If this turns into a flamewar in which one side links to the present, from an incident in history, the perceived barbarity or lack thereof one group and pits it against another, it will thereby have become anachronistic.
By becoming anachronistic, it loses historical objectivity, and therefore does not belong in a discussion of history in the Early Modern and Imperial Age forum.
Does everyone get my point? Please take my advice into account.
Edited by Byzantine Emperor - 16-Sep-2007 at 16:05
The claim of barbarity(which means extreme cruelty or brutality here) can also mean an admission of one's military superiority and one's inferior defense, which is a very good clue to the very question of the thread. Afterall it is not about "who was more humanist." With the same mentality one might say that the US is "barbaric" because she commits atrocities in Iraq or, say, Belguim was barbaric because of its "dark past" in Congo. But both examples are still a proof the military superiority of the US and Belguim to Iraq and Congo.
Even though the Ottomans failed to conquer Vienna, the existence of the Ottoman presence there says a lot, whereas there was hardly any political, military or cultural influences of Charles V over any major Ottoman cities in Europe. In other words, Suleyman's political power was felt in Charles V's main lands while there was no sign of Charles V's power whatsoever in Suleyman's very safe and peaceful main lands -Selanik or Adrianopolis, for instance.
Just compare the size of the Spanish Empire (in red) with the Ottoman. We are talking about different things. Suleiman was building an empire in microscopic Europe. Charles V was building a global empire.
There is no comparison possible.
....
İt must be really hard to win against the mighty armies of america nad Philipines
More than you think. The Spaniards that defeated the Turks in the battle of Lepanto, for instance, were the same that were crashed by the Mapuches in Southern South America and that were expelled from Japan in about the same times. Besides, it is well known that both British and French fought very hard in the Caribbean against Spaniards.
On the other hand, Spain was defeated by the Brits and other Europeans in Europe while at the same time expanded in North Africa against the Muslims and converted the Mediterranean in a safer sea after combating the Turks.
The claim of barbarity(which means extreme cruelty or brutality here) can also mean an admission of one's military superiority and one's inferior defense, which is a very good clue to the very question of the thread. Afterall it is not about "who was more humanist." With the same mentality one might say that the US is "barbaric" because she commits atrocities in Iraq or, say, Belguim was barbaric because of its "dark past" in Congo. But both examples are still a proof the military superiority of the US and Belguim to Iraq and Congo. ....
I agree.
It is also well known that the most barbaric leader in the wars against the Turks it was a "Westerner" nicknamed Dracula, and that served as inspiration for the horror movies of today.
The Romanian Vlad III the impaler was a real barbarian that commited against the Turks the worst violations of human rights. And he was a Christian
The impaler:
some crimes:
There are claims that thousands of people were impaled at a single time. One such claim says 10,000 were impaled in the Transylvanian city of Sibiu (where Vlad the Impaler had once lived) in 1460. Another allegation asserts that during the previous year, on Saint Bartholomew's Day (in August), Vlad the Impaler had 30,000 of the merchants and officials of the Transylvanian city of Braşov that were breaking his authority impaled. One of the most famous woodcuts of the period shows Vlad the Impaler feasting amongst a forest of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Braşov, while a nearby executioner cuts apart other victims.
Impalement was Vlad's favourite method of torture but was by no means his only one. The list of tortures he is alleged to have employed is extensive: nails in heads, cutting off of limbs, blinding, strangulation, burning, cutting off of noses and ears, mutilation of sexual organs (especially in the case of women), scalping, skinning, exposure to the elements or to animals, and boiling alive. [6] An old Romanian story says that one could even leave a bag of gold in the middle of the street, then return and pick it up the next day, as people were so afraid to commit crimes during his reign due to these horrific means of torture and capital punishment.
No one was immune to Vlad the Impaler's attentions. His victims included women and children, peasants and great lords, ambassadors from foreign powers and merchants. Nevertheless, the vast majority of his European victims came from the merchants and boyars of Transylvania and his own country, Wallachia. Many have attempted to justify Vlad's actions on the basis of nascent nationalism and political necessity. Most of the merchants in Transylvania and Wallachia were Saxons who were seen as parasites, preying upon Romanian natives of Wallachia, while the boyars had proven their disloyalty time and time again (Vlad's own father and older brother were murdered by unfaithful boyars). His actions were likely driven by one or more of three motives: personal or political vendettas, and the establishment of iron-fisted law and order in Wallachia.
