The Knights of Malta and Reclaimation of Rhodes

From what I've read, the Siege of Rhodes was a close call for the Turks. The Knights had actively fortified it, and by 1522 it had a state of the art trace italienne fort which made it more formidable against artillery. The main walls wee also thickened, gates reduced, and parapets revolutionized to withstand artillery. Essentially, Rhodes became a bastion against modern warfare that was rapidly sweeping Italy at the time and changing the armies of Europe.

Despite this, Suleiman's army for Rhodes included some 100,000 men. The Knights were ignored by Europe and their only help was some aid from Venetian troops in Crete, The harbor was blockaded and the Ottomans bombarded the city on a daily basis. Two assaults on the city failed though, and by the end both sides were exhausted: the Turks lost a great amount of men and the Knights had no hope of any relief forces.

Now, is there any chance that Rhodes might be retaken by the Knights at a later date? In my timeline, Prince of Peace, a succession crisis causes grave issues in the Ottoman Empire, and Venice and Genoa benefit through the reannexation of some of the old Aegean islands they had held up until the 1560s. Might the Knights be able to take advantage of this situation as well in regards to Rhodes? The main issue is a lack of manpower, being on Rhodes, as well as naval capacity. But just as a Holy League was formed for Lepanto, is it possible some alternate league might be formed to retake Rhodes for the Knights? Would they even want it? The castle, at least in 1522, was pretty formidable, but Rhodes was not exactly defendable like Malta. It's too far away from possible allies, although Rhodes is quite possibly much more wealthy. Taking it might be purely for prestige purposes, and might give the Knights a temporary infusion of manpower of zealous soldiers and the like. Would the Rhodesians even want the Knights back?

If they do take Rhodes, would Malta be returned to the Sicilians? Keep both? What if they returned Malta and later lost Rhodes, again? I imagine the King of Naples and Sicily might be a little less forgiving. I was also musing regarding the Knights of St. Stephen, an order based in Tuscany that was naval oriented and had supplied arms for Lepanto. Might they perhaps see a base in the Aegean, too?

I apologize on all the musings on "Neo-Latin" statelets in the Eastern Mediterranean clogging up the forums. The Ottomans have some severe issues in POP that let the Crimean Girays ultimately take the throne, although not without some compromises to Venice and to a lesser extent Genoa. Venice still has Cyprus and is in a strong position, and Genoa to a lesser extent can meddle in the Aegean too. In the end, the Aegean is rather unimportant compared to the rest of the Ottoman Empire, but the Knights were notorious for piracy and I'm not exactly sure if even the Crimean Girays would want to invite that back. Plus, even by the 1580s and 1590s the Knighthood is looking increasingly redundant. But perhaps they could use the reconquest of Rhodes to reinvent themselves? From Malta they were forced into piracy to supplement their income as that from the Tongues dried up; this may be the case on Rhodes too. A small island is a small island. Put perhaps they could become a convoy force for Christian trade, charging a fee to protect merchant fleets enroute to Levantine and Middle Eastern Ports? Hell, maybe even Muslim fleets too! But somehow I doubt the money wouldn't be as good as piracy.

Thoughts? Could the Knights reclaim Rhodes with help? Would they even want too?
 
I can see some of the more zealous Knights wanting to, but it sounds impractical - Rhodes is too easily lost again.
 
I can see some of the more zealous Knights wanting to, but it sounds impractical - Rhodes is too easily lost again.

That's my big issue. It sounds interesting on paper, but I find that it would probably be lost very quickly again once the Girays get their new house in order. Of course, assuming they have a zealous leader, the Knights might consider it anyways. Part of me wants to do it even if I know how it will end up, because history is full of inane campaigns with a brief succession but later a much crushing loss. I'm mostly tempted because of the failure; most of the neo-Latin statelets founded in the midst of the troubles of the Ottoman succession meet similar ends and reincorporation.

Giving them a zealous commander, with alt Holy League* support, the Knights of St. Stephen supplying ships and some men, and marks raised by pawning Malta and Gozo back to the King of Sicily would certainly be the start of a cohesive force. The King of Spain could donate some artillery.

But if I go that route and if course, they lose Rhodes, again, would they just become stateless like the Teutonic Knights, with greedy monarchs secularizing the funds and estates of the various tongues? I mean after Malta, there's not much else... and I think 17th century Europe will be much less sympathetic to the Knights.
 
Giving them a zealous commander, with alt Holy League* support, the Knights of St. Stephen supplying ships and some men, and marks raised by pawning Malta and Gozo back to the King of Sicily would certainly be the start of a cohesive force. The King of Spain could donate some artillery.
This is an important point. The Knights will continually need bailing out until the Ottomans lose the drive to take them. In modern terms Rhodes is a bit like Taiwan and the Ottoman Empire China. The difference is that instead disperate group of allies (small of them like Venice pretty unreliable) the "Knights" today have the USA.

I think 17th century Europe will be much less sympathetic to the Knights.
Yes. Any monarch who has the opportuntiy to either loot the New World or pour money into a rathole at the far end of the Med is going to chose the former.
 
This is an important point. The Knights will continually need bailing out until the Ottomans lose the drive to take them. In modern terms Rhodes is a bit like Taiwan and the Ottoman Empire China. The difference is that instead disperate group of allies (small of them like Venice pretty unreliable) the "Knights" today have the USA.

Yes. Any monarch who has the opportuntiy to either loot the New World or pour money into a rathole at the far end of the Med is going to chose the former.

Well, the Knights will have a little breathing room as the Ottomans go extinct. The Crimean Girays end up with the throne and while things are mostly intact, they'll be inheriting an empire with the Safavids in Iraq and having no qualms spreading their Shiiteism and a particularly ambitious Mamluk, has self proclaimed himself Sultan of Egypt who has managed to turn that province ablaze with his (surprisingly displined and well trained) forces occupying Syria and offering the carrot to the Maronites and Alawis of Mount Lebanon. So the Knights would probably have like, a generation of breathing room while the Giray's clean house. But after that, yes. They are like Taiwan, except without a US.

This thread has pretty much made it valid it is an awful idea, but I may consider it simply to give the Knights a bloody nose. :D
 
This is an important point. The Knights will continually need bailing out until the Ottomans lose the drive to take them. In modern terms Rhodes is a bit like Taiwan and the Ottoman Empire China. The difference is that instead disperate group of allies (small of them like Venice pretty unreliable) the "Knights" today have the USA.

Actually it's much worse. As said before, the knights were heavily involved in piracy. As Rhodes lies on the sealine between Egypt and Constantinople, the Knights were a constant danger for the food supply of the capital - at least this is what I read. So conquering Rhodes was crucial for the Ottomans, whereas helping the Knights wasn't so much for the Europeans. If they got a relief force this time, they might keep Rhodes. But the Ottomans will keep coming back.
 
Actually it's much worse. As said before, the knights were heavily involved in piracy. As Rhodes lies on the sealine between Egypt and Constantinople, the Knights were a constant danger for the food supply of the capital - at least this is what I read. So conquering Rhodes was crucial for the Ottomans, whereas helping the Knights wasn't so much for the Europeans. If they got a relief force this time, they might keep Rhodes. But the Ottomans will keep coming back.

Well, remember we're talking about the Girays of the Crimea in this scenario, not the Ottomans. The Knights would have at least a generation of breathing room. The big issue, though, is that I quickly think they would turn to piracy once again to increase their loot, much as did on Malta. I remember some tales of Maltese Knights that were supposed to be quite poor but rather quite wealthy from looting pirate ships -- when it came to taking naval comissisions amongst the Catholic Aristocracy, the Knights were a favored destination as well, no doubt because of the extra pocket money would could pick up.

But irregardless, the Knights would have to fend off against the Turks again, and I don't see Venice helping them. Or anyone, really. Part of me is willing to let them take Rhodes and fail, the other... unsure. Aside from remaining Turkish during the mess, I suppose Venice could take the islands, but it's not nearly as interesting.
 
Not likely. A Revanchist 'Maltese Nationalism' should the islands population remain Catholic though...some sort of political compromise would have to be reached with the Girays as result of a more Practical Commander.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Wouldn't a change in dynasty from the House of Osman to the House of Giray be an unstable one?

But enough about my question. Rhodes, although is a well defended position is still ridiculously close to Southern Anatolia. You are right that no one will help them this time, and I believe that any attempt for them to try and take Rhodes will ultimately end in failure, whether they fail to retake the island or they are unable to defend it.
 
Wouldn't a change in dynasty from the House of Osman to the House of Giray be an unstable one?

But enough about my question. Rhodes, although is a well defended position is still ridiculously close to Southern Anatolia. You are right that no one will help them this time, and I believe that any attempt for them to try and take Rhodes will ultimately end in failure, whether they fail to retake the island or they are unable to defend it.

Yes, hence why the Knights would be able to retake it; it'd be the only chance for them to take it. The Girays inherit the empire from Murad the Mad, the last Ottoman Sultan who modern psychiatrists would diagnose as bipolar or perhaps even schizophrenic. Upon this death Egypt is openly in revolt and there is great unrest and hunger in the land, Iraq occupied by the Safavids and the Maniots raising hell, amongst other things. The Giray's had an 'informal' claim to the crown as it was sort of an unwritten promise that if the Ottomans went extinct, they'd get the crown. By building up a support group, the Girays eventually take the throne. They still have to clean up Murad's mess in the end.

Not sure how the Girays would fair as Sultan's though. Giray Khan wasn't too bad. But ruling a steppe khanate is different than an empire spanning three continents...

Whether the Knights take it or don't, the intention is for them to fail in the end ultimately.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Yes, hence why the Knights would be able to retake it; it'd be the only chance for them to take it. The Girays inherit the empire from Murad the Mad, the last Ottoman Sultan who modern psychiatrists would diagnose as bipolar or perhaps even schizophrenic. Upon this death Egypt is openly in revolt and there is great unrest and hunger in the land, Iraq occupied by the Safavids and the Maniots raising hell, amongst other things. The Giray's had an 'informal' claim to the crown as it was sort of an unwritten promise that if the Ottomans went extinct, they'd get the crown. By building up a support group, the Girays eventually take the throne. They still have to clean up Murad's mess in the end.

Not sure how the Girays would fair as Sultan's though. Giray Khan wasn't too bad. But ruling a steppe khanate is different than an empire spanning three continents...

Whether the Knights take it or don't, the intention is for them to fail in the end ultimately.

Indeed, Either the Girays get smart and learn how to handle imperial matters well or they don't and the House that Osman built collapses...which could mean many things of course.
 
Indeed, Either the Girays get smart and learn how to handle imperial matters well or they don't and the House that Osman built collapses...which could mean many things of course.

Well, they'll certainly learn how to run things. ;) Much to the disappointment of those who benefited from the chaos.
 
Top