The great siege of Malta: Knights Hospitaller vs the Ottoman empire

Summary

Summary of "The Great Siege of Malta: Knights Hospitaller vs the Ottoman Empire"

Podcast: History Extra Podcast
Host: Rob Attar
Guest: Professor Marcus Bull
Release Date: April 22, 2025
Transcript Time Range: 00:00 – 35:12

---

Introduction

In this episode of the History Extra Podcast, Rob Attar engages in a comprehensive discussion with Professor Marcus Bull, a Medieval and Early Modern Studies expert from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The focus is the dramatic and pivotal Great Siege of Malta in the summer of 1565, where the Knights Hospitaller valiantly defended Malta against the formidable Ottoman Empire. Professor Bull draws upon his extensive research and his latest book, The Great Siege of Malta, to illuminate the complexities and far-reaching consequences of this historic clash.

---

Background: The Knights Hospitaller and Their Movement to Malta

Timestamp: [02:33 – 06:05]

Professor Bull begins by tracing the origin of the Knights Hospitaller, detailing their transition from the Crusader states in the Holy Land to Rhodes, and ultimately to Malta. The order, initially a religious group dedicated to caring for pilgrims, evolved into a military order under the influence of the Knights Templar. Following their expulsion from Rhodes by Sultan Suleiman I in 1523, the Knights embarked on a prolonged period of migration within the central Mediterranean. Eventually, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V granted them the Maltese Archipelago in 1530, where they established their headquarters.

“By the time of the siege, the Knights had been on Malta or on the Maltese islands for about 35 years... without getting ahead of myself, the effect of the siege was to cement the Order's loyalty to Malta” (02:33).

Despite their initial reluctance to settle permanently in Malta, the impending siege ultimately solidified their commitment, transforming Malta into their enduring stronghold for over two centuries.

---

The Ottoman Empire: At Its Zenith

Timestamp: [06:05 – 07:44]

The Ottoman Empire, under Sultan Suleiman I, was arguably at the height of its power during the Great Siege. Professor Bull highlights the empire’s military prowess, noting its well-organized land and naval forces. The Ottomans had significantly enhanced their naval capabilities over the preceding decades, partly through alliances with North African corsair towns.

“They had a very large land army and many decades of experience... and it had over the previous 30 or 40 years, built up an expertise in naval warfare” (06:13).

The decision to target Malta was emblematic of Ottoman ambitions, projecting power to secure vital economic lifelines in the eastern Mediterranean.

---

Causes and Motivations for the Siege

Timestamp: [07:44 – 10:52]

Rob Attar probes into why the Ottomans specifically chose Malta as a target. Professor Bull suggests that strategic and economic motivations were paramount. The Knights of Malta had become a thorn in the Ottoman side by attacking Ottoman shipping, threatening crucial sea routes essential for the empire’s spice trade and overall economic stability.

“The Sultan Suleiman was aging... and perhaps there was a sense... that if there's any unfinished business we need to attend to, this would be a good time to do it” (07:58).

The siege was not merely territorial conquest but aimed at neutralizing the Knights to protect Ottoman economic interests.

---

Siege Tactics and Dynamics

Timestamp: [10:52 – 16:04]

Professor Bull outlines the strategic dynamics of the siege. Despite the Ottoman numerical and artillery superiority, several factors aided the Knights Hospitaller:

1. Fortifications: Malta’s fortresses, though hastily built after previous raids, proved resilient.
2. Allied Forces: Approximately 2,000 defenders, including experienced Habsburg soldiers.
3. Local Support: Around 5,000 Maltese civilians contributed critically by repairing defenses and supplying the front lines.

“They went in 1530... but that the Knights were like an officer elite, presiding over a coalition” (11:05).

The siege involved multiple fortified positions, with the Ottomans focusing their artillery on reducing these strongholds one by one. The defenders’ ability to repair and reinforce these positions under constant bombardment was vital to their resilience.

---

Pivotal Moments: The Battle of St. Elmo and Turning Points

Timestamp: [17:43 – 19:24]

A key comparison is drawn between the siege of St. Elmo and the Battle of Thermopylae, highlighting the strategic delay caused by St. Elmo’s defense. Although initially portrayed as a noble sacrifice, Professor Bull clarifies that the defense of St. Elmo was not initially intended as such. The defenders had expected evacuation, but circumstances forced a prolonged stand that ultimately bought crucial time for other fortresses.

