!!! 15,000 Muslims vs. 600,000 Romans !!!

[Gon4z]

The small army of 15,000 Muslims from Khorasan defend against the massive 600,000 troop army of the Byzantine Romans. That's 40 Romans per Muslim! Sounds like a terrible massacre, right?
But The Muslims Won.

Tully a heart melting story of the bravery and determination to die that MUJAHIDS have.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1TmCFCimdmM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SzL4eJh0Xeg
When the Emperor Romanos IV was conducted into the presence of Alp Arslan, he was treated with considerable kindness, and again offered the terms of peace which he had offered previous to the battle. He was also loaded with presents and Alp Arslan had him respectfully escorted by a military guard to his own forces. But prior to that, when he first was brought to the Sultan, this famous conversation is reported to have taken place:

Alp Arslan: "What would you do if I were brought before you as a prisoner?"
Romanus: "Perhaps I'd kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople."
Alp Arslan: "My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free."

Shortly after his return to his subjects, Romanos was deposed, and then blinded and exiled in the island of Proti; soon after he died as a result of an infection caused by an injury during his brutal blinding.

Takbir.... ALLAHU-AKBAR
Takbir.... ALLAHU-AKBAR
Takbir.... ALLAHU-AKBAR

SUBHAN-ALLAH

[daddy]

well that's great to know....only if modern day crusades faced teh same fates as earlier generations..

[dogukan]

Thats not a big thing dude.A defending force always has the advantage.And don't forget that 600k people does not make a mmassive assault with their own forces.They come in waves.
History is full of things like these

[Gon4z]

Thats not a big thing dude.A defending force always has the advantage.And don't forget that 600k people does not make a mmassive assault with their own forces.They come in waves.
History is full of things like these

Dud they fought in the desert this isn't like 300 where they pined the enemy in a narrow valley where they couldn't all attack at once, in this war they all did attack is was an open front war.

40 Christians to 1 Muslim " I would like to see you try and take on 40 men at once"
You could say the defending team has an advantage when its out number 2 or maybe even 3 to one, but 40 to one I mean come on and on the open desert.

The fact is it was a great victory whether you like to admit it or not.

[Gon4z]

well that's great to know....only if modern day crusades faced teh same fates as earlier generations..

Well soon INSHALLAH they will get whats coming to them.

[dogukan]

No 600k soldiers at that time can not be controlled.It's almost impossible to send all of them into a battlesite.In that case battles wouldn't last for days and would end in hours :)
I don't think it's like in the movies.It's still a heroic victory though

[Gon4z]

No 600k soldiers at that time can not be controlled.It's almost impossible to send all of them into a battlesite.In that case battles wouldn't last for days and would end in hours :)
I don't think it's like in the movies.It's still a heroic victory though

Dud 6 waves of 100k soldiers against defending 15,000 in the opened desert is the same crap, the first 100k can kill many of the 15,000 and really exhaust them, even if they kill the fist 100k they there is still 500k soldiers whoa re well rested and ready for combat whilst the 15,000 would be around 10,000 by now and really tired, which means these tired troops have to take on 6 waves of 100,000 soldiers.
Why don't you and 14 other friends try to fight 600 men. and they two will send waves of 100 men at a time. do you honestly think its easy to defeat them.

Just like the spartan they didn't take 2 million Persians at once but they did still take on at least waves of 10,000 of them at a time.

[skampa]

The guy who is talking does not sound very professional. In fact he sounds like a teenager who can't even read. The history is very incomplete. It could be fake. I would really like to read this story from a trusted source with proper citation.

[Relikt]

USE YOUR BRAIN GON4Z BEFORE WRITE SOMETHING!
If you like that video it doesnt mean it is real.


600.000 Roman army??????????
And this is even not powerful roman empire but part of it (weaker part).
If Byzantine could gather such army world would still talk latin.

[skampa]

600.000 Roman army??????????
And this is even not powerful roman empire but part of it (weaker part).
If Byzantine could gather such army world would still talk latin.

That is true. Rome was sacked way before even Mohamed. And the Byzantine did not even have enough troops to defend themselves that is why they asked the Catholics for help thus starting the Crusades. The Byzantines were very smart brave people. They used ingenious ideas as best as they could. I certainly hope it is not true, because Albania was part of the Byzantine Empire which means my Forefathers were slaughtered like animals. It does not sound true. The strongest Crusader nations (like France, the Holy Roman empire) were assembling armies of 20 000 at most as I know it. The Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (he was also the enemy of the Slavs and there was a legend that he would one day rise from his grave to conquer the enemies of Germany, thus the offensive on Russia was named Barbarossa) drowned in a river in southern (modern) Turkey and his soldiers fought for the French and the British. Even against his main enemy the pope of Rome who excommunicated him, he used no more than 5000 soldiers at the battle of Legnano against the Lombard League. It makes no sense that they would send 600 000 soldiers against an enemy so far that they did not even know. If this war really happened you would hear "al jazeera" talking about it every day and Bin Laden mentioning it in every speech.

[Gon4z]

The guy who is talking does not sound very professional. In fact he sounds like a teenager who can't even read. The history is very incomplete. It could be fake. I would really like to read this story from a trusted source with proper citation.

I think this was a speech in a mosque, you can tell English ain't his first language...I'm trying to find out what this battle was called, Ill post links soon as I can find more.

[Gon4z]

USE YOUR BRAIN GON4Z BEFORE WRITE SOMETHING!
If you like that video it doesnt mean it is real.


600.000 Roman army??????????
And this is even not powerful roman empire but part of it (weaker part).
If Byzantine could gather such army world would still talk latin.


Dud shut your mouth, go suck a lemon....
Dud the fact is SHUT UP they lost a war, neither you or I can say anything about this battle apart from what was said in this video, so until I find more facts I have nothing to add.

[Gon4z]

That is true. Rome was sacked way before even Mohamed. And the Byzantine did not even have enough troops to defend themselves that is why they asked the Catholics for help thus starting the Crusades. The Byzantines were very smart brave people. They used ingenious ideas as best as they could. I certainly hope it is not true, because Albania was part of the Byzantine Empire which means my Forefathers were slaughtered like animals. It does not sound true. The strongest Crusader nations (like France, the Holy Roman empire) were assembling armies of 20 000 at most as I know it. The Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (he was also the enemy of the Slavs and there was a legend that he would one day rise from his grave to conquer the enemies of Germany, thus the offensive on Russia was named Barbarossa) drowned in a river in southern (modern) Turkey and his soldiers fought for the French and the British. Even against his main enemy the pope of Rome who excommunicated him, he used no more than 5000 soldiers at the battle of Legnano against the Lombard League. It makes no sense that they would send 600 000 soldiers against an enemy so far that they did not even know. If this war really happened you would hear "al jazeera" talking about it every day and Bin Laden mentioning it in every speech.

The battle is trues but and ill post as much information as I can on this soon as I find it. They went slaughter most were killed and the rest fled and the General was captured.
I will not speculate on this until I have more facts. But yes the numbers are disputed

[Gon4z]

I would refer you to wikipedia for this but the article theris total **** Sh!t as the numbers are being changed everyday.


I mean let me just quote some of the edits.

20,000 Byzantine
20,000 Muslims

40,000 Byzantine
15,000 Muslims

20,000 Byzantine
100,000 Muslims

500,000 Byzantine
10,000 Muslims

10,000 Byzantine
250,000 Muslims

600,000 Byzantine
15,000 Muslims


Its ridiculously to many vandal racists in wikipeia if you want to see how authentic an article is just click the history button.
other Googled sources claim that there was around 15,000 Muslims and over 100,000 Byzantine
I'm still looking


But the most occurring source is that there were 15,000 Muslims and the Byzantine were defiantly way over 100,000

[Gon4z]

Here is what happened after th battle, when Romanos was captured and send to the SULLTAN

When the Emperor Romanos IV was conducted into the presence of Alp Arslan, he was treated with considerable kindness, and again offered the terms of peace which he had offered previous to the battle. He was also loaded with presents and Alp Arslan had him respectfully escorted by a military guard to his own forces. But prior to that, when he first was brought to the Sultan, this famous conversation is reported to have taken place:

Alp Arslan: "What would you do if I were brought before you as a prisoner?"
Romanus: "Perhaps I'd kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople."
Alp Arslan: "My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free."

Shortly after his return to his subjects, Romanos was deposed, and then blinded and exiled in the island of Proti; soon after he died as a result of an infection caused by an injury during his brutal blinding.

[skampa]

I would refer you to wikipedia for this but the article theris total **** Sh!t as the numbers are being changed everyday.


I mean let me just quote some of the edits.


Its ridiculously to many vandal racists in wikipeia if you want to see how authentic an article is just click the history button.
other Googled sources claim that there was around 15,000 Muslims and over 100,000 Byzantine
I'm still looking


But the most occurring source is that there were 15,000 Muslims and the Byzantine were defiantly way over 100,000

Wikipedia and youtube are not trustworthy. I could become an administrator at wikipedia and write bullsh*t that 1 Christian defeated 1 000 000 000 Muslims. I could Go to youtube and make a video and say bullsh*t and pretend I am the pope. What is needed is an article preferably written by someone with a PHD who states his name and gives a proper academic description of the conflict. So far I know nothing of the Battle. If you use Wikipedia or Youtube as a reference in postsecondary education I guarantee you will get 0, and it is right. I did some research on the topic and no big battle came up. If it was a battle of the proportions that video claims it would be a well known story and would be the center of media reports.

[skampa]

If you are Talking about Manzikert as the second video suggests, then 600 000 is way too exaggerated. I will do more research tomorrow to come up with the exact numbers because I knew of Manzikert. The claims in the first video are pathetic.

[dogukan]

Alp Arslan?You mean the Turkish victory in Manzikert?1071

Dude Byzantine army was nowhere over 600k!!!!Seljuk army was around 54k, Byzantine army was around 100k
No it was'n in the middle of the desert as you have said before

Seljuks made a tactical retreat to divide advancing forces of Byzantine and made them weaker
Here is the tactic of Turks in the battle

------- Byzantine guys

. -------- centre

-----Turkish cavalry -------Turkish cavalry

As Byzantine pushes forward centre retreats and cavalary(mostly horse archers) come from sides and fire arrows.Byzantine troops got slaughtrerd and could do any manouver to sides
Romanus captured, but as he was sent back a new emperor was already elected

[Zraver]

After the final Roman/Persian war both empires were exhausted morally, spiritually, and financially. In Persia the Zorostarian preist had grown corrupt and brutal and in Byzantium a vertiable plauge of religious arguments. Niether Empire was able to muster an Army of 600,000. After the early loss of Eastern Anatollia and Armenia the Byzantine Empire could not muster 600,000 souls let alone fighting age men.

[apple_fritta]

Reminds me of how 800 [including 300 pakistani ssg] defeated 3000 russi spec-ops in afghanistan! Anywho...that victory cancells out all others!

TAQBEER!!!!!

[Relikt]

I would refer you to wikipedia for this but the article theris total **** Sh!t as the numbers are being changed everyday.


I mean let me just quote some of the edits.


Its ridiculously to many vandal racists in wikipeia if you want to see how authentic an article is just click the history button.
other Googled sources claim that there was around 15,000 Muslims and over 100,000 Byzantine
I'm still looking


But the most occurring source is that there were 15,000 Muslims and the Byzantine were defiantly way over 100,000
Ha Ha. You already cut number 6 times.
You use brain at last :)

This number is much more realistic.
But dogukan said real number was 2 to 1 for Byzantium.

[dogukan]

Guys this is not about religion...why are you making it a religion fight?
It's success of strategy
This what Muslims do wrong.Thats why Ottomans collapsed.God doesn't help you if you don't work hard.

[dogukan]

There is janissary song about the battle
"Malazgirt'te ellidörtbin(54k) er(soldier),54 er.......
Thats my source and it's probably the best source

[Relikt]

Guys this is not about religion...why are you making it a religion fight?
It's success of strategy
This what Muslims do wrong.Thats why Ottomans collapsed.God doesn't help you if you don't work hard.
Nope. This isnt religion battle. This is only my reaction on Gon4z faster then brain conclusion. He post thread 15.000 Muslims vs. 600.000 Romans!!! And in first post said that Muslims win.

He sound like he is absolute sure in numbers. He didnt rethink until Skampa's post.

Gon4z first write something and then think.

[skampa]

As Dogukan Gave the figures I don't need to because some of the pages I read matched his. Anyway It was a brilliant Victory for the Seljuks but the Seljuk warfare was unorthodox to Europeans. As Dogukan mentioned the Seljuks used cavalry archers, which most Christians condemned. The Christian knights were not allowed to carry bows or crossbows because it was considered unfair and cowardice. How the cavalry archers fight is shoot an arrow, retreat as the other army approaches, when they are far enough they shoot another arrow, and repeat the process. By the day's Christian standards they were considered cowards who refused to fight. The Europeans fell victim of their own Religious rules. This method only worked at that time, a couple of centuries later the Europeans got plate armor which was very hard to penetrate by arrows. Chengis khan used the same method against Asia only at the extreme level. It did not however work against the Europeans at his time. Anyhow, Congratulations to the Turks for your brilliant victory.

[skampa]

Following the link from wikipedia which says that there were 20 000 troops at the battle:
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/markham.htm#_ftnref43

The Byzantines probably suffered no more than about 8,000 casualties at Manzikert. If we factor in the permanent desertion of the Armenian and Uz auxiliaries, approximately 30,000 troops survived the battle. Based on the assumption that the Byzantine army had a total military strength of some 100,000 men in 1071AD and that approximately 50,000 garrison and thematic troops remained at their stations around the Empire,[43] then Manzikert cost the Byzantines about 20% of their total military strength. This was not a significant loss and would quickly be made up by the recruitment of native soldiers from the military estates, while service with the Byzantine army would continue to draw professional recruits from around the medieval world. The defeat at Manzikert however, cut off the Byzantines from their supply of Armenian manpower, a critical source of recruitment for the army.[44] Initially it would be the Turks themselves how would make up this loss, but this had its own complications.

