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

OK, then, but have you read Bogdan Murgescu?
Here's a link (free!) for his book:
Acumularea decalajelor
Should we debunk him, too?
Or perhaps he's Soros-sponsored as well...

The impact of the defeat of the turks in the Rovine battle was lost almost immediately by the Ottoman victory at the Battle of Nicopolis and the next Ottoman failures in the battles against Mircea cel Batran (1397, 1400) have not prevented the Turks to continue their advance towards the Danube occupying largely the Vidin Tsardom (only one that was left unoccupied) and only the defeat from 1402 when sultan Bayezid was captured by the mongols stopped them (for some time) to continue offensive towards Serbian despotate (already a vassal Ottoman state) and Wallachia. So Rovine defeat didn't broke "the Ottoman momentum of invincibility" but more likely the Battle of Angora (1402).
2. Florin please tell me how you calculated the one century when the Romanian principalities kept the Ottomans busy and and prevented them to continue the offensive towards the west? When starts the calculation of this century and when ends? Because to me personally I'm not coming at the numbers at all: as Mircea cel Batran accepted a peace treaty with the Ottomans in 1417 agreeing to pay tribute, payments often interrupted and fightings often restarted (1418-1420, 1422, 1459-1462) with a general end from 1462 when Radu cel Frumos was put by the turks at the throne of Wallachia. As the first ottoman campaign in Wallachia started by 1395 I wonder about this century you speak about...
Waching the geopolitical situation carefully at those times and a map shows us a simple element: Turks were not hindered by Romanian principalities to attack central Europe but from Hungary! Hungary was the way of penetration towards Central Europe and that's why the ottoman offensives from mid XV century to early XVI century were directed against this kingdom! Wallachia and Moldavia were sometimes annoying, the turks wanted sometimes their occupation but... not so much as we (some of us!) claim!

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on November 23, 2012 10:29 pm

OK, then, but have you read Bogdan Murgescu?
Here's a link (free!) for his book:
Acumularea decalajelor
Should we debunk him, too?
Or perhaps he's Soros-sponsored as well...

The statement at the begining saying that

<Colectia Historia este coordonata de Mihai-Razvan Ungureanu.>

is not very encouraging in that regard, as he had (have?) close ties with same Soros fundation (and worked for Soros i think).

However, i didnt had time to read the book, just read few pages in a hurry. It seem very OK for me at that first glance, just that is about economy especially so not quite related with the things we talk about (wars, battles, geo-political and religious stuffs)

What is "wrong" with Soros and the Soros Foundation?
Radu

The battle of Rovine mentioned by Florin is very important, is almost a mirror battle of that of Tours.

Similarities are:

- muslim powers occupying parts of Europe at that time (Arabs in Iberian peninsula, Turks in Balkanic peninsula)

- muslim armies trying to go further north and being defeated, drawing a line that they can't pass (Pyrenne mountains or Danube)

- both muslim powers being affected by internal or other problems after that, which prevented them to imediatly return in force (Berber revolt and the civil war for Arab caliphate - Timur invasion and civil war for Ottoman Turks)

Differences are:

- battle of Tours was more like a big Arab raid with the intent of pillaging (which dont exclude the fact that if successfull this will possibly lead to an conquer attempt)
- battle of Rovine was a full conquer attempt from Turks

- Arabs at that point was at the edge of their possibilities and spread, far from their center and at the twilight of their expansion

- Turks was at the begining of their expansion and much close to their center of power

If Mircea cel Batran wouldnt win that battle this will lead to Ottoman conquest of Wallachia/Tara Romaneasca in XIV century, which coupled with the Ottoman victory at Nicopole (against a united European army) will put the Turks in a much favorable position.

They will probably be able to threat and conquer much soon Hungary too and open the way for more conquests much sooner.

As well, the Romanian actions as i said wasnt necessary to protect "western Europe" but to defend themselves. And Europe doesn't mean just "western' Europe, contrary to what some consider.

Europe means too Balkans, Romania, Poland, Russia, Hungary etc.

In fact Mohamed II target wasnt at all Viena, Turks entered in conflict with Habsburgic empire later, because of quarrels in Balkans, in Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary etc.

Mahomed the Conqueror wish was to take all the teritories of former Roman empire (or as much as possible, at least in eastern Europe). So after he take Constantinopole he aimed for Italy and Rome.

He even had a successful landing in Italia conquering a port town there and starting making a base for future expansion. I think the Pope already made it plans for evacuation from Rome at that time

Now imagine that Turks doesnt had any problems at Danube and they would be able to fully focus on Italia at the middle of XV century. That will probably lead to the fall of Rome at least and of large part of Italy, under Ottoman rule, the entire Balkan peninsula (including Romanian kingdoms and Hungary) will be under their rule.

Then in eastern Europe the Tatars of Golden Horde who even in XV (or XVI, need to check?) century was able to burn down Moscow will come sooner in an alliance with Ottoman empire (now having common border with them at Dniester lets say.

They will be able so to either conquer again all Russia (or at least up to Moscow and near areas) either to block Russia to became a significant power in the next centuries.

Poland would be in danger too, as they was paying tribute to Tatars in many periods and now would have Ottomans and Tatars right at their borders.

The entire eastern Europe will fall under a muslim dominated area, with significant impact on the population, culture, religion, economy etc. Just see what happened south of Danube and problems arised due to religious and ethnic wars, and then expand that from Urals to Slovakia and from Baltic (maybe) to Greece and a large part of Italy.

The fact is that victories of Iancu de Hunedoara/Janos Hunyadi/Johannes Corvinus etc of Transylvania, Vlad Tepes of Wallachia/Tara Romaneasca and Stefan cel Mare of Moldova, coupled with previous victory of Mircea cel Batran and even the resistance of Albanians under Skanderbeg blocked the Ottoman advance in the most efervescent and active phase and saved Europe

Mohamed II lost big armies, time, materials, logistics, numerous troops etc being defeated on a row by Iancu/Ioan of Transilvania, then by Vlad Tepes and then (twice) by Stefan cel Mare.

Without this and without Rovine Turks will have the free way to trample all over eastern and southern Europe (including Italia) with who knows what result for future history.

Probably not very good one if we look at south of Danube and what happened there in XIX, XX and even XXI century, ethnic cleansing, civil and religious wars, population exchanges and still national hate and distrust (see Greece vs Turkey even today, the large Turkish minority of Bulgaria, even after ethnic quarrels, or everyone against everyoane in former Yugoslavia).

The fact that we resisted and manage to forbid the expansion of Ottoman empire and muslim religion (nothing racist implied here, just a fact) north of Danube spared us of such things, and spared very probably a large part of Europe

What is "wrong" with Soros and the Soros Foundation?
Radu

They breath or they hearts still beating

More serious now, the ways in which they promote the "rewriting" of history or "multiculturalism" (not a bad thing normally, except when is aimed to destructuration of some nations as i think they promote) is so very wrong and fishy that i can't consider them of any worth or good

There is no need to invent another name in English for the great military leader and warrior. His proper name, in English, is John Hunyadi.

Gen. Dénes

Fellow forumists earlier mentioned the fact that while we were resisting the Ottoman Empire Western Europe was building cathedrals and other impressive buildings.

It's interesting to note that something similar to this debate can be seen in the contemporary Islamic world too. Some resist (see Gaza for example) while others enjoy peace, prosperity and are building this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa

It's obvious that being on the fault-lines of clashing empires/civilizations may be glorious and give the inhabitants pride (representing their civilization in the fight against "the other"), but it is at the same time very costly and retards development. The Romanian principalities and other Eastern European statal entities became war zones for extended periods of time and the losses they suffered were immeasurable. Population displacement, demographic drop, economic disruption, deterioration of infrastructure etc.

So from one point of view it's unfair towards them to say they didn't do anything or those events didn't retard their development. On the other hand, the Islamic expansion was active on so many directions that many nations claim to have "saved Europe". France (mentioned earlier), Spain (Reconquista), Poland (Battle of Vienna when Sobieski saved the day), Italy and other Western states (Lepanto), the Balkan states.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on November 24, 2012 09:20 pm

Andreas, in order to properly address your answer to me, I should count and estimate for the XVth Century all battles with Turks against Wallachia or Moldavia, versus all battles with Turks against the Hungarian Kingdom, versus all battles with Turks against other Christians (Skanderbeg-Albania, the Republic of Venice, Genoa / Genova), versus the heavy and important battles occurring in the east of the Ottoman Empire, between Turks and the Muslim states in what is today Iran.
This effort will rather worth for writing a book, than for a reply in this topic. On my behalf, I stop here.

So economy is NOT linked with wars???? Guys, I think we have a Nobel Prize winner among us! Do you realize the enormity of your utterance? Have you ever heard of wars begun for economic reasons? What's more, have you heard of wars being lost because of economic inferiority? (among them, the two world wars...)
The level of economy is determinant for the level of the military power, regardless of the century we're talking about!

So economy is NOT linked with wars???? Guys, I think we have a Nobel Prize winner among us! Do you realize the enormity of your utterance? Have you ever heard of wars begun for economic reasons? What's more, have you heard of wars being lost because of economic inferiority? (among them, the two world wars...)
The level of economy is determinant for the level of the military power, regardless of the century we're talking about!

relax, is just internet

And yes, economy is one of the factors that can decide wars, of course, most of the time one of the most important. Alongside militar, social, political, cultural and even spiritual factors.

However, we have the result of all this combination, the wars and battles we talk about (supported by the economy, military prowess, politics and even culture/spirituality of the main "actors") and the blocking of Ottoman advance and blocking of islamic religion on Danube border with all what that imply for Europe then and even now.

Sure, with a much better economy maybe Vlad the Impaler will not just defeat Ottoman invasion but will keep his power in front of his brother and boyars and continue his own actions and invasions south of Danube, maybe even with chances to reject the Ottomans from large parts of Balkans, especially if allied with his cousin, Stefan cel Mare and with Matthias Corvin.
Economical or better said financial reasons was surely among those who forced him to pass in Transylvania to ask for Mathias support and same reason was among those that make Mathias to arest Vlad on false pretenses and to abandon the fight with Ottomans.
Which was too weakened at that time but few decades later returned in force and conquered Hungary, but not Wallachia/Tara Romaneasc or Moldova or Transylvania, which shows that fighting back and successfully made the Turks to avoid big problems and agree just with payment of a tribute without to try again to properly conquer any of the Romanian principalities

But is a little futile now to talk about how many cattles or gold coins have Moldova etc. compared with Denmark because:

1- economy wasnt the only factor in those wars
2- we need to see what was the result of those events on macro-historical level

[edited by admin]

This post has been edited by Victor on November 27, 2012 12:11 pm

The Ottoman Empire was not really interested in spreading the Islamic religion.

The Turks eventually imposed their will on the Romanian principalities.

I agree with you Florin! Me too!

Indeed, starting with the reign of Radu III the Beautiful (Radu cel Frumos) we can say that the main objectives of the Ottoman Empire in Wallachia were achieved!

So, if we know for how long "we fought the Turks", all we need to do is "count the cathedrals built in the West" during this period to "prove" this hypothesis.
Radu

I dont say they was fanatically bend on spreading the islam, however they wasnt either indiferent to this.
I will point again what happened (mostly as result of Ottoman occupation) in the teritories transformed in provinces in south of Danube, in the last centuries, and i rest my case

And their will was? What was the purposes (at least at first) of Bayazid, Mohamed II (or even others in times of Radu de la Afumati or Mihiai Viteazu) ?