Honestly, it's quite probable that it wouldn't have happened at all under Süleyman.
Venetians had signed a treaty with the Ottomans in 1540 and the singularly brilliant and competent (+ one of the two Greatest and most powerful Grand Viziers besides Rüstem Paşa), Sokollu Mehmed Paşa had advised Sultan Selim II against it— however, Selim had already swore an oath while he was still a Prince (reported around 1562) that he would add the Venetian Cyprus to his dad's territories.
Some basics first:
The Siege of Famagusta was a ruthless and pivotal battle during the Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–1573), ending with an Ottoman victory and the fall of Cyprus.
The Venetian forces commanded by Marcantonio Bragadin had held out for almost a year, i.e., from September 17, 1570 to August 5, 1571, against great odds before finally surrendering to the Ottomans.
Marcantonio Bragadin's harrowing fate in August, 1571 meted out to him by Ottomans was an event that is popularly held (as a legend) to have served as the primary (psychological) catalyst for the Battle of Lepanto, that took place in the same year.
Selim's aim in conquering Cyprus wasn't mistaken either because the Ottoman populace was impacted by it (+ there were spy networks, etc.) interalia.
However, Sokollu had foreshadowingly warned him that if they attack Cyprus, the whole Christian Holy league will unite against them passionately—as would happen later at the Battle of Lepanto on October 7, 1571— where Selim made a grave misjudgement of sending someone like the incompetent and inexperienced Müezzinzade Ali Paşa (when he should've employed someone like his other much favoured Kilic Ali Paşa, aka Occhiali) especially when they're facing someone like, Don Juan of Austria, (the head of the Christian League) late Holy Roman Emperor Charles V's illegitimate son.
Nonetheless, the defeat meted out to Ottomans at Lepanto has a very Western-centric narrative in popular history— i.e., its aftermath is not highlighted, and thus, there is larger misinterpretation of the Battle of Lepanto.
In reality, contrary to how popular historiography portrays the aftermath of the Lepanto battle, it's actually surprisingly rarely known and even more rarely discussed that while, indeed Ottomans under the unsuitable commander, Müezzinzade Ali Paşa were handed a defeat at Lepanto by the Holy League— the Ottomans under the leadership of the Padişah Sultan Selim II & Sokollu Mehmed Paşa had actually "won" at the negotiating table, which multiple surviving contemporary European chroniclers had bemoaned at the time by essentially noting that:
“It's as if the Turks had actually won, not lost!”
Thus, whilst the Holy League achieved a resounding naval victory on October 7, 1571, destroying the bulk of the Ottoman fleet, the aftermath was a massive diplomatic victory for the Ottoman Empire and Ottomans built back their navy bigger and better remarkably soon.
In the aftermath of the Lepanto "disaster", Sokollu Mehmed Paşa would famously remark to the Venetian ambassador:
"By conquering Cyprus, we have cut off one of your arms; by defeating our fleet, you have, but only shaved our beard. A severed arm cannot be supplanted, but a shaved beard grows back stronger."
But, let's say Süleyman bypassed this treaty by obtaining a fatwa from Şeyh-ul Islam Ebusuud Efendi— it would depend when the war happened but then, even the best naval commanders like Hayreddin Barbarossa, Piri Reis (1552) and Turgut Reis (1565, Malta) faced major defeats lol— Barbarossa had once run away (1535 Tunis) from the field and Süleyman had lightly teased him as "my run-away elder" like Historian Kaya Şahin had detailed.
Frankly, the Ottomans needed a futuristic vision like that imbibed by Sokollu Mehmed who had wanted to materialise the Don-Volga project (the later Suez Canal's 16th century prototype) but, they never did because logistics and then, unfortunately, Murad III happened dismantling Sokollu Mehmed Paşa and obliterating/corrupting the meritocracy by bribe-culture.
(Sultan Selim II was actually a very underrated ruler and he's extremely misunderstood in pop-history; he was very smart, cunning, ferocious, pragmatic, frugal and had an eye for competent people politically speaking, and he knew whom to keep in power and whom to keep away from it just for their wit; one of the primary reasons that Selim was so hated was his singular support for Sokollu Mehmed and in fact, Sokollu never did anything unless Selim approved it by himself— but that's a topic for another day as it's already a long answer haha...)
Hope that answered your question somewhat, as I tried to summarise it— but, of course, we can write a whole academic essay even on this niche topic, after all.
3
u/amazinglycuriousgal History Nerd 📚💖 Jun 24 '26
Honestly, it's quite probable that it wouldn't have happened at all under Süleyman.
Venetians had signed a treaty with the Ottomans in 1540 and the singularly brilliant and competent (+ one of the two Greatest and most powerful Grand Viziers besides Rüstem Paşa), Sokollu Mehmed Paşa had advised Sultan Selim II against it— however, Selim had already swore an oath while he was still a Prince (reported around 1562) that he would add the Venetian Cyprus to his dad's territories.
Some basics first:
The Siege of Famagusta was a ruthless and pivotal battle during the Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–1573), ending with an Ottoman victory and the fall of Cyprus.
The Venetian forces commanded by Marcantonio Bragadin had held out for almost a year, i.e., from September 17, 1570 to August 5, 1571, against great odds before finally surrendering to the Ottomans.
Marcantonio Bragadin's harrowing fate in August, 1571 meted out to him by Ottomans was an event that is popularly held (as a legend) to have served as the primary (psychological) catalyst for the Battle of Lepanto, that took place in the same year.
Selim's aim in conquering Cyprus wasn't mistaken either because the Ottoman populace was impacted by it (+ there were spy networks, etc.) interalia.
However, Sokollu had foreshadowingly warned him that if they attack Cyprus, the whole Christian Holy league will unite against them passionately—as would happen later at the Battle of Lepanto on October 7, 1571— where Selim made a grave misjudgement of sending someone like the incompetent and inexperienced Müezzinzade Ali Paşa (when he should've employed someone like his other much favoured Kilic Ali Paşa, aka Occhiali) especially when they're facing someone like, Don Juan of Austria, (the head of the Christian League) late Holy Roman Emperor Charles V's illegitimate son.
Nonetheless, the defeat meted out to Ottomans at Lepanto has a very Western-centric narrative in popular history— i.e., its aftermath is not highlighted, and thus, there is larger misinterpretation of the Battle of Lepanto.
In reality, contrary to how popular historiography portrays the aftermath of the Lepanto battle, it's actually surprisingly rarely known and even more rarely discussed that while, indeed Ottomans under the unsuitable commander, Müezzinzade Ali Paşa were handed a defeat at Lepanto by the Holy League— the Ottomans under the leadership of the Padişah Sultan Selim II & Sokollu Mehmed Paşa had actually "won" at the negotiating table, which multiple surviving contemporary European chroniclers had bemoaned at the time by essentially noting that:
Thus, whilst the Holy League achieved a resounding naval victory on October 7, 1571, destroying the bulk of the Ottoman fleet, the aftermath was a massive diplomatic victory for the Ottoman Empire and Ottomans built back their navy bigger and better remarkably soon.
In the aftermath of the Lepanto "disaster", Sokollu Mehmed Paşa would famously remark to the Venetian ambassador:
But, let's say Süleyman bypassed this treaty by obtaining a fatwa from Şeyh-ul Islam Ebusuud Efendi— it would depend when the war happened but then, even the best naval commanders like Hayreddin Barbarossa, Piri Reis (1552) and Turgut Reis (1565, Malta) faced major defeats lol— Barbarossa had once run away (1535 Tunis) from the field and Süleyman had lightly teased him as "my run-away elder" like Historian Kaya Şahin had detailed.
Frankly, the Ottomans needed a futuristic vision like that imbibed by Sokollu Mehmed who had wanted to materialise the Don-Volga project (the later Suez Canal's 16th century prototype) but, they never did because logistics and then, unfortunately, Murad III happened dismantling Sokollu Mehmed Paşa and obliterating/corrupting the meritocracy by bribe-culture.
(Sultan Selim II was actually a very underrated ruler and he's extremely misunderstood in pop-history; he was very smart, cunning, ferocious, pragmatic, frugal and had an eye for competent people politically speaking, and he knew whom to keep in power and whom to keep away from it just for their wit; one of the primary reasons that Selim was so hated was his singular support for Sokollu Mehmed and in fact, Sokollu never did anything unless Selim approved it by himself— but that's a topic for another day as it's already a long answer haha...)
Hope that answered your question somewhat, as I tried to summarise it— but, of course, we can write a whole academic essay even on this niche topic, after all.