Osmanli Empire appreciation thread

I found a picture of Istanbul in the 1550s. It's pretty nice.

>Because in most cases, you've outnumbered your enemies, like at Varna.Also, it took you 227 to conquer most of the Balkan peninsula, even though at the same they had to fight off the Venetians, the Hungarians and each other.

You are implying they focused entirely on inferior Slavshits while they also subjugated much stronger and bigger realms

sameroach

I found the individual piece and (badly) stitched them together in paint. Here you go.

I wish we had Ottoman threads that weren't all LARPing Turks, butthurt Slavs, bait and general shitposting.

...

...

Then why was their push towards the Balkans sluggish and uninterrupted ?

Another view.

Massed numbers, and yet you still got rekt by the remnants of the fallen Dacian Empire millenia later

>implying turkish genetics weren't shit
>implying it wasn't superhuman thraco-dacian genetics keeping the OE afloat in the form of Jannisaries

Wow

They were battling multiple states at the same time, which tends to be slower than conquering one big state, plus they had to deal with other stuff like the Timurids.

An earlier, less naturalistic view.

>the ottomans were fighting multiple people at once and had a lot of fronts and large rivals to worry about
>Then why was their push towards the Balkans sluggish and uninterrupted ?

A good portion of their standing armies was always stationed in Europe and the Timurids were a one-time thing.If we were truly that incompetent, then they would've rolled over us all in less than a century.

For the record, we've also had to contest with various other enemies.

A contemporary Ottoman view, in a similar form.

The persians kept trying to take mesopotamia for centuries.

Their conquests of the Balkans predate their conflicts with the Persians.

>and the Timurids were a one-time thing
yes because the eastern front was so much safer before and after the timurids were falling apart and the ottomans could always just ignore that

>A good portion of their standing armies was always stationed in Europe

and they held back fairly well against christians who were constantly trying to kick them out of europe while simultaneously conquering parts of anatolia until they started dismantling the balkan states altogether from the 15th century onwards

>If we were truly that incompetent

you really were with the exception of albania and the romanians who actually held out better

>we've also had to contest with various other enemies.
and the turks had more enemies including 90% of the enemies of the balkan slavs

> because the eastern front was so much safer before and after the Timurids were falling apart and the ottomans could always just ignore that

Much safer than before the Timurids have arrived, they were the closest to ending the Ottoman Empire in it's infancy.

>and they held back fairly well against Christians who were constantly trying to kick them out

Nicopolis and Varna are "constant attempts of trying to kick them out of Europe?For us, it was a solely defensive war.

>you really were

Highly unlikely, considering that we have to contend with two other Medieval powerhouses at the same time while fighting off the Ottomans.

>and the Turks had more enemies including 90% of the enemies of the Balkan Slavs

The difference is that we weren't Empires with a large population and massive standing armies.

>Much safer
safer does not mean safe
at all

>Nicopolis and Varna are "constant attempts of trying to kick them out of Europe?For us, it was a solely defensive war.

a defensive war you started

>Highly unlikely, considering that we have to contend with two other Medieval powerhouses at the same time while fighting off the Ottomans.

and the ottomans had to content with the same hungarians, venetians, greeks, latin states and the not so same anatolians who were not even a single enemy and certainly powerhouses along with timur for a shortwhile

>The difference is that we weren't Empires with a large population and massive standing armies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Empire
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bulgarian_Empire

It certainly does, in comparison to "them".

>a defensive war you started
Those were largely European crusaders, the Balkan states were on the defensive.

>and the ottomans had to content with the same Hungarians, Venetians, Greeks, Latin states and the not so same Anatolians who were not even a single enemy and certainly powerhouses along with Timur for a short-while

The difference is that at that time, the Ottoman Empire was one of the most powerful civilizations in the known world, a country which had the ability to project it's power across the Mediterranean and Black seas.

One more thing, both the Serbian and Second Bulgarian Empire were sparsely populated.

My guess -- a mix of secularism and Islamism that allowed for pacified populations.

Because they weren't perceived as a true threat to the rest of Christendom all up until Mohacs.

In those times there were different turkish tribes.

It was the Osmans and their successors, the Ottomans who've assailed the walls of Southeastern Europe.

I meant that the ottomans always had someone on ther eastern front trying to fuck their shit up.
First it was the other turks then timur then again other turks then the mamelukes then the persians and finally the russians.

>what is verna
>what is nicopolis

Battles which they haven't taken seriously, even though they should've, especially Nicopolis.

Of whom only the Karamanids posed a real threat.

maybe the serbs didn't take it seriously considering you joined the ottoman side in nicopolis but im sorry to disappoint you svetovid that serbia isn't the whole of europe and that varna was taken seriously by europe or else 90% of eastern europe wouldn't have commited to it

>Osmanli

If you're rping as a t*rk atleast put some effort into it and say osmanlı

>le you didn't use this shitty italian way of pronouncing it, at least be autistic about it :(

I'm not a Serb and them joining the Ottomans would've been avoided if the Hungarians actually understood the importance of diplomacy.

>90% of eastern Europe wouldn't have committed to

Eastern Europe isn't all of Europe, I'm afraid.Also, the Crusader forces were vastly outnumbered by the Ottomans.

ITT war of the tripfags

>

Wat

That's literally the TURKISH way of writing it.

>im not just a serb living in bosnia
>>Highly unlikely, considering that WE have to contend with two other Medieval powerhouses at the same time while fighting off the Ottomans.
>For US, it was a solely defensive war.

>Eastern Europe isn't all of Europe, I'm afraid.Also, the Crusader forces were vastly outnumbered by the Ottomans.

it was only ottoman quality that did this and slavic incompetence in their organizations. numbers are just a minor factor that gets blown out of proportions
here's my sources:

as for the actual numbers, it's dispoitable by how much they outbumbered them and considering some estimates place the ottoman forces at around 24k....

>The difference is that at that time, the Ottoman Empire was one of the most powerful civilizations in the known world, a country which had the ability to project it's power across the Mediterranean and Black seas.

are you retarded that you think that was the case throughout the 13th century and throughout most of those 200 and so years you cited that the ottomans "slugged" through the balkans in? they started off next to a city state level in those 200 years

>One more thing, both the Serbian and Second Bulgarian Empire were sparsely populated.

oh boo hoo except that the ottomans which were mostly in western anatolia at the time wasn't too populated and neither would this shit matter, romania was far more sparsely populated and so was albania but both put on a better fight againt a full ottoman empire in a period they had far more population and a far larger army

besides, i thought slavs are ubermenschen who can destroy any enemy that they want

The crusaders were winning up until the moment Vladislaus was shot down by a hail of arrows and for the record, most estimates place the Ottoman forces at around 44.000, in contrast to the 15.000 crusaders.

>and throughout most of those 200 and so years you cited that the ottomans "slugged" through the Balkans in?

Throughout those two centuries, sure, but not before.

>except that the ottomans which were mostly in western Anatolia at the time wasn't too populated and neither would this shit matter

The main difference was in the organisation of their states, the Ottomans and their predecessors were highly centralized in contract to the Slavs, who were decentralized to the point where they could achieve a large number of victories but give up on winning the war because the interests of the aristocracy don't coincide with the interests of the crown, hence the situation in the Balkans.

> i thought Slavs are ubermenschen who can destroy any enemy that they want

Good at winning battles, but due to their preference to decentralization which resulted in a lack of common goal, deplorable at finishing wars.

Dursun-bey wrote extensively about that issue, while he accompanied Sultan Mehmed II on his campaigns in Serbia and Bosnia.

Why put such an emphasis on the Balkans? Wouldn't Mashriqi and Egypt be of much higher importance and worth?

>The crusaders were winning up until the moment Vladislaus was shot down by a hail of arrows

after he ignored huyandi and assaulted personally the bulk of the army

>Throughout those two centuries, sure, but not before.

....they barely existed before that you fucking retard

>The main difference was in the organisation of their states, the Ottomans and their predecessors were highly centralized in contract to the Slavs, who were decentralized to the point where they could achieve a large number of victories but give up on winning the war because the interests of the aristocracy

>the ottomans were a centralized state
maybe more of a centralized state than the unstable shitty balkan states though but that's on balkan state themselves for being shit

because svetovid is a retard

>they barely existed before that you fucking retard

They were the most powerful beylik in Anatolia, besides the Karamanids.

>maybe more of a centralized state than the unstable shitty Balkan states though but that's on Balkan state themselves for being shit

They were centralized to a point where the Sultan's command was treated as a holy mandate and the Balkan states were just decentralized, not shitholes, they're shitholes today.

Because it's the gateway to all of Europe.

>They were the most powerful beylik in Anatolia, besides the Karamanids.
in 1200?