“But that’s not as noble a sacrifice, at least not until the end, as the later historiographical spin that was placed on St Elmo would suggest” (17:58).

This delay was instrumental in preventing the Ottomans from swiftly capturing Birgu and Senglea, thereby maintaining the overall integrity of the Maltese defenses until external relief arrived.

---

Responses from Other Mediterranean Powers

Timestamp: [22:10 – 24:00]

The broader geopolitical implications are explored, particularly the anticipated but limited support from other Christian powers. King Philip II of Spain was expected to lead a relief effort, but logistical and political constraints limited substantial aid. France’s ambivalent stance—given its historical alliances with the Ottomans—further complicated the potential for a unified Christian response.

“Ultimately, the fate of the islands would be decided by the ability of Habsburg Europe... to mobilize enough resources to nudge the Ottomans away” (22:19).

The eventual arrival of a relief force in September provided the final push that compelled the Ottomans to retreat, marking the siege’s failure to achieve its primary objectives.

---

Casualties and Impact of the Siege

Timestamp: [24:00 – 26:13]

The human cost was immense on both sides. Although precise numbers are elusive, Professor Bull estimates significant fatalities among both Ottoman and defender ranks, with about half of the 500 Knights and numerous Maltese casualties. The demographic impact on Malta was profound, decimating a substantial portion of its population.

“The death rate was probably higher on the defender's side... About half died” (24:03).

Beyond the physical toll, the psychological strain on both defenders and attackers was immense. The prolonged uncertainty and constant threat of defeat took a severe mental toll on those involved.

---

Aftermath for the Ottoman Empire and Malta

Timestamp: [26:13 – 28:16]

The siege’s failure was a rare setback for the Ottoman Empire but did not significantly alter its overarching dominance in the region. The empire swiftly reassessed and reinforced its naval capabilities post-siege, continuing its expansionist policies. Sultan Suleiman’s subsequent campaign into Central Europe, which culminated in his death in 1566, underscores the empire’s resilience and determination to maintain its influence.

On Malta, the Knights’ successful defense solidified their presence, allowing them to transform Malta into a fortified bastion. The establishment of Valletta, built on the Shibrara Peninsula, became a lasting monument to their endurance and strategic importance.

---

Modern Memory and Legacy in Malta

Timestamp: [28:16 – 31:24]

The Great Siege of Malta is deeply ingrained in Maltese collective memory. Initially dominated by the Knights and later embraced during British rule as a symbol of resilience, the siege became a cornerstone of Maltese national identity post-independence in 1964. Monuments in Valletta commemorate the siege, serving as both historical reminders and sites of contemporary significance, such as the shrine to journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

“It is very much part of Maltese history now... People walk around Valletta every day worrying about the outcome of the great siege” (28:22).

This enduring legacy highlights the siege’s role in shaping Malta’s historical consciousness and national narrative.

---

Themes and Historical Insights

Timestamp: [31:24 – 35:12]

Professor Bull challenges the notion of the Great Siege as a simplistic "clash of civilizations," emphasizing the multifaceted motivations behind the Ottoman and Christian actions. He underscores the economic imperatives driving imperial policies, drawing parallels to contemporary geopolitical struggles.

“I think it illuminates the importance of economics... both were driven by economic interests” (33:02).

By comparing the Ottoman strategies to the Spanish destruction of Fort Caroline in North America, Professor Bull illustrates how economic interests often underpin military conflicts, transcending simplistic cultural or religious explanations.

---

Conclusion

The Great Siege of Malta stands as a testament to strategic resilience, the complex interplay of economic motivations, and the enduring legacy of historical events on national identities. Professor Marcus Bull's insights offer a nuanced understanding of the siege, moving beyond clichéd narratives to explore the intricate realities of 16th-century Mediterranean geopolitics. This episode not only recounts a significant historical event but also invites listeners to reflect on the broader themes that continue to shape our interpretation of history.

