Talk:Battle of Lepanto

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: -----
"Battles of Diu, 1509 and 1538". Do you mean the battle of Preveza in 1538?
SpookyMulder 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Catholic Centered Viewpoint 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Portuguese connection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ottoman ships 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disrespect? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link Issue 

message: 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)
thread_title: Background

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sloppy Overall Analysis 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Irrelevant Information in Cultural References Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Maps, Graphics? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Problem with...tone?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Number error 

message: 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)
thread_title: Number of Casualties

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Beggining phrase pov

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crucial Turning Point 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link to Barbarigo incorrect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The infobox does not match with the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107055534/http://www.navigationdusavoir.net/PortalPisa/PercorsiDidattici/percorso6/scheda_predediguerra.html to http://www.navigationdusavoir.net/PortalPisa/PercorsiDidattici/percorso6/scheda_predediguerra.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified