Talk:Battle of Lepanto

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aftermath[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

-- 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)[reply]

Comment[edit]

"Battles of Diu, 1509 and 1538". Do you mean the battle of Preveza in 1538? SpookyMulder 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)'[reply]

Catholic Centered Viewpoint[edit]

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[reply]

The Portuguese connection[edit]

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)[reply]

Number of the ships[edit]

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)[reply]


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
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
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.

Someone more knowledgeable than me might want to correct the numbers in the article. Not only are they inconsistent with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto_order_of_battle but it doesn't add up correctly: 206 galleys listed and when one sums up, the total is 210 + some privately owned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.179.238.46 (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever figure is correct, the article should at least be self-consistent, shouldn't it? The table shows 202 Holy League galleys, while the text give the number as 206. It doesn't give the general reader like myself much confidence in the article when it contradicts itself within a few lines. If I have read it incorrectly, I apologise profusely. I am certainly not qualified to assert which (if either) of the two totals is correct. Dawright12 (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman ships[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Identification[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


It was not a European vs. Turkish War.... It was a Italian/Latin/mediterranean vs. Turkish/Ottoman powers.

What the hell? Spain and Italy are not European? Puhleeze! Give us a break!Cd195 (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

France is also European, but apparently alied with the Ottoman Empire.Kdammers (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespect?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Years too late, but for the record, yes to the first, yes and no to the second. Okay, the character used is a dagger, so technically you're right. But why do we use the dagger, and not, say, a six pointed star ( ✡ ) to indicate date of death? Because Christians would be offended, wouldn't they. The whole point of using a dagger, is because in old typefaces before the advent of giant repositories like Unicode, the dagger ( † ) looks awfully like a Christian cross. That is clearly the reason for it. So it is a disrespect to Ali Pasha to have a dagger next to his name. Someone recently fixed this, so the point is now moot, but that's why that change is, in fact, the correct one. Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link Issue[edit]

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)[reply]

Background[edit]

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)[reply]

Sloppy Overall Analysis[edit]

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)[reply]

I added language to clarify the consequence of the battle in the introduction.

Benwetmore 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant Information in Cultural References Section[edit]

"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)[reply]

Maps, Graphics?[edit]

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)[reply]

Problem with...tone?[edit]

I read about the battle several times over the years before coming to this Wiki article, and felt I had a pretty good feeling for what happened. This statement, even though it's quoted and cited, really strikes me as being non-constructive and POV:

"a 'crucial turning point in the ongoing conflict between the Middle East and Europe, which has not yet completely been resolved.'"

Is there something in the author's mind that would "resolve" this? A reinactment of the battle? Giving Italy to the Turks? Converting southern Europe to some particular religion? Or is this some fatal, formative event in history?

But it's more than that. There's a "tone" issue here, which is implying that somehow, some people remember the battle, or its immediate consequences, and are seeking...should be seeking?...to redress it. Where's the proof that this battle was more important than the events of WWI and WWII -- far more recent; much of which is already not in living memory.

If a Wiki editor were to make this statement on their own bat, it would promptly (and justifiably) be removed. What purpose is served by suggesting that historical hostilities from hundreds of years ago somehow still aren't redressed? This is the argumentation of vendetta, not a balanced historical viewpoint. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number error[edit]

The intro to the article suggests 206 Allied warships with six galleons. Venice is said to have contributed 109 warships, plus the galleons; another 80 from Spain; 12 hired by the Papacy from Tuscany; and 3 from Genoa, 3 from Savoy, and 3 from another state, plus "some private ships." 109+80+12+3+3+3 is 210, and accounts for no additional private ships. Is the error in the number or the force disposition? Wally (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Casualties[edit]

Someone added this to the artice itself, and I am posting it on the talk page, where it belongs: 

Note : These Turkish losses seems altogether to low given the numbers of Turkish ships lost 
and the low number of Turkish prisoners. Why is not the figure of 12000 freed slaves accepted ?

