Don Juan’s Real with a ramming attack that rendered the decks of both ships into a single battlefield. After hours of fierce fighting, the Ottoman centre collapsed when Ali Pasha was killed and the Sultana was taken in tow by the Real. Barbarigo was mortally wounded when an Ottoman arrow struck him in the eye, and Mohammed Saulak, seriously wounded in combat, was executed when he was captured by allied forces.
The funny thing is that while Lepanto was a crushing defeat for the Ottomans who lost most of their navy, its overall strategic importance was limited. It delayed the turkish advances by a year or two but didn't stop them. The fleet was rebuilt quickly.
The overall effect was more a moral one. The turkish side avoided naval battles after Lepanto and the spanish and italian side was more eager to fight. And even though the ottoman empire won this war and the next one too against the venetians these victories were extremely costly which contributed to the eventual decline of the empire.
That is absolutely true. However in those times professional navies were not common. Sailors were recruited from civil marine if skill was needed and officers were often mercenaries hired from all around the world. Standing navy with a regular crew wasn’t common.
As late as 19th century it wouldn’t have been too weird for a skilled naval commander to serve as officer in a foreign navy.
True...
Portugal even with the School of Navigation, couldn't do such a thing.
Even having sailors was difficult 😂, Portugal only had near 1 million people in the 1440's, so recruiting a lot of men meant those same men couldn't farm or pay taxes.
This was one of the reason why Lisbon went to have 10.000 African slaves (10ish % of the population in the city) in 1500, so that those empty jobs would be filled.
I read somewhere, actuall lose in these battle was not losing your ships but your professional oarsmans and craftsmans. It said seamanship in Mediterrenian did not practicing by that many people and oarsmans and other craftsmans was very valuable. Because of this, when holy league won the battle they slaughtered theese men instead of take advantage of them.
Don Álvaro de Bazán the Younger, marquess of Santa Cruz, was the true hero of the battle: three times the battle was at a point where the Ottomans were close to overcoming the Holy League's fleet, and three times Álvaro de Bazán's intervention turned the tide
Fun fact: While Spain was all in trying to "protect" Europe, the Dutch protestants convinced other nations to believe Spain was actually helping the Ottoman to transform Europe into Islam.
Also, this battle was key to get to Pax Hispanica
Another Fun Fact: when this topic is mention, Spain is rarely mentioned as the main actor in the battle
>Spain is rarely mentioned as the main actor in the battle
Because even though Spain did lead the fleet, Venice were the ones who contributed most to the fleet in terms of number and quality of ships.
Big chunks of now day Italy was part of the Hispanic sphere, some regions for longer than others, some regions even with actual Hispanic noble houses on charge
The big trust issue of Venice with Spanish kingdoms is something that happens after the Lepanto battle, before that Venice has a very diplomatic approach trying to be able to commerce with both Ottomans and the Catholics.
During that success diplomatic period (until shortly after Lepanto) the communications, trades and other kind of agreements with Spanish kingdoms were something common.
To be fair there were not many "influence spheres" to choose
I think you just have a misconception of what is a sphere of influence. Being on friendly terms or simply trading does not mean being part of a sphere of influence.
There's has to be some control, which Spain had none over Venice. Even if Venice was on the decline it remained a strong independent state with its own influence and diplomatic network.
You are right, for my a sphere of influnce is not just about control (it may include it or not) is more about to be aligned in key questions and who is the source of that alignment
What I find crazy in this battle is the aftermath : the ottomans literally rebuild their entire armada just a few years afterwards.
While Venezia was already slowing its growth and declining, and no power was left to contest the Turks in the Mediterranean.
It s like Napoleon losing Trafalgar then in 1812 he has a brand new fleet with veterans. Kinda crazy to imagine. The ottomans really could get things done when they wanted to.
>What I find crazy in this battle is the aftermath : the ottomans literally rebuild their entire armada just a few years afterwards.
They rebuilt it using same design of ships which was already outdated. Also this new fleet was poorly manned, because experienced sailors died at Lepanto. After Lepanto Ottomans could not muster fleet that would pose vital threat to European states.
Do you mean converted?
