Rameses the Great

I don't care for this, 'hey we discovered and are probably right about the pyramids' theory. If I can take you to Egypt with me you will seriously see all these theories and ideas with all their 'information' placed in them and we'll still be clueless. Your criticizing of Hawass and your idea that we know more then what is actually presented to us is somewhat confusing to me. This is his life and he has had a hard time defending his job from outsiders who pop up with new 'theories' and ideas of the pyramids. If you want to listen to this go ahead but I'll reserve my ideas until after the facts are presented more then just an obscure article with an agenda tagged unto it. I really wonder why people try to develop new ideas and why they are held so valued to people if an accomplished Egyptologist(s) speak out against it. Prove me wrong, prove me wrong.

Happy Birthday Augustus Caesar!

I wholeheartedly agree. It's just made with people who have an agenda and nothing better to do in an attempt to change our lifestyle. I'm worried about the environment and the rate we are destroying it but to say that global warming will kill us all is just stupidity. Shifts in the temperature of the Earth is nothing new it's a natural process. No matter what we do the Earth will warm and cool according to its time. They're just like the guys who come up with daylights savings time, they have nothing better to do so they enforce it upon the people.

The forces of the Second Triumvirate (Lepidus, Octavius, and Antony) were the defenders of Rome out to try and defeat the conspirators who to part in Caesar's death (Brutus and Cassius.) Although the first day of Philippi was a stalemate, with Brutus defeating Antony and Octavius defeating Cassius, the ultimate fate was decided when Cassius committed suicide from miscommunication. Although Cassius killed himself the battle was still in full reach of Brutus' hand and I have to think that had he been more strategic he could have easily won. He tried to lead both armies but was utterly destroyed on the second day of the battle. I can't help but wonder why the death of Cassius effected the men if they were in full control of their battle. I just have a question for you to ponder about, had Cassius and Brutus won do you think they would have marched on Rome or set up a capital elsewhere? If they had marched on Rome do you believe the Senate would have raised another army to fight them or concede to them and have them rule Rome with the execution of Lepidus?

I've actually visited Fort Pitt out in Uniontown but I've never seen any remnants of Fort Duquesne. It's also fair to point out before Fort Duquesne was erected George Washington built a fort in the are before it being taken by the French.

However, the Mamelukes had artillery and fire power whereas the Sufavid's did not. In many battles against the Ottomans the Sufavid's refused to use artillery, believing it was cowardly, thus leading to numerous defeats before they realized change was imminent. Many times the Ottomans conquered Istafan but decided to turn their attentions to Europe not wanting to attack anymore of their Muslim brothers, giving the Sufavids the oppurtunity to reconquer lost lands. BTW, DC the link isn't working.

Nis was also an area that was dominated by the Ottoman after the fall of the Byzantive Empire. Interesting article thanks P-P.

For those who are interested I found a series of great documentaries made by PBS: I would've liked it to go more but it only talks about the early history of the Ottomans until the end of their dominance as Europe would emerge more powerful than the Ottomans after the failed Siege of Vienna. It talks from the rising of Osman, to Mehmet the Conquerer, then ends with Seuleiman. The thing I don't understand is that the Turks were said to come from Central Asia around the Aral Sea, how does that translate into being a European power if you weren't even from Europe?

Really should come as no real big surprise. The Egyptians were probably the fathers of medicine but the Greeks improved upon the advancements.

Why do you play sports? Herm Edwars will tell you,

I just want to bring in a new element to the discussion. At the time of Egypt's modernization, of economy and military, led by Mohammed Ali his modern Europeanized forces proved to much for the Ottoman Empire to handle. He decisively defeated them in many battles, in spite of being vastly outnumbered. The Ottomans had to depend on a European coalition to remove the threat of Egypt conquering Istanbul. Can this somewhat be used as an example of how the Turks in many ways failed to modernize?

Good to have you back and I hope your fortunes change for the better.

Definantly good to have the Imperator back at the helm!

I see, I'm just thinking if Hungary was closer the European powers who had the advanced technology how come the Ottomans had the better technology? Did they modernize and hire Europeans to help teach the army, if so whom? I also recall Hungarian playing a large part in helping the Ottomans create cannons.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a blessing. They did however gain a chance to develop their own customs, though not immediately, building strong empires and kingdoms. Had Constantinople fell the West would be a bit more reliant on the East. When the Ottomans conquered Byzantium it pretty much severed relations between the East and West thus creating Western European powers to arise. Also Russia can be used as an example. Off the record, for us the fall of Constantinople was an awful day and Tuesday is still to the Greeks the unluckiest day of the week.

You can go to torrenttech.com and I gaurantee you can probably run him out of business. Sell 300, Borat, and other recent movies he doesen't have find what people need and sell it for $5. No taxes.

You should download movies from the internet and sell it to people. Not that I know anyone.

I wouldn't say Mohacs was a win for the Ottomans out of technology rather then sheer numbers. The Ottomans usually outnumbered their opponents and was ultimately why they won. They needed all the troops and reenforcements they can get and before the reenforcements arrived they were doing badly. Also the Hungarian reenforcements didn't arrive in time for the battle. Had the Hungarian Empire concluded their alliance with the Habsburgs I highly doubt the Ottoman would have won.

Happy Birthady Tobias!

I think I unerstand now. The Ottomans Golen Age, before the extensive use of guns and canons, they were able to have a formidable navy and army. Later when guns and canons became important the Ottomans needed European help and methods in order to keep up. They relied on modernizing the army by hiring generals and reformers from industrialized European nations. They did not have the generals or tactics of European armies but in many ways their style of warfare could be used to defeat their armies in certain circumstances. They used their moernized weaponry to bully nations in the Balkans and Middle East thus building an empire. Hope that's right, I very much appreciate the info DC! I know the Mamlukes of Egypt did use guns and canons particulary during the Napoleonic invasions. They had several small pistals to shoot from their horses and had swords. They also had canons but of course their tactics and brilliant general Ibrahim Bey was no mach for the well disciplined Napoleonic army of France.

As far as aircraft are concerned, the Ottomans did have to get them from Germany to begin with. Most of the Ottoman pilots were made up of Germans, but towards the end of the war they began recruiting men from other provinces of the empire (and from neutral territories) including Arab and Iranian units who formed the observation squadrons. These planes were usually flown from Germany to Ottoman airfields. As far as the navy was concerned, it was not up to scratch by 1914 although attempts had been made to update the fleet from 1908. The Ottoman ship builders could construct small light boats at yards in Izmir, Samsun, Beirut and Basra although they were no match for Allied Ships. The Ottomans had put in orders to France and Britain before the start of the war to construct battleships and gunboats, which shows their lack of knowledge concerning "modern" ship building techinques. The sea mines used to blockade the Dardanelles were usually Russian or French type taken from Trabzon or Izmir. After a treaty of 1917, many Turks were sent to Germany to begin training on European techniques as the 500 or so German officers who had supported the Ottomans in 1914 were expanded with new recruits. These Turkish and Arab officers resented the Germans. Most weapons were constructed by the Ottoman's allies rather than the Ottomans themselves. The Ottomans had captured German, British and French artillery after the Balkan wars, and the Germans added to this force by manufacturing more guns for the Turks. Krupp - a German and Austro-Hungarian supplier was the most popular weapons manufacturer among the Ottomans. During the Gallipoli campaign a lack of artillery meant that the Ottomans had to use century old mortars taken from the Istanbul museum. The machine guns used were European types, usually the Maxim and Hotchkiss types. The Turks even modelled their uniforms on German types, and made use of British maps, captured after Gallipoli. Before this, the Ottomans had used tourist guide maps instead of the military cartographical charts. On another note... I brought those books many years ago, although i'm sure that you can find a few of them at a good library. Another book I forgot to mention that's worth looking out for is Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924 by Philip Mansel. It's basically a social history of the empire, and it concentrates on many diverse subjects, from the lives of the Sultan's concubines through to those of ambassadors and Janissaries. Would you say that the Ottoman from the 1700s and on, depended mainly on help from European nations to keep up? Clearly the Turks were the ones able to defend their own nation but was it perhaps on the fact that, as the case with many other countries, the gained modern weaponry from allied nation i.e. Germany? I'm guessing Germany had to help out Austria-Hugary but not to the same extent as the Ottoman Empire.

Perhaps Europe may be getting more conservative GPM. As Sarcozy won office in France many are expecting him to crack down on immigration and move to a more conservative state. I think the EU stands for European Unconscious.

No offense, but I don't think this forum is anything close to unbiased. I've read the arguments in both this forum and theirs, and I find theirs alot more in line with proper academic pursuit(as biased as some of them might be). At least the China history forum cite cross comparison academic sources in their arguments. All this forum threw around was statements. Also, if you actually bothered to read the whole thing, they did not think China was superior in every aspect. The "funny" quotes that you are looking for would be this one: "Here is Chao Cuo's quote: "Where there are rolling hills, wide open spaces and flat plains, there chariots and cavalry find their use, and ten foot soldiers are not as good as one horseman. Flat places intersected with gorges, and abrupt declivities affording wide outlooks - commanding positions such as these should be held by archers and crossbowmen. Here a hundred men armed with hand-to-hand weapons are not equal to one archer. When two forces oppose one another on a plain covered with short grasses they are free to manoeuvre back and forth, and then the long halberd is the right weapon. Three men with swords and shields are not as effective as one so armed. Among reeds and rushes and thickets of bamboo, where the undergrowth is rich and abundant, short spears are needed. Two men with long halberds are not as good there as one with a spear. But among winding ways and dangerous precipices the sword and shield are to be preferred, and three archers or crossbowmen will not do as well as one swordsman." The only terrain that Romans gladius is going to have an advantage seem to be winding ways and dangerous precipices. In another word, compressed terrain. While in all other area,(flat plain, thick grassland, mountainous gorges) Han has the tactical advantage in weaponry. " This is coupled with the fact that Han had superior metallurgy skills and more powerful missiles(crossbows) which led many to the conclusion that it had the superior infantry. Pardon me, but I failed to see the humor. They provided both primary and secondary sources for their arguments, which is more than can be said for you. Or do you want to challenge that with your source rather than assumption? Or do you find citing sources as something humorous because it is not based on complete baselss statements on your part? And just curious, what is your name on that forum? Because I'm pretty sure all your claims were already refuted one by one in that thread with academic sources. Could it perhaps be that we don't care? I've been to the Han China forums and this topic has been discussed to death and without resolve all to prove something that can never be proven. Here we don't care and try to avoid the subject, sometimes people bring it up and they are usually those who are new and don't understand the atmosphere here. As far as I'm concerned Rome was the rulers of the known world and the masters of the Mediterranean.

Thank you guys, it helps an awful lot. In World War I the weaponry the Ottoman were using were probably German weapons that were mechanized far beyond any Ottoman weapons. The supplying of these weapons to keep up and be able to defeat other European powers probably came from Germany or am I wrong? Did the Ottomans throughout the course of their history learn to modernize and create advanced weapons or did they hire Europeans to teach them? BTW, DC can I get these books at a library or do I have to buy them?