Why did Europe use so much resources to colonized far away lands instead of liberating thier Balkan and Medditeranian...

>the crusades failed so Europe looked elsewhere
That's not why they looked elsewhere you tard

Europe was not a collective. Many Europeans supported the Ottomans at times. People tend to care more for personal gain than for their ideological and religious "brethren".

Attached: Untitled.png (754x766, 187K)

16th century Spain could crush Ottoman easily with its ernomous wealth take from America and its tercio army.

16th century Spain could crush Ottoman easily with its ernomous wealth take from America and its tercios army.

>Fighting the Ottomans in the 17th/18th century was a guaranteed mutual suicide at the very least.
Habsburg Empire actually had the upper hand mid 17th century but chose to pursue a peace treaty instead of liberating territory. Some Hungarian and Croatian nobles rebelled specifically because of that.

>16th century Spain could crush Ottoman easily with its ernomous wealth take from America and its tercios army.
And yet they couldn't crush a bunch of rebellious Dutchmen.

Attached: 1509128492378.gif (533x300, 2.02M)

>le brothers
Lol

Because the Christians under Ottoman rule were Orthodox, and the catholic powers did not want independent Orthodox countries running around and maybe aligning with Russia.

There were plenty of opportunities in the 17th and 18th century that the Western great powers could have helped Russia crush the Ottomans completely, but no one apart from Russia wanted anything of the sort, especially G. Britain and France that had warmed their relations with the Ottomans.

That war will forever stand as a historical disgrace for Britain and France.

>Habsburg Empire actually had the upper hand mid 17th century
That was after Ibrahim the Mad had ruled for nearly a decade so that's to be expected.
>but chose to pursue a peace treaty instead of liberating territory
The Ottomans may have gotten rusty but they were still a power to have regard for.

16th century naval based? Probably.

On land tho? I think the Ottomans already did boot the Spaniards from the North-African coast.

>doodz reclaim constantinople
there was a lot more at stake then a stingy old city

>America couldn't crush a bunch of rice farmers
>Soviet coundn't crush a bunch of goat herders
>British couldn't crush a bunch of Maori

Please post some examples of Dutch guerilla warfare and use of foreign weapons and supplies that show that they were in any way comparable to the Viet Kong and Mujahideen.
>British couldn't crush a bunch of Maori
They didn't need to. The Maori couldn't topple the British and were forced back into the fold.

Because just because you happened to be born in the same continent as skme other guy who lives few hundred miles away, doesn’t mean you’re related to him.

Stay mad, Igor

The Russians did essentially liberate the entire Balkans in 1877, just before the rush for Africa, but other Great Powers intervened to limit Russian expansion into the region.

>orthodox christians about to retake constantinople and push the turks back to central asia
>the eternal anglo finds out
>convinces fellow christians in france to aid the fucking muslims instead
>try to help the muslims retake the lands they used as a base to launch slave harvest raids into europe from

Fuck the british

Attached: 1432847736231.png (1070x601, 463K)

>russian """liberation"""

>Giving Russia a bunch of future strong, stable states to manipulate while they already have all of Central Asia
>Or
>Support a weakened Ottoman empire that would be completely reliant on you

Not hard to choose m8.

>Spain
You mean the Habsburgs* and they(mostly the junior branch) fought the ottomans numerous times. Something you kind of forgot was the franco-ottoman alliance, by which they were outflanked.
Also the Dutch won conventional battles and sieges against the spanish numerous times.

Because until around the 18th century the Ottomans were actually really stronk and prying land away from them would have been really difficult. Once the 19th century hit, the various European empires started gobbling up various parts of the decaying Ottoman empire. Really the Ottomans only lasted as long as they did because the British insisted on keeping them around for the sole purpose of trolling Russia.

>Because until around the 18th century
I'd say even then. They were declining and they weren't strong enough to take over new land but they could protect their own and fight on par with the nations around them.

Best post.
America back then was the land of dreams where men could go piss poor and become filthy rich.

>Balkan and Medditeranian brothers
lol no

they tried hard tho

European Powers pretty much kept Ottomans in Europe alive for most of their history. Specialy france

But then tens of thousands of British men would die at the hands of the Ottomans a few decades later

Not a great plan

Was the Ottoman Empire the biggest tragedy to happen to Europe?

this

They didn't have a fucking crystal ball which told them Germany would unite and become a European power that rival Britain, requiring them to side with the Ottoman enemy Russia against them.

>European Powers pretty much kept Ottomans in Europe alive for most of their history
?
The Ottoman power was alive for six centuries and only needed the help of other allies from the mid-19th century onwards.

OC was byzantine-tier after their conquest was halted for good. Pretty much after Savoy's reconquista they were at dying point and UK and specially France with thier fear of Habsburgs and later Russia

>UK and specially France with thier fear of Habsburgs and later Russia
kept them alive*
Atleast in Europe

Let's be honest they didn't do anything to Europe that Europe didn't do themselves. Only difference is that they were marginally more successful and don't have to deal with bullshit today.

