Why didn't europe get together to push the ottomans out of europe?

Seems like kicking the ottomans out of europe would have been great fr everybody. Why didn't europe get together to do that? Why didn't Russia and Hungary and other Balkan states form a coalition to kick them out?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christendom was too busy massacring each other over minor doctrinal differences at the time. God works in mysterious ways.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      That fourth crusade was a great help to Islam as well

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, the Latin Empire bought the region time. Byzaboos forget hoe incompetent and dysfunctionally _byzantine_ the Byzantine court was.

        This failure of an empire lost all the lands of the Eastern Roman empire to begin and by the time of the fourth crusade they literally had Turkish governors denying water to crudasers, infighting and backstabbing emperors deposing Western Allies.

        The Franks should taken over the city in the first crusade already. Then Europe would still have all of Rome's territory.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Nah, the Latin Empire bought the region time.
          You've gotta be kidding. It forced the Greek world into true competition with itself for the first time since the Roman conquest, and forced Nicaea to fight both the other successor states, the Latins, and the Turks. Nicaea was pushed into exactly this scenario as

          >Be Holy Roman Emperor
          >Establish order of the dragon and various other international Christian alliances
          >Invite the French, supposedly good Catholics
          >"Nah"
          >...ok
          >Start your campaign against Muslims anyway
          >Immediately get attacked by the French king invading the empire's most profitable lands Western HRE
          >Either go back or lose the supply for military industries in Austria and eventually lose the war of attrition with the Turks anyway
          >Repeat every generation for 3 centuries

          Maximilian I already realised he could not retake Eastern Europe for Christendom with the limited powers he had. Instead he built new industries, funded proto-Enlightenment ideas and hatched plans for global empire that would simply allow his successors to outgrow their enemies. Charles V accomplished most of the vision of Maximilian I already.

          Christianity won by simply growing bigger and more powerful to the point that Islamic states would quickly become utterly irrelevant.

          It was a much longer term plan which didn't rely on fickle alliances and short bursts of crusader energy.

          mentions, whenever they bate back the Turks, the Latins pushed, whenever they pressed the Latins, the Turks pushed.
          Regardless of how bad the Byzantine court could get, by-and-large the frontiers typically held well enough, especially after the equilibrium the Komnenoi had established

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            This post is so fundamentally dishonest I don't know if it's even worth addressing on detail.

            I will say this, the very point of the events leading up to the 4th crusade was that Byzantine was already in constant dysfunctional state of civil war. That's why all those events happened to begin with. Many of the successor states had actually already declared independence even before the crusaders took Constantinople. The Byzantium aristrocracy had zero interest in crushing the caliphate that had popped up in the middle of Anatolia. They'd much rather fight for the throne in Constantinople while hoping the crusades would keep driving back the muslims.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Byzantium aristrocracy had zero interest in crushing the caliphate that had popped up in the middle of Anatolia.
            What Caliphate in Anatolia??

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the frontiers typically held well enough,
            My brother in Christ, what frontier?

            Keep in mind this is after Franks had bought the region three centuries' time to recover and unfrick their courts.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah the Reformation coincidentally HELPED the Ottomans.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Martin Luther even said that “resisting Turks is going against god’s will”

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Be Holy Roman Emperor
    >Establish order of the dragon and various other international Christian alliances
    >Invite the French, supposedly good Catholics
    >"Nah"
    >...ok
    >Start your campaign against Muslims anyway
    >Immediately get attacked by the French king invading the empire's most profitable lands Western HRE
    >Either go back or lose the supply for military industries in Austria and eventually lose the war of attrition with the Turks anyway
    >Repeat every generation for 3 centuries

    Maximilian I already realised he could not retake Eastern Europe for Christendom with the limited powers he had. Instead he built new industries, funded proto-Enlightenment ideas and hatched plans for global empire that would simply allow his successors to outgrow their enemies. Charles V accomplished most of the vision of Maximilian I already.

    Christianity won by simply growing bigger and more powerful to the point that Islamic states would quickly become utterly irrelevant.

    It was a much longer term plan which didn't rely on fickle alliances and short bursts of crusader energy.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Did Max intend to put his dynasty on the spanish throne or did he just seize the opportunity?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        iirc it was the king ferdinand of aragon that wanted the habsburg alliance.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        He intended it. Read a bit about his life it's very interesting.