[43] Western troops were carrying out a campaign in Bulgaria and at the same time, while the garrisons at Dyrrachium and Corfu were on alert against Norman aggression.


The Byzantines had a total army of 100 000. And as the second quotations says they had many campaigns going on at the same time. So it was not 100 000. It was probably less than 38000 as the first quotation suggests (including some deserters)".

[Gon4z]

Ha Ha. You already cut number 6 times.
You use brain at last :)

HAHA shut up you filthy SLAV, Russians lost the same battle several hundred years latter.
I'm giving the number that Muslims, Asians and Russians give for this battle against the number the Greeks & Europeans give.
The fact is the number is disputed and it somewhere from 100k - 600k but the Muslims were defiantly 15,000 as every source states

[Gon4z]

Gon4z first write something and then think.
HUSHHHHHH PUPPY :biggrin1:


Nope. This isnt religion battle. This is only my reaction on Gon4z faster then brain conclusion. He post thread 15.000 Muslims vs. 600.000 Romans!!! And in first post said that Muslims win.

I posted what I head in the video and though it was interesting, and you coz your a SLAV hate the fact and live in denial.
It wouldn't be nothing special Muslims won almost every single crusade and MUSLIMS did win, go read about the battle, the King of the Byzantines was captured and tn set free. and the soldiers fled with tales between their legs.

[Relikt]

HAHA shut up you filthy SLAV, Russians lost the same battle several hundred years latter.
I'm giving the number that Muslims, Asians and Russians give for this battle against the number the Greeks & Europeans give.
The fact is the number is disputed and it somewhere from 100k - 600k but the Muslims were defiantly 15,000 as every source states
Gon4z your absence of argument is prove by using insults in conversation. It is so normal for you but I hope that moderators are counting your insults.

I dont close my eyes about Slavs defeats.
But saying that Muslims are always victors is stupid too. In fact first muslim nation (Arabs) werent warriors but gentlemen. Turks gave islam deadly blade which dull at Vienna.
After that Ottoman empire was weaker and weaker in fact it became joke :) in 19 century. To me modern Turkey is much more powerful then big Ottoman .

I think biggest victory was Desert rats against Italian Africa army. Ratio was 10 to 1. I only compare armies on same tech level.

[Gon4z]

Gon4z your absence of argument is prove by using insults in conversation. It is so normal for you but I hope that moderators are counting your insults.

Dud I'm don arguing with people any further especially with Serbs id rather spend that time watching some FAMILY GUY on the internet.... :smile1:
if it makes you feel more important and clever by arguing with people over the net than keep going just find some one else to argue with.

So now shu shu go talk about how Serbia could have beaten, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosova, Albania, NATO, USA & Turkey put together but you just didn't want to....LoL

[amir_behbahani]

Whatever it was , it makes more sense than 300 not yet christians vs. 1 BILLION persian terrorists

[skampa]

Whatever it was , it makes more sense than 300 not yet christians vs. 1 BILLION persian terrorists

Do you have facts you would like to contribute? Or are you trying to get us off topic by making a supposedly wise comment.

[Bumble Bee]

Thats not a big thing dude.A defending force always has the advantage.And don't forget that 600k people does not make a mmassive assault with their own forces.They come in waves.
History is full of things like theseYou're not so bright. If 600,000 soldiers were blind-sided and surprise attacked by 15,000 soldiers, the odds would still be in favour of the 600,000 winning.

Hazbollah estimated by israel had only 500-1000 fighters and they easily prevailed and defeated the 20,000 bums.

Iraq did the same thing in Desert Storm. In Desert Storm Iraq actual strength was between 100,000-150,000 soldiers, 500 tanks and 225 aircraft. The U.S. lost the war with 500,000 troops, 60 nations and 2000(actual number) tanks, though they illegally bombed Iraq's troops withdrawing from Kuwait after Saddam agreed to sign the Peace-Treaty and agreed to return his troops back to Iraq.

Arabs have always been great fighters against evil, dark forces. Today the U.N. provides the adversary with substantial numbers, sanctions and weapons-embargoes which works against defense deveopment.

[skampa]

There were no more than 40 000 Byzantines the majority of sources suggest. In fact the ottomans have had more defeats than victories especially at sea. We don't have to look at history to see the the way things have been. Now the Islamic (or claim to be) countries are virtually ruled by a majority Christian Countries (except Iran who would have no power at all if a Christian country, Russia did not supply it with Nuclear material). Why? If what the videos are suggesting that the Muslims are supperior why are they ruled by Christians. Why do Christians control the world? The Turks won at Manzikert and I congratulate them but I am ashamed because my Forefathers and the forefathers of all Albanians and Greeks might have been killed there.

[skampa]

You're not so bright. If 600,000 soldiers were blind-sided and surprise attacked by 15,000 soldiers, the odds would still be in favour of the 600,000 winning.

Hazbollah estimated by israel had only 500-1000 fighters and they easily prevailed and defeated the 20,000 bums.

Iraq did the same thing in Desert Storm. In Desert Storm Iraq actual strength was between 100,000-150,000 soldiers, 500 tanks and 225 aircraft. The U.S. lost the war with 500,000 troops, 60 nations and 2000(actual number) tanks, though they illegally bombed Iraq's troops withdrawing from Kuwait after Saddam agreed to sign the Peace-Treaty and agreed to return his troops back to Iraq.

Arabs have always been great fighters against evil, dark forces. Today the U.N. provides the adversary with substantial numbers, sanctions and weapons-embargoes which works against defense deveopment.

Why don't you think. Israel destroyed the terrorists of Lebanon and all the other countries around. The Arabs have lost every single war against Tiny Israel. What world do you live on. At desert storm the Coalition forces had less troops than Saddam and they raped his army. They let the rest of the troops go because they felt sorry for them. I am a loss for words to describe what is going on in this thread. I don't know how to describe this extreme extreme extreme ignorance. What world do you live in? You imagine things and say them as true. you are probably right now in a Christian country and talk about how much better your countries are. Short anecdote:
"A donkey was being eaten by a wolf, and the donkey said I hope I am dreaming"

You are being beaten every day and think you are winning, it is even worse than the donkey. You are taking advantage of the western armies fighting like gentlemen (most of the time). If the West wants they can kill every single Eastern person on the world and wipe you off the map. But they don't because they are better than that. Have fun in you fairy tale world.

[Gon4z]

Dam I wish there was a delete button coz this has turned int a worse flaming thread than the forest fires in Balkans...LoL

[Oriellien]

Iraq did the same thing in Desert Storm. In Desert Storm Iraq actual strength was between 100,000-150,000 soldiers, 500 tanks and 225 aircraft. The U.S. lost the war with 500,000 troops, 60 nations and 2000(actual number) tanks, though they illegally bombed Iraq's troops withdrawing from Kuwait after Saddam agreed to sign the Peace-Treaty and agreed to return his troops back to Iraq.

Arabs have always been great fighters against evil, dark forces. Today the U.N. provides the adversary with substantial numbers, sanctions and weapons-embargoes which works against defense deveopment.

No the US didnt lose Desert Storm, I have no idea what bums up websites you look at.

[Relikt]

You're not so bright. If 600,000 soldiers were blind-sided and surprise attacked by 15,000 soldiers, the odds would still be in favour of the 600,000 winning.

Hazbollah estimated by israel had only 500-1000 fighters and they easily prevailed and defeated the 20,000 bums.

Iraq did the same thing in Desert Storm. In Desert Storm Iraq actual strength was between 100,000-150,000 soldiers, 500 tanks and 225 aircraft. The U.S. lost the war with 500,000 troops, 60 nations and 2000(actual number) tanks, though they illegally bombed Iraq's troops withdrawing from Kuwait after Saddam agreed to sign the Peace-Treaty and agreed to return his troops back to Iraq.

Arabs have always been great fighters against evil, dark forces. Today the U.N. provides the adversary with substantial numbers, sanctions and weapons-embargoes which works against defense deveopment.

:worried2::err2::worried2::err2::worried2::err2::worried2::e rr2::worried2:

Who did Sadam win that war? Can you explain that to me?

[Apolonia2]

You're not so bright. If 600,000 soldiers were blind-sided and surprise attacked by 15,000 soldiers, the odds would still be in favour of the 600,000 winning.

Hazbollah estimated by israel had only 500-1000 fighters and they easily prevailed and defeated the 20,000 bums.

Iraq did the same thing in Desert Storm. In Desert Storm Iraq actual strength was between 100,000-150,000 soldiers, 500 tanks and 225 aircraft. The U.S. lost the war with 500,000 troops, 60 nations and 2000(actual number) tanks, though they illegally bombed Iraq's troops withdrawing from Kuwait after Saddam agreed to sign the Peace-Treaty and agreed to return his troops back to Iraq.

Arabs have always been great fighters against evil, dark forces. Today the U.N. provides the adversary with substantial numbers, sanctions and weapons-embargoes which works against defense deveopment.

Do you see what you have written? Saddam won Desert storm huh? IS THAT WHY THE IRAQI ARMY LOST 100,000 PLUS SOLDIERS(or cowards who fought behind hills) and the coalition less than 200? If Hezbollah won the war then why isn't Isreal under Hezbollah now? Defense development?:roflmao3: when you stop helping terrorists then will will let you have your EU and NATO made stuff.

[dogukan]

You're not so bright. If 600,000 soldiers were blind-sided and surprise attacked by 15,000 soldiers, the odds would still be in favour of the 600,000 winning.

Hazbollah estimated by israel had only 500-1000 fighters and they easily prevailed and defeated the 20,000 bums.

Iraq did the same thing in Desert Storm. In Desert Storm Iraq actual strength was between 100,000-150,000 soldiers, 500 tanks and 225 aircraft. The U.S. lost the war with 500,000 troops, 60 nations and 2000(actual number) tanks, though they illegally bombed Iraq's troops withdrawing from Kuwait after Saddam agreed to sign the Peace-Treaty and agreed to return his troops back to Iraq.

Arabs have always been great fighters against evil, dark forces. Today the U.N. provides the adversary with substantial numbers, sanctions and weapons-embargoes which works against defense deveopment.
Arabs were great fighters aganist evil forces?:biggrin1:
Ohhh and who are these evil forces.Only thing I remember is that they've fought aganist Ottoman empire together with British troops.

BTW I think the battle we're talking about is victory of Turks not Arabs
And yes 15k aganist 600 k is a very big thing but as you know once the morale is gone and the flee begins there is nothing much left to do with numbers

[dogukan]

There were no more than 40 000 Byzantines the majority of sources suggest. In fact the ottomans have had more defeats than victories especially at sea. We don't have to look at history to see the the way things have been. Now the Islamic (or claim to be) countries are virtually ruled by a majority Christian Countries (except Iran who would have no power at all if a Christian country, Russia did not supply it with Nuclear material). Why? If what the videos are suggesting that the Muslims are supperior why are they ruled by Christians. Why do Christians control the world? The Turks won at Manzikert and I congratulate them but I am ashamed because my Forefathers and the forefathers of all Albanians and Greeks might have been killed there.

actually there were 100k Byzantine troops because this battle was a turning point.As they lost this battle Seljuks moved all the way to Aegean Sea

[skampa]

actually there were 100k Byzantine troops because this battle was a turning point.As they lost this battle Seljuks moved all the way to Aegean Sea

Hmm... No!

Romanus ordered his general John Tarchaneiotes to take some of the Byzantine troops and Varangians and accompany the Pechenegs and French to Khliat, while Romanus and the rest of the army marched to Manzikert. This probably split the forces in half, about 20 000 men each. Although it is unknown precisely what happened to Tarchaneiotes and his half of the army after this, they apparently caught sight of the Seljuks and fled, as they later appeared at Melitene and did not take part in the battle.

Romanus was unaware of the loss of Tarchaneiotes and continued to Manzikert, which he easily captured on August 23.

On August 25, some of Romanus' Turkish mercenaries came into contact with their Seljuk relatives and deserted.

The Seljuks were organized into a crescent formation about four kilometres away, with Arslan observing events from a safe distance. Seljuk archers attacked the Byzantines as they drew closer; the centre of their crescent continually moved backwards while the wings moved to surround the Byzantine troops.

The Byzantines held off the arrow attacks and captured Arslan's camp by the end of the afternoon.

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/manzikert.html

It was 20 000 who took part in the battle. I can find more sources if you like.
Their whole army was 100 000. They had maybe 40 000 for this campaign and 20 000 took part in the actual battle. The way the Turks fought was considered cowardice. They shoot arrows and then run away. We have a saying in Albania: "throw the stone and hide your hand".
It was a smart victory but not an honorable one. If any of you still want to lie to yourselves about the numbers you can but it does not make it true, but if it helps you sleep at night, that is all that matters.

[dogukan]

The tactic you talk about is also the tactic of Mongols.Shoot and go away.Yeah a little coward but smart.Just like USA bombing Iraq and then invading.Opposite would be stupidness.

This is history, which source will we believe?There are many sources changing the numbers.Don't tell me Byzantine army was less than 100k.This is Byzantine Empire when it controlled a lot of provinces not the one stuck in Constantinople

[skampa]

The tactic you talk about is also the tactic of Mongols.Shoot and go away.Yeah a little coward but smart.Just like USA bombing Iraq and then invading.Opposite would be stupidness.

This is history, which source will we believe?There are many sources changing the numbers.Don't tell me Byzantine army was less than 100k.This is Byzantine Empire when it controlled a lot of provinces not the one stuck in Constantinople

It may have been bigger than 100k but it did not use all of it in Manzikert. Many sources suggest that the Byzantines had around 40 000 for this campaign and actually used 20 000 in this battle. Do you know how many soldiers is 100 000? The Turkish archers had surrounded them. Since they surrounded them it is highly likely that the Turks outnumbered the Byzantines. Come up with only one source that says that the Byzantine army at Manzikert was over 40k. It has to be a trustworthy source and no it can not be Wikipedia or youtube.

About the tactic today it looks smart but back in the day it was considered cowardice. Chengis Khan formed a large empire that way.

[dogukan]

It may have been bigger than 100k but it did not use all of it in Manzikert. Many sources suggest that the Byzantines had around 40 000 for this campaign and actually used 20 000 in this battle. Do you know how many soldiers is 100 000? The Turkish archers had surrounded them. Since they surrounded them it is highly likely that the Turks outnumbered the Byzantines. Come up with only one source that says that the Byzantine army at Manzikert was over 40k. It has to be a trustworthy source and no it can not be Wikipedia or youtube.

About the tactic today it looks smart but back in the day it was considered cowardice. Chengis Khan formed a large empire that way.

I don't think Turks took over all those lands with cowardice
Anyway, if what you say is true Byzanitnes were stupid.So Turks are coming with a force of 50k.It's obvious that Turks will be a very big problem because they did attack before(Pasinler battle)
I don't think they've had problems in the west at this time
And they decide to come with a force of 40 k

Skampa, history is written differently in different places.According to what I learned Turks had 54k, Byzantines about 100k(thats why they couldn't attack Turks again).And Alp Arslan with his mace fought in front lines.
This may not be true, but yours may not be true either.And mine makes more sense.

[skampa]

I don't think Turks took over all those lands with cowardice
Anyway, if what you say is true Byzanitnes were stupid.So Turks are coming with a force of 50k.It's obvious that Turks will be a very big problem because they did attack before(Pasinler battle)
I don't think they've had problems in the west at this time
And they decide to come with a force of 40 k

Skampa, history is written differently in different places.According to what I learned Turks had 54k, Byzantines about 100k(thats why they couldn't attack Turks again).And Alp Arslan with his mace fought in front lines.
This may not be true, but yours may not be true either.And mine makes more sense.

So far you have not come up with any sources of information. I can not help but feel that my story, the one supported by sources of information makes more sense.

[dogukan]

It's because I'm too lazy and chatting with a girl

[dogukan]

:D:D:D:D I'll try to find sources later.

[skampa]

:D:D:D:D I'll try to find sources later.

Thank you! I will await your response.

[BornB4]

It's because I'm too lazy and chatting with a girl
Did you get lucky?

[Zraver]

It wouldn't be nothing special Muslims won almost every single crusade

Except when they lost, Like Jerusalem, Alexandria, Cairo or when they didn't partake like vs the Gnostics or Baltic peoples, or when the got stalemated like Jerusalem round 2.

The simple fact is the Muslim armies ussaly lsot when they tried to fight the crusader son the crusaders terms, and the Crusaders got the sharp pointy end in return when they fought the Muslim's on their terms.

And since you used the word Muslim implyign religion. If Allah was on the side of Islam, why did the initial two generations of Mongols stomp the life out of the Muslim empires and Caliphates? There were more Mongolian Nestorian Christians during Ghenghis Khan's time then Muslims (the Devil's Horsemen. James Chambers).

Also if Muslim feats of arms were so superior what happened to the Golden Khanate in Russia, the Ottoman Empire etc?

Muslim forces pushed to Vienna and Tours, took Sicily, part of Italy, and almsot all of Spain, but they could not keep it anymore than the Europeans could keep thier colonies.

In the anceint battle of East vs West its even up, millions dead on both sides and the game is on.

[Vladimir80]

It is well known that Muslims crushed Catholic Crusades...they was so stupid they got lost and sacked the wrong cities.

[skampa]

It is well known that Muslims crushed Catholic Crusades...they was so stupid they got lost and sacked the wrong cities.

The Crusaders fought far away from their homelands while the Muslims fought on their doorstep. The Catholics lost more men to hunger than to Battles. Besides they still kept the Crusader Kingdoms for a long time. To think that you could keep those Kingdoms forever with their supply lines stretched so far at that time is stupid.

[Vladimir80]

To think that you could keep those Kingdoms forever with their supply lines stretched so far at that time is stupid.

Hence the whole crusader concept... :xmas_emot3:

[Zraver]

It is well known that Muslims crushed Catholic Crusades...they was so stupid they got lost and sacked the wrong cities.

1st Crusade- Catholic Victory.

3rd Crusad- Recaptured Acre and forced a truce from Saladin

5th Crusade- Captured Dametia and forced the Sultan to trade if for Jersualem (But the papal legate interferred refusing the deal and the operation was lost,Pelagius was the G.W. Bush of 1221)

6th Crusade- Regained Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethalem.

8th Crusade- Captured Tunis

Yup all the Catholic Crusades were crushed.

[dogukan]

Skampa,
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/markham.htm here is non-Turkish source
Now I have the right to talk about numbers

Byzantine army was consisted of people all over the world.Professional...like Varangians,Normans,Turkics,Germans,Russians and other Orthodox.Besides they held large territories at that time.Whole Anatolia, some parts of Balkans and most importantly Constantinople.He has large pool of manpower.
Considering the army is led by the EMPEROR himself, and the mission is to take out Islam in eastern territories which is obviously the biggest threat before Normans in Italy the army should have been pretty large.Turks on the other hand also had large lands at that time but when you look at the population ratio it's not that much before taking Anatolia and Arabian lands.Besides there were garnisons aganist Arabians in the south and Alp Arslan himself was there on a conquest.
It makes more sense imo

Of course I may be wrong but you may be wrong either.As we all know historians recording these stuff at that time weren't so objective.If you think of the evaluation of events mine makes more sense.Tell me a better one, why Byzantines when they have the power wouldn't bring a big force to stop this big threat?
And the fact that they couldn't raise an army like that again so the Seljuks could easily marched to Aegean coast without problem.

But no we are Turks, we must outnumber our enemy if we are to win.No other way, Turks can not defeat if they don't outnumber because they do not know how to fight and they're coward.When you look at wikipedia you can see that Turks have always outnumbered their enemies because they reproduce like cells .You see whole majority of the world hates Turks.There are many (wrong)reasons for this and just convincing you won't worth time.

Anyway
although most of the time our ideas don't match you are a reasonable preson and it's fun to discuss with you
As I said before you may be right but mine story for now makes more sense to me.If you can tell me a more logical one to convince me I'll believe what you say.And as the result, whatever happened has happened in the past and we can't change the truth.At least we have the intelligence to talk about it
:)
cheers

[Vladimir80]

1st Crusade- Catholic Victory.

3rd Crusad- Recaptured Acre and forced a truce from Saladin

5th Crusade- Captured Dametia and forced the Sultan to trade if for Jersualem (But the papal legate interferred refusing the deal and the operation was lost,Pelagius was the G.W. Bush of 1221)

6th Crusade- Regained Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethalem.

8th Crusade- Captured Tunis

Yup all the Catholic Crusades were crushed.

You falied to mention the final crusade where all Catholic invaders were wiped off the map. How convenient... :roflmao3:

[skampa]

Skampa,
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/markham.htm here is non-Turkish source
Now I have the right to talk about numbers

Byzantine army was consisted of people all over the world.Professional...like Varangians,Normans,Turkics,Germans,Russians and other Orthodox.Besides they held large territories at that time.Whole Anatolia, some parts of Balkans and most importantly Constantinople.He has large pool of manpower.
Considering the army is led by the EMPEROR himself, and the mission is to take out Islam in eastern territories which is obviously the biggest threat before Normans in Italy the army should have been pretty large.Turks on the other hand also had large lands at that time but when you look at the population ratio it's not that much before taking Anatolia and Arabian lands.Besides there were garnisons aganist Arabians in the south and Alp Arslan himself was there on a conquest.
It makes more sense imo

Of course I may be wrong but you may be wrong either.As we all know historians recording these stuff at that time weren't so objective.If you think of the evaluation of events mine makes more sense.Tell me a better one, why Byzantines when they have the power wouldn't bring a big force to stop this big threat?
And the fact that they couldn't raise an army like that again so the Seljuks could easily marched to Aegean coast without problem.

But no we are Turks, we must outnumber our enemy if we are to win.No other way, Turks can not defeat if they don't outnumber because they do not know how to fight and they're coward.When you look at wikipedia you can see that Turks have always outnumbered their enemies because they reproduce like cells .You see whole majority of the world hates Turks.There are many (wrong)reasons for this and just convincing you won't worth time.

Anyway
although most of the time our ideas don't match you are a reasonable preson and it's fun to discuss with you
As I said before you may be right but mine story for now makes more sense to me.If you can tell me a more logical one to convince me I'll believe what you say.And as the result, whatever happened has happened in the past and we can't change the truth.At least we have the intelligence to talk about it
:)
cheers

I have told you before, I only hate the Ottomans not the modern Turks.

From your own source:

Although it was a momentous battle, contemporary Byzantine and Armenian narratives indicate that most of the army was either not present, deserted, or withdrew before the final collapse. It is notoriously difficult to assess casualties from medieval sources, who tend to use exaggerated death tolls as a moral device; nevertheless, we are able to make a general assessment of Byzantine losses at Manzikert based on historical troop sizes and what we know of the fate of the various participants.

1. Tarchaneiotes’ army of approximately 20,000 troops, including the most of the tagmata did not engage the Turks at all and had withdrawn towards Constantinople before the battle;

2. Roussel de Bailliou’s 500 strong Norman contingent, which were scouting the road to Khilat, escaped virtually intact ahead of the main battle;

3. A contingent of approximately one thousand Turkish Uz mercenaries defected on 25 August 1071, before the final battle;

4. Andronicus Ducas’ reserve force of approximately 5,000, including most of the Anatolian levies, deserted the battle ahead of the collapse;

5. The 5,000 troops of the left wing under Nicephorus Bryennius’ managed to fight their way clear of the battle after the collapse. It would be reasonable to assume approximately one thousand casualties, including losses from the first day’s battle.[42]

6. Romanus Diogenes’ and the Varangian Guard were defeated and captured. We must assume that most of the Varangians were killed as Alp Arslan provided Romanus with a new escort of troops (although such a gesture was customary). Even so, no more than 500 Varangians can have present at Manzikert as there was still a Varangian contingent at Constantinople to acclaim Michael VIII Ducas.

7. A contingent of 2 – 3,000 Turkish mercenaries in the centre remained loyal to Romanus and was virtually annihilated.

8. The right wing, which mainly consisted of Armenian troops, was hard-pressed throughout the battle and was the first to break so we must assume they bore most of losses. We also know a contingent of Armenia troops on the wing deserted during the battle. After casualties and desertions probably only a thousand troops escape to Manzikert.

9. Romanus had left the camp, the baggage and the non-combatants with only a token guarded. We know from Michael Attaleiates, who was a secretary on Romanus’ staff, that survivors from both the right wing and the reserve warned the camp of Romanus’ defeat, which was immediately abandoned to the enemy. Because the battle was fought in the late afternoon it was dusk by the time the Turks reached the camp, allowing the survivors to escape under the cover of darkness to the safety of nearby Manzikert.

The Byzantines probably suffered no more than about 8,000 casualties at Manzikert. If we factor in the permanent desertion of the Armenian and Uz auxiliaries, approximately 30,000 troops survived the battle. Based on the assumption that the Byzantine army had a total military strength of some 100,000 men in 1071AD and that approximately 50,000 garrison and thematic troops remained at their stations around the Empire,[43] then Manzikert cost the Byzantines about 20% of their total military strength.

Maybe you will read your source better next time my friend, no offense meant.

[Vladimir80]

I have told you before, I only hate the Ottomans not the modern Turks.

What's the difference?

[skampa]

What's the difference?

The Ottomans invaded my country and stole my people's taxes for about 500 years with some resistances in between. The Turks now are staying in their homes and are not bothering many others. I have no respect for any country that invades other countries to rob them.Turkey is a nation while the Ottomans an empire, that is why I hate Ottomans.

[Vladimir80]

The Ottomans invaded my country and stole my people's taxes for about 500 years with some resistances in between. The Turks now are staying in their homes and are not bothering many others. I have no respect for any country that invades other countries to rob them.Turkey is a nation while the Ottomans an empire, that is why I hate Ottomans.

So that would mean everytime someone brings CCCP to me as Russian action that mean it don't apply... ok

[dogukan]

lol yeah :)
I should have read it better.Still it doesn't makes sens to me.What happened to other 80% then?Sat at home until 1453?

[skampa]

So that would mean everytime someone brings CCCP to me as Russian action that mean it don't apply... ok

It applies if you took part on it but it does not apply if it was not your generation who did it. You should not be held responsible for what your parents did wrong unless you support it. That means if you like what your parents did by invading the countries around Russia, it should apply to you on a lesser degree. If you don't like it it does not apply to you.

[skampa]

lol yeah :)
I should have read it better.Still it doesn't makes sens to me.What happened to other 80% then?Sat at home until 1453?

They probably had about half their army for this campaign because it was important, but many deserted. The rest were on guard against other aggressions.
Not all of the Byzantines waited. The Albanians acted before that and gave the Ottomans hell on Earth for at least 25 years.

[Vladimir80]

It applies if you took part on it but it does not apply if it was not your generation who did it. You should not be held responsible for what your parents did wrong unless you support it. That means if you like what your parents did by invading the countries around Russia, it should apply to you on a lesser degree. If you don't like it it does not apply to you.

