Talk:Ottoman conquest of Otranto

Cannons, Christian historiography

At the time of the Turkish attack on Otranto cannons could nicht be used to the extent the article describes - meaning that the citadel could not be breached by cannons... The article repeats the traditional account regarding the 800 martyrs without taking into consideration that during the last 10 years new concepts have come to differing conclusions - see for instance: Hubert Houben (ed.), La conquista turca di Otranto (1480) tra storia e mito. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio Otranto - Muro Leccese, 28-31 marzo 2007", 2 vol., Congedo, Galatina 2008.--Ruggero1 (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pure speculation. Not enough resources. It's not ottoman custom to kill clergy in occupied cities. May I mind you that the first Catholic church in Constantinople was opened after the ottoman conquest.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.203.41 (talk)

Update -- were 813 *were* canonized, canonization does not require miracles

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22499327

Martyrs are eligible too, no proof of posthumous miracles required. http://people.howstuffworks.com/question6191.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.151.38 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Counterattack

this section title doesn't really fit, does it? 212.59.34.21 (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right. I've renamed it 'Capture' which seems to fit better. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus for alternative Ottoman conquest of Otranto. (non-admin closure) {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Ottoman invasion of Otranto → Ottoman invasion of Italy – Per commonname. Ottoman invasion of Italy is more frequent than Ottoman invasion of Otranto. The aim was not Otranto, but Italy as whole. Beshogur (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Your very data shows "Ottoman invasion of Otranto" has 654 hits, while "Ottoman invasion of Italy" has only 461. Moreover, Otranto is far clearer than vaguely Italy. Walrasiad (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Otranto wasn't the main goal, it was Italy as whole. It was only limited to Otantro due to Mehmed II's sudden death. Maybe see ngrams as well. I don't even know where you see those "hits". If you mean google search, it's due to Wikipedia's influence on the internet. Beshogur (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Just your very links to Gbooks. Look under "tools" in your search results, it shows the number. "Italy" 461 vs. "Otranto" 654. All invasions are grander in intention. The point of article titles that they are recognizable, and usually that's the achievement. The text can go into intention - it should not assumed readers know that (or even that it is correct, I'm sure historians differ in interpretation of what the "real intention" or scope was - was it Apulia? southern Italy? Rome? Venice? All of Italy? Europe? Was the landing force even large enough for any of these tasks? If not, then we can doubt the "intention". Maybe they just intended an advanced station towards controlling and projecting Ottoman power into the western Mediterranean, rather than territorial conquest per se. This is all interpretation, up for debate.) But we do know the achievement - a landing and capture of Otranto. That's rather clear. So state what it is. The phrase "Ottoman invasion of Italy" is rather vague, and leads me to at least expect multiple simultaneous operations along other points of the the Italian coast. But there weren't. It was concentrated and limited to Otranto, and that's what readers will recognize the article refers to. Walrasiad (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you kidding? How is Italy vague. [1] Is it to hard maybe for a quick research that other attacks were done as well. Ottoman invasion of Otranto is a misnomer, and maybe a wikipedia terminology, and 2010+ books may have been influenced from that. How is there an invasion of one single city. See also other sources mentioning the same by using some keywords from the article. Maybe they just intended an advanced station towards controlling and projecting Ottoman power into the western Mediterranean and source? I don't run on speculations. Beshogur (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Also Babinger "the Turkish hopes of using Otranto as a bridgehead for the conquest of all Italy proved more and more illusory" this article is incomplete, and doesn't reflect many information about aims. Beshogur (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. You want to replace a clear descriptive title with murky speculation about intentions. Again, gbook RS numbers contradict you. Finally, yes, Italy is extremely vague. It's a very large geographic area. Otranto, Taranto and Brindisi are close together in a small corner of just Apulia. Indeed, the very source you cite limits the intention to these three ex-Byzantine towns, not "Italy". Walrasiad (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The article has literally "Invasion of Italy" section, and I'm not sure when it is added. What has Byzantines to do with this. Do you know when Byzantine Empire lost Italian peninsula? Do you know what bridgehead means, how military invasions work. Beshogur (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• I do not see a common name in English. Both the proposed name and the current one are used in scholarship, with not much difference in frequency apparently. "Ottoman invasion Otranto" gives to me some results that do now show up when "Ottoman invasion of Otranto" is searched instead. So it is hard to find a common name with an obviously larger frequency in usage. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Walrasiad makes a good point that some books use "Ottoman invasion of Italy" when referring to the Sultan's supposed plans, not to the real invasion that this article is about. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  This was moved to this title in 10 June 2007 by Lysandros (talk · contribs). "Ottoman invasion of Otranto" is simply a misnomer. And those books might have used this title because writers might think "wikipedia might be correct". Beshogur (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Before that move, the article's name was "Battle of Otranto", not "Invasion of Italy" or sth similar. Did Ottomans invade any other city/castle apart from Otranto? If so, then "Ottoman invasion of Apulia" could also be worth considering. It has been used by a few scholars like Noel Malcolm and Franz Babinger. I am not sure at this point which name would serve the article better. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  I showed above that Babinger clearly states the aim was Italy (which can be mentioned as background information), not Apulia. I'm ok with the Battle of Otranto title, however this article can be expanded under Ottoman invasion of Italy since raids also took on other cities in the area. Beshogur (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Ktrimi991: Ottoman invasion of Apulia seemed good, however this is also used for the Ottoman–Venetian War (1537–1540). Beshogur (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

They didn't take anything else in Apulia. "Ottoman conquest of Otranto" is probably most accurate and certainly more descriptive and recognizable. Akin to hundreds of other conquests of citadels anywhere (e.g. Portuguese conquest of Goa and the like). This can hardly be described as an invasion and even as the conquest of a citadel it was largely a failure. They took a town and left next year. Not particularly remarkable. The average Aghlabid emir took more towns in southern Italy, and held them for many more years, without being characterized as an "invasion", much less "of Italy". The article title should be descriptive. The Ottoman conquest of Otranto will be clear and recognizable to readers. Some mysterious "invasion of Italy" that never happened is just obscuring the content of the article and confusing readers for no good reason. Walrasiad (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "Ottoman invasion of Italy". I have to agree with Walrasiad. "Ottoman invasion of Italy" could make this seem as a successful conquest of Italy. I believe for the title itself, (broader) intentions are not that relevant and helpful opposed to the specific event and its actual outcome. Aintabli (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term "Ottoman invasion of Italy" refers, as often as not, to a hypothetical major invasion as to this actual minor one. I agree that "invasion of Otranto" is a bit awkward. "Ottoman conquest of Otranto" might be better. Srnec (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per all what has been said above, including my prior comments. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Editors should also take into consideration moving the article to Ottoman conquest of Otranto as suggested above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's fine to me. Beshogur (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Should rather be Ottoman conquest of Otranto, it was neither an invasion or was the whole of Italy invaded.

Jõsé ^hola 15:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.