|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Mar 6, 2016 22:17:37 GMT
The Ottomans would have no valid reason to fight with Serbia. The Ottoman Empire had a lot to thank Germany for and now attacking it would be stupid especially since generals such Liman von Sanders wouldn't help the Ottomans. The only reason they would help Serbia would be to attack Bulgaria and that's implying Bulgaria will join the war. The Ottomans hate more problems with the Rusians and wanted to capture cities such as Kars and control the Caucasus
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 22:21:47 GMT
The Light Bringer the Ottomans would not have joined in against Austria had Russia gotten involved first, which it would have. Turks had and still has the strongest infantry army in Europe. Actually they could had took Moscow easily back then(until 1918 Russian capital was Petersburg which In 1918 made a country called Ingermland). |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Mar 6, 2016 22:36:19 GMT
The Turks weren't even close to having the strongest military in Europe at the dawn of their entry into the war. The Russians had the larger army, the British had the more professional army, Germany had the all around better army than any other in Europe. The Turks were even being beaten by the Russians by 1917, a time when Russia was getting rocked by revolution and rest by Germany and Austria.
Yes, the Turks had no reason to pick a fight with Serbia, but they would have a reason to pick a fight with Russia, who would probably have attacked Austria. And, the Turks would've wanted aid from the Germans, who also would've come to Austrias aid.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Macarthur on Mar 6, 2016 23:48:12 GMT
By the time of tanks and the Somme offensive the turks still used calvary and WW1 was deep in progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Mar 7, 2016 3:51:06 GMT
The Light Bringer the Ottomans would not have joined in against Austria had Russia gotten involved first, which it would have. Turks had and still has the strongest infantry army in Europe. Actually they could had took Moscow easily back then(until 1918 Russian capital was Petersburg which In 1918 made a country called Ingermland). Lmao, next you're gonna say von Hötzendorf was the best tactican in military history. The Turks had massive issues not only in terms of equipment but also because the Arab part wanted to be independent, not very good organization, low morale, bad commanders (Enver Paşa),etc. They had one of the worst (probably the 4th worst after Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Russia) militaries in the whole war. Just a little bit better than Russia's. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 5:44:59 GMT
The Turks weren't even close to having the strongest military in Europe at the dawn of their entry into the war. The Russians had the larger army, the British had the more professional army, Germany had the all around better army than any other in Europe. The Turks were even being beaten by the Russians by 1917, a time when Russia was getting rocked by revolution and rest by Germany and Austria. Yes, the Turks had no reason to pick a fight with Serbia, but they would have a reason to pick a fight with Russia, who would probably have attacked Austria. And, the Turks would've wanted aid from the Germans, who also would've come to Austrias aid. Yes they lost to Russians in1917, but the reason was that ⅔ of all military officers were traitors or buyable. After that battle Turks made a reform which made their army strongest and biggest in Europe |
|
|
|
Post by Moreau on Mar 7, 2016 7:08:34 GMT
Why are you saying the turks? It's the ottomans
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Mar 7, 2016 13:43:36 GMT
The Turks weren't even close to having the strongest military in Europe at the dawn of their entry into the war. The Russians had the larger army, the British had the more professional army, Germany had the all around better army than any other in Europe. The Turks were even being beaten by the Russians by 1917, a time when Russia was getting rocked by revolution and rest by Germany and Austria. Yes, the Turks had no reason to pick a fight with Serbia, but they would have a reason to pick a fight with Russia, who would probably have attacked Austria. And, the Turks would've wanted aid from the Germans, who also would've come to Austrias aid. Yes they lost to Russians in1917, but the reason was that ⅔ of all military officers were traitors or buyable. After that battle Turks made a reform which made their army strongest and biggest in Europe If you're referencing the Turkish War for Independence no. Turkey won primarily because of enemy stupidity and their own strategy. Mustafa Kemal and his Paşas were pretty good at what they were doing. The best army at that time was probably the Professional British Army which got rekt in 1914 though |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 12, 2016 9:29:33 GMT
Recommended reading on this subject (actually the WHOLE era from 1400AD to 2000AD)
Rise and Fall of The Great Powers
By Paul Kennedy
It did have a really in-depth chapter on WW1, and pretty much an in-depth chapter on each of the wars from 1400 onward to roughly modern-day now.
Wonder if anyone else had ever read it too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Mar 12, 2016 14:23:07 GMT
Recommended reading on this subject (actually the WHOLE era from 1400AD to 2000AD) Rise and Fall of The Great Powers By Paul Kennedy It did have a really in-depth chapter on WW1, and pretty much an in-depth chapter on each of the wars from 1400 onward to roughly modern-day now. Wonder if anyone else had ever read it too? How many pages is it? I would read it if I wouldn't be on a biography of Napoléon and On War |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Mar 12, 2016 16:55:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 12, 2016 17:40:57 GMT
Recommended reading on this subject (actually the WHOLE era from 1400AD to 2000AD) Rise and Fall of The Great Powers By Paul Kennedy It did have a really in-depth chapter on WW1, and pretty much an in-depth chapter on each of the wars from 1400 onward to roughly modern-day now. Wonder if anyone else had ever read it too? How many pages is it? I would read it if I wouldn't be on a biography of Napoléon and On War Hmm, paperback, 2+ inch thick, could be roughly 1,000 pages. Just don't try to take it all in one reading. Take in one chapter at a time. It's all very informative. |
|
|
|
Post by General Macarthur on Mar 13, 2016 22:53:11 GMT
1000 pages lets do this. (Once I find it at a library)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Mar 13, 2016 22:56:01 GMT
I'm currently reading a 900 page book on Napoléon. I was kinda stupid and got On War in English. I'll tell my family to bring me a German version when they'll visit as it'll be hard to get one in German in the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Macarthur on Mar 13, 2016 22:57:32 GMT
I haven't read anything in a while so reading a big book will help refresh my memory.
|
|
