Battle of Giurgiu 1595 - Long Turkish War

[@christopherg2347]

"All according to plan. This was just to hinder their ability to pursue us. Do not listen to the enemy propaganda that this was a loss."

[@AbdulRehman-yi8by]

This actually makes sense.

[@christopherg2347]

@@AbdulRehman-yi8by Not it doesn't. It was somewhere between Satire and Putinstan. Which I admit are hard to tell appart.

[@JoksterMcDougan]

@@christopherg2347 but you leave a rear guard to protect those crossing the bridge. “If they die, they die” 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@christopherg2347]

@@JoksterMcDougan Two issues with that: 1. They stampeded into their armies rear, which ended up destroying a bridge and kill everyone on it. 2. If you lack a exit plan for your vanguard, they might just let your enemy past to save their lives.

[@JoksterMcDougan]

@@christopherg2347 good points, I agree, but the vast majority of the army got away, so job done. Not a good job by any means. But they got away. The bridge being destroyed probably aided that.

[@giorgijioshvili9713]

"Sinan left a rearguard of Akinci light cavalry behind to protect the crossing soldiers from thier pursuers." Mihai: Use Cannons Sinan: wait That's Illegal

[@samwill7259]

Any total war player knows: Bridge Strats.

[@RubyDoobieScoo]

Ribaults and cannons on hills next to the bridge, a mass of spearmen and heavy infantry at the foot of the bridge, archers behind with flaming arrows, mortars behind them, reserve cavalry in the forests just in case with a few cavalry units further up to chase down fleeing infantry.

[@nenenindonu]

This battle is like a much milder version of the Battle of Zenta, both resemble eachother from Ottoman perspective

[@ycplum7062]

Normally, having light, very fast cavalry by as rearguatd/delaying force would be a good idea. After the main force is free, they can outrun their pursuers. However, A bridge crossing is another matter. The Calvary cannot use hit and run delaying tactics be cause they are tied to the bridge. An alternative would be to use light infantry at the bridge with light cavalry on the other side. Even better would be to have dragons guarding the bridge with their horses and some light cavalry on the other side. After the infantry falls back, they can mount up. Only cavalry can catch these dragons and the light cavalry can screen for the dragoon.

[@serban031]

I think if they had dragons, that would have been a different thing entirely. All that fire breathing might have turned the scales. In all seriousness, dragoons are not really a thing yet, especially not for the Ottomans. Dragoons don't really emerge as an actual fighting force and idea until almost half a century from now, and while the idea of dismounted warriors is certainly a thing, they'd be regular infantry, and cannons have a tendency of killing regular infantry. I think this idea would have worked if they were deployed further out, with orders to harass and engage far from the main body of the army, and then disperse and seek different crossings elsewhere or later. The Akinci were quite good at that actually, the raid-disperse type of missions.

[@jekkwad857]

@Joshua Mills read his whole comment lol

[@aerosdacillo1227]

Average total warhammer tactics

[@kachorritowawawa4065]

@@serban031 not those dragoons XD

[@mydogbrian4814]

- And that's why all Cavalry horses should be equipt with kiddy water wings!

[@alexb9969]

The Battle of Giurgiu is one of the most badass takedowns of Mihai the Brave. Too bad we don't talk about it in school, the Battle of Călugăreni gets all the fame

[@susanlowy3947]

I always heard the height of the Ottoman Empire was the 1680s, not the 1580s. Interesting.

[@blaisevillaume9051]

What's interesting?

[@susanlowy3947]

@@blaisevillaume9051 What I said above.

[@onurcavusoglu1689]

1680's were pretty mediocre for ottomans. They were just rich af so they could do whatever they want but they couldn't prevent the consequences of the new trade ways.

[@nenenindonu]

The second half of the 1600's is regarded as the beginning of the decline, the peak of the Ottoman empire was from the late 1400's to the late 1500's

[@susanlowy3947]

@@onurcavusoglu1689 It's interesting, as I'm saying, because we hear that their height was the 1520s-1560s, but their greatest territorial height was at 1683. The latter makes sense, but what's confusing is the former. How is that also their height?

[@1701basil]

I really enjoy when y'all talk about battle's.. from all people's, any year and any place.

[@serban031]

*battles, and peoples. No apostrophes for plurals.

[@metmehbad]

Its also worth to mention that this fuck up mainly happened bcuz of sinan pasha's demand to gather one tenth of the akıncı plunder right at the exit of the bridge...This also brought the end of akıncı platoons very soon after.

[@metmehbad]

Upon this fuck up his colonels and generals left the area without even asking the permission of sinan paşa. Sinan was worried that He would be executed upon returning to İstanbul.Instead He was demoted and ordered to leave İstanbul.Son of a bitch spent his remaining miserable life in Tekirdağ province which lasted two years or sumthin.

[@KILLER.KNIGHT]

Oh dear!

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

Romans and Trajan: “That’s my boys.”

[@rontalbot4966]

Landscape mode please.

[@serban031]

Blame KZbin. The Shorts format is aimed exclusively at mobile users.

[@brokenbridge6316]

Nice short

[@danielefabbro822]

They had a perfect position where to defend and they just wasted it? Jesus... 😑

[@KILLER.KNIGHT]

How so?

