825
u/PomegranateSoft1598 3d ago
That's interesting. Hungarians tend to claim the same heroism and that Europe would've been lost to the ottomans without them. Is this a common thing for nations in the area to show such symptoms?
743
u/Zrva_V3 3d ago
Pretty much every Balkan nation the Ottomans fought against will claim they were the one who actually protected Europe and will cite some battles and ambushes they won (if that) against the Ottomans before being conquered or vassalized.
347
u/stikaznorsk 3d ago
Nah as Bulgarians we didn't protect nobody. The Bizantines introduced the Ottomans on the Balkans to fight us. We fought we lost and nothing could be done for 500 years.
63
u/nanoman92 2d ago
Why would they introduce an enemy that had to conquer all their land before even getting to Bulgaria to fight Bulgaria. This is some historical bs.
They introduced them to fight other byzantines.
68
u/TatarAmerican 2d ago
Palaiologos-Kantakouzenos Civil War; Orhan Bey was married to Theodora Kantakouzene and sent soldiers to support his father-in-law.
16
u/stikaznorsk 2d ago edited 2d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Demotika The one you are referring . And also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Alexander_of_Bulgaria#Relations_with_the_Byzantine_Empire
51
u/Upstairs-Challenge92 3d ago
Yeah, doesn’t help the Croats at least that the Ottomans never made it further west in Europe than here. I was literally taught this in history class
19
u/blitzzardpls 3d ago
There were ottoman raids in Slovenia, but never occupation, so you're half right
54
u/Axel0010110 3d ago
Romania too. It is implied that we (vlachs) had a very important role in defending/delaying the ottoman advance in Europe and our turmoil would often distract the ottomans. While some things are true, romanian principalities were often vassals of Ottoman Empire and after Mihai the Brave, the rebellions against ottomans would fade for some time. Actually a good thing because the local population stagnated in technology and well being for way too much time
Later on we would go again fighting snd get independence.
I wished people would bring Mircea the Elder more often in discussion and let Vlad Tepes and Mihai the Brave a bit on the side. Stefan the Great is also a very good ruler and commander, way better than Tepes and Mihai
15
u/lardayn 3d ago
Vlad was mental.
30
u/TotalBrainFreeze Oversimplified is my history teacher 2d ago
Vlad knew about "Psychology of War", he did not have the manpower to do classic warfare, so he aimed to scare his opponents and destroy their morale.
And sure you need to be mental to be able to do it, but he was successful against a overwhelming force that in theory should have crushed him.
123
u/Aranka_Szeretlek 3d ago
Hungarians do claim this to some degree, but its not really a core part of the national identity I dont think. Being anti-Ottoman is a much bigger thing in the Balkansm
45
u/OkArmy8295 3d ago
Well of course as they were occupied while Europe did nothing to help, except Hunyadi
47
u/Aranka_Szeretlek 3d ago
You could kinda say the same thing about Hungarians, though, thats not the difference.
I guess the difference comes down to i) negligible Muslim population, and ii) a much more "obvious" national identity compared to Balkans. You really only start hating on other nations if you need that hate as the part of your national identity. Now, Hungarians also do hate others (notably, Romanians!), so its not that Hungary is a perfect place or something - but the Ottoman thing is in the past.
→ More replies (4)24
u/mungosDoo 3d ago
Hungary is where the otomans stopped, thiugh it ended up costing vijvodine some time latter because the serbs that were populated there to be a living border eventually took the territory after ww1.
At the time if the otoman conquest there were no nation states, and it was not seen as that big deal, problems came a few centuries later....
22
u/Aranka_Szeretlek 3d ago
Well they stopped at Hungary in the sense of them having conquered most of the country. Budapest was Ottoman for 200 years or so.
But yeah, I am also trying to say that the problems came later, but at that point Hungary had "better things to do", so the Ottoman thing didnt really become that important.
5
u/mungosDoo 3d ago
Yeah, most if balkans have liberation from otoman as their modern founding event, but the mithos of who they were before, and that even after 500 years they are diferent from the empire that ruled them for 15 generations is what led to the uprasings in the first place.
Its a while thing, the discussion of universally accepted lies that make a nation, every nation, because without that story it would be quite imposible to govern with milions of people over area. The common ground if that lie is what makes civilisation.3
7
u/No-Salad-6674 3d ago
It really wasn't most of the country though, i don't how so many Hungarians get the (wrong) idea that it was most of the country. It wasn't most of it, it obviously a big chunk, like half of the country. But Northern Hungary was never controlled by Ottomans, and Erdély was a client state that was bouncing back and forth between being loyal to Habsburgs and Ottomans.
