AB

@FarukKaya62659 Both recognized they were too well matched and decisive victory was impossible.Charles took Tunis,Suleiman didn't respond.Corfu failed and 1 spanish tercio killed 20k at castelnuovo including thousands of janissaries.Malta also failed So italy was impossible.Later retook Tunis.

Aşağıdaki harita genel ölçüde iki hânedânın en güçlü olduğu dönemi gösteriyor. Turkuaz renkli bölgeler Habsburg Hânedânı’nın idâresi altındaki bölgeler. Bir zamanlar Fransa hariç bütün Avrupa’yı kontrol edecek kadar güçlüydüler ve güçlü zamanlarında onları yendik.

Osmanoğulları ve Habsburg Hânedânı arasında yüzyıllarca süren bir mücadele oldu. En büyük Hristiyan hânedânlarından biri olan Habsburgları tahmin edileceği üzere Osmanoğulları mağlup etmiştir. İki hânedânın en güçlü olduğu dönemde de (Kanûnî ve Şarlken) kazanan yine biz olduk.

@FarukKaya62659 Meanwhile Suleiman wanted Charles to come forward to battle with the Danube and Mountains at his back.None of them took the bait and Ottomans retreated after token siege of Guns.Suleiman didnt march on Vienna again until after Charles and split of habsburg spain and Austria.

@FarukKaya62659 Only on 1532,Charles came with full might.He garrisoned Vienna heavily and waited at Linz with his tercios and landsknets arriving from all over. Plan was Suleimani will besiege Vienna and then Charles will trap him between his army and fortress.(1)

@FarukKaya62659 If speaking of Charles V of Spain,he was equal in power to Ottomans at their peak.But he was focused all over Europe,fighting France,dutch protestants,North Africa,Americas.Spain was more oceanic navy focused than Ottomans also.He never came in full strength except 1532.

@FarukKaya62659 If speaking of Habsburg Austria - Obviously they were weaker, the archduke only controlled Austria compared to vast Ottoman lands,though 'emperor' had to beg and bribe other german princes to help. This changed from 1700s when they were equal.But still they were not 'defeated'

@Aindradeva The other reason is they lost control of the vast resources of the northern plains and now had to optimize their limited clan manpower. Final reason is more focus on horse breeding particularly in marwar.

In the 13th century, avg yearly salary of an infantryman = 20–25 silver coin whereas a cavalryman = 100–110. When Rajputs fought amongst themselves, they had the option to field either 10k cavalry or 40k infantry; it was a numbers game where the side with the greater numbers would prevail. However, this dynamic changed after the Turkic invasions, as the Turks faced no shortage of horses, each soldier in their army possessed two to three horses.

@Aindradeva There is a big difference between being a good archer,or carrying a bow while riding and dedicated horse archer,who uses it as his primary weapon.Latter will fight in totally different way,refusing to meet the charge, wheeling,parthian shot,and not fire two arrows and charge in.

Iconography does not prove anything. While Prithvirãjvijãy describes Prithviraj Chauhan as an excellent archer, this does not establish that his army included horse archers. Cavalry was certainly used, but it played only a supporting role, comprising no more than 10–15% of the force.

@Aindradeva By the medieval periods indian infantry mostly used bamboo longbows and carried bucklers with Swords/short spears javelins. This led to them being easily devastated by 6-8k strong turk horse archer/armoured lancer mix .They were outranged and had poor protection.

@Aindradeva You are right ofc that infantry remained majority.But that infantry carried longshield bearers in front with massed composite bowmen at the back,along with buckler wielding light infantry

@ASingh0819 @Aindradeva Not you the other guy.Gupta army was revolutionary in a way that they were the only native empire to mass use horse archers.The raghuvamsa,the surviving iconography all prove this. The other part was its infantry was majorly equipped with composite bows,not bamboo longbows.

@AusterlitzIDF @Aindradeva How am I wrong ? I said the same thing, guptas have horse archery expertise in fact one of the coins depict Gupta ruler on horse with bow and arrow..

