Prinz Eugen von Savoyen

I dont get it. Is this supposed to somehow prove that the Sassanids were in any way not useless?

he was a literal crossdresser who according to many would "play the girl" around other men late at night.
So i think i could take him.

NO. IBN. AL. ARAB. YOU. DUMBASS.

damn, whoever made up those casualty figures and got away with it was a mastermind at historical embellishment.

t. butthurt byzaboo subhuman

He was French.

Obviously

lol

>Spain gets a bourbon but loses Italy just as promised
>France gets some of the Netherlands and Lorraine but nothing else
Stalem8 m8

>15k to 150k
How

>when the sun king is beaten by those he trained in court

ok that doesnt disprove the point though. I think most would agree that Eugene was the most capable and succesful battlefield commander and yet that ultimately did not help his side acheive their goals.

Their goals were to keep Louis XIV to his promise, which sans Lorraine they did
Also Marlborough is the best field commander

Arab "historians"

The reality is that the arabs fought dying and extremely depleted armies

>fighting an irrelevant war against an empire making a half hearted effort.
of course, every time anyone is ever defeated they just weren't trying.
>His role in the Great Turkish war, and really the war in general, is so largely overstated.
No it isn't, I don't think anyone claims he had a major role in the Great turkish war; it's his successes in the 9 years war, war of spanish succession, and austor-turkish war that got him fame.
>its so frustrating to see people wank off to fuckers like this guy who were good at winning battles and literally nothing else.
That's almost all fucking generals. generals win fame from battles, sieges are almost always forgotten. Battles can be just as important for a variety of reasons; just because sieges are often underrated doesn't mean you should go shit on battles.
>He played a very limited role in politics
He's a general famed only for being a general
>didnt even try to innovate his own military
He didn't need to, he was successful.
>He was just a well oiled cog in a machine, nothing more.
No, he was a successful general who gained lots of territory from the turks and ensured they would never be a real threat against Austria ever again. He was decisive in stalemating the War of Spanish Succession and was equally as effective in the Nine Years war.
>Its important to remember that despite his success on the battlefield his respective alliances were unable to acheive their ultimate aims in both wars because battlefield victories do not always translate to political success.
This is a giant load of crap.
>he was a bad general and overrated because he didn't affect politics

what's your problem with him? he isn't one to piss off many because he's generally underrated and usually ignored. Marlborough is usually the one to get inflated if anything.
>winning battles is somewhat ironically one of the least important aspects of warfare
You're a joke.

No it says modern estimates

Yeah Arab historians using arab sources. Or do you believe that either group had that many soldiers. One group was a bunch of desert nomads and the other just ended a 30 year conflict that they just barely won

bad historians will use primary source numbers or contrive some incredible bullshit. it's even worse because arab and non-european history isn't scrutinized as much

wow so much to get into.

>just werent trying
if your assertion is that the Ottoman Empire was significantly more powerful or threatening after the Siege of Vienna then you have already entirely discredited yourself.
>not it isnt... 9 years war and war of spanish succession
but what successes? Battlefield victories? Yeah he had those in spades but what did it acheive? Fucking nothing. Acheiving a stalemate is not a success, stalemate is a substitute for a failure that isnt total.
>sieges are almost always forgotten
Im just going to go ahead and assume that you dont actually believe this because it is obviously untrue that only an idiot would.
>he's a general famed only for being a general
not exactly my point but yes. and?
>he didnt need to, he was successful
i mean if you define stalemate as a success then sure. But the fact that he was unable to secure the primary political objectives of the rulers he served is evidence enough that some sort of change in tactics or strategy was neccesary. He had no ambition or talent for larger strategic aims, so his only way to innovate would have been tactics, but he didnt, so he continued to grind wars into stalemates achieving very little.
>ensured that they would never be a real threat to Austria again.
Sort of, but again its somewhat laughable that you pretend as though the Ottomans were somehow a greater threat after the siege of Vienna. John Sobieski is leagues more important in the removal of on Ottoman threat because he was actually able to acheive political success in addition to his tactical success.
>decisive and stalemate in the same sentence
you do understand that a stalemate by definition means that the result was in fact indecisive right? To say that he "decisively" drew with his enemy is a really flashy way of saying he didnt really do much or have a significant impact on the course of the war, but he also didnt fuck it up.
>this is a giant load of crap
and that is not an argument

>whats your problem with him
I dont have a problem. I am just pointing out that its wrong to inflate him just because le underrated. He's a figure people pick out to make themselves look more intelligent for knowing about such a relatively obscure figure but they dont understand why that obscurity exists. Its because of exactly what i pointed out: despite his battlefield success he never acheived much of anyting except for what you would call a "decisive stalemate" which is to say a decisiveley indecisive result.
>Marlborough is usually the one to get inflated if anything
and if the thread was about Malborough i would say the same thing altough my argument about a lack of political skill would be on much shakier ground. Malborough was immensley more succesful than Eugene in that way, and it could even be said that as a strategist he was superior since his coalition was far less unified in core values compared to the one Eugene fought for.
>you're a joke
its an old military axiom that tactics are the talk of amatuers and logistics of the professionals and you are outing yourself as quite the amateur.
Take for example Hannibal Barca. Undisputedly a fine commander in every respect, very very good at winning battles. What did he gain from his famous victory at Cannae? He utterly destroyed the roman army before him sure, but did it really bring Carthage any closer to victory? No. Instead it triggered a near decade long campaign of attrition wherein hannibal won many such victories, none of which brought him or Carthage any closer to succes, and in fact every day he spent winning battles in Italy the Romans were utilizing their logistical advantages to hit the Carthaginians where it really hurt. For all his victories in Italy Hannibal was not even close to defeating Rome.

>stalemate is a substitute for a failure that isnt total.
Sometimes when you face evil, a stalemate is victory - Eltariel

>failure of the Punic war is Hannibal’s fault not the Carthaginian oligarchy for not resupplying him

So Trojan?

>the Ottoman Empire was significantly more powerful or threatening after the Siege of Vienna
Where did I claim this? I said that the "weren't trying" is a shitty meme. And if you're trying to quantify power and then place a time period limit on it you better have some evidence to back that up. The turks were still a threat, albeit not a very major one compared to france.
>Yeah he had those in spades but what did it acheive?
So basically Tilly, Wallenstein, and Infante Ferdinand were all worthless because they lost the war? I'm glad you're not writing history books.
>Acheiving a stalemate is not a success
It's better than losing. Louis XIV was stomping across all of europe, stalemating him and getting favorable terms is certainly not a bad thing. I hope you realize most wars don't end in a total victory by one side, but a mutual treaty.
>you dont actually
I'm talking about in popular conception. Which usually favors battles over sieges and tends to ignore them in their role in the war.
>yes. and?
You're saying he's overrated. No one rates him as more than a good general. I still don't know what you're even trying to say and I feel bad for OP who got his thread derailed thanks to your rambling.
>But the fact that he was unable to secure the primary political objectives of the rulers he served is evidence enough that some sort of change in tactics or strategy was neccesary
So he's a bad general because he wasn't able to completely stomp the biggest and most powerful nation on the continent? And you attribute this to his failure to change tactics or that he needed to change tactics? Well then please show me some better things he should have done or others in his time that could/did do better.
>He had no ambition or talent for larger strategic aims,
God you sound like a you came straight out of the TW forums. He was commander of the Austrian forces in the war of spanish succession and commanded them very well and coordinated with the british effectively.

and now compare Hannibal to a general in a similar position, Robert E. Lee.
When Lee invaded the north the first time he was riding on two earlier victories, only one of which could really be argued to have massive significance because of its proximity to his capital. However, his invasion of Maryland presented two hugely important strategic outcomes.
1. Lee defeats McClellan at Antietam and proves to the British and/or French, who had previously spoken favourably of intervening on the Confederacies behalf, that they are in fact worth fighting for.
2. McClellan defeats Lee, and Lincoln now has the platform he needs to issue the emancipation proclamation without looking desperate, and is therefore able to fundamentally change the narrative of the war to one that would make the British and French totally unwilling to intervene.
Of course what happened was the latter. Would i argue that George McClellan was a tactical mastermind? no. I would argue however that as a general he was more effective in that his sole victory against Lee had massive ramifications for Confederate strategy and in many ways doomed the confederacy to inevitable defeat.
Lee would go on from that battle to win many battles that allowed him to display tactical brilliance, but did Chancellorsville or Fredericksburg have anywhere near the political impact neccesary to deter the north? no they didnt. Lee got another chance at Gettysburg but he famously squandered that one too, and in a way even in victory so did Meade.
Despite all his victories against various commanders in the first half of the war, and all his victories against grant in the second, Lee was unable to provide the south with a true political success and that is why they failed.

Carl Von Clausewitz said that war is politics by other means. To pretend otherwise is idiotic and it is equally idiotic to pretend that tactical success that does not produce political success is a decisive result.

>its somewhat laughable that you pretend as though the Ottomans were somehow a greater threat after the siege of Vienna.
I don't. I just don't discount them completely. Also the siege of vienna and sobieski meme needs to die.
>e was actually able to acheive political success in addition to his tactical success.
What was his political success? A province? Eugene got plenty of those.
>you do understand that a stalemate by definition means that the result was in fact indecisive right
english isn't your strong suit? I said he was decisive in the effort to get the stalemate. If you know anything about the wars of the 1700s you'd know they were hard fought and France was consistently winning in the early part of the century.
>he didnt really do much or have a significant impact on the course of the war, but he also didnt fuck it up.
I don't even know why I bother replying. You clearly just read the wikipedia page or watched those videos of random british people speaking in front of blank walls about things they read two books on.
>I dont have a problem.
You shitted up OP's thread about how he wasn't a good general but he actually was but he wasn't because of your arbitrary rules
> He's a figure people pick out to make themselves look more intelligent for knowing about such a relatively obscure figure but they dont understand why that obscurity exists
fuck I wanna kill myself. he was a figure we studied in my upper division history course because he was one of the best commanders of the 18th century. you're just a retarded pseud. stop posting.
>he was superior since his coalition was far less unified in core values compared to the one Eugene fought for.
this is nonsense. i don't even know how to reply.

I hope you realize that OP only talked about "success on the battlefield". you're the sperg here.

>not a very major one compared to france
this is true, dont really see the point.
>all worthless because they lost the war
not worthless, just unsuccesfull in the truest sense. Napoleon lost too. All great generals, but they failed.
>its better than losing
fair point but it doesnt really do much to prove this unseen genious of Eugene of Savoy that you are seemingly defending.
>popular conception
ok again fair point but i do think its fair to say that sieges are fairly famous and well known in their own right. In Europe the siege of Vienna is quite famous, in the US the siege of Petersburg is seen as the one the most decisive battles of the civil war. The siege of Yorktown is equally famous as the operation that ended the revolutionary war. In Russia the siege of Leningrad is held almost as high as battles like Kursk and Stalingrad. The list goes on.
>you're saying he's overrated
in what terms? His battlefield success? not really, i concede that the guy can win battles. He is overrated in terms of his role in the larger wars in which these battles took place.
>please show me some things he should have done better
I think Frederick the Great has plenty of answers for you in that regard. Unlike Eugene of Savoy Frederick was not just brilliant at winning battles but effective in using those victories. If i were to try and summarize his many contributions to military theory and tactics i would be typing all night.
>effectively
theres that word again. I point out again that clearly he wasnt effective enough given the way those wars ended up.
common misconception actually. Over the course of Hannibals long stay in Italy he frequently received reinforcements from Carthage. The reinforcements stopped because Hannibal, despite all his victories, was essentially a non factor to the Romans and they were able to easily launch a counter invasion which made the recall of Hannibal neccesary.

