Why were the Ottomans so hated

Ottomans conquer Vienna

You are here: »Forum» Middle Ages in general »Ottomans conquer Vienna

Archive topic in the forum: Middle Ages General

Contribution to the topic what would have happened if ... What would have happened if the Ottomans had succeeded in conquering Vienna. Some historians claim that this accelerated the decline of the Ottoman Empire even further. But sometimes it seems more like this is the handle to subjugate Europe. What consequences would that have had for the Ottoman Empire? Which for Europe? Who would the Ottomans have attacked next? What would be different today? I am happy about one or the other mind game.
Submitted by WDPG on April 18th, 2008 at 10:06 am
The year 1683 is one of the most important in history! Thanks to the unspeakable courage and bravery of the Viennese and the help of the Poles, we were able to defeat the Ottomans. Without the Polish riders under King Johann Sobieski III, it would certainly have looked different. It was the second Turkish siege. On July 15, Vienna refuses to surrender. 10,000 Christians against over 300,000 (!) Muslims with 300 guns. On September 12th, the Polish relief army won the Battle of Kahlenberg. In my opinion, this victory was decisive. Sultan Mehmet IV subsequently had his general Kara Mustafa strangled. What would Europe look like today if the Ottomans had triumphed? A tough question. Would we be Muslims today? Well, I like to admit that, I wouldn't be happy. Instead of ringing bells, the call of the muezzin. Sharia. Thieves' hand is chopped off. Women have to cover themselves up. Criminals are stoned in public. The death penalty applies - also for children! It is already possible that Europe would be Islamic today if it had looked different in 1683. Not a pleasant thought for me. Let's see what others think about it. MfG Savonarola
Submitted by Savonarola on April 19, 2008 at 1:32 am
Hello Swiss warrior, are you on the road again? Secret question: in which forums do you hang around? Death penalty for children? that can't be true: mad: What exactly can you report? Greetings from dark Frankfurt PS: are you Catholic or Zwinglian now?
Submitted by lorginn on April 19th, 2008 at 1:45 am
I am also in favor of giving our big neighbors Poland one minute of silence every day because of this act :) in gratitude lorginn
Submitted by lorginn on April 19, 2008 at 01:52
Hi lorginn! I don't want to mention the other forums here. I am Roman Catholic. (Despite Zwingli: D) On your question about the death penalty for children. Can't name any sources right now, but I know that a 16 year old girl was hanged in Iran recently. OK, 16 is not 6. But still puke. Sorry MfG Savonarola
Submitted by Savonarola on April 19, 2008 at 01:57
King John III Sobieski, R.I.P.
Submitted by Savonarola on April 19th, 2008 at 02:03 am
also not by pN? How come? Has your headscarf slipped? All jokes aside ... the subject is too serious! I am fundamentally against the death penalty! It completely robs the perpetrator of the possibility of repentance! How do you find my argument? do it jut brave pikeman: cool:
Submitted by lorginn on April 19th, 2008 at 02:04 am
Oh God, the repentance. Of course, the death penalty makes it impossible to rehabilitate the perpetrator. But what about repeat offenders where everything has failed? I do not know. Difficult question. I don't necessarily want to comment on this in this forum. So now I need a strong coffee first! Nocturnal greetings to the Main! Savonarola :)
Submitted by Savonarola on April 19, 2008 at 02:15 am
yes of course but some inhuman monsters are the exceptions ...... but back to the topic: what would have happened the Ottomans would have taken Vienna? The gate to the heart of Europe is wide open! The Christian states should have made an effort ... weren't the French again on the wrong side? Allies of the Ottomans to get the Habsburgs a bargain? take a look until after and good night lorginn
Submitted by lorginn on April 19, 2008 at 02:26
To the whole discussion I have to say, somehow amazing how quickly a discussion about Islam arises. As for the conquest of Vienna by the Ottomans. The consequences are kind of hard to say? An attack on Poland would have been a possibility. But the Ottomans could hardly have conquered all of Poland. An attack on the princes of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation would have been a possibility. It would be easy to subjugate numerous small principalities, but would the ally France have agreed? Perhaps Europe would also have split - the East belonging to the Ottomans, the West to the French. Or would the two (France and Ottomans) have become enemies over time? Whether the Ottomans had really Islamized Europe would also have been exciting. Large parts of the Balkans and Hungary were also under Ottoman rule and did not become Islamic either.
Submitted by WDPG on April 19, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Hello! The first siege of Vienna by the Ottomans fell in the midst of the turmoil of the Reformation with the Schmalkaldic war and princes against emperors, etc. If the Turks had won at that time, they would have been able to take advantage of the domestic political turmoil and establish a border on the Danube. Means: After the Austrians, the Bavarians would have been due, the little Swabian would have come with them and the Franks would probably not have resisted for long. Bohemia - you don't know. At this point in time the French would have been alarmed about the beginning of the European hegemony of the 'ally' and would have switched from alliance to opposition - the emperor would have been finished and thus the reason for the Ottoman-French alliance. The second siege fell during the recovery of Europe from the Thirty Years' War and the beginning of the rise of France under Louis XIV, who once again saw the Ottomans as the ideal counterweight to the Habsburgs. If Vienna is successfully conquered, I can't imagine the consequences for Europe any differently than the first time. Perhaps there would have been 'Balkanization' as far as Bavaria, maybe not. Whether that would have been negative for us southern Germans or not cannot be said. I hardly believe that the Ottomans, who were deeply Catholic in Bavaria / Austria during the Thirty Years' War, would have had more success in terms of Islamization than with the Serbs and Croats. I also dare to doubt that it would have looked different after the first siege. But even if it were - whether that would have been more negative than what Elector Maximilian did with his zeal for the Virgin? Different, of course, but did it hurt the Serbs a lot to have been under Ottoman rule (apart from the national trauma)? I have no doubt that the Ottomans took over with the conquest of Austria and the attack on Central Europe. So at most it would have been a short-term conquest. The Ottomans might actually have weakened themselves dangerously. VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on April 20th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I see it similarly, the 30 Years War was over 35 years. If you look at how the princes behaved in 'Christian internal' disputes, the question is how they would act against the hereditary enemy of Christianity ....... I believe that France would have acted against the Ottomans at some point.
Submitted by Phideas on April 20th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Why? You have also subjugated a huge Christian area with the Balkans and maintained it for centuries.
Submitted by Scifi on September 17th, 2008 at 14:25
I'm a little skeptical about that number. Would have been quite a logistical challenge.
Submitted by Scifi on September 17th, 2008 at 14:27
If Austria had really fallen into the hands of the Turks, sooner or later France would have had to take action against the Ottomans because then they would have become the next victim in the foreseeable future. But I am very glad that Vienna was able to stop them ...: p
Submitted by Hügl on September 17th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
If the Ottomans had actually been able to reach for the 'golden apple', then Christendom would have been helpless for a short time, at first startled like a hens of chickens. But the Holy Alliance soon formed anew to drive out the Ottomans. And the French King Louis XIV, known not to be a friend of the Habsburgs, would probably have joined this alliance - the idea of ​​having the Ottomans on the Rhine would have made him grumpy too. With united forces, Christianity would have chased the Ottomans out of Austria and driven them home via the Balkans. But a longer war, far away from their home country, would have weakened the Turks so lastingly that they would later have become easy prey for Russia - Peter I the Great had tried his hand at the Ottomans militarily.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on September 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
When Peter the Great attacked the Ottomans, they were already completely on the defensive and driven out of Hungary. Their current situation could hardly have been worse. Even so, they inflicted a shameful defeat on Peter.
Submitted by Scifi on September 17th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
The legend of the invincibility of the Ottomans came to an end with the naval battle of Lepanto. In the case of the conquest of Vienna, the Turks would have been repulsed by a united Christianity and would have had to go back the same way - through bald landscapes, Napoléon I had to gain experience in 1812 - and would then have probably only brought rudimentary remnants of the army back to the motherland. The returning army would probably have been further decimated by the Christian Balkan people who wanted to shake off Turkish suzerainty. In any case, the campaign would have ended as a catastrophe for the Ottomans. We must not ignore the naval power of Venice - it also belonged to the Holy Alliance against the Turks. There would also have been a naval war against the Ottomans. Who knows whether the Venetians would not have reached the Golden Horn. It would have been an easy game for Peter I.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on September 17th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
It would have been a threat to all of Christianity! We know that the Turkish threat united Catholics and Protestants. It is quite possible that Sweden, a kind of protective power of the Central European Protestants since the Thirty Years' War, would have intervened on the imperial side in the fight against the Ottomans.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on September 17th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
That would be news to me, however. Only Catholic powers took part in various leagues. The relief army during the second Turkish siege also consisted of Catholics, apart from the Saxons. Well, Sweden only acted as protecting power as long as it served its own interests. However, it would not have felt threatened by an advance of the Ottomans into southern Germany.
Submitted by Scifi on September 17th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I wouldn't compare it like that. Napoleon had completely overstretched his supply lines. The Ottomans were much less distant from their own territory (Hungary), and even if there had been an uprising there, the Ottomans could probably have relied on Transylvania - in its own interest, out of antagonism to the Habsburgs. The Venetians got on the nerves of the Ottomans (after all, at that time they still controlled a large part of the Peloponnese and a little later conquered Athens), but an attack on Istanbul itself would have been something completely different.
Submitted by Scifi on September 17th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Just think of the writings of Martin Luther. For him, the Turks were the embodiment of God. It is quite possible that if the Turks had been threatened, the Swedes would have allowed Luther to lead them and joined the Catholic armies. The Saxons weren't that stubborn either. It's all just a mind game.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on September 18, 2008 at 7:50 am
As a Catholic, I am not very familiar with Luther's writings. Of course, I cannot rule out the possibility that the Swedes would have joined an anti-Ottoman coalition. But I would justify the Saxon support by saying that, by and large, the Saxon electors were more concerned with establishing good relations with the Habsburgs. In addition, they probably didn't want to risk having a common border with the Ottomans soon.
Submitted by Scifi on September 18th, 2008 at 9:55 am
As far as Islamization is concerned, the Ottomans can in part be compared with the Romans; Both respected other peoples and cultures during their heyday, which is why it was their heyday.
Submitted by CATO on April 15th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Well, it wasn't that far away with respect from the Ottomans.
Submitted by Scifi on April 15th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Well, at least the whole Balkans remained Christian! With the exception of the Bosnians, but they only became Islamic because they had previously been oppressed by the surrounding Christians ... VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on April 15th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
[quote = 913Chris; 36462] Well, at least the whole Balkans remained Christian! [/ quote] You forget the Albanians, the Muslims in Sanjak and the strong Muslim minority in Bulgaria. Also, I wouldn't necessarily say the Balkans stayed Christian because the Ottomans so respected Christianity. The Janissaries raised them to be fanatical Muslims. During the spread of Islam in the Arab Empire, Islam benefited from the fact that, on the one hand, the poll tax for Christians was an economic motive for converting, and on the other, the monophysitic Christians found Islam much more sympathetic than the Christianity of Rome and Constantinople. Without these two motives, Islamization would probably not have progressed so quickly. [quote = 913Chris; 36462] With the exception of the Bosnians, but they only became Islamic because they were previously oppressed by the surrounding Christians ... [/ quote] Are you sure? Here it is somehow different: You forget the Albanians, the Muslims in the Sanjak and the strong Muslim minority in Bulgaria. Also, I wouldn't necessarily say the Balkans stayed Christian because the Ottomans so respected Christianity. The Janissaries raised them to be fanatical Muslims. During the spread of Islam in the Arab Empire, Islam benefited from the fact that, on the one hand, the poll tax for Christians was an economic motive for converting, and on the other, the monophysitic Christians found Islam much more sympathetic than the Christianity of Rome and Constantinople. Without these two motives, Islamization would probably not have progressed so quickly. [quote = 913Chris; 36462] With the exception of the Bosnians, but they only became Islamic because they were previously oppressed by the surrounding Christians ... [/ quote] Are you sure? Here it is somehow different: You forget the Albanians, the Muslims in the Sanjak and the strong Muslim mind
Submitted by Scifi on April 15th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Hello! The Bosnian Church and the Bogumils () did not have it easy under Serbian, Croatian and Hungarian rule ... The fact that the Bosnian Church perished after the Ottoman conquest and the nobility became almost completely Islamic, of course, also influenced Islamization ... VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on April 15th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Sorry, I am currently reading the book 'The State Nobody Wanted', Austria - from the early days to the Moscow Declaration, by Hellmut Andics with interest. In the initial phase, the revolutionary Leo Rothziegel often appears, portrayed as the intimate of Erwin Egon Kisch. Rothziegel died in 1919, is anything known about the circumstances of his early death? I couldn't find out anything about his death.
Submitted by tiger456 on April 18, 2009 at 1:22 pm
As is well known, Bela Kun established a soviet republic in Hungary after WWI, but it was also nationalist and wanted to preserve the lands of St. Stephen's Crown. Therefore, he was attacked by Romanian, Czechoslovak and Serbian troops. The KPÖ sent an auxiliary corps of 1200 men to the Soviet Republic, including Rothziegel. He fell in battle.
Submitted by Scifi on April 18th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
.. for the answer, I was somehow interested in the man.
Submitted by tiger456 on April 18, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Do you know on which fronts he fought for the monarchy in World War I? I do not assume that he was taken prisoner by Russia, then 'converted' there by the revolution and came back home as a revolutionary, like many others. The time window is simply too tight for that. By the time he had come back from Siberia, it would have been easy 1920 ...
Submitted by tiger456 on April 18th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Take a look at what I found beautiful:
Submitted by Scifi on April 18th, 2009 at 14:41
... now all questions have been answered.
Submitted by tiger456 on April 18, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Please read PM Perspective 1/2007
Submitted by CATO on April 18th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Firstly, I rarely read PMs and, secondly, a 2007 edition is no longer available anyway.
Submitted by Scifi on April 18th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
ok, it says something about the heyday of Baghdad during the time of the Arabs; small memory gap on my part
Submitted by CATO on April 18th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
If the Ottomans had conquered Vienna: -They would have taken the rest of Austria first and of course the Habsburg part of Hungary. -The emperor would have been greatly weakened, but he would still be there. -He would have tried to forge new alliances (we don't know whether with or without success). -The next one would have had many options: An attack on Bohemia, which also belonged to the Habsburgs, would have been a possibility. A further advance to the west and thus an attack on Bavaria would also have been a possibility. Perhaps one or the other German principality would have volunteered as a vassal. An attack on Poland would also be a possibility, after all, an opponent in the rear of the format like Poland would have been dangerous. I rule out conquering Poland, but it could have been territorially weakened and perhaps even a puppet could have been brought to the throne. An attack on Dalmatia or Venice directly would also have been an option. Any further advance in the direction of Italy would have been an occasion for France to turn against the Ottomans, just like a further advance into Central Europe. -After the loss of the Habsburgs as a great power, France would probably have seized a number of territories. Especially the east of the Holy Roman Empire. -So a battle of the giants would have taken place.
Submitted by WDPG on April 23, 2009 at 13:02
Without his house power, the emperor would have been irrelevant. He would probably have gone into exile in Spain. Naturally! Unless the Bohemians had used the fall of Austria to elect a new king who would then have recognized the Ottoman suzerainty. Probably. After the fall of Austria, they would hardly have had the courage to seriously resist. Poland was next to Austria
Submitted by Scifi on April 23, 2009 at 13:08
Bohemia would still have belonged to him, as well as a few remnants from Upper Austria and who knows whether the Ottomans would really have penetrated into the deepest Alps, so Tyrol, for example, could have stayed with the Habsburgs. So one would have had a little something left from which one could have tried to organize new resistance. Without major foreign aid it would have been unsuccessful and even with this it would have been difficult.
Submitted by WDPG on April 23, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Would have been an interesting story. A naval battle? Siege a city in the water? Both interesting. The Venetians would no longer be the sea and great power of yore, but I would not underestimate them completely, maybe one would even have had a chance. After all, it could have been that France would already have supported the Ottomans here.
Submitted by WDPG on April 23, 2009 at 1:16 pm
According to Landlibell, the Tyroleans were only allowed to be used to defend their homeland. The Ottomans would definitely have grabbed Bohemia. He couldn't have done much with Upper Austria alone. At most he could have resided as a joke in Freiburg im Breisgau.
Submitted by Scifi on April 23, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Certainly in principle the emperor would not have been much more than a symbolic figure of the resistance against the Ottomans and would not have had much more power than Thomas Palaiologos a few hundred years earlier, e.g. in the concert of the great powers there would have been 2 powers in particular would have played a role in it all: France and the Ottomans.
Submitted by WDPG on April 23, 2009 at 1:24 pm
If the relief army had come too late, battle would have broken out upon arrival. The relief army and defense in Vienna won against a numerically much larger army. The Turkish army was exposed to partisan war even before the relief army arrived. Had the battle not gone so well for the defenders and reinforcements, further reinforcements could have been set up from the empire much faster than supplies from Turkey could have come. If necessary, the German Kaiser could have abolished serfdom and proclaimed general mobilization in the empire.
Submitted by Paul on April 25th, 2009 at 01:04 am
That's new to me. It was a titanic work to get the relief army up and running, because a new army could not have been set up so quickly. The German princes in particular would have sought an understanding with the Sublime Porte rather than donating troops to the emperor. The imperial princes would certainly have accepted that ...: rolleyes: He wasn't even authorized to do so. The HRR was not an absolute monarchy.
Submitted by Scifi on April 25th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Hello! Then the imperial crown would not have stayed with the Habsburgs ... Incidentally, despite Libell, the Tyroleans could very well have been used against the Turks: If they had agreed! :) VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on April 25th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
I only meant the ruler at the time of the fall of Vienna. It is clear that his legacy would not have had a chance. Well, then one can only hope that the willingness to defend was even greater then than it is today.
Submitted by Scifi on April 26th, 2009 at 1:19 am
I already had the train of thought. Who says that the emperor would have remained emperor in the event of defeat. Other powers interested in the crown would have tried to reach for it.
Submitted by WDPG on April 26th, 2009 at 09:25
Sevus! As far as I can see, we are on the second siege of Vienna. If the Habsburg emperor had really been defeated and pushed to the front of Austria, the Wittelsbach rifles would of course have stood by to take over the imperial crown. If they hadn't suffered from the turks themselves. Who would have been closest to the Kaiserkrone after or together with the Wittelsbachers?!? Brandenburg? Württemberg? The Spanish Habsburgs? VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on April 26th, 2009 at 11:48 am
I have never really dealt intensively with the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire during this time, so my question: Wouldn't Louis XIV of France also leave?
Submitted by WDPG on April 26th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Hello! Theoretically yes. Franz I had also applied thinly in the past and could only be kept away from the crown with massive use of Fugger funds. And in times of such hardship (assuming the conquest of Vienna by the Turks), it could also have been that the electors made an already overpowering prince emperor of the HRR ... VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on April 26th, 2009 at 11:56 am
He would probably not have been deposed, since the deposition of Wenceslas the Lazy (who was, however, only king) in 1400 no longer existed. Leopold would probably have left the already virtually empty title, but Joseph would no longer have been elected king.
Submitted by Scifi on April 26th, 2009 at 13:01
To avoid that, they would have had to voluntarily make themselves vassals. The Hohenzollern probably hardly, after all, they were Protestants and thus would hardly have received the votes of the three clerical electors. I don't think the two Wittelsbachers would have voted for the Hohenzollern either. I think the Duke of Bavaria would have had a good chance: His voice, the three ecclesiastical ones, and maybe also the Palatine vote. Who should have voted for Württemberg? Charles II of Spain would hardly have voted ... It is interesting to know what would have become of the Bohemian electoral dignity if the Ottomans had conquered Bohemia. If they had simply incorporated the country into their empire, it would have been regarded as extinct, but what, w
Submitted by Scifi on April 26th, 2009 at 13:09
Hello! Hardly ... But you mentioned the Palatine vote. I do think that someone like the (Catholic!) Palatine Jan Wellem (from the Palatinate-Neuburg line, which inherited the Palatinate after the Palatinate War of Succession) would have been worthy of the emperor. From a recognized dynasty (Wittelsbach), with not too great domestic power, but still prestige, plus the various Wittelsbach electoral votes ... By the way, the Palatinate War of Succession should have brought Ludwig XIV's chances of attaining the imperial crown to zero on closer consideration ... exploitation the Turkish siege of Vienna, alliance with the Turks (albeit secret, but probably one or the other smelled the roast ...), the destruction of half of southwest Germany - such an emperor is almost unimaginable ... VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on April 26th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I would not be so sure about that. The Ottomans would of course have tried to influence imperial politics. Then it would have been said: Either you accept our Bohemia, or we march on ... Well, I don't know. The clerical electors preferred a strong patron of Catholicism, which is why they dutifully elected the Habsburgs, even though they were the strongest power in the empire. The Duke of Bavaria would have preferred them. Well, I do not know. The clerical electors preferred a strong patron of Catholicism, which is why they dutifully elected the Habsburgs, even though they were the strongest power in the empire. The Duke of Bavaria would have preferred them. Well, I do not know. The clerical electors preferred a strong patron of Catholicism, which is why they dutifully elected the Habsburgs, even though they were the strongest power in the empire. The Duke of Bavaria would have preferred them. Well, I do not know. The clerical electors preferred a strong patron of Catholicism, which is why they dutifully elected the Habsburgs, even though they were the strongest power in the empire. The Duke of Bavaria would have preferred them. [quote = 913Chris; 38455] The Palatinate War of Succession should, by the way, if you think more carefully, the chances
Submitted by Scifi on April 26th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Indeed: Le roi soleil would have had no chance of becoming Roman-German emperor. And the French-Ottoman tussle was not that secret either: The sparrows whistled from the roofs in the Reich ... A reason that should not be underestimated would have been that in the Reich people started very slowly, German - and not 'Welsch' - to feel, even if the important courts were parled in French. And it was not something entirely new either: after Charles I of Spain had become Roman-German Emperor as Charles V, the French King Francis I already had - a dignity that Francis I had also reflected on - and France in the East and West Habsburgs as neighbors had already made pacts with the Turks against the Reich and the House of Habsburg.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on April 26th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
It would never have come that far, the Turkish threat has lost some of its horror since 1529 and 1532. Even contemporaries of the siege of 1529, in particular the Duke of Urbino (Francesco Mari I della Rovere) in his capacity as General Captain of the Church and most recently Condottiere of the Republic of Venice, gave an assessment of the Turks by the College of Ten on May 10, 1533: The unsuccessful siege of Vienna, and even more so the second attempt in 1532, which had already got stuck on the way there, was to be seen as a sign of no longer so terrifying force. It was known from experience that the Turkish army was called together very quickly, but it was as fast as a snail - it could not advance faster than fifteen kilometers a day. And in the second half of the 17th century the army of the Ottomans was basically still the army of 1529 or 1532 - only that now the organizational weaknesses are only m
Submitted by PèreJoseph on April 26th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Probably less, but all imperial princes would have rushed to ward off the Turkish threat within the scope of their ability. Also the Protestants - for since the late Luther the Turk was also for Protestants the embodiment of the incarnate on earth.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on April 26th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
One thinks of such an eloquent court preacher like Abraham a Santa Clara - this or a similarly gifted person would probably have got the Tyroleans to the point that they would have drawn against the Turks - after all, it was also about faith.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on April 26th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
It didn't have to be the same year. They could have hibernated in Vienna and other Austrian cities and had supplies come. In 1684 it would have continued.