When the Rajputs had their first major encounter with the Turks in 1191, infantry constituted 80% of the Rajput army. Following this, they introduced military reforms that prioritized heavy cavalry. These reforms proved successful during the reigns of Rana Hammir and Rana Lakha, enabling them to repeatedly defeat the Tughlaqs. By the time of Rana Kumbha, the entire army had transitioned into a heavy cavalry force.

@Aindradeva @ASingh0819 Later there was a bloody battle at Eran 510,but former gupta feudatory prakshasdharnan badly defeated toramana with same type of army and made him vassal. Mihirkula was also defeated.

@Aindradeva @ASingh0819 Both factually wrong.The standard gupta horseman was a dedicated horse archer/swordsman.Behind these were a few elite cataphract units. The guptas defeated the huns in their own territory under vikramaditya,then under skandagupta.495 gupta civil war was going on.

@_Nrptanya_ Raj babbar is actual resemblance.The nose is wrong here.

@KraantiKumar Nah he just inherited it.Greatrst is Chandragupta vikramaditya.

भारत में सबसे महान राजा सम्राट असोक हैं. भारत को बनाने वाले सम्राट असोक हैं. आज का अखंड भारत सम्राट असोक की देन है. इस अखंड भारत को असोक ने आज से 2500 साल पहले बनाया था. सम्राट असोक को बौद्ध धम्म और 84000 स्तूप निर्माण तक सीमित कर दिया गया. जबकि उन्होंने अखंड भारत की नींव रखी. पूरा अफगानिस्तान अखंड भारत का हिस्सा था. सम्राट असोक के युग में ही भारत सोने की चिड़िया था. लेकिन सम्राट असोक को बदनाम किया जा रहा है. बदनाम करने के लिए पूरा ब्लू प्रिंट तैयार है. छोटे छोटे रियासतों के राजाओं का महिमा मंडन किया जा रहा है. उन्हें हिन्दू रक्षक और मुस्लिम आक्रांताओं से लड़ने वाला योद्धा बताया जा रहा है. असोक उनके एजेंडे और राजनीति के लिए फिट नही हैं. इसी कारण उन्हें बदनाम कर इतिहास में दफन करने की प्लानिंग चल रही है.

@timeflies222 @FarukKaya62659 Ottomans couldn't even defeat the Portugese on open ocean.They were not a challenge in the Mediterranean after lepanto and stayed on defensive.Ming dynasty collapsed due to internal problems,later not during its peak.Suleiman couldn't take Vienna,nor end safavids.

@AusterlitzIDF @FarukKaya62659 What nonsense are you talking about? 🤣🤣🤣 The Ming dynasty was defeated by the Central Asian Turks, the Spanish lost every battle in North Africa and France in the 16th century. No one dared to challenge the Ottomans after Mohács during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent.

Kabullenmek istemeyen Osmânlı düşmanları için söyleyelim: Osmânlı 1444’ten 1756’ya kadar (toplam 322 yıl) dünyanın en güçlü imparatorluğudur. 1606’ya kadar rakipsiz, 1606’dan sonra ise 1. güçtür.

Around 2600 BC, Indus Valley created a mineral, ernstite for drilling carnelian and agate. Only recently people realized that it's not a natural mineral but it's made out of heating sandstone and laterite to 1100 degrees. You know how important is that for human technological evolution? There are only two other items in the whole of human history before Industrial Revolution which are near to it in hardness(7.5-8 on Moh's Scale) - Wootz Steel(again, Indian) and porcelain. Just think. For more than 4000 years, humans weren't able to match that technology. 4000 years!!

@FarukKaya62659 Thing is france has much more population base than Ottomans,and all of that is correct french population not orthodox christians of balkans or arabs.It also has much greater revenue and bigger and more modern standing army from 1650s.Under Napoleon this is visible

@FarukKaya62659 After 1643 france effectively creates the first massive national standing army and modern tax structure.In 1650-1700 France had 20 million people,Ottomans despite huge size on map had 12-15 million.Louis XIV had much higher revenue bigger standing army.Solo'ed Europe.