Overrated. Mostly by the self-aggrandizing Islamists who purports its "greatness". The chief claim to its prestige is the rapid and successful military conquests, but they were mostly riding on the previous escapades of the Ummayyads who themselves merely exploited the situation between the Eastern Romans and the Sassanids. It's quite commonly known that the stale-mate war between the Eastern Romans and Persians utterly depleted their manpower and resources, which made it far easier for the emerging Arab armies to sweep over areas in Iran and the Levant where military presence was slim to none. I mean that's frankly just common sense. And had the Eastern Romans been at full capacity, it would've been an entirely different matter facing the subsequent Rashiduns and Abbassids, who, despite facing a very weak and already worn out Roman Empire, did suffer several defeats by them and were unable to move further than easternmost Anatolia. And never took Constatinople despite numerous attempts, given that the Theodosian walls were the greatest defenses of the known world back then.
Their supposed superiority in scientific advancement is owed the Eastern Romans as well. It was upon greek principles of math and logic that Abbasids expanded ideas of algebra and the like. And Constantinople's library and knowledge was so vast that whenever Abbasids won over the Romans in battle, they demanded books rather than gold in tribute to glean the insights they needed to advance their own society.
These multiple Caliphate dynasties never lasted long either. The Ummayyads a mere 69 years before falling, the Rashidun only 29 years. The Abbasids survived longest, but a short and tumultous time in comparison to other empires. Certainy compared to the 1000+ years existence of the Romans.
Yeah the rise of the early Islamic empires, like the Umayyads and Abbasids, benefited from favorable circumstances, particularly the weakening of the Byzantines and Sassanids after prolonged wars. However, reducing their success to mere military opportunities underestimates the cultural, scientific, and administrative achievements of these caliphates.
Indeed, the caliphates did build on Greek and Roman knowledge, but they also greatly enriched it. For example, the advancements in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine developed under the Abbasids laid important foundations that influenced the European Renaissance. Muslim scholars didn’t just translate Greek texts; they critiqued, improved, and transmitted them to the West, notably through Muslim Spain.
As for the duration of empires, it’s true that the Muslim dynasties experienced periods of decline, but this is also true for all great historical powers. The comparison with the Roman Empire is interesting, but it’s also worth noting that the cultural and religious influence of Islam extends far beyond political boundaries and endures to this day, independent of the dynasties.
Lastly, the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453, long after the fall of the Abbasids, attests to the perseverance and lasting impact of Muslim powers in history.
@BaronReagan The early muslim conquests utilized weak and weary opposing powers and united a tremendous amount of Arab tribes while forcibly converting or slaughtering those Christian or pagan tribes who refused, their bloodthirstiness in conquest is also a factor in their rapid momentum, which wasn't always the standard in western conquests. So no, I don't agree that I reduce anything, it's an accurate assessment.
Continuing on already substantially commenced works doesn't really impress me. And beside the Greek and Roman foundation, the Abassids and other Caliphates routinely coveted Eastern Roman knowledge whose libraries were famously vast and incredibly rich. They would even demand books rather than gold during the instances where the muslims defeated the romans in battle.
@BaronReagan The Rennaissance being influenced by the Abbasids is quite the bold, and inaccurate statement. By the time of the medieval rennaissance in Italy the Abbassids were shells of their former selves and the Europeans were building on discoveries of their own from the High and Late middle ages which had seen the flourishing of the first universities like Bologna, Oxford, Sorbonne, monasteries sponsoring science etc, not imported ideas.
You're bypassing the point by saying that all powers waxe and wane, that wasn't the point. They do, but the duration of the caliphates excluding the Abbassids were curiously weak and only goes to show that the vast tracts of conquests made was in no small measure a huge overextension of their lines which was unsustainable.
And as for Constantinople that statement is simply very queer to me. Constantinople had endured centuries of failed sieges being chipped away at each time. Even Attila the Hun took one look at the Theodosian walls and turned back where he came from. The Ottomans at 1453 did not win by an obvious landslide-victory, the city was still very much capable of defending itself, but happenstance discoveries of weak spots, weary and drained walls and manpower from 1204 and other factors of luck for the Turks resulted in their victory. And if muslim powers lay claim to lasting impacts in history, it fades rather severely in comparison to Christendom.
Yet the Europeans failed in their main objective during the Crusades, and the Ottoman Empire only came to an end in the 20th century when it was extremely weak. Not very impressive, and even the massive colonial conquests of the Europeans were only made against second-rate or extremely weak powers.
@BaronReagan They did not fail. The First Crusade was a military juggernaut not seen before or since who steamrolled the Fatamids and established several very prosperous kingdoms for centuries, in the midst of surrounding and huge muslim kingdoms incessantly harrassing it. Even when nearly undone, legendary warrior kings like Lionheart defeated the best the muslims had to offer back then (Salah-ad-Din) in every battle and ensured the continuation of the whole Levantine coast and its rich coast cities for centuries. The logistics and finance of the Crusades was magnanimously difficult not the least due to the distance, but still succeeded for a long time.
The Ottomans declined steadily after Vienna 1683 and never stopped. Because they became too bold in provoking European powers. They too failed in taking the "apple of Europe" which they called Vienna a city they desperately coveted but could not breach despite two attempts and overwhelming numerical advantage.
And the British empire, largest empire in world history, owning land in every part of the world, formally ended only decades ago, and not out of weakness but willingly so due to changed political paradigms. So what's the point. The Christina colonial empires were the greatest powers of history and by the 1500's Spain/Portugal was already the dominant force who also bested the Ottomans at several points. So "only against second-rate or extremely weak powers" guess again.
Sorry, but the main objective of the crusades was not achieved.
And yes, the European conquests weren't impressive, they were conquests against countries that were weak or in serious decline.
And the Ottomans also beat the Europeans and we even had territories in Europe. Moreover, the Europeans often attacked the Ottoman Empire in coalition.
And by the way, Constantinople still belongs to us today and I know that Europeans dreamed of taking it from the Ottoman Empire.
@BaronReagan You're frankly just denying factual evidence with hollow words in the first two passages so it's no point in even addressing them. But seriously friend it's quite pathetic to deny that European conquests were impressive. It's commonly known and accepted. I mean you do realize the Spanish conquest of south america for example was against the mesoamerican empires numbering in the millions? Yet Cortéz and his conquistadors made quick work of them. To even reach all the places they did was incredibly impressive as it required extreme endurance and navigational skill not to mention advanced ships, which Europe had. No Ottoman would ever have had the ships or skills to circumvent the whole of Africa in the 1500's.
And the Ottomans couldn't even conquer the tiniest island, Malta, where a handful of Hospitaller knights shattered their superior army in 1565. The holdings in central Europe was against weak and small state which made for easy pickings by the Ottomans, like Venice, Bulgaria, Croatia etc. They routinely lost when they tried against the big boys. Lepanto for instance, or the Battle of Zenta, first siege of Vienna, the Habsurg-Ottoman wars, or of course the Russo-Turkish wars where the Russian empire wiped the floor with them in battle after battle and war after war.
@BaronReagan Congratulations. You took a city that was the most shining edifice of civilization and beauty and degraded it to the mediocre pit known as Istanbul today. And no, Europeans didn't dream of taking it back. We no longer needed that Bulwark, because we already controlled the entire western continent and lands in Asia and Africa, with the wealthiest and most powerful empire of the day.
And up until decades ago we ruled more than half of your territories between the french and British empires and we've routinely defeated you for the last millennia. The whole modern world lives and breathes Christendom in every facet of society and civilization. And has done so for 500 years. Already by 1400, the Christian west in Europe was the wealthiest region of the world per capita and the most important region.
I suppose we're done here since this is evidently the best you can come up with.
@BaronReagan Bottom line, we've ruled your lands countless times as Christians. But our lands, as in western Christian Europe, muslims have never ruled here even as you've tried ever since your first failed attempts at the battle of Tours 732.
We kicked european ass too, be it English, the french cowards etc and no your conquests are not impressive, just against weak or already weakened states, stop self-sucking, seriously dude 😂
and if, big liar, the Europeans tried to retake Constantinople without succes
Europeans had to join forces to win 😂
And Greece, Armenia for example were our whores, and Armenia being Christian we also occupied Christian territories, and look at the massive Muslim immigration in your countries 😂
Now that kind of knowledge dropped deserves a follow! I disagree with your assertion that the Golden age of arts and sciences was not homegrown though. Sure some of it was built off others but The successes were their own
@baronreagan
@knightwatch27
I'm so glad to meet you guys!!! Thanks for the GREAT dialogue!!!
@BaronReagan And there's your true face. You gave off a charade of objectivity and knowledge in the beginning but prod just a little and out comes the arrogant and ignorant Muslim. Full of insecurity and petty insults, and weak arguments which he can do naught but regurtitate in absurdum.
You haven't kicked any ass for half a millennia. All you have are words. I've given real historical examples in abundance.
I obviously hit a nerve and now you got really angry as to say anything to get under my skin. Gonna have to do better than that though.
@knightwatch27
I've been answering your ridiculous arguments, blond boy.
For half a millennium? 😂 Seriously go study our history better and you'll see that we kicked ass less than half a millennium ago.
You're just a right-wing populist, But who thinks he's a conservative because he believes in God 😂
@BaronReagan Haha, you're gonna have to try way better desert dweller. I've dealt with dogs with far worse barks.
@knightwatch27 I'm not trying to upset you 😂 I've also known guys tougher than you, but the difference is that here in Turkey we don't talk much, we end up fighting.
@BaronReagan Amditting to being barbarians, I won't endeavour to try and make you comprehend ho ironic that is lol.
@knightwatch27
Dude you talk through your screen but if I had you in front of me, believe me blondie you would not tell me what you say here through your screen, because I will make you regret it.
@BaronReagan Oooh tough guy. I shiver. Haha.
@knightwatch27
You only have the guts to talk behind a screen. I know guys like you—when it’s face-to-face, they talk a lot less, or they end up with their heads bashed in. That’s how it works around here.
@BaronReagan You know nothing about me. And behind a screen is the only place you'd dare make threats like that. You don't scare me bub. You wouldn't face to face either. You Turks always talk big. And as I said, barbarians.
Come to Turkey man and we'll see if you still have balls 😂
You think you're a badass because you go to the gym a little? 😂 I do too, and I've been boxing for many years, and other combat sports. I probably have more fights , or street fights than you.
@BaronReagan You really are insecure aren't you haha. You're just mad you lost the debate. If we ever cross paths I'd be happy to oblige your caveman wishes to fight, where you can't win with words you think fists can help? Think that'll prove your manliness? I'm afraid I'd dissapoint you. Boxing doesn't make you a fighter friend, it makes you an entertainer. But for now this scrap is over. Good day.
@knightwatch27
I don't just box, Einstein, and yes I certainly have a lot more fighting experience than you. You're just a guy who acts tough behind his screen.
And you didn't win the debate 😂 I responded to your arguments and you started to change the subject 😂
@BaronReagan Haha, yea anyone who'll look at this thread will clearly see that you're the one who changed the subject there buddy after failing again and again. Nice try.
@knightwatch27
I argued, and to my arguments you replied as follows
"And there's your true face. You gave off a charade of objectivity and knowledge in the beginning but prod just a little and out comes the arrogant and ignorant Muslim... "
So you didn't answer my arguments, But you're trying to pass yourself off as the intellectual you are not. 😂
@BaronReagan Yeah, completely skipping the whole previous passages I provided to which you only responded with meek whataboutisms. Who are you trying to fool lol You're not even good at lying.
@knightwatch27
I've answered your allegations, whether about the European colonial conquest, whether about the fact that Europeans have owned territories "in Islamic lands", whether about the fact that Europeans have won battles against the Ottomans, I've answered all of them.
and as you didn't know what to answer, you deviated from the subject, as I showed you.
First of all, instead of moaning here by saying we Turks took the city of Istanbul and then downgraded it, be a man enough to keep the immigrants out of your country first and learn to protect your culture, traditions. They literally overtook your country and you guys can't do anything about it, yet you're playing the ''saviour European'' here.. thats all just talk but an average guy from Europe these days don't have guts to take an action.
The fun fact about things you say is, so when Ottomans/Turks win against Europe you call it like it was a ''luck'' or trying to show our victory as something small, like the example you gave about Byzantines and said it wasn't a huge victory but Byzantines already had weak points, however when Europeans win against the Ottomans then you call it a success and you guys bested the Ottomans.. lmfao, if you want to know who dominated who then you should clearly see some certain events happened in history.
You're from Sweden, your King Charles XII of Sweden himself left his country to get sheltered by the Turks, altough his country was about to get swallowed by the Russians.. then we fought against Russia around Prut 1710 and defeated them, we got ourselves into sh.!*t just to save your King's butt, and you coming here trying to put Turks into lower situation without even looking at your miserable past.
Ottoman Empire maybe couldn't take Malta, it wasn't because of the great defense of Maltese Knights.. they were already humiliated enough by Ottomans at Rhodes, Cyprus and then in Crete. Malta is an Island which is literally situated up on hills, thats a rocky place and its extremely hard for aggressor force to climb up the ladders in order to take the whole place. Malta wasn't consisted of only 1 castle, it had around like 3 castles in total.. Ottomans managed to take two of them but couldn't go further related to rumours about Kingdom Of Sicily might send backup, also the Naval & Land commanders were in disagreement in the Ottoman Army, therefore Ottomans decided to pull back from Malta and they believed the heart-attack they caused to Italy was just enough.
Ottoman Empire never saw Vienna as very important city which they had to take, Ottomans wanted to take Rome since it was heart of the Christianity. They couldn't do that, because it was actually Ottomans who were outnumbered by Europeans.. we usually fought against Holy Leauges of Europe, not against only 1 country and thats how we managed to stay in Eastern Europe for around 500 years, check out Battle Of Nicopolis, Battle Of Varna, Battle Of Mohacs, Battle Of Kanije, Battle Of Preveza.. this list can go down just like that.
You talking Highly of Habsburg Empire and Spain, Portugal is also funny tho.. Habsburg Empire got humiliated by Turks until 1683, yeah we lost huge land masses after that time since almost all Europe combined their forces against us.. we fell on the ground and you guys just took the oppurtunity, until that time it was us who came to doors of Vienna, conquered whole Hungary just in 2 hours in Battle Of Mohacs, took Balearic Islands of Spain.. humiliated both Portugal & Spain in Mediterrenean Campaigns. I suggest you to check out Istanbul Treaty - 1533 which was signed between the Ottoman Empire & Spain Empire - Habsburg Empire, check out the terms there.. the biggest representers of Europe during that time were forbidden to call anyone as ''Emperor'' except the Ottoman Sultan, and they were counted as being equals to Ottoman Grandvizier, Habsburgs paid annually 60.000 duca gold to Ottomans, that explains who dominated who for too long tho.
en.wikipedia.org/.../Truce_of_Constantinople_(1533)
@_Troian_ Oh goodie, Baron brought a friend since he couldn't take me on alone. Isn't that the story of your people. Strength in overwhelming numbers or no strength at all. I can see you're a fanboy of your mediocre empire by the background picture. Even though the Ottomans really can't hold a candle to other empires on the big whole.
You really think you can decry me with this little tirade of yours? Allow me to burst your bubble then.
Unlike you lot we actually have compassion on those suffering. Yes, we need to weed out those who have no reason to be here or who disrespects us, but the whole reason so many desperately try to come here is for the superior standard of living which certainly cannot be found in any muslim majority country, you turks probably come closest but then again, you're governed by that spineless dictator Erdogan.
Yes, the taking of Constantinople in 1453 had many lucky points, like having an Italian merchant sell cannons to the Ottomans, finding weak spots in the walls and so forth. Not all battles won was luck obviously. Turks were hard to beat because you always had massive armies, but you were far from invincible as displayed by countless battles.
You really wanna go there turk? Who dominanted who? Just look up the British empire, or the French and see who was the dominating force. The holdings you had in southeastern Europe lasted a few centuries and no more before those same small states kicked you out and other European kingdoms defeated you. Compared to other Empires the Ottomans did quite poorly in holding on to power. You declined heavily and steadily after your second failed siege of Vienna in 1683 where 14,000 Polish hussars steamrolled over a 100,000 turks.
@_Troian_ Charles XII defeated three alliances against Sweden at once, he won at the Battle of Narva regarded as one of the greatest military victories in history, he like all before him made the mistake of invading Russia in winter and lost half his army and supplies before being defeated. And you did not "save his butt" had the Ottomans not taken him in for respite he would've found somewhere else, Constantinople was merely closest by.
Hah! Miserable past, you amuse me. We've had the longest era of peace in history, our standard of living is superior to yours by miles, and by the early 1700's the Carolean army was the greatest army of Europe, not the Ottomans nor your jannissaries. And the Russians *wrecked* you in war after war. Just look up the Russo Turkish wars 1568–1918, 350 years of them owning you completely with the exception of two measly engagements. And you have the delusion to feel proud, hah.
@_Troian_ Nice try in covering up your epic fail at Malta turk. But your foremost general and commander had already attempted to storm the walls for weeks with superior manpower before any rumors of reinforcements ever arrived. A sensible leader would've found ways to circumvent the defense with such an army as he had. The Maltese knights simply had excellent strategy and ferocious fighting spirits, just as they had in the Crusades. And as for Rhodes and Crete, yes anyone can take small islands by surprise where small garrisons exist. But in Malta the knights were prepared. And we see how that went when Ottomans couldn't just ambush unsuspecting victims.
Never wanted Vienna you say? You must know more than history itself then: "For tactical and economic reasons, the Ottomans had long wanted to take Vienna and the Austrian lands from the Habsburg Monarchy. In the 1560s, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent had referred to the city as the 'Red Apple' of Europe and, in 1682, Sultan Mehmet IV declared war on the House of Habsburg" platformonline.uk/.../what-if-the-ottomans-had-won-in-1683
They already tried once before in 1529 where Vienna didn't even require reinforcement to beat them back. No one attempts two major sieges on a city with their whole manpower present without wanting it.
@_Troian_ I know the battles you listed and they are indeed worthy to be called impressive. But the list does end there. Even as several European powers were involved against the Ottomans at times, the sheer size of Ottoman armies often meant that the numbers on each side were oftenmost equal, so it doesn't really explain away anything bub. And I can equally recite the Battle of Lepanto, Ottoman raid on the Balearic Islands 1501, Battle of Girolata, Siege of Oran, Battle of Cape Corvo.
You also forget that at many times the Ottomans were aided by France and other European states due to interests they had in the same regions. The Ottomans hardly won all their battles on their own even. You did not even hold on to those territories for 500 years, it was two and a half at most before cities were being retaken, rebellions arose and defeats occurred. Like the Black Army recapturing Otranto in Italy from the Ottoman Empire in 1481. Every time they tried to invade Austria they failed like the Austro-Turkish war 1663-1664 and that was solely against Austria so you don't have any "wah wah it was so many enemies" excuse.
@_Troian_ Hah, you call that little truce "domination"? Truly interesting how you try to twist your massive defeat into pride. Only a turk is so blindly nationalist as to attempt that.
Humiliated both Spain and Portugal in the meditterenean? You can't help but lie can you. Favorable to the truth I suppose. They humiliated you. You couldn't even protect your protectorate, the Sultanate of Adal from Portugal who wrecked you in your own home waters. Just look up the Ottoman-Portugese wars and the Siege of Diu (1546), Siege of Qatif (1551), Battle of the Strait of Hormuz (1553), Battle of the Strait of Hormuz (1553). And read of the aftermath of this war: "The original Ottoman goals of checking Portuguese domination in the ocean and assisting Muslim Indian lords were not achieved. This was in spite of what an author has called "overwhelming advantages over Portugal". This war which the Ottomans begat to try and quell Portugese sea domination failed completely and even scarred them off to try again against them.
@_Troian_ In the end, the Ottomans did not enjoy half as much success as European empires, and what succes they had did not last half as long. Your empire disbanded out of weakness and degeneration in 1922, the British empire only disbanded out of political changes, it didn't even have to sieze to exist but only did so due to new social paradigms. But it controlled the whole world at the time. The Ottomans had a good start, enjoyed some time in the limelight, but started to fail quite quickly while western powers only continued to succeed more and more. Spain was already by the 1500's the leading power of the world, more wealthy and more powerful going places the Ottomans could only dream of with their little canoes-so-called-ships, such as the Phillipines and Japan.
@BaronReagan Way ahead of you Baron. Feel free to try come at me as well. It's not going to be the first time turks have tried using numbers, but failed, against europeans.
A ''Swedish'' is talking about the wars Turk had, seems like you think of yourself something like those Deus-Veult lunatics, you would indeed s. h-*t under your pants if you seen a Turk in your life just like how your ancestors did my boy. Also, you will call it ''Istanbul'' thats its official name.. Constantinople is long gone white boy, European powers got their arses booted back where they belongt to when we had Turkish War Of Independence 1918 - 1922 against them and sent them back where they belongt to, so attempts of renaming the city back to Constantinople fell into dusts.
Well, I personally don't give a damn if your King Charles XII won against Russia, at the end your coward king fled from his country and requested to be refugee in the Ottoman Empire, we saved his life and as I said previously.. we got ourselves into War with Russia just to clean your mess.
Sweden had better living standards than the Ottoman Empire? :D Ottoman Empire had the biggest economy around 16th - 17th century and even in early 18th century, we had ''Akçe'' the Ottoman coin which everyone was after. The Ottoman fashion was being followed across Europe, especially by Venetians and Geonese, even one of the most famous European composer, Mozart himself he composed the ''Turkish March'' ( Rondo Alla Turca ) thats the influence we had in your continent, as Sweden who do you think you are to talk that much highly of? What did you have? You been a playground of Russians, which resulted with your King fleeing to my country.. you guys weren't enough to handle it.
About Russians, starting from 1568 they weren't priority of the Ottoman Empire, they were mostly fighting against Crimean Khanate which was Vassal State of the Ottomans and Crimeans raided their cities, towns and even they set Moscow on a fire, they made them pay for it until 1700. The first serious Ottoman - Russian interaction was on 1700 just after Great Turkish War 1683 - 1697 the War which we literally had against almost all Europe, the oppurtunity was taken by Europeans after Ottomans got defeated and they advanced, Russians also didn't stay back and they pushed for it ofcourse. We won against Russia until late 18th Century, we defeated both Habsburgs & Russians between 1730 - 1735 and Venice Republic was taking part in that War aswell, however after 19th Century with revolts happening across every corner of our Empire, we had to deal with them and with Russia at the same time. Russia's aim always been invading Istanbul and then sailing to warm seas ( Mediterrenean ) they were never allowed to do it because we were standing on their way. On WW1, when we won the Battle Of Gallipoli we became the indirect reason of why Tsardom Of Russia got collapsed, because if Gallipoli was won by Allied Powers then they were going to supply Russians and they could survive. Its interesting to see a Swedish is seeing Russians as his ''master'' and admiring them against Turks.. get some pride hah.
''Superior Numbers'' seems like u are another lunatic who's reading the history from Western Wikipedia and then coming here, yapping about how Muslim/Eastern forces always had huge numbers against Heroic Europeans.. yeah? Most of these wars happened in your lands, you guys gathered soldiers from all around Europe, Kingdoms, Empires, Principalities participated in them, you had Holy Roman Empire by yourside which was already dominating the entire European population with only themselves, and those guys fighting against the Ottomans for at least 100-150 years non stop, despite all these Holy Leagues and Alliances its funny to see you saying it was Turks who had superior numbers against European countries most of the time, learn to do your researches from both sources.. maybe you gonna learn something.
Malta wasn't an epic fail for the Ottomans, plus Ottoman Empire didn't have 200.000 soldier deployed for the Island, we had around 30.000 - 35.000 soldiers deployed for the siege, the reason why Ottoman Empire fell back was because of the geographical situation of Malta, disagreements in Ottoman Military and Ottoman Navy deciding to abondon the siege. Not being able to conquering a ''small island'' as you say isn't a humiliating defeat, Roman Empire also had places they couldn't conquer such as Scotland and yet it doesn't make Scotland a powerful country just because they stood their ground against the Romans. So you saying in Malta they were prepeared but in Rhodes, Crete and Cyprus they weren't? Yeah yeah lmao for sure they were.
Ottomans hardly won their battles on their own? Like which battles and Wars you talking about, lets hear about them. Ottoman Empire didn't have any ally except France, plus Ottoman Empire wasn't aided by France in every situation.. we actually aided France in their Naval Campaign against Italy and Habsburgs, such as Siege Of Nice right here, plus we helped France to bomb Southern Cities of France which were invaded by Italian city states and Habsburgs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Nice
France also requested help from Sultan Suleiman The Magnificent, their king was captured by Habsburgs and their king François I sent a letter to our Sultan, then our Sultan sent him a letter and ordered Ottoman Troops to free their King, this is the letter right here.. so after that answer, Ottomans had Battle Of Mohacs against Hungary and Habsburgs, after we won the Battle the Habsburgs freed their king.
So which aid of France you talking about? Their biggest aid for the Ottoman Empire was after 1730s - 40s when they co-operated with the Ottoman Military and some of them joined our ranks to teach Nizam-ı Cedit ( an Ottoman Troop ) to fight more in European style, after Napoleon Bonaparte we became enemies with France anyway and noone helped eachother anymore.
About Spain and Portugal, most of the Wars Ottoman had against them both was with Navy. Ottoman ships were mostly consisted of galleys, yet we won Battle Of Preveza 1538 against Crusades which both Spain & Portugal took part in and it was leaded by Andrea Doria of Genoa. We raided Balearic Islands of Spain, most of these wars had against Spain was by our allies the Barbary States and they defeated Spain mostly at Mediterrenean. Battle Of Djerba, Siege of Oron, Ottoman - Venetian War 1499 - 1503 ( which also Spain took part by Venice side ) which again Ottoman - Venetian War Spain been in on 1536 was won by the Ottomans and Spain was also one of these countries which signed the treaty of Istanbul 1533, that was a treaty which humiliated your ancestors.. so you're living with it, thats not a choice.. thats a thing which we did it by force on you.
When Ottomans fought against Portugal, we usually faced them with Navy and it wasn't even at Mediterrenean. We defeated Portugal at their Red Sea campaign between 1538 - 1560, they were cut off by the Red Sea and they had to remain in the Indian Ocean. So when we sailed to India in order to help Sultanate of Aceh, we weren't there with our main/royal military, they weren't the land force.. they were expedition forces which were there to aid Aceh, yet they were close to take Goa. Once again when we faced Portugal at Africa, we had around 200-250 Libyan irregular militas helping to Somalia against Portuguese tercios, so Ottomans couldn't gain influence there aswell. However in most of Crusades and Naval Battles Portugal been part of against the Ottoman Empire, they were defeated just like Spain and Italian city states.
@_Troian_ "you would indeed s. h-*t under your pants if you seen a Turk in your life just like how your ancestors did my boy" I've seen turks in real life. Hairy, hook nosed, loud mouthed, hardly dangerous, for the last time you can't intimidate me, are you actually as stupid as to think you can from behind your computer screen? Get a life man. You realize you talk like a puerile child. Your petty attempts at insults are only sad turk. And it must truly bother you how Europeans have won in the end and kept on winning. Bigger empires, bigger wealth, bigger success, larger percentage of victories, longer duration of control, any metric you try we win. France is even the nation who've won most battles in world history, followed by the UK, followed by Russia, followed by Germany. Even ancient Rome won more battles than you guys so calm down there with your supranationalism turk, no one else buys it. vividmaps.com/4500-years-of-battles-in-5-minutes/
As if you belong there turk. You merely thieved what better men built and the victory at 1453 was largely luck and from having attacked a city who'd endured a thousand years of envious enemies besieging it, and you used cannon fire. It's no wonder it eventually couldn't stand any longer and hardly merits credit to turkish military ability.
@_Troian_ You saved nothing and no one when Charles XII came turk and saying so doesn't matter. You really know no else way of conducting yourself but petty insults and brazen arrogance. Sweden and the Ottomans already had a standing alliance so Charles taking in with them wasn't strange nor something that was essential to "save his life", Tsar Peter couldn't have killed Charles even if he caught him, he would've had an outrage from the rest of Europe.
Of course, Crusaders were lunatics, Jihadists were manly, epic heroes. From the most impartial source we can find on this earth, a nationalist turk. Note the sarcasm. The handful of knights who absolutely steamrolled the Seljuk turk front lines at the Battle of Doryleum under Kilij Arslan himself and routed them would beg to differ to your claim of "shitting their pants" there. And yes, Swedes did crusade as well only in the Baltics. And for all we know individual Scandinavians knights could've joined in the Holy Land as well.
Sweden was *this* close to defeating Russia, we were as a matter of fact closer than anyone else in history. But the freak winter storm that appeared from nowhere damaged supply trains, as well as Tsar Peter digging in at Poltava and exploiting the scorched earth tactic against his own people (Now that's cowardice) burning his own farms and towns to deprive swedes of food. And once again you're too scared to admit that the Russians kicked your behinds so thoroughly in the Russo-Turkish wars. They wrecked you just admit it. You fared far worse than Sweden did and Russians never even made it to Sweden so no, it wasn't a "playground". Charles had even taken Moscow before he lost at Poltava. While the Ottomans in the centuries that followed lost routinely against Russia. Acting as if you were so supreme in the face of that fact is just pathetic.
I think you'll find I was speaking in the present regarding living standards, which I hope you at the very least have the spine to admit. And Ottoman fashion was not dominant haha. Come on, now you think you can just say and claim anything to better the image of your mediocre empire. France was the trendsetter. And even Ottoman Sultans regularly called for Italian painters to render their images in paintings because the Italian rennaissance had produced absolutely superior cultural progress. You had no influence on Sweden whatsoever. You're just making stuff up haha. No wonder since the truth isn't a grandiose as your pride demands. And please. Mozart, one of the truly greatest composers ever, naming a song the Turkish marsh doesn't mean anything but him having a theme in his song, hahaha you people. You hear the word turk or turkish anywhere and its instantly "ooooh we're the greatest people ever".
@_Troian_ Wow, you're truly indoctrinated here. Worse fanboying I've rarely seen. Let's see here then.
What the priority was is not the point and a poor excuse to loosing to Russia. And haha, you make amusing claims in absence of arguments. They're not my masters nor do I admire them more than is fitting for any great power. But you turks say anything when your ego is hurt do you not. No self control. But I am actually from previously Russian lands on my mother's side so, maybe you ought to know all facts before making claims making you look foolish.
Nope. The first serious Russian engagement with the Ottomans was the Russo Turkish war of 1568-1570 where Russia quite easily conquered Astrakhan and erected fortifications there, and it was no small matter to the Ottomans who sent a force of 20,000 troops under Mehmed Pasha to try and stop the Russian, to no avail. It was an important frontline and the Ottomans couldn't hold on to it despite the Tsardom itself not being at its optimal strength at the time with many disgruntled nobles under Ivan the Terrible.
@_Troian_ The Great Turkish war saw the Ottoman empire field some 150,000 men, so they hardly had impossible odds. And only the Holy Roman Empire, Poland and Russia fielded armies in the war, while others like the Spanish Empire only supported the actions.
And the Ottomans during the Ottoman-Habsurg wars (which the Ottomans didn't win but in the end it stopped their attempts to expand completely) was at the time when the Protestant reformation ravaged Europe in religious devision. The Habsburgs had to deal with both the Ottomans and the various insurrections across central Europe and beyond, and yet they did as exceedingly well as they did in defending their borders, borders that were never breached or ruled over by the Ottomans, and certainly not from a lack of trying from the turks.
Please. Gallipoli did not spell the end for the Tsardom. That's a layman's fanciful claim, but I have actually studied history at university level, and a Masters in political Science, and the end of the Tsardom was endemic and had various factors laid long before the wars with the Ottomans.
Lying again I see. You did not win against Russia haha. Again they smashed you in war after war. They burnt Crimea in 1736, and were forced to abandon campaign only due to outbreak of plague in 1738. But the Münnich army one year later advanced again and defeated the Ottomans at Battle of Stavuchany.
@_Troian_ What are you raving about now, the Crusades did not happen in our lands but wholly in yours. The First Crusade even besieged Damascus and would've taken it if not only due to disagreement about possession and then abandoning the siege. And if you refer to the Ottomans, again, 16th-19th century Europe had a multitude of concerns being as vast and powerful as they were as empires, large scale invasions of the Ottomans wasn't a worthy goal, but defending the borders certainly were which worked splendidly.
"western wikipedia" lol. Get a grip. You've quoted wikipedia yourself hypocrite. As soon as someone doesn't praise the turks you cry out "biased westerns", please.
Again, educated in history so if anyone lacks knowledge here it is you. The European powers rarely brought out their full power, and the Ottoman empire itself wasn't *just* Ottomans. It consisted of the south European vassal kingdoms, the balkans, the Egyptians, Syrians, Berbers etc. You, like any other empire weren't alone.
Malta was an epic fail. I never spoke of 200,000 men. But even 30-35,000 men was overwhelming in comparison to the garrison the knights of Malta had. And the Ottomans had months to take the forts, but the sheer grit and skill of the knights postponed their victory for so long that the Ottomans were already sapped of spirit when rumors of reinforcements from Sicily arrived. Nothing you say and delude yourself with will change your embarresment at Malta turk. Get over it.
No? They weren't prepared at Rhoes or Crete or Cyprus as the Ottomans were only just starting out as an empire at the time and there was no reason to even suspect an attack when they came.
@_Troian_ The Franco-Ottoman alliance was wholly mutual and Francis I of France and Suleiman both needed each other as they wished to curtail Habsburg power, (and still fighting on two fronts the Habsburgs won in the end). Suleiman was under no illusion that he needed help if he wanted to retain imperial control in southern Europe, and even after these schemes with France failed, later so called "capitulations" saw the Ottomans forced to make many concessions to Europe after their initial period of wins faded. en.wikipedia.org/.../Capitulations_of_the_Ottoman_Empire "The capitulations were initially made during the Ottoman Empire's military dominance, to entice and encourage commercial exchange with Western merchants. However, after military dominance shifted to Europe, significant economic and political advantages were granted to the European powers by the Ottoman Empire."
@_Troian_ "However in most of Crusades and Naval Battles Portugal been part of against the Ottoman Empire, they were defeated just like Spain and Italian city states." Nope. Again, hate to burst your fragile bubble of ego, after these informations you might even want to change your background. But the Portugese war against the Ottomans saw them control all of the Indian ocean and Persian gulf, which were maritime passages far more important than the Red Sea. I've also already detailed the various battles Portugal won in these wars. It's not relevant whether they faced land forces or not.
Hah, my ancestors? They haven't been humiliated whatsoever. Geez you're a funny one. Your empire failed. European ones didn't. The very language you now speak to me in testifies to it. Sorry buddy, but that's the truth. Run from it all you want, deny it all you want, explode in your futile attempts to be all macho and tough, it changes nothing.
www.warhistoryonline.com/.../...-flood-europe.html Here further is substantiation, and I could provide more still, of how much the Ottomans desired Vienna which they called both the Red Apple of Europe and the Golden Apple. And at least 120.000 men met with a defense force of around 20.000 in 1683 and that Ottoman army was thoroughly defeated and routed all the way back to their encampments and beyond by Polish hussar knights and HRE soldiers. After months of staggering siege of the city with such slow progress despite overwhelming numbers.
@julie4 Only because when you make a post about France it has seemed as if, alike most Turks you abide not the slightest critique lol
Because I'm objective about it, that's all. If there's good to say I say it and there's multitudes of good to say of France to be certain, but, neither France nor Turkey is God's gift to earth or faultless. Which is what I object to if I see the attitude pertrude in comments or posts. And I certainly do not abide cocky supranationalism over empires that simply weren't all that.
The French are reputed to be the most arrogant people on earth.
I didn't have chance to turn on my pc for few days since I am busy with irl stuff.. I ain't wasting my time on G@G unlike you friend. First of all, I saw the conversation between you and @baronreagan I don't know about him and I also didn't know that he's Turkish, if I knew the guy we would follow eachother here, I am friends with julie4 and ye I decided to send a post here when I saw a typical loser-crusader pretendist like you, pulling up the same card just like rest of losers from EU and saying ''You guys won because you had number advantages'' 😂 butthurted much? We made you our ''white-slaves'' for centruies.. your kind was used, they were made work in brothels, they were made soldiers and we got them sacrificed like their life didn't mean anything for us.. and yeah we converted them into Islam. Since you guys are butthurted about Islam-Domination in your lands and you couldn't stop it in a reasonable time, ofcourse you guys like to pull up the card of ''you guys had numerical advantages'' .. we fought against Europe with every one of you being combined, from Kingdom Of Bohemia to Habsburgs, Spain, Italian city states and the Holy Roman Empire.. there were countless Crusades called on Ottomans, most of the battles were in your geography which means it was you guys who had larger numbers compared to Turks.. yet you lost and got dominated both in treaties and in wars. Even today, population of Germany, Spain, Italy are 5x times bigger than our population, work your logic a little instead of moaning here and saying we won these wars just because of our numbers.. thats a European-Propaganda, thats how you guys like to cover it up in your own sources, however it ain't like that when you look at it by logic and when you also check out the other sources, keep your eyes open a little.
Thats funny with you saying, we calling eachother for help and trying to overcome you here with our numbers 😁 Bruh.. I do boxing for about 8 years straight, I also do fitness often.. thats for sure I'd mop up the floor with racist white-boy like you and make you sing the Turkish Anthem by force as you're already sh*. at under your pants.. lets follow eachother from Instagram if you want to know my potential, so you will decide it yourself. You coming here and trying to humiliate an ethnicity with just being a scandinavian-peasent yourself and when the others calling you for hand-to-hand combat in a fair challenge you trip out by saying ''Turks are barbarians'' just man up a little.. you're just proving our point, since according to us Turks we do really think there's lack of testestorone around Europe, you guys are getting taken over by Muslim Immigrants and all you guys can do is just being incels, cry-babies over internet.. playing that crusader but not an action in real life, my advice to you is just be a man of your word.. so if you gonna be racist on somebody do it with having that potential of not backing down.
So you're telling me that it was the British Empire who dominated Turkey.. make a choice tho, was it Russians or British? 😂 UK never had chance to dominate us, we faced with those guys on WW1 and had battles against them both on Middle East & Gallipoli Campaigns, at Palestine & Sinai Campaign, UK had the upper hand since they managed to get support of Arab tribes which were manipulated by Lawrance Of Arabia and yeah they succeded to invade Southern parts of Middle East since Arabs betrayed to Caliphate and they decided to side up with UK with dreams of building their own independent Arab Kingdom, however with winning Battle Of Qut-Ul Amare the British Expansion was stopped at Iraq & Syria so they couldn't go any further, same with Battle Of Gallipoli.. despite they had technological superiority compared to Turks, UK had their one of the biggest defeat in their history and they couldn't invade Istanbul.
When the War was fully lost, since it was only Ottoman Empire, Germany, Austria Hungary and Bulgaria.. UK and its allies invaded Istanbul with making the Ottoman Government sign Mondros Ceasefire Treaty on 1918 and they invaded it. The Ottoman Government wasn't thrown, however UK wanted to colonize the state.. they couldn't do it since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk organized Turkish People and we had Turkish War Of Independence 1919 - 1922 against Allied Powers, kicked their arses back where they belong to and we threatened UK to leave Istanbul at Chanak Crisis 1922, UK had to draw back from Istanbul since they had only 7.000 soldier garrisoned and they obeyed to Ultimatum Mustafa Kemal Ataturk sent to them and they got their arses back to their Isle, we made the impossible with fighting against 5 Nations all at the same time and defeating them.. once again the West lost, you guys couldn't colonize us.. because we fought and won, thats why we exist today.
@_Troian_ Back again and even more incoherent babbling and tantrums. If anyone devotes their life to gag it is certainly you.
Let's sum this up very simply for you; The Ottoman empire achieved none of its aims. Its largest event was taking Constantinople which established them as an empire but after that:
1. Failed to take Vienna, the greatest object of their desire.
2. Failed to take Malta with superior numbers (yes, you had superior numbers, either look it up or cry about it turk but deal with it)
3. Failed to establish dominance in the mediterrenean
4. Failed to expand outside of Europe being locked in by the Spanish and Portugese empires.
Sometimes you won with numerical advantages, sometimes with equal footing. But the battles of your defeats that I listed as Vienna, Malta and others are recorded with huge numerical advantages, so lashing out like a kid who can't have his favorite toy doesn't change that little turk.
You talk like a little child desperately trying to get under an adults skin with pitiful ad hominems thrown left and right, it's almost sad that you lack the self-conciousness to see how pathetic these passages makes you, but on the other hand and it not surprise me in the slightest.
In comparison with other empires you had a brief period of glory, but it died out all too quickly and your empire really cannot hold a candle to other Christian empires a hundred times your size, longevity, wealth and wins around the world. Which you laughably try to excuse with "wasn't against good enemies hurr durr". And I do wonder as you accuse me of racism who the racist is when you've repeteadly called me white boy and white slaves etc. You turk, are the racist.
@_Troian_ Haha, you realise muslims having to flee their sorry excuses of countries to take in with western Christian ones isn't a win my man? It only shows what happens to islamic countries. Don't you worry, we have that under control. Even as Turkey has tried to literally foist refugee waves through their land into Europe in an effort to destabilize us.
I never said you even won wars, you won battles my confused turk. You've again and again been way too cowardly and dishonest to admit that:
You were defeated in the Great Turkish War. You were defeated in ALL Russo-Turkish wars, you were defeated in the Albanian-Epirote War (1381–84), Albanian-Epirote War (1381–84), the Ottoman-Timurid War, Battle of Tripolje 1402, Albanian–Venetian War, Moldavian War of Mehmed II, shall I go on? Because I can: Invasion of Otranto, failed to hold the city.
Mamluk–Portuguese conflicts
Battle of Cannanore
Battle of Diu
Portuguese conquest of Goa
Siege of Jeddah
All but one single battle won in this war, by the Portugese who dominated the Indian ocean spice trade from under your noses. Ajuran-Portuguese wars. The Gujarati–Portuguese conflicts where the Ottomans took help from the Mamluk Sultanate, Gujarat Sultanate and Kingdom of Calicut and still lost to only the Portugese (never had any help was it? Can you do anything else but lie turk)? Polish–Ottoman War 1633–1634 defeated.
I'll spare you the embaressment of continuing even though I can.
There weren't even "countless" Crusades haha, there was like three.
@_Troian_ And finally your last lie: That Britain didn't defeat you. There has literally been a "petition of the Ottoman Empire" after the British Empire wrecked you. academic.oup.com/.../142652316
"In November 1914, the Ottoman empire went to war against Russia, Britain, and France. On October 31, 1918, by the Armistice of Mudros, the war ended with the Ottoman armies suffering almost total defeat. The result was the dismemberment of the empire and, after a further four years of confusion and fighting, the emergence of the state of Turkey in Anatolia and a small part of Eastern Thrace, north of Istanbul, and of five newly defined territories under British or French control called mandates. This chapter examines why the Ottomans went to war on the side of Germany and against the Entente, and how they fought their war; the aims and war strategies of the British and French, and how they fit with the aims of the Arabs, particularly the Hashemites; and how far these various aims were realized during the period of diplomacy and fighting between 1918 and 1922."
The British UNDID your empire after defeating you ever so hard in the war, so no, there was no "kicking you back where you belong" tough guy haha. While it itself continued on and only ended because the British chose to surrender imperial control, but the Commonwealth still dominates culture around the globe.
If you're so desperate to fight then simply come up here. I do not mind. And statistically, we have more testosterone than you little turk haha. So your "opinions" matter little. worldpopulationreview.com/.../testosterone-levels-by-country
@_Troian_ "So you're telling me that it was the British Empire who dominated Turkey.. make a choice tho, was it Russians or British? " What, you can't hold more than one thought in your head at a time? BOTH dominated you haha. Russia in the late 1700's and 1800's, and Britain in the 1900's. As evidenced by history.
Why don't you go box your punching bags until you feel like a man again.
It already been like 3 months last time I logged in, however I never forgot about answering you pal.. I ain't living on GAG and didn't feel like hopping on so, I am back now for a bit.
1. Ottoman Empire's biggest desire wasn't taking Vienna, it was taking Roma and ending Vatican.
2. Ottoman Empire didn't siege to Malta with having 100.000 - 150.000 soldiers as you stated, they had in between 30.000 - 60.000 and the siege lasted longer than they expected so they withdrawed, took its revenge back on Crete.
3. Ottoman Empire did establish dominance in the Mediterrenean, they vassalized the Barbary States and made them mess with the European powers, they helped out the French Fleet around 1530s and defeated Spanish also Italian fleets, they won Battle Of Preveza 1538 against Holy Leauge, invaded the Balearic Islands of Spain aswell, they literally kept your arses away from Mediterrenean for way long.
4. Ottoman Empire never aimed to expand outside of Europe, they never seeked to colonize the New World, just one time they sent fleet to India in order to help out Sultanate of Aceh. Ottoman Empire didn't care about colonizing at all just like Portugal and Spain did, they just cared about their rivals in Europe and Safavid Empire in the East.
All of these things you said above are from your perspective and what you want to believe in, they're about what they teach you in Europe and nothing more basically.
Also our Empire lived for 623 years, it was the only Muslim Empire in all around Europe, spent its centruies with fighting against you guys over and over again and they still lasted for 623 years, still today butthurted EU boys complaining about us and accusing us for conquering your lands, what took you guys that much long to take Turks out from Europe for about 500 years huh? Where you been.
About the Wars/Battles which you listed down below, more than half of them referring to Wars we had against countries we conquered at last, how dare you giving me examples from Moldova, Albania and Venice in first place 😂 Moldova was our vassal state for 492 years and Albania was our state for around 532 years, isn't it obvious for you that who won at the end? Think with your mind, that will help you. You referring to Polish - Ottoman War 1633 - 1634 which was Inconclusive, why don't you also refer to Polish - Ottoman Wars happened between 1672 - 1676 and 1485 - 1503, why don't you refer to Crusade Of Varna where their King was beheaded and their Crusade was ended? You're after your scores and you trying to tweeze through my boy.
We only fought against the British Empire, in World War I and their aim was invading Istanbul, getting Turkey out of war, however on 1915 with them losing the Battle Of Gallipoli with their French & New Zealand Allies, they had to draw back. Their Sinai-Palestine Campaign was more succesful since they got the support of Arab locals, their advance was stopped at Battle of Qut-ul Amare 1918. At end of WW1, since the war was lost against Central Powers, Allied Powers invaded our country with the Treaty and they TRIED to colonize Turkey, however it didn't last like how they wanted to and we had Turkish War Of Independence 1919 - 1922 against UK and its Allies, we kicked them out from our country at end of the War, we had Chanak Crisis with UK on 1922 and we told them to f.*. ck off basically after our soldiers encircled Istanbul all around, since UK had 7.000 soldiers garrisoned they didn't take the risk and they had to wave the white flag my boy.
Nobody undid our Empire, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk leader of Turkish Republic demolished the Sultanate on 29 October 1923, we Turks gave up on the Ottoman Monarchy ourselves.
I didn't know them Swedish boys be really much a.$$ kissing to their Russian Masters along with their boyfriend UK that much, where was your country during those years? Busy with getting colonized and spreading femboyism around just like now its the capital of LGBTQ & African Immigrants lmao.
Dominating? If any of these countries dominated us we would be vassalized or get conquered by them, however we were still there keeping them off from our mainlands as we were dealing with the rebellions all over Balkans and thats how we managed to survive, while your country was begging for our and other powers help back in 1721.. it didn't continue much longer and you guys started to choke on a Russian c.*ock 😂 When your country got invaded, they colonized you.. and used you how they wanted to, while we Turks fought against them and kicked them out all by ourselves.
About you calling me that I am being racist, calling you ''white boy'' and such.. ye you are a weak white boy just like other European cucks, you deserve to be called like that cus I know when you call me ''Turk'' and referring to me with my ethnic background, you trying to degrade with your weak-a.$$ .. truths hurting you I see?
Testestorone is more than the levels, its about the mindset.. mentality and the lifestyle you're in, those Western-Made statistics doesn't prove anything, what proves is.. I am pretty much sure you guys in Sweden don't even know how to handle a gun, doing your military duty isn't a rule there, most probably you guys don't even know how to throw a punch and how to get one on the face. While in my country we're surrounded here by YPG/PKK/ISIL terrorists, we do our military service and we know that mentality.. while you're busy with LGBTQ propagandas and thinking about the ways like how you can get more immigrants in your country so they can continue to breed your women, our life is pretty much here and every men in Turkey are well adapted to it, thats how we grow up here my boy.. with that mentality, but your soft Swedish mind is weak.. and you're not built for it.
@_Troian_ Wow, three months and you come back again? That's honestly deranged my guy, and a bit pathetic.
I don't care about whether you've been logged in or not lol you keep mentioning that as if I'm supposed to care or be impressed.
Fine, since you're obsessed let's do this macabre dance again.
1. Yes it was, I even provided sources on Vienna being the prized target so it doesn't really matter what you say. Your only counter is "biased western sources" anyway, which is such a pitiful retort. Even if the prize had been Roma, you did not conquer that either did you. Nor end the Vatican.
2. It did not merely "last longer than expected" they lost a majority of their men to the defending knights despite huge numerical superiority and *three* seasoned admirals leading them. One of which. Dragut, lost his life in the siege. Leading the knights was Jean de la Valette, the grandmaster of the Hospitallers of *70* years who still personally led his knights and fought the turks off, while your equally old Sultan Suleyman sat on his behind in his cozy palace. A majority of that vast army, including most of the 6000+ janassaries were annihilated. There is no possible escape for you to elude that monumental failure or blame it on something else. Attempting so only is only embarrassing, man up and accept the big loss instead. Not that historical revision is beneath Turkey however, given how you still shamelessly deny the Armenian genocide.
3. Wrong again, the Ottomans tried, but failed to establish dominance. Already by the 1500's, Spain and Portugal were superior at sea by fleet size and maritime technology. Spain was vaster, and wealthier as an empire. The ottomans lost *every single* major war against Portugal, and there quite a few of those. They failed to secure the seas behind their own lines in the Indian ocean and had to struggle fiercely to even regain the Red Sea. Lepanto 1571 sealed the deal and the Ottomans had barely any semblence of a navy afterwards.
@_Troian_ 4. I think it is extremely naive to say that the Ottomans wouldn't have engaged in colonizing overseas had they had the ability to. It was ridiculously profitable and increased imperial power a hundredfold, but they lacked the maritime prowess and open range to do so from European powers who had already made the chadiest move when cut off from the spice trade by circumventing all of Africa and then dominating the Asian seas. Feats like that are ripe among western Christian nations.
"All of these things you said above are from your perspective and what you want to believe in, they're about what they teach you in Europe and nothing more basically." That does not exclude it being true. It can be false because it is "simply my perspective" sure, but not necessarily by any means.
623 years is nothing compared to Christian empires, yawn fest, child's play really. And as I have mentioned the momentum did not last for long, nor did your economy hold up for long or your military success.
@_Troian_ The Serbian despotate defeated you numerous times, the Venitian League, the Albanian uprisings, your hold on your "vassals" was strenous at best. Compared to the western Christian nations your hold was very fragile and no successful attempts in Europe followed 1683. Did you "ultimately" conquer them yes, but that is far from "winning in the end" as you did not supersede nor defeat any imperial western Christian rival whatsoever. Not the Spanish, not the British, not the French, not the Portugese (who defeated you every time in war) not the Russians (who also defeated you practically every time). You are also the only empire I know of to have the so very lame nickname of "the sick man of Europe" due to how weak and disintegrating it was. Economy was certainly not your strong suit as it is part of the reason why you declined steadily not long after your zenit of success, while European empies around you only grew further.
@_Troian_ "Nobody undid our Empire, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk leader of Turkish Republic demolished the Sultanate on 29 October 1923, we Turks gave up on the Ottoman Monarchy ourselves." No amount of frustrated denial changes it lad. The western powers occupied your country, you had no choice but to absolve the "empire" since you can call it that given all your imperial holds were lost. Kemal simply realized what he was forced to do. The Sykes-Picot agreement dominated the middle east including large bits of Turkey. The war itself was between the Ankara government and the Istanbul regime, and the western powers simply supported the Istanbul regime, they did not deploy huge numbers of their own in that war. The casualties were greek and turkish on the Istanbul side. So yes, the obvious superiority of western powers and the already conquered territories or domains who had revolted against the Ottomans simply made the creation of the republic something symbolic, de facto it was already the case of a standalone Turkish country. And here's the kicker: The British empire never had any domain save the US rebel successfully, the British themselves simply gave them independence during the political paradigm shift when empires became immoral. And still, the Commonwealth is the closest thing to empire in the modern day. The only empire that was never defeated nor ever even ended is also the largest in world history, the western Christian British empire with whom I share much blood.
@_Troian_ You mention Varna and the polish wars because those are your best and frankly only good options. But you conciously avoid like a frightened hare the three Russian wars all lost, all the wars against Portugal lost, the Long Turkish War agains Habsburg lost.
The other two comments you made are not worth addressing. You write like a frenzied child throwing his hands around in a desperate tantrum trying to get under my skin with such puerile nonsense. Not worth a reply.
However, testosterone is largely about the actual levels my guy. You're just coping hard with that nonsense "mindset" excuse. Your masculine insecurity is quite obvious.
Pretty cool that no replies so far 11, not even 1 condemn the occupation.
People say they oppose occupation but not really opposed , unless they can use it to attack jews. even falsely.
For abas, Overthrow one dictator to install another is awful.
Religious law. Well imagine if america had christian law on everyone, enforced punishment, people would complain n worse the details of sharya n caliph.
End the occupation! Of that picture area.
Visit Afghanistan and you will imagine how this Islamic caliphate shithole looked 1000 years ago, just without toyotas and kalashnikovs
Opinion
14Opinion
Amazing empire!!! From al-Andulus (Spain) to Afghanistan they were SO ADVANCED!! Harun Al Rashid was a visionary leader!! The house of wisdom in Baghdad was known through the entire eastern hemisphere as THE repository of knowledge. The Hajj led to RAPID diffusion of ideas through the Dar al Islam and because literacy was required to read the Quran, everyone was educated and could partake in the development of arts and sciences. ANY word begining "al" is of Arabic origin and boy did they have an impact! Algebra, alchemy, alcohol, algorithm, almanac, etc. And the literature! 1001 Arabian Nights, the Hadiths, poetry was unrivalled! Medicine, engineering, infrastructure, policing, sanitation, fire departments, military, navigation, astronomy, mathematics, currency, publishing, maritime innovations, materials science, languages, inoculations, cosmetics... There is not ONE part of our modern world that we do not owe a massive debt to these people! ♥️♥️♥️ This question!!!
Pander some more why don't you.
@Knightwatch27 What's wrong with giving ACCURATE credit where it's due? You have another time period or region that you'd like to promote?
You're not accurate whatsoever, that's the issue. You want specifics see my own comment.
I really don't know anything about it, honestly, which is actually something of a point of embarrassment for me, considering how much I know about that part of the world.
I know that the Mongol invasion of Baghdad is regarded as one of the greatest tragedies in the Muslim world
A lot of scientific advancements happened in that part of the world at the time including chemistry, astronomy and mathematics.
At the time the west was still in the dark ages and high Middle Ages.
"the dark ages" is a misconception in European medieval timelines and myth propogated by its haters, namely anti-Christian enlightenment thinkers and victorian anti-medievalists. And medieval Europe was far from behind. It was extremely advanced and successful, with several innovations like the improved plough, windmill, Gothic architecture, banking and stock market systems etc. and what progress the Caliphates made, was built on classical works and the knowledge bartered of the Eastern Roman Empire.
@knightwatch27. Dark ages is a inaccurate misnomer but the dar al Islam was more advanced. No question during the LOW MIDDLE AGES - excepting some accomplishments of Charlemagne. The high middle aged were a time if rapid catch-up thanks to the 3 field system, pilgrimages, universities, rising literacy & translation, the rise of urban centers, expanded agriculture due to forest clearing & swamp filling, church festivals, rudimentary capitalism and many other changes that led to the Renaissance
@DrPepper12 And Islam steadily declined while western Christendom had uninterrupted and gradual success and progress from a 1000 AD and forward. By 1400, it was already the wealthiest place in the world per capita and most important region of the world. An no, not thanks to Islamic influence whatsoever.
Agree to disagree. Muslim advances spread through Al Andalus, Crusades and continued conflict over Sicily.
Yes. And by 1400 they were. That's only because China's exploration via Zheng He was ended and became more insular
@DrPepper12 There's zero evidence that the famous "treasure fleet" could have been dominant on the seas. A historical layman may simply assume because the fleet was great in number. But European maritime technology was already very advanced especially the military vessels, and used to fighting. The treasure fleet was made of less tough wood and with an explorative function only. So to say "only" because China became insular, no, huge overstatement and speculation without much theoretical support.
You're wrong but I enjoy your observations. Also, I'm not a "historical layman".
@DrPepper12 No I'm not. It's a logical conclusion which I've derived from studying this very matter and debunking the exaggerated claims of anti-westerners who'd seriously have us believe the Zhang Zhe fleet could've dominated the world seas being a fleet of bamboo-exploratory ships.
If you buy into such a wolly idea as that, you are.
Vitriol is not a substitute for argumentation. Its arrogant and non productive to academic inquiries. That's the beauty of robust historical inquiry, historians can vigorously discuss and debate the past and come to different conclusions.
@DrPepper12 Yes, because simply stating "you're wrong" is a shining example of academic inquiry and argumentation. Don't point with dirty fingers.
I've given my my thesis and evidence. You rejected it and made a counter claim. I did FAR more than just say "you're wrong"
We could always ask @baron_reagan. For their opinion?
Sorry @BaronReagan.
It's quite embarassing to have to call for backup Pepper.
And you gave no thesis at all. You said "the only reason" being that China became insular after disbanding the fleet, that's a claim not a thesis. And you gave no grounds for it whatsoever.
Wow. You are very arrogant and easily misconstrue a lot. Makes me wonder about your IRL self. Another keyboard warrior who doesn't understand an oppty...
@DrPepper12 Dancing around that you don't actually have any ground to claim what you claimed with a retort like that of an offended child.
Nope. I try to be a good person. But a good person and a nice person aren't the same things.
I'm not resentful nor bitter.
I live alone so that's me always.
I can be insensitive with my words without realizing given that my brain is dominated by the logical side.
I take it back. I'm sorry I ran into you. I thought you were erudite and worthy of befriending to discuss history. I admit my error candidly. You are a sanctimonious prick with a humongous ego and are quite possibly the most ill-mannered person here. Good luck with your IRL, Lord knows you lack one here!
You really got offended by me saying you're wrong didn't you. I see my comment on chilidshness wasn't unwarranted. Pitiful pepper. A man your age.
(And no he's not lol)
Still not wrong... You got beaten like a red headed step child on Christmas morning
Nope. I try to be a good person. But a good person and a nice person aren't the same things.
I'm not resentful nor bitter.
I live alone so that's me always.
I can be insensitive with my words without realizing given that my brain is dominated by the logical side.
Haha, I think you have some issues Pepper. And I realize trying to reason with you might be the real folly as for some reason you have, twice now, copy pasted my comment on another post about being insensitive with words as if that was your own statement. All I can say is I encourage you to seek some help. Good day!
Be prepared to sport that burkha and cover every portion of exposed skin. Do not even dare to attempt to speak unless spoken to. You have a curfew and every action you take is being watched. Do not even look at a man and keep your head down. Know that anything you say or do that can be mistaken as blasphemy will result in your demise.
That will be your trip. Does that sound very fun?
Be careful what you wish for.
It is rather unlikely posterity would regard this time of unprecedented demographic collapse the best in history, but rather condemn us as a people as absurdly selfish and failing at the most basic task of any civilization in sustaining itself.
There is no great plague effecting us yet we are losing people at a rate to reflect that kind of loss, all the while we are selling our countries future for forign cultures.
I've heard of it but don't know much about it. I think it was the second Muslim empire and ruled from around 750 AD (?) until the Mongol invasion in 1250 AD (?).
It was big and multi-cultural.
Yeah the Abbasid empire was first with the four rightly guided caliphs.
*Umayyad
They made important, long-lasting contributions to the world that are still with us today.
If you are in the United States and taking a class in Algebra, you can thank the Islamists of Islam's Golden Age which was the Abbasid Caliphate.
Nope
@dudegreat91 Yep. Learn some history of science.
Learn not to blow yourself up :D
They took a very green civilised region and turned it into a desert. Even now you can see Israel's boarders from space because it's the green bit in the desert.
It's fun to play in Crusader Kings 3. Annoying to fight against the crusades, Mongols and Byzantine empire though.
I still grieve for the Eastern Roman Empire so I think of them as the bad guys.
Yes indeed but the Abbasids kept poking away, poking away sapping the Roman's strength and made annual incursions.
I just see it as different flavors of Islam. It took till 1453 but it was Islam all the way through. I am no happier with the crusaders who sacked Constantinople in 1204 which was against the whole point of the crusades.
The Eastern Roman Empire more took over the surviving eastern parts of the greater Roman Empire. Justinian I expanded back into Europe briefly retaking Italy.
It was weakened by a lot of things. Crusaders, plague, earthquake and Islam incursion.
The Italian renaissance was largely due to refugees from Constantinople, so If I could, It would be Constantinople I would like to see. What survived was great but what didn't was possibly greater.
The Umayyads tried to spread Islam by oppression, but the Abbasids, on the contrary, aimed to teach people about Islam.
and they carried out important studies in science, physics and astronomy during their time.
And how do you think they replaced umayuad, peacefully?
@strateguy632 As far as I remember, a commander who was a descendant of Muhammad's uncle rebelled against the Umayyads and founded the Abbasid state.
Yeah that's right the last of the four rightly guided caliphs
I have studied older Muslim civilizations where algebra was discovered and hygiene. In an attempt to see where it all went wrong in today’s Muslim civilizations. Lol
In large part the Turkic invasions which was a result of Mongol pressure pushing West caused many problems for the dar al Islam. The crusades were not militarily successful but did put pressure on trade routes. The Seljic Turks and the Ottoman Turks clung to past glories and didn't plan for the future at all. The janissaries were running the show like the Roman imperial guard and we know how that ended up. As soon as the Europeans began sailing around Africa the trade routes withered and the Ottoman empire was picked apart little by little. Real Shame
I don't know anything about it
These countries are still in that era only
Never heard of it
That’s a big empire.
What is it?
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
