Why did the Russians win most wars against the Turks?

Mar 2013
1,441
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
#1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russo-Turkish_wars#List_of_conflicts

From the second half of 1500s the Russians expanded continuously for almost each century, and often on the behalf of the Turks. Out of 12 Russo-Turkish wars the Russians prevailed as the clear winner.

So I wonder: why did the Russians win most of their wars against the Turks? Better weaponry? Better logistic location? Better leaders? . . . ? ? ?
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,340
#2
The Ottoman army was pretty poor 1650-1830 just was not up to matching a more or less European standard army. The Janissaries were just an obstacle that had to be eliminated before some serious reform could take place. While some Janissaries remained true to some warrior values, they were poor soldiers who disdained fighting in ordered ranks, and there was much corruption associated with them and military service in General.

The Ottomans were incapable of standing and beating an European style army in the field though they could be extremely stubborn and effective in sieges. The Balkans area was hard campaigning with much logistical problems and problems with disease. Campaign success was defined heavily by logistics. Ottoman often were well organized in defense, with garrisons having a lot supplies stocked. The Russian problems with logistics stopped them expanding more than anything else.
 
Mar 2016
764
Antalya
#3
Most of those wars correspond to a period which Ottoman Empire was declining. In 19th century, Ottoman Empire was rather weak. I also love the fact that the recording stars from a point where Russians got prominent. I guess Criemean Tatars raiding Moscow, several times (16th century) doesn't fit certain people's narrative.
 
Mar 2013
1,441
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
#5
Raiding some (poorly density) areas is hardly a winning victory.

Even if we exclude Russian victories in the 19th century on that list the Russians still prevail as the clear winner. Even before or after the 19th century the Russians still win over the Turks
 
Mar 2016
764
Antalya
#8
Raiding some (poorly density) areas is hardly a winning victory.

Even if we exclude Russian victories in the 19th century on that list the Russians still prevail as the clear winner. Even before or after the 19th century the Russians still win over the Turks
Tatars didn't raid poorly dense areas, they raided Russian capital of Moscow. They might have Moscow burned once, I am not sure I need to check my source. Ottoman Empire had little to no interest in Russian heartland. They just wanted to control the thread route in the black sea and the steppe connecting Europe to East, which was controlled by Cirmean Khan.

Turks took Crimea, an important trade center and port in black sea, from Genoese, Not Russians. Up until late mid to late 17th century, Russians weren't prominent, to the point where they couldn't even control an important trade port.

Long story short is this: They challenged Ottoman Empire, when they were big enough, which corresponds to Ottoman Empire's weakest point.

Even if we exclude Russian victories in the 19th century on that list the Russians still prevail as the clear winner.
You should check your own list. This poor list is a draw if you remove late 18th/19th century clashes. Then again, as I said, Tatars raiding their capital, and Russians being so bloody weak to confront them is not "war", I suppose.
 
Last edited:
May 2017
1,201
Syria
#9
Different from one war to another. Direct Russo-Turkish conflict spanned from the 16th century to the early 20th century and the answer is different for every conflict tbh. For example, in the 1768–1774 war the Ottoman Empire was strained from revolts, corruption and internal divisions.
 
Nov 2014
1,645
Birmingham, UK
#10
Most of those wars correspond to a period which Ottoman Empire was declining. In 19th century, Ottoman Empire was rather weak. I also love the fact that the recording stars from a point where Russians got prominent. I guess Criemean Tatars raiding Moscow, several times (16th century) doesn't fit certain people's narrative.
I take your point but that was, at best, peripheral to the idea of the Ottoman Empure and its historical relationship with Russia