How Russia humiliated the Ottoman Empire over and over again
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 03. 2023
- The Russo-Turkish wars (or Russo-Ottoman wars) were a series of twelve wars fought between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire between the 16th and 20th centuries. It was one of the longest series of military conflicts in European history. The conflicts ended disastrously for the stagnating Ottoman Empire; conversely, they showcased the ascendancy of Russia as a European power after the modernization efforts of Peter the Great in the early 18th century.
- Hudba
![tattoo printer tutorial[제품단순선물]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g40_GwEJak0/mqdefault.jpg)
10:14 should be 1853-1856
Goodness that's embarrassing! Well spotted!
Otherwise great video. Found your channel through History Marche's post and subbed
@@HenryStewart well done however, I must say if you corrections first of all Moscow was no longer the capital of the Russian empire it’ll be Saint Petersburg and the 1806 war with the Ottomans was led by the formidable Alexander I the same man who took down Napoleon when he invaded Russia, as well as Catherine, the great, who led the forces against the Ottomans and conquered Crimea
@@sidp5381 Indeed Saint Petersburg became capital of the Russian Empire in 1712, there were a short "break", from 1728 to 1730, then it became capital again until 1918 when government moved to Moscow.
@@HenryStewarthey russia population was roughly 150 million while turks were 30 million so ottoman did well !!!! While ethnic russians were 60 millions ethnic turks were 10 million !
In the 1800s the Ottomans were a weak and failed state compared to the other powers of Europe, but the people of the Balkans were still firmly under their rule. Russia's wars were instrumental in driving the Ottomans out of the Balkans, especially Bulgaria. Despite what the media says, most people here are grateful to the Russians to this day. Some say that Russia didn't do this out of humanism and had imperial interests in the Balkans. This is undeniable. Nevertheless, the freedom of the Balkans is still a direct consequence of Russia's wars with the Ottomans.
ofcourse we didn't do it out of humanitarian reasons, but our interests aligned and still align. In our minds Orthodox slavs are the natural allies
Well, nobody in politics in entire history of humanity did any essential decisions out of humanism - it is always about one or another intetests, so it is completely normal
You know what. That's fair.
@@probus6678 Of course. I was merely pointing out the different viewpoints on the matter. I support Russia more than my government.
I think the British and French destroying the ottoman navy and army in greece also did a lot. (They got Algeria and Egypt as a reward shortly after)
England and France desperately preventing Christendom from reclaiming Constantinople is tragic.
Everything went to heck after the Peace of Westphalia.
There’s no such thing as they’re still different people and wouldn’t want anyone to have more power than them.
Christendom was probably not even a factor in the decisions of the great powers of Europe. It no longer mattered to them. If Russia was allowed to take Constantinople, it would have affected the great power politics and changed the balance of power in Europe and that’s not good for Britain or France.
@@GulledXwith hindsight, Russia controlling Istanbul doesn’t sound like a great idea
@@vegetableman3911compared to modern day turkey?
Yeah I'd take anyone
Those fu*kwits have a "jihad" army of about a 100k in Syria right now
We don't need that...
(I'm Lebanese so they basically made it our problems)
Constantinople:
*falls*
Russians:
And we took that personally.
infact they could do nothing about it
Mehmed the second:if you want constantinople then come have constantinople
Then why did russians fought ottomans only after when empire got weak (after rule of suleiman)
@@mohammeduzair7796
Mehmet is a CHAD and we all know it. The true last Emperor of Rome.
After 400 years 🤣🤣🤣 ottomans are so weak that time
Western chauvinists always like to ignore and downplay the role russia played in fighting the ottomans. The fact the turks no longer control the balkans is always attributed to poland whom did win one great battle against the ottomans at vienna, but the fact russia won 11 wars against the ottomans including the war of 1878 which effectively sealed the fate of the ottoman empire, is completely ignored.
They systematically downplay Russia's role against Napoleon, WW1 and WW2 aswell.
@@vlad_47 No, they don't. It's just Russia that pretends she did everything on her own. As for WW1: excuse me, but what role? You mean being defeated, humiliated and collapsing?
@@KYesterRr Without Russia it would be the western front in 1915-16 that would be collapsing.
Russia wasnt ready for that war but still slapped the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires around.
The German had to bail them out.
@@vlad_47 Unlikely. The western front was in a stalemate long after Russia collapsed, and it was the Americans who brought victory for Entente - after Russia signed a separate peace treaty, renouncing many territories and losing the war.
I know there is no history in Russia - only mythology - but at least try to do better, okay?
@@KYesterRr Wow, dont tell that to the French lol, they wont like that very much.
Also, a westerner talking about mythical history is a oxymoron. All you have is fake and lies.
If it was not for the British, Constantinople would be Christian today…
Don't worry the British lost everything in the end, while Russia's "Empire" aka Federation is still intact.
Yep. Brits actively protected and supported oppression of Christians in Europe. Just one of countless British crimes worldwide...
And now Turky is in control of the bosphorus strait instead of Greece which is huge problem for nato
@@aarengraves9962 they lost Poland, Finland, Mongolia... and all influence in eastern Europe. Man at the time Russia was a major power someone that was on most diplomatic tables nowadays Russia is a minor power. The country isn't rich, the people aren't rich and they can only rely on the legacy of the USSR to keep them together with the rest of a once invincible army.
@@squirrel287Oh, how much knowledge you have!
I'm from the Balkans, pretty much everyone here openly supports Russia, so dunno about the influence.
As a matter of fact all Europeans are getting quite irritated of Anglo-Saxon bs, to be honest.
Russia is not rich? Where are you from? America or something? Level of stupidity alongside "I know well" seems like it.
