PDA

View Full Version : Today in history: The Battle of Lepanto



lasher
10-07-2014, 04:02 PM
Back when Europe had balls.




On this day in 1571 the Caliphate suffered their first major defeat and Christendom may have been saved forever.


Conflict:

The Battle of Lepanto was a key naval engagement during the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars.

Date:

The Holy League defeated the Ottomans at Lepanto on October 7, 1571.

Fleets & Commanders:

Holy League

Don John of Austria
206 galleys, 6 gallasses


Ottoman Empire

Ali Pasha
230 galleys, 56 galliots
Battle Summary:

In 1571, the Christian powers in the Mediterranean assembled a large fleet to confront the growing menace of the Ottoman Empire. Assembling at Messina, Sicily in July and August, the Christian force was led by Don John of Austria and contained vessels from Venice, Spain, the Papal States, Genoa, Savoy, and Malta. Sailing under the banner of the Holy League, Don John's fleet consisted of 206 galleys and 6 gallasses (large galleys that mounted artillery). Rowing east, they encountered the Ottoman fleet of Ali Pasha off Greece in the Gulf of Patras.

Commanding 230 galleys and 56 galliots (small galleys), Ali Pasha had departed his base at Lepanto and was moving west to intercept the Holy League's fleet. As the fleets sighted each other, they formed for battle. For the Holy League, Don John, aboard the galley Real, divided his force into four divisions, with the Venetians under Agostino Barbarigo on the left, himself in the center, the Genoese under Giovanni Andrea Doria on the right, and a reserve led by Álvaro de Bazán in the rear. In addition, he pushed gallasses out in front of his left and center divisions where they could bombard the Ottoman fleet.

Flying his flag from Sultana, Ali Pasha led the Ottoman center, with Chulouk Bey on the right and Uluj Ali on the left. As the battle opened, the Holy League's gallasses sank two galleys and disrupted the Ottoman formations with their fire. As the fleets neared, Doria saw that Uluj Ali's line extended beyond his own. Shifting south to avoid being flanked, Doria opened a gap between his division and Don John's. Seeing the hole, Uluj Ali turned north and attacked into the gap. Doria responded to this and soon his ships were dueling with Uluj Ali's.

To the north, Chulouk Bey succeeded in turning the Holy League's left flank, but determined resistance from the Venetians, and the timely arrival of a gallass, beat off the attack. Shortly after the battle began, the two flagships found each other and a desperate struggle began between Real and Sultana. Locked together, Spanish troops were twice repulsed when they tried to board the Ottoman galley and reinforcements from other vessels were needed to turn the tide. On the third attempt, with aid from Álvaro de Bazán's galley, Don John's men were able to take Sultana killing Ali Pasha in the process.

Against the wishes of Don John, Ali Pasha was beheaded and his head displayed on a pike. The sight of their commander's head had a severe impact on Ottoman morale and they began withdrawing around 4 PM. Uluj Ali, who had success against Doria and captured the Maltese flagship Capitana, retreated with sixteen galleys and twenty-four galliots.

Aftermath & Impact:

At the Battle of Lepanto, the Holy League lost 50 galleys and suffered approximately 13,000 casualties. This was offset by the freeing of a similar number of Christian slaves from the Ottoman ships. In addition to the death of Ali Pasha, the Ottomans lost 25,000 killed and wounded and an additional 3,500 captured. Their fleet lost 210 ships, of which 130 were captured by the Holy League. Coming at what was seen as a crisis point for Christianity, the victory at Lepanto stemmed Ottoman expansion in the Mediterranean and prevented their influence from spreading west.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles14011600/p/lepanto.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto

Tekkendo
10-07-2014, 04:06 PM
That must be blowback action from the West meddling in Middle East countries. Dr Paul said so.

TheJimmyRustler
10-07-2014, 04:08 PM
Flying his flag from Sultana, Ali Pasha led the Ottoman center

No wonder they lost, commander's ship was a damn grape.

tk217
10-07-2014, 04:08 PM
Smack down.

Tekkendo
10-07-2014, 04:29 PM
cjdvf01pJXg
The other 911. This brings tears to my eyes.

The second Battle of Vienna is one of the most important battles in history. The victory put an end to islam invasion of Europe, and sealed the fate of Ottoman.

Bullroarer
10-07-2014, 04:33 PM
Lepanto would make an epic movie. Too bad #Hollywoodhateschristians

Tekkendo
10-07-2014, 04:49 PM
MUo1lmPzfuo

Warning : Presence of pictorial depiction of execution and torture in a historical context. Do not view if not comfortable.

Stizzel
10-07-2014, 04:53 PM
Back when Europe had balls.



http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles14011600/p/lepanto.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto

I experience the battle of Lepanto every time I need the men's room after a night of drinking.

Ba-dum tsst

lasher
10-07-2014, 04:56 PM
[youtub.e]cjdvf01pJXg[/youtube]
The other 911. This brings tears to my eyes.

The second Battle of Vienna is one of the most important battles in history. The victory put an end to islam invasion of Europe, and sealed the fate of Ottoman.

Agreed. These were the two most important and decisive battles in European history in regard to the Ottoman expansion.

And on this day the Holy Roman Catholic Church trolls all of Islam :D

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2014-10-07


Feast day of Our Lady of the Rosary
This feast was instituted by Pope St. Pius V in thanksgiving for the great naval victory over the Turks at the battle of Lepanto on this day in the year 1571, a favor due to the recitation of the Rosary. This victory saved Europe from being overrun by the forces of Islam.

Lepanto, perhaps the most complete victory ever gained over the Ottoman Empire, on October 7, 1571, is commemorated by the invocation "Help of Christians," inserted in the Litany of Loretto. At Belgrade the Turks were defeated on the Feast of Our Lady ad Nives in 1716. A second victory gained that year on the Octave of the Assumption determined Pope Clement XI to command the Feast of the Rosary to be celebrated by the universal Church. Leo XIII added the invocation "Queen of the most Holy Rosary, pray for us," to the Litany of Loretto. The Feast is in reality a great festival of thanksgiving for the signal and countless benefits bestowed on Christendom through the Rosary of our blessed Queen.

In modern times successive popes have urged the faithful to pray the Rosary. It is a form of contemplative prayer, mental and vocal prayer, which brings down God’s blessing on the Church. It is a biblically inspired prayer which is centered on meditation on the salvific mysteries of Christ in union with Mary, who was so closely associated with her Son in his redeeming activity.

theoldnite
10-07-2014, 05:03 PM
it is regrettable that christianity was not wiped out by the ottomans

what a place the world would be if europe had been converted to muslimism.

no inquisition, no hitler, no nothing. it'd be so peaceful like bosnia is today






























wot

brighamw
10-07-2014, 05:04 PM
That must be blowback action from the West meddling in Middle East countries. Dr Paul said so.

Hehehelizard.jpg

lasher
10-07-2014, 05:04 PM
it is regrettable that christianity was not wiped out by the ottomans...


3/10 attempt

Sublime82
10-07-2014, 05:05 PM
Ah yes, one of the greatest naval battles of all time. I've always found it fascinating.

Tekkendo
10-07-2014, 05:05 PM
Agreed. These were the two most important and decisive battles in European history in regard to the Ottoman expansion.