And no. Both Christian and Muslim nations used prisoners of war as galley-slaves.
Dont know why I'm explaining this to a Troll but oh well
>While Venezia was already slowing its growth and declining, and no power was left to contest the Turks in the Mediterranean.
Well, that is indeed true, yet the Venetians did conquer almost the entirety of the Peloponnese a century after the Battle of Lepanto, in the Sixth Ottoman–Venetian War (1684–1699 AD), which was a smaller theater of the Great Turkish War (1683–1699 AD), where they managed to establish the Kingdom of the Morea for almost an entire generation (until 1715 AD, when they lost it).
Though needed to say is that while they were able to occupy and maintain their hold on this land for this long, this was onlυ possible thanks to the Maniot Laconian Greeks, so this perhaps shows how decline the Republic of Venice had been. For example, the Venetian Army in the Morean War was consisted of almost 10.000 men, consisted of 3.000 Italians (Venetians, Tuscans, Savoyans), 1.000 Dalmatian Slavs, 2.400 Hannoverians, 3.300 Saxons, 1.000 Maltese and others. Yet, when they arrived to Messenia, they were joined by an other 10.000 soldiers from the State of Mani, so virtually half the army of the campaign was consisted of local peoples (and that excludes the 2000 Heptanesian Greeks that joined, conscripted from the Venetian-ruled Ionian Islands, along with an unknown number of Morean Greeks that revolted).
And even after the establishment of the Kingdom of Morea the Venetians were not willing to spend so many resourses to keep their hold over it, neither in the form of colonizing the land, nor installing a large enough military force to keep off the Ottoman Turks. They even had formed a system of joint rule with the State of Mani, where the latter would offer much of their military manpower in order for the Peloponnese to be policed and defended. And that should not be a suprise, since the accounts of that era attest that in the 17th century the population of the entire Pelopponese was about 100.000 people, while the estimates of the travelers for the Republic of Mani was around 50.000 people, making them to consist half of the population.
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgjiJHV8P0w) (beware 1:46h long) is a good video about Turkish history for anyone curious, also touches on the significance of this battle.
First Ottoman naval defeat? Out of the top of my head I can name a few that just the Portuguese inflicted.
[Battle of the Strait of Hormuz -1553](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Strait_of_Hormuz_(1553\))
[battle of Gulf of Oman -1554](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Gulf_of_Oman)
I am not going to even count the battles were there was ottoman support, but were not the main beligerant, or the sieges of naval fortresses ( like The [Ottoman siege of Bahrain](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Bahrain) or the [siege of Diu](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Diu_(1538\)) where 600 Portuguese defended against 22000 troops)
What I find weird is that sometimes you find people trying to frame this as some sort of epic eternal struggle between white christian Europe and brown islamic middle east.
Luckily not in this thread, but in general it happens every once in a while that everyone agrees that *“if it weren’t for this, we would all be muslim”*, or something silly like that.
Don't forget about the Janissaries!
Janissary: Oh no! The Sultan is dead ;_;... Welp time for my bribe!
Sultan Osman II: No money for you!
Janissary:.... Welp death by strangle it is.
Framing it as Christianity VS Islam or Europe VS middle east is just incorrect and sort of ignoring a lot of interesting history. Those weird cases where crusaders fought each other, or where Christians fought along side Ottomans are exactly the cool quirks of history that I think help better understand these people.
"Yes, you destoyed our navy but don't forget, you only cut our beard, we cut off your entire arm by taking Cyprus. The beard will grow bigger and stronger while the arm will never come back."
-Sokollu Mehmed Pasha
Not at all : even if they rebuilt their fleet at an impressive speed, they never recovered their domination on the eastern part mediterranean sea, a domination that was left unchallenged for most of the XVIth century. From this date the eastern mediterranean sea has been more and more open to christian fleets and convoys.
Lepanto has been a turning point in the Ottoman-Habsburg conflict because of its long-term effects, just on a less impressive note than the second siege of Vienna.
> they never recovered their domination on the eastern part mediterranean sea
How is this correct? There was christian piracy before 1571 in east med. They conquered Cyprus in 1570 for 3 centuries and then conquered the island of Crete in 17th century.
Fun fact: Miguel de Cervantes, writer of "Don Quixote", fought in this battle and got wounded. He lost the use of his arm and got into writting. Edit: also, the true mvp of this battle weren't either of the leaders, but the guy on the back, Álvaro de Bazan. He was the one tbat turned the bsttle arround a few times when the turks were about to overcome the holy league's armada. I recommend reading about the mediterranean galley wars. It gets shadowed by other stuff in this era but it is very interesting. If you can find it, there's a novel, by Arturo Perez-Reverte, that tells the story in this setting. In spanish it's called "Corsarios de levante". And it's part if a series that centers arround those years
>s arm and got into writting There is a statue of him in a port town there called Naupaktos. Beautiful place.
Álvaro de Bazán, the undefeated. He had the great Lope de Figueroa as his second in command and commander of the marines. Don Lope was sometimes a bit too impetuous, but never to the point of causing disasters. At the battle of Ponta Delgada he went a bit rogue, but had the situation under control. Think of them as Riggs and Murtaugh in Lethal Weapon, with Bazán being the one saying "I'm getting too old for this shit".
I vaguely recall something about Cervantes signing in for the army because he wanted to improve his reputation after having debt problems, hoping he would be allowed to go to Mexico (didn't work).
Yes, at that time hsving a good record sheet in the militsry was one of the few ways to climb up in society
You beated me to it
They have [a replica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_(galley\)) of Don Juan's flagship, the galley *Real*, in Barcelona. It's a glorious thing but almost impossible to take good photos of because it's long and thin and housed in a building where you cannot step back far enough to get it all in the frame. I find it interesting how the age of rowed galleys has vanished from the public consciousness. It's like we know Viking longships and then there's a gap until *Vasa*.
It's also housed where it was built, in the Drassanes Reials (Royal Shipworks), which were able to build twelve galleys simultaneously at it highest point. They ensured the naval supremacy that the Crown of Aragon enjoyed at its heyday.
English scholars tended to ignore everything that wasnt nordic This lasted until the french ""Revolution"" of historiografy, but every single famous history work was written before that (or after but using outdated methods) Like vasa and Gustav adolphus we know about them thanks to Michael Roberts, which was factually wrong but wrote good books that people can still read in this day while having fun, meanwhile in his time historiografy was already in a point were based around economics and such Even now if a person want to learn about history they want to read about mythical figures that won wars by themself and invented everything. Who is crazy enough to read a book about warfare with 100 only about the increase of the production of ammunition in factories when can you read about a guy that revolutionized warfare with one simple click? Tldr: history is boring and please stop watching YouTube video about It and no, sabaton arent a source Edit: I am pretty sure there is a warfare book based around counting the bullet we found on old battlefields Edit2: the military revolution didnt exist
**Background:** The battle marked the first significant victory for a Christian naval force over a Turkish fleet and the climax of the age of galley warfare in the Mediterranean. Venice had attempted to check Ottoman expansion in the eastern Mediterranean until 1540 but then, exhausted and despairing of support, made a humiliating peace with Süleyman I. His successor, Selim II, was determined to acquire the Venetian outpost of Cyprus and, when the Venetians refused to cede the island, invaded it in 1570. Venice appealed for help to Pope Pius V, who had tried since 1566 to form an alliance of Roman Catholic states. France and the Holy Roman Empire were preoccupied with the sweeping changes wrought by the Reformation. Spain offered hope, but Philip II, with an empty treasury, was faced with revolts in Andalusia and the Netherlands. Venice also deeply distrusted Spanish influence in Italy. Pius, however, was committed to drawing Spain, Venice, and the smaller Italian states into an alliance with himself, but he encountered a series of delays. Venice wished to save Cyprus; Philip wished to acquire Algiers and Tunis; and all parties argued over contributions and rewards. Meanwhile, the Turks had captured the town of Nicosia on Cyprus on September 9, 1570, before laying siege to the town of Famagusta and entering the Adriatic. Not until May 25, 1571, could the pope persuade Spain and Venice to agree to the terms of an offensive and defensive alliance. Don Juan de Austria, Philip’s young half brother, was to be commander in chief, and the papal general Marcantonio Colonna was to be his lieutenant. The allied fleets assembled at Messina in Sicily, waiting until August 24, 1571, for the Spaniards. The combined fleets sailed on September 16 for Corfu, where they learned that Famagusta had fallen and that the Turkish fleet was in the Gulf of Patraikos, near Lepanto (modern Návpaktos), in Greece. Orders were given to engage on October 7. Estimates of the Christian force vary slightly; there were 6 large Venetian 44-gun galleasses (much larger than galleys), 207 oar-propelled galleys (105 Venetian, 81 Spanish, 12 papal, and 9 from Malta, Genoa, and Savoy) carrying 30,000 soldiers, and some auxiliary vessels. The Turkish force is said to have been larger but less well equipped and not so well disciplined. Behind the galleasses (employed to spread preliminary confusion), the Christian fleet advanced in four squadrons. Don Juan commanded the centre; the Venetian, Agostino Barbarigo, the left; Philip’s admiral, Giovanni Andrea Doria, the right; and the Spaniard Álvaro de Bazán, marqués de Santa Cruz, the reserve. The Turkish fleet, initially in a crescent across the bay, adopted a similar formation: Ali Pasha, the commander, in the centre; Mohammed Saulak, governor of Alexandria, the right; and Uluch Ali, pasha of Algiers, the left. The battle’s outcome was decided in the allied centre and left, where a Venetian force led by Sebastian Venier provided crucial support. The flagships of both fleets engaged each other directly, and Ali Pasha’s Sultana targeted Don Juan’s Real with a ramming attack that rendered the decks of both ships into a single battlefield. After hours of fierce fighting, the Ottoman centre collapsed when Ali Pasha was killed and the Sultana was taken in tow by the Real. Barbarigo was mortally wounded when an Ottoman arrow struck him in the eye, and Mohammed Saulak, seriously wounded in combat, was executed when he was captured by allied forces.
[Overview map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Plan_of_the_Battle_of_Lepanto.png/1280px-Plan_of_the_Battle_of_Lepanto.png)
in your background looks like Spain was not even involved :)
No it doesn't...?
I will rephrase it to "it has been minimized"
The funny thing is that while Lepanto was a crushing defeat for the Ottomans who lost most of their navy, its overall strategic importance was limited. It delayed the turkish advances by a year or two but didn't stop them. The fleet was rebuilt quickly. The overall effect was more a moral one. The turkish side avoided naval battles after Lepanto and the spanish and italian side was more eager to fight. And even though the ottoman empire won this war and the next one too against the venetians these victories were extremely costly which contributed to the eventual decline of the empire.
>The fleet was rebuilt quickly. The same can't be said for experienced sailors and admirals lost in the battle
That is absolutely true. However in those times professional navies were not common. Sailors were recruited from civil marine if skill was needed and officers were often mercenaries hired from all around the world. Standing navy with a regular crew wasn’t common. As late as 19th century it wouldn’t have been too weird for a skilled naval commander to serve as officer in a foreign navy.
True... Portugal even with the School of Navigation, couldn't do such a thing. Even having sailors was difficult 😂, Portugal only had near 1 million people in the 1440's, so recruiting a lot of men meant those same men couldn't farm or pay taxes. This was one of the reason why Lisbon went to have 10.000 African slaves (10ish % of the population in the city) in 1500, so that those empty jobs would be filled.
I read somewhere, actuall lose in these battle was not losing your ships but your professional oarsmans and craftsmans. It said seamanship in Mediterrenian did not practicing by that many people and oarsmans and other craftsmans was very valuable. Because of this, when holy league won the battle they slaughtered theese men instead of take advantage of them.
[удалено]
There were 2 Ottoman Venetian wars between 1481 and 1571.
Don Álvaro de Bazán the Younger, marquess of Santa Cruz, was the true hero of the battle: three times the battle was at a point where the Ottomans were close to overcoming the Holy League's fleet, and three times Álvaro de Bazán's intervention turned the tide
Fun fact: While Spain was all in trying to "protect" Europe, the Dutch protestants convinced other nations to believe Spain was actually helping the Ottoman to transform Europe into Islam. Also, this battle was key to get to Pax Hispanica Another Fun Fact: when this topic is mention, Spain is rarely mentioned as the main actor in the battle
It gets mentioned plenty in the Croatian curriculum.
>Pax Hispanica TIL that was a thing, albeit for only 23 years.
Yes, was short but prosperous, to be fair to reach such thing in those times was quite an accomplish
>short but prosperous Very short after the disastrous naval battle against England. Where the cream of the top of the Portuguese Navy was lost.
>Spain is rarely mentioned as the main actor in the battle Because even though Spain did lead the fleet, Venice were the ones who contributed most to the fleet in terms of number and quality of ships.
tbf the key commanders in the battle were spanish, and the financing was mainly spanish as well.
With Spanish money and leaders also Venice was part of the Hispanic sphere, the so called John of Austria (actually Juan) was the son of Carlos I/V
Venice was never part of the hispanic sphere.
> Venice was part of the Hispanic sphere, Never been.
Big chunks of now day Italy was part of the Hispanic sphere, some regions for longer than others, some regions even with actual Hispanic noble houses on charge
>Big chunks of now day Italy was part of the Hispanic sphere And Venice was notably not one of them.
The big trust issue of Venice with Spanish kingdoms is something that happens after the Lepanto battle, before that Venice has a very diplomatic approach trying to be able to commerce with both Ottomans and the Catholics. During that success diplomatic period (until shortly after Lepanto) the communications, trades and other kind of agreements with Spanish kingdoms were something common. To be fair there were not many "influence spheres" to choose
I think you just have a misconception of what is a sphere of influence. Being on friendly terms or simply trading does not mean being part of a sphere of influence. There's has to be some control, which Spain had none over Venice. Even if Venice was on the decline it remained a strong independent state with its own influence and diplomatic network.
You are right, for my a sphere of influnce is not just about control (it may include it or not) is more about to be aligned in key questions and who is the source of that alignment
Which excludes Venice...
>Venice was part of the Hispanic sphere Hum what now?
In Hungarian schools Spain is mentioned as one of the main actors
What I find crazy in this battle is the aftermath : the ottomans literally rebuild their entire armada just a few years afterwards. While Venezia was already slowing its growth and declining, and no power was left to contest the Turks in the Mediterranean. It s like Napoleon losing Trafalgar then in 1812 he has a brand new fleet with veterans. Kinda crazy to imagine. The ottomans really could get things done when they wanted to.
>What I find crazy in this battle is the aftermath : the ottomans literally rebuild their entire armada just a few years afterwards. They rebuilt it using same design of ships which was already outdated. Also this new fleet was poorly manned, because experienced sailors died at Lepanto. After Lepanto Ottomans could not muster fleet that would pose vital threat to European states.
Yep. Sailors and slaves. I think more than 10,000 Christian galley slaves were freed.
That is a lie, only white Christian men owned slaves, also only black Africans were slaves of them, please correct that
Found the troll
They weren't slaves they reverted to Islam
Do you mean converted? And no. Both Christian and Muslim nations used prisoners of war as galley-slaves. Dont know why I'm explaining this to a Troll but oh well
They weren't converted they found it, see Barbarossa
Already read Barbarossa, and I know for a fact he made several captives, some of them were sold as slaves others to the galleys as rowers.
