The Great Siege of Malta

I read this book while I was on holiday in England; something about being closer to the location might romanticise the events even more.

Before that trip, maybe in the lead-up to my dad's 80th, I had heard on some podcasts an American academic, Marcus Bull, talking about his new book on this subject. He sort of demythifies and downplays the whole siege. He argued that if Malta was really such a significant location for talking Europe, why didn't the sultan come back the next year and wipe them out, as Malta was in ruins? To which I reply, "humbug". As a half-Maltese, I say the future of the entire universe would have imploded if Malta fell to the Turks or the Nazis in World War 2. The islands signifiance in world politics can not be underestimated :P

The other book I read on this was by Englishman Ernle Bradford. Bull said that Bradford's book was a bit of propaganda for the English. At the time of Bradford's book, Malta was under British rule and had come out of World War II victorious, just like the previous siege in 1565. And there was an element of English triumphalism in this. This may be, but it did make a good story. Anyway, for some reason, I didn't read Bull's book; it may not have been avalaibe or this one was cheaper at the time, but that discussion re-sparked my interest in this story again.

This book starts 44 years before the siege with another one in Rhodes. This was the one the Knights lost, and so they were in limbo for a time before being relocated to Malta. There were 7 chapters over this 44-year period, which framed the battle a lot more than Bradford's book. As a sort of military Christian army, they had vowed to not kill any Christians. This meant they were useless to rulers in Europe who were starting to flex their own national strength against other neighbouring "Christian" countries. These framing chapters helped introduce a lot of characters, and I must admit that it took me far too long to realise that "Turgut" was "Dragut". Allen and Bradford used different spellings for this Turkish admiral.

When it comes to the numbers of the Great Siege, Allen often tries to be as clear as he can and gives the high and low numbers, and then he goes with somewhere in between. He has the initial numbers as

Contemporary reports take the Ottomans from a high of 80,000 to a low of 24,500—the latter figure being part of a report late in the siege. The figure of 35,000 men, 12,000 of them trained soldiers, is likely about right. That is against the 6,100 to 8,655 Christian defenders, of whom perhaps half were professional—at best a three to one advantage.

Once the siege starts, Allen describes each battle well, and the numbers that fell in each battle, along with a few great quotes, showing the knight's willingness, in the face of large odds, to fight to the end. He explains the series of problems the Ottomans faced, their internal struggles, along with the Knights plannning and their doubts. 

Very early on La Rivière, a knight, was captured and tortured for information.

La Rivière suggested this was pointless: “What will you get by torturing me? You will never learn anything other than that you will never take Malta, because it is very strong and well provisioned, its captain is exceedingly valorous, its knights and soldiers valiant, and as is their obligation, they would sooner die for their faith and their Order than to show weakness.”

Under torture, he lied to them and led their armies into their most defended area, leading to many Ottoman deaths and the knights not losing any. This was almost the tone for the rest of the battle. 

The Ottomans assumed they could take Fort Elmo in under five days, but due to the landscape, the structure of the fort, the grit of the defenders and the fact that the Grandmaster Valette could ferry in new soldiers and the wounded out at night, kept the fort up for 29 days. This bought the knights more time to prepare the other larger fort, Angelo, and to write letters asking for more support to come. By the time they came to the other fort, the Ottomans were demoralised, and their key admiral was killed by a stray rock from a cannon blast.

Grandmaster Valette, who is a hero in managing his army, has some great quotes from primary sources:

Valette called to his entourage, “Come, my knights, let us all go there and die! This is the day!” He went as far as the gate that led to the breach, where Romegas and other senior captains urged him to stay back. He refused.

Valette threw himself into the thick of the mob, shouting, “Brothers, my children, in the name of God, let us all go to die together, with weapons in hand—today is our day!”

Allen put the new influx of men who snuck into Malta one night from the Piccolo Soccorso as the key move that won the victory for the Knights:

It can be argued that the Piccolo Soccorso, more than any other strategic decision, determined the outcome of the entire siege.

Valetta had been writing many letters asking for more reinforcements, which only came right at the end, when the Turks had really lost the will to take the island anyway. However, just after Fort Elmo fell, a small relief of 42 kingths and 600 men came in under the cover of fog and darkness to help reinforce those that were left. 

By the end of the whole campaign, Allen points out that

as of September 9, Birgu and Senglea were defended by no more than six hundred able-bodied men—a hundred fewer than the Piccolo Soccorso.

The amount that was added to their number was about the amount that made it through to the end. 

When I was in England, my wife's cousins were saying how they loved visiting Malta as it has great weather and beaches. They weren't aware of the Great Siege at all. I think battles where the underdog, who is vastly outnumbered, comes out on top are always a good story. So I told them about both books on this. Either one of those is worth reading.

Compared to Bradford's book, this one added more context to the lead up to this siege, painted the Knights as kinda pirated in the Mediterranean, and unlike Bradford, this may have downplayed the idea that all of Europe hung in the balance if Malta fell. Bradford's version perhaps created more tension in moments, and is shorter, but this one is probably more detailed and tempered in its statements.