Submitted by Scifi on April 26th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I do not believe that. In any case, the siege of Vienna only motivated very few to help. The danger was already great enough.
Submitted by Scifi on April 26th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
In 1686, however, in the course of the Great Turkish War, the Protestant Margrave of Brandenburg provided the emperor with a contingent of 8,000 men.
Posted by PèreJoseph on April 26th, 2009 at 8:00 p.m.
Since we are currently at the Turkish Wars: There were - from a military-historical point of view quite interesting - the so-called 'Turkish heads'. They were man-sized dolls on which the horseman attack with the naked weapon was practiced. If a rider struck the 'Turk's head' with a saber or stabbed the 'Turk's head' with a lance, it would tip over - and immediately get up again; it was provided with a mechanism like the one in the stand-up man that small children enjoy.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on April 26th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Yes, but that was only when Austria's victory became apparent.
Submitted by Scifi on April 26th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Except for Leopold, he would really have given up the fight against the Turks and, as you already mentioned, went into exile in Spain.
Submitted by WDPG on April 27th, 2009 at 9:36 am
I don't think if after a time in which the Ottomans had penetrated further into the empire, if only he could have acted as the only possible savior of the empire from the Ottomans. It is true that Louis XIV supported the Ottomans, but political memory (as we often see it nowadays in elections) is more of a short-term memory.
Submitted by WDPG on April 27, 2009 at 09:40
That's right, I also think that the area that could have served as a basis for further penetration through the conquest of Vienna and probably also Austria (at least for the most part). Bohemia and Bavaria were simply two realistic thrusts, just like Poland and Venice.
Submitted by WDPG on April 27, 2009 at 9.45 a.m.
Already clear! I only wanted to express that within the Reich the confessional boundaries were crumbling when it came against a common enemy of the Reich.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on April 27, 2009 at 1:40 pm
What I wanted to say is: when it was still unclear who would win, most of the princes of the HRR held back nobly with support, so I do not assume that in the event of an Ottoman victory they would suddenly take up arms against the Ottomans would have. You would have tried to come to terms with them somehow.
Submitted by Scifi on April 27th, 2009 at 14:41
It would then have been up to the German Kaiser to name betrayers and to address the population directly. Many sovereigns would have bowed to this pressure, others would have been overthrown. It would have been smart to combine the appeal for national defense with democratic reforms. The German Kaiser would have emerged stronger from this conflict. He could have used this power for structural reforms. At that time Germany could have become a constitutional democracy. Anyone who refused to defend the country could have been deposed.
Submitted by Paul on April 27th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
You don't really believe that, do you? How could he have turned to the people without the sovereigns preventing it? There was no radio yet ... Besides, it was the age of the beginning absolutism, since nobody would have been interested in democratic reforms.
Submitted by Scifi on April 27th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
The German population felt ripe for democratic reforms. Unfortunately, the peasant wars had only just been suppressed, mostly unsuccessfully. Only Switzerland became democratic (and independent) through the Peasants' War. The Frisian Peasant Republic did not live as long as Switzerland. I had seen a documentary about a soldier from Hesse who fought outside Vienna. He was educated and also fought out of idealism. He wrote a book on weapons technology. There was no defeat.In this case, further forces should have been mobilized. The German Kaiser should have filled his position and organized the resistance. As part of a democratic movement, he could have mobilized completely different forces.
Submitted by Paul on April 27th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Even if; why should a prot. A prince or a city approaching his strongest ally instead of rejoicing when the hated Austria is doing badly? LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on April 27th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
But the peasant wars were not about democracy. However, Switzerland at that time did not have much to do with democracy in the current sense. The Roman Emperor was powerless. In fact, he was only able to mobilize his own troops, the Reichsarmee was numerically rather weak and had to be begged. The armies of the individual sovereigns were even more difficult to come by. Neither the emperor nor the princes were interested in a democratic movement. Besides, democracy in today's sense was still unknown anyway. At that time, co-determination ran through the stands
Submitted by Scifi on April 28th, 2009 at 12:37 am
I wouldn't say that democracy wasn't known. The demands of the peasant movement, which were joined by serfs, many free peasants, cities and even 'noble' landlords, were democratic. The factual conditions were not always as democratic as we understand them today. In the imperial cities there was a class system within the citizenship. The interests and democratic understanding of the many manors differed. The emperor would have had influence to direct this in the interests of national defense. Many 'Protestants' also fought in the support / Reichsheer, often certainly in military units of the 'Catholic' national armies. Many different reports are written about the relief army. Of the 130,000 German and 30,000 Polish soldiers who arrived in time for the decisive battle, most of them were certainly Catholic. However, troops from distant regions were probably still on their way to the site of the war. The northern German regions were simply further away. The soldiers of the Liberation Army committed their lives. In earlier mercenary armies this was just a livelihood. In this war they were often idealistic volunteers. The army was also much larger than in the normal wars of the time.
Submitted by Paul on April 28th, 2009 at 1:42 am
The aims of the rebellious peasants were primarily of an economic nature and an improvement in the legal situation. The only demand that had to do with democracy was the election of a pastor. Otherwise they wanted a direct rule of the emperor without intermediate powers.
Submitted by Scifi on April 28, 2009 at 1:50 am
So I doubt that a real democracy could really have been introduced at that time. At best, aristocratic republics. Besides, I don't really know what that would have done in the fight against the Ottomans.