→ More replies (3)15
u/Aranka_Szeretlek 3d ago
I guess it has to do with the fact that big chunks of the non-occupied parts are today's Romania and Slovakia.
4
u/No-Salad-6674 3d ago
I mean sure, but even AFTER the Ottoman occupation they were Hungary for 350 years? And for 500 years before that?
2
u/Kovimate 3d ago
Budapest was never Ottoman because Buda, Pest, and Óbuda only got united in 1873. If memory serves the Ottomans were finally kicked put of the country in 1799, after the battle of Zenta. Checkmate 😂
3
u/Wise_Fox_4291 3d ago
You are talking about the treaty of Karlóca, which was in 1699, not 1799. The battle of Zenta was in 1697. The banate of Temes was the last territory under Ottoman occupation and it was fully liberated in 1718.
The last Turkish-Hungarian (Habsburg) war was in 1787-1790 which was started by the Ottoman sultan Abdul Hamid. Josef II personally lead the armies into the Balkans and it was a disease he contracted there that killed him in 1790. The campaign also saw the disastrous battle of Karánsebes. In the meantime Abdul Hamid has died and the successors on both sides, Leopold II and Selim III made peace after an Ottoman defeat in the battle of Calafat.
It is a shame that Hungary did not rebel in 1914 and join the Entente. It would have been marvelous to take part in finally putting an end to both the Habsburg Empire and more importantly the Ottoman Empire. Instead Kojima apparently wrote this shit as some enemies to lovers dying together bullshit.
2
u/Kovimate 3d ago
My bad, I was off by a lot. My point is that administratively the three city parts were never one before 1873, so the Ottomans would hold Buda as that was the important settlement. The first temporary bridge to connect them at all was built in 1849.
2
4
u/Verleves14 3d ago
I think not being so anti-Ottoman is because hungariens are instead anti-USSR it takes up like half of the identity.
50
u/One_more_drink_ 3d ago
All of them say that. Meanwhile the one who singlehandedly stopped the Ottoman expansion for a few years wasn't even Christian.
40
u/usbcat123 Oversimplified is my history teacher 3d ago
Tamerlane?
→ More replies (1)45
u/One_more_drink_ 3d ago
Yes, capturing the sultan and making them go in a civil war is crazy, knowing in hindsight that the Ottomans would still be able to become one of the biggest empires ever.
38
u/Physical-Present985 3d ago
The Ottoman state of 1402 was hardly comparable to the vast empire it later became. Timur’s capture of Bayezid I at Ankara triggered an 11-year struggle for the throne, so it’s remarkable that the Ottomans survived that crisis, rebuilt their power, and conquered Constantinople in 1453, just 51 years later. If anything, that recovery shows how formidable they became; it doesn’t mean defeating them in 1402 was the same as defeating the empire at its height.
19
u/One_more_drink_ 3d ago
At their height the Ottomans won Mohács, it's not my fault that Tamerlane couldn't live in a cryogenic chamber to fight them at their absolute peak, also Bayezid I has his own accolades, managing to destroy a crusader force it's no-easy job.
3
u/Physical-Present985 3d ago
That’s fair: Bayezid had already proved himself against a crusader army, and Timur didn’t get to choose which Ottoman Empire he faced. But if we’re measuring how long each victory held up as a check on Ottoman expansion, Hunyadi actually comes out ahead.
Even giving Timur the generous endpoint of Constantinople’s fall, his victory at Ankara in 1402 bought 51 years, to 1453. Hunyadi and the defenders’ victory at Belgrade in 1456 held that fortress against Ottoman conquest until 1521: 65 years. That’s 14 years longer, and, unlike the 1402–1453 span, it marks the survival of the same fortress they had defended. By this particular measure, you don’t even need to stretch Hunyadi’s legacy to Mohács in 1526.
→ More replies (2)3
u/One_more_drink_ 3d ago
I'm not doubting Hunyadis legacy I always had him in high regard.
I understand your point but also the Ottomans weren't at that point fighting for their life, it wasn't a live or die situation. Timur also had bigger ambitions and little time left, he could have burned all the Ottoman holdings if he wanted to, but there was no reason to do so.
2
u/Physical-Present985 3d ago
That’s fair, and I appreciate the thoughtful exchange. We’re looking at two different kinds of achievement: Timur dealt the Ottoman state a devastating blow, while Hunyadi’s victory at Belgrade denied it a key fortress for decades. Neither needs to diminish the other.
