venetian corfu

Venetian Corfu:

The Defenses of One Island Against the Ottoman Empire

Derek Shultz

ARTH 0495

Capstone Research

Dr. Thomas Russo

2 December 2010

Shultz 1

Throughout history there has been the constant struggle between national powers and this

struggle has almost always posed an offensive attack against a defensive stance. Themes such as

domination and destruction have been tried and tested against survival and oppression all across

the pages of history. There is commonly a struggle of one body of people to stay alive and earn

their right to exist against a people exceeding their own natural boundaries in a conquest to

control. Native tribes, city-states and small empires have been submerged in the wave of entities

such as the Persians, the Romans, the British and the Nazis in a conflict of human nature and

beliefs. During the Middle Ages a wave of Christianity forced itself into the east and in

retaliation Islam pushed back to the west. These disputes between religions became a blanket

over the real reason for war which was greed for wealth, land, and power. The Republic of

Venice and its Christian values gained control of the Mediterranean Sea in the early thirteenth

century. Two centuries of relative calm introduced the Islamic Ottoman Empire and its powerful

conquest from Asia into Europe, Africa and the Venetian controlled Mediterranean. Innovations

in military strategies, weaponry, and architecture introduced a new breed of warfare, both land

and naval, between these two conflicting empires. Venetian defensive fortifications were

considered to be superior in architectural design to any other. The Ottoman military force was

one of the strongest ever seen in the world with advanced technology and strategy. As the

Ottomans swept across the Mediterranean Sea they overtook all Venetian cities that stood in its

way, except for one. The Venetian controlled island of Corfu stood as a last defense in the

Mediterranean Sea before Venice. It was on this island that the Venetian fortifications finally

stopped the Ottoman Empire attack and halted the spread of the Ottomans and Islam into the

West. This conflict between these two world powers eventually led to the demise of both. The

Shultz 2

Republic of Venice did not see the end of the eighteenth century and the Ottoman Empire

survived two more centuries to the early twentieth.

Research and analysis will be involved in this quest to explain the reasons for why Corfu

succeeded in a feat that so many others could not accomplish. These methodologies will

historically examine the expanses of both the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Venice to

determine the origin of their conflict with each other. This historical research will also include a

study of both offensive and defensive warfare strategies in the Middle Ages that were employed

by both empires. The intent of this history is to provide a context to pull from when examining

the more detailed analysis of the specific battles. A comparative methodology will study the

Venetian fortification of Nicosia on the island of Cyprus that was defeated by the Ottomans in

order to better understand the components that led to the success of Corfu against its multiple

sieges, and specifically the siege of 1716. This will include a detailed look at the island‟s history,

population, landscape, and architecture of its fortification to determine their similarities and

differences. Lastly, will be an exploration of the final siege of Corfu and a detailed narrative

discussing where key moments occurred that ultimately led to success for the citizens of the

island and the Republic of Venice as a whole. This methodology is meant to examine the

importance of this time in history and explore the importance of architectural fortification in life

and war. Less than a century before the fall of the Republic of Venice their establishment on the

island of Corfu stood as a last defense between the East and the West; however, its success was

not simply a result of the people defending it, but also the setting and architectural design of the

fortification.

The Republic of Venice began like many empires do with a single city. This city was

Venice and as the Western Roman Republic dwindled in power a group of smaller villages,

Shultz 3

called lagoons, joined together and elected its first official ruler and the generally accepted date

of its birth is in the year 452 CE.1 Through well established leadership the Republic gained its

independence in the first decade of the eighth century; however, it was still predominantly part of

the Byzantine Empire. During the next few centuries the Venetians began to establish themselves

through politics and military exploits against pirates and Slavic tribes. As the city expanded, it

began to build into the modern city that we know today. Movement into the water required

innovative structural solutions that are still marveled at in the present.2 A great national pride

formed within the city and grew as the city expanded with every successful venture. The

Venetians always pursued every endeavor with financial gain in mind. This lead to a dispute in

1084 CE where Venice was the loser in a conflict with the Normans, but maintained its financial

and Christian drive as the Crusades began.3

William Roscoe Thayer describes,

Some historians regard the Crusades as an episode in that greatest of world

dramas – the ancient conflict between Asia and Europe; the unending struggle, in

which the wars between Greece and Persia, and between Rome and Carthage; the

Saracenic conquest of Spain and Sicily; the Crusades; the expulsion of the Moors

from Spain and the planting of the Turks in Europe, - marked each a crisis, but

brought no conclusion.4

Venice participated in the Crusades from almost the very beginning in an ongoing attempt of the

city to preserve its religion and gain power in land and finances. Venice also had the need to

enter the Crusades because of rivals such as Pisa and Genoa who could not be allowed to

Shultz 4

advance beyond Venice. The fourth crusade and the sacking of Constantinople provided a

crippling blow to the Byzantine Empire and gave birth to the Republic of Venice.5 Thayer

elaborates on the success of the Venetians in the Crusade,

It not only gave them a great advantage over their old rivals, the Genoese and the

Pisans, in ports where they traded in common, but also made them masters of a

maritime empire which promised under their wiser rule to increase rapidly in

wealth. It exalted their prestige as a nation, not merely of merchants and traders,

but of warriors and rulers, in an epoch when success in war was the general

criterion of worth.6

With the severely weakened Byzantine Empire, Venice gained territory across the northern

Mediterranean Sea and gained control of many essential trading routes in the same area. A

continuing conflict between the Venetians and Genoese continued for the next 1800 years as the

last major battle between the two concluded in 1381 CE. Genoa gradually imploded from the

inside and eventually gave into a far superior French rule.7 The Republic of Venice next turned

its eye on threats from Italy itself, but eventually a threat from the east would require Venice‟s

full attention. Its longstanding good relations with a now mobilizing Ottoman Empire would

soon become unraveled.

The Ottoman Empire began to immerge in the east after the siege of

Constantinople and the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Osman I led a group of emirates into the

capital of Burza and began to expand an empire.8 Throughout the fourteenth century the

Ottomans expanded in all directions moving into Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. The

Shultz 5

Ottomans, who were predominately Islam, did not attempt to convert the people living in their

newly attained territories; rather they simply asked for allegiance to the ruler of the empire. Until

the middle of the fifteenth century the Ottoman Empire continued to spread on all fronts by

defeating foes such as Serbians to the north and Turks to the West.9 The ruler of the Ottoman

Empire, Mehmed the Conqueror, made the decision to siege and capture Constantinople in order

to continue conquests to the west and into the Mediterranean. In 1453 CE the Ottoman military

successfully captured the city of Constantinople to gain control of the Black Sea and Bosphorus

trade routes.10

The empire quickly converted the city to Islam by changing its name to Istanbul

and redefining religious symbols, such as Hagia Sophia, to Muslim needs.11

The Ottoman

Empire spread south into northern Africa as well as west into Greece and the Mediterranean Sea.

This was Venetian territory and the first conflict between the two empires occurred in the early

fifteenth century.