Vlad Ţepeş is alleged to have committed even more impalements and other tortures against invading Ottoman forces. It was reported that an invading Ottoman army turned back in fright when it encountered thousands of rotting corpses impaled on the banks of the Danube. It has also been said that in 1462 Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, a man not noted for his squeamishness, returned to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of 20,000 impaled corpses outside of Vlad's capital of Trgovişte. Many of the victims were Turkish prisoners of war Vlad had previously captured during the Turkish invasion. The total Turkish casualty toll in this battle reached over 40,000. The warrior sultan turned command of the campaign against Vlad over to subordinates and returned to Istanbul, even though his army had initially outnumbered Vlad's three to one and was better equipped.
Chales was the running, Suleiman was chasing him without any doubt. Millitarily ottoman`s power was much more greater, at Charles reign ottomans gained hungary, transylvania and north africa. What did charles get from the ottomans. For 30 years Tunis only.
Charles V had to fight against a lot of enemies not only the Turks but also France and the Protestants who were allies (the first) or sympatising (the second) with the Turks. Anyway Suleiman failed to conquer Vienna and the siege of the Austrian capital ended in a disaster for his army.
The Ottomans had to fight against the Portuguese, the Berbers of north Africa, the Ethiopians, the Polish, the Knights of St John, the Venetians, the Transylvanians, the Hungarians, the Genoese, the Cossacks, various tribes of the caucausus, Arabia, and eastern anatolia, and most importantly, the Persians, who with their frequent incursions into Ottoman territory forced Suleiman to cut his campaigns in Europe short and thereby directly rescued Europe from Ottoman rule (whether or not the Ottomans could have conquered Europe is not definite, but they would have fatigued Europe to a greater extent and diverted even more resources from the counter-reformation).
The Ottomans had to fight against the Portuguese, the Berbers of north Africa, the Ethiopians, the Polish, the Knights of St John, the Venetians, the Transylvanians, the Hungarians, the Genoese, the Cossacks, various tribes of the caucausus, Arabia, and eastern anatolia, and most importantly, the Persians, who with their frequent incursions into Ottoman territory forced Suleiman to cut his campaigns in Europe short and thereby directly rescued Europe from Ottoman rule (whether or not the Ottomans could have conquered Europe is not definite, but they would have fatigued Europe to a greater extent and diverted even more resources from the counter-reformation).
[/QUOTE]
We didn't fight Otomans in Suleiman times nor in the whole XVIth century there was no single battle between Poles and Turks. It was a rule in Polish politics until XVIIth century not to provoke Ottomans to war e.g. when Moldovian vassal of Turkey pilaged some Polish territories on Ukraine our army was ordered by Polish diet not to cross Turkish border so they provoked Moldavian's duke to cross Polish border and then destroyed them. So to sum up Suleiman didn't fight with Poland.
You cannot excuse the inferiority of Ottoman military in comparison to the Spanish with such excuses. These things have been happening through history to every colonial army. Other succeed , other not.
Pinguin , impalement was a typical punishment in the Ottoman empire until 19 century...
You cannot excuse the inferiority of Ottoman military in comparison to the Spanish with such excuses. These things have been happening through history to every colonial army. Other succeed , other not.
I am sure, he is not accusing inferiority of ottoman military at Suleyman time.
Pinguin , impalement was a typical punishment in the Ottoman empire until 19 century...
Too sad, we never heard this from our historical books but from you.
You cannot excuse the inferiority of Ottoman military in comparison to the Spanish with such excuses. These things have been happening through history to every colonial army. Other succeed , other not.
I am sure, he is not accusing inferiority of ottoman military at Suleyman time.
Pinguin , impalement was a typical punishment in the Ottoman empire until 19 century...
Too sad, we never heard this from our historical books but from you.
"In the winter of 1436-1437, Dracul became prince of Wallachia (one of the three Romanian provinces) and took up residence at the palace of Tirgoviste, the princely capital. Vlad followed his father and lived six years at the princely court. In 1442, in order to keep the Turks at bay, Dracul sent his son Vlad and his younger brother Radu, to Istanbul, as hostages of the Sultan Murad II. Vlad was held in there until 1448. This Turkish captivity surely played an important role in Dracula's upbringing; it must be at this period that he adopted a very pessimistic view of life and learned the Turkish method of impalement on stakes. The Turks set Vlad free after informing him of his father's assassination in 1447. He also learned about his older brother's death and how he had been tortured and buried alive by the boyars of Tirgoviste."
First of all, Suleyman was a secular leader, he did not have any religious authority. He had the title of Caliph, but he never used it.
In terms of wealth, civilization and military obviously...
In terms of wealth, Ottomans were very rich, but Habsburgs were possibly richer, due to the plunder of new world silver.
In terms of civilisation, Ottomans were superior. Suleyman's time was the peak of Ottoman classical culture with great accomplishments. At the same time, Spanish inquisition was busy exterminating the American natives, and burning Protestans. In contrast, the Ottomans had their classic millet system based on religious communities working well at this time.
Militarily, Ottomans were obviously superior. As others pointed out, Ottoman-Habsburg wars ended with Ottomans besieging the Habsburg capital and raiding deep into Bavaria... The Habsburg, on the other hand, let alone besieging Kostantiniyye, couldn't even cross the Danube or reclaim Hungary, right next to them! Vast amounts of self delusion is needed to believe that the Habsburg military was superior to the Ottoman one under Suleyman.
Only thing stopped the Ottomans from taking Vienna was Persia. This vast empire was attacking the Ottomans whenever their army was fighting the Habsburgs. And after the Ottomans beat the Habsburgs to submission, they would turn back to deal with the Persians. And guess what, Suleyman has taken the Persian capital Tabriz between his campaigns against the pesky Habsburgs.
So the Ottoman military at the time was capable of laying siege to the capitals of its two most powerful neighbours, which are thousands of kms apart, within five years (1529 Vienna - 1534 Tabriz). Have the Habsburgs manage to besiege Paris? Which they surrounded from three sides?
In the Mediterranean as well, the Ottomans were superior to the Spanish, as seen in Jerba. North Africa is few hundred kms from Spain, but a thousand km from Istanbul, but it was under Ottoman rule.
And last, but not least, despite what their fanboys here write, the Habsburg so-called 'emperors' in Suleyman's time have agreed that they were lower in status than the Emperor in Kostantiniyye. They were equivalent to an Ottoman vizier in protocol. Ottomans called them 'Kings of Vienna', and made them pay an annual tribute to the Emperor. In all peace agreements between the two countries until 1606, Habsburgs are equivalent to an Ottoman vizier.
This tribute was cancelled, and the Ottoman Emperor agreed to deal with the Habsburg one as an equal only with the Peace of Zsitvatorok in 1606, 40 years after the reign of Suleyman.
Even though the Ottomans failed to conquer Vienna, the existence of the Ottoman presence there says a lot, whereas there was hardly any political, military or cultural influences of Charles V over any major Ottoman cities in Europe. In other words, Suleyman's political power was felt in Charles V's main lands while there was no sign of Charles V's power whatsoever in Suleyman's very safe and peaceful main lands -Selanik or Adrianopolis, for instance.
This should be noted.
It should be noted that Vienna was only one of the capital cities of the Empire of Charles V, the de facto main capital was Madrid, which became also the de iure capital with Phlilip II, the son of Charles V.
Vienna and the territories around it were on the border between the two fighting empires, so we can safely say that nor Madrid (the real capital) nor the most part (Spain, Burgundy, Netherlands) of the European possessions of Charles V were never threatened by the army of Suleiman.
First of all, Suleyman was a secular leader, he did not have any religious authority. He had the title of Caliph, but he never used it.
In terms of wealth, civilization and military obviously...
In terms of wealth, Ottomans were very rich, but Habsburgs were possibly richer, due to the plunder of new world silver.
In terms of civilisation, Ottomans were superior. Suleyman's time was the peak of Ottoman classical culture with great accomplishments. At the same time, Spanish inquisition was busy exterminating the American natives, and burning Protestans. In contrast, the Ottomans had their classic millet system based on religious communities working well at this time.
Militarily, Ottomans were obviously superior. As others pointed out, Ottoman-Habsburg wars ended with Ottomans besieging the Habsburg capital and raiding deep into Bavaria... The Habsburg, on the other hand, let alone besieging Kostantiniyye, couldn't even cross the Danube or reclaim Hungary, right next to them! Vast amounts of self delusion is needed to believe that the Habsburg military was superior to the Ottoman one under Suleyman.
Only thing stopped the Ottomans from taking Vienna was Persia. This vast empire was attacking the Ottomans whenever their army was fighting the Habsburgs. And after the Ottomans beat the Habsburgs to submission, they would turn back to deal with the Persians. And guess what, Suleyman has taken the Persian capital Tabriz between his campaigns against the pesky Habsburgs.
