re: The Great Siege of Malta's (1565) impact on world history

Overall the Ottomans were about conquest. Religion was used by them as more of an excuse to whip up the populations they controlled.

The Turks started off as mercenaries for the Arab Caliphate in its initial conquests into Central Asia. Turks ethnically are more related to Afghans.They were good fighters and probably the best horse soldiers in history.

Where the Turks got into trouble was at sea.They were not great sailors, the had numbers but when they would come up against seafaring nations or try to take smaller Islands like Malta their effectiveness was limited. The Battle of Lepanto was an example. A large Ottoman fleet got schooled by a smaller though much more capable experienced western fleet.

Turkish.

The Ottomans have always fascinated me. They ran wild in the Eastern Med for 500 years. They took Anatolia and basically replaced the population, crossed the Bosporus long before taking Constantinople and ran through the Balkans like no one was there. They were able to use Christian kids as crack shock troops ( Jannissarries) and how they were able to have the success that they did.

My great grandfather was a Greek from coastal Turkey ( yes, they had them) he hated them and worked with the British during and after WWI to create as much havoc as possible on the Turks. The Turks overall were not all that oppressive, they really did not get into forced conversion in the way that the Arabs did...not to say they did not, especially in the aftermath of conquest. They left most of the Greek communities alone unless they started causing trouble. When WWI started up though, the Ottomans went brutal on them and the Armenian communities. Lepanto was treated as almost a holy day at his house and the Greek community in Auckland

Personally, I think yes because they were able to maintain their supremacy for a longer period of time and it was the reason why the Turks were able to maintain the empire longer than Ghengis Khan....much longer. Remember that the Turks originally came from the steppes of Central Asia much like the Mongols.

If I were their enemy, I would not want to face either. The Golden Horde would go on killing frenzied. The Turkish " cavalry" was not much different other than the Turks would inter marry with their enemies and Islam also influenced them in that at a point they stopped killing out of "mercy". Plus the Turks liked humiliating their enemies more than killing.

When the Turks beat the Byzantine emperor at Manzikret he could have killed the emperor and his entourage, instead he killed half the entourage, enslaved the rest and then told the ememperor...."I'm not going to kill you. I will do worse, I will let you live and return to your capitol"

I mean I get based on the map why Malta was a strategic point in the Mediterranean but why didn’t they just sail around it and continue their westward expansion? If they sailed 1 mile around the island they would have been fine. It’s not like they had cannons that could reach the ships.

This always confused me about ancient wartime. They got so hung up on spots that they could have just went around.

Guess that’s what happens when I don’t read the whole thread.

Not much. The Ottoman absorbed the Seljuk and succeeding Turks. They were more organized than the Seljuks and more European as time went on....Mehmet was rumored to be at least half Serb if not mostly Balkan in ethnicity, but the Turkish cavalry could be brutal.

quote:

---

Hell Malta was still important in world war 2 for supply issues between Italy and the African campaign.

---

Exactly, Malta had remained a key piece in geo politics and in world wars for centuries after 1565.

quote:

---

Personally, I think yes because they were able to maintain their supremacy for a longer period of time and it was the reason why the Turks were able to maintain the empire longer than Ghengis Khan....much longer. Remember that the Turks originally came from the steppes of Central Asia much like the Mongols.

---

But was that due to their horse riding ability or their ability to have strong structural leadership? To be honest, I never thought of the Turks as being great riders so I'm pleased to learn something new today

I thought the Khans were able to stay in power because they would conquer a kingdom and then marry into the ruling power. If the daughter died then the Khans would be the leading rulers.