Why the Turks trigger the crusaders and how come they easily beat the crusaders?
Because Papal state saw they was next in line to get raped by the Turks.
And because Muslims were overwhelming the entire region and groups of men coming from long distances couldn't effectively stop them for long.
>>14359
The Crusades were launched to curb Islamic aggression. Most of them weren't succesful because of bad organisation, commitment, Arab terrain advantage combined with the logistical nightmare of getting all the crusaders there in the first place.
>>14359
>easily beat
Not really, Crusaders did bretty good for being a continent away and still keeping them at bay. They literally made the place better too
>>15725
don't shit up the board
>>14359
>easily beat
Don't undermine the achievements of the Turks by acting like it was easy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montgisard
The Templar and their ilk were incredibly tough foes.
>>16065
the turks used to smash everything back then without fear, crazy.
>>16562
The Turks were at war with the Egyptians as much if not more so than the forces of Outremer. Hell there were cases of Crusaders and Turks allying themselves in a never ending neighborhood battle because no one had the military strength to completely finish one another.
>>14359
How come they got beaten in Vienna and then went into a 300 year period of stagnation?
They had extra mana desu lad
>>16889
Vienna didn't attribute to that, it was internal corruption where the ruling classes were just trying to make a lot of money every which way they could and the country and it ate the country from the inside out. + it was ruled by proxy by the mothers of the sultans who sucked at ruling
>>14359
Why the Russians trigger the turks and how come they easily beat the turks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1568%E2%80%9370)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1686%E2%80%931700)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Russian%E2%80%93Turkish_War_(1735%E2%80%9339)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1768%E2%80%9374)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1787%E2%80%9392)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1806%E2%80%9312)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1828%E2%80%9329)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%9378)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1676%E2%80%9381)
>>20278
just post this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russo-Turkish_wars
>>20278
Easy answer to that question is Slav biomass tactics. Look at how huge the number for the Russians is in every war. The difference is staggering.
>>20385
>the same could be said of turks and crusaders
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(1480)
Russia runs wild in Turkey
Have to get saved by Britain and France
lol turks fear the Russian
>Russian and Turkish bantz
Oh boy this threads about to get interesting
>>15575
>being a continent away
Byzantium was a stone throw away. In fact, they were taking over ex Byzantine territory, inhabited by Byzantines.
Supply and reinforcements were aplenty, when the crusader leaders had the wisdom to properly establish logistics.
>>20644
you don't realise how hard a siege is by the waterfront do you? huge numbers don't help with that. Also the Russian population in general was massive, the Ottoman population was very small in comparison and only around 40% of that were muslims (ones who were allowed to fight), the Ottomans were incapable of sizing up against the Russians.
>>20385
This front was Russia vs Crimean Khaganate, and it was very unbalanced.
The war in the Balkans was Ottomans vs Russia, and that was fairly even. Russia's allies provided the extra biomass.
Regardless, the war goal was to advance quickly, disregard losses and take as much land as possible before France and England can mobilize to help the turks.
>>20791
>Making excuses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Crusade
>>20385
you must mean the exact same tactic Ottomans used against everyone else
>>20924
What are you trying to show me here?
>>20949
Ottomans were usually fighting multiple countries/armies at once in multiple fronts by itself or with a vassal
>>20860
it was the first link I clicked that the guy above linked. The wars weren't fairly even, the Russians always had more units and more that were always available to bring just like with the siege of Pleven.
>>20791
>only around 40% of that were muslims (ones who were allowed to fight)
The best fighters in the ottoman army were the ones recruited via the blood tax from Albania, Greece, Bosnia, and Bulgaria.
Those were ethnic europeans and culturally christian, who were drilled and brainwashed into becoming the sultan's private ellite force.
>>20949
The ottomans had the numerical superiority when conquering the Balkans, but elsewhere they just had the better drilled, better equipped, and more gun heavy army.
As soon as they started facing new western inventions (like venetian floating fortresses) they started losing fights. They were strong for as long as they had the technical edge, and never advanced further.
>>21052
Pleven wasnt heavily contested. As somebody who has been there, its not a defensible position.