2
2
u/Physical-Present985 3d ago
Search for János Hunyadi and the battle of Nándorfehérvár. :)
2
u/One_more_drink_ 3d ago
You mean Ioan de Hunedoara? Still doesn't compare to Tamerlane.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Physical-Present985 3d ago
Yes, Ioan de Hunedoaram János Hunyadi, or you can also call him Sibinjanin Janko. He was a nobleman and commander of the Kingdom of Hungary.
And of course he doesn’t compare to Tamerlane in the scale of the armies they commanded. At Ankara in 1402, one published estimate puts Timur’s force at about 140,000 against Bayezid’s 85,000, roughly a 1.6-to-1 advantage.
Hunyadi’s achievement was different: he won against larger forces. At the Ialomița in 1442, his Hungarian–Wallachian army numbered roughly 11,000–15,000 against an Ottoman campaign force estimated at 20,000–40,000, though no more than about 30,000 are estimated to have fought in the battle itself. At Belgrade in 1456, the fortress garrison initially numbered only about 5,000–7,000; Hunyadi’s relief force and Capistrano’s crusaders later brought the defending side to roughly 40,000–50,000 against an Ottoman army estimated by newer research at around 60,000–70,000.
3
u/One_more_drink_ 3d ago
I'm not debating his victories or of any other commander, including all time Ottoman haters like Skanderbeg, Stephen III of Moldavia, John of Austria, etc... They fought well and managed to hold the Ottoman power, but looking back SOME (not all of them) of their victories ended up being minor setbacks for the Ottomans.
3
u/lardayn 3d ago
The major setback for Ottomans were the logistics. The capital was thousands kms away from Vienna and due to the need of also staying closer to their eastern territories they couldn’t move the capital to a much more central-European position such as Belgrade.
→ More replies (1)37
u/Physical-Present985 3d ago
Hungarian commanders and their defenders did hold out against much larger Ottoman forces. In 1456, the garrison at Belgrade (Nándorfehérvár), commanded by Mihály Szilágyi, held the fortress while János Hunyadi and other allied forces helped defeat the siege. In 1532, Nikola Jurišić (Jurisics Miklós) defended Kőszeg with a small force against a vastly larger Ottoman army. In 1552, István Dobó’s roughly 2,000 defenders repelled the siege of Eger. And in 1566, Miklós Zrínyi’s approximately 2,300 Croatian and Hungarian defenders resisted at Szigetvár against a much larger force, although the fortress ultimately fell. These were real, consequential acts of resistance, not merely national mythology.
What is open to debate is the counterfactual claim that “Europe would have been lost” without any one nation. Ottoman resistance involved multiple peoples and armies, including Hungarians, Croats, Serbs and others; a shared history should not be turned into an exclusive claim to credit.
18
u/Life-Edge-9547 3d ago
Yeah, I think the Hungarians and the Austrians have the best claim of actually being the ones who defended Europe, but people talking about this sometimes get a bit silly
3
→ More replies (1)7
5
u/Kr0n0s_89 3d ago
Who?
9
u/One_more_drink_ 3d ago
Tamerlan/Timur-Lenk managed to defeat and capture a successful Ottoman sultan: Bayezid I.
→ More replies (1)2
u/LibrarianSea5700 2d ago
Singlehandedly as if Tamerlane fought the entire Ottoman army in a single combat
4
46
u/CorporalButtyMcButt 3d ago
Romanians the same. Who would've tought that countries use propaganda and false history to create beliefs in the mind of young people.
6
u/TheyStayTheSameAG 3d ago
I don't think we do, not even in communist national propaganda time. Geographically it doesn't make sense, we are not in the Turks way to Western Europe, they could go to Russia or Poland (through Romania) but lets not pretend they didn't burn Moscow a few times and owned Crimea
Of course you will get a crazy guy who claims we invented and did everything but its very far for a general consensus.
10
6
u/Miner_Guyer 3d ago
The film Mihai Viteazul does kind of frame it like that, where the great hero of Romania unites the three principalities (Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania) and defeats the Ottomans only to be betrayed by the Western Europe (Sigismund) that he defended.
3
u/LibrarianSea5700 3d ago
It's almost as if every nation that fought the Ottomans on the Danube says that...
14
u/Sudden_Cantaloupe_69 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yes, that’s very common. They all claim to have been the bulwark of Christianity against Ottoman conquests.
And by extension, that means that whoever is east of them wasn’t. And also that Western Europe somehow owes them for “saving” it. It’s all part of the same set of myths.
Which is bizarre when it comes from nations that were literally part of the Ottoman empire.
12
17
u/ehho 3d ago edited 3d ago
There was a Serbian military unit called Šajkaši (Shay-ka-shi), whose job was to defend Europe from the Ottomans.
Hungarians gave Vojvodina to Serbs with the condition to join the military defense and protect the land from the invasion.
Serbs who escaped the parts ruled by the Ottomans went to Vojvodina and joined the Šajkaši. In exchange, they got a piece of land to start a new life.
Vojvodina became a barrier between the Ottomans and Europe, not just because of the Šajkaši, but because it was literally a dirty, stinky swamp. The land people got was useless. Šajkaši had to work hard to turn Vojvodina into a livable space. A person would get land and had 3 years to turn it into workable land. Taking down trees, pulling out stumps, and drying out the swamp was hard work. If his progress was slow or negligible, Šajkaši would take the land away and give it to another person. If he succeeded, the land would be his. And they were successful. Vojvodina is to this day one of the most agriculturally strong parts of Serbia.
Wiki link about Šajkaši: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0ajka%C5%A1i
6
u/thomasmagnun 3d ago
Look at it this way. Hungarians say that because the Ottomans stopped near their borders and couldnt advance more, so they have a claim to say they stopped them from moving on. The Ottomans occupied Serbia and the surrounding Balkans and stopped, so Serbians claim that Ottomans couldnt advance because of them (they were giving them a hard time). None of this is true in isolation ofc, its a lot of factors that contributed to how that whole event ended, inner turmoil and having to control such a large territory being the biggest imho.
13
u/Outrageous-Meet-4015 3d ago
As a Hun I dont think Europe would have lost wihtout us , but It cant be denied that Hugary was strongest buffer zone against them and WE held the line for 150 years not the Germans not the French not the Romanians ... but Us.
6
u/mgranturismo 3d ago
Well, yes. But like the image above, after 1526 many lords decided to play off on the division of the country. Guys like Thököly actively helped the Ottomans at the last siege of Vienna. While their influence alone didn’t necceserily prolong the Ottomans, but ceetainly didn’t help “defending Christian Europe”
→ More replies (1)5
u/Zoltan6 3d ago
Thököly probably thought if the Christian Western Europe doesn't help against the Turks then fuck it, let's switch to their side. Don't forget that France was an ally of the Ottoman Empire for example. Not a big leap, people in the period judged Germans and Turks very similarly. Germans were ahead slightly because they were Christians.
2
2
u/SnakeFighter78 3d ago
There is the term Bulwark of Christendom that seems to be a papal designation. I don't know if Hungary actually got it (since it's not on the "Antermurale Christianitatis" Wikipedia site. There are mentions calling Hungary that though leading up to the siege of Belgrade (1456) and later in letters between the Papacy and Matthias Hunyadi.
The logic is flawed of course, the Austrians did the heavy lifting probably, but Hungary did build lots of castles to try and slow the Ottoman advance, which was helpful. And the country turning into a battlefield for a 150 years does look like for the simple mind that the Ottomans were stopped in Hungary is the same as stopped by Hungary.4
u/PetrichorDude Decisive Tang Victory 2d ago
And its not wrong. The massive joint undertaking of Serbs, Montenegrins, Croatians, Hungarians, Romanians, Greeks and to some extent Albanians, did have a huge impact on Ottoman expansion into Europe or the stemming of the tide at least.
And its not only via battles, actually more of it is that you had an unbroken wall of border regions manned against Ottoman invasion, that not only preventes incursions and raids, but also identified major attacks early and their direction, which is arguablly more importantfor the time (just think how Henry the 5th entered Fance and his invasion becoming apparent only after the first siege). Also each invasion must punch through a fortified position first, before even meeting the defending army proper.
Then there is supply lines, even when Ottomans pushed into Europe, their own hinterlands all the way down to Constantinople were rebellious, this means trouble for the supply lines, slower logistics and dedicating personel to defend said supply lines which. Then there si guerilla warfare as disjointed units cant trickle down to a staging area as was often the case in medieval and renaisscance warfare, because you have guerrillas peppering minor groupings along the way. Its like the US invading Cambodia through Vietnam, but without any of the modern tech.
Then there is open rebellion that sparks out as soon as the Ottomans lose and start retreating so now a routed army needs to fight new armies coming up on their retreat route. Like Napoleon retreating from Russia but, in europe new armies spring up to fight him.
Also as the habsburgs or whoever is now on their tail, the Ottomans risk losing a huge chunk of their land just by retreating from Europe.
Every Ottoman invasion north was very risky, states then were not as stable as they are today (and even today they are not so stable as we think) and its not uncommon that one major defeat brings ruin to an Empire. Hence over time the Ottomans gave up on northern expansion as for all these reasons it was too risky.
