Customer Reviews

Confrontation at Lepanto: Christendom vs. Islam

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"Never judge a book by its cover", the old saying goes. I'm sorry to say that this is a trap I fell into with this account of the battle, for the cover for Confrontation at Lepanto is excellent. The content, sadly, is not.

Confrontation offers a great deal of preamble regarding the politics of the day and the preparaions for battle that manages to be cursory and irritatingly long-winded at the same time before the reader is finally treated to a scanty eleven or so pages (small pages) on the battle (it seems like far less). The book then proceeds on its way with an "aftermath" stretching all the way to the death of Don John of Austria that succeeds in being uninformative and yet dragging in much the same way as the lead up to the battle did.

The entire thing reads very much like a stretched out Wikipedia entry--and you would probably learn about as much from one but for a few very small stories of the individuals which took part in the battle (allow me to underscore that: very and dissapointingly few, and not very vivididly recounted where the fighting is concerned). The author also seems to be trying too hard to throw around "big words". It is as though the entire thing has been run through a thesaurus in an effort to dress up the language and you will notice that "rancour", "rancourous" etc. seems to crop up with annoying frequency. The "Christendom vs. Islam" subtitle also seems (at the risk of sounding like a bit of a pinko) calculated to suck in anyone with a casual distrust or dislike of Islam in these turbulent times and keen to read about it taking a drubbing, as there wasn't really any discussion about the clash of cultures between East and West at the time. The book also offers a schmaltzy and highly ludicrous little epitaph about how the battle could have helped towards reconciliation between the combatabts which seems totally out of place.

Readers expecting something to the standard of Ernle Bradford's excellent The Great Siege, Malta 1565 will be sorely disappointed.

T. C. F. Hopkins is a pen name of vampire fantasy writer Chelsea Quinn Yarbro. This book has an earnest quality that is touching and slightly pathetic by turns. The back dustjacket-flap states that the author is "a famous and beloved author" who has been nominated for prizes but has never won any. This book is unlikely to change that trend. The writing is convoluted and over-punctuated, with frequent overblown vocabulary ("carnassial hatred," "oppugnant" purposes, a "recreant" capture, "diplomatic abjuration"), fatuous phrasing ("Europe had other problems on its plate," "dragged their metaphorical heels"), and too much repetition of content and phrase for an edited book. It is enough to state once that Venetians called their city The Most Serene Republic of Venice. Repeating the phrase at intervals seems too cute. That's unfortunate, because as an introduction to European religious politics of the 16th century and the great naval battle of Lepanto in the Corinth Channel in 1571, the book presents good background and a reasonably interesting narrative.

My own interest in the battle stems from the fact that Cervantes, author of "Don Quixote" (Part I, 1605), served on a Spanish ship and emerged from the battle with his left hand maimed. The book has an index but no bibliography or notes, so the reader can't know what sources the author relied on or where to read more about some aspect of the events leading up to this bloody battle or resulting from the hard-fought victory of the Holy League over the Ottoman fleet. (This is particularly odd because the author has a detailed bibilography of her own books on her official Web site.) This unwillingness to acknowledge her sources makes the book much less useful than it might otherwise have been. The description of the battle has good passages but tends to peter out where a more able writer (C. S. Forester, Patrick O'Brian) would have brought out the excitement of the battle for the reader. If the publishers issue this book in paperback, they would be well advised to acknowledge sources and to provide better maps and some illustrations of the different types of ship used in the battle.

16th century Mediterranean naval warfare has always fascinated me, so when I saw "Confrontation at Lepanto" at my local Borders bookstore, I was initially quite excited. That excitement, however, morphed into considerable disappointment, as I noted that "T.F.C. Hopkins" (aka fantasy author Chelsea Quinn Yarbro) had done a rather poor job in researching her book. The thing I found most irritating was how she got so many basic facts wrong about the battle; for example, on pages 131-133, she described the battle as beginning with the center divisions of the two fleets, when in fact, it was the Christian Left Wing and Ottoman Right Wing, which first clashed (the Centers did not lock horns until about 30 minutes later). Yarbro also failed to point out the superb handling of the Christian Left Wing by the Venetian Second-in-Command, Agostino Barbarigo, who swung back his line of galleys "like a door" to avoid being outflanked by the Turks (see Guilmartin's "Gunpowder and Galleys", for more info). In addition, Yarbro claimed that the Venetian Captain-General, Sebastiano Venier, was with the Christian Left Wing, but actually his galley was in the Christian Center, supporting the flagship of Don John of Austria (and ironically enough, the cover art of "Confrontation at Lepanto" features the famous painting by Michieli Vicentino, which correctly shows Venier's blood-red war galley supporting that of Don John). Yarbro blundered yet again when she wrote that Alessandro Farnese (The Duke of Parma) took Uchiali's flagship (Farnese did indeed take an Ottoman galley--supposedly almost singlehandedly--but it was not Uchiali's ship).

There were various interesting details earlier in the book, regarding the events that ultimately led to the Battle of Lepanto, but even this one positive feature of Yarbro's work is marred by the fact that there is no bibliography, and no footnotes or endnotes of any kind.

In the final analysis, there are many far better books that cover Lepanto, including John F. Guilmartin's "Gunpowder and Galleys" & "Galleons and Galleys", W.L. Rodgers' "Naval Warfare Under Oars 4th to 16th Centuries", Time-Life's "The Venetians" (part of their old "Seafarers" series), and Jack Beeching's classic "The Galleys at Lepanto". Chelsea Quinn Yarbro should frankly stick to writing about vampires.

The time is ripe for books retelling the history of the poor relations between the Muslim world and the West. Confrontation at Lepanto retells a key battle in that conflict.

In 1570, the Ottoman Empire amassed a huge fleet with one goal in mind - total domination of the Mediterranian Sea. The fleet raided European shipping, and their corsairs especially drew the ire of the Venetians, whose economic stability was dependant upon naval trade with the other European nations.

All of Europe knew something had to be done, but it wasn't until the Turks sacked Famagusta (and broke their agreement with the Venetians by slaughtering the survivors and torturing the commander of the forces there) that the European nations started to band together. They reformed the Holy League to meet the Muslim forces and put an end to their designs on the Mediterranian.

But these new Crusaders were far from united. Disagreements over strategy almost doomed the European cause to failure, until the Don Juan de Austria, commander of the Holy League navy, ordered a full-out assault on the Ottoman navy at Lepanto. It was clear to both sides as the battle started that the winner would dominate Mediterranian trade for decades to come.

Hopkins avoids the "holy war" aspects of Lepanto, while still remaining faithful to the religious motivations on both sides. Instead, the book focuses on social, political, and especially economic motivations for the conflict on both sides.

We read of the intrigue in European courts, as monarchs posture to turn success AND failure to their advantage. We see the individual personalities involved in the battle, from the commander Don Juan de Austria and Giannandrea Doria to a future author named Miguel Cervantes. The book is an excellent overview of the battle.

That said, I ended up with a lot of questions that I wish had been covered, even in an introductory work. Hopkins mentions at one point that Cosimo de Medici was persuaded by the Pope to sponsor an order of knights for those who defended Christians at sea, but the name of that order is never given (it's the Order of St. Stephen). And I thought that the religious aspects of the fight against the Turks were not given the attention that they deserve. But Confrontation at Lepanto does provide a quality introductory work that leaves room for further reading and research.

I am a published author who is constantly reading and doing research for my upcoming books. I was recently given this book as a gift by a friend who had not read the book, but purchased it based on the beautiful cover. I found the book quite disturbing due to the author's constant bashing of the Catholic Church. She makes all kinds of malicious allegations, but there are no footnotes, and she references nothing. There is no bibliography, so we are left to wonder what her allegations are based upon. We don't know. She seems to be an authority unto herself. Her assertions can be easily disproven by anyone with an open mind who will actually do the research. The author does not stay focused on her topic, and these false allegations against the Catholic Church have nothing to do with the actual battle of Lepanto.

As an example, on page 24, she states: "By contrast to the chaotic German states, Spain was easily the most cohesive - read: repressive - and affluent country in Europe at the time..," She further states that "this gave it a significant advantage in its dealings with other nations, and, for that matter, the Catholic Church, which it strove to direct along its own, very conservative, path." It's interesting that the author doesn't even let the readers draw their own conclusions, she literally tells them what to think. And, since when does being conservative mean that you're repressive?

On the next page, she continues: "For this was the height of the Spanish Inquisition, an institution that defined most of the policies of the Spanish Empire, and where Spain went, so did the Spanish version of Catholicism, carried by hosts of monks whose task it was to convert the heathen in foreign lands, or let the soldiers either enslave or kill them for being unworthy of salvation." Actually, the Spanish monarchs protected the natives in the new world, as much as was in their power to do so. Forced conversions were never the policy of the Spanish government or the Catholic Church, and the government punished those who treated the Indians unfairly. The fact that some men did evil does not make that the policy of the government. In addition, the Catholic Church has never said that anyone or any race of people is unworthy of salvation.

Then, as now, there were people who acted outside of the law, and being half-way across the planet, some people took advantage of the fact that they were so far away from government oversight that they thought that they could act with impunity. That does not make the conduct of those individuals the official policy of the Spanish government. Should we apply that notion to our own county? If we did, then it would be just as accurate to say that since we have had, on occasion, mass murderers in our schools that our government somehow advocates that conduct. That's just ridiculous.

The author gives the "official" Spanish position as "...since there was no mention of the American natives in Scripture, they were destined for Limbo and could not hope for Heaven, which meant that the Church need not be responsible for their salvation, or their abuse. For the next fifty years, this posture dictated Spanish policy toward all American natives with the sole exception of the Incas." (pg. 25)

This is absolutely false in all regards. Christ said to go out and teach all nations. That means that the Church is apostolic by its very nature. Why would He have sent the apostles out to teach all nations if some races of people had no hope of salvation? The very reason that the monks went to the New World was to help them save their souls, and the Spanish government gave the bishop in charge the title of "Protector of the Indians." By this and the special laws that were established at the time by the Spanish monarchs to protect the Indians, we can deduce that the official policy of the Spanish government was indeed the Protection of the Indians.

Finally, and most egregiously, she states: "In Spain, persecution of supposed heretics reached levels significantly in excess of those in other countries, and served to feed the witch-frenzy in many Protestant religions. It may be significant that in Spain, the accused heretics were, in nine out of ten cases, women, and it was regarded as proof of female diabolism if an Inquisitor got an erection during the Questioning (read: unofficial torture) of an accused woman." (pg. 25-26)

Really? There was someone there keeping these statistics? This is highly offensive and inflammatory. As an author, and student of history, I have never seen these allegations from any authoritative source. I don't believe the author has either, particularly since there are no footnotes, references or even a bibliography.

Literally millions of Indians in the New World converted to the Catholic Faith, and their descendents remain Catholic to this very day. The Catholic faith is a religion adhered to and deeply loved by nearly 25% of the world's population, well over 1 billion people. Surely the author does not think that all of us have been duped, or that we have no right to believe as we do.

For some reason, in our politically correct world, it's OK to insult the faith of 1 billion people, while every other cult is demanding respect and inclusion. How do we Catholics get in on that tolerance and inclusion thing?

The author's repeated false allegations against the Spanish and the Catholic Church have nothing to do with the battle of Lepanto, so one is left to wonder why she finds it necessary to slander them. I am also left to wonder if she is writing under a pen name because she's unwilling to take responsibility for her statements.

I give this book 1 star only because there is no lower rating.

The extremely rapid growth of the Islamic religion through the middle east, across Africa, and east towards China came about mostly through military conquest. The Muslim also attempted to convert the Europeans. At two significant battles, now viewed as pivotal Islam armies.

The first turning point came in France. After conquering what is now Spain the muslim armies attempted to conquer France. Charles Martel had forseen the danger of the muslim army and had trained for the battle for some years. At the Battle of Tours (732) Charles out generaled Abd er Rahman who made several classic mistakes.

The second is the battle described in this book the third Battle of Lepanto (1571). It was a huge battle, about 80,000 men on each side with 400+ ships, mostly galleys but with 6 galleasses on the Christian side which did a disproportionate share of the damage to the muslim vessels.

This book dies an excellent job of describing the leadup to the battle, the battle itself, and its aftermath.