Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Charles V vs. Suleiman the Magnificent

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379
  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Charles V vs. Suleiman the Magnificent
    Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 15:55
Originally posted by Leonardo

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

The turkish akınjis burnt and destroyed all bavaria ,Austria and slovakia if you want a counter answer
 
 
What is this, an admission of barbarity? LOL
 
 
I am answering in your style
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 16:01
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
Back to Top
The Hidden Face View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Ustad-i Azam

Joined: 16-Jul-2005
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1379
  Quote The Hidden Face Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 18:52
Originally posted by Leonardo

 What is this, an admission of barbarity? LOL


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.

This should be noted.


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 21:06
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

Originally posted by pinguin

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 PhilipinesLOL 
 
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.
 
As I say, there is no comparison.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 21:19
Originally posted by The Hidden Face

Originally posted by Leonardo

 What is this, an admission of barbarity? LOL


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.

 
 
 
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358
  Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 21:57
Originally posted by Leonardo

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

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).
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 02:17
Originally posted by kurt

  
 
 
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. 
Back to Top
Athanasios View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546
  Quote Athanasios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 02:45
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...

Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 03:00
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.
 
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 03:41
Originally posted by Mortaza

 
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.
 
 
It was a very popular in the whole Eastern Europe. In Poland as well especially in XVIIth century.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 06:04
Originally posted by Majkes

Originally posted by Mortaza

 
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.
 
 
It was a very popular in the whole Eastern Europe. In Poland as well especially in XVIIth century.
 
And in 18th c. too (look at Kitowicz's elaboration about the reign of August III Sas)
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 06:06
Originally posted by Majkes

 
We didn't fight Otomans in Suleiman times nor in the whole XVIth century there was no single battle between Poles and Turks.
 
There is a single battle (the battle of Mohacs)
 
Originally posted by Majkes

 
It was a rule in Polish politics until XVIIth century not to provoke Ottomans to war
 
It's true.
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 06:54
Originally posted by Mortaza

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."
 
 
 
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
  Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 07:24
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.
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 07:38
Wow. When after you show a first hand historian resource, I can only say one thing. Hand down!
 
 
It must be at this period that he adopted a very pessimistic view of life and learned the Turkish method of impalement on stakes.
 
Now I see wide knowledge of writer. It must be Turks. Otherwise, how can  a friendly dracula be a torturer. 
 
It must be Turks. It must be Turks..
 
By the way, There is not Turkish method of impalement. (Infact as I said before, I did not hear impalement at the palace of sultan too.)
 
Find a better source friend.
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 07:42
Originally posted by The Hidden Face

Originally posted by Leonardo

 What is this, an admission of barbarity? LOL



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. 
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 08:08
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

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 Smile and finally don't trust the "Black legend", lot of it was invented by the Protestants ...
 
 
 
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358
  Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 09:01
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

 
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.
Back to Top
The Hidden Face View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Ustad-i Azam

Joined: 16-Jul-2005
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1379
  Quote The Hidden Face Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 09:09
Originally posted by Leonardo

 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.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 09:34
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

 
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 allLOL.
 
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.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.