        He was an amazing military commander (also one of the last to fight alongside his troops, revolutionised pike formations etc.) and before he was emperor he retook all of Austria from the Hungarians with a small mercenary force. He had actually planned to push out further into the Balkans after defeating the Ottoman forces in Hungary, but his father started whining about money and he was forced to end his campaign early.

        Even so, towards the end of his rule he became disinterested in wars despite having spent most of his life fighting. Instead he built up a lot of industry, started forging marriage alliances, built up the finances of the crown etc. He lamented how much of his life was wasted warring with Europeans especially the rebelling city states in Italy.

        Imo he understood the coming world order before anyone else and prepared his dynasty for it.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      And the French crying the Ottomans for help when they were BTFO at Pavia.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I mean the French were hardly the only ones to put short term ambition above long term prosperity, but they were absolutely the worst and most consistent at it.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Hapsbergs were only good at one thing;arranged marriages

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >France has rightful claims to Burgundy
      >LMAO no
      >France has rightful claims to Italy
      >LMAO no
      >Encircle France
      >Why are you attacking me while my back is turned?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >France has rightful claims to Burgundy
        Maybe
        >France has rightful claims to Italy
        No, why would they?
        >Why are you attacking me while my back is turned?
        Thinking your petty interests are more important than the fate of Europe and Christianity as a whole is amoral.

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why would they? You're looking at things from contemporary glasses.
    There's no reason for enemies to suddenly become friends to face off against someone else who, in many polities' cases, isn't even your enemy.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Christendom was much more united back then than in modern times. I think you are trying to apply contemporary glasses to the past.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Catholic Church has never actually said who was the “real” Pope during the Western Schism.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Christendom was much more united back then than in modern times. I think you are trying to apply contemporary glasses to the past.

        When the Ottomans conquered Byzantium, nobody besides the Italians cared. Many Italians were initially worried about it expanding to Italy next but other than a few initial raids the Ottomans never even bothered with Italy thereafter. The Holy Roman Empire and the Russian Empire welcomed the fall of Byzantium as it strengthened their own cases of being the successor to Rome.

        All of Christendom was never united, not even in Europe. There were blocs of alliances formed at various points of time. Those comply with what I said in my first post.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >When the Ottomans conquered Byzantium, nobody besides the Italians cared
          Wrong. The whole reason Portuguese started their expansion toward Africa was because they were traumatized by the fall of Constantinople.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Wrong. The whole reason Portuguese started their expansion toward Africa was because they were traumatized by the fall of Constantinople.
            Wrong. Portuguese expansionism in Africa began decades before 1453.
            The Iberian conquest and genocide around 1492 and thereafter led to enmity between Portugal and Spain with the Ottoman Empire, which motivated the former to find alternate trade routes. The Italian states and everyone else traded with the Near East.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nothing you posted is true, it was a major event in all of Christendom. Once again you are viewing it with a contemporary lense instead of the reality of it being a far-off distant land that was only connected with Italy by trade while being nothing more than a source of adventurer stories to average Western European.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        don't know if moronic or bait

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Byzantines didn’t even have a conception of Christendom as the imperial ideology considered every single government other than itself as illegitimate and this is why there was no long term alliance with other Christians for them. Also historically in the renaissance period France allied with the Turks

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's nonsense, the entire point of the Crusades was them begging their fellow Christians for help against an enemy they are largely responsible for spawning.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The crusades had various goals, Byzantium whining I don't think was the primary one.
            The zeal of the crusaders was motivated primarily by the papacy declaring that the "Holy land" and Jerusalem in particular must be secured for the sake of pilgrims who up until that time were often harassed or killed by Muslim raiders on their way through the Levant.
            The papacy and Byzantium were still at odds, and more than willing to frick each other over in pursuit of recreating a united Mediterranean empire, so the idea that their cries for supplication was the driver behind the movement doesn't really stick.

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    because "Europe" didnt exist

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    This crazy new branch of Christianity showed up and immediately started brutal civil wars all over Europe right at the same time a crusade could have been formed, with its leaders saying the Turks are good, actually.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      The motive of Protestantism was to preserve the authentic Christian doctrine and to guard against heresies that departed from the Apostle’s teaching as recorded in the scripture.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Of course. Better Turk than Papist, right?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >authentic Christian doctrine
        Nope. They translated a revisionist israeli book that was written centuries _after_ the original New Testament and then thought they knew better about Christian tenants which were never written in the Bible to begin with as that was never what the religion was about.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    They did, but the Crusade of Varna failed

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hungary tried several times and each time it got sabotaged by incompetent crusaders who didn't know how to fight turks.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why didn't europe get together to push the ottomans out of europe?
    Concerns around the balance of power. The countries looking to challenge the Ottomans often had multiple major European powers in opposition to them that were happy to prop the Ottomans up (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). This balance only really shifts decisively out of the Ottomans' favour for a brief period in the run up to WW1, when the British/French decide that containing Germany is of more value than containing Russia.

    If the Ottomans manage to stay out of WW1* AND the Russian Revolution still happens there's a chance** the Ottoman Empire would have survived into the modern era within the borders of pic related and become a natural resource-rich major regional power (possibly even regaining Cyprus the way the Chinese regained HK). The Ottomans had the misfortune of having an adventurist like Enver Pasha in a key position of power at that point when someone with diplomatic guile like Inonu would have been much better for them.

    *I would argue this was viable, as the Russians were wary of facing an extra front in the Caucasus and the British were happy to delay trying to carve the Ottomans up until what they thought would be a brief war in Europe was over.

    **An exhausted Britain and France and a Soviet Union still trying to find its feet would have left the Ottomans relatively untroubled until the late 1930s. It's anyone's guess what happens then. Also worth noting that there's also a fair chance the Ottoman balkanise anyway without any external invasion due to the pressures of the various interethnic/interreligious conflicts that could erupt in the empire. Pan-Islamism, Ottomanism or Turkification need to be implemented with a very high degree of efficiency to avoid this scenario.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The Ottomans had the misfortune of having an adventurist like Enver Pasha in a key position of power
      lmao Germany was the only great power willing to prop up the Ottoman empire, making huge investments into it via the Berlin-Baghdad railway and sending officers to train its army, so that it could actually defend itself during WW1 (something they had been unable to do for the last 100 years).
      Britain, France and Russia were meanwhile dividing up the Ottoman lands before they had even entered the war.

      >the Ottoman Empire would have survived into the modern era within the borders of pic related
      The Ottoman Empire was not even an independent country at that point, they were a de facto shared colony of the west that did not have control over its own policies.
      See more here:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Public_Debt_Administration
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitulations_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

      Allying with Germany was their only chance of becoming a real country again.
      The moment oil was going to be discovered in Iraq, Britain would've yanked it from the Turks, just like they did with Egypt. That's how they rolled.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >This balance only really shifts decisively out of the Ottomans' favour for a brief period in the run up to WW1, when the British/French decide that containing Germany is of more value than containing Russia.
      Conquests of Ottoman territory began in the 1700s and consistently continued for the next two centuries.

      >If the Ottomans manage to stay out of WW1* AND the Russian Revolution still happens there's a chance** the Ottoman Empire would have survived into the modern era within the borders of pic related and become a natural resource-rich major regional power (possibly even regaining Cyprus the way the Chinese regained HK).
      Sadly, that might not have been the case. The Ottoman dynasty became "the sick man of Europe" by the late 1700s and by the late 1800s it was a dead man walking.
      Being unable to protect its citizens and to have back-to-back anti-Muslim genocides across the Black Sea and the Balkan regions means it no longer had any moral authority or protection from God. The seeds for the Ottoman's eventual decline were planted in the 1600s and 1700s.

      A successful coup or uprising in Thrace and/or Anatolia in the 1800s to remove the dynasty and replace it with something new may have breathed fresh life.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because history doesn't work like your paradox campaigns you autistic spastic

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    ottomans had cool shit worth buying

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    because european monarchs usually had better things to do than to act like brainless /misc/bots

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because it would only benefit the slavs which already were known to be rebellious. Why expend hundreds of thousands of men to gain land in the Balkans that was both poor and rebellious so would require a costly garrison? The only reason the roaches held onto it was for prestige and national pride

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because French betrayed Europeans as the race traitors they are

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Realpolitik + The Narcissism of Small Differences

    Turkey is a natural check to Russia and vice versa for Western Europe

    Islam was a natural ally of the Protestant world against Catholic empires

    Catholic empires were a natural ally for Sunni Muslim nations against Shia nations

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why does this map not mention they lost a third of that by the 1690s? Youd think by that they held budimpest till the balkan wars

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *