What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

acutally roughly 1/3 of the army was polish. the rest were imperial contingents from all parts of the empire.

the last battle is fictional, as it never happened. Prince Eugene forced the turks into surrendering the city after a brief siege, following the battle of Peterwardein, both in 1716.

i don't think so either, since the battle of Blenheim was 1704. what you probably meant is the battle of Malpaquet.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on November 04, 2010 09:36 am

But that doesn't mean it would have been to France's detriment. France had an obligation towards France, not towards "Europe" or what we now know to have followed in history.

Anyway, did the Austrians ask the French for help in 1683? If they did not then why would you blame the French for not helping them?

Youțre right, cat, but I think you catch the point.
Imperialist, are you sure that the help wasnțt asked? Ussually, when Europeans were attacked by Turks, they sent messages for help to other kingdoms. Stephan the Great did it, Ludovic of Hungary did it in 1526 (including from France), and many others.

But this is the "bit" you seem to be unable or unwilling to understand: There was NO SUCH THING as "Europeans". "Europe" did not exist in the way we understand it today. In fact, there were no "nations" as we understand them today. Countries that today are called "France", "Germany", "Spain", "Italy", "Poland" were fragmented into small principalities and duchies, and often they warred with each other. When they united in the face of invaders or neighbours, they tended to switch sides regularly and "friends" became "foes" within short periods of time. The only thing that tended to unite these "tribal factions" was religion, and even that became fragmented and torn apart in the middle ages thus causing further reasons for trouble, on top of the usual ones.
That process continues today. It is utterly wrong, if not to say downright naive, to believe that Austria and Poland that you are referring to were the same as their equivalent of today or even their equivalent of 96 or 71 years ago. History tends to be full of twists, turns and nuances. It is never as black and white as you see it.
Radu

Maybe it would be better rephrased as "Christians were attacked by Muslims"?!

In my view Contras uses a macro-level view of past history to judge France's decision at a given moment in the past.

While this could be very interesting, a nice tool to describe big developments across centuries or even to build some kind of ideology/world view, it's the wrong tool with which to analyse and judge past foreign policy decisions.

Contras, I don't know whether the Austrians asked for France's assistance or not, I haven't looked into these details. But considering they were rivals and they fought a war just 5 years before, I doubt it.

the empire (not austria) did not ask for french help, since it would have been utterly pointless. the peace of vasvar was bound to expire, there was yet another revolt in hungary and the turks were encouraged by the french king.
so why should the emperor rdicule himself and ask one of the co-authors of the situation for help?

So... to get back on "topic" (whatever that is), what do you think will happen after the communists win the elections in Moldova on November 28?

a bag of rice will topple over in china.

Butterfly effect

Well, I still hope that our "serviciili" will prevent that, somehow; I'd be sorry for the money we threw towards them otherwise; I might also get a passport and start filling up my tank in Ukraine instead of getting a passport and filling it up in Moldova...

However, will live and see what will happen at elections. Until then, take a look here:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101108_ge...t_2_borderlands

and look after the first part.

Friedman's analysis has a weak point though. NATO. It hasn't imploded, it hasn't disappeared and it is evolving. So his geopolitical construct should be limited only to Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova.

But in a world without NATO I think Romania should not be a US pawn used as a stumbling block in the path of a developing EU - Russia relationship. The "intermarium" would be a weak geopolitical Frankenstein kept on artificial life support from Washington. Romania took a similar path before, after WWI, and we know how that went.

Stratfor's wiew is that NATO, as we know it, will came to an end. Look here:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101011_na...rategic_concept

I don't remember exactly, but the rumours about NATO being dismantled, or, at least, of USA "getting out" began immediately after the end of the Cold War! But no such event happened (and there are almost 20 years since then); also, as it seems that Hussein Obama has disappointed the "US electorate", the GOP and his more aggressive external politics will return! Don't you think so?