Crimean War

The only thing that is certainly known today is that the Turkish army in Crimea was poor and in need of heavy weapons. One huge part of Turkish army took a message from British that they couldnt protect a great front side and the British wanted Turkish help. Our soldiers fighted at that lands with Russians, enormously cold weather, hunger and deseasas whilethe wealthy british army was having a tea break with french milk boys... Our army fighted bravely for their country's future and not to betray british, but the British couldn't success and Russians didn't fall back. So the only thing to do for to keep the "respect" to coward english army was "PROPOGANDA"!

Thats true... For tens of years the British could show the Turkish army, who saved them from Russian cruelty as the main reason for the result and their army fighted as heros ( altough they preffered to run away like they did all of their history ). But now, thaks to God and Discovery Channel, the world knows the truth.

I also can uderstand why Russians were always enemies of us. Because of their missing of some sort of WATER! Even today we see in all our coasts that they are hungry to any sea cold or hot, CLEAN or DIRTY... They like to swim don't they?  Their hunger can be seen every summer and even other seasons that they invade our seas like a grassopher colony!

I don't know where to start.

The Turkish army in the Crimean War was excellent. At that time Turkey had done away with purchasing commissions or promoting on nepotism and had a modern officers academy. They had the most modern and forward looking army in the world.

The Turks saved the British army at Balklava. Heavily outnumbered, with no artillery facing Russian heavy guns and virtually no cover, they held off the Russian surprise assault for several hours. So poor were the British officers, the British army failed to react or support the Turks and simply would have been destroyed without the Turkish stand. After the battle to cover up their incompetance, the British high command faked the battle report to make it look like the Turks cut and run and it was them not poor British commanders that lost the battle.  

After their defeat the retreating Turks linked up with the Highland Brigade and formed half the number in the Thin Red Line incident, another thing covered up.

No they were not.

They had modern weapons but not the modern army.This Statement needs some descriptions:After the defeat of Mohammad Ali with the rise of Abdalmejid turks try to build a new and modern army and revolutionize the empire administration system.This was a long process that merely completed in 70s of the 19th century and after 1877-1878 war they again reconstructed it until Balkan war and wwi completely ruined that army.
In 1854 their army was not a match for russian.

Sorry but this is not true,turks were supported from six batteries of english guns in redoubts.

Battle begun at 5:30 am and finished in 7:00am when russian succeeded to occupy the redoubt 4.Most of the time was passed to turn off the turkish and british guns,after that all the things was finished. 

There is no doubt British commanders were weak,they showed that in Alma too and later in  Sevastopol but I am not agree with you in your statement that Turks saved British.Turkish soldiers and British batteries were there to guard the alliance camps!!!
If they didn't fight with the russians so what did they do there?
The correct statement is this:
After british commandrship underestand the condition they react slowly and let the russian occupy the redoubts.
In other words this is true statement:
It was British that  did't save turks,not that Turks saved British.

This was typical between British,But the main critic to British army at that time was that in 1854-55 (If you are such an expert in Crimean war and have access to archives)
Why Raglans put the weakest part of Army in such a strategic position and why when he heard the russian invasion react so slowly , was not it because every body knows putting turks in redoubts was a mistake?  

"Although British had lost many casualties and specially their light cavalary brigade (because of poor qualities of their commanders) but fought very bravely and could repulse the russian invasion."

Actually, I dont really know about any battle in history that British fought bravely...

"turkish brigades in front of them that were shattered by russians in less than one hour !!!!."

Ok. I really dont know where you get these info from but I can remind you that the number of Turkish brigades was less than the half of Russian. And there is nothing abou how much time the battle took but I really know that about a few days...

"And about British cowardness and sedition and turkish bravary.From the 1792 until 1910 ottoman empire was just a carcass that invited other peredators to eat it and it was only because of British Empire that it could survive until the Italian and Balkan war."

It is true that the Ottomans survived because of some stronger empires' goods and wishes but it isn't always the British. Also the Russian supported the empire lots of times against British.

"And what was their answer ? Ottomans (Anverlands) united with Germans and invaded the Egypt and glorified the defeat of british in Galipoli with help of geman instructors.Good ,fantastic.So British annexed Arbic lands which they kept fot turks one century ago."

Ok. Again I understand that you only write with your self ideas, not OBJECTIVE!!!

First of all, Egypt was an Ottoman state since 1517 to1882 until it is invaded bu British. So the Ottomans didn't invade egypt, they tried to get it back.

ALSO- THE WAR of GALLIPOLI March 18th and April 25th, 1915

The Turkish army was ALONE trying to protect the Gallipoli peninsula from the huge british and french navy and didn't let them pass. So the British understood that they couldn't arrive Istanbul bosphorus by their navy, so they attacked from land. In 25th April, THE MOST BRAVE BRITISH SEARGENTS were busy with gambling at their huge battleships, so they sent Anzacs, which are Australian soldiers that had nothing to do with Turks, but went there because they were British slaves!

The British army was a union of colony nations with British and French soldiers. If you ever decide to go to Gallipoli, you can see that the Turkish army used the weapons that the British used for teaching Arabs how to fight because of their enormously low price and 50 years usage. Their number of handgunned cavalrys were more than the number of Turkish villagers fighting with their hunting rifles...

And about Germans. I dont care about Enver Pasha, Ittihat ve Terakki and Young Turks because it is known that what they are fighting for and who they're surving! So being with Germans was not even the policy of the Padishah, it was the decision of these servant powers. Also germans made no good to Turks in any battle, because they were busy with using the wealth of Turkish lands and attacking to British colonies!!!

So it is silly to write about braveness while not knowing anything about it in own history!

Also the truth about the British supporting the Ottoman Turks isn't about Ottoman Empire's own pleasure, it was for good of both empires. The British couldn't use the bosphorus or the Russian could be allies with Ottoman Empire, so they had to support the empire...

NOTE: If the Russians are still alive inthe world neighbor hood and a strong power, they have to thank to Baltac� Mehmet's indulgence and Katarina's lust

Interesting, despite the Arfus,  Crecy , Poitiers, Anzicourt, Blenheim, Ouderandaare, Salamanca, Waterloo  you probably also don't know Beer-Sheva 1917  ?

Oguzoglu I did not undestand why you are reacting so hursh against Britons. As far as I can see Paul has made a very good and objective summary about the subject. This guy called Omid is an Iranian not a British. So please be calm. I have to say that I can not agree with you on some parts of Gallipoli too. You have to be more tolerant towards Omid too since if you have been ruled by another nation during 1000 years you may react like this. Do not forget that until 20th century Turks ruled Iran during 1.000 years. It must be heavy..

Russian Start advancing at 5:00 ,deployed their army, deposed their field artillary and start bombardment until all of the turkish guns were silenced.Then they start their assult.That hlf an hour which Raglan pointed  is the time the assult lasted .In the first assult the turks perished,no source pointed that turks finished their ammo,or thy didn't know how to work with british guns.
After 1840 Britain was main source of Ottoman Army weapon until 1880s which Germany took place of Britain.In 1843 new ottoman Army fought his first battle with kurdish rebels with british artillary and french instructors.
The ottoman army also used this artillary very effectively against russians one year before in Romania,So they knew how to use artillary.
Their weak point was in lack of communication,discipline,and managment.

And numbers doesn't show all the things.In Alma ,Balaklava and Incerman,
Russians always outnumbered the allies,but they never succeed to defeat them,Why?I have told it before,check my first post.
Quality of Turkish army in Crimea was low,maybe they don't deploy their best units there,(ofcourse some of them had been sent to cacausia by allies navies later) maybe they can't support them in such a far place,whatever was the reason,they could not save not the British nor themselves in Balaklava.

I'm sorry but I think you didn't get the point.

I said:

The answer is that :Nothing

Your battle list:

Oltenitza

Citate

Rohova

Giurgevo

Bayezid

River Ingur

All Occured in Romania and Cacausia and look to my quote:

Oltenitza,Citate and Rohova all of them were defencive wars in Romania which didn't prevent Russian from advancing in Bulgaria.It just prevent Russian from going to Serbia.You know that russian reached silisteria.

In Giurgevo(Romania) Russian were retreating.
War In cacausia was a disaster for russian because russian didn't have railroad and had lost their navy so in cacausia they were both outnumbered by turks and also in shortage of supply and ammunition.

Perhaps it was nominally ottoman, but it was actually independent since Mehmet Ali stablished his own dinasty.