The Battle of Lepanto

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by King Kaloian of all Bulgarians If I remember correctly Spanish galleys, Venician were bigger than Turkish.The other imortant thing that new class galley appeared - the galleas, armed with much more canons - as San Lorenco. The Venetians had 6 galleasses that were much bigger than the average galley of either side. They seem to have caused quite some damage. But the biggest advantage of the Christian coalition was their infantery: the Turks were short on that. Also, when the Ottoman commander was captured, the Venetians beheaded him and put his head on a long pike, what demoralized the Muslims quite a bit.

Dr. Guilmartin speaks in his work on galley warfare of the importance of not only the discipline of the Western infantry, but of the importance of infantry firepower.  The soldiers aboard the Western galleys had many more arquebus and muskets, in addition to the ships' guns.  The effect of  firepower on the Ottoman troops and crews was more of a shock than the loss of their commander.

 

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Dr. Guilmartin speaks in his work on galley warfare of the importance of not only the discipline of the Western infantry, but of the importance of infantry firepower.  The soldiers aboard the Western galleys had many more arquebus and muskets, in addition to the ships' guns.  The effect of  firepower on the Ottoman troops and crews was more of a shock than the loss of their commander.

Not only that, the westerners had their ship-heads reshaped, so they were firing from higher-up and were more protected than the ottomans.

Trebuchet is impossible to handle on ship, you refer to light catapults perhaps?

You all talk about the consecuences of the battle, and there was no real profit for Lepanto, and you�re right, but the main reason for that it was that Spain tried to invade England 17 years after Lepanto (1588) with the biggest naval army ever built (I am not really sure about it, but I think so) for that purpose, but for this maybe is better to start a new topic.

Yes violentjack you are very humoristic, the ottomans lose 190 galleys and a total of 240 ships, 30.000 casualties, flee from the "battlefield" and they win the battle, great my friend 

Pd. Malta was a great defeat for the ottomans

Well, let me correct the story told by violentjack in a true way...

Originally posted by Leonardo Kapikulu really it's the other way round. It were the ottomans who aimed at conquer all Mediterrean Basin and western Europe and they failed.

The Ottomans didn't control the entire Mediterranean so much the eastern Mediterranean. No wonder, they had no opposition but Europe was alway dangerous and a very potent force.

The main goal of the battle of Lepanto, was first Italy was saved from the Turish hands and second, even if the battle didnt stop their territoria l expansion, it slowed them down. In the past many intelectual of the cristianity were depressed because they were sure they will wery soon be inglobed in the ottoman empire and forced to convert to islam. This fear was so predominant we see it in many famous writers of those days. After the battle of Lepanto the Turish never recovered and even if they keep making war, they were only the shadow of their former self.

Edited by Mumbloid - 29-Jun-2007 at 07:36

Originally posted by Maju But Spain and Turkey had, at least for some time after Lepanto a "status quo" on the Med. As I said before, Spain had other worries besides Turkey. Containing Turkey was enough effort. .... Probably Spaniards were very aware that they couldn't just dedicate too many efforts to Turkey when they were involved in so many conflics in Netherlands, Germany, etc..