Anyone have any stuff on knights vs mongols...

It's even more retarded if you consider that all subspecies of turks were spin-offs of the Golden Horde and that Jenkins Khan's very grandson, Berke, reverted and made the Golden Horde a weapon of terror to the service of pisslam.

I still can't quite wrap my head around how the Ottomans managed to screw up as hard as they did. To go from the superpower that could have owned as much of Europe, Africa, and Central Asia as they wanted to … well … a bunch of Turks is a fall from grace that beggars belief.

Infighting, they kept leaving multiple male heirs who would sometimes side with the Europeans to attack their siblings, kek

So the Kebab was self removing?

Basically.
Also because off all the chimping out they did and jizya, traders who used to go through Anatolia and the middle east stopped doing it, which lead to the exploration age as Europeans tried to find alternate trade routes to the East Indies and China, which ultimately lead to the discovery of the West Indies, most of Africa and America, which cut off almost all of the Turk's money they gained from trading and operating trade routes while leading to the Renaissance in Europe.
Being turkroaches was the downfall of the ottomans

So all that needs to happen for Europe to reclaim Anatolia would be for the Burgers to stop funding and defending the Turkmen occupiers.

Attached: Turkish amateur gay incest.jpg (943x774, 61.99K)

The only reason they lasted that long was because of the Schism and consequently multilateral perfidiousness and backstabs between European powers viewing the Ottoman as a perpetual borderline failure that was to be used as diplomatic trump card between actually competent White empires.

The "mighty" empire of gunpowder had their shit handed over so hard by a handful of ragtag-clad bandits that went crying to Egypt for help. The very moment a unified Christian European front decided that Greeks would make a more reliable buffer state than the durkas the Ottoman empire fell in a single proper battle.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Navarino

It was the central empire of a civilization, therefore they fall from grace the same way Rome did: they were blinded by their own power and hubris, and so they didn't care about the outside world, preferring internal squabbles.

Now that's just embarrassing. Hell, several African tribes managed to give Europe a bloodier nose than that from a much weaker position.

They had no semblance to Rome, their mentality was almost identical to its Mongol Empire predecessor, just militaristic expansion and establishment of draconic laws and tributary taxation. Whatever bureaucratic and economic functions were required to sustain the infrastructure left by the Byzantines was ran by Greeks and Armenians, since the vast majority of ethnic turks were illiterate and their job was just to fight and hoarde loot, and the slave trade was largely ran by kikes.

You basically stated it OP it's because light calvalry gets the fuck torn out of it by heavy cav. The Euros had also learned and adapted to the Mongols tactics since the first invasion.

I wasn't asking why they won. I was asking if there was any good literature or anything on knights vs mongols. For such an important conflict there seems to be very little on it.

Isn't that also the first time a steam powered ship saw combat?

ONLY THE MONGOLS HAVE EVER CONQUERED RUSSIA
I never found /int/ "banter" funny because it was incredibly malicious a lot of the time (namely when speaking about World War Two).
Back in ~early 2015 I posted the John Green meme image on 4/pol/ and was called many things, until I pointed out the filename. I like that meme image because it's a good way of pointing out that either the spirit of the board or site is ill, and, or the posters are somewhat nu, or just stupid.
Now, smart fun =! dumb fun, but as imageboard culture, and therefore, Internet subculture, is in decline, it is only natural that dumb fun becomes commonplace.And, it's normalnigger-type dumb fun.;_;

Attached: Sacking_of_Suzdal_by_Batu_Khan.jpg (200x348 637.55 KB, 380.43K)

post it

they would have just done the russian tactic of throw human waves at the defenders until they win (is that where russians got it from? their mongol ancestors?). the mongols didn't just fight with horse archers or nothing.

You're not lending any credence to yourself, retard.

he means this^

bummer

Not sure.

That was far from the Ottoman's fleet low-point:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chesma

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Kanaris#Military_career

After half century of having their capital ships blown up by fishing boats with incendiary bombs you'd think they would learn to not crowd their fleets and to have nighttime sentinels.
Guess that happens when you have deep continental steppeniggers trying to play battleship.

