The Romanian principalities and the results of the fight against the Turks, Medieval times

This is off topic, but let me clarify this, again (Radub has done it earlier).

Nationalism is against something/somebody, wants to gain on the detriment of others (e.g. "afara, afara cu ungurii din tara!"), while patriotism is emphasising the person/people's own values, without denigrating others (e.g., Traian Vuia designed and flew the first powered heavier-than-air flying machine that took off ground by its own means, but was not the first powered heavier-than-air flying machine to fly).
Probably, the encyclopaedias have a better, more accurate definition, but simply put these are the critical differences.

Gen. Dénes

Denes, I carefully follow your definition: "Nationalism is against something/somebody, wants to gain on the detriment of others (e.g. "afara, afara cu ungurii din tara!"), while patriotism is emphasising the person/people's own values, without denigrating others".

I see that countless Americans, French, Britons, Russians, Ukraineans, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, Asian Indians, Pakistani, Arabs, Jews etc. etc. etc. are "emphasising the person/people's own values", but in the same time they want "to gain on the detriment of others", and worst of all, they are denigrating others.
So, from my point of view, all these people are first of all nationalists, before being patriots.

This post has been edited by Florin on November 30, 2012 04:35 am

Yes, Florin, I agree with you. I've been to America several times, so I know how some (most?) of them think.

Or, an even better example is China (china-passport-controversy):
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world...controversy.cnn

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 30, 2012 06:46 am

Nationalism is not automatically "bad". It becomes "bad" when it is used aggressively as a tool of oppression. All nationalism, all over the world, relies on a preset package of lies and half-truths that is used to justify actions. Clear example of that is the "Aryans" who used fabricated "historic rights" to carry out terrible atrocities against "non-Aryans".

Equally, Romanian nationalism relies on its own set of lies. These are so deeply embedded that they are impossible to fight. When you come across such situations in "real life", you can just shut up and ignore it. But this forum is by its very nature a place where we try to separate the truth from these lies. We often get people here who try to impose those nationalist lies. Well, we cannot shut up and ignore them here. If we do, those lies win here too. I love this forum because here we can discuss truths. I hate it when "nationalists" try to suppress our efforts to uncover the truth by calling us (those who question their lies) "enemies of Romania". The truth is that Romania is not perfect. To love it, to truly love it, you must rely on the "bad bits" as well as the "good bits". Trying to invent lies to cover "bad bits" fools no one and degrades both the "listener" and the "speaker".

Radu

So, let me see if i get it right

Saying that the fight of Romanians (and in some moments others too) in XIV and especially XV century blocked the Ottoman advance north of Danube (thats Europe too) and delayed until was too late their invasion of Italy (more important region in a more important era for Europe compared with Vienna in my opinion) is "nationalism" similar with "afara cu ungurii din tara"?

Or talking about this battles of historical important moments and mentioned them as victories is as well "bad nationalism", "lies" and "blocking the truth"?

Sure, everyone (well, those who know some history) know that Romanian principalities was formed in XIV century or that in some periods we was vassals of Turks, nobody deny that or argued against it here. But again, what that have to do with the results of our fight with Ottomans?

I am sorry to say but i see to some a kind of "snobish" approach and the idea to "demonize" the "enemy" who is not agree with them (using stamps as "bad nationalists", "liers" etc) instead of using arguments.

I would prefered some more free talks using historical arguments and facts (and some forumists do that and that make the discussion very interesting and enjoyable) instead of "tags" and "phylosophical" impressions which apeared and are promoted after 1990 under the new "multiculturalism" ideas and "rewriting" of history.

Because abandoning one extreme wich presented Romanian history exclusevily in a "good light" and jumping to other one were is presented exclusevly in a "bad light" is just replacing a lie with a possible even bigger one.

This post has been edited by udar on November 30, 2012 09:41 am

Thank you for proving my point.
Radu

And, more importantly, if the listener perceives the "bad bits" as lies, undoubtedly he will believe no more the "good bits"!
To conclude, the "enemy" can also be seen as a bad speaker of English...

then perhaps you could provide a few examples of large scale ottoman fleet operations in the adriatic during the reign of Mehemed II ?
such operations, against the italian peninsula took place later, under Hayreddin Barbarossa, however as raids. there was no large scale landing on the italian shore with an army large enough to conduct an offensive campaign there, simply because even at that time, it was beyond the capability of the ottoman navy to provide sustained support. which is why it never happened.

then perhaps you could provide a few examples of large scale ottoman fleet operations in the adriatic during the reign of Mehemed II ?
such operations, against the italian peninsula took place later, under Hayreddin Barbarossa, however as raids. there was no large scale landing on the italian shore with an army large enough to conduct an offensive campaign there, simply because even at that time, it was beyond the capability of the ottoman navy to provide sustained support. which is why it never happened.

