Accusation, Defense and Self-Defense: The Debate on the Action of Giovanni Andrea Doria in Lepanto

The interpretation of the battle of Lepanto is marred by two great misunderstandings. First: the battle is a decisive clash which leads to the end of Ottoman naval supremacy in the Mediterranean and which saves Europe from the threat of a Muslim invasion. Secondly: all Christians (Italians, Spaniards, Maltese) fought heroically; all but one: Giovanni Andrea Doria. The battle was not characterized by complex manoeuvres, but it developed as a large, furious and chaotic melee. Doria was the lead actor of the only manoeuvring action, together with his Ottoman opponent: Ulugh Alì. A manoeuvring action that immediately triggered several controversies. Marcantonio Colonna, his entourage, the Pope and the Roman Curia labelled the Doria with the seal of infamy, by accusing him of cowardice and of having manoeuvred in order to escape from the battle. These accusations are based on considerations that have nothing to do with the reality of naval combat: they were groundless accusations, the result of Colonna’s personal antipathies towards Doria. These antipathies were born from the contrasts that occurred between the two admirals during the campaign of 1570. Furthermore, they were born due to the picture that the pontifical propaganda had given of the Genoese asentists: mercenaries of the sea, treacherous privateers. These accusations immediately led to the formation of two sides (accusers and defenders) and, as a result, forms of self-defence and of self-celebration on the part of the accused. The accusations then quickly lost their substance, until they found new strength in the XIX century, within a historiographical debate that has come down even to the present day.