Lepanto, October 7th, 1571.

A day to remember.

By Paul J Cella Posted in Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Image

Tomorrow is the 435th anniversary of the Battle at Lepanto, which was one of the greatest in all of history. The Turks, in Chesterton’s rousing verse, had by the late 16th century, “dared the white republics up the capes of Italy,” and “dashed the Adriatic round the Lion of the Sea.” The Ottoman Empire was master of the eastern Mediterranean, and nowhere upon that “inmost sea of all the earth” was the might of the Turk, his great navy, and his dread shock troops the Janissaries, not felt. The great Christian city on the Golden Horn, which for a thousand years had resisted the protean armies of the Crescent — the Greek city which called itself the Second Rome — had fallen a century before in a cruel shock to the Christian world. Venetian power (the Lion of the Sea) along the Albanian coast had a series suffered grievous blows. Malta, under the Knights of St. John, had by great valor and some good fortune narrowly escaped defeat and ruin; Cyprus, a Venetian possession, had not been so lucky. Massacre and enslavement was her fate. (But resistance endured to the end: one a ship full of young slaves, destined for the harems of leading Turks, was destroyed at sea when a young woman, aged eighteen, set fire to the powder magazine.) In July of 1571, the fortress town of Famagusta, on the eastern side of Cyrus, had fallen after a year-long siege, and its Venetian ruler, his terms of surrender wantonly betrayed, was subjected to an unspeakable torture and humiliation. The Agony of Famagusta sounded like a tocsin throughout Christendom; and on a cool October day in the Gulf of Corinth, the menace of the Turk on the Mediterranean was delivered a blow from which it would never fully recover.

Read on.

The Battle of Lepanto can justly lay claim to being one of the single bloodiest battles ever fought, on land or at sea. Indeed, it was both: for the collision on the decks of hundreds of galleys arrayed against each other between Italians and Spaniards, on the one hand, and on the other, Janissaries and Turkish conscripts, was for all intents and purposes a great congested infantry battle — and a bloodbath. 40,000 men lost their lives that day, more than 150 every minute. But in addition to the contest of infantry arms, it was also an enormous and complex naval encounter, where superior leadership and tactical maneuvering on the Christian side played a crucial role.

The alliance of Christian powers had been cobbled together by tenacious negotiation by the Pope himself. Somehow Pius V managed, by his patience, persistence and prayer, to bring into an uneasy league the often-feuding maritime Italian city-states, the imperial Spanish, and some scattered other soldiers and sailors of Europe, many of the latter hired directly by the papacy. This alliance was an extraordinary achievement: the work, indeed, of a saint. Pius was as decisive and intransigent a foe of appeasement as Churchill later would prove. The Swiss historian Burckhardt writes, “great as was the terror felt for the Turks, and the actual danger from them, there was scarcely a government of any consequence which did not conspire” with the successors of the Conqueror of Constantinople. Yet on this occasion these intrigues were briefly set aside, and the unity of Christendom was revived. It was known as the Holy League and it flew a flag of Christ crucified. Chesterton gives a stirring summary of the formation of the League:

And the Pope has cast his arms abroad for agony and loss,
And called the kings of Christendom for swords about the Cross.

The Holy League’s commander was a young Austrian prince, Don John, the bastard son of the Holy Roman Emperor, who had cut his teeth as a soldier putting down a Moorish rebellion in southern Spain — and thereby acquired the skills of an infantry commander that would prove indispensable for the Christian side. Chesterton in his poem calls him, provocatively, “the last knight of Europe.” It is indeed unlikely that any other man could have held in concert the squabbling captains of the Catholic world. But despite their squabbles, Don John’s lieutenants were an able lot: the cream of the European naval officer-corps. Nor were the Turks lacking for naval skill and experience: their commander was the famed admiral Ali Pasha, victor at Cyprus — though not the author of the massacre and torture — and, under him, Uluch Ali, Italian renegade and Viceroy of Algiers, a dreaded captain who had bested Christians all over the southern Mediterranean.