A period of oscillating war and peace began in the early fifteenth century between the

Ottomans and the Venetians because both wanted control of the Aegean,

Adriatic, Ionian and Mediterranean Seas. It was inevitable that both empires would collide based

on their goals and ideals and their conflict would continue for three thousand years. Both land

and sea battles commenced for half of a century and the Ottoman Empire gradually moved

westward into Venetian territory. A peace treaty followed; however, war resumed at the start of

the sixteenth century. The Republic of Venice began to spread itself thin from a military

standpoint as conflicts arose in Milan and Romania while continuing with the Ottomans in the

Mediterranean. In 1570 CE a big blow hit the Venetians as the Ottoman Empire laid full siege to

Cyprus and overtook the fortified cities of Nicosia and Famagusta.12

This siege and massacre

eliminated the Venetian occupation of the eastern Mediterranean and gave the Ottomans a firm

Shultz 6

stance in the Sea. Confrontations continued into the seventeenth century and in 1645 CE the

Ottomans began another major advancement when they attempted to capture the island of Crete.

The Cretan War lasted a quarter of a century and eventually the Ottoman Empire was

triumphant.13

In response to this major loss the Venetians commenced the Morean War that gave

them possession of the Peloponnese Peninsula in Greece. These gains lasted until 1714 CE when

the Ottoman Empire began a major campaign in the form of the last Turkish-Venetian War. The

Ottomans captured strongholds on the Peloponnese such as Corinth and Nauplia. Soon after they

moved further east and began overtaking establishments in the Ionian Islands. Finally the

Ottoman Empire landed on Corfu, but after multiple failed attempts the Ottomans were forced to

go no further west.14

This was the last conflict between the Republic of Venice and the Ottoman

Empire. The Venetians had been reduced to little more than a ruined city and it would be an

empire for less than a century more then finally peacefully occupied by the French army. The

Ottoman Empire had to divert its focus to its other warfronts in Europe and Africa after the

defeat on Corfu. The empire did little expanding after this period of history and continued to be a

world power into the early twentieth century. The conflict between the Venetians and Ottomans

employed multiple military strategies, used a variety of common and innovative weapon styles

and covered many different types of terrains. It introduced military organization, gunpowder, and

effective maintenance of standing armies and navies. The military warfare exemplified in these

confrontations is unique, but at the same time very telling of the world in the Middle Ages.

Military warfare within the Middle Ages is a broad, expansive, and general topic. It is

much too broad to group into one category with one specific set of criteria. To better understand

the military strategies employed by the Venetians and Ottomans, it is first necessary to examine

the transformation of military organization throughout the Middle Ages. Since this era covered a

Shultz 7

geographical expanse ranging over all of Europe, Western Asia, and Northern Africa, military

necessity varied from one location to another; therefore, military personnel also varied. The idea

of what an army truly was underwent a great transformation throughout the Middle Ages. The

start of the medieval period followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE. The

militants of the Roman Empire were organized and fully devoted to a full time staff of warriors

that were provided to the government as a form of taxation from the empire. Recruitment

occurred all over the Roman Empire for capable men. These men would look at their recruitment

as an honor and privilege which allowed for centuries of military success.15

Originally, throughout all geographic locations, the military personnel in the Early

Middle Ages consisted of a two part system that combined professional warriors with part-time

warriors who were all assigned to the ruler‟s army.16

The concepts of loyalty and honor were

held in high regard and used as the main form of enrollment for these warriors. “A subject was

expected to swear loyalty to the king, without receiving any reciprocal obligations.”17

This meant

that assets such as land and money were not always the defining factor of military participation

and military personnel fought until the very end for something that had strong meaning in their

core. This system is commonly referred to as feudalism, but lost its use as a military strategy

around the fifteenth century.18

At the center of each medieval army was the ruler‟s personal entourage who were

dedicated to their leader and fought for glory, honor, and eventually the promise of a wealthy

life. Added to this entourage were the recruits who fought to fulfill oaths of their families or pay

a tax to their ruler. These recruits were usually called upon to fight in times of need and then sent

home when the need was completed. Past the Early Middle Ages came a time when armies were

composed of all men, age seventeen to sixty, who were eligible to fight. These men did not all

Shultz 8

answer directly to the supreme ruler, but rather fought under nobles who owed their oath to that

ruler.19

Paid warriors began to gain resentment from not only the church but other, more loyal,

warriors. These paid warriors could dictate their own terms of employment and essentially use

money to get whatever they wished.20

Loyalty was becoming less important to the fighting army

and the rulers were not only losing their money in paying them, but also the respect of their

people.

The late medieval period introduced the idea of a large standing army that would

constantly be employed and active in the military. Sizes would vary based on the necessities of

the ruler, but all would be paid and controlled by the ruler and his high ranking officers.21

The

large standing armies also introduced the concept of rankings within the military, many of which

are still used in modern armies today. This provided discipline within the ranks and created

incentive for warriors to better themselves and their careers for the greater good. Militants gained

a certain elite status even though at times there were many non-militants fighting in the army.

Religious figures, slaves, merchants, and even women were allowed to fight in times of great

need, but the status and fame always remained with the standing army.

The Republic of Venice became a well established entity in both politics and warfare;

however, it kept both of these aspects separate in the form of a Republic. The Venetians

established a unique and successful mindset that David Nicolle explains, “An almost modern

sense of „national‟ identity unified the city and saved Venice from many of those class struggles

which rent the rest of medieval Italy.”22

The Venetians were very focused on the profit of war

and rarely pursued a battle that would not ultimately benefit the Republic financially.23

The

Republic of Venice used a well developed feudal system that registered all able bodied males for

reserved duty and maintained a smaller full-time active army and navy. A majority of these

Shultz 9

registered males owned weaponry, such as crossbows, swords, and javelins, which were

surveyed for maintenance and a majority of these men were skilled in their military

effectiveness.24

This created an efficient military strategy that gave purpose and pride to the

entire population which also doubled as strength in numbers.

The Ottoman Empire also possessed strength in numbers, especially as its borders

expanded further and further west. The Ottoman Turks began their campaign with a system

based on military personnel being paid for their services in the form of raids and fiefs collected

in the captured territories. As the Empire became more established it was transformed into a

military staffed by foreign mercenaries on a payroll. This meant that a majority of the Ottoman

military was assimilated from captured foreign empires and these foreigners were allowed to

maintain their religious beliefs as long as they followed Ottoman rule.25

These military associates

were skilled warriors who devoted their lives to the art of war in the hope to retire with great

amounts of riches. Their skills included, but were not limited to; horseback riding, hand to hand

combat, and they eventually gained sophisticated understanding of gunpowder and firearms. The

development of gunpowder, originally in China during the ninth century, found its way to the

Ottoman Empire around the thirteenth century and played a major role in the history of warfare

from then on.26

The Ottoman Empire, more specifically all the people under the empire‟s rule,

were devoted to their ruler and owed their loyalty to him. Ground warfare; however, is only one

aspect of both the Republic of Venice and the Ottoman Empire‟s military assembly.

The navies of both empires were extremely important to the individual successes of each

in their occupations of the Mediterranean. The Republic of Venice established itself as a military

power around the ninth century and did this with a superior application of both ground and naval

forces. The early history of the Venetian navy involved conflicts with pirates and other Italian

Shultz 10

powers such as Genoa, that were based on establishing control of trade routes between Europe,

Africa, and Asia. Eventually Venice succeeded in taking control of these routes across the sea

which gave them a significant strategic uplift of power and wealth. This strategic advantage

created prosperity within the Republic for centuries and brought strong and valuable relations

with the uprising Ottoman Empire.

Both Empires, throughout their naval expanses, used similar strategies and techniques

that were based on superior size and strength. Standing fleets were not used by either Empire;

rather boats would be used in the transport of goods and then called upon to fight when needed.

Merchant vessels would be able to quickly double as warships or military transports and each

ship carried a base set of military equipment that was regulated by the government.27

One item of

weaponry was developed by the Byzantine Empire and later acquired by the Venetians and

Ottomans. It was known as Greek Fire and basically used a propelled chemical that ignited on

impact. This was obviously effective in destroying enemy ships quickly without threatening your

ship or crew.28

These naval ships would also be fully stocked with sailors, especially in times of

war, in order to be capable of victory in hand to hand combat between to vessels. Hand to hand

combat through the art of boarding another ship was not used until later in medieval naval

warfare. Initially, ships were designed after the Roman oar-propelled galley that was designed to

sink an opposing ship with the use of an underwater battering ram mounted on each ship.29

As

both the Republic of Venice and the Ottoman Empire improved their naval fleets, ships increased

in size and speed. This also changed the strategy of warfare that introduced the idea of capture

over destruction. Warships were valuable commodities and hand to hand combat was used to

overtake an enemy ship in order to assimilate it into the naval collective. David Nicolle describes

Venetian naval warfare,

Shultz 11

Venetians used javelins as late as the 15th

century, while other weapons included

cooking pots filled with soap to make the enemy‟s decks slippery, fire-grenades

and blinding sulphur. Swimmers could even attack the foe‟s hull, threatening to

sink him- though in fact very few ships were actually sunk in medieval warfare.

Crossbows were now the main long-distance weapon, contact and boarding still

deciding the final outcome.30

Battles on the open sea were the initial point of contact between the Ottoman Empire and the

Republic of Venice before the land battles and sieges would begin.

Once the lines of naval and standing army fleets were broken through, then the siege of

the fortification would transpire. Sieges were a vital aspect of medieval warfare and occurred all

throughout the known world. The final stand of a city or an empire would occur at the citadel

and surrounding fortification. This is where a battle would end and the victor would be the

people who could outlast. In terms of the Venetians and the Ottomans it was really a one-sided

battle. With the Republic of Venice on the decline at the hands of the expanding Ottoman

Empire, it was a series of battles ending with the siege of many Venetian strongholds by

Ottoman attackers. Throughout the medieval period there were a number of siege techniques and

a variety of weapons developed for specific fortifications and castle designs; however, some

constants were always in use. Towers and tunneling were constantly in and out of commission

throughout the Middle Ages. These siege towers were armed with levels of soldiers protected by

an outer covering and each had an adjustable draw bridge meant to attach the tower to the

fortification. These towers lost their necessity as a direct means of access over walls with the

Shultz 12

introduction of trebuchets, incendiary ammo, and cannon fire. Tunneling was also a commonly

practiced technique that only failed when rocks or a moat surrounded the fortification‟s exterior.

Tunneling avoided conflict outside the defensive walls and quickened the siege process.31

Siege

weapons made dramatic changes throughout the period and evolved in both technology and

ammunition. Throwing machines evolved and a counterweight system was constantly reinvented

to gradually throw larger and larger stones over greater distances. Bows and javelins continued

to have their place for closer ranged battles and swords and axes were still used in hand to hand

combat. Incendiary ammo and chemical warfare was also introduced in the Middle Ages. This

involved setting fire to almost all ammo, but also involved chemical strategies such as the

application of Greek Fire.32

Cannon fire and gunpowder came later and led to increased distance

that a siege could occur and increased thickness of fortification defenses.33

The Venetians and all

other siege victims had the task of contending with this military strategy with usually limited

resources and only had their architecture and military skill to protect them. It was this

architecture and skill that would be put to the ultimate test during the sieges of the two Venetian

islands of Cyprus and Corfu.

Located in the far eastern Mediterranean Sea is the unique island of Cyprus and it has

been stricken by conflict and grief throughout most of its history. Tim Boatswain summarizes the

historical significance of the island,

Cyprus lies on an axis of movement, both north-south and east-west. It stands at

the crossroads of three continents, Europe, Asia ad Africa. It is, therefore, hardly

surprising that throughout history the major powers in the region have taken an

interest in controlling and settling the island. Its strategic position has always

Shultz 13

ensured that Cyprus has played a key role in history, but it has also resulted in the

island becoming a victim of others‟ power politics.34

The inhabited beginnings of this island date back almost eleven thousand years and this

inhabitation continued for thousands of years with numerous tribes and peoples. By 709 BCE the

island was beginning to establish its written history and it falls to its first outside ruler in the

form of the Assyrian Empire. The fall of the Assyrian Empire in the fifth century BCE led to

brief Egyptian and Phoenician occupations before the eventual occupation by the Persian

Empire. During the Persian conquest of Greece, Cyprus became a valuable asset in the

Mediterranean and was constantly volleyed back and forth between Greek and Persian forces.

Alexander the Great collected the island for a brief while, during his reign, until his untimely

death in which case the Ptolemaic Age began. Cyprus remained under this Egyptian rule until 30

BCE when the Roman Empire gained enough power to complete their conquest of the

Mediterranean Sea. The Roman occupation had similar results for the island that the Ptolemies

provided which included a high level of wealth and prosperity. The Romans added infrastructure,

created valuable shipping connections, and provided certain autonomy for the residents of the

island. A series of Jewish revolts ravaged the island for years, mainly due to the lack of military

occupation by the Romans. These eventually died down and the history of the island continued

into the Middle Ages.

The fourth century introduced Christianity to Cyprus as the Roman Empire split and the

city of Constantinople was established as a world power in the east.35

Shultz 14

It is not known how strong the Christian population in Cyprus was when

Constantine adopted Christianity, but it is clear once it was the official religion of

the Empire the whole island was quickly converted.36

During the Crusades of the next one thousand years came multiple possession exchanges of

Cyprus. It was mainly used as a strategic military position for the Christian Crusaders because of

its proximity to the battlefields of the east. After the Fourth Crusade siege of Constantinople in

1204 CE the island was given to the Republic of Venice as part of an imperial division for those

empires involved in the Crusades. During their three hundred year occupation the Venetians

fortified the cities of Nicosia, (the capital city of Cyprus) Famagusta, and Kyrenia with the

looming threat of the Ottoman Empire to their north and east. As this imperial Ottoman threat

grew, it set its sights to the west in a conquest of the Mediterranean Sea. The first obstacle in this

path of dominance was the Venetian occupied island of Cyprus and these two entities clashed in

the year 1570 CE.37

“The geographical distance of Cyprus from the mainland of Greece always leaves the

island more likely to be subject to the powers of the Near East.”38

This fact rang even more true

with the location of Venice being at the extreme northern point of the Adriatic Sea, further west

than Greece from the island. The extreme distance of Cyprus from its Venetian motherland left it

to fend for itself in many situations with little hope of reinforcements from its navy or army. The

Cypriots received their initial sign of the wars to come in the first month of 1570 CE with a

message from Constantinople claiming the declaration of war by the Ottomans on the Venetians.

The Cypriots, believing that the Ottomans would attack the island from the east near the port city

of Famagusta, focused their attention to that city and its defenses. The Cyprus military planned

Shultz 15

to stage its forces at the eastern coast of the island to create an element of intimidation and

provide local support in the event of an attack. The Ottomans; however, arrived on the island

from the west and proceeded around the southern coast with little to no resistance from the native

inhabitants. The original battle plan of the Ottoman attackers matched the preconceived idea of

the Cypriots which was an attack on Famagusta, but two Cypriot traitors informed the Ottoman

general of Nicosia‟s weaknesses in defense and organization, thus changing the general‟s plans.39

To still maintain the appearance of an attack on Famagusta, the Ottomans sent a regiment

of foot soldiers toward the city while the remaining military forces marched toward Nicosia.

Upon reaching the city in July of 1570 CE, the Ottomans found no resistance and began to

position batteries on hilltops around the perimeter of the fortified walls. [1.1] These hills;

however, were too far away from the outer walls which resulted in little damage being done by

the cannon fire of the attackers. The Ottomans moved closer to the counterscarps (exterior walls

of a protective ditch) and constructed four forts that proceeded to attack the four southern

bastions (fortified projections off of the main fortification wall) flanking each gate on both sides

of the city. Battery from this distance also provided little progress in the siege because of the

well built fortification of the Venetian walls. Once again, the Ottomans pushed closer to the city

and established positions adjacent to the counterscarp which actually provided a shield against

the defensive weaponry of the besieged within the fortification. Musket fire from the Ottomans

toward the Venetians created sufficient defense while the Ottomans began deconstruction of the

city walls.40

Shultz 16

They were already so well lodged in the ditch that they began to undermine and

pluck down the walls, and there remained no way to hinder them from entering

the town.41

The besieged Cypriots decided to mount a resistance against the Ottoman siege. At first they

were able to remove the attackers from their forts by the application of brute force and began to

push them away from the city, but an error in military strategy and communication marooned the

defenders outside the city walls where they were quickly defeated. After this defeat, the Cypriots

barricaded themselves within the city walls. The Ottomans eventually breached the outer

fortified walls and southern bastions in September of 1570 CE which led to a full onslaught of

attack on the interior defenses. Bastions which had maintained defenses from the exterior were

suddenly attacked from behind, within the city, and eventually they all fell to the Ottomans. The

Ottoman Turks brutally massacred the remaining citizens and pillaged all of the treasures held

within the city‟s stores.42

With Nicosia conquered there was only Famagusta standing between

the Ottomans and total control of the island. The Ottoman soldiers marched on Famagusta and

experienced one of the most intense battles in history, but the city and island finally fell in 1571

CE.

The natural landscape of Cyprus is first and foremost an island which requires a radial

defensive perimeter. Its terrain includes a central mountain range that lowers in elevation toward

the island extremities. A second mountain range hugs the northern coast and a third is located to

the west. A series of bays surround the island and a large peninsula juts out at the northeast

corner. Hills and valleys occur across the landscape in combination with rivers and lakes. Three

fortified cities including Nicosia, Famagusta, and Kyrenia are scattered across the island along

Shultz 17

with smaller villages and settlements. These three cities had unique fortifications and site

development, but all three ultimately fell to their Ottoman attackers. The failure of the Nicosia

walls and defenses was primarily a result of failed military strategy, poor architectural design

and inappropriate site planning.

When Cyprus was first obtained by the Venetians, they saw Nicosia as an indefensible

city and were faced with the choice of building proper defenses or moving the capital to

Famagusta with its sea access. Nicosia is situated in the center of Cyprus which poses a problem

in terms of resupply and shipping capabilities. The city does have access to a major river, but this

still adds more transfer time as ships must navigate the narrow channel. During the eighteenth

century siege an inability for resupply vessels to reach the defending citizens only added to the

superiority of the Ottomans over the Venetians. Another posed complication for the fortification

design and defense was a series of hills. These hills were originally against the city‟s exterior;

however, when the fortification was developed it was intentionally built away from these hills

which reduced the city‟s size by almost half.43

This ultimately became a wise design decision

because during the Ottoman attack the distance from the cannons to the walls was too great to

cause severe damage. The Venetians eventually decided to maintain Nicosia as the island‟s

capital city and thus proceeded to construct its walls.

The Nicosia fortification design was based on a theory of a Venetian Utopian City. Panos

Leventis explains, “Nicosia was the first city to fuse an ideal city plan with a bastioned

fortress…this urban and military experiment was developed with theoretical and philosophical

consideration.”44

A new bastioned radial structure was constructed around a central point within

the city. [1.2] The anthropomorphic strategy of applying the proportions of the human body to an

ideal fortified city were the main concern of the Venetian builders in Nicosia. This structure was

Shultz 18

built just behind a manmade moat that used diverted water from the river that passed through the

center of the town.45

Eleven bastions were placed around this fortified wall and each one nearly

resembled the next with a pentagonal-shape and rounded orillons that covered setback flanks.

[1.3] These bastions stand about three hundred feet above the curtain walls and are spaced

roughly one thousand feet apart. The fortified walls were not actually completely stone because

of a technique the Venetians used to prevent cannon fire damage. The top portion of the wall was

covered by grass turf and the stone portions of the wall were in filled with dirt. [1.4] This earthy

material would absorb the force of the cannon ball and would prevent damage from incendiary

ammunition. The moat that surrounds the city is about three hundred feet wide; however, the

Ottoman attackers were able to easily divert the river‟s water supply and drain the manmade

ditch. The excess dirt blown away from the walls by cannonball impact was used to fill in the

empty moat and this unforeseen failure in the fortification‟s design only worsened the Cypriot

situation. The lack of communication between the design of the new fortification walls and the

existing town led to a city that stood in the way of a proper city defense. Roads and buildings

created barricades between soldiers and the areas of the wall most in need of support.46

There

were multiple unfortunate and unforeseen incidents that contributed to the ultimate demise of not

only the city of Nicosia, but the entire island of Cyprus. The design flaws that arose in the

attempt to build an ideal city combined with improper site management, poor defensive military

command, and a well supplied enemy led to the ultimate downfall of Nicosia. Two hundred

years were needed for the Venetians to learn the lessons of Cyprus and construct the

fortifications of an island called Corfu.

Closer to the Greek mainland just off its western shores lies the island of Corfu. This

Greek island traces its history back into Paleolithic times around 50,000 years ago when the

Shultz 19

island first became inhabited. Corfu was established, politically, around 734 BCE by the

Corinthians of Corinth on the Peloponnese of mainland Greece. “The Corinthians brought with

them public administration, law and institutions, as we also know of the existence of a

parliament and a people‟s assembly.”47

With aid from Corinth the Corfiots developed an

impressive naval fleet that ultimately led to the extended and wealthy success of the island.

Corfu fought for its independence from Corinth through out the Archaic and Classical Periods.

The island not only faced its mother city, but also defended attacks by Athens, Sparta, and other

Greek city-states. Through it all, Corfu expanded its fleet and flourished in wealth due to

deserved independence.48

Corfu was an important participant in the Peloponnesian Wars as its

naval fleets were valuable assets to all who were involved. This importance led to further

acquisition of wealth as feuding city-states fought financially for Corfiot aid.

The history of Corfu continued in this conflict ridden pattern until the introduction of the

Roman Empire. Corfu was the first Greek city-state to fall under Roman rule; however, peace

and security were all that occurred for most of the six centuries of occupation.49

Corfu underwent

the conversion to Christianity late in the Roman occupation. This was met with obvious

resistance by the native Corfiots, but eventually Christianity prevailed. Corfu experienced its first

major military attack at the hands of the Ostrogoths. Even with Roman assistance, Gothic raids

destroyed most of cities on the island and made way to a newly built city to which the island

gained its name.50

As the city of Constantinople gained power and grew into the head of the

Byzantine Empire, Corfu underwent changes in political and military organization. This structure

resembled the Roman Republic and it remained unchanged for centuries. There is little known

about Corfu throughout the early Middle Ages. It continued to grow in the Byzantine Empire and

Shultz 20

maintained a relatively low profile. Its navy continued to be one of the best in the world and is

mentioned numerous times in expeditions of the Byzantines against enemies.51

The benefits that Venice received from the fall of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade

were not limited to Cyprus, but also Corfu and numerous other Mediterranean locales which

gave them control of valuable shipping lanes across the seas.52

A large amount of disapproval

and revolt continued for the next century, but eventually the stability and security provided by

the Venetians was accepted and instilled in 1386 CE when a sound arrangement was completed

between the Corfiots and the Venetians. 53

Venice had the obligation to defend the island and for this purpose they built the

magnificient complex of the city‟s defences which over the centuries proved

impregnable. The local nobility in turn had to supply serfs for ship or castle

building, food for the Army, and the Navy, money, as well as equip four ships of

the battle line in cases of emergency.54

Corfu spent a majority of its Venetian occupation in conflict with the multiple enemies of

Venice. These foes included Genoa, the Ottoman Empire, and the Normans; however, Corfu

never fell and was constantly refortified by the Venetians. In the early seventeenth century a

series of peasant revolts tested the integrity of the Corfiots; however, it was not until 1716 when

they would face the greatest challenge in their history.

The siege of Corfu in 1716 was instigated by the Ottoman Empire on their conquest west

across the Mediterranean Sea. It is noted in history as the last expanse west by the Ottoman

Empire and marks an important victory for Christianity against the spread of Islam. The defense

Shultz 21

of Corfu became a battle between not just Venice, but all of Europe as they attempted to preserve

the Western way of life. The Turkish naval fleet arrived in the Straits of Corfu on the 5th

of July,

1716. They were met by a fully prepared defense that included Venetian, German, Slavonian,

Italian, and Spanish militants and citizens. A multitude of Ottoman Turks made their way onto

the defenseless points of the island along the south. The naval fleets continued their battle off

shore as the Ottomans advanced on the fortified city of Corfu.55

The Ottomans knew of the

impregnable fortress that the Venetians had constructed around their citadel. Therefore, rather

than attacking the walls directly, they exploited the one weakness of the Corfiot fortification. A

few hundred feet to the west of the fortified walls of the city are two landmasses, Mounts

Abraham and St. Saviour, that tower above the low-lying city. [2.1] The Venetians had failed to

address these two landmasses in terms of defenses, and even though they attempted a hand to

hand defense, eventually the Ottomans gained the valuable elevated position.56

From this location the Ottoman invaders could attack not only the interior of the fortified

city, but also both bays that flank its exterior walls. The vicious battery ensued,

…instead of breaching the fortifications, they poured such a fire of shot and shell

into the town, that the greater part of it was soon destroyed; and the inhabitants

were driven to take refuge in the citadel and the subterraneous passages which

communicated with that fortress.57

This strategy was due to the fact that the fortress could not be taken by typical siege methods and

required a more violent bombardment to force surrender. With the city under heavy attack the

civilians were forced to retreat to the citadel. This purely military establishment was a second

Shultz 22

level of defense that was meant to provide a safe haven should the exterior walls become unsafe.

Throughout this entire ordeal from both land and sea the design and construction of the exterior

fortifications stood and gave the inhabitants an opportunity to strategize for a counterattack.

Sneaking out of concealed exits in the fortification gave the Corfiots the advantage to surprise

the Ottomans and force them off of their elevated positions. The Ottomans, after losing their

offensive position and now in a defensive stance, also learned of a defeat that their troops had

experienced in Hungary. This demoralizing series of events provoked their general to launch one

final attack on the fortified city of Corfu. Now on the 17th

of August, 1716 the entire Ottoman

army attacked the walls of the city only to be met by a defense strengthened with superior

architecture and the will to live. The inhabitants of the city utilized their fortification to withstand

the attack and ultimately launch counter measures that pushed the Ottomans into a retreat. Only

after a torrential downpour of rain through the night and the appearance of Venetian

reinforcements the next morning did the remaining Ottoman forces finally leave the island. What

remained in their camp were discovered later that day and included tents, cannons, weapons, and

some of their wounded.58

Though the island survived, the Venetians had to retreat to the west as

their empire began to crumble from the toils of war. Eventually the Republic fell in the last

decade of the eighteenth century during the French conquest and occupation.

The success of this Corfiot resistance did not solely depend on one aspect, but rather was

a collaboration of human strength, architectural superiority, landscape, weaponry, and military

strategy. Two of these factors, architecture and landscape, were brilliantly utilized to their full

advantage based on ingenuity that combined the given site with military architecture. The island

of Corfu is exactly that, an island. Similar to Cyprus, its defenses must be maintained in 360

degrees while addressing both the land and the sea in varying elevations. Corfu is a much smaller

Shultz 23

island than Cyprus which allowed for better communication between cities and a more vigilant

protection of the coastal areas. Quentin Hughes describes the landscape of Corfu,

Coming upon the island from the south one sees the land rear up like the point of

a Venetian bastion or the prow of some large ironclad. A long narrow peninsula

runs inland to a point about three quarters of the way to the main town, where a

ridge, running from coast to coast at a height of about fifteen hundred feet,

straddles the peninsula. An enemy landing near this south tip would be forced to

pursue a long march up the peninsula and over the ridge before he could attack

the town of Corfu…The northern part is mountainous, rising to over two and a

half thousand feet…Projecting into the middle of the bay is a small peninsula

upon which stands the citadel and original habitations of Corfu…Immediately to

the south, rivers divulge into a large area of marshy ground leaving only a finger

of land for the coastal strip.59

On the west coast of the island stands a steep rocky hill that supports the Angelokastro

fortification. This structure has withstood the test of time and was constantly added to and

refined since its Byzantine construction. This structure served as a center of commerce during

peace times and a shelter for the island during war. The elevated position of the fortress gave a

clear vantage point across the island and provided superior impregnability. The terrain on three

of its sides was impassable rock wall. The fourth side, supporting the main gate, was protected

by a circular tower.60

The site of this fortress combined with subtle architectural details provided

a stronghold that provided sight, defense, and a symbol of strength for its people.

Shultz 24

Looking more toward the capital of the island is the fortified city of Corfu Town, located

on the island‟s eastern shore. A natural peninsula became the main site for this first city building

plan which then expanded westward into the mainland. [2.2] Quentin Hughes also further

describes the terrain of this landmass,

The short rocky peninsula of the citadel thrust out into the sea was both too steep

and too confined to provide an adequate platform for urban development on any

reasonable scale…the Corfu citadel was too small to hold a prosperous town, To

some extent this was an advantage, for it separated out the functions, prevented a

mixing of civil and military activities, and provided opportunities for a last ditch

stand in a purely military citadel.61

A manmade barrier, in the form of a moat, separated the peninsula from the outer city. [2.3]

Another fortified wall surrounded the outer city and created the first line of defense against a

land attack. Four gates were placed along this fortified exterior with bastions, and these bastions

were essential to Venetian design not only because they provided protection, but they added an

extra layer of fortified wall between city and attacker. 62

[2.4] The Corfu Town peninsula was

regarded by many as an impenetrable fortress by both land and sea. Surrounded by walls and

water, this fortification separates two bays and contains two elevated positions adorned by

fortified citadels. An eye-witness account describes the site by sea,

Pietro della Valle, who visited the island in 1614, gives the following description

of it: „Our vessel arrived at the port of Corfu; about which the Venetians have

Shultz 25

constructed, on roads which frown defiance, some very strong fortresses… The

only thing that I found remarkable was the fortress, which is defended more by

nature than by art, and is impregnable.‟63

A wooden bridge crossing the manmade moat is the only land access into the city and is

heavily fortified by a series of bastions and towers with the sole intent of protecting the main

gate. [2.5] This bridge has a section that can be drawn up in times of attack. Other towers that

look toward the water, protected a secondary entrance toward the galley port, and supported the

naval fleet on the Straits of Corfu.64

The bastions placed on adjacent sides to the main gate

provided a method of crossfire which eliminated blind spots and provided a wide range of

ground for the defenders to protect. Window designs were extremely innovative in terms of their

size, position, and uses. Thin slits provided a small target for attackers to hit, but also provided

normal views for the defenders concealed behind. These windows around a tower could provide

a panoramic view for a defensive soldier, while keeping them perfectly protected. Structurally

the fortifications were equally advanced in their building technique because the upper half of the

fortified wall was filled with grass turf to help absorb cannon fire.65

This building technique is

similar to the technique used in Nicosia; however, on Corfu lessons were learned for a more

solid earth construction and any displaced dirt could not benefit the enemy as it did in the moat

of Nicosia.

The area within this fortified peninsula, the citadel, was purely designed for military

purpose. Two hills were strategically used as the sites for fortresses in order to perch defenses

above both the land and the sea. With these elevated positions, the Venetians could have a

strategic advantage over its enemies in both the range of their views, the range of their weapons,

Shultz 26

and the solid protection of their fortresses. Quentin Hughes gives a brief description, “On the

twin hills of the citadel the Venetians placed casemates and half-moon batteries, typical of the

heavy gun platforms they used elsewhere.”66

Between these two fortresses were a series of

tunnels that could provide safe passage for inhabitants in case of emergency. These tunnels were

efficient and many of them provided secret access beyond the city walls.67

The technology

employed by the Venetians in the creation of this protective military shell on Corfu was essential

to their successful stand against not only the Ottoman attack of the eighteenth century, but other

numerous sieges by multiple foes. No matter the strength of the defenders or the strategy of their

military leaders, if the fortification did not hold, then the defense did not succeed.

Less than a century before the fall of the Republic of Venice their establishment on the

island of Corfu stood as a last defense between the East and the West; however, its success was

not simply a result of the people defending it, but also the setting and architectural design of the

fortification. In the comparison between the fortification of Nicosia on the island of Cyprus and

the fortification of Corfu on the island of Corfu it is evident that there are key issues that

contributed to one‟s success and the other‟s failure. Military personnel, military strategy,

landscape, and architectural design were all factors in both Ottoman sieges. Both Corfu and

Nicosia had inhabitants ready and willing to fight and die for their right to survive. Their spirits

were not the issue; however, their military strategies did have some dissimilarity. On Nicosia the

Cypriots initiated a counterattack that would push back the attacking Turks, but this ended in

disaster because of disloyalty among the military ranks and miscommunication between

regiments. Corfu had a well orchestrated counterattack that was successful in repelling an intense

Ottoman battery.

Shultz 27

The important difference between these two sieges was the landscape and architecture of

the fortifications. The landscape of Cyprus was misused by the Venetians in their attempt to

create an ideal city. The landlocked city with its river access cannot compare to the well

developed peninsula of Corfu that produced a separation of military and civilian fortifications.

Corfu‟s position on the water also provided an adequate source for reinforcement and naval

protection with their superior Venetian navy. Corfu also used its mountainous terrain and smaller

island size to gain strategic elevated positions that were nearly unattainable from the lower

elevations. The fortifications themselves were essential tools for the people of these islands to

even stand a chance against their Ottoman foes. Nicosia had a symmetrical design that was

inappropriate for its terrain, and also for the city it protected. The technological advancements of

this Venetian fortification were also misused in a way that gave an advantage to the attacker

when they were in close proximity to the walls. On Corfu the fortified walls segregated different

parts of the city to provide layers of protection throughout. The same design advancements were

used in the Corfiot bastions and walls; however, they were used appropriately to hinder the

success of the attacking forces. Corfu had two centuries of fortification development to perfect

what Nicosia failed to achieve. This ability to adapt and evolve with their enemy allowed the

Venetians to achieve a success that had eluded them for centuries, which was a military victory

against the Ottoman Empire. There is no doubt that the architectural decisions made on the island

of Corfu led to its successful stand as not only a fortification of the town, but a fortification of

western civilization.

The siege of 1716 in Corfu has not been looked at, by all historians, to be the stopping point of

the Ottoman Empire in its relentless move to the west. This is because the Ottomans, in the same

year, suffered a debilitating loss in Hungary which is identified as the beginning of the end for

the Empire. This loss in Hungary obviously had lasting effects on the Ottoman Empire; however,

had the Ottomans captured Corfu they would have had easy access to Venice and complete

control of the Mediterranean Sea. This control would have translated into valuable resources and

Shultz 28

a revamped military with the acquisition of the Venetian naval fleets. Had the Islamic Ottomans

expanded further west, there would have been a dramatically different religious landscape as

most of the Mediterranean would be Muslim and the religious battleground of today would be

located in Western Europe rather than the Middle East. It is obvious that there were dramatic

consequences involved with the stand of Corfu which not only affected the Mediterranean, but

the world and the history that we know today.

Shultz 29

Images:

________________________

1.1 Nicosia. JPG. http://warandgame.com/2008/03/28/nicosia/ (Nov. 30, 2010)

1.3 Perbellini, Gianni. "The Venetian defences of Cyprus." Fort 16, (1988): 7-44. Avery

Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2010). 13

Shultz 30

1.4 Bowman, Glen. City Walls in Nicosia. 2006. JPG.

http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%91%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BF:

City_walls_in_Nicosia.jpg (Nov. 30, 2010)

Shultz 31

2.1 Hughes, Quentin. "The Defences of Corfu." Fort 14, (1986): 17-38. Avery Index to

Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2010). 19

Shultz 32



Shultz 33

2.3 Debby. Corfu, Old Town moat. Aug. 18, 2009. JPG.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/u7H8DKrKU13ZotJU60UcYw. (Nov. 30, 2010)

Shultz 34



Shultz 35



Shultz 36

1.2 Leventis, Panos. “Projecting Utopia: The Refortification of Nicosia, 1567-70.” CHORA

5: Intervals in the Philosophy of Architecture. ed. Alberto Perez-Gomez and

Stephen Parcell. (Montréal: McGill-Queens, 2007) 227-258. 247

1.3 Perbellini, Gianni. "The Venetian defences of Cyprus." Fort 16, (1988): 7-44. Avery

Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2010). 13

Shultz 37

1.4 Bowman, Glen. City Walls in Nicosia. 2006. JPG.

http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%91%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BF:

City_walls_in_Nicosia.jpg (Nov. 30, 2010)

Shultz 38



Shultz 39



Shultz 40

2.3 Debby. Corfu, Old Town moat. Aug. 18, 2009. JPG.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/u7H8DKrKU13ZotJU60UcYw. (Nov. 30, 2010)

Shultz 41



Shultz 42



Shultz 43

Annotated Bibliography:

________________________

Barrett, Matt. Corfu Town. Greek Travel. http://www.greecetravel.com/corfu/town.html.

(Nov. 22, 2010)

This website provided a nice description of the town of Corfu on the island of Corfu,

Greece. It seemed to be meant for present day travelers and provided good details for the

tourism of the town. It also provided accurate locations and documentation of some key

historic sites.

Boatswain, Tim. A Traveller’s History of Cyprus. Northampton, Massachusetts: Interlink Books,

2005.

This book gave a thorough description of the entire history of the island of Cyprus. All

key events of the island were addressed and the history spanned from the first appearance

of man on the island to 2005. Political, military, and cultural aspects are all addressed in

appropriate detail.

Bradbury, Jim. The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare. London: Routledge, 2004.

This is a book that analyzed the history of military warfare in the centuries consisting of

the Middle Ages. Military strategy ranging from soldier organization, to naval

composition and siege tactics were all discussed with constant referral to the evolving

nature of military technology. This book covered a wide range of geographical area, but it

did not break down military points based on empire or century.

Brown, Horatio F. Venice: an Historical Sketch of the Republic. New York: G. P. Putnam‟s

Sons, 1893.

This literature was a thorough investigation of the history of the Republic of Venice. It

accurately followed all aspects of the history from political and cultural to military.

Military and political entities were discussed often and a large amount of contextual

evidence was supplied to establish the reader in the text.

Climis, Charles C. The Illustrated History of Corfu. Corfu: Charles C. Climis, 1994.

This book both described in word and image the history of the island of Corfu, Greece

from its primitive establishment to its present day setting as part of the Greek culture.

This history included quotations and valuable sources that give first hand accounts of the

island throughout history.

Cobham, Claude DeLaval. The Sieges of Nicosia and Famagusta in Cyprus. London: St.

Vincent‟s Press, 1899.

Shultz 44

This book was written in a way that was easy to follow and provided an exciting account

of the two most important sieges on the island of Cyprus. Details are provided that allow

the reader to understand and appreciate the people, architecture, and strategy of both the

attackers and the attacked.

Edwards, Nick and John Gill. The Rough Guide to Corfu. London: Penguin Books, 2003.

This book examined the island of Corfu in an in depth and satisfying manner. The book

breaks the island down into sections that look at the history, terrain, ecology, wildlife and

language. With this analysis comes a unique point of view on the island that is not

focused solely on history, people or architecture. Rather it focused on the island itself and

what makes up the sole of the island.

Faroqhi, Suraiya. The Ottoman Empire: A Short History. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers,

2009.

This book was up to date and easy to read as it undertook the task of presenting the

history of the Ottoman Empire. All historical aspects are covered from conception to

deletion with acute attention paid to the minds behind both political and military

decisions.

Forbes-Boyd, Eric. In Crusader Greece: A Tour of the Castles of the Morea. New York:

W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1964.

This book was written as the author‟s personal inspection and analysis of fortifications

and castles within the Peloponnese of Greece. Architectural details were analyzed and

this became helpful when analyzing the fortifications of Corfu and Cyprus. The book

however focused on structures all throughout the Middle Ages which was too broad for

the purposes of the paper.

Horst de la Croix. “Military Architecture and the Radial City Plan in Sixteenth Century

Italy.” The Art Bulletin 4 (1960): 263-290. Accessed September 24, 2010.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3047915

This essay explored both the scientific and artistic qualities of the radial city plan in both

art and architecture. It examined the purpose of a radial city as a theoretical solution to

the perfect city. This helped to establish motive in the design of Nicosia and the circular

fortification approach.

Hughes, Quentin. "The Defences of Corfu." Fort 14, (1986): 17-38. Avery Index to

Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2010).

This essay was essential to the understanding of the Corfu fortifications for multiple

reasons. It included valuable images of the Venetian fortresses and combined first hand

accounts of the island that further enhanced the author‟s analysis. Historical context was

Shultz 45

provided to add layers of data to the discussion that made for a revealing and informative

piece.

Jervis, Henry Jervis-White. History of the Island of Corfu and of the Republic of the Ionian

islands. London: Colburn and Co. Publishers, 1852.

This book revealed the conflicted history of the Ionian Islands off the west coast of

Greece. It focused on occupations ranging from the native Corinthians to the outside

influence of the Venetians and the French. This history extended until the nineteenth

century as the Ionian Islands were put under Greek occupation. Ultimately it gave a

broader context for Corfu with an analysis of the islands bordering it.

Kazantzakis, Nikos. Journey to the Morea. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1965.

This book was another analysis of the Medieval fortifications within the Greek

Peloponnese. It provided details of fortress locations and design details which provided a

more detailed context to relate to both Corfu and Cyprus.

Keen, Maurice. Medieval Warfare: A History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

This book was another important find for the purpose of this paper. It provided a detailed

contextual analysis of Medieval warfare through every aspect. Foot soldiers, naval fleets,

siege warfare, and fortification design were all analyzed under a veil of constantly

evolving weaponry. Everything from early metal work through the invention of

gunpowder was all covered as a basis for military evolution.

Leventis, Panos. “Projecting Utopia: The Refortification of Nicosia, 1567-70.” CHORA

5: Intervals in the Philosophy of Architecture. ed. Alberto Perez-Gomez and

Stephen Parcell. (Montréal: McGill-Queens, 2007) 227-258.

This essay provided another vantage point to the Venetian radial city plan which

enhanced the overall understanding of the motives and decisions of the builder. The

writing outlined the artistic and anthropomorphic reasoning behind the “Ideal City” and

analyzed the fortification of Nicosia as a specific example.

Miller, William. “The Ionian Islands Under Venetian Rule.” The English Historical

Review 70 (1903): 209-239. Accessed September 8, 2010.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/549461.

This was another analysis of the Venetian occupation of the Ionian Islands which further

emphasized design ideas and the importance of Corfu as a strategic military position.

Corfu was revealed as the most important island of the Ionian Sea and it was established

as the last strongpoint between Venice and the Mediterranean.

Miller, William. “The Last Venetian Islands in the Aegean.” The English Historical


Shultz 46


This essay looks at another sea off of the Greek coast which is the Aegean and provides a

context of fortification and inhabitation in the Venetian civilization. The information

from this writing showed Venetian design decisions throughout the Middle Ages and

created a link in fortifications throughout the Mediterranean Sea area.

Miller, William. “The Venetian Revival in Greece, 1684-1718.” The English Historical



Nicholson, Helen. Medieval Warfare: Theory and Practice of War in Europe 300-1500.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004

This book provided a theory behind Medieval warfare that was not touched on so much

in other works. Battle strategies and military operation were highly influential in warfare

at this time and this book touches on this very well. Historical context is consistently

provided and the writing is easy to follow and interpret.