"Ivan the Terrible shut down the slave markets"
He wasn't that terrible I guess😂
He was kinda okay'ish guy. Kinda. Like... kinda. You can't call him good, but can't call him bad, evil and ugly either. Just... okay guy. Okay? The nickname "Terrible" was given to him much later, by the way.
He was called "terrible" in the old sense of the word. Terrible used to mean someone who could inspire awe because of how mighty and powerful they were. Like someone might say "There was a terrible storm on the horizon".
he was cause he invaded ottoman empire when they had civil war and werent prepared
@@W4emTP bro what difference does it make? Turkey lost 9 out of 12 wars, there were civil wars every time?? This was a failed state then. Just accept Christian supremacy and fall to your knees already.
@@mnemonicpieNot really, they won 7, while the ottomans won 4 and the others were indecisive. Most were also fought during time of ottoman military decline. And yet they still encircled the greatest russian tsar, peter the great at the pruth campaign and nearly ended russia for good.
Calling the Duchy of Moscow "small" is quite a severe understatement. But otherwise, you have no idea how happy I am to see an english speaking channel talk about the Russo-turkish wars, the most underrated conflicts of the modern period.
privet from austria, lot of russians wars glory battels are dont showen as the greeks or romans but we know dont mutch becos is lost but russian is better knowd, so why they dont like to show russiana victorys
Duchy of Moscow was indeed small.
Land area was huge, but populatiin was very little
It became later the Grand Duchy of Moscow, but at the beginning(after the Mongol invasion) the Principality of Moscow was really small, I mean really small. It became later bigger in the 13-15th centuries. But really big it became under Ivan III (the Great) in the 16th century. At that time it was even called the "Russian state" or "Moscovite state" already. But Muscovy, by the way, is a 100% western term. Since 1547 with the rule of Ivan IV (the Terrible) it’s became the Tsardom of Russia and was already really big at that time.
@@daco9464 Look Google it us 3 rome
@@PyromaN93 moscow is 3 rome Look google or the map of sigismund
Wow... so pretty much Russia freed most of Eastern Europe
Russia saved eastern Europe twice man. Saved them from turkey and Germany nazi. Yet eastern Europe is ungrateful to Russia. The truth is the truth man. Ruskies are tough man. They have fought against imperialism always man. Turkey has bad luck when taking on Russia or the west. Anybody else they do ok but against the west or Russia it's their weakness. I guess they pissed off the Brits in WW1 and British helped the countries under ottomans control out of their domain.
Yeah just to invade it themselves lmao
Russia made Eastern Europe a atheistic Marxist society
@@theskeptic3214soviet and german
@@mmtalii Better Russian rule than Islamic.
You are missing important point. After invasion of Moscow in 1571 as you mentioned, Crimean khan decided to do it again in 1572 but suffered devastating defeat. Crimea lost all its manpower and for the next 20 years could not repeat any invasion (until 1591). As a result Ottoman Empire gave up any attempt to return any influence on the territories of Astrakhan and Kazan.
My man there was NO Ukraine!
This word means “frontier” in Russian
still doesnt mean they dont have the right to become their own people which they have
Orc
@@slitlord6790 Doesnt mean they get to do security blackmail to Russia either.
They got their fair shot in 1991 to be a prosperous, independent state. Didnt work out.
@@vlad_47 Russia is hardly prosperous as well. And saying that Ukraine was doing security blackmail is just pure bullshit.
@@KYesterRr That is exactly what they were doing.
Applying the NATO card all the time during the gas debt issues in the 2000's.
And, you dont get it do you? Declaration of Souvernity 1990, adopted into Ukraines first Constitution in 1996.
Ukraine got indepedent under basic conditions of perpetual neutrality, nuke-free status, good neighborliness and respect of Russian culture and language.
How is it like talking about something that you know nothing about?
Glory to the Tzar 🇷🇺
womp womp
@@brainwashindustries actually they were tsars, because it is basically the same title, so they used the both words.
After 1721, not 1712
There is nothing Russian in Russian culture. Tzar title (sometimes spelled Czar) came from Ceasar. Cossack are Ukrainians surrounded by Tatar and Ancient Kazakhs so they took up our nomad and warlike culture. Crimea name comes from the Kazakh word for fort: Qorum, which became Krym in cyrillic. Even Kiev is a Slavicised Turkic name. Most of the places in Russia have been renamed during USSR to confuse people. Orenburg was given a German sounding name but it’s real name is Orenbi, pure Kazakh name. The myth that Turks and Mongols did not build cities is just that, a myth. Russians didn’t build cities, they just renamed them. I can cite more examples. But I’ll stop here.
Russians are bastards that know nothing, isolated from the world. Like a big fish in a small pond.
🛑Russia only fought with all Europe against ottoman and never alone this is an fact“
The Russian Empire was not “controlling Ukraine”! “Ukraine” was just a term used for border-most regions of the Empire. That territory was part of the Russian Empire since forever (with the exception of the lands stolen from Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia.
Yeah, even the Ukraine means "at the border" - "У края" in Russian which implies territories at border of the empire
скорее это просто территория понтийской степи. тогда Украина означала тоже самое, что и Приморье, Закавказье, Прикавказье, Поволжье и т.д.
You are a bit wrong. Ukraine is a polish term for borderland. Russians used to call this land Malorossia (Little Russia)
@@grzegorzbrzeczyszczykiewicz0 , as I said, current Ukraine is a made-up state, standing on Russian, Polish, Romanian, Hungarian and Slovakian lands. Ask Stalin!
@@grzegorzbrzeczyszczykiewicz0 и то и другое использовали и используем по сей день
Imagine how would the map look like if France and UK didn't intervene in Eastern European affairs.
Yeah could be very different, Constantinople could be part of Russia
@@HenryStewart Finally, Tsargrad!
Russia would've skyrocketed and would become the undisputed world superpower for a while before before collapsing on its own, similar to the ottomans actually.