---

Notable Quotes:

• “Without getting ahead of myself, the effect of the siege was to cement the Order's loyalty to Malta.” — Professor Marcus Bull (02:47)
• “But I'm very wary overall of using a label such as the clash of civilizations. It seems to explain everything, but it actually explains nothing.” — Professor Marcus Bull (31:32)
• “It was the Ottoman Empire, desperately, as we would today protect a pipeline under the sea that an enemy could cut.” — Professor Marcus Bull (33:02)

---

This detailed summary captures the essence of the podcast episode, highlighting key discussions, insights, and conclusions drawn by Professor Marcus Bull, while providing context and notable quotes with appropriate attributions.

Transcript

[Advertiser 1]

This episode is brought to you by the Nissan Armada Pro 4X with a twin turbo V6 engine ready to propel your adventures. Up to 8,500 pounds of towing capacity to haul all your favorite toys in space for eight passengers. Nissan's most powerful car yet will chew up and spit out anything you throw at it. Learn more about the all new 2025 Nissan Armada at nissanusa.com Towing capacity varies by configuration. See Nissan Towing Guide and Owner's Manual for additional information. Always secure Cargo it's time to find appliances that fit your needs and your style at the Home Depot Shop Spring Black Friday Savings and get up to 35% off select appliances like GE profile plus free delivery from all in one washer dryer combos that can wash and dry a full load in under two hours to feature loaded refrigerators with built in autofill water pitchers. GE Profile has appliances made to simplify your life and elevate your home. Shop Spring Black Friday Savings on Top brand appliances and get free delivery Happening now at the Home Depot. Free delivery on appliance purchases $396 or more offer valid April 3rd through April 23rd. US only.

[Advertiser 2]

C store online for details McDonald's meets the Minecraft universe with one of six collectibles and your choice of a Big Mac or 10 piece McNuggets with spicy nether Flame sauce. Now available with a Minecraft Movie Meal.

[Advertiser 1]

I participate in McDonald's for a limited.

[Advertiser 2]

Time, a Minecraft Movie only in theaters.

[Marcus Bull]

At New Balance we believe if you.

[Advertiser 2]

Run, you're a runner however you choose to do it.

[Marcus Bull]

Because when you're not worried about doing things the right way, you're free to discover your way. And that's what running's all about. Run your [e-mail] Running welcome to the History Extra Podcast. Fascinating historical conversations from the makers of BBC History magazine. In the summer of 1565, the might of the Ottoman Empire faced off against a few hundred Knights Hospitaller and their allies on the island of Malta. The outcome might have seemed inevitable, but the events of the subsequent siege were far from predictable as the defenders waged a desperate battle for their homes and their lives. Professor Marcus Bull chronicles the events of this siege in a new book and Rob Attar speaks to him about this dramatic CL and its far reaching consequences.

[Rob Attar]

Could we begin then by talking about the two protagonists in the siege, beginning with the Knights Hospitaller? How had they gone from the Crusader kingdoms in the Middle Ages to then being based in Malta by the mid 16th century?

[Advertiser 2]

Well, by the time of the siege, they were already 500 years old. They'd begun life in the Holy Land as a religious order of the Catholic Church, devoted to the care of pilgrims to Jerusalem. Then the First Crusade came along and inaugurated a period of control of Jerusalem and parts of the Holy Land by people from Western Europe. And during that time of Latin Christian or Western European control of the Eastern Mediterranean, the Order, perhaps largely driven by the example of the Knights Templar, extended their remit from simply caring for the sick to become a military order. And thereafter they held these two vocations in a kind of tension for the remainder of their active life as the Western European presence in the Eastern Mediterranean retreated. First loss of Jerusalem, then the loss of Acre, so the Order and its convent or headquarters retreated with it. And they ended up for 200 years on Rhodes, an island tight up against the Turkish mainland. They were expelled from Rhodes by the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman I on New Year's Day 1523. And that inaugurated a period of rather pointless or anxious migration around the central Mediterranean, looking for somewhere the Order could re establish itself. And eventually they were given the Maltese Archipelago by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who was also the principal Christian power in the Mediterranean by virtue of having inherited kingdoms in Italy and Spain. So by the time of the siege, the Knights had been on Malta or on the Maltese islands for about 35 years. They went in 1530. They still hadn't fully reconciled themselves to making Malta their permanent home. They still dreamt of returning to Rhodes, which is much more congenial a location, perhaps, than Malta. Much larger, more fertile, greener, more pleasant, and also close up against the Ottoman world, enabling the Knights to fulfill their vocation as warriors of God. But I think some of the old guard who were in charge of the Order at the time of the siege, including the Grandmaster Jean de la Valette, was a veteran of the earlier siege of Rhodes. And that older generation particularly had this nostalgic draw towards Rhodes. In the event, without getting ahead of myself, the effect of the siege was to cement the Order's loyalty to Malta. That they said to themselves, okay, we're here now. It's pointless pining for the past. And they turned Malta into their island base for the next 200 and some years. But that process was still provisional. At the time of the siege, the Knights were on Malta, but not yet of it. The siege itself helped them to, I think, make that transition.

[Rob Attar]

Then on the other side, what can we say about the Ottoman Empire at this point? Is it fair to say that this is a Power at its he.

[Advertiser 2]

Yes, I think it's difficult to say when a given imperial power is precisely at its zenith. But we do know that the Ottoman state was by some margin, the most efficiently organized polity in and around the Mediterranean world. It had a very large land army and many decades of experience of conducting enormous campaigns on land. And to that facility, it had, over the previous 30 or 40 years, built up an expertise in naval warfare, to some extent exploiting the expertise of confederates corsair towns on the North African coast who collaborated with the Ottomans and vastly improved their naval capacity by the time of the siege. The Ottoman Empire is indeed at its zenith as a military imperial power. Whether Malta was a matter of imperial overreach, possibly. Certainly Malta was at the very outer limit of the realistic operational range of the Turkish armada, its navy. So in a way, yes, I think the attack on Malta was evidence of enduring Ottoman ambition. Whether they meant to conquer the Maltese Islands and keep them, I'm not so sure. But that's another story.

[Rob Attar]

So why specifically Malta and why then?

[Advertiser 2]

I've been back and forth with this. The easy answer, and I've already intimated, I think, is that the Ottomans were hell bent on conquest. This was an empire predicated on constant outward expansion, though latterly it had not been expanding so quickly. Certainly the Knights of Malta and their sympathizers around Europe had a vested interest in talking up the Ottoman threat, presenting this image of this voracious, insatiable aggressor that was come to get them, and that there would be a domino effect. If Malta fell, Sicily would fall, and if Sicily would fall, Italy would fall, and then so on and so on. I think more realistic voices knew that this was not realistic, but it was good PR and it presented the conflict between the various of the Western powers and the Ottomans in easy black and white terms. I think the more likely reason is that Suleiman the Sultan had been quite chivalrous and generous to the Knights in allowing them to retreat from Rhodes back in 1st of January 1523. And since then, they'd made a lot of trouble for him. They had become themselves a corsair base on Malta and preyed upon Ottoman shipping in the eastern Mediterranean. Why did that matter? Well, in the 1510s, Suleiman's father had conquered much of the old Mamluk world, which gave the Ottomans, Egypt, much of what is now Syria, Palestine, parts the holy places of Islam and outlet to the Red Sea. And that outlet to the Red Sea made the Ottomans players for the first time in the Spice trade in the Indian Ocean, and they were beginning to make large amounts of money from it in competition with the Portuguese. The lifeline for the Ottoman Empire was the sea route between Alexandria, which brought the money and the spices and the trade up from the Red Sea to Istanbul. And it was precisely that vulnerable lifeline that the Knights of Malta were preying upon in the corsair galleys. And I think the Sultan Suleiman was aging. He would die the following year in 66. And perhaps there was a sense in which he and others around him in the Ottoman government thought, if there's any unfinished business we need to attend to, this would be a good time to do it, and let's destroy these pesky nights once and for all, because they imperil our economic lifeline in the eastern Mediterranean. So I think the ultimate aim was destruction of the Order. What they would have done with the Maltese population and with the Maltese Islands is not so clear. I think their principle war goal was to make the Knights unviable.

[Rob Attar]

Now, on the face of it, you would think that this very powerful empire versus a few hundred knights, it should be easy, it should be a walk over for the Ottoman Empire. But what trumps did the Knights have in their favour?

[Advertiser 2]

They had decent, not great, but decent fortifications. A number of points on Malta, the main island in the archipelago, had been fortified, many of them hastily, in a panic after a large combined Ott, say, a raid on the Islands in 1551. In the event, these fortifications, or at least most of them, just about held out. Secondly, they had help. They had about 2,000 soldiers, some mercenaries, others more experienced Habsburg soldiers, seconded by the Habsburg authorities in Sicily and southern Italy. And that that was an important element of the defender's ability to resist. Finally, they had about 5,000 Maltese within the fortifications that they were defending. That represented about a quarter or a fifth of the population of the island. And though the Maltese don't feature very large in the sources, they were mostly low status people, many of them refugees from the countryside, peasants. Nonetheless, they obviously were very important just in terms of creating a kind of critical mass. They would be the people who repaired the fortifications every night, bring food and ammunition to the front line and so on. So the Knights were like an officer elite, presiding over a coalition. We know from past experience that the knights in particular were always disdainful of the Maltese. They weren't good for anything. They would be useless when it came to a fight. But over the course of the siege, I think the Order developed an appreciation for the contribution of the Maltese I wouldn't say it was a meeting of minds. There was enormous class differences and linguistic differences between the Knights and the population of Malta. But there was at least some convergence of purpose, that they were in it together, and for at least the duration of the siege, they shared that goal.

[Rob Attar]

What was the nature of siege warfare at this time? How would the attackers and defenders try and affect the outcome?

[Advertiser 2]

It's a good point. And the Ottomans invested a lot of their resources in shipping a very large Artillery park, about 80 cannon, some of them very large. Their principal goal would be to pound at selected fortresses and having identified weak positions on the walls, reduce those walls to a kind of diagonal rubble field and then send in waves of attackers until such time as a wave got to the top of the ramparts and affected an entry, at which point they would be followed up by those behind and the attackers would prevail. By sheer force of numbers, they outnumbered the defenders 3, 4, 5 to 1. For the defenders, the task was simply to mitigate the effects of the bombardment, affecting repairs under cover of darkness to whatever damage had been done to the limestone walls that day by the cannonballs, using towards the end, anything that was to hand, mattresses, sheets, sails, pieces of wood. Moreover, the defenders had this, I wouldn't say it was advantage, but there was a certain tactical benefit. We usually think of sieges as an aggressive force surrounding a single position, a town, a fortress, and doing everything they can to get in. The siege of Malta was really a series of sieges of four positions, three of them around the grand harbor area, which would be very familiar to anybody who's visited Malta, and one, the ancient capital in the interior of the island Umdina. And really, if you like, the result of the siege would be how many of those four positions the Ottomans could acquire in the three or four months available to them before the end of the campaign season. In the event, they got one, which was St Elmo, which is now on the tip of the Shibaras peninsula, the site of the modern Maltese capital of Valletta. The Valletta wasn't there, of course then, but St Elmo took nearly five weeks for the Ottomans to reduce. And in a self sacrificial act, as it were, it bought time for the other three positions to improve their strength and to have less time to hang on once the Ottomans moved their guns around and opened up on the other positions. So it was a numbers game really. There wasn't one big central fortress to hold onto, there were four. And the gamble was that they could afford to lose one as long as the other three were still in Christian hands at the end of the campaign season. And that's indeed what happened.

[Marcus Bull]

You chose to hit play on this podcast today. Smart Choice Progressive loves to help people make smart choices. That's why they offer a tool called Auto Quote Explorer that allows you to compare your Progressive car insurance quote with rates from other companies so you save time on the research and can enjoy savings when you choose the best rate for you. Give it a try after this [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates not available in all states or situations. Prices vary based on how you buy.

[Rob Attar]

When you think about super successful businesses that are selling through the roof like Heinz or Mattel, you think about a great product, a cool brand and brilliant marketing. But there's a secret the business behind the business making selling simple for them and buying simple for their customers. For millions of businesses, that business is Shopify. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout as Heinz and Mattel. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com promo all lowercase go to shopify.com promo to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.com promo.

[Advertiser 2]

Don'T miss your chance to spring into deals at Lowe's right now get a free 60 volt Toro battery when you purchase a select 60 volt Toro electric mower. Plus buy three 19.3 ounce vegetable and herb Bonnie plants for just $10. It's time to give your yard a grow up Lowe's. We helped you save valid through 423 selection varies by location while supplies last. Discount taken at time of purchase. Actual plant size and selection varies by location. Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.

[Rob Attar]

So you mentioned St. Elmo then and in the book you say that this has been compared to the ancient battle of Thermopylae. Is that because the fact that they were able to delay the Ottoman attack? This kind of sacrificial gesture that enabled the rest of the fortresses to survive?

[Advertiser 2]

I think it was spun as a self sacrificial gesture after the fact. We know that actually the defenders of St. Elmo more than once expected to be evacuated. They hadn't signed up for self sacrifice at the beginning. They were being paid. They had a bar to spend their wages on. When a delegation from Lavalette's high command went over to St. Elmo to report on what was going on, the staff officers that Lavalette sent over were almost set upon because it was clear that when the message got through that they weren't going to be evacuated and they were going to be essentially marooned. They turned their anger on Lavalette's officers. So it wasn't as noble a sacrifice, at least not until the end, as the later historiographical spin that was placed on St Elmo would suggest. But that's not to argue that those who were defending it did so against appalling odds in extraordinarily adverse conditions, and at the end did go down nobly in a desperate attempt to buy as much time for everybody else.

[Rob Attar]

Now, the siege lasted for several months, but in the book you say there was this point of just two to three minutes that were absolutely pivotal to the outcome of the whole thing. I wonder if you could tell us what happened there.

[Advertiser 2]

Once the Telmo had fallen, the Ottomans were able to bring their fleet into the harbour adjacent to Grand Harbor, Marsum Shedd, and that allowed them to drag boats overland over the neck of the peninsula into Grand Harbour to try and launch an amphibious assault. This was in mid July, and large number of boats crammed with both janissaries, the Ottoman elite soldiers and recently arrived corsairs from North Africa, sailed up grand harbor to attack the two peninsulas sticking out into it, Birgu and Senglea, which were the main positions of the knights. And at one point a large detachment of these boats swung round the Nera peninsula, Senglea, and would have, if they'd been able to deposit their forces on the shore, would have overwhelmed the weak Christian defences and almost certainly one of the two peninsulas would have been lost, and then it would have been only a matter of time before everything was lost. There was, however, a water level gun battery at the tip of the other peninsula and as the Ottomans swung their ships around, they entered the range of this battery. It's arguable, had they overlooked it, did they think they destroyed it? Did they think they could get on shore on time before it could open up? Whatever their strategy, they were taking enormous risk. The commander of that battery, a Spanish knight, ordered all guns to fire and it decimated the boats that were about to deliver their troops onto the shore. And that is probably the climacteric of the whole four months of the siege. The timing of the commander of the battery, a knight called Francisco de Guerral, his timing, his judgment about when to fire, would have been absolutely crucial and was probably the single most important moment in the outcome of the whole siege. There were many, many other very close shaves later. A very major assault on the Christian positions was on the very cusp of succeeding when panic set in amongst the Ottoman ranks and they all ran backwards because a force from Mdina had purely by chance, swept into the Ottoman camp, creating panic in the rear. So there were a number of these extraordinarily close shaves, any one of which, if things had just played out ever so slightly differently, would almost certainly have resulted in an Ottoman victory overall.

[Rob Attar]

Now, while this is going on, what's the response from the other powers in the Mediterranean? Because this must have been causing concern for some of the other enemies of the Ottoman Empire.