Look at the battles in the Haemus mountain passes, where the war was decided.
You get even numbers, and you get winter helping the russians out as was often in history. Also killing a few tens of thousands, but eh, affordable.
Also compare that to the WWI invasion of Russia by the turks, also in winter, also with numerical superiority for the turks, where they froze to death on the way there. We have sources saying people's legs turned black to the knee and broke off.
>>21054
>blood tax
you must be someone from the Balkans, yes? Just call it the devsirme system. The Janissary forces were really small, their forces are greatly exaggerated. In fact the more they grew the worse the wars got for the Ottomans actually. The most important units for the Ottomans were the sipahi.
>Even though the Janissaries were part of the royal army and personal guards of the sultan, the corps was not the main force of the Ottoman military. In the classical period, Janissaries were only one tenth of the overall Ottoman army, while the traditional Turkish cavalry made up the rest of the main battle force. According to David Nicolle, the number of Janissaries in the 14th century was 1,000 and about 6,000 in 1475. The same source estimates the number of Timarli Sipahi, the provincial cavalry which constituted the main force of the army at 40,000.
>>21052
>What are you trying to show me here?
The siege of Mahdia
A siege by waterfront with less troops than the Siege of Rhodes with the defenders outnumbering the invasion force
>>21208
and the defenders won didn't they? I didn't read in detail I just skimmed a little bit but it looks like the crusaders came in a small number to attack a pirate stronghold with a huge number and then withdrew.
>>21185
>You must be someone from the Balkans, yes? Just call it the devsirme system
Why would you use the turkish term for it rather than the english one?
>The most important units for the Ottomans were the sipahi.
This was true initially, and during the conquest of the Balkans. They were the noble knights of the turks.
As time went on the janissaries became more, and more relevant, and the sipahi less, and less inclined to actually go to war, and less relevant in war.
Its just a comparison of lord knights vs academy trained officers, and was happening all over Europe as well.
>>21331
because that's what it's called, it's called that in the English wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme
it literally means collecting. The Bulgarian way to say it was blood tax.
And yeah, janissaries increased but they weren't that good, the important units were the sipahis, the Turkish cavalry was unmatched pretty much but their relevance declined due to the janissaries having more power and say on how the structure should be which impacted the wars horribly.
>>21461
Its called blood tax throughout most literature I've read, and its referred to as such in all slavic or generally all eastern non-turkish sources.
And you continue to post numbers from hundreds of years before the war being discussed here.
I am telling you that the sipahi declined, and to counter me you post numbers from before the decline, twice now.
Protip: I am aware that the noble knight lord cavalry was a strong force in the middle ages. Thats not whats being debated.
>>21297
>6000 knights on 60 ships attack a city from the sea that has more defenders than the them and lose 274 men
vs
>70,000 men on 100 to 160 ships with an additional 3,000 janissaries that attack a city with less defenders and lose 9,000 men
Which is worse again?
>>21578
The guys who didnt take the objective did worse, obviously.
Pyrrhic victory is still victory.
>>21578
if you read each one you can understand why the barbary crusdade had less, nothing even really happened, it lasted a short time and they just left, the other one dragged on and on with a lot of offensives so there was a lot of chance for the defenders to attack and push and kill. The Crusaders wouldn't have much fallen because they were on the offensive and didn't even siege really and if they attacked more they would have had a lot more losses
>>22557
Biomass tactics weren't really something used by the ottomans though
Ottomans relied on morale diminishers, such as; absurd hats, giant motherfucking cannons, terrifyingly powerful marches, and using gunpowder.
The sheer sound of an ottoman volley is enough to break heavy infantry apart
>>22603
>used biomass tactics against the crusaders
>make excuses when the russians do it to you
talk about a double standard
>>23164
biomass?
Turks never had so much population to employ such tactics, all turk males knew how to ride, and hunt with bow and and arrow, even at the lowest level.
>>23164
The Barbary crusade wasn't fought by the Turks.
>>23264
>attack with more troops lose
turkshits
>>23280
they were part of the ottoman empire
>>23485
in 1390?
>>23485
They weren't part of the Ottoman empire till a lot later idiot
>>23466
1.500.000
5
0
0
0
0
0
>>23824
I hear the real estimates are 750,000. In terms of genocide, any nimrod can tell that's what it was. They aimed at Armenians because Armenians sided with Russia to fight them, so of course that's why Turks wanted to kill them all. Did that justify the church burning, death marches, rape and such? Not at all but trying to justify it has become trademark Turkish barbarism. A deportation to the desert where hundreds of thousands accidently die is not an accident.
>>24479
>armenian diaspora always derailing Turkish threads
>>24504
Not Armenian but he typed 1,500,000 in a history board, it looked like it needed some correcting.
>>14359
They weren't Turks, they were Ottomans. Calling someone a Turk in the Ottoman empire was an insult as Turks were considered illiterate peasants in Anatolia and the Turkomans. Even the language spoken was clearly distinct from Ottoman Turkish and Turkish
>>21185
>The Janissary forces were really small, their forces are greatly exaggerated.
Post the whole thing
>A roll call held in Hungary in 1541, reflecting the actual deployed strength of the Ottoman regular army forces participating in campaign, registered 15,612 men as present. Of these approximately 6,350 were Janissaries, 3,700 were Sipahis and another 1,650 were members of the Artillery corps. The remaining one quarter (roughly 4,100 men) were mostly non-combatatants. Information for the year 1660 when the only active front was in Transylvania (siege of Varat/Oradea in July/August) indicates 18,013 actives out of a total Janissary enrollment of 32,794. It does not follow from the fact that 18,000 Janissaries were present for salary distributions in the field that even they took a very active role in the fighting.
>Documentation from the 1620s and 1630s recording troop mobilization levels for two middle sized campaigns suggest that at a time when full Janissary membership in the Istanbul barracks amounted to some 30,000 men those actually deployed at the front ranged between 20,000 and 25,000
>>24504
I agree, the Armenian incident shouldn't be discussed in this thread. This is primarily focused on Turkey-- not Glendale.
>>24840
>saying Turk was an insult
Not really, the problem was wanting to be distinguished from Turcoman nomads in Anatolia.
I know that they became a major piece of the army but they were the major piece of shit really. The janissaries were a shit force that were corrupt with too much power and they weren't very effective. Early year janissaries were done right but later they were shit ( I should add this at least)
>>24982
>Not really, the problem was wanting to be distinguished from Turcoman nomads in Anatolia.
The ordinary Turks (Turkmen) did not have a sense of belonging to a ruling ethnic group. In particular, they had a confused sense of self-image. Who were they: Turks, Muslims or Ottomans? Their literature was sometimes Persian, sometimes Arabic, but always courtly and elitist. There was always a huge social and cultural distance between the Imperial centre and the Anatolian periphery. As Bernard Lewis expressed it: "in the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages." (Lewis 1968: 1)
In the words of a British observer of the Ottoman values and institutions at the start of the twentieth century: "The surest way to insult an Ottoman gentleman is to call him a 'Turk'. His face will straightway wear the expression a Londoner's assumes, when he hears himself frankly styled a Cockney. He is no Turk, no savage, he will assure you, but an Ottoman subject of the Sultan, by no means to be confounded with certain barbarians styled Turcomans, and from whom indeed, on the male side, he may possibly be descended."(Davey 1907: 209)
>I know that they became a major piece of the army but they were the major piece of shit really.
I'm not taking your words for it as you already shown to manipulate information to suit your argument.
>>25048
that first part is what I said. it's also ridiculous how the evidence is from "a British observer"
Tlso I didn't manipulate any information, I was discussing the earlier times with the janissaries, their numbers were much fewer and they were more effective. He said the best of the fighters were the janissaries when it clearly wasn't the case.
>>25169
>that first part is what I said.
"or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages."
Ignoring that part again? Calling an Ottoman a Turk was an insult, period. Calling the Ottoman army a Turkish army is the greatest insult.
>Tlso I didn't manipulate any information,
Yes, you did. By the time of Vienna the Jannisaries were already a rather large force
> was discussing the earlier times with the janissaries, their numbers were much fewer and they were more effective. He said the best of the fighters were the janissaries when it clearly wasn't the case.
Siphas were unsuited for any kind of siege warfare which became increasingly more common especially in the drive to central Europe, but you're also ignoring that part. It was no coincidence the Jannisaries grew in numbers.
>>25291
>Calling the Ottoman army a Turkish army is the greatest insult
it doesn't say that. it's the elites who don't want to be called Turks.
>>25291
>>Yes, you did. By the time of Vienna the Jannisaries were already a rather large force
yeah and they were a shit force that couldn't take Vienna.
>Siphas were unsuited for any kind of siege warfare which became increasingly more common especially in the drive to central Europe, but you're also ignoring that part. It was no coincidence the Jannisaries grew in numbers.
their numbers dwindled though didn't they?
>>25354
>it doesn't say that. it's the elites who don't want to be called Turks.
And you're calling their army with a derogatory term.
>yeah and they were a shit force that couldn't take Vienna.
Sure, they were shit because you says so, while pretty much everyone else considers them an elite force of the Ottoman empire until the 17-18th century.
>their numbers dwindled though didn't they?
Who's numbers dwindled? The Jannisaries? They didn't, they ended up holding the empire by its balls, deposing and killing sultans when they liked to until the 19th century and the "unfortunate incident" albeit they weren't a proper fighting corps by that time.
If you're talking about the siphas, they didn't dwindle either, they always outnumbered the jannisaries, and it was the Sultan with the Siphas help that ended up deposing the Jannisaries in the above mentioned incident.
>>25497
There's no such thing with the Army being called Turks being derogatory.
>Sure, they were shit because you says so, while pretty much everyone else considers them an elite force of the Ottoman empire until the 17-18th century.
there were multiple attempts to abolish the janissary shit but they were thwarted because the janissaries killed sultans and/or crushed their testicles. They were too strong and corrupt.
No the numbers of the sipahis dwindled according to this page anyway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Ottoman_Empire
>>25806
>There's no such thing with the Army being called Turks being derogatory.
Turks was a derogatory word in the Ottoman empire, calling the Ottoman army "Turkish" is by definition derogatory.
>there were multiple attempts to abolish the janissary shit but they were thwarted because the janissaries killed sultans and/or crushed their testicles.
Which is exactly what I told you.
>No the numbers of the sipahis dwindled according to this page anyway
Because the entire army dwindled, the proportions didn't change much, which is the relevant part.
>>25894
is there any more evidence than a random brit? I can understand for the actual elites in the parliament but it sounds silly for just the people who make up the armies to feel that way.
>>18070
Actually, the Women's Reign ended by the 1650's. Then came the Reign of the Viziers.
>>21208
are a fucking idiot Mahdia is a tunisian city and that time it was controlled by hafsids a tunisian kingdom not turks you idiot and the hafsids didnt suffer any dammage and managed to protect the city from crusaders
>>25910
>I can understand for the actual elites in the parliament but it sounds silly for just the people who make up the armies to feel that way
Why, the army was not Turkish, it was comprised of every kind of ethnicity in the empire and much of the nobility was foreign. Even the language spoken was different to Turkish and the difference is still made today between Ottoman Turkish and Turkish within Turkey.
>is there any more evidence than a random brit?
But I gave you two, not just a random brit, the uppor one is from Özay Mehmet in his book Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery
>>26007
Ottoman Turkish wouldn't have been spoken by the army now would it? The janissaries yeah but the rest? They weren't elites of the empire, it would make more sense that they knew kaba Türkçe.
I understand that but it only refers to "a British observer" as a source for what he observed but is there any other evidence besides him?
>>26166
>Ottoman Turkish wouldn't have been spoken by the army now would it? The janissaries yeah but the rest? They weren't elites of the empire, it would make more sense that they knew kaba Türkçe.
No, it wouldn't as the army wasn't Turkish, it was Ottoman with subject from the arab peninsula to bosnia.
>I understand that but it only refers to "a British observer" as a source for what he observed but is there any other evidence besides him?
I don't understand why you don't like a source made by a Turk
This derailed a bit so I'll pose something close to the original question:
What made medieval turkish armies so effective? Was it hit and run tactics? What about the logistics for the armies?
>>26263
>The Ottomans had three influential languages: Turkish, spoken by the majority of the people in Anatolia and by the majority of Muslims of the Balkans except in Albania, Bosnia, and various Aegean Sea islands; Persian, only spoken by the educated;[5] and Arabic, spoken mainly in Arabia, North Africa, Iraq, Kuwait and the Levant. Throughout the vast Ottoman bureaucracy Ottoman Turkish language was the official language, a version of Turkish, albeit with a vast mixture of both Arabic and Persian grammar and vocabulary.
In military the Turkish language was used, I can read and understand what this text says and it is a military correspondence by Piri Reis.
>Mezkur ada İstanköy adasının otuz mil gün
batısı tarafinda vaki' olmuşdur. Simdiki halde
ıssuz adadur. Amma Koç Baba didüklerine bais budur kim, cezire-i mezburda bir kilise vardur. Ol kilisede bir kimse yatar. Türk taifesi ol kimesneye Koç Babas dır ve kefere taifesi San Corc de Lebite dirler. Eyle olsa, mezkur kiliseye her kim varursa, Türkden ve kafirden birer yadigar korlar, giderler. Bazi bıçak, bazı ok, bazi zengir, bazi akçe, bazi destmal; buna göre, dahi nice dürlü nesne korlar giderler. Ol esbabı, yılda bir kez Batnos keşişleri varurlar, alurlar. Batnos Babasun üzerine harç iderler. Kadim zamanda böyle adet olmusdur. Batnos Babas ile zikr olan Koç Babas ikisi bir yirde yürür, yarenler idi diyü kefere taifesi hikayet iderler
A source made by a Turk is not enough, besides his source is Bernard Lewis and someone called Davey but we don't know who Davey is and I can't see where good ole Bernie got his source from unless he also got it from "Davey"
>>26456
>In military the Turkish language was used, I can read and understand what this text says and it is a military correspondence by Piri Reis.
No, Ottoman Turkish =/= Turkish, the distinction is still made to this day.
>A source made by a Turk is not enough, besides his source is Bernard Lewis and someone called Davey but we don't know who Davey is and I can't see where good ole Bernie got his source from unless he also got it from "Davey"
At this point you're just a butthurt turk...
>>26517
I literally copied a very old correspondence to you and I explained that I could even understand what it says.
>At this point you're just a butthurt turk...
k. I'm out.
>>26572
>I literally copied a very old correspondence to you and I explained that I could even understand what it says.
And I can understand Czech, doesn't mean It's written in Polish.
>k. I'm out.
Enjoy.
>>26598
>>And I can understand Czech, doesn't mean It's written in Polish.
it's not ottoman Turkish in military talk that's what I was pointing out. anyway i really am out now
>>14359
you should put gallipoli on here
>>26894
gallipoli wasn't a crusade
probably because the Turks were lightweight and the crusaders wore heavy armour so the turks were fast enough to beat the crusaders
>>28410
It was.
>>20781
Yes, because the Byzantines loved the Crusaders. That's why they didn't help them for every Crusade after the 1st (with good reason really).
>>31951
Respect the rules and do not turn this board to shit
>>32006
Stop spamming threads about turkics then
>>32076
What are you talking about?
>>15552
>The Crusades were launched to curb Islamic aggression.
This is false and historical evidence clearly shows this.
>>32102
There are literally 4 threads about turkics most propably made by the same turkic teenager trying desperately to make turkey popular here.
>>29718
It wasn't.
>>32227
well it wasn't me and also I don't see the problem with posting threads, it's about history and historical discussions everyone's free to post what they please, why do you have a problem with it?
>>32227
>there are threads about Turkics so it must be a Turk trying to make Turkey popular
>there are threads about Romans so it must be an Italian trying to make Italy popular
>there are threads about Ancient Greeks so it must be a Greek trying to make Greece popular
stop it.
>>32227
I made the Seljuk thread but i'm not even Turk.
