Dont counter Turkish with battles after 16th century :Dthat is legendary :wink:
But if you will, i will counter back! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Nagykanizsa
Now now.
I wouldn't flex around with conquest of land that was torn apart by inner conflict, and outside control and domineering.
Pretty much that's how Ottomans came in and ruined the party everywhere :mrgreen:
No, I'm not hating on them or anything, but still. Janissaries were kick-ass quality troops, so yeah.
Devouring struggling small powers isn't that amazing.
Tbh, I dont like Ottoman Empire, most barbarian and cruel country i ve ever seen, and i feel shamed in most ways cuz of my history. For exp; Janissaries are not actual turkish, they re captured from other eu countries as babies, then sent there to fight back. I dont really care about my history before 19 May 1919 :PLoser, idiot and an ignorant. How do you know you are a Turk? Maybe your ancestor is one of those janissaries. Respect! We dont talk about blood and racism here, our issue is culture, you fool.
Loser, idiot and an ignorant. How do you know you are a Turk? Maybe your ancestor is one of those janissaries. Respect! We dont talk about blood and racism here, our issue is culture, you fool.
You say your histor begins after 19 may 1919 but you dont know what being Turk, right? It is not about blood, it is about culture.
you say Ottoman Empire is cruel? Omg, you fucking byzantium my old friend.(click to show/hide)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moh%C3%A1cs
it ends in 2-3 hours. after that battle, no-one in eu could fight against suleiman cos of fear of that battle. u know, cannons were used in an open battle first time here :wink:
Whilst Mohács was a decisive loss, it was the aftermath that truly put an end to independent Hungary. The ensuing two hundred years of near constant warfare between the two empires, Habsburg and Ottoman, turned Hungary into a perpetual battlefield. The countryside was regularly ravaged by armies moving back and forth, in turn devastating the population. Only in the 20th century would Hungary regain its political independence, but denuded of much of its land, and it has never regained its former political power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moh%C3%A1cs
it ends in 2-3 hours. after that battle, no-one in eu could fight against suleiman cos of fear of that battle. u know, cannons were used in an open battle first time here :wink:
Two great victiories of Frederick the Great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rossbach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuthen
In both battles his enemies had great advantage in terms of number of troops, actually they had more than twice as many troops as he had, but he still achieved decisive victiores. Napoleon never won in comparable circumstances, when he was winning he always had more or less the same number of troops as his enemies.
"The first confirmed use of cannon in Europe was in southerern Iberia, by the Moors, in the Siege of Cordoba in 1280."
You're off by about 250 years. And that's only in Europe, they had been in use in the far east (specifically China) for much longer.
(click to show/hide)
Strenght
20,000 36,000
Casualties and losses
2,000 4,000
Loser, idiot and an ignorant. How do you know you are a Turk? Maybe your ancestor is one of those janissaries. Respect! We dont talk about blood and racism here, our issue is culture, you fool.
You say your histor begins after 19 may 1919 but you dont know what being Turk, right? It is not about blood, it is about culture.
you say Ottoman Empire is cruel? Omg, you fucking byzantium my old friend.(click to show/hide)
In most of the battles mentioned above - with a few exceptions - the number of troops of both sides was pretty similar. And part of them is hard to call decisive victory, e.g. Motnmirail:
In the other battles advantage of coalition wasn't so significant. e.g. Rivoli: 23,000 vs 28,000. On the other hand Rossbach: 22 k vs 42 k, Leuthen 36 k vs 80 k, and in both these battles Prussia basically destroyed opponents armies.
I'm quite fascinated by the conditions and the terrain in which WW1 was fought on the alpine front.
It was a weird war, a struggle against the enemy and nature: avalanches, cold, long winters (that could last ~8-9 months depending on the altitude) and storms/blizzards . One of the great logistic problem was to transport equipment /supply continuously the positions on such a rough terrain. Mountains were always seen as an obstacle and a place partly unknown before (especially at high altitudes), a place definitely not suited for life or to stay there for long periods. For ~3 years and a half hundreds of thousands of soldiers lived/fought/died at altitudes above 2000 meters .
I post some pictures below, afterall a picture is worth a thousand words.
WW1 trenches/positions - alpine front (1915-1918)(click to show/hide)
You shall not pass(click to show/hide)
Machine gun on mountain Padon(click to show/hide)
Cannon on mt. Ortler/Ortles ~3900 meters above sea level ( i don't know if this is the top of the mountain)(click to show/hide)
Somewhere in the alps(click to show/hide)
Wounded soldier(click to show/hide)
Ascending/climbingDescending?(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Morning gathering(click to show/hide)
Sentry(click to show/hide)
Kaiserjäger somewhere in the Dolomites alps(click to show/hide)
The glacier is melting(click to show/hide)
Remains of WW1 soldiers found some years ago *Warning:Graphic*(click to show/hide)
Videos Warning : annoying music(click to show/hide)
I definetely went off-topic... anyway, my "favorite" battles are probably the one in which both contendants had a similar technology/strenght, so i would say one of the battles of the Punic wars between ancient Rome and Carthage.
Maybe battle of Cannae and Zama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zama
Modern times, mmm i guess one of the battles fought during Napoleonic era.
I've never read up on this and I have to say, that's fucking insane. Thanks for the share.
Battle of Gazala. Erwin Rommel was outnumbered and had considerably less tanks, but he was still able to capture Tobruk and capture 35,000 South Africans. Rommel is the only chocolate chip cookie I can admire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gazala
I think they are all equally awesome.Truly; the real glory was to be had at home, working fifteen hours a day on your field, having no money for medicine or anything but just enough food to scrape by; dying of disease at the age of twenty-five, having done nothing but farmed your whole life. Your sarcasm is well founded: who in their right mind would actually want to get away from their fields and slow starvation?
It is always beautiful and glorious, when two brainwashed mobs are tricked into hating and killing each other with false pretenses, created by the rich and powerful, with the sole purpose of getting more rich and powerful in the process - until this day.
Not to mention the pain and suffering, the loss of the relatives and the hatred lasting for generations it creates. So sweet.
Truly; the real glory was to be had at home, working fifteen hours a day on your field, having no money for medicine or anything but just enough food to scrape by; dying of disease at the age of twenty-five, having done nothing but farmed your whole life. Your sarcasm is well founded: who in their right mind would actually want to get away from their fields and slow starvation?
"But, apart from killing people, you could die yourself. You could get killed in one of these futile wars."
"Yes, and I could live on, like a battery hen, in one of these futile cities. Filling in futile forms, paying futile taxes to enable futile politicians and state managers to fritter it away on electorally useful white elephants. I could earn a futile salary in a futile office and commute futilely on a train, morning and evening, until a futile retirement. I prefer to do it my way, live my way and die my way."
The rising importance of foot troops, then, brought not only the opportunity but also the need to expand armies substantially. Then as early as the late 13th century, we can observe Edward I campaigning at the head of armies incorporating tens of thousands of paid archers and spearmen.. This represented a major change in approaches to recruitment, organization, and above all pay.[2]
Dying isn't the goal.
yes because people in medieval europe had the same thoughts culture and goals as you mr ferret ^^
Im sure they also had lots of choice when called to fight by their lords at the start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_in_the_Middle_Ages
i read in a book once probably historical fiction and totally a lie but it made sense and stuck with me :D why tend a field for £1 when i can stand behind a pike for £10 (clearly the money i made up) but you get my drift :P not to mention the propaganda and nationalism hell why did anyone fight ever ^^
If you don't want to be a conformist (which is perfectly understandable), there are other ways to express yourself or live alternatively, without terror and death.Yes, you are missing the point.
Although I don't see how being a soldier, having to function like a tool with no purpose but to serve, wouldn't be much worse, even.
If you want adventure and company, join the super adventure club.
Or am I still missing the point?
“Why do you live the way you do? Why be a mercenary and go around making wars on people?”
“I don’t make wars. The world we live in makes wars, led and governed by men who pretend they are creatures of morality and integrity, whereas most of them are self-seeking bastards. They make the wars, for increased profits or increased power. I just fight the wars because it’s the way I like to live.”
“Buy why for money? Mercenaries fight for money, don’t they?”
“Not only the money. The bums do, but when it comes to a crunch the bums who style themselves mercenaries usually don’t fight. They run away. Most of the best ones fight for the same reason I do; they enjoy the life, the hard living, the combat.”