[Advertiser 2]

Yes, the Christian ruler who was believed and expected to lead any relief effort was Philip ii, King of Spain. Ultimately, he was the Lord of the islands of the Maltese Archipelago. Likewise, most of the Italian powers, including Habsburg southern Italy and the Pope, were anxious there should be some sort of relief effort. Not all of Europe actually was aligned behind the knights. France had a long tradition of on off alliance with the Ottoman world and did not participate directly, at least in any relief efforts. Though that placed the kings of France in an odd position because France was the single largest recruitment ground for Knights of Malta, including the Grandmaster himself, Jean de Valet. So that was an awkward anomaly. But by and large, the fate of the islands would be decided by the ability of Habsburg Europe, principally Spain and Italy, to mobilize enough resources to nudge the Ottomans away from the island. It probably did not have enough resources to beat them in a toe to toe battle, but it could make life uncomfortable for the Ottomans and in the event, that's what happened. A large relief force did arrive in early September, though there are grounds for supposing that even as the relief force arrived, the Ottoman high command had begun to disengage, had decided that it had finished with Malta and would leave. But the arrival of the relief force provided the coup de grace.

[Rob Attar]

What kind of losses did the two sides suffer in the siege?

[Advertiser 2]

The Ottoman losses are very difficult to gauge because we have very little direct documentary evidence. But I think you can expect between a half and a third fatalities and many more injuries and people being incapacitated. When they built Valletta on the Shibaras peninsula. Soon thereafter, as they dug down, they found very large Ottoman burial pits. The death rate was probably higher on the defender's side. Maybe half of the 500 or so Knights and many more were incapacitated effectively, had to be pensioned off. We don't know the proportion of the soldiers and the Maltese, but it would be probably about the same. About half died. It would have been a very significant demographic blow for the population of Malta. Many sieges in this period were bloody, some lasted longer in some, more people died. But the attrition of the siege of Malta was formidable, and it must have.

[Rob Attar]

Also taken quite a psychological toll, I think, particularly for the defenders. But maybe the attackers, too, of, you know, week after week of just being under attack and not knowing you'd be able to hold out.

[Advertiser 2]

That's a good point, because we know that everything's going to, quote, unquote, turn out okay for the defenders, but they didn't know that. They must have been living on a knife edge all the time. We have one or two glimpses in the records left by the knights of people who were affected psychologically as well as physically by the experience, people who felt the need to go on pilgrimage. We have one precious document which talks about a servant of the order who just simply wanted to go walk about for want of a better fruit. He just wanted to get out and see the world and be done with Malta, at least for a time. So though the sources don't necessarily concern themselves unduly with what we would call the psychological warfare aspects, you get hints of that, as well as evidence of the enormous physical toll that the siege took.

[Rob Attar]

What did the failure of the siege mean for the Ottoman Empire? Clearly, this was not a success, but then it was a huge empire with things going on in lots of places. Was it a big deal for them?

[Advertiser 2]

Yes and no, because I think setback, I wouldn't even use the word defeat. Setbacks were rare. We have reports from those Western ambassadors, such as the French, who were allowed to be in Istanbul, reporting how the population turned against all Western Europeans when news of the setback reached Istanbul and the rest of the empire. But this was an unusual defeat or setback. It was something that the Ottomans could shake off. Their typical modus operandi in any sort of setback was to throw resources at recreating the status quo and just acting as if nothing had happened. And we know that they threw money and resources into rebuilding their fleet, just as they did five years later after their disastrous defeat at the Battle of Lepanto. And I think there was a sense in which they could go back to business as usual with this one difference. Perhaps Suleiman hadn't led a Ottoman army in person for about 15 years. As he grew older, he reversed that policy and himself led an enormous campaign in 1566 into Central Europe, Hungary. And he died in his tent in September 1566 while on that campaign. And I think certainly he would not have undertaken that had Malta been a success. That there was a maybe an element, a large element of his having to redeem himself, his military reputation and the reputation of Ottoman arms, it hurt. But its long term impact on Ottoman strategy or its geopolitical strength and weakness vis a vis its rivals such as the Habsburgs or the Persians, beyond the short term, I don't think it had any meaningful effect.

[Rob Attar]

I know you've spent a lot of time in Malta researching this book. How is this event remembered there now?

[Advertiser 2]

It's become part of the Maltese collective memory. It perhaps wasn't in earlier periods. The knights owned the memory, as it were, and built Valletta as itself a monument to the siege. Then the British in the period of British rule, warmed to the siege. There were hardly any English people at the siege, one knight and about four soldiers. There was something about the siege that appealed to the British, and many books in English were written to satisfy that interest. The Maltese took over the memory. And this is something that still needs a lot of research, but the Maltese took over the memory first as a way of protesting against British rule. A monument now in the center of Valletta, erected in the late 20s, was designed by an artist who had close connections to those artists and architects who were creating the mise en scene for Mussolini's Italy. And at that point, intellectuals and nationalists on Malta didn't want necessarily independence from Britain per se, but federation with Italy. And the monument was wrapped up in that memory of when Malta was part of a larger italic world. Then during the Second World War, thoughts of union with Italy went by the. By the Italian and German air forces bombed Malta very, very heavily. But after the war, and especially after independence From Britain in 64, I think the siege has become part of the sort of package of significant events and dates in Maltese history which allow Malta as a newly minted sovereign nation to reclaim bits of the history that it had, even though for most of its history it's been ruled by outside powers. So it is very much part of Maltese history now. And an interesting coda to that is that the memorial to the great siege in the center of Valletta has in recent years been used as the base for a popular shrine to the murdered crusading journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. The backstory here being that Caron Iglizia was investigating murky money and political corruption and the polluting effects of large amounts of outside money on Maltese political culture. And one of the protesters was holding up a sign. I can't remember the exact wording, but it said something to the effect of, this island is under siege again. Only this time, the enemy is within. So it was tapping into this sense that Malta is defined by siege or sieges. So it is a live part of the Maltese memory. So this is. People walk around Valletto every day worrying about the outcome of the great siege, but the siege is still there, ticking away as part of Maltese communal memory.

[Rob Attar]

Events such as this are often described as clashes of civilizations. But would it be fair to say that you don't agree with this kind of label?

[Advertiser 2]

I wouldn't dismiss it outright, because I think if you were at the sharp end firing at somebody meant to kill you on the ramparts of Birgu in August 1565, you would have been very alive to all the things that separated you from the person who's trying to kill you. Faith, language, culture and so on. And it was easy for both sides to stoke religious fervor and to present the siege as this binary opposition, this existential clash between irreconcilable opposites. But I'm very wary overall of using a label such as the clash of civilizations. It seems to explain everything, but it actually explains nothing. It doesn't tell you anything about why then. Why that year? What exactly were the Ottomans thinking? How disparate was the Christian response? Clash of Civilizations makes good headline copy, but it not only oversimplifies what was going on, but to a large extent misrepresents it. That said, I wouldn't want to say that the religious element to this struggle was negligible. It wasn't. It was important. But clash of civilizations is a very reductive phrase, and if I contribute in some small way to eliminating that, pushing it out of our lexicon, then I'll be very happy.

[Rob Attar]

And are there then any other big themes of history that you think this event really does illuminate?

[Advertiser 2]

I think it illuminates the importance of economics. We tend to think of people before the modern age as economically naive. They had no idea. Stuff just happened. And it's only very recently that we've understood economics as a science, maybe since the 18th century. But they did understand economic forces. And I think that's what the driver of the great siege was. It was the Ottoman Empire, desperately, as it were, protecting itself, as we would today protect a pipeline under the sea that an enemy could cut. And the interesting thing is that at exactly the same time as the siege was going on, nearly 5,000 miles away in what is now northern Florida, the Spanish were the aggressors, busily destroying a small French colony at a place called Fort Caroline, near modern Jacksonville. Why were they destroying this French colony miles from any Spanish settlement, partly because the Spanish feared that some of the French were Protestant heretics and they didn't want heresy being spread to the New World. But largely it was because the French presence in that part of the world threatened the route taken by the Spanish silver fleet every year, delivering silver from mines in Peru and Mexico to feed the insatiable more of the Habsburg Empire and its armies. And by destroying the French at Fort Caroline, the Spanish were doing to the French exactly what the Ottomans were trying to do to their allies, the knights, at exactly the same time that this was a case of two empires trying to destroy smaller opponents able to punch above their weight who disproportionately threatened their economic interests. That's what it comes down to.

[Marcus Bull]

That was Marcus Bull, professor of Medieval and Early Modern Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His latest book, the Great Siege of Malta, is out now published by Alan Lane. Thanks for listening. This podcast was produced by Daniel Kramer, ARD.