How come the Turks always easily beat the crusades?
Home field advantage is a hell of a thing before modern logistics and in unforgiving terrain.
>>56364
How come the Russian always easily beat the Turks?
>>56479
slav biomass tactics.
>>56507
>Get BTFO by Russians
>make excuses
lol
>>56388
but every single crusade? They're all failures.
>>56978
>make excuses
you underestimate the size of the Russian army in comparison to the Ottoman ones.
Mounted archers
>>56364
Horse archers, knowledge of local terrain, and numbers
>>57189
>numbers
looking at the picture in OP that wasn't really the case
>>56364
most of the crusader forces heavily relied on turk mercenaries and those were very disloyal
>>57120
First crusade was a success - they captured the city and established the crusader states. You understimate how much logistics come into play in warfare and how disadvantaged the Europeans were.
>>56479
because cossacks fight like turks
>>57234
>those were very disloyal
Even during the battle of Manzikert while the Varangian Guard mercenaries abandoned the battle against the invading Turkic hordes, the Turkic mercenaries stayed loyal to the Byzantines and continued to fight against their own brothers.
>>57181
This.
They had the advantages of both the calvary charge and the range caused by the arrow, unless you have guns, this is virtually impossible to defend against and will always caused heavy losses if you just attack.
>>57247
>>First crusade was a success - they captured the city and established the crusader states.
But I'm talking about the crusades where the crusaders fought the Turks, the first one wasn't fought against the Turks however the others were and they all failed.
>>57221
Not him, but the only two listed numbers in OP show clear advantage to Turks.
>>57296
My mistake then, but you've already been given your answer.
savage thread?
>>57351
>spoke different languages so communication was impossible for anyone but the multilingual bigshots, i.e lowly commanders and soldiers couldn't understand each other
>lack of communication - their armies and fleets were scattered and they had to somehow coordinate an attack across the entire med when couriers took days if not weeks to deliver messages across europe
>home field advantage for the turks, logistics is a nightmare
>>57351
3k heavy horse and 9k infantry/archers
vs 10k horse - would have to be some incredibly bad-ass foot and bowmen to make that even - horses close distance and maneuver much faster, and many of the 10k horse had bows as well
1400 vs 6000
>>57120
>Invade the Balkans and Russia
>get BTFO
>still making excuses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1768%E2%80%9374)
At the onset of the war the Turks appeared to have several advantages on their side, among them the Russian Empire's lethargy. The Ottoman Empire had had the longest stretch of peace with Europe in its history (1747-1768). The Turkish Navy held dominance in the Black sea, giving it the advantages of having shorter supply lines. The Crimea gave the Turks military forces with which to fight the Russians. Russia had shown a complete lack of naval ability in the past so Ottomans would assume dominance on the Black Sea
>>56507
>biomass tactics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Savra
>>56479
Why are you derailing the thread?
Actual Army vs. ragtag band of misfits (save the first and third one)
>>57482
now this here is a good explanation, thank you.
>>57647
A very obscure war besides its not often 1000 fights an army, it's rare that numbers are so low in any battle
>>57680
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Torvioll
>>57728
That's not a biomass tactic thing going on, the numbers of the ottomans were higher but not staggeringly higher but i gotta say this was a good tactic
>Ali ordered all of his forces down the hill to attack and defeat Skanderbeg's army. Skanderbeg expected such a maneuver and had prepared his own stratagem. Once the opposing forces were engaged and the necessary positioning was achieved, Skanderbeg ordered his forces hidden in the forests behind the Turkish army to strike their rear.
I would recommend reading some primary sources. Try to find a torrent or something of Emilie Amt, "The Crusades: A Reader" (It's $50 on Amazon, fuck that, but if you're a richfag: http://www.amazon.com/The-Crusades-Readings-Medieval-Civilizations/dp/1442606231)
>>57482
This guy got a lot of it right. The Crusades were basically all torn apart by infighting, confusion, and random leaders fucking off halfway through the campaign to go home and secure their thrones (or because they were mad over some inconsequential shit)
You also have to consider that the crusading armies had to travel what was, at the time, a fucking long distance. They were often harassed on the way by various groups, including Christians in Hungary. This occurred because a crusader army going through your lands was basically like the current "migrant crisis" in Europe, except with swords. Even if you entered a friendly kingdom with no intent of ill-will, when your men run out of food they're going to start pillaging. Then you have to GTFO before the locals get an army together. So by the time you reach the destination, you're starving.
Then you have things like the Battle of Hattin, wherein the locals knew where the water was and destroyed all the wells while dragging out the chase until the crusading army was so thirsty they basically just gave up and died - and then Saladin attacked. And on top of this, there were other circumstances, like the 4th Crusade. The Venetians managed to divert it because the crusaders owed them a fuckton of money (like 100,000 dollars, which is probably equivalent to a few million today). Crusading is expensive, and if you don't know the place you're going you're very vulnerable to all sorts of resource depletion and misdirection.
The Mongols did a better job of long-distance conquest because of their culture where they were always mobile and it didn't matter where they were. (Plus one army, one language)
>>57838
>Get invaded by Russia
>They run wild in Turkey
>Have the British, French and Sardinia come and fight for you because you cannot defend your own country
lol
>>58162
what are you talking about
>>58218
Crimean war, I'm assuming.
>>58218
>>58262
seems like it
>>58318
This picture doesn't make sense, why would what the British and the French did lead to Pakis/Indians and black people coming to their countries
>>58411
>/pol/
>sense
By now I think they legitimately believe all brown people are a homogenous hivemind or something
>>58671
>pic was made by /int/
>/pol/ boogieman
>>58318
the soviets helped the turks during their war of independence tho
>>58671
Back to leddit!
>>60259
You mean they fought against the islamic Ottoman empire and for a secular european-type government?
Doesnt seem like a bad thing. Kemal himself hated pretty much everything that the Ottoman empire represented, much like the Russian empire and later the Soviets did.
>>60259
>Imperial Russia
>Soviets
Anon...
>>60286
i know but still russians...
>>60282
i dont think the soviets hated the ottoman empire per se
they just hoped that ataturk would have came out communist/socialist (which was stupid since the turks fucked them over since)
they gave them alot of morale, munition and shit, helped them hold on to constantinople
>>60326
The Soviet Union was very active in supporting secularist governments and very active in undermining theocratic ones.
Many people forget that communism stands for atheism.
>>60341
yeah but lenins help for ataturk was a bet, he had 0 knowledge about how he was gonna turn out
and ataturk turned out anti communist as fuck, so it was a huge fail
>>60371
It was a gamble, of course. But it wasnt a throwaway thing.
They saw an anti-islam rebel with influence in the strongest islamic state.
They supported him to beat islam away from their borders, which would aid their (later failed and abandoned) attempts to make the USSR an atheist state.
It was good to beat religion down in your neighborhood. They didnt get another communist state joining the federation, but I doubt that was ever more than a best case scenario dream for them.
>>57120
>biomass
Pretty sure Ottomans did the same against a lot of Anatolians
>>60399
turks fucked over the soviets hard during ww2, they didnt gain a member but got the complete opposite, one who sucked western dick
so what lenin did was a big fail
>tfw stalin was the right choice
But what i am mainly saying is to relation to the comic, saying "french/brits" helped ottomans keep their empire, while the russians (soviets thus) also helped them alot during the war (and thus giving them alot of morale for fighting for constantinople etc etc)
>>60565
Why are you getting upset and responding to a 5hr old post?
speed vs armour. Turks relied on speed while the westerners relied on heavy armour
>>61592
This combined with a war loving people
>>56364
Logistics, logistics, logistics.
>>62524
Don't shitpost in /his/
>>62599
You are shitposting, you're not contributing anything to this discussion and you are violating the rules of /his/.
Also the fact that the Turks have always crushed the crusades is proof that it's not about opinion but a fact as shown in OP.
>>62599
You are being too personal and you are being rude, this is /his/ let's keep it objective and about history rather than your emotions.
>>62675
Don't ruin /his/
>>62719
Why? Turks are an integral part of history for a lot of people.
>>62770
History is not something that can be ruined
>>62804
why do you want to ruin /his/? it's a good board.
>>57296
They did fight the Turks...idiot.
They travelled through Anatolia. I mean dorylaeum was a pitched battle and the crusaders BTFO'd the Turks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dorylaeum_(1097)
> be Norman badass
> see dirty Turks are planning an ambush
> smash the crap out of them
> send their king running
> capture all of his loot
> aren't bothered by the Turks again
Not saying the crusaders won against them lots but there were a few times.
>>62853
so they only won in the first crusades but that's it? The Turks smashed them every other time
>>62941
If they didn't smash anyone then how did they grow into one of the world's greatest empires?
>>63024
luck doesn't let you grow to that magnitude and for so long.
>>57189
this is beautiful is that really supposed to be a male?
>>57276
That isn't true lmao
>>62924
You said they never beat them, I refuted that and now you have moved the goal posts. More to the point the Turks are technically the main enemies as they ruled over the Levant and they win as much as they lose. First and third crusade trash them. Second and third don't do much. The rest of the crusades go for Egypt and N.Africa.
>>64252
of course it is
>>62524
>>62599
>>62675
>>62719
>>62770
>>62804
>>62941
>>63024
Spotted the k*urd!
>>67337
He's Armenian.