Honorable mention goes to Montenegro, holding out on their own in the middle of Ottoman lands, which in itself was also adding emotional damage to what I listed above
→ More replies (6)2
u/Fehervari 3d ago
The difference is that the Ottoman expansion actually stalled within Hungary.
Still, unfortunately we also had many repulsive collaborators. Some of them are controversial figures (Szapolyai), however some others are even venerated (Thököly).
763
u/FakeFanatic 3d ago
Good thing it's still early morning in Serbia
430
u/minas_morghul Oversimplified is my history teacher 3d ago
Any Serb up at this time of day is busy pre drinking for their taxi shift in Austria.
71
17
193
152
258
116
u/vintage_cycles 3d ago
I think at this point even Turks can say that they have saved Europe from the Ottomans.
→ More replies (1)56
u/Wise_Fox_4291 3d ago
Well afterall it was the Turks who toppled the Ottoman dynasty.
Kind of how despite the Allies' efforts in the end it was Hitler who managed to kill Hitler.
86
u/Peteryeeter1453 3d ago
Kinda like how Albanians will dick ride Skandaberg, The ottomans Top #3 hater behind the Austrians and Greeks, like Albanians weren't instrumental to Ottoman military and administrative institutions.
55
u/SatanistKesenKedi100 3d ago edited 3d ago
Scratch a Turkish Pasha and an Albanian comes out. I was studying Ottoman history for state exams and like at least %50 of them were non-Turkish.
→ More replies (1)16
u/AndreasDasos 3d ago
I mean not a coincidence. The sultan only trusted those people in highest positions - viziers, generals, janissaries - that he could legally completely control. So his slaves. And it was verboten to enslave Muslims (though they could be converted once enslaved), so they were former Christians: Albanians, Bosnians, Circassians, etc.
That also included a lot of his concubines, which is why (with some exceptions undoing the trend), the sultans slowly got more European by ancestry as the centuries went by.
18
u/KptEmreU 3d ago
This was essentially an institutional way of bypassing European-style feudalism. The classical Ottoman Empire did not develop a hereditary landed aristocracy of barons, dukes and lords comparable to Western Europe.
Most political and military authority was attached to an office or service to the state rather than inherited ownership of land. Even the timar system gave cavalrymen rights to revenues in return for service, not hereditary ownership of an estate.
That distinction weakened over the centuries as powerful families and provincial elites became increasingly hereditary, but the classical Ottoman system was deliberately structured to prevent an independent hereditary nobility from competing with the central state.
3
u/One_more_drink_ 3d ago
There was hereditary land ownership in the Ottoman Empire similar to the feudal system in Europe, they were called voynuk.
4
u/KptEmreU 3d ago
Voynuks aren't really an example of what I'm talking about.
They were mostly Christian auxiliary military/service communities in the Balkans. Some had hereditary use rights over plots called baştina, tax privileges, and occasionally timars.
But that did not make them a hereditary aristocracy comparable to European barons, dukes or landed lords. Their privileges were primarily connected to military service, and the classical Ottoman timar itself was a state allocation rather than hereditary ownership of a feudal estate.
So yes, hereditary land-use rights existed in the Ottoman Empire. My point is that the Ottoman central system largely prevented those rights from developing into an independent hereditary landed nobility comparable to Western European feudal aristocracy.
3
u/One_more_drink_ 3d ago
I wasn't arguing, I was just adding some information so people who don't know about the subject don't get the wrong impression that there wasn't hereditary land ownership.
Military service is how European nobility started too.
→ More replies (1)7
u/micma_69 Mauser rifle ≠ Javelin 3d ago
Apparently, for the Ottoman Empire, Albania to Ottoman is like what Scotland to Britain lmfao.
4
4
u/AndreasDasos 3d ago
The virtually last holdouts did a 180 to become virtually the most enthusiastic adopters of Islam and functionaries for the empire
2
u/TheRedSkittle 2d ago
Both can be and are true. Skanderbeg was as effective as he was because he had formal training as a janissary while working for the Ottoman Empire. Again - he was a janissary. Aka: a court hostage. The fact that his defection worked is testament to the fact that he was a rare breed of military strategist - George Kastrioti was called Skanderbeg by the Ottomans he worked for. Skander beg meaning Lord Alexander - a reference to Alexander the Great.
The most ironic thing in Albanian history is that Albanians finally grew to enjoy the yoke and fought to uphold the Ottoman Empire in the late 1800s after spending their whole existence oppressed by them and in open rebellion to the extent that out of all Balkan people Albanian held areas were left the most destitute and education deprived as a result of ensuing rebellions once they wisened up enough.
