Why did it take so long for the Europeans to actually strategically

File: 1436850251471.png (3MB, 1960x2256px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1960x2256px

because real life isnt a gsg game

>>1834874
Brits because of balance of power reasons. Same reason why they forced Muhammad Ali and Ibrahim to back off from overthrowing the Ottomans (after the Egyptians won the battle of Konya and were on the way to march on to Istanbul)

>>1834881
Why did the Ottomans keep winning against superior numbers?

>>1834881
That was when Ottomans were still strong. By 1800s, they were on verge of being conquered by Russians (or at least their European territories are) or replaced by other dynasties (i.e. Muhammad Ali) if they weren't propped up by Brits

>>1834881
I wish grand strategy games used deeper models for everything.

>>1834909
It's kind of hard to do while still keeping the overall scope. You either go tall or you go wide, and most gs games choose wide.

>>1834881
Varna was only lost because Pope screwed over the young king.

He pretty much BTFO'd the Turks from half of the Balkans, if he stopped instead of pursuing them, he would win.

>>1834874
Because the Ottomans weren't a uniquely bad power that all the other powers aligned against. They were like any other power, in a changing series of alliances.

If the French and Brits hadn't intervened on the Ottomans' side so many times, they'd have been BTFO of Europe by Russia and its Balkanshit buddies alone during the 19th century.

>>1835454
>Pope
You mean Venetians.

>Yes, yes, you will have our naval support fellow member of Christendom
>Ignore us transporting the Ottomans back to Europe free of charge

>>1834881
Why are Turks so good at war?

>>1834885
>against
Is this bait? Did you even look at the picture? The ottomans always have superior numbers, it's like their thing

>>1835542

Everyone has their day. But their 18th to early 20th century record is basically a sad litany of failure. Which reached peak pathetic when they got btfo first by ITALY and then by four random backwater Balkanshits.

>>1835536
Im fairly certain that was the Genoese.

>>1834874
>Europeans

I hate this meme. Today, for the first time in world history, we have something remotely resembling "Europeans" as a group of nations and states working together.
And they can't even agree on immigration policy, that's how united they are.

There was no Europeans back then. The French were allies with the Ottomans, so were the British.
They were the new player to pay off to fight your old rivals, not some invading menace.

>>1835542
Because they invaded during the golden period where Byzantium, Bulgaria and Serbia were all three weak and separated.
Had they been a generation earlier, or a generation later, they would've met stronger opposition. This was the exact perfect time to invade.

>>1835655
This.

It also implies that "Europeans" were at constant war with the Turks.

>>1834881
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_2AA-2nAAE

I feel like this is appropirate

>>1835597
>Battle of Maritsa

>800 Ottomans vs 20 000 - 70 000 serbians

>Siege of Algeirs

>800 Ottos vs 12 000 sailors and 24 000 soldiers

>Battle of Gorjani Battle of Keresztes Battle of Preveza

Shut up kid.

>>1835661
>serbia

ottos literally invaded during the golden age of serbian ""empire"" where they are the largest and most powerful in the region

>>1835454
the dumbshit poles king is the reason the battle was lost in the first place, had he listened to janos hunyadi instead of charging like a retard into the masses of jannisaries the crusade of varna would be won

>>1835597

"In 1607 Ayn-i Ali Efendi reported that there were some 44,404 timars producing a mounted force of 105,339 men. It is clear, therefore, that Ottoman military supremacy was not achieved by superiority in numbers, as often was claimed by their defeated European enemies. Superiority in the quality of command, discipline, training, and tactics must, rather, have been the decisive factor"

-History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Volume 1 by Stanford J. Shaw

>>1834874
>Europeans

For a long time, the Habsburgs (HRE, Austria, Spain) were the only major player who cared about kicking the Ottomans out. The problem was, their neighbors (most importantly France and Poland) didn't want the Habsburgs to get too powerful. So the French signed a treaty with the Ottomans and any time the Habsburgs would wage war against the Ottomans they would also have to fear a French or Polish attack. The other parts of Europe were either irrelevant, had no strategic interest in Eastern Europe or hated the Habsburgs so much that they would rather cooperate with the Ottomans. Hell, even the fucking Pope allied with the Turks at one point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cognac

Eventually though, the balance of power shifted: Habsburg domination of Europe was no longer a possibility like under Charles V, and Russia became a relevant and fiercely anti-ottoman player. Also, a new Pope (Innocent XI) really wanted to be a cool crusading pope and fight the Ottomans. France meanwhile became the new Habsburgs as in the power everyone else teamed up against. By 1683 the Pope helped Poland, Russia, the HRE and most of Italy form an alliance both against the Ottomans and France. Soon, siege of Vienna fails and the Ottomans get kicked out of Hungary and the Ukraine.

>>1835768
>fear of polish attack
>1683

wut?

>>1835768
Also note that the French didn't fight the Russian-Polish-Habsburg etc. alliance in 1683, the strength of that alliance was enough to keep the French in check and not try to go come the aid of their Ottoman allies.

>>1835771
I said before 1683, they had a rivalry for a while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Polish_Succession

By the 1600s though they found a common enemy in the Ottomans who started capturing territories in the Polish sphere of influence.

>>1835791
>>1835777
Sorry, wrong link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Polish_Succession_(1587%E2%80%9388)

>>1835719
Except no, they invaded after Emperor Dušan's death when nobility began fighting each other.

>>1835792
In hindsight, wouldn't it have been better for Austrian side to have won that war?

>>1835689
imagine being a soldier in some godforsaken balkan army, d shit my pants if i hear these coming my way

>>1835991
The scariest thing I can imagine is being a Hungarian in the Battle of Mohacs.

The chaos that the Magyars must have felt as their entire army got shredded in 2 hours is terrifying,

Why so many people talk about Britain and France saving Ottomans from Russia in XIX when OP clearly meant times before when they were still expanding?

>>1834874

Because "the Europeans" weren't a monolithic entity, were usually at war with each other, and weren't particularly trying to strategically defeat the Ottomans and were often more interested in allying or trading with them

>>1836003
really, how about having to live every single moment of your life knowing that you are a turk, knowing that no matter what you do you will always be a turk.
This was you one shot at life and you became a turk.

>>1835697
"""Battle"""" of Maritsa

Turks knew they were going to lose to they broke a truce and attacked the serbs while they were sleeping during the night

>>1836257
>500 years later they still mad

>>1834874
Protestantism and France.

>>1836117
Because, in matters of history, everyone loves and prefers to talk about their favourite period/s and often knows just the basics outside that period/s. Early modern history is less popular than modern post-french revolution history.

>>1835689
I don't like ottoman's that much (worst gunpowder empire t.b.h.) but that was actually really cool.

Do you happen to know the name and the period?

>>1836337

pretty sure its called 'cedin deden'

The band is called mehter and they're really old. They were used for morale boosts while marching up until the 19th century where it was disbanded for a more modernized march.

the balkans were divided and weak which ottomans could eat up one by one

their expanding was based on success
>new land to loot and give out to the sipahis
>loyalty and military might
>fail and suddenly theres only empty promises

this cannot be kept up forever
Austria was also busy for the most part of the Ottoman expansion in europe

>>1835542
Nomad Mongols who later became Persianized and Arabized. Pretty cool if you ask me.

>>1835536
>he fell for literal soviet propaganda
Shame on you anon.

>>1836117
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Ottoman_alliance

>>1834874
There is a few cultural and economic reasons but lets talk about the economic reasons. First the Ottomans had a very good idea of what to do with conquered land. Rent it out, later on give the renter the option to either buy it in lump sum or via a mortgage type set up, afterwords tax the land. That gives a smaller overhead then direct management, improves labor relations, higher rural production, plus the ability to get cash on hand quickly. Simply put if peasants know they can get ahead inside the system they will work harder. Having more food coming from the country side and more demand for finished goods means the cities will do very nicely as well. The big issue is that state makes far less direct income over the long run.

The other big thing the Ottomans had going for them was a strong hand in setting trade terms. The most important trade routes in the 15th and mid 16th ran thru their lands. The Ottoman empire made a lot of money taxing Asian goods. Eastern christian ports weakened that so they started a lot of war to get those ports.

That in turn caused all the European states around the Mediterranean Sea save France to issue embargos in the 1560s. French traders could not get to Ottoman ports at the time anyways. So there was no foreign buyers i inside the Ottoman market. Then scale of the war caused the price of copper, tin, iron, slaves, and timber to go way to high. That in turn hurt production. War taxes were levied year in year out. In 1568 the Ottoman state sold the last of its owned European lands at fire sale prices. Then they turned to creditors for loans. In 1573 the Fourth Ottoman-Venetian War ended with the Ottomans getting a few now greatly devalued islands. The year afterword the Ottoman state declared bankruptcy and effectively disbanded its navy for the next 30 years. Egypt, a vassal of the Ottoman Empire at the time, opened up trade to more European trader in a effort to change the balance of power with it's overlord.

File: 2ec36d4566c1110b3f2f5d50706fe3ba.jpg (2MB, 1500x1278px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x1278px

>>1836603

>Egypt, a vassal of the Ottoman Empire at the time

I hope you're not talking about 16th century when you say 'at the time'

>>1836603
Egypt wasnt a vassal until Muhammad Ali's revolt in the 19th century...

>>1836603
Europeans Hated the Ottomans by that point and were more then happy to buy inside Egypt rather then in Ottoman ports. The other North African vassals also pushed against the leash at the same time.

That leaves the Ottoman's in the 1570s with unhappy allies, a unhappy domestic population, a tax based in the gutter, and a trade crisis. To back to OP's question the reason it took so long to strategically defeat the Ottomans is because there was no battle field victory that caused their defeat. European had a few victories but they could not make them stick. It ended up being a matter of endurance.

>>1836670
>Europeans

Here is that word again. You do know there were allies of Ottomans right? France, Dutch and Sweden.

>>1836626
>>1836638

In the mid 1570s Egypt had a Ottoman governor that was very weak and needed active support from the central government to do anything. It was to the point that the Mamluk army was signing trade deals with foreign powers, passing laws, enforcing their laws, taxing, doing public works, etc. On paper in Istanbul Egypt was a directly part of the Ottoman state.Egyptians and Europeans did not really see it that way at the time. It took a rather long time for that to change.

>>1836742
Did not know about the dutch and I though the Swedens ended up allying with the Ottomans later on over the issues of Russia. For the French it was a on again off again matter. As far as I know they were not partners in the 1570s. I am wrong on that?

>>1834874
without the silver of the americans , people would be talking turkish in liverpool.

>>1837334
So what you're saying is, America saved Yurop not only in the 19th and 20th centuries, but even before that? Truly America is the greatest nation on Earth.

>>1837413
They have to thank Bolivia this time.

The spaniard navy of the battle of lepanto was purchased with silver from potosi.

>>1835542
Good leadership, the sultan was a spot for "the strongest" son, basically a cold blooded psycopat killing his brothers to get power, this changed in 17/18th century and the new sultans became betas, instead of killing each other, making the sneakiest brother become sultan, the sultans started to have 1 wife, 2-3 sons which didnt compete, therefor poor leadership which led to stagnation.
Because ottoman empire wasnt like european "powers", in the empire you had 1 sultan who ruled over all, you didnt have wealthy aristrocrats like the french etc

>>1835991
Imagine the opposite, marsch to that... Marsch would be kray kray...