What did he mean by this?

>>1598104
You have to destroy them utterly because anything less and they'll start another brood elsewhere

>>1598104
It means there's nothing that can be done regarding their presence in Anatolia after the fall of Constantinople (and by extension the previous battles and sackings that made them prevalent and weakened the byzantine empire). The majority (even nowadays) is uneducated, vastly nationalistic and will defend their country with violence at all costs, reproduces fast and has overrun any other non-Turkish demographic in the area over time, with the cherry being the population exchange with Greece (a lot of time after Napoleon, but still relevant for a modern-day equivalent of the quote) that essentially removed Western cultural influence and presence in Anatolia.

Since the demographics are in their favor over such a large and highly populated area, coupled with the certain bloody hivemind mindset that Turks harbor, you can never conquer them in their entirety, or in other words, nobody is willing to sacrifice all that is necessary to remove them from the region.

You can't tame cocroaches, only kill them

File: tab.png (156KB, 323x624px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 323x624px

>>1598104
That the turks can be killed (en mass preferably)

>>1598104
They're like cockroaches

>>1598104
Massive cuck. He knew nothing

>>1598135
>reproduces fast

Population of Ottoman Empire at the eve of WW1: 25 million
Population of Germany at the eve of WW1: 60 million

File: aMGOd3W_700b.jpg (61KB, 700x494px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 700x494px

>>1598583
Population of Turkey in 2013: 75 million and increasing
Population of Germany in 2013: 80 million and decreasing

This doesn't count the number of t*rks crawling around in Germany.

>>1598178
Did anyone else totally forget that Napoleon went to the Holy Land?

>>1598104
Turks arent worth conquering so just kill them all

>>1598860
The details of Napoleon's invasion of the Levant are largely unknown because the campaign turned out to be a bit of a failure. French propagandists and those within Napoleon's artistic circle reminded the French citizenry and political class of the Oriental campaign by reporting and depicting the epic, large scale battles that happened in Egypt and the Levant. The truth of the campaign was a lot less glimmering and was certainly harder to present to the French people. The Battle of Nile was what began to change the course of the campaign. The beginning of the Syrian invasion was met with some success in battle against Syrian-Ottoman forces. However, the failed siege of Acre forced the French back to Egypt where many were cut-down ingloriously by either marauding skirmishers, disease, hunger, dehydration. It must have truly been an awful experience for those marching under Napoleon.
Napoleon, ever the scheming propagandist, presented the campaign as a string of victories against numerous enemies, reminded his countrymen of the intellectual progress made, and swept the truth of the invasion under the rug so he could focus on Europe.
Napoleonic historians, largely Frenchmen and contemporaries of the general, continued the tradition of ignoring the misfortunes of the Syrian front.

>>1599093

>a bit of a failure

Wasting the French Mediterranean Fleet and the entire expeditionary army (40k men rekt) for the sake of a PR campaign to picture oneself as a hero and gain political power back home, amounts to more than just 'a bit of a failure' I think.

>>1599093
Turk detected
The numbers at mount tabor are largely documented and agreed on by both French and Ottomon sources

>>1599195
show me those citations

>He thinks napoleon failed to take Egypt and the levant because of the Turks

Pro tip, it was the Brits at the battle of the Nile, when they relieved the Turks at acre and the battle of alexandria

File: 8927893279872892.png (219KB, 372x371px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 372x371px

>>1598135
>will defend their country with violence at all costs
What else is there to defend your country with faggot?