A yes, the sins of our fathers debte... Do we get to forget the crimes of our past yet have right to claim our victories? It can't be one or both...

[skampa]

A yes, the sins of our fathers debte... Do we get to forget the crimes of our past yet have right to claim our victories? It can't be one or both...

If you look at my answer carefully you will find out that I answered your question.

[Vladimir80]

If you look at my answer carefully you will find out that I answered your question.

You only answered in part to the negative yet contradict when taking credit for their victories... I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways.

[skampa]

You only answered in part to the negative yet contradict when taking credit for their victories... I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways.

No you don't claim your victory you condemn it if you do not want to be held accountable. You condemn it because it is morally wrong to go to someone else's country and steal from them. Imagine you have an apartment. Your big boxer neighbor comes to your apartment, beats you up, steals your valuables, and eats your bread. He keeps doing it for 20 years. No moral person can keep the ill gotten gains of their parents. So no you don't claim victory.

[Vladimir80]

What about the good victories? You can't claim them either. You just have to accept your heritage, every last bit of it.

[skampa]

What about the good victories? You can't claim them either. You just have to accept your heritage, every last bit of it.

If you defeated an invader or saved another country from invasion and then left you should be proud of it and claim it as your victory. No you don't have to accept every last bit of your heritage. Now many people from my country are becoming thieves pimps and drug distributes just like from your country. I don't have to accept that as my heritage even thought those people might outnumber people like me. I am Albanian they are just mutations of Albanians. You can choose which part of your heritage is right and which part is wrong just like the Canadians regret not having treated the Aboriginals with more respect.

[Vladimir80]

Mate, it doesn't work like that. What brings honor to a country also brings it dishonor. That being the actions it takes.

[skampa]

Mate, it doesn't work like that. What brings honor to a country also brings it dishonor. That being the actions it takes.

Then what my country is doing right now only brings dishonor because my country is lead by a bunch of corrupt morons with no manners.

[dogukan]

Skampa I have seen historian(from Balkans) saying Ottomans gave more to Balkan then they took.of course there were taxes but you're forgetting that Balkan people never lived a slave life or weren't forced to convert or have seen any major mass killings.
Considering that most of the Viziers in Palace were from Balkans and especially from Albania these guys did care about their families.
taxes from Christians were extra true but thats all.If turned to Muslim , converted ones could even control mass lands and become a tımar lord.
If not, Christians didn't have to send their sons to war.But every Muslim(I mean Arabs) had to give away at least one of their sons for war.Standing army was mostly recruited among Balkan peoples and they've lived heaven on earth at medieval ages.

[skampa]

Skampa I have seen historian(from Balkans) saying Ottomans gave more to Balkan then they took.of course there were taxes but you're forgetting that Balkan people never lived a slave life or weren't forced to convert or have seen any major mass killings.
Considering that most of the Viziers in Palace were from Balkans and especially from Albania these guys did care about their families.
taxes from Christians were extra true but thats all.If turned to Muslim , converted ones could even control mass lands and become a tımar lord.
If not, Christians didn't have to send their sons to war.But every Muslim(I mean Arabs) had to give away at least one of their sons for war.Standing army was mostly recruited among Balkan peoples and they've lived heaven on earth at medieval ages.

It is true that the Balkans people had their rights but they only served the Ottoman empire. This means that the Ottomans used the best people of the Balkans to build their empire. This is only good for that person who gets the high position but his country becomes poor. So only individuals from the Balkans benefited while the Balkan countries were left poor. When the Ottomans left the Balkans many wars started. Even the war in Kosovo in 1999 is as a result of the Ottomans. The borders were set before the Ottomans came and people were living in peace. Just put yourself in my position. How would you like it if the US invaded your country and gave you new laws and everything Turkey does is to serve the US.

[dogukan]

It is true that the Balkans people had their rights but they only served the Ottoman empire. This means that the Ottomans used the best people of the Balkans to build their empire. This is only good for that person who gets the high position but his country becomes poor. So only individuals from the Balkans benefited while the Balkan countries were left poor. When the Ottomans left the Balkans many wars started. Even the war in Kosovo in 1999 is as a result of the Ottomans. The borders were set before the Ottomans came and people were living in peace. Just put yourself in my position. How would you like it if the US invaded your country and gave you new laws and everything Turkey does is to serve the US.

I'd blame Wilson for Kosovo war
Yes what Ottomans did was a sort of imperialism.This is done by all the major powers on earth.Ottoman did give Balkans a choice though and didn't force people.You can not expect and empire to stay without doing these bad things.
Yes bright people were taken but only for a better future.There strict rules when taking kids.It was done every 2-3 years.Every year at most 1k boy was taken.Boys were chosen wisely by officers in charge(height,handsomeness,brightness....).Then permission was taken from family and later from the village elders.
The boys were always taken from poor villages not cities and never educated people.Because there was going to be some brainwash(don't mean negatively) for loyalty to emperor and discpline.What can a mountain village boy know?Nothing.Then they got the best education available at that time, they were the richest and most well paid.If their brightness wasn't enough then they were given to janissary corps and trained for war and discpline through their life.This led to rise of Ottomans and corrupting of this system led to fall of Ottomans.

[skampa]

I'd blame Wilson for Kosovo war
Yes what Ottomans did was a sort of imperialism.This is done by all the major powers on earth.Ottoman did give Balkans a choice though and didn't force people.You can not expect and empire to stay without doing these bad things.
Yes bright people were taken but only for a better future.There strict rules when taking kids.It was done every 2-3 years.Every year at most 1k boy was taken.Boys were chosen wisely by officers in charge(height,handsomeness,brightness....).Then permission was taken from family and later from the village elders.
The boys were always taken from poor villages not cities and never educated people.Because there was going to be some brainwash(don't mean negatively) for loyalty to emperor and discpline.What can a mountain village boy know?Nothing.Then they got the best education available at that time, they were the richest and most well paid.If their brightness wasn't enough then they were given to janissary corps and trained for war and discpline through their life.This led to rise of Ottomans and corrupting of this system led to fall of Ottomans.

It sounds good but many people did not want to become soldiers of the Ottoman empire. BTW my great grandfather served with the ottoman army for at least 7 years. Yes I know about the corruption of the Janissaries and how the Sipahi beat them.

[Zraver]

You falied to mention the final crusade where all Catholic invaders were wiped off the map. How convenient... :roflmao3:


You said crusades plural. BTW at the end of the day Christendom won (so far). The Golden Khanate was destroyed, Andalusia was liberated, Scicily was retaken etc. Excpet for a small part of Europe in the Balkans, Muslim power was pushed out of Europe and Jerusalem denied Muslim control since 1918.

If anythign losing the Holy land, silk road, and the Byzantine Empire helped Europe by forcing them to look for away around islam leading to the age of exploration and colonisation.

[Vladimir80]

. Excpet for a small part of Europe in the Balkans, Muslim power was pushed out of Europe and Jerusalem denied Muslim control since 1918.