The experience of the oarsmen of these vast platforms of war (on the Muslim side mostly Christian slaves, on the Christian side some freemen, some slaves) was one of hardship and filth almost beyond the imagination. V. D. Hanson provides a vivid description of this miserable life:

Contemporary accounts also relate a number of bizarre details that only confirm the horror. Sailors, marines, and rowers all wore scented scarves — purportedly the origin of the Mediterranean male’s propensity to use strong perfumes — to mask the stench and prevent vomiting. When flies, roaches, lice, fleas, and rats had overrun a galley, and its four-inch-thick boards became inundated with offal, captains — particularly the more fastidious Knights of Malta — sometimes temporarily sank the boats right offshore, in hopes that a few hours of total submersion in seawater might rid them of their cargo of vermin. Plagues — most often cholera and typhus — could wipe out entire flotillas, and understandably so, when four or five men were chained day and night alongside each other, stewing in each other’s lice, fleas, excrement, urine, and sweat. Such were the conditions of service for the nearly 200,000 desperate seamen who collided on October 7, 1571.

But the rising power of the commerce of the West was also present amid such grime and misery. Capitalism had armed the armada, as capitalism would eventually give the West mastery of the world. The Christian fleet at Lepanto was the first to employ a new naval weapon: enormous galleasses, newly launched from the Arsenal at Venice, bristling with cannon and capable of delivering as much firepower as six standard galleys. Six of these unwieldy floating behemoths (which had to be towed into position) were to lay waste to the Turkish fleet as it crossed their path.

A mere two days before this battle, news of the Agony of Famagusta, her Venetian sovereign flayed alive, reached the combined fleet of the Holy League. Writes Paul Fregosi, “Tough soldiers beat their heads with clenched fists in helpless rage and anguish, sobbing at the torment of the Venetian and the cruelty of the Turks.” The brothers of this unfortunate nobleman were commanders of two of the Venetian galleasses, and we may assume their fury was particularly pitiless. Another effort at calming diplomacy from Don John was still necessary, though: for some, especially among the Venetians, advised retreat, arguing that the loss of Cyprus already made the Holy League a failure. The bastard prince ended the debate: “Gentlemen, the time for counsel is past and the time for fighting has come.” On the other side, Ali Pasha had firm orders from the Sultan to find the Christian fleet and destroy it. As naval historian R. C. Anderson explains, “The position was thus that each commander wished to fight, but each thought it was for him to seek out the other. As a result the two fleets met early in the morning of October 7th almost unexpectedly.

Priests of various religious orders said mass on the decks of the Christian galleys before dawn, and then the priests — many of them at least — took up arms themselves. The Pope had proclaimed a general absolution for any man who gave his life in service of the Holy League. Crucifixes adorned every ship. It is said that, “every man on broad, whether slave or free, held a rosary and implored the Blessed Virgin for victory in the coming battle.” In his poem Chesterton unabashedly compares these sailors and marines to the knights of the Crusades, the holy warriors of Christendom: “he whose loss is laughter if he counts the wager worth.” Deployed against them in a vast crescent were the ships of Ali Pasha’s great fleet; on the mast of his flagship, the Sultana, flew the Ottoman Standard, emblazoned 28,900 times in gold with the name of Allah. The Prophet himself had carried this treasure, and it had never been taken in battle. Don John’s final words to his men come down to us, perhaps apocryphally: “My children, we are here to conquer or to die as Heaven may determine.”

Then, a miracle occurred. The wind opposing the Christian fleet switched allegiance; it came completely around and began to blow against the Muslim fleet. Across the galleys of the Holy League, lateen sails were quickly raised just as Ottoman sails were hastily dropped. The sails of the Christian fleet filled as if from a “mighty and confident breath.” . . . Throughout the Christian fleet, slaves and convicts who had been chained to their benches were unshackled and handed swords or half pikes. None doubted that a Mighty Providence had intervened on their behalf. They had all been promised freedom in the event of a victory. Favorable winds freed up thousands of Christians for the coming battle.

The fleets crashed together in a bloody embrace. Spanish marines armed with harquebuses — clumsy firearms to be sure, but nonetheless devastating at close-range — collided with agile and deadly Turkish bowmen. As at Tours, eight hundred years before, it was a brutal contest between the group discipline of heavy European infantry and the individual skill and personal valor of Muslim light infantry. Christian technological superiority, along with finer leadership, proved decisive. The ships of the Sultan by and large lacked protective nets to prevent boarding. Turkish bowmen, skilled though they were, found themselves thwarted by the steal breastplates of the Christians; and they had no answer for the massed musketry of the harquebusiers. The Janissaries in particular (Ali Pasha’s most formidable troops) were devastated by the Spanish marines with their muskets. Don John had shrewdly ordered the beaks of his ships sawed off, “surmising that the age of ramming was past and that [his] ships could be better supplied with cannon.” This decision, combined with the ruinous effect of the galleasses upon the Turks, gave his fleet a fundamental advantage in artillery. There were advantages of social organization on the Christian side as well. Virtually every soldier, sailor and oarsmen in the Turkish fleet was conscripted or enslaved; among the Christians, freemen were the rule, not the exception. Some were not even career military men. Their discipline in battle was freely given, and that discipline eventually overpowered the individual skill and heroics of the enemy.

