On the Battle of Vienna... [split]

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Wladyslaw Warnenczyk

And i also don't like your shouvinistic

Chauvinist? Aren't you the guy who said that Europeans should thank the Poles for saving them from Islam spreading from The Patagonia to Greenland?

almost neo-nazi

That's been a very stupid thing to say.

[Wladyslaw Warnenczyk]

Originally Posted by Menydh

Chauvinist? Aren't you the guy who said that Europeans should thank the Poles for saving them from Islam spreading from The Patagonia to Greenland?
That's been a very stupid thing to say.

No.I didn't say this.I said that if the poles didn't stop the turks at Vienna the ottoman empire would have collapsed and left the Balkans a few centuries later than it did.If you don't agree with this please explain rather than making fun of it.

[Delbáeth]

Originally Posted by Wladyslaw Warnenczyk

No.I didn't say this.I said that if the poles didn't stop the turks at Vienna the ottoman empire would have collapsed and left the Balkans a few centuries later than it did.If you don't agree with this please explain rather than making fun of it.

This is an idiotic conclusion to draw.

The Battle of Vienna halted Ottoman expansion into central Europe. It never put an end to the Ottoman rule of the Balkans. The Ottoman Empire was a big empire, that spanned a great area. There are many viariables involved when discussing the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and for you to assume it was down to the "mighty Polaks" is ludicrous.

It's like saying the Roman Empire collapsed because the Caledonii managed to withstand the Roman 9th Legion. Which in its self was due to incidents in Rome its self.

[Wladyslaw Warnenczyk]

Originally Posted by Višeslav

This is an idiotic conclusion to draw.

The Battle of Vienna halted Ottoman expansion into central Europe. It never put an end to the Ottoman rule of the Balkans. The Ottoman Empire was a big empire, that spanned a great area. There are many viariables involved when discussing the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and for you to assume it was down to the "mighty Polaks" is ludicrous.

It's like saying the Roman Empire collapsed because the Caledonii managed to withstand the Roman 9th Legion. Which in its self was due to incidents in Rome its self.

So you say the battle at Vienna didn't really have any big consequenses?You don't care that the fall of the Otoman empire began exactly after the battle of Vienna and contiued two centuries?Till Vienna the Ottoman empire only captured lands,while after it it started to loose them.Ofcourse it wasn't thanks to the poles that the empire collapsed,but the collapse began thanks to them and Sobieski,who after stoping them at Vienna pushed them almost to modern thay Bulgaria.And don't change the subject - the only thing i said is that if the ottomans captured Vienna they would hold it for a lot of time and this would prolong the collaps of the empire.This is my position so try to argue about it and not something else that i didn't wright.

[Delbáeth]

Originally Posted by Wladyslaw Warnenczyk

So you say the battle at Vienna didn't really have any big consequenses?

I am saying that the Battle of Vienna halted Ottoman expansion into central Europe. It did not bring about the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans.

You don't care that the fall of the Otoman empire began exactly after the battle of Vienna and contiued two centuries?

Haha!

The fall of the Ottoman Empire didn't begin when they loss one battle. The Battle of Vienna stopped Ottoman expansion and did not in fact bring any grave consequences to the established Ottoman Empire.

Till Vienna the Ottoman empire only captured lands,while after it it started to loose them.

This is pure fallacy. The Ottoman Empire didn't cease to exist until the 1920s. The Battle of Vienna occured in 1683, and you want to argue that during this vast time period, the Ottoman Empire only lost land?

Ottoman rule in the Balkans lasted well into the 1900s. The Battle of Vienna did nothing to the established Ottoman Empire! The Battle of Vienna signaled the end of Ottoman expansion into central Europe.

Ofcourse it wasn't thanks to the poles that the empire collapsed,but the collapse began thanks to them and Sobieski,who after stoping them at Vienna pushed them almost to modern thay Bulgaria.

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire had nothing to do with the Battle of Vienna. Plus, a noticable decline in Ottoman Rule in the Balkans didn't begin untill the 1830s.

Up until the 1830s the entire Balkans was under Ottoman rule. So I disagree with your assumption that the Sobeiski's men pushed the Ottomans all of the way down to Bulgaria.

Eugene of Savoy was the only person to make any gains in the Balkans immediately after the Battle, and even then, he only held Hungary and temporary lands in the Balkans which he eventually lost.

And don't change the subject - the only thing i said is that if the ottomans captured Vienna they would hold it for a lot of time and this would prolong the collaps of the empire.

You have no basis for this assumption that the Ottomans would have held Vienna for longer than a day if they had captured it.

But you have before said the Balkans owe Polaks for the battle, and so does Europe, because you believe this Battle of Vienna brought about the end of the Ottoman Empire.. which happend to last for centuries after the battle .

This is my position so try to argue about it and not something else that i didn't wright.

Your posistion is groundless with no facts to back it up. How can I possibly argue against your imagination?

[Wladyslaw Warnenczyk]

Originally Posted by Višeslav

I am saying that the Battle of Vienna halted Ottoman expansion into central Europe. It did not bring about the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans.



Haha!

The fall of the Ottoman Empire didn't begin when they loss one battle. The Battle of Vienna stopped Ottoman expansion and did not in fact bring any grave consequences to the established Ottoman Empire.



This is pure fallacy. The Ottoman Empire didn't cease to exist until the 1920s. The Battle of Vienna occured in 1683, and you want to argue that during this vast time period, the Ottoman Empire only lost land?

Ottoman rule in the Balkans lasted well into the 1900s. The Battle of Vienna did nothing to the established Ottoman Empire! The Battle of Vienna signaled the end of Ottoman expansion into central Europe.



The collapse of the Ottoman Empire had nothing to do with the Battle of Vienna. Plus, a noticable decline in Ottoman Rule in the Balkans didn't begin untill the 1830s.

Up until the 1830s the entire Balkans was under Ottoman rule. So I disagree with your assumption that the Sobeiski's men pushed the Ottomans all of the way down to Bulgaria.

Eugene of Savoy was the only person to make any gains in the Balkans immediately after the Battle, and even then, he only held Hungary and temporary lands in the Balkans which he eventually lost.



You have no basis for this assumption that the Ottomans would have held Vienna for longer than a day if they had captured it.

But you have before said the Balkans owe Polaks for the battle, and so does Europe, because you believe this Battle of Vienna brought about the end of the Ottoman Empire.. which happend to last for centuries after the battle .



Your posistion is groundless with no facts to back it up. How can I possibly argue against your imagination?

Ofcourse they would hold it for more than a day!They would hold it for more than a century even.Anyone with basic historical knowledge can make this conclusion.Vienna was very strong and easily-defendable city,which was the reason this vast army couldn't take it for such a long time.If a small contingent could hold that city against such a vast army than a vast army could hold it even longer.The ottoman empire was able to send reinforcements and supplies to the city and thus hold it for many decades even IF someone layed siege to it (what was highly unlikely).So,yes if they captured Vienna this would surely prolong their control over the Balkans and thus the collaps of the whole empire.I don't say this battle caused the collapse,i say it just prevented a lot longer rule of the ottomans in the Balkans.

[Delbáeth]

Originally Posted by Wladyslaw Warnenczyk

Ofcourse they would hold it for more than a day!They would hold it for more than a century even.Anyone with basic historical knowledge can make this conclusion.Vienna was very strong and easily-defendable city,which was the reason this vast army couldn't take it for such a long time.If a small contingent could hold that city against such a vast army than a vast army could hold it even longer.The ottoman empire was able to send reinforcements and supplies to the city and thus hold it for many decades even IF someone layed siege to it (what was highly unlikely).

You're just living in a dream world now. We're not dealing with what could and could not happen, we're dealing with what did happen and its implications.

The implications which were the halt of Ottoman expansion into central Europe.

So,yes if they captured Vienna this would surely prolong their control over the Balkans and thus the collaps of the whole empire.I don't say this battle caused the collapse,i say it just prevented a lot longer rule of the ottomans in the Balkans.

How did it prevent a longer Ottoman rule in the Balkans? Vienna isn't even in the Balkans. The loss of the Battle of Vienna simply halted Ottoman expansion into central Europe. It did nothing for the Balkans.

The Ottomans lost more land in Africa after the Battle of Vienna than they did in the Balkans.

What are your grounds for claiming that the Battle of Vienna stopped a posibility of a longer Ottoman rule in the Balkans?

[Kernunnos]

I feel that very good persons here are fighting for not so much.

No reasons to continue this dispute that produces nothing good.

be not offended Sirs if I close this thread that is only wasting our energies to the benefit of our problems.