History UsefulNotes / BattleOfLepanto

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. First there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations are often colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as an inconsequential side-show, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuilt their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and how they chose to view the battle in the immediate aftermath. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics continued to fall behind the Europeans. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans.

If this position is taken to its logical conclusion, this battle gave Christian empires control not only over most of the world's seas, but the world itself. Ottoman control of eastern trade routes meant the Turks had easy access to the riches of the East, while European powers were forced to develop their naval technology in order to find alternate routes, either West (leading to the discovery of America) or South (around Africa). Europe would be more than compensated for the extra effort. Control over the seas gave them control over trade, money, and everything that goes with it. European naval supremacy would lead directly to European imperialism and colonialism, meaning it would be western Europe that would dominate the world for the next couple of centuries. Turkey having any influence outside of its immediate area was basically out of the question, while thanks to naval power Europe would eventually come to dominate powers as far away as China. Had the Turks won at Lepanto, it is possible that Western imperialism might have been seriously impeded, particularly in the areas bordering the Mediterranean, Black Sea, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean, and all of history would have been changed.

If this position is taken to its logical conclusion, this battle gave Christian empires control not only over most of the world's seas, but the world itself. Ottoman control of eastern trade routes meant the Turks had easy access to the riches of the East, while European powers were forced to develop their naval technology in order to find alternate routes, either West (leading to the discovery of America) or South (around Africa). Europe would be more than compensated for the extra effort. Control over the sea gave them control over trade, money, and everything that goes with it. European naval supremacy would lead directly to European imperialism and colonialism, meaning it would be western Europe that would dominate the world for the next couple of centuries. Turkey having any influence outside of its immediate area was basically out of the question, while thanks to naval power Europe would eventually come to dominate powers as far away as China. Had the Turks won at Lepanto, it is possible that Western imperialism might have been seriously impeded, particularly in the areas bordering the Mediterranean, Black Sea, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean, and all of history would have been changed.

If this position is taken to its logical conclusion, this battle gave Christian empires control not only over most of the world's seas, but the world itself. Ottoman control of eastern trade routes meant the Turks had easy access to the riches of the East, while European powers were forced to develop their naval technology in order to find alternate routes to the West (leading to the discovery of America) or South (around Africa). Europe would be more than compensated for the extra effort. Control over the sea gave them control over trade, money, and everything that goes with it. European naval supremacy would lead directly to European imperialism and colonialism, meaning it would be western Europe that would dominate the world for the next couple of centuries. Turkey having any influence outside of its immediate area was basically out of the question, while thanks to naval power Europe would eventually come to dominate powers as far away as China. Had the Turks won at Lepanto, it is possible that Western imperialism might have been seriously impeded, particularly in the areas bordering the Mediterranean, Black Sea, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean, and all of history would have been changed.

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. First there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations are often colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as an inconsequential side-show, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuilt their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and how they chose to view the battle in the immediate aftermath. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics continued to fall behind the Europeans. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it was important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. First there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations are often colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time, in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as an inconsequential side-show, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuilt their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and how they chose to view the battle in the immediate aftermath. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics continued to fall behind the Europeans. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it was important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. First there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations are often colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as an inconsequential side-show, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuilt their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and how they chose to view the battle in the immediate aftermath. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics continued to fall behind the Europeans. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it was important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. First there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, etc. Evaluations may be colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as an inconsequential side-show, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuilt their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and how they chose to view the battle in the immediate aftermath. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics continued to fall behind the Europeans. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it was important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. As often happens, first there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations may be colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as an inconsequential side-show, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuilt their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and how they chose to view the battle in the immediate aftermath. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics continued to fall behind the Europeans. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it was important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

If this position is taken to its logical conclusion, this battle gave Christian empires control not only over most of the world's seas, but the world itself. Ottoman control of eastern trade routes meant the Turks had easy access to the riches of the East, while European powers were forced to develop their naval technology in order to find alternate routes to the West (leading to the discovery of America) or South (around Africa). Europe would be more than compensated for the extra effort. Control over the sea gave them control over trade, money, and everything that goes with it. European naval supremacy would lead directly to European imperialism and colonialism, meaning it would be western Europe that would dominate the world for the next couple of centuries. Turkey having any influence outside of its immediate neighborhood was basically out of the question, while thanks to naval power Europe would eventually come to dominate powers as far away as China. Had the Turks won at Lepanto, it is possible that Western imperialism might have been seriously impeded, particularly in the areas bordering the Mediterranean, Black Sea, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean, and all of history would have been changed.