At the center of the battle, the flagships met — in violation of a convention against such crudity — with Don John and Ali Pasha leading the boarding parties. The Janissary troops of the Sultana became entangled in the Christian boarding nets, brutally exposed to Spanish musket-fire. Almost a thousand men were locked in savage combat on the decks of these two ships. Reinforcements were shuttled over by smaller boats on both sides. The butchery must have been beyond description. Twice the Christian troops rallied to board the Sultana; only on the third time did they succeed. Don John was wounded; Ali Pasha fell in a hail of musket fire; he was beheaded and the grisly trophy hoisted on the quarterdeck of Don John’s flagship the Real. And at the sight of their admiral’s fall, the Turkish forces (near the center at least) began to lose heart.

On the Christian left, a veteran Venetian officer, Agostino Barbarigo, had struggled mightily, but with only marginal success, to resist an attempt by the Turks to outflank him along the coastline. The carnage there was also unspeakable. In many cases, entire ships were left without a single survivor. Barbarigo himself died of a head wound, though he lived long enough to hear of the victory, and his last words were, “I die contented.” On the right, the Algerian Uluch Ali had outmaneuvered a Genoese commander, Gian Andrea Doria, leaving the flank of the Christian flotilla dangerously exposed. Algerian ships darted through a large gap opened in the Christian formation and inflicted grievous blows on the rear of the Holy League main force, even taking captive the Maltese flagship. But this bold maneuver was eventually, at great cost, repelled by the timely engagement of the Christian reserve under an outstanding Spanish admiral. The victory was won; the captives set free; the power of the Turk on the Mediterranean broken. Chesterton again:

Scarlet running over on the silvers and the golds,
Breaking of the hatches up and bursting of the holds,
Thronging of the thousands up that labour under sea
White for bliss and blind for sun and stunned for liberty.

How many respectively died in desperate combat, torn apart by cannon-fire, crushed in the ramming maneuvers, or merely cast into the sea to sink under the weight of armor and fatigue to a watery grave, we will never know. We do know that Lepanto was one of the bloodiest battles ever fought. The Sultan, we are told, later boasted that while the loss of his fleet was but “the shaving of a beard,” the loss of Cyprus was like the amputation of a limb; but this bluster is belied by his reaction upon hearing news of the defeat: he ordered a massacre of every Spaniard and Venetian in his dominions. His Grand Vizier, possessed of a better diplomatic mind than the manic Sultan, eventually talked him out of this atrocity. In any case events disproved his boast; as Oliver Werner, a celebrated naval historian, writes in conclusion, “Never again did the Sultan contrive to assemble so powerful a fleet. Christians and Turks had been roughly equal in numbers, and they fought with equal courage. Victory went to the side with better weapons and better leadership.”

It is important to understand how close-run a victory this had been. A year before a large Christian flotilla had set out with the same purpose under a Spanish admiral, only to meet with debacle and return in disgrace. Venetian diplomacy in Constantinople, subtle and cunning as always, aimed at securing a separate peace with the Sultan even as the League was preparing its fleet. The Turkish Grand Vizier, a veteran of many intrigues, had flattered the agents of Venice with this chilling enticement to treachery: “You cannot cope with the Sultan, who will take from you not only Cyprus alone, but other dependencies. As for your Christian League, we know full well how little love the Christian princes bear you. If you would but hold the Sultan’s robe, you might do what you want in Europe, and enjoy perpetual peace.” Had Venice assented to the crouching peace adumbrated in this statement, the Holy League would have collapsed instantly. France, under “the shadow of the Valois,” who “is yawning at the mass” (Chesterton again), tacitly allied herself with the Ottomans, and many anticipated that she would make this friendship explicit soon enough, by giving the Turks access to French Mediterranean harbors. In northern Europe, and in pockets elsewhere, the revolt of the Protestants against the mad complacency and decadence of the Roman church had wrought division, strife, plunder, and bloodletting: “Christian killeth Christian in a narrow dusty room.” And beneath this revolt loomed another thing, destined to remake the world and drag everything of the secular order, and much of the spiritual order, in its train: the rise of the modern nation-state. Already King Philip II was subjecting the Church in Spain to his policy through the institution of the Inquisition. The succeeding generation would witness the rise of the France of Cardinal Richelieu, that ablest of nationalists, and the final consolidation of the nation, not the church, as the source of order and stability in the Western world. Out of this cacophony of the dying mediaeval age and the birth pangs of the modern, Pope Saint Pius V, Don John of Austria, and many thousands of simple Christian sailors and marines delivered to the West a great victory, and a last hurrah for Christendom.