-- 77.20.56.229 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC) (Not the argument's author, I simply transferred it to here)[reply]


Beginning phrase confusing[edit]

I am confused by this statement in the first paragraph:

This last major naval battle fought solely between rowing vessels was one of history's most decisive, inasmuch as "after Lepanto the pendulum swung back the other way and the wealth began to flow from East to West, a pattern that continues to this day", as well as "a crucial turning point in the ongoing conflict between the Middle East and Europe, which has not yet completely been resolved.".[5]

What is that meant by "...wealth began to flow from East to West..." I have heard of no major economic shift as a result of this battle, other than the economic cost of naval expenditures. The New World gold was already flowing and the spice trade around the Horn was well under way before this battle, so whats the meaning/reason for this statement? Can we clarify this statement, or strike it as it is confusing and adds nothing to the paragraph. Dinkytown 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think 'Horn' is misleading as that term refers to the southernmost point of South America in my mind. The Horn of Africa, ie region around Somalia/Ethiopia, is surely not what is meant here, is it? The phrase 'Cape of Good Hope' is clearer to me anyway, although I am not a geographer or historian. Just a suggestion, I don't mean to tread on anyone's toes here. Dawright12 (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first statement is by vampire mystery author Chelsea Quinn Yarbro turned amateur historian, and writing as T.C.F. Hopkins. The review is by Turkish SUNY asst. prof. Serpil Atamaz Hazar, who might've chosen a better source to base her review on.
Both statements have been struck. Mathglot (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beggining phrase pov[edit]

"a crucial turning point in the ongoing conflict between the Middle East and Europe, which has not yet completely been resolved.".[5]

This phrase is totally pov, and has no place in the article. It sounds like anti-arab propaganda from "europe submerged by minarets"-fearing fanatics. 89.214.60.85 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, this is citation of probably non-European author, and you must differentiate between "Arabic" and "Muslim".--Yopie 19:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Crucial Turning Point[edit]

I have spoken to Muslims, one of them a college student in the USA, who insist that Islam will eventually rule Europe and the world. Al-Queida insists that they will "bring back the Caliphate," ie, return Spain to Musliim rule. In fact, the issue of Muslim hegemony over Western Europe has NOT been resolved, at least in the minds of many Muslims. In that context, it is appropriate to state that the Battle of Lepanto was a turning point in European history, and that the issue of Muslim expansion into Europe is not entirely resolved.98.170.203.252 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this has to do with the Battle of Lepanto how?

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Battle of Lepanto (1571) → Battle of Lepanto — The 1571 battle is by far the most important, well-known and researched. The only other candidates specified at battle of Lepanto are references to alternative, not primary names. It seems to be an obvious case of a primary topic. Peter Isotalo 13:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support clear primary meaning. The existing "Battle of Lepanto" article will have to be moved to "Battle of Lepanto (disambiguation)". PatGallacher (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearly the primary meaning. Disambiguation page to be moved. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clear primary topic: this Battle of Lepanto is well-known and significant, the other battles are comparatively obscure and not usually referred to as "Battle of Lepanto" (assuming the articles are correct). The works of art named after this battle aren't significant enough not to make this a primary topic either. Ucucha 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gibraltar?[edit]

