What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

Indeed, but they were CHRISTIANS!!!!!

Yes, but they were torn by various schisms.
Radu

Oh...
They had the same God, regardless the quarrels about Holy Trinity and other "details". No schism contested the almighty power of Him - at least from what I've read / learned in the college!

Sadly... Christians still do not get on with each other.
For example Catholics, Pentecostals, Adventists and Baptists (and basically any other kind of Christian that is not Orthodox) are still regarded with suspicion in Romania.

But as you probabely know, this has nothing to do with God.

Also, as you probably know, Byzantium and Rome never really helped each other. The Sacking of Constantinople by Rome's crusaders during the Fourth Crusade contributed significantly to the fall of Byzantium and later allowed the Ottoman Empire to gain a foothold, move westward and we still the outcome of that today. Apart from that, it caused the deep distrust (hatred) between the Eastern and Western Christian rites that still survives to this day.

Radu

So you imply they knew that in advance?
We're getting (again) OoT and into an argument which is both irrelevant and without any connection to the topic!
LE: " Christians still do not get on with each other. "
I know that very well, both as History graduate and as a contemporary teacher to classes of "mixed Christian confessions"... Some kids would attend Religion courses (taught by History teachers, not by priests), but their parents would not allow them! And, BTW, I teach only English, so I'm not directly concerned.

This post has been edited by MMM on November 02, 2010 04:35 pm

So you imply they knew that in advance?

No. I am not implying anything. I am merely stating a fact.
Radu

Do not forget, France foght in Crusades to stop the Muslims to penetrate in Europe all the times. Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne, fight against them at Poitires. All the Crusades were with the participation of French noblesmen, many times with the king himself (remember Louis IX, known like Louis the Saint).

Do not forget that it was the crusaders, including French crusaders, that sacked Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.
The "Sacking of Constantonople" was when the East and the West broke apart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(1204)
Radu

Martell was not french, but frankish.

Remember another historical data: 1683. Viena was under siege, the Turks were ready (again) to estabilish themselves in Central Europe. Frenchmen were very happy that Habsburgs, their rivals, will sucomb, and did nothing to help them. They don't even think that Turks will be more aggresive and difficult to contest.
Wien was saved by Polish Jan Sobieski, but one hundreds years later, Austria will take part and swallow one part of splited Poland. Historical reward for the country who saved them.

Leslie P. Hartley once said: "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."
Some think that the past is nothing more than the present without iPods and blue jeans.
The Austria and Poland of the 20th Century have very little in common with the Austria and Poland of the 17th Century. It is unfair to equate them.
Radu

I said one hundred years, not three hundred years. I refered at the split of Poland in XVIIIth century.

OK. Let's say 100 years. Look at what 100 years can do to a nation. Look at Romania 100 years ago. Look at the size, economy, population, government, etc. Look at what happened in the 100 years and how the nation changed a number of times. I can safely say that Today's Romania is different from Romania of 100, 75, 50, 25, 12 years ago.

All I am saying here is that no nation stays the same. Time changes everything.

Radu

That's not a very good analysis Contras. Too emotional.

If the Ottoman empire wins in 1683 it will be over-extended and weaker than it already is; the Austrian threat would be eliminated; the French would be in the position to step in as liberators. Basically France would not only get rid of the Austrian threat without lifting a finger but would also be in the position to project influence over Austrians. Basically the Austrians might very well invite the French in order to shake off the Ottomans. Or the French might reach a deal with the Ottomans to lessen their burden of occupying Austria. Either way just at a quick glance and without looking into deeper detail France stands to win by not helping the Austrians.

Secondly, talking about reward being carried over 100 years into the future for something that happens now is an error.

Lastly, what do you think of the fact that the Romanian Principalities fought on the Turks' side in 1683?

cheers

Do not pretend that one hundred years in present time are the same of one hundred years before. Now, all the things are happed faster, because there was a revolution in many things, in comunications, in media, today all happens faster. One hundred years ago, you need a few days, or weeks, for a message to reach from London to Bucarest. Now, it reach instantly. This is globalisation.
In middle age, things were not changed with the same speed that changed in modern age, or today. Because all it happens faster every period we pass, because this is the result of changes in every aspect of life, this is modernisation.

Imperialist, we are ready to sink in some "what if" history. Bur history has it's course.
About your statement, can you imagine the fights that Habsburgs done in XVIIIth century against Turks, if Wein colapsed in 1683? Let me remember some events: peace of 1699, battle in 1716 or battle for Timisoara in 1718?
Or, in West, battle of Blenheim, 1709, would exist? I don't think so.
If Wien colapsed in 1683, Europen history would be totally different.