Attached: Kanaris - filoi tourkaliotes exete twra geia.jpeg (750x955, 335.3K)

I don't think I've ever actually met a Turk, but I'm guessing that they don't have the decency to be suitably embarrassed about this

You can't grasp how on spot you are. The only reason the Ottoman Empire did not crumble with Orlov's Revolt was mostly because the direct descendant of King Leonidas called Orlov a "pussy-whipped beta-orbiter of a whore" for insulting his men's ruggedness.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniots#Orlov_Revolt

Attached: burning laughing emoji plushy.png (552x543, 266.33K)

Mongloids lost wherever they faced enemies who didn't stand around in wide open planes or where they couldn't find traitors to bribe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daskalogiannis#Leader_of_revolt

Attached: Daskalogiannis.jpg (201x255, 6K)

No, it's the first time stteam-powered ships saw combat.
No, it's the last time only sails-ships were used. Since then they used a mixture before sails were phased out.

Attached: erov_morw_says_the_kitten.gif (400x300 1.87 MB, 70.87K)

It's retroactively funny because Cretans and Maniots are viewed as largely similar but with the Cretans being far-left and the Maniots more rightwing than Hitler, the Hitlest.

Attached: checken'em.jpg (236x306, 78.76K)

Butthurt roach detected.

Attached: 399e1349500b27bc9d3d72c8b97fc55fd20273872948c3a08f9e55211ed8f8e8.jpg (900x635, 47.84K)

Even though legendarily bad-tempered turkroaches can eventually mellow down into the sluggish fat degenerate pieces of shit they aspire to be once a steady supply of sugary treats, little boy bellydancers and brain-washed eunuch houseguards has been secured.

Albanimals of the other hand are in a constantly feral state. Even the most successful albanian in human history, Ali Pasha of Ioannina, despite his legendary riches, power and unconditional support for his crimes given by the Sultan, remained a rabid dog that had to ultimately be put down because he tried to bite the hand that fed him for no other reason than petty powermongering.

Attached: χαρούν ελ πατσά.jpg (532x327, 95.63K)

This damage control.

Attached: onii-chan fuck my tomato.jpg (900x810, 51.93K)

lol am i banned?

guess not :^)

Attached: Aids.mp4 (854x480, 659.38K)

You should be.

The most funny about pic 2 is that it's not Christians… it's just Germans doing what they do best.

Isn't that always the case?
Even without outside meddling they always wind up slaughtering one another for not being muslim enough.

t. can't, hasn't, and won't ever handle the bants
The /int/ that existed before you started using imageboards would've had you in tears if you honestly think 2015 shit was anywhere near malicious.

That's Zig Forums boi
Wasn't talking about /int/
Mostly talking about WW2. Everything else is alright.

LRN 2 RED

FRENCH PRESS BEST PRESS

Attached: forty keks.gif (716x620, 728.96K)

no u…
TURK

Attached: Turks.png (609x366, 114.84K)

I made some shitposting OC about this very subject awhile back. Knights were generally effective against the Mongols, but very few of them fought during the first Mongol invasion because Western Europe, where most of the knights were, couldn't be assed to send more than around 90 knights to aid the Eastern Europeans. And even then, the Mongols were only able to kill about 9 or 10 of them. The Hungarian army during the first invasion was made up almost entirely of light cavalry which, as you can imagine, was very easy for the Mongolian archers to mow down. They also had very poor defense for their cities and towns. If they had fortifications at all they were mostly made out of wood or clay, though there were a few that had stone fortifications and were much more difficult for the Mongols to attack. During the second invasion the Hungarians had learned their lessons and were much more successful as a result.

Eh, that's possible but a lot of historians are contesting that theory nowadays on the grounds that it would have been impossible for Batu and Subutai to have learned about Ogdei's death by the time they began to withdraw. There are a lot of other theories as to why they left. The two most popular ones that I've seen are a)they didn't think it was worth the effort to try and invade the Holy Roman Empire with all it's hills, dense forests, and thousands of stone castles and b) They never planned on going further than Poland in the first place. Batu just wanted to stick it to the king of Hungary and only conquered Poland cut off his escape route. Personally I think if they had tried to go further west they would have ended up being repelled at something similar to the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains.

Attached: muh horse archers.jpg (1292x1512, 633.51K)

So why can't light cav use mobility to reduce losses? Is it because they felt like harassing wasn't working and they had no choice but to attack sooner or later? You'd think that when you come up with your horse archers against some armored knights, it doesn't take a genius to say "maybe i shouldn't waste my troops by attack moving right into their hard counters" and try to think of something else instead.

They were doing well up until late 1600s due to good tactics and military tech, strong warrior tradition, solid economic base and steady momentum. Western Europe lacked unity and were being sucked due to trade routes passing through Ottomania, which also enriched Ottomans further. Russia was not a major player. When all these advantages were eroded around 1500s Ottomans began to decline.

The clergy became increasingly influential and blocked progress to avoid losing influence. Didn't help that in 1500s some Sultans decided to focus on expanding eastwards and uniting the muslim world, which boosted the clergy even more. With Americas/circumnavigation it was suddenly the Ottomans who had a geographical disadvantage while western euros had the prime location. A bunch of major conquest attempts failed, which was bad because the state was counting on war plunder to repay debts and army salaries, this killed the momentum. Euro warfare eventually evolved to cover the weakness vs. Ottomans, who never updated their own organization fast enough. Especially when regular armies became a thing later in 1700s Ottomans started getting fully rekt, because on top of their usual inertia the old guard also started revolting to preserve their cushy govt jobs even though it was weakening the country. Euros began to into diplomacy better and infight less, Russia also unified and grew, and coordinated with Euros, leaving Ottomans to fight great powers on 2 fronts where before they had to deal with divided, small countries on 1 front. In 1699 they had a big defeat which resulted in a very bad treaty, it was pretty much all downhill from there.

Probably their biggest mistake was letting imams have so much control. It led to a huge tech handicap which destroyed them in the long run, with no real benefit (other muslims never helped them later, arabs even revolted). When they peaked ca Battle of Vienna, they should have recognized growing strength of Europe and started turtling, but the great powers might not have permitted that. Or alternatively they should have taken Vienna (they had a good chance if not for some bad decisions/luck). IMO they actually did a pretty solid job holding on as long as they did (thanks Napoleon), and if they had just avoided WW1 things could have turned out much better in the end. But all else being equal, if eg. America had turned out not to exist, Ottomans could probably have reigned supreme for a few more centuries, despite all other problems. And nobody could have known about America. So to answer your question, I'd say it was mostly bad luck in the form of undiscovered parts of the planet suddenly turning out to be really bad for them. Or getting cucked by falling for the desert religion meme. You decide.

I know it's just /int/ banter, but how do you rapidly dilute a gene pool like that with no strong selection? For every Turkish bey that married a Slavfu, there would have been one more "surplus" Turkish girl. That means either an otherwise khv omega male Turk peasant would now get to marry, or one of the more well to do Turks gets a second wife, or possibly she marries a Slav/balkan man. All three would result in propagation of Turk genes so as to compensate for the effect mentioned in the pic. In the end, instead of being balkanwashed like the pic claims, Turks would just become a mix of Turk and Balkan, roughly in the proportions of relative population sizes. And there were a lot more Turks than Balkans, so they would still remain mostly Turk despite the interbreeding.

Wasn't the Mongol strategy to starve/demoralize the besieged into surrender anyway, as opposed to storming? Why were the stone fortification an issue?

Because the Europeans would hoard food for the winter while the mongols would just forage. There tactics worked really well in places where it was hard to farm enough to stockpile food but in Europe the mongols would be the ones starving as they waited for the Europeans huge stocks of food to run out. Not to mention that lightly armored horsemen don't fair very well against fortifications that shoot at them.

Did they really rely on just forage? I always assumed they had some kind of supply train bringing food. But even so, wouldn't stocks be low if you sieged in spring? And besides, food is not the only thing that can run out. Water, morale, disease are all alternate options and mongols knew to exploit them.

Couldn't they just camp outside effective range and/or build inwards facing walls? I thought that's how sieges worked since the roman times.

Kind of, but the problem is the amount of damage that spreads around the place while they're in the process of killing each other. That's also best case scenario for a Muslim world. In a world with non-muslims they get less worked up about
and more focused on

You going to cry about it? Suicide yourself. Oh wait, am I being too malicious for you to handle, you literal five year old?

From where? They already pillaged everything between themselves and their land of origin and their land of origin has no supplies or they wouldn't be pillaging niggers.
Its the same reason why Napoleons Arms bite the dust in Russia, just that the invading Mongols did it to themselves.
Think about it, all the Horses the Mongols took with them needed food and water and they became practically useless once the Mongols encountered real Fortifications.
Yes but all those things are also old hats for the Europeans, since they basically invented Castle warfare in this part of the world.
The Greeks had their intercity warfare in antiquity and the Romans build fortifications all over Europe to fight against the invading Barbarians.
Only new thing the Mongols had was gunpowder with they stole from the Chinese they conquered, but that only in a really primitive state.

...

Only if by "Turk" you mean converted Anatolians.

I fucking hate people who fetishize mongol bows, the yew bow outranged them for years and there are plenty of ancient greek bows that did the same.

The only reason Mongols ever won is because they had like 10:1 numerical advantage, and managed to hit Europe at the same time as it was riddled with famine, disease, and bad government.

I don't wanna

By "Turk" I mean the Turkmens that migrated into Anatolia with Seljuks and others. Don't know what the exact populations of balkans, byzantines and turks were but I don't think the turks were so few as to be diluted.

Anyway, point is that the original pic implies a finite reservoir of turks is interbreeding with an infinite reservoir of balkans and slavs. Which is nonsense, the balkans aren't that big and there was a lot of turks migrating west. The ratio was certainly more than 0.7%. Just compare modern turks to tribes that never left central asia, or modern greeks/balkans with neighboring territories that were not conquered.

I use to fan boy about the mongolian too
But clearly they are way overrated nowdays
Pic related

The “Mongol Yoke” is a theoretical construct cobbled together by German historians at the court of Russian Czars in the XVIII century. Some of the hard evidence support that. We know the fact of nomadic invasions led by and into the European steppes, Hungary and Poland, and the existence of Mongol-led ochi in the wake of it.

Yet, after all is said and done, there’s close to none forensics that support the claim that (1) Mongols ravaged the principalities inside the Russian woodlands north of the line Kiev-Voronezh-Tambov and (2) that the contemporary Christian Slavs, Turks and Ugro-Finns west of Volga River considered the suzerainty of the Empire of Jochi over their territories as a “yoke”.

There are close to none artifacts or burial sites in the Russian heartland that can be clearly attributed to Mongols
The presence of Mongol traces in the DNA of ethnic Russians is marginal
The contemporary Russian chronicles mention no “Mongols”
The word “yoke” as an attribute to the suzerainty of Turkic descendants of the Empire of Jochi over Russian principalities was first used by a Polish author in the XVII century
Contemporary Russian dukes saw the Empire of Jochi and its descendants as their rightful rulers. Even after the sacking of Kazan and Astrakhan by Ivan the Terrible, the subsequent Russian Czars continued to pay tribute to southern Tatar kingdoms. It was first Peter the Great that put an end to that in 1700 and made the Russian Czardom officially independent, which made it possible to declare Russia an Empire in 1721.
The Empire of Jochi was a great enabler of the spread of Christianity in Russia. The clergy was exempt from taxes. The Turkic rulers supported the Orthodox Church in pushing back German and Polish Catholics. They also encouraged the greater autonomy of the Moscow Patriarchy from the central Orthodox authority in Constantinople, which led to an increasing accretion of liturgical differences and later to the painful in the XVII century.
We had no narrative of a “fight for independence” from Mongols or Turks. The grievances in Russian chronicles look rather like a list of injustices suffered from a higher authority and roving gangs of their unruly subjects, not much unlike the kind of lawless and destructive behavior from our own rulers.
Even the known battles that are pictured as epic events of Russian self-assertion, show no clear-cut lines of confrontation between Russians and Tatar-Mongols. The evidence shows a mixture of Christian and Turkic elements on both sides. The greatest battle we won against Mongols in 1380, the , was not one against the Emperor of Jochi, but against his rogue challenger Mamai.
One of our greatest national heroes, St Alexander Nevsky, was beatified for fighting Swedes, Germans and other Russians, not Mongols/Tatars. He was a faithful subject of the Emperor of Jochi. The fact of his sainthood clearly shows the loyalty of Russian Orthodox church to Mongols and Turks.
Long story short: we have zero reasons to hate Mongols, whatever German historians at the Romanovs’ court had to say.

Attached: IMG-20180112-WA0055.jpg (1280x960, 168.02K)

There's a reason they are called Turk-men. They were hybrids of turks with humans, they were already diluted by 50% at that time.

DNA evidence disagrees.

Slant eye contribution is 1.3% to 1.9% in Turkey. At this point Canada is more turan-stroooong than Turkey.

In balkans it's doubless far lower.

Attached: 1.jpg (852x480, 25.22K)

Source?

This doesn't exactly scream "solid economic base" to me.

Supply train originating where? Their homeland and all of the places they pillaged were pretty barren, as says, and on top of that the Mongols didn't do much in the way of settling. They brought women and children with them in their hordes, not much incentive to establish any kind of trade routes or infrastructure if you're bringing your whole civilization with your army.

Plundering is the only economy roaches understand.

Yes, because Poland had jews (none of which as destructive to the west as the rotschild dynasty), and didn't pay them 300 billion dollars ransom for the holocauster™ so all achievements of Poland are thus invalid (^:

wouldn't we need multiple, simultaneous, global nuclear firestorms to be as destructive as the Rothschild family? As in a pile of 20MT warheads placed every 100m around the globe and detonated simultaneously.

You can recover from Nuclear annihilation, you can't recover from (((international banking clique))) and (((Cultural Marxism/Bolshevism)))

Only if detonated in Western cities/big towns with over 56% White population. Good luck finding one for every >20MT nuke in existence.

technically speaking we also got moscow

So did Napoleon.

As far as I know, aren't the French basically Russian?

Wait, so poles are asian? I'm so confused.
also
YOU'RE ALL KNEE-GROWS

Attached: barbed_benis.jpg (640x640, 53.77K)

WOAH THERE BUCKO I DIDN'T COME HERE TO READ SHAKESPEARE
>>>/lit/

Attached: Book Burning Lego.jpg (320x203, 25.73K)

I know that second pic is mostly shit, but why didn't Christian forces kick Moorish nigs out of Iberia sooner?

DAS ROIGHT

napoleon didnt capture and hold moscow

Attached: S A R M A T I A aesthetics.jpeg (602x1018, 98.95K)

Napoleon arrived just in time to see the Russians burn Moscow to the ground, starting a retreat through the Russian winter that made the Wehrmacht look like they had an easy run of things.

He occupied it for about a month after the Russians abandoned it. It still counts.

You do know that he loses at the end, don't you?

Attached: Comebacks.png (562x432, 329.83K)

Do you know how many losing sides people on here side with?
I'm not saying Napoleon's invasion was as successful as the mongols or Poland, I'm just pointing out that Napoleon did in fact capture Moscow. Of course he never conquered Russia as a whole but that was never really the plan.

I'd have a lot more respect for him, and forgive a lot more, if he hadn't betrayed the French Republic by crowning himself Emperor.

Crowning himself emperor was the one good thing he did tbh

Composite bows shit om the self bows. English where just barbarians when it comes to archery. English longbow meme exist only because of the 19th century British propaganda (same propaganda that invented memes: European swords are iron clubs weighting 20 pounds, knights needed a crane to get on the horse, knight falling on the ground can't get up etc).

Impossible difficulty. Conquer Russia during WINTER.

Attached: am.jpg (1600x1012, 270.85K)

Go back to sucking Saxe-Coburg-Gothe taint, Royalist.

Opinion discarded.

At least their dick's not circumcised.

Fuck off taig

If the US has proved anything is that the way to defeat Russia is to declare war and then never fight them. Eventually they will destroy themselves.

well technically we also did that
siege of smolensk was some real serious shit. you know shit is interesting when there are 4 times more people in suplly chain then you have wariors

dont they get destroyed by rain? their use wasnt really justifable in that region of europe

Wtf? Shitty joke that fell flat or just retarded?