Attached: 1481366945890.jpg (1400x802, 161K)

>OC was byzantine-tier after their conquest was halted for good.
But they weren't. The fear of the Hapsburg's came from the 19th centuryish.
And your Byzantine example is dumb because the Byzantines were only ever really shit in the last century of their existence, just like the OE.

>The fear of the Hapsburg's came from the 19th centuryish.
more like 16th centuryishblah

But the Ottomans were at their peak formation in the 16th century.

I'm not sure but I think you're conflating between the Ottomans having an ally for support versus being able to match unto their land and take it.

They also conquered the Hungarians a century or so later so iirc.

Because europe isn´t a country, besides, Portuguese expansion wich kickstarted colonial age was initially made with a evagelic focus, both against islamic barbary pirates and and latter the otoman and islamic expansion in the indic ocean

I meant France's siding with OC due to habsburgs happened as early as 16th century. 18th century onwards was when European powers kept them alive

And Hungary/Croatia was never conquered, but what they were invaded and most of their lands taken in first half of 16th century (1526) and were liberated fully in 1699, so you're wrong there too

>I meant France's siding with OC due to habsburgs happened as early as 16th century
The Franco-Ottoman alliance? That wasn't to protect the Ottomans against the Hapsburg's but to get back at the Hapsburgs after the Battle of Pavia.
>And Hungary/Croatia was never conquered, but what they were invaded and most of their lands taken in first half of 16th century (1526) and were liberated fully in 1699, so you're wrong there too
I know that's true for Croatia but wasn't Hungary's capital (of that time) taken by the Ottomans?

>The Franco-Ottoman alliance? That wasn't to protect the Ottomans against the Hapsburg's but to get back at the Hapsburgs after the Battle of Pavia.
And? I never said it was to protect the Ottomans, but that they were often allied. I said during and after 18th centuries ottomans were at downfall in Europe, and depended on European powers to protect them either from Habsburgs/A-H or Russia. If "Europe" was some mega-state where everyone loves eachother like OP believes, they could've took downo entire Ottoman Empire at any point during that time and before even

>I know that's true for Croatia but wasn't Hungary's capital (of that time) taken by the Ottomans?
Buda was taken by Ottomans and most of east of danube hungary too. Croatia was in personal union with hungary at the time so I mentioned them as another territory that kingdom wasn't taken. Atleat one part of it

Fucking morons.
There was no united Christendom or European brotherhood.
If you where a German, you had to worry about the French or Italians killing you more then the Ottomans.
Same thing with a bunch of different European countries.

have you heard of the reconquista m8, also centuries of warfare tend to stop any real attempt at a crusade

Because they weren't autists obsessed with deeus voooolt maymays.

>And? I never said it was to protect the Ottomans, but that they were often allied

>OC was byzantine-tier after their conquest was halted for good.
meant France's siding with OC due to habsburgs happened as early as 16th century.

And it's already been said itt that while the Ottomans had allies in the 18th century, they were still able to compete with onslaught of the Russians without any serious intervention.

>Buda was taken by Ottomans and most of east of danube hungary too. Croatia was in personal union with hungary at the time so I mentioned them as another territory that kingdom wasn't taken. Atleat one part of it
Fair enough I don't know much about Croatia.

>>OC was byzantine-tier after their conquest was halted for good.
>meant France's siding with OC due to habsburgs happened as early as 16th century.
and it has been halted, atleast in the broad sense, after Savoy's reconquest in early 18th century. So nothing what i said contradicted with one another

As for Russia, Ottomans were lossing heavy in second half of 18th century against Russia

>and it has been halted, atleast in the broad sense, after Savoy's reconquest in early 18th century. So nothing what i said contradicted with one another
You said the Ottomans needed help staying alive for most of their history.

>As for Russia, Ottomans were lossing heavy in second half of 18th century against Russia
That I agree on.

>brothers
lol, im a greek guy with blonde hair and nobody sees us as brothers besides maybe the serbs

Slavs eren't our brothers, neither are Gayreeks

You share nothing with serbs besides losing wars and being poor
Also your very friendly with russia too

>As for Russia, Ottomans were lossing heavy in second half of 18th century against Russia
Tbf the Ottomemes had Russia, Hapsburgs and the Afsharids all coming at them simultaneously.

Surviving as long as they did, even with help of Britain and Russia, after that was a miracle in itself.

>catholics and prods invading orthodox europe invariably causing death, disease and famine
>gratitude from the locals

i dont think so tim

>be a disgusting muslim t*rk
>unite with other filthy roaches
>defeat an actual civilization that was going through crisis by throwing endless waves of cannon fodder at them
>bring the most barbaric and subhuman religion upon european soil
>genocide armenians, assyrians and greeks
>"why does everyone hates us and calls us roaches?"

Glorious will be the day t*rks are expelled from europe forever, I just wish I could live long enough to see it.

Same reason Elon Musk wants to colonise Mars instead of liberate Pretoria.

Why are wh*Tes so delusional? Focus on breeding pls, I want to kick in wh*Toid skulls again but at this rate you'll just disappear