You can thank expansion of the Russian Empire for that... :roflmao3:

[skampa]

You said crusades plural. BTW at the end of the day Christendom won (so far). The Golden Khanate was destroyed, Andalusia was liberated, Scicily was retaken etc. Excpet for a small part of Europe in the Balkans, Muslim power was pushed out of Europe and Jerusalem denied Muslim control since 1918.

If anythign losing the Holy land, silk road, and the Byzantine Empire helped Europe by forcing them to look for away around islam leading to the age of exploration and colonisation.

Well said, the Christians control the world.

[Cedric]

15,000 Muslims vs. 600,000 Romans, That story is complete BS, I even bet that it was made up recently. If the event did happen, or was even a story, every Persian on this board would of mentioned it as a counter to the movie "300".




.

[Zraver]

Well said, the Christians control the world.

I wouldn't say Christendom controls the world, the Godless-Capatalist-Commie Chinese are in accendancy and the great bastions of Christendom have gone secular. But Islam's spread westward not only got checked, but rolled back almsot to its birth place in some areas. In the East the Hindus did a good job of preserving thier religion and culture and even pushed back a little bit (hence the whole Kashmir issue). World wide Islam is growing faster via natural birth but Christianity gains the most new converts.

[skampa]

I wouldn't say Christendom controls the world, the Godless-Capatalist-Commie Chinese are in accendancy and the great bastions of Christendom have gone secular. But Islam's spread westward not only got checked, but rolled back almsot to its birth place in some areas. In the East the Hindus did a good job of preserving thier religion and culture and even pushed back a little bit (hence the whole Kashmir issue). World wide Islam is growing faster via natural birth but Christianity gains the most new converts.

I know of very few religious countries currently but you are right. I meant countries that were founded by Christians in which Christianity is still the main religion.

[Defensor Ursa]

Guys this is not about religion...why are you making it a religion fight?
It's success of strategy

Strategy??

:roflmao3:

More like treachery of Doukas......

[dogukan]

Strategy??

:roflmao3:

More like treachery of Doukas......

Then the Ottomans defat in Vienna 2 was treachery of Murad Giray(Tatars)
This is history dude and yes it was success of strategy.

[Defensor Ursa]

Then the Ottomans defat in Vienna 2 was treachery of Murad Giray(Tatars)

:roflmao3:

This is history dude and yes it was success of strategy.

No! Really?

"Instead, Andronicus Ducas deliberately spread the word among his troops that the Emperor was defeated and the battle lost." -- Norwich, "Byzantium, The Apogee".

"Moreover his marriage to Irene, granddaughter of the Caesar John Ducas and daughter of that Andronicus Ducas who had so shamefully betrayed Romanus Diogenes at Manzikert...." -- Norwich, "Byzantium, Delcine and Fall".


This IS HISTORY, dude.

[mustavaris]

15,000 Muslims vs. 600,000 Romans, That story is complete BS, I even bet that it was made up recently. If the event did happen, or was even a story, every Persian on this board would of mentioned it as a counter to the movie "300".




.

The battle is real and the results also quite like that. But the numbers are far from the truth.

[Zraver]

The battle is real and the results also quite like that. But the numbers are far from the truth.

very true, inflatign the numbers only steals glory from the real victory.

[mustavaris]

very true, inflatign the numbers only steals glory from the real victory.

When one just takes numbers from the contemporary writers who are biased and the result is that one gets numbers like that. Or maybe we should also accept the numbers given by the ancient Greek who wrote about their battles against the Persians..? And so on.

The fact is that that the Byzantine (not Roman!) troops were beaten bad AND it isnt even sure whether the Byzantine troops had numerical advantage. Many sources indicate that the Muslism actually had more troops on the field... as half of the Christian army fled from the battlefield before the battle started, and even if the Christians has had all the troops on battle field it isnt so sure either.

[Defensor Ursa]

This is history dude and yes it was success of strategy.


"....and no sooner had the standard been turned to the rear than the phalanx was broken by the base cowardice, or the baser jealousy, of Andronicus, a rival prince, who disgraced his birth and the purple of the Caesars." -- Gibbon,"The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".

"The line that continued to retreat was commanded by Andronicus Ducas, whose noble father was one of Romanus's bitterest enemies. He reached the Byzantine encampment, leaving behind Romanus who, with a much smaller force, could not stand." --Davis, "100 Battles From Ancient Time to the Present".

More HISTORY, dude.

[Defensor Ursa]

Then the Ottomans defat in Vienna 2 was treachery of Murad Giray(Tatars)



Apparently the Sultan thought otherwise.....

"For a time, Mustapha was able to convince the sultan that the defeat was not his fault, but, when the truth become know, Mustapha was executed by ritual strangulation." --Davis, "100 Decisive Battles:From Ancient Time to the Present".

"The Turkish forces then withdrew to Belgrade, whence the Sultan had previously withdrawn to Adrianople. From here he now sent his Grand Chamberlain with orders to return with the head of the Grand Vezir. So Kara Mustafa was executed in his turn....". -- Kinross, "The Ottoman Centuries".


:xmas_emot3:

[dogukan]

Yes I didn't say that info is wrong.The defeat was the result of that Mustafa guy who screwed an whole army and had bad relations with his generals which caused them to betray him.
Kara Mustafa was guilty.But this doesn't change the fact that the biggest cavalary force of Ottoman army was Tatars which left the back side undefended which cause Sobieski with his legendary Hussars to finish of the army.
Mustafa also waited for Veinna to surrender because he didn't want to ruin the city forbidding the looting and lowering morale of his men

[Defensor Ursa]

Yes I didn't say that info is wrong.The defeat was the result of that Mustafa guy who screwed an whole army and had bad relations with his generals which caused them to betray him. Kara Mustafa was guilty.But this doesn't change the fact that the biggest cavalary force of Ottoman army was Tatars which left the back side undefended which cause Sobieski with his legendary Hussars to finish of the army. Mustafa also waited for Veinna to surrender because he didn't want to ruin the city forbidding the looting and lowering morale of his men

1. Vienna didn't surrender

2. Mustafa's own incompetence in military STRATEGY cost him the battle.


The more you post about this battle, the more it sounds like you know nothing about this battle..... :rolleyes:

[kaiser_tr]

and his head:)

[mustavaris]

and his head:)

No chance to learn from mistakes then.. Maybe we´re now reaching one of the core reasons why the Ottomans were beaten badly from 17th century onwards;)

[Defensor Ursa]

and his head:)


Already posted...........:)


"For a time, Mustapha was able to convince the sultan that the defeat was not his fault, but, when the truth become know, Mustapha was executed by ritual strangulation." --Davis, "100 Decisive Battles:From Ancient Time to the Present".

[kaiser_tr]

No chance to learn from mistakes then.. Maybe we´re now reaching one of the core reasons why the Ottomans were beaten badly from 17th century onwards;)

yes i agree with you.its a stupid tradition to eleminate the commanders who couldnt succeed:) they cant gain experience and reach to a decent level:)