The Ottomans couldn't beat Poland-Lithuania alone, how would they have beaten a coalition of Western nations? As a matter of fact a coalition of French and Spanish troops would have seen no Ottoman Army pass the Italian Alps.
The Ottomans were hardly the greatest Empire... Great in their own right.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
If it was the greatest empire of all time, then when the Americas where been rediscovered why where they not involved in the discovery.By the time the Ottoman where in power in the Eastern part of the Mediterrean had already become a back water, ie of not further use to trade and commerce. most of the European countries at the time where more interested in the "new world", and so left the Backwater Mediterranean to the Turks
^^^
And how do you think the new world was discovered? Coz we owned the Mediterranean and the Silk Road which Europe was heavily dependant on and you needed to find an alternative trade route with Far East. Thanks to us you discovered America. Dont you think?
And why would we ever need to take part in the discovery? Just look at this map and tell me?
We were not the ones whose lands were under invasion. After all we reigned over the most valuable lands in this world (Istanbul, Jerusalem, Baghdad, Mecca, Cairo, Tripoli, Belgrade, Budapest), while the Christians were butchering each other in their darkness.
And how do you think the new world was discovered? Coz we owned the Mediterranean and the Silk Road which Europe was heavily dependant on and you needed to find an alternative trade route with Far East. Thanks to us you discovered America. Dont you think?
And why would we ever need to take part in the discovery? Just look at this map and tell me?
The New world as it was known then, it may have not had the spices that the East have given us, but in Land measure it was 100 time better than ant country surrounding tne middle sea.I don't want to spoil you dream but the ottomans taking over the Eastern part of tne Mediterrean was at best a disaster fro all the people of europe,there whole demeanor was the spread of the Islamic religion but all means possable.They were only interest in over throwing the christian faith,so the Christian decided to leave them to them selves and just went arround them.
A good empire when it have passed into the history books, is generially judged by the good it has done Mankind.what did the Ottomans leave behind for humanity (not muslims, but All humans)
the land mass on the ottoman empire is mostly sand and desert, it probaly of no use to anyone uptill the opening of the suez Canel.
the map is bologna it never took to the extent of taking Charmahalo Bakhtiar in Central Iran nor Tehran pushed way too far into iran. The most ottomans ever got before they got their asses handed to them in last perso-ottoman battle was southern azarpadegan area.
Maniots, known for their martial qualities, were the first to join the Greek liberation movement. The society called the Filiki Eteria ("Friendly Company") sent their representatives Perrevos and Chrisospathis to organize the Maniots.[53] On March 17, 1821, 12,000 Maniots gathered in the church of the Taxiarchs (Archangels) of Areopolis and declared war against the Ottoman Empire.[54] The flag of the revolution was white with a blue cross in the center. Atop the flag was the motto "Victory or death". The Maniots were responsible for writing "Victory" and not "Freedom" on their banner, since Mani was always free. At the bottom of the flag was an ancient inscription, "With the shield or on the shield."[55]
On March 21, an army of 2,000 Maniots under the command of Petros Mavromichalis, Theodoros Kolokotronis, and Papaflessas marched towards Kalamata. On March 23, they captured the city.[55] From Kalamata, Mavromichalis wrote letters to the states of Europe, informing them of what the Greeks were doing. The Messenian Senate was also held in Kalamata. Kolokotronis wanted to attack Tripolis and capture the main Turkish city in the Peloponnese. However, Mavromichalis wanted to capture the smaller towns first and then take Tripolis. The Senate agreed with Mavromichalis, and the Maniots attacked the Turks of Messenia and Laconia.[56]
Kolokotronis, convinced that he was correct, moved into Arcadia with 300 Maniots. When he entered Arcadia his band of 300 fought a Turkish force of 1,300 men and defeated them.[55] On April 28, a few thousand Maniot soldiers under the command of Mavromichalis' sons joined Kolokotronis' camp outside Tripolis. On September 12, 1821, the Turkish capital in the Peloponnese fell. On July 4, Kyriakoulis Mavromichalis was killed near the Souliote fortress of Kaiapha.
Mahmud II became desperate and in 1824 called on his Viceroy, Muhammad Ali of Egypt, to aid him. Ali promised to aid him in return for the islands of Crete and Cyprus, as well as making his eldest son, Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt, pasha of the Peloponnese. Ali accepted the offer and sent his son in command of the expedition. Meanwhile, the Greeks were in disarray because of political rivalries, which caused a civil war. Kolokotronis was arrested, his son Panos was killed, and his nephew Nikitaras fled.[57]
Ibrahim made good use of this turmoil and landed with his army at Methoni. Ibrahim soon had recaptured the Peloponnese except for Nafplio and Mani. When he tried to capture Nafplio, he was repelled by Dimitrios Ypsilantis and Konstantinos Mavromichalis, Petros' brother.[58] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniots
............................................
""Maniots, known for their martial qualities, were the first to join the Greek liberation movement. The society called the Filiki Eteria ("Company of Friends") sent their representatives Perrevos and Chrisospathis to organize the Maniots. On March 17, 1821, 12,000 Maniots gathered in the church of Taxiarchs (Archangels) of Areopoli and declared war against the Ottoman Empire. The flag of the revolution was white with a blue cross in the center. On top of the flag there was a sign, "Victory or death". The Maniots were responsible for writing "Victory" and not "Freedom" on their banner since Mani was always free. On the bottom of the flag lied an ancient inscription, "With the shield or on the shield."
...........................................
Tatars never ruled the Muscovite's, vassalage was the most humiliating part in the 14th-15th century.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
Russia wasnt not exactly an empire till late 18th century. First major war with Russians were in 1700 which led to capture of Azov, Ottomans took it back in 1711 and beated Russian army. Further more Ottomans were able to beat Austria and Russia in the same time in 1740 that ended with Treaty of Belgrade. This shows that Ottomans were still a strong country although plagued by problems.
Ottomans brought end to two major empires, one Byzantines and two Mamelukes.
They defeated numerous times combined European armies and dominated mediterrenean during most of 16th century.
Ottoman ships raided islands all the way up to the Britain
Ottomans never faught against natives with spears and arrows to take over huge masses of land. Every bit of land had to be taken by much blood and fighting.
During its existance, Ottomans faught against respectable and strong enemies like Russia, Austria, Spain, Venice, Safevids and many lesser kingdoms yet they still held out and at no point the empire crumbled till last fighting force was spent.
I think it came to a satisfactory conclusion for us Turks that Ottoman empire had a glorious last stand even in its dying days, winning battles against Allies, particularly British even though out powered and gunned and plagued by civil strife.
Calling it the greatest empire might be difficult but it is indeed one of the most unique and strongest empires the world has ever seen.
Russia wasnt an "empire", but we were very well aware of the Turks as an enemy way back in 1568 when Russia took control of Astrahan. Turks tried to invade several years later and got thrown right out at the Battle of Molodi. A hundred or so years later the Turks came in again, Russia repeled the attack, and a peace treaty was signed. Of course you seem to want to start history from the 1700s, when in 1710 the Turks did manage to finally score a victory against the Russia force that had been occupied by Sweden. 20 years later Swedes saved the Turks again, when Russia was forced to move troops from the Crimean to the Northern border. After that Ottomans were ravaged by Russian forces every time up to the mid 19th century, Battle of Chesma, Battle of Kagul, ...
Yes, the Ottoman empire was a disaster...it didn't produced nothing good, they just tried to destroy other cultures and look at the Balkans now,..in some areas they managed to do it.
But anyway you should remember, that without Romanians fighting against Ottomans constantly, many Europeans would speak Turkish by now.
The last Russo Turkish war could not be won without Romanians and so on.
So you chickens, should remember the actual facts, not the small talk. Romanians and Serbs guarded your dumb asses for centuries, and no industrial revolutions would be made, with turks on your doors, or all over.
You won a battle barely nobody heard about it and you pass it on as a major event. The reality is Black Sea was a Turkish lake for centuries and it never has been a Russian lake. The reality is no matter how many times they scored a victory against Turks they still didnt achieve their aims for reaching warmer sea ports. The reality is Russian empire collapsed before Ottomans. The reality is Turks saved Swedish butt in 1711 when Swedish King took refuge in Ottoman lands. The reality is in 1856 Crimean War, Russia lost all it gained in the last century. You can claim numerous victories against Turks but we as well have got our victories as well as our resilinse which we are proud of.
@Romanian ; yeah sure mate, how is it Romania's contribution to Europe's defence when it got taken over and ruled for many many years under Turkish rule. Shut up and recognise your master.
Trying to change history? No matter how out numbered the Russian forces were, most of the time they sent the Turks running, thats the sad reality of the Ottoman empire. Its not my problem if you choose to ignore your history and not learn the battles where the Ottomans had their as-es handed to them. Even today, 500+ years later we still are the largest natural power in the Black sea, we destroyed your entire fleet in Chesma with half the force, we can do it again.
Ottomans never faught against natives with spears and arrows to take over huge masses of land. Every bit of land had to be taken by much blood and fighting.
No but it fought weak nations like the crumbling Byzantines, the disenfranchised Mameluke's, and small nations like Serbia before facing a powerful enemy (once it was established).
The Ottomans were of no concern to anyone till they had eaten up the majority of the smaller states and became their size.
Also, most of the land taken by the Ottomans was not densely populated.
I think it came to a satisfactory conclusion for us Turks that Ottoman empire had a glorious last stand even in its dying days, winning battles against Allies, particularly British even though out powered and gunned and plagued by civil strife.
The Ottomans were propted up for over 200 years thanks to the British and French. Had the British and French not stopped the Russian juggernaut, the Ottomans would have collapsed in the late 1700's.
The Ottomans were a broken power (Sick man of Europe) after the Battle of Vienna and the the subsequent loss of homogeneity in the Balkans. They were internally sick as well as militaristically.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
Ottomans never faught against natives with spears and arrows to take over huge masses of land. Every bit of land had to be taken by much blood and fighting
Some of the most difficult regions to conquer were the areas populated by natives with spears and arrows.
This is especially the case in tropical regions where European forces struggled against nasty diseases such as malaria and yellow fever which they had little immunity to. Tropical diseases decimated the numbers of soldiers, sailors, and administrators available for imperial expansion as nature essentially finished off what the journey didn't kill.
It's not surprising then to hear that European forces were in a perpetual state of shortage during most of their years of conquest. The reason Europeans were so successful was that there was incentive for them to conquer, and despite the continuous losses, they simply kept on coming.
As for the Ottomans, overseas expansion was restricted by their limited ability to power project far from their territorial bases and their slow adaptation of new naval technologies. At least in the trans-oceanic sense.
For example: Ottoman forays into the Indian Ocean were continually defeated by the smaller forces of the Portuguese even though the Portuguese were limited in strength and had to go all the way around Africa to resupply. By the time the Ottomans got rid of the galley and the notion of large scale fleet action the Europeans were already solidly entrenched in the region.
The Ottoman's inability to adapt to new technologies in the Indian Ocean prohibited them from fielding any real challenge to Europeans in the area. Something the Omanis were able to do as early as the late 1600s.
The Omanese were Ottoman vassals until the late 1800's.
The Only way the Sultans of Muscat and Zanzibar were able to control the East African trade routes was through the diplomatic support of the Sublime Porte. Otherwise the Portuguese would have made short work of them.
After the mid 1800's the Omanese entered into treaty relations with the Indian Empire, thus they went from being Ottoman vassals to British ones.
A key reason for this was because the Ottomans were not able to help the Omanese against Nadir Shah Afshar of Persia in the 1700's.
"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini
Turks are great at bullying weak micro states. But when they had to face real competition, they historically had had their asses handed to them, despite their vast numerical advantage, like at Mt tabor (35,000 Turks vs 3000 French)
My favorite battle against the Turks is Aboukir. There we see Marechal, Murat, personally beating the living poo out of the Turk pasha and dragging him later to the feet of Napoleon. Literally! Napoleonic Marshalls were quite something; they would look enemy commanders on the battlefied and engaged them in combat.
And for crying out loud, what did the Turks do when we annexed large chunk of their empire?
---------------------------
De Gaulle to the General Koenig, Norman hero of Bir Hakeim: "Hear and tell your troops: the whole of France is watching you, you are our pride."[
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Mar 31, 2008 8:19 AM
At no point I told you that Ottomans havent lost a war against Russia. In fact, Russia defeated Ottomans more than any other country. However your victories are not as important as you make them out to be. Ottomans survived the Russian onslaught and Black Sea never became a Russian lake, at no point.
"Even today, 500+ years later we still are the largest natural power in the Black sea, we destroyed your entire fleet in Chesma with half the force, we can do it again."
You are not the largest natural power in Black sea, and you can not repeat what you have done in 18th century. Please.. Black Sea fleet of Russia is not in good condition and Russia does not have many warships. On the other hand Turks today have more established bases and can bring all its navy to Black Sea. Russian Navy today is of no threat to Turkish navy I would like to see how you back your words up.
And lastly, how do you think you are the biggest force while your navy bases are located in Ukraine? You do not even have sovereign land that has a valuable base for Russian Navy in Black sea.
@Rzecz
You can not play down how the Turks took over Byzantines and Mamelukes. Byzantines were weak, true but Turks had to thwart many attempts by European Coalitions to help Byzantines.
Battle of Varna, Second Battle of Kosovo, Battle of Nicopolis are all battles where Ottomans fought against European Coalitions. To let you know the extent which Ottomans kicked arse I will list the countries that took part in Nicopolis
Turks vs Kingdom of Hungary,
Holy Roman Empire,
France,
Wallachia,
Poland,
England,
Kingdom of Scotland,
Old Swiss Confederacy,
Republic of Venice,
Republic of Genoa,
Knights of St. John
yeah too much for defeating smaller states and yeah, Ottomans were no concern to anyone back in 14th century before they a@te up all the smaller states. Get real!
@exovedate
I dont agree. If you take over a continent with a few thousand man that is called easy conquest. There was almost no organised resistance and no standing army to oppose imperial armies, yeah sickness have hurt europeans, but it almost vanquished the natives. The point I want to make my friend is that if you bring down a civilasation with a few hundred man marching into enemy lands you can be sure that is not a hard place to conquer.
About the Indian Ocean wars, you are right, Portugese fared better.
@ Eryx
What chunck of empire did you annex? Are you talking about Algeria? Well done you took lands over after we had ruled it centuries, why did you wait so long there was no Ottoman authority left there? Or did you find it easy when North African states were left on their own.
French talking about bullying micro states, since when fighting Hapsburgs, Safevids became micro states to be bulied?
@ dustybottle
Can you please search for Battle of Preveza and Battle of Djerba ? Do you know what 1571 represents for Turks? Conquest of Cyprus. European victory in lepanto didnt save Venetiens now did it?
Oh and the Maltese Knights... Where were those knights before coming to Malta? They were in Rhodes till Turks took over that island too in 1522..
I will respond to you about Ottoman culture and state and economy next time and then you will see we are not the war mongering barbarians you make us out to be. But before that you need to stop being short sighted and try to look things from a neutral position. I know it is hard for you since you are from western culture and you guys are so damn good, especially better than filthy Muslim jihadist Turks but at least give it a try.
lol, Sevastopol is just fine and if Ukraine wont get into NATO we will have the base for much longer, their economy depends on it. Also dont humor me with the mighty Turkish navy, we have a more powerful Black Sea fleet than Turkey and trying to argue that will just show you dont know crap about naval power. The best you could hope for is to stall, and by the time the Baltic and North arrive the Turks would be finished.
Gurkay:
Can you please search for Battle of Preveza and Battle of Djerba ? Do you know what 1571 represents for Turks? Conquest of Cyprus. European victory in lepanto didnt save Venetiens now did it?
The fall of Cyprus was not a major military success, it was inevitable that the Island would fall because of the distance from Venice to Cyprus.Nicosia with it medival wll was of no match to the Ottoman modern army of the time, but Famagusta Held out a little longer. the treatment of the military leader of the city of famagusto was not thing short of barbarism, Especially the treatment of Marcantonio Bragadin.these act of Barbarism united the Western Peoples to Ally together to stop these Ottoman from progressing any further, the Spanish, Venice and Papal Galleys defeated the Turkish fleet at Lepanto, but alas they were not able to stay together hence the Ottomans reign. Venice was not save after the battle of lepanto , but it lingered on until Napoleon put a end to it on the Early1800’s.
Oh and the Maltese Knights... Where were those knights before coming to Malta? They were in Rhodes till Turks took over that island too in 1522..
There is no doubt that the Ottomans won some major battles, it the ottoman did not have it all there own way. In Rhodes they did defeat the Knight st john, but suleyman (the Magnificent) was to regret that fact that he allowed the Hospitalar to sail away from the island. On the I Jan 1523 the knight of St John sailed to Create, and when they next met the knight where well able to defend Malta, and defeat suleymans army.
Now the point is that when the ottoman Took Rhodes their line where about 50 miles long, but when they tried top taker Malta the lines where too long and they suffered defeat. They where only a good fight force in there local area, there sphere of influence was very limited to the far eastern part of the Mediterranean.
Turks vs Kingdom of Hungary,
Holy Roman Empire,
France,
Wallachia,
Poland,
England,
Kingdom of Scotland,
Old Swiss Confederacy,
Republic of Venice,
Republic of Genoa,
Knights of St. John
St.John had about 3000 Knights, hardly a real threat and they never invaded the ottomans, the Ottomans invaded them.
England never invaded the Ottomans during their pinnacle, France never fought the Ottomans till the 1700's, Scotland only provided a few thousand volunteers and mercenaries. The Holy Roman Empire was a patch work of nation states, most States never provided men to war in the East.
Face it The Ottomans never fought against massive coalitions, the largest was that of Lepanto (in terms of number of countries involved) and that was all on the sea, no land battles.
I can go through EVERY Ottoman battle (in Europe) and show you the numbers of men involved from each state if you want. You'll quickly see the 'Coalitions' where never anything 'European'... at most you will see about 2 major nations with smaller nations contributing token forces.
Most coalitions were regional not European, mostly Balkan or Central/Eastern European.
For instance, Siege of Vienna 1529 was fought only by Austria with German and Spanish mercenaries. Is that a coalition?
Battle of Vienna 1683 involved Poland Lithuania (about 30,000 men), Austria (about 20,000),Saxony, Bavaria, Franconia, Swabia made up the rest of the 20,000. In that same battle the Ottomans had the same amount of allies Ottoman Empire, Khanate of Crimea, Transylvania, Wallachia, Moldavia which made up 140,000... So a coalition versus a coalition?
That does not even take in account of the Polish/Ottoman wars which were one on one or the Russian/Ottoman wars which were strictly one on one.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
Warning issued to Mehmet for posting porn. That's a no no by the way.
I've edited your picture and don't do it again.
what porn hotshot?? it was edited out.finding excuse for giving a warnign because you didnt liked waht is wrote? well sorry for you but we turks PHUCKED europe!
turkey for turks!
I will also admit that the Turks had some great leaders, but the Eastern metiterean was just a backwater until the Suez open up. The Turkish ~sultans mehed, suleyman where great leaders but after the 1600's the ottomans just sat on their hands and progressed no further.
The British Empire on the other hand, it started off small but by the time it had reached it final stage it ruled most of the known world. They also gave us Industry, medical advances; their empire left a lasting print on the human progress. If the British Empire wanted to over throw the ottomans I suspect that they could have at any time, but this land was of no use to them
FACE THE FACTS Ottomans fought a united european front and got their asses handed to them.
What? If your saying a 'United Europe' got destroyed, then of course you didn't just read what I wrote about the stupidity of that comment. If the Ottomans at their height couldn't defeat the Austrians by themselves (under Suleiman the Magnificent), then they never really achieved that much in Europe, actually they underachieved.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
dont blame the turks they had a brainwash damage - if they talk we phuckt europe they mean the BALKANS - because thats it nothing more nothing less- and the balkans still backwars because of them - we greeks will need 1 century more to build hells again in european standarst because of the mongs
Empire of Othman was impressive, for some1 to deny this would be an idiot...
also if the ottohmans held on to their territory for a few decades more, they would hav been the worlds No.1 exporter of oil and gas, and would be mega $$$$
so very unlucky that they didnt hang on for that small period longer otherwise their empire could hav continued in to another millenia...
-------------------------------------------
Remebering the good old days...
what is the relation between ottoman empire and nowadays turkey?
............................................
""Maniots, known for their martial qualities, were the first to join the Greek liberation movement. The society called the Filiki Eteria ("Company of Friends") sent their representatives Perrevos and Chrisospathis to organize the Maniots. On March 17, 1821, 12,000 Maniots gathered in the church of Taxiarchs (Archangels) of Areopoli and declared war against the Ottoman Empire. The flag of the revolution was white with a blue cross in the center. On top of the flag there was a sign, "Victory or death". The Maniots were responsible for writing "Victory" and not "Freedom" on their banner since Mani was always free. On the bottom of the flag lied an ancient inscription, "With the shield or on the shield."
...........................................
so very unlucky that they didnt hang on for that small period longer otherwise their empire could hav continued in to another millenia...
just as the where the victors over the byzantium, they where the vanquished after the WW1,the ottomans empire was good in some respects but it was totaly controlled by the religious, and at the best of times they just want to stay a year zero.
Ottoman empire a black page in the history of many nations
NEVER AGAIN
............................................
""Maniots, known for their martial qualities, were the first to join the Greek liberation movement. The society called the Filiki Eteria ("Company of Friends") sent their representatives Perrevos and Chrisospathis to organize the Maniots. On March 17, 1821, 12,000 Maniots gathered in the church of Taxiarchs (Archangels) of Areopoli and declared war against the Ottoman Empire. The flag of the revolution was white with a blue cross in the center. On top of the flag there was a sign, "Victory or death". The Maniots were responsible for writing "Victory" and not "Freedom" on their banner since Mani was always free. On the bottom of the flag lied an ancient inscription, "With the shield or on the shield."
...........................................
Turkification is a term used to describe a cultural change in which something or someone who is not a Turk becomes one, voluntarily or by force. It can be used in contexts in connection with Albanians, Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Jews, Roma, various Slavic peoples (Bosniaks, Bulgarians), Iranian peoples (mainly Kurds), as well as Lazs and various ethnicities of the Black Sea basin and the North Caucasus. The use of the term does not assert a denial of the existence of individuals who feel pride or are comfortable in their Turkishness, nor a questioning of their identity
THAT IS OTTOMAN EMPIRE
............................................
""Maniots, known for their martial qualities, were the first to join the Greek liberation movement. The society called the Filiki Eteria ("Company of Friends") sent their representatives Perrevos and Chrisospathis to organize the Maniots. On March 17, 1821, 12,000 Maniots gathered in the church of Taxiarchs (Archangels) of Areopoli and declared war against the Ottoman Empire. The flag of the revolution was white with a blue cross in the center. On top of the flag there was a sign, "Victory or death". The Maniots were responsible for writing "Victory" and not "Freedom" on their banner since Mani was always free. On the bottom of the flag lied an ancient inscription, "With the shield or on the shield."
...........................................
SAGOPA (Login SAGOPA_KAJMER) The Conquerors (Turkey)
//
Devshirme (derived from Ottoman Turkish: devÅŸirme, "collection, gathering", also known as blood tax,) was the systematic collection of non-Muslim children and their involuntary conversion to Islam followed by their conscription as regular troops for the Ottoman Empire.
//
Yep; just more of the Islamic savages we have come to expect.
Not exactly true as the British empire was not a Contiguous empire.
Mongol Empire - 33.2 million km² (under Khublai Khan in 1268)
Russian Empire - 24.8 million km² (under Alexander II in 1866) - including Alaska[4]
Umayyad Arab caliphate - 13.2 million km²
Qing Empire - 13 million km² (under Emperor Qianlong)
Rashidun Arab caliphate - 9 million km² (under Caliph Uthman in 654)[2]
Brazilian Empire - 8.1 million km²[4]
Achaemenid Persian Empire - 7.5 million km² (under Darius the Great)
Ming Empire - 6.5 million km²
Han Empire - 6 million km²
Roman Empire - 6 million km² (under Emperor Trajan)
Ottoman Empire - 5.5 million km² (under Mehmed IV in 1680)
Macedonian Empire - 5.4 million km² (under Alexander the Great)
But for ALL empires
British Empire - 36.6 million km² (under George V of the United Kingdom in 1922)
Mongol Empire - 33.2 million km²[1] (under Kublai Khan in 1268)
Russian Empire - 24.8 million km² (under Alexander II in 1866) - including Alaska
That would make the Ottaman No 17
Quote:Janissaries was the name given to soldier of christian birth forced to convert to Islam
jan = means life in hindi
nisar = means to give up something in hindi
jaan + nisar = someone who give up life.
*********************************************
Colonel Polier was a Swiss officer in the Mughal Darbar and here is what he has quoted of the Sikhs:
"Five hundred of Najaf Khan's horse dare not encounter fifty Sikh horsemen."
Colonel A.L.H. Polier (died in A.D. 1795) [9] wrote, "Originally and in general the Siques (Sikhs) are zemindars (landowners) or cultivators of land, and of that tribe called Jatts (Jats) which, in this part of India, are reckoned the best and most laborious tillers, though at the same time they are also noted for being of an unquiet and turbulent disposition. This tribe of Jatts (Jats) is very numerous and dispersed in all the country from the Sind (presently, a province of Pakistan or river Indus) to the southward far beyond Agra (a city in northern India).
In another document Polier [9] said, "But what is more to be admitted is that those Seik (Sikh) Sirdars (Chiefs), whose territories border on the King's were but very lately of the Jauts (Jats) and of their caste and tribe ---- they have put on their iron bracelet, fifty of them are enough to keep at bay a whole battalion of the king's forces, such as they are".
I never knew Romans brainwashed foreign children in their religion and made them into little Roman soldiers that die only for the Emperor. Which period was this practice? Or are you talking about the Mercenaries that fought for Rome, which came in vast different ways?
Also, don't think it was lazy, because then you Turks are way lazier. I mean how many Greek words are bastardised by Turks
I mean Poles came in contact with them first and called them 'Janczarzy ' and the Hungarians, your linguistic cousins call them 'Janicsár'. Not lazy, just the way you bring it into your language.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
Quote:I never knew Romans brainwashed foreign children in their religion and made them into little Roman soldiers that die only for the Emperor. Which period was this practice? Or are you talking about the Mercenaries that fought for Rome, which came in vast different ways?
The Romans too used slaves and captives in their army. We didn't invent the concept.
Quote:Also, don't think it was lazy, because then you Turks are way lazier. I mean how many Greek words are bastardised by Turks
Probably one tenth of the amount of Turkish words bastardized by Greeks.
Quote:I mean Poles came in contact with them first and called them 'Janczarzy ' and the Hungarians, your linguistic cousins call them 'Janics�r'. Not lazy, just the way you bring it into your language.
All cantonists were institutionally underfed, and encouraged to steal food from the local population, as "Spartan" character building training. On one occasion in 1856 a Jewish cantonist Khodulevich managed to steal the Tsar's watch during military games at Uman. Not only was he not punished, but he was given a reward of 25 roubles for his prowess.
The boys in Cantonist schools were given extensive training in Russian grammar (and sometimes literature), and mathematics, in particular geometry necessary in naval and artillery service. Those who showed aptitude for music were trained in singing and instrumental music, as the Imperial Army had a large demand for military wind bands and choirs. Some cavalry regiments maintained bands of torban players, and cantonist schools supplied these as well. Some cantonist schools also prepared firearms mechanics, veterinarians for cavalry, and administrators ("auditors").
The official policy was to encourage their conversion to the state religion of Orthodox Christianity and Jewish boys were coerced to baptism. As kosher food was unavailable, they were faced with the choice of either abandoning Jewish dietary laws or starvation. Polish Catholic boys were subject to similar pressure to convert and assimilate as the Russian Empire was hostile to Catholicism and Polish nationalism. Initially conversions were few, but after the escalation of missionary activities in the cantonist schools in 1844 about 1/3 of all Jewish cantonists would have undergone conversion.
So Turks weren't the first or the last to use the system.
ps we forced Poles to convert and so did the Russians. Interesting...
edit: I think we made it better by allowing Polish(& Hungarian) political prisoners to seek refuge in our empire at the risk of being invaded by the Russians centuries later. Believe it or not there is still a Polish village in Turkey from the Polish political refugees from the Ottoman Empire.
Turkey NOT Poland
This message has been edited by istanbul_since_1453 on Jun 14, 2008 11:04 PM
I don't think using the Russians equals the Romans. I did ask about the Romans, who didn't have such a system like the Turks created.
Slaves and captives is one thing, a systematic cultural destruction by converting them and forcing to forget their roots is another. The Romans were good at tempting 'barbarians' with citizenship by fighting for their armies.
Probably one tenth of the amount of Turkish words bastardized by Greeks.
Could be. But then again I dunno if linguistist would agree with that
Haha, so it was the lazy Poles then.(jk)
Of course it was. The word was too hard for us to pronounce so we decided to to just make it easier. Thanks to our alphabet and ways we pronounce, your hard Turkish word became a harder Polish word haha
Then again blame the Hungarians, we would have gotten it from them...
ps we forced Poles to convert and so did the Russians. Interesting...
The interesting thing is Poles were doing it much earlier then both Turks and Russians. Many Poles from the West are in fact German colonists who were Polonized as in the North, in the East Ruthenians (Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians) that had the same fate. Also many Baltic peoples were assimilated as well as Tartars and Armenians (who are still very much Muslim and Orthodox).
Being Polish was always based on culture and language (the Religion was never an issue either).
Poles were not very likely taken in great numbers as slaves to the Ottoman Empire, we were far too North. Ukrainian's (who were considered 'Polish' by the fact they were under our rule) were the vast majority as well as those of the Balkans.
I think we made it better by allowing Polish(& Hungarian) political prisoners to seek refuge in our empire at the risk of being invaded by the Russians centuries later.
The Russians were more interested in 'Imperial territory' they thought was theirs by the fact they declared themselves the Third Rome (I know how dare they, you did it first!) then some Political prisoners who could have made for a casus belli.
Turkey NOT Poland
I gathered by the sign.
?v=0
Tartar Mosque in 'intolerant Eastern Europe'
Krakow, Poland. The centre of Polish culture, langauge and religion and yet here is a Mosque.
Gdansk (Danzig), Poland. Another Tartar Mosque recently built.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
Not in a systematic way, otherwise the Iberians would have scum to the same fate just to name one group of people. The Druidism were still the predominate religion before the rise of Christianity within Gaul. The main driving force behind Gaulish Romanization is citizenship, especially amongst the nobility.
Actually most of the roman Empire wasn't even exposed to Romanization, it was more a force that was either accepted or rejected. But all had to lick the Roman boot like it or not.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
The Ottoman Empire didn't creat anything of note. In true Turkish fashion they treated all the "subject peoples" as second class citizens in their own countries. That's why their contributions to western civilization are practically non-existent.
The Ottoman Empire was an anchronistic obscenity. When it ended in Europe there was a palpable sigh of relief.
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
?v=0