We can use as example these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_invasion_of_Otranto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zonchio

It looks that Ottomans had a good (and big) enough navy to bring in one wave almost 20,000 soldiers and to conquer a bridghead in Italy. And they was able to defeat Venice too in large naval battles

And if we consider that Turks would not had any problems on the Danube and would be able to focus their forces just on Italy in XV century, i do think is plausible the idea that they would reach Rome at least, seeing as the political situation was in Italy (and even in Europe back then)

This post has been edited by udar on November 30, 2012 04:46 pm

As the old word say, "cel mai destept cedeaza" so i will let you go now without to care too much about the blank stereotypes usually posted by you here (not that i did much in the past either).

So, consider you (and "your team") win this "extraordinary" debate and you can be happy and celebrate how you "show" to those "bad nationalists" how things are

And well, "La multi ani" for everyone for tomorrow (i know, it may sound as "bad nationalism" for some, but trust me, it doesnt imply i want to exterminate foreign nations )

Why look at Otranto and not at Rhodes? Because it doesn't serve your goal?
Rhodes
"Zonchio" (aka "First Battle of Lepanto") was no landing attempt, but a naval battle! Indeed, victorious for the Othmans, as the Second Battle of Lepanto was victorious for theHoly League, but just a naval battle!
Re: Radub's team: If you had looked on some threads, you'd have seen there were so many contradictions between the members of the "team"!
A sincere "La Mulţi Ani" for you, too - and for everybody else tomorrow!
PS: please, from now on, write "I" with a capital letter; it is said to be a mark of self-respect...

This post has been edited by MMM on November 30, 2012 05:28 pm

And right here is the root of your "problem". You regard these discussions as battles that must be "won". This is just a forum where we discuss things. Say what you got to say and allow is to take it or leave it. This is not about "who is right". It is about "what is right".
Radu

And right here is the root of your "problem". You regard these discussions as battles that must be "won". This is just a forum where we discuss things. Say what you got to say and allow is to take it or leave it. This is not about "who is right". It is about "what is right".
Radu

Yes, but there are different views/opinions on what is right. We all have to respect each other as forumists willing to stand for something and agree to disagree on some issues. Deep down I bet each one of us thinks he is right, but the best thing is to have an interesting debate. If we didn't like to talk about these issues we wouldn't be here. And let's face it, in this day and age not many people discuss these issues. So let's try to cut each other some slack and encourage (and enjoy) the debates. We don't have to all agree or to convince each other. It's impossible.

cheers

You mean there aren't people who could post crap knowing it's crap?
I'd like it to be so, but sometimes on this very forum there are some guys who just like to pour gas onto the fire, irrelevant what they think about the matter.
Back on topic, I suppose this is an ended question by now! Should we get back to other subjects?

I agree with MMM!
So I ask the following question: can we identify a moment (if such a moment exists!) in which the political and military leadership of the Ottoman Empire (in a word the Sultan and maybe few close advisors/generals a.o.) decided that they agree the status of suzerainty (dependence) of Tara Romaneasca and Moldova better then the occupation of this lands and their transformation into eyalet (ottoman province)?
I ask this question because I am curious why f.i. after the defeat of Vlad Tepes and reinstallation of the throne of Wallachia of Radu III the Handsom in 1462 this country wasn't transformed into an ottoman province?

Ah, the finale "weapon", if you dont have arguments search for some grammatical mistakes
Search better, i am sure i might miss some comma too somewhere, you can show how wrong i am by pointing that out too

More on topic now, yes, we look at Otranto because "dead-cat" asked me about few examples of large scale ottoman fleet operations in the Adriatic during the reign of Mehemed II.

Rhodes is rather an irelevant exception, compared with the general situation of that period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Venetian_Wars

-The Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430), resulting in the capture of Thessalonica by the Ottomans. Although not formally counted as an Ottoman–Venetian War, it involved the Venetians against the Ottomans

-The first Ottoman–Venetian War (1463–1479), resulting in the capture of Negroponte, Lemnos and Albania Veneta by the Ottomans

-The second Ottoman–Venetian War (1499–1503), resulting in the capture of further Aegean islands, and the Venetian strongholds in the Morea (Peloponnese) by the Ottomans

Add this to the successful landing in Italy (of over 18,000 soldiers in just one wave) and the easy capture of Otranto, as well the defeat of Venetian navy in Battle_of_Zonchio and you can clearly see that Ottomans was in full expansion period and they was able to land in Italy almost at will.
Venice, the most important naval enemy of them wasnt able to stop them, and actually signed (and respected) a treaty by the time Turks landed at Otranto.

If we consider that Mohamed II didnt had the problems here on Danube border, and he would pursue his main goal to conquer Rome too after Constantinopole, we'll had the Turks landing at Otranto some decades earlier.

Less important targets as some cities or islands in Aegen Sea will be probably ignored, and without the big losses suffered in his fights at Danube Mohamed II will be in a much better position for his invasion of Italy.

And seeing the situation in Italy and in Europe back then, his chances of success would be quite significant. Even without conquering Rome or much part of Italy (or holding them for too long), the wars and chaos created by them will put a stop of Renaissance for example (with big implication for European development), the Pope will probably seek refuge out of Rome and who knows what will happen with Protestant schism later (or if will still appear or had another course).