Submitted by WDPG on April 28, 2009 at 09:28
These numbers are far too high. In total, the relief army comprised a maximum of 60,000 men.
Submitted by Scifi on April 28th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Hello! No! They weren't! As Scifi said correctly, people thought in the 16th century. still largely class. The demands of the peasants were nothing else than old rights (which had been laid down in the so-called 'Ehafts' since the 12th / 13th centuries), which had been alienated from them by the nobility. The farmers wanted THESE rights back, but no democracy. That was still far beyond imagination (especially that of the peasants; maybe the contemporary humanists can do something with the term ... maybe!) VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on April 28th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
So first of all: where do the numbers come from? They are completely out of thin air. We know that the army of the League - consisting of Poland-Lithuania, Venice, the Papal States and an imperial contingent provided by Bavaria, Saxony and Austria - was only 80,000 strong; that was a lot for the time. These 80,000 men had to do with around 75,000 Turks, not counting the warrior Kara Moustaphas, who was still in the appeals - the Grand Vizier set out in Adrianople with well over 100,000 men. Neither were 'idealistic volunteers'. On the side of Christendom, excellently trained so-called 'standing armies' were already fighting - expensive fun for the sovereigns who wanted to afford such an army. The people had to be recruited for dear money - and with a lot of alcohol - and then fed through even in peaceful times. That very many young men do not volunteer to advertise
Submitted by PèreJoseph on April 28, 2009 at 17:39
Hello! Incidentally, the Bavarian army contingent was personally led by the then still young 'Blue Elector' Max Emanuel. After Vienna was relieved, Max Emanuel continued to take part in the Turkish wars for years. His motive: to strengthen the alliance with Austria. In addition, however, Max Emanuel demanded an independent command, called his own army, until he finally got command of the anti-Turkish troops in 1688 and took Belgrade. So much for the Christian idealism of the defenders of Vienna: At least Max Emanuel was probably only incidentally concerned with alliance obligations and Christian support. First and foremost, he was concerned with fame and raising his rank, just as later this goal determined all his actions ... to the detriment of Bavaria ... VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on April 28th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
what are you talking about savonoronana or what your name is islam is liberation it would look like paradise on earth and on europe have no idea don't talk so hastily < schaut="" es="" euch="" an="" lohnt="" sich="" besonders="" die="" videos="" von="" pierre="" vogel="" und="" was="" nur="" iran="" udn="" so="" gehängt="" schau="" dir="" mal="" usa="" schau="" dir="" mal="" auch="" die="" katholen="" und="" so="" weiter="" ihr="" müsst="" genauer="" hin="">
Submitted by Ferry on April 30th, 2009 at 6:43 am
Take a closer look what Savonarola is called .;)
Submitted by Scifi on April 30th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
That is of course strange. Constantly when you search for something on the Internet about an event, you will find new numbers. In the following link the numbers of the relief army are given as 79,000 men. The Turkish Army, originally with around 200,000 men. Including a large number of Tatars and Hungarians. In another source, which I cannot find now, there was also an exact list of 160,000 auxiliary armies, 20,000 defenders and 300,000 Turks (Tatars, Hungarians). According to all sources, the Turkish army had to record very large losses even before the decisive battle, which, for example, were given as 40,000 men.
Submitted by Paul on April 30th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Submitted by 913Chris on May 1st, 2009 at 1:22 pm
[quote = Ferry; 39015] what are you talking about savonoronana or whatever your name is islam is the liberation it would look like paradise on earth and on europe have no idea don't talk so hastily Paradise on earth does not appear in the muslims Countries, because otherwise their citizens would not, no matter what the cost and even be it life, jostle into the promised land of Europe, in which not Islam, but Christianity dominates.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 1st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
For this reason, I find the statement by savanoralplaplapla completely wrong, that the ottoman empire treated its ethnic minorities fairly and received tribute in return, which is probably okay for everyone.
Submitted by Türk on May 10th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
It's not that great either. Hungary was once under Ottoman rule for almost 150 years, and it came under them in the course of the first siege of Vienna. Before that, the country had been Christian for centuries. The Hungarians saw no reason to convert to Islam and the Ottomans wisely refrained from doing so - after the defeat at Vienna in 1529 they were in any case completely soaked and hypothermic on the retreat - to engage in any violence that would only have triggered counter-violence. Suleiman the Magnificent was just as clever. After almost 150 years, the Ottoman ghost was over - the couple of years could be bridged with tribute payments. In addition, it was only a part (sic!) Of Hungary that came under the Ottoman thumb, and not all of Hungary, as they are obviously trying to fool us. Transylvania, for example, was not part of the part ruled by the Ottomans - it was only in foreign policy matters
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Since I have to contradict scientists have found out that the army would have taken the city with the first siege, the only problem wa only the logistical continuation of the empire it would result in a surge of the mighty Ottoman Empire: cool:
Submitted by Türk on May 10th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
If my aunt had cogs, she would be an omnibus ... Perhaps the Turks besieged Vienna in 1529 should have prayed more. Perhaps they are miserably inferior to the Christians who prayed in Vienna in their prayerful zeal and the Lord God just rained and rained and rained and let a cutting cold wind blow that the powder got wet, Suleiman got the cold and wet feet and he was then disappointed - under great losses - trolled away. So the 'golden apple' stayed unpicked. And from the Muslim cannons from 1683 it was even possible to cast the Christian bell that still hangs in St. Stephen's Cathedral today. A little less Turkish chauvinism would also be appropriate: Since 1571, the naval battle of Lepanto, and then the battle of Sankt Gotthard-Mogersdorf, the Ottoman Empire was on the decline anyway, until its neck was finally broken in 1877/1878.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
That is not enough! It has to be: D. And many times.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
But there are several hundred years in between, and in the 16th century it was Osman. Reich certainly the most modern in the west. It would not have been bad either if Austria, as a later rogue state, had been wiped off the political map once and for all, but the question is legitimate whether the conquest of a small town that smelled by comparison like Vienna at the time would have contributed so much to this (was not even Breslau bigger?), and what there was to get in Central Europe at that time. Perhaps the Ottoman side could have used the resources more efficiently elsewhere than in the least developed part of Europe, of all places. LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on May 10th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
You lost a great satirist ... :)
Submitted by Scifi on May 10th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Sure, Suleiman begins the siege first, then he thinks: 'Crazy, dude, the empire is going to be way too big, nothing like home ...'
Submitted by Scifi on May 10th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Boy reading; Harem; systematic murder of the younger brothers of the new sultan ... At a time when the Swiss were prostituting themselves to the highest bidder, Austria not only prevented Europe from looking like Turkey today, but also led Europe by opening up the world into a new age. Apart from the fact that the Swiss cities were probably no better either: Just out of boredom, the Ottomans will not have repeatedly pushed into Central Europe.
Submitted by Scifi on May 10th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
So when I read intellectual ejaculates that bypass historical realities like that of the user Türk, all the barriers of sarcasm break in me - sometimes also of cynicism. Because with people like this user you have people in front of you who are so indoctrinated that they cannot be dealt with at all because of the blinders put on them by third parties with simple dates and other numbers. If he then tries to explain the bankruptcy in front of Vienna in 1529 with an overstretching of the Ottoman sphere of influence, one can really only shake one's head. He doesn't seem to have learned anything else in his Anatolian cliff school.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
... because cold and disgusting ischs there oa!
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Better than civil war, dynasty conflict, religious wars, systematic persecution of Jews, poverty, hostility to education, political fragmentation, feudal systems, mercenary recruitment ..... should I continue? Yeah, the joke isn't bad. Perhaps they had been asked very kindly by the Protestants, or one could well imagine such a request ... Austria was already hated at that time. LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on May 10th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Not that many either - almost 150 years, so not 'several hundred years. It turns out that there is no harm in mastering elementary arithmetic. The Ottoman Empire was not in the west - it was, seen from the west as a geopolitical term in general and seen from Vienna in particular, in the east. Or should one have looked west from Vienna when speaking of the Ottoman Empire there ??? This is how the sincere Bavarian of 1683 speaks, who had the fortune teller predict the Sendlinger murder night from her sphere. This is how the sincere Bavarian of 1683 speaks, who had the fortune-teller predict the Sendlinger murder night from her ball. This is how the sincere Bavarian of 1683 speaks, who had the fortune-teller predict the Sendlinger murder night from her ball. [quote = RedScorpion; 40931], however, the question is legitimate as to whether the conquest of a comparatively smelly small town like the d
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
There was nothing systematic about the persecution of the Jews at the time; sometimes they were persecuted, sometimes they were protected by the rulers, even if only against certain recognitions. The recruitment of mercenaries (which at that time was still largely voluntary) was always more harmless than taking away their children from parents. And the dynastic disputes did not degenerate into mutual murders. Did you go among the conspiracy theorists? The main ally of the Ottomans was Catholic France. Austria was and is obviously only hated in Italian-speaking Switzerland and Frankfurt.
Submitted by Scifi on May 10th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Persecution of the Jews was bad and the Jews were the scapegoat for grievances for which they could not help.
Submitted by tiger456 on May 10th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Sure, but not systematically.
Submitted by Diviciacus on May 10th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Yo! Because religious differences, the persecution of Jews who did not fit into the grid, and above all: poverty, hostility towards education, and mercenary recruitment also existed in the Ottoman Empire. Hardly - because since Martin Luther, Protestants were as much a part of the Turks as they were to God.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Didn't you say that you were promoted to the teaching position despite poor math skills? In the matter: It depends on when exactly you can speak of relegation in comparison. The 17th century seems a bit early to me, even if there are possibly reasons for seeing the first signs of it in Lepanto (and we would even be under the hundred years, thank you). P.S. I think it is clear that the term 'west' was used metonymically. Exactly: if the registers were empty, things went smoothly again. It has a system, my dear. Sinan? Sinan? Sinan? [quote = scifi; 4094
Submitted by RedScorpion on May 10th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
However, belonging to Christianity, a kind of species barrier as in biology, prevented France from completely taking the side of the Ottomans. Franz I was also a Christian, Louis XIV anyway - a conquest by the Turks that would have gone beyond the sphere of influence of the House of Habsburg would in any case never have been allowed by Louis XIV. He had then faced the problem: to be the ruler of a country that claims to be the 'eldest daughter of the church' - where 'church' can be taken as a synonym for Christianity - and then against to form a coalition between Christianity and the Muslims - simply unimaginable. No bourbone would have done anything that would have harmed Christianity (sic!). Austria hates in Frankfurt? Does RedScorpion come from Frankfurt? When I imagine how, based on French history, I would have to be an enemy of Austria? - Oh dear!
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Holla: eek :, be careful not to associate different religions with biological species segregation.
Posted by Diviciacus on May 10th, 2009 at 10:30 p.m.
1683 was one last rebellion of an overexerting state. The Ottomans had great difficulty driving the Venetians out of the Peloponnese and Crete, but failed in Malta in the 17th century. the Austrians (including under Montecuccoli) inflicted several heavy defeats on them. Militarily, the Ottomans did not develop any further, in contrast to the Europeans. The Sipahis were no longer really willing to serve, many rulers were rather incapable. Or they took out a loan from the Fuggers ... At that time there was actually only persecution of Jews in Spain. I mean that the European rulers did not assassinate their brothers. On the contrary: in the early 16th century. became so many territories like Hes
Submitted by Scifi on May 10th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
No, from Italian-speaking Switzerland. Dieter and Lorginn are from Frankfurt.
Submitted by Scifi on May 10th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
I am very astonished - even sextans are familiar with the fact that 1683 is in the 17th century. If I were you, I would like to get advice from your school-age children about how the calculation will go over the centuries. One does not have to go straight back to that Dionysius Exiguus, to whom we owe the difficulty of telling little children that the year 111 is in the second century. The Ottomans saw this earlier than today's Turkophile Europeans who, despite the existence of history books, for ideological reasons do not want to see many things about the Turkish advance of our day. No it was
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Then I'll try to understand that. Wasn't the hat of the Habsburg servant Gessler's in German-speaking Switzerland? Or does something else play a role in his anti-attitude towards Austria and the House of Habsburg? The aversions towards France and the French can be explained to me so little by little.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Hello! :) I couldn't help myself ... VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on May 10th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
The Sultan in Constantinople knew that and had poor Hascherl named Kara Moustapha transported to paradise by means of a silk cord. The European rulers have disposed of their secundogenitor with the clergy - Bavaria is leading the way with the Ernst von Bayern in Cologne. That was tantamount to castration - but it was probably not taken that seriously. uote] To that I say amen.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I am very surprised - even sextans are familiar with the fact that 1683 is in the 17th century. If I were you, I would like to get advice from your school-age children about how the calculation will go over the centuries. One does not have to go straight back to that Dionysius Exiguus to whom we owe the difficulty of telling young children that the year 111 is in the second century. ... [/ quote] If I read that correctly, you are writing about two basic dates in the said post: I am very surprised - even sextans are familiar with the fact that 1683 is in the 17th century. If I were you, I would like to get advice from your school-age children about how the calculation will go over the centuries. One does not have to go straight back to that Dionysius Exiguus, to whom we owe the difficulty of telling little children that the year 111 is in the second century. ... [/ quote] If I read that correctly, you are writing about two basic dates in the said post: I am very surprised - even sextans are familiar with the fact that 1683 is in the 17th century. If I were you, I would like to get advice from your school-age children on how the calculation will go over the centuries. One does not have to go straight back to that Dionysius Exiguus to whom we owe the difficulty of telling young children that the year 111 is in the second century. ... [/ quote] If I read that correctly, you are writing about 2 basic dates in the said post: I am very surprised - even sextans are familiar with the fact that 1683 is in the 17th century. If I were you, I would like to get advice from your school-age children about how the calculation will go over the centuries. One does not have to go straight back to that Dionysius Exiguus, to whom we owe the difficulty of telling little children that the year 111 is in the second century. ... [/ quote] If I read that correctly, you are writing about two basic dates in the said post: I am very surprised - even sextans are familiar with the fact that 1683 is in the 17th century. If I were you, I would like to get advice from your school-age children on how the calculation will go over the centuries. One does not have to go straight back to that Dionysius Exiguus to whom we owe the difficulty of telling young children that the year 111 is in the second century. ... [/ quote] You are writing, if I read it correctly, of 2 basic dates in the said post: [quote = PèreJoseph; 40926] ... Perhaps the Turks besieged Vienna in 1529 should have prayed more. Perhaps they are miserably inferior to the Christians who prayed in Vienna in their prayerful zeal and the Lord God just rained and rained and rained and let a cutting cold wind blow that the powder got wet, Suleiman got the cold and wet feet and he was then disappointed - under great losses - trolled away. So the 'remained gold
Submitted by RedScorpion on May 10th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
And to what right, if you please, did Austria have many enemies?
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 23:00
Nice that I'm no longer the only paranoid patient with too little iron ...: D: rolleyes:;): cool:
Submitted by Scifi on May 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Did you take a little trip to the Amselfeld over the weekend? LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on May 10th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Only from one: The Exiguus should only point out the usual difficulty of counting the centuries, to which you are also inferior here. Only the reactions of Turkophiles are pathological, because their arguments simply lack logic - but that can get even better over the years. Tscha - a look at a historical atlas would also make turkophiles smarter when it comes to the connection. You should rush into this issue - even if it costs money. This is the usual cheap attempt at opponents of a beit
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
A decent person doesn't even drink the grape derivative that comes from this region. That should be left to modest hearts and palates.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
It used to be called 'Pennerdiesel'.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 10th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Well, I'm doing one or the other wrong here, because I don't understand everything; but sometimes I wonder what kind of people are actually writing here ...
Submitted by RedScorpion on May 10th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Do not hope that we are hated in Frankfurt. The Frankfurt Book Fair would be interesting to visit (someday), but if we are hated there, it gets dangerous.
Submitted by WDPG on May 11th, 2009 at 11:44 am
During my military service I spent six months in Northern Hesse, in Rotenburg an der Fulda. A disproportionately large number of Hessians were active there. That's when I got to know the Hessians as sensitive, difficult, and sometimes a bit insidious people. Since then I have been cautious and waiting when I hear that someone is Hesse.
Submitted by tiger456 on May 11, 2009 at 1:02 pm
If you like to drink blackbird fields, then you are welcome to do so - but watch out for your liver because of the ample fusel oils contained in blackbird fields.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 11, 2009 at 1:49 pm
In Germany, wine connoisseurs drink Württemberger wines, Baden wines ('spoiled by the sun') and Tauberfranken wines can also be drunk. Palatinate wines and Rheinhessen wines - well, there should also be one or two drinkable drops ... but Amselfelder?
Submitted by tiger456 on May 11, 2009 at 2:21 pm
They say 'connoisseurs drink Württemberger'. Rightly so, I think. I am a great friend of the Remstäler and Heilbronn wines, of the Remstäler wines I especially love the 'Schorndorfer Grafenberg'.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 11, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Wines from Württemberg and Baden are - probably also among connoisseurs and experts - excellent wines, which I also like to drink, whereby the 'Trollinger' is the national drink of the Swabians; But I stick to a neat white 'Riesling Kabinett'. I don't know much about French wines, if I drank one, it was mostly very good, but you always read that they were very sulphurous.
Submitted by tiger456 on May 11, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I now have several of my own vines. Soon I can no longer eat the grapes fresh because of the increasing amount. I have to deal with making wine. My grapes on the Lahn taste good. Hopefully the wine will too.
Posted by Paul on May 11th, 2009 at 23:00
Let me know when the wine has turned out! Purely out of interest ...: D VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on May 11th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Exactly like here in the forum what ...: D It is no coincidence that WE and our allies, the Cheruscans spoiled Varus .... and killed the whole pack. So be careful with the Hessians ...;)
Submitted by lorginn on May 11th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
For me it wasn't about wine, but about the thinking behind the naming. LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on May 11th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
I once asked an old, experienced winemaker where it comes from that sometimes you get a headache after enjoying a good and expensive wine, without cigarettes on the side, mind you. He told me that there is one thing you shouldn't do, namely tossing up grapes or grape juices that come from different soils; one should only ever use grapes from one soil. The fact that minerals from different types of soil come together would create the 'headache factor'.
Submitted by tiger456 on May 12th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Because of the naming for this liquid, it is best to turn to the Serbs who claim the area for themselves, or to geographers - perhaps a geographers congress called at your suggestion to name the Amselfeld with regard to your sensitivities.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 12, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I know that - but with people who have found a taste for the so-called 'table wines' in tetrapacks, which are subsidized by the European Union to top it all off - available from nationwide well-known discounters - at prices of less than one euro, you will not get away with it. There are several explanations for the headache factor. That of the fusel oils, which incidentally also damage the gray cells, also seems plausible to me.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 12, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Even 'hobby winemakers' can produce very good wines if they have the appropriate vineyards. I recently went to a tasting of such wines. I went there wisely by train, because the Württemberg wines from the greater Stuttgart area were excellent.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 12th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
[quote = RedScorpion; 40965] It depends on when exactly you can speak of relegation in comparison. The 17th century seems a bit early to me, even if there are possibly reasons for seeing the first signs of it in Lepanto (and we would even be under the hundred years, thank you). [/ Quote] The year 1683 with the The unsuccessful second siege of Vienna and the previous devastating defeat of the numerically superior Ottomans in the battle of Sankt Gotthard-Mogersdorf probably fell into the 17th century - or has the logic of counting the centuries not yet got around to Italian-speaking Switzerland? [quote = RedScorpion; 40965] Quote: Quote from Scifi The year 1683 with the unsuccessful second siege of Vienna and the previous devastating defeat of the numerically superior Ottomans in the battle of Sankt Gotthard-Mogersdorf falls into the 17th century - or has it The logic of counting the centuries has not yet got around to Italian-speaking Switzerland? [quote = RedScorpion; 40965] Quote: Quote from Scifi The year 1683 with the unsuccessful second siege of Vienna and the previous devastating defeat of the numerically superior Ottomans in the battle of Sankt Gotthard-Mogersdorf falls into the 17th century - or has The logic of counting the centuries has not yet got around to Italian-speaking Switzerland? [quote = RedScorpion; 40965] Quote: Quote from Scifi The year 1683 with the unsuccessful second siege of Vienna and the previous devastating defeat of the numerically superior Ottomans in the battle of Sa.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 12th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Because of the naming for this liquid, it is best to turn to the Serbs who claim the area for themselves, or to geographers - perhaps a geographical congress called at your suggestion will name the blackbird field with regard to your sensitivities. [/ Quote] You don't notice what you write when you write, right? You don't notice what you're writing when you write, do you? You don't notice what you're writing when you write, do you? You don't notice what you're writing when you write, do you? The reference was of course that term. LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on May 12th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Hello PJ, the concerns about the misused term of the Amselfeld for the Serbian cause of RS are not to be dismissed out of hand ... and not worth a bit of sarcasm! Please clarify from you.
Submitted by lorginn on May 12th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
and you talk to me again and talk to you Europeans can also talk decently, a TURK must teach it too, boy I think you read too little, I would recommend something from military history to you;) you know it is not easy to be jealous when you are like that nich has a splendid story .... my dear, you can hang up your anti-turkish attitude as a poster, I don't care
Submitted by Türk on May 12th, 2009 at 19:44
Türk @ You are somehow wrong here .... without wanting to offend you ... You should be able to argue historically, otherwise it doesn't make any sense. No offense ... I like the Turks. lG
Submitted by lorginn on May 12th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Hi Lorginn, but it was I who introduced the term 'Amselfeld' here because Scifi presented Vienna as a bulwark against 'the Turks' or Islam, which reminds me very much of the Amselfeld myth of Greater Serbian thinking. But of course it is not the same, because Austria (sometimes I admit it) is a modern country that - in contrast to the past - does not have to use myths in order to realize great power dreams (why great power single-handedly?). What I was annoyed about are the possibly incredibly self-righteous and arrogant statements made to the disadvantaged in society. LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on May 12th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
The Serbs can claim Kosovo - also called Amselfeld - for as long as they want. That is their right, which can be granted or, as a result of the so-called Kosovo war of the European Union against Serbia, not either. The Serbs have - or claim to have - a historical connection to this region and refer in particular to the battle on the Amselfeld in 1389. That is one thing. The other thing is that the Amselfeld is predominantly inhabited by Muslims of Albanian origin, who in the meantime - for reasons that are hopefully known - have broken away from Serbia and founded their own state, also recognized by the Federal Republic. Whether this state has a chance of survival or sooner or later will somehow unite with Albania to form Greater Albania remains to be seen. That a cheap wine traded under the name 'Amselfelder' and generally badly reputed comes from Kosovo, which is particularly popular in Kr
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 12th, 2009 at 8:00 p.m.
Just make fun of it ...
Submitted by RedScorpion on May 12th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Oh so OK ... where did PJ actually do that? Because of the equation Amselfeld Wein = homeless happiness?
Submitted by lorginn on May 12th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
I am sufficiently familiar with the history of the Ottomans. But I recommend that you, dear friend, study the greatness of the Ottoman Empire at the Berlin Congress of 1878. That could do some good to dampen your chauvinism. I am also happy to discuss with you the many battles the Ottomans lost from 1571 to 1918.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 12th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
oh great you don't need aba in the end it only counts how it wa times our empire was bigger than the roman empire
Submitted by Türk on May 12th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Ah here we have PJ's arrogant post. So you can argue about tastes ... know people who don't have to sleep under the bridge, who like to drink this wine ... Your contribution could come from Mr Schröder, a person you don't dear ... you think over to ...
Submitted by lorginn on May 12th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Somewhere in this thread I mentioned the term 'Pennerdiesel', which is common among young people, for the 'Amselfelder'. We have to come to terms with the language of young people - after all, as young people we also had our own vocabulary, which our parents did not always appreciate; the well-known Langenscheidt-Verlag and the no less well-known C. H. Beck publishers - also multilingual - already publish dictionaries of young people's language. In this respect, the term 'Pennerdiesel' is not discriminatory - unless the conventional and colloquial term 'Penner' is not viewed as a commonly used term, but rather as discriminating against a certain group of people.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 12th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
You should urgently get yourself a proper historical atlas. I recommend the 'Putzger', Cornelsen-Verlag, order no. 1768 - ISBN 3-464-00176-8. Although it costs a little something, it fills educational gaps enormously and eliminates errors. A somewhat cheaper version is available with the ISBN no. 3-8289-0286-3 can be ordered.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 12th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
You're nasty!! : D: D Who was the other Soze who wanted to send an unemployed person to the hairdresser first (who did that too, but then created his own new style, for the pleasure of the press)? Beck? LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on May 12th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Submitted by Scifi on May 12th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
He got angry about the term 'bum diesel'.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 12th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
In addition to Père Joseph's Atlas recommendation, it should be noted that the Roman Empire actually controlled its areas, while the Ottoman rule over a number of areas such as. B. Algeria and Tunis was more nominal.
Submitted by Scifi on May 12th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
And to put a damper on our chauvinist: There is the 'Oriental Question', in which the Ottoman Empire - unasked of course! - became a bargaining chip for us Europeans. I have already referred to the Berlin Congress of 1878. Yes, Berlin 1878, oh sin and shame: The beautiful Muslim Bosnia is now administered by the Christian Austrians - although nominally (until 1908) it belongs to the Ottoman Empire. And the Ottomans - again: oh sin and shame - did not even ask for permission.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 12th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
It was the Prime Minister of the Rhineland-Palatinate, Kurt Beck, who did a great job for this unemployed person. The man undoubtedly has merits - for nothing and nothing again he has not become Grand Officier (Grand Officer) of the Légion d'honneur or is in the process of becoming one; nothing specific, at least officially I don't know yet - it may be that I'm not up to date, but I don't follow the medals. Especially since orders, according to Bismarck, can be earned, earned or earthed. But Beck is in good company with the Légion d'Honneur: Pope Benedict XVI. also belongs to her as a 'Commandeur'.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 12th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
[quote = Scifi; 41309] And that would be? [/ quote] Quote from PèreJoseph Quote from PèreJoseph Quote from PèreJoseph Quote from PèreJoseph Quote from PèreJoseph Quote from PèreJoseph A decent person doesn't even drink the grape derivative that comes from this region. That should be left to modest hearts and palates.
Submitted by lorginn on May 13th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Do you know the fable of the little fox and the grapes? ;)
Submitted by Scifi on May 13th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
It fits on it - in my adopted Swabian homeland people speak of the dog which, if it hadn't ... had caught the hare. But our Turkish chauvinist is right to say that Vienna, because the emperor's main armed forces did not appear at the city for relief until October 20, 1529, could well have fallen in a fifth or sixth onslaught. But that wouldn't have helped the Turks either. Because after the arrival of the imperial army, the sultan would have faced the difficulty of having to defend the city against the imperial ones if the city fortifications were badly battered at a fortification - and that with dwindling supplies. When Suleiman threw in the towel on October 15th, 1529, he already knew why. Even his janissaries had grumbled. But since military history is also one of my specialties, I want to go into a little more detail why Suleiman would not have stayed in Vienna if he had taken it
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 13th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Hello! It's funny when you consider that the Turks were able to take Constantinople almost 100 years ago, among other reasons (!) It can go that fast ... VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on May 13th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
At that time one could not speak of 'far-reaching artillery'. When it comes up, they only reached 500 meters. The guns with which Mohammed the Conqueror approached Constantinople were cast by a Hungarian gun caster especially for the siege of the city - so they were siege artillery. Incidentally, this Hungarian gun founder had previously offered his services to the city of Constantinople - for defense artillery. But it was too expensive for the city fathers, and so he went to the sultan, who paid him the gold pieces he was asking for. And with siege artillery, only the caliber counted at the time: the larger and heavier the projectiles, the faster a wall broke. These bumpers had a very big disadvantage: They were extremely heavy and therefore very difficult to transport. You have had to harness a few horses before these things. If you then take into account all the trappings: there are also the wagons with the projectiles and the powder - such a large siege cannon, including service teams, could pull a baggage train several hundred meters long behind it. Being an artilleryman was a risky job back then and that's why people were highly paid. Most of the time they were also, at least in the Christian armies, a kind of 'free entrepreneur'. If the people shoved too much powder into the chamber, their tools, the cannons, could fly in pieces around their ears.
Submitted by PèreJoseph on May 13th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
What would have happened Today Europe would be a Muslim continent ... primitive and well ... unfree: P
Submitted by ThecapturedCrusader on May 16, 2009 at 10:49 pm
They would hardly have come to Sweden.
Submitted by Scifi on May 16, 2009 at 10:54 pm