Knights of Malta and the Great Siege of 1565
- Luciano Anastasi
- 16 June 2026
- 0 Comment
- 19 Min Read
Overview
The Knights of Malta transformed a vulnerable island into a fortified Mediterranean stronghold. Their defence during the Great Siege of 1565 reshaped Malta’s future and left a legacy still visible in Valletta, Birgu and the Grand Harbour.
Cite This Work
Housing and Living in 14th-Century England
Introduction – Order’s Arrival (1530)
In the tense, shifting balance of 16th-century Mediterranean power, Malta lay at a vital crossroads. Its possession meant control over key sea lanes between Europe and North Africa. After the fall of Rhodes to the Ottomans in 1522, the Catholic military Order of St. John (the Hospitallers) roamed Europe seeking a new base. In 1530, Emperor Charles V (also King of Sicily) offered them the strategically barren islands of Malta and Gozo (and the port of Tripoli) as a fief. The Knights finally accepted and arrived in October 1530. Thus began the “Knights’ Period” (Żmien il-Kavallieri) of Maltese history.
The Hospitallers immediately set about transforming Malta into a bastion of Christendom. They settled in the small harbour town of Birgu (Vittoriosa), reinforcing the medieval castle (renamed Fort St. Angelo) and building new forts and villages. Their rule was quasi-sovereign (the Grand Master was elected as a prince of the Church), though formally the islands remained a vassal of Sicily. The Order revived its traditional maritime role: protecting pilgrims and waging war on the Muslim corsairs of the Mediterranean. They preyed on Ottoman and Barbary shipping, and Malta’s economy became more than self-sustaining – it grew into a regional trading hub. European merchants (Italian, Spanish, Jewish, even Muslim) traded grain, cloth, slaves and other goods through Malta, using the Knights’ consular networks and safe-conducts.
Despite these successes, Malta’s defences were stretched thin. The islands’ soil was poor, and most food had to be imported, forcing the Knights into ever more raiding. Relations with the local Maltese populace were generally cooperative but at times tense (recent studies note how Maltese civilians repaired forts and even fought alongside the knights during sieges). By the 1550s, the Order had launched several raids on Ottoman territories (provoking Ottoman wrath) and had lost Tripoli to the Turks (1551) after heavy fighting. In 1560, the Ottomans achieved a resounding victory at the Battle of Djerba off Tunisia, breaking a Christian fleet and effectively eliminating significant opposition in the central Mediterranean. The Knights of Malta had long expected that Suleiman’s forces would next set their sights on Malta itself.
Under Grand Master Jean Parisot de Valette (elected 1557), the Knights had little choice but to prepare for the inevitable. From 1552 onward, they constructed Fort St. Elmo (on the Sciberras peninsula) and the nearby city of Senglea, designed to seal the entrances to the Grand Harbour. De Valette stocked provisions and ordered the island’s defences manned. Remarkably, the Knights even sabotaged wells in forward areas to deny fresh water to any invaders. Yet these precautions could only go so far: Malta’s forts were dominated by nearby heights, and only Mdina (the inland capital) remained a safe retreat. When the vast Ottoman fleet finally appeared in May 1565, Malta would have only weeks – not years – to resist.
The Great Siege of 1565
Ottoman Invasion (May 1565)
On 18 May 1565, lookouts on Malta’s east coast sighted a distant fleet on the horizon. Sultan Suleiman I had at last dispatched his armada: some 180 galleys and warships carrying tens of thousands of troops. Official Ottoman registers (reported by historian Arnold Cassola) list around 23,000–25,000 regular soldiers (including ~6,300 Janissaries) for the expedition. In practice, they were joined by thousands of auxiliary corsairs from Algiers and elsewhere, swelling the invaders’ ranks to perhaps 30,000–40,000 men (some sources even cite up to 48,000). Contemporary chroniclers give wide-ranging figures: the Spanish arquebusier Francisco Balbi (an eyewitness) claimed ~29,000 Turks ashore (with more aboard ships), while some Christian accounts alleged as many as 48,000. Modern historians tend to accept a total of 30–35,000 Ottomans.