And on this day the Holy Roman Catholic Church trolls all of Islam :D

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2014-10-07


Those men rescued civilization from the dark forces of the religion of peace. Had it not for those brave souls, the whole world would have been a shiete hole like the ME today.

We owe everything to them.

Stizzel
10-07-2014, 05:11 PM
Those men rescued civilization from the dark forces of the religion of peace. Had it not for those brave souls, the whole world would have been a shiete hole like the ME today.

We owe everything to them.

You can rest assured that every brown child you bomb honors their spirit

Tekkendo
10-07-2014, 05:11 PM
haha not trying very hard to rustle jimmies at the moment, too caught up in cramming for dat der bio midterm that will penetrate my angus tomorrow, just needed a bit of a break from the boredom

..and back to it :(
For such blasphemy, you have earned an extended stay in purgatory, sucka.

jbball92
10-07-2014, 05:34 PM
I remember you could re-enact the battle on Age of Empires 2, well idk about re-enact, but play a scenario lol

l1Xgo7f5AfU

lasher
10-07-2014, 06:00 PM
Lepanto would make an epic movie. Too bad #Hollywoodhateschristians

They could just give it a PC we-hate-western-civilization-liblove makeover like they did with Kingdom of Heaven.

Foldingson
10-07-2014, 06:04 PM
American Muslim checking in.

fiberbrah
10-07-2014, 06:13 PM
mirin battle results

Ee-FCLlI4ZI

lasher
10-07-2014, 06:15 PM
Obligatory book recommendation.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0330431587/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_img?_encoding=UTF8&colid=IGNF0M0RRE75&coliid=IP7YCJN4ZHE2Z

Victory of the West: The Story of the Battle of Lepanto

http://i43.tower.com/images/mm107777938/victory-west-story-battle-lepanto-niccolo-capponi-paperback-cover-art.jpg



On 7 October 1571, on the gulf between mainland Greece and the Peloponnese, the fleets of the Ottoman Empire and the Christian Holy League met in a battle that would prove the crux of that century's war between Christianity and Islam. No naval battle until Jutland in 1916 - not even Trafalgar - involved such numerous forces, and in no previous encounter with the Ottomans had the Christians met with success. In this compelling piece of narrative history, Niccolo Capponi takes a fresh look at the last great, bloody, and crucial showdown between oared fighting galleys, which - like the legendary battles of Salamis, Waterloo and Stalingrad - halted the progress of a force that had hitherto seemed unstoppable.


Another good one.

http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Sea-Battle-Lepanto-Contest/dp/0812977645/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1953VXADJQ0YRFM9VKMV

Empires of the Sea: The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Contest for the Center of the World

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61O3W9Oz95L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


In 1521, Suleiman the Magnificent, Muslim ruler of the Ottoman Empire, dispatched an invasion fleet to the Christian island of Rhodes. This would prove to be the opening shot in an epic clash between rival empires and faiths for control of the Mediterranean and the center of the world. In Empires of the Sea, acclaimed historian Roger Crowley has written a thrilling account of this brutal decades-long battle between Christendom and Islam for the soul of Europe, a fast-paced tale of spiraling intensity that ranges from Istanbul to the Gates of Gibraltar. Crowley conjures up a wild cast of pirates, crusaders, and religious warriors struggling for supremacy and survival in a tale of slavery and galley warfare, desperate bravery and utter brutality. Empires of the Sea is a story of extraordinary color and incident, and provides a crucial context for our own clash of civilizations.


Edit: Can't believe I forgot this gem among jewels.

http://www.amazon.com/How-West-Won-Neglected-Modernity-ebook/dp/B00JK4OS0K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412732154&sr=8-1&keywords=how+the+west+was+won+stark

How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511W8orbryL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-v3-big,TopRight,0,-55_SX324_SY324_PIkin4,BottomRight,1,22_AA346_SH20_ OU01_.jpg


Finally the Truth about the Rise of the West

Modernity developed only in the West—in Europe and North America. Nowhere else did science and democracy arise; nowhere else was slavery outlawed. Only Westerners invented chimneys, musical scores, telescopes, eyeglasses, pianos, electric lights, aspirin, and soap.

The question is, Why?

Unfortunately, that question has become so politically incorrect that most scholars avoid it. But acclaimed author Rodney Stark provides the answers in this sweeping new look at Western civilization.

How the West Won demonstrates the primacy of uniquely Western ideas—among them the belief in free will, the commitment to the pursuit of knowledge, the notion that the universe functions according to rational rules that can be dis­covered, and the emphasis on human freedom and secure property rights.

Taking readers on a thrilling journey from ancient Greece to the present, Stark challenges much of the received wisdom about Western his­tory. How the West Won shows, for example:
• Why the fall of Rome was the single most beneficial event in the rise of Western civilization
• Why the “Dark Ages” never happened
• Why the Crusades had nothing to do with grabbing loot or attacking the Muslim world unprovoked
• Why there was no “Scientific Revolution” in the seventeenth century
• Why scholars’ recent efforts to dismiss the importance of battles are ridiculous: had the Greeks lost at the Battle of Marathon, we probably would never have heard of Plato or Aristotle

Stark also debunks absurd fabrications that have flourished in the past few decades: that the Greeks stole their culture from Africa; that the West’s “discoveries” were copied from the Chinese and Muslims; that Europe became rich by plundering the non-Western world. At the same time, he reveals the woeful inadequacy of recent attempts to attribute the rise of the West to purely material causes—favorable climates, abundant natural resources, guns and steel.

How the West Won displays Rodney Stark’s gifts for lively narrative history and making the latest scholarship accessible to all readers. This bold, insightful book will force you to rethink your understanding of the West and the birth of modernity—and to recognize that Western civilization really has set itself apart from other cultures.

Foldingson
10-07-2014, 06:18 PM
Obligatory book recommendation.



Victory of the West: The Story of the Battle of Lepanto
g]

Europe is being recaptured by Islam, again. We taking over UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway

jbball92
10-07-2014, 06:19 PM
Obligatory book recommendation.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0330431587/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_img?_encoding=UTF8&colid=IGNF0M0RRE75&coliid=IP7YCJN4ZHE2Z

Victory of the West: The Story of the Battle of Lepanto

http://i43.tower.com/images/mm107777938/victory-west-story-battle-lepanto-niccolo-capponi-paperback-cover-art.jpg

have you ever read Romance of the Three Kingdoms?

fiberbrah
10-07-2014, 06:20 PM
Europe is being recaptured by Islam, again. We taking over UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway

Are you the guy that always said "nothing will change in uk, france, netherlands and norway"???

Front national buddy

Foldingson
10-07-2014, 06:21 PM
Are you the guy that always said "nothing will change in uk, france, netherlands and norway"???

Front national buddy

No, I'm the guy that said UK, France, and the greater Western Europe will taken over by muslims.

lasher
10-07-2014, 06:26 PM
have you ever read Romance of the Three Kingdoms?

No, in fact one of my biggest weaknesses is on chinese history. I plan to rectify that eventually..

tk217
10-07-2014, 06:33 PM
No, in fact one of my biggest weaknesses is on chinese history. I plan to rectify that eventually..

