Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (5) « First ... 3 4 [5]   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> The Romanian principalities and the results of the fight against the Turks, Medieval times
udar
Posted: December 02, 2012 07:50 am
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 281
Member No.: 354
Joined: September 24, 2004



QUOTE (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?

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.

This post has been edited by udar on December 02, 2012 07:53 am
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
Posted: December 02, 2012 01:55 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE (udar @ December 02, 2012 10:33 am)
QUOTE (MMM @ November 30, 2012 05:28 pm)
Why look at Otranto and not at Rhodes? Because it doesn't serve your goal?
Rhodes
"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:  :o  :D 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...

Ah, the finale "weapon", if you dont have arguments search for some grammatical mistakes :roll:
Search better, i am sure i might miss some comma too somewhere, you can show how wrong i am by pointing that out too :P

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).


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]

This post has been edited by Victor on December 03, 2012 08:00 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
udar
Posted: December 02, 2012 03:07 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 281
Member No.: 354
Joined: September 24, 2004



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 ? :D ), 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? :lol:

[edited by admin]

This post has been edited by Victor on December 03, 2012 08:02 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
Imperialist
Posted: December 02, 2012 07:41 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



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.
PM
Top
ANDREAS
Posted: December 02, 2012 09:12 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 814
Member No.: 2421
Joined: March 15, 2009



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)!
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
ANDREAS
Posted: December 02, 2012 09:29 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 814
Member No.: 2421
Joined: March 15, 2009



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!
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
Radub
Posted: December 03, 2012 08:44 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



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

This post has been edited by Radub on December 03, 2012 08:45 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dead-cat
Posted: December 03, 2012 02:23 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



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

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.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on December 03, 2012 02:24 pm
PMYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: December 03, 2012 08:05 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



MMM, tackle the ball, not the player. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (5) « First ... 3 4 [5]  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0463 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]