Search this Topic:
Mar 17 17 4:53 PM
Mar 17 17 5:32 PM
Mar 17 17 6:19 PM
Mar 18 17 12:02 AM
The two galleasse on the north wing were commanded by Ambrogio & Antonio Bragadino, whose kinsman Marc Antonio Bragadino had been flayed alive at Famagusta, and who were not fighting for God, the Venetian Republic or the Holy league, but simple family revenge. The galleasse didn't sink many galleys, but did break up the formations giving the advantage especially on the north flank. There Sirocco's attempt to outflank was partially successful, but allowed the Proveditor Marco Quirini to launch a counter outflanking assault pinning the Ottoman north force against the shoals at Scropha Point. It was the policy by the Venetians to kill anyone with a skill (to avenge the murder of the garrison at Famagusta) that was decisive since the new fleet built by the Ottomans in 1572 didn't have the level of skill or experience than the one lost in 1571. While the Holy League didn't clear out the Aegean, it did prevent the whole of the eastern Med falling under Ottoman control and saw the high-water mark before the long decline (112 years later their land empire began collapsing).
PS - Venice needed to establish trade with the Ottomans so they secured Crete in 1572 and signed a peace treaty the following year.
PPS - Osprey books do a good book on Lepanto.
PPPS - I saw the Lepanto painting at Queens House last week.
PPPPS - the forward masts on galleys was usually not centre-line for a very impacting reason!
Mar 18 17 1:45 AM
MarkLBailey wrote wrote:
Mar 18 17 1:47 AM
Mar 18 17 1:50 AM
Mar 18 17 2:06 AM
MarkLBailey wrote:OK, Joe, it's option two.
Thanks for making that crystal clear.
As I said - not interested.
Mar 18 17 2:20 AM
IcelofAngeln wrote:Madeira: "captured" is overstating it, although "raid" is a bit understating it- in 1617 Algerians took over the island and stayed for two weeks, systematically dismantling and loading up everything of value and removing the entire population (save 25 who managed to hide) as slaves.
Mar 18 17 2:24 AM
Mar 18 17 2:26 AM
"After looking at some dozens of population estimates from a number of different kinds of sources we have an average, year in year out, especially between the years 1580 and 1680 of about 35,000, 34,000 slaves at any given time. Well, knowing this it then becomes a question of estimating simply how many slaves it would be necessary to be taken every year to keep that number. I've have estimated overall that between 1530 and 1780, that is about two and a half centuries, something of the order of a million to a million and quarter white Europeans were enslaved and taken to Barbary."  ...
If that estimate of 34,000-35,000 slaves taken from the European Atlantic coasts pe annum 1580-1680 is correct, that's something within cooee of 3,500,000 people taken as slaves in that century alone. Lord knows what the total was, as by 1680 the Arabs had been raiding Europe for slaves for a thousand years.
Mar 18 17 2:28 AM
Mar 18 17 2:31 AM
MarkLBailey wrote:Bledlow, do you have a reference for that century-old british history of Corsairs?
Mar 18 17 2:52 AM
Mar 18 17 5:06 AM
Mar 18 17 5:26 AM
Mar 18 17 6:43 AM
Condottiere wrote:Psychologically, did it encourage the Europeans, that you could stop the Ottomans in the Med? Or did the Europeans really manage to practically eradicate all that institutional knowledge?
The Romans became a naval power practically overnight, once they perceived the need to destroy Carthage at sea.
Their view matched that of Guilmartin, the system was at its peak and
turning 'baroque' as Pugh termed it, and all the capability to generate
new oficiales was in the existing oficiale system itself. When the Ottomans lost essentially all their Constantinople Fleet oficiales in one battle, there remained no ability to regenerate.
The manpower and the wealth of their sprawling realm gave them the
largest and best-equipped army in Europe. The Janissaries alone numbered
over fifty thousand.
Mar 18 17 4:08 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.