Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "SandRhoman History" channel.

  1. The Grand Vizir to the Sultan: "We have weakened them sir!" The Sultan: "How?" The Grand Vizir: "They got old!"
    4200
  2. "You made me believe the city was teneable!" "It had been for 20 years infact."
    50
  3. After 2 months of siege the Austrians got the Winged Hussars, and after 20 years of siege the Venetians got the French. Life is unfair sometines.
    33
  4. 15 Years later he captured the Peloponnese from the Ottomans and held it for 14 years, occupying the same Athen for two years. It had been a Venician cannonball fired in that occasion that made the powder magazine the Ottomans put in the Parthenon explode. It's said that Morosini, informed about the "unfortunate" event commented "Unfortunate? I hit it with the first shot!"
    27
  5. You did born in a city under siege, and grow up to become one of the defenders on the walls.
    22
  6.  @istvansipos9940  Antonio Canale historically didn't capture an Ottoman galley, but recaptured a Christian one that the Ottomans had captured before. His two handed sword was not a longsword, but a "spadone", a zweihander. The Ottomans at Lepanto generally didnt' have armors, and the janissaries fought barefoot. On the deck of the ships, slimy for the blood and water that put them at a disadvantage. Canale was armored (a gambeson is no trivial protection) and wore shoes with the soles made of ropes, that mantained traction in those conditions.
    16
  7.  @slome815  Tell that to the Ottomans.
    16
  8.  @martinturtak4901  It had been defended for two decades at that point. And the Ottomans were not in a better position than the year before.
    13
  9.  @remizome  He attacked without even trying to gain a real knowledge of the terrain before. In 20 years the defenders made multiple sorties, but none ended so badly.
    11
  10. Infact, what made the Ottoman fleets fearsome in the previous decades was the strict meritocracy, where even a slave at the roar could become an Admiral (It was the case of Uluç Ali Paşa, "Occhiali", at Lepanto) only for his achievements. The commanders of the Genoese and Venetian fleets were generally competent, but they were strictly from one of the notable families of the city, so the pool was much more restricted. It has to be said that, at Lepanto, both the general commanders didn't do much, since at the center of the battle the ships were so packed that manuvering was impossible. The battle was won and lost by the commanders of the two wings.
    10
  11. In reality, after Lepanto, the Ottomans never won a major naval engagement again. It had been a turning point. During the Cretan War the Venetian fleet alone (thus Venice was already a declining power) won all the major surface engagements with ridicolous ease.
    10
  12.  @MrMustang13  Uluç Ali was captured during a raid at 17 and became a slave oarsman. He converted because, as a Christian slave, he couldn't have killed a fellow oarsman that offended him. From there, he started to rise in the ranks. The fearsomness of the Ottoman fleet in the previous decades came mostly form the fact that they were extremely meritocratic. Even a former slave oarsman could become admiral only for his achievements. The Venetian and Genoese commanders were generally competent. People that knew how to sail, but they were strictly from one of the notable families of the city. The pool was much more restricted.
    10
  13. Contrary to popular belief, in western Europe it had not been the pike formation to end the heavy cavalry. They ended togheter. The pike formation at the Bicocca, in 1522, and the heavy cavalry at Sesia, in 1524. After those two battles, the battlefield was dominated, by pike and shot formations on one side, and light cavalry on the other. The light cavalry used variations of the flexible tactics made famous by the Stradiots (attack without giving to the infantry the time to form up, during travel, at night, avoid the main formation and attack the enemy camp...). The Polish Hussars remained successful due to their high level of discipline and training. Their charges started loose (so not giving a clear target to artillery) then closed and became extremely tight just before hitting the enemy formation, so saturating the ability of the pikes and muskets right in front of them to stop them. Obviously they required a pretty open battlefield to do so, but this kind of battlefields were more common in eastern Europe.
    8
  14. Yeah. It was a shame some of the Ottomans came out of it alive.
    7
  15.  @stefanocamoni229  At Malta the most attack-minded captain was the Italian Vincenzo Anastagi, in charge of the cavalry, and the most defense-minded, the same La Valette.
    6
  16. Sailing ships had been already used for decades in battles fought in the Atlantic, but in the Med., at that time, they were still a burden, because there the winds were much more inconstant. The use of Galleons had been one of the main causes of the defeat of the Holy League at Preveza in 1538.
    5
  17.  @ggoddkkiller1342  Lepanto had been THE turning point of surface battles in the Med. After Lepanto, the Ottomans never won a major naval engagement again. During the Cretan War IE the Venetian fleet alone (thus Venice was already a declining power) won all the major surface engagements with ridicolous ease.
    5
  18. Someone born in the first years of the siege had all the time to become one of the defenders on the walls.
    5
  19.  @GXSergio  I understood very well what you like to believe. Unfortunately your narrative doesn't stand the reality check. But you like to believe it so much that you prefer to call reality "mental gymnastics" and keep on living in your fairy tale world.
    4
  20. Simply the dimensions of the island. It was impossible to block it completely, that's why they preferred to block the Dardanels. Despite that being more dangerous, since they were closer to the Ottoman main base.
    4
  21. In reality, Lepanto had been THE turning point of surface battles in the Med. After Lepanto, the Ottomans never won a major naval engagement again. During the Cretan War IE the Venetian fleet alone (thus Venice was already a declining power) won all the major surface engagements with ridicolous ease.
    4
  22. The Landsknechts didn't came by surprise. Their slow descending the peninsula was well known. It was an easy prediction.
    4
  23. Doria was one of the best sailors of his time and not by chance he had been given the most difficult task in the battle. He was in numerical inferiority and, contrary to the other two Christian commanders, he had only open sea on his right side. So, when Uluc Alì started to sail for the open, Doria had three possibilities. Or follow him (leaving a gap where Uluc could eventually thrust), or stretching his line very thin (so that Uluc could break through it), or remain where he was (and being outflanked). The first possibility gave at least him the chance to close on the Ottomans from the open and take them from two flanks. Already before the battle infact he advised the other commanders than, in case, he would have sailed for the open, so it would have ben up for the reserve to close the gap to give him the needed time.
    4
  24.  @alfredosenalle9284  If you look at the ascendents, there was everything. Italians, Tyroleans, French...
    3
  25. Lepanto had been THE turning pointof naval warfare in the Med. After Lepanto the Ottomans NEVER won a major naval engagement again, and it took more than one century for them to try another expansion at the expenses of Venice. Venice signed a peace treaty with the Ottomans simply because Venetians were merchants, and the Ottomans were their main trading partner.
    3
  26. Giovanni Dalle Bande Nere (John of the black bands) Was an early example and the forerunner of those tactics. He used exactly that kind of armor (it's this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEjlS9WcPgI ), and used mixed formations of light cavalrymen and musketeers (carried on the field by the same cavalrymen, for better mobility). However, his signature tactic to deal with pikemen, was to attack them without giving them the time to form up, during travel, or at night, or to avoid the main formation and attacking the camp. It was the kind of warfare whose effectiveness had been first demonstrated by the Stradiots.
    3
  27. Sometimes a family of condottieri, over time, became so influential to became the leader of the city (Sforza of Milan, Malatesta of Rimini...), but that didn't happen suddenly for not having been paid.
    3
  28. With the Venicians.
    3
  29. They are NOW. See "little ice age".
    3
  30. Morosini was a military commander AND a politician and, as a politician, he had enemies, and those enemies blamed the fact that he signed a treaty with the Ottomans without having the formal power to do so (even if the treaty was an advantage for Venice compared with the simple surrender of the garrison of Candia).
    3
  31. There are different opinions, since many doesn't consider that of Ceuta a single siege.
    2
  32. With the Venicians.
    2
  33.  @GXSergio  About 22% of the ships were IMPERIAL that, in this case, means Spanish, Neapolitan or Sicilian. Spain was one of the territories of the Empire. Despite the holy league having been assembled to relieve the siege of Famagusta, Venice was not fighting "for their country existence". Imperial possessions in Italy and N.Africa were more exposed to Ottoman raids than Venetian possessions in the Adriatic.
    2
  34.  @GXSergio  "Aragon" is not "Spain" House of Aragon held the kingdom of Sicily like it held the kingdom of Aragon. And that is valid ONLY FOR SICILY. The kingdom of Naples had been possession of the reigning House of Aragon from 1442 to1458, a grand total of 16 years. Charles V of Absburg, Holy roman Emperor, born at Gand, had been the first to use the title of "king of Spain", in 1516. So no, they had not been "core Spanish territories for hundreds of years".
    2
  35.  @GXSergio  You are so clueless to be cute. So tell me what king of Aragon and Sicily used the title of King of Spain without being one. I'm "mixing the HRE with this" because, like it or not, half of the nowadays Italy was Italy then like now. It happened then to be part of a thing called EMPIRE, like nowadays Spain, most of nowadays Germany, nowadays Austria and several other nowadays things in Central Europe, under an EMPEROR that happened to be of German descent ("Habsburg") and that happened to be King of Spain like he happened to be King of Germany, King of Naples, King of Sicily, Archduke of Austria and at least a dozen other titles. To be king of various places is a prerogative of the EMPEROR. They had never been "main Spanish territories".
    2
  36.  @GXSergio  So, other than not being able to substantiate your claims about an eventual king of Aragon and Sicily that claimed to be King of Spain before Charles V (not that it had ever been any doubt) you show a glaring ignorance even about how time works. It should be common knowledge that what happened LATER (when the Habsburg decided to divide their possessions among themself) has no effect on what happened BEFORE. It's quite evident you know nothing about MANY things. Even about how the house of Aragon obtained the crown of Sicily, otherwise you wouldn't tell about "inner territories".
    2
  37. Already in classic time. It became paramount with the use of gunpowder.
    2
  38. That's BS. Even from the Ottoman accounts Mustafa Pasha didn't send any "hostages into Famagusta to guarantee the free withdrawal". He was generically upset for the killing of Ottoman prisoners DURING the siege, that other prisoners (so not even all of them had been killed) reported him. In reality, he was simply upset for the humiliation.
    2
  39. Before Lepanto, the Ottomans came form a streak of glaring victories at sea several decades long (see, for example Preveza and Djerba), leaving to the Christian fleets only victories in minor engagements.
    2
  40. The Venetians won all the major naval clashes. Sometimes sea battles where they were outnumbered 10/1 turned into Ottoman's slaughters. That's why the siege lasted for so long.
    2
  41. When someone was sold into slavery, oftentimes it was sold back to the Ottomans.
    2
  42. Before Lepanto the Ottoman fleet came from a streak of glaring victories several decades long. At sea Lepanto was a turning point. After Lepanto, the Ottoman Fleet never won a major naval engagement again. During the Cretan war IE, thus being a declining power, the Venetian fleet alone won all the major surface engagements with ridicolus ease. The Venetians made peace after Lepanto not because "the Ottoman Navy was brought back to strength in record time", but because the Venetians were merchants, and the Ottoman Empire was their main trading partner.
    2
  43.  @Funk5Punk  And it was colder then.
    2
  44. Ceuta, if you consider it a single siege, so there are discordant opinions.
    1
  45. Had not them been reliable they wouldn't have found employers for over a century. No condottiere could have a reputation of being "unreliable" and "treacherous".
    1
  46. Who did born in the city in the first years of the siege, had all the time to became one of the defenders.
    1
  47.  @GXSergio  The Ottomans didn't need to conquer Cyprus or win at Lepanto to blockade Venetian trade with middle east, because they WERE middle east and Venice's main trading partner. On the other hand, Venice didn't really need Cyprus, or winning at Lepanto to trade with them. Venetian strategy with the Ottomans simply was to make any eventual Ottoman expansion at their expenses so costly that they would be calm and trading for a couple of generations before trying again. Half of the nowadays Italy was Italy then like now. It happened then to be part of a thing called EMPIRE, like nowadays Spain, most of nowadays Germany, nowadays Austria and several other nowadays things in Central Europe, under an EMPEROR that happened to be of German descent ("Habsburg") and that happened to be King of Spain like he happened to be King of Germany, King of Naples, King of Sicily, Archduke of Austria and at least a dozen other titles. To be king of various places is a prerogative of the EMPEROR. They had never been "main Spanish territories".
    1
  48.  @GXSergio  Oh, so you are at the insults now. The last resort of a loser. See, contrary to you, I don't care about the weight of Spain or any other statal entity. I'm sorry, but history don't relies on national pride. To think that, for your country to be something, you need it to have owned a part of Italy, is utterly ridicolous. If truth hurts your national pride it means you're proud of the wrong thing.
    1
  49.  @GXSergio  "follower"? When do I have "followed" you? It's quite evident that, whenever you did born, you didn't reach mental adulthood. Your: " you just follow blindly the typical historical argumentation made by scholars who put Spain as a lesser or even the evil, booo!" is more than revealing. You even believe there is a scholars' plot ("the typical historical argumentation made by scholars who put Spain as a lesser") to undermine your country. To strip it of its precious title of former owner of territories in Italy. 😂 Your pretense to teach something is quite amusing too. What should you teach? How to make your perception of yourself depend on pretended past achievements of your country?
    1
  50. Gattamelata was of humble origins (his father was a baker) and in central Italy the nickname, often given to you from some random event when you are young, assonance with your name, etc. is more "official" than your real name. Gattamelata got that nickname probably as a contraption of his mother's name, Melania Gattelli.
    1