The bulk of the Ottoman fleet anchored off Marsaxlokk Bay on 19 May. They were led by Grand Vizier Lala Kara Mustafa Pasha (commander of the land army) and Admiral Piyale Pasha (naval commander). Also aboard was Turgut “Dragut” Reis, the fearsome Barbary corsair who had been Suleiman’s admiral at Djerba. Opposing them, the Maltese defenders numbered only about 6,000–8,000 men. Roughly 500–600 were Knights of St. John (the core elite), about 3,000 were Spanish and Italian regulars, and the rest were Maltese militia or mercenaries. All were placed under the seasoned 70-year-old Grand Master de Valette.
The Ottoman invaders began disembarking troops on 19 May and immediately moved to secure good landing beaches. By the next day, the Ottomans had pushed ~25,000 soldiers ashore. Their plan quickly became clear: they aimed first to capture Fort St. Elmo, which dominated the Grand Harbour approach on Sciberras, then seize the neighbouring cities of Birgu (Vittoriosa) and Senglea (L’Isla) on either side of the harbour. Grand Vizier Mustafa Pasha wanted to march on the inland capital of Mdina first, but Admiral Piyale insisted on reducing the new forts. Mustafa relented to Piyale’s view, instructing that the coastal fortresses be taken first. In hindsight, this proved a fateful error: de Valette had concentrated most of Malta’s heavy artillery in Fort St. Elmo, expecting it to be the enemy’s first target.
The Siege of Fort St. Elmo (27 May–23 June)
The assault on Fort St. Elmo began on 27 May 1565. Ottoman war machines pounded the star-shaped fort with cannon fire as elite Janissary and Barbary detachments pressed in waves of attack. Eager to seize the key fort quickly, the Turks actually miscalculated the defenders’ spirit. For nearly a month, the tiny garrison of St. Elmo – only a few hundred men at first – resisted ferociously. Knights and volunteers rowed across the narrow channel at night to reinforce the fort’s defenders whenever possible.
All this resistance was enormously costly for the Ottomans. By the time Fort St. Elmo finally fell on 23 June, its walls and bastions were rubble – but they had exacted a grim toll. Chroniclers estimate that the Turks suffered around 6,000 casualties in the siege of this one fort. Ammunition and powder stocks were exhausted. Dragut himself was killed in the bombardment (a cannon shot blew his ship’s rigging, and splinters mortally wounded him). The Ottomans eventually overran the fort, slaughtered almost all defenders (knights and Maltese alike), and erected a ceremonial pile of their heads – but the delay had a huge strategic impact.
Siege of Birgu and Senglea (July–August 1565)
With Fort St. Elmo gone, the Ottoman army turned west toward Birgu and Senglea, the twin peninsulas bracketing the Grand Harbour. These were now the only lodestones of Christian resistance. For the next two months, the siege entered its bloodiest phase. In mid-July, Ottoman forces made a series of coordinated land-and-sea assaults on Birgu/Senglea. On 15 July, for example, the Turks launched a simultaneous attack by boat and by infantry ladder-climbs. Maltese and Spanish defenders, firing from Fort St. Angelo and Birgu, sank scores of Turkish assault boats, inflicting hundreds of casualties; that attack was repulsed.
The Ottoman commanders persisted. Day after day, they bombarded the walls and tried new tactics. By late August, they resorted to mining under the walls. Between 19 and 21 August 1565, they detonated a massive underground charge beneath the Birgu bastions, creating a huge breach. Sultan Suleiman’s troops poured through, and for a terrifying moment the defenders feared the city would fall. Grand Master de Valette, sword in hand, rushed to the threatened breach along with a small reserve – an act lionised in later legend. By this time, the garrison had been reinforced by some refugees, and veteran knights rowed across from Senglea in small boats. These defenders managed to plug the gap: they engaged in brutal close combat among the rubble and drove the Ottomans back out of the breach.
Modern historians point out that Malta’s defence was a team effort. Detailed studies note that local Maltese militia and even civilians played indispensable roles in repairing walls and ferrying supplies to the forts at night. The large Spanish garrison endured some of the fiercest fighting, carrying burdens the heroic knights alone could not. By contrast, Ottoman coordination began to fray: rivalry between Piyale Pasha’s navy and Mustafa’s land army led to uneven focus, and disease (including plague) reportedly struck the invaders hard (possibly incapacitating ~25% of them by late June). Furthermore, the late summer weather worked against the Turks: September storms would soon make sailing and siege works difficult. In sum, the defenders’ endurance was aided by factors beyond martial valour alone.
Relief and Ottoman Withdrawal (7–8 September 1565)
By early September, both sides were exhausted. The Ottomans had lost a huge share of their force; traditional estimates suggest 25,000–35,000 Ottoman dead (from combat and disease). The defenders were down to perhaps 6,000 effective men and were running short of gunpowder and food. On 7 September, a fleet bearing the Gran Soccorso (“Great Relief”) appeared off Malta. Under Viceroy Don García de Toledo, some 8,000 reinforcements (Spanish, Italian, Tuscan, Genoese, Papal and Savoyard troops) landed at St. Paul’s Bay.
The relief force’s arrival could not have been more timely. Ottoman commanders realised they risked being trapped as autumn storms approached. On the night of 7–8 September, they began a hastily organised retreat. According to accounts, only about half of the Turks managed to re-embark; others were cut down or captured in the confusion. On 8 September (the Nativity of Mary), the Great Siege was over: the Ottoman army raised its tents and sailed away, abandoning many heavy guns and supplies. The few remaining Ottomans on Malta skirmished futilely at other points (even firing on Mdina in a bluff), but the written accounts agree that the enemy had effectively broken off the campaign.
Siege Casualties and Significance
The slaughter on both sides was horrific. Chroniclers recorded that Malta’s population suffered grievously: perhaps one-third of the island’s 16,000 inhabitants perished, along with about one-third of the Order’s knights (roughly 200 of the 600 present) and countless Maltese volunteers. Ottoman losses are much debated: Balbi’s diary claims 35,000 dead, while others (like Giacomo Bosio’s 17th-century history) say ~30,000. Recent scholarly reviews caution that such figures are educated estimates – perhaps in the 20,000–30,000 range. In any case, the Ottomans lost a large fraction (perhaps a third) of their invasion army, whereas the defenders simply held the island at enormous cost.
The siege’s outcome was immediately understood as momentous. Europe’s rulers hailed it as a miraculous victory against the “Invincible” Turks. Within weeks, financial gifts and volunteers began pouring into Malta. De Valette and his Council diverted much of these resources into rebuilding and improving the island’s defences – most famously by laying out a new fortified city on Sciberras Hill. From 1566, the city of Valletta rose (planned by the Italian engineer Francesco Laparelli) with imposing bastions, granaries and a grid of streets. In effect, Malta entered a golden age of Baroque art, urban architecture and resilient economy: the “time of the Knights” that followed was marked by peace, prosperity and splendid building projects.
European geopolitics was also affected. The defence of Malta inspired the Pope and Christian princes to form a Holy League, which six years later scored a great naval victory over the Ottomans at Lepanto (1571). Historians note that de Valette’s leadership “had a key influence” in rallying Europe against Ottoman expansion. In the long view, the siege did not end Ottoman ambitions, but it checked them and showed that even a tiny island could resist a vast empire when well-led and determined.
Analysis
The Great Siege has been studied extensively by both popular and academic historians, and it often occupies a mythic place in Maltese memory. Yet scholars urge a balanced perspective. For example, detailed analysis of combat records (notarial deeds, hospital rolls, letters) has revealed the siege’s hidden stories – the toil of ordinary Maltese who buried the dead nightly, the tens of thousands of cannonballs fired, and the grim interplay of terror tactics (both sides mutilated prisoners). Modern historians like A. Mallia-Milanes have emphasised that credit cannot go solely to the “500 Knights” (as later legends might imply) – Maltese militiamen and Spanish soldiers actually bore the brunt of many attacks. New research even urges caution about accepted figures: Ottoman archives found by Cassola suggest the Turkish infantry may have been smaller than medieval chroniclers believed. In short, recent work draws from both Christian and Muslim sources to create a fuller picture.
Critically, though, the contemporaneous primary sources underscore the reality of the siege. Francisco Balbi’s La verdadera relación (1567) – a diary-like account by a Spanish arquebusier in the Maltese garrison – remains the foundational eyewitness chronicle. All later histories rely heavily on Balbi’s day-by-day narrative. (He does not omit the heroism of the Maltese and Spaniards, nor the grim details of hunger and death.) Similarly, 17th-century historians of the Order (like Bosio and de Vertot) preserve details from documents and interviews of survivors. On the Ottoman side, relatively few first-hand chronicles survive in translation, but occasional letters from the Grand Vizier’s camp and Admiralty reports also confirm the basic outline: e.g., Piyale Pasha’s logs note the unexpected difficulty at St. Elmo, and the fleet’s heavy losses by late August. Comparing these independent narratives shows broad agreement on what mattered: the siege was nearly a pyrrhic victory for the defenders, but a catastrophic defeat for the invaders.
In modern scholarship, key works include Bruce Ware Allen’s The Great Siege of Malta: The Epic Battle between the Ottoman Empire and the Knights of St. John (2015), which synthesises archival research from both sides. Marcus Bull’s (2025) new history places the siege in a wider European context. Economic studies, such as Joan Abela’s Hospitaller Malta and the Mediterranean Economy in the Sixteenth Century (2018), remind us that Malta was not an isolated fortress but the hub of a trading network, and that the Order’s rule had complex effects on Maltese society. Taken together, the sources – both primary and scholarly – paint a picture of a brutal siege fought to the limits of early modern warfare, one that would reverberate across Europe.
Enjoyed this article?
Join The Medieval Chronicle on Substack for weekly medieval discoveries, book notes, and behind-the-scenes commentary from HistoryMedieval.
Legacy
Politically and culturally, the Knights of St. John left a deep legacy in Malta and beyond. After 1565, the Order entrenched Malta as a bulwark against the Ottomans. The new capital, Valletta (populated by wealth and artists), became a showcase of Renaissance- and Baroque-era architecture. Many churches, auberges (knights’ inns), and hospitals they built still stand – the grand legacy of 250 years of their rule. Valletta itself is a UNESCO World Heritage city, planned as a fortress-city on a grid pattern. Elsewhere on the islands, the Great Siege is remembered in place names (e.g. Fort Ricasoli, Fort St. Angelo) and monuments (such as Antonio Sciortino’s Great Siege Monument in Valletta).
Culturally, the siege became the stuff of legend. The Knights of Malta portrayed themselves as defenders of Christendom, and European books and prints of the late 16th–17th centuries celebrated the event. Spanish and Italian noble families preserved memories (de Valette was praised in Habsburg courts). In Malta today, 8 September is still celebrated as Victory Day (Jum il-Vitorja) to mark the lifting of the siege. Schools teach the story of the 1565 siege alongside other national myths of resistance. Historians note that this memory serves both to honour Maltese resilience and to connect modern Maltese identity to their multi-religious, Mediterranean heritage.
On the European stage, the siege temporarily halted Ottoman naval dominance. It gave Christian Europe a much-needed victory after a series of Ottoman triumphs. In that sense, it “shattered the Ottomans’ reputation of invincibility”. Even Suleiman lamented having “missed” the chance at Malta in 1551 and determined in 1565 to seize it. The failure at Malta and the later victory at Lepanto both reinforced the perception that Western fortresses could hold in the face of superior numbers. The Order of St. John itself went on to govern Malta until Napoleon arrived in 1798, by which time the geopolitical game had changed yet again. Its later decline does not diminish the 1565 heroism, which remains a defining chapter of the medieval-to-early-modern transition in Maltese and Mediterranean history.
Conclusion
The story of the Knights of Malta is one of faith, strategy and sheer endurance. From the rocky islands of Malta in the 1530s, this small chivalric order carved out a centre of power. They cultivated a vibrant society and economy, even as their raison d’être – hostility with the Muslim world – framed everything. The Great Siege of 1565 was the climax of this medieval-renaissance chapter: an extraordinary siege in which a few thousand defenders held off an empire. The Knights’ victory owed much to leadership (Valette’s resolve), fortifications (modern bastions), and support from Maltese citizens and allied troops. It also depended on chance – the timely Sicilian relief and on Ottoman missteps.
In modern times, historians continue to probe the archives and chronicles of both sides to understand precisely what happened and why. Yet the consensus is clear: the siege was a turning point. If Malta had fallen, the Ottomans would have gained an invaluable base at the gateway to Italy. Instead, the islands remained a Christian outpost, and the Order’s prestige was burnished. The outcome reshaped Mediterranean geopolitics and left an indelible mark on Maltese culture.
Today’s visitor to Malta can still walk the bastions of Valletta and Birgu, standing where de Valette and his knights stood in 1565. The legacy of the Knights – their buildings, traditions, and the story of the Great Siege – has become woven into the very identity of Malta. As one contemporary Maltese put it, “the Grand Master gave us faith and courage in the darkest of hours,” a memory kept alive in art, ceremony and national pride.
Recommended Books
Frequently Asked Questions
Who were the Knights of Malta?
When did the Knights arrive in Malta?
Why did the Ottoman Empire attack Malta in 1565?
What happened during the Great Siege of Malta?
Why was Fort St Elmo so important?
What was the legacy of the Great Siege?
Related Articles
Sources
- Abela, J. (2018). Hospitaller Malta and the Mediterranean economy in the sixteenth century. Boydell Press.
- Balbi di Correggio, F. (1567). La verdadera relación de todo lo que este año de 1565 ha sucedido en la isla de Malta.
- Bosio, G. (1594–1602). Dell’istoria della sacra religione et illustrissima militia di San Giovanni Gierosolimitano.
- Bradford, E. (1961). The Great Siege: Malta 1565. Hodder & Stoughton.
- Braudel, F. (1972). The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in the age of Philip II. University of California Press.
- Cassola, A. (1999). The 1565 Great Siege of Malta and Hipolito Sans’s La Maltea. Publishers Enterprises Group.
- Mallia-Milanes, V. (Ed.). (1993). Hospitaller Malta, 1530–1798: Studies on early modern Malta and the Order of St John of Jerusalem. Mireva Publications.
- Setton, K. M. (1984). The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571: Volume IV. The sixteenth century from Julius III to Pius V. American Philosophical Society.
License & Copyright
The copyright holder has published this content under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon this content non-commercially, as long as they credit the author and license their new creations under the identical terms. When republishing on the web a hyperlink back to the original content source URL must be included. Please note that content linked from this page may have different licensing terms.
If I have mistakenly misused any of your content, artwork, images, or videos, please contact me on historymedieval62@gmail.com and I will take the necessary corrective action.
This website uses affiliate links. If you purchase via these links, we might earn a commission that contributes to sustaining the HistoryMedieval.com platform.
Luciano Anastasi
Luciano is the founder of the MedievalHistory platform and the LinkedIn History Enthusiasts Group, where he is dedicated to curating and sharing high-quality medieval history content. His goal is to engage scholars, teachers, students, and enthusiasts by fostering insightful discussions and promoting scholarly resources on topics from medieval warfare and religion to societal transformations and daily life in the Middle Ages.
Luciano is also an active book reviewer, focusing on academic publications related to medieval history. He recently collaborated with Yale University Press to review forthcoming medieval history titles, aiming to deepen educators' and researchers' understanding of the period. Alongside his history endeavors, he has over 40 years of experience in IT leadership roles across various industries, including the public sector, banking, insurance, airlines and consulting, and has contributed to United Nations projects.
With a Master of Arts in Business Process Management, Luciano combines his expertise in IT strategy and governance with his passion for medieval history. He leverages technology to bridge the academic community and the wider public, making historical scholarship more accessible through engaging online content.





![The Hospitallers found a “third life” on Malta. [1680 painting by L.A. Castro]](https://historymedieval.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/The-Hospitallers-found-a-third-life-on-Malta.-1680-painting-by-L.A.-Castro-350x300.webp)

