Nicolle, David. The Venetian Empire 1200-1670. Oxford, Great Britain: Osprey Publishing,

989.

It was important to establish a context for the reader to follow throughout this paper and

that was accomplished through the histories of the two conflicting empires. This book

gave a detailed look at the early history of the Venetian Empire which included its

participation in the Crusades and its establishment as a naval power on the

Mediterranean.

Nossov, Konstantin. Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons: A Fully Illustrated Guide to Siege

Weapons and Tactics. The Lyons Press, Konstantin Nossov, 2005.

To fully understand the effectiveness of the Corfiot fortifications and the ineffectiveness

of the Cypriot fortifications it was important to understand the technology they were

against. This book gave straightforward and detailed analysis of siege warfare including

weapons and strategy for the siege. It was easy to read and gave an unbiased review of

military strategy.

Perbellini, Gianni. "The Venetian defences of Cyprus." Fort 16, (1988): 7-44. Avery

Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2010).

The defenses of Cyprus were very unique and it was necessary to gather a wide variety of

research in order to fully understand the details of the fortification design. This essay

gave a more detailed analysis of the design decisions within the city walls that were

militarily related rather than an analysis of the radial city plan. This writing gave a

perspective of the built form as a result of the theory that was discovered in other

readings.

Shultz 47

Piperno, Roberto. "Venetian Fortresses in Greece."

2007.http://romeartlover.tripod.com/Venezia.html accessed September 14, 2010.

Similar to the readings on the fortifications in the Peloponnese of Greece this website

provided important information about the Venetian construction across Greece. It also

provided excellent images of both present day and historical structures in the same areas.

Potts, Jim. The Ionian Islands and Epirus: A Cultural History. Oxford: Signal Books

Limited, 2010.

This book was an up to date look at the Ionian Islands that provided history in terms of

culture with some regard to history and landscape. The culture and the people are

examined in this writing to establish a connection between the reader and the beautiful

humanity of the Mediterranean.

Soucek, Svatopluk. “Naval Aspects of the Ottoman Conquests of Rhodes, Cyprus, and

Crete.” Studia Islamica 98/99 (2004): 219-261. Accessed September 30, 2010.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20059216.

This essay was an important look at the specific naval impact of the Ottoman Empire on

the Mediterranean islands. Strategy and tactic were combined with technological

advancements such as incendiary ammunition to provide a detailed look at the conquest

of three islands during the early reign of the Ottoman Empire.

Thayer, William Roscoe. A Short History of Venice. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1905.

This in depth book specifically looked at the history of Venice and its expansion into the

Mediterranean Sea during the Middle Ages. It provided a unique aspect to the research

with its detailed analysis of the city of Venice itself and the political structure that began

in Italy before ever moving into the sea to the east.

Whatson-Northcyprus. The Venetian City Walls: Nicosia, Cyprus.

http://www.whatson-northcyprus.com/interest/nicosia/north_nicosia/walls.htm.

(Nov. 22, 2010)

This website provided some information on the Venetian fortifications of Nicosia through

an analysis of the ruins currently residing in the city. The website showed much needed

value in its images and ability to provide the written word with corresponding images.

Notes:

1 Horatio F. Brown, Venice: an Historical Sketch of the Republic, (New York, G. P. Putnam‟s Sons, 1893), 5

2 William Roscoe Thayer, A Short History of Venice, (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1905), 24

3 Ibid, 44-45

Shultz 48

4 Ibid, 46

5 Ibid, 71-72

6 Ibid, 73

7 Ibid, 158

8 Suraiya Faroqhi, The Ottoman Empire: A Short History, (Princeton, Markus Wiener Publishers, 2009), 41

9 Ibid, 55

10 Ibid, 51

11 Ibid, 51-52

12 Thayer, 259

13 Ibid, 301-302

14 Ibid, 305

15 Helen J. Nicholson, Medieval Warfare: Theory and Practice of Ware in Europe 300-1500, (New York, Palgrave

Macmillan, 2004), 40-42 16

Ibid, 46-47 17

Ibid, 45 18

Ibid, 45-47 19

Ibid, 47 20

Ibid, 49 21

Ibid, 50-51 22

David Nicolle, The Venetian Empire 1200-1670, (Oxford, Great Britain, Osprey Publishing, 1989), 4 23

Ibid, 5-6 24

Ibid, 5 25

Faroqhi, 58 26

Jim Bradbury, The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, (London, Routledge, 2004), 297 27

Nicolle, 6 28

Bradbury, 321 29

Bradbury, 320 30

Nicolle, 7 31

Konstantin Nossov, Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons: A Fully Illustrated Guide to Siege Weapons and

Tactics, ( The Lyons Press, Konstantin Nossov, 2005), 66 32

Ibid, 63 33

Ibid, 64 34

Tim Boatswain, A Traveller’s History of Cyprus, (Northampton, Massachusetts, Interlink Books, 2005), 3 35

Ibid, 4-46 36

Ibid, 46 37

Ibid, 47-97 38

Ibid, 21 39

Claude DeLaval Cobham, The Sieges of Nicosia and Famagusta in Cyprus, (London, St. Vincent‟s Press, 1899),

15-26 40

Ibid, 27-30 41

Ibid, 30 42

Ibid, 30-40 43

Ibid, 37 44

Leventis, Panos. “Projecting Utopia: The Refortification of Nicosia, 1567-70.” CHORA 5: Intervals in the

Philosophy of Architecture. 227-258ed. Alberto Perez-Gomez and Stephen Parcell. (Montréal: McGill-Queens,

2007), 228 45

Ibid, 242 46

Gianni Perbellini, "The Venetian Defences of Cyprus" Fort 16, (1988): 7-44, Avery Index to Architectural

Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2010), 37-39 47

Charles C. Climis, The Illustrated History of Corfu, Corfu: Charles C. Climis, 1994, 19 48

Ibid, 20-21 49

Ibid, 29 50

Ibid, 30-31 51

Ibid, 38 52

Ibid, 41

Shultz 49

53

Ibid, 47 54

Ibid, 49 55

Ibid, 70 56

Henry Jervis-White Jervis, History of the Island of Corfu and of the Republic of the Ionian islands, (London,

Colburn and Co. Publishers, 1852), 136-137 57

Ibid, 138 58

Ibid, 139-142 59

Quentin Hughes, “The Defences of Corfu,” Fort 14, (1986): 17-38, Avery Index to

Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2010), 17 60

Nick Edwards and John Gill, The Rough Guide to Corfu, (London, Penguin Books, 2003), 180-181 61

Hughes, 20 62

Matt Barrett, Corfu Town, Greek Travel, http://www.greecetravel.com/corfu/town.html, (Nov. 22, 2010) 63

Jervis, 126-127 64

Ibid, 122 65

Whatson-Northcyprus, The Venetian City Walls: Nicosia, Cyprus,

http://www.whatson-northcyprus.com/interest/nicosia/north_nicosia/walls.htm, (Nov. 22, 2010) 66

Hughes, 20 67

Jervis, 138

venetian corfu

Documents

venetian corfu

venetian fortifications

ottoman empire attack

islamic ottoman empire

venetian cities

mediterranean sea

republic of venice

ottoman military force