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. As often happens, first there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations may be colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as an inconsequential side-show, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuilt their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and how they chose to view the battle in the immediate aftermath. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics continued to become more obsolete while the Europeans continued to advance. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it was important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. As often happens, first there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations may be colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as an inconsequential side-show, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuilt their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and how they chose to view the battle in the immediate aftermath. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics became more and more obsolete while the Europeans continued to advance. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it was important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. As often happens, first there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations may be colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as an inconsequential side-show, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuilt their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and how they chose to view the battle in the immediate aftermath. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics became more and more obsolete while the Europeans continued to advance. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it ''was'' important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. As often happens, first there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations may be colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as an inconsequential side-show, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuilt their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and view immediately after the battle. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics became more and more obsolete while the Europeans continued to advance. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it ''was'' important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. As often happens, first there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations may be colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as an inconsequential side-show, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuild their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and view immediately after the battle. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics became more and more obsolete while the Europeans continued to advance. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it ''was'' important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. As often happens, first there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations may be colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as an inconsequential side-show, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuild their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and view immediately after the battle. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics became more and more obsolete while the Europeans continued to advance. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it was important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

If this position is taken to its logical conclusion, this battle gave Christian empires control not only over most of the world's seas, but the world itself. Ottoman control of eastern trade routes meant the Turks had easy access to the riches of the East, while European powers were forced to develop their naval technology in order to find alternate routes to the West (leading to the discovery of America) or South (around Africa). Europe would be more than compensated for the extra effort. Control over the sea gave them control over trade, money, and everything that goes with it. European naval supremacy would lead directly to European imperialism and colonialism, meaning it would be western Europe that would dominate the world for the next couple of centuries. Had the Turks won at Lepanto, it is possible that Western imperialism might have been seriously impeded, particularly in the areas bordering the Mediterranean, Black Sea, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean, and all of history would have been changed.

If this position is taken to its logical conclusion, this battle gave Christian empires control not only over most of the world's seas, but the world itself. Ottoman control of eastern trade routes meant the Turks had easy access to the riches of the East, while European powers were forced to develop their naval technology in order to find alternate routes to the West (leading to the discovery of America) or South (around Africa). Europe would be more than compensated for this effort. Control over the sea gave one control over trade, money, and everything that came with them. European naval supremacy would lead directly to European imperialism and colonialism, meaning it would be western Europe who would dominate the world for the next couple centuries. Had the Turks won at Lepanto, it is possible that Western imperialism might have been seriously impeded, particularly in the areas bordering the Mediterranean, Black Sea, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean, and all of history would have been changed.

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. As often happens, first there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations may be colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as a side-show, and an inconsequential one at that, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuild their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and view immediately after the battle. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics became more and more obsolete while the Europeans continued to advance. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it was important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

The historical significance of the battle is controversial to this day. As often happens, first there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations may be colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time, in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as a side-show, and an inconsequential one at that, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuild their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and view immediately after the battle. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics became more and more obsolete while the Europeans continued to advance. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it was important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

The historical accounts of the battle are controversial to this day. As often happens, first there was the glorification, then the backlash, then the backlash to the backlash, and so on. Evaluations may be colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time, in the West it was seen unambiguously as a historical turning-point and a great, even miraculous victory attributed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Revisionists portray the battle as a side-show, and an inconsequential one at that, pointing out that the Turks quickly rebuild their fleet, kept Cyprus, and continued the war, while the Christians did not regain any significant territory. This was the official Ottoman position and view immediately after the battle. The post-revisionist view is that the battle ''was'' important in that the Ottoman Empire never again attempted to seriously compete with European naval power, with the gap between them only continuing to grow over the coming decades. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their fleet, but mostly avoided engaging the Europeans in naval combat, as their naval technology and tactics became more and more obsolete while the Europeans continued to advance. What battles the Ottomans did engage in, they mostly lost. In a greater sense therefore, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans. Bottom line: it was important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

The historical accounts of the battle are controversial to this day, and may be colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time, it was seen as an unambiguous victory, but revisionists often point that not only did the Turks rebuild their fleet, they kept Cyprus as well. The post-revisionist view marks the battle as an even greater turning point, in that the Ottoman Empire was effectively excluded from competition for the world's oceans, due to the aforementioned lack of sailors and marines for their fleet. Indeed, the sheer cost of rebuilding the fleet was so great that the Ottomans had to let most of it rot not long after finishing it. While the Ottoman navy would continue to fight in the Mediterranean for a number of centuries, it would mostly lose against its Christian adversaries from then on. In a greater sense, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans, as no country outside of Christendom had a fleet capable of meeting them in battle. Bottom line, it was important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

So if the logic is taken to its conclusion, this battle gave Christian empires control not only over most of the world's seas, but the world itself. If that seems far-fetched, remember that naval power was critical in conquering and maintaining empires, and that control over sea lanes gave one control over trade, money, and everything that came with them. That's how imperialism worked in the centuries following Lepanto, at least. Had the Turks won at Lepanto, it is possible that Western imperialism might have been seriously impeded, particularly in the areas bordering the Mediterranean, Black Sea, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean.

* In addition to being able to recrate the causes of, the battle itself, and the aftermath, one of the [[https://youtu.be/k9vwbfGYTKk?list=PLE0isnG9dtTbAAthSwt3P6yA9tLqV703C songs]] in the soundtrack to "VideoGame/EuropaUniversalis" 4, is called [[ShapedLikeItself Battle of Lepanto]].

During the Middle Ages and Renaissance, there was a constant naval war between the Christian States and the Muslim ones in the Mediterranean. When there was not a major campaign involved with this it was a handy excuse to be {{Pirates}}. Circa 1570, the Republic of Venice was entering a prolonged decline in Mediterranean dominance and the Ottoman Empire was extending its hegemony into the world's oceans.

By the reign of the Sultan Selim II (affectionately known as Selim [[TheAlcoholic the Sot]]), the Empire was recovering from its failed attempt to conquer Malta. The Ottomans turned their gaze toward Cyprus which was rich in sugar, and an important base, under the authority of the Venetians at the time. The Ottomans invaded Cyprus, and the threat provoked an alliance among the Mediterranean Christian states chief among whom were Venice and Spain. The Turks managed to conquer the island, but the Christian fleet arrived to defeat them in a battle of annihilation. The [[{{Irony}} ironic]] result was that the Turks lost the main battle but ended up with the island. However, arguably this was a PyrrhicVictory for the Turks as so many skilled sailors and warriors had been lost that the Turkish fleet would be incapable for a generation (the galleys themselves would be rebuilt quickly but fleets at the time depended so much on the skill of sailors that it was something of a bluff) by which time its preferred methods were so obsolete that recovery was impossible.

This battle was a [[SugarWiki/MomentOfAwesome Crowning Moment of Awesome]] and celebrated as such. It was the last major galley battle before galleys were superseded by [[WoodenShipsAndIronMen great sailing warships]].

The historical accounts of the battle are controversial to this day, and may be colored by nationalism, pro-western bias, anti-western bias, or any number of historical frameworks. At the time, it was seen as an unambiguous victory, but revisionists often point that not only did the Turks rebuild their fleet, but they kept Cyprus as well. The post-revisionist view marks the battle as an even greater turning point, in that the Ottoman Empire was effectively excluded from competition over the world's oceans, due to the aforementioned lack of sailors and marines for their fleet. Indeed, the sheer cost of rebuilding the fleet was so great that the Ottomans had to let most of it rot not long after finishing it. While the Ottoman navy would continue to fight in the Mediterranean for a number of centuries, it would mostly lose against its Christian adversaries from now on. In a greater sense, this battle was the point where Christian navies took control of the world's oceans, as no country outside of Christendom had a fleet capable of meeting them in battle. Bottom line, it was important, an event on par with the Naval Battle of Actium fought not too far away many centuries earlier.

If taken to its logical end, this battle gave Christian empires control over most of the world's seas, as with it, the world itself. If that seems far-fetched, remember that naval power was critical in conquering and maintaining empires, and that control over sea lanes gave one control over trade, money, and everything that came with it. That's how imperialism worked in the centuries following Lepanto, at least. Had the Turks won at Lepanto, it is possible that Western imperialism might have been seriously impeded, particularly in the areas bordering the Mediterranean, Black Sea, Red Sea, and the Indian Ocean.

A rare option in the TableTopGame ''TabletopGame/{{Diplomacy}}'', where Italy attacks Turkey, is named 'The Lepanto Gambit'.

* ''"Lepanto"'', a poem from Creator/GKChesterton

* Featured at the end of ''Il Leone di Damasco'' by Emilio Salgari (the author of ''Literature/{{Sandokan}}''), with the protagonists reinforcing ''La Real'' during the fight against the ''Sultana''.
* Featured as a scenario in ''Videogame/AgeOfEmpiresII'', where the player plays as a Spanish faction with an objective of building a Wonder and defending it from the Turkish navy invasion.

** The first part of the novel has the Captive Captain tale: A Spanish captain, Ruy Pérez de Viedma, narrates how he was charging against a turk galley when the wind changed and his men couldn’t follow him, and so the turks [[MadeASlave made him a slave]]:

-->-- '''Creator/{{Miguel de Cervantes}}''', Literature/DonQuixote, Second Part, ''The author's preface.''

--> I may say, in short, that I took part in that glorious expedition, promoted by this time to be a captain of infantry, to which honourable charge my good luck rather than my merits raised me; and that day—so fortunate for Christendom, because then all the nations of the earth were disabused of the error under which they lay in imagining the Turks to be invincible on sea-on that day, I say, on which the Ottoman pride and arrogance were broken, among all that were there made happy (for the Christians who died that day were happier than those who remained alive and victorious) I alone was miserable; for, instead of some naval crown that I might have expected had it been in Roman times, on the night that followed that famous day I found myself with fetters on my feet and manacles on my hands. It happened in this way: El Uchali, the king of Algiers, a daring and successful corsair, having attacked and taken the leading Maltese galley (only three knights being left alive in it, and they badly wounded), the chief galley of John Andrea, on board of which I and my company were placed, came to its relief, and doing as was bound to do in such a case, I leaped on board the enemy's galley, which, sheering off from that which had attacked it, prevented my men from following me, and so I found myself alone in the midst of my enemies, who were in such numbers that I was unable to resist; in short I was taken, covered with wounds; El Uchali, as you know, sirs, made his escape with his entire squadron, and I was left a prisoner in his power, the only sad being among so many filled with joy, and the only captive among so many free; for there were fifteen thousand Christians, all at the oar in the Turkish fleet, that regained their longed-for liberty that day.
** The second part of the novel has a great TakeThat against {{FanFiction}} author Avellaneda, who wrote a ContinuationFic to Literature/DonQuixote and some words making fun of Creator/MiguelDeCervantes' wounds [[UnacceptableTargets (which he got as a marine at Lepanto itself)]]:
--> What I cannot help taking amiss is that he charges me with being old and one-handed, as if it had been in my power to keep time from passing over me, or as if the loss of my hand had been brought about in some tavern, and not on the grandest occasion the past or present has seen, or the future can hope to see. If my wounds have no beauty to the beholder's eye, they are, at least, honourable in the estimation of those who know where they were received; for the soldier shows to greater advantage dead in battle than alive in flight; and so strongly is this my feeling, that if now it were proposed to perform an impossibility for me, I would rather have had my share in that mighty action, than be free from my wounds this minute without having been present at it.

-->-- '''Miguel de Cervantes''' Literature/DonQuixote, Second Part, ''The author's preface.''

** The second part of the novel has a great TakeThat against {{FanFiction}} author Avellaneda, who wrote a ContinuationFic to Literature/DonQuixote and wrote some words making fun of Cervante’s wounds [[UnacceptableTargets (he got those as a war veteran at Lepanto itself)]]:

!!This historical event provides examples of:
* TheAlliance
* BadassArmy : The Turks and Spaniards were Badass Armies that had adapted to seafaring. The Venetians were more used to fighting at sea then on land making them a Badass Navy. However, the Venetians had not fought seriously [[RetiredBadass for a while]] and some wondered whether they still "had it". As it turned out, [[UnderestimatingBadassery they did]].
* BattleCry: ''Vive San Marco'' for the Venetians.
* BigBadassBattleSequence
* BoardingParty: How most of the battle was actually fought.
* ChurchMilitant
* CombatPragmatist: The Venetians. In an era where naval battles were mostly fought by boarding parties and warships carried only a couple guns fore and aft, they had the fleet preceeded by six [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galleass galleasses]]: large merchant galleys converted to war, they carried [[MoreDakka 36 six heavy guns and many smaller ones each]] while still looking harmless cargo ships. [[CurbStompBattle The Ottomans lost 70 ships in the failed attempt to capture them]].
* CoolVersusAwesome: Three of the greatest fleets of the galley era meet that day.
* DecapitatedArmy: When Ali Pasha's flagship was stormed, he and the rest of his crew [[KillEmAll were slain]]. When the banner of the Holy League was hoisted from their flagship, it broke the morale of the Turkish center.
* DirtyBusiness: One of the first things done after the victory was to separate the most skillful sailors and warriors from among the prisoners and [[MundaneSolution cut their throats]] to prevent them from serving the Sultan again. The rest were MadeASlave.
** Apparently the Spaniards and Venetians ''did'' read the EvilOverlordList.
* DudeWheresMyReward: In his joy at Don Juan's [[WarIsGlorious glorious victory]], Phillip of Spain rewarded Don Juan by putting him in charge of the [[UsefulNotes/TheEightyYearsWar endless war]] against the Dutch rebels.
* TheEmpire: The Ottoman Empire; because the story is almost always told from their enemies' perspective.
* EnemyMine: Venetians and Spaniards thought this of each other. Also, the battle's result was celebrated even by the Protestant enemies of the Spaniards.
* AFatherToHisMen: The Turkish admiral, Ali Pasha, was a genuine rarity among Turkish (or for that matter European) high command in that he treated those under him decently, even the galley slaves. One account has him telling them before the battle that, "If we win, then I swear by God and His Prophet to free you all. If we lose, then God Himself has seen fit to free you."
* [[UrbanLegend Folktale]] : It was said that the Sultan ordered the campaign [[SillyReasonForWar simply because he was a drunkard]] and Cyprus had a lot of wine. [[YouShouldKnowThisAlready Of course]] [[ScrewTheRulesIMakeThem being Sultan]] he could already have as much wine as he wanted anyway. He probably didn't mind the possibility of taxing the sale of wine to other drunkards though in RealLife.
* TheFederation: The Spaniards; because the story is told from Venice's and Spain's perspective. Quite literal in this case, as Spain at the time was not a unified state, being instead held together by the collected inheritances of its Habsburg ruler.
* GodzillaThreshold: During the fight between Don Juan's ''La Real'' and Ali's ''Sultana'' both admirals freed their galley crews to fight. As Don Juan's galley crews were Spaniard convicts and Ali's were Christian slaves, it worked well for Don Juan and backfired horribly on Ali.
* HypeBacklash: To the extent that some history books call it the most overrated battle of all time.
* LandOfOneCity: The Venetian Republic
* LetsGetDangerous : Venice
* MerchantCity: Venice (duh)
* MoreDakka : One reason the Christian fleet won was its mastery of the proper tactics for gunpowder weapons. A number of Turkish galleys were sunk before battle was joined. Once the fighting was on the Spanish, who had caught on to the fact that muskets could be taught to anyone who was reasonably brave, and thus they could make peasants into [[WeHaveReserves reserves]], whereas the Turks still thought of muskets as sort of a replacement for bows and used them individually rather than in volley fire.)
** An inversion of RockBeatsLaser, in fact. Most Ottoman shipmen were still armed with crossbows while their opponents brought lots of arquebuses with them.
*** More a complication then an inversion. Bows had a lot of advantages over arquebusses but arquebusses had the big advantage that they were easily learned. Thus Europeans could actually ''manufacture'' soldiers, so to speak.
** The largest part of the Christian gun superiority came from the Venetians repurposing six large merchant galleys as warships and loading them with three dozens heavy guns each (eighteen per sides), a large superiority over the one or two heavy guns and two or four smaller guns a galley would carry on the bow. Between that and their size making them impossible to board in combat from a galley, the galleasses (that's the name given to the repurposed merchant ships) did quite the number on the Ottoman ships. Do you remember us mentioning that a number of Turkish galleys were sunk before battle was joined? That was the galleasses: the Turks mistook them for the supply vessels they used to be and moved to capture them, and by the time they had realized their error those six ships had sunk about ''seventy'' Ottoman galleys (out of 206) and caused varying amount of damage to anything too slow to escape range.
* TheMutiny: On noticing their chance, a number of [[SlaveGalley galley slaves]] in the turkish fleet did this.
* NightmarishFactory: The Venetian Arsenal which could turn out scores of galleys in a few weeks and really did give nightmares to every prince around. Dante actually saw fit to [[IllTakeThatAsACompliment compare it with]] {{Hell}}.
* PantheraAwesome: The Lion of St Mark, the symbol of Venice.
* {{Plunder}}: According to tales, there was lots of this. Apparently, Ottoman aristocrats sometimes took family treasures with them to battle; they feared [[ObstructiveBureaucrat taxmen]] more then their enemies.
* TheRepublic: Venice, as a long-existing medieval example of a republican-like country.
* RoaringRampageOfRevenge: The Christian fleet thought of it as this. Especially the Venetians, who had just heard tales of Ottoman [[RapePillageAndBurn atrocities]] on Cyprus.
* SeasonFinale : The end of the galley era of UsefulNotes/NavalGazing. Next season is WoodenShipsAndIronMen.
* ShroudedInMyth: Lepanto became this almost immediately after it was fought.
* SlaveGalley: Most ships were crewed by convicts (Holy League) or slaves (Ottomans).
** {{Averted}} with Venice, whose ships had a single per oar and this required skills and will that could be provided only by volunteers (either a freeman who joined the navy or debtors and convicts who ''choose'' to serve as rowers). While they ''did'' have some ships rowed exclusively by convicts, they were so small in numbers they weren't even counted in the official order of battle and made their own flotilla.
* StiffUpperLip: It is said that Don Juan danced a jig on the deck while going into action to show his contempt for the danger.
* SuperweaponSurprise: The galleasses were at their combat debut. Six of them sunk ''seventy'' Ottoman ships (out of 206) and damaged lots of ships too slow to escape from their range.
* TeethClenchedTeamwork: From the Venetians' point of view, the alliance with Spain and Genoa was this.
* WarriorPrince: Don Juan of Austria, illegitimate son of Charles V and leader of the Christian fleet.
* WonTheWarLostThePeace: Yes, the Holy League won the battle but the Ottoman Empire won the war, and Cyprus became a part of the empire.
** And yet, the long term was won by the Holy League, as the Ottomans would never be able to regain the same level of naval power they had before the battle took place.
* WorthyOpponent : Ali Pasha, the leader of the Ottoman fleet.
----