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

Thats a very simplistic and i may say even wrong statement in some parts.

It doesnt matter just "how long" but as well "when" or "in which moment" in history and with which results.

As well i am still baffled that for some everything that counts is "western Europe" as if southern, central or eastern Europe dont exist.

However, i will give just few dates

- 1395 - battle of Rovine - the Ottoman expansion north of Danube is stoped as Bayazid fail to conquer and transform Wallachia in Ottoman province.

This is the same century when Renaissance period first began, just in city of Florence i think

- 1453 - Mohamed II conquer Constantinopole and put an end to the last remains of the Byzantine empire, taking its capital. Many "byzantines" fled to Italy where they boost the Renaissance brining the old knowledge preserved in their area since old greco-roman times.

- 1456 - Iancu de Hunedoara (John Hunyady) defeat Mohamed II at Belgrad

- 1461-1462 - Vlad Tepes camapigns against the Turks and same Mahomed II led invasion of Wallachia ended with Vlad Tepes victory and retreat of Ottoman army

- 1475 - Stefan cel Mare defeat the Ottoman army in the battle of Vaslui

- 1476 - an invasion of Moldova led by same Mohamed II ended in a defeat as Stefan manage to drive out the Turks, with heavy losses

In each of this campaigns the Ottomans used big armies (around 100,000 soldiers as a medium) with all the logisitic included. In each of this campaigns they suffered defeats and had big losses in soldiers, materials and even morale.
In the same time they was stucked too in Albania until 1468, with Skanderbeg repell their attempts of conquest

- 1480 - Mahomed II land in Italy following his desire to conquer and rule over the former Roman empire teritories, with the aim to conquer Rome too after Constantinopole. Turks conquer quite quickly Otranto and form a base for future advance toward Rome. Pope make plans to evacuate from Rome and ask for help. Venice doesnt care much, and the odds seem bad for Italians

- 1481 - Mahomed II die, a struggle for power occur in the Ottoman empire and Turks abandon the conquest of Italy, even if started successfully for them

This XV century is the same century when the Renaissance really start to spread, first in Italy and then all over Europe, is the century when Columbus is born in same Italy

Now imagine that Mohamed II the Conqueror doesnt have any problems at Danube, he didnt lose that huge amount of troops, materials and time here, and he land in Italy few years after the fall of Constantinopole, some two decades before the year of his death.

This will lead more then probably to conquest of large parts of Italy, wars and destruction all over, and the stop or the end of classic Renaissance era right before its emergence, possible the spread of islam at least in south of Italy (again, i dont imply anything racist or so now), with all the possible consequences for the future. Including probably the Vatican becoming the second Hagia Sophia, as the St Sophia church from Constantinopole was transformed, and who knows what results related with apparition (or not, in such case) of Protestants next century.
Imagine Mahomed the conqueror moving the Ottoman capital at Rome a decade later after Constantinopole.

This beside what i said about the possible outcome in central and eastern Europe regarding Romanian countries, Hungary, Russia and even Poland (as the countries south of Danube was already under Ottoman occupation and direct rule)

there are problems with this concept, stemming from the logistical realities of the day, which were not optional for anyone, not even for the turkish army.
a campaign as far as vienna, required many months of preparation, the ottoman army marching from turkey to hungary, to start the campaign.
they arrived in spetember, which is very late for a siege. vienna was as far as the ottoman army could operate, given the logistical posibilities and the lack of imperial oposition (as Charles' army was busy fighting the french in italy).

the advance fared marginally better in 1683, when they reached vienna in mid july, also without serious imperial oposition, but even this time the siege would be limited to the day the relief effort arrived. all this agains an opponent, who was in a continuous state of bankrupcy from the 30 years war up to the seven years war.
unless the turkish base of operation was not somewhere much closer, a speculative campaign in italy, which would have met serious imperial opposition, would hardly have had any effect other than doing considerable damage to the ottoman army and navy. which is pretty much why it was never attempted seriously.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on November 26, 2012 04:15 pm

Udar, in which one of these battles did the Principalities defeat the Ottoman Empire for good? After which one of these battles did the Ottoman Empire leave the West in peace?

The way I see it, the Ottoman Empire NEVER went West through The Principalities. The main thrust of their advance was through the Balkans, Bosnia, Albania, and clashed with the West elsewhere. The Principalities were on the perifery of this advance, but provided a rich source of food for their army, which explais why the Ottomans kept raiding them on their way to the West.

At best the Principalities delayed the Ottoman Empire, but they never really stopped it.

Radu

As Radub scored very well what I wanted to say I limited myself to indicate that the Ottoman military power was probably one of the top in Europe, referring to XV-XVI centuries! She had a solid core of permanent troops, with soldiers and commanders well paid, the regular troops of Janissaries and Sipahi were well trained and properly armed without overlooking the fanaticism that was inoculated to them. The commanders played an important role, they were acting under the direct leadership of Sultan, achieving undisputed better results in battles than Christian principles, who often disputed leadership! The organizational structure of the Ottoman army differed from both European and Asian rules, because they combined in their manner nomadic asian, byzantine, egyptian-arab and european elements. The core was formed from regular infantry the Janissary mercenaries, spearmen and riflemen who fought on foot, along with Sipahi cavalry, medium and light. The number of soldiers of an army ready for a campaign was in the first half of XVI century around 70000 men from which 12000 Janissaries, 40000 Sipahis, 4000 soldiers of the Artillery corps, while around 14000 men were specialized troops (armourers, scout, construction troops, supply troops, security, a.o.). These troops could be joined at mobilization by other 30 to 50000 men provincial troops, allied troops a.o. thus reuniting for a military campaign around 100000 to 120000 men. Being numerically superior to any adversary and acting decisively and in force they often obtain even in case of failure a major psychological effect over their ennemy being many situations in which the ennemy sought a deal with the Ottomans even after a victory over them! Their military campaigns were started usually in May and ends in October, their army acting together with a strong vanguard in front of the main army. The Ottomans have not excelled in using special tactics or outstanding operations in their campaigns, their army positioning for a battle was usually well known to their ennemies: three divisions of infantry in their centre with the artillery nearby framed on both wings by strong groups of cavalry grouped into well ordered regiments, the concave shaped battle disposition of the army was intended to facilitate the action of cavalry units from the wings. The cavalry was intended to lead the rapid attacks and apparently disordered withdrawals, destabilization of the battle disposition of the ennemy main army, while mass infantry attacks were going to break the ennemy positions and to destroy him. The rigid religious conceptions of the Empire influenced military thinking. Even in times of great glory and power the Ottoman military leaders seeking practical solutions rather than theoretical concepts, which in time brought the decline of the military power!
From "Pagini din gandirea militara universala" vol.II Epoca Medievala si inceputurile epocii moderne, Editura Militara, Bucuresti, 1985.

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on November 26, 2012 08:20 pm

The Ottoman Empire did launch attacks into Hungary through Wallachia and Moldavia and with forces from the two principalities turned into vassals. Sometimes the empire ordered Wallachia and Moldavia to launch attacks on their own.

Even if the principalities can be seen as peripheral, they had to be controlled in order to avoid problems on the flank. Securing control up to the ridge of the Carpathians must have been an important geopolitical goal for the Ottomans at first.

@udar
Their will was to turn the principalities into loyal vassals. The Ottoman Empire was a cosmopolitan and tolerant one.

I thought we were talking about the period when the Principalities "resited" and "fought" the Ottoman Empire.
Radu

udar, please watch your language.

We are. But that period was intermittent, dotted with time spans in which the principalities were loyal vassals. It all depended on who was in charge and "regime changes" were frequent.

But I am willing to bet that the "true blood Romanians" DO NOT even want to accept the fact that the Principalities were "loyal vassals" of the Ottoman Empire. And that is the crux of this whole thread.
Radu

But I am willing to bet that the "true blood Romanians" DO NOT even want to accept the fact that the Principalities were "loyal vassals" of the Ottoman Empire. And that is the crux of this whole thread.
Radu

... and the point (which will lead us pretty much to the heated discussion in an earlier thread started by Denes and closed by Victor) is whether the "historical truth" will be accepted as the same by the "romani verzi" and the other nationalists.

Well, the Ottoman landing in Italy was without problems as Venice has signed a treaty with them and didnt do anything to stop them. Ottoman fleet wasnt bad at all either, quite contrary started to be better and better and bigger.

Pope was making plans to evacuate from Rome and his pleading for help didnt stired much interest, he asked even Matthias Corvin for that (and he was among couple who answered).
In fact just few years before the only one who answered to the Pope call for a crusade to free Constantinopole was Vlad Tepes, an Orthodox. And even he joined that more for personal interest.
Pope was so desperate that even give the title "Atleth of Christ" to Stefan cel Mare after the battle of Vaslui, even if he was a "schismatic" too, but the idea was to stop the Turks as much as possible

Italy was broken in several smaller states that was rivals to eachother and was ruled back then by families as Borgia, Sforza, Medici. Pope's themselves wasnt quite loved, the actions of quite few included corruption, bribery, nepotism, assasinations, orgies at Vatican with whoever find suitable etc.
In north the Protestand rupture will happen less the a century after this.

Even if Mohamed II will not keep for too long his conquests (including even Rome) the wars and devastations in Italy will put a stop to Renaissance right before its rise. With unknown results for Protestant apparition either

I find funny as well to see the way couple co-forumists already make a statement (of which they seem very sure hehe) spliting the people in "the owners of the truth","the good guys" (they or those who support their ideas) and "romanii verzi", "nationalisti", "za bed guys" who obviously have no idea what they talking about

Using such "stamps" and bypassing the incomode (for some) facts is just a sign of lack of real arguments.

It doesnt matter that much that in some periods we was vassals but it does matter much more that we wasnt an Ottoman province.

It doesnt matter that we wasnt always in the conquest road adopted by the Turks but its surely matter way much more that we was and we beat them in the most crucial moments.

As well, i need to repeat, Ottomans goes to Viena not because they wanted to conquer Europe, and the fact they was defeated there doesnt meant that "the Europe" was saved.
Viena or habsburgic empire wasnt "the Europe". Turks attacked Viena because of the quarrels with Austrians in Balkans, in Croatia, Bosnia or even Hungary, and not because they wanted to "conquer Europe". At that time Ottomans wasnt in position to go further and to keep their conquests there for too long

Not to mention France was allied with Turks back then if i am not mistake.

Their goal was first of all to conquer the lands of former Roman empire and the real or bigger threat was during Mohamed II the Conqueror, when Europe was divided and even weak and Ottomans was in full expansion. I mentioned in previous post about Italy, and we can talk about Hungary or Poland too, both badly beaten by some small country like Moldova

If it wasnt the situations we talk from the begining, Mohamed will land and very probably conquer large parts of Italy (maybe even Rome), ending the Renaissance before even starting and spreading for real, with who know what consequences for the development of Europe

It will be as well very possible that in north of Danube to have a similar situation as in south, religious and ethnic wars, national hate and distrust, population exchangings, large muslim minorities (even enclaves or states like Bosnia or Albania), all this spread from Caucasus to Austria and from Baltic to Greece and Italy.

OT. MMM, you can bet on it, that the often inconvenient "historical truth" will not be accepted by the nationalist side. That particular thread was a very good lesson (at least for me). That's the reason why I do not comment this rather interesting topic.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 29, 2012 02:09 pm

It is said that the more you live, the more you learn. One of the things I learned over time is that most people from all nations are nationalists.
Why this is presented as a sin when it is about Romanians, but it is considered acceptable about others? Why most nations are so indignant about the nationalism of the others, while they overlook theirs, or they even do not realize their own nationalism ?
No wonder that the extraterrestrials do not want to contact us.

This post has been edited by Florin on November 29, 2012 07:35 pm

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

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 29, 2012 08:14 pm