Talk:Siege of Rhodes (1480)

Untitled

I took away the mention that "Gedik Ahmed Pasha or Miseh Pacha (originally a Greek by the name of Michael Paleologue who had converted to Islam after the conquest of Byzantium by the Ottomans)", which is apparently unfounded.PHG 05:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Strength of Ottoman army

Strenght of Ottoman army is exaggerated. World population in 1500 was approximately 425 million. The total population of Rhodes city and island were some 26,000 in 1911 and now some 100,000. In 1480 the population of the island was probably less then 26,000.

The Ottoman army was probably between 15,000 and 20,000. Several sources state this. Maybe it was smaller and probably half of them were sailors and rowers of the galleys. Most of the Ottoman navy consisted of galleys each had at least 50 rowers. The earlier numbers of 70-100,000 are exaggerations. Total Ottoman army in the entire Ottoman empire was probably 100,000 in 1500 and for campaigns this number was much smaller. Huge casualties is also very unlikely, Ottomans did not have unlimited manpower and there is no reason why they all should want to die in one campaign. In many articles on wikipedia it is claimed Ottomans lost tenthousands of soldiers in a short time. Probably they lost some several thousand soldiers, which is still a huge number for medieval times.

The defenders losses were heavy, but nothing like the several thousand dead lost by the pasha(“A” History of the Late Medieval Siege: 1200 - 1500, Peter Fraser Purton, page 383)

And besides there is no reason to exaggerate the Ottoman army with huge numbers. 10,000 and 15,000 are already incredibly big armies for the medieval times. Ottomans outnumbered knights this is a logical, in most sieges besiegers outnumbered the besieged. The situation of the Knights was also not so desperate, they were defending one of the best fortresses in the Aegean, had a good navy, plenty of food, strong artillery, well armed soldiers. Most important aspect of the siege was the firepower and artillery not close combat.DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Although the Christian accounts talking of numbers like 100,000 were pure fantasy.(“A” History of the Late Medieval Siege: 1200 - 1500, Peter Fraser Purton, page 381)

A more likely estimate was 15,000 of all arms and occupations, inlcuding an artillery train. (“A” History of the Late Medieval Siege: 1200 - 1500, Peter Fraser Purton, page 381)

Despite their under-estimation of the defences, the Ottomans came close to taking the city.(“A” History of the Late Medieval Siege: 1200 - 1500, Peter Fraser Purton, page 381)

A letter from Naples dated 1 July conveyed news received in Venice from Rhodes that the Ottomans were at sea with(“A” History of the Late Medieval Siege: 1200 - 1500, Peter Fraser Purton, page 381)

- 130 ships(“A” History of the Late Medieval Siege: 1200 - 1500, Peter Fraser Purton, page 381)

- 14 large bombards(“A” History of the Late Medieval Siege: 1200 - 1500, Peter Fraser Purton, page 381)

- 18,000 men(“A” History of the Late Medieval Siege: 1200 - 1500, Peter Fraser Purton, page 381)

If these 18,000 men do not include sailors it would be an average of 138,5 men on 1 ship. And if there were an average 50 sailors on each ship it would be 188 men on 1 ship. If these 18,000 include sailors, then probably half of them were sailors, so there would be 9,000 soldiers. Which is 69 soldiers on each ship and 69 sailors. DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The enemy

Who is "the enemy" referred to in the article? To me the enemy are the Crusaders. Wikipedia articles should reflect a balanced non-biased point of view. This article needs to be reviewed. The rhetoric sounds one sided and partial a bit. Someone might also want to check out possible copyright violation. There are at least two other articles online with the same content. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Bourne nalanda (mangolia people want justice)

sir That was the time of fights and even today all this is seen in the society.Even today, this aspect should be understood by looking in eight dimensions.We humans have reached the solar system but are still unable to understand anything.We all may have wished for a better future which is right to some extent but they all could not agree with you.You have also blessed me by giving me an outline for the future.It is a good thing to cherish it, if people move forward together in the future, the future will be good. In whatever form we believe in God, He will also show us the way. Mo 2000 b.c (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)