Commonwealth-ottoman worth is literally just poles and their friends winning, even with 1 vs 1000 people. Is this just made up or were they THAT bad?
Why are turks and tatars so bad at war?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
en.wikipedia.org
Don't diss others if you suck at it yourself
Polish sources? Really.
It's not that bad like with tatars and ottomans, dumb turk
Russia won that war.
Look at the third rhodos siege. 10k real men last 8 month against 100k roaches on an isolated island.
They suck too much
At the same time: how could someone suck so hard and have such a large empire? Their loss is true, but when you have numbers like 1 vs 10000, that is certainly made up.
Russians at war always feel they won if they didmt lose a million guys
Infinite numbers and later on, eternal Anglo and eternal Baguette acting as its guarantors. What happened any time they didnt support that abomination can be observed during Greek war for independence.
Also, consider the fact that large part of their empire was lands inhabited by inbred arabs or outright desert.
But if they have infinite numbers, how could they ahve lost against 1 person with 100-1000 warriors? I know you dislike turks, but how is that even possible? Not just turks, there are many examples like that, which is probably made up.
Most battles were won by said infinite numbers, Siege of Constantinople, siege of Rodos, battle of Kosovo, the list goes on. As Soso would say, "quantity has a quality all its own".
Also another factor is feuds within Christian countries and Christian dukes, while Ottomans didnt have this kind of problem due to institutionalized fraticide: After ascension of new sultan all of his brethren would be slaughtered, preventing dynastic rivalries.
Based Ivan uralovski, Slavs superpower
en.m.wikipedia.org
It was based on a report by the detachment commander, so while the Commonwealth forces were indeed vastly outnumbered, it was never 400 vs 40,000.
Plus things like "firing tatar arrows from their guns" are pure bullshit.
Yeah, but not as bad. Tatars are actually good fighters, but looking at those wars with poles, turks/crimean tatars appear very bad.
This is not true actually. The Ottoman empire did not have infinite numbers. It actually had a low population for its size. Instead the Ottomans had become very adapt at their supply systems which allowed them to have their armies to be at the right place at the right time. This supply system bought them time when their military superiority over europe waned allowing them to have local superiority in numbers in most battles. However Europeans eventually developed better supply systems amd their own one waned so they lost their trump card.
>tfw Russians would've reconquered Constantinople if Br*ts and Fr*nch hadn't intervened
They could have gotten it after WW1 if they hadn’t sued for peace.
Dumb pic, muslims are our allies, tatars/baskhirs/kazakhs are best bros, they were allowed to build mosques and have district all over the country. And if we too over constantinopol, why would you care? Are you orthodox christian?
you can gloat about history all you want ivan, what matters is the future. tsardom is over and russia has millions upon millions of muslims. if this helps you cope, then go ahead
c*mmie revolution happened
I don't gloat, geniunely interested, you roachfag, and most muslims are tatars anyways, they are cool, but they suck at war, mainly crimeans, must have been your influence or something.
>turks
Lovely punchball
vodka caused wks ivan? you got your shit stomped on by nazis and finns. and now, your country is teeming with muslims, your women are fucking foreigners left and right. but i guess you can talk about how your k/d was higher in a random war in the past.
Because 99% of the battle numbers on Wikipedia in regards to the Ottomans are completely made up. If you follow the sources in these articles literally all of them are sourced to 'estimates' from Slavic (or Hungarian) authors. In Balkan histories every minor siege, every patrol, every skirmish, and every ambush of some village militia supposedly involves the Ottomans losing tens of thousands of men.
Case in point, I checked this article, and the sources for Ottoman strength and losses are:
>Mirosław Nagielski Hodów 1694-2014. Ostatnie zwycestwo husarii w dawnym stylu Bellona 1/2015, pp. 229-233
>Sikora R., Niezwykłe bitwy i szarże husarii, Warszawa 2011.
>nazis and finns
No, we won the ww2 and have more territory after winter war, are you retarded? We got killed more and still won, unlike you.
>your women are fucking foreigners
They are not my sisters, that's such an incel mentality you have over there, women were always whores, you don't treat the like they are you sisters.
cool history comrade, this time we dont give a rat fucking shit about this kike ridden continent, let the Turks & friends conquer the living shit out of it.
Russia won those wars retard. You can’t even get rid of kurds to the south of your border
>they're not my sisters so it doesn't matter!
hah, cope more. i'd say you can do it by your past k/d but you don't even have that so you have to use others victories. we are winning the current war and that's what matters. but maybe you can print out those pages and talk to yourself about muh k/d, those mudslimes, constantinople soon in your sleep.
Remind me, why were KAKA ZHOPAs unbanned again?
>hah, cope more.
What copping, why would i care about them, dumbass, you are free to make a harem out of them if you have enough money, which i doubt.
>k/d
i don't understand what that is
>those mudslimes, constantinople
As i said, we have tatars/bashkirs/kazakhs and i like those people, it's you who are calling people of your religion and language group "mudslimes" and i don't care about something that is almost 1000 years old and made one cuck transform us into christians with blood and sword.