So the Ottoman military at the time was capable of laying siege to the capitals of its two most powerful neighbours, which are thousands of kms apart, within five years (1529 Vienna - 1534 Tabriz). Have the Habsburgs manage to besiege Paris? Which they surrounded from three sides?
In the Mediterranean as well, the Ottomans were superior to the Spanish, as seen in Jerba. North Africa is few hundred kms from Spain, but a thousand km from Istanbul, but it was under Ottoman rule.
And last, but not least, despite what their fanboys here write, the Habsburg so-called 'emperors' in Suleyman's time have agreed that they were lower in status than the Emperor in Kostantiniyye. They were equivalent to an Ottoman vizier in protocol. Ottomans called them 'Kings of Vienna', and made them pay an annual tribute to the Emperor. In all peace agreements between the two countries until 1606, Habsburgs are equivalent to an Ottoman vizier.
This tribute was cancelled, and the Ottoman Emperor agreed to deal with the Habsburg one as an equal only with the Peace of Zsitvatorok in 1606, 40 years after the reign of Suleyman.
For sure the time of Suleiman was the peak of Ottoman political and military power and it's true that Charles V was forced to a humilating peace with the Ottomans for the huge expence of two wars (against France and the Ottomans) and it's also true that the religious division between Catholics and Protestants weakened the HRE in his struggle against the Ottomans, but from a cultural point of view we can safely say that the "siglo de oro" was not inferior to that of the Ottomans, Spanish forumers could surely detail this and finally don't trust the "Black legend", lot of it was invented by the Protestants ...
And last, but not least, despite what their fanboys here write, the Habsburg so-called 'emperors' in Suleyman's time have agreed that they were lower in status than the Emperor in Kostantiniyye. They were equivalent to an Ottoman vizier in protocol. Ottomans called them 'Kings of Vienna', and made them pay an annual tribute to the Emperor. In all peace agreements between the two countries until 1606, Habsburgs are equivalent to an Ottoman vizier.
This tribute was cancelled, and the Ottoman Emperor agreed to deal with the Habsburg one as an equal only with the Peace of Zsitvatorok in 1606, 40 years after the reign of Suleyman.
The Hapsburgs paid tribute to the Ottomans? I did not know this. Was this tributary agreement made in the time of Suleiman and Charles? If so then i will have little doubt as to which emperor was more militarily powerful.
As to culturally, socially and psychologically, I am not so sure. Economically, Charles V was definitely more powerful, with not only the trade route to the spice islands secure but all that plunder from the Americas, which caused heavy inflation in the Ottoman empire and weakened their economic strength.
It should be noted that Vienna was only one of the capital cities of the Empire of Charles V, the de facto main capital was Madrid, which became also the de iure capital with Phlilip II, the son of Charles V.
Vienna and the territories around it were on the border between the two fighting empires, so we can safely say that nor Madrid (the real capital) nor the most part (Spain, Burgundy, Netherlands) of the European possessions of Charles V were never threatened by the army of Suleiman.
But that border wasn't ethnically, historically or culturally well designed. You sound as if that border was a natural boundary between the two empires. Vienna -one of the most important cities for Habsburg dynasty at the time- being on the Ottoman border can only be another clue to the political power of Suleyman. Besides we are only talking about Suleyman's influnce and power over Charles V's cities. This is appreciable.
In terms of wealth, Ottomans were very rich, but Habsburgs were possibly richer, due to the plunder of new world silver.
In terms of civilisation, Ottomans were superior. ...
Prove it. Spain's Golden Century was going on and, as far as I know, that period has a lot more importance to the development of human culture that the Ottoman arts of the time. Don Juan and Don Quixote were not Ottomans, after all.
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
Suleyman's time was the peak of Ottoman classical culture with great accomplishments. At the same time, Spanish inquisition was busy exterminating the American natives, and burning Protestans.
Prove it. Prove that Spaniards had a policy of genocide (like Brits did...)
Prove that the crown didn't react to the crimes of Columbus in Hispaniola.
Prove that Queen Isabel I didn't care about Indians.
Prove that Amerindians were exterminated.
Second, prove that Spanish Inquisition killed MORE Protestants that the victims of the hunting of witches by the rightful Protestants! Do you know how many people died of "Inquisition"? I do know, but I bet you don't.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum