Talk:Siege of Malta (1565)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Malta (1565) article.
Article policies
Siege of Malta (1565) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] older comments

NB. It's not an Featured article candidate at present: It was never listed on WP:FAC. I'd do citations first, though. Adam Cuerden talk 16:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Numbers from nations

EVERYONE READ THIS! There were almost no Turks who participated in this war. The Ottoman Empire consisted mostly of slave warriors from many different nations. Most of them were Arabs, and in this case, almost all of them were Arabs. Only 600 Turks joined the war, and they were Elite soldiers.

Well then maybe the Ottoman Empire should have had a proper army, like those that existed in France and Spain, and not one reminiscent of 13th century Europe which relied on mass. Perhaps if Ottoman society wasn't so decadent there might have been one.

Yes, it's quite good, though the fictional story is a bit contrived in places.

Personally, I preferred Angels in Iron. Brilliantly written.

[edit] The Great Siege of Malta (1565)

To the best of my knowledge, Ottoman launched the attack against Malta with 130 galleys, 11 galleons (high-sided galley), 3 heavy battle ships, and 50 transportation ships.Excluding galley slaves, Ottoman army was formed of 13,000 levends (soldiers from coastal states responsible for transporting weapons like cannons and fighting as well), 16,000 soldiers(4500 janissaries, 3,500 rumelian cavalries, 8,000 Anatolian cavalries), and 175 siege canons. Against 29,000 Ottoman soldiers, la Valette had 10,650 soldiers known as the best soldiers of the christian world then including over 550 knights.

As well known, Ottoman army was made up of light armoured soldiers. This provided them a significant advantage of agility in open-field battles but a disadvantage at the sieges. This war was one of most bloody wars of the history. After St.Elmo fortress fell, Ottoman army attacked the main fortress. This caused too many casualities from both sides. At that time, a gathered army from Europe in Sicily arrived in Malta being unnoticed by Ottoman fleet. With the arrival of reinforcement, the defense of the fortress increased and this led Ottomans to stop the siege on 8 September and to leave on 11 September. At the end of the battle, over 8500 christian soldiers including 260 noble knights of St. John and 8,000 ottoman soldiers died in this battle. Renowned Ottoman commander, Drugut Pacha also died at where is known Pointe Dragut today. 80,000 canon balls were fired to the island by Ottomans.


One point shouldn't be forgotten while narrating this battle; although the powers were not equal, this battle was a siege after all. Defending side always has a remarkable advantage of protection while offender is an open target. And the success of this battle shouldn't be attributed to a handful men ignoring thousands of soldiers who gave their lives in that battle. The fate of Malta would repeat itself one more time in the siege of Malta in WW2.

I've made some changes, based on the numbers from Balbi's account. I agree they are probably biased to show the knights in a good light. Changes are by me by the way, Wikipedia logged me out in the middle of editing.:( --Shoka 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Gregg02, I've set the figures attributed to Balbi back to the values from his book. It looks like you have another source. Please extend the article to include those sources and their estimates. I'm certain that Balbi's figures are optomistic in the knights favour to say the least, but I specifically quoted him as the source for those numbers, and added a rider warning that they are potentially excessive. The quoted numbers for the siege of St Elmo are not attributed to Balbi, because nowhere does he give any real grand total numbers for thet phase, so I've left those as you set them. Given the total casualties you give for the siege the losses at St Elmo you quote seem on the high side, but since Balbi was either intentionally quiet on those numbers, or is genuinly in ignorance of the total losses there, they may be as high as you suggest. Alternative sources would be good.--Shoka 20:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landing of the Turks

The article states that the Turks landed at Malta on the 18 of May. Didn't they arrive in Malta on the 18th, but land on the 20th? -Martin Fridström

[edit] Hoop Throwers

In Age of Empires 3 is it true that they employed "Hoop Throwers" against Janissaries? To me it seems that Hoop Throwers were entirely fictional. 72.197.133.100 05:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Religion

The section on fiction referring to the Religion by Tim Willock seems unnecessarily negative. Is a book review really part of this article? The facts in the book are correct, as far as I have been able to determine, and apart from that, criticism of the style of writing and the plot are, IMO, unnecessary.

Having seen no objections or discussion on this point, I am removing the reviews of the book, which deal mainly with tone and not with objections to the historicity of the book.

[edit] GA review

I'm afraid, with all respect, that, although it seems, on a quick reading, fine on every other point, it lacks citations, and so can't pass GA, let alone FA. This page explains the preferred method of citation.

I've done a post-hoc citing up process recently, and am in the middle of another. It's not exactly fun, but if you set your mind to it, it can be done in a week or two by a small group (one to three people) with access to good sources. It also tends to improve the article in the process.

I'm going to fail it for now, but I'm quite happy to help with the citing up, at least as far as pointing out where cites are needed.

I'm sorry. It is quite good, but the citations are one of the key GA requirements. Adam Cuerden talk 16:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Decay

I'm far from convinced that this article is improving. It now contains a poor and biased introduction to the knights of St John, and considerable verbage about economic conditions in the rest of Europe, looks as though it has gained considerable text taken direct from an outside website. Please compare with the focused article that actually described the progress of the siege as this article stood at 29 October 2006.--Shoka 20:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider that the article at present has the quality desired for an encyclopaedia. It reads more like a heavily biased cheerleader's narrative, thin on facts but thick on one-sided enthusiasm. It will need much work. Cosal 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

I think that as this topic is about a large campaign, it could do with seperate sections on the individual conflicts, rather than one section with an incredibly summarised version of each. LunaShroom 23:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I have almost completely rewritten the Siege of Malta article using the best contemporary sources available to me and the best modern scholarship. It is in part based on my recent article in History Today. The number of citations should be sufficient but I can provide more. It should be sufficiently neutral now that the disclaimer can be removed.

The related article on Turgut Reis is problematic. Although it is the most detailed description of Turgut's career that I have seen, it seems basically to have come from another website, which provides no citations. Furthermore, when I have attempted to edit certain incorrect statements, providing references, the presumed author has erased them, reverting to the incorrect version.

Also, people should refrain from using Bradford as a source. The book is basically a novel, at best a novelization, full of errors, anachronisms, oversights and sometimes fabrications.

151.204.201.35 23:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Tony Rothman

[edit] Request for Assessment

I have made a assessment request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment because I (IMHO) feel that this Article has come a long way since the last assessment was done. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Still needs some more work on the citations, I think; see WP:MILHIST#CITE. Hope that helps! Kirill 16:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cataclysmic?

While the battle was definitely important to the Maltese and the Knights Hospitallers, it may not have been the Mother of all Battles, sparing Europe from being overrun. Please see http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/16cen/malta1565.html And please don't take what you see on tv too seriously. They overstate everything as does historical fiction. Student7 15:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

While that may be Alexander Ganse's opinion, it is all speculative fiction to imagine what could have come next. Taken in perspective of the timeline of the Ottoman Empire, which was at its hight at that time, the victory of removing the 'christian thorn' may have propelled the empires' collective ego on to total theatre dominance. As it turned out, it seems it might have been the straw that broke the empires back
From exploration of zum.de, it would seem that it is solely maintained by "Alexander Ganse, German national, born in 1957" whom is teaching at "Korean Minjok Leadership Academy, an elite boarding high school located in countryside South Korea". All hits in Google tend to be hitting upon places using him as a Citation. Does he have any published works? I am not sure this website would, by WP's standards , qualify as reliable source. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
While you are probably correct about not using this site as a source - it is derivative - it has the Ring of Truth, which is Good Enough for Discussion Purposes. I don't see a POV there, do you?
What happens if the attack is successful? More likely the Ottomans are overextended at sea trying to supply their new base. But in the meantime, they consolidated things around Anatolia, which makes logistical sense to me. Student7 12:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, I didnt mean as a POV, more on account of Verifiability. He is a smart guy.
They may have been overextended, but the Knights reinforcements were a LONG way away, IF they were even on their way? Don Garcia was holding most of them them back in anticipation of an attack on Sicily. Just one of thoes things to make ya go Hmmmmmmmmmm?  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I have added a couple of more references, as requested. A propros, I don't think one can exaggerate the (positive) effects on European morale as a result of the Siege of Malta. One should not rely on modern retellings, but go back to 16th-17th century sources. (Yes, I have.)

Also, regarding the recently posted illustrations. While they prettify the article, they are also misleading, as none of them are remotely contemporary with the Siege (except for the d'Aleccio) and give a very distorted impression about what the fortifications looked like at the time, not to mention Turgut.151.204.208.173 17:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Tony Rothman