No Liu Bei for you.

jbball92
10-07-2014, 06:33 PM
No, in fact one of my biggest weaknesses is on chinese history. I plan to rectify that eventually..
yeah its pretty interesting, if you end up checking it out, get the unabridged version which has a lot more material on policy, politics and military strategy if that interests you. love reading about historical stuff, really helps put things in perspective.

tk217
10-07-2014, 06:35 PM
yeah its pretty interesting, if you end up checking it out, get the unabridged version which has a lot more material on policy, politics and military strategy if that interests you. love reading about historical stuff, really helps put things in perspective.

CaoCao laughs at your Western Perspective.

Tekkendo
10-07-2014, 06:40 PM
have you ever read Romance of the Three Kingdoms?
An epic of backstabbing and double dealing.. :D

Tekkendo
10-07-2014, 06:41 PM
yeah its pretty interesting, if you end up checking it out, get the unabridged version which has a lot more material on policy, politics and military strategy if that interests you. love reading about historical stuff, really helps put things in perspective.
It is a FICTION. :D It isn't a chronicle of real history.

lasher
10-07-2014, 06:42 PM
yeah its pretty interesting, if you end up checking it out, get the unabridged version which has a lot more material on policy, politics and military strategy if that interests you. love reading about historical stuff, really helps put things in perspective.

added to the amazon wishlist. ty for the recommendation broseph.

Tekkendo
10-07-2014, 06:43 PM
No Liu Bei for you.

The one i admire is Zhao Yun. :D He was flawless. :D

Foldingson
10-07-2014, 06:44 PM
It is a FICTION. :D It isn't a chronicle of real history.

White births are minority, which means more democrats.

Tekkendo
10-07-2014, 06:46 PM
added to the amazon wishlist. ty for the recommendation broseph.
fuk that


Watch it on youtube. :D Fookin awesome. :D Can even learn a few Chinese. lol

_8rkcJ5sYDI

Tekkendo
10-07-2014, 06:47 PM
White births are minority, which means more democrats.
I fuk bitches of all colors, all parties and all religions. U mad, phaggot?

jbball92
10-07-2014, 06:48 PM
It is a FICTION. :D It isn't a chronicle of real history.
eh its a historical novel, and alot of which is accurate, and draws from historical sources

iabs
10-07-2014, 06:53 PM
That must be blowback action from the West meddling in Middle East countries. Dr Paul said so.


http://i.imgur.com/5AjjZiD.gif

PaulG
10-07-2014, 06:55 PM
No,

u wot


Xiahou Dun lost his left eye when he was a hit by a stray arrow during a battle against Lü Bu in the late 190s, and subsequently became known among the rank and file as "Blind Xiahou". His image as a one-eyed warrior was popularised by Luo Guanzhong's historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms, in which he yanked the arrow out and devoured his eyeball.

Learned all I need to know from Dynasty Warriors 1-2. Wei savages crew.

Why do we use X for so many Chinese annunciations. It should be Ghiahou Dun.

Tekkendo
10-07-2014, 06:56 PM
eh its a historical novel, and alot of which is accurate, and draws from historical sources
Yes many of the main characters were historical and the main plots and events were historical. It is still a fiction with a boat load of colorful story telling, exaggeration, fictional events and fictional characters added. Else it would be too fuking boring. lol It is one of China's epic fictions. The story telling and plots are truly epic. Machiavellianism, Chinese style. Well worth reading, no doubt.

lasher
10-07-2014, 06:58 PM
White births are minority, which means more democrats.

strong psycho stalker.

http://i60.tinypic.com/2zdrk1d.png

http://oi58.tinypic.com/e5mp9l.jpg


why do white christians hate black christians more than white atheists?

hmm...

tk217
10-07-2014, 08:24 PM
The one i admire is Zhao Yun. :D He was flawless. :D

Such perfect hair.

Fuarkquaad
10-08-2014, 01:20 AM
i think the battle of Yarmouk had a greater effect on the world than the muslim defeat at the battle of Lepanto (there is a move in a strategy game i play based on this to defeat Turkey, pretty cool.) Who knows what the world would look like now if Khalid ibn Walid's army had lost. Although exact numbers on both sides of the armies are unknown, the Rashiduns were heavily out numbered

http://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-yarmuk-636.htm

TheJimmyRustler
10-08-2014, 02:19 AM
i think the battle of Yarmouk had a greater effect on the world than the muslim defeat at the battle of Lepanto (there is a move in a strategy game i play based on this to defeat Turkey, pretty cool.) Who knows what the world would look like now if Khalid ibn Walid's army had lost. Although exact numbers on both sides of the armies are unknown, the Rashiduns were heavily out numbered

http://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-yarmuk-636.htm

I considered posting something about Yarmouk to irreversibly rustle OP's jimmies (can't let him have his fun now, can I?) but then I decided not to be such a cheeky kunt.

I see you have no love for our resident Catholic/Protestant bro (sorry Lasher, I honestly can never remember which you are. "Proth-olic" from now on to keep it easy)

Fuarkquaad
10-08-2014, 02:26 AM
I considered posting something about Yarmouk to irreversibly rustle OP's jimmies (can't let him have his fun now, can I?) but then I decided not to be such a cheeky kunt.

I see you have no love for our resident Catholic/Protestant bro (sorry Lasher, I honestly can never remember which you are. "Proth-olic" from now on to keep it easy)

your name is a mockery. i thought you would live up to it but alas you've broken my heart like that fukin sloot did

Tekkendo
10-08-2014, 06:51 AM
i think the battle of Yarmouk had a greater effect on the world than the muslim defeat at the battle of Lepanto (there is a move in a strategy game i play based on this to defeat Turkey, pretty cool.) Who knows what the world would look like now if Khalid ibn Walid's army had lost. Although exact numbers on both sides of the armies are unknown, the Rashiduns were heavily out numbered

http://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-yarmuk-636.htm
If Walid had lost, may be the ME would be Christianized and be a better place than the murderous cesspool it is today. It would not have affected the western world much, b/c despite losing, the West moved on to greater glory. Had the west won instead, it would be ho hum, just another battle. So no, it is not a significant battle.

It pales in comparison to Christian victories at the battle of Malta, the battle of Lapento and the second battle of Vienna. B/c losing those would have huge negative impact on human civilization.

TheJimmyRustler
10-08-2014, 07:07 AM
If Walid had lost, may be the ME would be Christianized and be a better place than the murderous cesspool it is today. It would not have affected the western world much, b/c despite losing, the West moved on to greater glory. Had the west won instead, it would be ho hum, just another battle. So no, it is not a significant battle.

It pales in comparison to Christian victories at the battle of Malta, the battle of Lapento and the second battle of Vienna. B/c losing those would have huge negative impact on human civilization.

I beg to differ. Rome had finally subdued the Persians and was recovering. There were still huge problems with the finances of the empire and religious/public disorder was a major problem but Heraclius had guided the empire through a major crisis. If Yarmouk had been won then the Romans would have held onto Syria/Palestine/Egypt/North Africa and perhaps regained their former strength. The potential for continued Roman success in philosophy, science, mathematics etc is something that we'll never know, but I'll wager it would have been great had they been able to recover and become a strong, prosperous power again.

Tekkendo
10-08-2014, 08:30 AM
I beg to differ. Rome had finally subdued the Persians and was recovering. There were still huge problems with the finances of the empire and religious/public disorder was a major problem but Heraclius had guided the empire through a major crisis. If Yarmouk had been won then the Romans would have held onto Syria/Palestine/Egypt/North Africa and perhaps regained their former strength. The potential for continued Roman success in philosophy, science, mathematics etc is something that we'll never know, but I'll wager it would have been great had they been able to recover and become a strong, prosperous power again.

You obviously unable to weight the consequences of FAILURE.

The failure at Yarmonk didn't result in the doom of the west. It only doomed the ME to the curse of the regressive forces of religion of peace. It is only significant to them, although they deny it. :D Let them be bliss in their ignorance. :D

The failure at Lepanto, Malta, Vienna would have doomed the west. We would be banging our heads on the dirt floor 5 times a day now.

TheJimmyRustler
10-08-2014, 09:25 AM
You obviously unable to weight the consequences of FAILURE.

The failure at Yarmonk didn't result in the doom of the west. It only doomed the ME to the curse of the regressive forces of religion of peace. It is only significant to them, although they deny it. :D Let them be bliss in their ignorance. :D

The failure at Lepanto, Malta, Vienna would have doomed the west. We would be banging our heads on the dirt floor 5 times a day now.

There's no question that those were incredibly significant battles. I'm saying that Yarmouk certainly was as well, and had it been won, and if the Romans had got back on their feet (a pretty big if, I'm aware) there's no telling what the possibilities for humanity could have been. The best-case scenario would be one in which the Romans would continue building on their achievements with regards to maths, science, medicine, architecture etc and have greatly furthered human progress in doing so. And if the empire had stabilised enough to be able to counter the Seljuks, Mongols and Timurids in the following centuries...that would have been pretty damn incredible.

Instead Heraclius chilled in Antioch, delegating command of the battle to competing commanders with their own armies of ethnically diverse troops and who showed little tactical ability when it came to crunch-time. Funny how one man sitting something out changed human history forever.

Fuarkquaad
10-08-2014, 08:52 PM
You obviously unable to weight the consequences of FAILURE.

The failure at Yarmonk didn't result in the doom of the west. It only doomed the ME to the curse of the regressive forces of religion of peace. It is only significant to them, although they deny it. :D Let them be bliss in their ignorance. :D

The failure at Lepanto, Malta, Vienna would have doomed the west. We would be banging our heads on the dirt floor 5 times a day now.

thats just a matter of perception. nearly all of the problems in the middle east came after the ottoman empire was disbanded. As they say all empires come to an end and the ottoman empire was decaying during the late 19th century. Whilst Europe was in the dark ages it was cities such as Cordoba and Baghdad that led the world in all sorts of advances, be they scientific, philosophical, architecture etc

uwootm8
10-08-2014, 09:04 PM
You obviously unable to weight the consequences of FAILURE.

The failure at Yarmonk didn't result in the doom of the west. It only doomed the ME to the curse of the regressive forces of religion of peace. It is only significant to them, although they deny it. :D Let them be bliss in their ignorance. :D

The failure at Lepanto, Malta, Vienna would have doomed the west. We would be banging our heads on the dirt floor 5 times a day now.

Don't be too glad :D

Empires rise and fall. Just as rome and persia fell to a bunch of desert dwellers who ate dried meat and drank camel milk if they could get it. Perhaps the west might not stay on top forever either.

It's interesting to think of. I wonder what the world will look like in another 500 years.

Dave22reborn
10-08-2014, 11:18 PM
Don't be too glad :D

Empires rise and fall. Just as rome and persia fell to a bunch of desert dwellers who ate dried meat and drank camel milk if they could get it. Perhaps the west might not stay on top forever either.

It's interesting to think of. I wonder what the world will look like in another 500 years.

Scientists estimate that by the year 2500, the world's population will be around 250 to 300 million people due to the depletion of resources.

Tekkendo
10-08-2014, 11:29 PM
Three hundred years ago, in the summer of 1683, the main army of the Ottoman Empire, a large and well-equipped force, besieged Vienna. The town was nearing the end of its ability to resist: but just as the capture of Vienna was becoming only a matter of time – not more than a week away, at most – an army came to its rescue. On September 12th, in an open battle before Vienna, the Ottoman army was defeated, and the city escaped pillage and destruction. There is probably no book on the general history of Europe that does not record these events.

The Chief Commander of the army that rescued Vienna was the Polish King, Jan Sobieski. He brought with him about 23,000 soldiers, without whom the combined forces of the Emperor and the Imperial princes were not have ventured an open battle. It was only the combination of all three that made victory possible.


Was the battle at the gates of Vienna really important enough to justify all the fuss being made about it this year? After all, it was not the first battle won by a Christian army over Ottoman forces. However, it marks a turning point: not only was further Ottoman advance on Christian territories stopped, but in the following war that lasted up to 1698 almost all of Hungary was reconquered by the army of Emperor Leopold I. From 1683 the Ottoman Turks ceased to be a menace to the Christian world. In the two hundred and thirty years that followed the Ottoman Turks lost all the Christian lands they had conquered in the previous three-and-a-half-centuries. The outcome for the Christian world was enormously valuable: no longer were the Christians terrified by real or imagined attacks by the huge and efficient war machinery of the Ottoman Empire, and the expenditure on the Christian defence organisation to stop further Ottoman advance was reduced considerably.


http://www.historytoday.com/walter-leitsch/1683-siege-vienna


cjdvf01pJXg

Brings tears to my eyes.

Tekkendo
10-08-2014, 11:35 PM
and the moron crew keep trying to feed us the crap about how islamist aggression is only a recent event due to the west meddling in the ME.....when in reality those scumbags have been pulling that scheme for centuries and centuries.

uwootm8
10-09-2014, 12:27 AM
Scientists estimate that by the year 2500, the world's population will be around 250 to 300 million people due to the depletion of resources.

Source????

Pretty sure by then we will have other sources of energy + asteroid mining (which we will see in our lifetime)

Fuarkquaad
10-09-2014, 12:38 AM
and the moron crew keep trying to feed us the crap about how islamist aggression is only a recent event due to the west meddling in the ME.....when in reality those scumbags have been pulling that scheme for centuries and centuries.

lol who was the byzantanine empire in the middle east. ahh some desert dwellers with inferior numbers managed to defeat two of the biggest empires at that time

lasher
10-09-2014, 01:50 AM
lol who was the byzantanine empire in the middle east. ahh some desert dwellers with inferior numbers managed to defeat two of the biggest empires at that time

Only after Persia and Rome spent the previous several decades beating each other to a bloody pulp. The Arab uprising had two things going for it. Surprise, and good timing.

Fuarkquaad
10-09-2014, 02:43 AM
Only after Persia and Rome spent the previous several decades beating each other to a bloody pulp. The Arab uprising had two things going for it. Surprise, and good timing.

