WI the Ottomans take Malta in 1565?

Then, they have a base from where to attack Italy, or so they think.
I dont know what many people think, but Malta is not some king of 'take one take it all' thing. Simple fact is- without Malta the Ottomans cannot advance through the central Mediterranean.
With Malta takes, the West cannot advance back into the Eastern Meditierranean and retake the 'Christian' lands.
So they would be more battles and more bloodshed. If you mean, WI the Ottomans won and conquered the Med, thats a whole different story.
 
Simple fact is- without Malta the Ottomans cannot advance through the central Mediterranean.
With Malta takes, the West cannot advance back into the Eastern Meditierranean and retake the 'Christian' lands.

Not so, especially as per the first comment, while the Knights held the islands. While the Knights obviously had some ships, they were in no position to boss the strait, and there was a relatively low chance of interception for Muslim shipping - not that it really mattered, since the Ottomans hired pirate admirals to do their work in the Western Med anyway. Malta's main purpose was not to prevent the Ottomans getting through, it was just cutting off their supply lines if they did sail past Malta. Similarly, the Ottomans would not have placed more than a token naval force in Malta - it would detract too much from their other commitments, and it really wasn't necessary given the limits to Christian sea trading around Malta in this era anyway. Roving pirates were far more effective at keeping Christians locked up in their ports. Besides, by 1565 everyone knew that there would never be another conquest of the Holy Land - it just wasn't going to happen by this point. Kings might still throw the word "crusade" around, but they only ever did so as a very short-term political tool to win plaudits from the men who accused them of lack of ambition, or to highlight their piety. They were never serious anymore, and the Ottomans knew that. Similarly, by this era I find it hard to believe that the Ottomans would ever stage a serious invasion of Italy or western Europe save for winning some crushing success around Austria and Germany - Malta's location ended up being psychological more than strategic. Of course, people still fought over it, but I just can't see it's falling causing a sudden explosion of Ottoman expansionism.

You could also argue that this scenario makes the Battle of Lepanto, the crushing defeat of the Ottoman navy, more likely, and rather than dallying around and wasting time on pointless back-slapping and hand-shaking, the Europeans might actually turn to Malta after their victory and just revert the issue...
 
Withought Malta, no Ottoman conquests in the Western Med could survive. Really. Malta was not important itself as it was on the 'borderline', but its position between Tunisia and Sicily made it a sort of 'threshold' to cross as well as being the first 'Latin' inhabited place the Ottomans would have conquered. Of, course, this was all phsychological, but that matters a lot in a saga like the Ottoman-Hasburg wars.
You'd be suprised at what sort of propoganda went about at the time. The Sultan's great abition was to become the 'Ceasar of Rome' and Islamify it, while the Emperor of Spain was always dreaming of recovering Constaninople and claiming it for Christianity.
 
I was waiting for someone to say that a huge Ottoman victory would probably lead to them getting destroyed earlier. We've never had an Ottoman WI where this didn't happen.

If the Ottomans had taken Malta it would have been pretty bad for Europe - that's why the Ottomans attempted to take it. It's an excellent base for interrupting shipping, a jumping off point for raids against Italy, and would consolidate the Ottoman hold over North Africa. It might have led to at least parts of the Mahgreb becoming more integral parts of the empire, and would have also consolidated Ottoman supremacy in the East Med.

