The Battle of Gallipoli
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4821
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 10:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Battle of Gallipoli
Posted By: turkos
Subject: The Battle of Gallipoli
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 06:43
|
i wonder what you think about this battle s effects on world history?du you think that it is same as troy war(fight of east and west civilizations)..what do u think about its results for nationalism and emperialism..i believe this war is the 2nd troy war! do u agree with me? ------------- dont forget all events are repeating |
Replies:
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 09:04
|
Don't read too much into that "Clash of Civilizations" stuff. My feeling is that there has not been anything like that since the seventeenth century, at least in Europe. Gallipoli showed that strategic thinking....the opening of a southern flank against the Central Powers...needed more than looking at a map. The equipment and experience did not yet exist to bring off a successful large scale amphibious operation, and logistical planning was lacking also. The lessons were learned and put to use in World War II. And we must give credit to the Turkish army for a skillful and vigorous defense. That was impressive. |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 11:46
|
I would not go so far as calling Gallipoli a second Troy. We are not even absolutely sure the first Troy happened. The Turks were already 'westernized', and so it was not really a stark contrast in culture. If anything, I consider Issus the second Troy. This was before Alexander began to adopt Persian customs and was a western vs eastern confrontation. Yes, we must give the Turks credit for giving the Brits such a drubbing. I see this battle as one of the greatest upsets in history, with the 'sick man of Europe' defeating the empire where the sun never sets. ------------- |
Posted By: turkos
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 17:27
|
what would be happen if turks lose this battle..? u can be sure that england would be only force of world now(not germans bcs they had nothing to lose as a result of nationalism)..britain lost many regions bcs of leaders which saw Ataturk as a legend after that war..anzacs are in this group too
------------- dont forget all events are repeating |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 19:09
|
Should Britain have won this battle, no doubt large portions of Asia
Minor would have come under British control. The British might have
kept these territories, or might have ceded them to certain allies a
few islands away.
------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 20:18
Yes ANZACS (it's an abbreviated term requiring capitals, I'm not yelling) are in this group, cheers turkos  .I do not see this as a clash of cultures, the Turks were adopting Western ways and the Turkish forces at Gallipoli were largely directed by German military officers. German involvement in Turkish affairs had been going on for years. Also I doubt that had Gallipoli been won by the Alllies that Anatolia would have been divided up and parceled off, we see that after the end of WWI they made some attempt at that. The reason it failed was simply that Anatolia was heavily Turkified after over half a millennium of Turkish rule, such a large area of territory with a sometimes militant populace and a fairly advanced level of technology simply wouldn't stand for it. Had Gallipoli been won in 1915 the effects for world history would have been dramatic. With Turkey knocked out of the war the Straits are opened and supplies come streaming in to the Russians. Bulgaria quickly collapses without Turkey, and the Allies easily push into the Balkans to liberate Serbia from enemy occupation. With the vast south of the Austro-Hungarian flank open to attack, the newly equppied Russians now once again able to advance from the East, Austria falls easily. The eastern front, too vast to be bogged down in trench warfare, is broken open. Germany is now utterly surrounded and lacks the ability to defend so against so many enemies on so many fronts. Surrender is obtained at some point in 1916. Britain and France are tired but not exhausted. Russia retains its monarchy and continues its industrial revolution, having weathered the most serious storm which could threaten its social structure. Perhaps this large nation will make incremental moves towards allowing their duma (parliament) more power as the nation's wealth increases. Russia is also given Constantinople, which it was promised by the Allies. Net result is an extremely powerful Russia with Britain and France also scratched but not down and out. Perhaps the three would form a kind of triumvirate over world affairs, creating a balance of power where they manipulate international relations for their own benefit. ------------- |
Posted By: turkos
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 21:04
correction: turkish battles havnt been controlled by germans..they were allied and their work was ammunition and heavy guns..if they had controlled ,turks would lose.. the hearts controlled this battle ------------- dont forget all events are repeating |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 15:00
|
Well the Germans played a leading role in directions and were deeply
involved in the planning and strategising of the battle. When you have
an elite corps of German officers training, equipping, drilling,
positioning and strategising for the Turks it is fair to say they
played a critical role in directing the Turkish forces.
------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 15:08
|
I was always curious at how New Zealanders and Australians thought of this battle. Its like the mark of their national pride but to me it seems like "alot of our boys died to secure an objective irrelevant to Autralia at the behest of colonial masters and we lost anyway". ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 15:14
|
yes, It always comes me weird too. They lost people without reason, and They are building their nation over this nonsense. Constantine XI Yes, they effected somehow, but it is not always good always. Liman decisions are not always right,(well mostly wrong) This is why Ataturk one time take decision by himself. In fact this war cost us all educated people of Turkey. A lot people from Istanbul went this war and lost their life, high school of galata lost all of its Turkish student at this war.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 15:19
|
I think the ANZACs were tapped because they were the better troops available "in theater." In 1915, the British were still experiencing growing pains becomng a modern mass army, and most of that strength was eaten up in France/Flanders. I think the Brits had thought highly of Aussie soldiers since the Boer War, and had confidence in them. The Dominions, Canada, as well as Australia and New Zealand were agreeable to the service asked of them. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 15:26
|
Ataturk is the one figure I see playing a really decisive role as a
Turk, but leaders on both sides made decisions of mind boggling
stupidity. And yes it did cost the Turks heavily, I remember reading
they suffered a staggering 30,000 killed in action during one single
day of the general offensive against the Allies. The Dominions typically accounted for themselves well. Coming more from rural areas than the British, these soldiers possessed all the bellicose features of a youthful nation. Eager to prove themselves, the keen young men were hurled tragically against impossible positions. Such commanders as Haig interpreted their intrepid spirit as indiscipline, being more concerned with reducing these men to dull servitude than utilizing their martial qualities. ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 15:33
|
I understand you, but becoming good soldiers dont mean much for building a nation, I mean If you give death for your nation is different than becoming a good soldiers. By the way, All life cost from war should be 50 000-80 000(dont remember excact number ). Others are from epidemic. So 30 000 is realy big number for that war. |
Posted By: baracuda
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 15:38
| "Constantine XI" there is an offsprey book around on Galipoly.. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 15:42
|
I shall have to fit it in one of these days. Are the Offsprey publications available in my area? ------------- |
Posted By: baracuda
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 15:46
| I usualy download books first, if I like it then I buy them.. so if you can download it would be easy to find over p2p |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 15:51
|
OK shall give that a go. I may do the Ottoman Empire next year at university, so it would be economical to fit it in with that.
------------- |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 17:03
|
I think he meant "Osprey". They are good books, not very broad but detailed.
------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 21:28
|
Ok, well all the posts I made over the past 14 hours or have been while
I was under the influence. Now that I am more clear headed (though
still tired as hell), I realize I have neglected to answer Tobodai. Well Gallipoli was our first big fight really. Australians (perhaps New Zealanders also) had fought in the Boer War, but that was a tiny conflict which our colonies (the Australian colonies did not federate into a nation until January 1 1901) did not commit large forces to. With federation came a national military force, and roughly 10% of the Australian population signed up to serve in WWI. Conscription was never introduced, unlike in Britain. Sent to Egypt to training at the beginning of the war, the British War Ministry managed to find a job for these lads when the Royal Navy failed to force the Straits. And so Gallipoli began, fought in some of the most impossible and atrocious conditions WWI could provide. It is a defeat, but one which is celebrated and I know that may seem strange. We celebrate it because it was the first time our soldiers were tested and their courage did not fail. Their defeat was a product of poor planning and organisation on the part of the British High Command, when you read about such incidents such as the Battle of the Nek and see how the ANZACS went forward inspite of impossible odds it inspires pride. The forces at Gallipoli were defeated by the poor decisions made higher up, we recognise the common soldier performed heroicly at our country's baptism of fire. From the Gallipoli campaign we see many of the greatest virtues of the Australian character given meaning: mateship being just one of these. That is why Gallipoli is solemnly and proudly remembered as a triumph of the spirit of the first generation of our nation, the defeat not able to tarnish the valour and virtues displayed by those men. ------------- |
Posted By: Dīrī
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2005 at 22:34
|
Come on - OF course the Anatolia would have been DIVIDED! ANY GIVEN DAY ANATOLIA WOULD BE DIVIDED! And those of you I see here saying things like "Anatolia was too turkified" that is just bogus from Westerners who have NO idea what they are talking about... All you learn in the west is how many Turks you killed and how many allied they killed... That's all... Truth is after WW1 the Ottoman Empire was being divided into bits and pieces - among other states a Kurdistan was planned - and with the Mosul Vilayet to be given permission to "join" it two years later... And then the DAMN "Young Turks" party surfaced and brought with them their NAZI-like ideology that denied all other nations of the Near East any credit - Damn Atatürk was first supported by the Kurds because he was talking about a Turkish-Kurdish state and then changed his freaky mind and banned everything "Kurd" and "Kurdistan"... But HEY - NO hard feelings damn Europeans... (In fact it is quite amazing that Kurds don't HATE the west - but instead see it as a role model) After all the sh*t Kurds have been through because of imperialist and colonialist aspirations... We will free our Kurdistan by our selves thank you very much - and we don't need a ROTTEN pound from Englishmen... Today Southern Kurdistan - Tomorrow Eastern and Western Kurdistan and in two weeks we will TAKE BACK our lands in Northern Kurdistan and kick Turkeys ass... ------------- Yan Kurdistan - Yan Neman... Simply being a Kurd is a political act... |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 03:20
|
Be calm guy,If we failed, there would be not kurdistan, but armenia. Half of to Kurdish cities were armenian cities. And you should thank you Ataturk,for protecting your ass against the Armenians. I dont think they will let so much kurds to live. And dont be idiot,at that times british and france,now USA.
|
Posted By: erci
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 04:12
yeah, Damn everbody  |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 05:13
|
erci and Mortaza, please just ignore him... ------------- |
Posted By: Dīrī
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 17:55
|
LOL
Man yo uare realy dumb - I have heard thi rhetoric a THOUSAND times - and it is begining to wear out... You should see the facts as they are... You say there would be no Kurdistan? Where the f**k did you get that idea from? Kurds were promised a country - or shall we say an autonomous area which was gonna be independent at it's own wish! And even though it was SMALL - it was SOMETHING! And in any case Kurdistan has been split by you - and Turkey has deported so many Kurds to the Turkish areas of Turkey that now Kurdistan looks like this..
But when the "missing" people are returned the "holes" will be filled and Kurdistan can not be denied any native lands...
http://www.kurdistanica.com/english/geography/geo-images/map-03.jpg"> ------------- Yan Kurdistan - Yan Neman... Simply being a Kurd is a political act... |
Posted By: erci
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 00:25
present day Canakkale   |
Posted By: baracuda
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 01:14
|
"Erci" where is the first two pictures from? (what are the places called, in Gelibolu or in Canakkale side?)
"Diri" - Dream on.. |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 02:38
|
yozgat, corum, sivas, kżržehir
|
Posted By: baracuda
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 05:43
|
Mortaza - bosver, komedi donuyor zaten burda (just leave it seems like that a comedy is going here anyway)
The first picture looks like some place after Konya in Antalya direction that I know.. |
Posted By: turkos
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 13:15
|
ok guys probably diri will post new replies in this topic or in anyone please let him alone..dont answer him..he wants just a country ------------- dont forget all events are repeating |
Posted By: erci
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 21:52
I've copied/pasted the first pic from wowturkey.com I don't know exactly what part of Canakkale is it. http://wowturkey.com/tr47/tuncay_erdogan_canakkale_050.jpg second one is a village called Hamzakoy.It is in gellibolu, 2 km away from the port of Gelibolu.  |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 06:14
|
Non-English language is not allowed, apart for the relevant "non-english" part of the forum. (located here: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=20 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=20 ) As a courtesy to the non-Turkish speaking forum members, please stop posting in Turkish. Diri, that goes for you too. Please continue this discussion in a non-offensive manner. PS This post was edited and certain non-english language posts were deleted (also at the request of the contributors)
------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |