Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I see. On my part, this matter is in my personal area of interest because of its connection with history of my country. Thanks to beatings which Austria inflicted between 1848 – 1866 and loss of its internal prestige “Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria” was granted autonomy. The Galician autonomy allowed Polish culture to survive and be developed. Some Polish guys became ministers in Vienna and one was Prime Minister for a while. Short story of this part of Austria-Hungary Empire is in Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Galicia_and_Lodomeria Hungarian Revolution was also a significant event in history of Poland. Thousands of volunteers from our side of the Carpathians went to aid the Hungarians. Ironically, Russian army which was sent to put down the Hungarian Revolution was commanded by the same man, who put down our Uprising in 1831 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_Uprising )
Lasting effect: abolition of serfdom in the empire.
And huge loss of the empire's military prestige. Next beatings - given by the French in 1859 and the Prussians in 1866 - forced reforms. Since 1867 there's no Austrian Empire but Austria-Hungary with several autonomous states.
The demonstrations and violence in Prussia and France was simply the most significant.
Eastern Europe is forgot as usual 😉I mean by this Hungarian Revolutionary War in 1848-1849. War by which Austrian Empire was almost destroyed.Forgive me but I'm going to put below a link to Wiki to describe the events in brief 😉http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1848
Hear hear! One of the real gaps in our historical knowledge, and it is a huge gap, is the place of theOttoman Empire in European history from the 14th to the 20 centuries. The Turks had an astonishingEmpire. They were a rich, talented and warlike people with customs that both repelled and attractedWestern observers. They occupied a strategic position athwart one of the biggest trade routes in the worldplanted themselves as rulers of much of the middle east as we know itand at the same time were, for a short while, the greatest military and naval power in Europe.All this and our history books consider them to be peripheral and treat them as such. Theirs is an astounding story which ought to be read, taught and appreciated.
Well, it is a great story. Perhaps it's more known in Europe that in USA.Turkish empire was neighbour with kingdom of Poland or its area of interest for about 400 years. One of our kings died in battle with Turks in 1444 AD. Another one - reigning in Hungary - was killed in battle in 1526 AD. For a short while in XVII century we were even vassal to Turks.Turkish power is claimed to be broken in 1683 AD, in the battle of Vienna. Combined forces of Holy Roman Emperor and Poland - led by Polish king - defeated Turks on 12 th September 1683 at the gates of Vienna. Never again Turkish empire was a lethal threat to other European countries.
Why is it irrelevant if conditions Genghis Khan faced were easier than those faced by Hitler?
I withdraw. Conditions which Genghis Khan had to face weren't easier than Hitler's.
I wont abuse you for trying to pass wikipedia off as a legitmate source.
Forgive me but I'm not Englishman 🙂 I'm 100% Polish lawyer who sits right now in Poland and I'm just too lazy to seek reliable English-speaking history source to prove achievements of Genghis Khan.Value of Genghis Khan is just too obvious. The guy created empire. His empire didn't fall apart right after his death. His men reached Adriatic Sea 15 years after his death. His ascendants created states which shaped history of half of Europe and whole Asia for next centuries. In brief.If someone says Genghis belongs to the same category of unsuccesful tyrans as Hitler and Napoleon he's ignoramus not historian.
I like Herbert Hoover 🙂Not for his presidency in USA but for humanitarian aid which he provided after WWI.American food saved many lives in that time. He got "honorary citizenship of Poland" for that.
He falls in the same category, but his ascension to power might have been easier than the big three.
You're sure of that 🙂 ?His empire lasted longer than those three and even increased its size after his death. Biggest Mongol invasion of Europe took place in 1241-1242. That's fourteen years after Genghis' death.
But he didn't have to fight the Persians, British/Russians, and the Allies either.
I don't want to abuse you, but I doubt you know what you're talking about 🙂http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_KhanConditions which he had to face were easier than those of Hitler but I think it doesn't matter.Another man who built big, lasting empire from nothing is Mr. Babur the Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur
He falls in the same category, but his ascension to power might have been easier than the big three.
You're sure of that 🙂 ?His empire lasted longer than those three and even increased its size after his death. Biggest Mongol invasion of Europe took place in 1241-1242. That's fourteen years after Genghis' death.
To quote from Bladerunner, "He who burns brightest burns the shortest." Napoleon, Hitler, and Alexander definitely burned brightly.
What about Genghis Khan then 😉 ?
I remember some legends but not good enough. Is it connected with horse Bayard and some brothers? I don't have time to check that in google 🙂
Does it refer to some order of knights? Some orders were depicted in this way to express their “poverty” and piety.ps. Good morning 😉
Not really. Primarily I'm talking about what was going on that caused the war. And they don't necessarily have to be large scale wars.
And you are right about that. War usually has been connected with social or political processes. Few men went to war only because they liked it.I'd say "You can't study war, without studying its social/political backgroung" 😉