"The establishment of Ottoman suzerainty over the area placed the entire coast of the Mediterranean from the Straits of Gibraltar to Greece (with the exceptions of the Spanish controlled trading city of Oran and strategic settlements such as Melilla and Ceuta) – under Ottoman authority." --> As far as I know Morocco was never part of the Ottoman Empire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConjurerDragon (talk • contribs) 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To ask the question again - should not the phrase "from Gibraltar to Greece" be altered ? Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wadi_al-Laban we can read that Morocco resisted Ottoman invasion and so the Ottomans did not rule the entire coast from Gibraltar to Greece ConjurerDragon (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be altered, but not for the reason you state, but rather because it's highly ambiguous. Despite the convexity of northern Africa, if you draw a "straight line" (i.e., a great circle route) from Gibraltar to Athens, it will not cross any part of Morocco or Africa, rather it grazes Sicily and southern Italy before making landfall in Greece. So what is "the coast from Gibraltar to Greece" anyway? (Would an American say, "the entire American border from Vancouver to Montreal"?)
Morocco is in Africa, and both Gibraltar and Greece are in Europe, so to me "the coast from Gibraltar to Greece" lies entirely in Europe, but the Ottomans never held Spain, France or Italy. What the author of this misleading statement must have been trying to say was that the Ottomans held the entire Mediterranean coastline starting at a point in northern Africa opposite Gibraltar, running across the Maghreb and the Levant, and curling back around past modern day Turkey, to Greece. That would be a true statement (the battle you mentioned doesn't change that).
So yes, it should be changed. Perhaps to, "placed the entire southern coast of the Mediterranean from the Maghreb to Greece via the Levant..." or maybe, "the entire coast of the Mediterranean excepting the northwestern portion along Spain, France and Italy" or something like that. Mathglot (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last major battle fought with galleys?[edit]

"Lepanto was the last major naval battle fought almost entirely between oar-powered galleys..."

Wouldn't the naval battles of Imjin War of 1592 between Korea and Japan count as later major naval battles between galleys? The Korean Panokseon was largely oar-powered and so was the Atakebune and the sekibune. The Battle of Noryang and the Battle of Chilcheollyang probably qualify as "major naval battles" based on the number of ships and soldiers involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledtim (talk • contribs) 02:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the 18th-century Russian and Swedish galleys in the Baltic Sea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.2.56 (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that this claim is absolutely correct. No other really major battle after Lepanto was fought between fleet consisting almost entirely of galleys. Asian "turtleships" and the likes are oar-powered, but by no means galleys. There's a reasonably narrow definition of a galley, and it's not merely "floating vessel with oars". The Russian and Swedish galley fleets of the 18th century barely fought at all as far as I know, and certainly in nothing involving tens of thousands of participants. The battle of Svensksund (1790) was quite a big one, but quite few of the vessels in it were galleys. The majority consisted of gunboats, sailing ships and various sail/oar hybrids like hemmemas.
Peter Isotalo 13:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Barbarigo incorrect[edit]

Section in question - Deployment

Current link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agostino_Barbarigo Link should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agostino_Barbarigo_(admiral)

I have never made corrections and am reluctant to do so until I learn more. (Updated same day: I was able to fix it.)

Raathert (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Please, stop to emphasize the contribution of Spain in the infobox. The largest contributor of this battle was the Republic of Venice with 109 ships and 6 galleases. Spain, if we exclude the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, gave only 10 ships; if we include all possessions of Philip II, it reaches 49. Besides, this war was primarily a war between Venice and the Ottomans (see Ottoman-Venetian_War_ (1570-1573)), while Spain had a small part in that, and only at the request of the Pope (the organizer of the Holy League). This is written in the article: "All members of the alliance viewed the Ottoman navy as a significant threat, both to the security of maritime trade in the Mediterranean Sea and to the security of continental Europe itself. Notwithstanding, Spain preferred to preserve its galleys for its own wars against the nearby sultanates of the Barbary Coast rather than expend its naval strength for Venetian benefit." The fact that the commander of the fleet was a relative of the King of Spain does not mean anything. He was simply the most capable of all.--Enok (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Enok, the flag (Naples) you have used is false concerning the given time. The Contingents of Tuscany and Savoy where part of the Papal or Spanish contingent, they were not separate and should therefor not be separately mentioned in the info box. If you want to make a mention of them, than do so in the article. The importance of the contingents is not Highlighted in the "Belligerents" or "Commanders and leaders" section of the infobox but in the "Strength" section (as the given facts) and there is NO need to push a POV or start an edit war. (Daufer (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Please (again), don't put Spain on top. I reverted your edits, but I left the correct flags. For Tuscany and Savoy (that are not the topic of this discussion), see this page: Holy League (1571). They were members of the alliance, and sent ships to the battle.--Enok (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, i dont know what exactly your problem is concerning the style and format, But something you should NEVER DO is delete added Info that is Referenced. I have added info in the strength section which is referenced by 3 different sources (Oxford Uni. Press/Chicago Uni. Press/US Naval Institute). So DO NOT delete them without citing a proper reason. You can go on and tinker around the format style all you want without given any reason, But (again) do not delete referenced info.(Daufer (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not deleting info from the page, but from the Template infobox. The number of ships and soldiers by country (you forgot sailors and oarsmen, certainly the most important in a naval battle) are written inside the article. I reverted your attempt to describe Spain as the main belligerent in this battle. --Enok (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you are confusing USERS! i couldnt care less where spain or any other contingent stands in the list. And NO the info box is SEPARATE from the Article and therefor needs all the separate info and sources it can get. I didnt forget anything, if you have the correct numbers of Oarsmen than add them and reference it yourself! I gave the numbers of Ships/Soldiers/Guns using 3 sources. Good luck with your precise number on Oarsmen.(Daufer (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The Template:Infobox military conflict isn't the place where to add details. The number of ships, soldiers and sailors by country must be written in the body of the article. Just look at any other article on Wikipedia. P.S. Please, when you add a reference, be sure to include the number of the page where the information is located. --Enok (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just look at the Battle of the Somme or any other article. Why dont you delete the specifics in that article as well? or any other article where different sets of contingents were present. Those details are useful for the Info Box, exactly what an info box is for. And your number of 8.500 is WRONG its 28.500.(Daufer (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I accidentally deleted the '2' from '28,500'. Now is ok. --Enok (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really comparing this to that?
Battle of the Somme (Your version of) Battle of Lepanto
13 British and 11 French divisions totaling 280,000 men (initial)

51 British and 48 French divisions totaling 1,200,000 men (final)

Total: 212 ships
6 Venetian galleasses
109 Venetian galleys
55 Spanish galleys
27 Genoese galleys
12 Papal galleys
3 Maltese galleys

Total: 28,500 soldiers
8,000 Spanish
5,000 Venetian
1,500 Papal
5,000 German
5,000 Italian
4,000 noble adventurers

Total: 1,815 guns

The Infobox isn't a place where to add details.--Enok (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not OK. Template:Infobox military conflict clearly states strength1/strength2 – optional – the numerical strength of the units involved.! Do you understand it? In this case very necessary. Go to every other battle and delete these specifics. Good luck. I think we need a third party to decide.(Daufer (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, thats my comparison! why dont you delete it and simply give the plain division nubers? the reason there is more specifics with Lepanto is the number of belligerents. Seriously, get a third party.(Daufer (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Because with 2 belligerents is acceptable to write the divisions... and the number of soldiers is TOTAL! Enok (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you are the one who decides? LOL. So 2 is OK? the Battle of the Piave has 3 Battle of Vittorio Veneto has 5. Too much right, than have deleting these specifics. Seriously, get a third party. Template:Infobox military conflict clearly states strength1/strength2 – optional – the numerical strength of the units involved.!(Daufer (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I just realized that the source you mentioned provides different numbers. This is considered vandalism. Look here and here. Please, wrote the PAGE in the other references:

  • Rodgers, William Ledyard (1940). Naval Warfare Under Oars, 4th to 16th Centurie. United States Naval Institute.
  • Murrin, Michael (1994). History and Warfare in Renaissance Epic. University of Chicago Press.

I want to check if they coincide with the data you've reported in the article. -Enok (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not of the opinion that it should contain detailed information on "divisions". The point is that infoboxes should give a quick overview, not to slavishly follow instructions that are written mostly from the perspective of modern warfare. And why delete Holy League crew figures...?
I really think you should focus on working on the actual article content first, and then settle the infobox issue.
Peter Isotalo 00:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion[edit]

Content moved from user talk:Peter Isotalo.[1]

The compact info box is wrong and flawed and the consensus has changed; Correct info is always better than false info; no matter what the format; Daufer (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Less detailed" is obviously not the same as "false". As far as I can tell from the discussion about this, your view does not have consensus support. If you feel I'm missing something, please bring it up for discussion at the article talkpage.
Peter Isotalo 11:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not about the details; its about the contant; and the contant is flawed; and false;
and yes, you are missing something; just read a book; if you want i can also give you this tip on the talkpage; let me know; Daufer (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best if you specify exact errors on the talkpage yourself. And try to keep the issue of factual errors apart from the infobox design. They're two quite separate issues.
Peter Isotalo 12:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think i already know what is best; and thats facts from literature;
if you dont know what the mistakes are than make sure you read a book first; PS: my infobox design is well referenced and lists all belligerents and units and leaders + it has a proper image (a true icon of the battle), i will further add casualties - the next time; have fun reading; Daufer (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell there are at least three users who disagree with your preferences about the infobox. You've requested clarification, so here goes:
  • The image by Paolo Varonese that you call "a true icon" is completely dominated by religious imagery while the depiction of the actual battle is cluttered, unaesthetic and very dark. To make anything out, it has to be set to a very large size. This takes up way too much room for a simple infobox. There are simply much better images for this purpose, and none of them can be said to be "truer" than the others.
  • You're insisting on using coats of arms rather than flags. They are almost impossible to make out at such a low resolution. Despite this, they still take up much more room than simple flags. The point of the flags is to give a visual queue, not to depict the most accurate contemporary standards or symbols of any region or individual.
  • Breaking down the number of soldiers into "divisions" is not relevant in an infobox. They're supposed to give a quick overview of the numbers to get a sense of scale and proportions. In this case, it's the total size of each side that matters, not the composition of the Christian forces. You've also chosen to simply remove the number of crewmen on the Christian side. That makes absolutely no sense if you know anything about galleys. The crews propel the galleys and make up the majority of the participants. It's because of the large crews, not the number of soldiers, that Lepanto was one of the largest battles ever fought.
Peter Isotalo 20:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More on infobox[edit]

Daufer,
Please give me an explaination as to why you consider my edits as vandalism. The flags I put are the correct ones.
Also, look at all the articles on battles and wars from 1500 onwards (around the time when European countries began using national flags) and see if you can find more than three that show coats-of-arms when a country had a national flag.
As to listing all the combatants, what is the point of the 'belligerents' section if only three are listed and the reader is forced to look at the article itself for the rest. (There is probably no other article that does that.) 87.228.229.246 (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many boxes for belligerents are too small for a full list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.150.234.8 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were no "national flags" prior to the 1770s. There were naval flags, which would be appropriate for a naval battle, but these were rarely standardised before the 18th century.
Just stating this for the record as I just had to remove the 1840s Ottoman flag, yet again. Yes, many articles get this wrong, this is no reason to revert edits attempting to improve on it.
Whenever there is any doubt, the burden is on you to provide a credible reference for the flag you are proposing to use. --dab (𒁳) 05:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox does not match with the article[edit]

For example, the infobox says that the Ottoman fleet had 251 ships, while the article says it had more than 278. Antondimak (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True. The number of galleys appears to be known for certain, the difference stems from the number of "galliots and smaller vessels". Probably due to conflicting data in sources, but that's no excuse for not explicitly citing each source and carefully juxtaposing conflicting information. Just poor quality, to be improved by anyone with enough time on their hands to check the literature. --dab (𒁳) 05:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Lepanto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to the Battle of Tours deleted[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Portuguese contribution[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Lepanto&oldid=1194084308"