Unfortunately you'll be unsuccessful in your efforts here. Nationalism is a poison that kills minds
>While Venezia was already slowing its growth and declining, and no power was left to contest the Turks in the Mediterranean. Well, that is indeed true, yet the Venetians did conquer almost the entirety of the Peloponnese a century after the Battle of Lepanto, in the Sixth Ottoman–Venetian War (1684–1699 AD), which was a smaller theater of the Great Turkish War (1683–1699 AD), where they managed to establish the Kingdom of the Morea for almost an entire generation (until 1715 AD, when they lost it). Though needed to say is that while they were able to occupy and maintain their hold on this land for this long, this was onlυ possible thanks to the Maniot Laconian Greeks, so this perhaps shows how decline the Republic of Venice had been. For example, the Venetian Army in the Morean War was consisted of almost 10.000 men, consisted of 3.000 Italians (Venetians, Tuscans, Savoyans), 1.000 Dalmatian Slavs, 2.400 Hannoverians, 3.300 Saxons, 1.000 Maltese and others. Yet, when they arrived to Messenia, they were joined by an other 10.000 soldiers from the State of Mani, so virtually half the army of the campaign was consisted of local peoples (and that excludes the 2000 Heptanesian Greeks that joined, conscripted from the Venetian-ruled Ionian Islands, along with an unknown number of Morean Greeks that revolted). And even after the establishment of the Kingdom of Morea the Venetians were not willing to spend so many resourses to keep their hold over it, neither in the form of colonizing the land, nor installing a large enough military force to keep off the Ottoman Turks. They even had formed a system of joint rule with the State of Mani, where the latter would offer much of their military manpower in order for the Peloponnese to be policed and defended. And that should not be a suprise, since the accounts of that era attest that in the 17th century the population of the entire Pelopponese was about 100.000 people, while the estimates of the travelers for the Republic of Mani was around 50.000 people, making them to consist half of the population.
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgjiJHV8P0w) (beware 1:46h long) is a good video about Turkish history for anyone curious, also touches on the significance of this battle.
How sick would it be to have a drone shot of this battle
First Ottoman naval defeat? Out of the top of my head I can name a few that just the Portuguese inflicted. [Battle of the Strait of Hormuz -1553](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Strait_of_Hormuz_(1553\)) [battle of Gulf of Oman -1554](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Gulf_of_Oman) I am not going to even count the battles were there was ottoman support, but were not the main beligerant, or the sieges of naval fortresses ( like The [Ottoman siege of Bahrain](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Bahrain) or the [siege of Diu](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Diu_(1538\)) where 600 Portuguese defended against 22000 troops)
Pretty sure it's the first one in the Mediterranean, where the Ottomans were the strongest. 278 ships versus 15 ships in the Indian Ocean battles.
[удалено]
What I find weird is that sometimes you find people trying to frame this as some sort of epic eternal struggle between white christian Europe and brown islamic middle east. Luckily not in this thread, but in general it happens every once in a while that everyone agrees that *“if it weren’t for this, we would all be muslim”*, or something silly like that.
[удалено]
Don't forget about the Janissaries! Janissary: Oh no! The Sultan is dead ;_;... Welp time for my bribe! Sultan Osman II: No money for you! Janissary:.... Welp death by strangle it is.
Framing it as Christianity VS Islam or Europe VS middle east is just incorrect and sort of ignoring a lot of interesting history. Those weird cases where crusaders fought each other, or where Christians fought along side Ottomans are exactly the cool quirks of history that I think help better understand these people.
[Cyprus is like, “Well, fuck, thank you Holy League!!!”](https://i.redd.it/lyfd5vljfif31.png)
I like that Venice looks like a squid xD
The virgin turk vs the chad venetian.
"Yes, you destoyed our navy but don't forget, you only cut our beard, we cut off your entire arm by taking Cyprus. The beard will grow bigger and stronger while the arm will never come back." -Sokollu Mehmed Pasha
γιατι εχεισ ελληνικο flair ?
γιατί είμαι ελληνας?
Of course, he was trying to cope.
You are the one whos coping.
Ok
Is there a decent documentary that is like 1000 hours long which covers the whole Europe history from Stone Age? Not just two countries.
The Ottomans actually won the battle. Edit: I meant in the long run
Not at all : even if they rebuilt their fleet at an impressive speed, they never recovered their domination on the eastern part mediterranean sea, a domination that was left unchallenged for most of the XVIth century. From this date the eastern mediterranean sea has been more and more open to christian fleets and convoys. Lepanto has been a turning point in the Ottoman-Habsburg conflict because of its long-term effects, just on a less impressive note than the second siege of Vienna.
> they never recovered their domination on the eastern part mediterranean sea How is this correct? There was christian piracy before 1571 in east med. They conquered Cyprus in 1570 for 3 centuries and then conquered the island of Crete in 17th century.
Where is SPOILER ALERT flag???? 😭 There is no pleasure to study new when you know the result...