"Ernle Bradford "The Great Siege"" Topic

I read this many years ago, whilst on holiday in Malta, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Since then I have heard mutterings that it is significantly flawed / inaccurate. However, what I cannot find is WHERE it is flawed or WHAT is inaccurate, so…

Can anyone direct me to either:
A reliable critique of Bradford's work, showing the flaws;

OR

A reliable, accurate account of the 1565 siege, so I can compare it against Bradford's work and spot the issues myself.

Thanks in advance.

"The Great Siege: Knights vs. Turks MDLXV. Anatomy of a Hospitaller Victory" by Stephen C. Spiteri

might be what you are looking for.

I don't recall thinking anything seemed wrong when I read Bradford though.

Keraunos,

thanks. I've come across Spiteri's work before, and find it to be extremely good, FWTW (he wrote a book on the fortifications of the order and a monograph on the armour in the palaces in Valetta.

I didn't think there was anything wrong with Bradford either, but I have read on a number of occasions that his analysis is "flawed". I cannot establish whether this means he got some facts wrong, interpreted some facts wrongly, didn't use all sources or simply drew "incorrect" conclusions (i.e. what later revisionists disagree with). I'd like to establish whether he is flawed as Guthrie is flawed, or he simply doesn't comply with a.n. other author's views on the events.

Thanks again.

I'm glad you could find Spiteri, I can't – just a book by him on the contents of the Maltese armoury, which is not the same thing, I suspect.

Crawley's Empires of the Sea will give an easily accessible biography (and a great read) for the current historiography, I think.

It's a good book and a real page turner. V. good holiday material.

I've read a few books on the siege and nothing he wrote stands out as that different. Your comment "or he simply doesn't comply with a.n. other author's views on the events." is probably right. Hard to prove one way or the other, I would think.

The best thing about Bradfords was the amount of credit he gave the Maltese, something that can get overlooked.

I have just read Bradford and Crawley and loved them both. I then read The Knights of Malta by H.J.A Sire, and he indicates in his notes that Bradford is very erroneous.

In reading the admittedly short chapter in Sire, the only major differences I really saw between him and Bradford (granted, Sire did not go into great details of the siege) was the evaluation of Don Garcia de Toledo, the viceroy of Sicily. Bradford was very critical of him whilst Sire is almost panegyric, giving him almost more credit then Valette.

Crawley is in the middle but closer to Sire, which is where I am on the issue, with Crawley. I do believe Bradford is too hard on him.

Can anyone direct me as to how I can obtain a copy of:
Stephen C. Spiteri: The Great Siege: Knights vs. Turks mdlxv – Anatomy of a Hospitaller Victory