>the rest of these posts
Yes, yes, I've heard this fucking shit a billion times. I don't need you to sit and regurgitate wikipedia. I know very well that success on the battlefield doesnt equal political victory. This is known. I know this. You're the retard here who doesn't understand that Eugene had political victory. You're the retard here who doesn't understand that just because you don't get all of your goals doesn't mean you lost. You're the retard here who doesn't understand that tactics and winning battles is still important to wars, despite what your broad, macrocosmic view on war and history might get you to believe

The success i attribute to Sobieski, and to be fair its not like i think the man is a genius, is that his victory was a much more decisive result than anything Eugene of Savoy acheived.
>actually using "psued" and "sperg" unironically
>best commanders of the 18th century
absolutely. Just not succesful where it really counts. I would say the same of the French generals who won victories of their own.
>you clearly just read the wikipedia page
I honestly dont understand what you dont understand. Are you asserting that he in fact actually won the war and literally everyone else just lied about it?
>arbitrary rules
This is dumbfounding to me. I just dont understand how you could be so passionate about military history while simultaneously refusing to understand that battles are not the end all be all the field.

>i know very well that success on the battlefield doesnt equal political victory
way to backpeddle like a pro. Literally everything you've said up until this point contradicts this statement.
>eugene had political victory
like what? Blenheim? We both know Marlborough played just as large role there if not larger than Eugene.
>doesnt mean you lost
if earlier i said that Eugene was defeated or that his side lost then obviously that was really stupid and incorrect but im fairly certain i only ever said that he was unable to acheive a decisive result.
>tactics and winning battles is still important to wars
I dont know where i said they werent important at all, but its silly to pretend that tactical acheivments are the most important factor when evaluating a generals skill.
If you do in fact understand that War is politics by other means and not just pointless fighting, then why have you been arguing to the contrary? When you say shit like "fuck I wanna kill myself. he was a figure we studied in my upper division history course because he was one of the best commanders of the 18th century. you're just a retarded pseud. stop posting." you imply that you fundamentally disagree that a truly great general needs more than the ability to win battles to be succesful.
As for O.P im sure he doesnt feel bad at all. At least people are posting in it now.

>just because you didnt get all your goals doesnt mean you lost
I guess that means the US didnt lose Vietnam then.

>just unsuccesfull in the truest sense
and? should we not study them then? Or do we need to have a trigger warning for you before mentioning their name?
>this unseen genious of Eugene of Savoy that you are seemingly defending.
Did he rape your mother? I'm calling out your bullshit about him being overrated. No one overrates him. This is some crap you're making up. Please show me these people or books that overrate him.
>He is overrated in terms of his role in the larger wars in which these battles took place.
He was literally the head commander of the austrian forces in the War of Spanish Succession and the Austro-Turkish war. Nine years war you might have a point but he was still a competent and good general.
>Frederick the Great has plenty of answers for you in that regard
You mean the guy who is famous for one of the biggest stalemates in history?
>summarize his many contributions to military theory and tactics i would be typing all night.
Good cop out.
>he wasnt effective enough given the way those wars ended up.
It's a good thing no one cares about your rating of him because i can guarantee it's baseless. You're trying to make him seem like a bad commander by using the results against him, as if everyone went to war with a fucking checklist of things they wanted and then holding it against him when he does very well in battle and secures a perfectly reasonable treaty (as evidenced by the fact that both sides signed it) but doesn't get everything possible.
>his victory was a much more decisive result than anything Eugene of Savoy acheived
You said he had more political success. Fucking enlighten me. Please, tell me how his victory was so fucking decisive, I want to see how shitty your logic can get.
>Just not succesful where it really counts
You just mentioned Fredrick the Great, who got a great big nothing out of the Seven Years war.

>show me these people
you. Right now.
>still a competent and good general
i dont know where you're getting this idea that I think he was incompetent or even bad. I posted my original post because in a thread meant to discuss the sucesses of a figure i think its important to define what sucess in the context of warfare looks like.
>how shitty your logic can get
now im just confused. If you're really trying to prove that any of Eugene's battlefield victories were more historically significant than the battle of Vienna then you are beyond saving.
>great big nothing
it quite literally shifted the balance of power as they knew it in europe and in a way around the world. fair enough that most of this benefited Britain far more than Prussia. But this is actually a perfect example of a commander who is extremely good at winning battles actually proving the effectiveness of these battles. Fredericks victories had massive political consequences for France who lost their status as the supreme power in Europe and would be anxious for revenge for a good long while.
>you're trying to make him seem like a bad commander
I dont know if thats true but sure maybe i am being a little too harsh but i still dont think its unfair to doubt his importance in the grand scheme of things.

also i doubt you give a shit but
>did he rape your mother?
pretty much made my night so thanks for that.

>refusing to understand that battles are not the end all be all the field
Where did I say this? In fact I outright stated that sieges were just as important, and in many contexts, more important. I'm just sick of you pretending winning battles is unimportant because you watched a bunch of military history videos and can quote clausewitz.
>Blenheim?
You don't need to try and put words in my mouth so you can set up a strawman argument. Political victory in that he fucking fought the war to a standstill while everyone else before him got beaten. You're defining victory in the context of the wikipedia results when it was a treaty with mutually beneficial results.
>pretend that tactical acheivments are the most important factor
when?
>If you do in fact understand that War is politics by other means and not just pointless fighting
this is pretty cringe worthy desu. we get it, you read the clausewitz quotes off wikipedia, you don't need to spout them to try and get internet cred.
>why have you been arguing to the contrary
because you're the retard who said "He was just a well oiled cog in a machine, nothing more." You purport that winning battles and getting comparatively good results in several wars is like being a "cog in a machine".
>you
Nope, you mentioned these people in the first post, before I even posted. also thanks for proving your enemy is imaginary. we barely have threads on him.
> he was incompetent or even bad
the first post in the thread was you shitting on him because he wasn't up to your par and was only good at winning a major part of a war.
>you are beyond saving.
I figured you'd reply with this. I know the context of the battle of vienna, but I'm not really sure how you see it. You obviously rate it very highly and I'd like to see what you have to say.

>Poland was by and large the reason for European victory in that battle.

How were they more so than the other powers present?

>Subsequent fighting was by comparison largely inconsequential.

Subsequent fighting pushed the Ottomans out of Hungary and other territories. It's not like the Ottomans were going to relinquish it just after the battle of Vienna, without the "inconsequential" years of fighting after Vienna the whole affair would have ended in the status quo bellum ante instead of a crushing Ottoman defeat.

>it quite literally shifted the balance of power
so did the nine years war and spanish succession. also what a worthless statement wow; that's the shittiest, most insubstantial claim to victory you could have. the balance of power is always shifting after and during every war.
>extremely good at winning battles actually proving the effectiveness of these battles
by gaining no territory, depleting the countryside, military, and population, and basically just getting respect. fucking brilliant political victory, how can anyone compete?
>would be anxious for revenge for a good long while.
No, they wouldn't. In fact you can see a trend in neoclassical art of the period lamenting the war.
>lost their status as the supreme power in Europe
wrong war, you're thinking of the nine years or spanish succession. hmm, wonder who commanded in those ones? besides, louis xvi was unproven and it was louis xiv who started achieved that status. he also saw it challenged by some general, i forget who?

