Barbarians also only destroyed the werstern empire, which was the weaker of the two. Those whites were the winners at the end of the day, so if you rolled them, what word can we use for what they did to you? annihilate?ĭid whites make Ottoman Empire collapse? yesĪre their successor states more powerful wealthier today? hell yes, in every way So you claim to have rolled ''whites'', then what did they do to you, since you were unable to advance further? and the literal collapse of your empire was because of those ''whites''. Ottomans were never in a position to lay claims to more than the Balkan area. You can only demand land from your foes, if your victory was great enough, nad your current power is way above theirs. You literally failed multiple times in trying to go further into Europe. that's just how it works, you will never win everything.īut those you claim to have been ''rolled'', were tiny balkan states, not the biggest western empires. Pretty obvious that Ottoman had some great victories, but so did all other empire. It was indeed just a few crusades here and there. By the time we had reached Vienna, we were nearing our logistical limits, the same reason why we didn't expand further down south on Africa, mostly due to the distance to the capital.Īs for the Roman Empire part, Ottoman Empire was also in a decline mostly due to the rebellions caused by Jannissaries, so whites putting the last nail in the coffin doesnt neccessarily mean that they singlehandedly defeated the Ottoman Empire, much like how it was for the Romans.Ĭrusades are not the same as direct nation on nation war. If i am not mistaken Ottoman Empire indeed has rolled way too many whites especially in the 15th and 16th centuries, back when the thick of Crusades were taking place. Is it too much to use the term in such cases? I thought it was quite accurate. No, here and there we have clashed and for many times we have emerged victorious.
You may want to look up the battles i listed above, they don't seem like a few crusades given the number of Kingdoms, Empires taking part in it, also the army sizes.Īlso how is that not true? Did the Ottomans roll lots of whites? Yes, the word ''rolling'' doesn't need to constitute annexation, it can be done via defeating your enemies on battlefields, neither does it mean that you need to entirely decimate the white race for that to be constituted an act of ''rolling''. You are using a reductive tone about a set of crusades that were initiated at the behest of the fucking Pope himself deeming them ''a few silly crusades''. You said in your original comment that you rolled whites for centuries, when that's just not true, it was only the balkan area. That's also not really what it's about tho. The Roman Empire was in a decline before the barbarians decided to invade, if I remember correctly. Ottoman Empire was successful, without a doubt. Ottoman empire was never able to conquer lands of western europe, no matter how many times they tried.Īfter reading your edit. Western powers were also busy destroying each other, Austria were the only ones who were seriously worried with the Ottomans. A few silly crusades here and there mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Taking on western crusades is veeeeeeeery different than taking on western powers in their own lands and trying to beat them. Longevity of an empire also matters in terms of their success. Landmass also matters, as well as strategic important areas. Population of an ampire matters more, this is true. I never said it proved anything, just that it's one of the metrics of power. Just that it was never able to take on western powers and actually gain control of their lands. I said it was powerful, no way around that. If anything existing for over 650 years as an empire in one of the most contentious parts of the world is a success in and of itself. We did the same to the Balkans and to some extent Central Europe. Lastly it was a bunch of barbarians that also caused the collapse of Roman Empire, doesn't change the fact that they curbstomped them for centuries. I am sorry for bursting your bubble but Ottoman Empire was just strong as it often required the majority of European powers to muster forces to push back on them, which often failed until the early 18th century. Ottomans constantly took on western crusades, look up varna, nicopolis or first and second kosovo wars, preveze etc. It is ludicrous that you thought your link proved anything. On your own list, Roman Empire, arguably the strongest Empire that existed along with the Mongol Empire is scored below Iberian Union, or Empire of Brazil. It is unanimously agreed among historians that especially around the 16th and 17th centuries Ottoman Empire was the strongest empire of its time, possibly tying with Qinq.
0 kommentar(er)