@@HenryStewart I strongly believe that Greece would have it with a clause of neutrality and trade rights for Russia. Administrating this completely foreign city does not worth the effort.
Really lol your subject totally Turkophobia, Russia cant nothing without help Habsburg and Western allies, most of Turkish-Russian war Western countries help Russia, but hey make mistake, they make powerful Russia later Russia trouble Easter Europe like Poland and Baltic Countries, even western countries help Russia WW2, Ottoman defend all countries 1 vs 10 themselves. Check Russia history not to much heroic vicotry only Ottoman 100 years before nothing lol. Most of generals in Russo-Turkish wars German or GB advisors. Be correct yourself first.@@HenryStewart
wow this is well produced! looks awesome! keep it up! glad the algorithm offered me this channel. well done!
So, we had 2 pairs of the "best friends ever": England and France, Russian Empire and Ottoman Empire.
Yes, "best friends".
Ещё Россия и Польша
This is quickly becoming my favorite history channel! Keep it up!
The production quality alone makes it deserving of more views.
Thanks so much brother, so kind!
Russia did not control Ukraine. The regions of Russia located on the border were called "Ukraine". Siberia was also "Ukraine".Therefore, it sounds stupid that Russia controlled itself in Ukraine
its their western agenda, americans need to understand that ukraine is the russian synonym for frontier
Some russian guy in the comments said that "ukraine" means something like "border".
@@KeepCalmCapybaraPutin said the same thing… probably where he got that from.
@@KeepCalmCapybara Krai means border in Slavic languages, Ukraine means "at the edge of the border"
@@sulimanthemagnificent4893Yeah, Russian language and history starts with Putin and they all start saying something only after Putin says it 🤦
This is a great overview, I’m gonna show this to my students. Very easy to follow!
That's amazing, I hope they like it :)
Dont
you more look like a bot than a teacher lmao
this is how misinformations are spread in society.
This needs WAY more views. Very good editing job!
I just want to add something:
In 1804 Serbs rose against the Ottomans, first against the oppressive local Janissary leaders (Dahi(je)) and afterwards against the Ottoman empire as a whole.
In 1806 both sides were ready to sit down have talks and sign... something.
But Serbs were encouraged by the Russian promise of intervention to fall back on the talks and continue fighting - which they did, sometimes even jointly until 1812 when Russians withdrew expecting Napoleon's invasion.
The isolated Serbian rebels lasted until 1813.
Only to rise again in 1814 and 1815.
In 1817 they finally signed a peace treaty which gave them
some autonomy
All of this happened BEFORE the Greek uprising in 1821
I mean, Napoleon was going to invade Russia with almost 1 million men, what did you want them to do?
@@rarescevei8268 I wasn't gonna btich about it but I guess in hindsight - not drag us into continuing a war we basically won at that point without proper support
@@ZS-rw4qq Well Russia didnt know Napoleon was going to up and invade.
@@ZS-rw4qq Typical bs promoted by NATO propagandists in Serbia; Serbs certainly did not won a war against the Ottoman empire in 1806. at that point the only war was against Dahias and Bosnian Turks... no one forced Karadjordje to continue the war (instead of accepting some renewed va ssalage). it was a logical decision, but Napoleon's invasion of Russian in 1812. changed everything.
and btw the only reason why Serbia eventually gained independence is continuous Russian pressure on Turks especially in 1829. & 1878.
Nice overview. Thanks!
Russia did not have a population smaller than the Ottomans - at least not from the 17th century, when it finally began to gain ground. It had a less robust economy and a much less organized state in the start, yes, but they managed to control strategic points, had a huge manpower, and a vastness of natural resources that far surpassed the Ottomans.
I think a comparison is necessary here.
First, the Ottomans. Its state was organized as a Caliphate. The administrative structure was extremely decentralized, local governments had wide autonomy - being, in many cases, virtually independent, taxation was limited, and the state depended on loyalty bonds that were not exactly stable. The centralizing force of the state of expressed mainly by the army - which depended on a tight budget and defended one of the largest and most contentious borders on the planet. The bet on the creation of elite bodies within the army has created a serious problem, which was somewhat recurring since the time of the Abbasids: the military elite bodies became an elite in themselves, and often acted as the true depositaries of power.
Muscovy was a Tsardom. Organized according to the format of the extinct Byzantine bureaucracy, with touches of Slavic autocracy and Mongol capillarity. An extremely centralized state, it did not admit the self-government of his domains, and used a typically Tartar technique of conquest: Sending emissaries, which gradually obtained concessions and influence, until the point that they could simply ostracize local elites, and replace them by its own.
Loyalty had its rewards, and rebellion implied in ruin. Using the mass of free man from of the border zones, Muscovy turned them into a warrior aristocracy - the Cossacks - willing to expand the Muscovite domains in exchange for their respective share. Serving as a buffer between the attacks of the Muslims of Crimea and the Caucasus, they also dominated one of the most fertile zones in the world, the Pontic Steppe.
Geography was another important factor. The Ottomans had access to two oceans, but these oceans were not intercommunicable, and the lack of supply stations between the Mediterranean and Arabian Sea made military fleet transit an impractical task. In the end, two great fleets had to be administered independently. Although maritime transport was a rule, the few waterways within the Ottoman territory were completely disconnected from each other, forcing the much less reliable and efficient land transport in several long stretches. The mobility of military forces was a logistical nightmare, so that the state began to give more preference to fixed garrisons - which, in the rare times of peace, were enough; but in the frequent times of war, were ineffective.
Muscovy, in another hand, had a myriad of rivers, which with relative ease linked the ends of its increasingly expansive territory. From the rods of Moscow to the bowels of Siberia, garrisons, supplies and goods could easily move. The conquest of Siberia was smoothly, not only for the technical superiority of the Muscovites, but by the logistical superiority. Venice, in this age, was called Mare Regina; Moscow very well could call herself Flumens Regina. It was a potamic power; a Leviathan swimming in rivers.
The irrigated plain was only interrupted by the Ural Mountains, and continued beyond, enabling the full expansion to the East.
Not everything were blossoming flowers for Moscow. The conquest of Siberia greatly strengthened Muscovite rule, but there was a fundamental weakness in the West: the Great European Plains. The same vastness that enabled Muscovites to subdue Tartars, Bashkirs, Chuvashs, Mordovians, Maris, and opened Asia to the Russians, also allowed the Ottoman and Poles to attack the heart of their domains without resistance - which they repeatedly did, respectively sacking Moscow (1571) and launching Muscovy in an interregnum (1598-1613).
And there comes the Cossacks. Descendants of free farmers of the extinct Russiya Zemlya, which was essentially erased by the brutal Mongol invasion, they were warriors shaped by the absolute anarchy. In their Orthodox faith, they would see Tsar as a liberator from the yoke of the Turkish Heathen and the Polish Heretic. In the 17th century, they would operate as a true living wall around Muscovy, gradually becoming the tide of Ruthenian Plains. As the Left-Bank Ukraine swears loyalty to Tsar in 1648, Muscovy acquires a powerful natural border in the Dnieper, also isolating Crimea.
We analyzed The Statecraft and Geography. Now let's go to the economy. On the surface, at least, it seems that the Ottoman had a substantial advantage. But this is merely on the surface. As we have seen, Russia had better logistics integration, thanks to the wide river network. On the other hand, the mercantile and manufacturing class were small and distant from power centers. Economic power rested in the landed aristocracy - the boyars and the Cossacks, and the bulk of productivity was agrarian. The Russian economy was essentially agrarian, except by the exploration and trade of skins and wood in deep interior.
It would be these same boyars that, in the course of Muscovy's reforms and its transformation into the Russian Empire, would fill the positions of manufacturers and industrialists, this time directing efforts to exploit the huge natural resources on the Russian territory.
The Ottomans, on the other hand, reversed this pyramid. A strong mercantile class, manufacturing guilds, and extreme weakness in the agrarian class. The problem is that this same economically weak class composed a significant part of the economically active population. Due to the manipulation of interests, and the constraints that the Sharia imposes on taxation, a solution found to maximize the budget was to increase taxes on agrarian production, which essentially nullified the profitability of agricultural activity. Those who did not live on subsistence would hardly realize any advantage in producing food and inputs in surplus. Unless the farm was linked to a supply chain as a direct supplier (for example, a weaving workshop that raise sheeps), high productivity would hardly generate profits - which encouraged low productivity and reduced the rural manpower.
In continuous stagnation, the Ottoman agrarian class has never had the slightest chance of experiencing the transition from estate to industry. As they could not accumulate capital, they had nothing to invest, nor could ever dream of competing with the established guilds.
The contrast was invisible in the seventeenth century, noticeable in the eighteenth century, and stark in the nineteenth century. While Metternich foresaw a future world order led by Russia and the United States, due to the sheer size of their manpower, natural resources, waterways and fertile lands, the Sublime Porte had turned into the Sick Man.
Nice analysis
Perfect explanation. Greetings from a brazilian guy!
@@vlad_47 Thank you Mr Dracula 🧛♂️🧛♂️🧛♂️🧛♂️🧛♂️🧛♂️
In 1914 Ottoman had 40 million population, 3 million Christians, 25 million Arabs, 1.5 million Kurds and around 10 million Turks! Yep, you can see why Christians and Arabs rebelling against the empire was a massive problem. While Russian empire had 164 million population in 1914, UK 46 million, France 40 million that they controlled colonies with almost a billion population. All those manpower, resources, production capacity against 10 million Turks, "fair odds" i guess as they all were still defeated at the end, but not without sacrifices Muslim population of Anatolia dropped from 13 million in 1914 to 10.5 million in 1923. You can not find "neutral" western historians ever talking about that for obvious reasons..
Logistic nightmare was happening in Balkans too. Every time Ottoman sent an army into Europe they were loosing thousands of soldiers on the way, in fact sometimes they even lost more soldiers to attrition than the battle itself like Battle of Mohacs. "Russians, Polish, Habsburgs etc saved Europe" is nothing but a fantasy, Ottoman could never push deeper into Europe without controlling Mediterranean, it was logistically impossible. They tried to dominate Mediterranean and could achieve it briefly after battle of Preveza but it was only for few years before Europeans were back with a massive armada.
Economic problems were geographical as well, Ottoman never controlled lands fertile as Europe. In early Ottoman history vast majority of Ottoman income was from trade but as Europeans established new trade routes that income was gone. So they increased taxes and made agriculture even worse but even without taxes it was never going to be same level as Europe. The most fertile land of Ottoman was Anatolia and Turkey barely produces enough for its own population with modern agriculture..
If they adopted a defensive policy towards Europe early on and focused on Crimea they could control some of Pontic steppe but they didn't and while fighting against half of Europe defending Crimea was just a dream. Those Serbian and Hungarian lands weren't much beneficial for the empire neither, it was all just a waste. However Ottoman had political reasons to do so, the modern Ottoman image in the west is nothing but a lie Ottoman always claimed itself as defender of Islam, Orthodoxs and Protestants. And most of Habsburgs wars weren't Ottoman's choice rather they were forced to act against Habsburgs.
In last 150 years the empire always had negative balance, literally always not just during wars and had to rent lands and give capitulations for its debt like Cyprus to British empire. It could be even said, Ottoman never had enough manpower nor economic power to become a superpower at first place but they somehow did which is fascinating and often ignored by western historians. They had quite unique systems and laws to achieve it like Millet system or Devshirme system, even their Eyalet system was key for ruling far away regions. However it was an extremely decentralized mess and with more and more minorities turning against the empire there was absolutely no way Ottoman to survive..
Very well explained, the production quality is insane.
This channel truly deserves better, nice job!
Nice video keep it up love your content
Thanks so much!
Amazing video production. Now it's about when a video will blow up, don't give up while you can continue! A like for me
Great stuff
Great video. The British and French were seriously misguided in defending the Ottomans from Russia during the 19th century. In the 1850s, instead of propping up the collapsing Turks during the Crimean war, the British and French should have let Russia capture Constantinople and then taken the Middle East for themselves - which they did anyway during and after WW1. Constantinople would again have been restored to great south east European and Orthodox Christian city that it once was and should be again..
Exactly, but it seems political correctness dates back 3 centuries ago. The ottomans surely told them "Hey, thats... ismalophobic!"
Are you challenging the British foreign office with your limited reading of wikipedia? Are you serious?
1) Giving Constantinople to Russians and opening the gates of the Mediterranean wide for mighty Russian fleet?
2) Having had Constantinople, Russians would automatically apply for Roman citizenship by renaming Istanbul into Constantinople and making themselves protectors of Christianity.
3) Losing Constantinople would be equal to giving Suez channel, Egypt, Levant, and eventually Read Sea , Indian ocean and India! British diplomats knew their task better than Russians!
4) After the WW I, Russia never came back into Middle east! Russia disappeared and lost its previous lands because of Bolshevik revolution in 1917!
5) Russian invasion of Iran until Isfahan in 1916 was temporary! Russia had no direct influence in Middle East. Azerbeijan was the last frontier of Bolshevik Red Army
6) Once you are so concerned about Istanbul, then give Spain back to Muslims😂
@@user-pc3ts8yc5b Now London is half Muslim 🤣
@@M1l1taryM1nD Islam is London's second largest religion. Muslims make up 15% of London's population. There were 1,318,755 Muslims reported in the 2021 census in the Greater London area.
@@user-pc3ts8yc5b May be but i doubt that. The data is most certainly cooked. Either way 20 years from now they will be a lot more.
Ottoman joined these wars knowing they will lost. The purpose was not to win but to not surrender
They joined because if they didn't. Russia will just take their lands and all of its holdings so they "fought" and lost and accepted negotiations
Keep makin videos man. This shit is fire
Incroyable vidéo. Elle va remettre des vérités en place aux yeux de certains.
Merci la Russie de nous avoir sauvé de ces barbares plusieurs fois. 🙏🏻🇷🇺💖
You yourselves are barbars, you killed 10000 people in Bosnia.
How ironic that the French asked for help from the Ottomans and that's why they are alive today.Being a Turk is hard, you fight with everyone, but not being a Turk is harder because you fight with Turks.
@@AnatolianHittite сначала нападают на всех, потом жалуются что воюют со всеми 😂
@@AnatolianHittite Russian Tsardom and Napoleonic France is way more glorious than the entire history of the Ottoman Empire.
So many modern innovations and discoveries came out of them unlike Ottoman Empire which was only known for slavery and genocide.
supprime traître les russes sont nos ennemis pas les turques
Quite an extensive amount of conflicts between the two nations occurred in the Caucuses, it would've been great if you covered that as well
Such an underrated channel.
Thanks so much! :)
Nice video good qualty keep up the good work👍
Thanks, will do!
Well done 👍
What I was amazed with is how you included the politics and excuses to invade each other. Very useful for what's going on nowadays.
Dude your videos are top notch! Keep it up, I think you’re hitting the algorithm!
thanks so much i hope so
I sense a good future for your channel god willing.
Thanks so much! I hope so!
Other than one minor mistake at 10:13 I think this is a great video. Can't wait to see more!
Thanks so much
Turkish cope in these comments is off the charts, what kind of excuse is "they were occupied with other conflicts", or "they were never alone", as if the Russian state wasn't in a near constant state of crisis and being raided non stop by several hordes, or as if the ottomans were never shrewd when they allied france, the most dominant european power until the rise of the late british and russian empires
Ugh Russians were not raided nor did they have any threat anywhere compared to ottomans.tht is true. The only last time russia had a real threat around this time was sweden in north war and russia got lucky by having allies to save them aswell. Russia was very lucky to be on the borders of Europe being a boogeyman thts to far and pointless to take over
"as if the Russian state wasn't in a near constant state of crisis and being raided non stop by several hordes,"
In the age when Russians were repeatedly invaded by hordes, they were not fighting against Ottomans. Rather, Ottoman vassal Crimean Khanate was regularly raiding them. Russia stopped paying tribute to Crimean Khanate, an Ottoman vassal, ony in 1700.
"or as if the ottomans were never shrewd when they allied france, the most dominant european power until the rise of the late british and russian empires"
We didn't ally with France per se. French king Francis was captured by Habsburg emperor Charles, and Francis' mother asked Suleiman to help free his son. The answer of Suleiman clearly shows that the Ottomans did not consider this as an alliance, but a sort of submission and a plea for protection. The only time Ottomans gained anything from this so-called alliance is in the last quarter of the 17th century when Louis XIV kept Habsburgs sometimes busy.
France, otoh, benefited not only from the immense pressure Ottomans applied against Habsburg Austria and to a lesser extent Spain, but also from immensely profitable trade in the Levant.
Russia was also fighting multiple fronts during these conflicts.
turkish and their South Asian hindustani minions.
@HistoryMarche sent me hear and I'm not disappointed!
Thanks so much! Cheers to History Marche
"Controlling Ukraine" like it was its own country to begin with 😂😂😂
Broooo we were sooo close to taking Konstantinople several times😭
And if it weren't for the darn red revolution, we would have gotten it in 1918...
This channel has potential 🧐
Underrated channel
HistoryMarche has gifted you a new subscriber
Correction on the Crimean war the Ottomans joined as well on the battlefield.
Many of today's Turks are not actually Turks. They are Turkified Europeans and Anatolians and have little to no relation to the Turks that migrated to Anatolia.
As a Turkish we have Oghuz Turkic origins and we aren't Turkified
Anatolian Neo-turks 😁
many russian aren't white european russian, like siberia
@@rollinghippo2940But real russians are europeans. Russia is a big with many die different people and cultures in it but russians are east slavic people and europeans.
Interesting and amazing.
Nice video, very good being made
You should use different colours for the countrys
You forgot to add how Peter the "Great" bribed Ottoman generals to let him go after the disastrous Pruth campaign.
Arab stop cry
@snysovichbanana6367 look who's talking.
You're either a Swede. A turk or a pole or a. Ukrainian or a Muslim either way. PETER THE GREAT defeated all those nations that you maybe belong to, in his battles and campaigns
Awesome stuff man. Little thing. You got the dates for the Crimean war a century off lol
I admire your production of this high quality content but it lacks some minor additions like showing more dates when historical events are talked about
It's basically the clash between the old and the new.
The Ottomans have the overwhelming numbers when it comes to sending armies, in cases like the battles of Kozludzha, Kagul, Rymnik, Izmail, and Slobozia where they severely outnumbered the Russians. The problem is their Islamic beliefs always promoted the mentality of the ghazi, mobarizun and mujahideen were annihilating the enemy is seen as an individual affair intended to please Allah, a race to whoever pleases Allah the most, rather than a team effort, therefore there is this tendency that their attacks were huge but disorganized and disorderly, making them prone to coordinated attacks and counterattacks by the Russians who employed group unit tactics imported from the officers it hired from France, Germany and Sweden. We can see the same shit happening generations later during the Battle of Omdurman where the British and Egyptians annihilated a fanatical Mahdist Sudanese army twice their size with almost no casualty to their own.
Perhaps the only unit that the Ottomans utilized group unit tactics were the Janissaries but they too were inured by the Islamic mobarizun mentality inasmuch that they saw combat by the scimitar sword as more honorable than using the musket which they labelled dishonorable and sometimes even haraam, not to mention the average Ottoman musket while having the longer range is heavier than Russian muskets making them unwieldy and slow to use and reload. The Russians did use melee tactics but they did it on concerted effort coordinated between units employing various formations and manned by disciplined soldiers.
When it comes to artillery, the Ottomans also have the numerical advantage and their pieces are heavier in caliber than the Russians. But they too have drawbacks in that, in the age before the rifling mechanism was conceived, huge cannons take way too long to load not to mention prone to overheating which causes them to explode freakishly and unexpectedly, resulting to many cases where the Ottomans stopped firing their artillery battery altogether prematurely and without much effect. Meanwhile, the Russians are utilizing light caliber cannons which could be easily transported on horse carriages and be used anywhere wherever the commander needed, the same tactic that Frederick the Great used that made him won many battles and catapulted Prussia into a great power.
So it's unsurprising that the Janissaries rebelled when the sultans decided to dismantle them and replace then with a full-time professional army same as the Europeans had. Many of them saw the act as un-Godly and un-Islamic, but there isn't really much they could do at that point lest they risk losing Constantinople decades before the Crimean War even begins.
As they say in Russia: “A bad dancer’s balls get in the way...”
Faster smaller cannons gave the British and French an advantage over Indian powers both Hindu and Muslims who had heavy cannons, which could only be moved by elephants.
Nope. Have you seen how ISIS won 50,000 US trained and equiped iraqi army with just AK-47 and machine guns with little than 1800 men?(one thousand eight hundred)?
Look at the battle of Yarmuk and other khalid bin walid won wars for example at 1 instant, 200,000 Roman soldiers with just 15,000 mal nourished less equiped army
Nice history lesson but, how did they do it?
Please background Music from 4:30 ?? :(
Tsardom of Russia: "We've won and freed ourselves from the Mongol yoke! We are the master of the [Eurasian steppe]!"
House of Osman: "You think [Eurasian steppe] is your ally. But you merely adopted it; I was born in it, molded by it"
Tsardom of Russia: "You've forsaken your root, old man. Now I'll teach you a lesson."
*Collapses*
Great!
It's a dman shame that British and French prevented Constaninople from becoming a Christian city again. A betrayal even
Why did British and French do that?
Ottoman empire was not a nation. Greeks and Turks are not the same nation
bro russia have many nation....ottoaman same not only turk and greek ..slavic nation ...
Ottomans: breath on balkans
Russia: declaration of war
That how Russian Emprire joined WW1 too.
"Dont you dare touch my little Serbia"
I think u should make another video and its name should be how ottoman empire humiliated europeans over and over again
Great Documentary
So in a nutshell, can the ottoman empire survive by its own?
-NO! Absolutely not, they depend on their british masters, like simps
Yeah, and when they tried to defeat brits and russians, they sucked
They depend on finance, and technology.
- 18th to 20th century is not a good time in finance for Ottoman.
- European, especially Western Europe at the time, is more advanced in technology, and then, industry.
So, yes, Ottoman Empire needed help to survive.
That's Only happened in 19th century
Nope. Have you seen how ISIS won 50,000 US trained and equiped iraqi army with just AK-47 and machine guns with little than 1800 men?(one thousand eight hundred)?
Look at the battle of Yarmuk and other khalid bin walid won wars for example at 1 instant, 200,000 Roman soldiers with just 15,000 mal nourished less equiped army
This is an awesome video! I can't wait to see more! Also your voice is amazing, reminds me of history marche and kings and generals mixed together. God bless you my friend!
Great video. What do you use for animation? I'm quite impressed by the quality
* Janissaries are in fact Yeniçeris (Janicheries) But someone in history decided to pronounciate it wrong, and rest of the history followed.
** Constantinople was officially Istanbul after 1453. Calling Istanbul Constantinople in 1600s is like calling Sankt Petersburg Petrograd in 2023, or Leningrad in 1400. A rookie mistake, or wishful thinking idk.
Old names of Istanbul are Constantinople, Byzantion, Tsarigrad, Lygos etc. Turks also used to call it "Kostantiniyye"(around 10th-15th Cen). But names change so we must adapt.
*edit: sorry for being that guy, actually video is great explanatory document, keep up the good work, and one love, Stew 😶🌫
Funfact: Stambul (Istanbul), Stim boli -is also a Greek name, meaning in-city. Turks decided to name it in ancient Greek in respect of those who lived there.
It was Konstantiniyye until like 1900's. So it was Constantinople, you are wrong.
It's when Greece accepted it(1930's), not when it's renamed after the conquest (1453)
Check wikipedia. I did before writing.
It was only in 1930, after the formation of the Republic of Turkey that the city's name was officially changed to the Turkish name İstanbul. Tracing the country back to its Greek history, the word İstanbul originates in the Greek phrase “στην Πόλι” (stim poli) meaning “in the city” (btw, Im neither greek nor Russian) lol
Constantinople named as Istanbul after proclamation of Turkish Republic. Before republic it was Konstantiniyye and i guess this was translation of Constantinople.
Russians never beat the Ottomans in a 1v1 war. Russians always attacked when Ottomans were fighting with another country.
The Crimeans also burned their capitol down in the 16th centuary with no Ottoman assistance.
War of 1806
No@@Based_Stuhlinger
@@user-lh4te2ro1j Yes, look it up.
They did actually, silly boy
Say can you do one with the Spanish and Aztecs when Hernan Cortez and many native tribes united against them
Russia Empire: We have caveman tools
Ottoman empire: We have byzantine technology
Naw. Turkey had problems against Russia because of the cold 🥶 and Russia had advanced weaponry actually.
@@brianticas7671 but in the early years ottoman empire has the advance technology but having a problem on rebels
@@hermitthelegend1188 on paper it seemed like Turks would have been more competitive because turkey was beating everyone up in the region and also because they're culture is longer than Russia. But I guess Russia just had their number. Russia just knew how to beat them
@@brianticas7671 from population the Turks has more man power because of land fertility yes your right on turkey they are fighting on all sides having a great threat on western Europe, eastern Iran empire and southern Africa. I get it why Ottoman can't afford to fight Russia even in winter but to be fair Ottoman empire lasted over medieval period to early 20th century
@@brianticas7671 also they had civil war and basically the whole europe was supporting russia
Hello as Muslim i understand you don't mean any intention to disrespect us , but i want to pointed out something that we Muslim don't put anything else over the Qur'an book no matter what it is except another Qur'an book , because it's one of holiest book that have high value to us , so please i kindly ask you in any next videos don't put things like weapons swords or anything in your animation above the Qur'an and thank you , such amazing video
Thank you so much for your comment Mizou
As a Turk, I laugh at this victim mentality comes with sand religion...
Saudi Arabia is run by Sharia law and swords on they’re flag sharia quran swords perfectly matched 😂
When CZcams videos learn you history better then school.
Ottoman Empire in 15 century: we are powerful
Ottoman Empire now : selling Donnar kebab in Germany and selling the Turkish ice cream
8:50 The ottomans balkan colonies?. The balkans were a part of the ottoman empire itself and not colonies.
It was colonies the turkification and islamification is classic colonial move but we know how Muslims love to play victim while attacking you
They were colonies and a perfect example of Islamic imperialism. They were in fact much more impressive than European colonialism. Ask anyone from the Balkans how they enjoyed Islamic rule.
@@user-lf4vj6qq8q You don't have the slightest knowledge about history. Ottoman officers were planning to shrink towards the Balkans as the empire collapsed. Anatolia is indispensable for them. We settled in the Balkans, we made it our homeland, not a colony. Millions of people in Turkey have their homes in the Balkans. Now go and ask the British how many people's homeland is India. It's too much for a fool like you. I even wrote
It's actually sad to see how westerners are brainwashed. Your name sound Scandinavian. But anyways, go learn about Arab slavery and Arab colonization and ottoman colonization. The Balkans were not part of the empire as provinces but colonies. The term was just not invented yet then.
Objectivity might be very challenging goal to achieve when it comes to historical narration. Russian empire was not the only challenge that faced the Ottomans as your viewers might think after watching this video. As you mentioned the different challenges that faced Russian Empire, you didn't shed light on the complexity and culturally diverse nature of the Ottoman Empire or the different challenges and wars they had in the south as Ottoman-Mamluk War and/or Ottoman Safavid war.
what is up with these colors for the map?
History marche brought me here
I'm not russian but i'm so proud of Mother Russia ❤🇷🇺
For what exactly ? What do you know about Turks ?
@@agyener36 average Turk. 😂
@@sambober9047 Now Russia is muslim 🤣🤣🤣🤏🧠
@@agyener36That you constantly lost to the russians 😂
@@SAADOFFICIAL436 True. We remember what funny thing Muslims did in Crocus City in Russia
you should have used the term turks not muslims
They are Muslims tho
Why?
@@Yusuf-uz2iealso Indonesians for that matter
Ottoman was diverse
@@idroveslow احنا المسلمين لا نحب أفعال الأتراك البرابرة المغول هؤلاء لا يمثلون الإسلام و المسلمين
Leave it to Britain to prevent Constantinople from becoming re-christianized
However, they fought well in the Crimean war. I have been to Istanbul, I had some great time in those pub bars, restaurants and nightclubs! I from Brazil and I like a Turkey
God Bless Russia
😂😂
Russia be like: we will take Constantine
Turk : nope
Thanks to France and Britain, it's not like the turks / ottomans could defeated the Russians anyways.
Thanks to Britain France Austria and Sardinia who prevented it.
More like british and france:No
@@grandetristesse3370still can’t take your holiest city back🥱🥱
Can you please explain the term "new Bulgarian state" ?
It never ceases to amused me how the ultimate biggest opponents the Russians hungarians and austrians
Cease to be Empires before the ottomans did by a handful of years
Russian empire "fell" because of a revolution in 1917/18
Austria-hungary fell after ww1
OTTOMAN empire fell in 1922/23 because it was carved up 😂 by 5 foreign powers.
At least austria-hungary and Russia weren't defeated for 2 centuries by bunch of countries and then ceased to exist by being carved up after losing another war
Let me tell you how that "humiliation" is. Fight Ottomans when they are already fighting someone in another front :D Russian power :D
This is called a strategy which usually requires intelligence.
@@snxxx-2302 Win is a win. That's strategy. But humiliation is something different. Mohacz is humiliation or conquest of Egypt is.
@@Emrek157 Yes I agree humiliation is a bad word for this
Was Ankara battle in 1402 enough for humiliation?
@@user-pc3ts8yc5b Indeed it was. Just wondering how many years did Timurids last after Timur died? :D
lol russia couldn't dare to face the ottomans 1v1 until 19th century. They even lose when they attack the ottomans with the habsburgs
except they did in 1768
This is why our history lessons suck. Russians were fighting on multiple fronts too. Ottomans were weak after Suleiman. Anyone claims otherwise doesn't know any history.
The treaty of Nis didn't lead to the loss of Azov to the Russians: Got no idea where that comes from.
What the treaty actually stated was that the Russians would be allowed to construct a trade port at Azov, but it was to be devoid of any warships or garrison--and of course, no fortifications. Azov remained a Turkish vassal. In effect, the Ottomans granted trade rights/concessions to the Russians, and nothing else. If anything, the terms favored the Turks, as the port was still surrounded by Turkic territory, and trade could be regulated to an extent. Further, the Russians were to abandon all claims to Moldavia and Crimea, as per the same treaty.
The reason the terms were so favorable to the Turks was that the Russians were faced with the prospect of a two-front war with both the Ottomans and Swedes, without Austrian support. Why? Well, people forget this, but the Austro-Turkish war that was being waged at the same time (1737-1739) ended with a decisive Ottoman victory: they'd actually recaptured Belgrade, which would remain Turkish into the 19th century (save for a brief occupation from 1789-1791), and the Austrians had to cede their Serbian and Oltenian conquests as per the Treaty of Belgrade; in return, the Turks recognized the Hapsburgs as the protectors of the Christians in Turkish lands.
This defeat, coupled with the simultaneous effort in the War of Polish Succession, left the Austrian Army and finances in very poor shape by 1740. Very important for the outcome of the Silesian Wars that were to soon break out.
Azov wasn't seized for good until the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774--so the same conflict ended with the loss of the Crimea. Only then could they build their desired Black Sea Fleet, though soon Sevastopol would gain prominence as the main Russian Black Sea naval base, after the annexation of the Crimean in 1783, as you correctly note.
A small detail during the rule of Peter the Grait, the capital changed from Moscow to St.Petersburg
When Russia started to fight the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman Empire had entered a period of decline. While the Ottomans were fighting on many different fronts and continents at the same time, Russia could only go south with all its might.
In short, the Ottoman civil war confusion, the Ottoman war against Europe, the Middle East and African issues made it extremely easy for the Russians.
There was no power that could resist a war machine like the Ottoman Empire at its strongest.
You talk as if the ottomans never fought a European state that was in a period of instability ( ex : Hungary at Mohacs, Poland after its deluge in 1670 and Constantinople in 1453 )
I think turkey had it coming. No empire stays in power for too long.
The Ottomans never evolved militarily. They still employed the same outdated tactics and equipment. They would have lost eventually to the Europeans no matter what. Dirty little turks.
Wtf are you talking about? Russia had northern front with Sweden and the west front with Poland almost all the time. And Russia participated in dozens of European wars throughout this period.
@@mnemonicpieHaha those fronts ended from one point but alliance of Ottoman enemies didn't end up till the collapse of Europe. From 14th century till 18th century Russian didn't know how water of Black sea was smelling.
When the ottomans reached moscow but hitler and Napoleon fails🤣
Napoleon took Moscow my friend haha!
@@HenryStewart and returned defeated. The only ones accually returning victorious were ottoman and poland(probably)
@@silversoul2785 And Mongols. Though, when Mongols arrived, Moscow was but a village.
@@pelinalwhitestrake3367 İ forgot them ,🤣 even though İam watching Othman series right now
@@silversoul2785And the Mongols
Continue
Great video greetings from Turkey
Small nations are happy that Russia won Turkiye, but Turks didn't lose Istanbul and straits. And Turks always are closer to you, be careful always ❤.
That "didn't lose strait" means given by the British. Remember San Stefano Agreement buddy, please don't be ungrateful.
Thank your British masters
@@AroundElvesWatchUrselves96 I see some offended feeling here. Sorry for your feeling oh buddy.
Why such an anti Turkish bias? I mean, calling the Balkan territories of the Ottoman Empire "colonies", seriously??? Come on man 😂
They basically were lol
No bias..being truthful...nobody likes you in balkans
In history class they taught us first war Ottoman lost was against Russia.It was the first agreement they signed that was not in Turkish.Also Ottomans kept losing to Russia continuosly.
Question: *"How Russia humiliated the Ottoman Empire over and over again?"*
Answer: *"They kept letting their cats scratch up the furniture."*
Answer : they had better technology, superior Navy more manpower, bigger population > more soldiers