« "We're All Gonna Die!!!!!!!!!!!"Comments (44) | The Blair Mountain FightComments (1) »
Lepanto, October 7th, 1571. 19 Comments (0 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Radicals Islamofascists love anniversary dates to attack unsuspecting civilians.

History, especially medieval history, is one long cyclical turn. I have to take issue with Oliver Werner who may be a celebrated naval historian, but seems unaware of the following if he genuinely claims that "never again did the Sultan assemble such a powerful fleet" :

Despite the massive defeat, however, Ottoman strength and their own disunity prevented the Holy League from capitalizing on victory. With a massive effort, the Empire rebuilt its navy, adding eight of the largest capital ships ever seen in the Mediterranean. Within six months this new fleet was able to force the Holy League to withdraw from the eastern Mediterranean and to reassert Ottoman naval supremacy. On 7 March 1573 the Venetians thus recognized by treaty the Ottoman possession of Cyprus, which had fallen to the Turks on 3 August 1571 and remained Turkish for the next three centuries, and that summer the Ottoman navy ravaged the coasts of Sicily and southern Italy unhindered.

In 1574 the Ottomans retook Tunis, thereby assuring domination of the western Mediterranean as well, where their long-standing alliance with the French came into play. In 1579 the capture of Fez completed Ottoman conquests in Morocco that had begun under Süleyman the Magnificent. Installation of a puppet regime made the entire coast of the Mediterranean from the Straits of Gibraltar to Croatia and Slovenia–––two thirds of its total shoreline–––a nearly unbroken stretch of Ottoman-controlled territory more than ten thousand miles long.

and in the 1900s the Ottoman empire became a sick joke and vanished from the pages of history, replaced by a regime so dogged in its secular determination that wearing the Fez was outlawed. Which leads to ironies indeed in the modern day.

my point here is that the actual significance of any battle is just a footnote in the broader picture, of which civilizations as a whole ebb and flow, building on what came before. More on that, however, a later time.

Personally I believe that if we consider Lepanto a "last great hurrah for Christendom" then we do Christendom a grave disservice indeed. Why do you insist on beggaring your heritage? History didnt end in the 16th century. In fact Christendom prior to 1500 was a pretty beastly construct indeed. If I were to chronicle the heights of Christendom I'd start in 1600, not end there.

--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism

There is alot of scholarly debate over the importance of Lepanto. Anderson, whom I quoted, takes the view evidenced in your Wiki excerpt. Warner, Chesterton, Beeching and others take a different. I don't claim to be able to adjudicate it.

Clearly we have a different concept of Christendom. Christendom by 1600 was nearly dead, if we understand Christendom to embrace any notion of a Christian unity. I do not use Christendom as a synonym for "the West"; the latter was a successor to the former.

____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

ah by azizhp

ok, that clarifies things a lot, actually. But this further increases my confusion as to why you consider Christendom something whose history was better or worse than other-doms. I mean, apart from your own affiliation, of course.

As for Lepanto, youove only stated that it was significant, and then quoted someone claiming that it represented the end of naval dominance for the Ottomans. I'm not sure what there is to debate about the excerpt I provided. Did the Ottomans or did they not control most of the mediterranean by 1579?

--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism

Most of the achievements generally attributed to the West were actually made or at least begun in the mediaeval age. From the principles of market economics (discovered by the Schoolmen) to the foundational discoveries in science (the escape of the causality of antiquity, for instance); from the development of a functional body of international law to the origination of the parliamentary system; from the tradition of legal charters to the establishment of the university -- Christendom was the author of all these great things.

I'm not claiming that Lepanto was the end of Turkish dominance. (Neither is Warner.) More accurately, I would say it was the beginning of the end. Before that there had been almost no Christian victories; everyone ran in fear of the Turk. Now he was seen as no longer invincible.

_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

"Most of the achievements generally attributed to the West were actually made or at least begun in the mediaeval age."

of course that argument can be extended backwards and forwards as desired. One can equally credit the Arabs - or exclude everyone but the Phoenecians. Humanknowledge is a total sum body of work to which all civilizations have contributed, building on the works of the previous ones. I find such "ownership" games to be meaningless.

-
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism

I posit that depends on how you define achievement. If achievement is synonymous with discovery, it is a rather important part of debate. I will not portend to speak for Paul; however that appears to be his point with Market Economics.

Accordingly, one can not extend the argument of discovery “backwards or forwards as desired”. It is a point in time, a beginning, a Genesis from which all later modifications extend. As an example, one could say that Keynes was a modifier of economic theory, but by no means did he discover economics.

Therefore, when speaking of basis, foundation and root principles it is important to speak of point in time discovery or invention. You define discovery somewhat dismissively as “ownership” and unimportant to intellectual discussion. However, foundationally it is a basis upon which all that follows is built. To deny this gives the appearance one is yielding to a parochial point of view which this discovery or relative inventor does not support. Furthermore, interspersing broad, all encompassing nomenclature such as “Humanknowledge” only furthers this appearance.

One additional point, Paul’s article and links display accepted historical events and characterizations in proper context. Lepanto was indeed the beginning of the end for Ottoman dominance as described. By 1585, they were signing treaties with the Spanish albeit with some parochial motivation. However, the point is previously this was not a necessary tactic since their dominance and associated regional fear was all previously necessary.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

However, foundationally it is a basis upon which all that follows is built. To deny this gives the appearance one is yielding to a parochial point of view which this discovery or relative inventor does not support.

I actually agree 100%. In fact that was my point. but every foundation itself is the result of work built atop someone else's foundation. Pick any random achievement of mankind and you will find many civilizational fathers.

--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism

There is a bit of verisimilitude in your assertion.

Look, in the interest of harmony we probably have some general agreement. However, discovery is a point in time singular event. Whether at that time there were multiple founders is inconsequential.

However, anyone afterwards that singular event is a follower or promulgator. One may even attempt to make the argument a follower perfected original discovery. Appropriately, that does not make them the person or culture of original discovery.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

"...it was a brutal contest between the group discipline of heavy European infantry and the individual skill and personal valor of Muslim light infantry..."

"...Never again did the Sultan contrive to assemble so powerful a fleet. Christians and Turks had been roughly equal in numbers, and they fought with equal courage. Victory went to the side with better weapons and better leadership."

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

You think Donny Deutsch will invited me on to talk about it?

____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Doesn't the OP mean the 435th, and not the 535th?

1571+
535
2106

1571+
435
2006

Math is my wife's province.

_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

The Ottoman decline probably is best pegged to the year 1683, the second defeat at the gates of Vienna, but Lepanto was a hard blow in a long series of them. It is good to be reminded of how long this struggle has continued, and reminded in such an eloquent manner. Thanks.

The relief of Vienna by the Poles was indeed decisive. It was the land equivalent of Lepanto, we might say.

Thanks, by the way.

________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Re: The Ottoman decline probably is best pegged to the year 1683, the second defeat at the gates of Vienna

Little known is the fact that the Ottomans had an Eastern Front, and were engaged in long-running and far fiercer wars against Shi'ite Persia for control of the Middle East (hence the ethnic and religious fractures of today's Iraq). The Turks were never able to focus on the West after they became enmeshed in the heartland of Islam. The Ottoman decline actually began when the Sultan became Caliph and sought to rule all Islam.

and that protracted struggle weakened the Empire. But even that represented an expansion. You have a good point about the Sultan's assumption of the role of caliph, though.

how it would have played out if the Turks had been shut out of the Middle East. For sure they would have had more success in their European wars, but might they not have become Europeans much as other invaders from the East did (e.g., the Avars and Magyars)? Initially at least many of the Ottomans were only nominal Muslims; in fact some had converted to Christianity during their early days as Byzantine vassals, and several of the early Sultans were quite unOrthodox in their own beliefs and practices preferring Sufism (which was and is strongly influenced by Eastern Christianity) to either the Sunni or Shi'ite schools. And when Mehmet took Constantinople he crowned himself not as Caliph, but as Roman Emperor. In a much smaller Ottoman Empire where the Muslims were vastly outnumbered by Christians might not the Turks have turned West four centuries before Ataturk?

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service