>nd the Balkan states were just decentralized
so they were poorly orgenized while the ottomans actually took care of their shit, and that's the reason they lost and got annexed, gotcha

>Because it's the gateway to all of Europe.

and egypt is the bread basket of the entire area and the mashraq is a rich region that's the gateway to egypt and iraq as well as the holy cities of islam and the asian trade with the west

>mfw this cunt will never stop posting roach themed comments and threads.

also this
>They were the most powerful beylik in Anatolia, besides the Karamanids.
and this
>a country which had the ability to project it's power across the Mediterranean and Black seas.

are not the same at all

>in 1200?
In the later stages of the of the 13th century.

>so they were poorly organized while the ottomans actually took care of their shit, and that's the reason they lost and got annexed, gotcha

Yes, but I digress, being decentralized isn't the same as being poorly organized.

I referred to different timelines.

>and Egypt is the bread basket of the entire area and the Mashraq is a rich region

Indeed they are, but the conquest of Europe always their main goal, even after they've seized Cairo and all the other Holy cities of Islam.

you refered then to times originally where the balkans got BTFO'd incredibly hard with the exception of albania and romania as that would mean late 15th century, that does not help your case

>In the later stages of the of the 13th century.

so near where the ottomans became shit thanks to timur after already having an impressive entrence to europe.... again not helping your case here

>Yes, but I digress, being decentralized isn't the same as being poorly organized.

it counts towards the same goals here which is the bigger picture. nobility with ideas in their head being placed unchecked leads to mazikerks

?

Gonna need some sources on the Ottomans wanting to conquer the entire continent

The earlier reference speaks of the Osman beylik, not the Ottoman Empire. For the record, Timur came in the 14th, not the 13th century.

>you referred then to times originally where the Balkans got BTFO'd incredibly hard

It does help my case because us getting "backed the fuck off" was a very long and strenuous process, even with all their recent gains in Serbia and Bulgaria.

Why do you think they were willing to besiege Vienna on multiple occasions ?Because they liked the scenery?

The Ottomans stopped being a Beylik with Murad I. who was the third head of the dynasty.

>Why do you think they were willing to besiege Vienna on multiple occasions ?

To support the Hungarian king they backed

> For the record, Timur came in the 14th, not the 13th century.
the battle of ankara was in 1402
"near the time" should be a huge hint to that

>It does help my case because us getting "backed the fuck off" was a very long and strenuous process

that did not last as long as romania or albania in the 15th century and was not in a period where the balkans were the sole threat or front to the ottomans

>Why do you think they were willing to besiege Vienna on multiple occasions ?Because they liked the scenery?

that's not a proof that "conquering the entirety of europe" was their top priority

if given the chance between russia or persia, the ottomans would choose having persia

Because it was a very rich city and capital of their rival?

the old kieven rus territories* meant that instead of russia

Was the 1683 siege of Vienna the worst defeat the Ottomans suffered?

What does that have to do with the beylik becoming a competent force in Anatolia in the second part of the 13th century?

>To support the Hungarian king they backed

And to take control of the gates of Europe.

>that did not last as long as Romania or Albania in the 15th century

They certainly have, Bosnia was finally conquered in 1463, Serbia in 1459, Kosaca's Herzegovina in 1482, the Jajce banate in 1529 and the Srebrenik banate in 1518.

>that's not a proof that "conquering the entirety of Europe" was their top priority

I've used the wrong term, I've meant to say Catholic/Protestant Europe.

It was also a gateway to Europe and a great staging point for future invasions.

...

>This is what Slavs actually tell themselves

The most painful one for sure. Their fall started after this battle. They couldn't restore their greatness.

Their fall actually started long before that, with the reign of Sultan Süleyman

Indeed, it's not like the Balkans are the bridge that connects the Mediterranean and Adriatic sea and two entire continents, it's just a mucky passage.

They became a priority after they've established themselves as the most dominant country in the Muslim world and in Bohemia' defense, she was most the developed part of the Holy Roman Empire.

constantinople*

>Ottomans lost every battle ever but we let them have the whole balkans, constantinople, middle east, and north africa out of pity

wew lad

Care to point out where anyone has ever said that?

At that time Bohemia wasn't anymore, no. And your description of the Balkan is dumb. Italy also connected the Mediterranean and the Adriatic Sea, yet the Ottomans never cared enough to invade that

Unlike the Balkans, Italy had a well developed infrastructure, capable local administration and a superior naval force.It's not that they didn't care, they simply couldn't outmatch them in naval engagements.

>At that time Bohemia wasn't anymore

What does that have to do with her being the most developed part of the Holy Roman Empire, there's a reason why I've said "part", and not "country".

>They became a priority after they've established themselves as the most dominant country in the Muslim world
>Indeed they are, but the conquest of Europe ALWAYS their main goal, EVEN AFTER they've seized Cairo and all the other Holy cities of Islam.

and they only became a priority since it was damn hard to expand at that point at any direction in the muslim world easily, not because europe meant more

> and in Bohemia' defense, she was most the developed part of the Holy Roman Empire.

maybe in the 13th and 14th centuries, though i still did not claim it was a shithole, i claimed that they'd take parts of persia over it any day and they would if they could

or rather that the italians were part of the holy league and when the entirety of europe's navies are up against you, it's somewhat of an issue to successfully take a whole peninsula by sea

>Indeed, it's not like the Balkans are the bridge that connects the Mediterranean and Adriatic sea and two entire continents, it's just a mucky passage
.
and it's not like the muslim mashraq and egypt were far richer, more populated, also gates to important regions, highly symbolic for those claiming to be caliphes of all muslims and by far a higher priority for the ottomans

...

...

...

Kek, another romanian

...

...

Kill yourself.

why can't we ever have a civil discussion about Osman

...

It was really good at getting conquered provinces to pitch in and help with conquering the next province

Compounding growth or something like that

I meant that Bohemia was NOT the most developed part at that time anymore.
>Italy had a superior naval force
That is why it took the holy league multiple failed crusades, until they caught the Ottoman fleet unaware, right?

>maybe in the 13th and 14th centuries
>I meant that Bohemia was NOT the most developed part at that time anymore

She remained so all up until the Thirty Years War

>or rather that the Italians were part of the holy league and when the entirety of Europe's navies are up against you

Of whom most members were actual Italian states, only the Spanish and the Savoy were "foreigners" in the Holy League.

>also gates to important regions, highly symbolic

I've explained that before, Egypt was their prime destination until they've captured Cairo,after they've accomplished that, they've immediately changed course towards Europe.

>That is why it took the holy league multiple failed crusades, until they caught the Ottoman fleet unaware, right

What do continental crusades have to do with the history of naval engagements of the Holy Roman Empire?Unless you consider the action of 1570 as a "great crusade", even though only four galleys were involved.

and im sure the spanish contributed nothing to that considering the spanish armada was known for it's tiny size

>I've explained that before, Egypt was their prime destination until they've captured Cairo,after they've accomplished that, they've immediately changed course towards Europe.

>Indeed they are, but the conquest of Europe ALWAYS their main goal, EVEN AFTER they've seized Cairo and all the other Holy cities of Islam

and even after the conquest of cairo, the only reason for that was that they ottomans couldn't maintain positions east of iraq and west of egypt with ease, not because europe was somehow more important

>She remained so all up until the Thirty Years War
>what is the netherlands and italy

Italy was only a nominal part of the Holy Roman Empire, the Netherlands have only outgrown her once they've established colonies in the far East.

>and i'm sure the Spanish contributed nothing to that considering the Spanish armada was known for it's tiny size

I've never said that, I've merely said that most members of the Holy League were Italian states.

> not because Europe was somehow more important

Them sacrificing their momentum in Europe begs to differ, during the second siege of Vienna.

>Italy was only a nominal part of the Holy Roman Empire
not in the middle ages, no

>the Netherlands have only outgrown her once they've established colonies in the far East.

you're a fucking retard svetovid. the greater netherlands was one of the richest areas in europe since the middle ages and was one of the most important spanish holding until the 80s years war

>in the Late Middle Ages (ghent) became one of the largest and richest cities of northern Europe with some 50,000 people in 1300. It is a port and university city.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghent

>Antwerp's golden age is tightly linked to the "Age of Exploration". During the first half of the 16th century Antwerp grew to become the second-largest European city north of the Alps.
>According to Luc-Normand Tellier "It is estimated that the port of Antwerp was earning the Spanish crown seven times more revenues than the Americas."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerp

>Them sacrificing their momentum in Europe begs to differ, during the second siege of Vienna.

you have yet to give any valid proof to that and vienna is still not exactly somehow proving that europe was more important to them than places such as persia or the maghrab

The longest time Italy remained a part of the Holy Roman Empire was during Barbarossa' reign.

> one of the richest areas in Europe

True, she was one of the richest, not "the" richest.

>you have yet to give any valid proof

The Ottoman defeat in the Great Turkish war marked the end of the Ottoman Golden Age and it ushered them into an era of uninterrupted decline, hence them adopting a defensive role in Europe after that.For the record, I'll start giving valid proof once you do the same.

>True, she was one of the richest, not "the" richest.
right, because italy was richer hence the use of "north of the alps"

>For the record, I'll start giving valid proof once you do the same.

i gave, now's your turn

>The Ottoman defeat in the Great Turkish war marked the end of the Ottoman Golden Age and it ushered them into an era of uninterrupted decline, hence them adopting a defensive role in Europe after that.

correlation doesn't equal causation. if egypt were to be lost, the ottoman empire would have had far larger issues especially if it turned into an independent realm that viewed them as rivals

> I'll start giving valid proof once you do the same.

you made the claim from the start that europe was the most important conquest of the ottomans, it's your fucking job to support that claim which you have yet to do properly though i also very much doubt you'd do that since there's a higher chance for turks posters to not be cancer than for you to give valid proof to a ludacris claim you've made

I acknowledge and accept Turkish supremacy

-Gayreek

good now hand over the greek women, they are made for big turkish cocks

>i gave, now's your turn

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Turkish_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_and_modernization_of_the_Ottoman_Empire
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagnation_and_reform_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#Territorial_losses_1699.E2.80.931827

Notice how the date of their stagnation and decline correlates with their last siege of Vienna?It's a clear indication that it was caused by it.

>correlation doesn't equal causation
It's both in this case and Egypt wouldn't have been lost because it's Mameluke leaders were culled and Cairo was firmly in the hands of Ottoman loyalists.

> it's your fucking job to support that claim which you have yet to do properly though

And you've only substantiated only one of many claims which you've made in this discussion, it's a matter of reciprocity.

>ludicrous claim you've made

The Ottomans saw themselves as the inheritors of the original Islamic conquerors who've once threatened all of Europe in the 7th century, they've conquered Hungary, one of the original bulwarks of Europe, they've would've taken Rome if they'd won Lepanto, they've attempted to take Vienna and use it as a staging point for their future invasions of central Europe, they've financed and supported Protestantism to further weaken Christian unity, no one would waste so many years and resources on something which he didn't perceive as his/her main goal.

historytoday.com/walter-leitsch/1683-siege-vienna

Empires Of The Sea: The Final Battle For The Mediterranean, 1521-1580 by Roger Crowley

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_invasion_of_Otranto

britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Lepanto

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_wars_in_Europe

Osman's Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire by Caroline Finkel

>Notice how the date of their stagnation and decline correlates with their last siege of Vienna?It's a clear indication that it was caused by it.

"correlation doesn't equal causation"

a lost battle and a war weren't the main cause of the ottoman decline as there were enough internal problems that led to it

>It's both in this case and Egypt wouldn't have been lost because it's Mameluke leaders were culled and Cairo was firmly in the hands of Ottoman loyalists.

the fuck does that have to do with anything? i said europe was not as important as many other regions for the ottomans and that "IF" a loss were to occour in egypt, it'd cause a greater downwards spiral than vienna ever "caused"

>And you've only substantiated only one of many claims which you've made in this discussion, it's a matter of reciprocity.

which is still one more than you have and neither were my claims ludacris or out of hand or were actually challenged on those notes without me bringing up examples
unlike you who made the most ludicrous claims in this entire thread and have yet to back them with solid examples or proper citations

>The Ottomans saw themselves as the inheritors of the original Islamic conquerors who've once threatened all of Europe in the 7th century,
>The Ottomans saw themselves as the inheritors of the original Islamic conquerors

which might be one of the big reasons why uniting the umma might seem more important to them than conquering europe though you can add to that the richness of areas such as persia or the maghrab. the argument isn't that they didn't wanna conquer europe but that it was not their top goal but at best only their top priority when they couldn't expand further in the old umma.

1/2

>no one would waste so many years and resources on something which he didn't perceive as his/her main goal.

aha that sure is proof that it was their main goal and not just a high priority after they couldn't expand further in the middle east due to logistics

>THEY PUT A LOT OF RESOURCES INTO IT!
>THE BATTLE OF VIENNA HAPPENED!

nice citations though, which of them shows an ottoman document stating they'd rather lose egypt than hungary?
2/2

This doesnt prove that Bohemia was the richest part of Europe.

The Ottoman Empire has long before been in decline, ever since the reign of Süleyman the Magnificent. It only reached it's territorial peak in the 17th century.

>Cairo was firmly in the hands of Ottoman loyalists
Because Egypt is known for not being a hotbed of revolts, right.

They gained no land out of the Thirty Years War, they only intended to weaken their western front, which they did. This resulted in less necessary resources in defending it.

>They would have taken Rome had they won Lepanto
They won multiple naval battles against the Holy League before but never made a move on Rome, so why would they do that after a defensive battle on their own turf ?