[@farkasmactavish]

Why would you use CAVALRY for DEFENSE?!

[@n0men-211]

What app is he using?

[@trapzed5331]

capcut

[@cgt3704]

Michael the Brave would have been a great king if his neighbours werent greedy jerks

[@serban031]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell.....probably not. He is one of the most controversial figures of Romanian history. On the one hand, he is able to unite the three principalities for the first time, which is huge in the national history, but what is less addressed is that he was a brutal opportunist who used any means possible to fight the Ottomans, including enslaving his own people (well, serfdom, but close enough), turning on his nobles, and even on his liege lord (whole complicated relationship between him and the HRE). He was, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant military minds of the era, and had he lived, would have likely played a huge role in the 30 years war, even if by proxy, or provocation of the Ottomans. He also, without a doubt, hurt all the lands he owned and conquered, stripped bare the treasuries of all three principates to fund the war, and left his people in a significantly worse condition than before. He is utterly fascinating, and if I wasn't more in love with classical antiquity, I would absolutely be studying him and this time in Romanian history in incredible depth.

[@alexb9969]

@@serban031 I relate greatly with your opinion. The unfortnate outcome of his triple unification is that he had no option but to tax the lands to death, and even then his troops could not be granted total pay. Leading to the fact that mercenaries started pillaging Transylvanian nobles' estates, thus pushing them in the arms of the Habsburgs. It's a very similar situation with Sweden in the Great Northern War imo; Charles the XII was accused by the general population of having pointlessly sacrificed the young generation in war and of almost bankrupting Sweden. Michael finds himself in a point-blank context, surrounded by an opportunistic Poland, a redetermined Ottoman Empire and a no longer-trusting Austria, who wants Transylvania. From this death grip, there was obviously no way out. But Michael demonstrated to be the most innovative Romanian voivode and one of the most cunning of the age, the adaptation of artilery, sometimes heavy, into his army caught his opponents off guard every single time, wrecked Giorgio Basta's line at the final battle, at Guruslău. In my opinion, Mihai would have temporarily allied with the Ottomans to strike down on the Eastern base of power, and likely tore it apart, especially after a supposed victory over Basta, his biggest enemy. A strategical move that implied political vision over religious superstition, but that would have possibly sidelined Wallachia as a devlish state. To connect all this with Ancient history, I can't believe how close Mihai was to actually taking Constantinopole. It's crazy to think that, had Sigismund Báthory's troops joined him in time, they would have actually succeeded. K&G recalls the people in the city started adressing Mihai as _emperor_ , leading to the Sultan deporting a part of the population to contain this due to fear. Imagine this: the Greco-Romanian Empire, with its capital at Constantinopole

[@RE-ACC]

Could you do these for WW2 or some modem conflict? I think a lot of people would find those more relevant

[@drp2923]

More relevant?! 🥸😊

[@kavky]

WW2 is an oversaturated subject. You can find dozens of channels dedicated to it.

[@reshatavciogluovchuyev7671]

1 week after wallachians retreat to london

[@gamingfa6767]

One blunder ruin the whole game.

[@miamor5929]

Part 2??

[@mydogbrian4814]

- (Homer): " *Not Moldavia!!!* "

[@-JA-]

😊👏

[@furkanakdogan5748]

SIEGE OF NAGYKANISZA(1596) HUH????

[@RubyDoobieScoo]

Wikipedia says 3000 ottoman soldiers lost and "thousands" for the Christian coalition. That doesn't sound one sided.

[@emperoremyhriv4968]

Wikipedia is very unreliable.

[@serban031]

Dude, that's a stub. There's no details on the wikipedia page. HistoryMarche covers this battle in more detail (and I hope K&G will too). The bridge engagement itself was absolutely one-sided, and the 3000 ottomans dead is a very, very conservative estimate. The 5000 sounds significantly more correct. A lot of the Christian casualties that arise come from the siege of the island citadel itself. The garrison fought to the last, and held out for quite a bit before it was fully stormed. The battle is a sort of compound battle that contains two actions. There is the bridge attack and slaughter, and the siege battle.

[@martinvokurka6153]

The ottos forgot to recruit a backrow of arti..

[@vasiliantonov7484]

Wtf is this? Wtf were the Turks even trying to do here

[@serban031]

The context was that they had just lost (pretty badly at that) at Calugareni. They were retreating to reorganize and return the the perceived safety of the Bulgarian lands, thinking Mihai and the Romanians wouldn't dare raid south of the Danube. The idea was that they would effectively winter there (this battle occurs in late October) and return in the spring in force. That basically happened anyway, but the leader got changed.

[@bubuluwithagoldendudul9709]

Noobs yeah ?

[@marvwatkins7029]

Hurrah! And stay out!

[@extrano_desesperado]

когда забыл мозги в гареме)

[@uanime1]

Stop using shorts, they look awful in KZbin.

[@batuhan8543]

Not Türkish Ottomans Wars

[@christophermetzger8183]

Turks were like 5,000 eh...i have 120,000.

[@fratsan9979]

stupid war

[@jensen1710]

This format is dreadful

[@densterzi6626]

Turk oglu Turkum utanin