>You will never save Europe from the Turkish hordes
>You will never be declared the savior of Christianity by the Pope himself
>You will never become the mortal enemy of the Ottoman Turks to the point that they give him a badass nickname
>You will never participate in the largest cavalry charge in history
>You will never get betrayed upon death and have your country is carved up by the "allies" you had sworn to protect
Feels bad desu
How is it that Eastern Europe is populated by these ridiculous circus - tier nationalists?
>every scientist, general, artist etc ever was Albanian
>Hitler himself called Albanians the master race
>we wuz kings of half the ancient world
You can apply the same logic to Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, Hungarians, almost everyone in the region.
Yeah because all of them tend to indulge in shit like that.
>Albania - WE WUZ ILLYRIANS AND SHIT
>Hungary - WE WUZ ATTILA AND SHIT
>Slovakia - WE WUZ GREAT MORAVIA AND SHIT
>Macedonia - WE WUZ ALEXANDER AND SHIT
>Bosnia - WE WUZ TURKS AND SHIT
>Romania - WE WUZ ROMANS AND SHIT
Combine that with how all of them tend to claim their grandfathers served in the SS which makes them the master race and how they're on a crusade to restore Greater [insert country] and you end up with a legit clown show.
>WE SAVED EUROPE N SHIT
When will the "Vienna 1683" meme die?
Europe may have been threatened by the turks during the first siege in the early 16th century, but in the second half of the 17th the turks were no real threat anymore.
Noone of the big powers -England, France, Spain, Netherlands- would have given a single fuck if Vienna fell. In fact, France did all they could to aid the ottomans to keep austria out of the real wars being fought by the big boys at the same time
It's a symbolic victory of the West over the Turks
On that note
>tfw you will never see a Vienna 1683 film
Oh the shittier the country the more proud people are of it.
Even in America the most patriotic stares in the south and are the shittest states
I think it's because if you got nothing you gravitate towards nationalism
The denial of Western Europe was in 1529. It was clear then that the Ottomans couldnt push farther then Hungary- and they didnt try again for over 100 years and this despite being at the height of power.
Since then austria became a real power and the turks only grew weaker (okay, in the 17th century at least)
As a bulgarian i can totaly agree with you. The poorer and dumber the people are the more nacionalistic they are because nothing else is there to be pround of. What really pathentic is, that actually the balkan nations think that they used to be relevent and build up the modern world.. somehow and now every one owe them something.
That's false. Suleymans siege weapons got stuck in bad weather and he had to retreat for the winter. Then they got lazy and took their time to try again because they never saw Austria or anyone else from western Europe as a real threat. Then the wealth of the Americas started flowing in and in their comfort the Ottomans suddenly found themselves in a big disadvantage. 1683 was just a "oh shit we really should have taken Vienna by now" desperation move.
I would say that Bulgaria was relevant in the past; they used to control most of southeastern europe and were the foremost foes of the Byzantines for some time.
They were also pretty badass in the Balkan Wars and WW 1
Not austria specifically maybe but it did to western merchants. The Ottoman economy was pretty much fucked at 1683 because European merchants could always outbid the Ottoman merchants.
This video explains it nicely if you're actually interested.
Anyway my point is that in 1529 the Ottomans saw themselves as superior to Europe and didn't see them as a real threat. That is why they took their time for a second siege. Not because they were badly defeated in 1529 or anything.
Turkey may have not been the threat it was in 16th century, but when the Sultan was able to consolidate enough power to rule janissaries(not the other way round) it was still enormously powerful country when compared to majority of Europe. I mean think of it - majority of Europe didn't have standing army and if they did, it was quite small. Mercenaries still played big role, a lot of people were just drafted when the war began etc. etc. This is why the outdated artillery is often cited as the thing Ottomans tried to reform first.
Janissaries may have been unruly, use outdated tactics etc. but they were well enough trained and disciplined to be able to overwhelm typical standing army pre-18th century European countries have had given their quantity. Then there were also drafted armies Ottomans could build themselves and while they were pure fucking shit when compared to any army European powers had(it was basically a mob), they were still good enough to hold siege etc. If Janissaries were able to cripple/destroy standing army first and the entire ottoman army would get control of important communication lines, huge towns/cities then they would be able to stop army-building process and likely win the war. Those things tended to be protected by forts so having modern siege artillery was a matter of life or death for the Ottoman empire.
The strategy was obviously worth shit if fighting against countries like Commonwealth or Russia but for Austria it was a dangerous thing.
The sea routes towards indies crippled ottoman's economy while the wealth coming down from Americas eventually dripped down on every country, even the ones that didn't had colonies. Only the countries focused on trading with ottomans to import eastern goods like Venice haven't profited from these processes too much.
>it was still enormously powerful country when compared to majority of Europe.
Not compared to France or England or Sweden or the United Neitherlands.
During the Nine Years' War the lrgest field armies had grown to nearly 100,000 men. And I daresay they were of a lot better quality then turkish armies.
The fact, that these massive turkish armies were actually defeated by second rank (by that time) powers like Poland-Lithuania, Austria or Russia says enough.
None of them are any less nationalist.
Norway, Holland, Germany (minus 20s-50s), Britain, France, Spain etc etc; All have pride in their people, their history and their accomplishments.
It's just that for the Balkans 2016 doesn't reflect on any great, past time, which delegitimizes any pride (or nationalism, to be specific,) that they may have.
Which isn't necessarily right imo.
Get the fuck out of the way Pole shits, real bane of the turks coming through.
>muh defender of christianity
I love how poles try to market themselves as defenders of europe while ignoring the fact they were in bed with the turks for about 300 years against Russian aggression.
Turks and poles were allies for most of the modern history.
I like how it says ottoman, british, frech and italian victory in crimea but not russian, romanian, bulgarian, serbian victory in 1877.
>1 battle when Ottocucks when they were not even at their prime for about a century
>300 years of alliance with the turks
Nothing related to butthurt, but you should be honest with your history. Turks and Poles did fight one another but for most of the time they were allies. Nothing wrong with any of them, what is wrong is that you using only one battle to hide centuries of friendly relations, portraying yourself as if you were the major antagonists aganist turks.
>Hungarians and Austrians dealt with the brunt of it.
Fuck you, I still don't even got all my clay back.
The only Balkan country that really has a "greater" is Greece but 95% of the land is covered in Turks now.
All the other countries have basically always been small shitters for most of their existence.