Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Lepanto 1571: Shattering the Idea of Ottoman Invincibility" video.

@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
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
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
@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
Yeah. It was a shame some of the Ottomans came out of it alive.
7
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
@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
@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
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
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
@alfredosenalle9284 If you look at the ascendents, there was everything. Italians, Tyroleans, French...
3
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
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
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
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
@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
@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
@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
@ktm8848 Contrary to you, I read plenty. It seems you prefer cheap nationalist propaganda instead.
1
@ktm8848 Then why you decided to ignore It?
1
@عليياسر-ذ5ب Because a moron say so?🤣
1
@عليياسر-ذ5ب Because you are evidently unable to read plain English. After Lepanto, the Ottomans never won a major NAVAL engagement again. A Naval engagement is a battle BETWEEN SHIPS. Charles V died BEFORE Lepanto. It's better you go back to school.
1
@William Ewart Gladstone The Ottomans several times used over 100 galleys in battles fought Vs. the Venetians in the Cretan War, but at that point they were technologically outmatched, and, thus being a declining power and using much less ships, Venice quite easily won all the major naval engagements.
1
@William Ewart Gladstone Venice remained in possession of the Islands of Tinos and Cerigo in the Aegean.
1
@William Ewart Gladstone Tinos remained Venetian until 1715, Cerigo was still Venetian when the Republic fall to Napoleon.
1
@Asterix958 None of them was a major naval engagement. Only some corsair action.
1
Since the Venetians controlled it at the time, it was Cattaro. It's not like the eastern capital of the Roman Empire has to be called Instanbul instead of Constantinople, because that's the current name.
1
@serhatilhan2020 That the Turkish prisoners were killed in the castle before the surrender is the Ottoman point of view. Unfortunately, it seems it was a Turkish prisoner that informed Mustafa Pasha. But had not all of them being killed?
1
@sp1d3rm0nk3y33 Doria had the most difficult task. 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.
1
@sp1d3rm0nk3y33 Those galleys had been put under Doria's command, but weren't his own, so some of the captains, especially the Venetian ones, took his manuver for cowardice and decided to stay. The situation was worsened by the fact that those ships were at the end of Doria's formation, and couldn't see what Uluc Ali was really doing, because the smoke coming from the center of the battle covered his formation from their point of view. Infact Uluc did chose the moment when he was covered by the smoke even from the point of view of Doria, to change route and go for the gap. That's why Doria was slow to react. Given the situation he was in, however, Doria's tactic was the right one in any case, because in any case Uluc Ali shoul have stopped and fought sooner or later, so that would have given him the time to intervene.
1