 | | Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries |
January 22nd, 2011, 07:04 AM
|
#31 | | миротворец
Joined: Jul 2009 From: Bulgaria Posts: 8,694 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Reis This is the biggest mistake for the Byzantines and later the Balkans.
The turks sent did not come as mercenaries but as help from the Ottomans.As a reward they were given land near Gallipoli , land which would be used by the Ottoman Akincis as new lands for conquer.As the Ottomans fought in the Balkans and won , they fained land and became the leader in the fight against the Christians.
This in turned caused many Turkmens and Ghazis to join the Ottoman ranks and was one of the reasons for their rapid rise. | Hmm i don't remamber reading that. What i remammber from the history books is that there was an earthqueke in all of Thrace (something usual as you know), and the turks managed to conqure one of the fortresses at Galipoli. Nevertheless yes there advance started from Galipoli, and where else? This is a point between Anatolia and the Balkans, the other pass of course is trough Istanbul (Constantinople) but it was the capital of the Byzantine empire. If the Ottomans never managed to conqure Galipoli and transfer troops from there, they would be unable to conqure the Balkans the way they did, but that is just speculations, based on my own opinion.
The Byzantines used the turks as merceneries but they never expected that they will conqure land, and eventually conqure the whole Balkans.
Balkans countries often used merceneries, hell the Byzantine empire used bulgarians as merceneries in the battle Manzikert, and Bulgaria often used cummans, pechenegs, uz, tatars as merceneries in there wars. This wasn't something uncommon on the Balkans.
And as i often said the Balkan countries absolutely and foolishly underestemated the turkish threat. Let me remaind you that just a few years before the Turkis advance on the Balkans, the Balkan countries had problems with other nomads - the tatars. Bulgaria was by the way at one point a vassal of the tatars, and paid them tribute.
Balkan states have often seen invasions, but invadors came and go, it was a matter of time, cummans, pechenegs, oghuz turks, magyars, even the Kiev Rus have invaded the Balkans, but all of them haven't settlled there, for one or another reason they disappeared.
I believe the Balkan leaders saw the turks as the next invaders who will come and go.
| | |
| |
January 22nd, 2011, 07:26 AM
|
#32 | | Historian
Joined: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,781 | Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm i aways say, after the "crusade" of the count of Savoy Amadeus VI in 1366 he managed to drove the turks away from Galipoli, and thus he cut off there contact with Minor Asia, living the turks split, with no contact between each other. | Amadeuss small expedition was only able to take the are around Canakkale due to the Ottoman not leaving enough forces there to defend it.This was in turn due to Sultan Murat being on Anatolia at the time.If Ameedus had not moved on the Uc Beys would have taken care of him.
Also the Canakkale strait wasnt the only place where the Ottomans could cross.Canakkale was not as strategically important in 1366 as it had been in 1354 - Thrace was already an Ottoman stronghold. Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm Of course the count countinued his crusade at the bulgarians rather then countinue it toward the turks. | Almost ironic.
| | |
| |
January 22nd, 2011, 07:31 AM
|
#33 | | Historian
Joined: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,781 | Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm Hmm i don't remamber reading that. What i remammber from the history books is that there was an earthqueke in all of Thrace (something usual as you know), and the turks managed to conqure one of the fortresses at Galipoli. | You are right sturm.It was Sultan Orhan Gazis son Suleiman who captured the fortress in Gallipoli after the earthquake.He simply added this to the land that was awarded to them. Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm Nevertheless yes there advance started from Galipoli, and where else? This is a point between Anatolia and the Balkans, the other pass of course is trough Istanbul (Constantinople) but it was the capital of the Byzantine empire. If the Ottomans never managed to conqure Galipoli and transfer troops from there, they would be unable to conqure the Balkans the way they did, but that is just speculations, based on my own opinion. | Sultan Orhan had made a treaty with the Venetians and had unified a Beylik famous for its piracy along the coast prior to these events which gives us the impression that he was aiming for lands in the Balkans. Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm The Byzantines used the turks as merceneries but they never expected that they will conqure land, and eventually conqure the whole Balkans.
Balkans countries often used merceneries, hell the Byzantine empire used bulgarians as merceneries in the battle Manzikert, and Bulgaria often used cummans, pechenegs, uz, tatars as merceneries in there wars. This wasn't something uncommon on the Balkans. | On this instance the Turks did not come as mercenaries but as help to the pleas of the Byzantine king who was father in law to Sultan Orhan Gazi. Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm Balkan states have often seen invasions, but invadors came and go, it was a matter of time, cummans, pechenegs, oghuz turks, magyars, even the Kiev Rus have invaded the Balkans, but all of them haven't settlled there, for one or another reason they disappeared.
I believe the Balkan leaders saw the turks as the next invaders who will come and go. | Lack of foresight.When the Selcuks of Rum saw the Mongolian invasion over take Harzemshah and then the Great Seljuk Empire, they following the Oghuz Turk tradition began separating in small beyliks , knowing well that a strong Empire would not be tolerated by the Mongols where as a Beylik would be.
Later when the threat had become less they began uniting.
| | |
| |
January 24th, 2011, 02:39 AM
|
#34 | | Chameleon
Joined: Sep 2010 From: Kragujevac,Serbia Posts: 8,663 |
Some nice informations Reis.Thanks.
I read somewhere that Dusan intented to focus on Ottomans after conquering Constatinople with the help of Venetian Navy.He was also asking for help from the Pope.In return,he was wiling to adopt Catholicism instead of Orthodoxy as the new religion.This is probably main reason why Stefan Dusan is THE ONLY Nemanjic ruler who was not canonised by the Orthodox Church(despite being the strongest of them all). 
Alcibiades
| | |
| |
January 24th, 2011, 02:49 AM
|
#35 | | миротворец
Joined: Jul 2009 From: Bulgaria Posts: 8,694 |
This is something i don't understand. In Bulgaria Boris I is cannonized as saint because during his rule Bulgaria converted to christianity. Yet he was involved in battles, he killed people, he ordered executions. Same stands for Stefan Dushan, im sure he was involved in not so good acts, like also ordering executions, participating in warfare, things that are unacceptable by the christian dogma.
How can those people be cannonized as saints?
Saints are usually people who lived a life that was example for the christians, people who gave something for the christian faith, or people who were killed because of there belief - myrters.
I understand why Saint Sava was cannonized but Dushan isn't like him at all | | |
| |
January 24th, 2011, 02:53 AM
|
#36 | | Golan&Imbarligator
Joined: Dec 2009 From: Romania Posts: 5,980 |
How about Constantine I?
| | |
| |
January 24th, 2011, 02:54 AM
|
#37 | | миротворец
Joined: Jul 2009 From: Bulgaria Posts: 8,694 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Perix How about Constantine I? | Yes there are many other examples.
| | |
| |
January 24th, 2011, 02:57 AM
|
#38 | | Chameleon
Joined: Sep 2010 From: Kragujevac,Serbia Posts: 8,663 | Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm This is something i don't understand. In Bulgaria Boris I is cannonized as saint because during his rule Bulgaria converted to christianity. Yet he was involved in battles, he killed people, he ordered executions. Same stands for Stefan Dushan, im sure he was involved in not so good acts, like also ordering executions, participating in warfare, things that are unacceptable by the christian dogma.
How can those people be cannonized as saints?
Saints are usually people who lived a life that was example for the christians, people who gave something for the christian faith, or people who were killed because of there belief - myrters.
I understand why Saint Sava was cannonized but Dushan isn't like him at all  | Well,it is as much logical as "Christ's representative on Earth" calling for HOLY Wars,don't you think?  Medieval Church was the church of power,might,influence,money etc.Whoever helped the Church to have more power/influence/money(with whatever means),is a "legitimate" contender for Sainthood,by that "logic". 
Alcibiades
| | |
| |
January 24th, 2011, 10:43 PM
|
#39 | | Pro Bono Advocate
Joined: Sep 2010 From: currently Ancient Odessos, BG Posts: 7,699 |
Interesting thread, I'm marking it for future reading. Good info, guys, thanks!
| | |
| |
July 31st, 2011, 01:16 PM
|
#40 | | Citizen
Joined: Jul 2011 Posts: 5 | Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm Thanks for the thread
About the title of Stefan Dushan, wasn't it "Bασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτoκράτωρ Σερβίας καὶ Pωμανίας" ? I mean i hear it for the first time "Tzar of all serbs, albanians greeks and bulgarians", since his title was recognized by the Bulgarian church i guess he had to be a sovereign ruler of Bulgaria too, yet he wasn't. | His title was Bασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτoκράτωρ Σερβίας καὶ Pωμανίας or Tsar of Serbs and Greeks.
It's because Bulgarians were Serbs then and Bulgaria was one of many Serbian feuds, like Raška, Bosnia, Zeta, Hum etc. Wars between Raška and Bulgaria were wars over who gets to dominate all of the Serbs, not wars between two different peoples (like it's falsely presented in Germanic historical school, which caused disputes between Serbia and Bulgaria in modern times).
Proto-Bulgarians (Turkic tribe, part of Hunic tribal alliance) settled among Serbs. Proto-Bulgarians, although they ruled over Serbs, were rather small group of people, so they quickly assimilated, leaving their name to the land and Serbs inhabiting it. Since Bulgarians were Serbs, it's logical why they refused to give up body of Saint Sava (who brought to pass restoration of Patriarchal status for Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Second Bulgarian Empire), laid in Veliko Trnovo, or why body of Saint king Stefan Milutin still lies in Sofia, only true reasons are forgotten by modern Bulgarians, who don't see themselves as Serbs anymore... Today, name Serbia is by political schemes, limited only to territory of former Raška, which only was one of our mutual lands. Germans have replaced terms "Serbian lands" with "Yugoslavia" (which was never our idea, it was "planted" among us through Austria-Hungary) ... Long story ...
| | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.
|  |