WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > Ancient, Medieval and Modern History > The Romanian principalities and the results of the fight against the Turks

Posted by: Florin November 19, 2012 09:41 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ November 19, 2012 07:26 am)

..............when the Romanians were fighting more or less with the Othoman Empire, the Western civilization was way more advanced than these Eastern parts. They had some of the biggest cathedrals and they had already begun the Renaissance when the states of Moldova and Walachia were hardly created...

MMM, I am sorry to say, but you do not grasp the whole picture.
The Western countries were able to build bigger cathedrals and had better conditions to refine their civilization exactly because the medieval Romanian kingdoms and others like them were doing the dirty work for the Western Countries and kept the Muslim expansion at bay.
How can you compare our possibilities with theirs?
Oltenia was invaded 80 times between 1500 and 1600. After Moldavia and Wallachia were being forced to pay tribute, this increased steadily, becoming at a certain moment the most important source of income for the Emperor in Istanbul.
For any possible construction project, the financial possibilities were hindered by the tribute to the Ottomans.
After the rule of Vlad Tepes, the Turks FORBADE to Wallachia to build any new fortifications.
Just think that after we finished our ties with the Ottomans (1877), Romania really bloomed and created a modern infrastructure in only few decades, and in those decades those generations changed Bucharest into "The Little Paris".

Posted by: MMM November 20, 2012 06:05 pm

@Florin: please do the maths! The simple fact that in our territories there were NO CENTRALIZED STATES until the 14-th and 15-th centuries does not have any relevance upon the Muslim advance on the Western states, through the East of Europe - unlike the "moors" across Gibraltar through Spain, half a millenium before!
Wiki would be more than enough to shed some light upon this:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
Where (in what tree) were the Romanians then?
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture
As you can see, the style begun in 12-th century, as the first huge cathedrals were being started. http://fourriverscharter.org/projects/Inventions/pages/europe_gothiccathedrals.htm
3. There is a reason for which the Romanian states were overlooked by the Western historians when it was the question of independent states or nation: the vasality issue, as no matter whether they respected it or not (more of the latter...

), there always were some vassality relations between the "Voyvods" and their mightier neighbours (Poland, Hungary, whatever...), written and signed in blood.
We, the Romanians, might like to look upon ourselves with pride, but sure as hell we have to consider the others' views on us. We're not the USA or Russia to "care less" about the others.

Posted by: udar November 21, 2012 11:35 am

QUOTE

Wiki would be more than enough to shed some light upon this:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
Where (in what tree) were the Romanians then?

Just a small comment here, probably as Victor said it will be better to open a new thread, about armies and battles in medieval Europe

Battle of Tours was blown up of proportion (reaching "mythical" one to some western historians) and was more probably just a big raid of Arabs, looking for pillaging north of their newly aquired teritories. It wasnt for sure instrumental for preserving Europe as a free or Christian area, and was maybe just of local importance for Frank kingdom.

In same period the much more important event for Europe was the defend of Constantinopole in front of same Arabs.

About Romanian involvement, we can talk about the battles during the most expansive period of Ottoman empire, under Mohammed II the Conqueror

Posted by: MMM November 21, 2012 03:09 pm

udar, this is my last stand in this matter and I will leave all of you with your undoubted and unchallenged knowledge of history, regardless of the fact that I actually studied those things and read about them in college (even got a 9 at the exam - Universal Medieval History, in my second year of college, with a teacher whose passion were... the Arabs!).
The battle (arbitrarily chosen by me, among other battles, I admit that) of Tours was "blown out of proportions" because it was won by the Franks, but have a better look at that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islamic_expansion_in_France_in_the_8th_century.jpg
And then let's admit that a "big raid", in the time when a large part of the future "Hexagon" was already under Arabian rule, wasn't a minor thing!
The "Romanian" involvement in the XIV century... well, there are at least TWO wrong things in here: first, there were no Romanians in 1300+, but Moldavians, Wallachians, perhaps Transylvanians (or whatever they styled themselves back then); second, in the 14-th century, the proto-Romanian states (let's call them this way) were quite new and they were (as this was the initial intention for their "creation") a little more than some "exterior marks" against the Tartars! In those times it is still disputed whether the inhabitants were of Orthodox confession or Roman (aka Catholic)... Much less did we have cultural creations or cathedrals or anything else. We didn't even had the notion of Capital city, because back then the Capital was were the Voyvod was!
PS: Victor, do move this in another topic, please...

Posted by: udar November 21, 2012 05:32 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ November 21, 2012 03:09 pm)

Yes, i hope Victor will move this to another topic related with Medieval history. Until then i will answer you here where you started so not spread this all over the forum

QUOTE

MMM, i dont know who made that map, i can post you another ones which are clearly different

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Umayyad750ADloc.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg

Your may show maybe the areas covered by Arabs raids in France, not the teritory under their control or ocuppation.

As well, quite few modern historians reject the bigger numbers of troops involved and the importance of the battle, especially for Europe as an all. And indeed is laughable to think that the entire Europe and Christianity would fall if Arab raid would prove to be successfull.

In fact just few years after a huge rebellion of Berbers occured in north Africa, drawing the attention of Arabs there. And then not long after the Ummayad caliphate will fall under civil war and will be replaced by a new dinasty, Abbasid. So conquests in Europe was halted and abandoned anyway because of their internal problems.

As i said, the battle against Arabs that wanted to conquer Constantinopole (defeated including with the help of the secret weapon of that time,"Greek fire") few decades before Tours was much more important for Europe

QUOTE

First wrong things is you playing with semantics and saying that were no Romanians. Is like saying that wasnt any ancient Greece or Greeks in ancient times and we can talk just about Athenians, Spartans, Thebans or even Macedonians.
Gosh

QUOTE

second, in the 14-th century, the proto-Romanian states (let's call them this way) were quite new and they were (as this was the initial intention for their "creation") a little more than some "exterior marks" against the Tartars!

Second, i mentioned Ottoman expansion phase under Mohamed II, which is XV century, i dont know why you talk about XIV? Or you dont know when Mohamed the Conqeror lived, in such case i understand your mistake as unwanted

QUOTE

In those times it is still disputed whether the inhabitants were of Orthodox confession or Roman (aka Catholic)... Much less did we have cultural creations or cathedrals or anything else. We didn't even had the notion of Capital city, because back then the Capital was were the Voyvod was!

Is still disputed by who, and on which basis? And what that have to do with the blocking the Ottomans and battles we talk about?

About the capital, well, didnt Charlemagne did the same, walking around and moving the capital wherever he set camp? At least for a long period? As far as i know the capital was established soon enough after the kingdoms was established as well and the Domnitors was firmly on charge

Posted by: Radub November 22, 2012 09:12 am

QUOTE (udar @ November 21, 2012 05:32 pm)

QUOTE

This was discussed before ad nauseam. Before the state of "Romania" was created in 1881 (as we understand it today with a single ruler, a single flag, a single capital, a single language) the word "Romania" meaning "offspring of Rome" was used by a multitude of peoples and nations in almost every are of what used to be the Roman Empire. Yeah, the word "Romania" may apear in chronicles, but it did not mean us. For more than 1000 years, "Romania" was another word for Byzantium (which also stretched as far as what we call "Romania" today). Even today one can find such uses of the word meaning "heirs of Rome" in Romagna or the Romansh ethnicity. It is monumentally moronic to claim that we, Romanians, are the ONLY heirs or Rome and when the word "Romanian" is mentioned somewhere, it automatically means us. No matter how much it irks some, MMM is 100% correct when he refers to Wallachian's, Moldovans and... whatever the very many ethnicities called themselves in Transylvania in the 14th century. It is clear, true and logical.
Radu

Posted by: udar November 22, 2012 12:23 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ November 22, 2012 09:12 am)

QUOTE

This was discussed before ad nauseam. Before the state of "Romania" was created in 1881 (as we understand it today with a single ruler, a single flag, a single capital, a single language)

So, how was called our country in 1879, how many capitals it has (as you said we have a single one just since 1881) and how many languages Romanians speak before 1881?

QUOTE

the word "Romania" meaning "offspring of Rome" was used by a multitude of peoples and nations in almost every are of what used to be the Roman Empire.

Yes, and what i mentioned was the involvement of Romanians during the most vivid expansionist phase of Ottoman empire, under Mohamed teh Conqueror. So, whats your point, beside stating an evidence nobody denied or even mentioned?

QUOTE

Yeah, the word "Romania" may apear in chronicles, but it did not mean us. For more than 1000 years, "Romania" was another word for Byzantium (which also stretched as far as what we call "Romania" today). Even today one can find such uses of the word meaning "heirs of

Was another word of Byzantium used by Byzantium itself (and Turks), not by others.

QUOTE

It is monumentally moronic to claim that we, Romanians, are the ONLY heirs or Rome and when the word "Romanian" is mentioned somewhere, it automatically means us.

I agree, and no one claimed that, so again, whats your point?

QUOTE

No matter how much it irks some, MMM is 100% correct when he refers to Wallachian's, Moldovans and... whatever the very many ethnicities called themselves in Transylvania in the 14th century.

Except that in "scrisoarea lui Neacsu" (1521) is clearly said "Tara Romaneasca" (same as Wallachia) and there are few writings of Italian travelers especially, who mention same thing about the name used by people here.
And i dont think Neacsu is the first to use that name but was well known, including in Transilvania, not to mention that he write in Romanian (excluding the introduction phrases in Slavonic) to Brasov mayor who was of German origin, which imply that the mayor knew the language (or have someone very thrustful around who knew).

When i said "Romanian involvement" in stoping Ottoman expansion under Mohamed II i think it was obvious and common sense for everyone that is about 15 century (i write like this to be more easy understand, i saw "XV" passed unnoticed) battles of Romanian countries - Tara Romaneasca/Wallachia, Moldova and Transilvania vs Ottoman empire.

I repeat, as i see some have a little lack of comprehension, Romanians = medieval ancestors of Romanian people from today Romania

Is similar with talking about ancient Greeks or Hellada etc. when you dont mention all the time just Athena, Sparta, Theba, Macedonia etc.

QUOTE

It is clear, true and logical.

Lol, i hope so

Posted by: Radub November 22, 2012 12:50 pm

Udar, just being argumentative about it does not change history. You made your "opinions" about "Romania" clear many times before. You can believe what you want and I will continue to trust the historic truth.
Radu

Posted by: udar November 22, 2012 01:18 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ November 22, 2012 12:50 pm)

Good for you Radu, i must applaud

However it would be better to know a bit more the historic truth before trust it so much, i remember in a previous discussion you was quite unsure about some parts of this historical period we talk about (something with Stefan cel Mare battles and troops).

This if you want to talk more specific and a bit more detailed then few generalisations and playing sterile (for the subject) semantics who just divert the talk from its purpose

Posted by: Radub November 22, 2012 02:04 pm

QUOTE (udar @ November 22, 2012 01:18 pm)

QUOTE (Radub @ November 22, 2012 12:50 pm)

Good for you Radu, i must applaud

Well, if I was wrong in the past, I apologise. I am not perfect, I am still learning. That is why we have discussions on this forum. I learned a lot here just by listening.
But you are convinced that you are right every time. Romanians have a saying about people who have nothing but certainties.
Radu

Posted by: MMM November 22, 2012 04:28 pm

@udar: sorry, the XIV-th century was a typo... I presume everybody knows when Istanbul first appeared on the maps... I was obviously writing about the period of beginings ("Descălecat"), which coincided with the Othman Empire first reaching the Danube line... I did NOT notice the reference to Mohamed II... so I apologize...

As for the waltzing through the centuries (see Florin's invasions of Oltenia in the 1500's
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=5896&view=findpost&p=88111)
and your "strolling" back and forth through the centuries, I can surely say it is confusing.
What IS your point, then? That the proto-Romanians' fights against the turks helped the Western Europe prospere?
If so, let's open a new thread and "duel" there, because I do NOT agree with such a theory!

Posted by: ANDREAS November 22, 2012 04:59 pm

For the sake of interesting discussions and hopefully

contradictory I support MMM's proposal! I commit myself with arguments that although important the Romanian principalities contribution in the defense of West European kingdoms was not decisive! Who strikes first?

Posted by: contras November 22, 2012 08:26 pm

I really believe that this discution must be moved to another topic. About Romanians before 1300 and their battles, look here, could be interesting:

http://www.cristiannegrea.ro/?p=9

Posted by: Florin November 23, 2012 06:56 am

QUOTE (MMM @ November 20, 2012 01:05 pm)

I did not miss that part of history. I did not address it, because the more details I have to bring in, the more time I have to spend.

In the few generations following Mohammad, Europe was lucky with the Francs that stopped the Muslim advance in the West and with the Byzantine Empire that stopped them in the East. The Arabs sieged Constantinople twice – first in 674–678, then in 717–718. They failed in both occasions. The Byzantine Empire lost land, but it survived. The Arabs lost momentum and in the following centuries they barely consolidated the original gains.
As you wrote, many cathedrals in Europe were built in the XIth…XIIIth Centuries, before the Middle Ages Romanian kingdoms started their existence. Those were good times for Western Europe: Warmer climate allowed planting grape in Great Britain and wheat (or rye?) in Greenland. In peaceful times between Crusades a profitable commerce was flourishing between the Muslim kingdoms and Europe. Moreover, the Vikings stopped their invasions after the XIth Century.
Fortunately for Europe, many Muslim kingdoms and empires suffered a mortal blow during the Mongol invasion of the early XIIIth century. Few Muslim cities with one million people each were destroyed, never to reborn to life. The Mongol invasion of 1241 was bad for Europe as well, but it did not equal the magnitude of destruction caused to the Muslim world in 1218-1220.
Unfortunately for Europe, the Ottomans started to pour into what is today Turkey in the XIIIth Century.
Under a succession of competent rulers, it looks like nothing could stop their momentum. In the XIVth Century they got a row of victories, conquering the Bulgarians, the Serbs, the Albanians and most of the land of the Byzantine Empire.
Their first real defeat at Rovine (1394) was much more important than an internal matter of Wallachia.
In that moment the rest of Europe was very weak indeed. It was in the aftermath of The Black Death (The Great Plague), that killed 60 percent of Europe's population. In the same time the climate started to cool and the survivors of The Great Plague were trying to survive to "The Little Ice Age". Two years after Wallachia alone defeated the Ottoman Empire, the whole united Europe was defeated by the Ottoman Empire.
Then Timur Lenk made good deed indeed: he crashed 3 Muslim empires, even though he was himself a Muslim. Among the victims, the Ottoman Empire, after one of the greatest battles in history (Ankara, 1402). The Ottoman Empire lost the unstoppable momentum and did not resume conquest attempts for few decades.
Then their main offensive attempts were against Wallachia and Moldavia, who kept the Ottomans busy until early 1500’s. While our ancestors were keeping the Turks at bay (occasionally in collaboration with the Hungarian Kingdom), the Italian Renaissance was in full bloom – Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the rest of the package. After Wallachia and Moldavia got too tired to fight with a giant, things started to roll again in favor of the Turks. The Hungarian Kingdom was conquered (1526), Vienna was sieged in 1529, then the Italian republics and kingdoms were under direct attack from the Ottoman Empire. Combined with being a battleground in the fight between France and the Spanish Empire, the Italian states started to plunge into a downward spiral, never to recover to their former glory.
So, "MMM":
1. The Battle of Rovine broke the Ottoman momentum of invincibility.
2. Because the Romanian kingdoms kept the Ottomans busy for more than one century, the Turkish attacks against the Italian states started after the peak of the Renaissance, not before it.

There is just one reason to consider that the contribution of the Romanian kingdoms was not decisive in defending Europe. The Western Europeans were fighting each other as long the Turks were far away. When the Turks were "at the gates", they quickly forged alliances – successful many times.
A notable exception: King Francisc I of France signed alliance treaty with Suleiman the Magnificent, labeled by many contemporary as treason against the Catholic world.

P.S: Andreas, it looks like I was the first to strike.

Posted by: Imperialist November 23, 2012 12:24 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ November 21, 2012 03:09 pm)

The "Romanian" involvement in the XIV century... well, there are at least TWO wrong things in here: first, there were no Romanians in 1300+, but Moldavians, Wallachians, perhaps Transylvanians (or whatever they styled themselves back then); second, in the 14-th century, the proto-Romanian states (let's call them this way) were quite new and they were (as this was the initial intention for their "creation") a little more than some "exterior marks" against the Tartars!

Saying that there were no Romanians in 1300+ is only partially correct, and is misleading. The fact that they perceived their ethnicity based on how ethnicity was perceived in the Middle Ages doesn't mean we should adopt that same Middle Age-era perception when talking about them. We can call them Romanians because we know they were, no matter whether they fully understood that or politically acted on it or not during that era.

As for the whole "we saved the West" debate, I think it is an exaggeration like you and others pointed out. On the other hand we shouldn't fall in the other extreme and completely dismiss the fact that by resisting we did help slow down Ottoman expansion for a defined period in time and our development was affected.

Posted by: MMM November 23, 2012 03:29 pm

QUOTE (udar @ November 19, 2012 04:25 pm)

I think the "myth" of Boia (or similar views) was already "demythized" or debunked, including in a previous thread here.

OK, then, but have you read Bogdan Murgescu?
Here's a link (free!) for his book:
http://istorie.freewb.ro/uploads/murgescu-bogdan-rom%C3%A2nia-%C5%9Fi-europa---acumularea-decalajelor-economice.pdf
Should we debunk him, too?

Or perhaps he's Soros-sponsored as well...

Posted by: ANDREAS November 23, 2012 10:07 pm

QUOTE

1. The Battle of Rovine broke the Ottoman momentum of invincibility.
2. Because the Romanian kingdoms kept the Ottomans busy for more than one century, the Turkish attacks against the Italian states started after the peak of the Renaissance, not before it.

The impact of the defeat of the turks in the Rovine battle was lost almost immediately by the Ottoman victory at the Battle of Nicopolis and the next Ottoman failures in the battles against Mircea cel Batran (1397, 1400) have not prevented the Turks to continue their advance towards the Danube occupying largely the Vidin Tsardom (only one that was left unoccupied) and only the defeat from 1402 when sultan Bayezid was captured by the mongols stopped them (for some time) to continue offensive towards Serbian despotate (already a vassal Ottoman state) and Wallachia. So Rovine defeat didn't broke "the Ottoman momentum of invincibility" but more likely the Battle of Angora (1402).
2. Florin please tell me how you calculated the one century when the Romanian principalities kept the Ottomans busy and and prevented them to continue the offensive towards the west? When starts the calculation of this century and when ends? Because to me personally I'm not coming at the numbers at all: as Mircea cel Batran accepted a peace treaty with the Ottomans in 1417 agreeing to pay tribute, payments often interrupted and fightings often restarted (1418-1420, 1422, 1459-1462) with a general end from 1462 when Radu cel Frumos was put by the turks at the throne of Wallachia. As the first ottoman campaign in Wallachia started by 1395 I wonder about this century you speak about...
Waching the geopolitical situation carefully at those times and a map shows us a simple element: Turks were not hindered by Romanian principalities to attack central Europe but from Hungary! Hungary was the way of penetration towards Central Europe and that's why the ottoman offensives from mid XV century to early XVI century were directed against this kingdom! Wallachia and Moldavia were sometimes annoying, the turks wanted sometimes their occupation but... not so much as we (some of us!) claim!

Posted by: udar November 24, 2012 10:03 am

QUOTE (MMM @ November 23, 2012 03:29 pm)

QUOTE (udar @ November 19, 2012 04:25 pm)

I think the "myth" of Boia (or similar views) was already "demythized" or debunked, including in a previous thread here.

Or perhaps he's Soros-sponsored as well...

The statement at the begining saying that

<Colectia Historia este coordonata de Mihai-Razvan Ungureanu.>

is not very encouraging in that regard, as he had (have?) close ties with same Soros fundation (and worked for Soros i think).

However, i didnt had time to read the book, just read few pages in a hurry. It seem very OK for me at that first glance, just that is about economy especially so not quite related with the things we talk about (wars, battles, geo-political and religious stuffs)

Posted by: Radub November 24, 2012 10:38 am

QUOTE (udar @ November 24, 2012 10:03 am)

is not very encouraging in that regard, as he had (have?) close ties with same Soros fundation (and worked for Soros i think).

What is "wrong" with Soros and the Soros Foundation?

Radu

Posted by: udar November 24, 2012 10:46 am

The battle of Rovine mentioned by Florin is very important, is almost a mirror battle of that of Tours.

Similarities are:

- muslim powers occupying parts of Europe at that time (Arabs in Iberian peninsula, Turks in Balkanic peninsula)

- muslim armies trying to go further north and being defeated, drawing a line that they can't pass (Pyrenne mountains or Danube)

- both muslim powers being affected by internal or other problems after that, which prevented them to imediatly return in force (Berber revolt and the civil war for Arab caliphate - Timur invasion and civil war for Ottoman Turks)

Differences are:

- battle of Tours was more like a big Arab raid with the intent of pillaging (which dont exclude the fact that if successfull this will possibly lead to an conquer attempt)
- battle of Rovine was a full conquer attempt from Turks

- Arabs at that point was at the edge of their possibilities and spread, far from their center and at the twilight of their expansion

- Turks was at the begining of their expansion and much close to their center of power

If Mircea cel Batran wouldnt win that battle this will lead to Ottoman conquest of Wallachia/Tara Romaneasca in XIV century, which coupled with the Ottoman victory at Nicopole (against a united European army) will put the Turks in a much favorable position.

They will probably be able to threat and conquer much soon Hungary too and open the way for more conquests much sooner.

As well, the Romanian actions as i said wasnt necessary to protect "western Europe" but to defend themselves. And Europe doesn't mean just "western' Europe, contrary to what some consider.

Europe means too Balkans, Romania, Poland, Russia, Hungary etc.

In fact Mohamed II target wasnt at all Viena, Turks entered in conflict with Habsburgic empire later, because of quarrels in Balkans, in Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary etc.

Mahomed the Conqueror wish was to take all the teritories of former Roman empire (or as much as possible, at least in eastern Europe). So after he take Constantinopole he aimed for Italy and Rome.

He even had a successful landing in Italia conquering a port town there and starting making a base for future expansion. I think the Pope already made it plans for evacuation from Rome at that time

Now imagine that Turks doesnt had any problems at Danube and they would be able to fully focus on Italia at the middle of XV century. That will probably lead to the fall of Rome at least and of large part of Italy, under Ottoman rule, the entire Balkan peninsula (including Romanian kingdoms and Hungary) will be under their rule.

Then in eastern Europe the Tatars of Golden Horde who even in XV (or XVI, need to check?) century was able to burn down Moscow will come sooner in an alliance with Ottoman empire (now having common border with them at Dniester lets say.

They will be able so to either conquer again all Russia (or at least up to Moscow and near areas) either to block Russia to became a significant power in the next centuries.

Poland would be in danger too, as they was paying tribute to Tatars in many periods and now would have Ottomans and Tatars right at their borders.

The entire eastern Europe will fall under a muslim dominated area, with significant impact on the population, culture, religion, economy etc. Just see what happened south of Danube and problems arised due to religious and ethnic wars, and then expand that from Urals to Slovakia and from Baltic (maybe) to Greece and a large part of Italy.

The fact is that victories of Iancu de Hunedoara/Janos Hunyadi/Johannes Corvinus etc of Transylvania, Vlad Tepes of Wallachia/Tara Romaneasca and Stefan cel Mare of Moldova, coupled with previous victory of Mircea cel Batran and even the resistance of Albanians under Skanderbeg blocked the Ottoman advance in the most efervescent and active phase and saved Europe

Mohamed II lost big armies, time, materials, logistics, numerous troops etc being defeated on a row by Iancu/Ioan of Transilvania, then by Vlad Tepes and then (twice) by Stefan cel Mare.

Without this and without Rovine Turks will have the free way to trample all over eastern and southern Europe (including Italia) with who knows what result for future history.

Probably not very good one if we look at south of Danube and what happened there in XIX, XX and even XXI century, ethnic cleansing, civil and religious wars, population exchanges and still national hate and distrust (see Greece vs Turkey even today, the large Turkish minority of Bulgaria, even after ethnic quarrels, or everyone against everyoane in former Yugoslavia).

The fact that we resisted and manage to forbid the expansion of Ottoman empire and muslim religion (nothing racist implied here, just a fact) north of Danube spared us of such things, and spared very probably a large part of Europe

Posted by: udar November 24, 2012 10:52 am

QUOTE (Radub @ November 24, 2012 10:38 am)

QUOTE (udar @ November 24, 2012 10:03 am)

is not very encouraging in that regard, as he had (have?) close ties with same Soros fundation (and worked for Soros i think).

What is "wrong" with Soros and the Soros Foundation?

Radu

They breath or they hearts still beating

More serious now, the ways in which they promote the "rewriting" of history or "multiculturalism" (not a bad thing normally, except when is aimed to destructuration of some nations as i think they promote) is so very wrong and fishy that i can't consider them of any worth or good

Posted by: Dénes November 24, 2012 07:12 pm

QUOTE (udar @ November 24, 2012 04:46 pm)

...Iancu de Hunedoara/Janos Hunyadi/Johannes Corvinus etc.

There is no need to invent another name in English for the great military leader and warrior. His proper name, in English, is John Hunyadi.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Imperialist November 24, 2012 09:18 pm

Fellow forumists earlier mentioned the fact that while we were resisting the Ottoman Empire Western Europe was building cathedrals and other impressive buildings.

It's interesting to note that something similar to this debate can be seen in the contemporary Islamic world too. Some resist (see Gaza for example) while others enjoy peace, prosperity and are building this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa

It's obvious that being on the fault-lines of clashing empires/civilizations may be glorious and give the inhabitants pride (representing their civilization in the fight against "the other"), but it is at the same time very costly and retards development. The Romanian principalities and other Eastern European statal entities became war zones for extended periods of time and the losses they suffered were immeasurable. Population displacement, demographic drop, economic disruption, deterioration of infrastructure etc.

So from one point of view it's unfair towards them to say they didn't do anything or those events didn't retard their development. On the other hand, the Islamic expansion was active on so many directions that many nations claim to have "saved Europe". France (mentioned earlier), Spain (Reconquista), Poland (Battle of Vienna when Sobieski saved the day), Italy and other Western states (Lepanto), the Balkan states.

Posted by: Florin November 24, 2012 09:25 pm

Andreas, in order to properly address your answer to me, I should count and estimate for the XVth Century all battles with Turks against Wallachia or Moldavia, versus all battles with Turks against the Hungarian Kingdom, versus all battles with Turks against other Christians (Skanderbeg-Albania, the Republic of Venice, Genoa / Genova), versus the heavy and important battles occurring in the east of the Ottoman Empire, between Turks and the Muslim states in what is today Iran.
This effort will rather worth for writing a book, than for a reply in this topic. On my behalf, I stop here.

Posted by: MMM November 25, 2012 07:03 am

QUOTE (udar @ November 24, 2012 01:03 pm)

that is about economy especially so not quite related with the things we talk about (wars, battles, geo-political and religious stuffs)

So economy is NOT linked with wars???? Guys, I think we have a Nobel Prize winner among us!

Do you realize the enormity of your utterance? Have you ever heard of wars begun for economic reasons? What's more, have you heard of wars being lost because of economic inferiority? (among them, the two world wars...)
The level of economy is determinant for the level of the military power, regardless of the century we're talking about!

Posted by: udar November 25, 2012 08:09 am

QUOTE (MMM @ November 25, 2012 07:03 am)

QUOTE (udar @ November 24, 2012 01:03 pm)

that is about economy especially so not quite related with the things we talk about (wars, battles, geo-political and religious stuffs)

So economy is NOT linked with wars???? Guys, I think we have a Nobel Prize winner among us!

relax, is just internet

And yes, economy is one of the factors that can decide wars, of course, most of the time one of the most important. Alongside militar, social, political, cultural and even spiritual factors.

However, we have the result of all this combination, the wars and battles we talk about (supported by the economy, military prowess, politics and even culture/spirituality of the main "actors") and the blocking of Ottoman advance and blocking of islamic religion on Danube border with all what that imply for Europe then and even now.

Sure, with a much better economy maybe Vlad the Impaler will not just defeat Ottoman invasion but will keep his power in front of his brother and boyars and continue his own actions and invasions south of Danube, maybe even with chances to reject the Ottomans from large parts of Balkans, especially if allied with his cousin, Stefan cel Mare and with Matthias Corvin.
Economical or better said financial reasons was surely among those who forced him to pass in Transylvania to ask for Mathias support and same reason was among those that make Mathias to arest Vlad on false pretenses and to abandon the fight with Ottomans.
Which was too weakened at that time but few decades later returned in force and conquered Hungary, but not Wallachia/Tara Romaneasc or Moldova or Transylvania, which shows that fighting back and successfully made the Turks to avoid big problems and agree just with payment of a tribute without to try again to properly conquer any of the Romanian principalities

But is a little futile now to talk about how many cattles or gold coins have Moldova etc. compared with Denmark because:

1- economy wasnt the only factor in those wars
2- we need to see what was the result of those events on macro-historical level

[edited by admin]

Posted by: Imperialist November 25, 2012 05:00 pm

QUOTE (udar @ November 25, 2012 08:09 am)

However, we have the result of all this combination, the wars and battles we talk about (supported by the economy, military prowess, politics and even culture/spirituality of the main "actors") and the blocking of Ottoman advance and blocking of islamic religion on Danube border with all what that imply for Europe then and even now.

Which was too weakened at that time but few decades later returned in force and conquered Hungary, but not Wallachia/Tara Romaneasc or Moldova or Transylvania, which shows that fighting back and successfully made the Turks to avoid big problems and agree just with payment of a tribute without to try again to properly conquer any of the Romanian principalities

The Ottoman Empire was not really interested in spreading the Islamic religion.

The Turks eventually imposed their will on the Romanian principalities.

Posted by: ANDREAS November 25, 2012 07:05 pm

QUOTE

This effort will rather worth for writing a book, than for a reply in this topic. On my behalf, I stop here.

I agree with you Florin! Me too!

QUOTE

The Turks eventually imposed their will on the Romanian principalities.

Indeed, starting with the reign of Radu III the Beautiful (Radu cel Frumos) we can say that the main objectives of the Ottoman Empire in Wallachia were achieved!

Posted by: Radub November 25, 2012 08:02 pm

So, if we know for how long "we fought the Turks", all we need to do is "count the cathedrals built in the West" during this period to "prove" this hypothesis.
Radu

Posted by: udar November 26, 2012 08:25 am

QUOTE (Imperialist @ November 25, 2012 05:00 pm)

QUOTE

The Ottoman Empire was not really interested in spreading the Islamic religion.

I dont say they was fanatically bend on spreading the islam, however they wasnt either indiferent to this.
I will point again what happened (mostly as result of Ottoman occupation) in the teritories transformed in provinces in south of Danube, in the last centuries, and i rest my case

QUOTE

The Turks eventually imposed their will on the Romanian principalities.

And their will was? What was the purposes (at least at first) of Bayazid, Mohamed II (or even others in times of Radu de la Afumati or Mihiai Viteazu) ?

Posted by: udar November 26, 2012 09:11 am

QUOTE (Radub @ November 25, 2012 08:02 pm)

So, if we know for how long "we fought the Turks", all we need to do is "count the cathedrals built in the West" during this period to "prove" this hypothesis.
Radu

Thats a very simplistic and i may say even wrong statement in some parts.

It doesnt matter just "how long" but as well "when" or "in which moment" in history and with which results.

As well i am still baffled that for some everything that counts is "western Europe" as if southern, central or eastern Europe dont exist.

However, i will give just few dates

- 1395 - battle of Rovine - the Ottoman expansion north of Danube is stoped as Bayazid fail to conquer and transform Wallachia in Ottoman province.

This is the same century when Renaissance period first began, just in city of Florence i think

- 1453 - Mohamed II conquer Constantinopole and put an end to the last remains of the Byzantine empire, taking its capital. Many "byzantines" fled to Italy where they boost the Renaissance brining the old knowledge preserved in their area since old greco-roman times.

- 1456 - Iancu de Hunedoara (John Hunyady) defeat Mohamed II at Belgrad

- 1461-1462 - Vlad Tepes camapigns against the Turks and same Mahomed II led invasion of Wallachia ended with Vlad Tepes victory and retreat of Ottoman army

- 1475 - Stefan cel Mare defeat the Ottoman army in the battle of Vaslui

- 1476 - an invasion of Moldova led by same Mohamed II ended in a defeat as Stefan manage to drive out the Turks, with heavy losses

In each of this campaigns the Ottomans used big armies (around 100,000 soldiers as a medium) with all the logisitic included. In each of this campaigns they suffered defeats and had big losses in soldiers, materials and even morale.
In the same time they was stucked too in Albania until 1468, with Skanderbeg repell their attempts of conquest

- 1480 - Mahomed II land in Italy following his desire to conquer and rule over the former Roman empire teritories, with the aim to conquer Rome too after Constantinopole. Turks conquer quite quickly Otranto and form a base for future advance toward Rome. Pope make plans to evacuate from Rome and ask for help. Venice doesnt care much, and the odds seem bad for Italians

- 1481 - Mahomed II die, a struggle for power occur in the Ottoman empire and Turks abandon the conquest of Italy, even if started successfully for them

This XV century is the same century when the Renaissance really start to spread, first in Italy and then all over Europe, is the century when Columbus is born in same Italy

Now imagine that Mohamed II the Conqueror doesnt have any problems at Danube, he didnt lose that huge amount of troops, materials and time here, and he land in Italy few years after the fall of Constantinopole, some two decades before the year of his death.

This will lead more then probably to conquest of large parts of Italy, wars and destruction all over, and the stop or the end of classic Renaissance era right before its emergence, possible the spread of islam at least in south of Italy (again, i dont imply anything racist or so now), with all the possible consequences for the future. Including probably the Vatican becoming the second Hagia Sophia, as the St Sophia church from Constantinopole was transformed, and who knows what results related with apparition (or not, in such case) of Protestants next century.
Imagine Mahomed the conqueror moving the Ottoman capital at Rome a decade later after Constantinopole.

This beside what i said about the possible outcome in central and eastern Europe regarding Romanian countries, Hungary, Russia and even Poland (as the countries south of Danube was already under Ottoman occupation and direct rule)

Posted by: dead-cat November 26, 2012 04:13 pm

QUOTE

Now imagine that Mohamed II the Conqueror doesnt have any problems at Danube, he didnt lose that huge amount of troops, materials and time here, and he land in Italy few years after the fall of Constantinopole, some two decades before the year of his death.

there are problems with this concept, stemming from the logistical realities of the day, which were not optional for anyone, not even for the turkish army.
a campaign as far as vienna, required many months of preparation, the ottoman army marching from turkey to hungary, to start the campaign.
they arrived in spetember, which is very late for a siege. vienna was as far as the ottoman army could operate, given the logistical posibilities and the lack of imperial oposition (as Charles' army was busy fighting the french in italy).

the advance fared marginally better in 1683, when they reached vienna in mid july, also without serious imperial oposition, but even this time the siege would be limited to the day the relief effort arrived. all this agains an opponent, who was in a continuous state of bankrupcy from the 30 years war up to the seven years war.
unless the turkish base of operation was not somewhere much closer, a speculative campaign in italy, which would have met serious imperial opposition, would hardly have had any effect other than doing considerable damage to the ottoman army and navy. which is pretty much why it was never attempted seriously.

Posted by: Radub November 26, 2012 05:25 pm

Udar, in which one of these battles did the Principalities defeat the Ottoman Empire for good? After which one of these battles did the Ottoman Empire leave the West in peace?

The way I see it, the Ottoman Empire NEVER went West through The Principalities. The main thrust of their advance was through the Balkans, Bosnia, Albania, and clashed with the West elsewhere. The Principalities were on the perifery of this advance, but provided a rich source of food for their army, which explais why the Ottomans kept raiding them on their way to the West.

At best the Principalities delayed the Ottoman Empire, but they never really stopped it.

Radu

Posted by: ANDREAS November 26, 2012 08:16 pm

As Radub scored very well what I wanted to say I limited myself to indicate that the Ottoman military power was probably one of the top in Europe, referring to XV-XVI centuries! She had a solid core of permanent troops, with soldiers and commanders well paid, the regular troops of Janissaries and Sipahi were well trained and properly armed without overlooking the fanaticism that was inoculated to them. The commanders played an important role, they were acting under the direct leadership of Sultan, achieving undisputed better results in battles than Christian principles, who often disputed leadership! The organizational structure of the Ottoman army differed from both European and Asian rules, because they combined in their manner nomadic asian, byzantine, egyptian-arab and european elements. The core was formed from regular infantry the Janissary mercenaries, spearmen and riflemen who fought on foot, along with Sipahi cavalry, medium and light. The number of soldiers of an army ready for a campaign was in the first half of XVI century around 70000 men from which 12000 Janissaries, 40000 Sipahis, 4000 soldiers of the Artillery corps, while around 14000 men were specialized troops (armourers, scout, construction troops, supply troops, security, a.o.). These troops could be joined at mobilization by other 30 to 50000 men provincial troops, allied troops a.o. thus reuniting for a military campaign around 100000 to 120000 men. Being numerically superior to any adversary and acting decisively and in force they often obtain even in case of failure a major psychological effect over their ennemy being many situations in which the ennemy sought a deal with the Ottomans even after a victory over them! Their military campaigns were started usually in May and ends in October, their army acting together with a strong vanguard in front of the main army. The Ottomans have not excelled in using special tactics or outstanding operations in their campaigns, their army positioning for a battle was usually well known to their ennemies: three divisions of infantry in their centre with the artillery nearby framed on both wings by strong groups of cavalry grouped into well ordered regiments, the concave shaped battle disposition of the army was intended to facilitate the action of cavalry units from the wings. The cavalry was intended to lead the rapid attacks and apparently disordered withdrawals, destabilization of the battle disposition of the ennemy main army, while mass infantry attacks were going to break the ennemy positions and to destroy him. The rigid religious conceptions of the Empire influenced military thinking. Even in times of great glory and power the Ottoman military leaders seeking practical solutions rather than theoretical concepts, which in time brought the decline of the military power!
From "Pagini din gandirea militara universala" vol.II Epoca Medievala si inceputurile epocii moderne, Editura Militara, Bucuresti, 1985.

Posted by: Imperialist November 27, 2012 10:53 am

The Ottoman Empire did launch attacks into Hungary through Wallachia and Moldavia and with forces from the two principalities turned into vassals. Sometimes the empire ordered Wallachia and Moldavia to launch attacks on their own.

Even if the principalities can be seen as peripheral, they had to be controlled in order to avoid problems on the flank. Securing control up to the ridge of the Carpathians must have been an important geopolitical goal for the Ottomans at first.

@udar
Their will was to turn the principalities into loyal vassals. The Ottoman Empire was a cosmopolitan and tolerant one.

Posted by: Radub November 27, 2012 10:56 am

QUOTE (Imperialist @ November 27, 2012 10:53 am)

I thought we were talking about the period when the Principalities "resited" and "fought" the Ottoman Empire.
Radu

Posted by: Victor November 27, 2012 12:12 pm

udar, please watch your language.

Posted by: Imperialist November 29, 2012 06:56 am

QUOTE (Radub @ November 27, 2012 10:56 am)

I thought we were talking about the period when the Principalities "resited" and "fought" the Ottoman Empire.
Radu

We are. But that period was intermittent, dotted with time spans in which the principalities were loyal vassals. It all depended on who was in charge and "regime changes" were frequent.

Posted by: Radub November 29, 2012 08:36 am

QUOTE (Imperialist @ November 29, 2012 06:56 am)

We are. But that period was intermittent, dotted with time spans in which the principalities were loyal vassals. It all depended on who was in charge and "regime changes" were frequent.

But I am willing to bet that the "true blood Romanians" DO NOT even want to accept the fact that the Principalities were "loyal vassals" of the Ottoman Empire. And that is the crux of this whole thread.
Radu

Posted by: MMM November 29, 2012 09:12 am

QUOTE (Radub @ November 29, 2012 11:36 am)

QUOTE (Imperialist @ November 29, 2012 06:56 am)

We are. But that period was intermittent, dotted with time spans in which the principalities were loyal vassals. It all depended on who was in charge and "regime changes" were frequent.

... and the point (which will lead us pretty much to the heated discussion in an earlier thread started by Denes and closed by Victor) is whether the "historical truth" will be accepted as the same by the "romani verzi" and the other nationalists.

Posted by: udar November 29, 2012 09:47 am

QUOTE (dead-cat @ November 26, 2012 04:13 pm)

Well, the Ottoman landing in Italy was without problems as Venice has signed a treaty with them and didnt do anything to stop them. Ottoman fleet wasnt bad at all either, quite contrary started to be better and better and bigger.

Pope was making plans to evacuate from Rome and his pleading for help didnt stired much interest, he asked even Matthias Corvin for that (and he was among couple who answered).
In fact just few years before the only one who answered to the Pope call for a crusade to free Constantinopole was Vlad Tepes, an Orthodox. And even he joined that more for personal interest.
Pope was so desperate that even give the title "Atleth of Christ" to Stefan cel Mare after the battle of Vaslui, even if he was a "schismatic" too, but the idea was to stop the Turks as much as possible

Italy was broken in several smaller states that was rivals to eachother and was ruled back then by families as Borgia, Sforza, Medici. Pope's themselves wasnt quite loved, the actions of quite few included corruption, bribery, nepotism, assasinations, orgies at Vatican with whoever find suitable etc.
In north the Protestand rupture will happen less the a century after this.

Even if Mohamed II will not keep for too long his conquests (including even Rome) the wars and devastations in Italy will put a stop to Renaissance right before its rise. With unknown results for Protestant apparition either

Posted by: udar November 29, 2012 10:13 am

I find funny as well to see the way couple co-forumists already make a statement (of which they seem very sure hehe) spliting the people in "the owners of the truth","the good guys" (they or those who support their ideas) and "romanii verzi", "nationalisti", "za bed guys" who obviously have no idea what they talking about

Using such "stamps" and bypassing the incomode (for some) facts is just a sign of lack of real arguments.

It doesnt matter that much that in some periods we was vassals but it does matter much more that we wasnt an Ottoman province.

It doesnt matter that we wasnt always in the conquest road adopted by the Turks but its surely matter way much more that we was and we beat them in the most crucial moments.

As well, i need to repeat, Ottomans goes to Viena not because they wanted to conquer Europe, and the fact they was defeated there doesnt meant that "the Europe" was saved.
Viena or habsburgic empire wasnt "the Europe". Turks attacked Viena because of the quarrels with Austrians in Balkans, in Croatia, Bosnia or even Hungary, and not because they wanted to "conquer Europe". At that time Ottomans wasnt in position to go further and to keep their conquests there for too long

Not to mention France was allied with Turks back then if i am not mistake.

Their goal was first of all to conquer the lands of former Roman empire and the real or bigger threat was during Mohamed II the Conqueror, when Europe was divided and even weak and Ottomans was in full expansion. I mentioned in previous post about Italy, and we can talk about Hungary or Poland too, both badly beaten by some small country like Moldova

If it wasnt the situations we talk from the begining, Mohamed will land and very probably conquer large parts of Italy (maybe even Rome), ending the Renaissance before even starting and spreading for real, with who know what consequences for the development of Europe

It will be as well very possible that in north of Danube to have a similar situation as in south, religious and ethnic wars, national hate and distrust, population exchangings, large muslim minorities (even enclaves or states like Bosnia or Albania), all this spread from Caucasus to Austria and from Baltic to Greece and Italy.

Posted by: Dénes November 29, 2012 02:07 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ November 29, 2012 03:12 pm)

OT. MMM, you can bet on it, that the often inconvenient "historical truth" will not be accepted by the nationalist side. That particular thread was a very good lesson (at least for me). That's the reason why I do not comment this rather interesting topic.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Florin November 29, 2012 07:34 pm

It is said that the more you live, the more you learn. One of the things I learned over time is that most people from all nations are nationalists.
Why this is presented as a sin when it is about Romanians, but it is considered acceptable about others? Why most nations are so indignant about the nationalism of the others, while they overlook theirs, or they even do not realize their own nationalism ?
No wonder that the extraterrestrials do not want to contact us.

Posted by: Dénes November 29, 2012 08:10 pm

QUOTE (Florin @ November 30, 2012 01:34 am)

This is off topic, but let me clarify this, again (Radub has done it earlier).

Nationalism is against something/somebody, wants to gain on the detriment of others (e.g. "afara, afara cu ungurii din tara!"), while patriotism is emphasising the person/people's own values, without denigrating others (e.g., Traian Vuia designed and flew the first powered heavier-than-air flying machine that took off ground by its own means, but was not the first powered heavier-than-air flying machine to fly).
Probably, the encyclopaedias have a better, more accurate definition, but simply put these are the critical differences.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Florin November 30, 2012 04:33 am

QUOTE (Dénes @ November 29, 2012 03:10 pm)

QUOTE (Florin @ November 30, 2012 01:34 am)

Denes, I carefully follow your definition: "Nationalism is against something/somebody, wants to gain on the detriment of others (e.g. "afara, afara cu ungurii din tara!"), while patriotism is emphasising the person/people's own values, without denigrating others".

I see that countless Americans, French, Britons, Russians, Ukraineans, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, Asian Indians, Pakistani, Arabs, Jews etc. etc. etc. are "emphasising the person/people's own values", but in the same time they want "to gain on the detriment of others", and worst of all, they are denigrating others.
So, from my point of view, all these people are first of all nationalists, before being patriots.

Posted by: Dénes November 30, 2012 06:18 am

Yes, Florin, I agree with you. I've been to America several times, so I know how some (most?) of them think.

Or, an even better example is China (china-passport-controversy):
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2012/11/27/nr-verjee-china-passport-controversy.cnn

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Radub November 30, 2012 09:00 am

Nationalism is not automatically "bad". It becomes "bad" when it is used aggressively as a tool of oppression. All nationalism, all over the world, relies on a preset package of lies and half-truths that is used to justify actions. Clear example of that is the "Aryans" who used fabricated "historic rights" to carry out terrible atrocities against "non-Aryans".

Equally, Romanian nationalism relies on its own set of lies. These are so deeply embedded that they are impossible to fight. When you come across such situations in "real life", you can just shut up and ignore it. But this forum is by its very nature a place where we try to separate the truth from these lies. We often get people here who try to impose those nationalist lies. Well, we cannot shut up and ignore them here. If we do, those lies win here too. I love this forum because here we can discuss truths. I hate it when "nationalists" try to suppress our efforts to uncover the truth by calling us (those who question their lies) "enemies of Romania". The truth is that Romania is not perfect. To love it, to truly love it, you must rely on the "bad bits" as well as the "good bits". Trying to invent lies to cover "bad bits" fools no one and degrades both the "listener" and the "speaker".

Radu

Posted by: udar November 30, 2012 09:33 am

So, let me see if i get it right

Saying that the fight of Romanians (and in some moments others too) in XIV and especially XV century blocked the Ottoman advance north of Danube (thats Europe too) and delayed until was too late their invasion of Italy (more important region in a more important era for Europe compared with Vienna in my opinion) is "nationalism" similar with "afara cu ungurii din tara"?

Or talking about this battles of historical important moments and mentioned them as victories is as well "bad nationalism", "lies" and "blocking the truth"?

Sure, everyone (well, those who know some history) know that Romanian principalities was formed in XIV century or that in some periods we was vassals of Turks, nobody deny that or argued against it here. But again, what that have to do with the results of our fight with Ottomans?

I am sorry to say but i see to some a kind of "snobish" approach and the idea to "demonize" the "enemy" who is not agree with them (using stamps as "bad nationalists", "liers" etc) instead of using arguments.

I would prefered some more free talks using historical arguments and facts (and some forumists do that and that make the discussion very interesting and enjoyable) instead of "tags" and "phylosophical" impressions which apeared and are promoted after 1990 under the new "multiculturalism" ideas and "rewriting" of history.

Because abandoning one extreme wich presented Romanian history exclusevily in a "good light" and jumping to other one were is presented exclusevly in a "bad light" is just replacing a lie with a possible even bigger one.

Posted by: Radub November 30, 2012 10:16 am

Thank you for proving my point.

Radu

Posted by: MMM November 30, 2012 01:40 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ November 30, 2012 12:00 pm)

Trying to invent lies to cover "bad bits" fools no one and degrades both the "listener" and the "speaker".

Radu

And, more importantly, if the listener perceives the "bad bits" as lies, undoubtedly he will believe no more the "good bits"!
To conclude, the "enemy" can also be seen as a bad speaker of English...

Posted by: dead-cat November 30, 2012 02:17 pm

QUOTE

then perhaps you could provide a few examples of large scale ottoman fleet operations in the adriatic during the reign of Mehemed II ?
such operations, against the italian peninsula took place later, under Hayreddin Barbarossa, however as raids. there was no large scale landing on the italian shore with an army large enough to conduct an offensive campaign there, simply because even at that time, it was beyond the capability of the ottoman navy to provide sustained support. which is why it never happened.

Posted by: udar November 30, 2012 04:45 pm

QUOTE (dead-cat @ November 30, 2012 02:17 pm)

QUOTE

We can use as example these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_invasion_of_Otranto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zonchio

It looks that Ottomans had a good (and big) enough navy to bring in one wave almost 20,000 soldiers and to conquer a bridghead in Italy. And they was able to defeat Venice too in large naval battles

And if we consider that Turks would not had any problems on the Danube and would be able to focus their forces just on Italy in XV century, i do think is plausible the idea that they would reach Rome at least, seeing as the political situation was in Italy (and even in Europe back then)

Posted by: udar November 30, 2012 05:03 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ November 30, 2012 10:16 am)

Thank you for proving my point.

Radu

As the old word say, "cel mai destept cedeaza" so i will let you go now without to care too much about the blank stereotypes usually posted by you here (not that i did much in the past either).

So, consider you (and "your team") win this "extraordinary" debate and you can be happy and celebrate how you "show" to those "bad nationalists" how things are

And well, "La multi ani" for everyone for tomorrow (i know, it may sound as "bad nationalism" for some, but trust me, it doesnt imply i want to exterminate foreign nations

)

Posted by: MMM November 30, 2012 05:28 pm

Why look at Otranto and not at Rhodes? Because it doesn't serve your goal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(1480)
"Zonchio" (aka "First Battle of Lepanto") was no landing attempt, but a naval battle! Indeed, victorious for the Othmans, as the Second Battle of Lepanto was victorious for theHoly League, but just a naval battle!
Re: Radub's team:

If you had looked on some threads, you'd have seen there were so many contradictions between the members of the "team"!
A sincere "La Mulţi Ani" for you, too - and for everybody else tomorrow!
PS: please, from now on, write "I" with a capital letter; it is said to be a mark of self-respect...

Posted by: Radub November 30, 2012 07:56 pm

QUOTE (udar @ November 30, 2012 05:03 pm)

So, consider you (and "your team") win this "extraordinary" debate and you can be happy and celebrate how you "show" to those "bad nationalists" how things are

And right here is the root of your "problem". You regard these discussions as battles that must be "won". This is just a forum where we discuss things. Say what you got to say and allow is to take it or leave it. This is not about "who is right". It is about "what is right".
Radu

Posted by: Imperialist November 30, 2012 10:18 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ November 30, 2012 07:56 pm)

QUOTE (udar @ November 30, 2012 05:03 pm)

So, consider you (and "your team") win this "extraordinary" debate and you can be happy and celebrate how you "show" to those "bad nationalists" how things are

Yes, but there are different views/opinions on what is right. We all have to respect each other as forumists willing to stand for something and agree to disagree on some issues. Deep down I bet each one of us thinks he is right, but the best thing is to have an interesting debate. If we didn't like to talk about these issues we wouldn't be here. And let's face it, in this day and age not many people discuss these issues. So let's try to cut each other some slack and encourage (and enjoy) the debates. We don't have to all agree or to convince each other. It's impossible.

cheers

Posted by: MMM December 01, 2012 01:19 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ December 01, 2012 01:18 am)

Deep down I bet each one of us thinks he is right

You mean there aren't people who could post crap knowing it's crap?

I'd like it to be so, but sometimes on this very forum there are some guys who just like to pour gas onto the fire, irrelevant what they think about the matter.
Back on topic, I suppose this is an ended question by now! Should we get back to other subjects?

Posted by: ANDREAS December 02, 2012 12:32 am

I agree with MMM!
So I ask the following question: can we identify a moment (if such a moment exists!) in which the political and military leadership of the Ottoman Empire (in a word the Sultan and maybe few close advisors/generals a.o.) decided that they agree the status of suzerainty (dependence) of Tara Romaneasca and Moldova better then the occupation of this lands and their transformation into eyalet (ottoman province)?
I ask this question because I am curious why f.i. after the defeat of Vlad Tepes and reinstallation of the throne of Wallachia of Radu III the Handsom in 1462 this country wasn't transformed into an ottoman province?

Posted by: udar December 02, 2012 07:33 am

QUOTE (MMM @ November 30, 2012 05:28 pm)

Ah, the finale "weapon", if you dont have arguments search for some grammatical mistakes

Search better, i am sure i might miss some comma too somewhere, you can show how wrong i am by pointing that out too

More on topic now, yes, we look at Otranto because "dead-cat" asked me about few examples of large scale ottoman fleet operations in the Adriatic during the reign of Mehemed II.

Rhodes is rather an irelevant exception, compared with the general situation of that period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Venetian_Wars

-The Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430), resulting in the capture of Thessalonica by the Ottomans. Although not formally counted as an Ottoman–Venetian War, it involved the Venetians against the Ottomans

-The first Ottoman–Venetian War (1463–1479), resulting in the capture of Negroponte, Lemnos and Albania Veneta by the Ottomans

-The second Ottoman–Venetian War (1499–1503), resulting in the capture of further Aegean islands, and the Venetian strongholds in the Morea (Peloponnese) by the Ottomans

Add this to the successful landing in Italy (of over 18,000 soldiers in just one wave) and the easy capture of Otranto, as well the defeat of Venetian navy in Battle_of_Zonchio and you can clearly see that Ottomans was in full expansion period and they was able to land in Italy almost at will.
Venice, the most important naval enemy of them wasnt able to stop them, and actually signed (and respected) a treaty by the time Turks landed at Otranto.

If we consider that Mohamed II didnt had the problems here on Danube border, and he would pursue his main goal to conquer Rome too after Constantinopole, we'll had the Turks landing at Otranto some decades earlier.

Less important targets as some cities or islands in Aegen Sea will be probably ignored, and without the big losses suffered in his fights at Danube Mohamed II will be in a much better position for his invasion of Italy.

And seeing the situation in Italy and in Europe back then, his chances of success would be quite significant. Even without conquering Rome or much part of Italy (or holding them for too long), the wars and chaos created by them will put a stop of Renaissance for example (with big implication for European development), the Pope will probably seek refuge out of Rome and who knows what will happen with Protestant schism later (or if will still appear or had another course).

Posted by: udar December 02, 2012 07:50 am

QUOTE (ANDREAS @ December 02, 2012 12:32 am)

Vlad Tepes defeated Mohamed II invasion. This retreated leaving near borders Radu cel Frumos with some troops. In fact acording to chronicles the Ottoman army retreated next morning after they reached Targoviste (were was that "forest of impaled" too) and Vlad was still in charge after Mohamed long reached Istanbul

However his brother Radu promised to Boyars two things, that they will get back the privileges lost during Vlad reign and they will be treated much better by him. And another one, if they agree to submit to him the country will not be transformed in Ottoman province (they obviously wouldnt accept to abandon Vlad other way, because with the country as Ottoman province they will surely lose they privileges even more) and they will just pay a tribute (which wasnt that big from what i understand). In other words Turks agreed on obtaining as much as possible, if not a province at least some tribute.

As most boyars agreed with that, Vlad was left without an important part of his army and as he was running out of money too he go to Matthias for support. This arrested him on false pretenses to avoid a war with Turks and because he already spent the money received from Pope.

Is enough to look at the huge armies send by Turks (100,000 soldiers as medium) usually lead by the Sultan Mohamed the Conqueror himself to see that was full conquests attempts.
The sultan will not come personally with such huge armies (similar or close in number as those used for conquest of Constantinopole or later siege of Viena) against some rather small countries, just to replace an enemy ruler with one who was more obeying to him.

Posted by: MMM December 02, 2012 01:55 pm

QUOTE (udar @ December 02, 2012 10:33 am)

QUOTE (MMM @ November 30, 2012 05:28 pm)

Ah, the finale "weapon", if you dont have arguments search for some grammatical mistakes

Search better, i am sure i might miss some comma too somewhere, you can show how wrong i am by pointing that out too

Re: Vlad Ţepeş & Co., it is relevant only the fact that in the same year he was no longer leading his country! Thus the Othmans won the day!
@ANDREAS: because it was simpler for them to just "milk" the province through a "friendly" leader than to risk another possibly costly military expedition into a country which was of secondary interest to them! That's what I think, at least...

[edited by admin]

Posted by: udar December 02, 2012 03:07 pm

QUOTE

Re: Vlad Ţepeş & Co., it is relevant only the fact that in the same year he was no longer leading his country! Thus the Othmans won the day!

I think is much more relevant that his country wasnt transformed in Ottoman province (or well, Othman, this is the correct English ?

), not to mention the other implication on European level

QUOTE

@ANDREAS: because it was simpler for them to just "milk" the province through a "friendly" leader than to risk another possibly costly military expedition into a country which was of secondary interest to them! That's what I think, at least...

Sure, to use another old saying, "vulpea cand nu ajunge la struguri spune ca sunt acrii".
The sultan raise a huge army similar with that used when he conquered Constantinopole, and lead it himself just to try to change a ruler with another one and to get a rather small tribute, in a country of second interest, this is what you say?

[edited by admin]

Posted by: Imperialist December 02, 2012 07:41 pm

Not annexing the principalities was probably an arrangement in exchange for vassalage early on, when the Ottoman Empire was not interested in getting bogged down in an attempt to annex the principalities that were not on the empire's main line of advance into Europe. Turning them into vassals was sufficient. The Ottomans however annexed Dobrogea, Moldova's Black Sea coast and several cities on the Danube's left bank.

The only time when they tried to annex the principalities the Romanians reacted pretty strong (Michael the Brave). So they reverted to the "tradition" of vassalage without annexation.

As time passed however the principalities became de facto provinces of the Ottoman Empire.

@udar

The size of the Ottoman armies is explainable by the fact that given the Romanian scorched earth and guerilla tactics and the geographic characteristics they had to have sizable supply trains and many units had to be used to protect them.

Posted by: ANDREAS December 02, 2012 09:12 pm

To MMM,
Yes, I think that is an explanation, but one concerning the quoted episode (Vlad Tepes vs Radu cel Frumos)! On long term, I am inclined to believe that by setting the raiale (kazale) at Braila, Giurgiu and Turnu in Wallachia and Chilia, Cetatea Albă, Hotin, Bender (Tighina) in Moldova, not forgetting Dobrogea or Bugeac territories and by installing in the head of romanian principalities of voivodes suzerains to the Sultan they have achieved their goals!
To Imperialist,
as I said above I am inclined to adhere to your explanation as concerns the long-term situation of the romanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldova. I'm referring here until the installation of the Phanariot princes... when dependence to the Ottoman Empire was accentuated even more (making many to see Wallachia and Moldova as ottoman provinces)!

Posted by: ANDREAS December 02, 2012 09:29 pm

To udar,
I can not contradict in terms of Sultan personally leading his army in 1462 in an attempt to occupy Wallachia, attempt which seemed to be failed... but let's not overlook the fact that Radu converted to Islam and entered Ottoman service, leading a Janissary ortas (battalion) being backed with arms and money in 1462 by the Ottoman Empire! But indeed the moment Vlad Tepes lost control of the country was when the armies raized by the boyars have swich sides supporting Radu!

Posted by: Radub December 03, 2012 08:44 am

QUOTE (udar @ December 02, 2012 03:07 pm)

Gosh, "me ingles" isnt capable to keep the pace with you and i knew after i replyed to Radub that is useless to continue with such specimen like you, i dont know why i still bothered.
Even more then him, it seem that for you is more fit to use that word "cel mai desptept cedeaza" and leave you with your frustrations. Or next time you want to challenge me to a sort of duel with weapons or something haha?

Udar, please leave me out of this, whatever you think you are doing you are doing it all by yourself. There is an English saying: "give him rope and he makes a noose" (da-i frau si el isi face streang).
As for "cel mai destept cedeaza" (the smarter quits first), considering that you did not quit yet, that settles it!

Let us return to our muttons.

None of the victories scored by the Principalities against the Empire stopped the expansion. The Ottoman Empire continued to expand even after they lost the battles with the Principalities and eventually won. So, let us clarify the exact period during which the Principalities resisted the Empire. How many years was that? Between what years?

Radu

Posted by: dead-cat December 03, 2012 02:23 pm

QUOTE (udar @ November 30, 2012 05:45 pm)

both actions describe a raid, not an invasion with the intention of campaigning on the italian peninsula. the second action also took place after Mehemet's death. during the occupation of otranto, as can be seen in the article, the ottoman army was forced to return to albania, for logistical reasons.
and they had to support only 20.000 men, while a campaign to conquer italy on a lasting base would require many more men for a much longer campaign.

Posted by: Victor December 03, 2012 08:05 pm

MMM, tackle the ball, not the player. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.