Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Six Reasons Why the Ottoman Empire Fell
History ^ | PATRICK J. KIGER

Posted on 02/02/2020 10:33:28 PM PST by nickcarraway

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last
To: colorado tanker
There was plenty of damfoolness to go around, as the Euromonarchies entered the final act. Q Victoria's peace plan was a piece plan -- married off her daughters to the greatest of the royal houses of Europe. Y'know, because dynastic squabbles over who's more qualified to rule have always amounted to a hill of beans. :^D Particularly in England. /jk

61 posted on 02/03/2020 1:01:24 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
There was plenty of damfoolness to go around

True that. Hapsburgs and Romanovs come to mind.

And the military strategists? Never heard of a tactic other than frontal assault? How could two generals be so incompetent as to fight 12 Battles of the Isonzo and nobody won any of them?

62 posted on 02/03/2020 1:15:41 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
The Austrians and Germans generally fought in the west and south using whomever they had available, and that was typically not a lot of manpower. If the Central Powers (in particular, Germany) had sustained the losses of the French and British -- to this day the fake histories say they did -- Germany wouldn't have been able to fight WWII. The Italians were suckered into joining the Entente, and the claim used was that the Central Powers were "running out of men". It was quite the other way. Once the Italians ran into defensible terrain, they didn't know any better than to make frontal assaults on dug-in troops and fortifications, while steadily under superior artillery fire. Same goes for the British and French.

63 posted on 02/03/2020 3:02:53 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: namvolunteer

?


64 posted on 02/05/2020 1:03:44 AM PST by Cronos (Re-elect President Trump 2020!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

True.

What is interesting is until the “national awakenings” of the 19th century (triggered by the French revolution creating nationalism), the Ottoman rulers distanced themselves from “Turks’ — they spoke Farsi in the courts and called Turks the nomads or agriculturalists in the east.

Only in the 1800s did they consciously take on the nationalism of “turk” - as emphasized in the Tanzimat reforms

Regarding “they lost the Arab countries because of WWI” — that is de-jure true as in the Arabs would never have been able to get independence otherwise, BUT, they were already unhappy with the Turks from the 1800s onwards - triggered by Wahabbism.


65 posted on 02/05/2020 1:07:09 AM PST by Cronos (Re-elect President Trump 2020!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson