Today is the anniversary of one of the most important battles in human history, yet at least in America there are probably very few who are even aware of it. In the sixteenth century the Ottoman Empire was very expansionistic, launching campaigns and capturing territory on many occasions. They built an enormous navy and moved against Malta in 1565, then Cyprus in 1570, and then prepared to strike westward again in 1571. A combined European force was gathered and they met off the western shore of Greece on October 7, 1571. The Europeans won a complete victory and only 40 of 300 Ottoman ships survivied.
If the Ottoman Empire had won, they would have had naval supremacy in the Mediterranean and a cakewalk invasion of Italy, probably followed by further incursions into Western Europe. The entire course of history would be changed.
I won’t spend a lot of time arguing it that fiercely, but it should be pointed out that many historians disagree over the relative importance and impact of Lepanto. The loss of skilled personnel surely hampered Ottoman fleet effectiveness for a time, but the fleet itself was replaced within a year, rebuilt even larger than before. The issue was probably more of the limitation of galley warfare in the Mediterranean generally - logistically they were tied to land bases, which really limited their ability to project power. Also the rapidly increasing coast of maintaining them in light of their decreasing effectiveness ( modern fortresses in particular were harder to take in a galley season ) was crippling to all three major galley powers ( Spain, Venice and the Ottomans ). The last major long-range expedition by a galley fleet was just a few years later in 1574, when the rebuilt Ottoman fleet took Tunis back from Spain. Thereafter naval operations in the Mediterranean more or less stagnated. As for the battle itself:
It was unusual as both sides deliberately sought offensive action without having any important strategic purpose to seek battle for. It was too late in the season to make use of a victory and neither side threatened any vital interests of the other.
From Warfare At Sea, 1500-1650:Maritime Conflicts and the Transformation of Europe by Jan Glete ( 2000, Routledge ).
But I’d have to agree that whatever the long-term impact, as naval victories go they don’t get much more impressive :).
A lot of the historic significance is not so much for the battle itself, as for what it meant for the Western European map of alliances. The Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, during the Spanish Reconquista, is important for similar reasons (it also opened an important pass, but similar passes had been going back and forth for the last 400 years); the Kings of Navarra and Aragon had nothing immediate to gain for being there.