Not so, especially as per the first comment, while the Knights held the islands. While the Knights obviously had some ships, they were in no position to boss the strait, and there was a relatively low chance of interception for Muslim shipping - not that it really mattered, since the Ottomans hired pirate admirals to do their work in the Western Med anyway. Malta's main purpose was not to prevent the Ottomans getting through, it was just cutting off their supply lines if they did sail past Malta. Similarly, the Ottomans would not have placed more than a token naval force in Malta - it would detract too much from their other commitments, and it really wasn't necessary given the limits to Christian sea trading around Malta in this era anyway. Roving pirates were far more effective at keeping Christians locked up in their ports. Besides, by 1565 everyone knew that there would never be another conquest of the Holy Land - it just wasn't going to happen by this point. Kings might still throw the word "crusade" around, but they only ever did so as a very short-term political tool to win plaudits from the men who accused them of lack of ambition, or to highlight their piety. They were never serious anymore, and the Ottomans knew that. Similarly, by this era I find it hard to believe that the Ottomans would ever stage a serious invasion of Italy or western Europe save for winning some crushing success around Austria and Germany - Malta's location ended up being psychological more than strategic. Of course, people still fought over it, but I just can't see it's falling causing a sudden explosion of Ottoman expansionism.

You could also argue that this scenario makes the Battle of Lepanto, the crushing defeat of the Ottoman navy, more likely, and rather than dallying around and wasting time on pointless back-slapping and hand-shaking, the Europeans might actually turn to Malta after their victory and just revert the issue...
 
Would that have made Spain more tolerant of the protestants or less? Could be less because then it's very "We must all be good Catholics to fight the Muslims!" or it could be more because "Hey at least those crazy Dutch think Jesus was the Son of God! Let's go kill some Muslims together!"

Butterflying away the 80 years war as a result of a more direct Ottoman threat to Spain would have enormous consequences.
 
Would that have made Spain more tolerant of the protestants or less? Could be less because then it's very "We must all be good Catholics to fight the Muslims!" or it could be more because "Hey at least those crazy Dutch think Jesus was the Son of God! Let's go kill some Muslims together!"
Did you know that the Dutch resistance during the 80 Years' War had a slogan "Liever Turks dan Paaps" (Better a Turk than a Papist), and that their ships flew a red flag with a crescent (obviously mimicking the Ottoman flag)?
 
Last edited:
Did you know that the Dutch resistance during the 80 Years' War had a slogan "Liever Turks dan Paaps" (Better a Turk than a Papist), and that their ships flew a red flag with a crescent (obviously mimicking the Ottoman flag)?
No but I know the Greeks had a very similar saying referencing with hats and unlike the Dutch (according to your link) they showed they meant it. After reading the link I think my question still stands, if Spain is more directly threatened by the Ottomans (as they would be with a Turkish Malta) and they react by becoming much more lenient with the Dutch out necessity would the Dutch be more willing to stay under a nominal Spanish banner?
 
If the Ottomans had taken Malta it would have been pretty bad for Europe - that's why the Ottomans attempted to take it. It's an excellent base for interrupting shipping, a jumping off point for raids against Italy, and would consolidate the Ottoman hold over North Africa. It might have led to at least parts of the Mahgreb becoming more integral parts of the empire, and would have also consolidated Ottoman supremacy in the East Med.

Not really. When the West actually did have Malta, it made no difference whatsoever. Phychologically, it meant the Ottomans had finally reached their limit. In reality, it meant nothing. Malta is just an anoying island that without it (or land on either side of the Sicily-Tunisia straits) you cant advance to the other side of the Med. You are right about the 'Ottoman supremacy in East Med' bit though, for the reasons I just explained.
 
I was waiting for someone to say that a huge Ottoman victory would probably lead to them getting destroyed earlier. We've never had an Ottoman WI where this didn't happen.

If the Ottomans had taken Malta it would have been pretty bad for Europe - that's why the Ottomans attempted to take it. It's an excellent base for interrupting shipping, a jumping off point for raids against Italy, and would consolidate the Ottoman hold over North Africa. It might have led to at least parts of the Mahgreb becoming more integral parts of the empire, and would have also consolidated Ottoman supremacy in the East Med.

I normally wouldn't, I'm not one of those people who think the Ottomans were doomed from the start. Incidentally, I agree that Malta falling would strengthen the Ottoman control of the Maghreb, and could cause centralisation rather than autonomy there. But there are two key points:

1 - This was a mere 6 years before Christendom's greatest naval victory over Muslims...EVER. And that battle was planned, it wasn't spontaneous. If it had been 1560 it might be different, but by 1565 you're just going to accelerate the Battle of Lepanto.

2 - I honestly don't believe Malta was as important as the Ottoman apologists claim. It would not be a good staging post for an invasion of Italy. Why? Because Sicily was a poor choice of invasion rally point, as it would necessitate TWO landings on Italy (Sicily and then the mainland) and Malta was too small to provision a large Ottoman army while they prepared an attack. Even further - why Malta, at all? Far, far easier is to cross the Adriatic from around Albania. The crossing is about the same size, but the sea conditions are better as the Adriatic swallows some of the heavy conditions in open water. If you mass an army in Albania it's going to be easier to keep secret than sending the entire force to Malta first, where it has several weeks at sea to be spotted and reported to the Christians. Albania can't be easily blockaded like Malta can. Most importantly, a strike from Albania can capture important cities far quicker than having to take Sicily first. Malta's importance is overrated.

Finally - the Ottomans were already considered to have mastery of the Eastern Mediterranean. Christian shipping just kind of died around Malta anyway, as the Ottoman commerce raiders were very effective, Malta or no Malta. Having Malta won't spread their influence much anyway, as the Ottoman commerce raiders didn't want to go beyond Malta, it was far easier to stay where they were safest. Venetian shipping was about the only safe shipping, as they used their trade to extort the Ottomans into leaving their ships alone. Not only this, but the Ottomans made a habit of hiring pirate Admirals to boss the western Med. The counter to this was that those admirals didn't want the Ottomans sending their own ships into "their turf". They had control of their half of the Med and that's the way they liked it. The Ottomans trying to send their own commerce raiders into the Western Med is just going to annoy those who were actually their most efficient pirates, which would ironically weaken Ottoman control of the Med.
 
2 - I honestly don't believe Malta was as important as the Ottoman apologists claim. It would not be a good staging post for an invasion of Italy. Why? Because Sicily was a poor choice of invasion rally point, as it would necessitate TWO landings on Italy (Sicily and then the mainland) and Malta was too small to provision a large Ottoman army while they prepared an attack. Even further - why Malta, at all? Far, far easier is to cross the Adriatic from around Albania. The crossing is about the same size, but the sea conditions are better as the Adriatic swallows some of the heavy conditions in open water. If you mass an army in Albania it's going to be easier to keep secret than sending the entire force to Malta first, where it has several weeks at sea to be spotted and reported to the Christians. Albania can't be easily blockaded like Malta can. Most importantly, a strike from Albania can capture important cities far quicker than having to take Sicily first. Malta's importance is overrated.

Finally - the Ottomans were already considered to have mastery of the Eastern Mediterranean. Christian shipping just kind of died around Malta anyway, as the Ottoman commerce raiders were very effective, Malta or no Malta. Having Malta won't spread their influence much anyway, as the Ottoman commerce raiders didn't want to go beyond Malta, it was far easier to stay where they were safest. Venetian shipping was about the only safe shipping, as they used their trade to extort the Ottomans into leaving their ships alone. Not only this, but the Ottomans made a habit of hiring pirate Admirals to boss the western Med. The counter to this was that those admirals didn't want the Ottomans sending their own ships into "their turf". They had control of their half of the Med and that's the way they liked it. The Ottomans trying to send their own commerce raiders into the Western Med is just going to annoy those who were actually their most efficient pirates, which would ironically weaken Ottoman control of the Med.

Which is basically what I've been trying to say in simpler and less detailed terms, but apparently it dosent sound as good from a Maltese.
 
Not really. When the West actually did have Malta, it made no difference whatsoever. Phychologically, it meant the Ottomans had finally reached their limit. In reality, it meant nothing. Malta is just an anoying island that without it (or land on either side of the Sicily-Tunisia straits) you cant advance to the other side of the Med. You are right about the 'Ottoman supremacy in East Med' bit though, for the reasons I just explained.

Not really what? You just agreed with me.
 
Lepanto wasn't a very important battle. The Ottoman fleet was just a strong the following year. Navarino was a much more important victory - it ended the Ottomans as a naval power and caused them to lose Greece. Lepanto didn't accomplish anything at all. If you accelerate the Battle of Lepanto, you are likely to end up with a crushing Ottoman victory - the situation at Lepanto is not likely to be replicated.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Ottoman apologists".

As I said, Malta's chief importance was to consolidate Ottoman control over the East Med and the Maghreb. I didn't say it was a springboard for invasion of Italy, I said it was a good base for raids on Italy, i.e. by ships.

I normally wouldn't, I'm not one of those people who think the Ottomans were doomed from the start. Incidentally, I agree that Malta falling would strengthen the Ottoman control of the Maghreb, and could cause centralisation rather than autonomy there. But there are two key points:

1 - This was a mere 6 years before Christendom's greatest naval victory over Muslims...EVER. And that battle was planned, it wasn't spontaneous. If it had been 1560 it might be different, but by 1565 you're just going to accelerate the Battle of Lepanto.

2 - I honestly don't believe Malta was as important as the Ottoman apologists claim. It would not be a good staging post for an invasion of Italy. Why? Because Sicily was a poor choice of invasion rally point, as it would necessitate TWO landings on Italy (Sicily and then the mainland) and Malta was too small to provision a large Ottoman army while they prepared an attack. Even further - why Malta, at all? Far, far easier is to cross the Adriatic from around Albania. The crossing is about the same size, but the sea conditions are better as the Adriatic swallows some of the heavy conditions in open water. If you mass an army in Albania it's going to be easier to keep secret than sending the entire force to Malta first, where it has several weeks at sea to be spotted and reported to the Christians. Albania can't be easily blockaded like Malta can. Most importantly, a strike from Albania can capture important cities far quicker than having to take Sicily first. Malta's importance is overrated.

Finally - the Ottomans were already considered to have mastery of the Eastern Mediterranean. Christian shipping just kind of died around Malta anyway, as the Ottoman commerce raiders were very effective, Malta or no Malta. Having Malta won't spread their influence much anyway, as the Ottoman commerce raiders didn't want to go beyond Malta, it was far easier to stay where they were safest. Venetian shipping was about the only safe shipping, as they used their trade to extort the Ottomans into leaving their ships alone. Not only this, but the Ottomans made a habit of hiring pirate Admirals to boss the western Med. The counter to this was that those admirals didn't want the Ottomans sending their own ships into "their turf". They had control of their half of the Med and that's the way they liked it. The Ottomans trying to send their own commerce raiders into the Western Med is just going to annoy those who were actually their most efficient pirates, which would ironically weaken Ottoman control of the Med.
 
By the way, just as an aside...

How did Malta end up as a Christian country speaking an Arabic-derived language?

The Maltese must have been descended from people living on the islands during a time of Arab (and thus presumably Muslim) rule, but they can't have actually become Muslim at any point (because they are now Christian, and Muslims are impregnably resistant to conversion attempts).

Were the ancestors people like the Mozarabs in al-Andalus, who adopted Arabic culture while retaining their Christianity? Seems to be the only possible option...
 
By the way, just as an aside...

How did Malta end up as a Christian country speaking an Arabic-derived language?

The Maltese must have been descended from people living on the islands during a time of Arab (and thus presumably Muslim) rule, but they can't have actually become Muslim at any point (because they are now Christian, and Muslims are impregnably resistant to conversion attempts).

Were the ancestors people like the Mozarabs in al-Andalus, who adopted Arabic culture while retaining their Christianity? Seems to be the only possible option...
Basically, yes, the Christian Maltese became Mulims, and then later converted back to christianity. I just condemsed about 400 years of Maltese history, though.
 
Top