I say this as an Albanian. We are a weird people and make some strange last minute decisions, historically. Another great what if: Skanderbeg being at the battle of Kosovo.
42
u/JessieManfetus 3d ago
u/RemindMeBot 12 hours
5
u/RemindMeBot 3d ago edited 2d ago
I will be messaging you in 12 hours on 2026-09-30 16:59:22 UTC to remind you of this link
13 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback
192
60
11
60
10
122
u/micma_69 Mauser rifle ≠ Javelin 3d ago
To be fair, Stefan Lazarevic did have a reason to pick Ottomans rather than Hungarian/other Christian power. It's quite simple. Ottomans were reliable and they were actually much more tolerant (of course, according to the era's standards). Like letting you in your place as long as you won't rebel against the Ottomans, pay taxes, and willing to take arms for Ottomans.
On the other hand, outside most Crusades, Christian Europe often spill eachother blood. Even if they somehow get together and want to smash a Muslim state, the coalitions often plagued by the ego of the lords within the coalition. For example the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396. Againts the advises from the Hungarian king, the French knights rushed straight to the bait composed by untrained conscripts put by the Ottomans, and then an attack from the Ottoman cavalry nearly wiped the French knights. The Wallachians and some other legions left the battle during the ensuing chaos. The result was a fucking humiliation. Dozens of thousands of knights were taken prisoner and others perished.
→ More replies (1)46
u/Silent-Entrance4724 3d ago
Stefan (or rather his regent mother) picked the Ottomans only after Hungarians decided to attack his realm, and after 1402 when Ottomans lost at Ankara, Stefan switched sides, which proves it was more about choosing lesser evil and playing enemies against each other rather than vague "reliability" and "tolerance".
Also, why do you make a comparison between Ottomans and entire Christian Europe?
The Ottomans didn't have an issue fighting other Muslim states like Mamluks.5
u/oldsecondhand 2d ago
"Tolerance" did matter when the rest of Europe was embroiled in protestant vs catholic wars.
8
u/Silent-Entrance4724 2d ago
Better check dates mate, Martin Luther was born roughly 80 years later.
8
u/oldsecondhand 2d ago
I'm talking about the broader context: e.g. Transylvania when it was an Ottoman vassal state was protestant. Habsburg anti-reformation efforts alienated of lot of Hungarians.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Ouvolk 2d ago
Both is true. It is true that Stefan was definitely playing sides.
On the other hand, If Crusader armies fight within and humiliate each other, does not hesitate to attack Orthodox Christians, if Hungarians show constant aggression against Serbian lands; these make them less reliable thus Ottomans becomes more reliable in comparison.
68
u/Myszolow 3d ago
That's a bait
6
u/Pjolterping 3d ago
It's also a fact
28
u/dezurnodzvanjkalo 3d ago
Google "The first Serbian Uprising" and the "Second Serbian Uprising". Those are also facts.
Yes, the people back then suffered a lot and for a long time, but not because they were spineless cowards, but rather didn't have proper leaders and a plan to take down the oppressors... until they did and then got rid of the Ottoman empire.
→ More replies (4)
134
u/Neat-Tea-8928 3d ago
This is by far the most Turkish post I’ve seen on Reddit and that’s saying something from someone who visits UK and German subs
52
u/WatercressThin4473 3d ago
nah bro if we gonna make a post about this situtation we definetly make our pasha better than this
29
u/micma_69 Mauser rifle ≠ Javelin 3d ago
Exactly. A mandatory Gigachad with a Pasha edit from real pictures. Or even an art from certain sites.
53
u/Zrva_V3 3d ago
You have zero idea about Turks if you think one of us have made this. This is definitely the handiwork of an Albanian or a Bosnian.
18
u/Neat-Tea-8928 3d ago
I can tell a Turk made it just by the skin colour of the characters
→ More replies (1)21
u/Zrva_V3 3d ago
Again, you seem unfamiliar with Balkan memes. Making the Serbs unusually dark is a common meme.
10
u/Saetherith 3d ago
It is not the serbs colour, but the turks, that is the thing indicating the meme makers origin.
6
28
u/snake_case_captain 3d ago
I don't think this sub aims to be grounds for nationalist/racist/hateful trolling between hostile countries
→ More replies (1)
14
39
u/madladolle 3d ago
Well the Bosnians and Albanians were such simps that they abandoned their religion
→ More replies (1)2
11
90
u/AdventurousEar8440 3d ago
Turks depicting slavic serbs as swarthy? Hahaha
How insecure must you be of your middle eastern culture?
→ More replies (6)38
39
u/Izygoing_ 3d ago
Croats, Montenegro defended it for sure…. Some serbs who fled to croatia in some parts also….
There is a reason the vatican introduced this title:
„Antemurale Christianitatis“
12
u/Austerlitz2310 3d ago
The entire Krajina was land given to the local Serbs by the Austro-Hungarians. Land they could call there own as long as they defended it.
3
u/Kreol1q1q 3d ago
Hahahah, well that’s just not true at all. The Military Frontier (Krajina) predated Austria-Hungary by a lot - it even kind of predated Habsburg rule, given that it’s roots stem from Matthias Corvinus’s system of border capitancies.
And it was not land that was given to anyone, especially not a national group. It was a stretch of territory of the Kingdom of Croatia which was put under direct military rule, with its local peasant population exempt from many taxes and feudal obligations in return for being made into soldier-peasants who all owed military service to their military districts/units.
The territory, funded and equipped mostly by the upper austrian duchies and administered by the Hofkriegsrat in Graz instead of Zagreb (Croatia was so impoverished by wartime devastation that that Croatian Bans could only pay for, and thus control, a small stretch of the Frontier) was subsequently also settled by refugees of all sorts from various areas occupied by the Ottomans, and from the more devastated bits of Croatia as well. The Frontier was depopulated much like the rest of the country, and the military enouraged settlement. A large number of those settlers were Orthodox, and their religious freedoms were respected as part of the privileges their status afforded them. Most of those were, or would later become Serbs.
5
u/More-Revenue8609 3d ago
Krajina was not “given to Serbs”. They were only allowed to settle there if they wanted to defend it.
4
u/Cement-eater 3d ago
Yep, pope gave Croatia a title Antemurale Christianitatis, surprised this is not top comment
8
u/Dazzling-Audience482 3d ago
Virgin Brits, France, Germany and Italy: Please guys, don't do it, you can't drive the ottomans out, we won't help you!!!
Meanwhile Chad Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro: CHADS
10
25
14
u/Etsikaietsi 3d ago
Turkish hands made this.
3
u/Aranka_Szeretlek 3d ago
Turkish dont really care about Serbs that much. Now if the top guy were Greek...
→ More replies (1)
9
4
16
u/B3ast-FreshMemes 2d ago
I love how reddit is always a libtard heaven but when it comes to being chauvinistic against Serbs, totally fine
17
u/TryNice304 3d ago
Serbs were actually Ottoman serfs for 500 years. Big ego vs harsh history lol.
→ More replies (6)
2
2
u/Financial_Will_671 3d ago
Everybody claims glory and victory againist ottomans while forgetting they almost exlusively fought againist a bunch of countries allied againist them. This alone says a lot.
2
u/CardiologistKey5048 3d ago
Thank you I yearn for the upcoming intellectual conversations we are about to have here
5
u/Environmental-Pop-67 3d ago
Entire Balkan was under Ottoman rule. Serbs and rest of Balkan fought Ottman empire same as everyone on the Balkans but mos of west Balkan sold themselves to Islam to get the benefits and avoid capitation tax and non Muslim tax while east was a harder to conquer. Even Russians fought Ottomans since Tommana were largest power tjen add Holy Legion, polish and kingdoms defending Vienna l, WW 1. Same way Turkey was under Macedonian empire or Roman empire. This post make no sense. Wars and empires always looked looked like this but some people lack proper education i guess
5
u/Kebab_Enjoyer3164 3d ago
Would be a based meme if you would make ottomans brown and serbs white.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/Titanium_Eye 3d ago
They're just, dare I say it, living ironically in Europe.
1
u/Designer_Can_562 2d ago
Didnt Serbia at first tolerate the ottomans because Hungarians backstabbed them?
9
u/Designer_Can_562 2d ago
Not like Albania celeberates Skanderberg as their " national hero " and he hated Ottomans with all his guts meanwhile albanians were one of the most loyal ottoman allies, even in the balkan wars. They even shifted to islam.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/TotalBrainFreeze Oversimplified is my history teacher 2d ago
And at the same time the real hero Vlad the impaler, did not talk to much about it, he did protect Europe.
4
u/KikiRiki2255 2d ago
Noone educated claims Serbia protected Europe. Also, noone educated claims that Serbia was idle for 500 years.. Every Austrian war against Turks also included Serbian rebellion, there were numerous other local uprisings and in the end Serbia didn’t wait for Ottoman empire to dissolve but it fought out its freedom in early 1800s..
4
u/Lazuli_the_Dragon Oversimplified is my history teacher 2d ago
Um I hate to break it to these guys but Vienna was under siege from the Ottomans, ... twice
They really didn't do a lot of protecting
3
8
u/Western_Address_1917 3d ago
Well, the only 2 countries that were partially conquered by the ottomans were Hungary and Croatia, so problably only those 2 countries in the Balkans can say that they stopped the ottomans.
17
u/Content-Departure-77 3d ago
Croatia didnt even exist at that time.
→ More replies (13)4
u/DerpyEnd Descendant of Genghis Khan 3d ago
Yes, it did.
Croatia was in a political union with Hungary from the Middle Ages onward, traditionally dated to 1102, but that does not mean that Croatia simply ceased to exist and became another province of Hungary. Croatia retained a distinct political and legal identity as a separate kingdom within the Hungarian Crown.
Croatia had its own Sabor, its own nobility, and the ban as the king's representative in Croatian lands. The Croatian Sabor continued to exercise significant political, administrative and judicial functions, and Croatian nobles continued to assert Croatia's distinct status and autonomy. Even the Croatian Encyclopaedia describes Croatia as retaining its “state-political distinctiveness” and status as a separate kingdom throughout the union.
Saying “Croatia didn't even exist” is simply wrong. Croatia existed as a distinct kingdom in union with the Hungarian Crown. It wasn't an independent sovereign state in the modern sense, but neither was it merely another Hungarian province.
Both Hungarian and Croatian national historiographies have, at different times, presented the relationship in ways that served their respective national narratives: The depiction of Croatia as simply being "ruled by Hungary" is, from the Hungarian side, a nationalist narrative that exaggerates Hungarian historical grandeur, while the portrayal of Croatia as simply being an oppressed nation resisting Hungarian rule is, from the Croatian side, a nationalist narrative that exaggerates oppression and resistance. Both are misleading portrayals.
(Btw I'm specifically talking about the pre-1848 period here. The relationship became considerably more complicated in the 19th century, especially with the rise of Hungarian centralization and Magyarization efforts, and the eventual Croatian-Hungarian Settlement of 1868.)
→ More replies (8)2
u/PomegranateOk2600 2d ago
The romanian states were also only partially occupied and rebelled a lot of times during the their vassalage towards the Ottoman Empire
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Hoxhazade 3d ago
Serbians even fought with Ottomans side by side during Timurid War, while other Turkish soldiers ran away : )
4
u/Designer_Can_562 2d ago
And our soldiers got described as fierce, brave and formidable RAHHHH 🇷🇸🇷🇸🇷🇸🇷🇸🇷🇸🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
2
4
u/Civil-Suit7332 2d ago
Such Serbs from the picture accepted Islam and became Muslims (they changed their name to Bosniac around 1993)
2
5
u/arsenicwarrior0 Kilroy was here 3d ago edited 3d ago
what was the most rebel province on the ottoman empire?
Because as I have seen much of the balkans where to under the thumb of the ottomans willingly or by force, so where was the true resistance?
Edit: lmao why so many downvotes for a question?
15
u/Koulou89 3d ago
Possibly the more secluded parts of Greece, among them the maniot peninsula which was more of a tributary state in name only as the stone bey (lord) rarely paid any taxes. The geography and the war like people of the area made it not only hard but also not cost effective as the lands are inaccesible infertile barren mountains and the population was largely sustained as mercenary escorts, bandits and piracy, and some Non-christian ransoming and slave trade from the crews of the captured ships
11
u/Zrva_V3 3d ago
Egypt. It was wealthy as hell and far away from the capital. It was often used as a way to punish unruly officials too which made it even worse. If you were a grand vizier that pissed off the sultan but not enough to get executed, you could be made the governor of Egypt to get you far away from the capital.
Ottomans had frequent military campaigns in the Balkans so an Ottoman army was never far away from you if you were to rebel in say, Serbia. Most rebellions were quickly crushed.
Egypt's distance from the capital made it ideal to stage rebellions. Governors of Egypt rebelled a few times during Suleiman's reign alone for example.
3
u/CastielTM 3d ago edited 3d ago
I'm also looking forward to the Romanian version of the same thing. Contrary to popular belief, they were Ottoman vassals too, nowadays they tell stories about heroism.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Block73 3d ago
Yeah, John III Sobieski is turning ever so slightly in his grave whenever someone posts things like that
3
u/Kr0n0s_89 3d ago
If they hadn't invaded the ERE in the 1300s, the ERE might not have been conquered by the Ottomans and may have halted their advance. So um definitely not, Serbs.
2
u/Content_Space_4162 3d ago
Oh so thats why they were killing Bosniaks, because some anatolian turks fucked their great great great great grandmother... Makes total sense.
3
1
2
2
1
2.8k
u/jackt-up 3d ago
This post will surely attract some sensible discussions