Why are non-western countries bad at war?

The Ottomans peaked when they entered Europe and began to slowly die

I mean, look at this shit.

Attached: Umayyad750ADloc.png (800x487, 82K)

The Mongols are really the exception but even then they really didn't last that long after conquering all that land

Half the country is under permafrost, yet they STILL lost the Cold War.

>use horse archer
>we good at warrrr nao gaijin

Fuck me OP, non-western countries have been absolutely awful throughout history. I mean Persians? Literally who?

Attached: Achaemenid_Empire_(flat_map).svg.png (672x442, 48K)

russia didn't lost cold war

>gaijin
That's a Japanese word you mongrel.

user, isn't it funny that the medditerrian frequently changes owners in history, the only long standing owners was the Romans. Was it because the Romans were unchallenged because none could stand them until the Gaulls, and Germanic tribes

IQ deficiency

Attached: Statistics 2.png (1272x800, 80K)

Since firearms yeah the reat of the world kinda fell behind

>chuks are supposed to have high iq looking at these charts
>are horrible at war
explain

Self reporting statistics

>country of geniuses
>can't build anything that doesn't mutilate the user

IQ doesn't necessarily mean intelligence. People still need to be educated

Perhaps OP should have made it clear that he is talking about "modern" warfare.

Chinks control over a large landmass which results in said Chinks having to deal with a multitude of separatist parties fighting for independence.

Attached: Neotny and chimps.jpg (348x145, 8K)

You mean industrial revolution.
Firearms were imported to Europe from abroad and said abroad adopted them sooner and used them to better effect than Europeans.

Industrial revolution is the real tipping point.
A non-industrial country simply can't fight an industrial one. It's just not possible.
"Hurr durr guns" is spouted by idiots who only ever got American history education and think that us massacring a fucking stone-age civilisation was the same all over the world.
When in fact, happened precisely because Ottomans fielded muskets and cannons against the European peasant armies with spears and bows.

Why is Japan the only country worth shit in Asia? Surprise, surprise, they were the only industrialised nation in Asia.
It's not a coincidence, lucky turn of events or anything of the sort. They played the European factions against each other to get the technology and then pushed for it hard.
Whereas the rest of Asia, no one was going to just hand them over an "I win" button. You made them your bitch, a colony, and only then started industrialising the place.

Why is modern in quotations? The word refers to the present or recent and historically firearms are.

>the only long standing owners was the Romans.
How many years has it been since the fall of the Roman Empire and the muslim conquest of North Africa and the Middle East?

Attached: 1456849664546.png (795x1022, 435K)

Aussies need to b8 better

In the grand scheme of the empire's controlling the area. I mean they were not the first empire but they certainly had little competition for awhile. There was the parthinians and Carthage but they sucked at being empires. How did Romans control the land for so long? It's an actual question I want answered

I'm no Aussie, mate.

Because I don't know what OP would consider to be modern? I don't fucking know what OP is on about? I look at history and I see a lot of really bad non-western dudes that tormented Europe for the longest time. Including countries/empires that like said improved technological and industrial/medicinal research and general knowledge.

This has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand?

Calm down, you're upset over nothing. The Ottomans were among the first field the cannon but they certainly couldn't get past the Balkans because they were bad and couldn't overcome some poles and Germans.
Tl;Dr I didn't read the rest

Fuck off, it does. It involves the brown dudes that controlled north Africa and part of Spain. How come they didn't last as long as some dudes of Italia

>How come they didn't last as long
What century do you live in?

>Romans last at least a thousand years
>Arabs don't last more than 500
>inb4 Ottomans
Ottomans are Turks

Is this post real?

Attached: 1455883886893.jpg (281x200, 6K)

While OP did not specify the era, it was clearly implied that he was talking about modern times with firearms. Your autistic provocation does not add anything to the discussion. I hope you take the time to understand this constructive criticism and strive to make better posts in the future

love, user

>It's an actual question I want answered

It's completely off-topic but bureaucracy. Look at China and it's the same, only Chinese were better at it.