whats cringe is acting like Clausewitz isnt an extremely important figure in military history because someone you dont agree with used literally only one quote.
>standstill
If its a standstill it is not a victory. What the fuck is so hard for you to grasp about that? In any case i have conceded that i was too harsh but i wonder why you attempted to so easily disregard Frederick the Great despite the fact that doing so is a major contradiction to everything that it seems like you believe.
>when?
if thats not what you meant by your previous responses then i guess i misunderstood you
>this is pretty cringe worthy desu. we get it, you read the clausewitz quotes off wikipedia, you don't need to spout them to try and get internet cred
silly that you complain about me getting triggered by Eugene but you spout hilariously stupid shit like this in response to a paraphrased quote
> You purport that winning battles and getting comparatively good results in several wars is like being a "cog in a machine"
once again i suppose you had a point in saying i was too harsh. But i dont think admitting that invalidates my point that Eugene of Savoy was not responsible, or at least not the most significant factor, in the strategic successes that the grand coalition did achieve before Britain checked out.
>you shitting on him because he wasnt up to your par
I still dont see where i came even cose to claiming he was incompetent.
>i'd like to see what you have to say
again, literally stunned that you dont see the signifiance of the battle
We're talking about a stunning reversal in European fortune here. Its not even like at this point the Ottomans were barely capable of winning, victory was a possibility. They had done nothing but steamroll over almost anyone they wanted to in Eastern Europe spanning all the way back to when the Byzantines were still around and even before then. yeah the Ottomans werent done yet but they would never come close to posing as great a threat to europe

sure they didnt have the largest force in the coalition but they certainly provided the leadership and plan neccesary to push back the ottomans
you're right, i phrased that extremely poorly. My point was mainly just to establish the battle of Vienna as the most essential moment of the conflict.
>nine years war and spanish succession shifting the balance of power
hilarious
>how can anyone can compete
so lets get this straight. You are now unironically claiming that not only was Eugene of Savoy superior to Frederick the Great, but also that the nine years war was more significant than seven years war in terms of its impact on europe?
>no they wouldnt
oh so i guess the centuries of tension between Prussia and France was totally made up.
>wrong war
I think you misunderstood me there. Its pretty clear in the context of that response that i am obviously referring to the seven years war. If you are trying to claim that either the nine years war or the war of spanish succession were anywhere near as damaging to france as the seven years war then you are beyond delusional.

I don't disagree with the quote. It's that I've heard it enough times. quotes are meaningless in most discussion anyway.
>If its a standstill it is not a victory
Do you not understand context? I said political victory btw.
>so easily disregard Frederick the Great
because he doesn't prove your case. at all.
>major contradiction to everything that it seems like you believe.
you don't know what i believe.
> Eugene of Savoy was not responsible, or at least not the most significant factor, in the strategic successes that the grand coalition did achieve before Britain checked out.
that's perfectly fair. I don't know anyone who says he was the crux of the grand alliance. i've never seen anyone say that.
>where i came even cose to claiming he was incompetent.
well considering you compare him to a statesman general and wrote off all his successes because they didn't have enough political effect, i'd say you were just about there.
>a stunning reversal in European fortune
not really, the ottomans had been pushed back before. in fact there wasn't even a real string of defeats leading to vienna, it was one of the first battles.
>They had done nothing but steamroll over almost anyone they wanted to in Eastern Europe spanning all the way back to when the Byzantines
You need to actually read some history. The exact opposite happened and territories were claimed and reclaimed constantly. The hungarians fought them off for like 200 years, serbia fought them for a while, the croats held them off, but gradually lost territory, and poland fought them off too. austria spent a good amount of time fighting for the balkans in the 1500s and really only began to lose when it faced pressure from the west and france.

>battle of Vienna as the most essential moment of the conflict.
>not mohacs which actually resulted in some territorial exchange

>hilarious
yes and true, louis xiv was virtually undefeated prior. he depleted his military and resources such that he actually began to have major issues. france stopped growing after this
>unironically
wrong. it was sarcasm. glad you skipped over the points though.
>centuries of tension between Prussia and France was totally made up
actually there wasn't even a century before a war between france and prussia errupted. and yes, you just made that up. go ahead and prove that france wanted revenge against prussia in any significant amount.
>nine years war or the war of spanish succession were anywhere near as damaging to france as the seven years war then you are beyond delusional.
I think you misunderstand me. I never compared the damages, I said it removed their status as supreme. You need to read better, it's getting annoying having to explain myself as you strawman away

>played a very limited role in politics
Who cares? He was a soldier who obeyed orders and did his duty.

You’re just talking in circles and spouting ahistorical nonsense
Seven years war is objectively more important