Talk:Battle of Lepanto

Aftermath

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)

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)

-- Whatever happened to this commentary in the earlier edits? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lepanto&oldid=706531023#Aftermath Parts seem excessively wordy, and the revised article seems to discuss in length several other Ottoman victories instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:2148:120:1CF4:B4AC:1CB8:E2BF (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Catholic Centered Viewpoint

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

Greek "rebels"?

Are we sure that the pro-Holy League Greek participants of this battle were independent 'rebels', as the infobox suggests? It seems more like they were fighting either under Venice or the Ottomans.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

According to this article: "A significant number of Greeks also participated in the conflict on the side of the Holy League with three Venetian galleys commanded by Greek captains. The historian George Finlay estimated that over 25,000 Greeks fought on the side of the Holy League during the battle (both as soldiers and sailors/oarsmen) and stated that their numbers "far exceeded that of the combatants of any other nation engaged"." According to Finlay: "It is interesting to observe the part which the Greeks acted in the battle of Lepanto. Their number in the hostile fleets far exceeded that of the combatants of any of the nations engaged, yet they exerted no influence on the fate of the battle, nor did their mental degradation allow them to use its result as a means of bettering their condition, for the effect of mere numbers is always insignificant where individual virtue and national energy are wanting. The Greeks were at this time considered the best seamen in the Levant. Above twenty-five thousand were either working at the oar or acting as sailors on board the Othoman fleet, and hardly less than five thousand were serving in the Venetian squadron, where we find three galleys commanded by Greeks who had joined the papal church — Eudomeniani and Calergi of Crete, and CondocoUi of Corfu. Yet these thirty thousand men, of whom many were excellent seamen, exerted no more influence over the conduct of the warriors who decided the contest, than the oars at which the greater part of the Greeks laboured. Their presence is a mere statistical fact, of no more importance in a military point of view than the number of the oars, sails, and masts in the respective ships. Nevertheless, it was in part to the naval skill of the Greeks that the Othoman government was indebted for the facility with which it replaced the fleet lost at Lepanto. Every house in Constantinople and Rhodes, as those cities were exempt from the tribute of Christian children, was compelled to furnish a recruit for the fleet, and every Greek island and seaport furnished a galley, or its contingent for equipping one ; so that the losses of the Turkish navy were easily replaced. While the presence of thirty thousand Greeks in a single battle was so unimportant, the single city of Venice, whose whole population capable of bearing arms did not exceed that number, controlled the lives and fortunes of a large portion of the Greek race for many generations, and transfused Venetian feelings and prejudices into the minds of many millions of the Greek race." Source: A History of Greece: From Its Conquest by the Romans to the Present Time, B.C. 146 to A.D. 1864

by George Finlay Publication date 1877 https://archive.org/details/ahistorygreecef05finlgoog/page/n102/mode/2up So, this author David Brewer is a liar. 79.106.215.110 (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

So Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) is right, the source is misused. And the numbers presented by the article are wrong: it should say that 25,000 Greeks fought for the Ottomans and 5,000 fought for the Venetians. All those Greeks were not rebels, they were subjects of the Venetian and Ottoman empires. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:94F9:EE8B:E4F7:D6AE (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The material about Greek participation should be rewritten, or at least re-sourced.

I followed the references to George Finlay and to David Brewer, and I agree that the latter misquoted the former. (I do not pretend to be able to decide whether Brewer "was a liar" or made some innocent mistake.) Moreover, @Alexikoua: You introduced some claims about the Greek participation here with a reference to Onur Yildirim; but also that source seems to say something different. Unless someone with greater insights than I have edit this, I plan to rewrite this in a few week's time, noting the matter of Greek participation as debated, with a footnote quoting both Brewer and Finlay. (The reason for not just replacing Brewer's statements with Finlay's, is that as far as I understand WP:RS Brewer technically should be considered as a better source to what Finlay says than Finlay is; but, on the other hand, in this case, the consequences of not modifying Brewer's statement by Finlay's would yield a ridiculous result. However, perhaps Alexikoua or someone else will provide 'reliabler' sources than Brower.)

Yildirim is a far more interesting source, and might be used for better describing what happened at the Ottoman side, and the aftermath of the battle. JoergenB (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Adding a ping: @Mr. Guye. JoergenB (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

what i thought siege of malta give moral to christian europe

this is a contradiction 2600:480A:4A51:9300:D9ED:EA6B:5467:6ED0 (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Cervantes "off topic"

Cervantes participated in the battle, which influenced his works (both El Quijote and a now lost lesser known comedy), as well as describing it in flowery language as "The most memorable and highest ocassion that past centuries saw, nor that future ones expect to see".

How is this off-topic? Particularly in the "Legacy" section?

The above quotation is iconic in hispanophone history books, akin to the "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few" quote about the battle of Britain (which appears in the wikipedia article about the battle). The battle's cultural legacy influencing one of the most famous works of universal literature seems rather on-topic.

Not trying to be contrarion or anything, but I'm rathher befuddled.

~2026-40031-67 (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

You seem not to have noticed that the presence of Cervantes was already mentioned in the Legacy section. Your source failed per WP:RS, since none of the material you wished to introduce was mentioned in the work you cited. I rather suspect you did not read WP:OFFTOPIC sufficiently closely. As is recommended there, I suggested that most of what you wish to add would fit better in the Cervantes article - if adequately sourced. Thousands took part in the battle and not every one is suitable for mention in the article. The quotation on the battle's notability may be well known in the hispanophone world, it isn't in the anglophone (and it's English WP you're trying to edit); and in any case, that battle is no longer regarded as what Cervantes claimed for it, so the remark is anachronistic. Finally, a lost work that may refer to the battle, that is not backed by an exemplary source, verges of trivia and so is unencyclopaedic.

I notice that you are a new editor here and sympathise that the mass of editing guidance may seem frustrating at first. It's necessary, however, if WP is to be of use. Its reputation is suspect enough already, because in past years the editing was not sufficiently rigorous. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)