Why was the battle of Lepanto such a devastating loss? Was it even a devastating loss?
I've heard it argued that the inability of the Ottoman Empire to replace it's sailors and naval officers as well as the difficult it had in rebuilding it's fleet (compared to the west) was related to the failure of the Ottoman's to embrace commercial society and properly reform their legal and social institutions.
>>1067847
>Why was the battle of Lepanto such a devastating loss?
Because the Turks lost a shitload of ships. Its bad enough for them being the major landpower, having the strongest fleet as well was kinda overkill.
>Was it even a devastating loss?
Yes and no.
>I've heard it argued that the inability of the Ottoman Empire to replace it's sailors and naval officers
Thats right. Oar slaves are pretty hard to train. Their quality was never the same.
>as well as the difficult it had in rebuilding it's fleet (compared to the west)
Wut. They had their fleet rebuild in no time.
>was related to the failure of the Ottoman's to embrace commercial society and properly reform their legal and social institutions.
Thats more like the general reason for them falling behind the rising western nations, nothing confined to ship building.
>But the defeat at Lepanto, despite being much celebrated in Europe, was only a temporary setback: it could not reverse the Ottoman conquest of Cyprus, and within a year, the Ottomans built an equally large fleet, which in 1574 conquered Tunisia from Spain. This completed the Ottoman conquest of North Africa, following the operations of the Ottoman fleet under Turgut Reis which had earlier conquered Libya (1551); and of the fleet under Salih Reis which had conquered the coasts of Morocco beyond the Strait of Gibraltar in 1553."
They still had naval supremacy and the resources to build more fuckheug fleets, in three months they have built more than 150 from their middle east port, lepanto was an epic battle but it effect was exaggerated
>>1067890
*in three months they have built more than 150 ships from their middle eastern port
fuck
lepanto is a meme battle
>>1067847
Lepanto was an overly hyped up battle just because shitloads of Turkish ships sank.
Meanwhile Cyprus fell, the Turkish fleet was rebuilt in a year (or two?) and Spain lost North Africa.
>It is said that at some point the Janissaries ran out of weapons and started throwing oranges and lemons at their Christian adversaries, leading to awkward scenes of laughter among the general misery of battle
>>1069505
They didnt rebuild a fleet of experienced sailors and the ottomans were contained in the eastern med.
>>1069518
>contained
>empire streches all the way into morroco
>sending fleets filled with shitloads of cannon and firearm all the way to aceh just to fuck with the portuguese because they can
i'd agree with you if this was 16-17th century, but on 15th the ottoman was on another level
>>1069524
They didnt naval attack Italy France or spain, only Austria via land.
>>1069529
wew lad their barbary pirates repeatedly sacked italian cities,read more on hayreddin barbarossa and dragut reis also why the fuck would they attack france, their allies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Ottoman_alliance
>>1069541
>wew lad their barbary pirates
But ottoman was no longer a serious threat to western europe, as it had been.
The Ottoman tributaries along the North African coast were a threat mostly to coastal villages that were undefended.
Not much of a military threat. West of Crete the Ottomans were a spent force after 1571.
>>1067890
>>1067896
>They still had naval supremacy and the resources to build more fuckheug fleets
how is the best way to put this... In the second volume of "The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II" by Fernand Braudel he cited that War galleys of the era costed so much to keep on a active war footing that a year of upkeep is almost the same a buying and whole new ship plus fully crewing and outfitting it. The main reason for it being that way is that too many galleys were being operated in the Mediterranean and thus the price of galley slave ended up unfeasibly high. The first set of galley slave was a bit over half the price of getting of a new galley and the replacement was VERY high. It is important to note that the Venetian Navy used paid galley rowers and it saved them a lot of money. Plus it gave them a far lower turn over rate and better quality versus salve rowers. Being able to let the rowers walk away from the ship for fresh air does wonders for their heath.
The rest of the holy league started using volunteer rowers after taking a advice from the Venetian. The Ottoman did not have the means or did not try to do the same. There is no data that I have seen for what the battle of Lepanto did to the Ottoman slave markets, but it likely caused a spike in the price of fit male slaves and thus the up keep cost of a war galley for the Ottoman Empire. In 1576 facing bankruptcy and a revenue crisis Ottomans just gave up on have a Navy and just let the majority of their fleet rot in the harbor.
For the other side the Pope was bankrupt by 1575 and Spain by 1577. Venice and Genoa were fine financially fine. Only Spain downsized their Mediterranean Navy to under pre war levels. All of the former members of the holy league moved to fully using paid rowers.
So the battle of Lepanto was more important as a morale and a financial victory then a military victory.
>>1067847
>Why was the battle of Lepanto such a devastating loss? Was it even a devastating loss?
Nope. I mean, it was a great loss in terms of lives and ships. But nothing unrecoverable. To the good of the facts, the Ottoman navy did not take long to recover their numbers.
>I've heard it argued that the inability of the Ottoman Empire to replace it's sailors and naval officers as well as the difficult it had in rebuilding it's fleet (compared to the west)
There is a striking amount of misunderstanding here. The chain of command of the Ottoman navy (as the West at the time) relied largely privateers and private stakeholders. Some died, others took their place in exchange for operating rights. There were serious problems of recruitment and training - most of the sailors were slaves, and it was not always possible to maintain the loyalty of contractors.
>was related to the failure of the Ottoman's to embrace commercial society and properly reform their legal and social institutions.
This is a very anachronic statement with regard to the sixteenth century. During this period, the Ottomans had an institutional and legal standard much more efficient and stable than the Western (except for the Italian city-states and the German free cities).
The decline would appear - generations later - by the central the adoption of harmful business practices, such as excessive taxation of agricultural production, protectionism, creation of monopolistic guilds, trade routes control concessions and state control of the judiciary.
>>1067847
galleasses
>>1067847
>failure of the Ottoman's to ... reform their legal and social institutions.
this is the answer for everithing that went wrong with the ottoman empire
>>1067890
It was certainly a massive victory for morale. Up until that point Ottoman expansionism seemed unstoppable. At least at sea anyway.
>>1069529
>You know why medieval knights never invaded Japan?
>That's right, they were afraid of the samurai and their deadly katanas!
They rush in red and purple from the red clouds of the morn,
From temples where the yellow gods shut up their eyes in scorn;
