This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Lepanto article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. show |
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)
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/?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)
"Battles of Diu, 1509 and 1538". Do you mean the battle of Preveza in 1538? SpookyMulder 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason that the title of this article has the year mentioned in it? If there was more than one Battle of Lepanto, I can see why the year would be included, but I can't seem to find any mention of another battle of the same name. Am I mistaken about that, or should this article be renamed to match the format of most other battles in the list of naval battles? If I am indeed mistaken (as is very possible), there should probably be a disambiguation page created at Battle of Lepanto (currently empty). -- Vardion 05:15, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There were battles in the Lepanto area in 1499 and 1500, which were both won by the Turks. There was also a battle during the Second Peloponnesian War, but as it wasn't known as Lepanto then it isn't counted. (Source - Collins Encyclopaedia of Military History) Average Earthman 19:20, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What was it called then? (Given the general area I guess it may have been the Battle of Naupactus (429 BC)) Adam Bishop 19:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Ottomans lost their control of the seas, especially in the western part of the Mediterranean." - Shouldn't this be Eastern instead of Western? Europeans already had a fair play of the western european, and I'd think that Lepanto would make more of a different to the Eastern part than the western. Other Internet sources have also indicated Eastern.
---I disagree, if the Venetians and allies would have been defeated, it would have caused Turkish expansion into Italy and Western Europe. Therefore, it was most definetly a decisive victory for the West...-- User:JMG 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for the Portugese connection below. I am writing a paper for school, the thesis being that Lepanto wasn't such a big deal as it is played out to be. More stuff like the Portugese connection would be most valuable. But references would be a plus, because I have to use them for my paper. Not that I am afraid of doing leg work and Harvard has a great library. Perhaps I'll take some of the results of my research and add them here. - Bobk, 9 December 2004
Lepanto is a huge deal for the West, I can't believe you are saying that....If the mighty Turkish empire win that battle, Italy is left vulnerable and in time the Turks would have taken Italy and the rest of Europe. That battle decimated the Turkish navy and forced them to consolidate their Eastern Empire and forego the West....I can't imagine anyone actually believing that the Battle of Lepanto was not a huge deal. If the battle at Lepanto did not crush Turkish expansion then what other major event stopped them then? It wasn't the goodness of their own hearts. The Turkish empire was a powerhouse, in my opinion far more powerful than the Holy Roman Empire or France, or both combined. The Turks were virtually unstoppable on land, because they fought out of there element and they were decisively crushed.-- User:JMG 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)'
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
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)
Ottomans couldn't have had 280 ships in this battle!
The Ottoman sources say that number of Crusader sips was 250 while Ottomans have 245 ships.If Ottomans have had 60 more ships than the Crusaders,certainly they couldn't have been defeated.
I corrected it,but it was changed.
Please take care of it.
----You sound so uppity and arrogant. You should at least leave your signature...You are also biased and innaccurate. The number of ships means nothing. But to make it simple for you...The Turkish empire was an extremely powerful land and siege empire, which is no suprise considering they are a tribe that came from the Central Asian Steppes. Whereas Venice is an island empire whose sole life-blood relies on their naval power and commerce. DO you have any clue as to what Venice even looks like, if you did you would not be suprised by there superior sea-manship as compared to the Turks. It was a matter of survival and from the 11th century until the 16th century no country/empire, etc... exceeded the Venetians.
Here is a qoute from Ulich Ali, the govenor of Algiers and in charge of the right flank of the Turks:
"Superiority is not determined by the number of ships. This is a matter of arnaments. Our ships are generally smaller than theirs and we are clearly inferior to the enemy in terms of firepower--especially when up against those six monster ships. Counting those as if they were normal galleys would be a fatal mistake. Furthermore, Sebastiano Veniero is leading the Venetian navy. Have no doubt that the Venetians fllet under him will hit us with all their might as soon as they see us."(from, "The Battle of Lepanto" by Nanami Shioni)-- User:JMG 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
there is an accurate reord of every allied galley in "naval battles of the levant 1559-1853". it says 28 privately owned galleys (giving all the owners names!), not several. why change to "several"? it also separates the naples, spanish and tuscan galleys. why combine them?
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
The overall analysis doesn't even indicate this was considered a major victory for the Europeans/Italians. The writing in this article is very poorly worded, unclear and unhelpful, someone should radically clean it up.
Benwetmore 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I added language to clarify the consequence of the battle in the introduction.
Benwetmore 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
I am confused by this statement in the first paragraph:
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)
"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)
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)
And this has to do with the Battle of Lepanto how?
The result of the move request was: page moved. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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))
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 Total: 1,815 guns |
The Infobox isn't a place where to add details.-- Enok ( talk) 15:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
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:
I want to check if they coincide with the data you've reported in the article. - Enok ( talk) 16:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Lepanto article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. show |
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)
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/?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)
"Battles of Diu, 1509 and 1538". Do you mean the battle of Preveza in 1538? SpookyMulder 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason that the title of this article has the year mentioned in it? If there was more than one Battle of Lepanto, I can see why the year would be included, but I can't seem to find any mention of another battle of the same name. Am I mistaken about that, or should this article be renamed to match the format of most other battles in the list of naval battles? If I am indeed mistaken (as is very possible), there should probably be a disambiguation page created at Battle of Lepanto (currently empty). -- Vardion 05:15, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There were battles in the Lepanto area in 1499 and 1500, which were both won by the Turks. There was also a battle during the Second Peloponnesian War, but as it wasn't known as Lepanto then it isn't counted. (Source - Collins Encyclopaedia of Military History) Average Earthman 19:20, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What was it called then? (Given the general area I guess it may have been the Battle of Naupactus (429 BC)) Adam Bishop 19:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Ottomans lost their control of the seas, especially in the western part of the Mediterranean." - Shouldn't this be Eastern instead of Western? Europeans already had a fair play of the western european, and I'd think that Lepanto would make more of a different to the Eastern part than the western. Other Internet sources have also indicated Eastern.
---I disagree, if the Venetians and allies would have been defeated, it would have caused Turkish expansion into Italy and Western Europe. Therefore, it was most definetly a decisive victory for the West...-- User:JMG 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for the Portugese connection below. I am writing a paper for school, the thesis being that Lepanto wasn't such a big deal as it is played out to be. More stuff like the Portugese connection would be most valuable. But references would be a plus, because I have to use them for my paper. Not that I am afraid of doing leg work and Harvard has a great library. Perhaps I'll take some of the results of my research and add them here. - Bobk, 9 December 2004
Lepanto is a huge deal for the West, I can't believe you are saying that....If the mighty Turkish empire win that battle, Italy is left vulnerable and in time the Turks would have taken Italy and the rest of Europe. That battle decimated the Turkish navy and forced them to consolidate their Eastern Empire and forego the West....I can't imagine anyone actually believing that the Battle of Lepanto was not a huge deal. If the battle at Lepanto did not crush Turkish expansion then what other major event stopped them then? It wasn't the goodness of their own hearts. The Turkish empire was a powerhouse, in my opinion far more powerful than the Holy Roman Empire or France, or both combined. The Turks were virtually unstoppable on land, because they fought out of there element and they were decisively crushed.-- User:JMG 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)'
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
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)
Ottomans couldn't have had 280 ships in this battle!
The Ottoman sources say that number of Crusader sips was 250 while Ottomans have 245 ships.If Ottomans have had 60 more ships than the Crusaders,certainly they couldn't have been defeated.
I corrected it,but it was changed.
Please take care of it.
----You sound so uppity and arrogant. You should at least leave your signature...You are also biased and innaccurate. The number of ships means nothing. But to make it simple for you...The Turkish empire was an extremely powerful land and siege empire, which is no suprise considering they are a tribe that came from the Central Asian Steppes. Whereas Venice is an island empire whose sole life-blood relies on their naval power and commerce. DO you have any clue as to what Venice even looks like, if you did you would not be suprised by there superior sea-manship as compared to the Turks. It was a matter of survival and from the 11th century until the 16th century no country/empire, etc... exceeded the Venetians.
Here is a qoute from Ulich Ali, the govenor of Algiers and in charge of the right flank of the Turks:
"Superiority is not determined by the number of ships. This is a matter of arnaments. Our ships are generally smaller than theirs and we are clearly inferior to the enemy in terms of firepower--especially when up against those six monster ships. Counting those as if they were normal galleys would be a fatal mistake. Furthermore, Sebastiano Veniero is leading the Venetian navy. Have no doubt that the Venetians fllet under him will hit us with all their might as soon as they see us."(from, "The Battle of Lepanto" by Nanami Shioni)-- User:JMG 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
there is an accurate reord of every allied galley in "naval battles of the levant 1559-1853". it says 28 privately owned galleys (giving all the owners names!), not several. why change to "several"? it also separates the naples, spanish and tuscan galleys. why combine them?
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
The overall analysis doesn't even indicate this was considered a major victory for the Europeans/Italians. The writing in this article is very poorly worded, unclear and unhelpful, someone should radically clean it up.
Benwetmore 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I added language to clarify the consequence of the battle in the introduction.
Benwetmore 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
I am confused by this statement in the first paragraph:
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)
"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)
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)
And this has to do with the Battle of Lepanto how?
The result of the move request was: page moved. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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))
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 Total: 1,815 guns |
The Infobox isn't a place where to add details.-- Enok ( talk) 15:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
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:
I want to check if they coincide with the data you've reported in the article. - Enok ( talk) 16:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)