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
2.2 Hughes, Quentin. "The Defences of Corfu." Fort 14, (1986): 17-38. Avery Index to
Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2010). 18
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
2.4 Hughes, Quentin. "The Defences of Corfu." Fort 14, (1986): 17-38. Avery Index to
Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2010). 18
Shultz 35
2.5 Hughes, Quentin. "The Defences of Corfu." Fort 14, (1986): 17-38. Avery Index to
Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2010). 22
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
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 39
2.2 Hughes, Quentin. "The Defences of Corfu." Fort 14, (1986): 17-38. Avery Index to
Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2010). 18
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
2.4 Hughes, Quentin. "The Defences of Corfu." Fort 14, (1986): 17-38. Avery Index to
Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2010). 18
Shultz 42
2.5 Hughes, Quentin. "The Defences of Corfu." Fort 14, (1986): 17-38. Avery Index to
Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2010). 22
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
Review 86 (1907): 304-308. Accessed September 24, 2010.
Shultz 46
http://www.jstor.org/stable/550570
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
Review 35 (1920): 343-366. Accessed September 24, 2010.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/551502
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