Wrong, Persia and Rome still had their military intact.That was the only thing holding them together whilst their empires began to decay. Rome consistently fielded larger and numerous armies and Khalid ibn Al Walid destroyed them one by one until he gathered his forces and defeated them at Yarmouk due to this.The Persian army was defeated in four successive battles. He never lost a battle or a personal challenge, usually taking out several of their leaders before the battles even began. You're telling me that it was only due to suprise and timing? At most they helped a bit. You just don't want to admit they were better fighters and had better leaders.The Arabs had the desert to their back and were more mobile. I would also say they had more morale and faith which was a very definitive factor, and the people of the lands they conquered nearly always favoured their rule due to having lower taxes lol.

Tekkendo
10-09-2014, 07:40 AM
lol who was the byzantanine empire in the middle east. ahh some desert dwellers with inferior numbers managed to defeat two of the biggest empires at that time
Byzantine was long past its prime and had been in decline before that. Constantinople was an empty shell of itself with most residents gone already, left for other prospering cities. By the time the city fell, there were only 50k residents.

Thanks for trying.

Tekkendo
10-09-2014, 07:43 AM
Wrong, Persia and Rome still had their military intact.That was the only thing holding them together whilst their empires began to decay. Rome consistently fielded larger and numerous armies and Khalid ibn Al Walid destroyed them one by one until he gathered his forces and defeated them at Yarmouk due to this.The Persian army was defeated in four successive battles. He never lost a battle or a personal challenge, usually taking out several of their leaders before the battles even began. You're telling me that it was only due to suprise and timing? At most they helped a bit. You just don't want to admit they were better fighters and had better leaders.The Arabs had the desert to their back and were more mobile. I would also say they had more morale and faith which was a very definitive factor, and the people of the lands they conquered nearly always favoured their rule due to having lower taxes lol.

Rome didn't give a shiete about Constantinople. Hell, the crusaders even attacked and conquered Constantinople.

You numbnuts are confusing Rome of Italy with Constantinople of Byzantine. Rome of Italy has never been taken by the muzzies.


And if the dumbarss superstitious idiots want to fulfill their dumbasre superstitious prophecy, they would have to attack Turkey and conquer Istanbul. LMFAO.

DaveReborn23
10-09-2014, 08:56 AM
Race is bigger topic than religion, srs.

TheJimmyRustler
10-09-2014, 09:21 AM
You numbnuts are confusing Rome of Italy with Constantinople of Byzantine. Rome of Italy has never been taken by the muzzies.


No, we're calling the people living within the Roman Empire what the people living within it called themselves - Romans. They didn't describe themselves as the Byzantines, so it comes down to preference. The two are interchangeable so long as one knows who's talking about what.



Wrong, Persia and Rome still had their military intact.That was the only thing holding them together whilst their empires began to decay. Rome consistently fielded larger and numerous armies and Khalid ibn Al Walid destroyed them one by one until he gathered his forces and defeated them at Yarmouk due to this.The Persian army was defeated in four successive battles. He never lost a battle or a personal challenge, usually taking out several of their leaders before the battles even began. You're telling me that it was only due to suprise and timing? At most they helped a bit. You just don't want to admit they were better fighters and had better leaders.The Arabs had the desert to their back and were more mobile. I would also say they had more morale and faith which was a very definitive factor, and the people of the lands they conquered nearly always favoured their rule due to having lower taxes lol.


The Roman army at Yarmouk was a multi-national army; if I remember rightly their soldiers included Slavs, Normans and Franks along with Arab allies, and I believe at least one or two commanders were "barbarians" as well. They also disliked eachother, argued about how the battle should be fought, etc. At Yarmouk the Romans showed no real tactical skill - they never really used their heavy cavalry at all. Yarmouk was basically Cannae 2.0 in that it showed that numbers could be overwhelmed by a well-led fighting force.

It's also very true that morale was a large factor; there was religious disorder throughout the Roman empire due to the existence of different denominations and conflicts between them. Not only did this mean there were huge disturbances and divisions based on religion but morale was also affected; people became convinced that the "Saracens" were a curse sent by god; each victory reinforced the legend, and each strengthening of the legend contributed to the next victory. Also, the Jews had actively helped the Persians in the previous war and, as you said, taxation was a major problem. The Roman economy was so bad that Heraclius had had to melt down the gold from churches to finance his war against the Persians. In short the Roman situation, domestically, was in a pretty piss-poor state, the army at Yarmouk and its commanders were divided (not physically) and showed no tactical prowess in battle, ie a repeat of Cannae.

As for the Persians, keep in mind that Heraclius had absolutely humbled them, destroying their armies, killing generals and laying waste to their country. Not only that but king after king of the Persians was killed and replaced by the unhappy Persians following the ending of the war. Heraclius planned to co-ordinate attacks against the Arabs with the Persians, but they were so sloppy in getting their schit together that never ever came of it. In short the Persians were incredibly unstable after the war with Rome, so their defeat isn't that great of a surprise.

As for the Arabs, it's absolutely true that they fought well and, in my opinion, were commanded even better. Khalid was a military genius and the Arabs capitalised on their military successes. The success of the Arabs was never impossible - it had plenty going for it. But nonetheless the Arabs had brave soldiers, brilliant commanders and sheer blind luck on their side.

Tekkendo
10-09-2014, 09:28 AM
No, we're calling the people living within the Roman Empire what the people living within it called themselves - Romans. They didn't describe themselves as the Byzantines, so it comes down to preference. The two are interchangeable so long as one knows who's talking about what.


Rome is Rome. Byzantine is Byzantine. Constantinople is not Rome. Rome has never been conquered by muzzies. Constantinople OTOH was even sacked and conquered by the crusaders sent by Rome. Byzantine was past its prome and went downhill from there and hardly recovered by the time Ottoman breached its wall. There were only 50k people left in Constantinople by the end. lol Great military power that was. LOL

But lets carry on with the muzzie delusion. lol

TheJimmyRustler
10-09-2014, 10:27 AM
Rome is Rome. Byzantine is Byzantine. Constantinople is not Rome. Rome has never been conquered by muzzies. Constantinople OTOH was even sacked and conquered by the crusaders sent by Rome. Byzantine was past its prome and went downhill from there and hardly recovered by the time Ottoman breached its wall. There were only 50k people left in Constantinople by the end. lol Great military power that was. LOL

But lets carry on with the muzzie delusion. lol

Rome the city is Rome. The Roman empire was what they conquered, which included the territory we came to call the "Byzantine empire." In truth it was what remained of the Roman Empire that never fell when the West did, thus it was the Roman empire. They called themselves Romans. They were called the Romans. They were the last remnants of the Roman empire.

Tekkendo
10-09-2014, 11:03 AM
Rome the city is Rome. The Roman empire was what they conquered, which included the territory we came to call the "Byzantine empire." In truth it was what remained of the Roman Empire that never fell when the West did, thus it was the Roman empire. They called themselves Romans. They were called the Romans. They were the last remnants of the Roman empire.

It was not the remain of the Roman Empire. The Roman empire splitted into Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire. The Western Roman empire had its capital in Rome. The Eastern Roman Empire is the Byzantine Empire with its capital at Constantinople. There are separate entities.

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/maps/images/085%20Eastern%20&%20Western%20Roman%20Empires%20Map.jpg


Ottoman empire. See Italy et al was never a part of it.

http://media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/89/4789-004-2F86E60E.jpg


And the muzzies got their anal virgin destruction on Sept 12 1683 at the gate of Vienna. And Ottoman spent the next 200 years losing every piece of Christian land they conquered in the 350 yrs before, back to the Christians. And we can see that the muzzies are still sore over it. LOL

TheJimmyRustler
10-09-2014, 12:34 PM
It was not the remain of the Roman Empire. The Roman empire splitted into Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire. The Western Roman empire had its capital in Rome. The Eastern Roman Empire is the Byzantine Empire with its capital at Constantinople. There are separate entities.

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/maps/images/%20Roman%20Empires%20Map.jpg


Ottoman empire. See Italy et al was never a part of it.

http://media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/89/2F86E60E.jpg


And the muzzies got their anal virgin destruction on Sept 12 1683 at the gate of Vienna. And Ottoman spent the next 200 years losing every piece of Christian land they conquered in the 350 yrs before, back to the Christians. And we can see that the muzzies are still sore over it. LOL

It was indeed the remains of the Roman empire, because it was - wait for it - the Eastern Roman Empire. If the WRE had continued on throughout the same period we would still refer to the ERE, and be correct in doing so, as Roman. They called themselves Romans. They were the remnants of the Roman empire.

Tekkendo
10-09-2014, 12:38 PM
It was indeed the remains of the Roman empire, because it was - wait for it - the Eastern Roman Empire. If the WRE had continued on throughout the same period we would still refer to the ERE, and be correct in doing so, as Roman. They called themselves Romans. They were the remnants of the Roman empire.

Whatever. Enjoy your delusion. Wouldn't want to deprive you of that.

TheJimmyRustler
10-09-2014, 12:39 PM
Whatever. Enjoy your delusion. Wouldn't want to deprive you of that.

Can't say I'm deluded by the facts, I just accept them.

Tekkendo
10-09-2014, 12:46 PM
In the 12th century,[2] the city was the largest and wealthiest European city.[3] Eventually, the Byzantine Empire in the east was reduced to just its capital and its environs, falling to the Ottoman Empire in 1453.

Constantinople contained numerous artistic and literary treasures before it was sacked in 1204 and 1453.[4] It was virtually depopulated when it fell to the Ottoman Turks,...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople




The final centuries of the Empire exhibited a general trend of decline. It struggled to recover during the 12th century, but was delivered a mortal blow during the Fourth Crusade, when Constantinople was sacked and the Empire dissolved and divided into competing Byzantine Greek and Latin realms. Despite the eventual recovery of Constantinople and re-establishment of the Empire in 1261, Byzantium remained only one of several small rival states in the area for the final two centuries of its existence.

We muzzies defeated the GREAT MIGHTY ROMAN EMPIRE!! No really !! SRSLY!! It is da fact!!!!!

http://mlpchan.net/anon/src/1410125539857.gif

TheJimmyRustler
10-09-2014, 01:31 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople




We muzzies defeated the GREAT MIGHTY ROMAN EMPIRE!! No really !! SRSLY!! It is da fact!!!!!

http://mlpchan.net/anon/src/14101255857.gif

Wikipedia is surely the font of knowledge.

You aware that the term "Byzantine" didn't come into use until about the 18th century?
You aware that they called themselves Romans?
Their coins and imperial titles even explicitly described the king as "king of the Romans."

Byzantine = Roman

Tekkendo
10-09-2014, 02:43 PM
Wikipedia is surely the font of knowledge.

You aware that the term "Byzantine" didn't come into use until about the 18th century?
You aware that they called themselves Romans?
Their coins and imperial titles even explicitly described the king as "king of the Romans."

Byzantine = Roman

Stay stupid all you want. Doesn't matter to anyone.

TheJimmyRustler
10-09-2014, 03:05 PM
Stay stupid all you want. Doesn't matter to anyone.

Stay incapable of actually arguing your point all you want, doesn't change the fact that Byzantine and Roman are interchangeable terms.

PrettyPinkDonut
10-09-2014, 03:33 PM
Kind of funny that the day prior in history, William Tyndale was strangled to death for "heresy".

uwootm8
10-09-2014, 04:33 PM
Wrong, Persia and Rome still had their military intact.That was the only thing holding them together whilst their empires began to decay. Rome consistently fielded larger and numerous armies and Khalid ibn Al Walid destroyed them one by one until he gathered his forces and defeated them at Yarmouk due to this.The Persian army was defeated in four successive battles. He never lost a battle or a personal challenge, usually taking out several of their leaders before the battles even began. You're telling me that it was only due to suprise and timing? At most they helped a bit. You just don't want to admit they were better fighters and had better leaders.The Arabs had the desert to their back and were more mobile. I would also say they had more morale and faith which was a very definitive factor, and the people of the lands they conquered nearly always favoured their rule due to having lower taxes lol.

This too. Though what lasher said definitely helped, the arabs were still disadvantaged.

Religious zeal (the Prophet predicted Persia's fall to the Muslims, infact promised it), God's hand (if you believe in Islam), etc. had to do with it in my opinion. Though I haven't read the battles in great detail.

yg7s7
10-09-2014, 05:03 PM
have you ever read Romance of the Three Kingdoms?

one of the best books I've ever read. has a lot of military tactics and politics and overall is very entertaining.


yeah its pretty interesting, if you end up checking it out, get the unabridged version which has a lot more material on policy, politics and military strategy if that interests you. love reading about historical stuff, really helps put things in perspective.


It is a FICTION. :D It isn't a chronicle of real history.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms, written by Luo Guanzhong, is a historical novel loosely based on Records of the Three Kingdoms written by Chen Shou

A lot of events in it are products of Luo's imagination, but the main characters and the big picture are the same. The thing is Luo was a Shu-nuthugger so he depicted Zhuge Liang as a super genius and Cao Cao as an evil villain (Cao Cao did commit things like Xu Province massacre though). He pretty much glamorized all the main Shu Generals lol.

Many of the 1 vs 1 battles are also fictional, though Guan Yu killing Yan Liang like a badass actually happened. The funny thing about Guan Yu is he became popular through ROTK and even worshipped as God by some people in China nowadays all thanks to Luo Guanzhong's effort

Regardless, it's a great book


P.S: speaking of glamorization I read a Japanese manga called "Souten Kouro" which has Cao Cao as the main character because the writer is Wei-nuthugger and it depicts him as the super genius lol
http://thumbnail.egloos.net/600x0/http://pds25.egloos.com/pds/201405/17/99/c0102099_53763315de962.png






The one i admire is Zhao Yun. :D He was flawless. :D

for me Zhang Liao is the best lol. dat dere battle of Hefei

Jezeus
10-09-2014, 05:23 PM
The Christians won the battle but the Ottomans actually won the war.


The war, the preeminent episode of Sultan Selim II's reign, began with the Ottoman invasion of the Venetian-held island of Cyprus. The capital Nicosia and several other towns fell quickly to the considerably superior Ottoman army, leaving only Famagusta in Venetian hands. Christian reinforcements were delayed, and Famagusta eventually fell in August 1571 after a siege of 11 months. Two months later, at the Battle of Lepanto, the united Christian fleet destroyed the Ottoman fleet, but was unable to take advantage of this victory. The Ottomans quickly rebuilt their naval forces, and Venice was forced to negotiate a separate peace, ceding Cyprus to the Ottomans and paying a tribute of 300,000 ducats.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Venetian_War_(1570%E2%80%931573)

Fuarkquaad
10-09-2014, 06:09 PM
Stay incapable of actually arguing your point all you want, doesn't change the fact that Byzantine and Roman are interchangeable terms.

just leave him he seems to be one of the stupidest posters ive seen here lol. The byzantines were the Eastern Roman empire

Fuarkquaad
10-09-2014, 06:26 PM
The Roman army at Yarmouk was a multi-national army; if I remember rightly their soldiers included Slavs, Normans and Franks along with Arab allies, and I believe at least one or two commanders were "barbarians" as well. They also disliked eachother, argued about how the battle should be fought, etc. At Yarmouk the Romans showed no real tactical skill - they never really used their heavy cavalry at all. Yarmouk was basically Cannae 2.0 in that it showed that numbers could be overwhelmed by a well-led fighting force.

It's also very true that morale was a large factor; there was religious disorder throughout the Roman empire due to the existence of different denominations and conflicts between them. Not only did this mean there were huge disturbances and divisions based on religion but morale was also affected; people became convinced that the "Saracens" were a curse sent by god; each victory reinforced the legend, and each strengthening of the legend contributed to the next victory. Also, the Jews had actively helped the Persians in the previous war and, as you said, taxation was a major problem. The Roman economy was so bad that Heraclius had had to melt down the gold from churches to finance his war against the Persians. In short the Roman situation, domestically, was in a pretty piss-poor state, the army at Yarmouk and its commanders were divided (not physically) and showed no tactical prowess in battle, ie a repeat of Cannae.

As for the Persians, keep in mind that Heraclius had absolutely humbled them, destroying their armies, killing generals and laying waste to their country. Not only that but king after king of the Persians was killed and replaced by the unhappy Persians following the ending of the war. Heraclius planned to co-ordinate attacks against the Arabs with the Persians, but they were so sloppy in getting their schit together that never ever came of it. In short the Persians were incredibly unstable after the war with Rome, so their defeat isn't that great of a surprise.

As for the Arabs, it's absolutely true that they fought well and, in my opinion, were commanded even better. Khalid was a military genius and the Arabs capitalised on their military successes. The success of the Arabs was never impossible - it had plenty going for it. But nonetheless the Arabs had brave soldiers, brilliant commanders and sheer blind luck on their side.

True, although the domestic situation was bad (the effect of this on the army is something i dont know) the Romans still had much of their military intact. historians opinions differ on how much of an effect the multi-national army had on its ability to fight. Rome had used them successfully in the past but now there was such a large problem? if I remember correctly I think the two Roman commanders wanted control of the army but im not to sure. I would say Yarmouk was the final.icing on the cake, Khalid knew that if the larger armies took out his divisions one by one in the levant, they would be destroyed. Yarmouk was a do or die situation, if the muslims lost they would most likely never expand into the levant again. The Romans nearly broke them many times, however using the terrain Khalid was able to defeat them. We seem to agree on many issues however werent the persians defeated in four months by Khalid? Battles in which there would be 1v1 between commanders, usually culminating in a persian defeat. After that Khalid raced through Syria to help out the other commanders to fight the Byzantines. I dont think the persians would have been able to help Heraclius against the arabs

ONtop888
10-09-2014, 07:34 PM
With regard to what constitutes the "Roman Empire" in the late Middle Ages, it is actually divided into two. The Eastern or Byzantine Empire was the remnant of the Roman Empire after Rome and much of the West fell to barbarian invasions. However, by the Battle of Lepanto it was not so clear cut because the Holy Roman Empire emerged with Charlemagne in the West.

Interestingly, the Byzantines referred to themselves both as Romans and Greeks. Actual "Romans" from Rome and other Western Catholics were referred to as "Latins" and "Romans."

Tekkendo
10-09-2014, 09:00 PM
one of the best books I've ever read. has a lot of military tactics and politics and overall is very entertaining.





Romance of the Three Kingdoms, written by Luo Guanzhong, is a historical novel loosely based on Records of the Three Kingdoms written by Chen Shou

A lot of events in it are products of Luo's imagination, but the main characters and the big picture are the same. The thing is Luo was a Shu-nuthugger so he depicted Zhuge Liang as a super genius and Cao Cao as an evil villain (Cao Cao did commit things like Xu Province massacre though). He pretty much glamorized all the main Shu Generals lol.

Many of the 1 vs 1 battles are also fictional, though Guan Yu killing Yan Liang like a badass actually happened. The funny thing about Guan Yu is he became popular through ROTK and even worshipped as God by some people in China nowadays all thanks to Luo Guanzhong's effort

Regardless, it's a great book


P.S: speaking of glamorization I read a Japanese manga called "Souten Kouro" which has Cao Cao as the main character because the writer is Wei-nuthugger and it depicts him as the super genius lol
http://thumbnail.egloos.net/600x0/http://pds25.egloos.com/pds/201405/17/99/c0102099_53763315de962.png





for me Zhang Liao is the best lol. dat dere battle of Hefei

yeah but Zhang Liao served the evil usurper CaoCao while Changshan Zhao Zilong served the honorable LiuBei, the righteous heir of Han. :D :D

http://i3.sinaimg.cn/ent/hdphoto/2008/1210/U1343P28T346D66F10945DT20081210160720.jpg


R U Chinese? Or can you read Chinese? cuz Few roundeyes would be able to have such insightful understanding of this epic. I am fluent in Mandarin and can read Chinese...very slowly :D

Cao Cao is traditionally viewed as a treacherous villain. However, the Commies in Beijing have been trying to whitewash all those Chinese despotic rulers, from the First Emperor Qin Shi Huang to CaoCao. They try to whitewash those guys as competent rulers with good intention for the masses. Which is hogwash. They are trying to spray perfume on themselves. They want to portrait themselves as in the same league of those tough rulers who ruled with an ironfist and stamped out all rivals for the greater good of China. Beijing commies want to pretend that China would descend into chaos if not for their dictatorial rule.

TheJimmyRustler
10-10-2014, 03:19 AM
True, although the domestic situation was bad (the effect of this on the army is something i dont know) the Romans still had much of their military intact. historians opinions differ on how much of an effect the multi-national army had on its ability to fight. Rome had used them successfully in the past but now there was such a large problem? if I remember correctly I think the two Roman commanders wanted control of the army but im not to sure. I would say Yarmouk was the final.icing on the cake, Khalid knew that if the larger armies took out his divisions one by one in the levant, they would be destroyed. Yarmouk was a do or die situation, if the muslims lost they would most likely never expand into the levant again. The Romans nearly broke them many times, however using the terrain Khalid was able to defeat them. We seem to agree on many issues however werent the persians defeated in four months by Khalid? Battles in which there would be 1v1 between commanders, usually culminating in a persian defeat. After that Khalid raced through Syria to help out the other commanders to fight the Byzantines. I dont think the persians would have been able to help Heraclius against the arabs

The Persians did indeed get roflstomped by the Arabs, but as I said I believe that was due to the piss-poor state of affairs in Persia. They'd gone from having rampaged through Asia Minor and bringing the Romans to their knees to having their own country ravaged by Heraclius, even up to their capital. And as I said, following the peace with the Romans they went on to have some major political intrigue culminating in several kings being killed, replaced, killed, replaced and so on.

The Persia that the Arabs invaded was a dying old man with no real infrastructure, morale or sense of cohesion, in my opinion. This isn't to take away from the Arabs' victory, but things have to be put into context. Neither the Romans nor the Persians were the juggernauts of might and power they'd once been, not even close.

This much is evident in how the Romans fought - after Yarmouk I don't believe they were ever able to put together another large force to counter the Arabs, which is in stark contrast to how they had always fought wars. The Romans hadn't come to dominate the known world through superhuman abilities or even much of a technological edge; their discipline and structure played a big part in it, but so too did their values and outlook on warfare.

Throughout Roman history, from Republic to Empire, they were obsessed with honour and image. Any general or emperor who made peace with a victorious enemy or who allowed insults or slights against Rome is always described as endangering Rome, as being weak, giving the barbarians "arrogance" etc. Any slight to Roman honour was justifiably met with war, in Roman eyes, but as I said, after Yarmouk I don't know of any major offensive. Heraclius simply sailed for home. The Romans had gone from a people who would keep raising new armies after losing battles to being like everyone else, ie losing all hope when their army was destroyed and giving in.



With regard to what constitutes the "Roman Empire" in the late Middle Ages, it is actually divided into two. The Eastern or Byzantine Empire was the remnant of the Roman Empire after Rome and much of the West fell to barbarian invasions. However, by the Battle of Lepanto it was not so clear cut because the Holy Roman Empire emerged with Charlemagne in the West.

Interestingly, the Byzantines referred to themselves both as Romans and Greeks. Actual "Romans" from Rome and other Western Catholics were referred to as "Latins" and "Romans."

The HRE was neither truly Holy (based on the many conflicts with the Pope) nor Roman. It was simply a title gifted onto Germanic kings centuries after the Western Roman Empire was destroyed. I'd argue it would be like David Cameron declaring himself the Governor of Roman Britain, or something. It's not a genuine title in that Britain hasn't been Roman for over 1500 years, just like the Western empire had been dead for centuries by that point, so he wouldn't truly be able to claim to be the continuation of it.

Ali619
10-10-2014, 03:50 AM
Ottoman were at war with Iran that time, they made a mistake for expanding Europe while fighting the Safavids.

Without the Safavid, the defeat would never happened.

Anyway, never cared about the Crusades. I would prefer siding the Romans even Prophet Muhammad said they were preferable over Persian Empire in war that's why the Muslims decide to bring Persia down to its knees before finishing Heraclius led Byzantium.

yg7s7
10-10-2014, 04:47 AM
yeah but Zhang Liao served the evil usurper CaoCao while Changshan Zhao Zilong served the honorable LiuBei, the righteous heir of Han. :D :D

[img]http://i3.sinaimg.cn/ent/hdphoto/2008/1210/U1343P28T346D66F10945DT20081210160720.jpg[/ig]


R U Chinese? Or can you read Chinese? cuz Few roundeyes would be able to have such insightful understanding of this epic. I am fluent in Mandarin and can read Chinese...very slowly :D

Cao Cao is traditionally viewed as a treacherous villain. However, the Commies in Beijing have been trying to whitewash all those Chinese despotic rulers, from the First Emperor Qin Shi Huang to CaoCao. They try to whitewash those guys as competent rulers with good intention for the masses. Which is hogwash. They are trying to spray perfume on themselves. They want to portrait themselves as in the same league of those tough rulers who ruled with an ironfist and stamped out all rivals for the greater good of China. Beijing commies want to pretend that China would descend into chaos if not for their dictatorial rule.

nah I just read the version in another language (which I won't reveal here, but neither English or Chinese) where the writer included side by side comparison of Romance of TK and Records of TK

yeah there are people who portray Liu Bei as "defender of corrupt Han Dynasty" and Cao Cao as a revolutionary/people's hero which would be just as biased as Luo Guanzhong lol


I also find Chu-Han Contention interesting, which occurred at the end of Qin Dynasty and 400 years before the three kingdoms period. imo it's just as epic as ROTK
93ntzdhx-JY
there's also a TV show about it, with same director and actors lol :D:D

Tekkendo
10-10-2014, 06:59 AM
nah I just read the version in another language (which I won't reveal here, but neither English or Chinese) where the writer included side by side comparison of Romance of TK and Records of TK

yeah there are people who portray Liu Bei as "defender of corrupt Han Dynasty" and Cao Cao as a revolutionary/people's hero which would be just as biased as Luo Guanzhong lol


I also find Chu-Han Contention interesting, which occurred at the end of Qin Dynasty and 400 years before the three kingdoms period. imo it's just as epic as ROTK
93ntzdhx-JY
there's also a TV show about it, with same director and actors lol :D:D

Yup I recognize the clip. Same style used as in the one I posted ITT. The same generals (actors) are in it too. For a moment there I thought they just copypasta a lot of the fighting from the other movie. :D Epic production. Must have saved a lot of money reusing the same movie props and same fight choreography . :D :D

Will watch this. Chu Han Contention produced a lot of good guys, bad guys, and the usual prawns. lol Chinese powerbrokers are masters of double dealing and backstabbing. Bet they never even heard of Machiavelli. :D

I think I can guess the language you read in. :cool: But I wouldn't say it out loud. :)

Tekkendo
10-10-2014, 09:46 AM
The Christians won the battle but the Ottomans actually won the war.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Venetian_War_(1570%E2%80%931573)

The defining battle is the second battle of Vienna. The other 911.

Sept 12, 1683.




The defeat of the Ottoman Army outside the gates of Vienna 300 years ago is usually regarded as the beginning of the decline of the Ottoman Empire.


not only was further Ottoman advance on Christian territories stopped, but in the following war that lasted up to 1698 almost all of Hungary was reconquered by the army of Emperor Leopold I. From 1683 the Ottoman Turks ceased to be a menace to the Christian world. In the two hundred and thirty years that followed the Ottoman Turks lost all the Christian lands they had conquered in the previous three-and-a-half-centuries.



cjdvf01pJXg
Brings tears to my eyes.



Lepanto is important in that it blocked the Ottoman's invasion of Italy. As a result, Italy and the land north and west never became a part of the Ottoman empire.

Tekkendo
10-10-2014, 09:53 AM
With regard to what constitutes the "Roman Empire" in the late Middle Ages, it is actually divided into two. The Eastern or Byzantine Empire was the remnant of the Roman Empire after Rome and much of the West fell to barbarian invasions. However, by the Battle of Lepanto it was not so clear cut because the Holy Roman Empire emerged with Charlemagne in the West.

Interestingly, the Byzantines referred to themselves both as Romans and Greeks. Actual "Romans" from Rome and other Western Catholics were referred to as "Latins" and "Romans."

Both the culture and religion of the Western Roman empire were different from those of the Eastern Roman Empire, eventhough the Eastern one called themselves Romans. Living in past glory isn't a new invention. :D


The fact remains that by the time the muzzies took Constantinople, it was a depopulated empty shell of its glorious past. The muzzies just like to delude themselves that they defeated the MIGHTY ROMAN EMPIRE, when the facts just scream the opposite. LOL If not for delusion, they would have nothing at all. :D