People wanted to be Roman/Chinese because it provided them with a completely new world to live in.
You could live with a tribe in the middle of nowhere, have to work all year to keep yourself and your family alive, defend everything with your brothers whenever an adversary arrived and die if said adversary got the upper hand.
Or you could joint this new thing called a "nation".
Nation being a bunch of people who had a clearly painted picture of US and THEM. Other people you share roots with and understand will still pillage your village and rape your sister in front of your eyes. Your countrymen, even if you can't understand what they're saying and they look completely different, won't because of laws. You can actually get help, you can actually ask for justice, you can actually resettle,...
The trick is they were a nation like you understand them today and the rest was a brutal "kill or be killed" world. You would kill your neighbors if it meant surviving the winter or if they were too weak to keep up with you. Doesn't matter if your two of your cousins went and found a family over there. Germanic tribes primarily killed people from other Germanic tribes, Gaulish tribes primarily killed people from other Gaulish tribes, Slavs by and large slaughtered Slavs. But Romans, except for special occasions which nobody was fond of, never killed other Romans.

Thanks user, I think I get it now

You're wrong, but it's okay. We still love you despite your flaws.

why are western men so good at it?

Attached: faux-fur-urban-outfitters-hat-zara-blazer-zara-shirt-cotten-topman-pants_400.jpg (400x600, 60K)

>getting BTFO'd so hard he can't tell if the post is real

Attached: Snacks_on_snacks.jpg (273x207, 26K)

>The Ottomans were among the first field the cannon but they certainly couldn't get past the Balkans because they were bad

Musket troops were much more important than said cannons. Europe had cannons, albeit even worse ones. But Europe did not have properly drilled armies equipped with muskets forming rows and using volley fire.

Their inability to advance was simple. The empire was already too big. You can perfectly see it in vidya where they roll the rest of Europe like it's nothing. Vidya omits the details like the fact that without telephones, telegraph or anything of the sort, managing a massive empire has very real practical limits the Ottomans had reached.

>Romans last at least a thousand years
>Arabs and Turks even though no one talked about Arabs or Turks but about non-western people
Nothing in your post was correct, not even close to it either.

>considering Arabs and Turks part of west
Son, you need to go back to school

You certainly ain't literate.

Attached: 1437137349411.jpg (509x303, 41K)

*teleports in your wire*

Attached: e44be7d65093910a0d2683333c6f08ed-c.jpg (602x741, 76K)

Would you say the threat of the Ottomans lead to more professional armies in Europe? Did the Ottomans realize they reached the limit? I mean they certainly kept trying

I don't get it. Are you saying being conquered easily means that they were bad at war? It's not totally true because of cultural and social shifts too

Media and propaganda?

The one with best media wins the war?

Look mom, I made some Yank show his autism

Attached: 1514701006262.png (420x438, 153K)

This, it's related to technological advancement and political stability

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

>implies things were implied that were never even mentioned
No one in the whole thread implied that Arabs and Turks are western people.

>Arabs and Turks are western
>lol jk they're not XD
It takes a special kind of autism

I give up. I'll give you your victory if you wish to shitpost so much and ignore basic English.

Attached: 1398390217781.gif (253x200, 664K)

Firearms had been in Europe since the 12th century moron, well before the 1683 Siege of Vienna. The person who built the Ottoman cannon that took down the walls of Constantinople in 1453 was a Hungarian, i.e. a European.

Anyway, the Ottomans claimed a lot of early victories in Asia Minor and the Balkans because they controlled a giant Caliphate capable of raising men from the Near East to the Arabian Gulf to Anatolia to parts of Mesopotamia, the Caucuses etc. And they were fighting against relatively small Greek and South Slavic Kingdoms that had long since past their heyday. Virtually every battle fought by the Ottomans during the conquest of the Balkans had them enjoying large numerical superiority to their enemy. When they started facing off against the Holy League type alliances of European countries, which were capable of bringing comparable numbers to the fight, they lost (e.g. Lepanto).

There's a reason the Turks lost every single Russo-Turkish War other than the couple where they were backed by the Western powers (e.g. Crimea). If it weren't for said Western powers, Russia would have taken Istanbul a couple of centuries ago.

If we're discussing military history over the past five centuries, Russia undoubtedly has the strongest victory versus defeat ratio. Ever since Kulikovo, their record has been successive victories: against the Golden Horde and the Asian Khanates, against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, against the Turks, against the Persians, against the Siberians in the East. They've also faced down three gigantic invasion forces in their history and won every single one.

I'm not an expert on the topic so I can't really say with certainty. They definitely had an effect on it but it's hard to say (for me) how big.

And no, Ottoman Empire is pretty famous for flaundering and dying a very slow, but inevitable death. I don't think they realised it until much too late. Although, once again, I'm not focused on that part of history so it's possible they had some reformers and what-not who tried to stop it and consolidate their gains.

Turks BTFO. If it weren't for the wretched French and British scum, the Ruskies would have put them out of their misery long ago.

>lynn

Attached: big_1450724989_image.jpg (1280x720, 58K)

Holy shit do you not know anything about history

The Ottomans died when the old trade routes to the East became irrelevant once Europeans starting sailing around the world. With the loss of trade came the loss of revenue which led to the inevitable decline

No, I don't. In fact, I'm currently writing from a kindergarten since our teacher gave us free time at the computer.
Roman empire held up because of magic. They gave tribute to Jupiter and every major diety of the lands they went to. This meant they got a divine buff of "Badass army" which solved all societal and economic issues and ensured a clear victory in 500 turns.
But then they got converted to Christianity, lost the buff and fell on the victory condition charts.

Happy, user? Now excuse me, I've got things to attend to.

Attached: You know what time it is!.jpg (698x658, 266K)

>being a horse archer is easy
Found the Mount&Blade player

Shut us amerimutt!

idk what country you're from but we've probably beaten you in a war at some point

What about Plevna, Suleiman and the Ottoman conquest of Hungary? You're talking out of your ass.

>allah guides their bullets, spray and pray is all you need

Attached: eat trash.jpg (640x628, 75K)

Attached: 1491163139843.png (723x725, 1.47M)

> without telephones or telegraphs...
Funny how the bongs managed before those were invented...

Short answer: ancient mindset that goes back to 3500 B.C.
Long answer:
youtube.com/watch?v=cZk4Yu42g0I

Vo Nguyen Giap was bad at war? 1st he owned the Chinese then he fucked up the French then he clowned the Americans.... He used to be a history teacher.

And he fucked up the Japanese before the Chinese

I didn't know niggers were THAT dumb.

124 reporting in

>us blacks 86
>africans 86

Attached: 1487829517910.png (864x722, 264K)

Samefag, meant 68. Oops.

drawing lines on maps and writing words on paper does not create an empire, only and empire of lies. the huwite race is delusional.

the reason the arabs are shit at war is obvious to any human. the no human huwhite man cannot see and thus proves he is not human. the western way of war is incompatible with arab culture. just look at how well the syrian army did against ISIS. ISIS was lightly armed compared to the syrian army that was armed in the western model. and that is the problem. the western model is inferior slave race model that simply does not fit the arab mind. the western man wages war like a race of merchants and accountants. the true weapon of the huwite man is not fire and steel but paper. the western man wages war with the paper of the bank and the paper of the nation state. the nation state of syria is trying to impose a western model of war upon the arab people who are more free spirit that the huwite slave race. the problem is indeed cultural. compare the performance of ISIS and the syrian and iraqi armies and tell me otherwise. only with great help from iran and russia could the syrians defeat them. if both sides are arab and one fights the western way and the other the local way. and the local side despite having lower numbers and weapons still beats the one with the western way. then the answer is obvious. the same is true for saudisa nd yemenis. both sides are arabs and yet compare the performance differential. you huwite men are too dumb to understand the ways of human beings. you are a race of parasite mimics that mimic the behavior of human beings to decieve the human so that you can feed upon him. you use the generosity, hospitality and trusting nature of your victim as the primary weapon of war against him. you use the humanity of the savage as you primary weapon against him and then accuse the savage of lacking humanity. it is the huwite man that has no humanity.

btw fyi, i am not an arab. i am from pakistan.

>training focused on marching and looking cool
>doesn’t have hundreds of billions to spend on toys
>always have to fight on level playing field(no mass arty, no 50 mil fighters)
>typically fights against proxy’s supporting the bad guys

Attached: 7E2922BF-3C8B-4A9E-AB6C-8E0EF4975076.jpg (736x996, 129K)

The Russians won the Siege of Plevna. Sure they had a numerical advantage, but this was the exception rather than the rule. The Ottomans enjoyed large numerical advantages in most of their early battles. They besieged Constantinople with an army 11x that of the defenders, so they can hardly complain about the Russians enjoying superior numbers at Plevna. Additionally, a good portion of the army at Plevna were raw volunteers with no training.

Not sure why you brought Hungary up as the Ottomans enjoyed a clear numerical superiority there. Likewise for most of Suleiman's wars.

Pakistan has literally never won a war. Every single Indo-Pak engagement has ended in a crushing loss for Pakistan.

This isn't surprising. Pakistan is essentially a fictitious state. Jinnah just created a state for people in the Indian subcontinent who didn't identify with the newly formed Republic of India - largely Muslims - but he and his successors never succeeded in creating a meaningful national identity in the same way the Turks did.

Turks largely put Nation before religion. Pakistanis largely put religion before Nation, hence the we wuz khans/arabs fantasies.

Your argument is also bullshit. It doesn't matter how the SAA won. The end result is all that matters.

you entire post is complete utter bull shit. it has nothing to do with what is being discussed. pakistan is just as fake as india. both are creations of the british and both wage war in the same way as the western races. there is no such thing as "indian subcontinent", indian people, nation, culture, race, language or civilization. you have brought nothing but bull shit as a reply because you are a baboon from the race of baboons.

it does matter how SAA won. it is about logic and reason. if the SAA could not win against ISIS on its own when both are arabs and SAA had the advantage of men and weapons, then it proves my point. your baboon race has never cared for logic or reason, so i can understand why you find it difficult to follow mine.

btw, many people in pakistan are indeed khans and descendants of people who called themselves turks that settled in the land of indus river. i have not known many pakistanis claiming descent from arabs, it is mostly the baboons from ganga desh that were moved to karachi by the huwite parasite that make such claims. but then such is the nature of the baboon fron ganga desh. your indian identity and your hindu religion are both inventions of your anglo saxon father, that gave birth to your kind.

They all have them though, its Africans who don't.

the cult of the nation has nothing to do with us. we are not slave cattle that proudly proclaim ourselves as property of our masters. the nation state is nothing but a cattle ranch. we are not slave races like the huwite scum. so naturally we are never going to convert to your cult.

You're people from the Indian subcontinent who converted to Islam. You consider an illiterate bedouin to be the most perfect human being who ever lived and worship Gulf Arabs who treat your kin like shit. I've lived in the UAE faggot, I know all about how pathetic Pakis are.

>btw, many people in pakistan are indeed khans

LOL

Sup shitskin. Still kissing Chinese ass in the hope they'll recognize you? The average chink considers your kind nothing but savages, regardless of any "fair weather friendship" advertised by their government.

>we are not slave races

t. Shitskins who proudly proclaim themselves "Slaves" of an Abrahamic deity.

>conquer eastern nobodies
>empire falls apart literally the moment your shit tier ruler dies because he was an ooga booga with no society

The difference is India has a future. Pakistan does not. India, however imperfect, and God knows that poos are fucking terrible people in some regards, are improving and growing by just about every metric. Pakistan is a stagnant society by contrast. It produces nothing.

fucking baboon there is no such thing as "indian subcontinent". the state of our people in the arab lands is caused by the bank imposed on us by the huwite race. it is not the doing of any arab. the rest of your post is nothing but delusions. even those who are muslims and follow muhammed intensly do not consider arabs t4o be superior to them. that is how islam works.

baboon your kind has no understanding of what we are and how we live. khan is no different in meaning than raja or khatri. and just like we have millions of rajas and khatri and many others like it we also have millions of khans.

lol, baboon there is no one in pakistan that gives any defference to the chinese. there are more people in pakistan that worship the huwite man, like the indians, than there are that even think of any chinese. the state is not the people and even the state is filled with people more serving the huwite race than chinese. we are not slave races that the state imposed on us somehow determines how we think. the fact that you conflate the state with the people the state claims as property, only show the slavish mind born of you blood.

the fact that you cannot see the distinction between calling oneself a slave of THE CREATOR and being a slave of a man only further proves my point. you see your master as a god upon you that is why you judge the muslim proclamations of slavery in this way. the one claims slavery of the creator of nature is claiming slavery to the truth and therefore, proclaiming that he will never be a slave to any man. claiming oneself to be a slave of god is proclaiming oneself to be a free and sovereign man. it is only your slave degenarate mind that looks at the use of word "slave" and jumps to conclusion without caring for meaning. the meaning of "slave of allah" is opposite of what is called a slave in the general sense. only a slave race scum would have difficulty understanding this obvious distinction.

Salve!

Attached: 6545614564.jpg (800x551, 46K)

if pakistan had never been created, there would be no india today. even today, if pakistan is destroyed india will also cease to exist. pakistan is an anglo saxon treachery conducted to convert the people to the indian identity. we were never called indians until the pakistani indentity was imposed on us. pakistan calls us the muslims of india, thereby confirming anglo saxon fantasy and furthering the plans of the huwite race. i gurantee you this much that when pakitan is destroyed the first thing to go will be this fantasy of anglo parasite called india.

>the state of our people in the arab lands is caused by the bank imposed on us by the huwite race

Wrong. Khaleejis just consider themselves superior to everyone else, and look down on dark-skinned people as a matter of course. That has nothing to do with the "West". Even Mohammed claimed he was white (lol).

Also I'm a Lebanese Christian. Keep misfiring.

>the fact that you cannot see the distinction between calling oneself a slave of THE CREATOR

Your Abrahamic deity is a fantasy. Your book is just a knock off of the Torah and the Bible. If you seriously believe a man ascended to the moon on a pony and cut it in two, you need help brudda. The kind Zakir Naik can't give.

Even they avoided pooinloos

you fucking baboon the fact that people from pakistan are in the arab world at all is because of the slavery of the bank imposed by the white race. that is what i was referring to. you are nothing but monkeys that much be exterminated. i do not know whether someone considers themselves superior to us. there are many different kinds of peoples in pakistan. and they also consider themselves superior to other peoples, even within pakistan. we never abandoned the idea of being superior to others. the different castes and tribes in pakistan often have such competition and relations. i consider myself superior to the arab scum. does that in any way change anything for the arab? you are nothing but a monkey, no different from western men. when we bring our armies to the mid-east we will cleanse the lands of your filth as well.

you are a man who lives in delusion. a western scum or a convert to the western religion. it is your western religion of progress and enlightenment that is a fantasy. the idea that truth exists is not a fantasy. you scum have created a religion that is the most delusionl of all religions and you have done it while claiming there is no god. but there is always a god. whatever you consider the source of truth is god. your god is the god-king banker that issues all currency. the cult of the nation is truly the blood thirsty and oppressive religion any humanoid has ever invented. you are a race that lives in delusions. the cult of nation, cult of science and technology, cult of progress and enlightenment, cult of economy (capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism). all of these cults serve the god-king banker who creates all currency. he is the god you truly worship. the fact that you think you have no religion because there is no proclaimed god in your cult only show that your delusions are deeper than any people that proclaim a belief in some god.

>and they also consider themselves superior to other peoples, even within pakistan. we never abandoned the idea of being superior to others.
>literally create nothing of value whatsoever in your entire history
>export nothing
>build nothing
>win nothing

lol

>you are a race
What race?

This has probably been mentioned, but a lot of the time competent military leadership is purged by the political leadership for fear of coups, leaving behind politically loyal but incompetent stooges.