Talk:Battle of Lepanto

Aftermath

It seems inconsistent to have the para that starts: "In the 1574 Capture of Tunis, the Ottomans retook the strategic city of Tunis..." after the para that argues for decline of Ottoman influence in the Mediterranean. One argues for a decline, the next para then claims the Ottoman influence continues apace. Please resolve this.

Otherwise, this is a good article.

24.13.34.10 (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not inconsistent. The article makes clear that the fighting effectiveness of the Ottoman fleets suffered badly because of the immense loss of experienced sailors and composite bowmen. Re-read the article carefully and think how this restricted the kind of operations the Ottoman fleet carried out afterwards. See also JMG's points (bolded) below. Provocateur (talk)

Curiously, the article lefts out completely that the Holy League member-states were all very buissy after the battle example: Spain was heavily tied up fightning/supressing Netherlandish independence ) and completely unable to capitalize on their great victory at Lepanto, thus allowing the Osmans too rebuild their lost navy in "peace" and regain control of Eastern Medditerrainian.

As it look now, it appear somewhat biased at this section, referring mostly or only to the Osman's "fate" afterwards, while barely mentioning the leauge's "fate" / how it effected them afterwards..

--Byzantios (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

-- Whatever happened to this commentary in the earlier edits? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lepanto&oldid=706531023#Aftermath Parts seem excessively wordy, and the revised article seems to discuss in length several other Ottoman victories instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:2148:120:1CF4:B4AC:1CB8:E2BF (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Catholic Centered Viewpoint

The article talks about how the Ottomans "terrifed" Europe and how this battle was a great victory for "Europe". But by "Europe" the article really means only "Catholic Europe". And the article keeps saying "Christian" when what is really meant is "Catholic". As the article mentions, the Holy League consisted only of Catholic countries. The role, if any, of Protestant countries should be discussed, and how they reacted to the result. 74.119.231.16 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC) captcrisis

Reference to the Battle of Tours deleted

I've removed the reference to the battle of Tours in the "See also" section as it felt out of place. There is over 800 years between those two battles, one is a naval encounter involving strong organized state armies and the other was fought on land and involved pre-state actors. Also, one was fought in modern-day Greece between a Spanish-Italian coalition and an Ottoman fleet, the other in modern-day France between Berber and Frankish cavalry. The fact that they both opposed Muslim and Catholic armies is hardly a significant element as hundreds of other encounters also involved Muslim and Catholic armies (from Las Navas in 1212 to Vienna in 1683). Even more importantly, as the scale of both battles was very different, it is unlikely that their consequences could be compared. Maharbbal (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable although I'll let others offer their thoughts. Academic Challenger (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the right number of years, if it is not 800? I suspect the Maharbbal has a COI, a conflict of interest.

Dear... well, you did not sign your name so, dear Mr Troll.

My point is not purely chronological. The idea is that there needs to be a clear and strong relationship between two battles for them to be related. Either similar tactics were used, or similar actors took part, or it happened in the same place, or people at the time saw a clear parallel between the two, or (serious) historians today for any other reason have seen a parallel (or a noteworthy difference) between both events. Evidently, none of these criteria applies here, except the very secondary fact that each side was using the Holy War argument in its propaganda (but in the case of Lepanto, many historians such as Géraud Poumarède have pointed out that it was purely nonsensical as at the same time the Sunni Ottoman Empire was allied with Catholic France while Catholic Spain was allied with Sunni Morocco). Even then, if the religious argument was to be accepted, many other battles fit a lot better the case of Lepanto such as Mohacs 1526, Alcazar 1578, Sisak 1593 and Zenta 1697 as they are chronologically much closer and involve actors or at least entities that are also involve in Lepanto. So Tours must go. Maharbbal (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Portuguese contribution

I've just been a bit confused by the following lines in the first (!) paragraph of the Introduction, recently added by "SirPortuga":

"... as well as the Portuguese Empire since it was the primary naval power in the century, being the first modern Global Empire.[12][13][14][15] The Portuguese were also experienced in fighting the Ottoman Empire (and its allies) in the Indian Ocean as early as the century began, finally defeating it in The Ottoman-Portuguese War.[16][17] To this battle, Portugal provided ships, menpower and cutting-edge naval technology."

Though supposedly well referenced, the reference to how Portugal was "the primary naval power in the century", a very questionable statement itself, is completely irrelevant and out of context. Also, interestingly, the participation of Portugal in the battle is not mentioned at all in neither the French, the Spanish, the German, the Italian, nor even Portuguese Wikipedias. Therefore I would suggest that the above lines are removed from the article, and in any case most certainly from the Introduction.

Nicteo (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the Portuguese participation is not mentioned in the other wikipedia article is not relevant nor should be taken as a proof that they didn't participate. The portuguese participation is documented: just refer back to one of the primary source like the codex "Traitez de plusiers Roys", and the other modern sources I mentioned in the article to see their participation. By the way, the Battle of Lepanto was a naval battle and since the Portuguese Empire was a major naval power in the 16th century it seems appropriate to cite that fact to contextualize their involvement. Also, keep in mind that the Portuguese were fighting the Ottomans decades before in the Indian Ocean. Therefore, context is all. For further knowledge about the Portuguese participation I would like to cite a primary source of the Portuguese biographer and poet Diôgo Barbosa Machado (17th CE) asserting the participation of the Portuguese in the battle. He cites in his "Bibliotheca Lusitana" that there was a Portuguese captain leading the Portuguese and he cites his name: Pedro da Costa Perestrello. Here is the source: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=fsg-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA571&lpg=PA571&dq=pedro+da+costa+perestrello+lepanto&source=bl&ots=YJTg4Ye_Bt&sig=bqiy5p8Kpc4sXAlrom1GJqIOpS0&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiql4XVrpfbAhWKgZAKHUkwC5MQ6AEINTAE#v=snippet&q=%22PEDRO%20DA%20COSTA%20PERESTRELL-O%22&f=false Sir Thiago (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, one Portuguese captain commanding a Spanish galley for the king of Spain is not the same as Portugal having participated. So says Portuguese admiral Saturnino Monteiro, who compiled every single Portuguese naval battle in his work Portuguese Sea Battles, Volume III, From Brazil to Japan 1539-1579 in page 363:

"It is opportune to say that the Battle of Lepanto, although a crushing defeat for the Turks, which considerably tarnished their prestige, had only a minor effect on the strategic situation in Europe. They quickly rebuilt their Mediterranean Fleet in less than three years and quickly regained command of the eastern part of that sea. However, for the Portuguese, who did not take part in it, the Battle of Lepanto had very strategic consequences since the Turks concentrated on rebuilding their Mediterranean Fleet and never again managed to create a Red Sea Fleet strong enough to challenge our mastery of the Indian Ocean."

Hence, your edits have been removed. Crenelator (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Greek "rebels"?

Are we sure that the pro-Holy League Greek participants of this battle were independent 'rebels', as the infobox suggests? It seems more like they were fighting either under Venice or the Ottomans.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

According to this article: "A significant number of Greeks also participated in the conflict on the side of the Holy League with three Venetian galleys commanded by Greek captains. The historian George Finlay estimated that over 25,000 Greeks fought on the side of the Holy League during the battle (both as soldiers and sailors/oarsmen) and stated that their numbers "far exceeded that of the combatants of any other nation engaged"." According to Finlay: "It is interesting to observe the part which the Greeks acted in the battle of Lepanto. Their number in the hostile fleets far exceeded that of the combatants of any of the nations engaged, yet they exerted no influence on the fate of the battle, nor did their mental degradation allow them to use its result as a means of bettering their condition, for the effect of mere numbers is always insignificant where individual virtue and national energy are wanting. The Greeks were at this time considered the best seamen in the Levant. Above twenty-five thousand were either working at the oar or acting as sailors on board the Othoman fleet, and hardly less than five thousand were serving in the Venetian squadron, where we find three galleys commanded by Greeks who had joined the papal church — Eudomeniani and Calergi of Crete, and CondocoUi of Corfu. Yet these thirty thousand men, of whom many were excellent seamen, exerted no more influence over the conduct of the warriors who decided the contest, than the oars at which the greater part of the Greeks laboured. Their presence is a mere statistical fact, of no more importance in a military point of view than the number of the oars, sails, and masts in the respective ships. Nevertheless, it was in part to the naval skill of the Greeks that the Othoman government was indebted for the facility with which it replaced the fleet lost at Lepanto. Every house in Constantinople and Rhodes, as those cities were exempt from the tribute of Christian children, was compelled to furnish a recruit for the fleet, and every Greek island and seaport furnished a galley, or its contingent for equipping one ; so that the losses of the Turkish navy were easily replaced. While the presence of thirty thousand Greeks in a single battle was so unimportant, the single city of Venice, whose whole population capable of bearing arms did not exceed that number, controlled the lives and fortunes of a large portion of the Greek race for many generations, and transfused Venetian feelings and prejudices into the minds of many millions of the Greek race." Source: A History of Greece: From Its Conquest by the Romans to the Present Time, B.C. 146 to A.D. 1864

by George Finlay Publication date 1877 https://archive.org/details/ahistorygreecef05finlgoog/page/n102/mode/2up So, this author David Brewer is a liar. 79.106.215.110 (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

So Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) is right, the source is misused. And the numbers presented by the article are wrong: it should say that 25,000 Greeks fought for the Ottomans and 5,000 fought for the Venetians. All those Greeks were not rebels, they were subjects of the Venetian and Ottoman empires. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:94F9:EE8B:E4F7:D6AE (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)