Talk:Battle of Preveza

message: According to your attribution number 2 :
 Kara harekâtı teklifine karşı olan Andrea Doria’nın isteği kabul edildi. Haçlı donanmasının mevcudu, 162 kadırga ve 140 bârça olup tamamı 302 idi. Bu gemilerde 2500 top ve 60 000 asker vardı. Türk donanması ise, kürekli, yani çektiri sınıfından olarak 122 parçadan ibaretti. Gemilerin baş tarafında, üçer adet uzun menzilli 166 adet top bulunuyordu. Ayrıca donanmada, gemi mürettebatı yanında yeniçeri ve tımarlı sipahilerden olmak üzere toplam 20 000 asker bulunuyordu. 
translation:
Crusaders was consist 162 galleon or barks and 40 galliots and all ships was 302 total and these ships had total 2500 canoon 60 000 soldier. Meanwhile turkish side had no galleon only wessels propelled by shovels (I guess galleys) It was consist of 122 total. Each ship armed 166 canon meanwhile 3 of them was long-range canons and total army was 20000 mariner.
 but on page you claim
Strength
holy league
122 galleys[2][3]
20,000 soldiers[2]	
turkish side
112 galleys
50 galleons
140 barques[2][3]
60,000 soldiers[2]
[2] it looks like whoever wrote this article switched numbers of source
[3] source not exist anymore
everyone claim in all war cronicles . they were outnumbered by other side. Whoever wants to give different numbers to this battle. Instead of to being lazy should check what holy league sources say.
Yeha I have a comment:
==Untitled==
"In 1537 Suleiman the Magnificent...
... an action that led to teh indecisive naval battle of Prevesa"''
I got this from:
Turnbull, Stephen. The Ottoman Empire 1326 - 1699. New York: Osprey, 2003.
Which says nothing about 300 galleys losing to 120 galleys which sounds ridiculously impossible to me anyway. I will give 48 hrs before I make some seriosu ammendments because there are at the moment no cited sections.  Tourskin 16:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may check the books in Further reading section (none of them written by Turkish authors). Do not limit yourself to Greek propaganda history books which probably do not mention defeats. In addition, Turks do not need to create a legend to make up for the loss at Lepanto because they captured Cyprus shortly after Lepanto. I hope your propaganda books, at least, include that battle...  --  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.161.132 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: "In 1537 Suleiman the Magnificent...
... an action that led to teh indecisive naval battle of Prevesa"''
I got this from:
Turnbull, Stephen. The Ottoman Empire 1326 - 1699. New York: Osprey, 2003.
Which says nothing about 300 galleys losing to 120 galleys which sounds ridiculously impossible to me anyway. I will give 48 hrs before I make some seriosu ammendments because there are at the moment no cited sections.  Tourskin 16:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've never heard of this battle before,
and im an amatuer historian, and looked in various history books for it, and found nothing about it, as if it didn't existed.
There are however, some short notes in a few of Barbarossa raiding the coast of southern Greece & later italy, but that's it.
My current speculation is that this is merely some turkish propaganda/legend to make up for the loss at the famous Lepanto, and not a real event.
Allsow, the strengh/cassulty numbers seem over exaggerated for being true.
--Byzantios (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You may check the books in Further reading section (none of them written by Turkish authors). Do not limit yourself to Greek propaganda history books which probably do not mention defeats. In addition, Turks do not need to create a legend to make up for the loss at Lepanto because they captured Cyprus shortly after Lepanto. I hope your propaganda books, at least, include that battle...  --  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.161.132 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: fiction/propaganda or really real battle?

message: Two of the "sources" are dead links, both which appear to have been blogs.
* Türk Tarihi: Battle of Preveza
* Corsari nel Mediterraneo: Hayreddin Barbarossa --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Preveza. 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/20070928203950/http://www.corsaridelmediterraneo.it/corsari/b/barbarossa.html to http://www.corsaridelmediterraneo.it/corsari/b/barbarossa.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've done a clean sweep of the article and removed all content unsupported by sources and all content supported only by self-published web sources. The article has clearly been the target of POV warriors who want to portray this as much more important than it was.
As pointed out previously, it's very hard to find any details about this battle. John F. Guilmartin has written extensively about 16th century naval warfare in the Mediterranean and his description of this battle in Galleons and Galleys (page 132) is the following:
"Tactically, the battle of Prevesa was little more than a skirmish. The Christians lost a handful of galleys and round ships. The most notable episode was the successful resistance of a Venetian galleon."
In Jan Glete's Warfare at sea, 1500-1650 (page 101) it's described as mainly an attempt at an amphibious assault with minor losses. Pryor in Geography, technology, and war (page 177) that the Christian navy "withdrew with the loss of only a few ships" even if they were "outmanoeuvered and severely mauled" by the Ottomans. None of these are biased historians and have written extensively on all the major naval powers. Whatever the significance of this battle, it was not in numerical losses. Peter Isotalo 09:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disinformation article